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.
msadesign – there is a more complete list of acronyms at Climate Audit . To us laypeople , the use of some of this jargon can be confusing . I hope this helps .
“Dynamic Analysis of Weather and Climate”, by Marcel Leroux… end of story: all the basic is here. A Second edition is coming…
Highlander (03:57:19) :
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?
Calibration range. Upper/lower limits, model driven bias ….Good question.
kmye (04:53:52) :
“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.”
The sensor is either calibrated or not. Tweaking a bias does not a calibrated sensor make.
Jeff L. (06:10:41) :
Regardless of the outcome, isn’t it nice to have real daat (not filtered, adjusted, and model derived) with which to test competing hypotheses. Now, I know this might be somewhat heretical in the modern era of AGW hysteria (and Swine Flu hysteria, and _______ hysteria), but nothing like some actual hard science once in a while.
isn’t it nice to have real data (not filtered, adjusted, and model derived)
Or calibrated!
Phil. (06:37:46) :
UAH has been using the AQUA data since 2002 and therefore no longer applies an orbit correction however the reference data for calculating their anomaly was done with the satellites which used orbit correction. Since that time their anomalies show a pronounced minimum in May/June, it seems likely to me that this is a result of the shift in methodology and until UAH really resolve that I can’t take their monthly data seriously.
“shift in methodology” Bingo!
I wonder if Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. is in a sarcastic mood making the following statement:
“The current and recent anomalies at 500 mb (as representative of the tropospheric temperatures) are provided by the EXCELLENT NOAA analyses”
“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”.
Am I dreaming or is he really offering to eat his hat?
DR (07:59:52) :
Phil,
The AMSU-E daily data is NOT derived from AQUA, so you are comparing apples to oranges. What exactly is your point?
Who cares about the daily UAH, without drift correction (as confirmed by Spencer) it’s not really worth much, note many questions on here the last couple of months as to why the daily ch5 didn’t agree with the monthly data.
My comment referred to the monthly data which is maintained on the correct orbit however I refer to earlier comments about the anomalies which I think are flawed for the reason given.
UAH data is calibrated to traceable standards and verified by balloon data,
The daily ones certainly aren’t, are you referring to the monthly ones?
What is your opinion of RSS?
Probably more reliable for anomalies because of the UAH flaw mentioned above.
I still fail to see how this would be helpful to AGW. Am I overlooking something?
Hopefully the El Nino won’t hurt the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver. Right now Olympics committees are preparing for the change of a dry winter. http://www.newsy.com/videos/el_nino_between_love_and_hate
Question: has radiosonde/balloon data confirmed this sudden anomaly at 500mb?
Well, if Dr Pielke was tongue in cheek, then he reeled me in hook line and sinker..
Oh well, not the first time I’ve been caught!
Mike
I hope Dr. Pielke is not going to toss in the towel over a short term spike.
davidsmith1 (07:14:11) :
Note the common “spiky” behavior of the mid-tropospheric temperature, possibly tied to tropical activity. If you can explain the exact cause of the periodic spikes you win 300 quatloos.
http://davidsmith1.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/0718091.jpg
Thanks for your graph, it’s interesting.That’s global I take it?
Around 18 upspikes in 18 months. Hmmmm, Some sort of resonant frequency of the atmosphere? Roughly equal to the number of solar rotations. Hmmmm
No, no explanation at the moment, your quatloos are safe for now…
OMG, Al Gore was right… maybe this is the famous “trigger” and “point of no return” !!!
… or it could just be from one of those sudden atmospheric hot flashes that we see every now and then.
msadesign (04:33:11) :
It’s worthwhile checking the links at the top of WUWT pages
occasionally. E.g. the Glossary button that links to
http://wattsupwiththat.com/glossary/
You can post jargon there that is missing or poorly described and
it will get answered sooner or later.
The apparent lack of hurricanes redistributing heat may be a factor.
I should think the large, recent warm anomalies over Antarctica would be impossible to attribute to a change in CO2 forcing, as there is currently no incoming solar radiation to trap in the high southern latitudes. It is clearly a phenomenon of atmospheric circulation: the heat had to be imported from somewhere. There must be something very fundamental to learn here about the genesis of an El Nino in the Pacific. What has changed in atmospheric circulation to raise the anomalies over Antarctica at a time when the sun is not shining there?
