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.
If the US and Europe are this cold at the peak of a strong El Nino, how cold will they get when El Nino fades?
Cam (14:34:07) :
we’re at the peak of the current El Nino event. JAMSTEC…
Would that mean there will be a precipitous drop in temps by the end of the year as happened after the peak in el Nino in 98?
The argument that was used last year when satellite temperatures were lower than surface was that it would take time for the “heat” to move from the surface into the higher levels measured by the satellites. What I would like to see is how this months satellite correlates with the surface anomaly. Since what we have seen is a significant NAO anomaly this year, the distribution of energy between surface air and lower troposphere is likely to be affected.
I am still not convinced that monthly changes in temperatures are giving us a real picture of the energy in the system, only changes in the distribution. The fact that the yearly ‘global temperature’ is lower in the northern hemisphere winter is proof that we are only looking at one portion of the energy in the whole system. I know that the ocean is a much bigger heat sink than the atmosphere so can we account for this using ocean heat content?
I am not up to speed with the different metrics, but if we can’t yet account for the where the energy is coming from and going to then this is where we should be focusing research. Aren’t there supposed to be a few hundred millions going to NASA for climate change research now? Don’t you think we should use some of this for real research?
Ray (15:54:23) : You asked, “Your video of ocean heat is very nice and it looks like it’s alive… do you have an update that includes the last 9 years?”
The sea level animation is an MPEG video from JPL (19MB) that I posted on YouTube. Unfortunately, JPL hasn’t updated it:
http://sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/tiffs/videos/tpj1global.mpeg
There are a bunch more JPL videos here:
http://sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/tiffs/videos/
I still see general cooling in the record since the last big El Nino spike in 98. I doubt surface temps will show this spike right now. And I doubt manmade global warming is the cause of this spike.
In a few months when quick cooling in the data set comes what will the warming believers have to make them feel the victory they are feeling as the look at this January spike in UAH? They should be careful not to feel over confident at this time because that feeling of victory is going to be short lived.
As they have always harped on us about, one month of data is not a trend.
The Iceman (16:49:19) :
As one commentor has put it, weather patterns on earth are like a lava lamp. The lumps of lava are never in the same place twice, never the same shape twice, etc. The warming in the region that satellites measure is not the same as where surface temps are measured. The heat and cold, and other weather factors, move around.
Still, if you look at the data sets you’ll see there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995. And there has been general cooling since 2005.
One month of data has to be taken in context with the bigger picture.
vibenna (14:53:07) :
“Even before this latest month, the UAH data showed a stronger trend than the IPCC trend estimate…..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.”
I think the UAH includes the trend data in the dataset.
DECADAL TREND= 0.127 0.188 0.066
Great, climate’s taken over weather again…
They’re gonna have a field day over this. Oh well.
carrot eater (16:09:14) : You wrote, “I don’t think that’s fair. People have looked at it, sure, but it isn’t obvious what if any impact there would be on ENSO. At least, that’s the impression I have.”
But you missed the remainder of my reply, which read…
The problem for their argument is downward longwave radiation (from greenhouse gases) only impacts the top few centimeters of the oceans. And if we look at a time-series graph of tropical Pacific Ocean Heat Content (OHC)…
http://i36.tinypic.com/eqwdvl.png
…you’ll note that there are long-term drops (not rises) in tropical Pacific OHC. The only significant rises occur during multiyear La Nina events (or during lesser La Nina events with unusually high trade winds like the one in 1995/96).
ENSO dominates Ocean Heat Content in all major ocean basins…
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/09/enso-dominates-nodc-ocean-heat-content.html
…but the North Pacific (where the NPI is the major factor)…
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/12/north-pacific-ocean-heat-content-shift.html
…and the North Atlantic (which is governed by ENSO, AMOC, and the NAO)…
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/10/north-atlantic-ocean-heat-content-0-700.html
If you can find an anthropogenic signal in the OHC of the ocean basins as I have them broken down, please feel free to illustrate it.
Folks, many posts are pathetic. When satellite data agrees with cooling, you say they are the best thing since sliced bread. When they show warming, you whine about calibration, etc.
The real explanation is, of course, that the lack of serious solar activity is driving heat out of the oceans 🙂
We had a cool December and a warm January here in Ottawa, Canada. I enjoyed watching the Europeans freeze their butts off for a change \;-)
@ur momisugly Peter of Sydney (14:26:51) : I’m excited! I can’t wait for the forthcoming temperature readings over the next months/years. Will we see a continuation of the rise in monitored temperatures yet the world freezes over as the world continues to cool?
This got me thinking. I’m no expert or anything, so I apologize if this is naive or flat-out wrong, but…could there be an inverse correlation between atmospheric temps and land temperatures? It seems that if the satellite data read warm, it’s cold on the ground. And vice versa. Maybe it’s just me, but that thought has occurred to me before, and Peter’s comment just reminded me again, and I just thought I’d ask.
Mike Ramsey (16:49:21) :
I am skeptical of the “theory” of most warming occuring at the poles. I think this might be, possibly, because that is where the AGWers’ charts show most red. But, we also note that the fewer thermometers, the larger the red.
Richard M (15:27:22) :
“This certainly raises some questions about the accuracy of any historic land-based record and could represent a new learning experience.”
I will agree with that. Instead of the “it’s colder/it’s warmer fight” we should (and are) paying attention to the change in pattern. If I am reading this correctly we are having an additional lost of energy from the greater snow cover in the NH and the warmer arctic, and if I understand this correctly from Bob Tisdale the warmer sea surface actually translates into a DROP in the ocean heat content.
It is a heck of a lot more complicated than the CO2 causing CAGW.
Symon (16:30:40) :
No need to worry. We need to monitor “global” temperatures, if there are such things, for millenia before we could say something is (ab)normal.
It was a warmer January here in Ottawa, Canada, and they are having problems finding snow for the winter olympics in British California. However, they are freezing their balls off in Europe 🙂
“[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.]”
The satellites aren’t calibrated to surface thermometer data? To what are they calibrated? My limited understanding is that the satellites measure a proxy of actual temperature and this had to be correlated to actual thermometer readings. To do this, surface thermometer data was used.
Therefore, given the known urban heat island problems with surface thermometers, can we rely on the satellite readings?
The climate is continually changing
Humans commonly migrated to a climate which suited them until people started with the fences and title deeds. Now people are stuck where they are and cannot easily migrate with the climate shifts, without causing strife and war.
Calibration, you say?
By who?
And to what end?
[quote 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….
[/quote]
No, I don’t think anyone knows.
Which is yet another reason Dr. Spencer should release his source code to the public.
I’m cooking diner right now, will try to answer other questions on this thread shortly.
the problem with amsu is that using microwaves means diffculty as soon as ice or snow are involved.
ice and to a certain degree snow is more transparent to microwaves than water, so while it is possible to detect the blackbody (earth) and the normal water vapour, ice may not be as easy to determine.
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/content/kitchenscience/exp/-324719c1f8/
the aqua project is just that, a project, not just a satellite. to determine ice thickness, snow cover etc is not a simple matter of reading the brightness, it must be calculated.
first off the type of snow must be known for a certain area for the crystal structure which can vary greatly, then a calculation can be made against the brightness. if snow cover changes dramatically for an area, i dont think there is a way the calculation can determine just how much more or less snow there is. but obviously the aqua people have found a way to calculate this, and apply it.
vibenna,
The IPCC made predictions back in 1979?
I didn’t think so.
Their 4AR prediction was for around 0.2C per decade trend for the first few decades of the century.
The UAH trend since 2001 is here:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2001/to:2010/plot/uah/from:2001/to:2010/trend
How’s that compare with that IPCC projection?
OK, let’s say the century began in 2000. Then you’re looking at:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2000/to:2010/plot/uah/from:2000/to:2010/trend
The trend for UAH lower troposphere since 2000 is 0.0537541 per decade.
If someone who has ignored Spencer for years now suddenly start citing his results, they better take notice of his results when temperatures go down as well.
Otherwise it is just another case of cherry picking the warmest results to prove a point of view. Personally I believe that Spencer provides the most objective global temperatures out there, and believe in him: up or down.
Temp is still lower than the last El Nino: January ’98.
The trend continues.
Well you could say that CO2 did it and that we must stop all industry and modern life in the next month or else we will all die, but then you could argue that the extended length that the sun has been quiet is causing an Ocean-wide heat release event which the current El Nino Modoki is a part of.
I’d like to hear about what Tallbloke has to say on this, whether or not we should only be listening to NOAA and the IPCC from now on.
1) What’s the big deal? Based on any meteorological records that haven’t been kept for many centuries, every month can be a maximum this or minimum that, any time. The smaller is the data set, the more frequent are extremes.
2) Having said that, I don’t believe that the shown UAH data are correct. If it’s government-financed, then somehow, somewhere, somebody faked something. It just cannot be otherwise, it’s the law of human nature.
3) Sliced bread is terrible. Yuk.
Thanks for posting your work, Dr. Spencer.
Please keep your sense of humor(insert smiley).