[Updated] UAH, straight from the source, Dr. Roy Spencer who announced it on his blog today.
The was a lot of speculation last year that our global temperature would recover from the huge drops last spring. While there has been some recovery, the overall global temperature trend since 1999 has been the subject of much debate. What is not debatable is that the current global temperature anomaly, as determined by a leading authority on global satellite temperature measurements, says we have no departure from “normal” this month. Given the U.S. Senate is about to vote upon the most complex and costly plan to regulate greenhouse gases, while the EPA suppresses earlier versions of the chart shown below from a senior analyst, this should give some pause to those who are rational thinkers. For those that see only dogma, I expect this will be greeted with jeers. – Anthony
June 2009 Global Temperature Anomaly Update: 0.00 deg. C
Dr. Roy Spencer
July 3rd, 2009
YR MON GLOBE NH SH TROPICS
2009 1 0.304 0.443 0.165 -0.036
2009 2 0.347 0.678 0.016 0.051
2009 3 0.206 0.310 0.103 -0.149
2009 4 0.090 0.124 0.056 -0.014
2009 5 0.045 0.046 0.044 -0.166
2009 6 0.001 0.032 -0.030 -0.003
June 2009 saw another — albeit small — drop in the global average temperature anomaly, from +0.04 deg. C in May to 0.00 deg. C in June, with the coolest anomaly (-0.03 deg. C) in the Tropics. The decadal temperature trend for the period December 1978 through June 2009 remains at +0.13 deg. C per decade.
NOTE: A reminder for those who are monitoring the daily progress of global-average temperatures here:
(1) Only use channel 5 (”ch05″), which is what we use for the lower troposphere and middle troposphere temperature products.
(2) Compare the current month to the same calendar month from the previous year (which is already plotted for you).
(3) The progress of daily temperatures (the current month versus the same calendar month from one year ago) should only be used as a rough guide for how the current month is shaping up because they come from the AMSU instrument on the NOAA-15 satellite, which has a substantial diurnal drift in the local time of the orbit. Our ‘official’ results presented above, in contrast, are from AMSU on NASA’s Aqua satellite, which carries extra fuel to keep it in a stable orbit. Therefore, there is no diurnal drift adjustment needed in our official product.
Sponsored IT training links:
Sign up for 642-384 products including latest 642-661 dumps to pass 642-691 exams even on limited time.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Smokey (05:44:58) … thanks, pal.
I am not sure if anyone has answered where does the heat go after the 1998 El Nino.
Ocean currents appear to move heat around causing temperature spikes recorded by surface thermometers and satellites.
Heat can’t be created out of nothing. It must be in the system (Earth) to begin with, or added/removed from the system.
Which means since ocean are within the system, they can’t explain the loss of heat from the system like the reduction of temperature after 1998. Unless you can’t use temperature readings as a measure of the systems heat content. If you can’t, then temperature readings are useless because you really want to know if heat is going up or down.
We know the Sun adds heat to the system (Earth) and there are mechanisms that slow the removal of heat from the system. CO2 is what the alarmists are saying that is slowing the removal of heat from the system.
But, looking at the 1998-2000 temperatures, it appears that heat can leave the system pretty quickly, regardless of the increased [C02]. The caveat again is if the temperature isn’t a good measure of heat in the system, and the heat is remaining constant, even though temperature dropped.
Again, where did the heat go quickly?
But, we should be measuring heat of the system. D
This unprecendented rise of 0.001 degrees Celsius in 30 years is a clear demonstration that man’s willful refusal to curb CO2 emissions will cause a Catastrophic rise of 2 degrees Celsius by the year 62,009 AD…
I kid you not.
(No really – 62,009 years…)
You have been warned – stop burning fossil fuels!
Rainer (05:15:32) wrote: “I have a simple question. I am not really familiar with the whole global warming stuff. To trendy for my taste.”
“Trendy” on the web: in accord with the latest fad; “trendy ideas”; “trendy clothes”; “voguish terminology” and based on that I suggest your dismissal of this subject so lightly indicates you have failed to realise the implications of this juggernaut to your own future, let alone to the future of mankind. Even a cursory glance at the agenda of those promoting AGW will show there is a malign intent towards freedom and comfort come hell, high-water, or even steady as she goes.
