We’ve talked a lot about record cold and snow, now more from the “weather is not climate department”, and this time there’s a warm side to the story. I’d planned to write something about this, since several people left the UAH numbers in Tips and Notes, but Luboš Motl beat me to it, so I’ll give him the honor here. It will be interesting to see what some pundits do with this number, especially if they compare it to the longer 100+ year instrumental surface temperature record. – Anthony
From his post:
Global UAH: warmest January day on record
Source for this graph is here
Many people think that the globe must be terribly cold these days. We’ve seen huge cold snaps and snowfalls in Britain, Eastern parts of the U.S., Western Europe, Central Europe, China, Korea, and India where hundreds of people have frozen.
So these are almost all the important places, right? (At this moment, the speaker forgets that there are places such as Latin America, Australia or the Balkans which have been warm.) So the globe must be cool – cooler than average, people could think.
However, the daily UAH global mean temperature shows a different story. The early January 2010 was warm. And on January 13th, which is the latest day whose temperature is known, we have seen the warmest January day on their record. The brightness global temperature near the surface was
T = -16.36 °C
which may not look excessively warm 🙂 but it is actually 0.11 °C warmer than the warmest January temperature recorded by UAH so far – which was on January 5th, 2007 (-16.47 °C). Of course, some alarmists might feel happy for a while. They’ve been afraid that the worries about a new ice age could escalate. And they’ve been saved: the global weather is warm again. The strong El Nino episode could have helped them – or someone else. It’s important that they’re saved. 😉
However, there is another, more important consequence of these numbers. And it is the following: the global mean temperature is irrelevant for you and for everyone else, too. It didn’t help the hundreds of frozen people in India, the passengers whose flights were canceled, and millions of other people in the European, Asian, and American civilization centers.
If you actually draw the monthly data from 1979 to 2009 – the global ones and those in e.g. Prague – you will find out that the correlation coefficient is just 0.17 – well below the maximum possible value of 1.00. It won’t be much higher outside Prague, either. 🙂
The Pythagorean average monthly anomaly in Prague has been something like 1.95 °C. Imagine that you want to use the global temperature in order to improve the estimate of the temperature in Prague for a given month. If you add the global anomaly and the expected local average temperature in Prague for the month, you will reduce the typical fluctuation from 1.95 °C to 1.92 °C or so – almost no change. The swings in the global temperature won’t visibly help you to improve the predictions of the local temperature.
So while it may be fun to watch the global temperature – a meaningless game that many people began to play in recent years because of the AGW fad (and yes, your humble correspondent only plays these games because others do, not because it is scientifically important) – it is very important to realize that the changes of the global mean temperature are irrelevant for every single place on the globe. They only emerge when things are averaged over the globe – but no one is directly affected by such an average.
Even if you accumulate a whole century of changes, the relevance of the global temperature will be essentially non-existent. A 1.5 °C warming of the global mean temperature is still less than one standard deviation of the monthly average at a given place. And the “local” climate may also shift – the January 2100-2150 average may be warmer than the January 1950-2000 average in Prague by much more than those 1.5 °C. Different regional climates change differently and most of these changes have nothing to do with the changes of the global mean temperature!
By the way, it’s almost certain by now that January 2010 will also be the globally warmest January on the UAH record – the anomaly will likely surpass 0.70 °C. It may even see the highest (or at least 2nd highest) monthly UAH anomaly since December 1978. I will print more exact predictions in a week or so.
Formation of snow requires removal of heat from water vapor in cold air. That heat remains in the air. The snow drops to the ground. The atmosphere where the snow fell now holds the snow’s latent heat of freezing and, though it is still cold, it is “warmer” than it would be if there had been no snow. Got it?
I blame Australia for it. It was rather hot there. There is also a large hot spot in the South Pacific nearly as large as Australia, with a temperature anomaly peaking at +4 degree C.
http://www.heliocentric.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=latest&action=display&thread=13
For hot spot in the South Pacific Try this link : http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gif
Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) of Santa Rosa CA also interprets the satellite temperature data and publishes a similar product.
UAH and RSS independently produce very similar results.
UAH vs RSS
Worldwide averages are largely meaningless to a world where the majority live in the Northern hemisphere.
It’s freezing there right now, so everyone is convinced that we are in a cooling phase, just as three hot days in Summer convinced everyone there that we had just gone past the “tipping point”
The average punter’s weather memory is about six weeks and all events after that time are amplified or diminished depending on the nature of the event.
That’s why it was so easy to peddle the myth of AGW.
Would the thinning of the ionosphere could have an effect of the global mean atmospheric pressure that could in return affect the temperature readings (i.e. gas compression)?
The ionosphere must exert a certain pressure on the atmosphere since they don’t just float away in space….
vukcevic (14:36:24) :
That looks like a sun reflection. LOL
Maybe there was a big sea of plankton when they measured there that day.
eter Miller (14:20:08) :
-16 degrees C?
What has that got to do with average surface temperatures? These readings must be +25,000 feet high.
Surely this does not correlate with the monthly UAH surface figures?
REPLY: Your are right, but there are no “monthly UAH surface figures”. Lower troposphere, air above the surface at 14,000+ feet. If Global warming is happening, that is a place to look for trends. Warming also happens in the atmosphere related to CO2, H2O, and other GHG’s at these levels. – Anthony
My recollection is that the MSU is more sensitive to El Niño (98 spike larger than surface) so it would seen reasonable.
The satellite temperature sensing method is clearly far superior to the compromised record from surface stations but I am concerned about our current ability (or rather lack of such ability) to interpret the results accurately.
I think we need a number of years during which we must observe how the satellite readings vary as a consequence of changing real world climate events.
The issue of an increased brightness from more snow cover possibly giving the sensors a false temperature reading is but one of a number of ways that the satellite results might be skewed away from accuracy.
The issue of cloud cover and variations therein affecting planetary albedo is another such problem.
Additionally I consider that what matters most is independently variable energy flows between the multiple layers of the Earth system and the fact is that if the net rate of energy flowing through the system varies for any reason (not just CO2 quantities) then the satellites can be misled.
If energy throughput slows down the satellites will detect a cooling because less energy is being released to be measured by the satellites but at such times the total energy in the system is actually increasing i.e. the opposite of what the satellites tell us.
If energy throughput increases then the satellites think the globe is warming but in fact the total energy content of the entire system is declining.
We are only at the beginning of interpreting the data correctly and we can expect many false interpretations before we can accuratelty appreciate the proper drift of real world climate events.
For me the best climate diagnostic indicator for the troposphere is the net latitudinal position of all the global air circulation systems combined. If more poleward than the seasonal average then the troposphere is warming. If more equatorward than the seasonal average then the troposphere is cooling.
However as the troposphere cools the oceans and stratosphere can be warming and vice versa.
The troposphere may just be a ‘passenger’ or possibly a ‘filling’ sandwiched between other processes occurring in oceans and upper atmosphere.
We need a much better grip on the variability of the energy flows from oceans to troposphere and then from the troposphere to the higher levels of the atmosphere.
Settled science – not.
Seems like global satellite data is just another can of worms…
Theory, calibration, measurement, coverage, continuity, adjustments…
Aren’t global tempertures just a bogus concept based upon bogus data?
When the current interglacial ends and the next ice age starts, it will be interesting to see if global temperatures, as currently measured and defined, increase.
Stephen Wilde (14:57:41) :
The satellite temperature sensing method is clearly far superior…
Wish I had just half your faith in satellite sensing and the published results…
Someone correct me if I’m wrong,but in this context “warmest January day on record” actually means “warmest January day since 1999”. There is no daily data for January 1998 or earlier.
I think Gary’s (14:13:47) comment raises good points. For typical Earth atmos temperatures, the Earth as a black body is a poor assumption. All sorts of erronious signatures from emission spectra of stuff will have to be accounted for.
A new record means something, but what?
Unless I’m missing something, the black body measure is a poor proxy for temperature. Why even consider it when there’s better measures available? What gives?
Something smells in Denmark, to coin a phrase. We all know the northern hemisphere has been the coldest in many years during early January. The stories abound everywhere (I in S. MN. on the Iowa border have yet to see the temperture above freezing this year and spent most of the first two weeks below zero F). Now as us sceptics (realist) are gloating. It just so happens the people behind the curtain, come out and say we just had the warmest January day in recorded history during the fridged plunge? Well excuse me, I wasn’t born yesterday. I would like to add I found this site http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/ I typed in my local rural city and asked for raw data graphed since 1886 (real temp data I assume). Anyhow here is the result http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=425744400040&data_set=0&num_neighbors=1 Amazingly their is not any Hockey Stick My city is as cold as it has ever been in rfecorded History! No wonder I do not buy into the GW frenzy. I am a Farmer and would wish it would warm up so I could consitantly raise better crops…….John….
A few conclusions from an unqualified member of the public:
1. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth and it is a fraud and a pretence to claim otherwise.
2. Claims about hottests days, weeks, months etc are meaningless. Even if totally accurate the satellite data only tells us something about the last 3 decades. The ‘adjusted’ ground data is a complete joke.
3. It is far more important to measure local trends in critical areas. For example:
Monitor melting land ice to gain advance warming of any danger of sea-level rise.
Monitor rainfall trends in desert margins to see if desertification is spreading.
4. Give up on calculating and publishing anything but local series of temperatures to decimal points. This is false precision. You cannot multiplying approximations and averages together and claim exactitude. It is scientific and mathematical nonsense.
Maybe it’s better to produce 3 charts — northern hemisphere, tropics, southern hemisphere — instead of just one, the global average, for daily or monthly satellite data. That way, those in the NH won’t be confused by “warmer” days when they are freezing because the average was pulled up by hotter days in the SH.
phlogiston (15:04:21) :
When the current interglacial ends and the next ice age starts, it will be interesting to see if global temperatures, as currently measured and defined, increase.
—
Reply: I’ve read where the average (again, a useless term?) temperature of the earth during a glacial epoch is supposed to be the same as an interglacial like we’re currently experiencing. If so, that would require the lower latitudes to heat up and the higher latitudes (poles) to cool down to maintain the balance. This would cause increased evaporation and snow deposition, hence the preponderance of ice during a glacial epoch piling up at the poles.
I’ve also read where weather patterns become extreme just before the next interglacial sets in, which is a rather sobering thought considering all these extreme weather patterns we’re hearing about. But the question remains–are they really any worse than, say, 50 or 100 years ago?
We’ll just have to wait and see. I fear climate scientists will be so busy trying to find the incline (while at the same time hiding the decline) they won’t see the next interglacial coming. They’ll be up to their necks in summer snow before they know what hits ’em.
Something smells in Denmark, to coin a phrase. We all know the northern hemisphere has been the coldest in many years during early January. The stories abound everywhere (I in S. MN. on the Iowa border have yet to see the temperature above freezing this year and spent most of the first two weeks below zero F). Now as us skeptics (realist) are gloating. It just so happens the people behind the curtain, come out and say we just had the warmest January day in recorded history during the frigid plunge? ( Some Global Temperature recording site UAH) Well excuse me, I wasn’t born yesterday. I would like to add, I found this site http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/ I typed in my local rural city and asked for raw data graphed since 1886 (real temp data I assume). Anyhow here is the result http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=425744400040&data_set=0&num_neighbors=1 Amazingly their is not any Hockey Stick My city is near as cold in 2009 as it has ever been in recorded History! No wonder I do not buy into the GW frenzy. I am a Farmer and would wish it would warm up so I could consistently raise better crops, extend my growing season and have less fear of severe crop loss from sudden freezes in the spring and fall…and it I really do have Global Cooling here in Rural MN………..John
PS Why don’t some of you guys put in some pertinent cities and see if You also have Global cooling or at least zero warming over the last last 120 years Like I have…….John………
Correction: “they won’t see the next GLACIAL coming” (Must be Friday afternoon)
According to the “World Climate Widget” sunspots are up and solar flux is up. And Jan 13 was a record warmest day for January.
Between sunspots, flux, and temp, is there a graph or something confirming which increased first?
Since 1979 their have been about 10 MSU satellites, each has a life of only several years, so the 30 year record is from a number of different satellites data seats where intercalibration and inter-satellite biases are an issue.
The main issue with early satellite data with the warmers is that the results were showing results that were too cool. These “systematic errors”, including satellite decay issues, calibration issues and inter-satellite biases have resulted in a lot of tweaking and corrections to the data sets, resulting in you know what, warmer temperatures converging with surface trends and GCM models. From Christy et all (2007) since 1992 the UAH LT data set has been revised on average about every 2-3 years.
[i]”REPLY: Your are right, but there are no “monthly UAH surface figures”. Lower troposphere, air above the surface at 14,000+ feet. If Global warming is happening, that is a place to look for trends. Warming also happens in the atmosphere related to CO2, H2O, and other GHG’s at these levels. – Anthony”[/i]
They should dump that “near surface” jargon, 14,000 ft is near surface only for planes and birds. The density of air at that altitude is low enough that temperatures become less meaningful when we are talking about heat or warming. Also, I would think more lower cloud cover could influence the temperature above these clouds, while below the clouds it is cooler.
Anyways, satellites are great, but they have some issues as well as recent posts have shown. It wasn’t until I learned more about surface measurements that I became a skeptic. I am getting that deja vu feeling with satellites, if you know what I mean.
Who controls the calibration, algorithms and adjustments control the past and present and of course controls the future predicted by models.
braddles:
It appears that daily data is available since about day 320 of 1978, but the chart above does not appear go back far enough to include the huge anomalous temperature spike of 1998. This is based on a quick look at the uncommented and unlabeled source data files.
Hey, I live on an island off the coast of maine if this is a warm january I am going to have to close my eyes when I look at the ice forming across the bay where the ferry lands.
kadaka (16:15:38) :
Up in terms of sunspot numbers is a relative term.
Up from what is the key here: The bottom was very, very low and long. We are back to where we should have been 2 year ago…. before dropping into the basement. There’s plenty of ground left to make up before reaching levels corresponding to ‘warming’.
One poster in another thread put up a monthly sunspot number as being the break-even point. I have not seen anyone else do that or recall with certainty what that number was. Maybe 40…maybe higher.