As pointed out last week, Sea Surface Temperatures and the daily lower troposphere temperatures continue to fall as La Niña looms large in the Pacific. We may find that the continued drop prevents 2010 from being the “hottest year ever” that many alarmists are hoping will to put some life back in the climate change meme.
Dr. Roy Spencer reports:
As the tropical tropospheric temperatures continue to cool, the global average is finally beginning to follow suit:+0.42 deg. C for October, 2010. This is the lowest monthly temperature anomaly we’ve seen in what has been a very warm year.
YR MON GLOBE NH SH TROPICS
2009 1 0.251 0.472 0.030 -0.068
2009 2 0.247 0.565 -0.071 -0.045
2009 3 0.191 0.324 0.058 -0.159
2009 4 0.162 0.315 0.008 0.012
2009 5 0.139 0.161 0.118 -0.059
2009 6 0.041 -0.021 0.103 0.105
2009 7 0.429 0.190 0.668 0.506
2009 8 0.242 0.236 0.248 0.406
2009 9 0.505 0.597 0.413 0.594
2009 10 0.362 0.332 0.393 0.383
2009 11 0.498 0.453 0.543 0.479
2009 12 0.284 0.358 0.211 0.506
2010 1 0.648 0.860 0.436 0.681
2010 2 0.603 0.720 0.486 0.791
2010 3 0.653 0.850 0.455 0.726
2010 4 0.501 0.799 0.203 0.633
2010 5 0.534 0.775 0.292 0.708
2010 6 0.436 0.550 0.323 0.476
2010 7 0.489 0.635 0.342 0.420
2010 8 0.511 0.674 0.347 0.364
2010 9 0.603 0.555 0.650 0.285
2010 10 0.419 0.365 0.473 0.152
For those following the race for warmest year in the satellite tropospheric temperature record (which began in 1979), 2010 is still within striking distance of the record warm year of 1998. Here are the 1998 and 2010 averages for January 1st through October 31:
1998 +0.57
2010 +0.54
Note that the difference between the two is not statistically significant…just symbolically.
[NOTE: These satellite measurements are not calibrated to surface thermometer data in any way, but instead use on-board redundant precision platinum resistance thermometers (PRTs) carried on the satellite radiometers. The PRT’s are individually calibrated in a laboratory before being installed in the instruments.]
OT, to my many Northern Californian brothers and sisters who follow WUWT.com closely — or, as in Anthony’s case, actually run it — congratulations to the SF Giants.
I remember driving home from Candlestick, windows open wide on the freeway in the cold and fog at midnight to keep Dad awake, under strict orders to yell if he nodded off. Way to go Giants!!!!!!!!!!!
Truth be told, I feel the same way about La Nina preventing the takeover of western economies by those with hidden agendas.
Harold Ambler says: (November 1, 2010 at 7:52 pm) …congratulations to the SF Giants. […] Truth be told, I feel the same way about La Nina preventing the takeover of western economies by those with hidden agendas.
An oddly compelling note, Harold. Says so much beyond the acual words used. Nice!
What is the difference in measurement between this data and the graph at http://processtrends.com/images/RClimate_UAH_Ch5_latest.png where the MTD for october is 0.221 (at 29-10)?
It’s now 2nd November 2010, Australia. Daily highs for the last few weeks have been 4-6c below average for this time of year. Summer officially starts on 1st of December and predictions are that November will be cooler and wetter than average.
What goes up must come down. The higher the rise the lower the fall. Natural variability will find the mean. I expect the fall will be great as La Nina, solar impotency and higher volcanic activity delivers their blow.
I am not optimistic about La Nina’s ability to prevent Californians from committing economic suicide tomorrow.
Hey Patrick Im still waiting for spring – seems like winter is still around – it was 13d c the other day in Sydney and cold. As for the sun most of what we seem to get is rain. All this is to be expected from natural climate cycles – oh and a cooling sun – but I blaspheme!
Harold Ambler says:
November 1, 2010 at 7:52 pm
I too am happy about the Giants. But La Nina or no La Nina, the way the propositions are worded on the ballot this time around is troublesome. Prop 23 might go down, and California’s struggling economy with it. That one is a tightrope.
So, not having Nov and Dec 1998 anomalies close to hand, what does 2010 need the next two months to stay under them?
