UAH Global Temperature Update for May, 2014: up slightly

Will the forecasted El Niño later this year produce a new record? Spencer comments.

June 10th, 2014 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

The Version 5.6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for May, 2014 is +0.33 deg. C, up from April (click for full size version):

UAH_LT_1979_thru_May_2014_v5

The global, hemispheric, and tropical LT anomalies from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 17 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 -0.029

2014 2 +0.170 +0.320 +0.020 -0.103

2014 3 +0.170 +0.338 +0.002 -0.001

2014 4 +0.190 +0.358 +0.022 +0.093

2014 5 +0.329 +0.326 +0.333 +0.173

This is the 3rd warmest May in the satellite record:

1998 +0.56 (warm ENSO)

2010 +0.45 (warm ENSO)

2014 +0.33 (neutral)

John Christy thinks the coming El Nino will give us a new temperature record, since it is superimposed on a warmer baseline than the super El Nino of 1997-98. I’m not convinced, since we are in the cool phase of the PDO, which favors weak El Ninos (like 2009-10).

As we finish up our new Version 6 of the UAH dataset, it looks like our anomalies in the 2nd half of the satellite record will be slightly cooler, somewhat more like the RSS dataset….but we are talking small adjustments here…hundredths of a deg. C.

The global image for May 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)

 

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

“.but we are talking small adjustments here…”
Wait, the historical record is being changed..

Latitude

…hundredths of a deg. C.

Dan

Still no sign of the next ice age then?=

Political Junkie

Dan,
Nor of the oceans boiling! Boring, eh?

James Abbott

So looking at the UAH temperature plot we see that currently we are about 0.4C warmer than in late 1996 on an annual basis or 0.3C warmer on the 13 month running mean.
We also see that since 2002 temperature has been fairly flat, but consistently warmer than pre-2000, apart from the 1998 El Nino spike.
Why does this matter ? Because Lord Monckton states as if fact that there has been no warming since August 1996. On the UAH record at least he is plainly wrong. If he said since 2002 he might have an argument.

Andy

Dr. Spencer, why does UAH and RSS seem more affected by changes in ENSO? It appears that the surface data sets show much less of variance in those events. Thank you for your explanation in advance.

James Abbott says:
…Lord Monckton states as if fact that there has been no warming since August 1996.
Lord Monckton is exactly right.

Dr Deanster

I was looking at the SOI a day or two ago, and it has slid back positive.
I don’t think the ENSOR temp stays up long enough to become a documented El Niño.
Temp this year holds steady and begins to fall next year with a new La Niña.

Sidney Somes

In reply to James Abbot, if you go to the link above the chart on Monckton’s article, the temperature record there substantiates his statement, but I found that the RSS interpretation of the data differs from UAH data. There are large discrepancies in the resulting record. Here is a link to the RSS record.
http://www.remss.com/data/msu/monthly_time_series/rss_monthly_msu_amsu_channel_tlt_anomalies_land_and_ocean_v03_3.txt
Wikipedia explains the difference, but with an obvious warmist disparagement.

Sidney Somes,
Satellite data is the very best because it is the most accurate. In effect, it takes a snapshot of the globe, whereas other methods use a thermometer network that leaves out large parts of the globe.
RSS is satellite data. This is from 1996:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1996.

Hulimus

[snip – fake email address -mod]

I think it is of academic interest whether the hiatus is 20 or 15 years. I will wait for the next El Nino. And the supposed hidden warmth in the ocean. It should immerse…or else…

For those who missed the links I included on a couple of threads yesterday, I posted the full sea surface temperature update:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2014/06/09/may-2014-sea-surface-temperature-sst-anomaly-update/
Regards

Andy, the main reason why ENSO is stronger in satellite data than in surface data is the due to the heat lost by the surface through evaporation (which cools the surface) is dumped in the middle and upper troposphere by the resulting condensation of that water vapor into precipitation.
It’s the “hot spot”, which exists for interannual climate variability, but apparently not in decadal trends.

AJB

James Abbott says: June 10, 2014 at 10:03 am
I’m pretty sure he says “there has been no statistically significant warming since whenever“, established by working backwards until warming does become statistically significant using least squares linear regression. And he is always careful to quote the R² value of the resulting linear trend line as being close to zero (i.e. meaningless).
He is deftly taking the Michael out of clowns with rulers who think linear regression can be usefully applied to complex coupled non-linear chaotic systems or, worse, that doing so implies predictive skill. More power to his exquisitely leather-clad elbow, one day reality may even sink in!
Can you feel a few tenths of a degree warming per decade and what is the usual variation where you live? Here’s a clue:
http://s28.postimg.org/mdztgmwaj/UAH.png
[297KB click on image in browser to enlarge, standard deviations on the right]

Andy says: “Dr. Spencer, why does UAH and RSS seem more affected by changes in ENSO? It appears that the surface data sets show much less of variance in those events. Thank you for your explanation in advance.”
Just in case Roy doesn’t reply, I believe the answer is: In the tropics, the lower troposphere is responding to the El Nino in two ways. First, the atmosphere is warming in response to the warmer surface temperatures. Second, the atmosphere is also responding to the additional evaporation taking place from the ocean surface, and warming when the additional moisture condenses back to a liquid. The same holds true for a La Nina, but cools with a cooler surface and with less evaporation and condensation.

There you have it, Andy. Not only did Roy reply, but he beat me to the answer.

Roy Spencer writes: “As we finish up our new Version 6 of the UAH dataset, it looks like our anomalies in the 2nd half of the satellite record will be slightly cooler…”
Any idea when you’ll be releasing Version 6?

James Abbott says: “Why does this matter ? Because Lord Monckton states as if fact that there has been no warming since August 1996. On the UAH record at least he is plainly wrong.”
But Christopher Monckton does not use UAH TLT data. He uses RSS TLT data. Both are valid. If memory serves, RSS and UAH simply use different satellites in recent years.

Bob, we keep thinking it’s going to be “next month” but we keep finding little issues here and there. All of our processing steps have been changed, and all of the software rewritten, so it’s been a major effort. We are SO close now.

Dan says on June 10, 2014 at 8:52 am:
“Still no sign of the next ice age then”
==+======
Oh yes there is (or are – as there are many) but not if you just look at the satellite records which only go back to the latter part of the 20th century.
But in any case, you and I may never have to worry about the coming of the next “Glaciation” (We have been in “an ‘Ice Age’ for a couple of million years – or a bit more – so far) so we can continue to look at (amuse ourselves with) “warm spikes” and “cold thoughts” for a few more years yet.

Adam from Kansas

Has anyone else noticed that the average arctic temperature seems to now be stuck well below freezing when it’s supposed to be on the positive side by now?
I don’t recall the anomaly at the usual crossing date being near as negative last year, a sign of things to come?

rod leman

AGT is only an indicator of global warming it is not necessarily linked. Many other observations must be considered to determine the warming or cooling of the planet. Satellites show the earth is retaining more heat – so, somewhere, it is warming. Probably deep ocean.

Mr Abbott say I state as fact that there has been no global warming since 1996. No, I state as fact that there has been no global warming on the RSS dataset since 1996. I publish regular posts looking at the mean of the RSS and UAH datasets, showing no warming for 13+ years on the combined datasets. Don’t pick nits.

Village Idiot

Mr Abbot, do as you’re told, and please don’t tease the irascible Mr M 😉

Eystein Simonsen (Norway) says on June 10, 2014 at 11:47 am:
“I think it is of academic interest whether —–_—–“
==========
Eystein, Øysrein or Øistein-? ? ?

Patrick B

Tell me again about the significant digits and the error calculations…

chuck

Patrick B says:
June 10, 2014 at 1:43 pm
“significant digits and the error calculations”
The standard error of the mean equals the standard deviation divided by the square root of the number of observations. Therefore, as the number of observations increases, the SE approaches zero.
http://ww2.tnstate.edu/ganter/BIO311-Ch6-Eq1.gif

glenncz

If the GISS and HadCRUT use surface temp.’s only, how do they measure the air temp above the oceans?

Rob

glenncz says:
June 10, 2014 at 2:37 pm
“If the GISS and HadCRUT use surface temp.’s only, how do they measure the air temp above the oceans?”
Extrapolation…….
Sorry, that’s facetious. They do measure sea surface temperatures and incorporate those, but the density of sites is highly variable so surface estimates are based on lot of smoothing and spreading out.
At the same time, I don’t think the satellites cover the entire planet either as the poles are not covered. I would estimate the amount, but there are people who know exactly so i will let them fill n the numbers.

glenncz says: “If the GISS and HadCRUT use surface temp.’s only, how do they measure the air temp above the oceans?”
They don’t. They use sea surface temperature data.
Regards

rod leman says: “AGT is only an indicator of global warming it is not necessarily linked. Many other observations must be considered to determine the warming or cooling of the planet. Satellites show the earth is retaining more heat – so, somewhere, it is warming. Probably deep ocean.”
Unfortunately, your claim is not supported by data. The ARGO-era temperature data to the depths of 2000 meters (6550 feet) show the only two ocean basins that are warming are the South Atlantic and the Indian Oceans. The North Atlantic and the largest ocean on this planet, the Pacific, show no warming in more than a decade:
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/nodc-argo-era-vertical-mean-temp-per-basin-to-2013.png
CO2 is said to be a well-mixed greenhouse gas. It’s tough to imagine that it can warm two ocean basins to depths of 2000 meters, but not the others.
The graph is from the post here:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2014/01/31/open-letter-to-kevin-trenberth-ncar/

James Abbott

Ah – so The Good Lord derives his conclusion from only certain data sets (not UAH). Problem is, its not just UAH that shows his pause is too long (by 6 years), NASA GISS says the same – this time on a 5 year running mean and clearly showing that the rise in temperature since the mid-1990s is outside the measurement uncertainty.
There is no doubt that there has been a pause, but there is also no justification in trying to make it appear longer to prove a pre-determined position.

