UAH July global temperature, significantly down

UAH v5.6 Global Temperature Update for July, 2013: +0.17 deg. C

By Dr. Roy Spencer

The Version 5.6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for July, 2013 is +0.17 deg. C (click for large version):

UAH_LT_1979_thru_July_2013_v5.6

The global, hemispheric, and tropical LT anomalies from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 19 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 +0.295 +0.334 +0.255 +0.219

2013 7 +0.174 +0.134 +0.215 +0.077

Note: In the previous version (v5.5, still provided due to contract with NCDC) the temps are slightly cooler, probably due to the uncorrected diurnal drift of NOAA-18. Recall in v5.6 we include METOP-A and NOAA-19, and since June they are the only two satellites in the v5.6 dataset whereas v5.5 does not include METOP-A and NOAA-19.

==============================================================

Global Temperature Report: July 2013

by Philip Gentry, UAH

Click to view full map

Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.14 C per decade

July temperatures (preliminary)

Global composite temp.: +0.17 C (about 0.31 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for July.

Northern Hemisphere: +0.13 C (about 0.23 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for July.

Southern Hemisphere: +0.22 C (about 0.40 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for July.

Tropics: +0.08 C (about 0.14 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for July.

May temperatures (revised):

Global Composite: +0.30 C above 30-year average

Northern Hemisphere: +0.33 C above 30-year average

Southern Hemisphere: +0.26 C above 30-year average

Tropics: +0.22 C above 30-year average

(All temperature anomalies are based on a 30-year average (1981-2010) for the month reported.)

Notes on data released August 5, 2013:

Temperatures in the tropics cooled to near seasonal norms in July, said Dr. John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center (ESSC) at The University of Alabama in Huntsville.

Compared to seasonal norms, during July the coldest area on the globe was off the coast of East Antarctica near the Ross Sea, where the average temperature was as much as 3.89 C (about 6.99 degrees Fahrenheit) cooler than the Antarctic’s winter seasonal norms. Compared to seasonal norms, the “warmest” area on the globe in July was off the coast of Chile in the South Pacific Ocean, where temperatures were as much as 2.31 C (about 4.16 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than seasonal norms.

Archived color maps of local temperature anomalies are available on-line at:

http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/

As part of an ongoing joint project between UAHuntsville, NOAA and NASA, Christy and Dr. Roy Spencer, an ESSC principal scientist, use data gathered by advanced microwave sounding units on NOAA, NASA and EUMETSAT satellites to get accurate temperature readings for almost all regions of the Earth. This includes remote desert, ocean and rain forest areas where reliable climate data are not otherwise available.

The satellite-based instruments measure the temperature of the atmosphere from the surface up to an altitude of about eight kilometers above sea level. Once the monthly temperature data is collected and processed, it is placed in a “public” computer file for immediate access by atmospheric scientists in the U.S. and abroad.

Neither Christy nor Spencer receives any research support or funding from oil, coal or industrial companies or organizations, or from any private or special interest groups. All of their climate research funding comes from federal and state grants or contracts.

— 30 —

Advertisements

63 thoughts on “UAH July global temperature, significantly down

  1. Re NikFrom NYC
    Well no wonder AGWers see a continued rising of temperatures! It’s blurry! They need glasses!!!!

  2. I think you meant ‘Global Temperature Anomaly significantly down’. Given the critics that like to pounce on any error you make as if it is proof of your nefarious intent….

  3. According to AGWers, there is no down trend as long as most of the data points are above a 30 year average. Has to do with that blurry thingy. And I am not being sarcastic.

  4. We are all doomed, hold your breath and cancel sporting events…..too much breathing. CO2 is taking over the planet, what’s that noise? oh no, it’s here aggggggggggggggggggggh

  5. It snowed in Southern Brazil and Paraguy with record cold temps there. 20% of the sugar can was wiped out. How is S America normal to above normal? OK, monthly average, but this surprises me.

  6. “How is S America normal to above normal? OK, monthly average, but this surprises me.”
    Averages are useless things when it comes to climate. It can be “below average” over 80 percent of some area but a great deal above average in a small local area that skews the “average” for the entire region. So most of the region can be normal or a degree or two below normal but one part of the region can be 10 degrees above normal and suddenly the entire region gets labeled as warmer than normal when it wasn’t.
    I can’t even think of a good way to take Earth’s temperature.

