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)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Ron de Haan (08:45:19) :
Anthony,
Do you have any comments on the longest uninterrupted temp record published here:
http://carbon-sense.com/2009/10/01/british-record/
– the problem is that the 18C century temps aren’t correctly corrected for UHI!
Scott A. Mandia:
“Junkscience is your source? Do you have a real source and not a political lobbyist’s opinion?”
Pure ad hominem. But that’s what the alarmist contingent lives on, since there is no real world evidence that CO2 causes measurable warming. So it’s all ad hom, all the time with the scaremongers.
And how about your own source, which is so thoroughly biased that we see this alarming collage right at the top of the page: click.
Maybe we need to use this on people who can’t refute facts, so they attack the messenger instead.
Scott A. Mandia (08:58:17) : Come now, do you even bother to look at tbe chart? it’s sourced for god’s sake! So apparently I can’t be lazy and must create the graph myself and point you to the original data. Okay, fine, I’ll do the latter for you:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t4/uahncdc.ls
“Volcanoes cannot explain the cooling rate being measured in the stratosphere.”
That’s because it was due to Ozone depletion. And it isn’t “being measured” it was measured, and then disappeared, because, wouldn’t ya know it, Ozone stopped declining.
Scott A. Mandia (05:01:05) :
@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.
I’ll make some suggestions for you:
1. Read about the composition of the troposphere.
2. Read about the composition of the stratosphere.
Make a comparison between the compositions.
3. Read about the mechanisms of heat transfer in the troposphere.
4. Read about the mechanisms of heat transfer in the stratosphere.
Compare the mechanisms of heat transfer in the troposphere with the mechanisms in the stratosphere.
Then answer for yourself the next question:
What a hell! How the troposphere could cool the stratosphere?
There is not a thermodynamically feasible mechanism of heat transfer from the stratosphere (colder) to the troposphere (warmer)… You know this, Scott.
By the way, given that you are a physicist, do you know what the absorptivity of CO2 is, at its current atmospheric Pp? How is it possible that a gas with such very low absorptivity-emissivity, which is not a primary source of energy because it doesn’t burn in the air, could heat up the Earth? Impossible!
@smokey
Try this: http://acd.ucar.edu/~randel/SPARC_revised.pdf
and compare the content with the content in junk science. Do you see a difference?
BTW: and yes, junkscience.com is pure ad hominem. It insults scientists and the science itself. It is dirty site full of [snip] an lies.
While I appreciate the work Dr. Spencer is doing, this information proves why a “global temperature” is a worthless construct. First, there is no such thing as a global temperature. In the southern hemisphere it is early Spring, in the northern hemisphere it is early Autumn. North of Missouri, we are having cool weather while Texas is steaming, and in both poles it is still freezing.
Taking the temperature of the Earth is bunk, just like AGW and catastrophic climate change.
We should also note that Dr. Spencer’s temperature’s are atmospheric temperatures, not surface temperatures and climates are local, not global.
Jim (18:51:23) :
****************
Leif Svalgaard (17:59:21) :
Except that Nasif strenuously claims that Heat cannot be stored…
****************
Yep, that whole heat argument kind of gets under my skin. If we are going to call it internal energy when it is contained by a substance, should we call it internal energy flow when a hotter body is placed in contact with a colder body? It’s just more natural to call it heat.
Dear Jim… No, you cannot say “internal energy flow …” As the internal energy crosses the boundary of the hotter system (body) towards the colder system (body), it stops being internal energy and becomes heat.
I don’t wish to discuss this issue because it is elemental knowledge and WUWT is not the place to discuss it. Please, read my didactic article on Heat and Thermal Energy:
http://www.biocab.org/Heat.html
Regards,
Nasif Nahle
Phil M (09:16:04) :
Ron de Haan (08:45:19) :
“Anthony,
Do you have any comments on the longest uninterrupted temp record published here:
http://carbon-sense.com/2009/10/01/british-record/
– the problem is that the 18C century temps aren’t correctly corrected for UHI!”
Thanks Phil, is that the only problem?
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/washington-whispers/2009/10/07/scientist-carbon-dioxide-doesnt-cause-global-warming.html
No. I highlighted exactly when the warming occurred. I didn’t hide it.
Ron de Haan (11:18:08) :
http://go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X1342&site=wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usnews.com%2Fblogs%2Fwashington-whispers%2F2009%2F10%2F07%2Fscientist-carbon-dioxide-doesnt-cause-global-warming.html
From your link:
“Worse, if CO2 levels are cut, he warns, food production will slow because plants grown at higher CO2 levels make larger fruit and vegetables and also use less water. He also said that higher CO2 levels are not harmful to humans.
Some plants that we use for food are C4 plants (i.e. corn, millet, sorghum, sugarcane, amaranth, etc.), which take advantage of high levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide. However, legumes (pea pods, pinto beans), wheat and rice, which are also important for human nutrition, are C3 plants; these plants are lesser productive than C4 plants at high levels of carbon dioxide.
On the other hand, C4 plants take advantage of high insolation in such form that they are most productive when the insolation index is around 0.9 and high levels of carbon dioxide, while C3 plants don’t.
Food for thought…
One cubic kilometre of humid atmosphere cools 1ºC, one cubic kilometre of arid atmosphere warms 1ºC…
Mean temperature hasn’t changed!
Energy content has!
DaveE.
John Finn (04:05:58)
“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.”
During the 1970-2000 warming, each successive el Nino peak was significantly higher than the previous one. But now, el Nino peaks in 1998 and 2009 reach the same height.
This is consistent with global climate going over the hill about half way between 1998 and 2009.
@ur momisugly Nasif Nahle (10:37:18) :
From your comments I guess you are only considering conduction. I am talking about radiation which is emitted in all directions. You are mistaken about some basic physics and atmospheric temperature profiles. The upper troposphere is colder than anywhere in the stratosphere yet outgoing LW still moves toward this “hotter sphere”. Using your logic, do you realize that there would never be outgoing heat at the top of the atmosphere? Using your logic, the troposphere could never give heat to the regions above and we would all burn up!
The stratosphere is cooling faster at higher altitudes than it is at lower altitudes. Yes, ozone depletion is partly responsible for the lower stratospheric cooling but a larger portion is due to less heat being absorbed from below in the troposphere. The CO2 in the stratosphere is still very good at emitting its LW upward. The incoming sunlight is not affected, meaning uv absorption by ozone (heat source) is unchanged.
If the region is cooling over time then there is a radiation imbalance in the stratosphere. If heat is being trapped in the lower troposphere due to increasing greenhouse gases, there will be less incoming heat into the stratosphere. The rate of cooling is much greater at higher altitudes where there is little to no ozone but still CO2. That means that the stratosphere is cooling due to increased greenhouse gases in both the troposphere and in the stratosphere. Ozone depletion cannot account for these unequal rates of cooling.
BTW, climate models predicted that this profile would occur under an increased greenhouse gas atmosphere.
One other point to note is that because CO2 in the troposphere and in the upper stratosphere are causing cooling, there will be a negative side effect: more ozone loss which occurs under colder conditions.
Phlogiston (15:23:27) :
John Finn (04:05:58)
“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.”
During the 1970-2000 warming, each successive el Nino peak was significantly higher than the previous one. But now, el Nino peaks in 1998 and 2009 reach the same height.
This is consistent with global climate going over the hill about half way between 1998 and 2009.
No comparsion for 2 reasons.
1. This particular El Nino is a bit of a damp squib. It has nowhere near the intensity of the ’98 El Nino.
2. Sept 2009 and Sept 1998 occur at completely different phases in the El Nino cycle. We are only a few months into the current El Nino whereas Sept ’98 was at the end of ’97/’98 El Nino, but because of the lag temperatures were still high. Sept ’97 (UAH anomaly: +0.09) is probably a more valid comparison in terms of the stage of development of the El Nino.
Nasif Nahle (10:37:18) :
By the way, given that you are a physicist, do you know what the absorptivity of CO2 is, at its current atmospheric Pp? How is it possible that a gas with such very low absorptivity-emissivity, which is not a primary source of energy because it doesn’t burn in the air, could heat up the Earth? Impossible!
Low absorptivity, what are you talking about? Here’s the actual spectra for the 15 micron band of CO2.
http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn107/Sprintstar400/CO2spectra.gif
Why is it that globally averaged temperatures are so erratic from month to month? Is the variance in temperature really that high or is it more to do with error margins of the measurements?
Still, if a large number of measurements is being “averaged” I would have thought there would be less moise in the series than there appears to be? What sort of confidence intervals are we talking with this data set?
Forgive the sloppy terminology … it’s Friday morning >.>
************************************
Ron de Haan (08:45:19) :
Anthony,
Do you have any comments on the longest uninterrupted temp record published here:
http://carbon-sense.com/2009/10/01/british-record/
**************************************
And yet, after the MET office “adjusts” it, it becomes warming …
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/monitoring/hadcet.html
Phil. (17:57:09) :
Nasif Nahle (10:37:18) :
By the way, given that you are a physicist, do you know what the absorptivity of CO2 is, at its current atmospheric Pp? How is it possible that a gas with such very low absorptivity-emissivity, which is not a primary source of energy because it doesn’t burn in the air, could heat up the Earth? Impossible!
Low absorptivity, what are you talking about? Here’s the actual spectra for the 15 micron band of CO2.
Obviously, you don’t know even what thermal absorptivity is.
Nasif Nahle (22:01:16) :
Obviously, you don’t know even what thermal absorptivity is.
Thank you for saying that Nasif Nahle. I don’t think he knows what his link even means.
Jim (20:13:37) :
************************************
Ron de Haan (08:45:19) :
Anthony,
Do you have any comments on the longest uninterrupted temp record published here:
http://carbon-sense.com/2009/10/01/british-record/
**************************************
And yet, after the MET office “adjusts” it, it becomes warming …
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/monitoring/hadcet.html
The first link is the summer-only record while the second link is the annual record. The average summer temperature in the 18th century was +0.11 warmer than in the 20th century. However in the 20th century, aeverage temperatures for spring(+0.34), autumn(+0.45) and winter (+0.7) were warmer than the 18th century.
Still I suppose it’s a case of just selecting the data which suits your argument.
One interesting point to note. The beginning of the 18th century included the last decade or so of the Maunder Minimum (1645-1715). However this appeared to be little effect on CET summer temperatures.
“However this appeared to be little effect on CET summer temperatures.”
Good pickup john Finn.
So with the sun going quiet we can expect longer colder winters and short hot summers.
Re: Ripper (01:42:36) :
So with the sun going quiet we can expect longer colder winters and short hot summers.
I seem to remember a comparable quietness of the sun was registered at the start of the twentieth century. How were winters en and summers then?
“RR Kampen (02:42:18) :”‘
Appears to be the same thing in 1911. Negative anomaly for the year but hot summer
That may be why the MWP & LIA do not show up in tree rings