RSS Data Source is here
The RSS (Remote Sensing Systems of Santa Rosa, CA) Microwave Sounder Unit (MSU) lower troposphere global temperature anomaly data for January 2009 was published yesterday and has risen significantly. This is the new data version, 3.2 which changed in October. The change from December with a value of 0.174°C to January’s 0.322°C is a (∆T) of +0.148°C.
RSS
2008 1 -0.070
2008 2 -0.002
2008 3 0.079
2008 4 0.080
2008 5 -0.083
2008 6 0.035
2008 7 0.147
2008 8 0.146
2008 9 0.241 (V3.1)
2008 10 0.181 (V3.2)
2008 11 0.216 (V3.2)
2008 12 0.174 (V3.2)
2009 01 0.322 (V3.2)
Bill Illis (10:34:49) :
…The effects of the event depend on whether the additional heat migrates downward to the surface or whether it just leaks out to space.
There won’t be much heating downwards
The heat capacity of gas at 10 hPa is 1/100 (I think) of that at 1 atm of the same gas at the same volume. At the same time if you add upp the number of molecules below the 10 hPa level there at 100 time more of them them above. A temperature of 100°C up there would result in a raising of 1°C down here if all heat is transported down.
So the SSW is interesting to watch but not a sign of any dramatic warming.
Imagine that air at 10 hPa over the arctic is saturated and suddenly all moisture condenses (guess how) ->a lot of heat must be released.
TJA,
Have you looked at Great Lakes Ice data through January’s end?
http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/app/WsvPrdCanQry.cfm?CanID=11080&Lang=eng
We’ve been ice fishing since the first week of December.
NOAA’s premiere forecasting models failed miserably.
TJA (12:10:47) :
This blog is renowned for civil discourse – perhaps you could find another way to make your point.
Re: DAV’s claims about it being warm in January in D.C., here are the actual numbers:
http://www.weather.com/weather/monthly/USDC0001?month=-1
Here are the averages:
http://www.weather.com/weather/wxclimatology/daily/USDC0001?climoMonth=1
January was one of the warmest I’ve seen since moving to Santa Rosa 9 years ago. Rain has been sparse and water rationing is just around the corner. However, I don’t see how one month of data for one station proves anything about climate change. To me it’s just a warm, dry winter compared to some cold, wet ones we’ve had over the last several years.
All I can say with total confidence is, “It wasn’t me guv, I never touched it, honest!”
Could be that SSW though.
DaveE.
Rick in Santa Rosa,
La Nina conditions usually spell for dry/hot weather for the Far West (esp in the Autumn through Winter).
Per the graph, temperature seemed to be constant (i.e. oscillated around 0 anomaly) until circa 1998 to 2002 when it “stepped up” to oscillate around 0.25 (visually). That net change was about 0.1deg/decade.
A valuable analysis of glacier melt back just presented by “Open Mind” indicates a “step function” change in the rate of change of glacier mass. I think, Open Mind’s finding confirms a “step upward change” (circa 2002) in temperature (as opposed to a more continuous/steady change).
Looking at the graph, if temperatures after this peak behave like previous ones in the 80s and early 90s, we may be in a “step down” of about 0.15 (to a new “equilibrium” of 0.1 anomaly). Giving a net temperature change over the satellite data period of about 0.1 in 30 years — 0.033deg/decade. Only time will tell.
Simon Evans,
Thanks for the link to the Japanese site, as you say “You can see that there are many areas that have had notable positive anomalies for various periods during the month. It gives a nice illustration of the variability of one region against another!”
My question is this, the variability of one region against another is there all year round so how is it REALLY possible to derive a GMST without introducing compromises that jeopardise the fogure you are looking for?
Ah well, “fogure”…figure (What a difference a letter makes!}
The ultimate example of selecting the data you like, and throwing out the data that doesn’t agree with it:
TJA:
Some posters seem surprised by this month’s anomaly, to the extent of raising suspicion over the data (odd that satellite data is considered gold standard here when it lags surface data. Nobody want s to question UAH/RSS adjustments when they’re having a pop at Hansen!). Of course, if you’d been only a reader of this blog through the winter, with all its stories of how cold it has been here or there, then you might have missed the fact that it’s simultaneously been warm here, there and beyond. The US is not a good proxy for global temperature, far less particular parts of the US. Confirmation bias astounded by reality, I’d say.
I think TJA forgot the /sarc off
DaveE.
TO: DAV
“The January temps in the DC area have been what can only be described as mild for January..”??????
