UAH Global Temperature Report: March 2015 – down slightly

The Version 5.6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for March, 2015 is +0.26 deg. C, down a little from the February, 2015 value of +0.30 deg. C (click for full size version):


The global, hemispheric, and tropical LT anomalies from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 15 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 +0.553 +0.150 +0.126

2015 02 +0.296 +0.433 +0.160 +0.014

2015 03 +0.256 +0.409 +0.103 +0.082

We are probably past the point of reaching a new peak temperature anomaly from the current El Nino, suggesting it was rather weak.

The global image for March, 2015 should be available in the next several days 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)

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

March temperatures (preliminary)

Global composite temp.: +0.26 C (about 0.47 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for March.

Northern Hemisphere: +0.41 C (about 0.74 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for March.

Southern Hemisphere: +0.10 C (about 0.18 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for March.

Tropics: +0.08 C (about 0.06 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for March.

February temperatures (revised):

Global Composite: +0.30 C above 30-year average

Northern Hemisphere: +0.43 C above 30-year average

Southern Hemisphere: +0.16 C above 30-year average

Tropics: +0.01 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 April 7, 2015:

March’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 third month in a row, Earth’s warmest and coldest temperature anomalies in March were both in North America.

Compared to seasonal norms, the warmest average temperature anomaly on Earth in March was in northern California, south of Modoc National Forest, where the March temperature was 3.80 C (about 6.84 degrees F) warmer than seasonal norms. Compared to seasonal norms, the coolest average temperature on Earth in March was in northeastern Quebec south of the Torngat Mountains, where the average March 2015 temperature was 3.97 C (about 7.15 degrees F) cooler than normal.

032015_tlt_update_bar MARCH2015

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 —

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
April 7, 2015 2:40 pm

Dr. Spencer , has no agenda. He has been open minded on all of the climatic possibilities.
Given that it is easier to believe the data he is reporting is for real and is not being agenda driven as I think it is from other sources which the Guardian (agenda driven also) embraces.
The guardian commentary gives me more confidence that the satellite reporting temperature data is probably the most correct. In addition balloon data supports it ,which just makes the satellite data that much more convincing.
The policy of AGW theory is to make the data conform to the theory rather then having the theory conform to the data.
Since no independent data supports this theory going back to historical climate data to present data and no atmospheric processes support this theory all that data is considered as being wrong by those that support this absurd theory.
It is absurd because it a theory that have lived on with no data to support it.

Reply to  Salvatore Del Prete
April 7, 2015 5:18 pm

To a leftist, the seriousness of the allegation outweighs the need for data to support the allegation because their endgame isn’t about results but rather about intention.

Reply to  Babsy
April 7, 2015 9:52 pm

Yes the issue is a moral one, not a factual one. People in Venezuela now routinely queue for toilet paper. The economy has been trashed. But there are still avid supporters of the regime. The point being that the facts on the ground are unfortunate, but morally the right thing was done.

Reply to  Babsy
April 8, 2015 4:01 am

@Babsy….Agreed! As long as they stand and shout about how much they care about the issue, then they get credit for trying. Doesn’t matter if it’s a lie or not…’s the fact that they “care” more than others.

Reply to  Salvatore Del Prete
April 7, 2015 7:20 pm

Salvatore Del Prete writes “Dr. Spencer, has no agenda. He has been open minded on all of the climatic possibilities.”
I would suggest Dr Spencer is not open minded on this subject. Spencer is a signatory to An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming, which states that “Earth and its ecosystems – created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history.”
If he were to suggest that humans are having a significant influence on the climate (which would lead to human suffering- sea level rise alone would do that) then he would be contradicting his faith.

Reply to  Luke
April 7, 2015 8:27 pm

What a bunch of vicious nonsense. You attack and attempt to defame Dr. Spencer solely based on the fact he is a man of faith. But you offer nothing to refute any of his science or the tireless work he does. Is Dr. Christy also in on it with him? You progs are just too much.

Reply to  Luke
April 7, 2015 11:56 pm

Read my post again. I did not attack nor defame Dr. Spencer I simply responded to Salvatore’s statement that Dr. Spencer has an open mind on this matter. Perhaps you are projecting?

Stephen Richards
Reply to  Luke
April 8, 2015 12:54 am

LUKE, Read salvatore’s comment again, properly. Open mindedness is not a broad brush to be slapped across the face of the person claiming it. Roy Spencer is open minded about the science. It’s what we scientists call scepticism. Be more careful.

Sal Minella
Reply to  Luke
April 8, 2015 4:46 am

If this is true, then I know that he is unbiased.

Reply to  Luke
April 8, 2015 5:13 am

Whether or not the universe has a purpose is an open question in Science. We simply do not know. At present this is a matter of belief, because we do not know.
The same can be said for CAGW. Whether or not climate change will be a net positive or negative for the human race is also an open question in science. Clearly the modest warming since the Little Ice Age has been a net benefit, as evidenced by the rapid advance in human population and living standards. Thus, CAGW is also a matter of belief, no different than a belief that the universe has a purpose.
Thus the contradiction of the double standard. You believe that Dr. Spencer is biased for a belief that the universe has a purposes, yet fail to recognize your own bias inherent in your belief in CAGW. You cannot have it both ways. If belief equals bias, then your belief is also bias.

John G.
Reply to  Luke
April 8, 2015 8:06 am

Take God out of that Evangelical statement and you have “Earth and its ecosystems are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting admirably suited for human flourishing. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history.” For the last 65 million years that’s been absolutely true. No doubt man does now add to the warmth of the earth through his activities but the recent warming is not an alarming anomaly and the recent cessation of that warming makes the CAGW hypothesis, if not dead, very, very sick. Science doesn’t comment one way or the other on the existence of God so if a scientist wants to credit God for designing that robust system it’s a personal preference and not unscientific.

Joseph Murphy
Reply to  Luke
April 8, 2015 8:23 am

That faith necessitates a closed minded perspective is quite a bigoted and closed minded position in and of itself.

Reply to  Luke
April 8, 2015 12:27 pm

At the Las Vegas ICCC, Dr. Spencer’s talk concentrated on how much we don’t know. I think his morality gives him great respect for the scientific method. As for his creationist leanings, I think that’s limited to trouble believing Earth’s lifeforms could have evolved in only several billion years. He is not one of the adherents to the 4004 BC creation.
In this whole messy field, I put Spencer near the top of the people I most respect.

Reply to  Luke
April 8, 2015 2:30 pm

That’s one way of reading that statement. Not an accurate one, but one chosen by many who do not understand the role of faith.

April 7, 2015 2:55 pm

AGW theory has predicted thus far every single basic atmospheric process wrong.
In addition past historical climatic data shows the climate change that has taken place over the past 150 years is nothing special or unprecedented, and has been exceeded many times over in similar periods of time in the historical climatic record. I have yet to see data showing otherwise.
Data has also shown CO2 has always been a lagging indicator not a leading indicator. It does not lead the temperature change. If it does I have yet to see data confirming this.
LESSENING OF OLR EARTH VIA SPACE -WRONG? I have a study showing this to be so.
STRATOSPHERIC COOLING- ?? because lack of major volcanic activity and less ozone due to low solar activity can account for this..
AEROSOL IMPACT- WRONG- May be less then a cooling agent then expected, meaning CO2 is less then a warming agent then expected.
OCEAN HEAT CONTENT TO RISE- WRONG – this has leveled off post 2005 or so. Levels now much below model projections.
Those are the major ones but there are more. Yet AGW theory lives on.
Maybe it is me , but I was taught when you can not back up a theory with data and through observation that it is time to move on and look into another theory. Apparently this does not resonate when it comes to AGW theory , and this theory keeps living on to see yet another day.
Maybe once the global temperature trend shows a more definitive down trend which is right around the corner (according to my studies ) this nonsense will come to an end. Time will tell.

Reply to  Salvatore Del Prete
April 7, 2015 3:47 pm

I hope you are right.. We need to get busy with the real problems.

Reply to  Salvatore Del Prete
April 7, 2015 4:00 pm

I have a theory that my annual capacity for whacking my thumb with a hammer, when attempting to smack a nail, is not due to inexperience (I’ve smacked many nails.) Instead it is due to a lack of skill. I’m older now; vision is not what it was; gross motor control is waning; I am somewhat more knowledgeable, but contrarily I shall continue to try to smack nails. I expect this summer will support my theory again.
I read more and more that climastrology predictions lack skill. Unfortunately, they seem to lack thumbs, as well.

Reply to  Bubba Cow
April 7, 2015 4:11 pm

Thats a good post Bubba

Reply to  Bubba Cow
April 7, 2015 5:16 pm

Oh you are just a shill for those companies that make nail guns.

Drop Bear
Reply to  Bubba Cow
April 7, 2015 5:47 pm

The real problem is you’re using muscle power which generates Co2. Try installing a wind farm and use the Eco friendly electricity produced to power a nail gun. Don’t worry about the cost, it’s the end goal of reducing your emissions that is important here.

Reply to  Bubba Cow
April 7, 2015 11:55 pm

This is exactly why God, or whoever, gave man ( and woman) two thumbs.

