UAH satellite derived global anomaly out – up a bit

Uhhhh…try looking at Eastern Europe, Russia and Siberia.
It was very warm there.

And unseasonably cool in other places. Obviously it aint “global”.

Paul Clark

The linear trend over that time is 0.38K, or 0.13K/decade, 1.3K/century.

.13k per decade starting in the coldest year in the last 50.

November 2008 Update on Global Temperature – UAH
http://digitaldiatribes.wordpress.com/2008/11/13/november-2008-update-on-global-temperature-uah/
There certainly does seem to be somewhat of an upward tick from earlier in the year, but current temperatures are still tracking below year-ago levels. The current upward trend probably is related to a neutral ENSO value. Unless an El Nino is on the way, or there is more unwinding in average temperature affects from the diminishing La Nina, it appears that this is probably about the level we’re settling into, absent other effects. It will be interesting to see what future months hold if the ENSO effects stay neutral.

Chris:
“Interesting questions:
(1) why does the land appear to have warmed while the oceans have cooled?
(2) why does UAH show warming over the oceans (by 0.09C globally) while ocean surface temperatures have cooled?
”
I have a theory/hypothesis, incompletely baked, but nonetheless a theory as to why this may occur.
Recently we’ve had ‘rapid’ build up of sea ice, in the NH, after the summer melt. For ice to form from liquid water a large amount of energy ( Latent heat of fusion ) needs to be removed from the liquid ie transported elsewhere. Some of this thermal energy will go into the surrounding water and some to the air.
When the ice is first forming and thin, I suspect that the air is the main recipient of this energy and thanks to its lower, than water, specific heat capacity will show a significant rise in temperature. Surface or near surface convection will result in an upward movement of energy. Air currents and prevailing wind will aid in the transport of this ‘lost’ energy.
As the ice thickens I’d guess that that increased insulation means that less energy is transferred to the air.
When frost forms (and I’ve seen plenty of that this last fortnight in shivering Scotland) I’m guessing that this sublimation (from water vapour to ice) also releases large amounts of energy to both host surfaces and the containing air.
If these mechanisms are broadly correct then when sub-zero areas first experience their seasonal cold snaps we could expect , initially, air temperatures to paradoxically rise. The area in question is indeed cooling – ie It is losing energy- but a major mechanism for the transport of this energy is by the surrounding air that thanks to its mobility and refusal to change state is correctly measured as being warmer. Perhaps (and I say this somewhat tongue in cheek) the first sign of Global Cooling is Global Warming – or at least for areas of the Globe that commonly experience temperatures below the freezing point of water (fresh or saline)
I think that the above may partly explain (1) above- although perhaps the word Land could be relaced by the word Air. I’ll leave question 2 for the time being – I kind of feel that the definition of ocean temperatures, never mind how it can be measured, is beyond me.
It is well known that when ice melts, latent heat energy is transported elsewhere and given the arguments above it may be surmised that heat is also released into the atmosphere as an area warms.
Logically, if my premises are correct, my conclusions are (when applied to ‘sub-zero’ areas (NH and SH) – other regions are excluded due to minimal water state changes :
(1) Ice formation is accompanied by initial warming by depletion of energy capital
(2) Ice creation is accompanied by enhanced warming by both depletion of energy capital and increased energy inflow ( that caused the melting in the first place)
and (3) Using increases in temperature for regions of the earth that exhibit predominantly ‘sub-zero’ temperatures – Latent/sublimation magnitudes- to be matched with more temperate climate temperature reductions (specific heat of ‘air’) is inconsistent with the law of Conservation of Energy!
When was the Law of Conservation Of Temperature discovered?
I’m sure that my thinking has to be flawed somewhere but for the life of me I can’t see it. Can anyone help an old baffled Scotsman.
>>>To Anthony – sorry about my seemingly angry rant last week about Ice-throwing wind-turbines- I didn’t mean it that way but, somehow, the mental imagery of ‘saving the planet’ green-machines raining down death and destruction got the better of me- it appealed to my Monty Python gland of humour! Apologies

Heat wells up from the ocean deep, winds carry over land, surface warms. Heat again wells up from the oceans, winds carry over land, surface warms, and so on and so forth.
If ocean heat content does not continually increase, can it be expected for land surface temperature to continue to rise? How long does it take for oceans to release their heat to where the surface will continually cool?
What warms the oceans? What mitigates this heat from reaching the oceans? What actually keeps us warm, oceans or atmosphere?
So many questions.

Chris: Personally, I wouldn’t be too concerned about month-to-month differences between UAH and HADSST data sets. As you said yourself, one is an estimate of SST while the other is of TLT over the oceans. Even the two sources of SST data, the Hadley Centre for HADSST and the NCDC for ERSST.v2, ERSST.v3, and OI.v2 SST can be different. They use different techniques to infill missing data. There are also differences between ERSST.v2, ERSST.v3, and OI.v2 SST versions from NCDC on a monthly basis. Large step changes in one, such as the change in HADSST after the 97/98 El Nino, that don’t appear in the other data sets should raise flags, though.

Why sequester CO2 gas, which is good for agriculture, reforestation
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/6795
Why are we going to spend trillions of dollars sequestering CO2 to mitigate global atmospheric warming, while our empirically-tested temperature models (e.g., see “Greenhouse Gases and Greenhouse Effect”, published in the last issue of Environmental Geology, or “Cooling of Atmosphere Due to CO2 Emission”, published this year in Energy Sources Journal) shows that increasing concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere causes cooling rather than warming?
In the dense earth’s troposphere, the heat from the Earth’s surface is mostly transferred by convection, approximately 67%. Radiation accounts for approximately 8%. Why is this important fact ignored by most scientists?
Also, why do peaks in the solar irradiation precede the peaks in the CO2 concentration in atmosphere? The answer is that as the temperature increases, CO2 evaporates from the ocean water, which is a great storehouse of CO2. Is the cause and effect reversed in the mind of many scientists? What is the common cause of “simultaneous” warming on Earth, Mars, Pluto and Jupiter? This is more than coincidence.
Any attempts to mitigate undesirable climate changes using restrictive regulations are doomed to failure because the global forces of nature are at least 4-5 orders of magnitude greater than the available human controls (e.g., see recently published, 2007, book by Elsevier Publishing Co. entitled :Global Warming and Global Cooling. Evolution of Climate on Earth”).
Unfortunately the “Global Warming” issue has become an emotionally-, politically-, and economically-motivated issue that has warped into a form of religious dogma founded on erroneous perceptual beliefs in the face of contradicting facts. Like a religion, it is becoming a sacred cow, impossible to touch.
There are 400,000,000 impossible to touch sacred cows in Dr. Pachaui’s India. The good doctor faces a dilemma: the conflict between the religion of global warming and a religion that reveres bovines. This is actually no problem for a confirmed hypocrite.

Indeed it was quit warm here in the Canadian Prairies in October as well as in November.
The odd thing was GISS depicted the Prairies as normal or even below normal in the temperature representation on the globe for October meanwhile UAH had the Prairies warmer as measured by the local weather stations.
It will be interesting how GISS will report the temperatures for November.
On a side note Greenpeace had a global warming demonstration here yesterday and it happened to be the first day in a long time that temperatures dropped below average.

Bob Tisdale
Bob, I cannot claim such expertise as is implied by the words. This was a conclusion at the end of the blog by The Diatribe Guy, Joe: http://digitaldiatribes.wordpress.com/learn-about-joe/

“” DR (14:58:00) :
What warms the oceans? What mitigates this heat from reaching the oceans? What actually keeps us warm, oceans or atmosphere? “”
73% of the earth’s surface is water mostly oceans. Water reflects 2% of the normal incident sunlight, actually out to about 53% from normal, (Fresnel reflection) and then it increases as the angle increases, so overall, the surface reflects about 3% of incident solar radiation, back out into space. The remaining 97% propagates into the water, with the highest energy blue green near the solar spectrum peak going deepest, and shorter and longer wavelengths being absorbed shallower; but ultimately something absorbs all of that 97% except in shallow waters where bottom reflections let some out again. That energy is deposited tens to hundreds of meters below the surface, and warms the local water, causing a convective drive back towards the surface. Of course severe weather will stir things up and interfere with this pattern. some of the heat will conduct to deeper waters; but generally convection trumps conduction (think of your car’s engine cooling system)
In addition infrared thermal radiation from the atmosphere, including GHG and clouds strikes the suarface and once again about 73% of that is going to hit water, and be absorbeds in the top ten microns, unlike the soar radiation which goes deep. That generally results in the prompt evaporation of moisture into the atmosphere.
On land, the solar radiation capture is not as efficient as over water, and some tens of percent is reflected even from things like rocks, and it can be 40% off vegetation.
The solid ground typically gets a lot hotter than the ocean surface so the infrared radiation from land can be more than from the ocean, except the ocean never gets colder than a few degrees below zero (C) whereas the land can get down to -90 C.
Most of the cooling of the planet takes place in broad daylight; not at night, because conduction, convection, evaporation and radiation are all much more efficient whent eh source temperature is higher which is under the noonday sun.
Urban heat islands of the concrete and asphalt kind, are also among the more efficient cooling surfaces.
Your car’s engine wouldn’t cool anywhere near as well as it does, if it wasn’t pressurised to raise the temperature, which makes the radiator work much more efficiently. The polar regions are too cold to be efficient cooling systems, and the infrared radiant emittance can be a factor of 12 less than what it is in the hottest deserts.

Ed Scott (15:32:49)
“There are 400,000,000 impossible to touch sacred cows in Dr. Pachaui’s India”
Holy Cow! (hand slaps forehead), I had not checked to see if that is a forcing input in the Climate Models.
R John (16:33:36):
“…their prediction, which they NEVER explain…..”
Maybe you should consider hiring a proctologist with a flashlight to examine their processes.

Of course, the NCDC predicts that a large area of the midwest / plains will see above normal temperatures for the Dec – Feb period. Note also that it predicts no one should see much below temperatures.

Which is why it was 12f on Friday in Kansas City, KS. Above normal. Riiight.