January 2010 UAH Global Temperature Update +0.72 Deg. C
by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
UPDATE (4:00 p.m. Jan. 4): I’ve determined that the warm January 2010 anomaly IS consistent with AMSR-E sea surface temperatures from NASA’s Aqua satellite…I will post details later tonight or in the a.m. – Roy
YR MON GLOBE NH SH TROPICS
2009 01 +0.304 +0.443 +0.165 -0.036
2009 02 +0.347 +0.678 +0.016 +0.051
2009 03 +0.206 +0.310 +0.103 -0.149
2009 04 +0.090 +0.124 +0.056 -0.014
2009 05 +0.045 +0.046 +0.044 -0.166
2009 06 +0.003 +0.031 -0.025 -0.003
2009 07 +0.411 +0.212 +0.610 +0.427
2009 08 +0.229 +0.282 +0.177 +0.456
2009 09 +0.422 +0.549 +0.294 +0.511
2009 10 +0.286 +0.274 +0.297 +0.326
2009 11 +0.497 +0.422 +0.572 +0.495
2009 12 +0.288 +0.329 +0.246 +0.510
2010 01 +0.724 +0.841 +0.607 +0.757
The global-average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly soared to +0.72 deg. C in January, 2010. This is the warmest January in the 32-year satellite-based data record.
The tropics and Northern and Southern Hemispheres were all well above normal, especially the tropics where El Nino conditions persist. Note the global-average warmth is approaching the warmth reached during the 1997-98 El Nino, which peaked in February of 1998.
This record warmth will seem strange to those who have experienced an unusually cold winter. While I have not checked into this, my first guess is that the atmospheric general circulation this winter has become unusually land-locked, allowing cold air masses to intensify over the major Northern Hemispheric land masses more than usual. Note this ALSO means that not as much cold air is flowing over and cooling the ocean surface compared to normal. Nevertheless, we will double check our calculations to make sure we have not make some sort of Y2.01K error (insert smiley). I will also check the AMSR-E sea surface temperatures, which have also been running unusually warm.
After last month’s accusations that I’ve been ‘hiding the incline’ in temperatures, I’ve gone back to also plotting the running 13-month averages, rather than 25-month averages, to smooth out some of the month-to-month variability.
We don’t hide the data or use tricks, folks…it is what it is.
[NOTE: These satellite measurements are not calibrated to surface thermometer data in any way, but instead use on-board redundant precision platinum resistance thermometers (PRTs) carried on the satellite radiometers. The PRT’s are individually calibrated in a laboratory before being installed in the instruments.]
===============================
NOTE: Entire UAH dataset is here, not yet updated for Jan 2010 as of this posting
Sponsored IT training links:
We guarantee 100% success in real exam with help of 642-384 prep materials including 70-643 dumps and 70-536 practice exam.
Smokey (07:43:11) :
SteveE (05:01:31) :
“There’s no evidence as you would put it that the theory of evolution is true.”
Of course there is.
Evolution is a fact by now. Just like ‘Continental Drift’ [aka Plate Tectonics], Expansion of the Universe, Relativity, 4.5 billion year old Earth, etc. All the facts that pseudo-scientist and assorted nuts are unaware of or denying. Let’s call them ‘fact deniers’.
“Suzanne (07:41:27) :
[…]
One of the benefits of the AGW hysteria has been the development of the network of monitors ”
Not really. Networks like Argo are becoming technologically feasible due to the development of microcontrollers and cheaper fabrication technologies. Without the IPCC fraudsters we would have much more of that already because they dumped most of the money that was given to them into useless GCM’s.
Smokey (07:43:11) :
That’s true, I remember seeing the same paper now you come to mention it.
If you want observational evidence how about my earlier post:
“Satellite measurements of infrared spectra over the past 40 years observe less energy escaping to space at the wavelengths associated with CO2. Surface measurements find more downward infrared radiation warming the planet’s surface. This provides a direct, empirical causal link between CO2 and global warming.”
That’s direct observational evidence like seeing the those black moths isn’t it?
Ron Broberg (07:06:47) :
@Basil (07:01:14) : So expect the current warming cycle to begin to moderate over the next year, and then start back down.
