Tropics cool in January; globe doesn’t
Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.12 C per decade
January temperatures (preliminary)
Global composite temp.: +0.30 C (about 0.54 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for January.
Northern Hemisphere: +0.27 C (about 0.49 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for January.
Southern Hemisphere: +0.33 C (about 0.59 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for January.
Tropics: +0.07 C (about 0.13 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for January.
December temperatures (revised):
Global Composite: +0.24 C above 30-year average
Northern Hemisphere: +0.19 C above 30-year average
Southern Hemisphere: +0.30 C above 30-year average
Tropics: +0.21 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. 1, 2017:
Temperatures in the tropical atmosphere continued to drop in January as temperatures there moved closer to their long-term averages, according to Dr. John Christy, director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. Composite temperatures over both hemispheres, however, bumped slightly warmer in January, especially in the higher latitudes. In the Northern Hemisphere, pockets of warmer than normal air were especially pronounced over the eastern U.S., Canada and the North Atlantic. In the Southern Hemisphere, Australia and a large area of southern ocean between South America and New Zealand were warmer than normal.
Compared to seasonal norms, the warmest average temperature anomaly on Earth in January was in the southern Indian Ocean about 1,000 miles north of the Getz ice shelf in Western Antarctica. January temperatures there averaged 4.98 C (about 8.96 degrees F) warmer than seasonal norms. Compared to seasonal norms, the coolest average temperature on Earth in January was off the east coast of Tunisia in the Gulf of Hammamet. January temperatures there averaged 2.91 C (about 5.24 degrees F) cooler than seasonal norms.
The complete version 6 lower troposphere dataset is available here:
http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
Archived color maps of local temperature anomalies are available on-line at:
As part of an ongoing joint project between UAH, 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 are collected and processed, they are 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 —
Dr. Roy Spencer adds at his blog:
The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for January 2017 was +0.30 deg. C, up a little from the December value of +0.24 deg. C (click for full size version):
The global, hemispheric, and tropical LT anomalies from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 25 months are:
YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPICS
2015 01 +0.30 +0.44 +0.15 +0.13
2015 02 +0.19 +0.34 +0.04 -0.07
2015 03 +0.18 +0.28 +0.07 +0.04
2015 04 +0.09 +0.19 -0.01 +0.08
2015 05 +0.27 +0.34 +0.20 +0.27
2015 06 +0.31 +0.38 +0.25 +0.46
2015 07 +0.16 +0.29 +0.03 +0.48
2015 08 +0.25 +0.20 +0.30 +0.53
2015 09 +0.23 +0.30 +0.16 +0.55
2015 10 +0.41 +0.63 +0.20 +0.53
2015 11 +0.33 +0.44 +0.22 +0.52
2015 12 +0.45 +0.53 +0.37 +0.61
2016 01 +0.54 +0.69 +0.39 +0.84
2016 02 +0.83 +1.16 +0.50 +0.99
2016 03 +0.73 +0.94 +0.52 +1.09
2016 04 +0.71 +0.85 +0.58 +0.93
2016 05 +0.54 +0.65 +0.44 +0.71
2016 06 +0.34 +0.51 +0.17 +0.37
2016 07 +0.39 +0.48 +0.30 +0.48
2016 08 +0.43 +0.55 +0.32 +0.49
2016 09 +0.44 +0.49 +0.39 +0.37
2016 10 +0.41 +0.42 +0.39 +0.46
2016 11 +0.45 +0.40 +0.50 +0.37
2016 12 +0.24 +0.19 +0.30 +0.21
2017 01 +0.30 +0.27 +0.33 +0.07
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
min temps, global warming is in min temp changes, CAGW fail.
Climate change is real and happening now in the corridors of power in Washington DC.
My model predicts that four years from now it will have spread across both hemispheres to greater and lesser extents, superceding the interminable arguments over inconsequential fractions of a degree.
…and that the same “inconsequential fractions of a degree” continue to manifest signs of rapid warming like: global sea-ice and glacier loss, rising humidity, rising SL, earlier flowering times and changing migration patterns will all increase, as long the same cohort of global oligarchs have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.
Thanks for this link, Anthony: http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/ Very interesting maps.
Very interesting is the 38 year trend: http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2016/december/DEC1978_DEC2016_trend_LT.png
Wim Röst on February 2, 2017 at 1:54 am
Very interesting is the 38 year trend…
Indeed, especially in the Northern Arctic region, where one can see on Roy Spencer’s map decade trends above 0.4 °C.
