February 2010 UAH Global Temperature Update: Version 5.3 Unveiled
by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
The global-average lower tropospheric temperature remained high, at +0.61 deg. C for February, 2010. This is about the same as January, which in our new Version 5.3 of the UAH dataset was +0.63 deg. C. February was second warmest in the 32-year record, behind Feb 1998 which was itself the second warmest of all months. The El Nino is still the dominant temperature signal; many people living in Northern Hemisphere temperate zones were still experiencing colder than average weather.
YR MON GLOBE NH SH TROPICS
2009 1 0.213 0.418 0.009 -0.119
2009 2 0.220 0.557 -0.117 -0.091
2009 3 0.174 0.335 0.013 -0.198
2009 4 0.135 0.290 -0.020 -0.013
2009 5 0.102 0.109 0.094 -0.112
2009 6 0.022 -0.039 0.084 0.074
2009 7 0.414 0.188 0.640 0.479
2009 8 0.245 0.243 0.247 0.426
2009 9 0.502 0.571 0.433 0.596
2009 10 0.353 0.295 0.410 0.374
2009 11 0.504 0.443 0.565 0.482
2009 12 0.262 0.331 0.190 0.482
2010 1 0.630 0.809 0.451 0.677
2010 2 0.613 0.720 0.506 0.789
The new dataset version does not change the long-term trend in the dataset, nor does it yield revised record months; it does, however, reduce some of the month-to-month variability, which has been slowly increasing over time.
Version 5.3 accounts for the mismatch between the average seasonal cycle produced by the older MSU and the newer AMSU instruments. This affects the value of the individual monthly departures, but does not affect the year to year variations, and thus the overall trend remains the same.
Here is a comparison of v5.2 and v5.3 for global anomalies in lower tropospheric temperature.
YR MON v5.2 v5.3
2009 1 0.304 0.213
2009 2 0.347 0.220
2009 3 0.206 0.174
2009 4 0.090 0.135
2009 5 0.045 0.102
2009 6 0.003 0.022
2009 7 0.411 0.414
2009 8 0.229 0.245
2009 9 0.422 0.502
2009 10 0.286 0.353
2009 11 0.497 0.504
2009 12 0.288 0.262
2010 1 0.721 0.630
2010 2 0.740 0.613
trends since 11/78: +0.132 +0.132 deg. C per decade
The following discussion is provided by John Christy:
As discussed in our running technical comments last July, we have been looking at making an adjustment to the way the average seasonal cycle is removed from the newer AMSU instruments (since 1998) versus the older MSU instruments. At that time, others (e.g. Anthony Watts) brought to our attention the fact that UAH data tended to have some systematic peculiarities with specific months, e.g. February tended to be relatively warmer while September was relatively cooler in these comparisons with other datasets. In v5.2 of our dataset we relied considerably on the older MSUs to construct the average seasonal cycle used to calculated the monthly departures for the AMSU instruments. This created the peculiarities noted above. In v5.3 we have now limited this influence.
The adjustments are very minor in terms of climate as they impact the relative departures within the year, not the year-to-year variations. Since the errors are largest in February (almost 0.13 C), we believe that February is the appropriate month to introduce v5.3 where readers will see the differences most clearly. Note that there is no change in the long term trend as both v5.2 and v5.3 show +0.132 C/decade. All that happens is a redistribution of a fraction of the anomalies among the months. Indeed, with v5.3 as with v5.2, Jan 2010 is still the warmest January and February 2010 is the second warmest Feb behind Feb 1998 in the 32-year record.
For a more detailed discussion of this issue written last July, email John Christy at christy@nsstc.uah.edu for the document.
[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.]
I hope Dr. Spencer, and everyone else who is concerned with this topic, fully appreciates the lack of meaning of a statement like ” the second warmest (fill in the blank) in the last 30 years”. We’re talking about the geological history of the planet here, and a 30 year period just isn’t meaningful unless you’re talking about a single cataclysmic event like a meteor impact.
let’s see…sun warms tropical oceans, el nino spreads heat around, water warms air, air convects heat up and radiates away to space
so, it appears that the radiator is set to high and the recharger is set to trickle.
better buy a coat.
Looks like Mr Spencer is trying to hide the incline if you ask me. If something like this was done by proponents of climate change, revising temperatures UP, then the lot of you would be up in arms crying bloody murder.
4 billion (19:04:27),
Just a few months ago I saw complaints from the AGW faithful that now appear to have been corrected by this latest change. It sure looks to me like you guys are hard to satisfy. You might want to look back at the June posting of UAH results.
How does this troposphere stuff work?
If it’s warmer up there, it’s colder down here?
It sure ain’t warm in No. Calif.
Kiwibird:
You’ve piqued my curiousity: what kind of fires do you have instead of central heating: gas? … Wood?.. coal? Pray do tell. I’m in Canada and live in one of many houses built without fireplaces. Wonderful to learn how different lifestyles still are in this Internet age.
Starting in late Nov a large warm area (at least equivalent to the El Nino area) developed in the Southern Pacific between South America and New Zealand. This area anomaly increased considerably during December and peaked in ~ mid January 2010 (4.06 Jan 13; 3.88 Jan 29) and has decreased in February (although still moderately strong -2.41 Feb 17; 2.98 Feb 24 and 2.37 today (http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.html).
Comparable anomalies in the El Nino area were Jan 13 2.98; Jan 29 2.56; Feb 17 2.3; Feb 24 2.29; Today 2.09.
Since El Nino (located on the equator) has by all accounts, a warming effect on the NH, is it not reasonable to think that this unusual (?) occurance in the South Pacific – 30 to 60 Deg South Lat 170W – 100W long – would not have had a big effect on the SH and tropical (biggest anomaly since 1998 for tropics according to RSS) temperatures? What will be the effect on satellite temperatures if both El Nino and this South Pacific warm area moderate considerably. Will be interesting to watch over the next 6 – 8 months. I would thing it might cause a very large drop in temperature. Especially since the SH might go back to “normal” and it seems to me that the large increase in the last few months has been mostly a SH phenomena.?? Bob?
Steve Goddard (17:44:18) :
I would like to know why satellite data shows a big spike the last two months which is not seen in GISS. GISS was up by 0.17 in January and UAH was up by 0.43 RSS was up by 0.40.
Maybe because GISS coverage of SH is very poor and they did not pick up the effects of the above mentioned South Pacific “Hot Spot”?
Roy:
Where will the new version 5.3 data be located ? When will it be available? (the comprehensive ver 5.2 is located at http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt)
So this same satellite with the same equipment has taken samples from the same area since 1979?
This is the problem with world averaging is that any areas that may be different are missed.
What caused the spike in 1998 ?
Looking at the “trend” of the graph, 1998 is an outlier.
If it was El Nino, what caused it.
It almost looks like a “rebound” from Mt. Pinatubo.
[quote Steve Hempell (20:02:53) :]
Maybe because GISS coverage of SH is very poor and they did not pick up the effects of the above mentioned South Pacific “Hot Spot”?
[/quote]
The Aqua satellite AMSU used by UAH didn’t pick it up either. The January, 2010 raw readings are nearly identical to the January, 2009 raws readings, but the January, 2010 anomaly is listed as twice that of the January, 2009.
I’m not saying there’s no explanation for this. But I am saying an explanation is required and none has been given.
Thanks for the reply TTCA! Those rumors of calibration against surface records are persistent buggers 😛
Joe,
There was an original pair I believe, and a new more advanced one was launched around 2002.
Check this out — a review from Cool Tools (the Whole Earth Catalog online follow-on) of a wheeled low-effort “sno wovel”:
Bionic snow shovel — Sno Wovel
As a Montrealer who has shoveled more snow than you can shake a very big stick at, I was intrigued when I first came across a video of this wheeled shovel in action. I live in the suburbs south of Montreal, on a street where there’s a popular bus route; the snow plow can pass my house several times a day during heavy snow falls, repeatedly depositing a compacted mound of snow in my driveway entrance.
I bought a Wovel, and what was once a dreaded exercise in futility has now become a looked forward to workout! Thanks to the Wovel’s design, all the snow’s weight gets transferred to my arms and legs. The fulcrum at the center of the big wheel effectively allows the Wovel to do the heavy lifting for me. After becoming proficient in its use, I was able to master the natural seesaw action and launch the snow surprisingly high. Now, after a season and a half of use, I can consistently build snow banks up to five feet high. It’s like having my own little nonnmotorized bulldozer.
I’ve been using mine to shovel my walk/driveway as well as my neighbor’s for more than a year, and I’ve been beating the crap out of the thing. It won’t quit. It’s made from a thick-gauge steel and is covered by a lifetime warranty. What was once about an hour of back-breaking work has been cut down to about 20 minutes, which makes this purchase one of the best expenditures I have ever made.
– Billy Zavos
The Sno Wovel Wheeled Snow Shovel — $120
Available from Amazon
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B001I7JWTO/ref=nosim/kkorg-20
Manufactured by Structured Solutions II
http://www.wovel.com/
Also check out (google or look for the Cool Tools review) the “Eskimold,” a mold for making igloos out of snow blocks.
Mooloo – “Could someone explain this to me please? It appears to show the NH as experiencing the greatest warmth.
Now I’m really confused”
I would hazard to guess that the very high artic anomoly during the negative AO had a very disproporshanit effect on the NH readings.
Also temp is from the trop. not six feet from the surface 🙂
Don’t worry about it.
Since the iceberg “lost” from Antarctica has been found in San Juan County, Utah, it will all work out.
Have some kids. Grow some potatoes. Raise some chickens.
Starting in late Nov a large warm area (at least equivalent to the El Nino area) developed in the Southern Pacific between South America and New Zealand
The largest anomaly values shown are those for the Northern Hemisphere, not the Southern.
I am at a loss to see how that is consistent with a colder than usual late winter in most of the NH.
The RSS map for Feb.
http://global-warming.accuweather.com/feb2010.html
The extended solar minimum is barely over and already tropospheric temps are near record levels. With or without El Nino lingering, 2010 will beat 1998 as the warmest year on temperature record, (yes, it was warmer a long time ago, but humans weren’t the issue as the trigger a long time ago).
How will AGW skeptics paint the global warming going on in 2010? To what will they ascribe it? It will interesting to see how the worm will turn on the warm to come…
Paul Martin (18:15:45) :
Right on Paul. Someone finally using their senses.
AusieDan,
In regards to your last question: as pointed out by DeNihilist, the sat records are developed by measurements from the lower troposphere. Dr. Spencer’s site has more detail on it (like altitudes) if you want to dig some more on it. The CRU/GISS records are from temperature stations that are near surface (2 m).
I’m not sure if that really answers your question bit I tried : )
if temperature was a stock I’d say short it because judging by the temperature history graph i see volume leaving. and there’s a precipitous drop coming. don’t listen to the global warming Kramers of the world who are bullish on global warming and saying get in to believing in global warming now because you see a strong upsurge for 2 months…..and global warming looks real—DOH!!!
don’t believe the bubble
Paul Martin (18:15:45) :
No! The graphs are of anomalies – the differences between observed and the previous year. The seasonal effect have already been discounted. The precession of the equinoxes isn’t taken into account, but that’s a cycle 23,000 years long.
Mooloo:
Here’s NOAA’s take on it:
LAND:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/get-file.php?report=global&file=map-land-sfc-mntp&year=2010&month=1&ext=gif
LAND+OCEAN:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/get-file.php?report=global&file=map-blended-mntp&year=2010&month=1&ext=gif
Here’s NSIDC’s arctic anomaly for February 2010:
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20100303_Figure4.png
Here’s is some anecdotal evidence from the winter olympic town of Vancouver 🙂
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2010/02/08/2010-02-08_snow_no_2010_winter_olympics_in_vancouver_facing_warm_weather_lack_of_snow_days_.html
aMINO aCIDS iN mETEORITES, on what do you base your opinion? Anything other than a hunch? Like all good fundamental investors, if there is good reason that something should go higher, then you buy it. AGW theory offers pretty solid science as to why things will go higher as CO2 increases, and offers specific predictions…like smaller and smaller amounts of sea ice in the arctic, warm temperature anomalies most pronounced at the polar regions, increased water vapor in the troposphere, an acceleration of the hydrological cycle with extreme events like greater rainfall, snowfall, and more extreme droughts in areas prone to drought. These predictions by AGW models don’t prove that the theory is correct if they come to pass, but if they don’t come to pass, the theory dies. So far, nothing has caused the theory to die.
R. Gates (21:22:34)
What WILL you do if you are mistaken?