UAH Global Temperature Update for February 2014: +0.17 deg. C
(Note, my original headline number was unintentionally misleading, using a percentage to illustrate the drop rather that the absolute number. While the calculation was correct, it gave an impression of overall magnitude across the entire scale rather than the month to month change. It has been corrected. – Anthony)
by Dr, Roy Spencer
The Version 5.6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for February, 2014 is +0.17 deg. C, down 0.12 deg C from January (click for full size version):
The global, hemispheric, and tropical LT anomalies from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 14 months are:
YR MON GLOBAL NH SH TROPICS
2013 1 +0.497 +0.517 +0.478 +0.386
2013 2 +0.203 +0.372 +0.033 +0.195
2013 3 +0.200 +0.333 +0.067 +0.243
2013 4 +0.114 +0.128 +0.101 +0.165
2013 5 +0.082 +0.180 -0.015 +0.112
2013 6 +0.295 +0.335 +0.255 +0.220
2013 7 +0.173 +0.134 +0.211 +0.074
2013 8 +0.158 +0.111 +0.206 +0.009
2013 9 +0.365 +0.339 +0.390 +0.190
2013 10 +0.290 +0.331 +0.249 +0.031
2013 11 +0.193 +0.160 +0.226 +0.020
2013 12 +0.266 +0.272 +0.260 +0.057
2014 1 +0.291 +0.387 +0.194 -0.028
2014 2 +0.172 +0.325 +0.019 -0.102
Note that most of the cooling was in the tropics and Southern Hemisphere, less in the Northern Hemisphere.
The global image for February should be available in the next day or so here.
Popular monthly data files (these might take a few days to update):
uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt (Lower Troposphere)
uahncdc_mt_5.6.txt (Mid-Troposphere)
uahncdc_ls_5.6.txt (Lower Stratosphere)
===========================================================
Global Temperature Report: February 2014
March 5, 2014 Vol. 23, No. 11
Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.14 C per decade
February temperatures (preliminary)
Global composite temp.: +0.17 C (about 0.31 degrees Fahrenheit) above
30-year average for February.
Northern Hemisphere: +0.33 C (about 0.59 degrees Fahrenheit) above
30-year average for February.
Southern Hemisphere: +0.02 C (about 0.04 degrees Fahrenheit) above
30-year average for February.
Tropics: -0.10 C (about 0.18 degrees Fahrenheit) below 30-year average
for February.
January temperatures (revised):
Global Composite: +0.29 C above 30-year average
Northern Hemisphere: +0.39 C above 30-year average
Southern Hemisphere: +0.19 C above 30-year average
Tropics: -0.03 C below 30-year average
(All temperature anomalies are based on a 30-year average (1981-2010)
for the month reported.)
Notes on data released March 5, 2014:
Warm temperature anomalies in the Arctic during February indicate a
displacement of cold air from that region to other areas, such as from
North America through the North Atlantic into eastern Russia,
according to Dr. John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science and
director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of
Alabama in Huntsville.
Compared to seasonal norms, the coldest place in Earth’s atmosphere in
February was over the southwestern corner of Canada’s Saskatchewan
province near the town of Eston, where temperatures were as much as
4.68 C (about 8.42 degrees Fahrenheit) cooler than seasonal norms.
With Arctic air holding sway over much of North America, temperatures
in the Arctic were generally warmer than normal in February. Compared
to seasonal norms, the warmest departure from average in February was
over the Arctic Ocean northeast of Svalbard, a group of islands about
halfway between Norway and the North Pole. Temperatures there were as
much as 6.16 C (11.1 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than seasonal norms.
Archived color maps of local temperature anomalies are available on-line at:
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 and NASA
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 —
Count me as +1 for finding the headline a bit histrionic. I love this site specifically because it fights the alarmists with hard evidence, without devolving into kookery. Save the sensationalism for sensational events, please. Remember, we’re being watched by folks who have an active interest in discrediting us.
Please stop it with the percent. If it were 0.01 in jan. and then 0.001 in feb. that is 90% but only 0.09 degrees and totally meaningless. Report it as percent of the range over the past n years if you have to use percent at all. Otherwise, please stick to degrees. CAGW is horse hockey, but the headline is a bit off the wall.
