Global Temperature Report: January 2015 – not much change from December

From University of Alabama, Hunstville: Northern non-tropics see warmest January

JANUARY_2015Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.14 C per decade

January temperatures (preliminary)

Global composite temp.: +0.35 C (about 0.63 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for January.

Northern Hemisphere: +0.55 C (about 0.99 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for January.

Southern Hemisphere: +0.15 C (about 0.27 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for January.

Tropics: +0.13 C (about 0.23 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for January.

December temperatures (revised):

Global Composite: +0.32 C above 30-year average

Northern Hemisphere: +0.47 C above 30-year average

Southern Hemisphere: +0.18 C above 30-year average

Tropics: +0.30 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 Feb. 3, 2015:

The northern portion of the globe saw its warmest January in the 36-year satellite record last month, 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. “A large band of warmer than normal air stretched from China, and across the northern Pacific into western Canada and the western third of the U.S., which brought warm temperatures to the western U.S. and dry air to California. This was somewhat offset by the large area of much cooler than normal air that stretched from the eastern U.S. through Hudson Bay into the Arctic.”

Northern Extratropics

Top 5 Warmest Januaries

(20° to 85° N. Latitude)

2015 + 0.80 C

2010 + 0.70 C

2007 + 0.67 C

2014 + 0.62 C

2009 + 0.58 C

Compared to seasonal norms, the warmest average temperature anomaly on Earth was off the west coast of the U.S. near Eugene, Oregon. The January temperature there was 4.03 C (about 7.25 degrees F) warmer than seasonal norms.

The northern extratropics (the non-tropical northern region) extends from 20 degrees to 85 degrees north latitude, or from about the latitude of Mexico City and the island of Hawai’i to a latitude a couple of degrees north of an island off the northern tip of Greenland — the northernmost tip of land on Earth.

At the same time, the anticipated El Niño Pacific Ocean warming event seems to be beginning to fizzle, with the warm temperature anomaly in the tropics falling 0.17 C — from +0.30 C in December to +0.13 C in January.

Compared to seasonal norms, the coolest average temperature on Earth in January was over southern Baffin Island, by Canada’s Auyuittuq National Park. The average January 2015 temperature there was +3.59 C (about 6.46 degrees F) cooler than normal.

Archived color maps of local temperature anomalies are available on-line at:

Anyone accessing the satellite temperature anomaly dataset through the website should be aware that a problem in the code creating the USA49 column of numbers has been identified and corrected, changing the values reported for that column alone.

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 —

From Dr. Roy Spencer:

The Version 5.6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for January, 2015 is +0.35 deg. C, little changed from the December 2014 value of +0.32 deg. C (click for full size version):


The global, hemispheric, and tropical LT anomalies from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 13 months are:


2014 01 +0.291 +0.387 +0.194 -0.029

2014 02 +0.170 +0.320 +0.020 -0.103

2014 03 +0.170 +0.338 +0.002 -0.001

2014 04 +0.190 +0.358 +0.022 +0.092

2014 05 +0.326 +0.325 +0.328 +0.175

2014 06 +0.305 +0.315 +0.295 +0.510

2014 07 +0.304 +0.289 +0.319 +0.451

2014 08 +0.199 +0.244 +0.153 +0.061

2014 09 +0.294 +0.187 +0.401 +0.181

2014 10 +0.365 +0.333 +0.396 +0.189

2014 11 +0.329 +0.354 +0.303 +0.247

2014 12 +0.322 +0.465 +0.178 +0.296

2015 01 +0.351 +0.551 +0.152 +0.126

The global image for January, 2015 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)

100 thoughts on “Global Temperature Report: January 2015 – not much change from December

    • The solar cycle doesn’t have a measurable effect, what controls the climate (energy balance) is the percentage of cloud coverage in the tropics. A higher percentage of clouds in the tropics means cooling in the higher latitudes, months to years later, and vice versa.

      • Incorrect, the solar “cycle” in particular magnetism, CME and its effect on cosmic ray account for 93% of global temperature change.
        Funny how people have trouble thinking that the sun (the source of energy for the solar system) could be the thing causing the earths weather, lol, wow.

      • Badger777 – “Incorrect, the solar “cycle” in particular magnetism, CME and its effect on cosmic ray account for 93% of global temperature change.
        Funny how people have trouble thinking that the sun (the source of energy for the solar system) could be the thing causing the earths weather, lol, wow.”
        Sorry, but a one percent change in cloud coverage represents a 46 watt/m^2 change in the energy budget vs a solar change of a tenth of a watt? Clouds are the dominant player in the game.

      • Clouds may well be the dominant player in the game, but just what is causing the difference in cloud cover over the various parts of the Globe?
        The Sun’s direct energy may not vary that much over a cycle, but the solar wind, the differences in wavelengths of the light and who knows what else just may impact cloud formation, so I wouldn’t arbitrarily dismiss the solar cycle as the major force in temperature variation.
        Quite frankly, all energy we receive does come from the Sun so directly or indirectly it is the prime mover.

