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
Four papers on the web, that you may find of interest, provide some eye-opening insight on the cause of change to average global temperature and why it has stopped warming. (The recent UAH up tick must be considered in light of historical stochastic s.d. approximately +/- 0.1 K.) The papers are straight-forward calculations using readily available data up to May, 2013.
The first one is ‘Global warming made simple’ at http://lowaltitudeclouds.blogspot.com/ . It shows, with simple thermal radiation calculations, how a tiny change in the amount of low-altitude clouds could account for half of the average global temperature change in the 20th century, and what could have caused that tiny cloud change. (The other half of the temperature change is from net average natural ocean oscillation which is dominated by the PDO)
The second paper is ‘Natural Climate change has been hiding in plain sight’ at http://climatechange90.blogspot.com/2013/05/natural-climate-change-has-been.html . This paper presents a simple equation that, using a single external forcing, calculates average global temperatures since they have been accurately measured world wide (about 1895) with an accuracy of 90%, irrespective of whether the influence of CO2 is included or not. The equation uses a proxy which is the time-integral of sunspot numbers. A graph is included which shows the calculated trajectory overlaid on measurements.
Change to the level of atmospheric CO2 had no significant effect on average global temperature.
A third paper, ‘The End of Global Warming’ at http://endofgw.blogspot.com/ expands recent (since 1996) measurements and includes a graph showing the growing separation between the rising CO2 and not-rising average global temperature.
The fourth paper http://consensusmistakes.blogspot.com/ exposes some of the mistakes that have been made by the ‘Consensus’ and the IPCC
“I still maintain the paper does not support Stan”s claim of ‘Increased Antarctic sea ice’.”
I read his claim as it stands. “increased ice” could mean increased area, increased extent, increased volume.
So the paper supports his claim. the problem is his claim is ambiguous.
practice being precise
Apparently, Manabe’s predictions are valid in a world without Iceland, where the Drake passage is enlarged from ~800 km to 2000 km, where the Mid-Atlantic Ridge is not as high, and net flow through the Bering Strait does not occur (Manabe et al. 1991, p. 787). I trust that Stan will alert us when these global changes are affected for our Earth.
Calling Stan.
Roy: You do realise that I pedicted the figure a month ago (shot my arrow), you moved the target slightly (wind) and I still hit the ‘bull’s eye’ (to within 0.002c – I think I can call that less than the width of the ‘arrow’ ), I come from England, And my intials are R(L)H. Now do I really have to give you my last name? You would be right as well! You just cannot make this stuff up!
Anthony: Do you want me to design the cartoon. I’m sure you can find better artists than me? Josh? (see above)
Anthony: If you would like some design suggestions, may I offer you this from the tail end of the converstaiuon at Tamino’s.
repost
—
RichardLH | July 10, 2013 at 11:14 am | Reply [edit]
[Response: Enough already.]
RichardLH | July 10, 2013 at 4:40 pm | Reply [edit]
[Response: I’ve been more than patient with you. I even gave you a “parting shot” already, a final comment after I said “It’s time for you to find another outlet.” Three times I’ve told you we’re not interested in hearing more from you. This is the fourth. Goodbye.]
RichardLH | July 10, 2013 at 5:20 pm | Your comment is awaiting moderation.
OK.
My name is now officially ‘Robin Hood’, Aka RichardLH. And, Yes thet last name IS correct!
I shot an arrow a month ago (I made a prediction of the UAH Global temperature figure for this month and laid my ‘cheat sheet’ out on the web).
I came here asking nicely if my my caclulations could possibly be correct.
You said you were busy discussing something else much more mathmatical and to ‘run along boy’ and that nothing I could say was of interest to anyone.
My ‘arrow’ hits the UAH ‘bulls eye’ to within 0.002c (I think we can call that the width of the ‘arrow’.
I warn you that I hit it and there is an outside possibity that my maths is righ tall along.
And you delete all of my comments.
I claim the prize!
Where’s a good sherrif when you need one!
Anthony: I tell you this is Disney time now.
RichardLH | July 10, 2013 at 11:14 am | Reply [edit]
[Response: Enough already.]
RichardLH | July 10, 2013 at 4:40 pm | Reply [edit]
[Response: I’ve been more than patient with you. I even gave you a “parting shot” already, a final comment after I said “It’s time for you to find another outlet.” Three times I’ve told you we’re not interested in hearing more from you. This is the fourth. Goodbye.]
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=602765053088504&set=a.465299380168406.106666.465298390168505&type=1&theater
Stan obviously has nothing better to do than continue to troll this thread, making it highly likely that someone is paying him to do so. Too bad he hasn’t actually made a single good point worth actually debating yet. Oh well, I am sure that won’t stop him from typing more “stuff”.
It is too bad that he and others like him fail to realize that climate is a 99.9% natural cycle and that the 0.1% that man contributes to it is statistically quite meaningless. Oh well, I guess “climate scientists” and “paid trolls” have to make their money somehow, even if it turns out (as I highly suspect it will) that their theory has about as much merit as phlogiston, or the 1970’s “the ice age is coming” scare.
I also find it interesting that many of the same “scientists” who participated in the 1970’s “the ice age is coming” scare are now the exact same ones who are participating in the “global warming” scare…
Funny… I would have thought that they would have been HAPPY that it warmed since the late 1970s, since so many of them thought we were ABOUT TO FREEZE TO DEATH at that time… but no.. instead they have to say that warming (from a supposedly impending ice age) is somehow BAD.
Laughable stuff, truly.
Of COURSE climate changes. It always has, it always will, and we won’t be able to control it no matter which way it decides to change. The next real ice age is theoretically due any time now (any time now being within 0 to 2000 years, which is “any time now” on a geological scale). I don’t think the paltry CO2 emissions of us humans are going to postpone the inevitable by much.
But wait! This just in from “Live Science” –
“The glacier is the longest and fastest-changing on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. While Humbert and her colleagues did not draw direct connections between this week’s calving event and climate change, other scientists, including marine geologists at the British Antarctic Survey, are investigating whether global warming is thinning Antarctica’s ice sheets and speeding up the glacier’s retreat.”
That is too funny. While Stan struggles to cite credible evidence that man made CO2 emissions are growing Antarctic ice, his brothers in arms are “investigating” whether man is shrinking Antarctic ice.
The magical mystery of the omnipotent man made global warming ! It has certainly become a religion for many.
Here is the link for the quote in my last post.
http://www.livescience.com/38078-pine-island-glacier-iceberg.html
Glacial calving is caused because a glacier is GROWING AND ADVANCING, and when it grows enough that a significant portion is over open water, large parts of the extended, growing glacier break off.
To say that glacial calving is the result of LESS antarctic sea ice is silly. The ice is growing, so some of it calves off. No mystery there.
@ur momisugly Tom in Indy July 10, 2013 at 11:15 am
You are comparing apples and oranges. Glaciers and ice sheets are thick (typically 100’s of meters thick). They form on land and (might) move out into the ocean; they are the source of icebergs. Sea ice forms on the ocean (typically a few meters thick). This ice advances and retreats dramatically each year.
It is quite possible for climate change to make ice sheets increase while sea ice decreases (or vice versa).
PHilip Bradley: That link does not support your claim. This isn’t Real Climate. People actually check references here.
You are incorrect. P 795 of the document at Stan’s link does support Stan’s claim. At least for one of the models. What is lacking is some indication that the reported method and result had any influence or support in the field. Evidently, it’s just one more model run out of many that can be read.
Tom in Indy: While Stan struggles to cite credible evidence that man made CO2 emissions are growing Antarctic ice, his brothers in arms are “investigating” whether man is shrinking Antarctic ice.
Just so. Stan cited one study that is evidently not endorsed by the “consensus”. That’s hardly surprising any more: just about everything (increased, decreased this and that) has been predicted for just about every region of the earth at some time or another.
Anthony: As a genuine open question about my work that I have referenced above, and as I have shown only a single monthly prediction on UAH futures so far (a very lucky guess?), I would like to ask this:
“Can you please give me a logical or mathematical reason why other more complex methods, based on sin, cos and statistics (higher mathematical functions), should be more accurate predictors to short term Climate futures than a simpler method, based simply on long and short term averages and, given that this new presentation of the data still shows that any long term CO2 trend or other such long term factors are not yet confirmed or determined, that it might allow their ranges and time periods to be better estimated or established when using this method?”
Steven Mosher says:
July 10, 2013 at 9:05 am
I read his claim as it stands. “increased ice” could mean increased area, increased extent, increased volume.
So the paper supports his claim. the problem is his claim is ambiguous.
practice being precise
Fair point about precision, but often difficult to do in blog comments.
The difference between (percent changes in) Antarctic sea ice area, extent and volume is likely trivial, probably less than 1%. Although we know next to nothing about changes in Antarctic sea ice volume over a decade or more. We don’t know if the multi-year ice (mostly in the Weddell Sea) is getting thicker or not. Initial indications are that it is getting thicker, but in line with increasing extent. Which was not the paper’s prediction.
Steven Mosher says:
I read his claim as it stands. “increased ice” could mean increased area, increased extent, increased volume.
If you actually read his claim, you will note that it was made in direct response to Phil’s post immediately preceding. Phil was talking about the increase in extent of Anarctic sea ice. With respect to what appears on page 795 of the text in question, Stan’s claim is either false or a fallacy of equivocation.
It is certainly a fallacy of equivocation with respect to the broader point that it implies. Assume some guy did predict that increasing CO2 would lead to increasing Antarctic ice extent. So what?
Some guy said this, and a thousand other things. Some other guy said that, and a thousand other things. And there is a multitude of guys saying things. You can’t prove one hypothesis by picking and choosing successful predictions from a thousand other hypotheses. That’s just ad hoc bullshit – and the next step worse than simply averaging a bunch of bad models and pretending that the result has meaning.
practice being precise
Physician, heal thyself.
Stan: That was quite an interesting read (Manabe et al ), thank you for posting the link. However you seemed to have cherry picked/misunderstood the conclusions.
He states that warming will be slowest in the arctic/Antarctica due to decreased salinity in the water, which reduces warm ocean current travelling to the poles. This may be so in Antarctica but the opposite has been true in the Arctic.
He also states that increased precipitation over evaporation will cause the Antarctic ice sheet to thicken. This is also not true as the Antarctic ice sheet is thinning, its actually the sea ice that’s increasing.
My conclusion of this paper is that it has some good ideas, but most of the conclusions have over the last 20 year have proven to be wrong. With that being the case the mechanisms described in the paper are incorrect and perhaps just geared to describe what was happening at the time.