Skip to content

Global Temperature Update – July 2014

August 31, 2014

By Paul Homewood

 

 

  RSS UAH HADCRUT4 GISS NCDC
July 2014 0.35 0.30 0.55 0.52 0.64
Change from last month +0.00 +0.00 -0.07
-0.10 -0.08
12 month running average 0.23 0.25 0.53 0.64 0.66
Average 2004-13 0.23 0.19 0.47 0.59 0.59
12 month average – 1981-2010 Baseline 0.13 0.25 0.24 0.24 0.24

 

 

 

image

image

image

image

image

 

 

 

ENSO Conditions

 

ts.gif

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/

 

 

 

The El Nino conditions that have contributed to slightly higher than normal temperatures this year since April remain in place, but prospects of a strong El Nino this winter seem to be receding. NOAA’s latest report reads:

 

Synopsis: The chance of El Niño has decreased to about 65% during the Northern Hemisphere fall and early winter.

During July 2014, above-average sea surface temperatures (SST) continued in the far eastern equatorial Pacific, but near average SSTs prevailed in the central and east-central equatorial Pacific. Most of the Niño indices decreased toward the end of the month with values of +0.3oC in Niño-4, -0.1< sup?="">C in Niño-3.4, +0.2oC in Niño-3, and +0.6oC in Niño-1+2 . Subsurface heat content anomalies (averaged between 180o-100oW) continued to decrease and are slightly below average . The above-average subsurface temperatures that were observed near the surface during June (down to 100m depth) are now limited to a thin layer in the top 50m, underlain by mainly below-average temperatures. The low-level winds over the tropical Pacific remained near average during July, but westerly wind anomalies appeared in the central and eastern part of the basin toward the end of the month. Upper-level winds remained generally near average and convection was enhanced mainly just north of the equator in the western Pacific. The lack of a coherent atmospheric El Niño pattern, and a return to near-average SSTs in the central Pacific, indicate ENSO-neutral.

 http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/ensodisc.html

 

 

Interesting to note that sea temperatures below the surface are said to “below average”. 

19 Comments
  1. August 31, 2014 5:29 pm

    Thanks, Paul. Good work.
    It’s good to see we are not frying yet. That hurricanes and tornadoes are not destroying our houses and buildings. All these while CO2 keeps increasing unabated at Mauna Loa.
    The oceans have not turn acid, The Arctic has plenty of ice (and polar bears) and the Antarctic is at a record of ice content.
    The IPCC’s GCMs continue to be more wrong with every month that passes.

  2. Keith permalink
    August 31, 2014 5:36 pm

    Always enjoy your posts Paul, whether here or as sometimes the case, re-posted on WUWT

  3. A C Osborn permalink
    August 31, 2014 5:43 pm

    I would love to know where the climate was so hot in July that it could offset all the very cold weather reported from around the world and especially in the USA that could still leave the anomalies 0.30 to 0.64 higher than the baselines.

    • Green Sand permalink
      August 31, 2014 6:16 pm

      “I would love to know where the climate was so hot in July,,,,”

      Looking at NOAA Reynolds it could be Global Sea Surface temps:-

      http://nomad1.ncep.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/pdisp_sst.sh?ctlfile=monoiv2.ctl&ptype=ts&var=ssta&level=1&op1=none&op2=none&month=jan&year=1990&fmonth=jul&fyear=2014&lat0=-90&lat1=90&lon0=-180&lon1=180&plotsize=800×600&title=&dir=

      July almost at the 1998 high and looking at the weekly numbers August might well set a new high!

      Why? Don’t know but suspect the equatorial warm pool expected to fuel the predicted El Nino has migrated north rather than traveling east. Time will tell, if it is a release of the warm pool then global SSTs should be about to peak. Then again past experience shows we are not yet at the “ideal” El Nino formation time of the year, so one could still happen. As always the next few months will be interesting to watch.

      • A C Osborn permalink
        August 31, 2014 7:13 pm

        I think you may be be right, in which case that heat is escaping to space.
        Which the Lower Trop satellite temps tend to confirm as they are also warmer than we experience at the Ground Surface (not as presented by Giss etc but actually experience).

    • August 31, 2014 7:35 pm

      According to NCDC/NOAA Eastern USA, Western Europe, West Asia and North Africa, to name a few places.

      • August 31, 2014 7:37 pm

        Sorry I mean’t East Asia, roughly.

      • A C Osborn permalink
        September 1, 2014 5:49 pm

        Notice they show Australia as univesally normal, which we know for certain it was not. They had Record Breaking cold temperatures down there.
        I am positive that Lower Trop values does not match our surface reality.

  4. David permalink
    September 1, 2014 8:57 am

    Paul,

    UAH was 0.31 in June so is down one (-0.01) in July.

  5. Derek permalink
    September 1, 2014 10:24 am

    Is it possible to measure global temperature anomalies to hundredths of a degree? Or are the figures simply a product of the computer?

    • catweazle666 permalink
      September 1, 2014 2:23 pm

      IPCC AR4 gave the global temperature rise 1850 – 2000 as 0.76°C ± 0.18°C – ie the error is as close to 50% of the signal as makes no difference.

      Does that answer your question?

      Most of these Cliamte McScientists wouldn’t recognise an error bar if you hit them over the head with it.

      Personally, I call it False Precision Syndrome.

  6. Derek permalink
    September 2, 2014 10:36 am

    David – Are you saying that it is justifiable to quote temperature anomalies to one hundredth of a degree. I am certain that in the early twentieth century it was not possible to read a thermometer to that degree of accuracy.

    • David permalink
      September 4, 2014 9:12 pm

      Derek,

      Precision to 1/100ths of a degree or more doesn’t require thermometers to have an accuracy greater 1.0 deg C. The averaging process permits greater degrees of precision.

      Daily lows in my simple garden thermometer this past week were 12; 11; 11; 11; 11; 11; 12. Excel calculates the average of these to a precision of 11.2857142857143 before it hits the first zero. Precision to 13 decimal places from 7 whole numbers.

      Obviously that’s a ridiculous degree of precision considering it’s one thermometer over one week. 11.3C is an accurate summary. But the global record is comprised of hundreds then thousands of temperature stations and it covers monthly and annually averaged data.

      Two decimal points of precision is fully justified in those circumstances.

      • catweazle666 permalink
        September 17, 2014 12:12 am

        Wrong.

      • September 17, 2014 10:48 pm

        David, you are by-and-large correct. It’s a statistical process to calculate the average which is unrelated to the precision of the thermometer i.e. some fraction of the smallest unit indicated on the thermometer. For example, a single liquid-in-glass thermometer with smallest unit of 1 degC has a precision of 0.2 degC (when you estimate the fraction of a degree) while an electronic thermometer has a precision of 0.05 degC if it has increments of 0.1 degC.

        However, when the IPCC or BEST or … use ‘multiple’ temperature readings to find an average reading, the precision is replaced by the standard deviation or SD of the temperature data. And the error bar is 2 x SD of the data. So re-run your figures of 12, 11, 11, 11, 11, 11, 12 to find the average and SD which should be around 11.29 ± 0.45 degC and your error bar is 0.90 degC.

        On another topic, the percentage error in a measurement is not the same as the error bar divided by the measurement or the averaged measurement. The percentage error in a temperature reading of 0.76 +/- 0.18 degC is not 47.4%, it’s 23.7% i.e. Absolute Error/Average x 100.

        Which 23.7% may appear inordinately large but pales into insignificance when compared with averaged readings for blood glucose levels in medical research such as 159 ± 141 μm^2/mm, 67 ± 69 μm^2/mm, etc. But the idea of a percentage error, even if it’s 47.4%, is not an indication of precision. It’s use is to find the absolute error in the final calculated figure when using combinations of different types of measurements in a formula (say, H = m x s x delta t). Also keep in mind that there is a difference between precision and accuracy.

Trackbacks

  1. Global Temperature Update – July 2014 – Data Set Comparison | The Drinking Water Advisor

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: