September 2009 UAH Global Temperature Update +0.42 deg. C
October 7th, 2009 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
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 +0.411 +0.212 +0.610 +0.427
2009 8 +0.229 +0.282 +0.177 +0.456
2009 9 +0.424 +0.554 +0.295 +0.516
The global-average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly in September 2009 rebounded again, from +0.23 deg. C in August to +0.42 deg. C in September. The tropics and Northern Hemisphere continue to dominate the signal.
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 have added the global sea surface temperature anomalies from the AMSR-E instrument on board the NASA Aqua satellite, computed from files at Remote Sensing Systems, although we are still not done adjusting the display range of those data.
===
RSS: update
RSS for September 2009 is: +0.48 °C
The rank is #2 out of 31 Septembers of data.
Source: RSS (Remote Sensing Systems, Santa Rosa)
RSS data here (RSS Data Version 3.2)
Some more detail on the NZ ‘Spring’.
http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/power-restored-another-storm-threatens-3053367
It’s temporarily warmer than normal in the Arctic but the cold air thus displaced has moved out over the neighbouring continents to bring early snow and frost.
At this time of year a rapid movement of mild air into the Arctic area actually accelerates energy loss to space.
It is not a good sign for the rest of the winter.
For a mild northern hemisphere winter one would ideally like to see the cold Arctic air staying in situ so that the nearby continents can retain what heat they have for as long as possible. Not this year I’m afraid.
Not sure if this is the tight place to post, but a company I am affiliated with has asked me to sign the “hopehagen petition”. The link to a web site gives the facts on AGW http://assets.panda.org/downloads/wwf_climate_deal_1.pdf
I was wondering if anyone would care to “Fisk” this advocacy with respect to the the science refered to – I’m skeptical of climate chnage myself, but I don’t have all the facts to hand to rebuff what I’m told is a dead certainty.
Thanks
We know greenhouse gases such as CO2 warm the air by trapping heat
radiating from the Earth’s surface. That is 100-year-old science. The first calculations that doubling CO2 in the atmosphere would raise temperatures by 2-6ºC were done over a century ago by Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius. Today’s climate models broadly agree.
We know the world is warming, on average by 0.74ºC during the past
century, with most of that since 1970. Human-made CO2 is responsible for the vast majority of the warming. Concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere are now almost 40 per cent above those of 200 years ago and emissions to the atmosphere have been rising by more than 2 per cent a year since 2000. This extra greenhouse gas stems overwhelmingly from humans burning fossil fuels and destroying forests, both of which are made of carbon.
It would contradict 100 years of physics if this CO2 were not warming the planet.
Moreover, there is no alternative explanation for the observed warming.
Solar cycles have contributed on average less than 10 per cent in the past decades whereas volcanic eruptions and other known natural influences on global climate have been having a cooling influence since 1970 – the period of greatest overall warming and of the largest increase in atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gas levels.
he IPCC has reported regularly on climate change science for 20 years. Its
last report was “unequivocal” that climate change is with us, and is set to
get drastically worse unless we take urgent action. Nature, through both oceans and forests, currently absorbs about half the CO2 we put into the air. The rest of it stays in the atmosphere for centuries. However, the amount of carbon soaked up by natural ecosystems is declining steadily. So stabilizing emissions is not enough. Every tonne of CO2 we emit makes things
worse. To stabilize temperatures at a sufficiently low level, we have to stop
emitting as fast as we can.
Phil (12:29:25) :
Also the artic temps are amazingly high at the moment
– so the question is, how high does it need to get before people here get converted to AGW?
As long as the Agenda keeps pulling one shennanigan after another by cooking the sensor readings and playing games with media stunts, it’s credibility rating remains in the penalty box.
At this late juncture, I’ll depend more on what I can see and whom I can talk to as far as the global climate goes. Trust is earned, and the AGW side burned thiers to a crisp a long while back.
“Phil (12:29:25) : Also the artic temps are amazingly high at the moment – so the question is, how high does it need to get before people here get converted to AGW?”
The Jet stream is highly amplified right now, pulling warm air from the Pacific into the Arctic. This is a very efficient heat dumping process which is effectively cooling the Earth off. The global models are showing a switch in the jet stream this week to a more zonal flow with some very low latitude progression of the jet stream for this time of year and the resulting cold outbreak that will ensue.
Adam from Kansas (13:41:36) :
Here it comes.
replay to midwest Mark
My bet is on Bastardi
The average temp anomaly so far comes to +0.23.