  7. Psalmon says:
    August 5, 2013 at 12:33 pm
    it caught my attention. A 38 year old has not snowed in certain areas of southern Brazil. I know it’s average, but …

  8. Incredibly cold summer here in southern Ontario Canada, highs around 21 degree C on a good day.

  9. “Significantly” down?
    It is above the 30 year averags.
    It is above the Mar, April and May Anomalies.
    The 30 year trend is still up, albeit an anemic 0.14 deg C / decade and maybe not significantly different from zero.
    It is down from June, Jan and Feb.
    I don’t get the significant part.

  10. Since we humans and the price we pay for groceries are dependent on crops and livestock around the world, graphs & stats on crop yields would be a good proxy for verifying and showing the importance of any catastrophic temperature swings. Of course controlling for other factors impacting farming (e.g. diverting corn to ethanol) would need to be considered.

  11. Sun Spot says:
    August 5, 2013 at 1:01 pm

    Incredibly cold summer here in southern Ontario Canada, highs around 21 degree C on a good day.

    Same here south of Lake Erie, other than a week and a half or so in early July that was hot, we’ve had 70-80F highs this summer.
    From my weather station:
    Summary for period 6/1/2013 to 8/2/2013
    Temperature (°F):
    Mean (1 minute) 71.0
    Mean (min+max) 72.1
    Mean Minimum 61.9
    Mean Maximum 82.3
    Minimum 44.1 on 6/4/2013
    Maximum 96.8 on 7/18/2013
    Highest Minimum 76.1 on 7/19/2013
    Lowest Maximum 60.8 on 6/7/2013
    Air frosts 0
    Rainfall (in):
    Total for period 10.42
    Wettest day 1.37 on 7/10/2013
    High rain rate 36.24 day 6/5/2013
    Rain days 33
    Wind (mph):
    Highest Gust 32.7 on 7/20/2013
    Average Speed 1.3
    Wind Run 1954.3 miles
    Gale days 0
    Pressure (in):
    Maximum 30.22 on 7/16/2013
    Minimum 29.40 on 6/13/2013
    This reminds me of the 70-80F summers of the 60’s and 70’s. If this trend holds, winter is going to suck.

  12. Stephen Rasey says:
    August 5, 2013 at 1:04 pm
    “Significantly” down?
    —————————-
    Down on last month … If the same thing happened for July it would be below the 30 year average. But would that be significant. If you look at the plot you can see that not much is going on temperature-wise through out the duration of the records. ~+0.2 degC does not set alarm bells ringing around here, what about there ?

  13. Down significantly again! Here are the headlines that have appeared at WUWT on UAH monthly temperature reports in the past 12 months. I’ve ranked them in order of the change in anomaly that is being reported, and omitted two where the data was presented with no “analysis” in the headline.
    02/2013 -0.33 big drop in global temperature
    07/2013 -0.12 significantly down
    04/2013 -0.08 down significantly
    11/2012 -0.05 down slightly
    10/2012 -0.01 unchanged
    03/2013 +0.01 unchanged
    08/2012 +0.06 not much change
    09/2012 +0.13 up slightly
    06/2013 +0.22 up somewhat
    01/2013 +0.30 up significantly, but other data doesn’t match.
    Anyone spot any bias (intentional or otherwise) in these descriptions?

  14. Nigel Harris says:
    August 5, 2013 at 1:41 pm
    Down significantly again! Here are the headlines that have appeared at WUWT on UAH monthly temperature reports in the past 12 months. ….
    ————————–
    and if you look at the same plot on a warmist site, it would be an extreme catastrophe, a dangerous calamity or some other adjective with an overused preceding modifer meaning the exact opposite of the reality of the data.

  15. None of these numbers gives any idea what the energy balance looks like – are we accumulating or shedding energy from the sun?

  16. { Pamela Gray says:
    August 5, 2013 at 12:57 pm
    Take it the way humans do. At each end. }
    LOL… Wish I’d have had you in school.

