UAH Global temperature update, not much change

UAH Global Temperature Update for June, 2014: +0.30 deg. C

By Dr. Roy Spencer

The Version 5.6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for June, 2014 is +0.30 deg. C, down slightly from May (click for full size version):


The global, hemispheric, and tropical LT anomalies from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 18 months are:


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 +0.092

2014 5 +0.327 +0.325 +0.328 +0.175

2014 6 +0.303 +0.315 +0.290 +0.509

The global image for June 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)


42 thoughts on “UAH Global temperature update, not much change

  1. Looking at the data, it seems like there was only a slight cooling in the northern and southern hemispheres, yet the tropics showed an impressive gain of nearly 0.35 degrees.
    In theory, that should’ve been enough to spike the temperatures and show an apparent resumption in warming overall, but the global temperatures are down slightly.
    So what exactly could’ve happened to offset enough of the tropical warming so as to actually show a tick down?

  2. UAH Global temaperture update
    Need to fix the spelling before Realclimate makes it a headline.

  3. I should let you know that my global data set shows cooling at a rate of -0.014K/yr since 2000.
    UAH results are also out compared to 4 other data sets:
    So, out of a total of 6 data sets, UAH is the only one showing a warming trend. The other 5 all show that it is cooling.
    Sorry, Roy. There must be something wrong with your sensors, too…..

  4. Doug says:
    “UAH Global temaperture update
    Need to fix the spelling before Realclimate makes it a headline.”
    Yes, let’s put an f-stop to that.

  5. People are ingesting a dangerous official pollutant in carbonated soda drinks. There should be a warning label on all carbonated soda drinks indicating the content of CO2 and dangers of it.

  6. The data shown show a warming of the stratosphere which I thought was a no-no for AGW theory. But someone else says there are other datasets showing cooling. Where is found the definitive information?

  7. I’m just a layman so maybe I am missing the obvious but why does the graph use a 13 month average (as opposed to a 12 month for example)?

  8. The drop was not much. However with every month that is below the 1998 average of 0.419, it is that much harder to break a record. In the case of UAH version 5.6, the average after six months is 0.242. So to break a record in 2014, the average for each of the next six months needs to be 0.596. In other words, every monthly record from July to December needs to be smashed to set a record. The same applies to RSS.
    However GISS is different. After five months, its average is an extremely small and statistically insignificant 0.001 C above its all time high average so it is in first place after five months.

  9. Sorry, getting late misunderstood heading for stratospheric temperature Must go to specsavers.

  10. Temaperture – that’s a pretty good one. That ‘a’ had to wander backwards three letters…

  11. Bob; not exactly a sign of imminent cooling, but on the flip side this likely means another big burp of plant fertilizing Co2.
    Is it more than coincidental then that we’re seeing another big Co2 burp and our cottonwoods and mulberries producing out of season, I’m by no means saying they started unusually early (the start being at the normal seasonal times), but more in the way in that they’re refusing to stop.
    We’ve had cotton flying for at least 5 weeks now and the mulberries dropping for about the same period, this being the first time in my memory I can recall their production extending into July. I also don’t know if it’s due to the lack of a major heatwave, but our clematis plant has also decided it’s not going dormant this year and is instead continuing to produce a small trickle of flowers.
    Over the last years, I can’t help but wonder if the Co2 levels are high enough now to produce an upwards step in productivity for the majority of plant life in most areas, it sure seems that way when we see an increasing trend of sections of trees becoming a brighter shade of green with larger leaves than the usual dark green (though we’ve also seen a negative impact from the recent drought in the form of tree death for some folks).

  12. billg says:
    July 1, 2014 at 12:47 pm
    “The data shown show a warming of the stratosphere which I thought was a no-no for AGW theory. But someone else says there are other datasets showing cooling. Where is found the definitive information?”
    That sounds like you don’t know
    Apologies if you do.

  13. Coke and Pepsi should be regulated under the Clean Air Act just like coal fired power plants.
    H2o should be regulated also since that is even a greater pollutant than co2. Let’s reduce the h2o by 30% in the atmosphere, that should save us all…god bless our government for all they do for us……

  14. And the estimated average temperature is? In degrees C.
    These anomalies are value free without the important value.
    +0.3C from what?
    With what error range on these “estimates”.
    Yes consider me both surly and aggravating, but this value free comparison of a deviation from a moving average composed from data with an almost incurable number of problems, being used as a tool to facilitate the looting of me and mine, stinks.
    Anomalies of 0.01 detail from data with error bars of??

  15. I tend towards the view that no data should be published without the error bandwidth ascribed to it, and an explanation as to why and how the error bandwidth is assessed.

  16. Why is “climate” considered to be a “global” phenomenon.
    I know for sure that the “climate” where I now live, is nothing like the “climate” where I grew up.
    Yet when I go back there for a visit, the climate hasn’t changed one iota.
    Has anyone thought of starting a solar system “super climate”, where we average the temperatures of all the planets (8,9, or 10, depending on your definitions) ??

  17. “””””…..richard verney says:
    July 1, 2014 at 4:30 pm
    I tend towards the view that no data should be published without the error bandwidth ascribed to it, and an explanation as to why and how the error bandwidth is assessed……”””””
    Well maybe so; but remember, that statistics is carried out on a tabulated set of already known numbers.
    So the statistics outputs, are exact, so no error bars needed; or even definable.

  18. Just an observation… European Space Agency has recently stated the surface temperature data is both “the worst indicator of global climate that can be used” and “the most accurate means of discerning the extent of global warming”. So is it the best or the worst? Looks like a difficult case of pausal communication problem syndrome.
    1. It is the worst indicator because it measures a tiny portion of the whole climate is the most accurate meaning it longer series and has the highest precision
    Let’s say I want to know your total net worth.
    Your house might be 95 % of that and your cash in
    The bank 5%
    On any given day I can count your cash precisely
    But your house value I have to Estimate.
    The cash is the worst metric but the most accurate.

  19. So the most accurate way to discern the extent of my wealth is to look at the lousiest possible indicator of it. To some extent my confusion is probably a matter of language barrier, but this starts to sound like the warming that makes things colder.
    An accurate peer-reviewed definition from professor Mann says “global warming” means the “increasing average surface temperatures”. Saying that global warming shouldn’t be determined from the surface temperature data, a notion the original Guardian article assigns to prof. Briggs, is therefore something like saying my bank account balance is the lousiest indicator of my bank account balance. I’m not an economist though…

  20. Steven Mosher says:
    July 1, 2014 at 4:46 pm
    Precipitation can also be measured with some precision, as can atmospheric pressure, winds & perhaps to a lesser extent ocean currents.
    IYO, what is the best indicator of global climate? Sea level? Salinity? Ice mass & extent?
    Unfortunately your Team has apparently decided that the best indicator is the one which can’t be measured at all, ie deep sea “heat”. How convenient.
    BTW, as I can’t comment on the Maunder & Dalton post, I’d like to point out here that, contrary to your counter-historical assertion, Newton did indeed start with the null hypothesis, which concept states that all relevant observed phenomena can be explained by laws already considered valid.
    Newton’s Principia did indeed stem from a question as to what would now be regarded as the null hypothesis. In 1684, Halley asked Newton’s opinion on the problem of planetary motions, which issue he had discussed previously that year with Hooke & Wren, without getting satisfactory answers. Newton’s Laws had been glimpsed by some, but he formulated in classic form laws of motion precisely because the null hypothesis didn’t explain observations such as Kepler’s discovery of elliptical planetary orbits.

  21. Mosher,
    Who cares what the temperature is, if it has no consequences? The consequences we are worried about are:
    Climate Wars
    Climate Refugees
    The Seas Rising
    The Polar Bears Disappearing
    The Himalayans melting
    People dying of extreme heat
    And recently, since no one conceived this was a consequence of global warming, people dying of extreme cold.
    To the extent that surface temperatures cause or amplify these effects, surface temperatures are a great proxy. If there is some other proxy that more clearly shows these things, great, provided it does one more magical thing:
    It clearly presents choices people can act upon and change. Not like this CO2 concentration stuff, that at present no one seems able to alter in any appreciable way (except short of global thermonuclear war).

  22. JimG132 says:
    July 1, 2014 at 12:48 pm
    I’m just a layman so maybe I am missing the obvious but why does the graph use a 13 month average (as opposed to a 12 month for example)?
    Whenever you are trying to make a centred moving average, you should have an odd number of months in the record. That way, there is the same number of months before and after the month you are trying to centre it on. Then when you drawing a trendline of the moving average, the moving average trendline is not offset. The peak of the moving average in the 1997-98 El Nino, for example, stays in February 1998 when temps actually peaked and doesn’t move to January or March like would occur with an even month moving average..
    One can use 13 months, 11 months, 5 months, 3 months even. Keep the number as low as possible so as to remove enough of the variability so that a true picture is visible/can be calculated but not any more. The climate operates on much shorter timescales than many moving averages allow for. Anything over 13 months is probably too long.
    Now the assumption here is that you are working with anomalies from the seasonal average in the first place. If you are not using anomalies from the seasonal average but just base numbers, you have to use a 12 month moving average so that it does not still have a seasonal cycle in it. Keep in mind, your moving average trendline will now be offset by half a month or so.

  23. Many have observed that global temperature is irrelevant, because local climates vary greatly and far outstrip the meagre trends we have seen over the 20th century. For the most part, they are right.
    The basic theory behind AGW is that CO2 is a gas that quickly spreads out uniformly throughout the atmosphere and applies a slight, uniform warming trend that is applied gradually over decades and centuries, but adds itself on top of huge natural local variations. There can be local amplifiers (that go into sensitivity), but the warming should be global, in theory. So it appears that the only reason we measure global temperature is to verify the warming effect of CO2.
    So far, looks pretty weak.

  24. The most compelling 0bjection to surface temperature observations is that they do not necessaily reflect changes in heat. Temperature alone is not a measurement of heat. For instance the same change in temperature can result from different heat contents caused by changes in humidity or density for instance. That is why OHC is a more logical parameter in the oceans but difficult to replicate in the atmosphere.

  25. Bill Illis,
    Thanks for that explanation.
    Dr. Spencer,
    So the current 2014 global temperature is the same as the 2002 temperature? This recalls Prof Richard Lindzen’s observation:

    For small changes in climate associated with tenths of a degree, there is no need for any external cause. The earth is never exactly in equilibrium. The motions of the massive oceans where heat is moved between deep layers and the surface provides variability on time scales from years to centuries. Recent work suggests that this variability is enough to account for all climate change since the 19th Century.

    Looks like natural variability. All of it.

  26. Steven Mosher says:
    July 1, 2014 at 4:46 pm

    The cash is the worst metric but the most accurate.

    It would be a useful proxy if it could be demonstrated that cash in the bank had a reliable relationship to net worth. In fact, I’ve known ranchers whose net worth was not in the house (dirt floor, interior walls “finished” with cow hides to keep out the drafts) or the amount in the bank, and could not be estimated by looking at how they dressed – second hand and hand-me-downs. The county, however, thought they were worth millions based on the size of the ranch and taxed them as such.

  27. milodon;
    Since heated water expands, one would think serious deep sea heating would be easily detected and measured. Oops.

  28. Maybe slightly off topic; but I’m wondering whether anyone else thinks that using current land-based temperature sensors and protocols is not appropriate or optimal for gaging climate changes.
    Land based “weather stations”, arguably starting with the station atop the Blue Hills in Milton MA, were designed to characterize weather for the citizenry. As Mr. Watts has demonstrated, the collection of weather stations in USHCN and other networks have demonstrated uneven and often poor quality in even characterizing weather.
    So back to my question at the top of this post. If you were given a clean start with the objective to measure land climatic temperature change, how would you design your “climate station” physically, locationally, sensor-wise, data handling/management/QC, and subsequent data treatment via post-processing corrections (or not).
    I have my thoughts on this, but since I’m a newbie, I prefer to offer this as an open question. I can tell you that my “alternative universe” view is that it does not at all represent the view of Hansen, Menne, Mann, etc. etc. or anything present in the land temperature measurement infrastructure.

  29. Moderator –
    Is it bad form or unacceptable to repost a comment from a dead thread to one that’s more active?
    Sorry I don’t know the ediquette.
    [if it is your comment, do whatever you like – others, not so much -mod]

Comments are closed.