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
Reply to  Bubba Cow
April 8, 2015 12:54 am

Bubba, I’m an engineer. The reason people bash their thumbs with a hammer is actually well understood among manual engineers. It’s a human trait to look at what you’re hitting the nail into, when you actually should be looking at the top of the nail. We ‘proved’ this back in my college days. It’s strange, but when using a chisel on a wall (even a sculptor does this) you always tend to look at the tip of the chisel. If you actually focus on the blunt end of the chisel, your concentration is on hitting that, and not what the tip is doing. You won’t hit your thumb (trust me). As you get more adept at hitting stuff, you don’t need to watch what you’re hitting, as the subconscious part of your brain allows you to do both. You become aware of the hammer hitting subconsciously, and no longer need to watch the hammer blow [the subconscious is a fascinating field, employed by chicken-sexers and enemy-aircraft spotters – your subconscious drives your car, you don’t!]. Despite all the work over my long career, the last time I hit my thumb was in my 20s. For do-it-yourselfers, I would recommend focusing on where your hammer hits, not the nail/chisel tip.

Norbert Twether
Reply to  Bubba Cow
April 8, 2015 3:49 am

I am alo an engineer (like the G of BGM) ….. as my engineering schoolmaster taught me … the solution is to hold the hammer with both hands :¬) :¬)

Reply to  Bubba Cow
April 8, 2015 10:23 pm

@ Buba ( and mick) I after many smacked nails to try and impress others ( wife and kids etc) I now hire a carpenter.

Reply to  Salvatore Del Prete
April 7, 2015 5:19 pm

Salvatore, great list.
I would love it if you could write a long post quoting each of the predictions, and showing theI data that proves they are wrong.

Reply to  Salvatore Del Prete
April 8, 2015 5:37 am

AGW theory has predicted thus far every single basic atmospheric process wrong.
This is quite an accomplishment. Even a village idiot on occasion will get the right answer through chance and dumb luck.
Climate is a multiple choice exam with 3 possible answers: more, less, stay the same. A pair of dice will score 33% on any such exam, so long as the dice are fair. A score of 0% tells you the dice are loaded.

Reply to  ferdberple
April 8, 2015 7:02 am

Did anyone predict that the climate would be basically unchanged for 20 years?
This is like a coin balancing on its edge.

Phil R
Reply to  ferdberple
April 8, 2015 10:13 am

As the saying goes, even a blind squirrel will find a nut once in a while.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  ferdberple
April 8, 2015 11:19 am

Ah, the citified version. Granddad always said: “Even a blind hog finds an occasional acorn.” Don’t think I ever seen no blind squirrel. 🙂

Brett Keane
Reply to  ferdberple
April 8, 2015 2:45 pm

Of course they’re loaded. By the false physics used.

April 7, 2015 2:55 pm

Predicted by the Wyatt and Curry stadium wave paper for this ‘nontrend’ to last into the mid 2030s. Add in no accelerating SLR, no tropical troposphere hotspot, and much lower observational TCR and ECS (although Gavin post Ringberg is test marketing the idea over at RealClimate that ECS is a variable, not a constant—only FAR, SAR, TAR, AR4, and AR5 forget to mention this new ‘fact’), and you have the makings of a warmunist implosion under the weight of accumulating counterevidence.

Reply to  ristvan
April 8, 2015 4:44 am

The sun is going to be very quiet in the near future after this solar cycle ends. It is the thing that warms everything up. Into yet another cold cycle we go, a mere 30 years after the previous cold cycle.

Reply to  ristvan
April 8, 2015 5:29 am

ECS is a variable, not a constant
Gavin and the alarmists are playing catch up. This has already been proposed by a great many “skeptical/realist” proponents, such as Richard Lindzen and the iris hypothesis.
Climate is dynamic and responds according to the Le Chatelier principle. ECS will be high when the climate is in equilibrium and low when the climate system system moves away from equilibrium. Sort of like a pendulum. The further it moves away from the rest position, the more the pendulum resists moving away from the rest position.
In other words, adding CO2 to the atmosphere will reduce the sensitivity of the climate system to CO2. This has been demonstrated using econometric analysis. That warming due to CO2 is not persistent; it is a pulse effect. Add CO2 to the atmosphere and the climate warms initially but the effect does not last. The climate system responds to counter the warming, returning the system to equilibrium, even though the CO2 remains in the atmosphere.

April 7, 2015 3:13 pm

You don’t have to be dumb to be wrong, but refusing to admit error is making the climate change/AGW group look very dumb.

April 7, 2015 3:36 pm

I don’t get why the El Niño like conditions have made us warmer the last 18 months but the tropics are the coolest of the 3 listed zones?