      • Steven Mosher – “clouds havent changed.”
        Neither has the temperature.
        Nor has Mosher’s commenting style.

      • Mosher says clouds haven’t changed.
        Well they certainly have where I live. In just the last week we have gone from a totally cloudless sky from horizon to horizon, to totally socked in cloud, with not a visible spot of blue sky.
        And there is NO global surface based monitoring system that is capable of proving the postulate that clouds haven’t changed.
        You cannot measure the surface effect of clouds from satellites; you have to be on the surface, and with a complete global 24 hour per day all sky monitoring capability, because clouds DO change in times much shorter than satellite orbital motions, and they can’t measure the surface incident EM radiant energy from above.

    • It’s a cumulative loss of temperature over time, just like seasonal change. You won’t necessarily see extreme cold on the first day of winter, and you may have to wait a few weeks until the trend sets in, but it ultimately does. Another example would be the growth of ice extent in the Arctic. I believe the highest extent doesn’t arrive until late March or early April, many months following the winter solstice.

      • The reason there is a seasonal lag in temperature is the time it takes the energy to flow from the Tropics and Subtropics to the higher latitudes. The energy is absorbed in the Tropics and radiated away at the Poles.

      • Genghis,
        So you don’t buy George’s oft-made point that warmer regions radiate more vigorously than cooler ones?

      • “””…..
        February 4, 2015 at 1:31 pm
        So you don’t buy George’s oft-made point that warmer regions radiate more vigorously than cooler ones?.
        The hottest deserts radiate as much as 12 times the rate of the coldest polar regions.
        And in the case of the hottest (driest deserts) the radiation is more into the “atmospheric window”, and devoid of water attenuation and at perhaps 8.8 micron peak, it is further from the CO2 15 micron absorption band so CO2 is less effective over hot daytime deserts.
        But at the coldest polar regions what little LWIR radiation there is, is peaked at 15 microns, so just where CO2 can be a most effective blanket for stopping the escape of that emission.
        So nyet on the poles being the escape valve.
        Try running your car’s radiator at liquid nitrogen or ice Temperatures and see how much it will cool your radiator.

      • Mebbe,
        It seems nobody ever does. I never seem to see “BS” or “right on” comments from any of the PhDs here. Maybe they are too scared to PO their institutional party lines.
        But all I care is if even one person sees the light, as a result.
        So I post it rain or shine.
        Glad you get it.

      • Re George and Mebbe’s thing about radiation of heat out is much higher in deserts than at the poles is true but a bit of an unfinished picture. There is much more than ground based radiation out the window at work. Convection is huge in the band around the equator and it lifts the heat up, bypassing the GHG “blanket” to be radiated out the big window up above it all. And clouds bouncing heat back out. Certainly, the Hadley cells also move heat from the equatorial region to temperate zones (which it wouldn’t do if the zones weren’t cooler) and lets not leave out ocean circulation. And ice eats up heat without any warming until the ice is gone and if there is warmish water left, it radiates a bit. I do know that when I was up on a project in northern Labrador in September – the warmest the water gets – I asked where the life jackets were when we were heading out to Taber Island in a dorry driven by a big outboard motor. The Inuit crew said that the water was -2C and if I fell overboard, not only would I freeze up pretty quick but I would sink and not come back up because you don’t decay – better that way for us!! I know you know the heat picture better than I do, but I’m concerned about the learners getting only a small part of the picture.

      • mebbe February 4, 2015 at 1:31 pm
        So you don’t buy George’s oft-made point that warmer regions radiate more vigorously than cooler ones?”
        What is happening is that the ocean and atmosphere (by expanding) in the Tropics is absorbing the radiation and transporting it to the higher latitudes.
        The Tropics and Subtropics comprise 61% of the worlds surface and absorb 73% of the total solar insolation the Earth receives from the Sun.

      • george e. smith –
        So you don’t buy George’s oft-made point that warmer regions radiate more vigorously than cooler ones?.”
        The warmer regions obviously radiate more than the colder regions. I am guessing 140 watts more than the polar regions. But the point is that the polar regions are emitting more radiation than they receive from solar insolation. While the warmer regions are emitting less radiation than they are receiving.
        “So nyet on the poles being the escape valve.”
        The Tropics and Subtropics (61% of the Earths surface) receive 73% of the solar insolation. While the polar region (14% of the Earths surface) receives 6% of the solar insolation.

