UAH Global temperature, down slightly, "the pause" continues

UAH v5.6 Global Temperature Update for Nov. 2013: +0.19 deg. C

by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

The Version 5.6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for November, 2013 is +0.19 deg. C, down from +0.29 deg. C in October (click for full size version):

UAH_LT_1979_thru_November_2013_v5.6

The global, hemispheric, and tropical LT anomalies from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 11 months are:

YR MON GLOBAL NH SH TROPICS

2013 01 +0.496 +0.512 +0.481 +0.387

2013 02 +0.203 +0.372 +0.033 +0.195

2013 03 +0.200 +0.333 +0.067 +0.243

2013 04 +0.114 +0.128 +0.101 +0.165

2013 05 +0.082 +0.180 -0.015 +0.112

2013 06 +0.295 +0.335 +0.255 +0.220

2013 07 +0.173 +0.134 +0.211 +0.074

2013 08 +0.158 +0.111 +0.206 +0.009

2013 09 +0.365 +0.339 +0.390 +0.189

2013 10 +0.290 +0.331 +0.250 +0.031

2013 11 +0.193 +0.159 +0.227 +0.018

Popular monthly data files (these might take a few extra days to update):

uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt (Lower Troposphere)

uahncdc_mt_5.6.txt (Mid-Troposphere)

uahncdc_ls_5.6.txt (Lower Stratosphere)

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

it seems to me that ‘the pause’ we have now is no different [except for level] from the pause we had 1979-1996….

James Allison

Yeah maybe this pause will break the previous pause record……

Bill Illis

Temperature change since June 1991 before the Pinatubo eruption impacted temperatures or 22.5 years ago: -0.09C
Why does the CO2 induced warming seem to be so slow to act?
The Earth is doing what the Earth does. It does not obey human-made theories and human-made computer simulations. The answer is 42.

RJ

Isvalgaard – Perhaps, but what we don’t know is which way it will go after the pause.

Mike Mangan

Bill Illis, AGW is hiding deep in the ocean plotting our doom. No one took him seriously when he was so slow to warm the atmosphere so he sits in the cold deep, bitterly waiting for the day he can wreak havoc on puny humans. Trenberth told me so.

mrsean2k

The pause may be no different in a strictly mathematical sense to the pause 1979 – 1996, but there have been 17 additional years during which the effects of catastrophic feedback could have made their mark. How many more-or-less consecutive pauses do there need to be before concluding there will be no catastrophe?

Looking at the plot, we have a relatively flat anomaly then a step change and a flat anomaly. I find it hard to put those data into a theory of CO2 induced warming. Looks like something else is going on. But, I’m a simple-minded chemist, so I don’t understand climatology.

Bart

True, on this level, compared to the previous “pause” it does not appear particularly unusual. However, all of the major temperature sets are essentially affinely similar over this period. For those whose records go back longer, there is a definite difference.

I would not be surprised to find out that global warming was arrested back in 1996 and has been held in custody ever since.

Neville.

Bill Illis, what does 42 mean? Remember you have to make allowances for we dummies.

Jimbo

lsvalgaard says:
December 3, 2013 at 4:41 pm
it seems to me that ‘the pause’ we have now is no different [except for level] from the pause we had 1979-1996….

Also “‘the pause’ we have now” has more co2 in the atmosphere. Some weather watchers claim that it may cool, some say it will warm, time will tell.

Neville.

TNist thanks for that. BTW can we read too much into the present global ice extent compared to mean of 1981 to 2010.

Neville.
Bob

Leif, “it seems to me that ‘the pause’ we have now is no different [except for level] from the pause we had 1979-1996….”
So with your reasoning, i.e. a pause from 79-96 and also 99-13, leaves only 1998 with a warming excursion. Hmmm – wonder why we even call it a pause?

Tom in Indy

lsvalgaard says:
December 3, 2013 at 4:41 pm
it seems to me that ‘the pause’ we have now is no different [except for level] from the pause we had 1979-1996….

When you put the 2 “pauses” together, the entire period of catastrophic man-made global warming is condensed to what, 5 years?

Eve

I really think we should stop calling it the pause and call it what it is…cooling. The US and Canada are freezing. It has even hit the Bahamas. It is 77 in the daytime, 70 at night. I am not complaining but Bahamians are

Rick Bradford

I know the Warmists aren’t funny, but occasionally one of them comes up with an unintended gem.
….
‘Outgoing New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg told reporters that evidence showing the need for addressing climate change is getting stronger by the day.
“We cannot take our foot off the gas,” he said.’

braddles

I make the 30-year trend 0.153 C per decade, the 25-year is 0.146, the 20-year is 0.098, the 15-year is 0.081, the 10-year trend is minus 0.035 C per decade and 5-years is lower still. If global warming is supposed to accelerate out of control, why is the real world doing the opposite? 20 years of data now suggests warming of 1 degree or less this century.

