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.]
R. Gates (19:42:13) :
“That is, if 2010 turns out to be warmer than 1998 or 1934, to what would the AGW skeptic attribute it? A weaker El Nino than 1998? AGW models give us a reasonable answer…increased CO2.”
You attempt to argue that since X and Y are occurring X must be due to Y. Is this a plausible hypothesis to investigate? Sure have a ball. Is this observation in a deterministically chaotic system justification to turn energy production on it’s head? Hardly, but if you think it is you get one vote at your local polling station just like me. And remember your hypothesis has not been corroborated by observation yet. Regarding the GCM – they are built based on the premise that CO2 causes warming with a net positive feedback. It is not surprising that they show warming due to CO2 – that’s the assumption they start with.
Doug Badgero said::
R. Gates (19:42:13) :
“That is, if 2010 turns out to be warmer than 1998 or 1934, to what would the AGW skeptic attribute it? A weaker El Nino than 1998? AGW models give us a reasonable answer…increased CO2.”
So what would be the answer? What hypothesis will the AGW skeptics offer if 2010 turns out to be hotter globally than 1998, despite the fact that the El Nino may be weaker, and we are no where close to a solar max?
R. Gates
That is, if 2010 turns out to be warmer than 1998 or 1934, to what would the AGW skeptic attribute it? A weaker El Nino than 1998? AGW models give us a reasonable answer…increased CO2>>
Does it work the other way around? Like if CO2 drops does the temperature go down? Because is we look back in time the temperature record keeps dropping right along with the CO2 dropping, wow, it works. Oh, wait a second, I’ve worked my way back to 1920 and the CO2 isn’t dropping anymore but the temperature is. Probably just a blip. 1910 1900 1890 1880 kinda wobbling around a bit even though CO2 isn’t, but mostly downward, wow 1830 or something seriously cold but…nope CO2 still steady. I’m stumped here. Explain this with an AGW model again? What I missed?
Only slightly OT: To see a pretty nice snapshot and perspective of this year’s near record warmth (satellite record) in the troposphere, go here:
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/
And click on the 14,000 foot level, and then also turn on the 20 year record high temps. You’ll see instantly where the troposphere is currently compared to the record high temps over the past 20 years. The 14,000 ft. level is handy simply because it is in the mid-range of the troposphere, and has the record high data, but if you click on any of the the other altitudes up to the tropopause (around 46,000) you’ll see a similar pattern of warmth. Also interesting to note on this site, if you go into the stratosphere, you’ll see it’s been cooling the past 20 years (as most of you well know), and of course this is another of the measurable effects predicted by AGW models.
Caleb: ” H2O vapor is warmed at all by visible light, then it would be warmed twice when there is snow-cover’s abedo, first by decending light and then by bounced-back light. Even though the albedo would represent a net loss for the earth’s energy-budget, a short-term rise in temperatures in the troposphere might be noted.”
“This is another reason why I’m expecting temperatures to “plunge,” (if tenths of a degree can be called a “plunge,”) as the snow-cover melts away.”
Caleb your instincts are spot on.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
R. Gates (21:34:41) :
“This years record warmth (satellite record).”
The satellite record is 30 years, right, “R”?
30 years????
Big ******** deal.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
R Gates: “We also are seeing Solar Cycle 24 starting to rev up, and this will add to temps.”
Show the conclusive proof for this one.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
R Gates “AGW models give us a reasonable answer…increased CO2.”
You are really showing your troll colors here.
AGW models??? Huh?
Do you mean general circulation models? Are those the “AGW” models you talk about??? LOL
Anyways….put on your logical thinking cap for a few sound moments and take a look at this.
http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr/10/c010p069.pdf
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
DeNihilist (09:13:42) :
“Nick B – Vancouver’s winter is, in fact, extreme/unprecedented/unusual then lets see it… but news reports that Vancouver is warm and dry during an El Nino year, AFAIK, should not come as a surprise and that was what I was trying to get at”
Nick, let me try to help here:
Here is yesterdays data from Envirocanada. It has been back to normalish values since about midway through the Olympics. I think the problem is that people look at a map and just infer that being further north of their location, we must be colder. Forgetting that we have a huge ocean influence.
Try going inland to Kamloops and Vernon where it was beautifully warm today and where they haven’t had any significant snow since Christmas (despite being mysteriously ‘snow-covered’ according to Rutgers). Or on the pass between the two where Monte Lake has gone from being driveable on two weeks ago to being fishable by boat yesterday (rather earlier than usual). The locals are worried about the lack of snow pack this year leading to drought this summer.
Phil: “Try going inland to Kamloops and Vernon where it was beautifully warm today and where they haven’t had any significant snow since Christmas (despite being mysteriously ’snow-covered’ according to Rutgers). Or on the pass between the two where Monte Lake has gone from being driveable on two weeks ago to being fishable by boat yesterday (rather earlier than usual). The locals are worried about the lack of snow pack this year leading to drought this summer.”
A positive PNA throughout the winter, with a negative NAO for the past FIVE months and something similar for the AO for the same.
Its an El Nino year bro….deal with it.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pna/pna.shtml
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pna/nao.shtml
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/ao.shtml
With the return of La Nina later this year combined with a cold PDO….you will probably have a “better” year next winter.
The high latitude block that shunted all of the cold air southward and produced anomalous positive heights over Canada…was predicted…way back in July 2009.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Phil, have a brother in Vernon, and a place in Princeton, no doubt, it has been a warm, less snow winter in a lot of areas of B.C.
Yet Mt. Washington has had record snowbase, Whistler had its snowiest Dec. ever, and we may be seeing a bit of snow here in Vancouver this week. Temps down to -1 overnight.
And please don’t forget, we had record colds in greater Van. last winter, before El Nino was at its height.
Honestly, there have been years here where I have golfed 18 holes in Jan. and others where I have had to wait til mid-march.
As everyone is so fond of saying, “it’s just weather”
R. “what would be the answer? What hypothesis will the AGW skeptics offer if 2010 turns out to be hotter globally than 1998, despite the fact that the El Nino may be weaker, and we are no where close to a solar max”
Uhh – weather?
Tata
You replied to me;
“Since record keeping began in 1937 at Vancouver International Airport the average temperature in January has been 3.3 C.”
http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Record+warm+January+Vancouver+2010+Olympics/2491944/story.html
So record warmth is based on records back to 1937 kept at an International airport? Does that suggest it is a very impressive record either in length or location?
tonyb
NickB:
I didn’t add the Vancouver article as anecdotal proof for global warming, it was anecdotal proof for all of NH not being cooler than normal since that (if I remember it correctly) what the original question was talking about..
R. Gates
“That is, if 2010 turns out to be warmer than 1998 or 1934, to what would the AGW skeptic attribute it?”
Are you asking for a theory? Wonderful! I love inventing theories! (It’s the math involved in gathering data to back a theory up that I’m not so good at.)
OK. For the fun of it, let’s tweak a variable in the system. Let’s reduce the amount of energy coming from the sun a hair. Where would you expect to see a change?
Because the oceans retain much heat and land masses lose heat swiftly, the first change you’d expect to see is: Cooling over land. Because most of the land is in the northern hemisphere, you’d expect to see most cooling over northern land masses.
That reaction would in turn cause a reaction in the jet stream, which might loop further north over the relatively warmer oceans and loop further south over the relatively colder land. Such large loops are in turn conducive to a blocking pattern, such as a negative AO. That in turn would have the reaction of creating an area of warmth over a place like Greenland.
Another effect of blocking patterns is the weakening of trade winds. Weaker trade winds tend to discourage the recharging of the Pacific Warm Pool, called a La Nina, and instead to encourage the discharge of that warmth, which we call an El Nino.
So far we have seen the initial action, less-energy-from-the-sun, create a reaction of warming over Greenland and much of the Pacific. It seems counterintuitive, but cooling causes warming, for a bit.
However both a blocking pattern over Greenland and an El Nino are, in and of themselves, actions, which generate reactions. (Water doesn’t slosh to the front of the bathtub without generating a slosh that comes back the other way.)
Exactly how might these re-reactions play out ? I’m not sure of the details, but it will be fun to watch. I expect the El Nino to give way to a La Nina, and the spike in temperatures to be followed by a “plunge” of a half degree by this time next year. Care to bet me a nickel on that?
In any case, please note I described all these actions and reactions, springing from a single variable, without involving CO2.
Another variable would be a big volcanic eruption. If that occurs, all bets are off, because (after initial cooling) a whole different sequence of actions and reactions gets going.
By the way, I found your comment of (19:42:13) : to be well-worded, lucid, and to hold healthy challenges. I don’t at all object to getting my mind stimulated by that sort of questioning.
Phil M,
I must have missed all the posts and comments on RC yelling at those guys every time GISS upward revised current/recent or downward revised historical temps. Maybe you can show me where there was outrage expressed there to adjustments that worked in the favor of their storyline? I’ve never seen it.
Now, what I should be able to find for you is a post from one of the alarmsist blogs pointing seasonal adjustments in this temp series and saying, more or less, that it should be ignored until this issue was resolved. Perhaps you missed them, but there were a good number of comments here (both pro-AGW and skeptical of AGW) questioning it. Was/is there a tendency on the part of many AGW skeptics here to look the other way, sure, it’s human nature to want to cheer for your side (where have we seen that demonstrated recently?) – I think most here strive to be objective, but I think you’re expecting perfection.