      • Genghis,
        I’m struggling a bit with some of your expressions.
        “What is happening is that the ocean and atmosphere (by expanding) in the Tropics is absorbing the radiation and transporting it to the higher latitudes.”
        We’re talking about outgoing radiation from the surface, so, unless you’re wishing to invoke ‘back-radiation’, we can say that the ocean is not absorbing its own emissions.
        The atmospheric gases are, indeed, spectrally absorbing, (according to their idiosyncrasies) and along with latent heat and conduction/convection, heat is shed by the tropics toward the higher latitudes. I don’t understand that the expansion of the atmosphere is the mechanism by which radiation is absorbed.
        Clearly, there is more radiation emitted than received at the poles overall and especially during the respective winters, but for a short time in the summer that’s not actually the case. Viewing the Earth as an average of everything that happens is not reliable.
        The matter of heat moving from equator to pole is very germane to who plays tennis and who plays hockey but it’s not necessarily the key to total thermal inertia on the planet. I don’t presume for a minute to have that answer.

      • My main problem with the article is the questionable use of “normal” rather than “average.” 98.6 F is normal human body temperature, established by experience and experimentation over centuries. 20/20 is normal eyesight. Normal means what it should be, according to reliable external observation and experimentation. We can’t do experiments with the earth’s temperature, and there is no reliable standard for what the earth’s temperature should be. Observations well carried out can tell us what the average has been over the observed period, but there is no temperature that the earth should be. Think of a cool rainy day that succeeds a stretch of warm dry days. The cool day is likely below average in temperature, but surely it is not subnormal.
        George Bernard Shaw was once persuaded to visit an oculist (as optometrists were then denominated), who examined his eyes and their performance in detail. After that exam, Shaw was told that he had normal eyesight, “and that condition is very rare.”

      • Perhaps I need to preface every one of my posts with a warning:
        “Failure (by me) to mention EVERY possible energy flow process on planet earth, SHOULD NOT be taken as an assumption that I don’t know about such things. !! ”
        For starters, Kevin Trenberth’s planet earth is an isothermal body with every point on it always at a Temperature of 288 K come day / night / rain /shine , and each point receiving 24 hours per day 342 watts per m^2 of solar radiation, even at the South Pole in the dead of winter midnight.
        So there are NO HEAT FLOWS going anywhere in Kevin Trenberth’s isothermal planet.
        HEAT (noun) aka thermal energy cannot reach earth from anywhere else, nor can it leave earth and go anywhere else.
        Electro-magnetic radiation is virtually the only mechanism by which large amounts of energy arrive on earth and leave it at about the same total integrated rates.
        And the Earth’s solid / liquid surface is about the only direct source of outgoing EM radiant energy, because that is almost always the hottest place at any geographical location, and as we all know, gases do not emit thermal (BB like) radiation. (they say; not me)
        So I’m well aware of conduction and convection and evaporation transporting “heat” (noun) from the surface to higher altitudes; but somewhere that thermal energy has to give rise to (at much less than 100% efficiency) long wave electromagnetic radiant energy to exit to space.
        According to Kevin Trenberth, Only 40 W/m^2 of surface EM radiant energy is emitted to space. The rest of the (BBlike) 390 W/m^2 corresponding to a 288 K constant earth surface Temperature is absorbed in the atmosphere (he says; not me). The tropical desert rate is double that and the Antarctic highlands rate is only one sixth of that rate.
        And in the polar regions, there is not very much conduction from surface to atmosphere, nor is there much convection in the atmosphere (in terms of energy flux) and very little evaporation; maybe some sublimation; but the poles are no great cooling region for the planet.
        And it is well known that the ocean currents transport lots of heat to the polar regions, which they cannot possibly get rid of, so that is why the polar regions warm faster than the rest of the earth.
        Where I live in Silicon valley, on a hot summer day, a black top road surface that I cannot touch or walk on bare foot, is quite cool to the touch long before evening twilight turns to night. It cools extremely rapidly.
        All automobiles that are liquid cooled have pressurized sealed radiators to deliberately raise the boiling point of water well above 100 deg. C for the express purpose of increasing the transfer rate to the atmosphere from the radiator.
        I’m not here to give complete pictures. The people with my taxpayer grant money can do that.
        I’m only here to correct complete misunderstandings of what is actually going on.
        Hot places cool by radiation; cold places don’t.
        Just remember that each and every gram of arctic ice that gets melted by the gulf stream and its kin takes a whopping 80 Calories out of the arctic environment.
        A 0.1 deg C rise (catastrophic) in the arctic Temperature (and that ocean water), takes up a whopping 0.1 Calorie (per gram of water). Get some sense of proportion.
        So it is that little bit of arctic ice that melts that keeps the damn place cool, despite all the heat transported by the gulf stream.
        So we should welcome the polar ice melt season.