BioBob

Why are there no error bars ? Surely there are adequate weather balloon etc observational data available to “calibrate” the observation & standard deviation of these satellite values. Is this all data from ONE instrument in ONE satellite ?
Is the signal (rough range +- .6 degrees C) actually distinguishable from the noise ?
This is not likely the case in historical surface station data. Are these data from the same source as those that reported 400+ degree temps in Lake Michigan ? I kind of doubt the certainty of accuracy to .01 degree C displayed in this graph.
Why do we do this kabuki climate theater regardless of the “side” we are on ?

Ian L. McQueen

Neville asked: Bill Illis, what does 42 mean?
Neville, it comes from “A Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Universe”. It’s the answer that a computer came to (after many years???) as the answer to the Meaning of Life (IIRC).
IanM

William C. Rostron
jorgekafkazar

Bart says: “True, on this level, compared to the previous “pause” it does not appear particularly unusual. However, all of the major temperature sets are essentially affinely similar over this period…”
The wft compilation emphasizes again the importance of the Elephant-in-the-room, the 1998 El Niño. The mother of all wiggles. Any model that can’t fully explain that big a blip is relevant to global climate.

SAMURAI

0.19C for November 2013… Ka-ching!
Great! Any value below 0.2C works to bring the anomaly trend down, which has basically flatlined since 1997.
The warmunists are praying to the CO2 gods for an El Nino event to provide a blip to propagandize, however, the PDO entered its 30-year cool cycle from 2008, so any El Nino blip will be lower compared to El Ninos during 30-yr PDO warm cycles and will be followed by colder than average La Ninas..
All joy for the warmunists will be fleeting from here.
How long can this CAGW charade keep going.
CO2 Climate Sensitivity below 2C just isn’t scary and if current OBSERVED trends continue, a CS of less than 1C looks more likely…. Boring.
In a 2009 report, the UN projected it would cost the world economy about $76 TRILLION over the next 40 years to keep CS below 2C with: CO2 taxes, 3rd-World wealth redistribution schemes, wind/solar alternative energy projects/subsidies, CO2 sequestration projects, etc….
How about we spend $ZERO over the next 40 years and live with a CS of less than 1C, which, ironically, would be a net benefit to the Earth in terms of CO2 fertilization, increased crop yields, extended growing seasons, milder winters, lower heating bills, healthier forests, lower food costs, more precipitation, etc…. That’s mo’ bedda.
The CAGW hypothesis is becoming a train wreck.

RJ says:
December 3, 2013 at 4:58 pm
Isvalgaard – Perhaps, but what we don’t know is which way it will go after the pause.
Last time it went up 🙂

SAMURAI says:
December 3, 2013 at 7:25 pm
0.19C for November 2013… Ka-ching!
Great! Any value below 0.2C works to bring the anomaly trend down, which has basically flatlined since 1997.

What you are saying applies to version 5.5, but not version 5.6 which is what we have here. For a comparison, the last 3 months for version 5.6 have been 0.365, 0.290, and 0.193. I do not know the November value for version 5.5 since it is not up yet, but the two previous months were 0.294 and 0.226. If the November number also goes down by 0.097, then it will be 0.129. I expect it to be close to this and to thereby lengthen the pause from last month. See:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2005/plot/uah/from:2005/trend

Eliza

Expect some major drops in Global temps in the coming months and years, My bet for Dec is 0C anomaly.

lsvalgaard says”it seems to me that ‘the pause’ we have now is no different [except for level] from the pause we had 1979-1996“.
Yes, that’s true. But if you take a sine-wave and tilt it so that it slopes up from L-R, it can look like flat periods interspersed with sharp upward moves.
NB. I’m not saying there is a sine-wave in reality, I’m just pointing out that there are different ways of interpreting a graph, particularly one over a shortish period.
Looking at the whole Hadcrut3 unadj –
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl
– 1979-1996 looks like a bit of a shortish wave on a longer wave (not sine necessarily), where the longer wave went up from ~1970 to ~2005. Very similar to ~1910 to ~1945, same duration, same overall increase.
De-trend the graph, and we have got ourselves a nice looking wave:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/detrend:0.75
Note : For some reason, the monthly variations were higher than now in the pre-1880 data, so the graph there is visually ‘heavier’ there, but there’s still a wave from ~1860. Does the pre-1860 data make “from ~1860” a cherrypick? Yes, it does. But so do lots of views of shorter periods.
Oh, and BTW, just so you don’t think I’m trying to disagree with anything, I’d like to reiterate my first sentence above, about the pause : “Yes, that’s true”.

Brian H

SAMURAI;
And remember, the 2C mark is just an arbitrary figure invented by a UN ‘crat who needed a number to hang his PR on. There’s no particular significance to it.

Reblogged this on leclinton and commented:
ANd the wheels go round and round round and round then fall off ;>0

John F. Hultquist

Brian H,
Me thinks the 2C you wrote and the 0.2C Samurai wrote are not relating to the same subject.
~ ~ ~
To pause, or not to pause
but that’s not the question
and while the answer is 42
the question has long been forgotten
so the new question is
Where is my winter coat?

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley

IT ISN’T A ‘PAUSE’! Please stop using the word. A ‘pause’ implies that you KNOW the future state. As we don’t actually know that the temp will continue to increase then you cannot apply the word ‘pause’. As AGW-sceptics, we should not be using that word! You can say the rise has halted or stopped. What graphically shows that the word ‘pause’ is incorrect is if the temps start to fall – then it wouldn’t have been a ‘pause’, would it? It would only be shown to be the appropriate word IF the temps continue to increase. As we don’t know that (the future state is unknown) then ‘pause’ is quite simply incorrect.
Yes, I know, it really bothers me!

Richard Lawson

lsvalgaard says:
December 3, 2013 at 4:58 pm
Last time it went up 🙂
Do you drive your car by only looking in the rear view mirror 😉

Ghost:
I agree. We have climbed onto a plateau, but we won’t know, until we have crossed the plateau, whether the mountain continues upwards, or whether the plateau is the summit and it is all downhill on the other side. My feeling is the latter and we need to stock up on blankets.

Leif says “Last time it went up”
…….Persistence is usually a poor forecasting tool!

Leif says “Last time it went up”
…….and what goes up must come down, they say!

So it’s a Anthropogenic Catastrophic Climate Pause?

“Ian L. McQueen says:
December 3, 2013 at 6:39 pm
Neville asked: Bill Illis, what does 42 mean?
Neville, it comes from “A Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Universe”. It’s the answer that a computer came to (after many years???) as the answer to the Meaning of Life (IIRC).
IanM”
They then of course had to make another bigger computer that needed another 30 millions years to find the question to the answer 42. That computer is Earth and some day someone will find the question to this answer. I think I have found the answer to the first question. But if I tell it they want be needing Earth any longer?

Peter Miller

As my alarmist friends would say:
“There is obviously something wrong with the satellites, as the models show something totally different.”
Hmm, not very funny – but there is nothing humorous about climate science as it is practiced today. On the other hand, climate science can be described as being ‘funny’ in that it is odd, strange and incompatible with the facts.

phlogiston

Richard Lawson says:
December 3, 2013 at 11:40 pm
lsvalgaard says:
December 3, 2013 at 4:58 pm
Last time it went up 🙂
Do you drive your car by only looking in the rear view mirror 😉
Yes, if you’re a climate modeler. The technical name is “hindcasting”. They don’t “do” future.

“Bob Tisdale says:
December 3, 2013 at 5:16 pm
The preliminary November sea surface temperature update is here:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/12/02/preliminary-november-2013-sea-surface-temperature-sst-update/
Earth is very dominated by the temperatures in the oceans. The temperatures there will have to go down before the temperatures in the air?

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley says:
“IT ISN’T A ‘PAUSE’! Please stop using the word. A ‘pause’ implies that you KNOW the future state. As we don’t actually know that the temp will continue to increase then you cannot apply the word ‘pause’. As AGW-sceptics, we should not be using that word!”
=======================
Agree completely. Terms implying that the current situation is temporary have always bothered me. The fact is, we just don’t know.
All we know is that global warming has stopped. It may resume. Or not. But for the past ≈17 years, global warming has STOPPED.
I know that fact tortures the alarmist crowd. That is their problem, and it is self-made. They should have been skeptical, instead of being so certain that global warming was a given. But as we see, Panet Earth doesn’t care what the non-consensus believes.

steveta_uk

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley says:
December 3, 2013 at 11:00 pm
IT ISN’T A ‘PAUSE’! Please stop using the word. A ‘pause’ implies that you KNOW the future state. As we don’t actually know that the temp will continue to increase then you cannot apply the word ‘pause’.

Jim, I have a DVD player. The remote control has a “pause” button. When I press it, the DVD stops playing.
There is nothing that forces me to press “play” ever again. I can turn off the machine, remove the disk, whatever, The “pause” buttion implies nothing whatsoever about what happens next.

Neville. says:
December 3, 2013 at 5:56 pm
Bill Illis, what does 42 mean? Remember you have to make allowances for we dummies.

Secret code for hitchhikers.
(yeah – I know it was answered above. I like my answer better.)

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley says:
December 3, 2013 at 11:00 pm

How about paws. As in “getchur paws out of my wallet.”

Re: “hindcasting”. My wife says it is one of the reasons she chose me. Before I heard that from her I never knew women were into that sort of thing.

Henry Galt

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley says:
December 3, 2013 at 11:00 pm
What that guy said – before I could.
With knobs on. In capitals. Followed my several/many exclamation marks.
IT IS NOT A PAUSE. It is a dead global warming.

Bruce Cobb

steveta_uk says:
Congratulations. You have found an anomaly in the function of the word “pause”. Now please excuse the rest of the world while we follow the actual meaning of the word, which is a temporary halt.

Just an engineer

It’s worse than we thought! It’s a catapausetrophy!