DC averaged about 3 degrees cooler than normal in January [va. and md. 2degrees cooler]
http://www.accuweather.com/us/dc/washington/20500/forecast-climo.asp?partner=accuweather&traveler=0&zipChg=1&metric=0&mnYr=1/1/2009
I live near Fairfax city.
Sorry, this is OT, but may interest you. A BBC report on a study of a fossil snake outlines an interesting new approach to estimating ancient temperatures:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7868588.stm
“Assuming the Earth today was not particularly unusual, the researchers calculated that a snake of Titanoboa’s size would have required an average annual temperature of 30C to 34C (86F to 93F) to survive.
By comparison, the average yearly temperature of today’s Cartagena, a Colombian coastal city, is about 28C. “
Re January temperatures relative to averages and extremes:
There is an interesting graph (chart? visual aid?) from NOAA that shows this. There are also annual charts for the past couple of years. I cannot discover how to change the “station” to display other locations around the country.
Chart is here.
Roger E. Sowell
January 1895 – 2008 Trend = -0.05 degF / Decade
http://climvis.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/cag3/hr-display3.pl
Dave Andrews (13:01:54) :
Simon Evans,
Thanks for the link to the Japanese site, as you say “You can see that there are many areas that have had notable positive anomalies for various periods during the month. It gives a nice illustration of the variability of one region against another!”
My question is this, the variability of one region against another is there all year round so how is it REALLY possible to derive a GMST without introducing compromises that jeopardise the fogure you are looking for?
I’m not sure that I can answer the question to your satisfaction. My best approach would be to say that we should have less confidence in the ‘significance’ of immediate variation and look to the longer view. Speaking as a ‘warmist’, I’d say my concern is with what happens regionally far more than with the ‘average effect’ of a globally averaged temperature change. We know, of course, that many areas of the globe are subject to considerable weather variation, but it’s in those places where there is little climate headroom that the consequences of any further warming will be felt first and, potentially, felt most severely.
I don’t think that either the surface or the satellite record is ‘perfect’, that’s obvious. I think trend is significant rather than absolute measurement. In other words, we could say that the records are biased either negatively or positively, but so long as they maintain that bias the trend is still meaningful. It might have been better for USHCN not to have corrected for bias, since it made precious little difference to the global record yet has provided endless fodder for criticism!
Charlie B makes a good point. Not wishing to have a pop at our Colonial cousins, but the world is a lot bigger than the USA and when it’s winter there and you are freezing them off shoveling snow, it’s summer a lot of other places. Having said that, you can bet the AGW boys ‘n girls will latch onto the numbers as proof of their conjecture. They don’t have much else going for them, science-wise, after all.
My quick figures came out to a minus 3.5f for washington janruary temps.
TJA was making a joke.
Reply: and the moderators got it and let it through ~ charles the moderator
I am sure it has but, has the 1998 jump been throughly vetted from multiply sources and they all correlate. And not just some “hot books” that can not be correlated other than the source said that is the numbers.
Simon Evans (13:09:32) :
Some posters seem surprised by this month’s anomaly,
To be honest, as a sceptic, I’m not overly surprised. In my corner of the world, I felt that January was warm compared to December. I note in my diary having wanted it cooler a few time during the month, mainly because I trust Mother Nature will continue to prove the GCM’s to be a load…
However, I’m only talking of my corner of the world being 30 square miles, which is tiny in comparison to the rest of the NH. Plus the last week of January to date has been exceptionally cold round here and predicted to continue for at least another week (again!), so I expect that February’s anomaly might be a little cooler. But it’s early days.
Greenhouse Theory Disproved a Century Ago
http://globalwarmingnot.blogtownhall.com/2009/02/03/greenhouse_theory_disproved_a_century_ago.thtml
The claim that carbon dioxide (CO2) can increase air temperatures by “trapping” infrared radiation (IR) ignores the fact that in 1909 physicist R.W. Wood disproved the popular 19th Century thesis that greenhouses stayed warm by trapping IR. Unfortunately, many people who claim to be scientists are unaware of Wood’s experiment which was originally published in the Philosophical magazine , 1909, vol 17, p319-320. Wood was an expert on IR. His accomplishments included inventing both IR and UV (ultraviolet) photography.
Before to get too cranky – on both, RSS and UAH,
let’s simply wait for the Febuary values. They will be accompanied
by changes to January values.
The last 4 to five years, a majority of changes to the previous month
were negative. (I do log every changes to older datas).
KlausB