Global Temperature Report: February 2015

From Dr. Roy Spencer:

The Version 5.6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for February, 2015 is +0.30 deg. C, down a little from the January 2015 value of +0.35 deg. C (click for full size version):

UAH_LT_1979_thru_February_2015_v5

The global, hemispheric, and tropical LT anomalies from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 14 months are:

YR MON GLOBAL NH SH TROPICS

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 +0.553 +0.150 +0.126

2015 02 +0.296 +0.434 +0.157 +0.015

Note that the El Nino warmth in the tropics seems to have fizzled, falling about 0.25 deg C in the last few months to near the 1979-2010 average value, which is unusual since February has been the usual time of peak tropospheric warmth in response to previous El Nino events.

The global image for February, 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)

From University of Alabama, Huntsville.

Global Temperature Report: February 2015

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

February temperatures (preliminary)

Global composite temp.: +0.30 C (about 0.54 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for February.

Northern Hemisphere: +0.43 C (about 0.77 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for February.

Southern Hemisphere: +0.16 C (about 0.29 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for February.

Tropics: +0.02 C (about 0.04 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for February.

January temperatures (revised):

Global Composite: +0.35 C above 30-year average

Northern Hemisphere: +0.55 C above 30-year average

Southern Hemisphere: +0.15 C above 30-year average

Tropics: +0.13 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 March 4, 2015:

February’s global temperatures were highlighted by the contrast in the continental U.S., with cold in the east and warmth in the west, a pattern that persisted from January, according to Dr. John Christy, director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. For the second month in a row, Earth’s warmest and coldest temperature anomalies in February were both in North America.

Compared to seasonal norms, the warmest average temperature anomaly on Earth in February was near Lookout Junction, California, where the February temperature was 4.98 C (about 8.96 degrees F) warmer than seasonal norms. Compared to seasonal norms, the coolest average temperature on Earth in February was just south of Nemiscau, Quebec, where the average February 2015 temperature was 5.36 C (about 9.65 degrees F) cooler than normal. This was part of a large area of cooler than normal temperatures that covered most of the eastern half of the continent, from the Gulf Coast to the Arctic, in February.

Archived color maps of local temperature anomalies are available on-line at: http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/

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.

Updates regarding technical issues are provided in “readme” files located here:  http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/

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 —

0 0 votes
Article Rating
126 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
RWturner
March 18, 2015 1:19 pm

Yep, it looks like another El Ninot. I’m still holding my breath for the return of the “missing” heat /s.

Editor
March 18, 2015 1:23 pm

“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.”
It is very sad that two scientists with such long standing good reputations have to include that statement in a pro bono essay.
Thank you for your hard work.

Streetcred
Reply to  Andy May
March 18, 2015 3:43 pm

[off-topic -mod]

Reply to  Streetcred
March 18, 2015 5:47 pm

A shame indeed. Their work is greatly appreciated.

Reply to  Andy May
March 19, 2015 6:35 am

The fact that they are fully funded by governments makes them more susceptible to public pressure and consensus. I feel like they just declared themselves as fully partisan.

Bill Parsons
March 18, 2015 1:34 pm

Note that the El Nino warmth in the tropics seems to have fizzled, falling about 0.25 deg C in the last few months to near the 1979-2010 average value, which is unusual since February has been the usual time of peak tropospheric warmth in response to previous El Nino events.

For expediency, I’ve highlighted the key word here for warmers – they can (and no doubt will) vamp on that.

J
March 18, 2015 1:46 pm

Since the great El Nino of 98, look at the anomalies. Every 3-4 years we see a point at NEGATIVE 0.1-0.3 degrees. But, for the past 3 years all positive with no dip. I was really expecting some cooling to show up based on solar and decadal oscillations. But nothing so far…if we don’t see some dips soon, it looks like we are stuck with a hiatus or pause.
The first comment to this thread says another El NiNOT, but on ZeroHedge I saw the Austrailians predicting a big El Nino. See about cyclone Pam:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-03-17/pam-was-so-big-she

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  J
March 18, 2015 2:39 pm

cooling to show up based on solar and decadal oscillations
When the theory doesn’t agree with the data – the theory is wrong. Or something like that.

Janne
Reply to  J
March 18, 2015 2:54 pm

Solar effect and other natural variations and phenomena such as El Niño and decadal oscillations are offset by the warming trend. The extra energy comes from the amplified greenhouse effect.

Dawtgtomis
Reply to  Janne
March 18, 2015 6:58 pm

So the amplified greenhouse (double glazed I guess) and the combined effects of all the varying natural drivers have been more or less equal to each other for nearly two decades? Seems myopic at best.

