NASA Aqua Sea Surface Temperatures Support a Very Warm January, 2010
by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
When I saw the “record” warmth of our UAH global-average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) product (warmest January in the 32-year satellite record), I figured I was in for a flurry of e-mails: “But this is the coldest winter I’ve seen since there were only 3 TV channels! How can it be a record warm January?”
Sorry, folks, we don’t make the climate…we just report it.
But, I will admit I was surprised. So, I decided to look at the AMSR-E sea surface temperatures (SSTs) that Remote Sensing Systems has been producing from NASA’s Aqua satellite since June of 2002. Even though the SST data record is short, and an average for the global ice-free oceans is not the same as global, the two do tend to vary together on monthly or longer time scales.
The following graph shows that January, 2010, was indeed warm in the sea surface temperature data:
But it is difficult to compare the SST product directly with the tropospheric temperature anomalies because (1) they are each relative to different base periods, and (2) tropospheric temperature variations are usually larger than SST variations.
So, I recomputed the UAH LT anomalies relative to the SST period of record (since June, 2002), and plotted the variations in the two against each other in a scatterplot (below). I also connected the successive monthly data points with lines so you can see the time-evolution of the tropospheric and sea surface temperature variations:
As can be seen, January, 2010 (in the upper-right portion of the graph) is quite consistent with the average relationship between these two temperature measures over the last 7+ years.
[NOTE: While the tropospheric temperatures we compute come from the AMSU instrument that also flies on the NASA Aqua satellite, along with the AMSR-E, there is no connection between the calibrations of these two instruments.]
Just as I suspected. Dr Roy, what is up with that warm pool in the south Pacific. That is really unusual…
Ray (12:18:49) :
No, UHI does not have any significance to global temperatures.
It does have significant impact to surface temperature readings that are used estimate the surface temperature multiplying the errors over and over.
“Are we to assume from this that the oceans are dumping a lot of energy?”
That is exactly what I was thinking….
RSS has 0.64 globally for January:
year mon -70.0/ -20.0/ 20.0/ -70.0/ 60.0/ -70.0/ Cont. 0.0/ -70.0/
82.5 20.0 82.5 -20.0 82.5 -60.0 USA 82.5 0.0
————————————————————-
2010 1 0.640 0.758 0.760 0.375 1.532 0.285 0.040 0.800 0.472
— John M Reynolds
Will someone please make the definite statement that when SST goes higher it is either:
1. due to the release of heat from the oceans and they are cooling
or
2. due to the accumulation of heat in the ocean and they are warming
Which is it?
As I see it, there are three possible causes of “warmer” sea surface temperatures:
1) The heat was already in the ocean, and the warm water became mixed – via anomalous ocean currents, or sub-sea volcanism, etc
2) Fewer clouds allowed more insolation than previous periods
3) Ocean currents slowed, allowing more solar heating in a comparable period of time.
There’s no reason to suspect that reduced cloud cover in the ocean would not be complemented by reduced cloud cover over the continents.
There’s no reason to suspect sub-sea volcanism, or an anomalous salinity gradient caused surface warm water to mix. [Except for the sub-sea activity that must have accompanied the earthquake off the coast of Haiti.]
3) is consistent with the interaction of the NAO with the PDO, slowing North Atlantic water giving rise to the Gulf Stream from the Equatorial currents.
Opposing views are most welcome
OT: U.N. Climate Chief: Critics Should Rub Their Faces With Asbestos
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/05/climate-chief-critics-rub-faces-asbestos/
john pattinson (11:40:11) :
The previous post is telling me the ocean heat content is going down. This post tells me near record temperatures are all about SST.
John just ask questions. There are a lot of very bright people on this blog.
Also you will see different opinions and theories here not a cohesive group dedicated to pushing “The Theory of Climate Change” As skeptics we say we do not know everything but if you have a new theory PROVE IT. That means you will see people throw out new ideas on this blog to be “peer reviewed” and dissected or new papers to be discussed.
Archonix (12:28:19) :
Scott Covert (12:36:14) :
I know the impact of UHI on the temperature records and certainly how they use it to make their point that the earth is warming, but my point was why are they then using land based temperature measurements if at the end the oceans are in fact the heat capacitors/storage of the earth.
Tom,
SSTs are largely influenced by clouds. If the sky is clear the sun warms up the upper few meters.
Circulation is also important, as La Nina occurs when cold water gets dragged up from depth along the west coast of South America.
Ray,
UHI obviously has some effect on land temperature measurements
But 70% of the earth’s surface is water, so SSTs obviously have a considerable effect on overall temperature of the planet.
So how do you derive a “global temperature” when you are possibly comparing apples with pears?
Need Answers:
None of the above.
The Spencer post doesn’t show the ocean heating faster than the atmosphere. What it mostly shows is that (surprise!) the atmosphere and ocean are linked, so if one goes up, then it will either go back down, or the other will come up to meet it (as happened now, with Jan 2010).
As far as reasons for it… you won’t find those answers here. What you’ll find here is wild speculation by ill informed amateurs, or random comments like “but this is the coldest winter in memory so the satellite data must be lying.”