Is this before, or after, the data has been “Hansenised”? (:-
33 in Perth right now, 36 tomorrow – way above average and not a drop of rain to be seen. Is that significant? Nah, I don’t think so, it was bloody cold here this winter, way below average – so what is more important, warmer or colder? Depends on if you’re drinking wine or beer 😉
Harold Ambler- I froze my arse off in the upper stands at Candlestick-in August!
Good game though, been a Giants fan for years, nip and tuck with the Mariners….
“Coldest winter I ever spent was summer in San Francisco.” Mark Twain
Lowest point this year and the lowest since October 2009.
When building up a climate fear
By making some new warming clear
The trick to do it
The pot to brew it-
Is turning down the prior year.
cal Smith says:
November 1, 2010 at 8:28 pm
If the Giants can win the big one, then another miracle could happen and California Voters will get smart tomorrow, else it’s the brick wall behind door #23.
Contigo no problemo. The AGWers will just continue in their pattern of El Moreno until the dominant El Culo phase is over.
I’ve posted the preliminary October (Reynolds OI.v2) SST anomaly update:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2010/11/preliminary-october-2010-sst-anomaly.html
The data for October won’t be official until next Monday, but the preliminary (based on an incomplete month) shows a sizable drop in global SST anomalies.
geo says:
November 1, 2010 at 9:14 pm
So, not having Nov and Dec 1998 anomalies close to hand, what does 2010 need the next two months to stay under them?
Nov 1998 came in at 0.19 for an eleventh month average of 0.54. This November will need to come in at 0.54 to equal the 1998 eleventh month average.
Patrick Davis/Twawki – so you think it was a miserable October in Sydney?
Well, so do I, and so do the other 4 million people in Sydney, or at least all those I’ve spoken to.
But according to climatological method, we’ve all been sweltering in the furnace of climate disruption.
The BoM summary at least tells it like it was, meteorologically:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/month/nsw/sydney.shtml
“Little sunshine, cool and wet.” (The least sunny October on record at Sydney Airport)
No argument there.
But it goes on to say: “The average maximum temperature at Sydney Observatory Hill was 22.0°C which is slightly below the historical average of 22.1°C…”
and: “The average minimum temperature was 14.9°C, which is above the historical average of 13.5°C…”
Now, because an entire month’s weather is reduced to a single number – (average maximum + average minimum)/2 – for GISS/HadCrut to calculate anomalies and plug into the laughable ‘Global average temperature’ construct, Sydney will show as having an anomaly for the month of +0.65C.
So how about that? While we all thought we were having a crappy month, it turns out that we have just experienced the equivalent of a century of global warming.
Little sunshine? Cool days? Less night-time temperature drop?
Personally, I blame the clouds. Now remind me again please, someone, what is the least understood and most ineffectively modelled climatic factor?
Full observations for the month are here: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/dwo/201010/html/IDCJDW2124.201010.shtmlractions
So I am wondering if anyone has ever done any research on the following topic…
CO2 has a logarhythmic radioabsorptive property in the atmosphere (as the ppm increases, the warming from each unit of increased concentration is decreased… see the graph posted on this site approx 25x a year… it’s helpful.)
Water is a much more prevalent GHG, comprising both the majority of the GHG effect, and a much larger (but significantly more VARIABLE) portion of the atmosphere.
The GHG effect of water is most easily compared by looking at a tropical locale and a desert locale. Both are hot, experiencing a high amounts of direct sunlight. The striking difference between the two is (of course) the available atmospheric water vapor levels. Tropical regions are typical at or near absolute humidity, desert regions are usually very low humidity. This isn’t absolute, but it’s a pretty accurate description of either a causative or correlative condition. You don’t have the capacity for extensive biomass found in tropical regions without adequate supply of fresh water. Likewise, if there was a significant amount of available water, it wouldn’t be populated with only species capable of surviving in conditions with very little rainfall and little available river/lake/ground water supplies.
During the night, WETTER environments hold on to their heat quite thriftily, maintaining warm temperatures through the majority of the night. In part, this is likely related to the energy donated by condensing water as the temperature drops down to and then below the temps needed to maintain daytime absolute humidity levels. Meanwhile, in the drier regions, the swing between night and day is much larger, comprising blistering hot days with cool to cold nights.