Bill Illis
Reply to  angech
April 7, 2015 6:06 pm

The El Nino was so small that it made little difference really.
How it affects global temperature is 0.08 times Nino 3.4 Index (of 3 months previously).
Tropics regression can get to 0.20 times Nino 3.4 (2 or 3 months previously).
Nino 3.4 of 3 months ago 0.78C and 2 months ago 0.53C. The math only produces a temp lift globally of 0.06C and for the Tropics 0.131C.
Pull the ENSO lift out and we have a normal ENSO global temp of 0.25C and for the Tropics, -0.05C (and the Tropics have not really experienced any global warming so it fits the pattern.)

Stein Gral
April 7, 2015 3:47 pm

Is there a chance that this year is N O T gone be the hotest year ever ? And if so, will it impact what is gone happen in Paris Dec15 ?

Werner Brozek
Reply to  Stein Gral
April 7, 2015 4:06 pm

It depends on the data set. It is still very early in the year, but after 2 months, the GISS average is 0.1 above its 2014 record high. The Hadcrut4 average is also 0.1 above its 2014 high.
On the other hand, after 3 months, UAH is in third place and RSS is in 5th place.
April is only ¼ over, but over the last 12 months, the average for April so far is the coldest it has been over the last 12 months at:
This site from Nick Stokes does not contradict April so far:

Reply to  Werner Brozek
April 7, 2015 4:45 pm

How accurate is that web-site for global temperature info. What is the baseline? thanks

Werner Brozek
Reply to  Werner Brozek
April 7, 2015 6:29 pm

That is an excellent question! I find that the two are relatively close to each other in terms of relative changes. Furthermore, they give a very good indication of what GISS will do next, but not Hadcrut4 nor Hadsst3 nor UAH nor RSS.
So the question then becomes if either of the above two sources is best or if GISS is best or somehow inferior to these two.
If I had to predict what GISS will do in March, I would say it would go up very slightly from February since Nick’s site has February at 0.271 and March at 0.287. But the numbers are so close that I cannot rule out a slight drop either.
I do not know what the baseline is.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Werner Brozek
April 7, 2015 9:29 pm

The baseline for the NCEP/NCAR index is 1994-2013. When I started it, 2013 was the last completed year, and the dataset gets a bit ragged before 1994.

D.J. Hawkins
Reply to  Werner Brozek
April 8, 2015 2:34 pm

At this point in 2015, I think we are still seeing the residual effects from the warm pool accumulation that was released by the El Nothing. As northern Pacific temperatures relax to their long term averages, or drop further in a cooling PDO, I think the remainder of the year will drop to the recent global cooling trend. I don’t think 2015 will be anywhere near a record year. Feel free to pitch brick-bats in December if I’m wrong! 😉

Reply to  Stein Gral
April 7, 2015 8:53 pm

There was only a 35% Chance that last year was the warmest, yes there is still a chance that this year won’t be the warmest.

April 7, 2015 3:51 pm

This may be a foolish question, but why is a 30 year period ending almost 5 years ago used to determine the anomalies? There is a complete data set through the end of 2014, and if used wouldn’t that tend to provide a more accurate assessment of current results?

Reply to  spren
April 7, 2015 4:10 pm

Most anomalies (deviation from baseline average) use 30 year baselines, because ‘climate’ is defined (WMO, NASA, NOAA) as some statistical change (mean, mode, SD, extreme envelope…) in weather over 3 decades. It doesn’t matter so much which 3 decades are chosen for the anomaly baseline.
Note that using anomalies is a good way to equivalence things like altitude/latitude driven temperature differences. True, and the official justification. It is also a great way to hide the fact that models vary in absolute GAST by +/- 2C over observed, which means all water phase transitions are way off, as are the models. If they cannot get evaporation, condensation, snow to melt water right because they don’t get absolute temperature right, why does anyone think they are useful? This is much . See essay Models all the Way Down in ebook Blowing Smoke.

Adam Gallon
Reply to  ristvan
April 8, 2015 5:18 am

It matters quite a lot which 3 decades are used. If you use 60’s,70’s,80’s, then you’ve that really cold period to yank your baseline down.
Guess which decade GISSTemp includes?

Reply to  ristvan
April 8, 2015 5:53 am

It is also a great way to hide the fact that models vary in absolute GAST by +/- 2C over observed
The use of anomalies skew the deviation calculation, making climate appear much less variable due to natural causes. climate science has been mislead by naive application of statistics to weather data to try and calculate climate.
As William Briggs has pointed out, only the raw data can be used to calculate statistical properties of climate. Once you sum and average the data to turn it into anomalies, you have changed the statistical properties of the underlying data, leading to spurious conclusions.
In other words, statistics relies on properties of the underlying data set. By manipulating the data you have changed its statistical properties, such that you can no longer rely on statistics to draw conclusions. You can never be sure if the statistics you observe are due to the data or the manipulations.

Reply to  spren
April 7, 2015 4:37 pm

The answer to your not-so-foolish question is: blind tradition based on northern European experience, where multi-decadal temperature variations are very weak. When they are strong, a 30-year “base period” provides a significantly biased baseline for computing “anomalies,” with the polarity of the bias depending upon the the phase (warm or cold) of the multi-decadal oscillations. For accurate scientific work, base periods longer than a century are required.

Bart Tali
Reply to  1sky1
April 7, 2015 7:34 pm

Agreed. The AMO is 60-70 years. A proper baseline should be at least that.

Reply to  spren
April 7, 2015 5:17 pm

I understand the use of the 30 year period serving as the baseline. My question was why, instead of 1981-2010, wasn’t 1985-2014 used as we have a full set of data. I was thinking that would be more relevant to current temps than a period almost 5 years older.

Werner Brozek
Reply to  spren
April 7, 2015 6:34 pm

My understanding is that it is supposed to be the most recent 30 year period ending in 0. But if others want to use an earlier period to make the present look relatively much warmer, that is their prerogative.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  spren
April 7, 2015 9:43 pm

3 standard decades is a convention. But it doesn’t matter that much. UAH won’t want to change it frequently, because that affects all past values, and makes comparison with earlier published results difficult. GISS hasn’t changed since the ’80s. There is no reason to. The main thing is to have a consistent base.

Reply to  spren
April 8, 2015 6:13 am

But it doesn’t matter that much.
of course it matters. virtually every observable natural system exhibits cyclical behavior. otherwise it goes extinct and is no longer available to be observed. the earth’s weather exhibits cyclical behavior and climate is derived by processing this cyclical weather signal.
We have a large body of science called “signal processing” that determines the sample size required to establish a baseline for cyclical systems. Unless climate science conforms to these rules it cannot be considered scientifically valid. One might as well argue that climate can have its own rules for addition and subtraction, and need not concern itself with the rules already established by other disciplines.

Reply to  spren
April 8, 2015 6:21 am

But it doesn’t matter that much.
then why use 3 decades? 1 year or 1 day or 1 hour of data also gives you a baseline. Why not use that. What is the scientific justification for using 3 decades? What body of theory established that this is the correct value to use?
Or did climate science simply pull this out of the air? Did we simply choose 30 years because it was convenient at the time? In which case there is no reason to believe this has any scientific validity.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  spren
April 8, 2015 2:28 pm

“What is the scientific justification for using 3 decades? What body of theory established that this is the correct value to use?”
Lower variance. The basic idea of anomaly is that you should subtract from each local value the expected value before averaging. That’s so that the change in that expected value won’t affect the average if it goes missing.
A short anomaly period may be unbiased, but there is a chance that if, locally, you chose a warm/cool base period, some residual expected value remains. So you choose a period that is long enough to minimise that, but not so long that it gets shaky because data is running out, or many stations don’t overlap with large parts of it.
NOAA now uses, variously, a recent 30 year period and the whole 20th Cen. Once you have averaged anomalies, you can change the base as you wish by subtracting the appropriate average. The key thing is what you use during averaging.

Peter Sable
Reply to  spren
April 8, 2015 11:52 pm

We have a large body of science called “signal processing” that determines the sample size required to establish a baseline for cyclical systems.
Indeed we do have a very well known body of science in ‘signal processing’, and with the AMO at about 60 years, Nyquist says we need at least 120 years.
Note that 120 is the minimum in an error-free system. Temperature measurements are hardly error free.
Oscilloscopes typically use a minimum of 4x and the quality ones 8x oversampling. So really we need 240-480 years.
(BTW most of signal processing applied knowledge is about accurate measurement of high frequency signals, and we’re trying to accurately measure low frequency signals. The math is symmetrical, but the practical body of knowledge particularly about errors and the actual best filtering and windowing mechanisms is actually rather poor. However this just generally leads you to “the longer the sampling period, the better”. Lack of knowledge doesn’t mean you get to cheat Nyquist.).

April 7, 2015 5:30 pm

And in breaking news, it seems you’re finally cutting through Mr Watts-
Not that any of us should hold our breath that the future readings can possibly discount the UHI effect that must occur over the last 40 odd years as Adelaide has developed significantly between that original measurement location and the coast. Still it’s a small step for our BOM to finally admit they have no idea whatsoever what’s happened to Adelaide’s temperature after they scrapped one of the world’s longest serving Stevenson Screens and moved measurement to the eastern side of the CBD at Kent Town.

Richard M
April 7, 2015 5:43 pm

Last month was as close as RSS and UAH have been. UAH at .256 and RSS at .255. They’ve been converging over the last several years. I wonder if this will change with version 6 of UAH.

Werner Brozek
Reply to  Richard M
April 7, 2015 6:46 pm

I believe you are reading more into this than is warranted due to different baselines.
Baseline period
Jan 1951 – Dec 1980 (30 years)
Jan 1961 – Dec 1990 (30 years)
Jan 1979 – Dec 1998 (20 years)
Jan 1981 – Dec 2010 (30 years)
I do hope they converge, but in the sense that both will show a very long pause of no warming.

Reply to  Werner Brozek
April 8, 2015 8:20 am

good information

April 7, 2015 6:35 pm

Note how Adelaide’s naive eggsperts at the BOM want to cut down 18 trees at the original temp site in order to get a more accurate temperature comparison with the original? I should add here that cutting down trees will immediately arouse the ire of our plethora of NIMBY Greens who believe every tree in our fair city is a sacred temple to Gaia and over their dead bodies, or chaining themselves to the trees, will said felling begin. To give you some idea of the ire and pull of these people, they made a shopping developer build the Burnside shopping centre around a common gum tree but alas Gaia was angry at them-
So given the background to all this sublime vindication of what has been obvious to any reasonable scientific mind, I vote we give Adelaide’s BOM staff a big smiley stamp for most improved in class 🙂

Bart Tali
April 7, 2015 6:48 pm

AMO went negative in March, and is negative overall for the year so far. I think there’s a good chance this could be the first negative AMO year since 1996. 2014 started out negative as well though, so hard to say for sure what will happen.
There’s a strong correlation of AMO to UAH, so if AMO stays on the cooling trend, this will NOT be the “hottest year ever” with UAH. Nor was 2014. But if you are able to fiddle with temperatures (a la GISTEMP), anything is possible.

April 7, 2015 7:17 pm

Thanks, Anthony. The March 2015 temperature anomaly map is not yet available at

April 7, 2015 8:45 pm

Are we still doomed, then?

Reply to  RoHa
April 7, 2015 8:56 pm

Yes, we are doomed the human race will not survive. The only question is how much longer will we survive, 100,000 years, a million years or a billion years. What is certain is global warming won’t lead to our demise.

Reply to  Tom Trevor
April 7, 2015 9:13 pm

If we last long enough global warming will certainly cause us a few problems.
Unless we can relocate there are problems up ahead…

Reply to  Tom Trevor
April 10, 2015 11:20 am

So, John of Patmos called it right 2,000 years ago, and scientists have just caught up with him in the recent 100 years. OK, I got it.

April 7, 2015 11:08 pm

If shown this chart on the SAT, every decent student would identify it as a step function. How long before every decent scientist speaks out?

April 7, 2015 11:34 pm

The decrease in UV radiation and temperature drop in the the zone of the ozone.

Reply to  ren
April 8, 2015 12:50 am

Year Mo Globe Land Ocean NH Land Ocean SH Land Ocean Trpcs Land Ocean NoExt Land Ocean SoExt Land Ocean NoPol Land Ocean SoPol Land Ocean USA48 USA49 AUST
Trend -0.35 -0.37 -0.34 -0.35 -0.36 -0.34 -0.34 -0.37 -0.34 -0.31 -0.33 -0.30 -0.37 -0.37 -0.36 -0.37 -0.41 -0.35 -0.21 -0.22 -0.19 -0.40 -0.49 -0.33 -0.39 -0.36 -0.35

Village Idiot
April 8, 2015 3:45 am

The red ‘running, centered 13-month average’ line (Fig. 1) lurches up and down somewhat due to ‘natural variation’. But (to be a little off-message here) the trend does seem to me to be…how can I best put it?…upward.

Reply to  Village Idiot
April 8, 2015 6:03 am

Scary isn’t it. How will we survive in temps .07 degrees warmer. It was -20 out this winter and will be 100 degrees this Summer. 120 degrees different where I live, but that .07 will destroy my life, I’m so scared that I think I will hand all my money over to you.

Village Idiot
Reply to  Jared
April 8, 2015 12:39 pm

“As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming”
[Snip. If you’re so unhappy here, there are blogs more to your liking. ~mod.]

