UAH Global Temperature Update for February 2021: +0.20 deg. C

Reposted from Dr. Roy Spencer’s Blog

March 3rd, 2021 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for February, 2021 was +0.20 deg. C, up from the January, 2021 value of +0.12 deg. C.

REMINDER: We have changed the 30-year averaging period from which we compute anomalies to 1991-2020, from the old period 1981-2010. This change does not affect the temperature trends.

The linear warming trend since January, 1979 remains at +0.14 C/decade (+0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land).

Various regional LT departures from the 30-year (1991-2020) average for the last 14 months are:

YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPIC USA48 ARCTIC AUST 
2020 01 0.42 0.44 0.41 0.52 0.57 -0.22 0.41
2020 02 0.59 0.74 0.45 0.63 0.17 -0.27 0.20
2020 03 0.35 0.42 0.28 0.53 0.81 -0.96 -0.04
2020 04 0.26 0.26 0.25 0.35 -0.70 0.63 0.78
2020 05 0.42 0.43 0.41 0.53 0.07 0.83 -0.20
2020 06 0.30 0.29 0.30 0.31 0.26 0.54 0.97
2020 07 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.28 0.44 0.26 0.26
2020 08 0.30 0.34 0.26 0.45 0.35 0.30 0.25
2020 09 0.40 0.41 0.39 0.29 0.69 0.24 0.64
2020 10 0.38 0.53 0.22 0.24 0.86 0.95 -0.01
2020 11 0.40 0.52 0.27 0.17 1.45 1.09 1.28
2020 12 0.15 0.08 0.22 -0.07 0.29 0.43 0.13
2021 01 0.12 0.34 -0.09 -0.08 0.36 0.49 -0.52
2021 02 0.20 0.32 0.08 -0.14 -0.66 0.07 -0.27

The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for February, 2021 should be available within the next few days here.

The global and regional monthly anomalies for the various atmospheric layers we monitor should be available in the next few days at the following locations:

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

4.6 15 votes
Article Rating
94 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
ResourceGuy
March 5, 2021 2:13 pm

Be it resolved that the EU temps need to take the plunge next for good of all.

a_scientist
March 5, 2021 2:36 pm

How low will she go?
Will this mild la Nina drive the anomaly to negative values? (The ENSO meter is not even -1)

If we get to a negative 0.2–0.3 it would really throw a wrench in the warmist works.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  a_scientist
March 5, 2021 3:37 pm

HadCrut has already anticipated this with their new steeper T rise. They take their cues from each other. GISS satellite T was a thorn in the side during the 18yr pause and so they loosened protocols and adjusted their temps upward from UAH which used to be very close together. Then IPCC announced a higher sensitivity to CO² doubling for up and coming AR6 report eventhough their former value gives 300% higher temp anomalies than observation values. The record is massively adjusted, but intil now satellite temps were a constraint on fiddling the present.

Bellman
Reply to  a_scientist
March 5, 2021 4:18 pm

I think your ENSO meter is broken, it’s been below -1 since last Autumn.

https://www.psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/

Roger Knights
Reply to  a_scientist
March 5, 2021 5:15 pm

It would be even better if it went below the old, lower baseline. I hope Roy adds that line to his charts.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  a_scientist
March 6, 2021 1:05 am

A strong volcano will do the trick, even without a strong la nina.
Currently we have a good chance for multiple volcanic eruptions, plus a strong la nina.
I consider it just a matter of time until we go negative on the satellite temps.
At that point the graph will look very different indeed.
Middle of the 2020’s and the atmosphere no warmer than 40 years prior?
It will be impossible to make any credible case that the globe is warming, let alone that we are in a steady march higher due to CO2.

TheFinalNail
Reply to  a_scientist
March 6, 2021 2:16 am

a_scientist

“If we get to a negative 0.2–0.3 it would really throw a wrench in the warmist works.”
__________________

How so? Shouldn’t we expect to see temperature falls during La Nina conditions? March 2011 went to -0.32C following the La Nina back then. It doesn’t tell us anything about future trends. For instance, the March trend in UAH from that low in 2011 to 2020 is +0.65 C/dec warming!

S.K.
March 5, 2021 2:47 pm

We live on the surface of the earth not in the troposphere and stratosphere.

The un-adjusted surface temperature data indicates a gradual cooling since the beginning of the 20th century.

