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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Well I take Dr Roy’s numbers at face value; subject of course to him checking for that y2.01K gremlin; which I don’t expect him to find.
But I don’t ever plan on living at 14,000 ft above sea level, and I don’t want to hear of any floating sea ice up that high either.
So I can’t quite picture how this new January high relates to life on earth for us lowlander mortals.
But I’ll buy Dr Spencer’sd suggestion that this might be El Nino Related.
Do I understand we will be seeing some new SSTs shortly too.
A new high at 14,000 feet is not going to melt a lot of arctic ocean ice; but it certainly is interesting to see these jumps come along while everyone is freezing their buns off.
OT: From The Guardian:
“……..If global warming is as catastrophic as its champions in the science community claim – and as expensive to rectify – its evidence must surely be cross-tested over and again. Yet it has been left to freelancers and wild-cat bloggers to challenge the apparently rickety temperature sequences on which warming alarmism has been built.
No professional body is checking all this. Assertions are treated as scientific fact even when they come from such lobbyists as the World Wildlife Fund (on whose politics see Raymond Bonner’s At the Hand of Man). If their conclusions are wrong, they are demanding money with false menaces. If they are right, their abuse of evidence and political naivety jeopardises life on earth. ……..”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/04/scientists-fallibilty-self-criticism-question
Henry Galt (15:49:06) :
unless February is hot too. I would bet on Stephen Wilde being right and this is an airflow issue as the ocean transfers heat from tropics to the pole.
Hang on a minute. January isn’t a one-off. November 2009 was the warmest November in the UAH record and September 2009 came within a whisker of being the warmest September in the UAH record.
Peter Miller, you’re indicating a drop of sea surface temp by .71 and Dr. Spenser is indicating a global-average lower tropospheric temperature rise of .72. Isn’t this a bit odd, shouldn’t it be the other way around?
Vibeena (14:50;07)
Even before this latest month, the UAH data showed a stronger trend than the IPCC trend estimate. So despite the various claimed problems with GISS and Had/Crut, this UAH data set shows strong global warming.
Any high school science or maths teacher can download the data and run a regression as a class exercise. It will show a warming trend in the UAH data stronger than that stated by the IPCC.
So while there may well be problems with GISS and Had/Crut, they don’t seem to undermine the AGW hypothesis
You can easily conduct a regression analysis on temperature data. If you pick the right data you can project a rapid increase in the projected UAH temperatures. For example, if you selected UAH data from 1993 to 1998 you would conclude that there is a very rapid rate of heating. Would you say that projection is correct? Proving whether the warming of the planet is due to anthropological sources of CO2 or whether it is due to increases in solar activity depends upon having an understanding the mechanisms operating to produce heating of the planet. Correlations of data are not proof of any mechanism. The details of either of these mechanisms are missing independent verifications. That is why many of us are skeptics.
magicjava (15:15:04) :
“Just a technical note. The UAH satellite readings are not calibrated using surface measurements. But they have been validated using surface measurements. They are also validated using weather balloons.”
.
From this wonderful guest post here on WUWT from Dr Spencer, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/12/how-the-uah-global-temperatures-are-produced/
I understood that, calibrations with those PRT’s is done once every earth scan, also as you said it was validated with weather baloons.
Also there stated that “The variable emissivity problem is the smallest for well-vegetated surfaces, and largest for snow-covered surfaces.”
So this is why I wonder if validations were also done with this cold conditions.
Here in christchurch n.z in Jan in the 1998 El Nino our avg temp for that month was 19.4c . This jan 2010 air temp avg was 16.7c cant see El Nino pushing up temp this time.
There is one aspect of this 14,000 ft atmospheric temperature data, and also the higher stratospheric temperatures, that intrigues me.
I read papers that talk of a cooling stratosphere resulting in less outgoing LWIR; which to me suggests that the authors are suggesting that the source of earth’s outgoing radiant energy is in fact the cold high very thin stratospheric atmospheric radiation.
Does it occur to anyone that there is a lot of LWIR radiation, that actually originates at the earth’s surface; actually at much higher temperatures than those puny stratospheric air molecules; and furthermore, those emission from hotter surface areas can go zipping on by a lot of GHG molecules, in the various “atmospheric windows” that exist.
So just where is the outgoing radiation sourced from, and just how important is it that the stratospheric temperatures might cool (or warm for that matter).
