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.
Adam from Kansas
I noticed the same weakening of the El Nino temperature and trade wind patterns in the last week or two. It is very interesting. I suppose it could be a reversal of the El Nino that NOAA has announced is imminent. It could also be a blip on the way to longer lasting El Nino conditions. The oddest thing is the very positive SOI in the middle of the alleged incipient El Nino. I have a hunch something very interesting is happening in the atmosphere, particularly in the Southern Pacific.
My problem with the AGW models is that they purport to be predictive of the future temperature trends of the atmosphere, even though they are modeling a system for which we have but the vaguest understanding. Basically the models are a test of the hypothesis that the concentration of Greenhouse Gasses and a completely hypothetical positive water vapor feedback are the primary controlling factors in global atmospheric temperature trends. The fact that there is no tropical mid tropospheric hot spot and the fact that the Arctic is currently no warmer than it was in the late 1930s seem to me to pretty much point to the falsification of the hypothesis underlying the AGW models.
It seems to me the funding behind climatic research is pushing toward the quantification of AGW and its effects. The far more interesting issues – ones I feel are much more deserving of funding – revolve around the causes of the long and mid term climatic cycles that we are just starting to understand. When I was active in Paleoclimatology about 15 years ago, the North Atlantic deep Water Circulation and its relationship to El Nino was the hot issue. Now we have the AMO and PDO and various solar linkages that also demand attention. Instead the funding agencies have put all their eggs in the AGW basket. This seems to be the pattern with funding. Whatever the hot issue of the day, it must be worked into a funding proposal if the proposal is to succeed. When the Younger Dryas was the hot issue, everyone had to see the Younger Dryas in their data. Even the most unconvincing blip in any of the various temperature proxy was called the YD if it was of the correct age. It led, in my opinion, to a lot of bad science done just to justify further funding.
Now we are seeing events in the atmosphere that herald some interesting changes. The AMO. PDO, and El Nino seem to be doing something interesting all at the same time. Sadly, the main issue seems to be “what does this mean for AGW” rather than “what does this mean about how the atmosphere-ocean system works.” What I want to know is what causes ice ages, the Daansgard-Oeschger cycles, the AMO/PDO cycles and the rather chaotic but also somewhat regular variations of the ENSO?
I guess I have become a denier not just because I am unconvinced by the data that is supposed to support AGW, but because I feel the current obsession with AGW is masking the truly interesting issues in atmospheric science. I left science 15 years ago because I felt that the funding system did not give me any freedom to study what I thought was important. Now I see nothing that makes me want to return to academia, but I find the actual science more interesting than ever. If we can just pull our heads out of the AGW sand, we are close to some very interesting discoveries about how the planet works.
Sorry about the rant, but I had a tough week and I need to let off some steam.
If we see a rise in atmospheric temperature like this so suddenly, then this is almost certainly the result of heat release from the oceans.
I hope it is equipment problems, because otherwise you are right and that is double whammy bad news.
Atmospheric temperatures will go up for a while allowing the AGW crowd to claim they were right and push through their massive wealth destroying measures.
Oceans lose heat and we are headed for a prolonged period of a colder climate with all that entails. Pointing in that direction is the SH sea ice which shows a sharp upward trend over the last 2 or 3 years. As does the NH sea ice, but that was off record low levels.
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?
What was the source of the data which produced the UAH anomaly baseline?
Mike: With that in mind does that mean that every monthly global temp. reading may have to be adjusted downward to correct the bias created from the move away from mercury based readings? That will surely make the warming trend look less impressive, particulary if it’s shown it suggests the world didn’t warm that much if you would’ve spent the last 30 years measuring temps. the old way.
Maybe you should write an in-depth article on satallite calibration and biases and comparisons of the biases and accuracy of different temp. reading devices used over the last century of so?
I’m tired of anomalies. Anomalies assume a that this earth has a normal mean temperature. It does not. Our time would be better served trying to deal with short term weather events than to project what changes in 30 – 100 years will be. Who is to say we wont get wiped of the earth by the next bit of space rock that passes our way a year from now? Should we live in fear of that? They say its only a matter of when. Maybe we should wreck our economy for that huh??