Reply to  Village Idiot
April 8, 2015 6:50 am

the trend does seem to me to be…how can I best put it?…upward.
The trend has been about 0.7C since the end of the Little Ice Age. Long before CO2 was invented.
Natural variability is at least +/- 5C per hundred years, based on paleo data. Wild swings in climate are common. Systems like climate, with multiple attractors can and will exhibit wild swings in behavior without the slightest change in forcings.
The “gradualist” theories of climate that drive CAGW are based on the notion of natural variability as “random” noise. However, dynamic systems such as climate are subject to 1/f (pink) noise, which is a much different animal.
Random noise is what you see from static systems in equilibrium. Where the forcings are constant. Climate is a dynamic system, where the forcings are continually changing due to the daily, annual, etc., etc., cycles. Such a system is ruled by 1/f noise.

Reply to  ferdberple
April 8, 2015 2:57 pm

The Village Idiot says:
In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming
Since it’s too short a time span to measure 50 years out of ice core records, that is just an opinion. In reality, the tiny 0.7º fluctuation over the past half century is almost flat. Just prior to the Holocene, temperatures varied by whole degrees, up to tens of degrees. But those looking for confirmation bias of their climate scare can always find it. All it takes is rejecting everything that doesn’t agree with their eco-religion. Simples!
Kudos to the Village Idiot, though. He could not have picked a more accurate screen name.

Reply to  ferdberple
April 9, 2015 4:59 pm

There simply is no persuasive empirical evidence that in situ temperature variations resemble pink noise.

April 8, 2015 4:54 am

We are at the top of the 24th solar cycle and it is weak and astronomers predict the next cycle will definitely be weaker than this cycle so with a negative AMO on the East Coast and Europe, we shall have much colder weather in the very key areas where Ice Ages start which is near Hudson Bay and over Sweden and Scotland.

Reply to  emsnews
April 8, 2015 6:02 am

Current temperature in Canada.

Reply to  ren
April 8, 2015 10:30 am

We may be surprised when they AMO falling …

Reply to  emsnews
April 8, 2015 12:11 pm

ln europe what’s really interesting is the fact the ice sheets reached right over to lreland.
This suggests to me that during the ice age the general weather pattern was blocking high forming between Greenland and Arctic europe. So blocking off the milder air from the west and bringing
cold easterly winds instead. With these blocking highs in place the Atlantic lows would have tracked across central europe. Causing heavy snow fall as they run into this cold air.

April 8, 2015 6:12 am

Since Ozone is a “greenhouse gas [traps heat in the Troposphere, Stratosphere] ” and the Ozone pages say that Solar EUV both creates and destroys Ozone, I wondered if there is a relationship between Solar EUV and Ozone thickness.
I have been searching for a graph that shows the relationship between the thickness of the Ozone layer and Solar EUV [and/or 10.7 cm Flux]. I have been unsuccessful. The researchers say that if Solar EUV were to stop, Ozone would completely dissipate in one year. So there must be a relationship.
I would like to complete a comparison of Ozone thickness between Solar Cycle Peak and Solar Cycle Minimum.
Any help??

Reply to  jlurtz
April 8, 2015 9:15 am
April 8, 2015 8:40 am

Reuters pictures of ore ships stuck in Lake Superior ice 7 April.
Northern Vermont Lakes are the same.

Pippen Kool
April 8, 2015 8:55 am

3 year averages: The 36 month average is +0.26C, the highest value for the entire UAH record.
2 year averages: The 24 month average is also +0.26C, is is also high except for the the 2010 El Niño peak that had 18 months between +0.27 and +0.30.
It would seem that the UAH record is not consistent with the idea that GW has stopped..

Reply to  Pippen Kool
April 8, 2015 9:27 am

Scary, and the Hirricanes and Tornadoes are destroying us. Miami has already sunk, life is unbearable now in 2015. Life was so much better in 1615. Lol. Tell me how the world is any worse than it was 65 years ago in 1950. Put the Kool Aid down, get a grip on reality and enjoy life. Fear mom gearing is not good for your Health.

Reply to  Jared
April 8, 2015 9:29 am

Auto correct on my Tablet.should have read fear mongering, not fear mom gearing.
Fear auto correct, not 1 degree that will be beneficial.

Werner Brozek
Reply to  Pippen Kool
April 8, 2015 9:34 am

The slope for UAH is flat since April 2009 or 6 years.

Pippen Kool
Reply to  Werner Brozek
April 8, 2015 10:51 am

Yes, you are correct, at least rounding to two places, fair enuf.
1 year: 0.05
2 year: 0.07
3 year: 0.03
4 year: 0.04
5 year: 0.01
6 year: 0.00 (your value, started near the 2010 El Niño)
7 year: 0.02
8 year: 0.02
After this, we start to converge on the UAH average of 0.026.
So, I wonder what your point is. Are you suggesting that I too cherry picked? I used the 24 and 36 month averages. Those are just the facts.

Werner Brozek
Reply to  Werner Brozek
April 8, 2015 11:33 am

Are you suggesting that I too cherry picked?