Ian W
Reply to  Janne
March 19, 2015 4:32 am

So the amplified greenhouse (double glazed I guess) and the combined effects of all the varying natural drivers have been more or less equal to each other for nearly two decades?

This is one of the most phenomenal coincidences of all time! All those chaotic natural processes managing to alter in precisely the right way to hold global temperatures constant despite the anthropogenic forcing for nearly 2 decades. That is so extremely unlikely that it falsifies any claim to Anthropogenic Global Warming/Climate Change.

BobM
Reply to  Janne
March 19, 2015 9:38 am

And, even more coincidental is the fact that those natural forces continue to exert an increasingly negative forcing to exactly counteract the increasing CO2 forcing of the past 16 years. In 1998 atmospheric CO2 ranged from around 360 ppm to about 369 ppm (Muana Loa). Now its around 400 ppm, roughly 10% higher in 16 years.

Joseph Murphy
Reply to  Janne
March 19, 2015 11:33 am

“Solar effect and other natural variations and phenomena such as El Niño and decadal oscillations are offset by the warming trend. The extra energy comes from the amplified greenhouse effect.”
A hindcasted observance of convenience. Science is about prediction, what you are doing is nothing.
@J
As Lidzen correctly points out (imo), there is no reason to stress over every wiggle of a chaotic system. It is amazing how stable the climate is.

Reply to  J
March 18, 2015 3:00 pm

Not sure where this “big cyclone brings El Niño” idea comes from. I don’t recall the same prediction after Yasi. The year or so following Yasi was La Niña. Wondering if this is another beat-up ploy? On top of hottest year evva, and the revelation of massive upward adjustments to surface temperatures in Australia and elsewhere?
During the recent Cyclone Marcia, there were continuous half-hour observations from several weather stations before, through and after the event, but some of these “broke” retrospectively, eg observations for 20//21/22 February at Middle Percy Island disappeared later.
I am currently watching the development of Cyclone Nathan, and documenting observations as it progresses. Currently reported as Cat 3, Lat 14.7 S 148.2 E, sustained 140km/h gusts 195. Looks like it will pass north of Bougainville Reef Lat 15.49 S 147.12 E. This is currently showing 63 sustained 76 gusts 1005 hPa. Cape Flattery and Cooktown will be the ones to watch from this evening.

James at 48
March 18, 2015 2:27 pm

RE: “Compared to seasonal norms, the coolest average temperature on Earth in February was just south of Nemiscau, Quebec”
Is this the formula for Laurentide accumulation?

Reply to  James at 48
March 18, 2015 9:30 pm

I would assume that it is Antarctica

Editor
March 18, 2015 2:48 pm

The alarmist claim came from NASA/GISS, later qualified with a note that including uncertainty in the data, there was only a 38% chance it was the warmest year.
This data comes from the UAH satellite record which has fewer adjustments and is less affected by urban heat island effects. It also represents the lower troposphere, which is still pretty high up.

Latitude
March 18, 2015 2:55 pm

I hate to do this again…but for crying out loud….can we please get this thing in the right perspective
We’re looking at mites on an elephantcomment image

Nigel Harris
Reply to  Latitude
March 18, 2015 3:16 pm

Your axis is arbitrary. I suggest you plot it in Kelvin, with the scale running from 2.7K (the cosmic background radiation temperature that the night side of the Earth is exposed to) to 5,700K (the effective S-B temperature of sun that warms the day side of the Earth),

Reply to  Nigel Harris
March 18, 2015 4:06 pm

“Your axis is arbitrary.” That’s the whole point of this graph – show a realistic view of the Y axis…rather than 0.1, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6 degrees…

Reply to  Nigel Harris
March 18, 2015 4:24 pm

Every single damn axis on every chart is arbitrary. It really would be nice if humans didn’t think that humans made charts really say anything about reality.

Reply to  Nigel Harris
March 18, 2015 5:24 pm

That would be the flattest line ever.

icouldnthelpit
Reply to  Nigel Harris
March 19, 2015 1:35 am

(Another wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod)

ferdberple
Reply to  Nigel Harris
March 19, 2015 5:59 am

the scale is the exact same as this thermometer:
“http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/thermometer.jpg?w=156&h=320”
The scale is not arbitrary. It is chosen to match the range of seasonal and day-night temperatures.
What the GISS Global temp series shows is that global warming and climate change is dwarfed by day-night and seasonal temperature changes. It is only be plotting anomalies and greatly expanding the scale that small changes in the calculated average can be observed.
Global averages are meaningless because the earth can have an infinite number of different average temperatures for the exact same forcings, depending on distribution of energy.
for A^4+B^4 = C (constant forcing)
solve (A+B)/2 (different average)
There are an infinite number of values for A and B that will satisfy these equations, such that the average temperature changes while the forcings remain constant. For example:
(A,B)
(9,10.767)
(10,10)
(11,8.556)
These 3 values pairs for A and B yield exactly the same energy (forcing) but different averages. So, how can average temperature be determined by forcings? The simple fact is that it cannot.

Catcracking
Reply to  Latitude
March 18, 2015 3:33 pm

Thanks for reminding us again.

Mark from the Midwest
Reply to  Latitude
March 18, 2015 3:42 pm

I love this graph, in all its varied formats, I think I’ll take 1000 copies to Earth Day and see if they can figure it out!

cheshirered
Reply to  Latitude
March 18, 2015 3:55 pm

Great graph isn’t it? I posted *exactly* this graph tonight elsewhere in an on-going discussion. The other guys’ response to this inconvenient fact? – he totally refused to talk about it. Not surprising, as it’s devastating to claims of ‘catastrophe’.

Reply to  Latitude
March 18, 2015 4:00 pm

+1 – the “warmists” don’t believe this graph…it doesn’t compute with their belief…

Chris
Reply to  Latitude
March 18, 2015 10:43 pm

Mite on an elephant? When the average surface temperature was 2-4C colder than it was in 1750 (pre industrial), we were in an ice age. So a change in average surface temperature of a few degrees C is a big deal, and plotting a graph with a 160F Y axis range does not change that fact.

Michael Wassil
Reply to  Chris
March 19, 2015 12:37 am

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but we could use a little warming. In fact, we could use a LOT of warming. AND a lot more CO2.
http://www.catholica.com.au/misc/images2013/AJB-Global-Temp-Atmospheric-CO2-over-Geologic-Time_640x513.gif

Tim Hammond
Reply to  Chris
March 19, 2015 5:28 am

Average surface temperature, and we were in a Little Ice Age.
The Thames froze only when it was far more than 2-4 degrees colder.

Chris
Reply to  Chris
March 21, 2015 9:31 am

Michael,
How does your graph prove that we could use a lot more warming (and CO2)? Just because it’s been warmer in the past? Do you have supporting documentation that shows that the Earth was a more hospitable place in those earlier times?

Chris
Reply to  Chris
March 21, 2015 9:38 am

Tim said: “Average surface temperature, and we were in a Little Ice Age.
The Thames froze only when it was far more than 2-4 degrees colder.”
That’s incorrect, the average surface temperature in the 1700s (when the Thames froze regularly) were only 2-3C cooler than now.

March 18, 2015 2:55 pm

CBC news: NOAA says that this has been the warmest winter ever recorded globally.

Simon
Reply to  Mick
March 18, 2015 4:59 pm

NOAA also saying the combined Jan-Feb data shows the warmest start to a year on record.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/

March 18, 2015 3:05 pm

This is old news (March 4th) indicating the global temperature anomaly continues to stand still, while atmospheric CO2 continued to increase to 400.14 ppm.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_trend_gl.png
See ESRL Global Monitoring Division – Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network,
at http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/global.html

Reply to  Andres Valencia
March 18, 2015 4:22 pm

So much for the recently ballyhooed IEA claim that 2014 was the first year CO2 did not increase!
Based, of course, only on their models of fossil fuel consumption. You would think IEA could have bothered to check the actual data. Nope.

Alx
Reply to  Rud Istvan
March 18, 2015 5:30 pm

Maybe it’s an unintended symptom of modern life.
Sometime when I wake up in the morning I check my computer to see if it’s raining outside instead of just looking out my door. I do this even though I know the web site for current weather while pretty accurate, does not always match what is happening where I live.
So while climate modelers and I share the same similar odd behavior of stupidly using a computer as a window to the world, I at least am not performing scientific research and reporting findings.

R. Shearer
Reply to  Rud Istvan
March 18, 2015 6:12 pm

It was man made emissions were flat. Since man made emissions were flat and the atmospheric concentration increased anyway, what might one conclude?

bones
Reply to  Rud Istvan
March 18, 2015 8:17 pm

I understood IEA to be claiming only that emissions for the past year were no larger than the year before. In both years the amount retained in the atmosphere would increase.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
March 18, 2015 8:56 pm

See!!! The tax on CO2 that we were paying in Australia HAS WORKED!!! we have achieved CO2 Reduction!! OHHHH You non-believers!!!!!

MikeB
Reply to  Rud Istvan
March 19, 2015 1:59 am

Rud,
You are confusing CO2 emissions with CO2 concentrations. The claim by the IEA is that CO2 emissions did not rise in 2014. ‘Bones’ has explained why CO2 concentration could still increase in this situation.

ferdberple
Reply to  Rud Istvan
March 19, 2015 6:17 am

emissions were flat during the 2007-2008 financial crisis.
in 2014 the Chinese shut down their economy for the APEC conference to get rid of the smog. The local Chinese called the sky “APEC BLUE”
http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-china-blog-29983799
There in lies the solution to global warming. Shut down the industrialization of the earth. Return to the idyllic, pastoral times before the industrial revolution. Here is the role model:
“An attempt by Khmer Rouge leader Pol Pot to form a Communist peasant farming society resulted in the deaths of 25 percent of the country’s population from starvation, overwork and executions.”
http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/pol-pot.htm
If the UN Climate Treaty succeeds, this is the future for the developed world.

Reply to  Andres Valencia
March 18, 2015 5:22 pm

Your axis is arbitrary.

MikeB
Reply to  Tom Trevor
March 19, 2015 2:00 am

In what way????

Coeur de Lion
March 18, 2015 3:33 pm

I ‘ve just found the Wot’s up with that website! Quite interesting to read – there’s a very unpleasant ad hominem flavour which I hope we can avoid here.

BCBill
Reply to  Coeur de Lion
March 18, 2015 4:07 pm

So, you went to the fact free zone. Rhetoric without grammar or logic.Sometimes this site descends into social bickering but Anthony keeps drawing people back on topic with an interesting flood of information or by exposing reports masquerading as information.

u.k.(us)
Reply to  Coeur de Lion
March 18, 2015 4:09 pm

Guess you are gonna have to wait and see, we await any report you might give.

March 18, 2015 4:05 pm

What is this in Kelvin ?
We are about 3% warmer than the approximately 276.3 to 280.9 from ap- to peri- -helion of a gray ball in our orbit . I want to understand that 3% quantitatively before even worrying about the 0.3% variation over a the 40% variation in CO2 concentration we’ve experienced .

Editor
March 18, 2015 4:08 pm

Meanwhile, satellites continue to diverge from GISS.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/03/16/giss-still-diverging-from-satellites/
I wonder why?

Latitude
Reply to  Paul Homewood
March 18, 2015 4:18 pm

Thanks Paul!…

Reply to  Paul Homewood
March 18, 2015 4:25 pm

Note that you are plotting version 5.5 for UAH which was discontinued in December.

Alx
Reply to  Paul Homewood
March 18, 2015 6:07 pm

We seem to have individual measurements of different things in different places using different methodologies. Some more more prone to human error, others more prone to other kinds of errors. What would be surprising is if they did match. As we know some data sets do not even match themselves for the same location at the same point in time, historical data continually being adjusted. The argument is that where they do match is in the direction the anomalies trend.
The process as I understand it is to add areas/remove areas for measurement, select whether land or sea surface, various altitudes of the atmosphere or sea, use various proxies as suits ones fancy and come up with anomalies based on a specific frame of time (in this article 30 years was used) and then extrapolate to say global temperature is trending this way or that. At this point the crazies take over and further extrapolate to unprecedented suffering and harm to Earth and humanity and please send money.
Sticking to UAH satellite data we are running +0.14 C per decade. If that trend remains true, we can bet on 1 C warming after 70 years. Of course in 70 years we ‘ll have at least a half dozen more ways to measure/extrapolate “global temperature” so on second thought the betting windows are closed.

steveta_uk
Reply to  Paul Homewood
March 19, 2015 3:38 am

‘Cos it’s cold in space?

emsnews
March 18, 2015 7:54 pm

They just announced that Jan/Feb is now the WARMEST MONTHS IN ALL HISTORY!
Seriously. This is utterly insane.

Simon
Reply to  emsnews
March 18, 2015 8:23 pm

MMMM this is exactly what they said….
“The first two months of 2015 were the warmest such period in the 136-year period record across the world’s land and ocean surfaces, at 0.79°C (1.42°F) above the 20th century average. ”
I don’t think 136 years is” ever.”

Ian W
Reply to  emsnews
March 19, 2015 4:37 am

The temperatures are being elevated due to the forthcoming Paris Treaty conference. I forecast further extremes the closer the date of the Paris Treaty Conference becomes. Grants, bankers’ profits and political power are resting on UAE, NOAA and NASA bringing home the high temperatures.

Simon
Reply to  emsnews
March 19, 2015 10:49 am

Ian W.. Quite incredible how they can time the weather to be extreme.

Reply to  emsnews
March 19, 2015 2:30 pm

Lest we forget, the Earth has been warming since The Little Ice Age,.Slowly and steadily,
So this Warmest EVER stuff can be true yet have nothing at all to do with atmospheric CO2.
I say to “warmest ever”: So what? What’s bad about that? There is no CO2 signature there.

angech
March 18, 2015 7:56 pm

I read someone 2 years ago saying that if the first 1=2 months were high we were almost certainly in fora warm year. With the El Nino never actually occurring and Pacific temps starting to drop we can only hope that this prediction does not come true.
Australian BOM corrections, if ever actually made would also take some of the heat out of the warming argument.
Werner, how long the pause now?

Reply to  angech
March 19, 2015 1:07 pm

18 years and 3 months on RSS and 5 years and 11 months on UAH. Others have no pause worth mentioning. As for the high January producing a high year, that did not work well this year.

Steve R
March 18, 2015 8:26 pm

Are you hoping for a cold year? An if so, why?

angech2014
Reply to  Steve R
March 18, 2015 10:26 pm

Yes
rhetorical answer

AJB
March 18, 2015 8:48 pm

Goodness gracious great balls of fire natural variation …
1. Anomalies
2. Rates
3. Chaos
4. Reality

March 18, 2015 8:51 pm

Ooops!! somebody forgot to take that year out, or maybe they forgot to Homogenize the temperature readings with stations 5-600Km. away. Somebody is going to pay for this!!

Walt D.
March 18, 2015 10:35 pm

Headlines from the Daily Mail:
Don’t worry about the snow and ice! Meteorologists claim this winter was actually the warmest on record
Last month was the second warmest February on record globally
January and February temperature beat the old record for the first two months set in 2002
December to February broke the meteorological winter record set in 2007
Surely December, January and February are summer months in Australia, Brazil and South Africa. Surely calculating a global average and then calling it the warmest winter on record is mixing apples and oranges.
Reminds me of the old corny joke:
A Global Warming/Climate Change Scientist goes into a restaurant and orders a steak and fries, a salad, and ice cream. When the waiter ask how the meal was he says “This is the coldest dinner I every had – the average temperature was only 65 degrees F !”

ren
March 19, 2015 12:24 am

Important is the large heat capacity of the oceans, which does not allow for a quick drop in temperature due to low solar activity.
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/atmosphere/radbud/gs19_prd.gif
It can be seen that the absorption of solar energy is much greater in the oceans than on land.
Specific heat capacity of wateris c = 4.18 kJ / kgK. This valuethe highest among all
other substances. Who place on the seconditems ethyl alcohol is only 2.84 kJ / kgK. Ice and water vapor are c value of two times smaller than water,although for all other substances melting almost does not change the heat capacity. Exceptionally high heat capacity of water transforms the seas and oceans in giant heat storage, which soften daily fluctuations in air temperature. Proper heat capacity each receach substance increases with temperature. Water and here is the exception.
A plot of the proper the heat capacity of the temperature of the water has a minimum at a temperature of
about 37° C, ie. is responsible normal human body temperature. This means that the human body
at this temperature is the most convenient energy state.

March 19, 2015 12:43 am

Increased global cloudiness from more meridional jet stream tracks is slowly reducing solar energy into the oceans so as to weaken El Nino events.
Low solar activity is causing the more meridional jets by altering the gradient of tropopause height between equator and poles.

Koba
March 19, 2015 1:22 am

In Kent it has been cooler than average in January, February and March to date.

Simon
Reply to  Koba
March 19, 2015 2:19 am

And here in New Zealand it has been warmer than usual… so our point is?

Walt D.
Reply to  Simon
March 19, 2015 6:45 am

Simon: Is December, January and February WINTER in New Zealand?

Simon
Reply to  Simon
March 19, 2015 10:51 am

Nope. But still a warm summer. My point is sighting single places on the globe is a complete waste of time.

A C Osborn
Reply to  Simon
March 19, 2015 12:31 pm

That is odd NuSchool is showing the current temp in New Zealand as 0 to 12 degrees C.
With 0 the closest point to Antactica.
Normal summer Temps in the north are 20-23 degrees C.

Simon
Reply to  Simon
March 19, 2015 1:38 pm

A C Osborn,
Yep cold at moment, but been a very warm dry summer summer. Cyclone Pam dragging a whole lot of cold air up from the Antarctic at the moment. Still the same point though. Looking out my window gives me no idea of what is happening round the world… as the Eastern US just found out.

icarus62
March 19, 2015 4:13 am

Still no sign of any decline in the rate of global warming in either the terrestrial or satellite data series.
http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/2/0/7/6/2/8/5/gistempuah-131161097023.png

Reply to  icarus62
March 19, 2015 4:22 am

Try running the line from 1998

icarus62
Reply to  Stephen Wilde
March 19, 2015 4:26 am

Why?

Reply to  Stephen Wilde
March 20, 2015 2:47 pm

You know what stands out in looking at that graph, is that the warming has been all about the 1997/98 El Nino. It looks like it is that which formed the base for this last 2 decades of above average temps. Note that there has been no drop below the low of 1996/97, although 2008/09 came close. Without that spike where would global temps be? Certainly, no where near as high as they are now. A strong La Nina will change global temps quickly. If the next ENSO change is for a multi-year deep La Nina, then that will change the landscape. Regional temp records show how quickly temps can shift in many regions at the same time.

Matt Schilling
Reply to  icarus62
March 19, 2015 5:04 am

Because, from eyeballing your chart, virtually all of the rise seen in the trend lines comes from the upward trend of 84-98. Global warming is so nineties. It’s high time the fad faded

icarus62
Reply to  Matt Schilling
March 19, 2015 5:06 am

There’s a reason that scientists don’t do ‘eyeballing’…

D.J. Hawkins
Reply to  Matt Schilling
March 19, 2015 10:04 am

@icarus62
Try this. Run the trend from ’84 to ’98 and calculate the slope. Then re-run for each additional year from ’99 on. You will see a steady decrease in the slope, indicating that the overall trend is decreasing as time marches on.

icarus62
Reply to  Matt Schilling
March 19, 2015 10:40 am

@D.J. Hawkins: I know what you mean. Take the well-known mid-century ‘pause’ in atmospheric warming, for example. If you plot the 30-year trends, you can see that the warming trend clearly stops:
http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/2/0/7/6/2/8/5/gis30-166786545586.png
In contrast, with today’s UAH temperature data, there is no indication of even any slowing down:
http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/2/0/7/6/2/8/5/uah30-166786586615.png
So the evidence says that atmospheric warming continues unabated. At least, according to UAH.

Reply to  Matt Schilling
March 19, 2015 6:10 pm

A little later down, the icarus62 shows the 1935 to 1965 “warming” and then leveling. I suppose this guy is a little to DENSE to get the concept that the “significant” man made (alledged, could be some other confounding factors also) rise in CO2, does not begin to occur until about 1950??? Really, elementary logic here. All them WWII SUV’s…no, wait, WWI SUV’s must have been putting out the “dark matter” version of CO2, which unmeasured, un-accounted for, cause the 1840 to 1950 rise? (NO mistake on that starting number, and again…if we are arguing VALIDITY, the whole DATA SET…used for that reconstruct from the 1800’s on to now…is BOGUS also. This guy has more FAITH than the folks handling poison snakes!)

icarus62
Reply to  Matt Schilling
March 20, 2015 10:12 am

@Max Hugoson: You missed the point. Re-read D.J. Hawkins’ comment and my response.

Catherine Ronconi
Reply to  Matt Schilling
March 20, 2015 10:18 am

Hey, Iccy!
Your UAH graph stops in the year 2000.
Please repost it with over 14 more years, up to today, since you claim that UAH’s latest shows continued warming.
Thanks!

icarus62
Reply to  Matt Schilling
March 20, 2015 2:54 pm

@Catherine Ronconi: No, it doesn’t. Look at it again.

Catherine Ronconi
Reply to  Matt Schilling
March 20, 2015 3:04 pm

Hey, Iccy!
I looked again, and it still ends in 2000.
Are you stupid or something? Or do you imagine that readers here are?
Here’s your “sodahead” graph again. You look again:
http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/2/0/7/6/2/8/5/uah30-166786586615.png

Catherine Ronconi
Reply to  Matt Schilling
March 20, 2015 3:12 pm

I looked yet again, and it still looks to me as if the last number on the lower right of the graph is still 2000.
Please show me, Iccy, where to find 2001 to 2014 on your sodahead graph.
Thanks.

icarus62
Reply to  Matt Schilling
March 20, 2015 4:08 pm

It’s a graph of 30-year trends, so the last data point is December 2014, as that’s the most recent UAH data on woodfortrees.org.

Catherine Ronconi
Reply to  Matt Schilling
March 20, 2015 4:46 pm

You make even less sense with each new comment, each loonier than the last.
How do you derive a 30 year trend from 1979 to 1994? If the last data point is in 2014, why does the graph not show the 30 year trend line from 1985 to 2014?
Do you enjoy making a fool of yourself? Just for whom do you take readers here?
Please show the whole graph, from 1979 to 2014.

icarus62
Reply to  Matt Schilling
March 21, 2015 1:21 am

That is the whole graph, including data up to December 2014. I’m amazed that you are here trying to discuss science when you can’t understand a simple graph.

Brandon Gates
Reply to  Matt Schilling
March 21, 2015 10:54 pm

Apparently centered moving averages are not in the vocabulary.

ren
Reply to  icarus62
March 19, 2015 6:08 am

What is the temperature rise since 2000? Previous peak of sunny.

Matt Schilling
Reply to  icarus62
March 19, 2015 6:10 am

I see. So you made the chart, but you don’t want us to eyeball it? Why, then, didn’t you post a large set of data instead of a chart?
Imagine for a moment that this chart plots average minimum wages across the fifty states. The Liberal line would be “As this chart clearly demonstrates, while great progress was made in the 80’s and 90’s, it is a travesty that the minimum wage has been stagnant for nearly two decades now!”
(See what I did there with the word ‘travesty’?)

icarus62
Reply to  Matt Schilling
March 19, 2015 6:25 am

“So you made the chart, but you don’t want us to eyeball it”
Exactly. That’s why I added the trendlines.

Matt Schilling
Reply to  icarus62
March 19, 2015 6:48 am

You added trend lines so we would eyeball them? But I thought “there’s a reason that scientists don’t do eyeballing”… So, you’re not a scientist! Got it. Thanks!

icarus62
Reply to  Matt Schilling
March 19, 2015 6:55 am

So you’re saying that you don’t understand the concept of trendlines, yes?

AJB
Reply to  icarus62
March 19, 2015 7:04 am

Using an annual signal derived from monthly UAH LT data the mean rate since 1980 was +0.13°C/decade. But with a standard error of ±0.19, the standard deviation was 2.44°C/decade. See bottom chart here.
So, given we’re dealing with a highly complex, coupled non-linear system what do you suppose your linear trend lines between two fixed points in time are telling us (aside from the same mean rate but unqualified) and do they predict anything?

icarus62
Reply to  AJB
March 19, 2015 7:46 am

Skeptical Science’s trend calculator gives it as 0.139 ± 0.065°C/decade (2σ).

AJB
Reply to  AJB
March 19, 2015 9:55 am

Presumably you mean this dopey thing …
http://s13.postimg.org/rbv1rw1yv/Dopey.png
Err, the SD appears to be derived from temperature, not the rate of change!!!??? Not my problem if you can’t handle simple differentiation in order to stick to consistent units of measurement and instead want to wander off into higher forms of numerology, pontificating over the hind leg of a donkey.

However, if you apply it to temperature data, you will get the wrong answer. Why? Because temperature data violates one of the assumptions of Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression – that all the data are independent observations.
In practice monthly temperature estimates are not independent – hot months tend to follow hot months and cold months follow cold months. This is in large part due to the El Nino cycle, which strongly influences global temperatures and varies over a period of about 60 months. Therefore it is possible to get strong short term temperature trends which are not indicative of a long term trend, but of a shift from El Nino to La Nina or back. This ‘autocorrelation’ leads to spurious short term trends, in other words it increases the uncertainty in the trend.

Which is “in large part” complete crap of course. Let’s just iron out the biggest random components of variability and call it ‘noise’ or start waving hands and muttering about ‘autocorrelation’ in a chaotic system. Here’s the killer quote …

How does this uncertainty arise? The problem is that every observation contains both the signal we are looking for, and spurious influences which we are not – noise. Sometimes we may have a good estimate of the level of noise, sometimes we do not. However, when we determine a trend of a set of data which are expected to lie on a straight line, we can estimate the size of the noise contributions from how close the actual data lie to the line.

So what did you mean when you said “Still no sign of any decline in the rate of global warming in either the terrestrial or satellite data series.”? Besides conning yourself over the real variability, you’re still drawing a straight line between two arbitary fixed points in time. Does it predict anything?

Matt Schilling
Reply to  icarus62
March 19, 2015 7:53 am

Reading his obtuse comments, it dawns on me icarus62 might actually a laudable attempt at AI.

Catherine Ronconi
Reply to  Matt Schilling
March 20, 2015 3:09 pm

Artificial Idiocy?

Catherine Ronconi
Reply to  Matt Schilling
March 20, 2015 3:15 pm

Nah. Iccy’s idiocy is painfully real.
He’s the genuine article. An idiot.

Alberta Slim
Reply to  icarus62
March 19, 2015 10:09 am

Try running the line from the raw data from 1940

harrytwinotter
Reply to  icarus62
March 20, 2015 7:19 pm

It is difficult these days to find any temperature series that does not show warming. It looks like the “there is no global warming” meme has run it’s course.

Mrdler
March 19, 2015 4:16 am

Unless my specs deceive me, Roy’s graph shows a clear, continuing, rise albeit minuscule in the grand scheme.

A C Osborn
March 19, 2015 6:30 am

I still say that the Satellites are measuring the heat leaving the planet.
The key is the Northern Hemisphere for February, record breaking cold in the USA, Asia, Some parts of Europe, but still showing as +0.434.

Dr. Deanster
March 19, 2015 7:12 am

The problem with Climate is that it moves so slow. Looking at the graph above, the warming happened between 1985-2000. .. the Pause has lasted from 2000-2015 ….. if there is a cooling, it won’t be until 2030 that we can actually see it on this graph as being comparable to the warming of 85-2000.
In another 5 years, we should have an idea at least of where it is headed.

AndyZ
Reply to  Dr. Deanster
March 19, 2015 9:40 pm

Where it is headed for a short time at least 🙂

ren
March 19, 2015 7:55 am

“Satellites have much better coverage, and show that this past winter was only sixth warmest, nowhere near as warm as 1998, and on a decade long cooling trend.”comment image?w=640

Doug
March 19, 2015 9:00 am

That claim was made by our Space Administration, who oddly ignored the satellite data.

Simon
Reply to  Doug
March 19, 2015 10:48 am

It’s a funny old thing that but last time I looked, I didn’t see any satellites operating on the surface of the planet…. which is what NOAA report on. “The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces”

Rob
March 19, 2015 10:26 am

The monthly anomalies since the big el Nino (and recovery) in 98/99 have been remarkably stable compared to the period before. Just one dip and another year or two of oscillation around 2008-10 and now pretty flat again.
This is pretty stable in an overall pattern of much larger swings – anyone else have any thoughts on this?

ren
March 19, 2015 12:43 pm

“As a another storm system slices to the east from the Great Lakes on Saturday, there could be a second chance at snow in New England and northern upstate New York, including areas which are likely going to be missed by the first round of snow from Friday.”
http://vortex.accuweather.com/adc2004/pub/includes/columns/newsstory/2015/650x366_03191712_hd24-1.jpg

ren
March 19, 2015 11:07 pm

Antarctic ice is growing faster than in the previous yearwhat was predictable.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/antarctic.sea.ice.interactive.html

johann wundersamer
March 20, 2015 1:32 am

AJB
Goodness gracious great balls
of fire natural variation …
1. Anomalies
2. Rates
3. Chaos
4. Reality
____
So 1, 2, – 3 / gives:
chaos seems to be the steady state; raises a smile!
____
And 4 reality: business as usual!
Made my day!
____
Thanks – Hans

AJB
March 20, 2015 2:12 am

Johann,
You’re welcome: http://www.un.org/en/events/happinessday 🙂

March 20, 2015 6:03 am

Dr. Spencer, NOAA says this February globally average temperature was among the highest on record:
Earth Has Its 2nd Warmest February and Warmest Northern Hemisphere Winter.
By: Jeff Masters , 2:42 PM GMT on March 19, 2015
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2939
Do you have satellite data that confirms this specifically for February?
Bob Clark

March 20, 2015 10:16 am

The average temperature on Earth varies.
So what?
.
Tenths of a degree are meaningless.
In my opinion the measurements are so inaccurate any change less than
one degree C. should be ignored.
.
No human lives in the average temperature.
.
No human, animal or crop has been harmed by less than one degree C.
warming since1880 — in fact, the past 135 years have been the most
prosperous and healthy 135 years so far for humans and animals.
And green plants are growing faster too.
.
Average temperature anomalies in tenths of a degree are meaningless statistics
whose collection is a complete waste of the taxpayer’s money
http://www.elOnionBloggle.blogspot.com

alex
March 21, 2015 1:01 am

Pause? Where is “The Pause”?
UAH shows a very clear trend 1979-2015 of some 2 deg C per century.

March 22, 2015 5:02 am

Yes, a key point on which the public needs to be educated:
RobRoy
March 19, 2015 at 2:30 pm
Lest we forget, the Earth has been warming since The Little Ice Age,.Slowly and steadily,
So this Warmest EVER stuff can be true yet have nothing at all to do with atmospheric CO2.
I say to “warmest ever”: So what? What’s bad about that? There is no CO2 signature there.

%d bloggers like this: