UAH Global temperature update, not much change

Curious whether there is US only data?

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

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.

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.

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?

Don’t forget the warning labels for dihydrogen monoxide, too.

Coke and Pepsi should be regulated under the Clean Air Act just like coal fired power plants.

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

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).

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.

You can have my Coke when you pry it from my cold dead hands…

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.

“””””…..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.

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…

Mosher,
Who cares what the temperature is, if it has no consequences? The consequences we are worried about are:
Climate Wars
Climate Refugees
Droughts
Plague
Pestilence
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).

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.

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.

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.
Thanks
Dan