Global Temperature Trend Update—July, 2010

|

Every month University of Alabama in Huntsville climatologists John Christy and Roy Spencer report the latest global temperature trends from satellite data. Below are the newest data updated through June, 2010.

The accompanying UAH press release notes:

First six months of 2010—second warmest on record


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


June temperatures (preliminary)

Global composite temp.: +0.44 C (about 0.79 degrees Fahrenheit) above 20-year average for June.

Northern Hemisphere: +0.55 C (about 0.99 degrees Fahrenheit) above 20-year average for June.

Southern Hemisphere: +0.32 C (about 0.58 degrees Fahrenheit) above 20-year average for June.

Tropics: +0.48 C (about 0.86 degrees Fahrenheit) above 20-year average for June.


May temperatures (revised):

Global Composite: +0.53 C above 20-year average

Northern Hemisphere: +0.78 C above 20-year average

Southern Hemisphere: +0.29 C above 20-year average

Tropics: +0.71 C above 20-year average

(All temperature anomalies are based on a 20-year average (1979-1998) for the month reported.)


Notes on data released July 7, 2010:

Global average temperatures through the first six months of 2010 continue to not set records, according to Dr. John Christy, professor of atmosphericscience and director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. June 2010 was the second warmest June in the 32-year satellite temperature record and the first six months of 2010 were also the second warmest on record.

Compared to seasonal norms, temperatures in the tropics and the Northern Hemisphere continued to fall from May through June as the El Nino Pacific Ocean warming event fades and indications of a La Nina Pacific Ocean cooling event increase.

The warmest Junes on record were June 1998 at 0.56 C warmer than seasonal norms, June 2010 at +0.44 and June 2002 at +0.36.

Go here for the satellite data used to derive the global temperature trend graph above.

NEXT: A Case Study in Local News Futility

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. No doubt about it dude, its getting hotter and hotter.

    http://www.anonymous-vpn.be.tc

  2. Prince’s internet overness chart looks just like that.

    1. The Scientist Formerly Known As Prince has been warning us about ClimateChange forever. He was the first one talking about Purple Rain all the way back in the 80’s.

      1. Nope. America sang about Purple Rain in the early 1970s: Ventura Highway. Maybe you can find even earlier citations.

  3. Just a general comment:

    Why is the Zero line the 79-98 average? Shouldnt it be the 79-2010 average? Shouldnt the zero line move every month with the new data?

    As far as I know, there is nothing magical declaring 79-98 the “perfect” or “most-averageist” climate ever.

    1. Yes – would you not want to go as far back as possible, possible being where accurate data is available?

      1. I assume 79 is as far back as they have the satellite data. Maybe you mean as far forward, which, yeah, is my point. Treat all the data is the average point.

        1. No no no… Don’t you understand? If we treat the data from 30 years ago as average and just assume world temperature was as it “should” have been then, any increases in temperature seem terrifying!

          1. Ooh, or decreases… see, it works either way!

    2. My guess? Most likely to make it easy to compare this year’s chart with the one you gave at the conference last year. If they changed the “zero” from year to year their colleagues would be justifiably miffed.

      There is no claim(*) that the “starting place” is the best value, just that it is the one that they work from. The same way that the Atmosphere is a rather low atmospheric pressure: they measured it one day and called that the starting point. I guess a front was blowing in.

      (*) Well, no legitimate claim, anyway.

  4. I’m MELTING!

    No, wait- I’m not; it’s actually quite pleasant.

  5. I just heard it from no less an authority than MSNBC news-reader (and set decoration) Tamron Hall that the science is settled.

  6. I still think a longer weighted average period – say, five years – would be more useful. The 13 month average doesn’t really convey any information, to me.

    1. Let’s make it 40 years. I’ll be dead by then. I hope.

    2. A best fit line would be more meaningful than the 13 month average.

      1. I wrote a computer program to do custom averaging and curve fitting on this data:

        http://www.heurtley.com/richard/gtchart

  7. Tropics: +71 C above 20-year average

    I think not.

    1. TAO: Error copied directly from the press release is now fixed. Thanks.

      1. Woo-hoo! Can I be called an “editor” now?

  8. So, another El Ni?o wrapping up?

    1. By now it should be El Adolescente…

      1. You skipped El Prepubescente? Why?

  9. I would be interested in having some pre-1979 data.

    1. Build a time machine, then go back in time and invent weather satellites earlier.

      1. Couldn’t you just go into the future then, and see what the climate will actually be like?

        1. That would do nothing for our trendline.

        2. Wont work. You wont know if the future climate is what would happen or what is going to happen after you get back from seeing the future and make changes.

          1. But what if he went back and killed Hitler?

            1. Everybody kills Hitler
              https://reason.com/blog/2008/03…..lls-hitler

            2. Im a time travel Calvinist. If you are going to do it in the past, you have already done it in the past. Thus, at best, you snuck into the bunker and forced him to take cyanide or shot him.

              1. Or, you killed him earlier and he was replaced by a body double.

                History includes all your time travel antics already. You did them before now. Even if you havent done them in your life span yet.

              2. But then you would change the cast of characters in the movie Downfall. How could you possibly do such a thing? (it was a great fuckin movie and provided youtube’s reason for existence).

              3. How do you deal with the grandfather paradox? ie, going back in time to kill your grandfather.

      2. Build a time machine, then go back in time and find Al Gore’s mother.

    2. Find the alien orbital network that has been monitoring us for the last 20,000 years and hack into it.

  10. We using the same weather satellite temperature measuring technology as we did 31 years ago?

    1. some of us are still using the same underwear we were 31 years ago.

      1. some of us are going commando.

      2. underwear fan?

    2. new satellites….but what you are saying is like saying we are using the internet on technology that is 70 years old.

      1. No, what I’m getting at is that either we are measuring temps with 30-year old tech or we are using different tech to measure temp over time.

        And jump in a time machine and then see if you can use your smartphone 70 years ago.

  11. Greater growing seasons – more food. Let’s keep the trend.

    Oh, wait – some say that warm is bad, cool is good. Those that say it are the penguins, and those that have a brain the size of a penguin’s.

    1. obviously, you are in the pocket of big suntan oil. And the snowcone lobby.

      1. HA-ha-haaa!!! Classic….

      2. You’ve been reading my bank statements! You louse!

  12. Couldn’t you just go into the future then, and see what the climate will actually be like?

    That would be too easy.

  13. Poor climate morons; you’ve been clowned by your own people, and you just don’t get it yet. No one will take you seriously any more, even if you are right about all of it. This is what lying gets you.

    1. It’s not lying. They told us so.

      This reminds me of a conversation I may or may not have overheard between the Spitzers:

      Silda: [crying] Eliot, how could you have cheated on me with that, that whore?

      Eliot: Silda, these accusations are unfounded. I intend to investigate them thoroughly and openly and honestly report my findings to you.

      [One month later]

      Eliot: Silda! Great news! My investigation is complete! I’m 100% totally innocent! Can I be your fuckin’ steamroller again?

      Silda: [Stares grimly at Eliot] You’re a fuckin’ moron, asshole. Better increase that indemnity payment to $250K a month, or I’m outta here, bitch.

  14. Climate change bores me. Peak oil is the new crisis de jeur.

    1. here’s the rub. If we’re at peak oil, and peak coal, we’ve (more or less) consumed about half of the carbon available. So, if the temps have gone up say 2 degrees over the last few centuries, we only have another 2 degrees more to go. No biggie.

    2. Peak oil is so 2 years ago.

      1. Try 40 years ago.

    3. french picking of nits:

      It is “du jour”
      “du” is a contraction of “de” (the a preposition, in this case of) and le (the article the) and jour is “day”.

      “Du Jour”

      for a name like “Lost in Translation” I think the mistake is appropriate.

      sorry, anal mood today

  15. The peak of this year’s El Nino event looks colder then the peak of 1998’s El nino event.

    If the globe was getting hotter shouldn’t the most recent peak be higher then one 10 years ago?

    1. The peak of this year’s El Nino event looks colder then the peak of 1998’s El nino event.

      OMG! Climate change!!!

  16. Looks like the past decade is unusual regarding climate variation.

  17. There is no conclusive proof that cigarette smoking causes cancer.

    1. To be fair, its not the smoking part that causes cancer. Its what is in the smoke that does it.

    2. Do you make no decisions in your life without “conclusive proof” that it is the best decision?

  18. Weather is not climate.

    The premise behind this post is stupid.

  19. Yep, yep, here we go again, it’s a little warm this summer and now we’re all gonna die. Run fer the hills! Global warmerin is a-comin fer yer babies!

  20. The good news is that after the investigation, the recommendation is that the researchers become more circumspect about what they write in their e-mails. So, problem solved . . . right?

  21. So my house in Central Ohio is about 930 feet above sea level. At what point will I have beachfront property. That’s all I really care about.

  22. Pop quiz for the Climate Change faithful: what does LAI stand for? (Hint: Tt is related to the biosphere.)

  23. Dear Mr. Bailey,

    A 13 month running average isn’t terribly useful for resolving long term trends. In the future, can you show a graph with a 10 – 20 year running average? KTHXBYE!

    1. NWD & others: I just note that the folks at NASA GISS (some would call them “alarmists”) use a base period, 1951-1980, when calculating temperature trend data. They explain:

      Anomalies and Absolute Temperatures

      Our analysis concerns only temperature anomalies, not absolute temperature. Temperature anomalies are computed relative to the base period 1951-1980. The reason to work with anomalies, rather than absolute temperature is that absolute temperature varies markedly in short distances, while monthly or annual temperature anomalies are representative of a much larger region. Indeed, we have shown (Hansen and Lebedeff, 1987) that temperature anomalies are strongly correlated out to distances of the order of 1000 km. For a more detailed discussion, see The Elusive Absolute Surface Air Temperature.

  24. The graphic shows the misleading methods of the Global Warming NUTTERS.

    The Zero Line Average gets calculated from a paltry amount of data, only for years 1979 through 1998, presumably because satellite data collection began only in 1979.

    Of course, the earth has been experiencing a 4.6 billion year COOLING TREND. It was so hot on earth 4.6 billion years ago that no life existed.

    19 years is not enough data upon which to draw any conclusion about trends, not in the face of 4.6 billion years, or even the last 10,000 years.

    The above graph amounts to foolery and anyone who believes man-made global warming exists because of the above graph is a fool.

    1. Here’s how this happens.

      In 1979, the satellites go up. Data comes in for awhile and the scientists get the analysis codes up a running, check this, debug that, understand and correct these systematic effects, and get together the first publishable unit from this experiment. Then they pick the conference they want to go to (factoring in time frame (they want to get this out soon), prestige, topical focus, and of course location, weather and wine tasting opportunities) submit an abstract and start working on the talk. They’ve got a premiere graph they want to show, and they work to make it a clear and striking as possible. They have to choose a “zero” and the only reasonable choices open to them are the median and the mean of the data set they have in hand. Which ever they pick, they go they show the graph and lots of people want to talk to them. Probably over wine.

      Time passes, more data comes in. There is a good conference in, say, Hawaii. That makes it time to show the data again. They build the graph again, and they use the same baseline because they’re going to get up in front of the room and say “Here’s our full data set as analyzed last month. The first half of the graph will be familiar to those of you who were with us in [some other sunny site] last year, and you can see that the that the data show no significant trend over this short time scale…” This becomes a yearly ritual, and gives them an easy conference trip to take a grad student on (or send them alone if the conference is in Cleveland). With the increasing importance of the internet, they put the data on-line and update it more frequently, but they always use the same baseline because that is the way the data have always been presented.

      If you want a different display, the data are on-line. Knock yourself out.

      If I cared a lot I’d do a significance analysis on the trend. TO my eye it looks to have pretty low, but not negligible, significance.

  25. How does this temperature data help to make Muslims feel good about themselves?

  26. Remember the hole in the ozone? It turns out that it was a good thing for keeping Antarctica from thawing. Oops.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/envi…..antarctica

  27. Are we underwater yet?

  28. Are we underwater yet?

  29. Are we underwater yet?

  30. Are we underwater yet?

  31. Are we underwater yet?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.