Visit realclimatescience.com to learn how much NASA and NOAA alter the surface data.

Last edited 1 month ago by S.K.
Reply to  S.K.
March 5, 2021 3:11 pm

Agree. Tony Heller is doing a excellent job revealing all the fraudulent data alternations that have been going on for years — all in support of man-made global warming propaganda. As Rush Limbaugh accurately said, “It’s just a political movement that is disguised as science.”

LexingtonGreen
Reply to  S.K.
March 5, 2021 3:28 pm

But is surface better? Where do you get the least UHI effect, etc.? For some reason I put more faith in the good Dr. Spencer. But I am just a casual observer and definitely not a scientist.

RickWill
Reply to  LexingtonGreen
March 5, 2021 4:43 pm

There is still an upward drift in the UAH LTT. I await version 7 to get that corrected.

The National Centre for Environmental Prediction data uses the moored buoys for correction and shows good results for the Nino3.4 region – per attached.

The UAH LTT still shows an upward trend for this region.

Screen Shot 2021-03-06 at 11.37.21 am.png
RickWill
Reply to  RickWill
March 5, 2021 6:57 pm

The NCEP data for the Nino 34 region has cooling of 0.3C per 1000 years. UAH LTT has warming of 10.3C per 1000 years.

UAH is in desperate need of version 7 to remove the obvious and significant bias.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  RickWill
March 7, 2021 4:11 am

What does Dr. Spencer say about this?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  LexingtonGreen
March 7, 2021 4:03 am

“But is surface better?”

The surface is where we live.

I think you are buying into the alarmist narrative that the UAH satellite cannot determine surface temperatures.

Weather balloons measure temperatures “from the ground” where they are launched, all the way up to the highest altitude they can reach. So noone is claiming that weather balloons don’t measure the temperatures on the ground, but some alarmists, in an effort to discredit the UAH satellite measurements, which don’t go along with the alarmist narrative, claim that the satellite does not measure the surface temperature and therefore cannot be relied upon.

But, the people who manage the UAH satellite did a comparison of weather balloon data to the satellite data and found a 97 percent correlation from the “ground” all the way up.

The next time you hear someone claim the satellites don’t measure ground temperatures, tell them to prove it. Tell them to dispute the correlation between the weather balloon data and the satellite data.

Last edited 1 month ago by Tom Abbott
To bed B
March 5, 2021 3:12 pm

This can’t be right. It was freezing cold in N Am and Europe while this summer in Australia has been ridiculously mild.

There was wide spread frosts on many days in my neighbourhood in winter even though the local weather station only recoded one day getting below 0, and that was only -0.5°C. A day when some houses had frost on their rooves (a vacant one and one which was recently renovated to a high standard, presumably with very good ceiling insulation).

It’s been unusually cold in many places. Which place could you toast your bread in the sun?

Wim Röst
Reply to  To bed B
March 5, 2021 3:22 pm

The February map by UAH shows there were warmer regions as well: comment image

For the Netherlands: very low temperatures in the first half of February were followed by very high temperatures (for February) in the second half. End result: ‘normal’.

UNGN
Reply to  Wim Röst
March 5, 2021 4:15 pm

Texas was bottom 10 coldest February in 125 years of surface measurements, but it shows white and light blue as an average on UAH map.

Weird.

RickWill
Reply to  To bed B
March 5, 2021 3:39 pm

You need to buy one of the new IPCC calibrated thermometers. They only go up.

Reply to  To bed B
March 5, 2021 6:18 pm

“This can’t be right. It was freezing cold in N Am and Europe… ”
Just another reminder that the troposphere is a different place, not a better guide to surface temperature. At the surface it was very cold in those places, and the global average went down 0.2°C. It was the coldest month since Feb 2014.

https://moyhu.blogspot.com/2021/03/february-global-surface-templs-down-02.html

Here is the map
comment image

To bed B
Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 5, 2021 6:50 pm

It’s not a different place. It starts at the surface. Sunlight shines down, is absorbed, that heat rises and is spread around by weather patterns. The spread was different hence the comment about the toast.

M maybe people forget that a heatwave anywhere in the world is always evidence of global warming.

fred250
Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 6, 2021 1:47 am

Just a reminder that NOTHING from GHCN is worth even spitting on !!

