August 2009 Global Temperature Update: +0.23 deg. C
Dr. Roy Spencer September 4th, 2009
August 2009 saw a modest fall in the global average tropospheric temperature anomaly, from +0.41 deg. C in July to +0.23 deg. C in August. The tropical and Northern Hemispheric troposphere remain quite warm, but the Southern Hemisphere cooled by over 0.4 deg. C in the last month.
YR MON GLOBE NH SH TROPICS
2009 1 +0.304 +0.443 +0.165 -0.036
2009 2 +0.347 +0.678 +0.016 +0.051
2009 3 +0.206 +0.310 +0.103 -0.149
2009 4 +0.090 +0.124 +0.056 -0.014
2009 5 +0.045 +0.046 +0.044 -0.166
2009 6 +0.003 +0.031 -0.025 -0.003
2009 7 +0.412 +0.212 +0.610 +0.427
2009 8 +0.231 +0.284 +0.179 +0.455
NOTE: For those who are monitoring the daily progress of global-average temperatures here, we are still working on switching from NOAA-15 to Aqua AMSU, which will provide more accurate tracking on a daily basis. We will be including both our lower troposphere (LT) and mid-tropospheric (MT) pre-processing of the data. We will also be adding global sea surface temperature anomalies from the AMSR-E instrument on board the NASA Aqua satellite.
To those who wear body armor, dropping from around 37°C to below 32°C is a plunge. 🙂 But I meant 27°C so thanks for the poke.
Still, far more telling are the night temps and in early morning more people are wearing jackets now. Normally, temps don’t drop like this until about October. Last year it was in the above 32°C for most of September.
Harry Eagar (20:06:48) :
I do not believe anybody knows the global temperature to a ten-thousandth of a degree.
I don’t even believe anybody knows it to a full degree, but we might debate that.
The 1/1000 and 1/100 C positions are a complete fiction. The 1/10C position has some hope for the satellites I think but GIStemp “has issues” with individual records that can shift several tenths due to programer choices. Add to that the fact that most of the historical record is recorded in whole degrees F only and there is no way the 1/10 C position is accurate in GIStemp. Whole degrees? Yeah, you might have some hope in the whole degrees position. But then you must address the issue of thermometer changes over time.
Which leaves the other major issue: What does the average of an intensive variable mean? Not much.
The “crib notes” explanation of intensive vs extensive variables is via an example. Take two pots of water. Measure their temperatures. Average them. Now pour one pot (the small one) into the other pot (the big one). What is the final temperature? You don’t know. You cannot know.
Without an answer to exactly what mass of water each pot held (and maybe even what their specific heats were – was one salty and the other not? Was one pot aluminum, the other iron?) you have a nice average number that tells you nothing. Oh, and was any of the water solid?…
Now if you’ve answered those questions you can calculate the thermal energy in the pots. Then when blended, you can calculated the final temperature. The thermal energy is an extensive variable, the temperature is intensive.
“Global Average Temperature” has the same problems, but is even further confounded due to more materials with more variations of specific heats, and massive quantities of phase change (mostly in water and ice, but not all…). Oh, and very large masses with very variable latencies for thermal transfer. The inside of a boulder can be a very different temperature from the outside.
It also “has issues” in that we assume that an accidental averaging via the air in a spot tells us something about the temperature of a “grid cell” surface temperature (yet the SST data show that is false). Anyone who has been warm standing in the sun watching snow in the shade knows this “has issues”… We then further assume that this “air temperature” tells us something about energy balance, when it does not.
The air temp can tell us if we ought to wear a sweater (since we are standing in that air), but does not tell us anything useful about energy balance, heat flow, thermal energy of the materials in the surrounding kilometers, etc.
Basically, the “Global Average Temperature” is a number we use because we can calculate it even though it has no physical meaning and no utility.
