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.]
Vigilantfish
I live in Tasmania in a 3 bedroom house,medium size.I have a wood heater.I love it.If I light the fire it can heat the whole house.One downside is all doors have to be open.A problem that can be fixed by putting ducts in the ceiling.The other downside is I cannot get my heater to smoulder all night now,as the govt banned wood heaters that smoulder,they say it causes pollution,based on bad research in my opinion.
http://www.auroraenergy.com.au/about_aurora/environment/woodsmoke_pollution.asp
That means I get up in freezing temps,and have to light my fire,not that big a hardship.I buy a load of dried blocks from the timber company for 50 Aus.They last me all winter,but I have to feed the fire constantly,and it can get too hot sometimes.I am so lucky to live in Tasmania,and so is Kiwiland lucky to live in NZ.It’s a completely different way of life to most citizens of the world.I love the hustle and bustle of big cities,but Tassie will do for me.The weather here has been nothing unusual,we are having a warm March so far,but on the whole the nights have been colder than usual during most of summer.
If this post is too off topic,then don’t post Anthony or moderators.
Thank you.
u.k. (u.s.),
Why would I do anything? I’m am positing a conjecture based on all currently available data. We are already seeing near record warm tropospheric temps during the first few months of 2010 and we have see the end of a solar minimum. The cooling we saw in the 2007-2009 time period almost exactly coincides with the heart of the solar mimimum, and now the forcing of the CO2 “ought to” take over once more if AGW models are correct. If somehow 2010 turns out to not be the warmest year instrument record…oh well, then my conjecture is wrong. But most entertaining it will be if my conjecture comes to pass, to try and guess the excuses that AGW skeptics come up with as to why it will have been so warm in 2010…in fact, many will probably still insist that the nasty global climate scientist cabal will have falsified the data.
See this chart:
http://www.climate4you.com/Sun.htm#Recent solar irradiance
And compare it to this chart:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_Feb_10.jpg
And see how the solar mimimum lines up so nicely with the cool period of 2007-2009. But now we’re moving higher once more, and short of a Mt. Pinatubo level eruption, 2010 will be the warmest year on instrument record.
Don’t despair warmers. The surface records will be adjusted upward soon 🙂
R. Gates (21:22:34) :
The extended solar minimum is barely over and already tropospheric temps are near record levels.
That is because as everybody knows there are delays in the solar effects. We are now seeing the effect of the solar maximum of 1958 🙂
Leif Svalgaard said:
“We are now seeing the effect of the solar maximum of 1958 :-)…”
Duh! Of course, that’s the missing bit of data that ties this whole darn climate thing together! Thank you…now off to my AGW model to plug in those sunspot numbers (and Marlyn Monroe’s measurements) during the waning days of the 1950’s…No wonder she starred in “Some Like it Hot” in 1959…she was a Warmist!
Oh well,
The sun come’s up every morning and goes down every evening. From my point of view the sun is orbeting my flat earth.
So far, nothing has caused my theorie to die.
Would one you learned professional scientists care to comment as to how the introduction of satellite temperature readings takes into account variations in humidity in the arid land areas during the southern hemisphere summer,evident especially when an El Nino exists.
My impression is that about 20 years ago, the satellite data started to be used
internationally instead of raw data. As relative humidity affects ambient temperature in any given location,has the new system needed to ignore that and start from a new base line.? I’ve lived lond enough to want to challenge the data that I see on the CSIRO website about the rate of recent changes in temperature.
This 0.09 deg C “cooling” from v5.2 to v5.3 is a lot. It kills my desire to predict the monthly anomalies in advance.
Oh, I missed this little passage from the article above:
“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…”
Very nice job Anthony…
I’d just like to say what an interesting piece of research this is. Long after the climate debate is over this will be regarded a a good way to do open research.
Where can I download the data? As an old FORTRAN programmer, I’d like to do some analysis using C#!
Good moment for changing the calculations. January anomaly (+0.72 °C to 1979-1998) was about 0.3 degrees higher than NASA’s 0.71 °C to 1951-1980. If the NASA January anomaly is calculated for the same reference period, it is only around 0.4 °C, because 1979-1998 was about 0.3 °C warmer than 1979-1998. And UAH was also higher than all others (RSS, NCDC, CRU), if compared to the same reference period. So I’m glad that the +0.74 for february could be prevented by recalculation. So February is at least a little bit lower than january, although still not what we hoped after Roy Spencer’s estimation: “So, it could be that all factors simply conspired to give an unusually warm spike in January…only time will tell.”
The negative side: April to November 2009 are warmer in the new version, the average for 2009 didn’t change and is still +0.26 °C.
What trash burner is this satellite parked next to?
R Gates,
When the models fail predictions the modelers say it’s consistent with their predictions, readjust their models and it goes on and on and on. You know that. The models predicted more severe storms, what happened to that? They predicted a hot spot in the atmosphere over the tropics. Shrinking ice caps… steady upward trend in OHC..
What they’re doing is finding trends, extrapolating them, and making it a variable of CO2 content. If you look at the warming between 1910 and 1945 it’s just about the same as this most recent trend. How was there all that warming then without CO2?
Guessing and getting it right might as well be divination with chicken bones – if you don’t know why you got it right, it’s not science. This insane oversimplification that CO2 is “the control knob for the climate” (I’m quoting Hansen’s buddy Lacis there) and that natural variation on the 1, 10, or 100 year scale is just noise really is out there on a limb.
It could be right but it is, IMO, an extraordinary claim and I have yet to see anything but week and usually specious correlations
Mikael Lönnroth, thank-you.
So the cold in Europe appears to be cancelled by a very warm Canada and Central Asia. The Southern Ocean barely comes into it.
I think that this disconnection between weather felt by people and numbers posted by climatologists has to reach a break point. Averaging the world over temperatures and anomalies does not reflect the true heat content of the planet, which is what is important in our microweather and microclimate where we spend our life. Heat input and output of course are what determines whether the planet is heating or cooling, and global temperatures cannot be a good proxy for that.
Look at the plot given above http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
the highest anomaly positive is in the arctic and is 14C, the lowest in Russia is -4C. Is there a meaning in averaging these two anomalies in true physics? i.e. heat input and output.?
The more I think of it the more bizarre the whole business is, like a game.
“The El Nino is still the dominant temperature signal; many people living in Northern Hemisphere temperate zones were still experiencing colder than average weather.”
That brings to question the usefulness of this data set (or any other global temp series) as an indicator of Meteorological or Climatic conditions. All over the Northern Hemisphere there are signs of faster than usual circulation, the NAO, the NPO, the cold, the increased advection. But all we get from this dataset is the state of a minor current in the eastern Pacific left behind by the southward displacement of the vertical meteorologic equator and the equatorial counter-current.
The folk producing these datasets should be reflecting seriously on this matter. What is the use to me of a dataset that tells me the Earth is warm when I (and the remainder of the northern hemisphere) get cold, ice, frosts and torrential rains?
If this version of a global temperature actually means anything -which I doubt (I am equally sceptical of the value of the land based records) -we do need to keep a sense of perspective.
Just like satellite sea ice monitoring this record started in 1979. If sea ice records are anything to go by they vary enormously over the decades and centuries as do the global temperatures.
Looking at a snapshot of only 30 years and drawing any sort of conclusions is ignoring the the historic picture.
Which doesn’t mean to say this isn’t an interesting piece of research of course, just a plea to put it in context.
tonyb
magicjava (20:21:42) :
[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.
You’ve written this twice now and I don’t understand what you mean. Are you are referring to the raw temperatures here
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps
By my (quick) calculations the average difference in raw temperatures between Jan 2009 and Jan 2010 is ~0.39 degrees. The difference between the anomalies in the table above is 0.4 degrees (i.e. 0.613 – 0.213). This seems pretty consistent to me.
On a separate point we still seem to be getting the comment similar to last month whereby paosters are querying the data becuses of the “cold NH”. It was cold in the parts inhabited by many readers of this blog.
Steve Hempell (20:02:53): Regarding the South Pacific hotspot, I wrote a couple of posts about it. The first looked at El Nino events during the satellite era using the OI/v2 data.
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2010/01/south-pacific-hot-spot.html
The second post looked at El Nino events starting in the 1950s and used the two NCDC and the two Hadley Centre SST datasets, comparing them to the raw COADS data:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2010/01/south-pacific-sst-patterns.html
So, while the South Pacific hotspot was stronger than usual during this El Nino, it’s existence is not unusual.
R Gates
I seem to be missing the evidence of smaller and smaller amounts of ice in the Arctic and have also missed your response to my pointing out that the UK Met Office has pointed out the the UK winter has been significantly drier, especially in Scotland, despite the massive amounts of snow this year.
I could have sworn that you said that an accelerated hydrological cycle was responsible for the snow.
geo (19:30:55)
Hopefully this isn’t a result of some not obvious adjustments so that the new sat and the old come out the same.
The important measure here is not the monthly anomalies, which may be adjusted – as we have just seen – but the long term trend. It is about .13 degC/decade, and it has been relatively stable at that level for quite a while, when we filter out El Nino/La Nina effects etc.
Comparisons month to month or with earlier highs and lows have about zero significance, as natural fluctuations are many times higher than the changes implied by the trend.
As the “real” long time trend, if there is any, may be even smaller, statistical methods without the power to detect trends at around the 0.07 degC/decade level, are rather useless for the trend detection problem.
Side note: There seems to be an “urban cold island” effects among many commenters here. When the hot areas in the NH this winter tend to be places where few people live, they can’t understand there is heating going on. And that the troposphere under El Ninos may tend to warm more than the surface, is not sensational, I think.
gtrip (21:39:52) :
Paul Martin (18:15:45) :
Right on Paul. Someone finally using their senses.
Except that Paul’s comment does not make sense. The UAH figures are anomalies relative to a given month. They are not raw temperature readings.
I went to the doctor yesterday, told him I was dying unless something is done about it real soon.
So he gave me a full physical, and told me I was in perfect health! What an idiot!
He completely failed to notice the my 0.7C degree temperature anomaly compared to 30 years ago!
When I pointed out that that my temperature was 0.3C higher than the average over the last 8 years, he called me a hypochondriac!
And he said he was sick of patients with digital thermometers, since without them they wouldn’t even know they were sick!
How complacent, or even incompetent, is that?
Looks pretty high to me… almost up to 1998 levels