UAH global temperature – little change in October

UAH Global Temperature Update for October, 2018: +0.22 deg. C

The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for October, 2018 was +0.22 deg. C, up a little from +0.14 deg. C in September. The linear temperature trend of the global average lower tropospheric temperature anomalies from January 1979 through October 2018 remains at +0.13 C/decade.

Global area-averaged lower tropospheric temperature anomalies (departures from 30-year calendar monthly means, 1981-2010). The 13-month centered average is meant to give an indication of the lower frequency variations in the data; the choice of 13 months is somewhat arbitrary… an odd number of months allows centered plotting on months with no time lag between the two plotted time series. The inclusion of two of the same calendar months on the ends of the 13 month averaging period causes no issues with interpretation because the seasonal temperature cycle has been removed, and so has the distinction between calendar months.

Various regional LT departures from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 22 months are:

YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPIC USA48 ARCTIC AUST
2017 01 +0.33 +0.32 +0.34 +0.10 +0.28 +0.95 +1.22
2017 02 +0.39 +0.58 +0.20 +0.08 +2.16 +1.33 +0.21
2017 03 +0.23 +0.37 +0.09 +0.06 +1.22 +1.24 +0.98
2017 04 +0.28 +0.29 +0.26 +0.22 +0.90 +0.23 +0.40
2017 05 +0.45 +0.40 +0.49 +0.41 +0.11 +0.21 +0.06
2017 06 +0.22 +0.34 +0.10 +0.40 +0.51 +0.10 +0.34
2017 07 +0.29 +0.31 +0.28 +0.51 +0.61 -0.27 +1.03
2017 08 +0.41 +0.41 +0.42 +0.47 -0.54 +0.49 +0.78
2017 09 +0.55 +0.52 +0.57 +0.54 +0.30 +1.06 +0.60
2017 10 +0.63 +0.67 +0.60 +0.47 +1.22 +0.83 +0.86
2017 11 +0.36 +0.34 +0.38 +0.27 +1.36 +0.68 -0.12
2017 12 +0.42 +0.50 +0.33 +0.26 +0.45 +1.37 +0.36
2018 01 +0.26 +0.46 +0.06 -0.11 +0.59 +1.36 +0.42
2018 02 +0.20 +0.25 +0.16 +0.03 +0.92 +1.19 +0.18
2018 03 +0.25 +0.40 +0.10 +0.07 -0.32 -0.33 +0.59
2018 04 +0.21 +0.31 +0.11 -0.12 -0.00 +1.02 +0.69
2018 05 +0.18 +0.41 -0.05 +0.03 +1.93 +0.18 -0.39
2018 06 +0.21 +0.38 +0.04 +0.12 +1.19 +0.83 -0.55
2018 07 +0.32 +0.43 +0.21 +0.29 +0.51 +0.30 +1.37
2018 08 +0.19 +0.22 +0.17 +0.12 +0.06 +0.09 +0.26
2018 09 +0.14 +0.15 +0.14 +0.24 +0.88 +0.21 +0.19
2018 10 +0.22 +0.31 +0.12 +0.34 +0.25 +1.11 +0.38

 

The UAH LT global anomaly image for October, 2018 should be available in the next few days here.

The new Version 6 files should also be updated at that time, and are located here:

Lower Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
Mid-Troposphere:http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tmt/uahncdc_mt_6.0.txt
Tropopause:http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/ttp/uahncdc_tp_6.0.txt
Lower Stratosphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tls/uahncdc_ls_6.0.txt

Advertisements

61 thoughts on “UAH global temperature – little change in October

  1. This October was essentially the last hurrah for the lingering warmth of the Great El Nino of 2015-2016. The lingering warm waters off the Baja California peninsula are gone, the increasing cold of the North Atlantic (south of Iceland), and cooler water off of western South America are growing.
    (see this map)
    https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/images/sst/sst.daily.anom.gif
    (note: the base period for this ESRL anomaly map is 1971-2000, encompasses a cold 2 decades of 70’s and 80’s for SST.)