This blanket effect seems to be largely driven by water vapor, logically, given that there’s no real convincing method available for CO2 to “give up” it’s heat in exchange for a phase transition, and energy MUST be maintained.
Where does this thought process lead me to… This article!
As we enter a strong La Nina, a significantly large portion of the Pacific Ocean is now a few degrees colder than usual at the sea surface. This suppresses local evaporation at the boundary and leads to decreased overall local water vapor concentrations and a lower absolute humidity. With a few points off the absolute humidity, the night time temperatures can drop a few degrees further before being buffered by the necessary condensation of water vapor to continue cooling.
Hence, the LOCAL environment over the La Nina areas are going to tip a bit more towards the “desert” side of the equation. Whereas higher SST during an El Nino are going to feed more water vapor, meaning higher abs. humidity and a higher temperature buffer.
Has anyone considered this as a possible vehicle for the rapid temp drop we’re seeing now? Anyone know of any research articles looking into local absolute and relative humidity versus day/night temperature anomalies? We may find that the much decried “increasing night time temps” that we hear so much about isn’t all UHI and could be related to an increasingly moister world (leading to wonderful things like the greening of the Sahel).
D Boon says:
November 1, 2010 at 8:09 pm
What is the difference in measurement between this data and the graph at http://processtrends.com/images/RClimate_UAH_Ch5_latest.png where the MTD for october is 0.221 (at 29-10)?
Base periods are different. The official UAH MSU record uses 01.1979-12.1998 as a base period, while the graph in question only shows the measurements made by AQUA since 2002.
The graph in question h
I suppose I should clarify. My tropics/desert comparison was used to look at (comparatively) the effects of water vapor on temperature retention. It seems like a very simple concept, but I haven’t seen anyone reference this effect when talking about changes in night-time air temperatures, only UHI vs CO2.
I am NOT in any way, comparing the WAY that the two get their relative water vapor concentrations… there are multiple theories on how forests stay humidity (e.g. biotic pump theories), or grow where rainfall occurs due to natural geographic formations. But the effect of heat capture can be felt even in open areas in tropical environments. Anyone in Florida can tell you how well the night times retain their heat, compared to a much more arid environ like the Mojave.
I grow tomatoes in my back yard in sydney it is so cold they are not growing. to all global warmers out there tomatoes don,t grow in cold weather, so pray we don,t go into a ice age you will all starve good luck
Let me try to explain this from the warmist perspective. This unexplainable downtrend is only temporarily negating the much more explainable and disastrous uptrend. Once this unexplainable cooling is over, the explainable warming will continue worse than we thought. Dare I say unprecedented?
“Nov 1998 came in at 0.19 for an eleventh month average of 0.54. This November will need to come in at 0.54 to equal the 1998 eleventh month average.”
This is not correct. 1998 first 11 months: (.57(10) +.19)/11 = .535
2010 first 11 months: (.53(10) + X)/11 = .535
X=.485 : So Temp for Nov needs to be <.485 to be behind 1998 which looks good with La Nina.
Having trouble posting in tips and notes.
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/299697
Whenever I see this graph it always causes me to go on a little search for the baseline temperatures. Finding Spencer’s page for the anomalies dataset (http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt) is never a problem. But where are the actual monthly temperatures used to calculate the anomalies kept? Or an even simpler question, is there a link (url) for the baseline temperatures for each calendar month?
Why do I ask? Because over a month ago someone asked me basically the following: “if the August UAH anomaly is +0.51, what was the actual August temperature then?” After 15 seconds of awkward silence, I admitted I did not know. (Then he asked me why Spencer uses a 13-month average and I did not know the answer to that one either.)
Any links to the UAH monthly baseline temps available?
What is the function of an Ice Age?
To relieve pressure build up in the atmosphere.
What solution did this planet come up with to relieve this pressure?
By changing the salt content on the surface of the oceans so less sunlight is being absorbed by the oceans and more sunlight is reflected back into space.
By cooling the planet, this kills off life and allows the gases to slowly disipate through many years into space.
Then the oceans become fresher again to absorb more sunlight and the big melt begins. Until pressure builds up too great again.
Interesting to look at the AMSU sea surface temps. They’ve been running roughly .25-.4F below 2009 every day since June (when the El Nino dissipated and was replaced by the current La Nina). It appears from the graph that October 2010 sea surface temps are lower by .25+F than any year since 2003 (Aqua doesn’t have data prior to 2003).