  17. Mid North Carolina was cold too. (It was 64F this morning) and we have had only a eight days of 90-92 F and one day at 95F so far this year. Nothing above 90F in the forecast either.
    Ten years ago we had 17 days 90F and above in May, with five days at 95F and over (2 at 98F)
    July 2004 had 24 days over 90F with seven days at 98F or above.
    My white clover is still doing well and blooming instead of dying back as it usually does in summer.

  18. dp says:
    August 5, 2013 at 2:13 pm
    “None of these numbers gives any idea what the energy balance looks like – are we accumulating or shedding energy from the sun?”
    You can’t tell. UAH does not measure the amount of visible sunlight reflected by clouds.
    You might be more lucky with Earthshine data, if you can find it.

  19. Nigel Harris says:
    August 5, 2013 at 1:41 pm
    “Anyone spot any bias (intentional or otherwise) in these descriptions?”
    We like it when it gets cooler because it falsifies CO2AGW more. You caught us there.

  20. dp says:
    August 5, 2013 at 2:13 pm
    None of these numbers gives any idea what the energy balance looks like – are we accumulating or shedding energy from the sun?

    Planets are controlling the heat power of the Sun via tides. There is a heat current streaming from the Sun over the surface of the Earth into the cold space. We measure the temperature on the heat resistor Earth and its ocean impedance, monitoring the heat power of the Sun. A main and fast heat function is mirrored on the sea level oscillations because of the changing volume of the ocean water. There is no energy balance to measure. The Sun’s heat follows the acting tides from the planets.
    http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/solar_tides_2013.gif
    To know the solar tides, means to know the coming globals.

  21. JP says:
    August 5, 2013 at 12:55 pm
    So the 18 year trend-line is 0 deg Global Warming according to UAH.
    What trend line?

  22. Nigel Harris says:
    August 5, 2013 at 1:41 pm
    “Anyone spot any bias (intentional or otherwise) in these descriptions?”
    When it drops , this is significant.
    When it stays the same, as it has basically done for 16 or so years, this is also significant
    Why ? Because all the so-called climate scientists tell us that CO2 drives temperatures.
    And they are manifestly WRONG.

  23. They are saying it will be in the 40s tonight down here Boston way. Had to close my car windows on my drive home last night at 10 PM.

  24. @Nigel Harris
    It would probably be better if the headline didn’t characterize the amount of rise or fall, but just presented the number of the rise or fall (from the prior month).

  25. If you look at the UAH graph, you can clearly see that the ONLY warming since 1979 has come from a step-up at the 1998 El Nino. Its basically level from 1979 -1996, then levels off after the El Nino from 2000 – now.
    Where is this CO2 driven global warming they parrot on about.?
    IT DOESN’T EXIST !!!

  26. MiCro says:
    August 5, 2013 at 1:17 pm
    Sun Spot says:
    August 5, 2013 at 1:01 pm
    Incredibly cold summer here in southern Ontario Canada, highs around 21 degree C on a good day.
    Same here south of Lake Erie, other than a week and a half or so in early July that was hot, we’ve had 70-80F highs this summer.
    Here In Red Deer Alberta it’s a whopping 17C

  27. Re: Nigel Harris
    100 data points that agree with a theory, are not as “significant” as 1 that disputes it.
    In this case we don’t have to go to those extremes, because there are not many data points supporting the theory. The data certainly indicates to a reasonable person, that the “catastrophe” is not so imminent, that we must trust the experts, that have been telling us to “change our ways or face damnation”.
    Every flat to down measurement casts doubt on the CAGW theory. Each one brings closer the day, when science is driven by experimental results, that are reproducible, and skepticism, is a healthy cross-check of methods.
    So by that criteria, the headlines are measured, and prudent.

  28. From Bob Tisdale on August 5, 2013 at 2:03 pm:

    There’s an unusual warming event in the North Pacific in July that I’ll be reporting on hopefully tomorrow.

    Godzilla?
    Perhaps that movie annoyed him, and he was thinking about showing up for the mid-July release. But after the decades of propagandist filmography convincing us such results of nuclear testing were ludicrously non-existent, with successful franchises such as Power Rangers making the concept of giant monsters even more laughable, he likely decided to “stay home”, blow off some steam, and remain unreal.