The temp (averages Jan to Sept)
2002 0.33
2003 0.24
2004 0.18
2005 0.33
2006 0.24
2007 0.32
2008 0.00
2009 0.23
That look like AGW to you Phil? If not how far do you reckon it should go?
Phil, are you joking? One warm month does not make a trend.
Midwest Mark (11:40:58) :
Interesting. NOAA predicts that the currently weak El Nino will strengthen. Joe Bastardi of Accuweather predicts it will weaken further. Place your bets.
Strengthen a little and sustain.
Autumn’s over in the high country of Colorado above 9,000′. The Aspens began peaking 2-3 weeks ago and now they’re all bare.
Loveland Ski Area opened today (10/7/09), and A-Basin opens this Friday—its earliest opening date ever. According to AGW theory ski areas were not supposed to open this early, because snow levels were supposed to keep rising year after year, right? Well since I moved to Colorado in 2005 ski areas have not been opening later or closing earlier, and snowpacks have been average to above average the past four seasons with numerous resorts setting records for snowfall. Furthermore, I know many areas that contain permanent snowfields, almost like proto-glaciers.
The reservoirs, including Lake Dillon which is Denver’s water supply, were completely full this summer due to the deep snowpack last winter.
We’ve had already had three snowstorms here in Breckenridge this “Fall” and the snow is not melting because the temperature is staying cold during the day. More snow is in the forecast for the next few days.
Early season skiing should be fantastic in Summit County, CO!
Warmer poles due to CLOUD COVER ect fits in exactly with Svensmark as CR are up dramatically and sun activity minimum continues way below anomaly now reaching 12-13 year cycle . However there seems to be increased cloud over South and North America as well. Its freezing in Australia at the moment. Where can we get cloud data for past 10-20 years please?
Phil:
“Also the arctic temps are amazingly high at the moment
– so the question is, how high does it need to get before people here get converted to AGW?”
Yep, you had just converted me to AGW by this very convincing argument of yours, but then I saw the Antarctic sea ice extent and I converted back to scepticism.
It’s funny to see people associating oscillating temperature events such as El Nino and Arctic spikes with AGW. Buried in there somewhere is a tiny GHG warming signature, but who thinks they know where it is?
Have these folks considered the troposphere warming during El Nino is actually heat leaving the oceans rather than an accumulation of heat due to GHG?
After El Nino passes, we all know what happens after that, and then we’ll be reminded La Nina is natural variability and not to associate that with global cooling.
Up, down. Up, down. That’s how it goes, where it will end nobody knows. Yet the bigger question is, what do the ARGO floats say?
“”” Reply: The capital A’s in the middle of sentences is an interesting touch in an otherwise mesmerizing piece of writing. ~ ctm “””
I was more intrigued by that exotic fruit; “consaquinses”.
Well we used to spell it with a “c”, and I’m not familiar with the consa variety; come to think of it I haven’t see quinces in years.
George
So we have someone who says that AGW has been proven 100 years ago, then why is there a point is all the science done since then if the science was settled back then!? Oh wait, they didn’t know much about climate systems back then like they do today.
And am I getting this right, the heat dumping process by mild air being pulled poleward may actually mean Winter getting even colder than if the pole was extremely cold right now? Intellicast is showing our first cold wave bottoming out at a high of 46 as of now and Weather Underground showing 43, may not be a good sign for those who hate cold winters, at least we tested our furnace today and found it was working.
What I meant to say in the first part is not knowing too much about climate systems back then COMPARED to today, I’m sure they had some knowledge of climate back then.
“”” Phil (14:20:55) :
Not sure if this is the tight place to post, but a company I am affiliated with has asked me to sign the “hopehagen petition”. The link to a web site gives the facts on AGW “””
Well Hagen was a total scoundrel anyhow, so I for one hope he gets what he deserves; well come to think of it he did; the Rhein Maidens dragged his sorry a*** into the river and drowned him.
But how many Phils do we have here anyhow ?
But then you wrote this:- “”” “We know greenhouse gases such as CO2 warm the air by trapping heat radiating from the Earth’s surface. That is 100-year-old science. “””
So if that is 100 year old science, howcome there wasn’t any global warming 100 years ago when Arrhenius dreamed up this idea. Didn’t he know back then, that water vapor is much better at “trapping heat radiating from the Earth’s surface. ” ?
Ever since, people have been trying to identify the warming caused by his CO2 and so far it doesn’t seem to show up; the CO2 goes up more or less steadily on an annual basis, with a clearly seasonal cyclic variation that puts the lie to his suggestion that the CO2 remains there for centuries; but somehow the temperature doesn’t seem to follow the CO2, but wanders up and down; quite naturally. Seems like old Svante bet on the wrong gas.
***************
Phil (12:29:25) :
Also the artic temps are amazingly high at the moment
– so the question is, how high does it need to get before people here get converted to AGW?
**********
I looked back a few years at the Arctic temp charts. Yeah, the temp jumps around – so what – it does not look abnormal. Isn’t it up a bit due to the little El Nino? That’s an ocean thing, not an atmosphere thing.
And let’s say there will be 4 C warming per century. So what? It will be cheaper to accommodate the changes than quite burning fossil fuels. What’s up with that, Phil?
Not to be accused of AGW-speak but the current warming is cooling the planet! When the current burp of heat to space is over, ocean heat content will be the lowest its been since cooling began in 2003. Like someone alluded to earlier, the ARGO network is the best indicator of what’s really going on! Anyone now if there is a monthly record of overall OHC anywhere?
Once this El nino fades over the next few months, expect temperature anomalies to resume their drop, likely heading to negative territory by late winter/early spring!
I need four things to change my views about AGW: (1) Open rational debate without any attempts to suppress dissenting views; (2) A complete willingness to allow pro-AGW studies to be studied and dissected without resorting to stall tactics and name-calling — in other words, a complete willingness to release every last bit of data and work so that the study can be objectively verified; (3) A complete separation of science and politics; and (4) Verifiable and unassailable methodologies used to study AGW.
So far, the pro AGW fails all four of my criteria. Look at the recent Yamal tree ring study. Did this pro-AGW scientist release his data to those who requested it? No. And the reason why was because when it did become available, it was clear the study was a scientific fraud. That discredited study failed two of my four criteria, #2 and #4.
Science should be open. After all, there are very few laws of science. So far, the AGW wants to hide their methodologies and just say “because we said so”. That ain’t going to convince me of anything; it shouldn’t convince you of anything either.
Nasif Nahle (13:54:42) : Hi Adam… At 25º 48´ North latitude and 100º 19′ West longitude, we are undergoing very normal El Niño effects: rainy and hot days. We are not expecting a cold winter, except for two to seven cold days during the season. The two last weeks we have had mild temperatures with maximum temperatures of 32 °C – 35 °C by the last week.
Thats the meteorological station in Monterrey, Mexico? (I could have got it if I clicked your name, instead I did a google, silly me). I just read your “HEAT STORED BY GREENHOUSE GASES” – very interesting and informative. Beautiful simple analysis.
From an engineering perspective/ analysis that pretty much destroys the AGW hypothesis. And the irony of it is that so called “climate scientists” fall back on the mantra of “the PHYSICS of the last 100 years” to defend their theory. As though the classical thermodynamics is somehow synonymous with Anthropogenic Global Warming!
I wonder if half of them know exactly what they are talking about.
TERRY46 (10:48:06) : “You know there use to be A show that Bob Barker hosted back in the 70’s called truth or consaquinses…”
OT: Oh wow, that takes me back! Used to watch that show as a kid. Barker would ask contestants a joke question, then mete out the consequences when they failed to supply the punchline.
Only once did I see a guest beat the buzzer with the correct answer. Barker waited for the laughter to die down, then continued with “And the second part of your question is…” This time the buzzer sounded almost instantly after he finished.
I guess the consequences were “settled.” 🙂
George E. Smith (16:16:40) : But how many Phils do we have here anyhow ?
Thats a thought that occurred to me too. There is a Phil with a blank link to his name with short caustic comments. But this one (or two) seems to be an imposter, though he sometimes tries to emulate the original Phil’s style.
Will the real Phil please stand up… and more importantly will the imposters please identify themselves – as “Phil the believer” and the warmist etc.
Bob Shapiro: You asked, “Why does Dr. Spencer use a 13 month moving average!? Won’t that automatically give a temperature rise in the NH during June-July-August and a fall in December-January-February (and vice versa for the SH)?”
I noticed that Andrew replied but I had to check again. The following is a graph of UAH MSU TLT anomalies for the Northern Hemisphere with 12- and 13-month running-average filters.
http://i34.tinypic.com/n6ev5f.png
If they weren’t plotted together, but were overlaid individually on top of the raw data on two separate graphs, it would be hard to tell the difference between the two.
I use 13-, 37-, 121-month filters, and the like, simply because the averaging is symmetrical before and after the “object” month. That is, there are an equal number of months on opposite sides of the center month