Global Temperature Trend Update: January 2011

|

?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 January, 2011: 

UAH_LT_1979_thru_Jan_2011

La Nina Pacific Ocean cooling pulls global temps below norms


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


January temperatures (preliminary)

Global composite temp.: -0.01 C (about 0.02 degrees Fahrenheit) below 30-year average for January.

Northern Hemisphere: -0.06 C (about 0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) below 30-year average for January.

Southern Hemisphere: +0.04 C (about 0.07 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for January.

Tropics: -0.37 C (about 0.67 degrees Fahrenheit) below 30-year average for January.


December temperatures (revised):

Global Composite: +0.18 C above 30-year average

Northern Hemisphere: +0.22 C above 30-year average

Southern Hemisphere: +0.15 C above 30-year average

Tropics: -0.22 C below 30-year average

(All temperature anomalies are based on a 30-year average (1981-2010) for the month reported.)


Notes on data released Feb. 3, 2011:

The La Nina Pacific Ocean cooling event continues to pull down temperatures, with the global average temperature falling below seasonal norms for the first time in 18 months and only the second time in almost two and a half years, according to Dr. John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville.

Go here to see the monthly temperature data. 

Advertisement

NEXT: Reason TV: Historian Thaddeus Russell on the Renegades Who Helped Make America Free

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. (All temperature anomalies are based on a 30-year average (1981-2010) for the month reported.)

    I love this! Whoever wrote it presumes to know what “normal” is in a chaotic system! What an achievement!

    1. OM…your lack of scientific sophistication is showing.

      1. Re: Neu Mejican,

        OM…your lack of scientific sophistication is showing.

        Translation – he doesn’t agree with my views, so I tell lies about him.

        1. I don’t think that the fact that they use a 30 year average as a base line by itself is an assumption that that base line is normal. I don’t see where the 30 year average is taken to be “normal”.

          1. “La Nina Pacific Ocean cooling pulls global temps below norms”

            Make word “norms” go bold now.

        2. c.f. zeb’s response…no lies, just a comment that you are making politically based critiques of a scientific methodology…without, apparently, understanding that methodology or it’s implications.

          1. Re: Neu Mejican,

            no lies, just a comment that you are making politically based critiques of a scientific methodology[…]

            Did I, Neu?

            “I love this! Whoever wrote it presumes to know what “normal” is in a chaotic system! What an achievement!”

            Like I said: You LIE, because I don’t agree with you.

            1. Did I, Neu?

              Yes. It is evident that the comment is made in a larger political context. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt here. I don’t think you are THAT unsophisticated as to have made the comment without the political motivation. It is possible, but I doubt it.

              Like I said: You LIE, because I don’t agree with you.

              Nope. I often disagree with you. But it is not a lie to say that your lack of scientific sophistication is showing in this series of posts.

            2. Neu never claimed you were a liar. He asserted (with reasonable justification), that you are incompetent in regards to the subject at hand.

              1. OM never claimed that I called him a liar. He claimed that I was a liar when I implied that he is scientifically unsophisticated.

    2. Based on that comment, I get the impression that you don’t know the difference between “average” and “normal” or what a “chaotic system” is.

      1. Re: Tacos mmm…

        Based on that comment, I get the impression that you don’t know the difference between “average” and “normal” or what a “chaotic system” is.

        I know statistics, Tacos. “Average” is NOT the same as “normal”, a temperature “anomaly” is a term that would indicate a “normality” (what the hell is “normal” in a multi-variable system?)

        With variations in the tens of degrees within a very short span of recording time (really, guys – 30 years?), how can one construe normality in such a system as the GLOBAL climate?

        1. Then where are you getting the word “normal” from? I see the word “norm” in Bailey’s post, along with the word “average.” No mention of “normal” before it appears in your first post.

          1. Re: Tacos mmm…,

            Then where are you getting the word “normal” from?

            “Anomaly” implies something that is not NORMAL, and implies a comparison with something that IS normal. Otherwise, how would YOU know it is an “anomaly”?

            1. It’s pretty clear what’s meant by anomaly, based on the sentence in which is occcurs:

              All temperature anomalies are based on a 30-year average (1981-2010) for the month reported.

              You’re arguing with a point that’s just not being made in this post.

              1. Re: Tacos mmm…

                You’re arguing with a point that’s just not being made in this post.

                Tacos, look at the phrase again and tell me “anomalies” does not imply a “norm.” What’s the norm? Taking a 30 year average is just that: An average based on a pre-established (and arbitrary) period. If my icecream cone is 3 inches from minute 1 through 10 on average and 2-1/2 inch from minute 11 through 20 on average, then what’s the normal size? 3″ or 2-1/2″? Before I lick it, or after? Would there be an anomaly if I decide to measure the size at minute 10.5?

                These are interesting statistics but they do not purport to establish what’s normal. In an ever changing system, there’s no such thing as “normal” – there’s only averages, and trends.

            2. That would be true, but the point is to find some kind of overall trend, not to find a “normal” temperature. So if the current temperature deviates from the past average, that indicates a trend.

              1. Re: heller,

                That would be true, but the point is to find some kind of overall trend, not to find a “normal” temperature.

                That’s a different story. A TREND is one thing. Saying “anomaly” implies a comparison with something considered “normal.”

                So if the current temperature deviates from the past average, that indicates a trend.

                That’s an entirely different animal. TREND is one thing. “Normal” indicates a state of affairs that seldom changes.

                1. These are interesting statistics but they do not purport to establish what’s normalTRUE, THEY DON’T. In an ever changing system, there’s no such thing as “normal” – there’s only averages, and trends….That’s an entirely different animal. TREND is one thing. “Normal” indicates a state of affairs that seldom changes. NOT TRUE.

                  I see glimmers that you are within reach of understanding this graph, but the grasp seems tenuous.

                  Try this…you are inferring something about the word “anomaly” here that is, clearly, not implied by its use. The fact that you are making this inference signals either a lack of understanding (most likely) or a disingenuous attempt to discredit the information presented for some extra-scientific reason.

                2. OM, an anomaly is a deviation from a baseline. It has no relationship to the colloquial word “normal”.

              2. That would be true, but the point is to find some kind of overall trend, not to find a “normal” temperature.

                And the bottom line is that there is no “overall trend” any more than there is a “normal temperature”.

                All this silly exercise shows is a bunch of random variation and statistical noise within a small range.

                1. Mike, it is pretty well established that thirty years or more is a sufficient data set to distinguish the signal from the noise.

        2. … a temperature “anomaly” is a term that would indicate a “normality” (what the hell is “normal” in a multi-variable system?)

          To repeat, your lack of scientific sophistication is showing…

          1. Re: Neu Mejican,

            To repeat, your lack of scientific sophistication is showing…

            And to repeat: You lie about my knowledge (without even knowing me) because I DARE to not agree with you.

            1. If you have greater knowledge, please elaborate, because so far all your attempts to clarify yourself just make it more obvious that your comment was based in a lack of understanding rather than anything else.

          2. Neu Mex: working hard to find the worse argument against global warming to disprove so he doesn’t have to go after the debates that make him look foolish.

            Hey anyone notice that the IPCC said that from 2000 to 2010 that temperatures would go up by a rate of 2 degrees per century?

            Funny how temperatures did not do that at all.

            1. I thought this page was interesting:

              http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckit…../nvst.html

            2. The IPCC does not do projections over periods as short as a decade.

            3. It is 2100?

            4. Neu Mex: working hard to find the worse argument against global warming to disprove so he doesn’t have to go after the debates that make him look foolish.

              I didn’t even notice any coherent arguments against global warming going on here, so I am not sure what this comment refers to.

          3. Why don’t they just plot the absolute “global” temperature and get it over with? Why bother with the anomaly?

            1. Anomalies indicate we are not currently experiencing a stable climate, and help us understand what our climate is transitioning to.

    3. Insert my standard rant here.

      30 year rolling average, mother fuckers. I didnt get to rant last month, because it aligned.

      1. My standard reply to your rant.
        There is no scientific advantage to using the rolling average as a baseline.

        Nothing wrong with using it, just no real compelling reason to do so.

        1. The compelling reason is it doesnt create some arbitrary zero point that implies normality.

          1. The proper zero line would be at absolute zero.

            1. Would have to convert the graph to Kelvin form Celcius, but that is an easy conversion.

            2. Re: robc,

              That would make the trend insignificant – which is not what warmists want.

              1. The compelling reason is it doesnt create some arbitrary zero point that implies normality.

                There is no such implication. You are making the same inferential error as OM.

            3. The proper zero line would be at absolute zero.

              And this would be true because?
              To suggest this indicates you are missing the point of the graph. The arbitrariness of the baseline is not, really, a factor in determining the validity of the information presented. It may matter when a specific scientific claim is being made, but for the purposes here, not so much.

    4. Whoever wrote it presumes to know what “normal” is in a chaotic system!

      Huh?

      No he didn’t. He assumed that the we did not have a reliable satellite network measuring the earths temperature before 1978.

      An assumption I hope you hold as well….but who knows maybe you think the Egyptians 4000 years ago put up a secret network that the government is hiding from us or some bullshit.

  2. The La Nina Pacific Ocean cooling event continues to pull down temperatures[.]

    Global cooling!

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

    Global warming!

    Tropics: -0.22 C below 30-year average

    Global cooling!

    Global Composite: +0.18 C above 30-year average

    Globa warming!

      1. Now there’s a novel idea… Climate changes! Does this mean I get to be nominated for a Nobel prize?

  3. OH wow, OK thats kinda scary when you think about it.

    http://www.ultimate-privacy.tk

  4. What about the recent news story that said the recorded temperatures themselves were changing based on the samples taken from those periods? I unfortunately can’t remember the exact article, but someone linked to it last week.

    1. I think you’re talking about this. They’ve apparently updated the version from 3.2 to 3.3, but still no version notes as to why they’ve made adjustments.

  5. Still looks like a slightly cooler La Nina cycle to me.

    Wake me when they set the baseline somewhere in the vicinity of the 5,000 year average. Oh, they don’t have good data that far back? So we really can’t say whether a few tenths one way or the other are anomalous?

    1. Actually they do have temperature data for 5,000 years ago. There are multiple methods for determining average temperature for those time frames. Two of which are tree ring data and coral growth rates.

      Your ignorance of the scientific methods used to determining temperature 5000 years ago doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

      1. “Oh, they don’t have good data that far back?”

        Think the “good” part was the key point.

        1. You tryin’ to say trees and corals are too dumb to launch satellites? That’s racist.

        2. Think the “good” part was the key point.

          No method would be good enough to convince RC.

          1. Re: Neu Mejican,

            No method would be good enough to convince RC.

            But it convinces YOU, doesn’t it? Small data history, an arbitrary baseline – yep, more than enough for the true believer.

            1. If it leads to bigger government, it’s good enough to convince most people.

              1. This is how you do the Watermelon Crawl.

              2. Re: Chupacabra,

                If it leads to bigger government, it’s good enough to convince most people.

                That is what it is, at the end. It’s the perfect justification for a greater State, as the “science” is as pliable as Bill Clinton’s testimony.

            2. But it convinces YOU, doesn’t it? Small data history, an arbitrary baseline – yep, more than enough for the true believer.
              reply to this

              You would need to be more specific, but, yes, I think that there are certainly methods for estimating pre-historic climate that are “good enough” to answer certain specific scientific questions.

              1. Re: Neu Mejican,

                You would need to be more specific, but, yes, I think that there are certainly methods for estimating pre-historic climate that are “good enough” to answer certain specific scientific questions.

                You are not answering the question, my friend. You simply slided off a tangent with a seemengly well-reasoned reply but, again: It is one thing to look for an answer to a specific scientific question even if one has to GUESS (i.e. “estimate”) certain parameters; QUITE ANOTHER to justify a POLICY based on the data.

                I repeat: You were easily convinced even with iffy guesstimates and approximations.

                1. What, pray tell, are you accusing me of being “convinced of”?

                2. You are not answering the question

                  You didn’t ask a specific enough question for me to answer it with any greater degree of specificity.

            3. Small data history, an arbitrary baseline – yep, more than enough for the true believer.

              ummm i hate to break it to you Old Mex but that graph disproves new mex and disproves man made global warming.

              If New Mex looks at that graph and sees evidence of man made global warming then he must be hallucinating.

              He may as well be seeing angels fucking aliens in the shape of Jesus’s face.

              1. ummm i hate to break it to you Old Mex but that graph disproves new mex and disproves man made global warming.

                It disproves me. NOOOO!!!! I exist, I don’t need a graph to prove it.

                But seriously, what assertion of mine does this graph disprove? My primary assertion on this thread have been that OM doesn’t understand the science well enough to even comment intelligently on this graph.

                If New Mex looks at that graph and sees evidence of man made global warming then he must be hallucinating.

                If you look at this graph and think it “disproves man made global warming,” you might take a second to slow down a second and think about what you are claiming.

            4. “Small data history, an arbitrary baseline – yep, more than enough for the true believer.”

              Then make your own map with your own baseline, so long as it covers a period of at least thirty years.

              Here, I’ll make it easy:
              http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/

      2. Great. Tell me what the global temperature in January of 2011 BC was to the nearest 0.1 degees C. Show your work.

        1. He he. Global temperature.

          Let’s say I have a Large Iron Rod. It is about 30 meters long and 3 cm thick. I have one end over a hardwood fire and the other end in ice water.

          What temperature is the rod?

      3. Now show me what those proxy methods say about the temperature today.

      4. Actually they do have temperature data for 5,000 years ago.

        With precision down to the hundredths of a degree celsius? OK, I’m going to have to call major bullshit on that, buddy.

    2. That’s RC Dean, always insisting on the missing link.

      1. [Insert STEVE SMITH joke here.]

        1. insisting on the missing link.

          NO ONE INSIST UPON STEVE SMITH! STEVE SMITH DO ALL THE INSITING!

      2. The 3 inch spear head embedded in my hip bone says you can go fuck yourself.

    3. Wake me when they set the baseline somewhere in the vicinity of the 5,000 year average.

      Why when this short 30+ year graph disproves the man made global warming myth?

      When the global warming alarmists make short term predictions and those predictions don’t pan out in the real world you can use that to disprove them.

      They (IPCC) predicted that temps would rise at a rate of 2.0 degrees per century from 2000 to 2010 and the actual rise was below 1 degree per century over that time span.

      Global warming disproved.

      1. Joshua,

        2000-2010 is a decade, not a century. I’m afraid you’re off by an order of magnitude.

        1. 2000-2010 is a decade, not a century. I’m afraid you’re off by an order of magnitude.

          The IPCC specifically says that the next one or two decades will experience a global increase in temperatures at a rate of 2.0 degrees per century.

          If you don’t like how the IPCC made a terrible prediction that is not only wrong but terribly written as well then you can go bitch to the UN.

          1. http://www.ipcc.ch/publication…..spms3.html

            For the next two decades a warming of about 0.2?C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emissions scenarios.

            The scenarios start in 2000 and it is now 2011. There has been not even been a .1 degrees of warming from 2000 to 2011

  6. Northern: -.06
    Southern: +.04
    Tropics: -.37

    Okay, assuming these are 3 separate (if they were, the composite wouldnt be -.01) then there is overlap between the hemisphere data and the tropics data. Assuming their isnt a significant difference between northern and southern tropics [this may be bogus], that implies the non tropic Northern Hemisphere was above normal, to pull the tropics number up to nearly 0. I know the US and England were below normal, was the rest of the northern non-tropics world that hot for the last month?

    1. “assuming these arent”

      ugh.

    2. Tropics are only 46 degrees of latitude, North and South both have 67 degrees of latitude. They may make up a significantly larger surface area. Not really up on the methdologies of their balancing.

    3. Actually yes. Northern Canada and the arctic have been well above normal this winter. Part of the problem is the satellites don’t monitor temperatures north of 82.5N, which is the part of the planet heating up most rapidly.

  7. Northern Hemisphere: -0.06 C (about 0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) below 30-year average for January.

    We’re freezing!

    Southern Hemisphere: +0.04 C (about 0.07 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for January.

    We’re burning up!

  8. It’s like summertime in Fairbanks! We’re dooooooooooomed!

  9. Well Paul Krugman has now divined the real reason for the riots in Egypt:

    It’s all a manifestation of climate change.

    Krugnuts has wandered so far away from his (nominal) area of ‘expertise” that he has become his own parody.

  10. Thanks for sharing, Ron. It will be interesting to see how far below zero the anomaly gets as this La Nina plays out, and what the reaction is in the scientific community.

    Nice meeting you, btw. Still struggling to reconcile my preconceived mental image of you from H&R posts with the actual you.

    1. It will be interesting to see how far below zero the anomaly gets as this La Nina plays out, and what the reaction is in the scientific community.

      They are saying the low temps are caused by global warming.

      1. joshua Conring|2.7.11 @ 4:16PM|#

        God damn it!

      2. No, climatologists say the current global anomaly is the result of a strong La Nina. Certain local low temperatures (such as those currently experienced in Britain) are due to a weakening Arctic Oscillation, which IS associated with global warming.

  11. Normal?

    What is a normal in a world of quaternions where there is no definable point of origin, man?

    Discorporation might not be for everyone, but it has been very, very good to me.

  12. Here is a nifty way to display this same basic information…

    http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a….._30fps.m4v

  13. Here it is again, this time with a time stamp.

    http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a….._30fps.m4v

    1. This 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 more information about this dataset, see http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp

      Some details. From here: http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a…..0/a003817/

  14. So the rate of rise has been less than 2 degrees this century.And were about in a cold pdo for perhaps the next 20 years.Also if pdo’s keep coming periodically like they have been we will end this century on a colder note.Also we are in the beginning of a grand minimum in solar activity.I’ve heard that part of the reason for global warming is because in the last pdo the ramped up solar activity sent extra solar rays into the ocean which could’nt be released until the pdo turned into the warm mode.In other words we’ve had 2 as many el nino’s partly because the suns extra solar rays were released into the atmosphere after the pdo turned warm and stored up when it was cold.Or so i’ve heard.The theory being that the suns activity reached a peak during the 1960’s and the ocean released the extra heat in the form of more el nino’s at least this pdo that wont happen.

  15. One thing, I don’t pretend to know if the the theory about the sun is correct just wondering.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.