  29. Don’t temps have to start rising at some point. I mean before we call bull on this theory.
    What was going on in July that made it a cool month. Nothing. ENSO neutral, no volcanoes, solar cycle still at the top. AMO about the same as last month.
    The one explanation we do have is that CO2 obviously has nothing to do with it.

  30. How about this paper?
    http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/8266p3740v0rnm77/
    “Andries Rosema1, Steven Foppes1, Joost van der Woerd1
    1EARS Earth Environment Monitoring Ltd., Delft, the Netherlands Kanaalweg 1, 2628 EB Delft, the Netherlands
    Abstract
    24 year of Meteosat hourly thermal infrared data have been used to study planetary surface temperature change. Thermal infrared radiation in the 10.5-12.5mm spectral window is not affected by CO2 and only slightly by atmospheric water vapor. Satellite thermal infrared data have been converted to brightness temperatures as prescribed by Eumetsat. Hourly brightness temperature images were then composed to corresponding noon and midnight temperature data fields. The resulting data fields were cloud filtered using 10, 20 and 30 day maximum temperature substitution. Filtered data were subsequently averaged for two 10 yearly periods: 1986-1995 and 1996-2005. Finally the change in brightness temperature was determined by subtraction. In addition nine locations were selected and data series were extracted and studied for the period 1982-2006. Our observations point to a decrease in planetary temperature over almost the entire hemisphere, most likely due to an increase of cloudiness. Two small areas are found where a considerable temperature increase has occurred. They are explained in terms of major human interventions in the hydrological balance at the earth surface.”

  31. The ten-year trend has now been negative for 26 months in a row, the longest such period in the satellite record. There were 23 months in row in 1996-97 where the ten-year trend was negative, and that was a delayed effect of the Mt Pinatubo eruption.

  32. Hi AndyG55
    I have been watching the same thing for 2 or 3 years now. I take the 1997/2001 El Nino/La Nina cycle out by taking the periods Dec 1978 to March 1997 (the latter date when the ENSO index was -0.1, the start of the 1997 El Nino) and the period June 2001 (ENSO index -0.1, the end of the La Nina) to the present. The trend for those two periods are at present identical at 0.36 degrees C per century.
    Looking at it this way, the trend determinded by drawing a line through the entire graph (1.44 Degrees per century) is really determined mostly by the step increase from 1997 to 2001.
    The first period is 18 yrs 4 months. The second period so far is 12 years. Be interesting to see what the results are 6 years from now. If the trends are close I will really have my doubts about how much influence C)2 has on temperature. Using UAH v5.6.
    RSS results for the same period are 0.72 and -0.72 up to May 2013.

  33. Metro Atlanta area: July saw one day hit 91 and the other 90 degrees (F). The other 29 ranged from 75-89. Looks like we will at least go to mid-August without breaking 90. We are usually staring at July/August high temps hitting close to or over 100. To put this in a better perspective, my budget for electricity for July is $350; the bill was under $180. Think I’ll invest in more beer!

  34. This is pure cherry picking – to take this data set starting at 1979 and pretending it is significant. Just because someone invented a satellite we all have to pretend that the world started in 1979.
    Factor in the longer term trend from the longer term data and a 60 year cycle is clearly present. That 60 year cycle has nothing to do with CO2 and should be removed before anyone even begins to look for long-term trends
    Remove the 60 year cycle from this post 1979 data and you can see that the trend has been flat-lining for this entire data set.
    Trying to see a long term data trend through a sixty year cycle using 30 years of data is just about as close to pointless as you can imagine. Its always going to be heavily influenced by the starting date, and as it turns out 1979 was about the worst possible starting date we could have chosen.

  35. Nigel Harris says:
    August 5, 2013 at 1:41 pm
    02/2013 -0.33 big drop in global temperature
    07/2013 -0.12 significantly down
    04/2013 -0.08 down significantly
    11/2012 -0.05 down slightly
    10/2012 -0.01 unchanged
    03/2013 +0.01 unchanged
    08/2012 +0.06 not much change
    09/2012 +0.13 up slightly
    06/2013 +0.22 up somewhat
    01/2013 +0.30 up significantly, but other data doesn’t match.
    Anyone spot any bias (intentional or otherwise) in these descriptions?

    Yes. If you look for the average linear trend, then you can compute it to -0.0775 °Cel. per year for your time window.
    But you can expand the time window up to four years and then you can compute it to -0.0557 °Cel. per year.
    That negative linear trend is about 70% of a trend calculating the global temperatures only out of the solar tides with a similar negative trend of -0.0798 °Cel per year
    http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/uah_temp_atmos_7_2013a.gif
    Negative trends can be calculated by the science of math, and is not as mysterious as politics or UFO’s, and it means that the global temperature has an decreasing trend since four years, and this is remarkable, because the CO2 content in the air is still increasing.
    So the very point is that the CO2 biased climate preacher men have a serious problem and a minor point is that your descriptions do argue nothing.
    V.

  36. dp says:
    August 5, 2013 at 2:13 pm
    None of these numbers gives any idea what the energy balance looks like – are we accumulating or shedding energy from the sun?

    Atmospheric temperature provides very little information on atmospheric energy content as the atmospheric enthalpy is not recorded. Apparently, the atmospheric humidity is falling; it is entirely possible that the positive atmospheric temperature anomalies are entirely due to the reduction in atmospheric enthalpy.
    During the recent media induced frenzy about Death Valley temperatures, the temperature in Death Valley was around 125F; the temperature in Central Florida was around 85F. The energy content of the air in Central Florida in Kilojoules per Kilogram, was nearly twice that of the energy content of the air in Death Valley. This is because the humidity in Central Florida was 90% or so and in Death Valley it was close to zero.
    It is probable that the entire global warming hooplah is due to use of averages of incorrect metrics.

  37. According to the Government climate report for Australia for last summer, 2012-2013, it experienced the hottest summer ever. I think most Australians took it with a grain of salt as they have been bombarded with so many exaggerations. I understand that an error was made by the Bureau of Meteorology regarding the calculations. Could someone clarify/confirm if this was so and if this correction is now included in the IPCC report.?

  38. I can’t even think of a good way to take Earth’s temperature.
    I can. Take the temperature T measured in each cell of a surface-spanning spherical icosahedral tessellation (that can be rescaled at will to a finer-grained coverage without any Jacobean-linked cell distortion like the one that occurs in spherical polar coordinates or latitude/longitude). Evaluate T^4 per cell. Sum it over the cells. Divide by the number of cells. Take the fourth root of the result. Do at least one subdivision of the tessellation (e.g. halve the cell size, get 4x as many cells) and repeat. Compare the two. Iterate the adaptive subdivision until the result converges, using the scaling of the variation of the subdivision and the eight order cumulant to estimate the error.
    This root-root-mean-square average is the only measure of temperature that matters, as it is the “radiation temperature”, directly proportional to the Earth’s radiation rate ignoring its atmosphere. Pre-weighted by surface area, no less.
    The current mean temperature is utterly irrelevant and indeed HIDES the radiation temperature.
    The problem is that the Earth is actually capable of both warming and cooling that completely overwhelms the GHE while GHGs are neutral, increasing, or decreasing due to seemingly minor changes in the way heat is distributed. Atmospheric/oceanic circulation trends that increase mixing are warming. Ones that decrease mixing are cooling. That is, if tropical heat migrates to the poles, it is net warming. If tropical heat stays in the tropics, it is net cooling.
    IMO the LIA was caused not by GHGs, not by solar variation per se, but by a transient variation in global circulation (which might or might not have been linked to solar variation, but I don’t have any good feel for how it might have been so linked). For a while the tropics heated up a little, increasing their radiative efficiency rapidly, but the heat was not conveyed north and south to the temperate and polar regions. The pole cooled more than the tropics heated up, because of the T^4.
    Doing an adaptive iterative T^4 rrms average of the temperature (especially comparing the result to T average and T^2 rms average) is highly instructive in other ways as well. It reveals directly how inhomogeneous the temperature distribution is — is the current mean temperature arising — as some above suggested — because a small area is a lot warmer while the bulk of the area is a little cooler? You’ll never know looking at T alone, but you can tell at a glance by looking at the histogram of temperature anomalies, you can tell at a glance by comparing the various cumulants, evaluating the skew (did I mention that we might as well form the third order cumulant as well?) and kurtosis.
    The bizarre thing is that the mean alone is almost completely mean-ingless, to a statistician. Without knowing the variance and other moments of the distribution, one doesn’t even know how reliable the measured mean is as a predictor of the true mean. In the case of radiatively cooled Earth, the mean TEMPERATURE is just great — if you want to know the enthalpy or something like that and can calculate it because you know heat capacities per cell (which we are clueless about, of course). Otherwise, it is rrms T^4 that matters in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.
    rgb

