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)
@ur momisugly David Ball (20:26:40) :
At least on this site we can discuss it. What say you about that Scott?
I agree 100%. Anthony Watts and I certainly share a vastly different viewpoint on AGW but, as I have said before, I appreciate greatly that he allows me to post here. And, as I have said before, challenges to my statements have made me dig deeper into the reserach and I have learned from the exchanges.
@ur momisugly Richard (20:57:06) :
The DATA could absolutely convince me as long as there is a valid hypothesis that shows why this natural cycle is the forcing mechanism and why record increased rates of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is insignificant. Scientists will flock to any new hypothesis that does so just like they flocked toward evolution and plate tectonics when more and more research showed the validity.
Re: Mr. Alex (09:38:11) :
“Could the weak El Nino have something to do with the spike?”
—
Yes.
Apparently a weak El Niño is enough to have global temperature go to near or total record highs; solar minimum cannot help anymore.
Expect a year 2010 higher than 1998 or 2005.
Dave Middleton (20:33:19) :
Since July 2003, the UAH Lower Troposphere data exhibit 74 months of cooling at a rate of -0.1989 per decade… I tend to think of 74 being a bit larger than “a few.”
I tend to think the timing of the 2007/08 La Nina has a bit to do with the negative trend since July 2003 (why July?? why 2003??).
Incidentally what is the CI associated with this trend. Is it significant?
You’re also missing the point. 12-18 months ago we were being told by a number of posters on WUWT that the sudden decline in global temepratures was related to the deep solar minimum. Remember that Jan ’08 was ~0.7 deg cooler than Jan ’07. We were supposedly heading for a maunder or dalton type minimum. There were a few of us, however, who advised caution and suggested that once the La Nina was over then temperatures were likely to recover. They have and, if the current El Nino persists (weak as it is) the “negative trend” since 2003 is likely to disappear pretty quickly.
Gene Nemetz (20:09:02) :
So much for the claim that satellite data shows that September 2009 is the hottest September since satellite data has been kept.
The anomaly for Sept 1998 was +0.432. The anomaly for Sept 2009 was +0.424. This is a difference of less than one-hundredth of a degree . We have seen later adjustments larger than this. It’s not completely out of the question that Sept 2009 was in fact warmer than Sept 1998. Statistically speaking, there’s probably no difference.
A correction to this post: Dave Middleton (20:33:19) :
The UAH LT data show…
No global warming from Dec 1978 to Dec 1994… 193 months.
Global warming from Jan 1995 to Feb 1998… 38 months.
Global cooling from Mar 1998 to Sep 2009… 139 months.
332 months of no global warming out of 370 months of satellite temperature anomaly data.
@ur momisugly Nasif Nahle (20:15:09) :
Can you elaborate on your statement or point me to a source? I am unsure what to make of your comment.
By itself this report from a reputable sensor platform and an unbiased analyst at UAH isn’t surprising: In fact, I’ll predict the UAH 13 month average is going to be going up for a coonsiderable time.
Plotted temperatures from RW Spenser’s satellite graphs (see link above) have been consistently ABOVE even the “20 year highs” for most of 2009 by 2/10 to 1/4 of one degree.
His 1998 plot line on that same graph is no longer available – darn it!!! – but if the 20 year high is assumed to be 1998 (which seems reasonable given the widely admitted ENSO max peak in that year) then 2009 will bw recorded as being hotter than 1998. Unfortunately for propaganda purposes, and in apparent conflict with all reported stories about weather and animal movement and plant life this year, but that is what the graph shows.
So …..
By all accounts, we are told this is a “low ENSO” – or a small, weak ENSO that is ending even now as temp’s continue up. All incidental evidence tells us 2009 is cold, and will be getting colder this year. (Yes, sunspots are missing – I don’t for right now care – this is about temperatures actually changing from year to year – NOT about what might cause a primary cause that might change a secondary effect that might change temperatures globally.)
We now see that the “weak and short ENSO” of 2009 is producing temperatures nearly as high as the “super ENSO” of 1998 – and that doesn’t make sense.
…—…—…—…—
The questions are: What other evidence is available that this satellite record is actually still valid for 2009?
Have surface and atmospheric temperatures actually risen as much (more than!) than they did throughout 1998?
Can RWS re-add (and keep) the 1998 plot to the UAH daily graph?
Can we “re-calibrate” the satellite temperatures with balloon samples for that elevation to see if the reported temp’s/instrument sensors have drifted out of spec?
I picked July 2003 because oceanic upwelling rates in the Eastern Pacific surged to their highest levels in decades that month, the UAH ocean series began a cooling trend in 2003 and NASA announced unexpected oceanic cooling in 2003 (a report they subsequently blamed on sensor problems).
I prefer to not use linear regressions on oscillating functions; but I don’t have an easy-to-use Fourier Transform in Excel.
