There’s some really interesting things going on with global temperature. On one hand we have UAH and RSS which show Global Temperature anomalies near zero, while NCDC/NOAA and GISS (which derives from NCDC data with their own adjustments added) show large positive anomalies.
Joe D’Aleo at ICECAP writes:
Last month, NOAA had May 2009 to be the 4th warmest on record globally. Meanwhile NASA UAH MSU satellite assessment showed it was the 15th coldest May in the 31 years of its record. This divergence is not new and has been growing. Just a year ago, NOAA proclaimed June 2008 to be the 8th warmest for the globe in 129 years of record keeping. Meanwhile NASA satellites showed it was the 9th coldest June in the 30 years of its record.
Of course the obvious question “who’s right” will be the subject of many posts to come, but I wanted to get this out there for discussion. There’s some interesting things going on with the NCDC data.
The combined global land and ocean surface temperature was the second warmest on record in June, behind 2005, and tied with 2004 as the fifth warmest on record for the year-to-date (January-June) period. The global ocean had the warmest June on record. The ranks found in the tables below are based on records that began in 1880.
What is truly interesting about June (besides the wide discrepancy between global data sets) is the time period with which the onset of the warming occurred. Some say it has to do with El Nino developing in the Pacific. Perhaps, but the El Nino conditions we see now are not comparable to what we saw in 1998, yet we have global temperatures being reported that are comparable.
It is an interesting mystery, and it will be interesting to see how it plays out and what is discovered. Stay tuned for more on this topic.
Addendum: I should point out that there is a lag between surface and lower troposphere, so we’ll see what July says as LT is already shaping up a bit warmer at UAH. – Anthony
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
135 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
jony
July 16, 2009 9:53 pm
[snip – policy]
Philip_B
July 16, 2009 9:59 pm
The SH sea ice anomaly is currently plus one million sq kilometers. My understanding is that ice covered water is simply excluded from the SST data. So seas will be warmer on average because more is ice covered.
wws
July 16, 2009 10:01 pm
WHOOSH!!! That one went right over your head, Lamont.
Someone is wrong here: satellites or GISS NOAA… and this is just for the copenhagen meet…
rbateman
July 16, 2009 10:25 pm
Northern Plains Reader (21:41:18) :
I would think one would want to compare June 2009 to all Junes as far back as the records go…1880.
So if the base period is 1969-1990, then why the “NOAA proclaimed June 2008 to be the 8th warmest for the globe in 129 years of record keeping”.
That’s one small leap for NOAA, one giant leap for Copenhagen.
Pulling a rabbit out of a hat, they compare all 129 years to 29 years.
Easy as pie, just drop those other 100 years in the trash.
No one will e-ver know.
ian
July 16, 2009 10:42 pm
For this scientificly illiterate layperson this appears to be a curious phenomenon. Over at Lucia’s and Pielke Jr’s they have been discussing the spike in the UAH dataset for July 14 and what that may mean in relation to El Nino and satellite monitoring. I have absolutely no idea.
Pielke Sr. states:
This record event is an effective test of two hypotheses.
Hypothesis #1: Roy Spencer’s hypothesis on the role of circulation patterns in global warming (e.g. see) might explain most or all of the current anomaly since it clearly is spatially very variable, and its onset was so sudden. If the lower atmosphere cools again to its long term average or lower, this would support Roy’s viewpoint.
Hypothesis #2: Alternatively, if the large anomaly persists, it will support the claims by the IPCC and others (e.g. see Cool Spells Normal in Warming World) that well-mixed greenhouse gas warming is the dominate climate forcing in the coming decades and is again causing global warming after the interruption of the last few years.
Only time will tell which is correct, however, we now have short term information to test the two hypotheses. The results of this real world test will certainly influence my viewpoint on climate science.
Lamont. The problem with your line of criticism in this case, is that RSS is also giving about the same anomaly reading for June as UAH.
Dave Wendt
July 16, 2009 11:29 pm
Anyone else find it curious that a couple of the biggest, reddest land areas on NOAA’s map seem to fall in areas of the world that have the fewest reporting stations?
Flanagan
July 16, 2009 11:41 pm
Well, I think we should rename the Finn-Flanagan theory on the surface-troposphere lag the “Finn-D’Aleo-Flanagan” (FDF) theory now :0)
And indeed, observing record positive anomalies with (the beginning of) an average El-Nino event IS a sign a warming took place. I already said that when we had the 7th or 8th warmest years during long and deep la ninas, but nobody was listening. I just hope the Nino won’t be too strong this time.
Also: there’s no need in going into conspiracy theories and the like. I mean: what are you going to say next month when the satellite anomalies will break records as well?
PMT
July 16, 2009 11:43 pm
PaulHClark (22:03:51) :It’s called the “Copenhagen Effect”.
Sounds like a new Copenhagen interpretation to me:-
# A system is completely described by a wave function ψ, which represents an observer’s knowledge of the system.
# The description of nature is essentially probabilistic. The probability of an event is related to the square of the amplitude of the wave function related to it.
etc….
So maybe we need a new Schrödinger’s CAT (CO2 and Temperature?) where the temperature measurement is in the eye of the observer.
Or an Everettian Many-Worlds Interpretation, the measurements are taken in parallel universes.
I’m sure Mr Motl could have some fun with this, meanwhile I’m off to play some Eels.
Rhys Jaggar
July 16, 2009 11:50 pm
Is the global distribution of stations for the NOAA/NCDC data uniform? I know that we had a truly hot June in Europe, although July is shaping up much cooler.
Parts of the US and Canada were pretty cold in June.
Pretty important to be sure we are comparing like with like?
Greg Cavanagh
July 16, 2009 11:54 pm
Perhaps it’s about time they started measure real temperature, and not the anomaly. After all, the anomaly requires an estimation of a moving average, and it’s the generation of an average global temperature which is so impossible to pin down.
It seems like they have weighted the game in their favour by chasing anomaly values. Anyway, this should make a lot of people sit up and take notice. Hopefully somebody will establish a true standard by which future measurements will be made and predicted.
rbateman
July 17, 2009 12:24 am
Wyatt (23:26:00)
Yes, they want our jobs. They already have most of our best industry, our Federal Reserve (Bernanke outsourced to China) and the UN wants our soverignity surrendered. Check out who makes our temp sensors.
Hurbanovo station (Slovakia, central Europe) has +0.1deg C June anomaly compared to 1951-1980. The station is in the middle of city so the real anomaly is probably negative. It is visible also from http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/climate/monthly.html – select “Temperature anomaly” which is compared against 1971-2000.
Gotta love the NCDC´s red spot on the Prince Edward Island, where they had frost in June.
Flanagan
July 17, 2009 12:26 am
Note also that NOAA had the hottest sea surface temperature EVER. Urban heat island effect?
tallbloke
July 17, 2009 12:31 am
Philip_B (21:05:44) :
Sea Surface Temperature is a meaningless metric. We don’t know what its relationship is to air temperature above the ocean, or the ocean temperature itself. Hence, it doesn’t tell us if the atmosphere is warming or if the ocean is warming.
I agree the century long record has big error bars around it, but more recent measurements do seem to be in the ballpark. The ~0.3C rise in SST between 1993 and 2003 is consistent with a rise of around 14×10^22J in ocean heat content, as determined for the sea level rise due to thermal expansion measured by satellite altimetry.
SST’s have risen recently because the ocean is emitting the heat it gained and stored during the run of high amplitude-short minimum cycles. Now the sun is quiet, the ocean is emitting heat. This is confirmed by the outgoing longwave radiation record which shows OLR increased by 4W/m^2 from June 2000 to 2006. It has stayed at that higher level since because of the protracted solar minimum.
So SST’s are rising, but the ocean is cooling. The emission of heat will warm the atmosphere over the next months, until the air temperature suppresses the ocean’s emittance. There will be lag time.
Just forgot to add, that NCDC graph shows here +1to +2 deg C positive anomaly.
Cary
July 17, 2009 12:43 am
Lots of red dots in the ocean where SST’s show blue. http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/ml/ocean/sst/anomaly.html
Look at the SSTs during June between southern Africa and South America. How does blue and yellow become a bunch of red dots?
I’m calling BS.