It seems rather stupid to me that we are trying to give the ENTIRE world a temp. But ignore regional weather events. Its hot here today, but it wasn’t a week ago. Does my current temp add to climate fears. NOPE we didn’t even break a record, yet it will be used to prove the world is getting warmer. Our current methods of taking temp, whether they be ground or satellite are flawed, the scientists know that or they wouldn’t have to dink around with the data. So why in the heck are we assuming anything based on them? Even if it warms up tomorrow because of an El Nino. Is it the Co2 that did it or the El Nino? La Nina broke the pattern, but it was weather. If the El Nino returns you know it will be climate. That’s just CRAP science and I for one am SICK of IT.
phil wrote:
“…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…”
you are probably refering to such an unfounded comment from flanagan, however, if you look at channel 5 data by yourself and try to average the difference to the 20 year average over a month, it fits very well with monthly averages.
eg. the last month june 2009 had an average of 0.0° and the portions below and above the 20 year average had nearly equal areas
(… and don’t forget to convert fahrenheit to celsius.)
Ocean temperatures for June (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2009/jun/global.html#temp) are warmest on record. Only a tiny 0.1C below the land anomaly… (so much for UHIs).
Ocean sea levels approaching new record highs (http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_noib_global.jpg).
The MSU has been the outlier all year, and has now caught up with the rest of the data. One suspects it as problems as the drift away from the surface earlier in the year is improbable.
And to think – this record heat is all occurring at solar minimum less than 6 months after the end of the 2007/2008/2009 La Nina. Global temperatures correlate most strongly with ENSO at 6 months lag (it should be COLD now), not setting record highs.
Sorry for my ignorance, but with reports from all over the globe of unseasonably cold temperatures, how can this be accurate? What is this series measuring and has it gone through an adjustment process? I am just confused by hearing the this is a hot summer when I am still wearing a fleece at night in Chicago.
I did notice that GISS omits outliers. Like the 45ºF day in June we had in Ohio? That seems kind of biased in its own way. Am I understanding that process correctly?
tallbloke (12:12:32) :
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?
~90W/m^2
Re tallbloke, yes that’s a global plot.
I’m intrigued by the oscillatory behavior and by the swift increases and decreases and the apparent baseline stability. Perhaps the oscillations are thunderstorm-related, with the heat spreading out across the troposphere and dissipating.
If it is real and not some measurement artifact then understanding the physical behavior behind the plot would be valuable.
This is simply ridiculous.
By plotting together 2003, 2005 and 2007, just three relatively warm years from this cooling period Pielke asserts doesn’t exist anymore because of very high temperature on one day in July 2009 (!!!), you would easily see that out of those 1000 days you can find certainly couple of dozens of days with higher global temperature anomaly than yesterday. Just in January 2007 you have at least 11 or 12 days with higher anomaly. In December 2003 you have also at least 6 or seven days with higher anomaly. In August 2005 you have additional 5 or 6 days. This is almost 25. I have found this in 5 minute inspection. When other years included and all checked out I bet at least 50-60 days in last 6-7 years would have higher anomaly than yesterday.
Even if yesterday highest anomaly in last 10 years was observed that would mean little, nothing to say about 50th or 60th highest anomaly in 7 years or so. If Pielke Jr wants to advocate AGW he should do so openly, instead of finding so stupid excuses.
The antarctic warming seen here I have seen before (late winter 2008) and can be blamed on the sun.The resumption of solar coronal holes is evident in the ice-form graph at “Chryosphere Today”.
How these coronal holes warm the antarctic is less certain, I can only think of 3 options.
(1) Increased UV produced by geomagnetic storm
(2) High cloud formation over the antarctic caused by high velocity SOLAR protons.
(3) Alteration of polar air circulation.
It seems likely to me that all three play a role but I must say I am interested in cloud formation a lot. High altitude ice crystals forming in the cold of later winter would reflect solar irradiance down to the surface, then, away from the surface in later spring.
Although I anticipate a large arctic ice melt causing a cooling of pacific equatorial sub surface temperatures,if the coronal holes continue to limit antarctic ice formation through to September, another smaller than average antarctic ice melt would likely see an intensifying El Nino into the SH summer. If, however, we get a resumption of weak sunspots and no coronal holes a very large ice formation should result, which as it melts could easily lead us to another La Nina summer.
as I see it- Bruce
It is too early for the El Nino to be affecting the troposphere. In fact, the outgoing long-wave radiation data is showing that the Pacific ocean is absorbing heat energy out of the atmosphere right now rather than adding to it.
