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 —
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Now, we all know that nothing will silence the niggling, nattering nincompoopy of ‘nuanced Nick’, but the headline will be wonderful when the last wimpering gasp of AGW meme is retired to the ash heaps of history.
This is the first time in many weeks I have seen Nick Stokes make a sensible point. I hate to pile on, but the headline does not do justice to the issue at hand. What would we say if, hypothetically, January’s anomaly was zero and February’s +0.1? An infinite increase in the anomaly? Please change the headline: UAH Global Temperature Anomaly Down 0.12C in February.
dbstealey,
The headline is something that Skeptical Science would do. Why can’t we be better?
Uh. Rockford was about 30F below seasonal normals for a few days. I can’t wait for Spring Even a cool spring.
Better to ask why GISS can’t move their baseline to match everyone else.
###########
the GISS baseline is selected for a couple reasons.
1. there method depends on long series. they stitch together series.. its called the reference station method. The goal is to get stations that span the 1951-1980 period
2. the 1951-1980 time period has the largest number of stations for any 30 year time period.
3. the 1951-1980 time period is not very volital. this effects the error in the normals.
So, they dont move the baseline because
A. it might effect the station count
B. it might effect the noise
C. it would make comparisons with their past product difficult
But most importantly they dont change it because You can do that for yourself by re baselining
Its just math
M Courtney says:
March 5, 2014 at 1:57 pm
——
Nick Stokes says at March 5, 2014 at 12:49 pm
What would the headline be if the anomaly went negative?
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.
===================
M Courtney,
You make a valid point, but I already knew that. Just playing by the most current rules considering the goal posts are forever changing as are the rules. Find myself caught up in a fool’s game on the green field.
Stokes did add value to this thread from one point of view.
Davis Ball,
This one looks even more like a sinusoidal segment to my eye:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/tlt_update_feb2014-1.png
M Courtney writes:
He hasn’t pointed out anything. He just made a witty rhetorical question.
Look at your own post. If it weren’t for your explanation, what would be left to Stokes’ post!?
Anyway, you are wrong. Let me give an example:
2014 1 +0.291
2014 2 -0.005
(0.291 – (-0.005))/0.291 ~ 1.17
It could be said the the anomaly went down by roughly 117%. Is it misleading, yes. Impossible to calculate, no.
The value Stokes added to this thread is hard to measure.
Gary Hladik says:
March 5, 2014 at 1:59 pm
(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
Gary,
Perfect. 17 years and 6 months of ‘megatons of global industrial CO2 pollution’ added to the atmosphere that should have ‘cook’d it with hiroshima bombs worth of added heat’ and……..
nothing.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/04/no-global-warming-for-17-years-6-months/
A wiggle up here. A wiggle down there. Net effect: Zero.
That is the point!
Hmmm: 17 years, 6 months: Net Effect equals Zero.
What percentage would that be? Nick? Nick? Buehler???
eyesonu says:
March 5, 2014 at 2:16 pm
My comment would be valid only with consideration to M Courtney’s comment compiled with Stokes. Stokes alone would be BS.
We are nearing the time in which a test will be put on the claims of solar magnetic having a significant influence on climate, particularly temperature. The Russian physicist Abdussamatov and the late Theodore Landscheidt ( American ) believe(d) and Landscheidt made the prediction in the year 2000 just before his untimely death that the sun was going to enter its current phase of magnetic decline and cause marked global cooling. Abdussamatov has claimed that the oceans have thermal inertia contained within from higher solar magnetic cycles that heated the tropical oceans that last 14 years past the last high peak ( cycle 23 ). So within the next year or so if the suns magnetic field continues in decline towards a Dalton or Maunder minimum, we, according to these scientists should begin to see an unmistakable decline in global temperatures lasting through whatever period the sun remains in a minimized state.
There seems to be some credibility emerging concerning this as the last prediction of an ENSO event by NOAA’s models failed and there is another prediction of ENSO this year. Will that be like what we saw in the warm phase of the PDO or will it mimick a Modokai ENSO event where the Kelvin wave fizzles half way across the Pacific or will it simply not materialize again, for a second time, after being called for by NOAA? Landscheidt also believed that ENSO was caused by the solar magnetic active cycles vs. weak and so much less ENSO events would be expected in the future according to him….and the ENSO events are an important physical process in causing the global temperatures to elevate and remain warm with repeated episodes such as we witnessed during the last warm phase of the PDO that ran from 1977-2007.
For those folks flummoxed by the “down 40%” in the headline, it was just an effect of having too many things to do and dashing off a headline. I simply changed it to the anomaly value drop figure from last month to this month.
Apologies to anyone who got their underwear folded, spindled, or mutilated over it.
Despairing Warmunistas Commit Mass Suicide ?
Nick Stokes says: (March 5, 2014 at 12:49 pm)
“What would the headline be if the anomaly went negative?”
Let’s assume the anomaly for February, 2014 is -0.05 deg. C, so it would be down 0.34 deg C from January (which was 0.29 deg C).
The headline would then be: UAH Global Temperature Anomaly Down 117% in February
Or am I missing something?
Oops, got here late.
As always, here’s a link to the preliminary sea surface temperature data update for February 2014:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2014/03/03/preliminary-february-2014-sea-surface-temperature-sst-update/
BTW, what ever happened to the always entertaining 3rd order polynomial fit to the data?
Anthony, you just eliminated the validity of ‘40%’ of the posts here, whose authors got their ‘knickers in a twist’ over your hurried headline. And now, what I would like to know is, what is the anomaly-free temperature of the planet? Do we know-not-muchers take it to be .17C above 14.5C?
Steven Mosher says: “2. the 1951-1980 time period has the largest number of stations for any 30 year time period.”
I believe you’ll find that CRUTEM uses 1961-1990 as base years for that reason. I suspect you’ll find that GISS standardized on 1951-1980 because they used those years in their first paper on the topic, which was the Hansen and Lebedeff (1987), and they’ve never bothered to change them.
Regards
The title was inconvenient. But it is not a big issue, I judge.
We can be grateful to those who are willing to point out the errors that creep in when we dash something off. It let’s us dash things off and focus on the big issues with confidence. Someone else will catch the errors.
This is why group-think is bad. Thank goodness WUWT is not Real Climate.
I try to defend debate rather than any particular individual. And the significance of month on month updates is more worthy of debate, in my opinion.
Appreciate the title change. Thank you.
Bravo Mr. Watts
tty says:
March 5, 2014 at 1:19 pm
Hal says:
[…]
How come all “arctic specialists” these days are so abysmally ignorant about previous research? Do they think the Arctic was invented by the IPCC?
——————————————————————————————————————-
Quite simply, they reject as anecdotal any record that can’t be tortured into a measured value, regardless of how compelling it might be.
So, for example, you might find fully documented and autheticated records of the Inuit growing avocados in Alaska between (say) 1100 and 1500, alongside archeological remains of the orchards, but that would not be valid evidence of past warmth.
That propensity to reject anything from outside your own “specialism” used to be regarded as a sure sign of a poorly educated man. Now it’s considered normal.
The difference between the map and Houston’s thermometer readings is curious. I’d be interested to hear a learned explanation. There probably is one, and we shouldn’t leap to the cynical conclusions that tend to spring to mind. (Or my mind, at least.)
I tend to focus more on where the anomalies are positioned, rather than on an average for the entire planet. Having all the warm air rush north through Europe into the arctic, when there was no sunshine in the arctic, would seem to lose a lot of heat to the arctic night. (Having the cold air remain up in the arctic would have meant there was less heat to lose up there.) Having the cold sweep south and freeze the Great Lakes and increase snow-cover over areas where there is sunshine would seem to increase the sunlight reflected away, and have a cooling effect. And so on and so forth.
You miss a lot if you focus on the world-wide average temperature without studying the details and dynamics.
The UAH and RSS datasets are both derived from satellite measurements, but show significant differences in terms of the medium term trends. No sooner have we just about exhausted the discussion on the RSS having a zero trend back to September 1996, then out comes UAH, which shows a zero trend only as far back as August 2008.
The UAH trend from September 1996 to date is 0.1 deg C / decade.
Anyone have any bright ideas to explain the difference, and which one is more accurate (if either)?
The telling figure from the chart above is the tropical anomaly – it’s now Negative!
Thanks Watts. The title change is appreciated.
M Courtney writes:
You are right, but I still stand by my previous post. Stokes has hardly said anything substantial.
That’s a wonderful thing to know! But then why did you tried to defend Stokes? No one has censored him or even insinuated to censor him. Most people aren’t even systematically ignoring his comments! They actually gave replies, didn’t they?
[My discussion of the Stoke’ post affair is over. I will now talk about the UAH global anomaly]
Well, anyway. I tried to calculate the proportion of feb’s that were colder than preceding jan’s in uah. Turned out that 55% of feb’s are warmer. But as there is lots of noise, I can’t rule out 50-50.
It is not really something anyone can predict.