With apologies to Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. and Steve McQueen, I offer this advice: run ! A giant temperature anomaly is attacking Canada and Greenland.
An Example Of Why A Global Average Temperature Anomaly Is Not An Effective Metric Of Climate
Roy Spencer and John Christy of the University of Alabama at Huntsville have reported in their Global Temperature Report that February 2010 was the 2nd warmest February in 32 years (e.g. see Roy’s summary).
Their spatial map of the anomalies, however, shows that most of the relative warmth was in a focused geographic area; see
The global average is based on the summation of large areas of positive and negative temperature anomalies.
As I have reported before on my weblog; e.g. see
What is the Importance to Climate of Heterogeneous Spatial Trends in Tropospheric Temperatures?,
it is the regional tropospheric temperature anomalies that determine the locations of development and movement of weather systems [which are the actual determinants of such climate events as drought, floods, ect] not a global average temperature anomaly.
OK. Satellite measurements = No single thermometer error is possile.
But, over the whole month o February – how many days/hours did the blob exist?
Was a single meteor shower/incidental/accidental instrument glitch measurement over only 5 days or 10 days enough to throw off the readings for the longer period of time?
For this hot spot, what are the readings over the entire month? Have “blobs” ever been measured before, and if so, what are physical reasons for a “real blob” – if it is not a instrument error?
(After all, there would have been no reason to suspect the Antarctic ozone hole or the microwave background numbers ever existed until either was measured “accidentally” so to speak.)
boballab (12:16:10) :
The blob is weather. Natural variability. Heat being moved around in different ways, around the planet.
Look up some month with an AO index that was extreme in the other direction. Maybe you’ll see different looking blobs.
It tells you nothing about the trends. For that, look at a trend map. The above is not a trend map.
Steve Schaper (09:43:40) :
“What are the odds this is from using one thermometer for a huge grid, and something has changed that that location?”
Zero. This is satellite data.
Stephen Skinner (11:41:34) :
“Considering that the bedrock of AGW is CO2 then this would be interesting overlayed with CO2 distribution.”
Exactly!
Doesnt NASA have an AGW Satellite up there? Do they see a great CO2 BLOB ???
I dont believe in the great CO2 BLOB.
Clearly the result of all the methane gas being given off by the rotting carcasses of polar bears, as they do their bit for AGW and go extinct.
That’s where Superman lives
WUWT – “”As I have reported before on my weblog; e.g. see “What is the Importance to Climate of Heterogeneous Spatial Trends in Tropospheric Temperatures?”, it is the regional tropospheric temperature anomalies that determine the locations of development and movement of weather systems [which are the actual determinants of such climate events as drought, floods, ect] not a global average temperature anomaly.””
_______________________________
a·nom·a·ly (-nm-l)
n. pl. a·nom·a·lies
1. Deviation or departure from the normal or common order, form, or rule.
2. One that is peculiar, irregular, abnormal, or difficult to classify: “Both men are anomalies: they have . . . likable personalities but each has made his reputation as a heavy” (David Pauly).
3. Astronomy The angular deviation, as observed from the sun, of a planet from its perihelion.
_____________________________
Al Gore did not invent anomalies (or the WWW/Internet, Saltine Crackers, Geratol, ad infinitum that I know of). Paris and the Amazon aren’t burning (much). The Greenland Ice Cap isn’t melting (well not much more than it has any month in the past three months). And as nice and kind as it might seem from the map above, Northern and Northeastern Canada and Greenland are still kinda chilly. ‘Anomalies’ are friendly little things that wouldn’t hurt a fly.
The following map seems to show to show a vertical wind velocity anomaly over the blob at a 700 mb elevation.
http://www.weatherimages.org/data/imag155.html
kdk33 (12:19:18)
*I believe* for the satellite sets they use their own anomaly baseline starting in 1979. I’m pretty sure about that at least.
Erik (11:20:54) :
OT:
Oh noooo…. the birds are shrinking!
Climate change ‘makes birds shrink’ in North America:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8560000/8560694.stm
Erik, you just picked the wrong study. Depending on how you interpret this headline from the BBC, maybe climate change isn’t all that bad!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7390109.stm
Great tits cope well with warming.
The blob appears to correspond quite nicely to the blocking high that entrenched itself around November and helped funnel all that lovely weather and temperatures normally reserved for my neck of the woods (southern Ontario) into Europe. And as far as I’m concerned Europe can have it again next year. In fact, keep it—I won’t miss it.
AMSU Channel data from satellite data
Data from:
discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps
Note that all data is used (there seems to be none before 1998 for these channels
http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/1151/amsuamar2010.png
near surface is warming at 1.21C/day=4.4C/century
3300ft data (now discontinued) was warming at 12deg/century
sea surface is slightly cooling but only 8 years of data.
No problem their then!
carrot eater (12:01:57) :
R Gates:
I’m glad somebody else has finally raised the Arctic Oscillation. The AO was reported heavily on this webpage throughout the winter, though perhaps the emphasis was on the cooler-than-normal US and Europe. What goes with that is a warmer-than-normal pattern further north.
When you look at the map for an individual month, you’ll see weather patterns like that. Blobs here, blobs there. But the blobs of any given month don’t tell you much about the long term trends.
For that, you look at the trend map. In the trend map, you do indeed see stronger warming over the Arctic. But you don’t see this blob, which was specific to this last winter and the AO.
Last year the blob was over Siberia, remember?
Actually, this is a fun game. Look up a chart of the AO index. Pick out extreme values, both positive and negative. Then look at the map for the corresponding month, and look at Northeastern Canada/Greenland. The AO index isn’t a perfect predictor of what you’ll see there, but it seems better than random guessing.
That’s for sure here in Québec, Canada, we didn’t have a winter this year, almost no snow, and temperature which where normally -20 C in jannuary and febuary nights where around 0 Celsius.
I was very “timide” to talk about the nonsense of CAGW to my colleague and friends !
G.P.
jose (11:23:40) :
“Anthony:
You and your readers should know that global temperature anomalies are calculated using a weighted average.”
&
“Your final point about weather being a product of the regional anomalies is essentially correct, but this is just noise around the increase in global average temperature.”
I appreciate your attempt to educate the ignorant, but you have completely missed the point. Do you actually believe that anyone here didn’t already know that?
Discussing the regional anomalies is a fabulous approach to learning about what ACTUALLY drives climate. If you stay stuck on the weighted average, then how would you be able to get to the bottom of the temp rise? Do you care to explain how this regional anomaly fits into the AGW hypothesis? While you are content to label the scientific process as ‘noise’, I personally appreciate the effort.
…and your point is….. what exactly?
Analyzing trends is no more useful than trying to calculate the average global temperate of the 15th century using tree rings from a handful of trees in a handful of sites. People start looking at trends and then they start trying to convince everyone the trend will go on until infinity.
Tell me what’s causing the anomaly. Come up with a testable hypothesis and see if it correctly predicts the temperature in the future.
Here’s a trend I do find useful: Compare the GISS model predictions to the actual measurements. If the model is accurate, the trend will be a flat line. Anything else indicates the model is probably incorrect.
I for one think these kind of pictures are pretty much worthless. What does this tell us about the total heat in the atmosphere? Not much.
We need a 3 dimensional view (or vertical summation) of ENERGY (not temperature) and then we just might start to get somewhere.
@Mike Haseler (10:15:31) :
Is this a lampoon or is it for real? It sure reads like a comedy skit. If it is, its awfully funny.
odd blobs.
I think people are missing the main point of the post.
There is a blob in the LOWER TROPOSPHERE. so #1 thermometers are not involved in this measurement as many have pointed out. #2. The blob is a DEPARTURE from the seasonal Normals ( see the chart ) #3.
“it is the regional tropospheric temperature anomalies that determine the locations of development and movement of weather systems [which are the actual determinants of such climate events as drought, floods, ect] not a global average temperature anomaly.”
This is the issue. so lets break that down. The argument is made that tropospheric anomalies drive weather systems which cause floods and droughts. I dont think anyone who believes in AGW denies that they are the PROXIMATE cause. The real question is this:
1. Will AGW ( which we see SIGNS OF in the global anomaly ) drive the
proximate cause OR.
2. Will a warmer planet exhibit the same frequency, duration, and severity of the Proximate cause?
In other words, will AGW make these blobs more frequent, more widespread, and of higher magnitude. The BLOB is still the mechanism that delivers the final blow. That is not the issue. The issue is the causal chain that drives the BLOB.
By the way, the area around the “blob” (Baffin/Newfoundland) has been responsible for a large fraction of the negative artic ice anomaly in the last few months in Cryosphere today’s maps. Last year it was essentially zero for jan-march.
I think it is probably an equal area projection. Still distorts at the poles but not as much as Mercator.
As regards the ‘blob’ its obvious that it got fed up sitting over Siberia so decided to go on vacation 🙂
R. Gates
OT for this thread, but if you recall our conversation around macro effects of UHI you might find this interesting. Would appreciate any corrections you (or anyone else for that matter) might be able to offer.
Regards!
I has been a mild winter in this part of Canada, and I hear no one complaining.