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.
I’m quite prepared to take this data at face value, but nevertheless they do not make sense to me. How can it be that while most of the Northern hemisphere has had, and still is in, the coldest winter in a generation, the average temperature still has gone up by a big jump, unless it has been excessively hot in the rest of the world? I haven’t, apart from the usual stories from Down Under, heard anything of the kind.
Also, notice that the jump from the previous measurement is about the largest jump upwards of the whole record. I am reminded of similar glitches in the Artic temperature record last year.
I foresee a correction being offered, shortly …..
Hi Roy,
Don’t know if you’re still out there listening. It seems to me pretty clear why the cold snaps, with the Tropics extra-hot and the Arctic extra-cold – three aerological units were deeply active at the same time early January. This also explains why the Arctic sea ice extent looks low at this time – more southerly warm air arriving there. But of course, it also increased precipitable potential in the Arctic, which will show up during the Summer.
Nice to have your posts here.
The main reason the extreme conditions in early January in Scandinavia didn’t produce more of a landslide of cold records, was that the tropospheric temperatures at ca 1000m were far higher than in similar cold periods. This is consistent with the surprisingly high UAH results.
The solar activity in 2009 was at a minimum in 100 years, still 2009, when the time series is adjusted for volcanic activity and ENSO, is the hottest year on record in the GISTEMP series. (A tied second without adjustments.) Such simple adjustments are of course no kind of “final answer”, but they give indications of underlying tendencies. And, with a 30-year trend of 0.1-0.13 degC/decade in UAH, and quarterly moving averages of second half of 2009 well above that trendline, maybe the January UAH results should not be so surprising after all.
I think a lot of people may have been misled by using short-time, statistically unstable, regression slopes as “trends”. Using more appropriate methods, we need 13-15 years to establish a significant trend, and such estimates are rather stable, at 0.1-0-16 degC/decade warming. Not heeding the need for stability, it is all too easy to overestimate the trend for a period of warming when oscillations are large. If the underlying trend is somewhat stable, the next years will then probably indicate “cooling” – otherwise we would have a real change in trend.
This is what has happened over the last few years, and is also why adjusting for ElNino/LaNina events+volcanism (and maybe sun cycle) could be a good idea.
Paul Vaughan: “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.”
And then, Paul, you would have to prove that the freq
So it’s trending upwards – no surprises there.
Sorry, Paul Vaughan, somehow without touching my mouse the comment posted. Where was I?
And then, Paul, you would have to prove that the frequency (or whatever) at which you’re finding these more complex correlations are having the same effect on climate/weather as the raw AO signal, would you not? That is, we know what the raw AO represents; does the modified signal represent the same thing?
Also, I was replying to a statement about how the AO tends to be negative during solar minimums and it clearly does not.
mmhh ok greenland and iceland are really warm this winter
but a +0.841 anomaly for the nothern hemisphere, that cant be right
that would be the warmerst januari in at least 30 years .. while in the whole of europe its at least the coldest jan in 13 years (en the eastern part even the coldest in 25 years) US and azia were cold and russia is was on average colder than normal.
the North. Altlantic is colder as well…
John Whitman (18:36:51): I have not seen a flow chart that illustrates how each of the temperature products are processed. Good idea, though. You may want to ask at ClimateAudit?
Adam from Kansas (20:06:35): Here’s a link to older graph that compares the tropical Pacific OHC to NINO3.4 SST anomalies. It should help you establish timing.
http://i36.tinypic.com/eqwdvl.png
And the spike in 1995/96 was caused by the unusual strength in the trade winds during the 1995/96 La Nina. Discussed is this post, if you haven’t already read it:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/11/more-detail-on-multiyear-aftereffects_26.html
Regards
I’m concerned for the people who post stuff like “I’ve got snow in my backyard this winter, so these figures for the whole planet must be wrong”. Surely both sceptics and warmists can see the dumbness of that kind of statement? I offer this video to demonstrate the difference in scale.
Bob Tisdale
Again Bob you don’t have a broad enough or long enough perspective.
The AO is affected by more than just the level of solar activity. It is a balance between solar and oceanic effects so there does not need to be a short term or even cycle by cycle solar correlation.
Furthermore our records of AO intensity are not long.
Instead of seeking a correlation I look at basic principles and recent SABER satellite results that I have referred you to before.
It seems that when the sun is more active (on average over long time scales) there is a faster loss of energy to space so the AO would tend positive.
With a slower energy loss to space the AO would tend negative.
The reason being that with a faster release of convective energy from warmer ocean surfaces combined with resistance to the ejection of that energy from the contracted atmosphere (which then has a smaller surface area capable of outward radiation) then the polar high pressure cells would become stronger and move equatorward causing a more negative AO.
The extra energy from the El Nino would have been diverted back downward within the air circulation system instead of being pumped more quickly to space as would happen if the sun were more active with an expanded atmosphere and a larger radiating surface area.
That’s exactly what we see when such as this winter we get warm equatorial ocean surfaces with a quiet sun.