I believe every adult on earth has, at a bare minimum, a duty to at least make themselves familiar of the stakes involved.
Karl B. (15:15:05) :
I know this is a measurement of temperature, but where does the heat go?
Karl, I guess this is the question all non-AGW/ RC scientists are trying to answer. As an engineer (non-climate scientist) I can only ponder the same question.
I know that several people that post here (eg: Bill Illis) believe that the ocean currents are significant drivers of temperature variations. I think that the ’98 El Nino is proof of this. The heat generated from this event was first captured by the earth and then released back out as IR radiation to space.
Perhaps the earth’s radiation budget can be considered like this ?. The summer facing hemisphere gains more heat than it releases, thus it makes sense that more cloud will help cool this hemisphere, and less cloud means more heat. For the winter facing hemisphere more heat is being lost as IR into space than it receives from direct sunlight, thus less cloud means more loss of IR and more cooling and more cloud means more heat retention. If ENSO affects the cloud distribution in a seasonal manner then this could be a contributing factor ? Of course the system is more complex than this and the rate of heat transportation to the poles (eg: from hadley cell velocity) to a region of less water vapour where it can radiate more effectively back into space is probably another key factor in the ENSO mechanism.
Maybe GCR theory is connected as well ? I guess the summer facing hemisphere gets more GCR’s than the dark winter facing pole ?.
I’m sure the eventual & globally agreed upon climate control mechanism will be first discussed here on WUWT.
I am of the opinion that man starts too many forrest fires. Last year we read of massive fires. The amazon had a lot of fires to defoliate the forests. That also means we lost hundreds of thousands of acres that absorb CO2. After the fires, we have ash and rot of the remaining wood that gives off CO2. In a few years, weeds 3 feet high do not absorb much CO2 nor give off much oxygen. I see no correlation between taxing me and reduction of arson. Double my taxes and it won’t reduce pyromania.
Rainer (05:15:32) :
I have a simple question. I am not really familiar with the whole global warming stuff. To trendy for my taste. But why do you show the data only from 1979. Isn’t it a statement of the supporters of global warming theory that the temperature is rising since 200 years or so?
Would be pleased if you answer me.
And there is a simple answer, Ranier. That’s when measurement of the earth’s temperature with satellites began. This is a satellite measurement. There are global surface measurements, that go back to 1880 or 1850, and they do show temperature rising since then. However, that doesn’t really help the “supporters of global warming theory” since their theory is that warming in the second half of the 20th Century accelerated because of rising CO2 from fossil fuel use, something that wasn’t happening on the scale it is now back in the 19th Century.
So the satellite data is problematic for the anthropogenic (man made) global warming theory.
Not to mention, a signature issue of this blog is our host’s project to show that the surface temperature record has serious quality issues, so that there are real questions about how much global warming has occurred in the past 200 years.
Welcome, stick around, and we’ll give you the scoop on this trendy stuff. 🙂
Per Strandberg (15:58:52) :
Climatologist Prof. Richard Lindzen at MIT has now stopped being a global warming skeptic.
He is now a committed Global Warming DENIER!.
I’ve been thinking about this. Professor Lindzen sounded like a weight had been lifted off his shoulders when he said “I’m a DENIER!”
Well, I always thought I was a skeptic. But I have decided to come out. I too, am a DENIER. And I am proud of it! They can call me denier to my face – I don’t care. They can call me a flat earther – I don’t care! They can call me an oil company shill!!! I DON”T CARE!!!!
I AM A DENIER AND I AM PROUD OF IT!!!!!!
I’m going to shout it from the rooftops: “I AM A DENIER!!!!!”
Rainer (05:15:32) :
“I have a simple question. I am not really familiar with the whole global warming stuff. To trendy for my taste. But why do you show the data only from 1979. Isn’t it a statement of the supporters of global warming theory that the temperature is rising since 200 years or so?”
Quick answer to your question; 1979 is chosen because that’s when the sattelite era of temperature monitoring began. There’s little dispute that temperatures have been rising for 150 years. The question is why?
Roger Carr gives some good advice. This is too important to ignore. You cannot afford (literally) to not understand. You need to bone up. Here’s a quick summary that can get you started:
http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Challenge.htm
Rainer (05:15:32) :
” But why do you show the data only from 1979. Isn’t it a statement of the supporters of global warming theory that the temperature is rising since 200 years or so?”
Because the satellite data set only goes back to 1979. Anything before that is surface temperature readings, and surface temperatures are very unreliable (for various reasons) for estimating a global temperature.
Arn Riewe
Just a small point of correction instead of
“There’s little dispute that temperatures have been rising for 150 years.”
I think that it would be more accurate to say something like
“There is evidence to suggest that temperatures have risen over the last 150 years.”
The difference between the 2 statements is that yours could be interpreted by those without the time to study these things more closely as meaning that temperatures have been continuing to rise for 150 years whereas there is evidence (such as the graph above) that seems to suggest that any warming may not be linear process and may even have stopped some time ago.
Comparing FFT Convolution & Recursive Filtering Methods and Long Term Temperature Data
This started as a conversation with my neighbor (ham radio operator) on solar radio interference, sun spots, and finally temperature. Initial analysis was in long term sun spot data and temperature. To evaluate “climatic” data, one would like to take the longest and best data sets available. Two of the oldest are the Central England Temperature from 1659-2008
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/cetml1659on.dat
or the Stockholm data STOCKH-GML 1755-2005
http://www.rimfrost.no/
While the English data reflects more of western and the Atlantic effects, Stockholm reflects more of the Eurasian climate. In fact the Stockholm shows considerable less temperature change, especially in the last 50 or so years.
The first step was to do a least squares linear trend, and note how the data grouped about the trend. The trend was about 3 deg./century, and the data was with a few exceptions, within +-1.5 deg. of the trend, indicating no major departures from the trend. This includes the last 150 years. The actual temperature is T_act, and the linear estimation temperature T_linear, is defined below:
T_linear = 8.69 + 0.003*( Yr – 1659) Yr from 1659 to 2008
Both raw and linear estimated temperature (T_linear) are shown in Figure T_est_20, referenced below.
http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/t_est_20-1Vznq.gif
The error between the actual and linear estimation becomes the basis of filtering and comparison of filtering methods. From figure T_est_20, significant shorter term fluctuations are seen. What we were looking for were the longer term trends buried in this seeming chaotic signal. However it took a turn into “global warming”, after he heard one of A. Gore’s comments via the amateur band.
Analysis
The primary analysis method used in known as Fourier Convolution. This method was selected to initially correlate sun spot an temperature fluctuations. As a “ham”, he could understand what I was doing. This method takes the input signal, transforms it into the frequency domain, via the Fast Fourier Transform (FFT). In the frequency domain, the various frequencies can be modified (generally attenuated or cut off). However for the “global warming” topic, frequencies above 0.025 cycle/yr ( 40 year periods) are removed to look at the longer term, or lower frequency signals. The filtered frequencies were then transformed back into the time domain for evaluation, minus the higher frequency “noise”. That is all signals with periods of less then 40 years were removed.
For this analysis, the error between the actual and trend was used. This trend line was modified to reduce errors in the FFT convolution. The new trend line was:
T_linear = 8.83 + 0.00325*( Yr – 1659)
so as to pass through both end points, shown in Fig. T_est_21. Fig. T_est_22 shows the resultant error.
http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/t_est_21-Gnm7m.gif
http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/t_est_22-0gPyI.gif
Figure T_est_23 shows the filtered error superimposed on the original error.
http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/t_est_23-aBkN0.gif
There one can see smoother longer term changes in the temperature, including an apparent downturn in recent years.
Two other analysis methods were used for comparison, a moving average filter (40 year average), and a 4 pole Chebushev filter, with a cut off frequency of 0.025 cycles/year. The figure T_est_24, below shows the comparison of the three methods.
http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/t_est_24-vco3s.gif
The disadvantage of the moving average filter, is that it cuts off prior to the last 20 years. The Chebushev filter, shows a pattern similar to the FFT method, but is extended, or distorted in time due to the phase lag, or time delay associated with these filters. That is, consider a 4 pole filter, a bandwidth of 0.025 cycles/year. With a input signal in the 40 cycle/year range, the output would be delayed 180 degrees or 4 times 45 degrees (1/2 a 40 year cycle). This results in a delay of about 20 years in time. So if one shifts the Chebushev filtered output back 20 years in time, it shows a very close proximity to the FFT filter results, shown below in Fig T_est_25.
http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/t_est_25-avCpP.gif
These two curves are also plotted against the actual data set by adding the trend line values back in. These are shown below in Fig. T_est_26 and 28.
http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/t_est_26-kT1s8.gif
http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/t_est_28-vwReN.gif
So we have a case where two different filters indicate a peaking, and possible downward trend in the latest 5-8 years. Is there a basis for this recent downward trend? Looking at the composite global temperature, put out by http://www.climate4you.com/
shown in fig. t_est_15.
http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/t_est_15-nrLTG.gif
Superimposing the filtered curves, on the climate4you data, we got the plot shown in Fig T_est_27, below. It would appear all three curves are very close. This is important in that it is a composite of both surface and remote sensing systems such as GISS, RSS, UAH, etc. While they vary, they seem to follow the same trend.
http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/t_est_27-qvBaC.gif
I’ll leave it up to the reader to evaluate how close the above analysis comes to the above shown composite global temperature. More to the point:
From this one data set, can one make the assumption that man(CO2) is causing global temperatures to go up? And if so, why is the temperature, looks like it’s stabilized, in spite of the continued CO2 increases?
tallbloke (14:58:06) :
I remember how hard it was for me to get to within a half of a degree in my college chemistry class on temperature readings. It was more than adequate for our purposes.
Just how many people have ever measured any temperature to within 1/1,000 of a degree?
For that matter, how many people can accurately read a regular thermometer?
Great, the tropospheres temperature is not increasing… that is a good argument to spew more co2 in the air. Why is measuring one part of the atmosphere a clinical argument. There is more than one part to the atmosphere.
Dont worry about the stratosphere and the ice sheets, the troposphere graph will fix it. The ice (our ignorance parachute) is pretending to melt. Bring back CFCs.
Changing the structure of the air is a great idea. 10 million years to stabilize the air and we can change that is 50. Civilization at it best.
Roger Carr (04:48:45) : “What does use of the swung dash ” ~ ” signify?”
Smokey’s answer above was “approximately”.
I’d add that it means “approximately equal to” for people that can’t find ≈ on their key board.
Jason (10:04:07) : Wow, that’s incredibly stupid. Let me make this simple for you:
CO2 and other Greenhouse gases would, by increasing in concentration, cause the troposphere to warm, all else being equal. The stratosphere would cool. And the troposphere matters because that’s where we (and all terrestrial organisms) live! (not to mention your “ice sheets”)
CFC’s have nothing to do with AGW really, so your comment is as pointless as arguing about SO2 being a reason to cut CO2 (actually, BTW, that nasty SO2 pollution cools the Earth)
And the atmosphere of the Earth has never been stable, and never will be. The amount of CO2 was declining for hundreds of millions of years before we came along. Much longer and it may have disastrously depleted (Plants, incidentally, were probably responsible for the decline-talking about suicidal tendencies in species…no civilization needed). Life goes on, it might have even survived the next hundred million years without us saving it from it’s tendency to drain CO2 from the atmosphere…but it frankly doesn’t care what we do.
Jimmy Haigh, while shouting “I am a Denier” from the rooftop, you might find it convenient time to paint it white. Has that been mandated yet??
So when will the Ice caps recover then?
Gerry (11:45:46) : Huh? which ice caps and from what? Be specific man! But more to the point, nobody knows the answer to that question. predicting such things is very difficult if not impossible.
What is the baseline for this anomaly? If you add in a colder 2008 to the baseline, then it is easier to get a 0.
Karl B. (05:50:11): You wrote, “I am not sure if anyone has answered where does the heat go after the 1998 El Nino.”
It’s not an easy answer, especially since I don’t know how familiar you are with the processes that take place during an El Nino.
An El Nino does not create heat. It rearranges warm water in the tropical Pacific. During the 1997/98 El Nino, water along the equatorial Pacific sloshed from west to east. Since the water in the western Pacific is warmer than in the east, that simple rearrangement caused SST anomalies to rise in the eastern equatorial Pacific (and drop in the west). Some of the water that sloshed east had been collected over years and decades in the Pacific Warm Pool, at depths up to 300 meters. As it moved east, it rose to the surface. That’s a simple but overlooked point. During an ENSO-neutral period, that warm water was below the surface and not included in the sea SURFACE temperature record. During the El Nino, the warm subsurface water rose to the surface where it was included in the sea SURFACE temperature record. Also during the El Nino, coupled ocean-atmosphere processes transport some of the heat poleward, raising lower troposphere temperatures around the globe.
As the El Nino relaxed, the warm water that had travelled east during the El Nino simply sloshed back to the west and collected again in the Pacific Warm Pool. (And it again disappeared from the SURFACE temperature record.) As tropical Pacific ocean-atmosphere processes attempted to return to “normal”, they overshot the mark–tropical Pacific trade winds rose above normal, more water than normal ENSO-neutral years was driven west, and this exposed cooler subsurface water in the eastern tropical Pacific. That’s the La Nina of 1998/99/00. Again, coupled ocean-atmosphere processes reduced lower troposphere temperatures.
More info on EL Nino/La Nina processes can be found at Bill Kessler’s (NOAA) FAQ webpage. He does a great job of explaining them:
http://faculty.washington.edu/kessler/occasionally-asked-questions.html
The 1997/98 El Nino was so strong that some of the subsurface water from the Pacific Warm Pool was picked up by ocean currents and transported west to the Eastern Indian and Western Pacific Oceans. This caused an upward step change in the SST for those portions of the global oceans. The heat lingered, subsided below the surface, and reappeared in winters in a process called reemergence, as currents carried it around the globe for the next few years. Before that heat from the 1997/98 El Nino could dissipate fully, the 2002/03, 2004/05, and 2006/07 El Nino events rearranged more tropical Pacific heat. This kept the global ocean temperatures elevated.
I discussed this additional El Nino process in a two-part post that Anthony also posted here at WUWT:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/01/can-el-nino-events-explain-all-of.html
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/01/can-el-nino-events-explain-all-of_11.html
Regards
hunter (15:57:18) :
Why not measure from the high of 1998? Clearly that was the year when, if AGW theory is correct, all heck broke loose. The ‘definite signature etc.
If there is anything in AGW, surely the signature should not evaporate in just one year.
AGW promoters pick the start points to suit their predictions for dramatic effect, why not skeptics?
Because like any honest skeptic, I don’t want to use the same tools as the AGW crowd uses. Circular reasoning, misinformation, ad hominem, ad nauseam (the list is very long)… I would like to talk about facts and real data, and calling for open debate.
If you are going to criticize someone or a group of people for some reason, behaviour similar to theirs is not adviceable.
FYI, the total temperature anomaly over the next hundred years is expected to be only between 2 and 11 F, which means you’d expect an increase of between 0.2 and 1.1 degrees F per decade in the 21st century. The temperature data for the first decade of the 21st century is directly in line with that – you’re looking at an increase of about 0.2 to 0.3 degrees.
So really, this graph supports the conclusions of the scientists.
Heat – the simple answer: Earth processes move the heat pole-ward where there is a deficit from the Equatorial/tropical areas where there is a surplus. From the high latitudes it is radiated to space – the polar areas cool off and ice forms. The details are complicated. Note Bob Tisdale’s answer @ur momisugly (14:42:48) and read the various reports he has done on this topic. They are clearly written and up-to-date. I don’t think you can find better explanations for the parts of the processes he covers.
—————————
Jason (10:04:07) : Great, …
I’d respond to you except I’m not sure of what meaning you have tried to convey. Try being simple and direct.
—————————-
Tom, Roger, Smokey ~ versus ≈
The former is on my keyboard, the second one is not. I have to do a symbol insert. So while I know the difference, and know how to make it appear, it is still extra work. What sort of keyboard has ≈?
Tom in Texas (10:11:21) adds to Smokey’s answer that the swung dash means “approximately equal to”.
Thanks, Tom — and I can’t find that classy dash over dash on my keyboard, either. Just the humble = which does not do the trick… however, John F. Hultquist (18:11:25) adds a note of mystery for me, so I will try this from the source code to see if I get the dash over dash ( ≈? ), then proceed on with thanks to you all and approximation in my mind…