“geo says:
November 1, 2010 at 9:14 pm
So, not having Nov and Dec 1998 anomalies close to hand, what does 2010 need the next two months to stay under them?”
The numbers are here:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt
If November and December both turn out to be 0.40°C, 2010 will equal 1998.
But 2010 should be more than 0.2°C warmer than 1998, which is more than a decade before (at least according to IPCC).
I disagree that 2010 won’t win out as the warmest year. It is still running ahead of 1998 and the drop in October was less than 1998.
More applicable numbers are:
Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1998 0.52 0.45 0.41 0.19 0.27
2010 0.51 0.6 0.419
Of course it means nothing… http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2010/09/2010-could-be-the-warmest-year-ever/
We will just have to listen to more smug comments that we are digging our graves faster and faster… Sigh.
John Kehr
The Inconvenient Skeptic
The Tropics temperatures are likely to fall to the -0.3C to -0.4C range by March, 2011. Adding-in the UAH October tropics number shows pretty clearly how the pattern will develop in the coming months.
Tropics temps are already down 0.85C since the El Nino-influenced peak in February. Still 0.5C of decline to come yet.
http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/3655/ensotropicsoct10.png
Equatorial upper ocean heat content fell a little more in October so it looks like the La Nina will cool further yet (even though there has been some moderation in the past few weeks).
http://img683.imageshack.us/img683/2195/ensovseuohaoct10.png
NOAA has a new graphic for how the La Nina will impact winter weather (at least in the Western Hemisphere). These patterns can move location a little from La Nina to La Nina but overall, it is usually quite predictable.
http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/661/ensolaninawinter.jpg
That graph is evidently XXX massaged, as that high peak being almost the same as the 97-98 El Niño, which it has not happen as we are having, on the contrary, a very deep La Niña, it is absolutely FALSE.
Urgent correction needed!
“Bob Tisdale says:
November 2, 2010 at 1:11 am
I’ve posted the preliminary October (Reynolds OI.v2) SST anomaly update:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2010/11/preliminary-october-2010-sst-anomaly.html
The data for October won’t be official until next Monday, but the preliminary (based on an incomplete month) shows a sizable drop in global SST anomalies.”
Shouldn’t that be ‘a sizeable rise in global SST anomalies but towards the negative” ?
According to IPCC 2007 the the projected average temperature rise until the year 2100 is about 3°C, or about 0.3°C per decade. (A1B scenario, see Summary for Policymakers, page 8).
This means that the temperature peak in 2010 should have been some 0.36°C higher than the 1998 peak in the graph above (12 years). The 2010 peak should have been at around +0.85 in stead of +0.5, if the IPCC projection in Summary for Policymakers is valid.
If my math is correct, if we average .61 anamoly for Nov and Dec, 2010 ties 1998.
I see three different answers to my question, btw, none of which seem to agree, but thanks for responding.
Good point that if the ipcc is right the real target should be +.2-.3C beyond 1998. One could make the argument that peaks and troughs is what we really ought to be paying closest attention to, and decreasing peaks is not good news for ipcc.
“The PRT’s are individually calibrated in a laboratory before being installed in the instruments.”
What about recalibration at regular intervals? Or did they get calibrated in 1979 and have been left to drift pos or neg ever since?
Well, this news really sucks. When is this frigid ice age ever going to end? I know its abating, and some mistakenly call it an interglacial, but we are still 3 or 4 degrees C below optimum, and I am loosing patience.
geo says:
November 2, 2010 at 8:35 am
“Good point that if the ipcc is right the real target should be +.2-.3C beyond 1998. One could make the argument that peaks and troughs is what we really ought to be paying closest attention to, and decreasing peaks is not good news for ipcc.”
I too have wondered at the validity of comparing peak to peak and trough and trough. However, since peaks are predominantly caused by El Nino events and since these vary in force from event to event and since these events are almost certainly not driven by atmosheric CO2 levels, it is difficult to see what the comparison would actually show.
“These satellite measurements are not calibrated to surface thermometer data in any way”
I can’t begin to describe how strongly I’d like the reverse of this calibration performed uniformly on a station-by-station basis. Until this step is competently performed, we’ll be struck with decent satellite data and a disjointed “apples and oranges” plethora of inadequate “instrumental data” that actually covers the true regions of interest.
“Agust Bjarnason says:
November 2, 2010 at 7:07 am
According to IPCC 2007 the the projected average temperature rise until the year 2100 is about 3°C, or about 0.3°C per decade. (A1B scenario, see Summary for Policymakers, page 8).This means that the temperature peak in 2010 should have been some 0.36°C higher than the 1998 peak in the graph above (12 years). The 2010 peak should have been at around +0.85 in stead of +0.5, if the IPCC projection in Summary for Policymakers is valid.”
Agust raises the ultimate point of this discussion. The AGW alarmist industry — IPCC, GISS, EAU, GE Windmills, Solar panel maufacturers, RealClimate etc, etc — all use some physical laws about CO2 to pose a theory, and then use “Climate Models” to “prove” their theory by PROJECTING future temps. The actual RELIABLE UAH temp data is INVALIDATING the AGW projections. Things are warmer than 1979, but no warmer than 1998, and LESS THAN .3/decade warmer since the early 1980s. The reliable evidence is disproving IPCC 2007, which was their fourth iteration at projecting temps. The AGW CO2 theory is being invalidated. So what is the cause of the marginal temp increases since 1979?– natural variability in a chaotic climate system? solar variability? CO2 but with no positive feedback? WHO KNOWS. But UAH’s actual data is invalidating IPCC EVEN IPCC 2007 (IV), which scaled LOWER the original 1990 projection (I).
Thanks Agust.
morgo
November 2, 2010 at 2:33 am
I live in Portland Oregon, USA. Our tomato’s did not do very well at all.
I believe that we had the coldest June on record, but NWS has tried to make that fact disappear. I should have done a page scrape on the day that they were projecting this in their forecast summary. An hour after that summery, another summery was posted that removed the projection. Funny how that works.
The numbers from UAH:
1998 1 0.58
1998 2 0.76
1998 3 0.53
1998 4 0.76
1998 5 0.65
1998 6 0.57
1998 7 0.52
1998 8 0.52
1998 9 0.45
1998 10 0.41
1998 11 0.19
1998 12 0.27
2010 1 0.64
2010 2 0.61
2010 3 0.66
2010 4 0.50
2010 5 0.54
2010 6 0.44
2010 7 0.49
2010 8 0.51
2010 9 0.60
2010 10 0.42
The sum of the anomalies of the first 10 months of 1998 is 5.75 (average 0.575).
The sum for all 12 month of 1998 is 6.21 (average 0.5175).
The sum of the first 10 months of 2010 is 5.41 (average 0.541).
The difference between 6.21 and 5.41 is 0.80; so if both November and December 2010 have an anomaly of 0.4, the average for 2010 will be the same as the average for 1998.
Now: The numbers are only given to 2 digits after the decimal, and the months are of different lengt …
I live in Wales, our toms looked good in July but then August came along with rain and no sun and that was that.
From what I have read Dr. Hansen had already hedged his bets a while back.
How anyone could have declaree “the hottest year on the record” before Father Christmas had gone back to his Waterworld is beyond me. ;O)
Alexej Buergin says:
November 2, 2010 at 11:53 am
++++
I think I take that as definitive, as not least in showing your work you hit Dr. Spencer’s 10-month results.
Just because this year doesn’t end up hotter then 1998 doesn’t mean it won’t be in the future… Just wait for a few more “tweaks” of the data to come out and they will invaribly find some problems in 1998 that justify a slight downward nudge in its temperature, and a slight upward nudge in 2010. You go through enough tweaks and you can eventually achieve any amount of wamring per decade that is required to sustain belief in AGW.
You guys have too little faith in the clergy.
cool October here in New Zealand -0.5c.
In Christchurch -0.8.
NIWA have been saying it will be a warmer spring than norm.
http://www.niwa.co.nz/our-science/climate/publications/all/cu/new-zealand-climate-update-135-a-september-2010/outlook—september-to-november-2010
What type of phenomenon allowed 1998 to be hot by satellite measurements of the lower troposphere, hot by measurement of sea surface temperature and hot by averaging conventional land stations? Surely each has a different lag to an external thermal shock.
I smell an instrumental rat. I think.