And, by the way, this hasn’t been that cold a winter. People just like to say that it is. I guess it makes them feel good.
Can we rely implicitly on satellite instrument recordings? For example AMSR-E was last updated on 1st Feb and has had other problems in the recent past.
For those Trolls gloating over the AMSR-E trace of 2009/2010 ice rebuild, try this link which compares 2006/2007.
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=02&fd=05&fy=2007&sm=02&sd=04&sy=2010
Will this “spike” in global temperature lead to an “upward bump” in longer term temperature (as the 1998 El Nino was followed by temperatures a couple tenths higher than the previous norm). We’ll see over the next decade.
To me “global warming” is a separate issue from “anthropogenic global warming”. Evidence of warming is not, per se, evidence of AGW.
In any case, I want the globe to warm a bit — overall its too cold now.
my prognosis is that 2010 will be warm, possibly the warmest since 1934, but including a subtraction of an el nino correction in line with the stagnation during the last decade.
sea ice will continue to recover due to ocean currents.
glaciers will recover in regions world wide due to heavy snowfalls and cold land temperatures. data bases will not be updated.
MattN:
“what is up with that warm pool in the south Pacific.”
That’s a dandy, isn’t it. Combine that with the current El Nino, and it’s almost like we are getting two El Nino’s at the same time. And that southern Pacific hot area is twice as large as the US.
Not to worry. It’s one of those things that comes and goes.
Just to be clear, UHI does affect the global temperature. Very little in satellite measurements, but more so in ground based readings like GISS and Had-Crut.
My point was that the majority of influence in the calculated “global satellite temperature” is from the ocean.
As of 2002, geophysicists have realized that deep-ocean (bathymetric) volcanism since the mid-19th Century has been progressively heating ocean basins, leading to accelerating evaporation as warmer water rises to shallow continental shelves. Since evaporation is a cooling process, “natural air conditioning”, Earth should experience cyclical temperature fluctuations inducing flooding rains in summer, blizzard snows in winter.
The 500-year Little Ice Age that ended c. 1880 – ’90 has gone through four such cycles, diminishing from fifty years (1890 – 1939) to forty (1940 – ’79) to thirty (1980 – 2009). On this basis, we project a 20-year impending cool-phase from c. 2010 -2029. Now as a “dead sun” Solar Cycle 24 may presage a 70-year Maunder Minimum (which last occurred in 1645 – 1715), it seems Earth’s climatic thermostat may crash, for twenty years is no time-frame at all.
Over 1.8-million years, the Pleistocene Era has exhibited well-defined periodic glaciations averaging 102,000 years, interspersed with median 12,250-year remissions. Adjusting for the 1,500-year Younder Dryas “cold shock” that ended c. BC 7300, our current Holocene Interglacial Epoch was due to end c. AD 2000 + (12,250 – 12,300) = AD 1950. Sixty years later, various astronomical and geophysical cycles may reinforce to tip Earth to Ice Time again.
Since long-term climatic episodes are driven mostly by astronomical, geophysical, and plate tectonic factors, atmospheric convection currents are symptoms of temperature change, not cause. Moreover, as a classic “complex dynamic system” Earth’s atmosphere is subject to Chaos Theory, which forbids linear extrapolations of any kind, while fundamental thermodynamic Conservation Laws render “greenhouse effect” hypotheses equivalent to positing perpetual motion.
Given that geophysical eras from the Cretaceous/Tertiary (K/T) Boundary 65-million years ago have averaged some 14 – 16+ million years, cyclical Pleistocene glaciations probably have at least 12 – 14 million years to run. As overdue Ice Time envelopes Gaia once again, why should anyone but peculating Climate Cultists and their fellow-travelers be surprised?
Scotland records coldest winter
The past two months have entered the record books
Scotland has suffered some of the coldest winter months in almost 100 years, the Met Office has confirmed.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/8492333.stm
Near record cold and snow in South Dakota
http://media.www.sdsucollegian.com/media/storage/paper484/news/2010/02/03/News/No.End.Of.Snow.In.Sight-3863555.shtml
AccuWeather Inc. is on record as saying this could be the coldest winter in 25 years in the United States.
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/homepage/81082317.html
Coldest winter for 200 years!
http://www.halifaxcourier.co.uk/nostalgia/Coldest-winter-for-200-years.5979547.jp
Jan. breaks record for consecutive days below freezing
http://www.gainesville.com/article/20100201/ARTICLES/2011005/1002
Parts of Europe, Asia report record cold, snow this winter
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2010/jan/21/parts-of-europe-asia-report-record-cold-snow-this/
Tom in Florida (12:41:14) :
Will someone please make the definite statement that when SST goes higher it is either:
1. due to the release of heat from the oceans and they are cooling
or
2. due to the accumulation of heat in the ocean and they are warming
Which is it?
The first one. I’ve been saying it for a year now. The ocean heat content is dropping, because the amount of solar energy going into it has been falling since 2003, and cloud has been increasing.
The ocean responds by releasing the heat built up over the long run of high solar cycles, keeping the global temperature up. The cold air mass over the continents isn’t being swept over the ocean because global atmospheric angular momentum is low. This is linked to regular changes in the motions of the planets and the moon.
Have a read around on my site by clicking on my name.
Boy, this is confusing!
But if the heat is a result of an El Nino – what’s that got to do with CO2? The heat is released by warming in certain parts of the oceans (and which then subsequently warms the atmosphere) – but what has that got to do with AGW? Is anyone saying CO2 causes El Ninos?
Cold weather causes Russian visitors to Finland to seek visa extensions as their cars refuse to start Temperatures down to -35°C have become almost commonplace in Eastern Finland; icy winds from Siberia look set to continue into February
http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Cold+weather+causes+Russian+visitors+to+Finland+to+seek+visa+extensions+as+their+cars+refuse+to+start/1135252416377
DOZENS OF people have died as bitterly cold weather again grips central and eastern Europe. At least 20 people perished in recent days in Poland, where more than 200 have died during a particularly harsh winter.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2010/0127/1224263206165.html
R. Gates (12:03:15) :
…
“Out of curiosity, what “disasters” were caused by the 2007 decrease in arctic ice extent?”
Disasterous used in a metaphoric sense, meaning when compared to previous sea ice extents. That’s how I meant it, but from another standpoint I suppose the argument could be made that the record low sea ice was bad news: Record low ice means a positive feedback is being established whereby increased solar energy can be absorbed by the ocean causing more warming causing more melting and more warming and more melting, etc. Eventually, if this continutes, even in our lifetimes perhaps, the arctic will be ice free in be summer. Great for shipping goods via the northwest or northeast passage perhaps, but potentially very bad for the ecological balance of the planet we’ve enjoyed since our ancestors first came down out of the trees.
Given the rapid recovery of the Arctic ice in winter 2009 and winter 2009 I don’t believe there is a significant positive feedback through decreased albedo. Here in Scotland (57N) the winter sun is so low and weak that it couldn’t warm a piece of toast let alone an ocean. And as for the North West Passage, please. I followed the blogs of the 5 or 6 or so boats that made it through last year, they were all fairly small, and some were extremely fortunate to have have made it at all – e.g. http://www.yachtfiona.com/northwestpassage2009/newsletter1.html (The best effort and achievement was definitely the Arctic Mariners – who only made it half way – but they were in a 17.5ft open boat which they had to row/drag across the ice and sail against the wind for much of their commendable adventure (see http://www.arcticmariner.org/#iceCharts)
The Arctic ice has had significant periods of retreat in recent history which suggests that the 2007 retreat was nothing to be concerned about. Especially since a lot of ice disappeared down the Fram Strait with the wind, not warming. See http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/20/historic-variation-in-arctic-ice/ and
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/04/arctic-warming-goes-with-the-floe/
I worked for ten years at a company that designed sensors for the weather satellites used to measure atmospheric temperatures. What these satellites actually measure directly is the heat-generated radiation coming from the relatively hot (compared to absolute zero!) atmospheric gasses as they look down of the earth from orbit. Pick a temperature profile, going from the ground to the top of the earth’s atmosphere, and from it you can calculate the heat radiation you expect the satellite to see at different radiation frequencies. This what you do when you want to design a satellite instrument to predict more of less what it could be seeing as it looks down at the earth. It is a tedious but straightforward calculation, done using straightforward computer programs Now, once the satellite is in orbit, what you get from it is the heat radiation at different frequencies. Can you take this heat radiation and from calculate, using computers, the temperature profile up through the atmosphere. It turns out this is what applied mathematicians call an “ill-posed” problem, meaning that small errors in your radiation measurements — and no sensor is ever perfect — result in big, random-looking errors in your temperature measurements. The satellite people decades ago came up with a solution to this difficulty, and it involves forcing the computer programs calculating the atmospheric temperatures to take into account what we expect the atmospheric temperatures to be. The computer tries to find the closest match to the radiation data from the satellite while making small and reasonable changes away from the average “expected” atmospheric temperatures at the place and season it is looking at. By now I’m sure you can see what the problem is… if someone in a position of authority changes what the computer’s expected atmospheric temperatures are, the satellite measurements will produce different temperature estimates for the same measured heat radiation. If M&M want to keep the satellite guys honest, the way they made (eventually) the CRU scientists come clean, they should be asking for the raw sensor data coming down from the satellites, year after year, and check to see whether any trends exist in it. As long as the temperatures produced from the satellite data come from a statistical constraint on the original ill-posed problem, I would take those temperature values with a grain of salt…
john pattinson:
The oceans are huge and deep, with giant heat transport mechanisms in action. So it’s quite possible to have a large warm surface area, even though the heat content of the oceans is lower. Just like in the atmosphere, and even more so in the coupled ocean/atmosphere system – where we’re experiencing very cold weather in most of the NH, which is balanced out by the Pacific SST (and parts of the Arctic, and perhaps a small part of Australia) being a a bit above average.
No great mystery there.