UAH v5.6 Global Temperature Update for June, 2013: +0.30 deg. C
by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
After 10 days in Michigan’s U.P. for my 40th high school reunion, here’s the belated monthly global temperature update.
We added two satellites to the processing, Metop-A starting in 2007 and NOAA-19 starting in 2009.
The resulting anomalies, which we will call Version 5.6, differ by as much as 0.04 deg. C from v5.5. You can read the details of the new processing here.
We are now making good progress on Version 6.0, which includes a variety of improvements in our processing procedures which have taken much more time than we anticipated.
The Version 5.6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for June, 2013 is +0.30 deg. C (click for large version):
The global, hemispheric, and tropical LT anomalies from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 18 months are:
YR MON GLOBAL NH SH TROPICS
2012 1 -0.145 -0.088 -0.203 -0.245
2012 2 -0.140 -0.016 -0.263 -0.326
2012 3 +0.033 +0.064 +0.002 -0.238
2012 4 +0.230 +0.346 +0.114 -0.251
2012 5 +0.178 +0.338 +0.018 -0.102
2012 6 +0.244 +0.378 +0.111 -0.016
2012 7 +0.149 +0.263 +0.035 +0.146
2012 8 +0.210 +0.195 +0.225 +0.069
2012 9 +0.369 +0.376 +0.361 +0.174
2012 10 +0.367 +0.326 +0.409 +0.155
2012 11 +0.305 +0.319 +0.292 +0.209
2012 12 +0.229 +0.153 +0.305 +0.199
2013 1 +0.497 +0.512 +0.481 +0.387
2013 2 +0.203 +0.372 +0.034 +0.195
2013 3 +0.200 +0.333 +0.068 +0.243
2013 4 +0.114 +0.128 +0.101 +0.165
2013 5 +0.083 +0.180 -0.015 +0.112
2013 6 +0.298 +0.337 +0.259 +0.221
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Dr. Roy said: “…After 10 days in Michigan’s U.P. for my 40th high school reunion, here’s the belated monthly global temperature update….” Where in the UP? I live now in Ironwood, but have also lived in Houghton and Hancock. Great area, but the weather here lately has been abysmal. Quite cold to cool, rain by the metric ton, and a few of those cold fronts that turn hot and muggy, and bring Iowa to our front door; in other words, the pits. About three (3!) nice, mild, very blue-sky, UP summer days.
Philip, it’s like you can’t read.
Manabe et al, pg 795, top of right-hand column:
“…resulting in the increase of sea ice….”
LOL That’s under the decreasing CO2 scenario. Looks like you are the one with the reading comprehension problem.
Gunga Din says:
July 9, 2013 at 6:46 pm
==========================================================
Looks like the answer to my question is, “Yes”.
Ah ha! The drive by by Stan 🙂
Please tell us Sir, since you seem to be all knowing, what is the correlation between temperature and CO2? Is it linear, logarithmic, or chaotic?
Take your time.
Stan says:
July 9, 2013 at 6:49 pm
I simply noted how quickly the 15-yr trend can change when ENSOs are involved. That should give you some clue about the claimed 17-years or less of no global warming (which of course is not true at all).
Big problem for you, Stan. The recent 16.5 year flat trend starts at an ENSO neutral time and ends in one. Hence, your excuse does not hold up. That is why the models have all been invalidated as we speak. In all cases where models show flat trends it is due to comparing older high points with recent low points (that is, en nino vs. la nina).
As for the recent upward blip, we once again saw a short 2 week jump and then a fallback right after a CME. Just like what happened in the beginning of May and many other times over the last couple of years. Although the warming was short lived it did increase the average for the month. Check the 25K altitude to see it in action.
http://ghrc.nsstc.nasa.gov/amsutemps/
It appears this may be a way the sun can affect global temperatures. We are at the current solar maximum so the number of CMEs will fall over the next few years. It’s too bad there’s no daily data on global clouds. I have a feeling the mechanism for the warming is a reduction in clouds but there’s no way to test it.
Gunga Din says:
July 9, 2013 at 3:39 pm
=============================================================
OUCH!
I’ve made typos before but when I reread this even had trouble figuring out what I meant! Please forgive this correction/clarification.
Of course the crux of the issue is and always has been, “Did Man do it?”. “Can Man change it?”.
“What authority over the rest of us must ceded by the rest of us to prevent “the threat” that those who have authority to gain want us to believe?”.
That the answer to the first two questions is promoted as “Yes” is why we have to deal with the the third question.
Those who are using CAGW as an avenue to power don’t want to leave it up to honest, unbiased science. They have a Hockey Stick to grind.
Stan:
Doesn’t figure 16(a) in the 1991 Manabe paper predict a tropical upper tropospheric hot spot? How did that prediction turn out?
Richard M, not perfect data but: http://www.worldweather.org/cloud/ is the best I can find atm for current data, with this as an archive of older data: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ndp026e/ndp026e.html which seems to be an update of the data here: http://www.atmos.washington.edu/CloudMap/
Whoops, found a rather awesome little visualization, it isn’t raw data, but it IS pretty cool for someone wanting cloud cover info: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/05/01/science/earth/0501-clouds.html?_r=0
I would also point to page 811 in the paper cited above.
Yet more evidence that Stan was quite right in his interpretation of the paper — that the paper does indeed predict more Antarctic sea ice.
Tim Folkerts says:
July 9, 2013 at 9:11 pm
That is a reference to the model prediction of a slight thickening of sea ice adjacent to the Antarctic Continent.
Warmists do themselves no favours when they persist with obvious errors. As I pointed out above, all current models predict large decreases in Antarctic sea ice over the 21st century. The current increase in Antarctic sea ice is a serious problem for the models and the Forcings Theory in general. Predictably, the warmist response is hand waving, and a reference to a long out of date and poorly written paper.
re the antarctic sea ice, the last ipcc report AR4 states-
“Taken together, the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica are very likely shrinking, with Greenland contributing about 0.2 ± 0.1 mm yr–1 and Antarctica contributing 0.2 ± 0.35 mm yr–1 to sea level rise over the period 1993 to 2003. There is evidence of accelerated loss through 2005. Thickening of high-altitude, cold regions of Greenland and East Antarctica, perhaps from increased snowfall, has been more than offset by thinning in coastal regions of Greenland and West Antarctica in response to increased ice outflow and increased Greenland surface melting.”
from – https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-4-1.html
Philip Bradley is correct, the ipcc here are claiming that the ice mass on land is increasing, whereas the coastal ice (sea ice extent) is reducing. obviously it is not, and so far the ‘evidence’ that GRACE provides is completely useless, being based on models.
so what? the ipcc and the models got another thing wrong. who cares, it pretty obvious that the people defending CAGW and the ipcc itself are not interested in the truth of the matter, only the facade. i am sure AR5 will have all the answers … and on the scam will go.
Bob Tisdale says:
July 9, 2013 at 1:59 pm
Global TLT is up and global SST is down.
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/07/08/june-2013-sea-surface-temperature-sst-anomaly-update/
So in what direction is the heat moving?
Lawrence Todd
You are a youngster. My 50th was last November. Sigh! Where has all the time gone?
From hot to cold, I would think. : )
Stan says
In any case, no metric that fluctuates so quickly can be a useful metric for global warming, which is a centuries/millenia-long phenomena.
At last a bit of common sense from Stan.
So why are we worrying about a 30 year phenomena? Why are we not looking at 1000 year trends?
Just to put the 0.30C into perspective, there have been 27 readings of 0.30C or above since 2003. So on average, two a year.
Stan? Stan? Are you there? Did figure 16(a) predict a tropical upper tropospheric hot spot?
Are you down to claiming AGW theory is proven correct by relying on predictions of increased Antarctic sea ice?
This single hand picked paper aside, AR4 predicts polar amplifications of warming, and does not predict more Antarctic sea ice. So the observations stand as a refutation of AR4, if not of this particular point in this particular Manabe paper.
Roy: I guessed this value last month to within 0.002c at Lucia’s (mark one human eyeball with cheat sheet)
Richard LH (Comment #115617)
June 12th, 2013 at 7:50 am
+0.3 based on this predictor.
http://s1291.photobucket.com/user/RichardLH/story/70051
Now that COULD just be blind luck…..
Roy; I’ll pick +0.29c for next month.
To be honest, I tend to highlight any small drop, and dismiss any small rise, because I am mischievous and enjoy ruffling the feathers of Alarmists. (Call it revenge, for fifteen years of being called a “denier” and “flat-earther.”)
Feather ruffler #1: “Oh? We’re back to where we were in January, 1988?”
Feather ruffler #2: “Three tenths of a degree above normal? And where did Hansen say we should be by now?”
Feather ruffler #3: “Three tenths of a degree? Can you show me how much that is, on this thermometer?”
Feather ruffler #4: “Three tenths of a degree? So the elderly won’t need to wear winter coats indoors because they can’t afford heating bills because you closed the cotton-picking coal mines and…”
(oops. That’s not a ruffle. That’s a rave.)
Philip says: “… reference to a long out of date and poorly written paper.”
You should have said that in the first place. Most people agree that models of climate change are notoriously difficult to get right (and that is doubly true the further back in history you go). It is quite possible that this paper got “lucky” in predicted something that came true by using incorrect methods. Current models DO seem to suggest decreasing ice over the next century around Antarctica (from what little I have seen).
But instead, you chose to argue that “Clearly their model predicts decreased Antarctic sea ice extent” — which you followed later with “Says nothing about sea ice extent“. So something that you thought was “clearly” predicted in the paper becomes completely absent!
Even more interestingly, you said “That link does not support your claim.” but later say “Reading a 795 page paper would indeed be futile.” — so you admitted that you hadn’t read the paper in question but you were still SURE about its contents.
For what its worth, I agree that the paper most directly addresses thickness, not extent. But increasing the thickness would plausibly increase the extent. If nothing else, the ice around the edge of the continent would melt less in the summer.
Stan
There are literally thousands of predictions in the academic literature. Cherry picking a single prediction from a single paper is meaningless. You need to find a model that accurately predicts a variety of climate outcomes.
Why do you think it makes sense to cite a model that makes some predictions that are correct and some that are incorrect? Would you send a man to the moon based on an orbital model that made some correct predictions about the position of the moon and some incorrect predictions about the positon of the moon? Of course not. You would throw the model out.
If you want to be something other than an annoying gnat, go find a model that sucessfully hindcasted climate change along various margins, then tell us what it predicts for sea ice extent.
The larger problem is that you are lurching from one failed model to another, searching for random tidbits that support the failed claim that the earth’s temperature is rising at a catostrophic rate due to rising levels of man made carbond dioxide in the atmosphere.
“On a 386SX ?”
32 years ago that would have been a Radioshack TRS-80 or Apple II-C. With cassette tape data storage.
mark wagner says:July 10, 2013 at 7:51 am
“On a 386SX ?”
32 years ago that would have been a Radioshack TRS-80 or Apple II-C. With cassette tape data storage.
Let’s see, 1981, at HP we had the 32-bit CPU in production (beginning), we had 9845 desktops with 8″ floppy disks being replaced with the 9825 (or was it the 9828?) with the 3″ floppies, I don’t remember what version of unix mainframe we were running, but there was a lot more power available than what you mention.