Keith Willshaw says: March 5, 2014 at 1:15 pm
“Last time I checked down was considered negative”
Well, negative is negative; it’s currently +0.17. What if it went to -0.01, say, and then back the following month to +0.17. In percent?
For the math curious:
January anomaly = 0.29; Feb anomaly = 0.17
The percent decrease from Jan->Feb is approximately 40% since 60% of 0.29 is approximately 0.17. Or, 0.17 is 40% lower than 0.29. (With less rounding 42.38%.) So 40% of 0.29 is about equal to the difference in the two temperatures, 0.12.
If the Feb value was 0 instead, it would be 100% lower. If it was negative, it would be a greater than 100% change based on the absolute difference between the two values.
This sort of calculation gets a little weird as you get closer to 0. For example, a decrease from 0.02 to -0.01 would be a 150% decline when the absolute difference is 0.03.
So, I agree with some of the other sentiment in the comments that there should be a better way to express the change in anomaly month to month than as a percentage of the last value. It works for stocks/money but maybe not so much for temperature anomaly. I am drawing a blank on a good replacement off the top of my head.
UAH dropped from 0.291 to 0.172 for an average of 0.232. If it stays this way, 2014 would rank 5th.
RSS dropped from 0.262 to 0.162 for an average of 0.212. If it stays this way, 2014 would rank 11th.
So far, Walter Dnes’ prediction is right on the money. See: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/12/jli-first-forecasts/
So I have a thought here. I have corresponded some years back with a fellow who claimed he was they guy who for thirty years did the physical data collection of air samples with weather balloons and that research of physical sampling of the atmosphere revealed that the atmosphere is indeed layered and it is that way due to atomic and molecular wieght of gasses found at various altitudes. The higher you go , the lighter the gasses wieght. Ozone being an oddity , which he explained was formed way up high from oxygen ions being fused into O3 by cosmic radiation. This life long body of work was the basis of the U.S. Standard Atmosphere Model we all learned in 9th grade earth science class. He stated that the troposphere was largly oxygen/nitrogen mix due to the fact that oxygen and nitrogen are very very close in atomic wieght. His departure from employment with NASA as contract scientist was over his tenacious argument with his employer that CFC’s could not possibly degrade the ozone layer because they were entirely too heavy to “get up there”…Why do I digress , well this same fellow stated that somewhere arround 1979 satelite generated data sets became fashionable in place of hard physical data collection, and he stated that satelite sampling vertically through the atmosphere is questionable at best and impossible at worste. So, my ire with all this computer modeling and satelite data concerning atmosphere temps is colored by this mans email to me. I will try to pull it up as it was nearly ten years ago, and I forgot his name. Sorry. BUT, I have to say his discourse makes alot of sense. That is why CO2 can not collect in a layer above the troposphere. Unless someone goes out and physically collects samples from the offending CO2 layer, I for one and hard pressed to believe anything coming from the CAGW establishment.
seems strange that Houston had it’s 2nd coldest Feb on record yet the map shows a positive anomaly…
Nick Stokes says:
March 5, 2014 at 12:49 pm
What would the headline be if the anomaly went negative?
==============
What if the moon turned into a pumpkin and was covered with cream cheese icing?
Your imagination is only matched by another commenter here, what’s his name … Moshemer or something like that.
Tim says: @ur momisugly March 5, 2014 at 12:49 pm
….It is interesting however that the tropics are pretty cold despite some predicting the onset of El Nino conditions in late 2014. Also interesting that the reason the anomaly is positive is because of high arctic temps, I can’t help but wonder what the temps would look like if this data wasn’t included.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This seems to indicate the area that are in summer/getting the most sunlight are not warming as much as they were while the Arctic is exporting more heat. (larger differential between the Arctic and outer space)
The Earth is NOT in energy balance so it is always transporting the incoming energy from the sun in the tropics/summer areas to the winter/pole areas and then to outer space.
Looks like a segment of a sinusoidal oscillation to me.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_February_2014_v5.png
Box of Rocks says:
March 5, 2014 at 1:00 pm
[…] and part of Russia that Sarah Palin can see from her front porch […]
You’re confusing Sarah Palin with Tina Fey.
http://snopes.com/politics/palin/russia.asp
“Yes, I could see this one from Alaska. I’m usually not one to Told-Ya-So, but I did,”
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/sarah-palin-ukraine-russia-104110.html
Let’s have a round of applause for Eston, Saskatchewan, a town that is OBVIOUSLY fully paid up in world-wide carbon credits, taking the lead in humanity’s desperate efforts to save the planet from global warming. Take a bow, Eston. Take a bow.
“Compared to seasonal norms, the coldest place in Earth’s atmosphere in
February was over the southwestern corner of Canada’s Saskatchewan
province near the town of Eston, where temperatures were as much as
4.68 C (about 8.42 degrees Fahrenheit) cooler than seasonal norms.”
(wink)
Quite pleasant here the tropics, thanks. I moved here because it was too cold for me further South, and I am fairly sure it will only get colder. Looks like a good plan so far…
Nick Stokes says:
March 5, 2014 at 12:49 pm
“What would the headline be if the anomaly went negative?
Ask and ye shall receive, Nick:
Nick Stokes Speechless!
Details to follow, Film at 11.
Marcos says:
March 5, 2014 at 1:34 pm
seems strange that Houston had it’s 2nd coldest Feb on record yet the map shows a positive anomaly…
>>>>>
Yup. Guess it’s the “adjustment” thingy again.
Creditability of Watts Up (best climate site on the web) down 40%.
This proves even more heat is going to the deep oceans than the prior month /sarc
Blue Sky:
Based on what, exactly?
Make it a good answer. It’s your credibility at stake here.
Nick Stokes says at March 5, 2014 at 12:49 pm
See all you Nick Stokes quibblers?
We can all see that a change of anomaly described as a percentage is misleading.
But Nick Stokes has succinctly pointed out that such a percentage actually cannot even be calculated when the anomaly crosses the baseline.
Nick Stokes has added value to this thread with his correct criticism of weaknesses.
Just consider, if it wasn’t for the ability of computers to manipulate vast swathes of data and for modern weather equipment to measure down to fractions of a degree then the world wouldn’t have warmed in any meaningful sense in the past centrury at all! Perhaps there are times when fine measurements are more misleading than helpful? I suspect that many people have lost all perspective and will still be shouting global warming if the average increase was .01degree. After all the graph would still slope upwards.
‘Creditability’? lol
(yawn) Up. Down. Up. Down. Same ol’ level sawtooth pattern.
Dang. If we humans are trying to warm the planet, we sure are lousy at it. 🙁
Up. Down. Up. Dow…zzzzzz
M Courtney says:
March 5, 2014 at 1:57 pm
“…Nick Stokes has added value to this thread with his correct criticism of weaknesses.”
>>>>>>
Two minuses make a plus—only works in math.
the pause is due to all the heat going into melting the ice. once the ice has gone i’m reliably informed the temps will rise again.lol
6 Mar: Bloomberg: Frigid U.S. Weather Means Highest Power Prices Since ’08: Energy
By Naureen S. Malik, Christine Harvey and Mario Parker
Supplies of natural gas and coal will decline to six-year lows by the end of this month, government data show. The fuels are used to generate 67 percent of the country’s electricity. Wholesale power for use from April…
Natural gas is up 32 percent compared with a year ago, adding to costs for home heating and power generation. Maintenance planned for a third of U.S. nuclear reactors in the next three months, the most for the season in at least 14 years, will further boost reliance on fossil fuels…
Central Appalachian coal, the benchmark U.S. grade, jumped 14 percent since Nov. 1 to $62.63 a ton yesterday on the Nymex after reaching a two-year high of $63.75 on Feb. 26.
Appalachian coal stands to benefit the most from higher natural gas prices, because it’s in the region where the two fuels compete the most, Michael Hsueh, an analyst at Deutsche Bank AG in London, wrote in a Feb. 28 report.
Power producers will choose to rely on coal-fired units before turning to gas over the next 12 months “unless they run into problems replenishing their already-depleted coal stockpiles,” Angie Storozynski, a New York-based utility analyst with Macquarie Capital USA Inc., wrote in a Feb. 25 report…
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-05/frigid-u-s-weather-means-highest-power-prices-since-08-energy.html