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:
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Just a little note:
Official spotless days on 2009 (by SIDC) @ur momisugly March 3rd, 2009 are 79, and series from 2004 counts 588 spotless days.
Regards,
Rick, from Italy
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
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?
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
sorry 1000Btu/lb of water
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.
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
SIDC seem to be getting desparate. Would that Speck have been seen 150 years ago?
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?
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.
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.
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…..
.
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.
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.
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..