Mike Maguire
Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 6, 2021 11:17 am

(1961-90 base)
It’s 2021, why would they be using that base period?

Mike Maguire
Reply to  Mike Maguire
March 6, 2021 11:21 am

Actually, I see on the graph the base period is 1951-80, That doesn’t make sense unless one is trying to maximize the positive anomalies by comparing to the coolest period in the last century.
I am open to hearing what other reason they could have that escapes me.

Reply to  Mike Maguire
March 6, 2021 5:18 pm

Both are done for comparison reasons. GISS uses 1951-80 and the graph uses the same colours and contour levels as GISS, so they can be sompared. 1961-90 was used because it was the base used by NOAA and HADCRUT, again to aid comparison.

Baselines are arbitrary. The majors chose the most recent decades when they began, and are reluctant to change, because they then have to endlessly explain which belongs to which of the figures they post, as Roy Spencer is now having to do. NOAA is most flexible, and frequently uses 1901-2000. There is no special value. Here you can see them all set to a common 1981-2010 baseline
https://moyhu.blogspot.com/p/latest-ice-and-temperature-data.html#Drag

March 5, 2021 3:24 pm

That it rose in Feb from Jan just shows how many other factors (hint, oceans) affect temperature other than the CO2 supposition.

Izaak Walton
Reply to  Rud Istvan
March 5, 2021 4:42 pm

All that shows is that there are short term flucuations on top of a long term warming trend. Note that the 40 year trend is at 0.14 degrees/decade which is consistent with the increasing CO2 levels.

Scissor
Reply to  Izaak Walton
March 5, 2021 5:05 pm

It’s been cooling for about 6000 years.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Scissor
March 5, 2021 5:51 pm

They’re working on doing the same thing with the Holocene Thermal Optimum they did with the Medieval Warm Period. Isaak believes that faeries live at the foot of his garden.

fred250
Reply to  Izaak Walton
March 5, 2021 7:31 pm

Izzy-WRONG.. You bet izzy’s-wrong !!

There is NOT a linear trend, there are periods of no trend interspersed with step changes at El Nino events.

This shows that CO2 has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the slight warming

1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human released CO2 causation?

Izaak Walton
Reply to  fred250
March 5, 2021 10:31 pm

Fred,
What sort of evidence would you accept given that there is only one planet and no way to run any sort of controlled experiment?

Redge
Reply to  Izaak Walton
March 6, 2021 12:54 am

no way to run any sort of controlled experiment

The scientific method has five basic steps, plus one feedback step:

  1. Make an observation.
  2. Ask a question.
  3. Form a hypothesis or testable explanation.
  4. Make a prediction based on the hypothesis.
  5. Test the prediction.
  6. Iterate: use the results to make new hypotheses or predictions.

So you’re telling us the whole global warming farce doesn’t follow the scientific method and is untestable.

Thanks, Izaak, welcome to the world of scepticism on global warming.

Lrp
Reply to  Izaak Walton
March 6, 2021 1:28 am

There is already plenty of evidence showing warming periods in Earth’s history without human CO2 emissions

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Lrp
March 7, 2021 4:19 am

Even as recently as 100 years ago. We actually have written temperature records that show it is no warmer today than it was in the recent past.

fred250
Reply to  Izaak Walton
March 6, 2021 1:49 am

What a totally PATHETIC reply,

Izzy-pathetic .. You bet he is !!

Now how about you answer the questions, you evidence-free fool. !!

1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human released CO2 causation?

Last edited 1 month ago by fred250
Graemethecat
Reply to  Izaak Walton
March 6, 2021 3:23 am

Hypothesis: temperature is a function of atmospheric CO2 concentration, not vice versa. Test: in the ice-core record, CO2 concentration should change before temperature. Observation: temperature change precedes change in CO2 concentration. Conclusion: hypothesis is falsified.

Last edited 1 month ago by Graemethecat
Tom Abbott
Reply to  Graemethecat
March 7, 2021 4:23 am

Another falsification of the claim that CO2 is the control knob of atmospheric temperatures:

Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations increased during the period from 1940 to 1980, while the temperatures declined by 2C during that same period.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 7, 2021 4:34 am

I guess I ought to include Hansen’s 1999 US chart, so we can get a bigger picture of the warming and cooling of the climate than is given by the satellite chart:

comment image

As you can see, it is cooler now in the United States than it was in the 1930’s. Keep in mind that the year 1998 is on both the satellite chart and Hansen 1999, and they both show that 1998 was equal to 2016, and Hansen 1999 shows 1934 was 0.5C warmer than both.