  39. ***
    MiCro says:
    August 5, 2013 at 1:17 pm
    Minimum 44.1 on 6/4/2013
    Maximum 96.8 on 7/18/2013

    ***
    The summer max here in the mid-Appalachians @ 900′ elevation was 91F & two 90F days during the “heat wave” earlier. But my rural spot has no UHIE. 49F yesterday morning & a string of 50F mornings just before that.
    I’d rather it go back to “hot” — viewing the stars at nite is more comfortable.

  40. Professor Brown, thanks. I now better understand my boss’s glazed eyes after I explain to him why a piping or electrical system can’t be designed the way he wants it.

  41. chainsaw:
    At August 6, 2013 at 9:24 am you say

    Professor Brown, thanks. I now better understand my boss’s glazed eyes after I explain to him why a piping or electrical system can’t be designed the way he wants it.

    Actually, rgb is right and he provides detail to a point others (e.g. Richard Lindzen) have made and I have often posted on WUWT. So, in hope of adding clarity, I write to provide a less detailed and more simplified explanation of the matter.
    Redistributing the heat which is over the Earth’s surface alters the Earth’s surface temperature.
    This is because radiative heat loss from a surface is proportional to the fourth power of the surface’s absolute temperature. I explain this effect as follows.
    The Earth obtains heat from the Sun (in space) and radiates the same amount of heat to space. If the Earth radiates heat at a lesser rate than it obtains heat then its surface temperature rises until emits as much heat as it obtains.
    Now, consider two areas of the Earth’s surface. These areas are each a square kilometre of ocean and one is in the tropics while the other is in a polar region. The tropical area radiates much more heat than the polar region because
    (a) the tropical area is hotter
    and
    (b) the radiation from each area is proportional to the fourth power of the surface’s absolute temperature.
    Next, move heat from the tropical area to the polar area such that the tropical area cools by 5K. If all else does not change, then the temperature of the polar area will rise by 5K. However, the radiative heat loss from the tropical area will reduce by more than the heat loss from the polar area increases (because radiation from each area is proportional to the fourth power of the surface’s absolute temperature).
    Thus, the movement of heat from the tropical area to the polar area reduces the radiative heat loss from the Earth’s surface. Thus, the Earth’s surface temperature will rise until the radiative heat loss from the Earth’s surface again equals the heat obtained by the Earth’s surface from the Sun.
    In reality, the oceans do transport heat from the tropics to the poles. An increase to this thermal transport would reduce tropical temperatures and increase polar temperatures. The result would be a reduction to radiative heat loss from the Earth’s surface with resulting increase to surface temperatures (to obtain heat loss from the Earth’s surface which again equals the heat obtained by the Earth’s surface from the Sun).
    Natural variation to thermal transport by the oceans is alone sufficient to explain the entire increase to average global temperature throughout the twentieth century.
    I hope I have helped understanding of the excellent point made by rgb.
    Richard

  42. beng says:
    August 6, 2013 at 7:45 am

    I’d rather it go back to “hot” — viewing the stars at nite is more comfortable.

    I much prefer doing my star gazing on the cooler nights, well unless it sitting for hours watching meteors. But my camera likes it cold.