    This winter’s coming El Nino will likely develop as a mild Modokai event (warmer water surfacing nearer Hawaii than South America). So there will be some effect from this event, but it will be short-lived.

      • Water temps will be getting colder but air temps will remain warmer due to water vapor. I think Greenland is in for more gain in surface mass balance this winter.

  2. Can anyone explain the big increase in HAD 4 Crut data since Jones’s “naughty boy” BBC interview in 2010?

    Back then he claimed that the 1975 to 2009 trend was 0.161 c/dec but today using the York Uni tool it is 0.193 c and the 2 earlier warming trends are today lower than in his 2010 BBC Q&A.

    I suppose it’s one easy way to find some extra warming to enhance your CAGW nonsense? Certainly is MAN MADE warming, no doubt about it. Here’s the York Uni tool and I used the global UAH 4 Crut krig.

    http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html And here’s his BBC interview Q&A in 2010, see Question A with the 4 warming trends that have now been suitably adjusted to crank up their CAGW alarmism.

    Oh and don’t forget this is the IPCC’s preferred data-base. Any ideas? I just wish Willis could look at this data and offer his opinion? This is the longest data-base and yet nobody seems interested at all. But heck what’s an endless wastage of trillions $ down the drain for a zero return, certainly doesn’t worry China/ India and their soaring co2 emissions at all? In fact their laughing all the way to their banks.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

    • “using the York Uni tool it is 0.193 c “
      I get 0.186C/decade, from Jan 75 to Dec 09. The difference is probably that they have included a lot more Arctic stations, which were lacking in earlier versions.

      • Nick using York uni tool 1975.1 to 2009.9 shows a trend 0.192/ decade. And we shouldn’t be checking it against your data-base anyway. I’m interested in HAD 4 Crut trends then and now. Just since 2010 interview or about 8 years ago.
        So what about reducing the 2 earlier warming trends as well?

        • Neville,

          You need to enter either 2009.99 or 2010 to get data up to end 2009 (see the footnote at the site). That gives 0.186 ±0.042 °C/decade (2σ) in HadCRUT4 between 1975 and 2009 (inc.), as Nick says.

          Also, HadCRUT4 only came into existence in March 2012, so the data set Jones was referring to in 2010 would have been the previous version, HadCRUT3. HadCRUT4 used many additional station records. Its release was accompanied by a peer reviewed paper explaining the updates: https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/HadCRUT4_accepted.pdf

          • The only database that counts is the UAH one. When the data temp goes back down to equal the level in 1979 at one of the coldest periods, that will be the last nail in the coffin of the CO2 scam. At that point Nick will keep swearing that you cant trust the UAH data, but everyone else will know the game is over. Unfortunately this might not happen for 10 years.

        • Is that the same Jones that is listed as the source of the data in HadCRUT 4 station data files? 😉

      • Nick

        Is there a similar chart to the one shown at the head of the page that spkits the temperature anomalies into logical bands for example arctic, mid, equator, mid southern, Antarctic. (ideally Koppen climate zones) it would be interesting to see if everywhere is performing the same and when in the year it would be expected for temperatures to increase or decrease

        For example I would expect the tropics to remain roughly the sane all year, but overall global temperature to increase over the southern oceans when it is their summer, as there is more sea in the south than the North (or less land)

      • My eyeball estimate of the UAH data is from -0.2C in 1979, to +0.2C now, over 4 decades, a mere! 0.1C per decade. I’m doing a crude visual averaging to get “typical” temperatures in 1979 and 2018.

      • “The difference is probably that they have included a lot more Arctic stations, which were lacking in earlier versions.”

        Why were they lacking? Did they exist? And if they did why were they not included before?

        • As I understand it, when the Soviet Union fell, much of the data from their Siberian stations were no longer included.

        • many many stations have yet to be digitized, Millions of records
          Also, they ned to submit them to NCDC for archiving

  3. Has Dr. Roy ever explained the use of the 13-month average? Seems like an odd number to use as the basis for an average.