No, you did not cherry pick. If anyone did, it was me. It just happened to be the longest time where the slope was negative. However it should also be noted that going 36 months or 24 months gives a completely different picture than going 12 months.

Pippen Kool
Reply to  Werner Brozek
April 8, 2015 11:52 am

“it should also be noted that going 36 months or 24 months gives a completely different picture than going 12 months”

Reply to  Pippen Kool
April 8, 2015 11:09 am

Enjoy the warmth, while it lasts.

April 8, 2015 10:13 am

I was glad to hear Dr. Spencer say the “El Nada” has peaked, which means there will soon be a precipitous drop in global temps when the La Niña kicks in later this year.
I’m a little worried about the possible impact a La Niña cycle will have on California’s drought. There is a blob of warm ocean water making its way down the Califoornia coast, but when this dissipates, California’s drought may continue worsen.
California created much of the water shortage problem by needlessly dumping billions of gallons of water in rivers to save the: snail darter, river smelt and salmon, which was a very stupid thing to do.

Reply to  SAMURAI
April 8, 2015 12:30 pm

Actually, the “remarkable resilient ridge” is caused by the Pacific Ocean heat off the California coast. The oceans store heat (longer, more than the land). Even through the Solar output is decreasing, the land is cooling faster than the oceans, therefore, I expect the “ridge” to stay in place (but very slowly cooling). This means NO drought relief for California for the future.

James at 48
Reply to  jlurtz
April 8, 2015 2:10 pm

The ridge is not due to the blob. It’s due to the Aleutian Warm Pool (which persists in spite of PDO supposedly being less negative just now).

Reply to  SAMURAI
April 8, 2015 4:58 pm

Samurai…all or most all flood events in the Pacific Northwest have struck during the depths of a La Nina. Examples are 2008/09 weak, 1996/97 very big warm rain took the snow off of the mountains, 1984/85 weak as was the La Nina, 1964/65 the most damage of all as we found out why continued massive clear cutting was a bad idea, 1955/56 also very big rain event, 1946/47 minor flooding, 1937/38 a moderate flood. All of those took place during a La Nina event. This is part of my reasoning why I forecast an upcoming La Nina, a flood most likely to be a large event in the winter of 2016/17, or at the latest in the following winter 2017/18, and the prospect that the next solar minimum will occur earlier than thought either side of 2018. So far I have correctly forecast every move on the MEI over the last 12 months. The last bit is to see if I am right that this month will be the peak of the current positive ENSO. If correct on this, then I can move on with my thoughts on when the next valley will occur. I already have that position noted.

April 8, 2015 10:14 am

Why are these temperature readings labelled as “anomalies”?
An anomaly is something that deviates from what is standard, normal, or expected.
I don’t see anything in those readings that is abnormal or unexpected.
Better terminology needed? Could we talk about fluctuations from a reference level?

Reply to  BernardP
April 8, 2015 10:17 am

Anomaly is just the average temperature minus the average baseline for the station it was recorded from. There are papers describing it on the GISTEMP website.

April 8, 2015 10:14 am

I am warming to the free air temperature datasets, even the synthesised TLT data. Overall it is sensitive to El Nino and volcanic events.
Some speculation at this point, the El Nino appears to be developing somewhat more than they originally expected for the current Kelvin Wave. If so, the temperature spike might show up better in the free air dataset.

James at 48
April 8, 2015 2:08 pm

UAH are deniers! Arrest them! / sarc

April 9, 2015 4:43 am

If one has to trust a global average temperature trend, it has to be this satellite temperature data trend by UAH and also the other one by RSS.
I don’t trust any global average temperature trend derived from any surface instrument temperature data, which we have come to learn is full of fudge factors that render the data unreliable. They rely on actual data readings (which is the most accurate data estimate of temperature, and then adjust that data for various reasons. How can an estimate applied to another estimate, and then applied to yet another estimate, be more accurate than the original estimate? Impossible.

April 9, 2015 7:52 am

One must understand that the temperature of ozone over Canada is still very high. Therefore, the cold will still flow into the US.

Reply to  ren
April 9, 2015 12:20 pm

The jet stream in the north certainly shows an unusual pattern flow as compared to anything I have seen in the last several years of watching. I am starting to get a clearer picture of the sum total from using earthnullschool. What a tremendous tool for fitting the pieces together. You have helped me a good bit with the information you post. Thanks for that.
ps…my mothers side of the family was from Poland. Her grandfather had the foresight to take the family out of Poland in the late 1910s. She was born in San Francisco as a result.

Reply to  goldminor
April 9, 2015 12:36 pm

Regards, nullschool is very good, especially 10 and 70 hPa.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights