RSS and UAH Global Temperature Anomalies for March 2009

RSS March 2009 - click for a larger image

RSS March 2009 - click for a larger image

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 March 2009 was published today and has dropped for the second month after peaking in January.   The change from February with a value of 0.230°C to March’s 0.172°C is a (∆T) of  -0.058°C.

Recent RSS anomalies

2008 10 0.181

2008 11 0.216

2008 12 0.174

2009 01 0.322

2009 02 0.230

2009 03 0.172

Like RSS, UAH was also announced today, on the blog of Dr. Roy Spencer here who is co-curator of the data with Dr. John Christy at the University of Alabama, Huntsville.

It showed a significant drop, more than double that of RSS:

uah_global_temperature_anomaly_mar2009-510

Click for a larger image

The change from February with a value of 0.347°C to March’s 0.208°C is a (∆T) of  -0.139°C

Recent UAH anomalies:

2009   1   0.304

2009   2   0.347

2009   3   0.208

Oddly, a divergence developed in the Feb 09 data between RSS and UAH, and opposite in direction to boot.

I spoke with Dr. Roy Spencer at the ICCC09 conference (3/10) and asked him about the data divergence. Here is what he had to say:

“I believe it has to do with the differences in how diurnal variation is tracked and adjusted for.” he said. I noted that Feburary was a month with large diurnal variations.

For that reason, UAH has been using data from the AQUA satellite MSU, and RSS to my knowledge does not, and makes an adjustment to account for it. I believe our data [UAH] is probably closer to the true anomaly temperature, and if I’m right, we’ll see the two datasets converge again when the diurnal variations are minimized.”

Looks like the data sets are converging now.

UPDATE: Barry Wise decided to contribute a plot in comments that I thought readers would find interesting.

He writes:

The 1997/98 El Niño temperature spike seems to have had a long lasting effect that is dissipating. This graph shows what the trend was before the event and how the trend was affected by it. The dashed red line is the trend with all of the data and the purple is the trend based on the data before the area highlighted in red. Notice that there appears to be a decaying oscillation. If correct we’re in the third peak which is less than the previous two, and is much closer to the purple trend line.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
savethesharks

How apropos…
Check out Hotrod’s post in the http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/01/nasa-headline-deep-solar-minimum/ thread at:
hotrod (17:54:00)
Now somebody look at this graph and compare and tell me it does not look like a rogue wave?
Need the math geniuses to chime in at this point.
Interesting proposition, hotrod. Thanks.
Most transfer of energy propagates through a wave….and be the period a millisecond or a thousand years….there are simliarities.
Chris
Norfolk, VA

savethesharks

Clarification: the 1998 spike being a “rogue wave”

tallbloke

Mind the doors please… Going down.

Jack Green

I’m not seeing a pattern here except the data appears to be in a narrow channel with a slight bias upward. My mark one eyeball fit says 0.15 Deg C over 30 years. That doesn’t seem like much. Am I reading this wrong? I get that fitting a line for slope on the peaks and minimums keeping a focus on the data in this channel between these lines. I know it’s not scientific but it’s pretty close to all the AGW doomsdayers.

Robert Bateman

Welcome to the 2009 Climate Elevator.
Going down?

P Folkens

When does GISS reveal their take on March?
I’d be interested in the explanation if it diverges from RSS and UAH.

peat

OT: Spaceweather http://www.spaceweather.com/ is doing a running count of blank sunspot days. They were up to 26 but suddenly dropped back to 9. It seems that someone decided a little speck a week ago should count as a spot after all. With that kind of authority, maybe they can declare Pluto to be a planet again…
NEW: Spotless Days
Current Stretch: 9 days*
2009 total: 81 days (87%)
Since 2004: 592 days
Typical Solar Min: 485 days
explanation | more info
Updated 04 Apr 2009
*NOTE: Updated sunspot counts by the Solar Influences Data Center reveal a small, previously unnumbered sunspot on March 26th. This reduces the current stretch of blank suns to 9.

Gerry

NOAA is showing the last 27 days as spotless:
http://www2.nict.go.jp/y/y223/sept/swcenter/sunspot.html

Mike Bryant

“*NOTE: Updated sunspot counts by the Solar Influences Data Center reveal a small, previously unnumbered sunspot on March 26th. This reduces the current stretch of blank suns to 9.”
Doesn’t unnumbered mean it is NOT a sunspot?

tallbloke

Jack Green (21:55:50) :
I’m not seeing a pattern here except the data appears to be in a narrow channel with a slight bias upward. My mark one eyeball fit says 0.15 Deg C over 30 years. That doesn’t seem like much. Am I reading this wrong?

Hi Jack,
hre’s a useful website where you can play with graphing the data and trendlines etc. This is a plot showing RSS and a few trendlines: An overall trend, and a couple either side of the big El nino spike a decade ago.
You can alter the parameters using the drop down menus. Have fun.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/plot/rss/trend/plot/rss/from:1979/to:1997/trend/plot/rss/from:1999/trend

Juraj V.

UAH March anomaly will be cca 0,14°C. Look how the SST predicts the air temperature few month ahead: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2000/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2000
Since 2003, SST goes downhill and seems accelerating.

Jerker Andersson

I also noted that, it took them 9 days to figure out if it should be counted as a sunspot. I remember that spot in particular since it apeared and lasted for a short time, had to be counted in hours, and then disapeared. A few days later the same plauge region repeated itself and formed a tiny sunspot that again was so short lived it had to be counted in hours.
My qustion is if we count spots that last for hours and are so small that they cover only one two pixels. Don’t we break the data record since such small sunpots would not have been counted 100 years ago with the tools that were available back then?
It will be hard to compare this minimum to older weak minimums if we do not count the spots in the same way.

AlanG

The temperature drop in March doesn’t surprise me. The Earth is closest to the sun in Jab/Feb. Eyeballing the chart we usually go lower from here over the following months.
Apologies if this was mentioned earlier but this post by Roy Spencer is required reading for people here. He explains the difference between a greenhouse and a blanket (the term Lindzen uses as well), demolishes the 2nd law of thermodynamics argument and the atmospheric IR opacity argument.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/04/in-defense-of-the-greenhouse-effect/
It really looks like the science is homing in on negative feedback.

tallbloke

Juraj V. (23:24:12) :
UAH March anomaly will be cca 0,14°C.

Now that will be a big drop, bringing the two satellite series back into alignment.

Juraj V.

re tallbloke: UAH is out, being 0.208; 0.14 was someone´s estimation from solarcycle24 board.

DJ

Yet another above average temperatures despite a strong solar minimum. Let’s face it – temperatures are a lot hotter than they should be given a recent La Nina and a cool sun. The reason…. the enhanced greenhouse effect!

My March 2009 SST anomaly update is here:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/04/march-2009-sst-anomaly-update.html
The AMO has continued its decline, but the rate has slowed.
The monthly change (March 2009 Minus February 2009) in Global SST anomalies was approximately +0.025 deg C.
NINO3.4 SST anomalies continue to fluctuate near to the threshold of a minor La Nina.

Steve

That Catlin survey tracker hasn’t been updated for 24 hours.
Assuming the technology is working it looks like Hadow has got hypothermia
http://www.catlinarcticsurvey.com/live_from_the_ice.aspx

peter_ga

Please, 6 more months of global warming. I hate winter.

Adam Soereg

P Folkens (22:32:36) :
When does GISS reveal their take on March?
I’d be interested in the explanation if it diverges from RSS and UAH.

Give them some time, at the moment they must be working on immediate adjustments in order to sweep all the incovenient data under the carpet. 🙂
In the 1990’s, there was a mayor station dropout in the GHCN dataset. The number of stations was decreased by the keepers of this data from 5 thousand to about 1.5 thousand. Most of the ‘lost’ stations were rural ones, so the percentage of UHI-contaminated measurement sites must have been increased. The only source of land observations used by GISS is the GHCN data, they don’t use the GSOD database, which contains up to date observations from 4-5000 surface stations around the world compiled from SYNOP, METAR and other form of reports.
It is not so difficult to find out the overall effect of this event… I’m quite convinced that the large-scale station dropout is the main reason for the divergence between GISTEMP and other global temperature records.

Sorry to go OT but the biotelemetry for the Catlin Team concerns me. See http://www.catlinarcticsurvey.com/live_from_the_ice.aspx
Pen Hadow’s core temperature (whilst I watch) is somewhere around 34-35C which is the sort of temperature where mild hypothermia sets in and only two degrees abovr where severe hypothermia sets in.

Alex

That is rather ridiculous of spaceweather to say the least, if it has not been numbered it is not a spot!
Soon when technology gives us even better views of the sun they will start counting the really tiny spots that can’t be seen with current technology (if that’s possible)
http://www.solen.info/solar/ does not list there being any spots 9 days ago and neither does sc24.com…. clearly people are getting spot-hungry.
Is there any organisation that uses techniques to count sunspots as they were counted 150 years ago?? Anyone??? Is there any possible way to determine what the sunspot count currently would be had 2008-09s sunspots occurred in 1850s??
If there is anyone who knows if there are any groups/organisations that use old methods, please let us know.

Update: Pen’s core temperature has gone back up to 36C (judging from the heart monitor he’s had a breather, but his skin temperature is at 30C so he’s losing a lot of heat somewhere.

Steve

Hadow’s temperature as shown on that site has risen 3° since I posted an hour ago. So a technical hitch apparently. Site still suggests they haven’t moved since yesterday though. Getting in some sunbathing and surfing probably
http://www.catlinarcticsurvey.com/live_from_the_ice.aspx

A possibility of false reading should be considered. Rapid increase in 1998 appear to be unlike anything recorded before.
It should be noted that in 1998 number of observatories recorded unusual burst of cosmic radiation. They of cause could have caused increase in temperature, but more likely affected RSS sensors.
An extraordinary increase in cosmic-ray intensity has been recorded on September 29, 1998 by the Rome detectors (rigidity threshold 6.2 GV).
http://www.springerlink.com/content/r654l25g85461131/
The September 29, 1998, cosmic ray ground level enhancement had a complex intensity-time profile with two distinct peaks observed at some neutron monitors. The event was detected by surface and some underground muon telescopes indicating the presence of particles up to 30 GV.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1998/98JA02100.shtml
Data obtained in Chile with the standard neutron monitor (Santiago: 6 NM-64; geomagnetic cut-off rigidity: about 11 GV) are reported for the ground-level solar cosmic-ray event registered on September 29, 1989. Possible studies connected with such a rare event are suggested to understand even more solar-interplanetary-terrestrial relations.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990NCimC..13..639C

Rck

Just a little note:
Official spotless days on 2009 (by SIDC) @ March 3rd, 2009 are 79, and series from 2004 counts 588 spotless days.
Regards,
Rick, from Italy

maz2

Rex Murphy.
“So how do you like our green world?”
“… though it may be cruel and ironic, what the preachments of Al Gore and David Suzuki have failed to achieve, the crisis of the world’s banking systems and consequent recession will accomplish. What their stark cries of alarm over imminent planetary collapse, the rise of the oceans and the plight of the polar bear could not move people and governments to do voluntarily, the iron laws of economic crisis will effect. What Kyoto speciously promised, the downturn, in part, will deliver. Surely, however bitter the means, this is good news from their perspective.
It would, of course, be tasteless to celebrate the fact. There is a lot of misery for a lot of people when good times turn to bad. But it would be almost unnatural for those who have been warning the rest of us for nearly two decades that we are in a “planetary emergency” – that we must forswear our dependence on fossil fuels, that petroleum is evil, that the oil sands are the dirtiest project on the planet – not to take some uplift that what they have wished for (however inadvertently) has come to pass.”
“If Prince Charles, another Horseperson of the eco-Apocalypse, really believes that “the threat of catastrophic climate change calls into question humanity’s continued existence on the planet,” then, in some secret chamber of his royal heart, he must be cheering the great blizzard roiling the world’s economies. For it is surely, as night follows day, reducing the call on the world’s energy and “downsizing” the dreaded “carbon footprints” of whole nations. But we do not hear his cheering or the cheering of the Sierra Clubs or the Earth Hour glee clubs because that would be acknowledging the truth of what their prescriptions for a new economy – the “green economy” – really mean.
Do you really wish to know what this “green economy” will look like? Look out the recession’s window. We’re in it.”
http://tinyurl.com/cfv35f

John Good

Link to Dr Spencer above re Greenhouse Effect then link to ‘Al Gore recants’ Did he really recant on April 1st or is this a Spencer April Fool? If true why no comments for the past three days?

[name deleted ]

Age of Stupid?
Does this mean there has been no global warming for 30 years?

REPLY:
If you are going to post here again, please choose a different handle. The one you chose is offensive to some of our green posters here. – Anthony

The temperature drop in March doesn’t surprise me. The Earth is closest to the sun in Jab/Feb. Eyeballing the chart we usually go lower from here over the following months.
We seem to get this every month or so. The monthly figures are anomalies not temperatures. The anomalies are calculated values which are relative to the mean for a particular month. So the anomaly for Jan is relative to the 1979-1997 Jan mean … the anomaly for Feb is relative to the 1979-1997 Feb mean … and so on for Mar, Apr etc.
Unfortunately we all tend to get a bit sloppy when talking about anomalies and it’s easy, therefore, for misunderstandings to occur. But think of it this way. It’s perfectly possible for March to be warmer than January – but to have a lower anomaly.
Someone may correct me on this but I believe that, due to the vastly different areas of land/ocean coverage in the 2 hemispheres, Jun/Jul/Aug global temperatures are actually higher than Dec/Jan/Feb global temperatures.

.
Regards the geomagnetic activity (GA) graph in this earlier post, some commentators were saying that the data does not fit the global temperature rise (GW), because the 1933 dip on the GA graph is anomalous – it does not fit the warming trend.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/04/solar-geomagnetic-ap-index-now-at-lowest-point-in-its-history/
However, the GA data used in this post only goes back to the 1930s, and provides a poor snap-shot of the bigger picture. If you use the Australian IPS GA graph, which goes back to 1844, you will see a different picture.
http://www.ips.gov.au/Educational/3/1/4
Clearly the 1930s GA minimum was not a minimum at all, just a dip. The real GA minimum occured in about 1900, and thus the true GA minimum did indeed coincide with the global temperature (GW) minimum in the 1900s.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
Actually, the two datasets coincide rather well. A minimum in the 1900s, rising to a maximum in the 1950s, dropping back until the 1980s and then rising to a new peak.
If GW is following GA, then the recent steep decline in GA would suggest we are in for a steep cooling period – a real mini Ice-Age.
.

P Folkens (22:32:36) :
When does GISS reveal their take on March?
I’d be interested in the explanation if it diverges from RSS and UAH.

How do you mean “diverges from RSS and UAH”. GISS anomalies for both Jan and Feb were relativey much cooler than both UAH and RSS. Using the same base period as the satellite data (1979-1997) the GISS Feb anomaly was +0.15 compared with +0.36 for UAH and +0.23 for RSS. A GISS March anomaly of ~0.49 would represent an anomaly of ~0.20 relative to the satellite base period.

Gerard

I read this blog and analyse the data and it seems overwhelmingly that there really is no evidence to support the doom of AGW religion. So I ask the question why does the AGW fraternity continue to be supported by most world governments? When will they see the light? Will we have to wait until our landscapes are covered in useless industrial wind turbines and any economy we have left is destroyed by foolish taxes such as cap and trade? I am a scientist and I do not understand this madness.

Just eyeballing the 2 graphs suggests to me that we’re simply in a brief La Nina phase – similar to the one in 1998-2001. There ‘s no way anyone can, at this point in time at least, reasonably interpret the recent lower anomlies as the beginning of a sharp (or even slight) cooling trend.

There was a fascinating story in the Economist about an Irish lighthouse that was hit by a rogue wave. The light itself revolved in a near-frictionless vat of mercury:

Mr O’Driscoll remembers a storm in 1985 when a wave reached as high as the light and came crashing through the glass, overturning the vat of mercury and sending the poisonous liquid pouring down the stairs. He doubts the tower would have withstood another wallop as great as that, but it never came.

How big was the rogue wave? The lighthouse was 177 feet tall!
[source]

peat (22:35:13) :
OT: Spaceweather http://www.spaceweather.com/ is doing a running count of blank sunspot days. They were up to 26 but suddenly dropped back to 9.

That is *very* strange. The same thing happened in August 08 when we were about to make a new record streak of spotless days. I saw these tin-tiny specks in March on SOHO, they lasted for only a few hours. They were *very* small, rather similar to the dead pixel at ~4 o’clock in the continuum image (just not quite as black). I am an amateur astronomer and have seen and photographed sunspots myself (see my website). Those specks cannot possibly have been visible visually using a small earth-based refractor. I cannot understand how they can be counted in, and why now and not then?
Do we have a bias in the counting process? Is there some motivation somewhere to try to keep us from breaking records of spotless days?
Even if they somehow remain in the statistics (they should not), to me it means the incredibly low minimum we are experiencing is actually estimated too high.

Jack Green

Thanks Tallbloke. It would nice to be able to do a lognormal fit of the data since mother nature is reported to order things like rain drop size, etc. Thanks for the link and I’ll play with it.

Sid Brooks Australia

A negative feedback that doesn’t get much mention is that provided by water vapour. Water is evaporated from the earths surface taking with it latent heat. The water vapour is lifted towards the sky anything up to 18kms where it condenses releasing its heat as I.R. which radiates in all directions. Thus half of this heat radiates upward towards space. The amount of heat is considerable at approx 1000/lb of water. This operation is very similar to the operation of a refrigerator, ie the heat is transported from the evaporator inside the cabinet and is released outside the cabinet at the condenser.
As the temperature of the earths surface increases the evaporation increases thus taking more heat away from the surface upwards towards space.

Sid Brooks Australia

sorry 1000Btu/lb of water

Allen63

My usual observation:
Virtually consistent temperature cycling around roughly 0C anomaly until 1998, a “jump up” to a higher anomaly for one several year cycle, now back down onto the original cycles in the rough ballpark of 0C anomaly.
This means, perhaps virtually 0C net change over the last 30 years — if one uses an analysis more sophisticated than a straight line through clearly non-linear data.
Anyhow, we’ll see as the next several years pass.

Bill Yarber

You can break these charts into two sections – 1979 to mid 1997 and 1998 to today. First half shows no appearant trend, up or down. But something happened in late ’97/early ’98. Saw an article a few weeks ago suggesting a gamma burst which occurred in early ’98. Any other suggestions? ’98 is definitely an outlier and suggests some anomaly other than normal variations.
Bill

Robert Wood

SIDC seem to be getting desparate. Would that Speck have been seen 150 years ago?

Robert Wood

To continue, too soon, how do they hold a committe to review Sun Specks. If it wasn’t a Spot 9 days ago, why is it now?

blcjr

John Finn (04:08:08) :
Just eyeballing the 2 graphs suggests to me that we’re simply in a brief La Nina phase – similar to the one in 1998-2001. There ’s no way anyone can, at this point in time at least, reasonably interpret the recent lower anomlies as the beginning of a sharp (or even slight) cooling trend.