    • Global area-averaged lower tropospheric temperature anomalies (departures from 30-year calendar monthly means, 1981-2010). The 13-month centered average is meant to give an indication of the lower frequency variations in the data; the choice of 13 months is somewhat arbitrary… an odd number of months allows centered plotting on months with no time lag between the two plotted time series. The inclusion of two of the same calendar months on the ends of the 13 month averaging period causes no issues with interpretation because the seasonal temperature cycle has been removed, and so has the distinction between calendar months.

      https://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2018-0-22-deg-c/

  4. Recent October UAH Anomalies, degrees C:

    2018: +0.22
    2017: +0.63
    2016: +0.41
    2015: +0.41
    2014: +0.24
    2013: +0.18
    2012: +0.24
    2011: -0.05
    2010: +0.20
    2009: +0.17
    2008: 0.00
    2007: +0.12
    2006: +0.22
    2005: +0.27
    2004: +0.15
    2003: +0.28
    2002: +0.07
    2001: +0.19
    2000: +0.04
    1999: -0.01
    1998: +0.40

    The Super El Nino spike over, the Plateau has returned, if not indeed global cooling. The same anomaly as 12 years ago and well below 1998.

      • Rubbish. The data is clearly and obviously trendless. There are only three years warmer than the start point, and two of those only by tiny amounts. There are far more years that decrease from the starting point and by more than the highest increase. How can you have an increasing trend when there is literally no increase?

        Just look at the data rather than run a line-fit. The average of the numbers us 0.22!

        • Rubbish. The data is clearly and obviously trendless.

          Then Microsoft Excel is lying to us. There is a clear upward slope to the trend which is easily visible on the chart. By all means check this for yourself.

          • Well to get a climatic data point you need sbout 30 years,to get a climatic trend more than 30 years.

            So trend yes, but a twenty year slice is inconclusive by itself.

        • Just re-checked and the October warming trend in UAH between 1998 and 2018 is +0.11 C/dec, not +0.13 as previously stated. My mistake. Even so, it’s a clear warming trend, despite this lower value in 2018.

          • Hugs

            So trend yes, but a twenty year slice is inconclusive by itself.

            Agreed. Probably isn’t statistically significant. It wasn’t so long ago folks around here were calling a halt to global warming because of a much less obvious 18 year trend though 😉

          • DWR54’s trend is simply measuring noise. Strong La Nina early in the data and strong El Nino years towards the end. If you correct for ENSO effects you will see the trend is essentially zero.

            If you don’t understand what you are measuring then you probably shouldn’t even try. It would be much better to find years with similar levels of climate effects and compare them.

          • Richard M

            Strong La Nina early in the data and strong El Nino years towards the end. If you correct for ENSO effects you will see the trend is essentially zero.

            That may be the case. I agreed with Hugs above that ~20 year periods probably aren’t enough to remove the influence of natural forcings. That’s especially true when those periods start and end with big ENSO fluctuations, as you say. In my defense, I didn’t pick the date range.

            Let’s hope this new drive to remove reliance on short term ENSO-influenced trends is applied across the board though. I notice that some folks are already proclaiming ‘global cooling’ based on what was pretty much a widely expected temperature decline that followed the El Nino that peaked just 2 years ago!

    • I hope we can all agree that whether whatever trend might be derived or not, basically, nothing important is going on in global T.

  5. It will be interesting to see whether 2018 turns out colder than 2002.

    As a crude estimate, the total of the monthly anomalies in 2002 was 2.60, and the total for the 10 months so far in 2018 is 2.18. So, very roughly, if the anomalies for November and December are slightly down on last month 2018 will be cooler on the stats (though by an infinitesimal amount presumably well within the error bars) while if they’re the same or up 2002 will likewise be cooler on the stats.

    As I understand it, 2002 wasn’t a noticeable el nino or la nina year, while 2018 has seen an el nino watch and may see a mild el nino develop.

    So however this year pans out, it seems highly likely that two years 16 years apart and not greatly different in el nino/la nina status will show only negligible difference if any in warming anomalies.