      • mebbe February 4, 2015 at 8:31 pm
        I’m struggling a bit with some of your expressions.
        “What is happening is that the ocean and atmosphere (by expanding) in the Tropics is absorbing the radiation and transporting it to the higher latitudes.”
        We’re talking about outgoing radiation from the surface, so, unless you’re wishing to invoke ‘back-radiation’, we can say that the ocean is not absorbing its own emissions.”
        No what I am saying is that evaporation expands the atmosphere, cooling it. Boyle’s law. It is no longer energy that can radiate. Work has been done.
        At the poles, gravity compresses the atmosphere, warming it, where the energy then radiates away.
        Look at the tropopause profile.
        Clearly, there is more radiation emitted than received at the poles overall and especially during the respective winters, but for a short time in the summer that’s not actually the case. Viewing the Earth as an average of everything that happens is not reliable.
        Agreed, the climate is best viewed in zones. Tropics, Temperate etc. the physics are different in each.
        The matter of heat moving from equator to pole is very germane to who plays tennis and who plays hockey but it’s not necessarily the key to total thermal inertia on the planet. I don’t presume for a minute to have that answer.
        I don’t either, but look at the graph above that Chris Hanley posted. Cloud coverage in the Tropics has the best correlation with global temperature that I have seen.

    • Patience Matt, cooling is right around the bend according to my solar-based calculations. There has been just enough solar activity and just high enough solar flux to keep temps fairly flat since 2003, when you take into account previous solar warming of the oceans from the higher flux delivered during the last decades of the modern maximum.
      You could look at it this way: Arctic ice began regrowing and Antarctic ice has continued to grow since 2006, three years after the solar modern maximum ended in 2003. How could that happen if warming is supposedly “accelerating”?
      The small upwards bump in Dr. Spencer’s UAH graphic above for 2013/14 was caused by the weak SC24 maximum.
      Since 2003, the daily solar flux has averaged just 100 solar flux units per day, well below the previous lowest cycle #20, when the daily average for the whole cycle was 113 sfu. We’ve seen a daily average of 103.6 sfu during SC24 so far, which will very likely drop below 100 sfu/day by the end of cycle.
      This will have consequences, just as lower solar flux did during SC20, when SSTs dropped below the baseline between 1964-1979.
      For mid-Nov 2014 to Jan 2015, the daily ave F10.7cm flux was 163 sfu/day – that’s what warmed up the oceans late last year, and pushed 2014 near the top of the records. The Sun caused the warming, not CO2. The yearly daily average for 2014 was 146 sfu/day, and for January 2015, it was 142 sfu/day.
      The USAF here is calling for the next 45 days to have an average of 128 sfu/day. Based on that and the fact that sunspots are now getting very close to the solar equator, SC24 maximum looks to be over now.
      There’s much more to say, with plenty of hard evidence, but for today, that’s all.
      Like the man said, “Enjoy the warmth WHILE IT LASTS.”
      The cause of the pause was the cause before the pause.

      • Bob Weber – “There has been just enough solar activity and just high enough solar flux to keep temps fairly flat since 2003, when you take into account previous solar warming of the oceans from the higher flux delivered during the last decades of the modern maximum.”
        Considering that solar activity has been in the middle of its range for the last 3+ years, with the huge thermal sink of the oceans steadily delivering energy into the chaotic path that the flow of heat takes from the tropics to the poles, it should be no surprise to anyone that global temperatures have bobbled along on a plateau for the last 3 years.

      • JimS – the full effect will definitely be seen sooner than 3-4 decades. It’ll start 2015-2017. I intend to narrow that date down by using the new SSNs that aren’t published yet.
        The NET temperature increase/decrease from each cycle depends on the magnitude and duration of solar activity during the current solar cycle, added to the NET effect on OHC and temperatures from the previous solar cycle(s). Accumulation/loss of ocean heat content occuring during any cycle depends on the strength of the current cycle and the previous cycle(s).
        My research indicates that most of any individual solar cycle influence from any cycle practically washes out after the next subsequent cycle, as the net cumulative heat gain/loss in the ocean carries forward into the current cycle and is then dominated by the current cycle energy input on top of the current OHC/temps.
        Solar cycles vary in energy output, and the temperature response is a combination of both the strength of the current cycle and previous cycle(s) net OHC gain/loss. The temperature series will go up and down with net OHC to-date and current solar activity.
        I have quantified this qualitative explanation. There is great, I think, overwhelming evidence for this phenomenon. My model will be available after the new SSNs are published and incorporated into my model, and then we can discuss the effects of all solar cycles on temperatures and OHC going back to the 1600s with a proper foundation.
        I’ll leave it to the imagination right now as to the effect of an even lower solar cycle 25.
        The SUN causes warming, cooling, and extreme weather events, not CO2!

      • I tend to dislike the explanations about things happened in the past that were not predicted beforehand, and certainly, when SC24 started almost 6 years ago, nobody said that its effects would not be noted until 2015, or that we would have a new record temperature in 2014 (admitedly, this depends on the dataset one decides to check).
        Anyway, the good think about Bob Weber’s prediction is that it is for the short term, meaning that we will know in a relatively short time (3 years or less) if it holds water or not, and then say “kudos” to him, or receive his future predictions with a lot of disbelief, no matter how logical may sound the new excuses regarding past behaviours of the climate not bringing us the promised cooling.

