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)
There seems to be a large dip every eight-nine years (with a somewhat smaller one shifted 4 years from that one). Those two periods are very significant in a power spectrum of these data, meaning the thing should flatten around 0.4 C in the next 4 years, then dip a little rise again and then fall to slightly negative eight years from now.
Overall no significant trend but simply a jump after 1998, with what looks like a periodic pattern in these ~30 years.
I was suprised at the jump. Global warming may be hanging around.
Is John Finn somewhere around?
Last year, November, on the Aussie blog, he did ask about temperatures from the entry into the Dalton Minimum.
I did provide there some datas from 1806-1814 from German records.
And a url for more data from Germany, Switzerland, Austria.
I hope he’ll see them.
The upward spike is what I would have expected to see given that the oceans have been neutral rather than negative for some time.
Up to this point I had been surprised not to see it.
The question is as to what is the current prevailing trend.
In the UK the past two years have seen the warmer spells around average and the cooler spells trending downward.
During the 1975 to 2000 warming spell we had cool spells around average and warm spells trending upward.
Globally the neutral PDO has produced average temperatures overall but with warmth in some places and cold in others.
The background warming bias has gone but we do not yet have a clear cooling bias with a neutral PDO.
The factor that will dictate the future trend is the predominance of El Nino or La Nina in the months to come.
If a cooling trend becomes established I would then expect to see a cooling bias even with a neutral PDO.
The average (non seasonal) latitudinal position of the jet strerams is also important. If they start moving poleward I expect to see a resumption of warming but if they stay where they are then I see a consolidation of a cooling trend.
Any contribution from human CO2 would appear to be trivial otherwise we would have a more powerful warming bias with the current neutral PDO (in my opopinion).
It’s that time of month again, when the RSS & UAH data come out and I have to remind myself that this isn’t a measure of the temp at the ground but of the well mixed air well up from the surface {no burn barrels or barbeques no mess with}.
When I look at the temps at the 1 & especially 4.4 km alt, it seems that the early month started pretty close to last year’s values (see: http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/ ) until the impact of the SSW hit. So far it looks like the lower tropo temps are recovering, so next month’s anomaly probably won’t be quite so strong.
What’s the point in proofing it if you don’t proof it?!!
Shud be “… to mess with}>”
*sigh*
Ed Scott (14:17:48) :
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.
Ed, no scientist actually thinks the atmosphere acts like a glazed greenhouse. The ‘greenhouse effect’ is a very poor description of what is meant, but we’re stuck with it now. Please take it as a given that whenever anyone refers to ‘greenhouse’ in this context they don’t actually mean it’s like a greenhouse!
Keep your panties on, looks like part of the occilation, the peaks are going down which shows whats going up. Besides, the solar cycle’s influence should take 5 years to show itself in full anyways…
realitycheck (10:02:49) :
For those interested in SSWs – there is a 30-day animation of the recent SSW here
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/intraseasonal/temp10anim.shtml
This is an amazing thing to witness. If I am reading this correctly, we see a 10-15 C swing in temperatures for the entire arctic region in about 10 days. But even more so is that it appears that the rest of the world is cooling during the same period.
Am I reading this correctly, and everything south of the arctic is cooling … like a counter balance ?. Is this common ?, and what is the mechanism ?.
Bill Illis (10:34:49) :
Sometimes these events produce warming at the pole but very cold conditions in the middle latitudes 2 weeks to 8 weeks after the initial event.
Is there information on this available somewhere ?.
Thanks in advance
I have been watching the following site during January. I have to keep in mind that the anomalies are compared to a 1985 to 1996 climatology, but visually I just haven’t seen much of a positive anomaly, especially since most of Antarctica was extremely cold during the first 3 weeks of January. My guess is that GISS and HADCRUT will come in lower than the satellite data.
http://web1.cdc.noaa.gov/map/ANIM/sfctmpmer_01a.fnl.30.gif
I really want the AGW’ers to be correct with their estimate/hypothesis/prediction that the world, that directly affects me, will become warmer. The climate/weather status-quo has been pretty miserable in Scotland for the last couple of years – Positive temperature anomalies sound pretty darned good to me as I freeze my MacButt off in the draughty ancestral home!