  43. richardscourtney says:
    August 6, 2013 at 11:54 am

    In reality, the oceans do transport heat from the tropics to the poles. An increase to this thermal transport would reduce tropical temperatures and increase polar temperatures. The result would be a reduction to radiative heat loss from the Earth’s surface with resulting increase to surface temperatures (to obtain heat loss from the Earth’s surface which again equals the heat obtained by the Earth’s surface from the Sun).

    Would not the rate of cooling also be determined by the temperature of the cold sink? I realize sape is uniformly cold, but the surface doesn’t radiate directly to space. I measured the IR temp on my sky on a clear 35F day at -40F, I would imaging the tropical sky is warmer, and the polar sky much colder.

    Natural variation to thermal transport by the oceans is alone sufficient to explain the entire increase to average global temperature throughout the twentieth century.

    This fits what the work I did with night time cooling says, tomorrow morning will be just as cold as this morning was.
    Glad to see you come back!

  44. Gail Combs says:
    August 5, 2013 at 2:29 pm:
    I’m also in Mid Carolina (just west of Winston-Salem). I had lettuce up trough the third week of July. Never had that happen before. New crop coming up. I was noticing the same thing on the dearth of 90 degree days here…and the abundance of rain. I even got a crop of rhubarb this year with the second on the way.

  45. MiCro:
    In your post at August 6, 2013 at 12:05 pm
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/05/uah-july-global-temperature-significantly-down/#comment-1382613
    You ask me

    Would not the rate of cooling also be determined by the temperature of the cold sink?

    Yes, but that is not relevant to the argument concerning why increased thermal transport from the tropics to the poles would increase global temperature.
    The issue is not “rate of cooling” it is “rate of radiative heat loss” which is proportional to the fourth power of the temperature of the radiating surface.
    The atmosphere will be radiating towards the surface, but that radiation is not significantly altered by the surface temperature change. Hence, your point is relevant to the magnitude of the effect but does not alter the explanation of the effect.
    Please note that I was – as I said – providing a simplified explanation in hope of helping understanding of the earlier and more detailed explanation by rgb.
    Richard

  46. Global Composite: +0.30 C above 30-year average
    Northern Hemisphere: +0.33 C above 30-year average
    Southern Hemisphere: +0.26 C above 30-year average
    Tropics: +0.22 C above 30-year average
    Can someone show how the global composite is calculated from the above revised May2013-data? Please tell me the percentages of the three regions. My calculations don’t add up, without making NH and SH different sizes?

  47. I agree with the comments about a small monthly variation being overhyped in the headline. I’m also puzzled why there is an impression that this UAH dataset now shows cooling – despite the various backyards where the number of 90-plus days is lower than in some other year.
    I calculated 5 and 10 year running means, without first looking at the graph to find a handy starting point. These seem to be long enough to smooth out the monthly variations, and to perhaps include a couple of el Ninos or la Ninas, and yet short enough to compare with other similar periods in a record which only began in 1979.
    The running 5 year mean, to July 2013, is at its highest (0,22 deg C). This is 0.06 degress higher than the previous 5 year period, and 0.14 degrees warmer than the one before that.
    The running 10-year mean is 0.19 degrees, a tiny fraction of a degree below the highest reached in the 10 years to September 2011. It is 0.15 degrees higher than that for the previous 10-year period ending in July 2003 and 0.35 higher than that ending in July 1993. The nearest that comes to cooling is that the rate of increase is slowing down.
    Both these running means have the potential to go higher still over the next few months, since the years being dropped out of the calculation (2008-2009 and 2003-2004) both included some fairly cold months. Note that the unusually warm months in 1998-99 do not feature in either of the hottest running means, even if they can be used to find a negative trend of longer than 10 years.

  48. Richard Barraclough:
    re your post at August 6, 2013 at 4:28 pm.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/05/uah-july-global-temperature-significantly-down/#comment-1382874
    Any data can be processed to show anything. Running means are processed data.
    The unprocessed UAH data shows a negative linear trend over the past decade. However, at the 95% confidence level the trend is such that the ‘real’ trend may be slightly negative or slightly positive. In other words, the data has a trend which is so small that the trend is not discernibly different from zero.
    That is what the data indicates.
    Your running means only indicate that you have processed the data.
    Richard

  49. Richard Courtney
    Thanks for your response. I’m not quite sure what you mean by “processed” data though you do imply that it’s not necessarily a good thing!. Would a running mean be “processed”, but a linear trend not be “processed”? And by that definition, the data must be processed before we get it, as it is presumably averaged from the daily readings, or perhaps from more frequent readings every few hours, not to mention having been manipulaed by an algorithm
    Anyway, I agree with you you that the 10-year trend is as close to zero as makes no difference, though when I did the calculation on the last 120 months, my value was slightly positive, at 0.04 degrees over the decade. I used the UAH dataset described in the original post, and the SLOPE function from Excel. It’s many decades since I did any statistics, so I’m not certain whether that is the appropriate tool to use.
    It’s also clear that individual months which are warmer or colder by a tenth of a degree are of minimal significance in these calculations, which is how the discussion started. A couple of years with anomalies close to zero, and we might start to see some significance in the trend.
    Regards
    Richard

  50. Richard Barraclough:
    Thankyou for your post addressed to me at August 7, 2013 at 4:36 pm.
    You say;

    I’m not quite sure what you mean by “processed” data though you do imply that it’s not necessarily a good thing!. Would a running mean be “processed”, but a linear trend not be “processed”? And by that definition, the data must be processed before we get it, as it is presumably averaged from the daily readings, or perhaps from more frequent readings every few hours, not to mention having been manipulaed by an algorithm

    I apologise for my lack of clarity. I mistakenly thought my intended meaning was clear.
    As you say, each datum in a global temperature time series is a result of applying a statistical process to aggregate many individual temperature measurements. So, yes, it could be claimed that each datum is “processed” data. Indeed, different teams (e.g. HadCRU and GISS) use different methods to obtain the aggregates, and all those methods are flawed (my explanation(s) of this are in Appendix B of the item at
    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc0102.htm ).
    However, that is not what I meant.
    We were discussing the assessment of a linear trend over part of the length of a global temperature time series. For that purpose the data of the time series is the ‘raw’ data: i.e. it is the data presented by the Team which provided the time series.
    If you read the item I have linked then you will see that I know the method(s) used to obtain that ‘raw’ data are wrong, but that does not permit alteration of the ‘raw’ data prior to determination of the trend. The reason such alteration is not permissible is as follows.
    There are an infinite number of ways the ‘raw’ data could be altered prior to determining the trend, and those ways will each provide a unique alteration to the eventually determined trend value. Choosing to adopt any such alteration is applying a process to the ‘raw’ data’. And no such choice is permissible because it would be arbitrary; i.e, it would be an expression of the prejudice of the chooser as to which way to process the ‘raw’ data. Simply, any such alteration (e.g. conduct of a running-mean) is an alteration to the data which is a reflection of the prejudice of the analyst. Different analysts would use different choices and obtain different trend values which reflect their prejudices.
    So, the only permissible way to assess the trend is to conduct a least-squares analysis of the data of the used portion of the ‘raw’ data of the time series.
    I hope my meaning is now clear,and I thank you for pointing out that clarification was needed.
    Richard

  51. Thanks for the link and the comments, Richard. Most interesting! It must have been extremely frustrating for you having your attempts to explain the deficiencies in those data sets blocked. They should have either accepted your analysis, or presented a logically-reasoned counter argument. I suppose it shows, rather sadly, that some scientists can have misplaced pride in their work and hidden agendas, just as many other professions do, so perhaps we should not be altogether surprised.
    As far as the explanation of the dangers of using “processed” data to arrive at a conclusion, I have understood that one should not cherry-pick a subset of data in order to support a conclusion which one is trying to reach, even though you see it many times in this Blog and elsewhere.
    However, we are used to referring to averaged subsets. For example, the coldest year in the CET record, coldest decade, comparison of the 18th century with the 20th, etc. all use subsets of various lengths. Perhaps this is more acceptable because the time periods used are determined by our familiar calendar rather than having been selected by the analyst. The smoothed sunspot data, as presented by Jan Alvestad, also uses a running mean of about a year’s data, with some additional weightings.
    Regards
    Richard

Comments are closed.