Maybe you should stick around for a while instead of bouncing in, lobbing hand grenades, and then disappearing.
Caleb (03:12:05)
“Exactly how might these re-reactions play out ? I’m not sure of the details, but it will be fun to watch. I expect the El Nino to give way to a La Nina, and the spike in temperatures to be followed by a “plunge” of a half degree by this time next year. Care to bet me a nickel on that?”
There was a plunge in temps immediately after the 1998 el Nino – was this for the same reason? Can we expect the same again?
Carsten Arnholm, Norway (08:39:50) :
“my opinion is that C++ is by far the most suitable language for an open source climate project.”
Carsten, why not C# ? I have tried plain C, C++ and C#.
I think I would go for C#. All the string handling, the file handling…ah, its a gift to programmers!
Thank you Microsoft! And the Express-version of Developer Studio is free….
Here is how half truths can be so hard to negate – based upon envirocan forecast for the next five days for Vancouver
Words at play
Our highs will be 3-4*C well below normal for the next five days, while lows will stay within 2*C of the average.
Notice how the emphasis is brought to the point of view that I want to be seen – temps lower. whilst the other parameter is sloughed off. I do not indicate in what direction the 2*C is in, higher or lower.
Now if you check the forecast, you will find that it is not really a good one for this demo, as both the highs and lows are lower. It would be better if the lows were up to 2*C higher then average, but this is just for demo purposes.
A truer version would have gone like this, for the next five days, daily highs are forecast to be from average temps to 4*C lower then for this time of year. The lows will range also from average to 2*C lower then normal. Don’t plant your tomatoes yet, for as we all know, weather can be/is highly variable!
kwik — Carsten, why not C# ?
Keyword: Open Source.
C# is microsoft’s proprietary script kiddie toy intended for dental billing and third rate web pages. C/C++ is universal and powers NASA probes.
Sorry, I didn’t mean to spark a discussion on computer programming. Actually C# is not a ‘script kiddie toy’ and through the Mono project is also Open Source. However, having said that I’d also like to sat that I agree with Carsten and that C++ is more suited to Climate Modeling. FORTRAN was a good language in it’s time, but a good model should be able to utilize modern super computers. C++ is a modern Object Orrented language with a plethora of tools for debugging and testing. I was quite surprised to find that the Met Office was using Perl for griding but that’s another story…
This is just my opinion folks, for me, anything beats programming in machine language!
Mike Allen;
machine language? yeah, I really wanna do THAT again 🙂
call me crazy…. but excel. Microsoft lets you separate the logic from the presentation now, so you can throw banks of processors at it on the back end and anyone can play with it on the front end. Microsoft wants a stake in the HPC game so bad they would probably pay for it.
Mikael,
Point taken! I hope I didn’t come across too harsh. Too much hand waving recently about AGW causing a lack of snow in Vancouver and me with my itchy trigger finger ; ) As an El Nino year we should expect VC’s winter to be in what, the 90th percentile for temperature? So no disagreement that it *is* warm there, and dry too… both consistent with established weather patterns.
R Gates,
Was the stratospheric cooling emergent behavior in the models or were they programed to behave that way?
The first column of temperature numbers are from V5.2 and the second from V5.3:
Feb. 1998 0.760 0.760
Feb. 2010 0.740 0.613
The Feb. 1998 V5.3 number (0.760) is interpreted from the graph, as I could’t find tabular data. I am puzzled why this number is the same or about the same as it was in V5.2. Does anyone know why?
A few more responses:
A C Osborn, Wren: v5.2 and v5.3 datasets in several files
eg. gridded 1979 monthly anomalies of lower troposphere at:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/tltmonamg.1979_5.3
Monthly global, hemispheric and tropics at:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.3
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2
Figure of v5.2 vs. v5.3
http://www.drroyspencer.com/ see link to pdf within article on v5.3
Pascvaks: I’m unaware of a site with time series of planetary temps for all planets
David: Oxygen emits in the microwave with an intensity proportional to temperature. “Albedo” is associated with visible light in general. Over land in the near-60 GHz band, microwaves are essentially absorbed and emitted, not reflected.
Kadaka: Variations in land emissivity have been studied as possible noise to the microwave temperature signal (e.g. drought to moist over time). The effect was tiny, < 0.01 K for global average. Mountains don't move around, so their consistent impact is removed in the anomaly calculation.
Wren: The adjustments in v5.3 impact the AMSU instruments from mid-1998 onward, so pre-AMSU, no impact – which includes early 1998.