    • Still near the maximum of this one though. It is still unclear how much, if any, effect the solar cycle has so this one should be a good test case in the next few years. Unless there are confounding factors like large volcanic eruptions. But there are still confounding factors such as AMO, PDO, CO2 that will also play a role and will make it harder to show causation with solar cycle. Clearest thing would be if they could verify a change in cosmic rays and cloud cover along with cooling. Good experiment nature is setting up for us.

    • It’s still the solar max of this weak solar cycle.
      We had double peak and it now coming down- and is another year it will be half down and bottoms
      out in +2 years.
      And big question is how long does it stay at min, and what next cycle. Does it return to late 20th century type cycle, or it is the beginning of a prolonged lower solar activity- does it continue or
      even weaken further.

    • Warmth is all in your head.
      Like ALL human sensory perceptions; five of them at last count, they are all in your head; literally a figment of your imagination.
      Well yes they are generally “responses” to something from the real physical universe.
      In the case of #1 … Vision it is obvious and is rigorously defined.
      According to “The Commission on Colorimetry of the Optical Society of America”, LIGHT is defined as…..”The psycho-physical response of the human eye to electro-magnetic radiation in the 400-800 nm wavelength range.”
      To reinforce that “light” is NOT identical to that EM radiant energy, light, which has nothing to do with energy, is measured in its own set of units and measures; all of them derived from an average quite well researched study of the human response to that EM radiation. So the units of “Photometry” which include Lumen, and Candela and Talbot along with others have no energy quantities in their definition like EM radiation does.
      So if a person is blind (vision impaired) and somebody ignites a match, it does not create a light, as far as that observer is concerned. Now non-impaired visionaries, will say that they saw the light from the match. Well they made that light in their eye and brain.
      But that is all a figment of their imagination and is the creation of their retina and brain.
      Likewise if a tree falls in the forest, and 199 out of 200 persons hear it crash to the ground, that evidence does not carry any weight for the one person who is stone deaf, and hears nothing at all. Proof positive that the “sound” was entirely created in the ear and brain of the 199, out of a longitudinal compression wave in the air. The “hearing impaired”, having no functioning mechanism for making “sound” out of longitudinal compression waves, proves the point that there is no sound when functioning ears connected to brains, are not present.
      So what “emanation” or exchange particle, or other physical transmissive property instills a hydrogen sulfide molecule with a smell of rotting eggs ??
      So CO2 is described as a “colorless odorless gas”. Well all gases are colorless and odorless, because color exists only in the human brain, not in gases, and odor is created by chemistry in the olfactory sensors in the human nose, along with the brain.
      So “warmth” is the human response of the “touch or feel” mechanisms of our skin, accompanied by brain processing, when primarily water in the skin absorbs EM radiation in the circa 1 micron wavelength range, or if “heat” (noun); energy is applied to it in the form of mechanical vibrations at certain wavelengths.
      Yes we have concocted many forms of sensors that are able to detect and even measure the physical energies or chemical / bio-chemical processes that activate our five senses, but those sensory outputs, themselves do not exist in the physical universe; but the triggering physical processes of course do.
      So as Einstein cautioned us ” 199 experimenters who say the falling tree makes a sound, are all trumped by the single experimental result that one experimenter lacking the machinery for making sounds in his/er head, demonstrate that the other 199 all created the sound in their heads, out of a soundless longitudinal compressive disturbance.”
      We know it was longitudinal, because air being a gas mixture has essentially zero shear strength and is not capable of supporting transverse waves, like solids and some liquids can.
      Yes I know it is only MY opinion; well and also the Commision on Colorimetry of the Optical Society of America; one of the original founding bodies of the American Institute of Physics.
      No not any appeal to authority; simply a relaying of where I learned this stuff, because I certainly do not make it up in my head.
      And you can find the above definition of “light” in:
      The Science of Color. published by that very commission; a definitive text book on color and vision in general.

      • Okay….deaf person hears no sound, got it.
        Does he or she not feel the concussion wave? There is more to a tree falling than just the sound.

    • Hum… current state of the index is not showing this at all. Technicaly we are still in neutral, but current conditions are low Nino. We are heading to Nino conditions and back to neutral in the forecast.
      Someday we will surely be back to Nina – but this is only part of the equation. Further, being Nina or Nino does not prevent cold snap or heavy heat waves.
      This winter is a good example of ”Nina vs Nino” is not the only driver – North Eastern part of North America is in the cold (as was 2014 winter). Here the main driver has been the polar vortex enhanced with a Neutral to Nino pattern (warm at norht west, cold at north east).
      So don’t get too excited by going Nino or Nina, it’s only one of the players.

  1. So where exactly is this “climate crisis” that gets non-stop coverage in the media??
    The world remains colder than it was during the Medieval Warm Period, and far colder than during the Holocene Optimum.

    • Seventeen below zero F here on my NY mountain tomorrow night which is ridiculously cold.
      My ancestors came to the Hudson Valley way back in the early 1600’s. And it was bitter cold, they came for the beaver pelts which were sold to Europe to be turned into hats to wear in the extremely wet, miserable, snow cold weather of the Little Ice Age.
      Even today, the emblem for Albany and environs is a pair of beavers.

  2. Looking at the red line in the graph for the period 1979-2015, I see a very, very small warming. Still nothing to see of the cooling predicted by some people, yet neither the “catastrophic” warming predicted by the alarmists.

  3. Here is an original chart I did on sea ice. I extrapolated Mar1 expected ice, based on Feb observed and average increase between Feb to March
    Arctic Sea Ice Coming Back Strong After a Very Unusual 2012, Looks Almost Normal Range Now
    I found a good resource for sea ice. I had to parse together the 2013 and earlier data with the 2014 and into 2015 data, which wasn’t hard, just surprised the host site hadn’t done that after a full month.
    Here is the total sea ice data, Arctic, This is an Excel Download so you can review all the data
    Try Data

      • Correct, and if it goes up by .000005 then your are highly confident in cataclysmic demise , but if it goes down then you are dubious and a skeptic of that information. Where I live in Ohio we are looking at -11 degrees, thankfully we have Moshers adjusted temps or it might be -12. Our kids will not know what winter is in 10,000 years. In 100 years it might be -10. Oh the horror. Thank you Mosher for your CAGW it is really scary.

  4. Sorry that top world chart bears no relationship with the climate in January for the Eastern Europe/Asia, they had freezing Temperatures and Ice/snow storms, just scan through the Ice Age Now pages to see what I mean.

      • Hottest in the whole 350-year record. Every month except August was more tha 1 deg C above average.So far 2015 has been above average, but less than 2014.

      • According to the MetOffice (with whom I’m having an ‘interesting’ discussion) 2014 was highest on the record, with top ten shown as:
        2014 10.92
        2006 10.87
        2011 10.72
        1990 10.65
        1999 10.65
        1949 10.64
        2002 10.63
        1997 10.56
        1995 10.55
        1989 10.54

    • And what is happening to winter temperatures (Dec, Jan, Feb) as from 2000?
      Are they not showing a significant downward trend, albeit this is a short period of only 14 years but it may be indicative of the onset of NH cooling for the next 10 to 20 years.

      • No sign of any winter cooling since 2000.
        Average winter temperature for the standard 1971-2000 reference period 4.49 deg C
        Average winter temperature for the 15 years 2000-2014 4.65 deg C
        Only 3 of those winters were cooler than the median of the whole dataset. Another 3 were in the warmest 10 per cent.

    • Really large spikes seem to be harbingers of an extended cooling period. Huh. Thanks Samurai.

  5. I have just returned from Mongolia and it is unseasonably warm there – has been all winter. When the Polar vortex slips down over N America it pulls the warmer air from China into Mongolia and Siberia. The locals say it is about 10C above normal (daytime highs) and about +5C at night. The -25 nights and -13 days were quite bearable. Normal would have been -35 at night and -20 or less in the daytime.
    This is I suppose some compensation for the past couple of years which were brutal including setting a low in the City of Ulaanbaatar below -45 C. The all time record low was in 2001 at -57C (in the city). It killed so many animals in the countryside (following a three year drought) that the city population has been growing rapidly ever since as whole herds were lost. Warm is good. May it rain in your desert.

    • Northern Japan, or at least the bit where I live has also been unseasonably warm this winter. In a normal winter, low pressure cells in the Pacific pull north westerlies from the Siberian High which load up with snow as they cross the Sea of Japan. It usually starts snowing in late December and doesn’t stop until early March. This year the snow started in early December, but we’ve had virtually nothing since mid-January. It’s been very pleasant. Mild days above zero and plenty of sunshine. I don’t miss getting up at 04:30 to clear the snow for business to open at all

  6. The global temperature graph: if you were contracted to provide an analysis of the pattern, would you get paid for a straight line trend? Of course not.
    So why do both warmists and skeptics do so? The best statistical analysis gives a straight line? The highest r-value comes from a straight line?
    The IPCC story has natural factors ending in the ’60s. The rest is CO2. Let the computers do the pattern since then. It won’t be a straight line.
    The skeptics should stop with the straight line and provide the pattern the skeptical position says is real. A straight line only feeds the warmist story of linear CO2 effects.

    • Because we (the skeptical community of realists) cannot explain a stepped series of “S-curved” temperature changes either!
      yes, that pattern is there. And, within two minutes of being shown the pattern, the CAGW theists challenge it with “Why did the temperature change in 1998? This straight-line projection from 1850 to 2015 fits better you have cherry-picked only the dates you needed!”
      It is, of course, a straight-line projection out to 2100 because the CO2 growth rate is (almost) a straight line, and because their minds cannot tolerate any OTHER cause/co-relation/function OTHER than a simple straight line. But that is besides the point to their climo-astrologists (er, physicists).

    • Well a non straight line, cannot be conclusively be said to be a polynomial curve either; at least one with a finite number of terms, which never could be solved for, because the data simply isn’t good enough.
      So my suggestion, and indeed recommendation, is to simply usethe exact as recorded raw data, and don’t do ……ANY…… prestidigitation on it, which adds NO new information and can only throw away information you already have (and which I likely paid for as a taxpayer.)
      So quit with the trend lines and Rsquareds, and other trappings of a mathematical discipline, that can make no predictions of ANY future event.
      JMO of course.

  7. Good map. At least they (you!) are not trying to get the “Arctic” region of “Greenland” to appear larger than Africa, South America, Australia, and Antarctica!
    Thank you.

    • “””””…..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……”””””
      Well RA, I hope readers take note of this extract from the UAH .
      I take this as the definitive statement about just what the hell, “Satellite measurements” actually do.
      I personally noted the following:
      1/ “MEASURE the Temperature”.
      1A/ “Of the ATMOSPHERE.”
      2/ “FROM the surface”.
      3/ “To about 8 km above sea level.”
      Now I believe that RSS do somewhat the same but using different satellite instruments.
      I think I might actually have found on perhaps Dr Roy’s site, or some kin site, the actual altitude levels for the various data sets that UAH report.
      I’ve never looked at that data because I certainly don’t have time to play with it. I actually have to work for a living.
      So I’m glad for those (presumably including Willis, as well as Lord M of B,) who do actually access this data and keep us appraised of what it is.
      I’m comfortable that both UAH and RSS give us about as good a spatial sampling of the atmospheric Temperature as it is possible ; well maybe practical, to get.
      Now as to how the various gremlins choose to masticate that data, I have a jaundiced view of some of that.
      As Rutherford said; “If you have to do statistics, then you should have done a better experiment.” I think UAH and RSS are likely doing a better experiment than the landlubbers.
      But of course that is just my own personal opinion, and you should not rely on that for your PhD thesis.

  8. The footprint of the Pacific Coast Rex Block and the persistent Hudson’s Bay Low is apparent. It leads to a Laurentide ice accumulation mode.

    • That persisting low south of Hudson Bay corresponds geographically to the general area(s) where the Laurentide ice dome was thickest.

    • James and Jbird,
      Just so. Time will tell if this becomes a year-on-year trend…. or a sometimes coincidence.
      As Bob Tisdale so eloquently quipped: “Brrrrrr!”

  9. Here’s my very preliminary map (from here) based on surface temperatures. It also says Jan was much like December (down by 0.01°C). It includes SST, but much land data has not yet come in. Australia, China, Canada, S America, most of Africa are not yet there. But it shows similar features, including warmth in Mongolia. Cold in East US and Can, near Iceland, Weddell Sea, warm in west US, Alaska. Detail in Africa and S America will probably change as data comes in, and I can aver that the warmth in Melbourne is overstated.

    • “… the warmth in Melbourne is overstated”.
      That’s an understatement.

    • I can’t recall a cooler January in Melbourne, or a more pathetic example of “summer.”
      Why do you have it marked in burning red?

    • Overstated ??? We had the longest stretch of cool temps in January in decades.
      Time to start using temps, not anomalies, as they are clearly a joke.
      Lets use absolute temps. Keep a running score and what will be will be.
      And it will mirror TLT temps, its obvious UHI needs to be addressed.

  10. large band of warmer than normal air stretched from China, and across the northern Pacific into western Canada”
    I must admit that we just had the best January in my recolection. Very nice weather. Just remember that the warth we had (see the giant RED over Alberta), was not really very warm. Hovered around +6°C most of the month, peaked at 16° or 18°C. While the map looks like a heat wave, it is defenatly not going to harm anything. If that is what CAGW brings, I am in. Where do I sign up?

    • “… best January in recollection…”
      And there is the rub. I suspect I am a little older and I remember many a snowless January which made it difficult to pull a stoneboat of hay to the cattle. And vice versa. There were a few record days, but in most days the record highs (and lows) were quite some time ago though quite a few highs were in the last couple of decades (Calgary weather). But as you know, I am not sure “Calgary” weather is much of a climate barometer given the extreme temperature changes experienced there. It can go from 25 below C to plus 16 C in a few hours though the transition in January was fairly gradual and notable as there were 5 days in a row that the temperature didn’t dip below 0 C qualifying it as a genuine heat wave
      But anyone who has spent 70 years in the shadow of the Rockies and the great Chinook arches is likely not worried about a global temperature change of a degree C. In December, I had record heating bills on the farm. I hope January provides some relief and more snow in February/March.

