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.
Phil, you said in your first comment that UAH started to use AQUA satellite since 2002. Now you say it was since 2003.
OK, here is the plot with UAH and RSS data since 2003
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2003/to/trend/plot/rss/from:2003/to/trend
It seems that cooling trend in RSS is again bigger than in UAH, and that difference increased compared to 2002. That means “warming bias” in UAH increased as well since switching to AQUA.
Your initial objection was that UAH official data are too cool particularly in May and June because of shift in methodology, and that you consider RSS data to be more plausible because of that. That means you think UAH has an artificial warming bias in the new data, that should be corrected. Does UAH has artificial cooling, as you imply now, or artificial warming since 2002 (or 2003), as you implied in your first comment?
I think Pielke was setting up a straw man and having some fun.
Ivan (10:48:47) :
Phil, you said in your first comment that UAH started to use AQUA satellite since 2002. Now you say it was since 2003.
Since day 221, 2002, the first complete year being 2003.
OK, here is the plot with UAH and RSS data since 2003
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2003/to/trend/plot/rss/from:2003/to/trend
It seems that cooling trend in RSS is again bigger than in UAH, and that difference increased compared to 2002. That means “warming bias” in UAH increased as well since switching to AQUA.
Your initial objection was that UAH official data are too cool particularly in May and June because of shift in methodology, and that you consider RSS data to be more plausible because of that. That means you think UAH has an artificial warming bias in the new data, that should be corrected. Does UAH has artificial cooling, as you imply now, or artificial warming since 2002 (or 2003), as you implied in your first comment?
You’re imagining things it’s not me who’s talking about cooling and warming biases, I just don’t think that their recent anomalies can be relied upon because of the change to AQUA. I didn’t say there’s a general cooling rather a systematic minimum in May/June.
Bill Illis (08:20:02) : The glass of cold water isn’t as simple as it appears. Are you talking humid air or perfectly dry air? Water will condense on the container if it is a simple glass or metal container and cool the liquid faster than dry air. But eventually, both will warm the liquid.
Ivan (07:49:40) : It would be difficult for RSS or UAH data to be worse than GISS data. Even with flaws, I’m betting the satellite data is 10 time more accurate.
Jim,
I agree completely. RSS and UAH trends match pretty well, both over the whole period 1979-2009, and since 1998. Difference are relatively small and are located primarily in early 1990s, as far as I know. RSS 1979-2009 trend is 0.15 deg C, UAH 0.13 and since 1998 both have negative trends RSS being somewhat larger. That tells you that probably those two sets are relatively reliable, in any event much more than any of ground-based data sets, plagued by myriad of problems, like UHI, poor siting, inhomogeneities etc.
tallbloke, Leif
The daily data is here
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/data/amsu_daily_85N85S_ch05.r002.txt
Which is reached by navigation (go to channel 5 600 mb and then go to “data as text”) from here
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/
First I averaged the data for each day of the year. The result shows how the channel 5 temperature varies, on average, over a year.
I then subtracted those daily averages from the actual 2008 and 2009 temperatures for the dates, creating an anomaly plot for 2008 and 2009.
It’s a simple spreadsheet operation.
The oscillatory behavior is found through much of the data and seems to be on a 30 to 50 day cycle, but there are stretches without clear oscillation and stretches where the periods are different from the 30 to 50 day norm.
I’d just like to be able to connect it to something in the atmosphere. I did send a copy of this type of plot to one of the satellite/climate scientists (won’t mention his name without permission) several months ago and he said it is real atmospheric behavior, not a satellite data artifact.
UAH channel 5 data for yesterday is up. Even higher than the July 15th peak.
Another Peer review is out:
http://climatesci.org/2009/07/17/new-paper-accepted-impacts-of-land-cover-on-temperature-trends-over-the-continental-united-states-assessment-using-the-north-american-regional-reanalysis-by-fall-et-al-2009/
Jim (13:23:47) :
Bill Illis (08:20:02) : The glass of cold water isn’t as simple as it appears. Are you talking humid air or perfectly dry air? Water will condense on the container if it is a simple glass or metal container and cool the liquid faster than dry air. But eventually, both will warm the liquid.
Don’t you think the wall of the container will be warmed by condensation?
Checking 14000ft today I see it’s got its second wind and is continueing to rise again http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps+002 Surely something is not right?
DR (07:36:15) :
John Finn
There is more detailed information, the this is the crux of the matter when attempting to use the AMSU-E graph for daily temps:
Yes I know about the issues to which you refer in your post. However I haven’t mentioned AMSU Ch 5 temperatures – not for a while anyway. I do though expect some increase in satellite tempearures over the coming months. Whether this current spike is part of the expected rise – I don’t know.
David Smith (15:29:44) :
tallbloke, Leif
The daily data is here
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/data/amsu_daily_85N85S_ch05.r002.txt
Which is reached by navigation (go to channel 5 600 mb and then go to “data as text”) from here
Thanks David. Very interesting. So did your climate scientist offer any ideas for the behaviour. Those are biggish swings – 0.4C or so. Cloud behaviour? Not on a global basis surely. Hmmm, Lunar effect?? Surely not. Hmmm. Keep those quatloos handy, I’ll work it out.
Leif, any ideas?
Oliver Ramsay (19:47:49) : Yes, that in fact was the point. (Ooops! I just saw my mistake! I meant “and WARM the liquid faster” – I hate it when that happens.)
Hypothesis 1 sounds reasonable, especially if we factor in the Sarychev Volcano eruption and the mixing of that ash and aerosols into the upper atmosphere. It might be reasonable to assume that ash and aerosol in the upper atmosphere could potentially absorb IR and then radiate that heat? If the southern hemisphere does not show the anomoly with any correlation, that would further support the volcanic event as other models have shown the length such mixing takes.
Not sure I have ever seen a mapping of upper atmosphere temperature changes related to volcanic output. Has anyone else seen that? And if the IR was stopped at the upper atmosphere, the lower atmosphere would cool? We have seen cooling before at the surface from significant events. Hmmm?
/Sorry for the usage – I was an econometrics major a long time ago, not a physical sciences major.
Can this chart be linked for continuous updates as the AMSRE Sea Ice extents and Artic temperatures are now linked on the home WUWT web page?
Its now 7/25…
Why is the 3,300 ft graph stopped at 07/11? The words remain:
“The temperature on 07/23/2009 is 0.99 deg F warmer than this day last year.”
This would look impressive, since it would be the first big gap over a last year’s high.
The higher elevation graphs are all current. At 14,000 ft, the 7/23 plot is shown, at .73 deg F warmer.