    • I would suggest averaging 2001 and 2002 to get a more neutral ENSO reading. However, averaging the entire year also leads to measuring the AMO. To avoid most of the AMO effects I use only spring/summer months (April-September).

      Here’s some selective years (I also throw out the highest and lowest months in the period to avoid outliers):

      1980-81 14.4 C (58.0F) -.06C
      1990….. 14.5 C (58.1F) .01C
      1995-96 14.6 C (58.2F) .08C
      2001-02 14.7 C (58.4F) .18C
      2007….. 14.7 C (58.3F) .15C
      2014….. 14.7 C (58.4F) .18C
      2018….. 14.7 C (58.4F) .20C

  6. Latest BOM Pacific sub-surface temperature-anom chart:

    4-month sequence of vertical temperature anomaly sections at the equator, Pacific for November 2018

    http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/oceanography/wrap_ocean_analysis.pl?id=IDYOC007&year=2018&month=11

    It’s clearly an atrophying rather than amplifying Nino trend so we can probably forget about an El-Nino for the time being.

    Plus the sustained equatorial and trade winds are also contrary to El-Nino development—as you look forward the easterlies remain.

    https://on.windy.com/1vaks

    In fact the rain and storm activity in the far east Pacific is also tapering off to a much lower level.

    https://on.windy.com/1vakt

    SSTA also showing Nino trend dissipating:

    https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=sea_surface_temp_anomaly/orthographic=-136.60,0.50,300

  7. A question to anyone concerning average monthly temperatures….

    The U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN) has been fully operational for about ten years.

    How well do the “pristine” data from the USCRN match up with all the other weather data collected in the USA?

    Thank you!

    • It was probably warmer in 998. But the Vikings didn’t fudge the temperature. They shucked off a fur on good days.

  8. I am very eager to see how all this resolves itself, which it will in due time. I only fear that I will not live long enough to know the outcome.

  9. If the chart started in 1980, then total warming to Oct 18 would be .2 degrees. It’s like stock market charts, whether you measure from peak to trough or trough to peak makes all the difference. What a crazy discipline.

      • Nick-san:

        The natural 2015/16 Super El Niño event, massive raw empirical data manipulation, and blantant lies about the facts are the ONLY reasons why the CAGW hypothesis isn’t already in the trash bin of history…

        That’s “not what scientists do ” either…

        It’s called fraud and malfeasance of public funds…

      • It’s hard to get crazy past peer review. Outright fraud works fine though. How else do you explain Michael Mann?

  10. The current El Niño cycle looks like it will be weak to moderate one, and is currently expected to peak in around April 2019.

    The next La Niña cycle will likely be a strong/cold one as we haven’t had a strong one since 2011, and strong La Niña events usually occur every 10 years or so.

    From around 2021, the PDO, AMO and NAO will all be in or near their respective 30-year cool ocean cycles and a Grand Solar Minimum event will also start from around 2020, which should add to global cooling.

    By 2021, the disparity and duration of disparity between CMIP5 global warming model projections vs. reality should exceed +2~3 standard deviations for 25+ years, which should be suffient criteria to officially disconfirm this silly CAGW hypothesis for good.

    This CAGW insanity is getting so close to finally being disconfirmed.

    • The longer the period of low solar activity continues, the chance of strong La Nina’s become very rare and far between. There has been a good reason why El Nino’s have dominated especially since then and to less extent before it. A strong La Nina has failed after the last strong El Nino unlike the one before it. It won’t be for another year until we know how the recent strong El Nino has affected the longer term global temperatures.

      The warm ocean temperatures around 150m to 200m depth are now appearing at the surface, so temperatures are quickly rising around NINO 3 + 4. There has been in recent weeks a large positive anomaly develop there at depth and that means El Nino more likely to become in near future moderate strength rather than a weak one.

      Unfortunately, hiding the decline is still evident and they will do what they can to continuing implementing this with especially the surface part data sets and RSS joining the bandwagon.

Comments are closed.