Comments On The Current Record Global Average Lower TroposphereTemperatures
In the last couple of weeks, the onset of the El Niño, that was discussed on in my weblog on July 11 2009 would appear to be a possible explanation for the sudden increase in lower tropospheric temperatures to a record level (e.g. see the latest tropospheric temperature data at Daily Earth Temperatures from Satellite). This sudden warming is also discussed on other websites (see and see).
The current and recent anomalies at 500 mb (as representative of the tropospheric temperatures) are provided by the excellent NOAA analyses at
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/intraseasonal/z500_nh_anim.shtml
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/intraseasonal/z500_sh_anim.shtml
The location for the sudden warming (in the global average tropospheric temperatures as reported from the AMSU data) at 500 mb in the Northern Hemisphere is not obvious, however, except perhaps for a large area with weak positive anomalies in the lower latitudes. There is some warming in the El Niño area, but it is relatively small. In the lower latitude eastern hemisphere In the southern hemisphere, there is a strong warm anomaly near Antarctica. Maybe that is part of the reason for major region for the large positive AMSU temperature value.
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It rose nearly as high in January and returned to near average. I believe that the timing of the current bump being near the peak of the annual graph makes it look more ominous than it possibly is.
Re Hypotesis #2 – so the AGW began to manifest itself on July 2009 at exactly 388ppm CO2? In June/July 2007, there was a temporary temperature peak just as it is now. As pilots say, what went up, will also go down.
There is a third hypothesis – 3) Because of the way global temperatures are derived, no meaningful conclusion can be made.
Sun still quiet today – WUWT.
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.
****************
RE Hypo 1 – didn’t that just happen, with rapid average LT cooling from January 2007 to January 2008 of more than 0.6C?
Isn’ t there lots of LT data since 1979 that demonstrates this rapid temperature variability?
I don’t think either scenario supports the IPCC position – it contains too many unsupported and demonstrably false hypotheses.
To the lay-person this anomoly is hard to relate to CO2. The SH seems to have most of the positive anomoly and this has occured in the SH winter where there is reduced solar input into the system.
The only possibility (aside from data error) is that this heat is from warm tropical ocean currents and is being dissipated into the high latitude regions (with less atmospheric water vapour) where it can best escape as IR back into space.
I would think this is good for longer term cooling ?
If it goes any higher, it’ll be a new world record temperature
– if it isn’t already
(well in the 20 years of data shown)
Only time will tell which is correct,
Neither may be correct, regardless of what the temperature does. I’m not willing to bet the farm here.
Of course it’s going to go down now…. The question is: what will be the global anomaly for the second part of the year. Up to now, 2009 is the 6th warmest just after 2004.
I see sudden rises (and eventual falls) of a similar scale elsewhere on the graph. So, whatever it is, it is not “visibly” unique.
Place bets now!
My money is on Roy Spencer and the drop in ocean heat content that will result from the current surge. Will take a while though for the newly warmed air to suppress oceanic heat emission.
My prediction, based on my new understanding of OHC ocean-air lag and OLR
.
2-4 months to peak SST, 6-8 months to peak LTtemp, 12-15 months for LTtemp to drop below Jan 2008.
I’d like to ask a question: Are the measuring devices in those satellites capable of being tampered with by a ground station, such as to influence their readings?
The Australian BOM is blaming a sudden warming in Antarctica on unusual wind patterns. Maybe this supports Roy Spencer.
http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/warmer-winter-for-southern-scientists/12302
Talking of the weather it’s certainly been pretty cold in Australia recently. I’m getting fed up with the cold temps in Melbourne.
http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/frost-to-continue-in-the-southeast/12305
http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/frost-penetrates-the-tropics/12304
http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/rare-sleet-for-the-sunshine-state/12297
http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/cold-snap-sets-in-for-new-south-wales/12291
http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/chill-gripping-the-west/12282
Talking of the weather it’s certainly been pretty cold in Australia recently. I’m getting fed up with the cold temps in Melbourne.
http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/frost-to-continue-in-the-southeast/12305
http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/frost-penetrates-the-tropics/12304
http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/rare-sleet-for-the-sunshine-state/12297
http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/cold-snap-sets-in-for-new-south-wales/12291
http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/chill-gripping-the-west/12282
Sorry if I post this twice it didn’t appear to work the first time.
Guys– perhaps an explanation of some of the acronyms for those of us out here perusing the site but not really part of Climate World? I started reading Anthony daily a few months ago, and although I’ve pretty much accepted global warming caused by humans, still, a lot of stuff posted here needs to be answered and answered directly.
