Here’s the plot from RSS – October is 0.282°C
The RSS (Remote Sensing Systems of Santa Rosa, CA) Microwave Sounder Unit (MSU) lower troposphere global temperature anomaly data for March 2009 was published yesterday and has dropped after peaking in January. The change from September with a value of 0.476°C to October’s 0.282°C is a (∆T) of -0.194°C.
Recent RSS anomalies
2009 01 0.322
2009 02 0.230
2009 03 0.172
2009 04 0.202
2009 05 0.090
2009 06 0.081
2009 07 0.388
2009 08 0.270
2009 09 0.476
2009 10 0.282
RSS (Remote Sensing Systems, Santa Rosa)
The RSS data is here (RSS Data Version 3.2)
A divergence developed in the Feb 09 data between RSS and UAH, and opposite in direction to boot. UAH was 0.347 and RSS was 0.230
I spoke with Dr. Roy Spencer at the ICCC09 conference (3/10) and asked him about the data divergence.
Here is what he had to say:
“I believe it has to do with the differences in how diurnal variation is tracked and adjusted for.” he said. I noted that Feburary was a month with large diurnal variations.
For that reason, UAH has been using data from the AQUA satellite MSU, and RSS to my knowledge does not, and makes an adjustment to account for it. I believe our data [UAH] is probably closer to the true anomaly temperature, and if I’m right, we’ll see the two datasets converge again when the diurnal variations are minimized.”
It certainly looks like the data sets are converged now, with a scant difference between UAH and RSS in October of .002°C and that Dr. Spencer was right.
Read the details on the October UAH data here.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It must have been ridiculously cold all the time in the good old days. With 100 year old cold records set seemingly everywhere, what does it take to get a negative anomoly?
Robert Wykoff (22:17:10) :
“What does it take to get a negative anomoly?”
Patience Robert, patience
“what does it take to get a negative anomoly?”
Probably cooling ocean. Most of the satellite global temperature measurement is over ocean.
Yeah, if that’s GW, who needs cooling?
Interresting to note is that looking at RSS, the linear trend since 1979 is app. +0,27 or maybe +0,3 at maximum.
The linear trend since 2002 is however app. -0,185.
Quite a part of the rise since 1979 is already eradicated.
Could be interesting also to compare with other octobers:
2009 10 0.282
2008 10 0.181
2007 10 0.225
2006 10 0.315
2005 10 0.394
2004 10 0.331
2003 10 0.464
2002 10 0.139
2001 10 0.327
2000 10 0.103
1999 10 0.063
1998 10 0.461
1997 10 0.220
1996 10 0.125
1995 10 0.205
1994 10 -0.065
Before 94, most of the october anomalies were negative. That would place 09 as the 7th warmest
It must have been ridiculously cold all the time in the good old days…
We had to trudge five miles to school through three-foot snowdrifts.
And it was uphill, both ways…
It is interesting that October showed a marked increase in Cosmic Radiation [see NASA Ace spacecraft results] Henrick Svensmark et al has shown a good relationship between these rays and lower cloud formation which in turn increases Albedo and hence cooling. The sunspot count relationship however is not so clear, due probably to galactic ray anomalies; but hopefully the CERN project [ On stream 2010?] in this area of research will prove valuable and eventually put the CO2 fetish into perspective.
By such anomolalic measures as seen today with 100 yr. cold records littered about like failed lottery tickets, the Little Ice Age would be a cool jaunt to the beach in a sweltering summer heat wave.
Cognog2 (01:20:12) :
Keep in mind that sunspot counts are a non-linear affair. I’ll trade you 50 pennies for 50 quarters any day. We both get 50 coins, right?
Bill Tuttle (01:15:02) :
It must have been ridiculously cold all the time in the good old days…
We had to trudge five miles to school through three-foot snowdrifts.
And it was uphill, both ways…
Only five miles? You were lucky…
“We had to trudge five miles to school through three-foot snowdrifts.
And it was uphill, both ways…”
You were lucky…
Well, it wasn’t too hot on the eastern seaboard (Inner west Sydney, 25c) of Australia today. We are inline for “normal” temperatures for the w/e…which will be good for a change.
I just got a text message from a friend in the UK, Brighton area. She says it’s a bright, cold, crisp morning. Sounds like the ’70’s all over again.
Hey all,
check out this pool’s results, even with the massive propaganda on the danger of Global Warming almost 50% of the people do not believe that! It must mean something!
http://www.neatorama.com/2009/10/15/blog-action-day-is-climate-change-global-warming-real/
Al Gore, who art in thy fully offset private jet;
Nobel-prized be thy name;
thy carbon-free kingdom come;
on planet Earth (otherwise known as Gaia) as it should be after Copenhagen; give us this day our daily meat-free diet;
and forgive us our emissions,
though we don’t forgive any other big fat Americans who emit against us;
lead us not into exotic holiday flights;
and deliver us from climate denial;
for the science is settled.
Amen
Another sign of accelerating rate of climate change, worse than scientific predictions. Alas, with minus sign.
I’ll trade you 50 pennies for 50 quarters any day. We both get 50 coins, right?
Make them 1909 Lincoln DVB and you’ve got a deal.
Are the sat temps calibrated off the surface temps and if so how often and where?
Can anyone tell me, what is the difference between UAH and RSS? Are they both satellite, or satellite and radiosonde or what?
Thanks.
Holland October 2009: 10.7° C (1971-2000: 10.3° C), normal precipitation (but not in distribution over the country), a bit more sunshine than average.
Ninth consecutive positive anomaly month for 2009.
Mean while Downunder…crack in mainstream politics are breaking through into mainstream media:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/09/2737675.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/special_eds/20091109/ETS/
And mainstream media questioning alarmism by going in search of the facts:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/science-is-in-on-climate-change-sea-level-rise-17mm/story-e6frg6nf-1225795202916
This is all good news…but not relevant to this post – apologies.
I am an aging engineer and I am prepared to state categorically that global temperature and GT anomalies cannot be determined with a precision better than ±0.5°C. Even that is a bit of a stretch. You might be able to establish an anomaly for an unchanging, well-maintained and routinely calibrated network of global stations with a precision of ±0.5°C.
We don’t have such a network so maybe the precision of the measurement network is ±1°C. Is this network representative of global conditions? I don’t know and neither does anyone else.
It is equally certain that indirect temperature measurement by satellite cannot be any more precise.
One thing for sure is that we cannot say what is the GT anomaly with better than ±1°C precision.
The best we can deduce from the instrument/satellite record is that Oct 2009 might have been a little bit warmer than the recent average, but we can’t say for sure.
Few people these days, including scientists and engineers, have any concept of orders of accuracy.
Bill Tuttle (01:15:02):
Bill – did you have to do it barefoot like us?
Ripper (03:44:39) :
Sat temps measure lower troposhpere. So, no, sat temps can’t be calibrated with surface temps. It would be appropriate to compare temps to weather baloon readings, but I could not find an answer to how often, if ever, they calibrate the temperatures.
Ripper (03:44:39) :
Are the sat temps calibrated off the surface temps and if so how often and where?
That is an excellent question, and from what records? E. M. Smith is in the process of demonstrating that the GHCN has been biased upward by thermometer selection bias. If GHCN data has been used, as it is in GIStemp, and I suspect in Hadley (prior to the dog eating Phil Jones’ homework) than an adjustment is in order, one that will have people calling for some perp walks.
It struck me today that the UAH data is reported to 3 significant figures after the decimal point. Leaving aside the dubious siting of weather stations, I find it hard to believe UAH thermometers are precise to one thousandth of a degree. Am I right or wrong?
Climatology is not my field of science. However, I had it hammered into me that I should always look out for significant figure abuse, especially for false precision.