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.
DJ (00:47:34) :
“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!”
In Michigan we are surrounding by some large bodies of water. They have the effect of delaying the onset of colder temperature in the Fall and warmer temperatures in the Spring.
I can only imagine that the oceans act like the great lakes but on a much larger scale. The temperature will have a delayed response to changes in the Sun (or whatever) due to the heat stored in the oceans. However, once that engine of cooling gets going, I would expect it to go for years beyond whatever was causing it to cool in the first place. (By the way, as a scientist, I have to come down on the side of something other than CO2!)
The satellite temps in March were being affected by two major influences,
– the ENSO changes which occurred in December (there is 3 month lag); and then,
– the continuing travails of the Sudden Stratospheric Warming event which occurred in the January (which has affected the lower troposphere satellite temps in January, February and March more than the surface measurements).
The Nino 3.4 Anomaly dropped from -0.22C in November to -0.73C in December. This should have provided a reduction of -0.03C in the satellite temps in March.
The January Sudden Stratospheric Warming event (the north polar vortex gets disrupted and temperatures get redistributed all across the entire NH atmosphere for a period of several weeks) seems to have finally ended now but there was still some additional warming in March in the NH at the levels of the lower troposphere measured by the satellites.
Northern high latitudes [1,000 MB surface, 0.4MB top of the atmosphere] – past 3 months – still a little unsettled going into April
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_JFM_NH_2009.gif
Equatorial latitudes – below normal except for the high stratosphere which is above
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_JFM_EQ_2009.gif
Southern high latitudes – mostly below normal
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_JFM_SH_2009.gif
I expect the surface temperatures from Hadcrut and GISS will be down -0.04C in March.
alexandriu doru — you’re missing the point. Whether any data sets show consistent warming over the last 30 years is not at issue. What is at issue is whether the last 30 years of warming (and, like it or not, the current 10-year trend is a cooling one and that is no more or less relevant) necessarily predicates a further 30 years of warming to come.
History is against you. We warmed from about 1910 to 1940, cooled to about 1970, warmed to about 2000, look as if we are cooling at the moment.
Even a layman like me doesn’t need a calculator to see a trend.
Perhaps you would care to explain precisely where I am wrong in my analysis. Go on, make a name for yourself! Be the first warm-monger to actually explain why you are right and we are wrong!!
DJ (00:47:34) wrote:
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!
DJ:
I have a URL below for you to look at. Anthony, et allia, evaluate temperature sensing devices and their positioning relative to heat islands and other forms of terrain and foliage that corrupt their readings. As you will see if you follow the URL below, jet engine exhaust and pavement (concrete and asphalt) severely compromise the ability of this site to give accurate readings according to published standards.
My point is: Don’t believe the temperature averages as the measuring devices are not in an environmental vacuum. And, most of the measuring sites are undergoing environmental changes that effect readings upward all around the world. Again, Anthony is doing yoeman’s work at educating anybody who is willing to “open his mind” and stop reciting the dogma of AGW worship.
Please read Mike O’s (05:53:21) post again as his point is right-on. I have read that the lag between low solar activity, TSI, and Cosmic Ray influence could be from 3 to 7 years before we “feel” the effects on earth in terms of temperature averages.
I am not a scientist, but by having an open mind and reading what analytical posters write on this blog is an education.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/category/uhi/
Here is another anomaly from spaceweather.com
They are so eager to go to the next solar cycle that they will take whatever looks like a sun spot. Maybe they should give that burnt pixel a permanent sunspot number and claim that the sun is really acting up!!!
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.
Shouldn’t you be comparing with the previous year? Everyone knows March is warmer than February.
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.
OK that didn’t seem to work. Here’s the link.
RSS Trends
MarekT (05:48:52) :
Was it a flare? Did it cause the Sudden Startospheric Warming?
Mike N-that’s why they are reported in ~anomalies~ and not absolute values. The annual cycle is removed.
I’ve updated my model for RSS which adjusts for the impact of the ENSO and the AMO (basically takes out the big spikes from the 1997-98 El Nino as well as the 2007-2009 La Nina).
The global warming signal residual is a little higher now at 0.745C per CO2 doubling.
http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/6784/rsswarming.png
I like using the log warming chart because it provides another perspective.
http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/8838/rsslogwarming.png
RSS’ March Anomaly is +0.172C which is just a little higher than it was at the end of 1979. Taking out the impact of the ENSO and the AMO, the warming is only 0.05C per decade.
Tober Wood :
Sun at this time was dead, no sunspot, no flares. But don’t believe me, check yourself
http://sohodata.nascom.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/data_query
BarryW (07:32:40) : RSS Trends
The graph begins in the mid 70s when there was concern about a distinct cooling trend. If the starting point went back another couple of decades when the trend from 1950 to 1975 was cooling, I suspect the purple line would be flatter.
The reason…. the enhanced greenhouse effect!
Possibly. Or not.
A normal minimum has little effect. If it develops into a Grand Minimum, all bets are off.
Even if it is AGW (and it may be), the effect is small and seems to be no threat.
You are perfectly right:30 years of warming do not mean that the warming will continue.
But there are 23 groups of scientists who calculated a future warming of 2…4 K for the next century.
There are zero groups of scientists(including Lindzen) who calculated less then 1K.
I am more ready to accept the opinion of men who DID a calculation .
Sorry for my english.
Robert Wood:
Did it cause the Sudden Startospheric Warming?
Check this link
http://www.interactions.org/cms/?pid=1027544
and this
http://ams.confex.com/ams/17Fluid15Middle/techprogram/paper_154033.htm
How about France´s underground nuclear tests in South Pacific:
“Despite the end of the Cold War and decreased security tensions, France conducted eight tests between September 1995 and May 1996. Six of the eight tests were completed on the following dates: Sept. 5, 1993; Oct. 1, 1995; Oct. 27, 1995; Nov. 22, 1995; Dec.27, 1995 and Jan. 27, 1996.”
http://www1.american.edu/ted/ice/mururoa.htm
alexandriu doru (08:50:39) :
Is that more or less than the number of groups of investment modelers that calculated that sub-prime loans and the repackaging of them represented a reasonable risk?
cooling trend continues
evanmjones (08:48:51) :
The reason…. the enhanced greenhouse effect!
Possibly. Or not.
A normal minimum has little effect. If it develops into a Grand Minimum, all bets are off.
Even if it is AGW (and it may be), the effect is small and seems to be no threat.
If instead of a lineal trend we calculate a hexic trend, the cooling becomes evidently abrupt. The tip during 1998, due to the activity of El Niño makes the linear trends a bit deceptive.
See this graph, for example: http://biocab.org/Delta_T_UAH-English.jpg
Don’t things like the earth’s albedo (or CO2, or whatever) drive the first derivative of global temperature, instead of temperature directly? I’m not a climatologist and maybe I just missed this in what I’ve read but it seems to me that the differential equations aspect of all this doesn’t get enough discussion.
For example, I read many times that the average temperature over a solar cycle seems driven by the length of the previous cycle. If temp moves like the integral of sunspots, and the long cycles are long because of long minimums at the end, then this all makes perfect sense. The minimum drags the global temp down and starts off the next cycle at a low value — yielding a cold cycle.
Furthermore, polar ice might move like the integral of temperature (or at least have that as a term in the diff eq.) Right? The albedo could be mostly the second derivative of polar ice (though also some first derivative contribution would make sense).
Furthermore, if the cosmic rays are a function of the solar flux filling the whole solar system (more or less the integral of sunspots over a year or so) then we could even see some third derivative effects.
This means the polar ice response to the current minimum could be a long time coming but once it starts to build could be pretty predictable.
Right?
I’m just an educated layman but this stuff seems intuitive to me. Surely some of the papers take this point of view.
alexandriu doru (08:50:39) :
“I am more ready to accept the opinion of men who DID a calculation .
Sorry for my english.”
Your English is pretty good, no apologies needed. The problem is you shouldn’t accept anyone’s opinion since we are dealing with a complex chaotic situation. All opinions are little better than guesses.
Think about all the diseases that have not been cured even though billions of dollars in research has been done. It’s not easy to understand complex systems.
To john .m.
“comparaison n’est pas raison”
ANY ~snip~ was capable to produce a climate model.
In physics you MUST calculate.
When Lindzen will produce a model with 0.5K/dubling co2 i will reconsider my position.
Until then, let’s stop playing games with the fate of our grandchildren.
Alexandriu doru
but the calculations must match the observed data, or be explained. any hypothesis must be testable.
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/04/03/global-warming-a-classic-case-of-alarmism/
Alexandriu Doru
You said, “Until then, let’s stop playing games with the fate of our grandchildren.”
These men are those who would determine the fate of our grandchildren:
http://green-agenda.com/
“Deşteaptă-te, române”
Mike Bryant