A few days ago I posted the results of the RSS Microwave Sounder Unit (MSU) global temperature anomaly data by RSS (Remote Sensing Systems of Santa Rosa, CA).
For March 2008 it has moved a little higher, with a value of .079°C for a change (∆T) of 0.081°C globally from February.
RSS
2008 1 -0.070
2008 2 -0.002
2008 3 0.079
click for a larger image – RSS data here
University of Alabama, Hunstville (UAH) published their data set on April 8th, and it is in good agreement with the RSS data. The ∆T for March was .074 degree C
UAH
2008 1 -0.046
2008 2 0.020
2008 3 0.094
click for a larger image -UAH Temperature data available here
GISS also published their global temperature anomaly data, which you can see here, and it is significantly different than two global satellite data sets:
GISS
Year Jan Feb Mar
2008 .12 .26 .67
I haven’t bothered to plot the graph yet, but the ∆T of .41 degree C change upward from February 2008 is quite large, and according to one of our commenters, JM:
The GISS Feb to Mar temperature change is the largest one month change in the entire record based on my macro search.
I have not verified that, but it seems plausible. We’ll see if GISS remains the outlier data set when HadCRUT publishes soon, I expect before the end of the week.
Australia had an extremely hot March. Southern Australia had a huge heat wave that would have a big impact on anyone relying on just a small selection of surface temps like Hansen does.
Purely from a mathematical standpoint, a difference of this magnitude between GISS and the other sources being attributed simply to the poles wouold have to mean that the anomaly at the poles is incredibly huge. Further, since it is apparent that the anomaly difference is primarily in the Northern Hemisphere, I would ahve to think that the GISS data would be saying that I would have preferred the March weather at the North Pole to the weather I had in Wisconsin.
Raven, March 2008 saw a considerable and negative snow cover anomaly across the northern hemisphere.
Peter, do you have a link to that data?
If you link to the GISS website given above the 1st line is:
GLOBAL Land-Ocean Temperature Index in .01 C base period: 1951-1980
So the base period is different. They do include SST it appears.
Need to check hemisheres againts each other.
My bet is that GISS overweights the NH measures.
steven mosher says:
“My bet is that GISS overweights the NH measures.”
What scientific justification could they possibly have for that?
By the way, just so you know, the NOAA officially–flatly–denies that the Medieval Warm Period was as warm as today and cites Mann et al. (1999).
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html
The hockey stick graph is introduced as visual proof of this.
I did say in the middle of March that the March anomolies will rise because snow cover across the NH was below the 1995-2005 average during March. It looks like that I was right. Be careful of focusing on localized record snow events, because that can mislead you as to what the global picture is doing.
http://moe.met.fsu.edu/snow/
As you can see, Asia currently has below average snow cover. Why is that? It could be the soot effect. It could be the warm phase of the AMO.
Re: WATTSUP INDEX OF LEADING CLIMATIC INDICATORS
Tom,
“Do you know where up to date data (tide gauges or satellite) on the rate of sea level rise anomaly can be found?”
Not offhand. I’ll see what I can come up with. My research skills are likely not better than yours. Maybe someone else here could help us out.
Jim Cole
I agree with ocean heat content – a must! Is it possible for normal Joes like us to get this Argo data for ocean temps? I found this website:
http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/index.html
But can’t locate the temperature data.
Let me revise what ought to make up the Index of Leading Climatic Indicators: Maybe others here have more ideas on this.
1. Solar irradiance
2. Argo ocean temperature
3. Surface temperature
4. Satellite temperature
5. Antarctic sea ice
6. Arctic sea ice
7. Sea level
8. A solar parameter, yet to be defined.
I think a composite of the above would act as pretty darn good barometer as to where we’re headed climatically.
We just need to find the data sources for no. 2, 7, and 8.
CAN ANYONE HELP?
REPLY: First I don’t care to have this named after me of the blog. LCI Index would be just fine. The biggest issue would be how to weight all these parameters, some may change very small numerically, but have a larger influence, some may change large numerically, but have little influence.
I may be wrong but I believe that there is satellite data on sea level.
What scientific justification could they possibly have for that?
Because they are crooks? Also because they need something outlandish to distract from the steady parade of AGW policy induced global famine stories that will be reported the rest of the year.
And also because they are crooks.
The biggest issue would be how to weight all these parameters
Yes. I would suggest running them as straight correlations and see how they “move” and correspond before assigning weight.
ALSO,
Riffling through my electronic postcards . . .
By satellite temperature I assume you mean lower troposphere and not adjusted to surface.
Atmosphere can be broken down to lower, middle, upper troposphere and lower stratosphere. Normally one would argue merely for lower trop., but middle trop. is significant because that is where the CO2-induced heat bubble suggested by the GCMs is supposed to accumulate.
So I would consider including temps for at least the lower two levels of troposphere for a start.
Also, what about water vapor content (positive feednback) as strictly opposed to cloud cover (negative feedback)?
And is there a reliable overall albedo index to be going on with?
If the Aqua satellite is (allegedly) correct, CO2 upward pressure may be affecting cloud cover, thus creating its own homeostasis.
The difference between GISS and the average of UAH and RSS is close to a
3 sigma event.
The difference doesnt break a record, but differences this large have only
happened a handful of times since 1979. hey gore happens.
NOW, the interesting thing is that hadcru discrepancy verus Satillite records
is aligned with GISS discrepancy. When the gap between GISS and the satilite estimate increases, the gap between HADcru and the satilite record increase.
When one decreases, the other decreases. ( need to double check this)
Fun things to look at if people have time. So, I would bet that Hadcru also come in with a big march number. If they come in low, you have an interesting anomaly. Shrugs
“My bet is that GISS overweights the NH measures.”
What scientific justification could they possibly have for that?
I can only assume that this would be because GISS relies on land surface measurements and that most of the land mass (c. 70%) is in the Northern Hemisphere. There is no question that NOAA global surface temps are considerably warmer in July in spite of the fact that it is winter in the southern half of the globe.
Either this is a land bias or it is completely legitimate (for various reasons I would not know of).
Well, if what mosh says pans out, then what I said may hold: It may be a surface vs. satellite kind of thing and we mustn’t forget “how not to measure temperatures, no”? The bad surface stations? That’s what brought us here in the first place . . .
Index of Leading Climatic Indicators
The field of economics is very far along with the use of indicators.
But with climate we’re still stuck with polar bear drownings and news anecdotes. This is astonishingly primitive for a science that is now playing a crucial role in policy making.
We should just keep it simple, and let it evolve with time…just list each component individually at the end of each month., and say something like 5 out of seven indicators point to cooling, with ocean temperature (the big one) showing a drop.
As it is now we’re getting statistics in dribs and drabs. A nice and neat summary at the end of each month might have a greater public impact.
I like: Index of Leading Climatic Indicators because it rhymes with Leading Economic Indicators. A good name goes a long way in marketing!
Egads! What would investors do if economic statistics were as primitive as climate stats!
The GISS Feb to Mar temperature change is the largest one month change in the entire record based on my macro search.
As already noted in some comments, it’s not. This increase has been exceeded twice. And similar increases (~+/- 10%) have occurred about half a dozen times. They are nonetheless in the wings of the distribution, obviously.
It should be also noted that decreases with a similar magnitude have also occurred about half a dozen times.
Spence_UK (09:01:45) said:
“The rest of the world seems pretty balanced and average except for this one “hot spot”. I wonder if GISS is responding to this as well? (Or rather, over-responding.) It isn’t very convincing when those who claim the medieval warm period wasn’t global when they get so excited about this event – which is clearly also far from global.”
I’ve asked this before: at what time does a “regional” event become a “global” event? Percentage of surface area?
Henry asked:
“I’ve asked this before: at what time does a “regional” event become a “global” event? Percentage of surface area?”
It seems to be when it’s to the Pogies advantage.
Jack Koenig, Editor
The Mysterious Climate Project
http://www.climateclinic.com
You can download satellite data on sea level rise at:
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
Re Argo ocean temperature, apparently you can get it from http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/FrArgo_data_and.html and I put in a request there for data but didn’t have much luck.
Re my post on Skeptical Science about March temperatures, the whole point of the post was not to read too much into short term temperature changes. Not sure where the “biggest up swing ever in a two month period” quote came from. My big sweeping conclusion was “At best, we can surmise the La Nina cooling may have subsided”. Really going out on a limb there.
henry asks:
“I’ve asked this before: at what time does a “regional” event become a “global” event? Percentage of surface area?”
If the event involves warming and it occurred recently then it is always global. If it occurred in the past then it is always regional.
If the event involves cooling the it is always regional. Global cooling has been shown to be a physical impossibility by the climate models.
The LCI is a great idea. You’re going to have to include the Mauna Loa CO2 measurements, too. Also an albedo measurement will be a great indicator to match up with solar activity/cosmic rays. It will be very interesting to see which of the parameters best leads real temperature measurements.
[…] UAH Global Temp Anomaly: also slightly above zero A few days ago I posted the results of the RSS Microwave Sounder Unit (MSU) global temperature anomaly data by RSS […] […]