One way to quantify that expectation:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/01/31/you-bet/
Well, I’ve already done a back of the envelop quantification of my expectation. Are you wanting me to bet on it? I’m not sure that you can compare my “forecast” with Tamino’s. I’m not saying anything about the trend, per se. I’m talking about predictable cycles, or changes, in the trend. More crudely, perhaps, I’m talking about whether the data points are tending to fall above or below the trend line. Right now, they are falling above it. Before long, they will fall below it. That is a bet that is impossible to lose. The only uncertainty is in how long it will be before they begin to fall back below the trend line.
Is skepticism only reserved for empirically-observable networks scattered around the surface of the Earth? Satellite systems still require engineers to build them, computer scientists to program them, aeronautical experts to keep them in precise orbit, and ultimately a climate scientist to read and interpret their data. A lot of people are involved, and (with great respect for their advanced degrees) people make mistakes. If we can’t get accelerator linkages and brake systems to function here on Earth, how can we conceive of a flawlessly operating system in space where conditions are much more harsh?
Scientists in these programs can address questions of a skeptical nature.
Sorry, I I just can’t buy it. The northern hemisphere has been very very cold (except western Canada), some countries the coldest for 100 years and yet the Satellites show the NH as the highest Plus Anomoly?
Andes Colder, South Africa Colder, New Zealand (despite the adjusted temps showing otherwise) colder, the Oceans cooling.
Obviously Human observation is useless and Calculated Temperatures form Satellites are right when measuring temperatures.
How The Satellite Calibration Is Done:
(to the best that I can figure it out)
1. What actually takes the readings that end up reported is the Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit (AMSU).
2. For onboard calibration, AMSU measures a high and a low temperature. With both those temperatures known by other means, it can be checked if AMSU has reported those temperatures correctly. This is done once every Earth scan.
3. For the low number, AMSU measures empty space, the “cosmic background view,” which is assumed to be 2.7 Kelvin. I will presume a “reality check” is also done, where if AMSU reports something widely different from the expected 2.7K on the recheck then an error flag gets set.
4. For the high number, AMSU measures a “warm calibration target” onboard the satellite. The temperature of the target is continuously measured by precise platinum resistance thermometers (PRTs). The reading from AMSU is checked against the PRT readings.
5. The start of the calibration, the primary referencing, was done back in the lab on Earth. The PRT’s were carefully calibrated to a laboratory standard. Once on the satellite and in orbit, the PRT’s have to hold their calibration and reliably monitor the warm calibration target. Needless to say, the calibration of the PRT’s are not rechecked against the original laboratory standard.
6. Thus AMSU can be trusted as long as the PRT’s can be trusted. Multiple PRT’s are used to detect if one or more go bad by looking for abnormal readings compared to the rest. The accuracy of AMSU is verified by comparing its readings to those from weather balloons.
Going from lab to PRT to AMSU, there is a loss of accuracy compared to making the readings with direct comparison to a laboratory standard. But as Dr. Spencer reported, with everything figured together “…the absolute accuracy of the calibrated Earth-viewing temperatures are probably not much better than 1 deg. C.” What is desired for satellite use is a system that is rugged and will keep working for many years, and the long-observed relationship is that as precision and accuracy goes up so to does fragility. As long as we are mostly looking for trends and AMSU is consistent in its readings, it can be trusted.
John Finn (03:34:46) :
No. The part of the world inhabited by most readers of this blog observed a “colder winter than has been seen in quite some time”.
Incredible.
You got that last part right. An incredible credibility problem. The Observations were NOT confined to this blog, nor did they exclusively originate here. And it goes downhill rapidly from there, people across the world were paying attention.
So, this is what it is: Climate Science has one heck of a reputation problem right now. Do you really expect to be able to nonchalantly toss out another ‘warmest ever’ leaned up against a heavily damaged GISS/CRU or HadCRUT data set – AND – have it go unchallenged??
Bad idea of the 21st century.
Really a bad idea.
My guess is that there are those who cannot be dissuaded and are itching to get the report off. Discretionary caution would be the better part of valour here. Apparently lost in the shuffle. So be it.
Let me take a bask at quoting Warmist GobbledyGook, “Global Warming can cause cooling events, because the warm water shifts currents, leaving certain land masses without their ‘warming protection’, this should not misconstrued as Global cooling, it’s a symptom of Warming….”
Well, now we have Cold records covering N America, UK, Mainland Europe, Asia (remember China’s Ports), and we have Ocean temps being reported as warmer. I know Australia isn’t hotter than normal this summer – the Aussy Open was chilly and variable alot of rain over 2 weeks of the month… Where is all that warm water going and which land masses are being blankets by it’s heat?
Any thoughts?
Atmospheric temps at 36,000 ft. are currently what would be expected around mid-June. This anamoly bodes well for making 2010 the warmest on record, and with the solar cycle 24 maximum still ahead of us a few years, things will only go up up up…as CO2 and Methane levels continue in the same direction…
[snip]
John Finn:
“I accept that UAH responds more sharply (and a bit later) to ENSO hence we sometimes get ‘mismatches’ in the anomalies. With this in mind, though, I don’t know why people don’t accept that the surface may sometimes be more sensitive to certain events than the troposphere and that GISS readings may be genuine and not ‘fudged’ to show warming.
My main point is that if GISS were really fudging data to show warming they’re not doing a particularly good job.”
Sure. Which is why I like to plot the UAH and GISS together, both with a 12-60 month moving average. Best with longer periods, to eliminate most of ENSO etc. Discard one – and you should really also discard the other. And they are obtained quite independently. I like to stress the somewhat smaller trend in UAH – even if they are virtually identical 1990-2009 – to point to some problematic parts of climatic modeling: According to most theories, it should be greater. But it is a logical fallcay to conclude that AGW is refuted.
Is Yellowknife in the satellite hotspot for January?
I managed to find the data for Yellowknife (which is no longer included to GISS) from Canadian weather office. You can pull the daily data from here:
http://climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca/climateData/dailydata_e.html??timeframe=2&Prov=XX&StationID=45467&Year=2010&Month=1&Day=31
Average temp for January was -23.48C
How does the daily / monthly temp compare with satellite data for Yellowknife area? (Latitude: 62° 27.000′ N Longitude: 114° 22.800′ W)
Leif Svalgaard (07:53:39) :
“Evolution is a fact by now.”
That’s way too general a statement. In some particulars it’s true, and in others false, and in others just pure speculation. In fact, it rests on the same kinds of inferences, like CO2 temp correlations, that are now being shown to be false. Specifically, while there are many conjectures and alleged examples, close scrutiny reveals that the hypothesis of random mutations conferring a net positive advantage to any organism has never been shown to be correct. And, where anymore in the reviewed literature does anyone claim that life arose from dead matter? You want examples of nutters? How about Crick and Hoyle, who, knowing the impossibility of life arising by chance, postulated that it came from space? Never mind that the statistics that say life couldn’t have arisen in 4.5 billion years, also say it couldn’t have arisen in 15 (actually a lot less, as the ingredients hadn’t even been made in the stars yet).
So, as you have stated it, no it isn’t a fact, and won’t be until they find clear unequivocal and evidence that what they postulate can occur, and often enough to be the vehicle for the changes the POSTULATE occurred that way.
@jim pace and others:
The data flow for a microwave temperature sounder unit is basically as follows:
1) The sounder is a directional antenna that views things at several frequencies. These frequencies are located in the oxygen absorption complex from 50-70 GHz. Its easier to use the lower edge so they are usually in the 50 GHz area.
2) The sounder also views the earth in a “window” channel away from molecular absorption lines and usually also at the 21.235 GHz water vapor absorption line.
3) The sounder also views an on board calibration object whose temperature is known via direct measurement.
4) The amount of emission at the various frequencies is downloaded to the earth. This is known in the trade as the “Brightness Temperature” and is what is displayed on the RSS web site.
5) To convert the brightness temperatures to temperatures at a given pressure is fun and games time. It involves assumptions on the reflectivity of the surface and there are a number of methods that have been used over time. Since the brightness temperature is the integral of the physical temperature, the strength of the absorption line, the reflectivity of the surface and some other random things, you can basically assume that a temperature at a given pressure level (say 500 mb) is an approximation to what is really at that level. If you can get within a degree C or so of a radiosonde (which has its own set of problems) you are doing fairly well. However, when the instrument is operating correctly, an increase or decrease in the brightness temperature of a channel is basically indicative of an increase or decrease in the temperature of the atmosphere in and around the peak of the weighting function of the channel.
You can also tease out various other things from the brightness temperatures. Since the reflectivity of a rough ocean with lots of foam is different than the reflectivity of a smooth ocean, you can get some gross idea as to the wind speed at the surface. Likewise, the reflectivity of snow/ice is different than that of bare soil. You usually tease those out with your “window” channel.
Bottom line, things are not exact, but you can get a good idea of the global temperature distribution with these beasts. They work over land, sea, and ice. However, they are not surface penetrating. The ocean temperatures they compute are the surface temperatures, not the Argo temperatures at depth.
SteveE (08:01:42) :
“Satellite measurements of infrared spectra over the past 40 years observe less energy escaping to space at the wavelengths associated with CO2. Surface measurements find more downward infrared radiation warming the planet’s surface. This provides a direct, empirical causal link between CO2 and global warming.”
Sorry, but it only shows correlation. There can be alternate causes. Here’s one: click
That link is out of date; the Sun is not radiating as strongly now. [Leif can correct me regarding anything Solar.] But you can see the rigor necessary in climate science, now that such monumental corruption has been exposed.
Much more scrutiny of CO2 claims is now necessary because of the deceit and professional misconduct exposed in the East Anglia emails and the Harry-read_me file.
Climate scientists have admitted in their emails that they simply fabricated large swathes of data. They also state that they made up the data to conform to their climate model expectations.
They also adjusted raw data, then discarded the raw data so their adjustments cannot be validated. They still refuse to ‘open the books’ to scientific skeptics, claiming they have agreements [that they have not produced], while giving the same purportedly confidential information to their friends.
So now everything claimed about the effect of carbon dioxide on the planet’s temperature and climate must be rigorously backed by real evidence, not by learned opinions expressed in the climate peer review literature, or in the output of GCMs. All of that is suspect now, all of it, and it is essentially worthless.
If the scientists had unimpeachable reputations, then some leeway could be allowed. But there is no one who argues that CO2 will lead to catastrophic AGW who can now be trusted. There are no doubt some honest climate scientists who believe sincerely that CO2 will lead to runaway global warming, but as a group they have all been tainted, or corrupted outright, by money and status — deliberately in many cases, by NGOs, by politicians and their staffs, and by wealthy foundations with a heavy pro-AGW agenda. And of course, by the hero status accorded them by an uncritical, unquestioning and fawning media.
Nor can most climate journals be trusted, now that it is clear that rather than publishing scientifically valid points of view, they act as gatekeepers at the beck and call of the same climate scientists, by placing alarmist referees in coveted positions, by excessively long publication delays, or more often, by barring outright papers skeptical of AGW, while publishing alarmist submissions with alacrity.
It is an unfortunate situation, but unless and until there is full and complete cooperation by these same purveyors of the CO2=AGW hypothesis, including the sharing of all data, methodologies, algorithms, notes and experiments, and anything else requested by skeptical scientists that is related to the hypothesis, then the presumption must be made that the climate alarmists are still being deceitful, and that their conclusions cannot withstand open scientific scrutiny.
They brought this terrible situation on themselves, and now they are reaping what they have sown. Scientists in other disciplines, which have been starved of funding because of the ongoing AGW scare, should rise up in furious indignation at the result: the public is beginning to distrust all scientists as money grubbing publicity hounds. That is not fair to the large majority of honest scientists, who are the victims of the Michael Manns, Phil Joneses and Wei-Chyung Wangs, just as much as the taxpayers are.
Leif Svalgaard (07:53:39):
Smokey (07:43:11):
SteveE (05:01:31:
There’s no evidence as you put it that the theory of evolution is true
Of course there is.
Evolution is a fact by now.
Evolution always was a (complex) fact. An account whose name I can’t recall offhand put this very well. To wit, Darwin’s task in The Origin was two-fold: to collect and assess the evidence supporting the fact of evolution and to propose a theoretical explanation, based primarily on natural selection. (Incidentally, the famous observations and experiments on industrial melanism in moths are evidence for the operation of natural selection in the real-world, but don’t bear on the fact of evolution [which involves speciation] directly.) Darwin didn’t provide a very adequate explanation for speciation itself, but Mayr’s work on geographic isolation has, I think, largely filled this (theoretical) gap.
That data is crap, burn it. that makes absolutely no sense what so ever. that is weird it has been cold every were. I mean it snowed in Australia and it has been very cold in the states. Whatever.
“…lower tropospheric temperature anomaly soared to +0.72 deg. C in January, 2010.”
That’s it. There’s something seriously wrong with those satellites.
Go here, and check any 10 locations at random and show me how much above average they are. (I’ve just given one, which is NOT above average)
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=mexico+temperature
Good luck.
Exactly what part of the world contributed to it? It wasn’t Europe, or North America or China, or Mexico, or Russia… So, where was it? I want to see a break down into smaller areas so it’s source can be found. If it isn’t all the extra cold areas, then there must be some spot, or spots, that is/are much hotter than usual.
Just a single number tells me nothing, especially since the concept of global average temperature makes no more sense than a global average wind velocity.
Sorry, I ain’t buyin it. As far as I’m concerned that satellite is just space junk.
Given that we are experiencing an El Nino, it is not that surprising that the global temperature has increased and it will be interesting to see whether it peaks at less than the 98 temperature. However, I am surprised by the NH temp given the extensive record snows over record areas. I guess that the high NH temperature must be due to sea temps.
“But it is a logical fallcay to conclude that AGW is refuted. ”
It is not logical to attempt to jump the Grand Canyon with a damaged vehicle sporting a troubled propulsion system and without a parachute.
Imagine the spectacle if tomorrow Toyota decided to call off the recall, saying they reviewed thier latest findings and decided there is nothing wrong with the models in question.
It is with an ill-fated headlong plunge that AGW purports to span the gulf of credibility here.
I guess this just shows that you need to measure land-based temperature, atmospheric temperature and oceanic surface temperatures to get a true picture of what is going on?
OT but you’ll be pleased to see the results of this BBC poll on global warming, but don’t be fooled by their first graph:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8500443.stm
“The findings, based on interviews carried out on 3-4 February, show that only 26% of people think “climate change is happening and is now established as largely man-made”, only 1% more than those who think there is no global warming.”
Of interest too is the list of key stories on the right of the page – none of them positive but going back some months (the Phil Jones story was his initial stepping down last year).
Joseph Romm at Climate progress has really a tooth against Dr. Spencer. Of course Romm post is full of erros and half-truths.
Take a look at his comment on his post: http://climateprogress.org/2010/02/05/hottest-january-in-uah-satellite-record-roy-spencer-global-warming/#comment-261029
at February 5, 2010 at 11:07 am
“[JR: Try googling his name at WattsUp. He is doing anti-science. Please read my link. As RC noted, “Now, there’s nothing wrong with making mistakes when pursuing an innovative observational method, but Spencer and Christy sat by for most of a decade allowing — indeed encouraging — the use of their data set as an icon for global warming skeptics. They committed serial errors in the data analysis, but insisted they were right and models and thermometers were wrong. They did little or nothing to root out possible sources of errors, and left it to others to clean up the mess, as has now been done.”
As I noted, Amazingly (or not), the “serial errors in the data analysis” all pushed the (mis)analysis in the same, wrong direction. Coincidence? You decide. But I find it hilarious that the deniers and delayers still quote Christy/Spencer/UAH analysis lovingly, but to this day dismiss the “hockey stick” and anything Michael Mann writes, when his analysis was in fact vindicated by the august National Academy of Sciences in 2006.”
The reporter introducing the BBC’s new poll results was of course Roger Harrabin and when asked what was causing the increased scepticism replied that one factor was the IPCC getting one of their facts wrong – and mentioned Glaciergate.
What an ace reporter! How long have the other slips been in the public domain? Even the Telegraph’s Louise Gray mentioned one or two errors yesterday.
This is a long blog and its probably too late in the day for this post from a non-scientist to receive much attention. Also its a little off topic.
Is climate a cybernetic system? Is the goal of this system to provide over time, but not necessarily in lockstep, a constant relationship between the various climatic elements?
Read no further if you do not believe climate is a cybernetic system, but please feel free to give all the benefit of your opinion.
Cybernetic systems are controlled by feedback. How successful have climate scientists been in identifying the feedback which has corrected the earth’s tendencies to cool on the one hand and heat on the other over time? For example, is there an agreed and accepted understanding of the feedback condition which brought to an end the respective ice ages?
My concern is that because the feedback which causes climate to change may not be understood it is not reflected in any modeling. Accordingly when the current trend is for the temperature to increase, the predictions from the models can only produce constant increases in the future, and vice versa.
So why should I have any faith in climate modelling?