When you evaluate the data contained in the files
http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tlt/tltmonamg.1978_6.0beta5
through
http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/tltmonamg.2016_6.0
you see that nearly all of UAH’s 9,504 2.5° grid cells showing the highest trends for 1979-2016 are located in the latitudes 80 N – 82.5 N.
Apart from one or two hotspots, the Antarctic region shows, as expected, rather cooling trends.
1978 was around the time the prevailing concern was a coming ice age, you wouldn’t want the planet to get any colder.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/02/the-1970s-global-cooling-alarmism.html
Nope, the majority of climate research papers in the 1970s predicted warming. The press jumped on the few cooling ones as cooling is a lot scarier to contemplate than warming, especially in primarily non tropical countries such as the US.
What is meant by “a wide area” Nick?
Sorry, I meant Griff.
The whole arctic?
The whole area of the arctic ocean?
this covers the general outline of what’s been happening
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-arctic-is-getting-crazy/
Neither Christy nor Spencer receives any research support or funding from oil, coal or industrial companies or organizations
Dangerous stuff: “If it was some kind of death squad, you don’t expect that with something like climate change. I know lots of oil companies have been giving lots and lots of money to– climate change denialist organisations but you don’t expect them to kill people.”
Clearly global warming is an illness of the mind.
It’s one of many manifestations of the sickness at the heart of the authoritarian Left Liberal elite. And it’s now getting its bum savagely bitten, here in the UK by Brexit, and the US by Trump – both brought about by in essence a revolt of the people against the above. Long overdue.
What is really hysterical is that we are coming to find out that Rex Tillerson, ex CEO of Exxon, is warmist who believes in man made global warming.
The world’s most viewed site on global warming lies and climate change gravy train engineers.
What’s up with that.
Nick Stokes,
“Actually, no. UAH data runs from 1979. If you want the customary 3 calendar decades, your only choice is 1981-2010, which is what they use. If they could choose an earlier period, the result would be higher.”
Actually, no. 3 calendar decades are 1980-2009 (inclusive). Did Mr. Stokes’ childhood only start when he was 1 year old?
What was the first decade AD?
Try thinking back to 1st January 2,000, did you celebrate the beginning of the 21st century or were you waiting for 1st January 2001 – when by most reckoning the 21st century was already 1 year old? Did the 20th Century start in 1900 or in 1901?
Calendar decades start Jan 1st of year XXX1, always have.
http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83030193/1901-01-01/ed-1/seq-6/#words=centuries+CENTURY+century+Years+Century+new&date1=12%2F30%2F1900&date2=01%2F06%2F1901&searchType=advanced&lccn=&proxdistance=10&state=&rows=20&ortext=&proxtext=&phrasetext=new+year&andtext=century&dateFilterType=range&index=19
Wiki
“Start and end in the Gregorian Calendar[edit]
According to the Gregorian calendar, the 1st century AD/CE started on January 1, 1, and ended on December 31, 100. The 2nd century started at year 101, the 3rd at 201, etc. The n-th century started/will start on the year (100 × n) − 99 and ends in 100 × n.[2] A century will only include one year, the centennial year, that starts with the century’s number (e.g. 1900 is the final year of the 19th century).”
Anyway, it’s a pointless argument. It’s a fact that met. decades do run from years 1 to 0. And it would make almost no difference if they chose the alternative.
Disappointingly , no mention of what this means for the wine harvest in Australia, NZ, Chile, South Africa and Argentina .
Are we forgetting the priorities ?
Interesting December data, yes I know this is the January data release, but I thought December looked interesting
1987 0.37
1988 0.20
1997 0.25
1998 0.52
2007 -0.04
2008 0.02
2015 0.45
2016 0.24
This is scary data for the winter in the Rust Belt of the United States. Instead of it being -2 degrees outside it might actually be -1 degrees outside in 2100. Our kids will not know what snow is…
This is scary data for the winter in the Rust Belt of the United States. Instead of it being -2 degrees outside it might actually be -1 degrees outside in 2100. Our kids will not know what snow is…
If Trump succeeds in making American manufacturing great again, Rust Belt kids will not know what rust is.
The map shows a big orange blob over southern Australia.
Cape Leeuwin, on the extreme bottom left of Australia, is within a zone shown as 1.5 degrees C above the seasonal norm.
Right then……
There has been a weather station at Cape Leeuwin since 1897.
The average January maximum [1897-2016] for Cape Leeuwin is 23.1 degrees C.
The average January minimum is 17.0 degrees C.
The average January maximum for the 30 year period 1901 -1930 was 23.2 degrees C.
The average January minimum for 1901 – 1930 was 16.7 degrees C.
According to Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology the average maximum at Cape Leeuwin for January 2017 was 22.8 degrees C and the average minimum was 16.6 degrees C.
