UAH V5.5 Global Temp. Update for Sept. 2012: +0.34 deg. C
By Dr. Roy Spencer
As discussed in my post from yesterday, the spurious warming in Aqua AMSU channel 5 has resulted in the need for revisions to the UAH global lower tropospheric temperature (LT) product.
Rather than issuing an early release of Version 6, which has been in the works for about a year now, we decided to do something simpler: remove Aqua AMSU after a certain date, and replace it with the average of NOAA-15 and NOAA-18 AMSU data. Even though the two NOAA satellites have experienced diurnal drifts in their orbits, we have found that those drifts are in opposite directions and approximately cancel. (The drifts will be corrected for in Version 6.0).
The new interim dataset, Version 5.5, has a September, 2012 global lower tropospheric temperature anomaly of +0.34 deg. C (click for large version):
Note that the new v5.5 dataset brings our monthly anomalies over the last few years somewhat more in line with those from RSS, which have been running significantly cooler than ours. The trend change from v5.4 to v5.5, however, only decreases by 0.001 deg. C/decade. This is partly because the time series is now almost 34 years in length, and adjusting the last several months by 0.1 deg or so is not going to affect the long-term trend substantially.
Evidence of the divergence of Aqua from the two NOAA satellites during 2012 is shown in the next plot:
The global monthly differences between v5.5 and v5.4 are shown next, which reveals the rapid divergence in the last couple months of Aqua AMSU from the average of NOAA-15 1nad NOAA-18 AMSUs:
The Version 5.5 hemispheric and tropical LT anomalies from the 30-year (1981-2010) average since January 2010 are:
YR MON GLOBAL NH SH TROPICS
2010 01 0.581 0.747 0.415 0.660
2010 02 0.542 0.623 0.461 0.738
2010 03 0.577 0.721 0.434 0.665
2010 04 0.416 0.609 0.223 0.596
2010 05 0.449 0.593 0.306 0.679
2010 06 0.376 0.430 0.321 0.464
2010 07 0.343 0.455 0.232 0.303
2010 08 0.376 0.480 0.273 0.216
2010 09 0.430 0.351 0.510 0.114
2010 10 0.278 0.232 0.324 -0.053
2010 11 0.208 0.316 0.100 -0.270
2010 12 0.141 0.207 0.075 -0.441
2011 01 0.022 0.036 0.007 -0.382
2011 02 -0.003 0.005 -0.011 -0.350
2011 03 -0.066 -0.013 -0.120 -0.336
2011 04 0.083 0.132 0.034 -0.233
2011 05 0.101 0.082 0.120 -0.061
2011 06 0.260 0.292 0.229 0.183
2011 07 0.343 0.290 0.396 0.169
2011 08 0.300 0.247 0.353 0.143
2011 09 0.290 0.280 0.301 0.128
2011 10 0.073 0.140 0.006 -0.152
2011 11 0.084 0.072 0.096 -0.060
2011 12 0.066 0.119 0.012 -0.033
2012 01 -0.134 -0.060 -0.203 -0.256
2012 02 -0.135 0.018 -0.289 -0.320
2012 03 0.051 0.119 -0.017 -0.238
2012 04 0.232 0.351 0.114 -0.242
2012 05 0.179 0.337 0.021 -0.098
2012 06 0.235 0.370 0.101 -0.019
2012 07 0.130 0.256 0.003 0.142
2012 08 0.208 0.214 0.202 0.062
2012 09 0.338 0.349 0.327 0.155
Again, Version 5.5 is only meant as an interim solution until our Version 6 is ready, which has new corrections for diurnal drift and an improved calibration strategy for the old MSU instruments.
Our reluctance to make these changes sooner is partly due to the flak we get when we are accused of adjusting temperatures downward for no good reason. There is now sufficient evidence (alluded to above) to make such adjustments.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
What is quite interesting about this change of sources to eliminate the drift is its affect on long term tendancies.
As Dr Spencer correctly points out , this change only makes a minimal chagne to the 30y linear “trend” because it on affects a very short period. However, if you compare the current plot reproduced here with the same thing from September , the affect on the fitted polynomial spline is quitre revealing: http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_Aug_2012.png
As Dr Spencer points out this change brings their processing of the data more into line with RSS groups work, which had been showing less warming than UAH recently.
Despite the month of Sept being a bit higher, the down turn since 2000 is becoming a lot clearer.