Manfred
July 17, 2009 12:45 am
Looking at australian data, I would estimae a NOAA anomaly of approx. +1.5°-2.0°.
However, taking the data from the australian government website with the same reference period, I would estimate an anomaly of approx. +1.0°. ftp://ftp.bom.gov.au/anon/home/ncc/www/temperature/maxanom/month/colour/latest.gif
Any reason for that ?
[snip – policy]
The SH sea ice anomaly is currently plus one million sq kilometers. My understanding is that ice covered water is simply excluded from the SST data. So seas will be warmer on average because more is ice covered.
WHOOSH!!! That one went right over your head, Lamont.
“There’s some interesting things going on with the NCDC data.”
Actually there’s interesting things going on with the UAH data. It has a very likely nonphysical and consistent seasonal periodicity every year:
http://deepclimate.org/2009/03/05/seasonal-divergence-in-tropospheric-temperature-trends/
http://deepclimate.org/2009/03/26/seasonal-divergence-in-tropospheric-temperature-trends-part-2/
http://deepclimate.org/2009/06/05/uah-annual-cycle-continues-in-2009
You are right that something is hinkey, but its pointing at UAH issues, no issues with the other temperature records.
It’s called the “Copenhagen Effect”.
Greybrd (21:36:32) : “…they use 1971-2000 as the “climate normal” period.”
Indeed they do – as established by an international treaty.
“There’s some interesting things going on with the NCDC data.”
Actually, its something going on with the *UAH* data, which is a likely nonphysical seasonal periodicity:
http://deepclimate.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/global-month-trends1.gif
http://deepclimate.org/2009/03/05/seasonal-divergence-in-tropospheric-temperature-trends/
http://deepclimate.org/2009/03/26/seasonal-divergence-in-tropospheric-temperature-trends-part-2/
http://deepclimate.org/2009/06/05/uah-annual-cycle-continues-in-2009
That strongly suggests that UAH does not understand how to process their satellite data.
REPLY: We got your point the first time you posted all the links, no need to double up. BTW your posts keep going into SPAM due to your email address having scriptkiddie.org in it. With an email like that, spam autobanning is a given. You might want to get a respectable email address.
– A
Someone is wrong here: satellites or GISS NOAA… and this is just for the copenhagen meet…
Northern Plains Reader (21:41:18) :
I would think one would want to compare June 2009 to all Junes as far back as the records go…1880.
So if the base period is 1969-1990, then why the “NOAA proclaimed June 2008 to be the 8th warmest for the globe in 129 years of record keeping”.
That’s one small leap for NOAA, one giant leap for Copenhagen.
Pulling a rabbit out of a hat, they compare all 129 years to 29 years.
Easy as pie, just drop those other 100 years in the trash.
No one will e-ver know.
For this scientificly illiterate layperson this appears to be a curious phenomenon. Over at Lucia’s and Pielke Jr’s they have been discussing the spike in the UAH dataset for July 14 and what that may mean in relation to El Nino and satellite monitoring. I have absolutely no idea.
Pielke Sr. states:
This record event is an effective test of two hypotheses.
Hypothesis #1: Roy Spencer’s hypothesis on the role of circulation patterns in global warming (e.g. see) might explain most or all of the current anomaly since it clearly is spatially very variable, and its onset was so sudden. If the lower atmosphere cools again to its long term average or lower, this would support Roy’s viewpoint.
Hypothesis #2: Alternatively, if the large anomaly persists, it will support the claims by the IPCC and others (e.g. see Cool Spells Normal in Warming World) that well-mixed greenhouse gas warming is the dominate climate forcing in the coming decades and is again causing global warming after the interruption of the last few years.
Only time will tell which is correct, however, we now have short term information to test the two hypotheses. The results of this real world test will certainly influence my viewpoint on climate science.
Look at how hot Siberia is again. Is that for real this time?
If I were other countries who want our jobs I’d put the stations in the hottest places I could find.
Lamont. The problem with your line of criticism in this case, is that RSS is also giving about the same anomaly reading for June as UAH.
Anyone else find it curious that a couple of the biggest, reddest land areas on NOAA’s map seem to fall in areas of the world that have the fewest reporting stations?
Well, I think we should rename the Finn-Flanagan theory on the surface-troposphere lag the “Finn-D’Aleo-Flanagan” (FDF) theory now :0)
And indeed, observing record positive anomalies with (the beginning of) an average El-Nino event IS a sign a warming took place. I already said that when we had the 7th or 8th warmest years during long and deep la ninas, but nobody was listening. I just hope the Nino won’t be too strong this time.
Also: there’s no need in going into conspiracy theories and the like. I mean: what are you going to say next month when the satellite anomalies will break records as well?
PaulHClark (22:03:51) :It’s called the “Copenhagen Effect”.
Sounds like a new Copenhagen interpretation to me:-
# A system is completely described by a wave function ψ, which represents an observer’s knowledge of the system.
# The description of nature is essentially probabilistic. The probability of an event is related to the square of the amplitude of the wave function related to it.
etc….
So maybe we need a new Schrödinger’s CAT (CO2 and Temperature?) where the temperature measurement is in the eye of the observer.
Or an Everettian Many-Worlds Interpretation, the measurements are taken in parallel universes.
I’m sure Mr Motl could have some fun with this, meanwhile I’m off to play some Eels.
Is the global distribution of stations for the NOAA/NCDC data uniform? I know that we had a truly hot June in Europe, although July is shaping up much cooler.
Parts of the US and Canada were pretty cold in June.
Pretty important to be sure we are comparing like with like?
Perhaps it’s about time they started measure real temperature, and not the anomaly. After all, the anomaly requires an estimation of a moving average, and it’s the generation of an average global temperature which is so impossible to pin down.
It seems like they have weighted the game in their favour by chasing anomaly values. Anyway, this should make a lot of people sit up and take notice. Hopefully somebody will establish a true standard by which future measurements will be made and predicted.
Wyatt (23:26:00)
Yes, they want our jobs. They already have most of our best industry, our Federal Reserve (Bernanke outsourced to China) and the UN wants our soverignity surrendered. Check out who makes our temp sensors.
Hurbanovo station (Slovakia, central Europe) has +0.1deg C June anomaly compared to 1951-1980. The station is in the middle of city so the real anomaly is probably negative. It is visible also from http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/climate/monthly.html – select “Temperature anomaly” which is compared against 1971-2000.
Gotta love the NCDC´s red spot on the Prince Edward Island, where they had frost in June.
Note also that NOAA had the hottest sea surface temperature EVER. Urban heat island effect?
Philip_B (21:05:44) :
Sea Surface Temperature is a meaningless metric. We don’t know what its relationship is to air temperature above the ocean, or the ocean temperature itself. Hence, it doesn’t tell us if the atmosphere is warming or if the ocean is warming.
I agree the century long record has big error bars around it, but more recent measurements do seem to be in the ballpark. The ~0.3C rise in SST between 1993 and 2003 is consistent with a rise of around 14×10^22J in ocean heat content, as determined for the sea level rise due to thermal expansion measured by satellite altimetry.
SST’s have risen recently because the ocean is emitting the heat it gained and stored during the run of high amplitude-short minimum cycles. Now the sun is quiet, the ocean is emitting heat. This is confirmed by the outgoing longwave radiation record which shows OLR increased by 4W/m^2 from June 2000 to 2006. It has stayed at that higher level since because of the protracted solar minimum.
So SST’s are rising, but the ocean is cooling. The emission of heat will warm the atmosphere over the next months, until the air temperature suppresses the ocean’s emittance. There will be lag time.
Just forgot to add, that NCDC graph shows here +1to +2 deg C positive anomaly.
Lots of red dots in the ocean where SST’s show blue. http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/ml/ocean/sst/anomaly.html
Look at the SSTs during June between southern Africa and South America. How does blue and yellow become a bunch of red dots?
I’m calling BS.
Looking at australian data, I would estimae a NOAA anomaly of approx. +1.5°-2.0°.
However, taking the data from the australian government website with the same reference period, I would estimate an anomaly of approx. +1.0°.
ftp://ftp.bom.gov.au/anon/home/ncc/www/temperature/maxanom/month/colour/latest.gif
Any reason for that ?