The January 2017 average maximum and minimum at Cape Leeuwin was below the 1897 -2016 average and below the 1901 -1930 average.
How you can manipulate these figures to turn them into a plus 1.5 degrees C anomaly is beyond my comprehension.
Because they homogenize the data first, this is to not give undue weight to areas that are over represented by weather stations, they fix the weighting, and then combine areas with vastly different uncertainty. Mosh says they get 90% (80%?)the climatology, from Latitude, Altitude, and a factor from distance to the coast. And the difference between the climatology and what’s measured is weather.
Hey Mosh, I keep asking about your out of band testing.
So you have your climatology average temperature field anomaly. Your out of band data isn’t in your field notation. Even if you take the average of min and max, the difference from the 30 year average, and compare it to your field, isn’t any difference just weather? Or do you take all of your out of band data, and run it through the same process you use to build your field then compare them, isn’t that sort of like using autotune on both your data and the reference set? You can make it anything you want. And it might seem totally reasonable. That’s how those things work, when it’s finally sorted out, someone made a perfectly reasonable assumption, or was blind to the assumption they made, and it was just wrong.
But you can’t see ’em until you open your eyes and look.
GregK on February 2, 2017 at 6:26 am
How you can manipulate these figures to turn them into a plus 1.5 degrees C anomaly is beyond my comprehension.
You are here comparing
– surface’s thermometric measurements
– over a century
with
– troposphere microwave readings by satellites
– during the last 38 years
aren’t you?
No
I’m comparing the ground station figures for January 2017 at Cape Leeuwin with satellite readings for the same region for the lower troposphere for January 2017.
A thermometer in a stevenson screen at an elevation of about 1.5 metres is surely measuring the temperature of the lower troposphere at that point
GregK,
“I’m comparing the ground station figures for January 2017 at Cape Leeuwin with satellite readings”
So are you casting doubt on the UAH satellite readings?
Well, maybe. But it’s measuring a very different level. They don’t have to agree.
GregK on February 2, 2017 at 8:18 am
1. I’m comparing the ground station figures for January 2017 at Cape Leeuwin with satellite readings for the same region for the lower troposphere for January 2017.
OK! I misunderstood you.
2. A thermometer in a stevenson screen at an elevation of about 1.5 metres is surely measuring the temperature of the lower troposphere at that point
But here I don’t understand you at all.
Because the satallite readings occur at an altitude of at least 4 km, and there you measure temperatures around 264 K in the year’s average, i.e. -9 °C. And at Cape Leeuwin, there seem to be in the year’s average about 20 °C.
Even if there is some correlation between surface and atmosphere, these temperatures you really can’t compare.
What you can compare are the deltas wrt a common baseline, here that of UAH (1981-2010).
I didn’t download january 2017 data yet, but a comparison over 2 different periods explains better.
For the period 1979-2016 you obtain this:
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170202/kco9whxz.jpg
And for the period 2015-2016, you obtain this:
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170202/r2i9kkgz.jpg
So you see that though surface and troposphere temperatures correlate over the last 40 years, they don’t actually. (The UAH grid cell above Cape Leewin shows even more warming than the does the whole continent.)
Take a coin. Let this be the sum of all forcings. Heads forcing increase, tails they decrease. Let annual temperature anomaly be the running sum of heads minus tails, with one toss being one year.
You will find that even thought your long term heads equals tails, and thus the temperature change should be zero, in point of fact it will not be. You will see wide swings in temperature and climate, without any human induced forcing.
I notice headlines in the US saying that POTUS Trump is threatening to defund UC Berkeley because of the riots there. I wonder if this will affect Steven Mosher and his mates.
At this point, given the insanity that is going on on US campusae, I’d support defunding them all.
Measuring the antipodal oceanic acoustic signal (“The sound of climate change”), Perth to Bermuda: Walter Munk, 2011:
” Brian Dushaw is planning to repeat Ewing’s experiment; he expects a reduction in travel time of approximately 10 s as confirmation of global ocean warming over the last 50 yr.”
http://scrippsscholars.ucsd.edu/…/cont…/sound-climate-change
Dushaw’s results, 2013:
” No change in travel time (hence no change in temperature from 1960 to 2004) was observed.”
http://staff.washington.edu/dushaw/
–AGF
http://scrippsscholars.ucsd.edu/wmunk/content/sound-climate-change
Meanwhile in the real world, Australia has and is experiencing the hottest summer ever. Smashed all temperature records across the continent, not just an isolated area, the whole continent. They even had severe floods in Melbourne and Alice Springs of all places.
Severe rain storms and resultant floods plagued the world in 2016. Every continent experienced severe flooding. A warmer atmosphere holds more moisture.
So how would the authors of this article like to explain the empirical evidence of that?
[Why bother? You aren’t really interested in the explanation, just scoring points. And, Australia is not the world – regional effects of ENSO -mod]
starting to miss the tropical cyclones? i agree that heat records may well get broken since there has barely been any tropical cyclone in australia.
Nick Stokes wrote….. “So are you casting doubt on the UAH satellite readings?
Well, maybe. But it’s measuring a very different level. They don’t have to agree”.
So………satellite readings don’t have to agree with/correlate with surface readings.
Humans/almost all biological processes occur on or below the surface.
What is the relevance of a satellite interpretation of the atmosphere at an altitude of 4km [is that lower troposphere ? Not as low as a stevensen screen reading at 1.5m ] if it doesn’t correlate with temperatures being experienced at the surface ?
The attached notes say that the satellite reading is actually an average of the temperature through the lower 8km of the atmosphere.Good stuff. Interesting data. Handy for atmospheric physicists.
What’s the link between satellite data and temperatures experienced on the ground?
Sorry University of Alabama but I can assure you that ground temperatures in January 2017 in the bottom left of Australia were definitely not 1.5 or 2.5 degrees C above the 30 year or long term norm,.
Actually they do a pretty good job on the day to day change inverted
And then there are sea temperatures, or the sea temperature anomalies……..http://www.bom.gov.au/products/IDYOC058.shtml
They show a weird mix of good correlation and no correlation at all with the satellite troposphere readings
Ain’t nature grand ?
For both UAH and RSS, 2016 beat 1998 by a statistically insignificant 0.02 C leaving 2016 and 1998 statistically tied for first place.
UAH’s 0.30 in January and RSS’s 0.409 in January would rank both in fourth place if they stayed that way for the rest of 2017. Naturally this will not happen. And with both January anomalies being more than 0.1 below their 2016 averages, they would not then be statistically tied for first place either.
I now must say that I don’t entirely trust the satellite data either. There is an obvious step-change before and after the 1998 El Nino and I can’t imagine why there would be a step-change unless it’s an instrument problem or data processing problem. Also as I recall from elementary statistics you don’t do a linear regression analysis without running the correlation coefficient or coefficient of determination. The correlation with a linear trend line to the satellite monthly anomaly data is extremely low, if you run it twice, on data before and after 1998. Basically, the data is a cloud. Granted it’s better if you annualize the data. El Chicon did erupt from March 29 to April 4 1982. Which explains why the periodic strong El Nino of the same year doesn’t show up in the data. Reportedly 7 million tons of sulfur dioxide were released. My point is we have two (now three) cold anomalies early in the satellite data and two warm anomalies later in the satellite data. With a dataset of only 37 years, five outliers strongly bias the data. Add to that an unexplained step change and it’s difficult to say what the data tells us.
More “pause like” temperatures. Normal is never exciting. But, it’s nice. Looks like a cold February in Russia!
But not in the Russian arctic…
These temp anomalies from 2016 continuing into 2017.
https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/arctic-ecology/2017/02/was-russias-arctic-weather-2016
Svalbard airport today is +4C (and the sun isn’t even up).( a distinct shortage of concrete around there, in case you want to blame it on UHI)
The blue spots are in the blues…..
http://heatst.com/world/severe-vegetable-shortage-deprives-europeans-of-spinach-broccoli/
Daily Temps – cyclical.
Seasonal temps – cyclical.
Tides – cyclical.
Climate changes – cyclical.
Any stable system will show variations over short periods. The current climate is stable and we are in a slightly warmer than average portion of a cyclical system. I don’t see how anyone can still defend this as a precursor to CAGW. No amount of hair-splitting global temps, will add support to the notion that we are in uncharted territory, waiting for Thermogeddon to make life unbearable. The changes currently are unnoticeable to anyone, because they are a tiny fraction of daily, weekly, monthly, yearly changes in local temps. It would take vastly more change than we are currently experiencing, just to make it noticeable, let alone a problem. Only the true believers that want a catastrophe, can still rationalize this as science. And they are the ones that are still denying what is obvious.
The sad fact, for the global warming (or “global wanking”) crowd, is that nobody cares.
The idea was to get individuals and sovereign states to give up their own interests in the face of a common imperative crisis. Get rid of that nasty democracy.
But, as stated, nobody cares. So the whole program is a bust.
And as people begin to wake up to the secondary attempts to introduce “the program” through tenure, networking and the courts, well… That just pisses them off. And then they push back.