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 —
Meanwhile, In Australia, BOM releases this piece of propaganda.
They are going to look awfully stupid if the temperatures do start to drop. 🙂
http://www.bom.gov.au/state-of-the-climate/documents/state-of-the-climate-2014_low-res.pdf?ref=button
Would make more sense to say down x stddevs.
Things are a bit cooler here in Brisbane. Temperatures are barely nudging 30. Autumn has started, but nice and sunny here today. My cat is playing happily in the garden. The girls are still wearing skimpy tops and minuscule shorts that almost cover their bottoms. Tell me again, why is Global Warming a Bad Thing?
Talking about temperature in percent is non-physical unless you are using Kelvins !
One things for sure. It’s been a very long time now since there was ANY warming. This cannot be explained by Greenhouse Theory.
If it takes -4 to [tip] us into an Ice Age – 2019 looks favourite.
Awww Shucks.
Just Asking.
stevek says:
March 5, 2014 at 3:57 pm
Would make more sense to say down x stddevs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes
However WUWT is also for those without training above a high school education and at least in the USA most people haven’t the foggiest what a standard deviation is or have even heard of the term.
It always is smart to remember we have an unseen unheard ‘Peanut Gallery’ who are the people we really want to get information out to.
The best way to quantify changes is in Kelvin and as a % change in absolute temperature, I think. But then those numbers would not be scary and they alone do not quantify energy content which is of the utmost interest here.
The metric most valuable in knowing if the earth is warming or cooling is a precise (as precise as possible) measurement of frozen water.
A global temperature is indeed very difficult to calculate. Relative changes in global temperature can best be approximated based on satellite data.
But again, temperature is not the same as energy. Moist air at temperature x holds more energy than dry air at that same temperature. The energy content differences is very significant. So temperature is not the end all metric. If our climate is less moist, for example, the temperatures might show an increase, but that does not mean there is more energy in the area being measured. Said another way, a higher temperature might also be associated with less energy than another measurement of lower temperature!
So this “Global Temperature” metric is not as meaningful as some seem to think.
Still, I like seeing the temperatures not cooperate with the AGW prognosticators!
Mario Lento says:
March 5, 2014 at 12:37 pm
“Wow the tropics are a cooling! Anything to do with a slight La Nina – to La Nada condition?”
Two things: On average, the tropics tend not to change that much (I experienced the same temperatures in Lagos, Nigeria in 1964 as I did in 1998 and I note it is still about 28-29C.). I believe this due to Willis’s Thermostat phenomenon which puts a ceiling on maximum temperature. Second, a cooling tropics is much more worrisome if it persists for one reason or another. Even the “Thermostat” doesn’t have the tools necessary to limit movement in this direction (it can retard it by going clear sky, but after that there is little that can be done). Since the cooler tropics remain warmer than the poles, heat will continue to flow away from the tropics. If this, the earth’s central heating system, cools for an extended period, we will see its warming effect on the poles diminish until polar amplification finally then goes the other way, and remember we are only talking a couple of degrees here. The planet has seen this before! It ain’t unprecedented.
Gary Pearse says:
March 5, 2014 at 4:37 pm
+++++++++++
Agreed – Thank you Gary.
The anomaly map sure looks like recharge discharge in the Arctic. An entirely natural consequence of La Nina recharged heat making its way up North to be sent into oblivion back out to space.
Box of Rocks says:
March 5, 2014 at 1:00 pm
Well duh. Of course the temp is going to drop.
Take away a huge high pressure area that over Alaska and part of Russia that Sarah Palin can see from her front porch…
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Well, for people who get their news from comedians this probably comes as a surprise, but Sarah never said that. The line actually comes from a Saturday Night Live skit (reference http://www.snopes.com/politics/palin/russia.asp).
Like Mitt Romney said, you’re entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
This winter in the NH has been a real eye opener for me.
As l now think am beginning to understand the weather patterns that would cause the NH to slip in and out of ice ages.
[snip wildly off topic – Anthony]
heysuess says:
March 5, 2014 at 2:57 pm
Do we know-not-muchers take it to be .17C above 14.5C?
The real average temperature in February is about 12.0 C and about 15.8 C in July. See:
http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2013/03/misunderstanding-of-the-global-temperature-anomaly/
So for February, an anomaly of 0.17 C means about 12.17 C. (So for July, an anomaly of 0.17 means about 15.97 C.)
[snip – rephrase that buddy, that was uncalled for -Anthony]
“Any news that counters the claims of the warmists tends to help keep them in check. “
Mario Lento, today at 12:42pm.
Bull’s eye!
THAT gets to the heart of the matter. THAT is why this thread is worthwhile.
Keepin’ those dirty AGW rats in the dark corners! Yeah!
Compare:
i.e. 0.98 deg/70 years – by UAH Global Temperature Feb. 2014
With
The Lewis and Crok exposition – Climate less sensitive to Carbon Dioxide than most models suggest
Remarkable!
Nick Stokes says:
March 5, 2014 at 12:49 pm
What would the headline be if the anomaly went negative?
———————————————————————————
An appropriate headline would be “Catastrophic Global Warming is Officially Dead”.
But we may have to wait a few more years. In the meantime your criticism of percent makes sense.
The Central England Temperature for Feb was +1.8C above long term mean yet the UAH lower trop anomaly has almost all of England in the -0.5 to -1.5 C band. Same basis period.
Obviously these data runs are derived from different ways of measuring and are not sampling the exact same layers in the atmosphere, but clearly for this month of Feb the UAH is not accurate as a proxy for surface temperature as far as England is concerned and whilst not having looked at the data in detail, I doubt for western Europe as a whole which has had a generally very mild winter.
UAH continues to show the 3 to 4 year cycle on the 13 month running mean.
wbrozek, Thank you.
0.172C
Is there is a single thing on the planet that would notice this amount of warming?
People are freaking out about 0.172C?
Nick Stokes says:
March 5, 2014 at 1:28 pm
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?
**************************************************
I get -106% then +1800%. This is related to why my investments are going down in value.
Chip Javert says:
March 5, 2014 at 4:50 pm
Box of Rocks says:
March 5, 2014 at 1:00 pm
Well duh. Of course the temp is going to drop.
Take away a huge high pressure area that over Alaska and part of Russia that Sarah Palin can see from her front porch…
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Well, for people who get their news from comedians this probably comes as a surprise, but Sarah never said that. The line actually comes from a Saturday Night Live skit (reference http://www.snopes.com/politics/palin/russia.asp).
Like Mitt Romney said, you’re entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
Palin actually said: “They’re our next door neighbors. And you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska.”