Latitude

its not just UAH that shows his pause is too long (by 6 years), NASA GISS says the same
===
You don’t know what you just said…………of course they are the same

James Abbott says: “Ah – so The Good Lord derives his conclusion from only certain data sets (not UAH).”
Of course. That’s the whole point of the exercise. One valid global temperature dataset shows no warming for x-years and y-months. Simple.
James Abbott says: “Problem is…”
There’s no problem. The RSS dataset is a valid dataset. This is a simple exercise. I’m not sure why you’re trying to complicate it.
James Abbott says: “NASA GISS says the same – this time on a 5 year running mean…”
GISTEMP is a totally different metric. RSS TLT is lower troposphere temperature data, which rises well above the surface in the tropics, and GISTEMP is a combination of land surface air temperature measurements and sea surface temperatures. And why, in a discussion of a 17-year+ hiatus presented in monthly format, would you want to introduce the topic of a 5-year running mean filter? Your attempt at redirection doesn’t work.

James Abbott

Latitude
UAH – as per the posting we are talking about, is a satellite based temperature of the global lower atmosphere and the anomaly plot is relative to the baseline period of 1981-2000.
The NASA GISS record is the Global Land-Ocean surface temperature index on a baseline period of 1951-1980
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif
The temperature analysis produced at GISS is compiled from weather data from more than 1,000 meteorological stations around the world, (more recently) satellite observations of sea-surface temperature, and Antarctic research station measurements, taking into account station history and urban heat island effects
So they are not the same as you believe. They cover different periods (GISS goes back to 1880), are derived by different methods and are on different baselines.
But they do show similar recent trends which conflict with Lord Monckton’s claims.

James Abbott,
That GISS chart is deceptive. It fools the eye because it uses an arbitrary zero baseline. The honest baseline is a trend line.
NikFromNYC shows the difference:
http://img576.imageshack.us/img576/2681/temperaturewithrealbase.gif
If GISS used an honest trend line, there would be nothing scary about the chart you linked to. It would simply show the steady, natural recovery from the LIA.
As you can see, that chart also goes back to the 1880’s. Now if you are yourself honest, you will admit that NASA/GISS is being deceptive in their charts. NOAA does the same, as do USHCN and others.
When the truth is pointed out, we see that there is no reason for alarm, and we see that global warming is natural.

Steve in Seattle

the unusual cyclone activity in the E tropical Pacific, looks like another one is getting its act together now, is taking a toll on that pool of warm water off S Mexican coast – is this the “heat from ocean to air” that is the basis for whatever coming El Nino may develop ? Or, the taking the “head” off the strength of any coming El Nino ? There has been lots of tropical storm activity in this area also.

James Abbott says: “But they do show similar recent trends which conflict with Lord Monckton’s claims.”
I’m not sure why you’re belaboring this. Here’s Christopher Monckton’s latest post:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/04/the-pause-continues-still-no-global-warming-for-17-years-9-months/
Here’s the RSS TLT data:
ftp://ftp.remss.com/msu/monthly_time_series/rss_monthly_msu_amsu_channel_tlt_anomalies_land_and_ocean_v03_3.txt
Plot the RSS data for the last 17 years, 9 months and see if you come up with something other than a zero trend. That’s the only way that you could find any conflict with what Christopher has presented.
Christopher’s post was not about GISS LOTI data. It was not about UAH TLT data. It was not about the NCDC land+ocean temperature index. It was not about HADCRUT4 data. It was about RSS TLT. Simple.

dbstealey said, on June 10, 2014 at 10:33 am:
> James Abbott says:
>>…Lord Monckton states as if fact that there has been no
>> warming since August 1996.
> Lord Monckton is exactly right.
The link shows a set of graphs generated by using woodfortrees for how long each of several global temperature datasets have shown global temperature as not increasing. One of them says since 1996. Most of them say starting around the beginning of 2001, and UAH saying lack of warming started in 2004. However I see UAH showing near complete lack of warming starting around the beginning of 2002 or in the 2nd half of 2001.

jjs

I was in Mexico city from December through mid February – was about 80f in MEX. I flew back to Wisconsin ATW and it was -10f or so. Few years ago climbed Mount Kilo and Kenya – cold as hell on top and hotter than hell at the bottom…my point being I think to many people who are worried about warming are spending too much time in conditioned environments…they need to get out in the world and get out of mom’s and dad’s conditioned basements. The world is a hell of lot better off now than it was 30 years ago when I started global traveling as a BSME….. As mush as the kids with BSIBD degrees (bachelor of science in basement dwelling) want to control our lives to make us miserable it isn’t going to happen – there are billions of people out there who are pushing back and won’t go back to the cave lives they just left only a generation ago. God bless all those billions of courage’s people and all the hell they have been through. Myself, I’m for fighting with them and not fighting against them. CAGW folks not so much…

James Abbott

Bob Tisdale
The reason I raise it is that these 2 differently derived data sets produce the same trend – showing that there is no 17 year pause, but a 12 year pause. If you look at it on monthly data points, or annual, or the running means, you get the same answer.
dbstealey
I would suggest if you are claiming that “NASA/GISS is lying with charts. NOAA does the same, as do USHCN and others” you might have a problem with being selective.
Plus – neither NASA GISS nor UAH use an “an arbitrary zero baseline”. The zero line is the mean temperature in the base climate period of 30 years. The plots of each month or year show anomalies from that base period mean – its a standard way of looking at changes in climate.

Even though Monckton’s posts say only that according to RSS the world has not warmed for 17-plus years, I see articles in WUWT citing these posts to state as a fact that the world has not warmed for 17-plus years. I think the authors of those articles are overstating their cases for the duration of the pause.
One thing I see as favoring such overstatement is this title for a recent article by Monckton, cited above:
“The pause continues – Still no global warming for 17 years 9 months”
The title does not say that this is according to only one of the two major satellite datasets.

Donald L. Klipstein says: June 10, 2014 at 5:30 pm
“Even though Monckton’s posts say only that according to RSS the world has not warmed for 17-plus years, I see articles in WUWT citing these posts to state as a fact that the world has not warmed for 17-plus years.”
I meant to say, “with or without citing these posts, stating as fact that the world has not warmed for 18 years.”

Pamela Gray

re: Nit picking. Regardless of 12, 14, 16, 17, etc years in this pause, there is no mechanism to explain why increased CO2 has not been continually producing increasing temperatures. It is assumed the heat is hiding in the oceans yet there is no observation that shows any such transition from the ocean surface to the deeper layers. So that speculation can be rejected for lack of observed movement of this accumulated heat. It is often stated that the anthropogenic heat is buried in natural variation. However that makes no sense. Any AGW proponents want to explain that one?

Latitude

James Abbott says:
June 10, 2014 at 4:30 pm
===
..you want a bigger shovel

James Abbott says: “The reason I raise it is that these 2 differently derived data sets produce the same trend – showing that there is no 17 year pause, but a 12 year pause…”
Immaterial. Christopher Monckton’s posts relate to a specific dataset and they are not the ones you chose to examine. Additionally, as Roy Spencer noted above, UAH will soon be releasing Version 6 of their TLT data and it will bring the latter period warming more into line with the RSS data.

Pamela Gray

James, you should read the post on reproducibility. It may help you understand the mistake you are making bringing up a different data set to say that Lord M.’s statement is wrong. His statement is empirically true based on the data set he used. If you were to write your research up, using a different data set, and submit it to a journal as a refutation of Lord M.’s statement, it wouldn’t pass the laugh test. Hell, it might not even get past pal-review.

James Abbott says:
Plus – neither NASA GISS nor UAH use an “an arbitrary zero baseline”…
That is exactly what they do. As you wrote:
The NASA GISS record is the Global Land-Ocean surface temperature index on a baseline period of 1951-1980.
That is an arbitrary baseline, zeroed at a 1951 – 1908 average.
Look at the chart you linked to. Scary, isn’t it? But if you contrast it to the WFT chart I posted showing an even longer term trend, it doesn’t look scary at all. If you wanted to, you could understand what is being done. As Nik quotes Timothy Leary: he who controls your eyes, controls your mind.
You clearly have no understanding of what I was trying to show you. Your confirmation bias is in high gear, so you will only understand the things that fit into your belief system.
================================
Donald Klipstein,
Here is satellite data from 1997. No global warming for 17 years.

coolclimateinfo

Pamela Gray says:
June 10, 2014 at 5:58 pm
+++++++++++++++++++
Yep.
+++++++++++++++++++
Now, look very carefully at the UAH graph above, can you see the imprint of solar activity on the entire series? It’s there. Six months after my total evidence-based epiphany, still patiently waiting for you and everyone else to understand the truth: The Sun causes warming, cooling, and extreme weather events. It’s there. It’s true. Once you understand it, you’ll never go back or wonder why again. Of course it would be just too easy to simply tell you – [ not just you Pamela ] – I want you all to try to discover this yourselves.