The counterintuitive point is that the effect of those variations in the size of the atmosphere’s radiating surface area is apparently greater than the variations in the sun’s absolute power output which conveniently squares with Leif’s objections to a substantial direct solar impact on climate.
To oppose this line of thinking you need to deal with the SABER observation that when the sun’s surface is more active the atmosphere loses energy to space faster.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/AGU-SABER.html
DR (18:55:35) :
Ok, this has never been answered to my satisfaction.
I’ll have a go.
Surface measurements are done ~1.5 from the surface. Satellites are measuring several thousand feet above the surface which obviously is colder than the surface. How is the baseline (.146 for HadCRUT and .238 for GISS) then in any way related to the difference in raw temperature?
Hadley, GISS and UAH/RSS calculate anomalies relative to different base periods. What this means is they take the average monthly temperature for a defined period and from that they calculate the recent monthly anomaly. For example Hadley use the 1961-1990 period. The most recent Hadley anomaly was +0.41 for December 2009. This means that, according to Hadley data, December 2009 was 0.41 deg warmer than the average 1961-1990 December temperature during. Ok so far?
The problem for comparison is that they don’t all use the same base period. GISS use 1951-1980 and UAH & RSS use 1979-1998 (note the first satellite readings were in Dec 1978). Because the 1950s and 1960s were generally colder than the 1980s and 1990s this means that the GISS and Hadley anomalies will be higher than the satellite anomalies (GISS in particular). A way round this is to use the same base period, i.e. 1979-1998, for all 4 metrics.
Using your figures: Hadley data suggests that the average temperature for the 1979-1998 period is 0.146 deg higher than it is for the 1961-1990 period and the GISS data suggests that the average temperature for the 1979-1998 period is 0.238 deg higher than it is for the 1951-1980 period. Though, it should be noted that these are overall averages and that the monthly averages will vary slightly. Therefore, when plotting, the above values are often used as ‘offsets’ to standardise the base periods and so provide a truer comparison. As a very, very rough guide; if you subtract ~0.24 from the GISS anomaly it should give you an approximate value for the expected UAH anomaly (but I repeat monthly values will vary ).
As far as raw temperatures are concerned, these are not really relevant. We’re simply looking at the change in temperature. For example, if the 1979-98 average temperature of the lower troposphere is 252 K (i.e.-21 deg C) and it ‘s now 252.5 K then there is an increase of 0.5 K. Similarly, if the surface was 287 K (i.e. 14 deg C) in 1979-98 and now it’s 287.5 there is also an increase of 0.5 K. That would probably be seen as consistent.
In fact, the trends in all 4 metrics are remarkably consistent despite what you might reads sometimes. There are obviously blips from time to time due to slightly different methods of a analysis and there are different lag times in response to ENSO events, but all 4 have warmed at virtually the same rate over the past 20 years.
I might have made a bit of a mess of this but, reading it myself, I can’t really tell. Just to reinforce the main point:-
In other words, suppose all temperature products have the same anomaly reported, making them “in good agreement”. How can this be when temperature generally decreases with height?
Because the anomaly indicates the change in temperature NOT the raw temperature.
“I agree. There is nothing exceptionally warm or strong about this El Nino.”
Correct. However, if you look at global SSTs, I think you’ll see the reason January is so warm is there is a HUGE warm pool in the south Pacific, unassociated with any El Nino region, and the Atlantic seems to be warmer than normal. Add it all up, and I’d wager there might be another “warmest month ever for the oceans” articles soon….
rbateman (19:15:22) :
Leif Svalgaard (17:24:37) :
And we cannot believe this is the warmest January ever when the bulk of the N. Hemisphere OBSERVED a colder winter than has been seen in quite some time.
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. Despite using different sources, we’ve got both RSS and UAH reporting record anomalies for January – and despite the fact that both have been operating (successfully if previous posts are anything to go by) for 32 years. Yet I’ve noticed a number of posters cite 6 years of ARGO data as though it’s results were carved in stone. Woe betide ARGO it it starts to show any ocean warming.
JP – Thank you for validating my question.
Tom T – there are no silly questions, only intolerant answers. “As it says in the paragraph you mentioned, the instruments are calibrated at the lab.” I repeat, To what are they calibrated?
JLKrueger – I did not postulate any theory. I disclosed my limited understanding and asked a question – Can we rely on the satellite readings?
John Finn: “but all 4 have warmed at virtually the same rate over the past 20 years ”
Yes, but looking the 1980-2009 trends for GISS and UAH, the UAH rate is somewhat slower. Contradicting hypotheses about the troposphere warming faster than the surface.
Which simply may indicate that transport phenomena are more important than we thought – typically, UAH reacts more to strong El Nino episodes than GISS.
Also, transport, or rather lack thereof, probably plays a large role in the current record UAH anomaly. If one doesn’t like global warming, the recent weather pattern may be about the worst that could happen. It is like shutting off the heating in some rooms during cold nights: They cool, but the average indoor temp you can have with a given amount of heating increases this way, so it’s economical. (Just look at the radiative balance at +5 and -20 degC: A lot less heat than normal has been lost from the NH cold ares this winter.) And if this weather pattern becomes more normal, which is not unlikely – we have had quite a few similar episodes in recent years, it may actually speed up global warming.
Jerry (18:18:57) :
“The planet warms, then it cools, then it warms again. Every once in a while we have an ice age.”
That is true, but that doesn’t disprove the idea that increased CO2 caused by man’s burning of fossil fuels will increase the rate of warming and take it out of this natural cycle.
Sure we won’t know for certain until after the event, but it just might be a bit late then.
“Closing the stable door after the horse has bolted”
I live in Pretoria. Suppose like you people, I want to know the avg temp. for a month, but not for the whole world, I just want to know for Pretoria
1) where do I put the thermometer? Different valleys or hills & other places give all different temps. How would one get the right place that really represents Pretoria?
2) Who calibrates the thermometer? How do I know this is all done right?
3) How do I determine the avg for the month? Do I have a recorder that plots every temp. of every minute of the month and does the computer give the avg? How was that done 100 years ago??
SteveE (03:52:30),
Got any evidence for “the idea that increased CO2 caused by man’s burning of fossil fuels will increase the rate of warming and take it out of this natural cycle”?
Not opinions, or computer models, but actual evidence.
Stephen Wilde: You wrote with respect to my comment in which I showed that there was no correlation between the AO and the solar cycle, “Again Bob you don’t have a broad enough or long enough perspective,” but then you confirmed what I had written with, “The AO is affected by more than just the level of solar activity. It is a balance between solar and oceanic effects so there does not need to be a short term or even cycle by cycle solar correlation.”
To clarify, you wrote, and I responded to, “As I have said elsewhere a quiet sun seems to reduce energy loss to space by encouraging a more negative Arctic Oscillation.”
And I provided you with a graph that compared the Arctic Oscillation and scaled sunspot numbers to show that the Arctic Oscillation has been positive or negative or neutral during periods of a quiet sun (solar minimums).
http://i49.tinypic.com/30lkjm8.png
Now you attempt to redirect the conversation with “It is a balance between solar and oceanic effects so there does not need to be a short term or even cycle by cycle solar correlation.”
If there is no, as you write, “short term or even cycle by cycle solar correlation,” then you confirm your initial comment was wrong. In other words, if, as you wrote, “there does not need to be a short term or even cycle by cycle solar correlation,” then you can’t write that, “a quiet sun seems to reduce energy loss to space by encouraging a more negative Arctic Oscillation.” They contradict one another.
You then attempted to introduce a time factor, writing, “Furthermore our records of AO intensity are not long.”
If the AO does not correlate with the solar cycle over the past 60 years, would you expect it to improve over a longer term? And if it did, there is still a lack of correlation over the short term which contradicts what you’d written originally. And if you do not have access to longer AO records, you have no knowledge of any longer term relationship, so why introduce it, other than to muddy the waters?
And with respect to the Saber Project article you link, the project started in 2002 and the article was written in 2008. That’s six years, about half of a solar cycle, and you complain to me that the AO data is too short? There’s no consistency in your reply, Stephen.
Henry@SteveE
Initially I also believed that carbondioxide was a cause for climate change as its properties to absorb heat are well documented.
However, the fundamental argument of AGW theory is that this trace gas (at slightly less than 0.04% or 400 ppm) is THE key ingredient to controlling a massively complex system such as climate. It increased by less than 0.01% during the past 50 years.
We are asked essentially to dismiss the effects of solar variation, orbital changes, cosmic rays, magnetic field changes, or many other variables and their inter- realationships. A main component of air, namely water vapor (average 1% in air and which is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2), is completely ignored. (all processes including nuclear and rocket fuel produce water vapor)
The argument that CO2 is a cause for warming is absurd.
Re: Bob Tisdale (02:08:29)
Not disagreeing with your earlier comment about AO & solar activity Bob – just reminding everyone that the relations found in that area are complex (layers of conditional dependencies).
Added some labeling:
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/100204.PNG
@John Finn
Your answer still does not answer the question. I understand what an anomaly is.
The “trend” can be identical yet one product can still be in error in amplitude depending on the initial conditions and changes between the end points of the data. This is easily provable.
You cited UAH and GIStemp agreeing with each other for the U.S., yet if you examine the 30 years of data, GIStemp clearly diverged greatly from UAH from 95-01. Look at global temps as well. GISS makes the past colder and the present decade warmer, yet the trends are “similar”.
As satellite was not available 70 years ago, there is no way to evaluate initial conditions from that period to determine if the last thirty 30 years trend is meaningful in terms of correlation between the two products.
Also, as I understand it, the LT should be warming at a faster rate than the surface to begin with, correct? In fact, the opposite is the case.
I think too much emphasis is placed on long term trends without considering what happens between the end points.
http://rt.com/Top_News/2010-02-04/climategate-climate-change-fake.html
Essentially what I get from the above report is that in all fairness we cannot compare let us say (as claimed in this report) 1930 with 2002 and decide which year was warmer or colder.
Is this true?