  11. I dont believe that some people understand the English language,the areas in the northern hemisphere which it is claimed are warm look cold to me when you look at the absolute temperatures.I have just started to keep a temperature record with a weather station where I live,my readings track the local met office station at waddington very well and leads me to question all the adjustments that have been made to the temperature record because of small station changes.

    • Close agreement with your local met station is a crap shoot. And do you mean “agreement” as in you’re within 1-2C of the met station, or “agreement” as in both readings move in tandem? My work place is about 10 miles from my home, yet the temperature difference can be up to 8F or so, but not always the same difference. As of this writing, we’re actually the same. Partly explained by elevation; I work at about 115 feet above MSL and live at about 550 feet above MSL. Work is in a valley, and home is an exposed elevation. It’s an illustration of why “global”, or even “regional” temperature averages can’t really mean much. Hardly anyone is average height, and few places on earth are ever at the average temperature.

      • ” It’s an illustration of why “global”, or even “regional” temperature averages can’t really mean much.”
        Indeed. It shows why they use anomalies.

    • That Nature paper is interesting. It won’t let me cut and paste, but the conclusion is that climate sensitivities between 0.6 and 1.8 Wm2 are consistent with the observed trends, and that some cooling factor may be missing from the models.
      My reservation when reading it was that I think we can assume earlier temperatures and models will agree because the models are specifically designed to agree with the earlier temperatures. The fact that the later temperatures may be missing a cooling forcing would seem to be the very crux of the biscuit, right?
      Your second link then says: “We find that Earth’s climate sensitivity to CO2-based radiative forcing (Earth system sensitivity) was half as strong during the warm Pliocene as during the cold late Pleistocene epoch (0.8 to 0.01 million years ago). We attribute this difference to the radiative impacts of continental ice-volume changes (the ice–albedo feedback) during the late Pleistocene, because equilibrium climate sensitivity is identical for the two intervals when we account for such impacts using sea-level reconstructions.”
      …and that this new evidence from the past supports a sensitivity range from 1.5 to 4.5 °C per doubling of CO2 which seems higher than the nature link, but has a lot of fudge factors mixed in. Paywalled, so I can’t read it. Care to expand for those without access?

  12. Anthony, the autocorrelation of this data set is 0.85. How often is there “much change” from one month to the next?

  13. I mean that the maximum and minimum temperatures of my readings are within 0.5 c of the local weather station which is 2-3miles away and 50 meters higher elevation.I would like to keep a record of these temperatures before the local weather stations temperatures are corrected by homogenising them with those taken in London in order to show greater warming .

  14. I noticed that the January 2015 analysis from WeatherBell matches the UAH analysis fairly well overall, although the UAH analysis misses the cold anomaly here in Texas that the WeatherBell analysis shows nicely.

    I also noticed that like UAH the WeatherBell global temperature “trace” based on NCEP global weather model initialization data did not show 2014 as the warmest year ever. It shows somewhat of an overall downward trend in recent years.


  15. Probably not important, but there are 4 months in Dr Spencer’s table above that don’t correspond to the final published UAH figure at the 2 decimal place level, including January 2015. These are:
    Jan 2014: 0.29 (RS); 0.30 (UAH)
    Feb 2014: 0.17 (RS); 0.18 (UAH)
    Sep 2014: 0.29 (RS); 0.30 (UAH)
    Jan 2015: 0.35 (RS); 0.36 (UAH)

  16. Re:
    1/ “MEASURE the Temperature”.
    1A/ “Of the ATMOSPHERE.”
    2/ “FROM the surface”.
    3/ “To about 8 km above sea level.”
    With mount Everest being higher than 8 km, I wonder how the calculations applied to satellite data, handle the issue that the majority of the earth’s land surface area is above ‘sea level’?
    Is each ‘cell’ of measurement scaled for altitude?

    • Steve, I can’t say for sure just how they do that part, but I believe that their methodology is based on either atmospheric density (of the layers) or something like that, so it likely is pegged to MSL in some form or another.
      I think 1A is the key; their instrumentation reflects the actual Temperature of the air itself. Incidentally, the only reason for the 1A is that I forgot that point, so inserted it, and didn’t bother changing the line numbers.
      I have no idea how the presence of land “up in the air” affects the air Temperature. I presume there is some waviness.
      but I believe either the UAH or Roy Spencer’s web site expounds in detail on what they do; they certainly aren’t hiding it.
      Seems to me that “cloud people” also talk about height either in air density of perhaps local air pressure terms.

  17. Interesting you folk in NH are recording milder winters some place because here in Melbourne Aust (37.5 South ) we have had the coldest January in 10 years

Comments are closed.