Wood For Trees does have a Fourier Transform; which can extract the low frequency component…
UAH Low Pass Filter
I can also approximate the low pass filter in Excel by using a polynomial trend-line…
UAH Polynomial
We may very well be entering a Dalton- or even Maunder-type solar minimum; but we are still only about 150 years into the warming leg of the 1470-year climate cycle (Bond, Heinrich and Dansgaard-Oeschger events). The cooling we experience over the next 20 years, or so, will be more like what we experienced from 1943-1976 than the Little Ice Age. We will still have the ENSO cycle – It will just be dominated by La Niñas rather than El Niños.
In my own opinion, the PDO is driven by changes in low cloud cover that are modulated by subtle changes in solar activity. The PDO has about a 60-year cycle that alternates between La Niña dominance (cooling) and El Niño dominance (warming).
Jim (16:20:52) :
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.
– yes, it does look abnormal this year – it could be the little El Nino, causing the jet stream to funnel loads of hot air up to the arctic (I don’t know)
– but it does seem unusual
– also, I remember when it tipped below average a month or so ago, and a few people here took it as evidence of the continued ‘recovery’ in the arctic
– so, I thought it was only ‘balanced’ to draw people attention to this abnormality….
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?
– I guess if AGW is real, then that means that we at least have an oppertunity to decide if we want to do something about it
– I think 4C warming would imply fairly major changes to our way of life on our planet whether we choose to do something about it or not…
– if it is not real, then we needn’t worry….
Dave Middleton (04:53:45) :
A correction to this post: Dave Middleton (20:33:19) :
The UAH LT data show…
No global warming from Dec 1978 to Dec 1994… 193 months.
Global warming from Jan 1995 to Feb 1998… 38 months.
Global cooling from Mar 1998 to Sep 2009… 139 months.
332 months of no global warming out of 370 months of satellite temperature anomaly data.
– this type of reasoning is pointless
– you are just choosing your slice points so as to hide an actual increase in temperature
– I think for most people on this site, the arguement is not whether or not there has been a temperature change over the last 30 years, but whether or not this temperature change is part of a natural cycle, or if it is man-made….
– to make a facetious analogy – you could use the same technique to argue that a stair-case doesn’t go up (or down), or that a cliff has no effective height….
Phil’s Dad (20:56:47) :
Richard (17:23:46) : George E. Smith (16:16:40) :
Which Phil?
I can’t tell them apart!
– can’t you recognise your own son!
(It’s not me!)
Robert E. Phelan (18:04:14) :
I’m kind of with Wade on this one. Rising temperatures by themselves will never convince me. Honest science would. Haven’t seen it yet.
– obviously, I was being deliberately provocative
– I think continued rising temperature, following the IPCC predictions would be a good indicator that the IPCC was right
– maybe….
– it’s hard to take the Hockstick seriously, which means that the MWP was real, and probably had higher temperatures than now
– but people here are predicting lower temperatures due to less solar activity…
– so rising temperatures would need some sort of explanation, if not all down to CO2.
I think the question you are really asking is what will it take for us to jump on the IPCC / Copenhagen bandwagon?
My answer: nothing. The proposed solutions are exponentially worse than the problems they are purported to be solving. AGW is nothing but a political gambit.
– that wasn’t the question I was asking
– if AGW was real, then any solution would have to be balanced against the costs…
Like Dr. Pielke, Sr., I would be very surprised if human activity had no effect, so the issue for me is not so much whether AGW is occuring, rather does it justify the anti-progress, anti-human policies being so frantically pushed? The Copenhagen Treaty is pernicious evil.
– right
– CO2 is, afterall, a greenhouse gas
– there aren’t many people who disagree with that (even if many don’t like the term GHG)
– the question is how much & how fast…
Leif: “the deepest solar minimum in a century is showing its teeth…”. Bit late in the day now, but I got it, and, as my daughter would say, LOLed.
RACookPE1978 wrote:
We now see that the “weak and short ENSO” of 2009 is producing temperatures nearly as high as the “super ENSO” of 1998 – and that doesn’t make sense.
yes, it does make sense. It is not ENSO, it is not the sun, it is… whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. You know it. Accept it and cut your CO2 emissions. It is simple.
Global averages are much like Arctic sea ice averages. 5 out of 14 sea areas are below normal, which brings the average down to below normal because the other areas are sitting at normal. A single average number is misleading. I think that weather pattern variation and the Arctic Oscillation can explain this divergence from normal in some areas but not in others. If the entire area was below normal, than something else, or a convergence of factors, is affecting the entire area.
Likewise, global average numbers, hemispheric numbers, or US averages are misleading. As in it will be colder “here”, normal “there” thus the average number will be negative. Or warmer “here”, normal “there” thus the average number will be positive. It isn’t positive everywhere and it isn’t negative everywhere. In otherwords, nothing can be deduced from this positive number in terms of its cause. That can only be investigated by looking at regional/zonal averages to determine where the heat is, where normal is, and where colder is.
Re: RACookPE1978 (05:42:35) :
“Can we “re-calibrate” the satellite temperatures with balloon samples for that elevation to see if the reported temp’s/instrument sensors have drifted out of spec?”
—
That’s being done twice daily all over the world. So the balloons will have be recalibrated too. I suggest the scales on the thermometers be placed upside down.
To anna v–
These daily ground station temps are
record COLD–
http://www.ogimet.com/cgi-bin/gsynop?zona=artico&base=bluem&proy=orto&ano=2009&mes=10&day=08&hora=12&vtn=Tn&enviar=Ver
ground stations totally belie the graph–
that graph like the hockey stick
and virtually every “official” graph
is fraudulent–
Maybe it is warmer because it is dryer.
Phil K (23:02:10),
I knew you were not Phil. (notice the period). He is an AGW advocate which is why so many folks got it confused.
Tom P (23:42:38),
Why didn’t you use June’s anomaly and tell us where it lies? You only make it bad for those who consider there is *some* truth to AGW.
———————–
I happen to lean towards CO2 causing some warming. This warming kicks in planet wide mechanisms that balance the overall heat content. I tend to agree with most of what Stephen Wilde has stated many times. I can also see where additional clouds might mute this effect. However, I will add one thing. As the planet adjusts to dispersing the added heat, it will impact regional climates. The Arctic will most likely warm somewhat as it takes on the job to radiating additional heat. This will reduce the average temperature difference between polar and equatorial regions which should balance the effect caused by additional energy flow to the poles. The net impact on average weather is likely to be small. However, it will impact certain regions more than others, ie. there will be some climate change, though it won’t have a large impact on the overall temperature of the planet.
September in Central MN was quite warm and exceptionally dry. October, not so much. Saturday we have snow forecast in inches.
Unusual weather, trend not obvious.
Charlie: You wrote, “It’s nice to use 13 months because that centers the average in the center of each month. Using 13 months but using a weighting of 1/2 for the first and last months would minimize any stray seasonal effects. Even though the data from 13 months is being used, each of the 12 months of the year get equal weighting.”
I have to ask, what seasonal effects? Do you see a seasonal effect in the graph I posted above? Please plot any temperature data you wish with 13-month smoothing and with the smoothing you propose, and post it here so that we can see the benefit. Thanks.
Scott Mandia (19:51:20) :”Can anybody here explain how natural events can cause the troposphere to be warming while the stratosphere is cooling? (Hint: increased greenhouse gases do this.)”
So I understand the logic here…if 1. The Stratosphere cools and 2. The troposphere warms then 3. All, the entirety, every last bit of tropospheric warming is caused by what caused the stratospheric cooling. Yes? Okay then, if we are on the same page…Satellites have been measuring the temperatures in the lower stratosphere for about thirty years. So what do they show?
http://junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Stratosphere1278-1204.gif
Golly, what is going on with that? Well, it’s rather simple, actually-the vast majority of the “cooling” is due to stratospheric ozone depletion. So by your logic, that must be the cause of the tropospheric warming, right? Except, duh, it isn’t.
Now, the thing with stratospheric temperatures is that yes, of course the upper stratosphere (for which there are few measurements) should cool as greenhouse gases increase-but that says next to nothing about what the related tropospheric warming would be. Stratospheric cooling is thus not very useful for figuring out the key question here which is not “is there greenhouse warming” but “how much greenhouse warming”.
Incidentally, a natural “event” which cools the stratosphere and warms the atmosphere is the recovery from a volcanic eruption. While the lower atmosphere will warm back up to where it was before the volcanoes went off, the stratosphere must cooling back down after such an event, which warms it.
Re: Phil M (06:18:23) :
“Like Dr. Pielke, Sr., I would be very surprised if human activity had no effect, so the issue for me is not so much whether AGW is occuring, rather does it justify the anti-progress, anti-human policies being so frantically pushed? The Copenhagen Treaty is pernicious evil.
– right
– CO2 is, afterall, a greenhouse gas
– there aren’t many people who disagree with that (even if many don’t like the term GHG)
– the question is how much & how fast…”
—
‘Pernicious evil’, well I would know worse evil by far and some measures to reduce our dependency on fossil fuel couldn’t be called too evil.
Apart from the phrase, though, you have summarized my stance on the issue as well.
Dave Middleton (05:52:54) :
Nice return to fundamentals.
“Likewise, global average numbers, hemispheric numbers, or US averages are misleading.”
Indeed, and misled we are. Some seem to prefer it that way.
Anthony,
Do you have any comments on the longest uninterrupted temp record published here:
http://carbon-sense.com/2009/10/01/british-record/
@ur momisugly Andrew (07:57:29) :
See my page here which shows the data:
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/greenhouse_gases.html#stratospheric_cooling
Junkscience is your source? Do you have a real source and not a political lobbyist’s opinion? How about a journal article?
Volcanoes cannot explain the cooling rate being measured in the stratosphere. Volcanic eruptions are easy to spot so we know when they influence the atmosphere. :))