From Dr. Roy Spencer:
The Version 5.6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for July, 2014 is +0.31 deg. C, unchanged from June (click for full size version):
The global, hemispheric, and tropical LT anomalies from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 19 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 +0.092
2014 5 +0.327 +0.325 +0.328 +0.175
2014 6 +0.305 +0.315 +0.295 +0.509
2014 7 +0.306 +0.293 +0.319 +0.453
The global image for July 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)
=======================================================
UAH press release:
Global Temperature Report: July 2014
Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.14 C per decade
July temperatures (preliminary)
Global composite temp.: +0.31 C (about 0.56 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for July.
![graph072014[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/graph0720141.png?resize=640%2C234&quality=75)
Northern Hemisphere: +0.29 C (about 0.52 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for July.
Southern Hemisphere: +0.32 C (about 0.58 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for July.
Tropics: +0.45 C (about 0.81 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for July.
![July2014map[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/july2014map1.png?quality=75)
June temperatures (revised):
Global Composite: +0.31 C above 30-year average
Northern Hemisphere: +0.32 C above 30-year average
Southern Hemisphere: +0.30 C above 30-year average
Tropics: +0.51 C above 30-year average
(All temperature anomalies are based on a 30-year average (1981-2010) for the month reported.)
Notes on data released August 5, 2014:
In the tropics, July 2014 was the second warmest July in the 36-year satellite record, only 0.03 C cooler than July 2009 and 0.06 C warmer than July 1998, 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. The average temperature in the tropics during July was 0.45 C (about 0.81° F) warmer than seasonal norms for the month.
The global average temperature for July was 0.31 C (about 0.56 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than seasonal norms, the fifth warmest July in the satellite record.
Compared to seasonal norms, the coldest place in Earth’s atmosphere in July was over western Russia near the town of Verkhoturye (one of the oldest Russian towns east of the Urals), where Antarctic winter temperatures were as much as 3.77 C (about 6.79 degrees Fahrenheit) colder than seasonal norms. Compared to seasonal norms, the warmest departure from average in July was in northern Norway near the town of Borkenes. Temperatures there were as much as 2.93 C (about 5.27 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 —
Repeated pattern of ozone at an altitude of about 30 km from 2013.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_o3mr_30_nh_f00.gif
Sorry, this is ozone at an altitude of about 23 km.
goldminor – yes I could do it, but am inviting Lord M to do so in the interests of balance as the much quoted RSS pause is clearly different to UAH but both are satellite sensing. And you are wrong about Lord M’s “handiwork” as I posted re his recent analysis of the 5 major datasets taken together, that he had it about right – a pause from 2002, not the mid-1990s.
Edim says: I agree, a strong/long La Nina, similar to the 1954-56 one is due. It’s been 60 years too, since that one.
I disagree. There is an 18-year periodic signal in global temperatures, and 1997+18=2015, so I think a real El Nino in 2015 is likely. After that you can have your mega La Nina…
Rich.
The value for “tropics” went from -0.1 in Feb to +0.5 in June. Interesting that the entire tropical lower troposphere of planet Earth can increase so quickly. Yet the NH shows little change. The SH jumped 0.3 degrees in May, but was nearly stable before and after that jump.
How does CO2 manage to do that??
“ripshin says:
August 6, 2014 at 11:02 am
Mosher, I’m not an expert, but my understanding of radiation physics is that there is not a linear relationship between qty CO2 and temperature response (as suggested by your post). That is, past a certain point, adding additional CO2 does not provide a measurable increase in temperature. ”
I suggest no such thing.
And yes there is a saturation point. we are far away from it.
“A C Osborn says:
August 6, 2014 at 10:53 am
Steven Mosher says: August 6, 2014 at 8:22 am
ie it does not relate to what Human beings experience where they are on the surface.”
Sure it does.
Define “permanent” and “temporary.”
H Grouse says:
August 6, 2014 at 8:19 am
Richard M says:
August 6, 2014 at 8:12 am
“given all the added sea ice reflecting solar energy. ”
Especially all the sea ice that is at a south of 67 degrees around the late June Solstice.
The data is for July. Try to keep up.
Steven Mosher says:
August 6, 2014 at 8:22 am
radiative physics tells us that doubling c02, all other things being equal, will warm the world by more than 1C.
Except, all things are never equal in a chaotic system with multiple drivers and feedbacks. Your statement is meaningless … and you know it.
See – owe to Rich says:
August 6, 2014 at 2:09 pm
There is an 18-year periodic signal in global temperatures, and 1997+18=2015, so I think a real El Nino in 2015 is likely. After that you can have your mega La Nina…
Rich.
What about the strong El Nino in 1982-83? In 2000-2001 we had a La Nina.
We had another El Nino in 1987-88. In 2005-2006 we had a La Nina.
