by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
The global-average lower tropospheric temperature continues to be quite warm: +0.65 deg. C for March, 2010. This is about the same as January. Global average sea surface temperatures (not shown) remain high.
As a reminder, last month we change to Version 5.3 of our dataset, which 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 as in Version 5.2.
ALSO…we have now added the NOAA-18 AMSU, which provides data since June of 2005. The local observation time of NOAA-18 (now close to 2 p.m., ascending node) is similar to that of NASA’s Aqua satellite (about 1:30 p.m.). The temperature anomalies listed above have changed somewhat as a result of adding NOAA-18.
[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.]
YR MON GLOBE NH SH TROPICS 2009 1 0.252 0.472 0.031 -0.065 2009 2 0.247 0.569 -0.074 -0.044 2009 3 0.191 0.326 0.056 -0.158 2009 4 0.162 0.310 0.013 0.012 2009 5 0.140 0.160 0.120 -0.057 2009 6 0.044 -0.011 0.100 0.112 2009 7 0.429 0.194 0.665 0.507 2009 8 0.242 0.229 0.254 0.407 2009 9 0.504 0.590 0.417 0.592 2009 10 0.361 0.335 0.387 0.381 2009 11 0.479 0.458 0.536 0.478 2009 12 0.283 0.350 0.215 0.500 2010 1 0.649 0.861 0.437 0.684 2010 2 0.603 0.725 0.482 0.792 2010 3 0.653 0.853 0.454 0.726
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Bill R writes “. Where is the offseting warm temperature coming from?”
Well, Canada for one place. We, in Ottawa, have not just been breaking records. We had a daily temperature high in the first week of April which would have been above average at the height of summer.
Steve Goddard (13:45:28) : You wrote, “Satellite data is always exaggerated during ENSO events. GISS doesn’t show the big spike, and didn’t in 1998 either.”
I believe it’s the other way around. That is, the response of GISS data to ENSO events is understated by the 1200km smoothing.
as the song goes – “put them together and what do you get”
http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/eltemp.jpg
But who is going to believe in these temperatures any more? “They” are just preparing their next Mexican “Jamboree”, this time they are sure to reach their most desired goal: A global Climate Change Kommisar, perhaps AL THE MAGNIFICENT “GORDO” himself, unless there is a new Climate Gate v.2.0 or a nice 9.0 degrees richter scale earthquake with its epicenter located right on the spot.
Steve Goddard (13:45:28) :
“Satellite data is always exaggerated during ENSO events. GISS doesn’t show the big spike, and didn’t in 1998 either.”
Steve, are there any theories on why it is so? A running average could be an explanation?
Somethimes a running average is helpful.Gets you a curve that is readable. Without it one might just see a band of colour all over the creen.
Hey Bill R.
I am on the “edge” of that big anomaly over Baffin Island and northern Quebec. All the snow has melted and the flowers are sprouting, about 6 weeks ahead of normal. We had +24C on Saturday…..usually around plus 10 this time of year.
Sorry to be hogging the warmth…..I thought that there was plenty to go around (IPCC) 😉
The last time we had a very quiet sun for a length of time (1911-1913) the two following years (1914 and 1915) were very warm. Seems the same thing has happened again.
“It may be cold in Europe but it may also be much hotter than usual over the arctic”
which would explain the increase in sea ice area.
One thing that interests me is that the current warmth is clearly different from that of the medieval warm period. People in Europe right now do not think it is warm! Make of this comment what you will, but I think it is an interesting datum.
[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.]
Has this been true since 1979, or were earlier satellites calibrated to ground data?
Stephen Wilde (13:32:04) :
The El Nino is pumping energy into the troposphere whilst the low level of solar activity causes the atmosphere to contract which slows down energy loss to space.
A purely temporary combination and nothing to do with CO2.
The atmosphere does not contract due to low levels of solar activity [which is actually going up], so does not enter into consideration. The thermosphere is extremely thin. All the air up there would form a layer 1 centimeter thick if taken to sea level pressure and temperature.
A dumb question: The satellite measurement is calibrated to on-board redundant platinum resistance thermometers (PRTs). What heat source do the PRTs measure, and how do they measure it? I must be missing something.
Confused
el nino continues to release ocean heat to atmosphere, which in turn releases heat to space
meanwhile, low solar activity and increased cloudiness (if you believe svensmark) means less heat going IN to the oceans.
so the radiator is set to high, and the recharger is set to trickle.
better buy a coat. they’re on sale this time of year.
Bob Tisdale (14:17:06) :
You can see the wild exaggerations in satellite data during the 1998 and 2010 El Ninos here.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1997/plot/gistemp/from:1997/offset:-.25
kwik (14:21:09) :
Satellite TLT data is measured at 14,000 feet. Perhaps El Nino events preferentially warm air at that elevation?
Probably an ignorant question, but how long is the satellite record of surface / troposphere temperatures? I’m talking temperature records which have not been CRU’d or Hadley’d.
It is impossible to know if these temperature readings have been “fiddled” or not.
Each analyst seems to get different results:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements
UAH used to give much a lower trend until they were brought back into line. Errors in satellite drift and switching between satellites in particular.
What no-one appears to be looking for are errors that correct back the other way (towards cooling). Once the results approximate that of earth based results they are considered correct.
Likewise radiosonde data has been “corrected” to match the land based record.
To say that the satellites are not calibrated to earth based thermometers is disingenuous. Their results are tricky to interpret, and there are plenty of ways that they can be tweaked to fit the desired pattern.
” [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.] ”
That reads like an admission that there is no way of verifying the validity of measurements since the instruments were launched. Last month, Mike Borgelt and mikelorrey asked reasonable and pertinent questions about calibration that appeared not to have been answered. Yet they are fundamentally important.
Mike Borgelt (16:31:35) :
So where is the experimental data that says the PRTs remain in calibration after being exposed to the space environment (radiation, thermal cycling etc) for years?
mikelorrey (16:37:52) :
What radiation, ion, and thermal influences on the on-board platinum resistance thermometers could change the calibration over time? Furthermore, any resister is going to show drift in resistance over time, varying by a certain percentage. What are the tolerances and error rates on these thermometers and are identical units being constantly operated in vacuum/radiation chambers on Earth to monitor degradation?
Answers, please.
By the way, March was Australia’s coldest since 2003.
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=tmax&area=aus&season=03&ave_yr=A
Leif Svalgaard (15:41:23) : “…The thermosphere is extremely thin. All the air up there would form a layer 1 centimeter thick if taken to sea level pressure and temperature….”
Thanks, Leif. I’ve been trying to find an estimate of the total mass of the thermosphere for a long time.
I, for one, do not believe the global temperature, at any altitude, is known to the .001 of a degree. I seriously doubt it is known to even plus or minus 1 degree. Global temperature series, dating to the 1880s, with accuracy indicated of hundredths of a degree? Sorry, but i’m not buying it.
Stephen Wilde says:
That’s interesting. I could have sworn that a year or two ago, most people on this site were blaming the (relatively) cold global temperatures on the low level of solar activity. So now you’re blaming the high temperatures on the low level of solar activity?
Well, yes, I agree that short-term variations have nothing to do with CO2. However, the long-term trend that these short term variations are superimposed upon…that is another matter.
“”” Graham Dick (16:17:40) :
” [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.] ”
That reads like an admission that there is no way of verifying the validity of measurements since the instruments were launched. Last month, Mike Borgelt and mikelorrey asked reasonable and pertinent questions about calibration that appeared not to have been answered. Yet they are fundamentally important. “””
Well I have a lot more confidence in the calibration accuracy and drift of those in situ PRTs than I do in any land based thermistor reading inside some owl box.
Other than certain Cosmic ray induced transmutations of a Platinum atom to something else, I would think those calibration thermometers in space, are about as stable a reference as anything that exists in climate science; well other than the time kept by atomic clocks. Funny thing you never hear about the satellite atomic clocks drifting, because of cosmetic transmutation of a Cesium atom or some other similar change.
I would not choose to die on that hill of unreliability of PRTs.
Senators question flawed NASA climate data,
surfacestations.org mentioned in letter!
http://www.climatechangefraud.com/climate-reports/6712-senators-question-flawed-nasa-climate-data
Steve Goddard (15:58:51) : You replied, “You can see the wild exaggerations in satellite data during the 1998 and 2010 El Ninos here.”
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1997/plot/gistemp/from:1997/offset:-.25
Sorry, Steven. You’re correct. I’ve posted about the exaggeration of TLT anomalies before on other threads.
I had done some comparisons of CRUTEMP3 vs GISS LST with 250km and 1200km smoothing over the weekend and that’s where the GISS 1200km smoothing really shows.
http://i39.tinypic.com/fa0jkp.png
What is the humidity?
DaveE.
So what next. Will we see the satellite temperatures keep climbing for the next 10 years while the world freezes over? Who then will start to question the logic of using one measurement out of context? Isn’t it time to put a stop to the AGW fraud and the criminal activities of certain climate scientists who claim they know enough of the climate to predict it 50-100 years in advance?