The peak actually seems to be nearer 2005-2007. Here we see similar tendancies in AMO and cyclone enegy:
http://i48.tinypic.com/29ni90i.png
Longer cyclone data vs *no detrend* AMO. (previous was the usual AMO index which may be misleading in this context since it is a detrended index).
http://i49.tinypic.com/xbfqtw.png
The rate of change of Arctic sea ice also shows a marked change in pattern around the same time http://i49.tinypic.com/xudsy.png
For those who are still in denial, take a look at the data: the “catastrophic” warming of the 1990s has ended.
what was the GLOBAL temp, before; so they can say that is up by 0,34C?!?!? Nobody knows what’s the GLOBAL temp, to save his life – but they know that’s gone up by 0,34C? wow!!! That is to one hundredth of a degree precision…? Are they sure that isn’t up by 0,35C, or 0,32C? You fellas are asking for bullshine – you get bullshine, they treat you sometimes as children, other times as mushrooms; lucky you.
On 99,9999% of the planet’s surface areas, nobody is monitoring; where is monitored, only the hottest minute is taken in consideration; even though every other one of the 1439 minutes in 24h are just as important. Can one minute say in 100 of a degree precision about the every other of the 1439 minutes?! Ask yourself, fellas. If they had any respect for you – they wouldn’t be telling you all that bull.
P. Solar says:
However, if you compare the current plot reproduced here with the same thing from September , the affect on the fitted polynomial spline is quitre revealing:
________________________
The fit is pretty much the same too, only last few years have visible differences. And it looks to me that maybe a different order polynomial may be involved, too. Dr. Spencer has used 3rd order and 4th order fits in the past but did not announce the order of these two.
Note that any order polynomial fits have zero predictive value (including linear) so visually following the very end of the line has no scientific value.
Anyway – that “post from yesterday” mentioned at the start of the article is very worth reading.
Direct comparison of August and September graphs.
http://i45.tinypic.com/35lhzs5.gif
I read a recent blog post by Dr. Lubos Motl that I found useful when looking at graphs of global temperatures, especially the part about red noise.
http://motls.blogspot.ca/2012/08/cohen-happer-lindzen-in-wsj-and-colors.html
Using the UAH data and plotting NH and SH separtely is quite informative. Here I plot the rate of change. Since we’re all interested in “climate change” we’d better look at rate of change rather than guess it from the temp time series or fit silly straight lines.
http://i45.tinypic.com/j60q36.png
Here we can see that the “alarming” warming of 1990s was mainly due to a change in SH , where there was a very weak cool phase. This was not a *global* event but a SH change. (Hard to attribute that to CO2 ! )
Also the the post 2000 decline in rate of change is clearly seen. Again , ignoreing the cycles, it seems to have gone into negative territory in about 2007.
(The last 18m is not available with this filter without using Mannian data stuffing, sorry).
For those who missed the September 2012 sea surface temperature update:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/10/08/september-2012-sea-surface-temperature-sst-anomaly-update/
NINO3.4 sea surface temperatures continue to drop.
The downturn in temperatures over the last decade can usefully be seen here in CET, the oldest dataset in the world
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/
THe record actually dates back to 1660 and the current temperatures are similar to the 1730’s (but still historically hgh in the instrumental record.The Met office make an allowance of 0.2C for Uhi. Britain is a small island thaT has been descrbed as one large heat sink. ArguablY the \uhi allowance shoud be greatEr than 0.2C
tonyb
Thankyou Dr. Roy Spencer for years of sattelite data collection which by all accounts you are doing your best to keep accurate and representative. I don’t underestimate the fine tolerances with which you have to stuggle with. Good work.
P. Solar, the word you want is “effect,” meaning result, not “affect,” which is a verb meaning to change or bring about. Weather affects people’s lives in many ways, and the effect of (say) an Arctic cold front coming through is to cool things off for a bit.
The (fitting?) curve in the graph is very misleading. I would not bet for any cooling in the following years. The temperature stays in an up-channel that is not broken and holds on.
Roy Spencer writes: “Our reluctance to make these changes sooner is partly due to the flak we get when we are accused of adjusting temperatures downward for no good reason.”
And that implies UAH TLT will be dropping with version 6. It’ll be interesting to see if the adjustments impact what seems to be the additional variability in recent years.
alex says:
October 10, 2012 at 4:31 am
The (fitting?) curve in the graph is very misleading. I would not bet for any cooling in the following years. The temperature stays in an up-channel that is not broken and holds on.
______________________________________________
LoL…
spoken like a true wramista… NA NA NA NA NA NA iI cant hear you the warming will continue… na na na na …
What is it with facts as basic reasoning skills that these people lack the ability to see and use? Everything on earth has a sign wave to its function because they are cyclical and repetitive systems.
stefanthedenier says:
October 9, 2012 at 10:42 pm
what was the GLOBAL temp, before; so they can say that is up by 0,34C?!?!? Nobody knows what’s the GLOBAL temp, to save his life – but they know that’s gone up by 0,34C? wow!!! That is to one hundredth of a degree precision…? Are they sure that isn’t up by 0,35C, or 0,32C?
etc etc
———————–
That’s the kind of nonsense that gives ‘deniers’ a bad name!
Any idea when version 6.0 will be ready? I’m looking forward to what it shows.
Drat, the only temp data that I trusted now has to be adjusted. Dr. Spencer has been doing Yeoman’s work, and I trust he’ll do a good job in correct the drifts. But it still sucks. All the land data has all sorts of corrections which invariably make the past colder and ignores UHI. And now the satellites need corrections. The satellite will still be the best, but it sucks regardless.
alex says:
October 10, 2012 at 4:31 am
The (fitting?) curve in the graph is very misleading.
That curve is a fourth order polynomial with little or no predictive quality. Roy normally adds a disclaimer to that chart.
The sinusoidal curve you are using may be mathematically correct within the limits of dataset, but as we are always complaining about the warmists cherrypicking endpoints to justify the agenda-driven trends they use, perhaps you could add some pre-satelite, pre-79 data and cause the trend to show the temperature drop prior to 1979. As it is, the curve indicates an uptick in the trend corresponding to a nice continuation of the sinusoidal function. Which, prior to ’79, it did not do.
The point of scientific exposition is not to be mathematically correct, but to correctly represent what is going on: that is probably the closest to describing the complaint we have about the IPCC and Gore-ists. The data they use does not represent reality but is a prop for their agenda. Unlike the warmists, the skeptical argument is not based on emotions or politics, but reason and facts. We should always attempt to represent reality, even if a modification of our math with asterisk and explanation is required.
Sometimes mathematically correct, statistical analysis is misleading: an average human being has one breast and one testicle by mathematics, but I doubt anyone would consider that statistic to be representative of our species. What the others do, we should strive not to do.
My own dataset shows global temps down about 0.2 degrees C since 2000
hadcrut3 reports it is 0.1
looking at UAH now, it looks more or less like zero since 2000
but, looking at the 13 mnth moving average (red)
you can clearly see that something went wrong 2009-2011
Anyway, earth stores its energy in waters, in vegetation and in chemicals, etc. and so on,
so what is coming out is bound to be confusing;
by looking at means, you are all looking at the wrong variable.
try looking at maximum temps. over time
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
there should be good records going way back into time…
Doug,
Dr Spencer runs the satellite sounding project at Huntsville. Why on earth would he or should he include non-satellite data into his database? Anyone who follows Dr Spencer and/or uses his data is fully aware of the limitations of using such a young data-set. And if I’m not mistaken, Dr. Spencer uses a 4th Degree polynomial fit for display purposes. The trends are in no way predictive.
Come on people, seems Dr. Spencer was instructed to do so. What, do you want he and John to lose their jobs and be replaced with Hansen and the GISS crew? Just label it as an Adjustabama to the dataset and move along.
Everyone should know by now that the slope of the global temperature average plots are not being adjusted for the real UHI. There is no downward adjustment in the later years for the huge increase in population and structures worldwide. That is but a one-time adjustment, not cumulative. See, here we are speaking of a population-neutral slope, not the individual temperature readings.
Climate reason says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/09/uah-global-temperature-up-slightly-in-september/#comment-1105765
henry says
good show, Tony!
but I am saying that 1961-1990 average (=zero =anomaly) might not be completely right in terms of my graph
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
What happens if you do an 88 year average, e.g. 1907 to 1995?
Bill H says
Everything on earth has a sign wave to its function because they are cyclical and repetitive systems.
Henry says
why did you not tell me this before I did all this work for which nobody is giving me any money or credits…)