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):
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)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
holts says:
December 3, 2013 at 11:59 pm
…….Persistence is usually a poor forecasting tool!
Actually, it is a very good tool. If you say the weather tomorrow will like that of today, you are right 75% of the time [in California where I live, you are right 98% of the time 🙂 ].
“IT ISN’T A ‘PAUSE’! Please stop using the word. A ‘pause’ implies that you KNOW the future
state”
You can’t say for sure that it isn’t a pause, but what we do know is that the warming has HALTED.
A better description IMHO.
So Dr. Svalgaard, is that how you make predictions about the sun?
Leif,
You say it looks like the period from 1997 to 1996 is about the same. That is the point. For RSS and UAH, it is very flat with a much smaller slope than predicted by the climate models. But now, even in other surface data sets, you see the slope has decreased and again the actual rates do not match the predicted rates. For sea temperatures, Bob Tisdale even draws flat lines with jumps for El nino’s as in 1998, which is an interesting way to look at it (I am not making a judgement one way or the other).
Leif likes to focus on mechanism. For the first pause we had a warm PDO. For the 2nd pause we’ve transited to a cool PDO with about a 50-50 split. The next period will occur during a cool PDO so I’d be inclined to believe it will be lower.
Now, you might argue that the PDO isn’t important (if you’re a warmist), however, the global trend has followed the PDO in lock step since 1850.
tinyurl.com/kzmzd8y
BTW, RSS has been about .1C below UAH for the last few months. That would bring it in around +0.1 for November. The big question is what is going to happen next. Last January we saw a big jump up. We also saw jumps in May and September. These have appeared to be solar related which would mean they could come at any time … or not at all.
Also keep in mind that ENSO is +.3 at the moment. Certainly not predicting a La Niña any time soon.
Bob Tisdale has shown that ENSO acts as a valve in the Earth’s solar energy input stream; cloud cover increases or decreases perform the function. The changes are permanent and could be canceled or intensified by the next ENSO.
Henrik Svensmark has shown cosmic rays influence cloudiness too; the Sun’s magnetic field modulates the cosmic rays input.
Habibullo Abdussamatov has shown how the Sun itself has been less a less active since the early 1990s.
Syun-Ichi Akasofu writes: “The rise in global average temperature over the last century has halted since roughly the year 2000, despite the fact that the release of CO2 into the atmosphere is still increasing. It is suggested here that this interruption has been caused by the suspension of the near linear (+0.5°C/100 years or 0.05°C/10 years) temperature increase over the last two centuries, due to recovery from the Little Ice Age, and by a superposed multi-decadal oscillation of a 0.2°C amplitude and a 50~60 year period, which reached its positive peak in about the year 2000 – a halting similar to those that occurred around 1880 and 1940. Because both the near linear change and the multi-decadal oscillation are likely to be natural changes (the recovery from the Little Ice Age (LIA) and an oscillation related to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), respectively), they must be carefully subtracted from temperature data before estimating the effects of CO2.”
Balanced thinking yields a view that it is not significantly attributable to some primate’s un-sequestration activities.
John
msimom,
I like it too, especially if you work out the code using base 13.
I suggest a more rational terminology than Spencer’s and Svalgaard’s use of the premise loaded ‘pause’ terminology.
I suggest an approach that Lindzen has used for describing graphs of GASTA** and GALTTA**** for the recent ~17 year period. Lindzen has recently described it as a period of ‘not warming’. No unstated or questionable premises.
**Global Average Surface Temperature Anomaly
****Global Average Lower Tropospheric Temperature Anomaly
John
lsvalgaard says:
December 3, 2013 at 7:38 pm
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 🙂
——————————————————————————————————————————
So, this time it can go down -:)
Trend is wery bad tool for prediction. It has gone up, so it has to come down in some point. I still believe, that this warming has been mostly natural, exept UHI and chances in land use.
“lsvalgaard says:
December 4, 2013 at 5:39 am
holts says:
December 3, 2013 at 11:59 pm
…….Persistence is usually a poor forecasting tool!
Actually, it is a very good tool. If you say the weather tomorrow will like that of today, you are right 75% of the time [in California where I live, you are right 98% of the time 🙂 ].”
And in Ireland you are right 0% of the time…. 🙂
Isn’t the “pause” nothing more than the relatively flat spot at the top or crest of the most recent 30-ish year positive portion of the global temperature cycle? Now we swing downward for 30-ish years, then the curve flattens before it rises again…repeat, repeat, repeat…
[snip – off topic – Anthony]
I think the Hitchhikers analogy is particularly apt here, given the prognostication role that has been granted to computer models of uncertain capability.
As noted, a computer was built and asked to provide the ultimate answer. After some 7 1/2 million year it spits out the answer “42”. The problem, of course, is that no one really knows what the ultimate question is – and the computer itself cannot determine it. So the computer builds a larger computer to determine the question – that larger computer is earth, which unfortunately gets destroyed by Vogons before the matter is determined. However, Arthur Dent (late of earth, and containing the matrix from which the answer would be derived) survives, which leads to this exchange:
Arthur pulls random letters from a [Scrabble] bag, but only gets the sentence “What do you get if you multiply six by nine?”
“Six by nine. Forty two.”
“That’s it. That’s all there is.”
“I always thought something was fundamentally wrong with the universe”
Another take. As each month goes by the case for AGW seems to be weakening as the temperature trend for the globe remains flat at best.
This despite CO2 increasing, solar activity moderate (as the maximum of solar cycle 24 continues), not much in the way of volcanic activity , AMO still in it’s warm phase ,while ENSO is neutral.
One would think given the above that if AGW theory were indeed correct the temperature trend would be increasing instead of still remaining flat.
Salvatore…no argument from me. It’s a cycle with the overall trend rising and falling (e.g., LIA, MWP, etc.) for reasons we don’t fully understand. There’s no real evidence that CO2 is a significant issue.
If there’s a climate concern humanity ought to be working on is what to do when the next glacial period within the current ice age clicks in. It will occur and it’s likely nearer to happening than farther from happening…past being the key to the present and all that…
It’s a pity the UAH begins during a known cool period.
Actual meaning? Yeah, it’s not like words can’t be used in different ways, is it? Even worse, words can actually mean different things when used in different contexts.
It is an uncommon use of the word “pause”, but it is not necessarily invalid. Get over your short-sighted pedantry, because the word “pause” has a niche connotation in the global warming discussion. So by saying “the pause”, the context already tells that no one is not talking about halt that is already known to be temporary. Moreover the context tells that “the pause” is used to describe in the lack of warming in temperature datasets. (Or perhaps you suggest attempting to use the verbose expression “the lack of warming in temperature datasets”)
Complaints about the use of “pause” are particularly annoying, because of the nature of English (or even other languages). It is dynamic, it changes. For a not-so-extreme example, “literally” has a different connotation: In informal situation, it is mostly acceptable to use “literally” just as a hyperbolic intensifier, like in “I literally died of laughter”. Let’s not forget a moment about the huge controversy of the inclusion of this connotation in dictionaries. Millions of people went crazy, they shouted “doublethink” or “Internet has killed English”. Never mind, this is established usage from early 20th century, with examples going back to 18th century.
interestingly, the word pause comes from Latin, pausa. This one, is not restricted to temporary halts, it can be used for halts, cessations or stops in general. If a word has changed meaning, nothing stops from it reverting back.
The “Pause” option does indicate that the weather is on hold for the time being which plays right into the CAGW hypotheses’ incoherent claims. It is true that it is just another term used to exempt the possibility that it is only temporary. The have used that same word play before, as we all know.
very confused: [no /sarc]
math
d [PAUSE = f (T)] / dt = 0
Dave Dardinger says:
December 4, 2013 at 8:18 am
msimom,
I like it too, especially if you work out the code using base 13.
Does that imply that the Masons nave the answer? I’m also reminded of the Hells Angels.
Sorry, but that’s not a “temperature” – when will they stop using that term?
@Daniel G.
I see. So, the Warmists have a Humpty Dumpty approach to their use of words. As in: “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
How convenient.
4TimesAYear says:
December 4, 2013 at 3:39 pm
Sorry, but that’s not a “temperature” – when will they stop using that term?
sorry: really,
d{a*ln[(CO2)t/(CO2)i]}/dt = 0