See here:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/08/30/gistemp-a-slice-of-pisa/
for a discussion of “issues” with the temperature calculations in GIStemp
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/07/30/gistemp-f-to-c-convert-issues/
For an example of a particular line of code, just ONE, that warms the entire data set by 1/1000 C (it warms 1/100 of the records by 1/10 C, depending on what compiler you use to compile the code. )
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/03/05/mr-mcguire-would-not-approve/
Any decent physics or chemistry class will teach you to keep only the digits of precision justified by your original raw data. Here’s an example:
http://www.physics.unc.edu/~deardorf/uncertainty/UNCguide.html
The standard is that you toss as “False Precision” any digits beyond the original data. The Original USHCN data are in whole degrees F, so that is all you have. If these numbers are used to “do math” on any other numbers, the lowest precision going in is what you can take out. Since GIStemp ‘does math’ repeatedly blending data all over the place, NONE of the numbers from GIStemp can have reliable precision beyond whole degrees F.
That this standard is repeatedly ignored explains to me why Mr. McGuire beat it into us so much…
What precision can the UAH data reasonably carry? Who knows… You point a sensor at a patch of earth from space and exactly what is it measuring again? And how much does the sensor drift? And what do orbital changes do to the data? Cosmic ray bursts? (See the sea ice sensor failures for an example of what can happen). And what code is run on the data and adjustments are made?
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/08/17/thermometer-years-by-latitude-warm-globe/
Gives an idea what kind of problems there are with thermometer change over time.
So at the end of it all, we have a “too short for climate analysis” satellite record that MAY be more precise, calibrated against land data that are not, compared to a history that isn’t, to calculate a number that is fictional and meaningless.
On this we hang the fate of modern civilization…
rbateman (21:14:14) :
The Robins know temperature to a degree or so. They have already came by and are on thier way south.
I’ve had a bunch of odd birds down here that I’ve not seen before (and I think I saw robins about a week ago, but not now) I’m south of San Francisco.
I usually have doves nesting under the awning. They came in early, nocked out a few batches, and about 2 weeks ago the “flock” seemed to disappear. I’ve heard exactly ONE dove in the last 2 weeks and it sounded lonely. It’s rather strange. Usually they are here much longer and don’t leave till it’s clearly cold. And I get a selection of several dove calls from nearby. This time they seemed to pack up and leave at a time when they usually start laying the last batch of eggs.
There were some sparrow like things (sorry, not a big birder) that cleaned out my amaranth. Last year nothing touched it. They also did a number on the bean leaves ( there is a flock of them that I have seen having salad…) They too seem to have cleared out. There are also a couple that look sort of like a dusky grey jay that I’ve not seen before. And a little finch like guy with a yellow throat, that likes to pick bugs off the picture window, that nested here this year (again, not that I’d seen here before). The hummers are still here (they love Runner Bean flowers, a big nice scarlet color!) It’s been a very odd collection of birds this year.
Either the neighborhood is much more attractive to birds, or some decided to “stop short” on the way north last spring.
August Downunder
Australia has just experienced an exceptionally warm August. Almost the entire country experienced above-average temperatures during the month, but the warmth was most extraordinary in the subtropics. Over most of the southern Northern Territory and the southern half of Queensland (away from the coast), maximum temperatures for August were more than 5°C above the long-term average. Maximum temperatures were the highest on record for August over 49% of Australia.
Averaged over Australia as a whole, maximum temperatures were 3.20°C above the long-term August average, and daily mean temperatures (day and night combined) were 2.47°C above average. Both values are the highest on record for August by close to a degree. In terms of how far the month was above normal, the maximum temperatures in August 2009 are also the highest on record for any month, breaking the record of +3.11°C set in April 2005; the daily mean temperatures rank second behind April 2005.
August was marked by some individual days which were exceptionally hot, especially in northern NSW and Queensland. State records were set for August in both states (37.8°C at Mungindi and 38.5°C at Bedourie respectively). Perhaps more exceptional were the margins by which some records were broken, and the number of days on which previous records were exceeded. Collarenebri broke its pre-2009 August record by 5.4°C, and numerous other locations, including Murwillumbah, Moree, Gatton, Miles and Taroom, broke August records by 4°C or more. Such margins are not unheard of at exposed coastal sites – where everything has to go right to achieve an extreme high temperature (not only having a very hot air mass, but having the wind in the right direction to prevent conditions being moderated by sea breezes) – but are virtually unknown at inland locations.
Many locations exceeded pre-2009 August records on five or more days. An especially striking example was Windorah in western Queensland, which prior to 2009 had never reached 35°C in August. In 2009 it happened seven times, and their August record was lifted six times, eventually peaking at 38.0°C on the 29th.
The extremely warm August combined with generally above-average (but not record-breaking) temperatures in June and July to give record or near-record winter temperatures in many areas. Australian daily mean temperatures for winter (1.33°C above average) fell just 0.01°C short of the 1996 record, and maximum temperatures surpassed the record set in 2002. NSW, Victoria and South Australia all had their warmest winters on record, which may come as a surprise to residents of the latter two states, in a season which was distinguished more by an almost complete absence of significant cold than by any major warm extremes.
In terms of weather systems, the month was marked by a persistent high-pressure ridge over the subtropics, preventing cooler air from penetrating from the south into central and northern Australia (until the last two days of the month, by which time it was too late to make much difference). Pressures were also well below normal south of Australia, resulting in very strong and persistent westerlies south of Australia (which made it an extremely wet month in Tasmania). An interesting comparison exists with October 1988, which had very similar pressure patterns, and was also dry over the mainland and very wet in Tasmania. In October 1988 Australian mean temperatures were 2.16°C above average, which was a record at the time (it now ranks fourth). The difference of 0.31°C between the two months is close to the size of the warming trend over Australia in that 21-year period, and suggests that the long-term background warming trend is playing a role in increasing the frequency of high temperature extremes of the type seen in August 2009.
Thanks to BOM
Where I live, Spring “arrived” 5 weeks early. Go figure.
Frank and Alex:
Never did I predict a super el nino, you should go back on what I said. Which was “most models predict the emergence of an el nino”.
On top of that, I don’t care about the monthly temperature anomaly, only about the long trends. I did not pop up predicting the end of the world last month because of a very large positive one, so you won’t hear me on this one either.
Phil. (13:40:47) :
Not likely since the UV you mention doesn’t make it through the atmosphere!
So what is it that burns my fair skin on a sunny day?
Phil. (13:40:47)
So how do you get your suntan, Phil? You might also consider taking some Vitamin D supplement.
DavidK (01:29:31) : August Downunder
Australia has just experienced an exceptionally warm August. …
An interesting comparison exists with October 1988, which had very similar pressure patterns, and was also dry over the mainland and very wet in Tasmania. In October 1988 Australian mean temperatures were 2.16°C above average, which was a record at the time (it now ranks fourth). The difference of 0.31°C between the two months is close to the size of the warming trend over Australia in that 21-year period, and suggests that the long-term background warming trend is playing a role in increasing the frequency of high temperature extremes of the type seen in August 2009.
I just downloaded the temperature data from the Aussie Govt website. (Upto 2008)
1. From 1988 to 2008 the annual average temperature trend is 0.103C/decade. For 20 years this would give an increase of 0.206C, or 0.21 and not 0.31. It isnt close to the size of the warming trend.
2. The SH cooled by over 0.4C over July. I know you aussies have a mighty opinion of yourselves, (though we just thrashed you in rugby and netball), but australia is not the SH.
Richard (04:41:04)
Read again, slowly:
An interesting comparison exists with October 1988, which had very similar pressure patterns, and was also dry over the mainland and very wet in Tasmania. In October 1988 Australian mean temperatures were 2.16°C above average, which was a record at the time (it now ranks fourth). The difference of 0.31°C between the two months is close to the size of the warming trend over Australia in that 21-year period, and suggests that the long-term background warming trend is playing a role in increasing the frequency of high temperature extremes of the type seen in August 2009.
They are talking about comparisons between 2 months – your take on it is different.
Btw, where talking regional stuff – not hemispherical.
DavidK (05:04:59) Ok I downloaded the August temperatures (Raw) data.
From the Raw data
1. The October 09 anomaly is 2.47 C. That of 1988 0.6 C – a whopping difference of 2.13 C. No other year even comes close to this. The next highest is 1998 with 1.49
2. The October 1988 to October 2009 trend comes to 0.39C/decade or 0.82 C over the 21 years.
3. If we remove this huge anomalous anomaly then the trend for Oct 1998 till Oct 2008 comes to only 0.15 C/ decade. The last month pulls up the trend making a huge difference to it.
4. Even if we accept those figures above (where have you taken them from?) there are alternate explanations to “the long-term background warming trend is playing a role in increasing the frequency of high temperature extremes of the type seen in August 2009.”
Here are the anomalies from the 1961-90 average: Aug 1988 to Aug 2009
0.6, -1.32, -0.25, 0.28, 0.09, 0.59, -0.39, 1.13, 0.69, -0.14, 1.49, 0.78 , 0.02, 0, 0.25, 0.47, -0.12, 0.24, 1.07, 0.88, -0.94, 2.47
I just noticed the blighter is comparing October anomalies with August? Ridiculous. First thing you have got to do is compare like with like to try any meaningful analysis.
Carsten Arnholm, Norway (03:50:44) :
Phil. (13:40:47) :
“Not likely since the UV you mention doesn’t make it through the atmosphere!”
So what is it that burns my fair skin on a sunny day?
The statement that I was responding to was the following:
diminished UV solar output of the current solar cycle (more marked than in the visible spectrum)
The portion of the UV spectrum that has a ‘more marked’ response than the visible doesn’t make it through the atmosphere.
Richard (various above)
I ‘took’ the figures from the Special Climate Statement #18 Exceptional winter heat over large parts of Australia released by the Australian Government’s Bureau of Meteorology.
You can find it here
I don’t know your background and I am certainly not an expert in multivariate time series analysis. Nevertheless, I doubt BOM is engaged in any conspiracy – they say it like it is, whether we like it or not.
I admire your tenacity and if I have paraphrased wrong, my apologies.
However, the fact remains – climate is changing (as it always has/will) – this time before our very eyes. There is serious debate within the scientific community with respect to climate sensitivity and attribution (contrary to popular belief), the outcomes of which will only be known through the rigours of the scientific process.
In the mean time, it would be prudent to tread very carefully – because if the politicians, captains of industry and their respective bean-counters get it wrong, we will be giving generations down the track a legacy that will make the dinosaur extinction (poetic license) look insignificant.
DavidK (18:15:40) : I am a humble engineer, not an expert in anything, but I know a bit of maths and science and can reason things out for myself.
“Saying it like it is” has various interpretations. Some say that showing pictures of the Statue of liberty and Trafalgar square under the sea, like Al Gore did, is saying it like it is. I dont think so.
Its warm now-a-days (the last 30 years). Whether it is in any way unusual taking into account our past climate, whether will continue or not, whether it is being caused by us, whether imposing tax and committing economic hara-kiri will fix it, even if we are, are all moot points.
At the moment I do not see any signs of catastrophe other than the advocated course of the climate alarmists.
I wonder where this should go? :
World’s climate could cool first, warm later
“Forecasts of climate change are about to go seriously out of kilter…Nature vs humans…This is bad timing….”
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17742-worlds-climate-could-cool-first-warm-later.html
Richard
I agree. Al Gore is a politician (some would say propagandist), not a scientist. Scientists (the vast majority at least) just want to do their job and lead an otherwise normal life. Al Gore got the Peace prize for one simple reason: he brought the attention of the world onto something that will (whether you believe it or not) threaten world peace.
Moot? I think we all would like a scientist/engineer to get a Nobel for physics or chemistry, or a statistician the Fields, for debunking AGW, whatever … but until they do (and they should keep trying) we all should take measures to adapt to a changing climate (some groups and species are less able to) and live/grow in a more sustainable way.
I also agree, unless you take into account some of the warning signs espoused by population ecologists … to do with bees, or fish, or corals, or various other flora and fauna. Us, on the other hand, will do better. There are extremists on both sides and imho, they should pull their heads out of their nether-nethers. Ergo, the vast majority of scientists are NOT alarmists.
You wonder where that will go. I wonder where this will go.
DavidK (20:26:55) : “I think we all would like a scientist/engineer to get a Nobel for physics or chemistry, or a statistician the Fields, for debunking AGW..”
I think it already has been debunked and no one will get the Nobel prize for that.
“You wonder where that will go. I wonder where this will go.”
This is what “this” says:
“The increasing climate variability of recent times, state the paper’s authors, may be interpreted as a signal that the near-term future could bring a transition from glacial and interglacial oscillations to a new state — one with permanent Northern Hemisphere glaciation in Earth’s mid-latitudes.”
Their reasons and scenario is plausible. Glaciation is more plausible than runaway warming- but if this be so should we be spending billions of dollars trying to sequester CO2 which the AGW proponents say will cause warming? Should we be trying to stop electricity production which will keep our heaters going? Would that make any sense?
“Early Warning Signals Of Change”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090902133625.htm
September seems to be going strong for the moment
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps
Remember 2007 is the warmest year. We’ll see…
REPLY: Dead link – A
Richard, whoever “debunked” it would have saved a whole lot of people a whole lot of money and a whole lot of stress – they would have been lauded by everyone all over the world and given all the media attention and kudos they would rightly deserve … it hasn’t happened.
We are headed for another glaciation (in about 30k years, give or take) and there are going to be bumps and wiggles along the way. It is on the cards that we are having some influence over the next bump but hopefully, we can do something about it. No reasonable person is saying we have to live like neanderthals, and no reasonable person is saying we are in for catastrophic or runaway warming.
You ask 3 questions, I think they are based on a false premise (near term glaciation) but my answers are:
1. Short answer – No. We should not pander to the coal lobby. “Clean” coal is a misnomer and CC&S is way off (if at all). But, coal will be around for a while yet, we just have to wean ourselves off it.
2. Of course not, we have to utilize a range of technologies in the weaning-off stage (and be more efficient in our energy use).
3. See 2
DavidK (01:40:48) : “Richard, whoever “debunked” it would have saved a whole lot of people a whole lot of money and a whole lot of stress …
If it were so simple, David; but it is not. None of this is about cold, hard, scientific fact. It is about power, and who can apply it most effectively. It would not be too far-fetched to use the term “good or evil”. I would be content to stand, a watcher in the dunes, if science was weighing this up in a dispassionate manner. It is our shame that this is not so; therefore even the scientific illiterates such as me feel compelled to step forward and call foul.
I am with Richard Feynman as quoted in today’s lead story on WUWT? (German Climate Adviser: “industrialized nations have already exceeded their [carbon] quotas” – Pay Up): ”There were a lot of fools at that conference — pompous fools.”
Well done for mentioning the UAH data this month, I suppose it was too inconvenient to mention it last month.
can any of the sun worshippers explain how their beliefs in the power of the mighty sunspots is not working in actually cooling global temperatures? Surely there must be at least a flicker of cooling after such a prolonged spell of solar minimum, maybe you are not praying hard enough?
“Mary Hinge (05:54:27) :
Well done for mentioning the UAH data this month, I suppose it was too inconvenient to mention it last month.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/05/