All other unmodified, regional surface temperature charts from around the world show the same temperature profile as the US surface temperature chart, i.e., that it was just as warm or warmer in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today.

The regional surface temperature charts show that CO2 is not controlling the Earth’s temperatures. There is no correlation. CO2 increases yet temperatures fall for decades, or they flatline for years. CO2 is not the mover and shaker.

Graemethecat
Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 7, 2021 4:45 am

Yep, the AGW hypothesis is falsified immediately, without even using the ice-core records. Of course, the Warmunists are desperately trying to drop this Inconvenient Fact down the memory hole.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Izaak Walton
March 6, 2021 5:59 am

How about doing detrending both temp and CO2 and see if a direct, synchronous relationship still exists. That would make both stationary and indicate what causal relationship might exist.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Izaak Walton
March 5, 2021 9:10 pm

What is your evidence of this alleged correlation?

Ted
Reply to  Izaak Walton
March 6, 2021 10:04 am

The ninety-plus models developed based on the hypothesis that CO2 is the primary cause of warming showed that the best estimate for warming would be a trend of 0.4 degrees per decade, with a lower bound of 0.25 deg/dec. A trend of 0.14 deg/dec shows the hypothesis to be incorrect.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Ted
March 7, 2021 4:44 am

Excellent point. Any alarmists have anything to say about that?

The computer models are junk. And what do the alarmists do? Why, they double down on stupid with even more outlandish models!

I guess they have nowhere else to go. The alternative is to admit they were/are wrong. They can’t have that.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Izaak Walton
March 7, 2021 4:16 am

It’s been cooling since the Early Twentieth Century. Your timeframe is a little short.

rbabcock
Reply to  Rud Istvan
March 5, 2021 5:20 pm

The BOM Pacific Climate Driver update page continues to show La Niña will continue for the immediate future.

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/#tabs=Pacific-Ocean&pacific=Sea-sub%E2%80%93surface

Also as the Sun awakens and the solar wind hits the Earth more frequently, you can expect some warming due to the interactions between the solar wind and the Earth’s upper atmosphere.

Rob_Dawg
March 5, 2021 3:58 pm

If this keeps up we can expect Version 7.0 in record time.

Bill Everett
Reply to  Rob_Dawg
March 5, 2021 4:20 pm

Meanwhile, the human yearly average contribution to atmospheric CO2 was less than one tenth of one ppm of CO2 from 1980 until 2019.

Izaak Walton
Reply to  Bill Everett
March 5, 2021 4:44 pm

Nonsense. Every year humans emit enough CO2 to approximately double the observed rise in CO2 levels.

Scissor
Reply to  Izaak Walton
March 5, 2021 5:10 pm

Technically, adult humans emit about a kg of CO2 per day. That would be 365 kg/year per person.

Reply to  Izaak Walton
March 5, 2021 5:13 pm

IW, surely you jest. Your annual doubling comment is belied by the Keeling Curve. Look that up, then get back.
Dunno what you might have actually meant when you misspoke so bigly.

Izaak Walton
Reply to  Rud Istvan
March 5, 2021 7:21 pm

Rud,
It is quite simple. Every year human activities release enough CO2 into the atmosphere to raise the levels by about 4ppm. The Keeling curve shows that the annual increase is about 2ppm,

fred250
Reply to  Izaak Walton
March 6, 2021 1:54 am

YAWN. !!

CO2 is the TOTALLY ESSENTIAL to ALL LIFE ON EARTH

It is currently only just above “subsistence level”

We need more of it, not less.

1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human released CO2 causation?

Last edited 1 month ago by fred250
Patrick B
Reply to  Izaak Walton
March 6, 2021 3:24 am

What “human activities” contributed how much CO2 last year? How was that measurement made? How much CO2 did nature contribute last year? How much CO2 did nature absorb last year? How was that measurement made? Show me the calculation of the margins of error on all these measurements.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Patrick B
March 7, 2021 5:00 am

All good questions.