The acronyms, though make it a little hard to follow, ok?
I am sorry, but I think this is patent nonsense, the time scale (two weeks) is clearly insufficient to make any climatic deductions of any kind. You should actually tick all the boxes and see what this July looks like compared to all the other ones since 1998. = no trend of any kind.
In the past 30 years, how many times has such a three-day peak (rise, peak, fall) been observed?
In 1997-1998 – a definitive El Nino event, what were the comparable curves – noting that in that time interval, the rise-peak-fall spanned almost three full years to observe the rise, peak, fall?
Think this could be related:
From a comment by Pielke Jr. on this story on his blog:
( http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/07/warmest-day-ever.html )
‘John Christy sends in this note:
“Roger:
Please note that the temps on our “real-time” website are not considered calibrated against the full record as they are derived from NOAA-15 (a drifting satellite) rather than AQUA (a non-drifting satellite). NOAA-15 has been drifting into a warmer part of the day, so its
anomalies will be slightly too warm – but on a daily basis it is not really possible to say what the error really is. Our calibrated daily values will be out after the end of the month.
John C.”
I wrote back with this question:
“Thanks John, I’ll add this note, however, what is the point of showing the 2009 values on a graph with 1998-2008 if they are apples and oranges?”‘
If you use the AMSU site to compare current tropospheric temps at 7.5km (CH06) with previous el nino years 2006, 2003, and 1998, you can see we are generally still cooler there. The heat content of the upper troposphere is generally down, and the current spike at lower elevation (CH05) will dissipate quite rapidly as the upper troposphere warms. The rise in SST should slow next month, then pick up again the month after, before starting to top out the month after that.
There was a similar spike in 2007 that peaked on July 1st and subsided about two or three weeks later.
The next few months will be interesting to watch.
It will also be interesting to see if one month’s “weather” suddenly becomes “climate” with the tables turned, so to speak, or will the climate scientists caution that more time is needed…
1. The atmospheric warming that Dr. Pielke Sr. offers as a possible proof of AGW was caused by sudden sea surface temperature warming (as always)
2. Could Dr. Pielke Sr. or anyone else provide a mechanism by which co2 caused the sudden SST warming?
3. Until then, I’ll continue to believe that the only plausible source of such ocean warming is the Sun. As to why the surface water was exposed to more sunlight than usual (slack winds and fewer clouds presumably had something to do with it), that would be an appropriate field of study, worthy of government funding.
I would guess that due to the movements of the air circulation systems and the patchy geographical operation of the hydrological cycle the rate of energy transfer from air to space is irregular.
Put that on top of the longer term irregularity and patchy geographical variation of the rate of emission of energy from oceans to air and there is plenty of scope for discontinuities in the energy flow through the depth of the air.
As per my general climate description the oceans introduce irregularities in the energy flow from sun to ocean to air. I differ from Roy on that point because I think he considers that cloudiness variations are a primary driver of observed changes in climate phenomena.
In contrast I suggest that variations in the energy flow from oceans to air drive everything else by changing the rate of the hydrological cycle with all the air circulation systems responding accordingly.
It is then left to the air to try to arrange over time that energy leaving the system as radiated longwave has much the same energy value as energy coming in as solar shortwave.
Irregularities in the rate of energy transfer from air to space work to smooth out irregularities in the rate of energy transfer from oceans to air.
The mechanism is the latitudinal positions of the air circulation systems which in turn controls the speed of the hydrological cycle.
It must be so for oceans of water on our planet to exist at all. If any significant imbalance were ever to have occurred then the oceans would have long gone.
Nothing in current climatology adequately considers irregular flows of energy between sea and air and between air and space underpinned by another level of irregularity in solar input.
The models currently work backwards from meteorolgical observations rather than forward from measurements of net energy flow in and out of the different sections (oceans and air) of the system. In my view the whole plethora of interlinked climate and meteorological events is a direct consequence of variations in the rate of energy flow through water and air.
It’s like trying to work out how a car engine works by watching the car driver.
What one really needs to know first is the way the engine converts energy into movement.
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/07/warmest-day-ever.html?showComment=1247779303083#c3701413367128688652
What about error bars on these lovely curves? How big is the 1 sigma? I have seen 4 sigma effects be really and truly statistical outliers and not new particles in my particle chasing days. Climate plots have no error bars , at least not the above.
Sorry, meant to add ‘important comment from John Christy, and valid followup question from RP Jr.’