Also, in 1979-80 we had Neutral conditions (1997-18=1979)
I don’t see it, sorry.
ES says:
August 6, 2014 at 12:51 am ”Climate change deniers risk being relegated to the ash heap of history. Yet despite the scientific consensus (and, yes, there is consensus), there are those that insist on denying that anthropogenic (i.e. human caused) climate change is real and has arrived.
We know that humans are changing a climate that has been stable for about 10,000 years, and that they are doing this through the unbridled use of fossil fuels (indeed half of all fossil fuels consumed since the start of the Industrial Revolution have been used in the last 30 years).
From: Glenn McGillivray is Managing Director of the Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction. I guess that makes him a climate expert.”
Your belief in a scientific consensus is not supported by over 31,000 scientists with a very different view point to you. If you don’t understand that the climate has changed several times in the last 10,000 years, then you are the one in denial of climate change. You are citing from someone who feels the need to attach the word ” Catastrophic” to their identity? This says it all. No, it certainly does NOT make him a climate expert. If he doesn’t establish catastrophe, then he doesn’t get paid.
Try learning from someone who studies our climate, like Dr. Spencer. I think you will find him to be a breath of fresh air, from the drivel you’ve been taken in by up to now.
Good Luck,
Eamon.
James Abbott:
I recognise that veracity, consistency and logic are not among your strengths, but even by your low standards your post at August 6, 2014 at 1:57 pm is poor.
You have yet to demonstrate an ability to “do” anything except make fatuous whinges, so I doubt your claimed ability to conduct a linear regression.
Your attempt to pretend your latest whinge is about “balance” fails because – as you say – “Lord M” did do a different analysis which included all 5 data sets and gave an indication you like.
Global warming has stopped despite continuing rises to emissions of CO2 from human activity and continuing increase to atmospheric CO2 concentration. Live with it.
Richard
Re:
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.
Question.
When did these type of measurement become mainstream?
What is the certainty of the global average value?
How does it compare with previous methods?
Steven Mosher says:
August 6, 2014 at 2:43 pm
Thanks for the clarification. I had understood your post to mean a doubling of CO2 [at any level] would lead to a 1°C rise. Based on your reply, what it is meant is a doubling of CO2 [at current levels] will lead to a 1°C rise.
Since we know there is a saturation point, how do we calculate what it is? Or, what is the basis for determining the saturation point? This seems to be a topic of some importance to the general AGW theory, and I would like to understand it further.
Thanks,
rip
Edim says:
August 6, 2014 at 6:11 am
phlogiston says:
“We’re due for a fall in temperatures. There may be a La Nina in the next few months. Already there is an Atlantic “La Nina”. When the Pacific one follows then global temperatures could head south.”
I agree, a strong/long La Nina, similar to the 1954-56 one is due. It’s been 60 years too, since that one.
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/teleconnections/eln-f-pg.gif
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/imei.png
goldminor says:
August 6, 2014 at 12:56 pm
phlogiston says:
August 5, 2014 at 11:54 pm
We’re due for a fall in temperatures. There may be a La Nina in the next few months.
=========================================================================
I see that as happening next year. The ENSO should fall a bit further in the next 6/7 weeks, and then there will be a slight uptick to positive territory into October. After that it will be back to negative ENSO until the end of December/early January.
The recent few decades seem to confirm an annual phase-locking of ENSO such that the start of a La Nina cooling of the East Pacific occurs either in summer – and the subsequent La Nina is weak, or at Christmas – and the following La Nina is stronger. Thus if the ENSO index bumps along just above neutral till the end of the year this would make possible a strong La Nina cooling at the start of 2015. This would be similar to the 2007-2008 La Nina which followed a period of several years of near ENSO neutrality – such as we are now also experiencing.
About time to start putting together the legal case against M Mann et al for damages in the vicinity of $30billion.
I read on here the other day that the UAH temperature data is in line for a reduction across-the-board, in order to correct a problem that has caused it to be running too hot.
Does anyone know if this is true, please? If it is true, then it would seem that the graph above is wrong…
It’s easy enough to do the linear regression on the UAH dataset – or at least it would be if the figures were reliable. As one or two others have pointed out, the headline figures in the article differ from those in the referenced dataset. I pointed this out a couple of months ago in WUWT, and also in Dr Spencer’s webite, requesting an explanation, but none was forthcoming.
However, using what appear to be the most recent figures, one can find a negative slope as far back as September 2008, so nearly 6 years.
You will also find that the most recent 10-year period (August 2004 to July 2014) is the warmest in the dateset, which started in December 1978, and that if the average anomaly for the first 7 months of the year (0.25 degrees) were to persist for the rest of the year, then 2014 would be 4th warmest, behind 1998 (0.42), 2010 (0.40) and 2005 (0.26)