Gary Ashe
Reply to  Izaak Walton
March 5, 2021 5:22 pm

The residual trace gas co2 makes up by volume 0.004% of the atmosphere per annum Izzak, that is the balance per annum of the natural carbon cycle, humans are part of nature and so are our activities, our activities contribute 3% of the natural carbon cycle, that is 3% of 0.004%.

3% of virtually nothing is 12 parts per million parts of our atmosphere.

Last edited 1 month ago by Gary Ashe
Izaak Walton
Reply to  Gary Ashe
March 5, 2021 10:34 pm

Hi Gary,
Good to see that we are in agreement. The 12ppm of CO2 caused by human activities is significantly more than the annual increase in CO2 levels (i.e. about 2ppm).

Gary Ashe
Reply to  Izaak Walton
March 5, 2021 10:43 pm

The residual 400ppm = 388ppm natural and 12 ppm human activity, since human activities began up to today you doughnut.

If the residual level in the atmosphere increase by 2 ppm per annum human activities account for 3% of those 2ppm and nature 97%
That is 0.06% of 1ppm per annum.

Last edited 1 month ago by Gary Ashe
Scissor
Reply to  Gary Ashe
March 6, 2021 9:05 am

It’s about 0.04%.

Just begin at 100% and divide by factors of 10, so: 100% = 1,000,000 ppm obviously; then, 10% = 100,000 ppm; 1% = 10,000 ppm; 0.1% = 1000 ppm and 0.01% = 100 ppm. Thus 400 ppm is simply 4 times 100 ppm, which is 4 times 0.01% = 0.04%.

fred250
Reply to  Izaak Walton
March 5, 2021 7:33 pm

Izzy-WRONG , yet again ?

Yep Izzy’s wrong !

Humans are CARBON NEUTRAL.

They CANNOT give out more “carbon” than they take in.

It is a chemical impossibility.

fred250
Reply to  Izaak Walton
March 6, 2021 1:52 am

You live in a DELUDED little fantasy world , Izzy-deluded. !

Bill Everett
Reply to  Izaak Walton
March 8, 2021 10:37 am

The CO2 level was 338ppm in 1980 and 410ppm in 2019, a gain of 72ppm. The human contribution at five percent of the CO2 level would be 3.6ppm (.05×72) Thus the human contribution was 9/100 of one ppm per year on average(3.6 divided by 39).

Bill Everett
Reply to  Izaak Walton
March 9, 2021 6:24 am

The atmospheric CO2 level was 338ppm in 1980 and 410ppm in 2019, a rise of 72ppm. At a five percent contribution level the human contribution to the rise was 3.6ppm. Thus the yearly average human contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere from 1980 until 2019 was 9/100ths of one ppm(3.6 divided by 39).

Rob_Dawg
Reply to  Bill Everett
March 5, 2021 4:53 pm

CO2. Nature’s plant candy.

Gary Ashe
Reply to  Bill Everett
March 5, 2021 5:11 pm

Bill please demonstrate how you come to that conclusion for for Izzak – know- nothing.

Bill Everett
Reply to  Gary Ashe
March 8, 2021 10:59 am

I added this to an earlier reply but I repeat: Th e global atmospheric CO2 level was 338ppm in 1980. By 2019, 39 years later, it had increased to 410ppm. This was a gain of 72ppm. According to the IPCC the human contribution to the CO2 level is five percent of that level (the EPA says 3.75 percent). Using the IPCC percentage the human contribution to the 72ppm rise was 3.6ppm (.05×72). Thus the average yearly human contribution from 1980 to 2019 was 9/100th of one ppm (3.6 divided by 39).

March 5, 2021 10:53 pm

OMG!!! 0,20C of very-scary global warming!!! We’re all gonna die! Er, freeze! Er, something!

Be very frightened!!!

Loydo
Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
March 5, 2021 11:25 pm

Bit of a change from your usual: “I predict global cooling any time soon, be frightened”.

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
March 6, 2021 1:59 am

YAWN

There is absolutely nothing untoward or to panic about with less than a degree of warming out of the COLDEST PERIOD in 10,000 years

The world has been a few degrees warmer than now for MOST of the last 10,000 years

There is absolutely NO-EVIDENCE that the highly beneficial warming we have been lucky enough to have, is either human caused or dangerous in any way what-so-ever.

1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human released CO2 causation?