Assuming that an unchanging climate is delusional we have, temperature-wise, only two options- It get’s warmer- it get’s colder! A mere toss of the coin!
As much as I admire the reasoned arguments as to why CO2 is/or isn’t the villain I always come back to the totally selfish argument that asks ‘Is your b*m warm enough yet?”
Reason WUWT = credible. When it goes UP (temp) it is reported even highlighted
Reason RC not credible. When it goes down = global warming (at least… ie antarctica until last week) LOL
I was surprised that Icecap ran with this because I think we all agree that the greenhouse analogy is inadequte.
I prefer my own Hot Water Bottle Effect and the concept of a delay in the transmission of energy through the air and oceans:
http://co2sceptics.com/news.php?id=1487
In my mind the issue is boiling down to the simple question as to whether a change in the composition of the air alone can have any effect on the whole system when the oceans are so much more substantial than the air.
I think that the dominance of the oceans is such that energy budget changes in the air alone are just bounced out of the system by a change in the air circulation.
We shall see.
realitycheck – Great post on “weather” vs “climate”, and the apple analogy.
Folks, don’t trash around so much based on one months data. Let the trends play out, and look at their fit with historical patterns. I don’t think many can find fault with RSS or UAH data. They are far more open on their processes than GISS is, and their systems are less susceptible to outside influences.
BTW – I had changed my name to RichardM, from Mongo, now see another Richard M posting here. Guess I shouldn’t use anything resembling my real name? lol
Simon Evans
I am not sure where you derive the information that no scientist(s) believe the “greenhouse” effect while it is still being taught and perpetuated. Some teachers are qualified scientists. Would a scientist convey knowledge that is known to be incorrect? The proper nomenclature might be atmospheric effect and that effect seems to be poorly understood with respect to the trace atmospheric gases (TAG). We are not stuck with term the “greenhouse” just a reticence to go against the grain and correctly define it.
————————————————————-
The Truth Is Out There (familiar X-File phrase) but the IPCC scientists cannot read, or read with understanding commensurate with their education.
————————————————————-
Perpetual motion and repeal of the second law of thermodynamics have been achieved by the IPCC scientists and Gavin Schmidt of NASA.
http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/FAQ.html
If people are gullible enough to believe such a scenario, and apparently millions do, they deserve what’s coming down the road at them. Yet this is what even many climate skeptics call “the basic science.”
Substitute glass for that layer of “greenhouse gases.” Like them, glass is also transparent to visible light but largely opaque to what’s called thermal infrared. Direct a radiant heater at a glass pane, then. According to greenhouse physics, you now have the equivalent of two radiant heaters because the glass will absorb, say, 500 W/sqm from the heater and emit that to the surroundings but also radiate 500 W/sqm in the other direction, back to the heater. 1000 Watts per square meter in all.
This is what Schreuder means by counting energy twice. But in fact it’s more. Because remember that the radiant heater will be heated by its own re-directed energy and thereby emit even more energy — which the glass will absorb and double, which will heat the heater more… It’s a perpetual motion machine, just as he says.
That such a childish fantasy threatens to destroy western civilization is incredible, but that’s exactly the case.
“…the IPCC and other authorities commit the same error that most people do. Presupposing that space is incredibly cold, they surmise that the earth must be kept warm by an atmospheric blanket which inhibits the radiant energy emitted to space – an outmoded conjecture disproved by satellite observations. Despite evidence to the contrary, then, belief in “the greenhouse effect” persists, for people feel that earth needs to be isolated from the “coldness” of empty space.
Yet the earth is actually enclosed in a perfect thermal insulator, the vacuum of space itself. Short of installing a gigantic mirror around our planet, nothing but space can preserve the earth’s temperature longer.
Thus the value of understanding how a thermos works.
“Really new trails are rarely blazed in the great academies.
The confining walls of conformist dogma are too dominating.
To think originally, you must go forth into the wilderness.”
S. Warren Carey
“Ed, no scientist actually thinks the atmosphere acts like a glazed greenhouse. The ‘greenhouse effect’ is a very poor description of what is meant, but we’re stuck with it now. Please take it as a given that whenever anyone refers to ‘greenhouse’ in this context they don’t actually mean it’s like a greenhouse!”
Except warmers do.
Trapping of IR is not a big contributor to warming.
The main conveyor of surface heat loss is convection & they try to hide this.
DaveE.
OT, but there’s what looks to me like a very interesting post claiming that in 1909 physicist R.W. Wood disproved the popular 19th Century thesis that greenhouses stayed warm by trapping IR. Any room for a post to discuss this Anthony?
To others, if you’ve read this and are dying to comment: please don’t derail this thread, post on our forum instead.
“Please take it as a given that whenever anyone refers to ‘greenhouse’ in this context they don’t actually mean it’s like a greenhouse!”
But IR is still trapped because there’s less leaving the earth than staying. So how can you say the atmosphere is not acting like a greenhouse even though you’re calling it a greenhouse and saying that CO2 is trapping heat.
I mean, that’s the bottom line, no?
Meant to add, h/t ICECAP
OT, but related… So how about GISS anomalies? In looking into the GIStemp source code, I’ve reached STEP3 (roughly the 6th actual step…) and was doing a small ‘look ahead’ at STEP4_5 and though I was getting a bit of an echo… so I made a little ‘diff’erence script that I named ‘differ’:
$ ./differ
diff ./STEP3/annzon.f ./STEP4_5/annzon.f
diff ./STEP3/trimSBBX ./STEP4_5/trimSBBX
diff ./STEP3/trimSBBX.f ./STEP4_5/trimSBBX.f
diff ./STEP3/zonav ./STEP4_5/zonav
diff ./STEP3/zonav.f ./STEP4_5/zonav.f
$
For each ‘diff’ test, nothing is returned. There is no difference. The two copies are identical.
So in addition to the other bad coding practices I’ve run into, we have identical sources (computer programs) in different directories. The good news it that I now have less to understand (more is redundant). The bad news is that step3, step4, and step5 seem to have the same ‘reference station’ averaging process run over the same data again, and again, and again… I’ll know more once i finish, but that’s what it smells like right now.
DaveE (15:23:25) :
“Ed, no scientist actually thinks the atmosphere acts like a glazed greenhouse. The ‘greenhouse effect’ is a very poor description of what is meant, but we’re stuck with it now. Please take it as a given that whenever anyone refers to ‘greenhouse’ in this context they don’t actually mean it’s like a greenhouse!”
Except warmers do.
Trapping of IR is not a big contributor to warming.
The main conveyor of surface heat loss is convection & they try to hide this.
What? Where has anyone tried “to hide this”? I genuinely don’t know what you’re talking about.
It’s elementary that a ‘real’ greenhouse warms up primarily because of the prevention of convection. Hot air rises unless it’s prevented from doing so!
I think maybe a separate thread, as suggested above, is a good idea – I don’t want to derail this thread either.
This link should provide the RSS global TLT map for Jan 2009. Click on “Anomaly”.
http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_monthly.html
The hot spot over the Northeast Pacific does not appear in SST data.
Curious.
Ed Scott (15:17:38) :
Yet the earth is actually enclosed in a perfect thermal insulator, the vacuum of space itself. Short of installing a gigantic mirror around our planet, nothing but space can preserve the earth’s temperature longer.
Thus the value of understanding how a thermos works.
Might I suggest that you check out the distinction between conduction and radiation?
Ed Scott (15:17:38) :
Yet the earth is actually enclosed in a perfect thermal insulator, the vacuum of space itself.
I read somewhere that “space” does not have a temperature because it is void.
Am I right on this?
I noticed the tiny legend in the top left corner. It appears that it excludes almost the entire continent of Antarctica. So if we have cooling in Antarctica and it is not factored in how can anyone say “global” temps have risen?