Every now and again, I’ve been checking the temperatures in Antarctica and, certainly for the coastal areas, they are having the mildest winter probably on record. I know I lived with temperatures this winter that were far colder than the Antarctic coast is experiencing in their winter.
The sea ice is not really reacting to the conditions as it is still well above average, but then the ocean surface has to warm to -2C to melt the ice.
Today, the Antarctic coast is still warm but the Amundsen-Scot station at the south pole is 10C colder than normal at -71C. So, like the weather in general, sometimes it is cold, sometimes it warm.
http://www.wunderground.com/global/AA.html
After seeing corrupted data posted on a regular basis (until the agent responsible was “outed” – usually by interested amateurs), my BS meter is spiking with this one.
Instrumentation drift, innocent blunder or outright fraud, I will assume one of these until confirmed by independent observation.
John Christy replies to Pielke Jr:
“If you look at NOAA-15 raw values at:
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/data/amsu_daily_85N85S_ch05.r002.txt
you’ll note that 15 Jul 2009 is at 254.286K. Two years ago, on 2 Jul 2007 the temp hit 254.279K. Remember that the satellite has been drifting into a warmer part of the day this entire time, which I would imagine would be greater than the 0.007K difference over two years seen here.
Now, the daily calibrated MSU channel 2 (T2) anomalies back in 1998 were above +0.55 in July on a number of days. The calibrated T2 anomalies from AMSU5 in July 2007 were only up to +0.39. So I wouldn’t expect the current values (which are similar to 2007) for July 2009 to be warmer than 1998.”
If temperatures warm suddenly at 500 mb, presumably via convection since CO2 levels do not change that suddenly w/o vulcanism , the dispaced cold air sinks to the surface, explaining the colder surface temperatures we have seen this summer at higher latitudes in the NH . The net heat content of the troposphere would be unchanged, and just distributed a bit differently.
However, it could be the transitioning from La Nina to El Nino which is adding heat to the troposphere via convection and causing the same effect. Yet an earlier comment indicates the El Nino is not yet resulting in the oceans adding more heat to the troposphere as yet.
Hopefully this article is satire or I would suspect the author of getting an advance on carbon credits. LOL
Just a thought. We are still waiting for the first hurricane in the Atlantic- Caribbean Ocean, and we are only at C in the Pacific. Maybe the lack of clouds is heating the atmosphere to more than normal?
Speaking of the Sun the Solar Flux has dropped to 66 now, isn’t the Earth supposed to now be past the part of its orbit furthest from the Sun, it doesn’t neccesarily make sense unless Archibald really is on to something.
After reading the postings and comments etc on CA, RC and WUWT for about 2 years now, we can only conclude that Prof. Ian Plimer and/or scientists who analyze climate in terms of thousands of years are probably close to the truth. Daily (ie current UHA spike), monthly and yearly (all of the above cited sites) are meaningless.. it reminds me a bit of the old ladies in Ireland when I was a boy saying “isn’t it cold today what is happening? My guess is that we will not see any significant change in climate in our lifetimes. Our lives are far to short to record this (with some exceptions). LOL
msadesign (04:33:11) :
Smokey (07:35:55) :
To supplement Smokey’s list:
http://www.acronymfinder.com/
This is a handy site to put in your favorites list. Also, Steve McIntyre provides a list of acronyms common on climate related sites:
http://climateaudit101.wikispot.org/Glossary_of_Acronyms
Ivan (16:32:45) :
You feel that Roger Pielke Jr advocates the IPCC / AGW position?
To that I say ridicules.
msadesign (04:33:11) :
Anthony has also included a glossary on this site… Near the top.
tallbloke (12:12:32) :
How much IR does -70C ice emit?
more than 30% of 0C ice.
to put the UAH data in perspective
we just observed a few days that hardly even scratched Hansen’s model B scenario. AGW believers still think model B or slightly higher is were temperatures should go (CO2 up, methane down since 1990).
Subtract an el nino correction from july data and we may arrive again even below scenario C, where we have stayed for years now, subtract an additional term for land use change and there is hardly anything left.
(scenario B held greenhouse gas emission approx. constant after 1990,
scenario C drastically reduced greenhouse gas emissions after 1990).
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/06/gret-moments-in.html