Evidence, or take your pitiful pusillanimous pouting elsewhere, loy-dodo. !!

Loydo
Reply to  fred250
March 6, 2021 3:00 am

Hit us with some of your kindergarten graphs freddie or are you out of crayons?

Graemethecat
Reply to  Loydo
March 6, 2021 3:27 am

What has Fred250 stated which is false? Are his graphs wrong, and if so, how?

Loydo
Reply to  Graemethecat
March 6, 2021 2:20 pm

How about his first two sentences.

Graemethecat
Reply to  Loydo
March 7, 2021 3:09 am

Lying as usual, eh Loydo?

Fred250 is correct. One degree of warming is absolutely nothing to worry about.

comment image

Loydo
Reply to  Graemethecat
March 8, 2021 8:38 pm

Doesn’t the Crete site only go down 400m back to a about the year 1600? And who wrote “present day” on that graph and why didn’t they reveal “present day” actually means 1950 and that the data stops in 1850. What a joke.

Graemethecat
Reply to  Loydo
March 8, 2021 11:42 pm

So, according to you, Daansgaard and Avery invented essentially ALL the data in the graph? Who should I believe, little Loydo=troll?

Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
March 6, 2021 9:43 am

To be clear, +0.2C is 0.5C of cooling since the last temperature peak circa 2016.

I had to add that for the math-challenged, the innately innumerate (aka all warmist hysterics).

Virtually all the very-scary runaway dangerous global warming has disappeared!

What will the warmist bedwetters worry about now? How to create false alarm?

Sharknados! Be very afraid!

Michael Carter
March 6, 2021 1:06 am

Note that Mr Spencer writes:

“REMINDER: We have changed the 30-year averaging period from which we compute anomalies to 1991-2020, from the old period 1981-2010. This change does not affect the temperature trends.”

I have been waiting for this change, particularly due to the fact that New Zealand’s ‘flagship’ of climate research and reporting, NIWA, have always written in the monthly climate summary e.g. “1.2 c above average” without ever telling the public how this average was determined.

Now it appears that they do. Here is a sentence from their summary for Feb 2021:

“The nationwide average temperature in February 2021 was 17.3°C. This was 0.1°C above the 1981-2010 February average from NIWA’s seven station temperature series which begins in 1909.”

The devil is always in the detail. They always start their summary by telling us about how horribly above average certain regions are. The below average regions are to left last, in the hope, I assume, that the reader does not get that that far.

Now they see fit to use still use the old period 1981-2010 period, for good reason. Just imagine if the current minor cooling were to continue and they would have to report below average (1991 -2020) month after month.

I am going to write to them. “Sorry guys, you WILL follow international norms.” They cannot follow the WMO guidelines when it suits the political agenda then ignore them when they don’t.

Gary Ashe
Reply to  Michael Carter
March 6, 2021 2:16 am

They can and they will, they will use which ever criteria that suits their hysteria.

TheFinalNail
Reply to  Michael Carter
March 6, 2021 2:39 am

One effect of continually updating temperature baselines as each new full decades completes is to reduce the scale of the individual values; not relative to one another, but on an absolute scale. This is because each decade since the 1980s has been progressively warmer than the previous one, yes, even in UAH!

When I first started following UAH data they used the 1981-2000 base line. This current Feb 2021 anomaly, +0.2C relative to Februarys between 1990 and 2020, jumps to +0.46C on the 1981-2000 base. In other words, a fairly modest looking +0.2C figure on the 1991-2020 is nearly +0.5C warmer than the average February between 1981 and 2020. A rather less benign looking figure. Updating the baseline every 10 years effectively masks the scale of the warming – accidentally, of course!

TheFinalNail
Reply to  TheFinalNail
March 6, 2021 5:31 am

Just noticing that up to 2010, a February anomaly of +0.2C would have been the second warmest Feb in the UAH record. Only 1998 was warmer up to that point and that was due to the huge 1997/98 el Nino. This year, of course, is affected by the cooling effects of la Nina.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  TheFinalNail
March 7, 2021 5:16 am

“This is because each decade since the 1980s has been progressively warmer than the previous one, yes, even in UAH!”

The climate warms for a few decades and then it cools for a few decades and then it warms again for a few decades.

Selecting a few decades out of this cycle does not give the full picture of what is going on with the climate.

I’m not saying it is a dishonest selection on your part. You are legitimately referring to the UAH satellite chart, but the chart itself only covers a short period of time in this climate cycle so showing warming at certain periods of time should not be considered unusual.

If the temperatures started climbing and went through the highpoint of the 1930’s, then we might have something to get excited about, but that’s not happening as of today. Instead the temperatures are cooling while at the same time CO2 is increasing. No correlation.

TheFinalNail
Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 7, 2021 7:07 am

Not aware of any global temperature data set that shows the 1930s being wamer than any decade since the 1980s, at least. Since the 1970s each full decade has been progressively warmer than the previous one according to every data set I can find. That’s a span of 50 years – so quite ‘a few decades’ indeed. When can we expect the cooling cycle to kick in?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  TheFinalNail
March 8, 2021 8:24 am

“Not aware of any global temperature data set that shows the 1930s being wamer than any decade since the 1980s”

The global data sets are computer-generated garbage.

The unmodified, regional temperature charts tell the real story. They all say it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today.

The regional charts are about as “global” as you are going to get. And they all agree with each other with regard to having very similar temperature profiles.

None of the regional charts look like the computer-generated “global” chart. It’s all alone. A figment of alarmist imagination.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 8, 2021 5:59 pm

You got it. If politics continue regional charts are going to be requested in order to plan regional needs. I can’t wait to see what machinations are needed.

Rod Evans
Reply to  Michael Carter
March 6, 2021 2:47 am

Michael, I agree with Gary here, the alarmists will use any trick or any slight of hand to present their message. They have no morals, when it comes to scientific practice or fair analysis of data.
You have to actually ask the obvious question, when it comes to these running data sets.
Does anyone imagine in reality, we are able to say we can measure the “average temp” .across an ocean based land mass like NZ to 0.1 deg. C over a 30 year time scale?
I have been to NZ several times. I have walked some of the nature trails for pleasure and admired the almost unrivalled natural beauty of those places I can say without fear of contradiction, I never came across a weather station on any of my walks. That being the case what average is actually being measured? Is it the urban average or is it the rural average perhaps a blend of both? One thing is certain, I could never claim to be able to confidently offer an average to within 0.1 deg. C over such a diverse landscape.

Alasdair Fairbairn
March 6, 2021 2:36 am

Scientific Cognitive Dissonance is very active these days, understandably. It will be interesting to find out how far it will go before it pops.

Matthew Sykes
March 6, 2021 4:06 am

Hope it doesnt get too cold, a new ice age is much more of a threat given the 8000 year cooling trend.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Matthew Sykes
March 7, 2021 5:19 am

I’m reluctant to wish for cold weather, too.

I would love to see the alarmists shivering, but that means I have to shiver, too, and I wouldn’t like that.

ren
March 7, 2021 12:57 am

In the north, and even more so in the south Pacific, a latitudinal distribution of temperature is evident. This is the apparent effect of La Niña.
Also visible is the low temperature of the Southern Ocean, where autumn is already approaching.comment image

Tom Abbott
Reply to  ren
March 7, 2021 5:22 am

Thanks for posting what you do, ren. It is appreciated.

ren
Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 7, 2021 8:51 am

Thank you. I’m glad you appreciate my insights.

ResourceGuy
March 7, 2021 6:23 am

It’s now an all out race between natural cyclical cooling and agenda science with its carbon tax time table. It could turn out to be the Battle of the Bulge in their final desperate gambit.

Russ R.
March 7, 2021 11:57 am

Still recovering nicely from the Little Ice Age. The gloom and doom predicted has not occurred and shows no sign of occurring.
Should we monitor this situation and get on with our lives, or make a massive disruption in our vital energy industry, that will cost more and deliver less, especially failure of life saving systems when they are needed most?
If this had not been politicized anyone with half a brain would come to the correct answer.
And if you have a fully functioning brain you have no excuse other than you are intentially refusing to use logic, because it “makes you feel bad”.

ren
March 8, 2021 11:08 pm

Strong decline in solar activity from early 2021.
The graph shows the number of sunspots.comment image

ren
March 9, 2021 12:43 am

The temperature above the 80th parallel has dropped.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2021.png

ren
March 9, 2021 10:36 am

Looks like a cool autumn in the southern hemisphere.comment image

%d bloggers like this: