Global Temperature Trend Update: February 2013 - Rapid Cooling

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 February 2013.

Global Temperature Report: February 2013

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

February temperatures (preliminary)

Global composite temp.: +0.18 C (about 0.32 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for February.

Northern Hemisphere: +0.37 C (about 0.67 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for February.

Southern Hemisphere: -0.02 C (about 0.04 degrees Fahrenheit) below 30-year average for February.

Tropics: +0.17 C (about 0.31 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for February.

Notes on data:

Global average temperature anomalies that jumped almost three tenths of a degree Celsius from December 2013 to January 2013, fell by more than three tenths through February, according to Dr. John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. The cooling was especially pronounced in the Southern hemisphere, where temperatures dropped from 0.45 C (0.81 degrees F) warmer than seasonal norms in January to 0.02 C (about 0.036 F) cooler than seasonal norms in February.

"On monthly time scales, apparently what goes up can come down," Christy said.

Go here to see the monthly satellite data from 1978 to the present.

Comments

[Almanian!]

ERMAGERD, CLERMET CHERNGE!

[Almanian!]

ERMAGERD, FERST!

[John Galt]

ERMAGERD.. Had to look that one up. CERNT STERP LERGHIN NER.

[$park?]

NER DERMEH! ERMAGERD, GLERBEL WERMERNG!

[Lord Humungus]

Obama has saved us!

[KalkiDas]

Some day in the future, it'll be revealed it was all due to solar activity and they will poke fun at the hysteria of our age.

[sarcasmic]

Climate Change is a religion where carbon (organic life as we know it) is original sin, and government is god. As long as people continue to worship government, it is not going to go away. In fact it is more likely to get worse. I predict genocide within twenty years, in the name of saving the planet.

[John Galt]

That's the whole point. We're organic beings, without carbon we can't exist. Everything we do toward our survival moves carbon around.

Anthropogenic Global Warming Climate Change is nothing more than the ultimate misanthrope's ideal religion. It's the excuse the "people are icky" crowd give for why we must surrender ourselves to their control.

[Tony]

You know what's funny is how you guys mimic Idiocracy almost verbatim. At least you didn't say "it's plant food!"

The carbon released from the burning of fossil fuels was not in the normal carbon cycle but was buried underground. Releasing it into the atmosphere cannot possibly have a neutral effect, and besides science has this all figured out already, you just refuse to listen for some reason.

[sloopyinca]

Releasing it into the atmosphere cannot possibly have a neutral effect,

You're right, of course. But unfortunately for you, it's the same net effect on the atmosphere that I have on the oceans when I piss in it.

Sorry, Tony. Your little fantasy religion wealth-confiscation scheme has been shamed by the chicanery, dishonesty and outright data manipulation that's been so commonplace.

Protip: Next time you conspire to pull a global fraud, delete your secret messages and incriminating e-mails.

[Tony]

it's the same net effect on the atmosphere that I have on the oceans when I piss in it.

Citation needed.

Stop reading bullshit rightwing sources on this subject and start reading reliable scientific sources, otherwise you are admitting that you don't care about learning about reality.

It's actually astounding to me that people are even capable of being so willfully ignorant in the Internet age. You actually believe that there has been a global conspiracy, which must involve nearly every climate scientist, scientific body, and government on earth, to invent a climate crisis for vague "wealth confiscation" purposes. I mean really? Do you live in a cave somewhere? This level of bullshit is beyond fathoming.

[Francisco d Anconia]

Do you understand the definition of "part per million" you fucking idiot? We've not even doubled the CO2. 250 ppm to 400 ppm.

2x nothing is, let me see, zero, two times... um... NOTHING!

Herpity derpity TER FEEDBAK LOOPZ...

And even if you happen to be right, why do you assume the end result is a net negative?

[Tony]

Thank you Dr. d'Anconia, why don't you submit your findings to the Nobel committee, seeing as how your insights apparently challenge all of current science on this subject?

[KPres]

"And even if you happen to be right, why do you assume the end result is a net negative?"

Economists think the end result will cost us about ~1% of GDP by 2100. Hell, a shitty stimulus package is worse than that.

http://ew-econ.typepad.fr/articleAEAsurvey.pdf

[sloopyinca]

Citation needed.

Sorry, chump. That's on you to prove man has had serious negative effects on the atmosphere. So far, even with all the massaged date and overt manipulation of the scientific method, your side is still yet to prove if, how, where and when man has done any harm to the atmosphere.

[sarcasmic]

That's on you to prove man has had serious negative effects on the atmosphere.

He's switching the burden of proof along with begging the question.

Tony believes that logical fallacies win arguments.

[Tony]

You're just wrong and I don't know what to say to you other than to go read reliable scientific sources. You're clearly not going to do that, since you're invested in your contrarion viewpoint, but that's really the only option if you're actually interested in reality.

[sarcasmic]

I assume that by "reliable" you mean "government funded and in support of AGW" right?

Because anything that does not agree with your prophet Al Gore is wrong.

Heresy! Heresy! Deniers! Blasphemy!

[KPres]

"I assume that by "reliable" you mean "government funded and in to generate support of AGW" right?"

FIFY.

[itsnotmeitsyou]

go read reliable scientific sources

Tony, I HAVE read the "science" coming out of the IPCC. As I've mentioned on here before, I used to work for Al Gore and his climate minions. They're all full of shit.

The "consensus" that you idiots like to throw around was a tiny poll of climate scientists that were mostly in the business of proving AGW to be correct. If I asked 100 Evangelical Christians if Jesus Christ is our lord and savior, by this logic, I could claim "consensus". It doesn't even pass a simple sniff test.

Any science that even slightly disagrees with AGW is ridiculed as "junk science" and people lose their jobs over it. I read two studies, one by NASA and one by CERN, that said maybe, just maybe, there are other factors involved in climate change. They were labeled as "junk" or "opinion"

Simple fact of the matter is that every single climate model done by the IPCC or the like horrendously fails to accurately predict changes. You do know how science works, right?

[sloopyinca]

You actually believe that there has been a global conspiracy, which must involve nearly every climate scientist, scientific body, and government on earth, to invent a climate crisis for vague "wealth confiscation" purposes.

Um, your "nearly every scientist" is totally off.

Um, your "nearly every scientific body" is off.*

Um, your "every government on earth" claim is way off, even though the study was established by the UN with preconceived results as their objective.

Um, yeah, it was designed to invent a crisis for wealth confiscation. Otherwise, how do yuo explain carbon credits and offsets being sold so the status quo could continue?

*If you count "climate science" as real science, which I don't since the vast majority of them gave up on the scientific method and sharing their raw data and methodology with skeptical peers for review.

[OldMexican]

Re: Tony,

You actually believe that there has been a global conspiracy,

First, it's not a global conspiracy, just an example of confirmation bias by some scientists.

which must involve nearly every climate scientist, scientific body, and government on earth, to invent a climate crisis for vague "wealth confiscation" purposes.

Again, no. It is not every "climate scientists", it is but a few of them if you had any chance to look. It is NOT every scientific body because most scientists are quite occupied in their own affairs, so they see no reason to get into this debate; and it is not every government since most governments are not willing to commit economic suicide for what a few liberal and economics-ignorant policy makers argue.

You are impervious to facts, Tony. There's NO consensus on "Climate Change" because that's a bogus term in itself. What's being debated is Global Warming and if the origin is exclusively from human activity or not. It may be, it may be not - that's what's being STUDIED. That's what's being DEBATED in the scientific community.

That's not the problem, Tony. The problem is the proposed 'solutions' pushed forward by economics-illiterate policy makers and their enablers: the rent-seekers who want to profit from the subsidies and the carbon-credit scams, and the misanthropic curmudgeons you may call (with a straight face) "environmentalists."

[KPres]

You actually believe that there has been a global conspiracy, which must involve nearly every climate scientist, scientific body, and government on earth

No, just the IPCC (and not even all of them, just enough to influence what gets reported). The rest is groupthink.

[OldMexican]

Re: Tony,

Releasing it into the atmosphere cannot possibly have a neutral effect,

Nobody has said it can't. What's debatable is how much and so what.

science has this all figured out already

When you have multinational panels relying on student papers and popular hiking magazines to prop up their "findings", a reasonable person suspects that science hasn't figured it out yet.

[sarcasmic]

Begging the question.

[Zeb]

I don't doubt that it has some effect. Perhaps a significant one, though I don't think anyone knows as much about climate as some like to pretend.
Some effects will be negative for some people and some will be positive. What convinces me that it is religion-like (I wont call it a religion, because I think that religions have to do with spiritual matters) is that so many people refuse to acknowledge the good effects that a warmer planet might cause. Or they will acknowledge them, but then go on to say that it can't really be good, because climate change is bad. And that is about the extent of the argument. The biggest mistake, to my mind, is considering climate change to be a moral issue rather than a practical one. Will a changing climate hurt some people? Probably. But forcing enough change in how people get energy will undoubtedly hurt people as well.

[Sevo]

"Climate Change is a religion"
Exactly. Post-Mosaic; same belief patterns as you mention, including the presumption of a pristine, pre-enlightenment time. Eden; two people 'living in harmony'.
Until one eats a rotten apple, that is...

[Fatty Bolger]

Yes, I have no doubt that they will laugh at our stupidity over this some day.

[AlmightyJB]

I'm already laughing.

[John Galt]

If they don't regulate the human into extinction first.

The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement

People are icky! Yuck! gross!

[gaijin]

I can only say "thanks" to those who choose this movement! Oh and, can my kids have your leftover assets?

[John Galt]

Agreed, the more of these idiots who choose to not to breed the better.

Another big plus would come if they chose to end their blatant hypocrisy, unplugged themselves from their computers, cell phones, climate control, homes, grocers, and everything else they use that contributes to their imaginary crisis. It would give them a taste of why we do the things they hate. They'd either die, live in misery, or come to their senses.

[Brett L]

I can't stand people who half-ass things. Just fucking kill yourself. Hang yourself in the woods where the scavengers will eat you or feed yourself to a large predator.

[Libertymike]

It is still CLIMATE CHANBE!

[Libertymike]

CHANGE. Orthographical ineptitude on my part this morning.

[Almanian!]

CHERNGE! ERMAGERD, SPERLIT RERT!

[Fatty Bolger]

OH NOES! GLOBAL COOLING! WE IZ DOOMED!!!

[Fist of Etiquette]

You can't spell temperature anomalies without lies. Think about it.

An anagram of temperature is meet rapture. Think about it.

I still need grant money. Think about it.

[Richard]

It's been awhile since I've done this, please forgive the self-promotion.

A chart of the UAH temperature data is here:

http://www.heurtley.com/richard/2013-03.png

The program that produced it, and which can do much more, is here:

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

[gaijin]

so we've gone from -.02 to +.02 in 35 years?

[gaijin]

+/-0.2 that should be

[wareagle]

at some point, maybe folks can just admit they don't why temps go up or down, just that they do and there is not much man can do about it.

[John Galt]

The climate has never done anything but change. What's new is blaming humans.

[John]

Ron,

It is worth nothing that 2012 was the year the dissident solar astronomers said was the year the earth would start cooling. Only one year, but it is curious.

[John]

Noting not nothing.

[$park?]

You were right the first time.

[John]

Tony? Is that you? Sparky really, you believe in that cult?

[$park?]

Not sure what you're talking about now. Your original comment "It is worth nothing that 2012..." was more accurate because nobody can predict the future. Nobody.

[John]

Sure you can. I can safely predict that the sun will rise tomorrow in the East. If your science is good, you can make pretty accurate predictions. Maybe the solar astronomers' science is good. Time will tell.

[$park?]

Yeah, I should amend my statement. Anybody can predict the future. Nobody knows what will happen in the future. And if your science is good, you can make what you hope will be an accurate prediction but it's still not a guaranteed outcome.

[John]

Very true Sparky.

[Tony]

It's not a cult when nearly 100% of the world's scientists believe something. It's a cult when a few rightwing idiots believe the opposite.

[$park?]

Galileo agrees.

[Tony]

Because Galileo made some discoveries doesn't automatically mean all of today's scientists are wrong. Jesus man.

[Zeb]

How many of the world's scientists are actually qualified to comment on the subject? Why does it matter what someone in an unrelated field thinks about climate change?

[Tony]

Restrict it to climate scientists and you are even closer to unanimity.

[KPres]

Yeah but the only reason anybody goes into climatology is because they think global warming is the premier issue of the day, so you have a selection bias.

[itsnotmeitsyou]

Restrict it toIPCC funded climate scientists and you are even closer to unanimity.

FTFY

[Tony]

"On monthly time scales, apparently what goes up can come down"

Gee you think? Of course on the relevant multi-decadal time scale, we've seen precipitous warming.

[$park?]

Maybe if we pass a law banning global warmin climate change...

[OldMexican]

It's not the humidity, it's all that hot air!

[sloopyinca]

Hey, Tony. Please explain the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period, noting how man effected the entire earth's climate then.

Please show your work. Thanks!

[Tony]

Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics.

See numbers 27 and 46.

[sloopyinca]

MWP: Your "study" claims that the MWP occurred in a time of increased solar radiation. So they claim to be able to determine effects from solar radiation from 1200 years ago but can't determine them now?

LIA: Your link says the scientists claim a steady increase in temps for 300+ years but that man started to impact the rise about 70 years ago...even though the rate of increase is exactly the same prior to the industrial revolution and increased human CO2 emissions.

Yeah, and they also claim that the sun, volcanoes and sea temp shifts led to the LIA but somehow don't have an impact for the last 70 years even though the increase has remained consistent with earlier times.

Your "science" is a shell game, Tony. Every time your "science" is held up to scrutiny, the explanations fall back on "well, you're just a denier" even though history is 100% on our side.

[Tony]

This subject is why none of you deserve to be taken seriously about anything.

Science is not optional.

[Zeb]

Some of us question the response, not the science. They science may show that human activity causes the planet to warm up. I don't know enough to make the judgement for myself. IT seems likely, but I also think that climate scientist often overstate their case. No one understands very well how climate works on longer time scales. So I will accept that. What science does not and cannot do is to say that any particular response is necessary or appropriate. The cure may well be worse than the disease. Assuming that any attempts to cure it could ever be successful, which I highly doubt. Even if the US and Europe stopped all CO2 emissions somehow, the developing world is still damn well going to burn all the oil and coal and gas that they can get their hands on.

[KPres]

It isn't the science, it's the politics.

[OldMexican]

Re: Tony,

This subject is why none of you deserve to be taken seriously about anything.

Yeah, you see, because composition fallacies are valid.

[OldMexican]

Re: Tony,

It's not a cult when nearly 100% of the world's scientists believe something.

This is the reason why you are not being taken seriously about THIS subject, Tony.

First, science is not predicated upon what scientists believe, but in what can be proven.

Second, your contention that "nearly 100% of scientists believe" is in itself an absurdity. Most scientists do not study the climate; they will defer such matters to those that do, and will tend to trust what they say because of pragmatic reasons; that does NOT mean that those scientists are confirming the findings.

Third, that information you're spewing with nary a modicum of skepticism comes from a poll of scientists done a very long time ago, using a very small sample (as many polls are done). That's not how science is done and has ever been done.

Also, you keep conflating two entirely different things, which is why people here will think you're a loon: You think that climate science is the same as economic policy and that one confirms the other. That's NOT the case; there's NO evidence that carbon credits or turning everybody into carless bike-riders will have an effect on climate. Where's that evidence? Where's the study? You uncritically believe that the "consensus" on one thing leads to the other, a classic NON SEQUITUR.