Have we reached the tippling point yet?
George DeBusk (10:22:43) :
I should think the large, recent warm anomalies over Antarctica would be impossible to attribute to a change in CO2 forcing, as there is currently no incoming solar radiation to trap in the high southern latitudes.
The GH effect is about ‘trapping’ IR leaving the earth not solar incoming.
Have a read what Lubos Motl has to say about this:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/11/rss-msu-0013-deg-c-month-on-month.html
Ron de Haan:
“Am I dreaming or is he really offering to eat his hat?”
Sure he’s offering to eat his hat, but it is a no risk venture. He knows full well that the large anomaly will not “persist” (similar spikes have come and gone regularly over the years), so it is a sure bet for him. I think he’s using the news of the large temperature spike at the top of the curve to have a little fun with the AGW crowd. If you look closely at his language, he has also built in quite a bit of wiggle room for himself, in the unlikely event it is needed. 🙂
Phil. (10:56:34) :
George DeBusk (10:22:43) :
I should think the large, recent warm anomalies over Antarctica would be impossible to attribute to a change in CO2 forcing, as there is currently no incoming solar radiation to trap in the high southern latitudes.
The GH effect is about ‘trapping’ IR leaving the earth not solar incoming.
How much IR does -70C ice emit?
Indiana Bones (09:32:52) :
Question: has radiosonde/balloon data confirmed this sudden anomaly at 500mb?
The CRU global radiosonde dataset (HadAT) is getting updated only four times a year. We will be able to check it around late October or early November.
Measurements taken by weather balloons are available in near real time mode for some individual stations around the world, but the following site provides insufficient data for an acceptable comparison. http://weather.uwyo.edu/upperair/sounding.html
The spike will not persist, at least not for months.
We may get a warm July and August but SST’s seem to be on their way down again and on the TAO site, when you look at comparisons against this time last year like wind speed and warm pocket intensity, it’s starting to not look good for the prospects of El Nino to last through next Winter.
Well to me it is simply a malfunction of the method of measurement. don’t forget that we are going through the lowest solar minimun since “space” records began, so the upper atmosphere is a lot cooler than normal (hence the noctilucent cloud formations), therefore the satellite is not correctly configured to see through an upper-cooled atmosphere…it was after all launched and set up in a solar maximum period!
Satellite derrived products will always be subject to anomalous readings. Our Meteosat range of satellites for example , when in the water vapour frequencies, can only see down as low as around the 10000 to 13000 FT above Mean Sea Level heights…and that is in exceptional conditions. To see any lower at these frequencies, the atmosphere would have to be half as dense with respect to water vapour.
If you cannot measure it yourself with a mercury in glass thermometer, disregard it as being inaccurate.
Global temperatures are now being measured with electronic sensors. when compard with mercury in glass, they always come up 0.2 to 0.4° Celsius above the Mercury measurement….guess how much the earth has allegedly warmed in 20 years? 0.2 to 0.4° Celsius! spot on! Nothing has changed, only the method of measurement and the amount of recording stations.
We still do comparisons between the two, and the same increase is still evident throughout the world, even almost 20 years since the electronic devices became widely used. End of Anthropological Global Warming Theory….Period!
Phil
Trapping outgoing radiation?
Really – no kidding?
But what does it trap if there is no incoming radiation because the sun stays below the horizon until September? Is there suddenly more CO2 in the atmosphere to trap the radiation that has been escaping all the dark winter long? The winter warming over Antarctica is clearly not a direct result of changes in the radiation balance. The radiation balance will remain very negative until the sun shows above the horizon. The question is what happened in atmospheric circulation to bring the relatively warm air over central Antarctica.
Remember all, that UAH has given us a handy little tool to look at global temperatures on a daily basis from AMSU-A satellite data. The satellite used by the tool is NOAA-15, which is drifting and no longer used by UAH for the official data (NASA Aqua). I find the tool interesting and useful even if its not the most accurate of the AMSU satellites.