Personally, it seems to me, that ourgoing radiation is sourced from the surface and all levels of the atmosphere, and a good bit of it exits unhindered by GHGs and other atmospheric gremlins.
Now I do believe that these goings on at 14,000 ft or other levels are important to understand, or at least observe. Right now it is not clear to me how important a 14,000 ft anomaly of 0.72 deg C really is. And of course I understand the “weather is not climate” mantra.
The Pacific Northwest has been experiencing an extraordinarily mild winter weather while much of the rest of the Continental United States and Canada have been experiencing an extremely cold winter. The winter has been so mild in the Puget Sound region of Western Washington, there has been a false Spring of sorts in late December and January with flowers emerging early and trees budding early. If the normal weather patterns return in late February and March, these plants may be badly damaged by the frosts. Just across the Cascade Mountains to the east, bitter cold conditions extending all the way to New England and Maritime Canada are killing some native plants which are normally hardy in those regions.
So, if the present day land surface weather air temperatures record bitter cold temperatures in the boreal winter while satellite observations are recording worldwide warmth, then we must ask what are the implications for the past time periods in which there were no satellite records to contrast with the bitter cold boreal winter land surface weather air temperatures? Data infilling and assumptions about the austral summer and boreal winter in the pre-satellite era would have no way of detecting the kinds of anomolies we are seeing in the present observaitonal systems. Wouldn’t such apples and oranges comparisons artificially create a warming trend which does not exist in reality?
I wonder if that satellite was hacked… I find it hard to believe that Jan was this warm in the northern hemisphere.
The Southern Oscillation Index has gon “crazy” the last week. It’s -60, today.
Is the El Nino going to do an encore?
Oop, SOI link:
http://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/SeasonalClimateOutlook/SouthernOscillationIndex/30DaySOIValues/
Possible explanation:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/01/warming-induced-by-latent-heat-of-snow.html
Ian C. (14:31:06) “The Olympics being held in Vancouver BC are having to truck in snow for the event.”
They’ve now resorted to $10,000 per hour heavy-lift helicoptering of snow. I left the following note in “Tips & Notes to WUWT” yesterday:
–
2010 Winter Olympic “snow crisis” in Vancouver:
1) $10,000 per hour helicoptering of snow.
2) $150,000 trucking of snow from nearly 300km away.
3) And look at the massive stockpiles of HAY they’ve trucked in TO SUBSTITUTE FOR SNOW – (they just use the trucked-in & helicoptered-in snow to cover the hay after they fly the hay up the mountain with other helicopters, that ‘only’ cost $1,000 per hour).
HIGHLY RECOMMENDED:
Watch the whole video – if you’re a BC carbontaxpayer, this will make you IRATE; if not, you might die laughing at the ridiculousness:
http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100203/bc_cypress_helicopter_090203/20100203?hub=BritishColumbia
DAVID LETTERMAN JOKES about this farce – video here:
http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100203
/bc_snow_jokes_100203/20100203?hub=BritishColumbia
Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki is BLAMING GLOBAL WARMING for the Olympic “snow crisis”. (Actually, it’s El Nino – these types of winters are NOT uncommon here.)
VANOC says they are factoring the trucking/helicoptering into their carbon footprint analysis – will the public get honest numbers? – perhaps by averaging Suzuki & VANOC numbers.
–
Re: Ray (15:32:02)
That National Post article is not very impressive. El Nino vs. La Nina makes a huge difference here – and so does elevation. Maybe that writer didn’t get out much when he was living here. The winters vary substantially – (last winter we had nearly non-stop snow at sea-level for 3 straight weeks). Mid-elevations are particularly unstable at a biweekly-timescale most winters – something most lower-income people in the expensive city might not notice because they can rarely afford to leave town – and the wealthy few generally only drive through mid-elevations on the way to the ski-hill.
This is worrying. I’m sceptical of the panic from the global warming scientists, but, this is a big rise, verified from two regarded sources. The data should be treated with respect.
Bob Tisdale (16:00:17) :
Sorry… I had to try. ;<)
“”” JP (16:02:24) :
“Just a technical note. The UAH satellite readings are not calibrated using surface measurements. But they have been validated using surface measurements. They are also validated using weather balloons.
Calibration is used to adjust raw readings in order to make them accurate. Validation is used to ensure calibration was done correctly.”
What happens if validation with surface measurement does not match? Is satellite data calibration adjusted based on surface data or is surfce measurements corrected based on satellite data?
Is satellite data calibrated based on surface measurements, but if validation fails calibration is not adjusted?
What is used as a surface data in this case? Is it data from NASA or as with UAH, is surface reference temperature coming from UAH?
Who does this calibration, NASA or UAH?
Sorry that I’m asking so many questions, but the processing for satellite data is new to me.. “””
JP, I think if you keep up with the dialog, you will find that Dr Spencer has in fact explained exactly how their satellite temperature measurments ARE calibrated.
Do you understnad that if the satellite thermometers, are calibrated on the satellite in real time, against perfectly well accepted laboratory standards of SI system temperature, that there is nothing to gain by comparing them to the very same sorts of standards that happen to be maintained here on the surface.
The satellite “thermometers” are NOT reading temperatures (of atmosphere) out in space; but actually at about 14,000 ft altitude; and those readings are matched agaisnt standards that are maintained on board the satellite.
So a dollar bill on the satellite is just as good as a dollar bill on the ground; almost as good as dime in fact.
Calibration against ground standards is quite unnecessary, so long as one calibrates against recognized and accepted laboratory standards, and the satellite is full of those; as Dr Roy has explained in detail.
Now if they were measuring the 14,000 ft data and comparing against the Pyramid Inch, on board the satellite, you would have something to be concerned about. I haven’t asked Roy, if they have a Pyramid Inch standard on board; but they do have good Platinum Resistance Laboratory Standard Thermometers on board to compare their readings to.
Bob Tisdale (15:55:42) “There was a correlation between solar activity and the AO during Solar Cycles 22 and 23, but before 1983 and after 2003, they do not correlate.
http://i49.tinypic.com/30lkjm8.png “
It’s a good deal more complicated than that – the relations don’t go away – they’re just not so easy to detect. I’m still working on cross-wavelet approaches to detection. I’m finding nonrandom (but complex) phase relations – it will take time & patience to sort the signals out.
“”” John from MN (15:38:38) :
Does anyone know how well the satellite handle snow cover? I ask because the NH probably has the highest percentage of snow cover in history and out pops satellite data that shows the warmest January ever recorded by the satellite. Matches with the most snow cover ever?…..John…. “””
I think they rely on the fact that none of that NH snow is actually at 14,000 ft altitude, which is where UAH is taking their readings.
So i think the answer is that your snow doesn’t have any effect on their readings.
Well I was thinking your NH was actually New Hampshire; but I’ll bet none of your Minnesota snow is at 14,000 ft.
John Finn (16:11:08) :
Something is not right with that UAH thing. Folks everywhere are shaking thier heads at these warmest ever months, and darned few can lay claim to being in the middle of some egg-frying record heat.
Don’t make no sense.
A big dump is on it’s way to the Mid-Atlantic on US East Coast, a mild El-Nino has rain coming down around my ears, but where oh where is that blast furnace heat?
What does it mean, when satellite temperature data does not correspond with record low temperatures measured in situ on the land, on the ice pack, and in the sea ? can it be that there is some error in the data. Remember the “missing” million sq km of ice last year …….
CO2 based global warming posits that the poles will preferentially heat up. Is there a spike at the poles or is the spike clustered nearer the equator? If closer to the equator, is it related to the El Nino?
Details would help people process this information.
Best regards,
Mike Ramsey
carrot eater (16:09:14) : Says
Jerry (15:44:18) :
“You say there is no debate that there has been long-term warming? I think if you look around here, you’ll find some people who would debate that.”
There was a little ice age in the 1600’s, we have warmed up back to normal (what ever that is) ever since. Only Mann and his followers deny that.
Do you believe global temps haven’t gone up a bit since 1750?
I think reality is the best way to evaluate climate change. A natural occurrence.
I hope we warm a bit more, the increased crop yields will save many lives and prevent the loss of life and suffering caused by extreme cold.
Warming is good, cooling is dangerous.
This will be a two-edged sword for AGW proponents. They may jump up and down at it being the warmest on record, but when it is broadcast to the public in the northern hemisphere it is really really not going to go down well! Expect a lot more people to think the AGW crowd do not know what they are talking about, even though, unusually, it will actually be true!
I would be interested in separate graphs for the northern and southern hemispheres.