Nor can anyone, at this point in time at least, reasonably interpret the data since ~2001 to support a long term upward trend (AGW). While some think we may be seeing the beginning of a period of cooling, it is hardly based the recent lower anomalies alone. It is, rather, based on a variety of considerations, such as the tendency of the PDO to persist in either a warming or cooling mode for multiple decades, and it now being in a cool phase; and the possibility of a Dalton type solar minimum. And so on. The recent lower anomalies would be consistent with the emergence of a period of cooling, but are certainly not themselves proof of it.
It may well be that we are simply seeing natural climate variability. But climate naturally varies on all time scales, from the MJO, to QBO, to ENSO, to PDO, AMO, and so on. On top of all these natural cycles we have 11, 22, 44, and 80-100 year solar cycles. And there are longer cycles, as well. These cycles generate a lot of “noise” in observed data like temperatures. The cycles work differently on regional scales than on hemispheric or global scales, further complicating the analysis of observed data. Given the current state of knowledge of all of this — which is not all that great — to think that we can pick out a short period of time, circa the past 2-3 decades, and claim to be able to divine an AGW signal in all of this attributable entirely to CO2 is incredulous. It is like reading tea leaves, or Rorschach blots.

wws

Gerard has hit the nail on the head!
Gerard wrote: “So I ask the question why does the AGW fraternity continue to be supported by most world governments?”
That’s very simple. What’s the easiest way to justify a massive new tax regime while simultaneously giving governments vast new controls of sections of the economy that they did not control before? Cap and tax, babeeee!!
The only way to bring this about is to scare the bejeesus out of ordinary folk on a daily basis. If you start off with the young’uns, it’s a lot easier, of course.

Pamela Gray

Just about the only other data sets that flow/tract with the general up and down noise and gradual rise then fall of these various global temperature graphs are SST data sets/oscillation indicators. Sun output does not. Cosmic ray data does not. CO2 data does not. Pollution and other sources of aerosols do not. The weather patterns we get that are tied to oceanic “weather” patterns and trade winds do. But it so lacks drama and trauma, and is decidedly much less fatalistically romantic to the “save mother Earth before it is too late” folks to assign our backdoor temperatures to wind and water. Nothing bleeds under the wind and water scenario, at least nothing that was human-caused. But even more important, we humans become insignificant in the face of this nature versus nurture revelation. And humans, no matter which side of the debate you are on, hate to be insignificant.

.
>>. So I ask the question why does the AGW fraternity
>>continue to be supported by most world governments?
AGW is not only a New Religion, it is a diversion tactic. As long as populations are scared about something, and can see their leaders trying to do something about it, they remain docile. At the same time, world leaders can use AGW divert your eyes from much more pressing matters.
And, it can be taxed…..
.

alexandriu doru

Please. Read”Changes from RSS TLT version 3.1 to 3.2 version”(on MSU data)
You will see that the trend (1979-2008 ) is 0.180K/decade.
This is consistent with land-sea measurements and with mean climate -models.
This is CONSISTENT climate warming.

John in NZ

The Catlin survey people(http://www.catlinarcticsurvey.com/) are to be resupplied soon. (on Sunday their time.) so the lack of movement recently may mean they have found a place for the plane to land, stopped and are conserving energy.
The lack of communication though is more of an indication of trouble. It has been two days since Pen Hadrow’s most recent post on 10.40am 2nd April. They normally post on the twitter before mid-day. They apparently put in a sit-rep at 1800 GMT which is three and a half hours from now so there may be some news soon.
They are at 129 degrees West right now which is in the same time zone as either Anchorage or Vancouver.( About 7 or 8 hours behind GMT and about 20 hours behind my time zone.) When they report the time of their posts they do not say what time zone they are using so it is difficult to know how long it has been since the last post.
It’s difficult to believe their body temp, heart and respiration readings are accurate or a live feed. It is hard enough to get good readings in a hospital bed, let alone in a cold tent.

MarekT

About temperature jump in January. Something hit magnetosphere in January 21 it was HUGE
look ant this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqWNNhsYrdI check temperature probably will be higher too..