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.
Missingno (13:59:38) :
Yeah, it’s a real jungle up there in the Arctic.
It may be cold in the USA, it may be cold in Europe, it may be colder in Mongolia than ever known, it may be cold on the Ice Cap and that melt is dragging it’s feet, but by God it’s just gotta be screaming hot somewhere else.
Ok, where’s the hot spot with all the fun?
jorgekafkazar (17:17:00) :
Thanks, Leif. I’ve been trying to find an estimate of the total mass of the thermosphere for a long time.
A simple calculation: the pressure at a given altitude is the weight of the overlying atmosphere. At the base of the thermosphere, the pressure is 1/1000,000 of that at sea level, so if we take the troposphere [where 90% of the air is] as ‘the atmosphere’, then with a thickness of 10 km = 10*1000*100 = 1 million centimeter, one millionth of that is 1 centimeter.
Isn’t it interesting that when temperature measurements show an increase, lots of folks on this site question the data? When measurements show a decline, comments on this site generally (there are always exceptions) embrace the numbers and exhibit little skepticism.
Go to the “true believer” sites and you will witness reversed behavior. That observation speaks volumes about the “tribal” nature of AGW and the widespread subjectivity of the human race. Pure “truth seekers” are few and far between.
“Missingno (13:59:38) : I’m always flabbergasted by idiotic comments of “this doesn’t make any sense because it’s cold where I am”, as though you are able to deduce global temperatures by looking out of your window. ”
My idiotic comment for today, in honor of Missingno, thank you very much. I hope that it doesn’t end up like 1998. 1998 was hot, very hot and dry here in Florida. A large part of the state was on fire in May and June. So far it’s been cool and moist. We have had regular rain since January that we didn’t have in 1998. I’m not sure how this el-nino compares to 1998 everywhere else, but so far we seem to be ok. (I know, it’s just weather.)
A lot of the agricultural meteorologists are thinking that we may have a very hot dry summer down south. The thinking is that this will be a repeat of the Summers of 1983 and 1998.
A lot of our confusion about experienced heat/cold and the anomaly data comes because climate science ignores the fact that temperatures are not conserved. Temperatures are not like irrepressible fluids either.
It is a false expectation to project that anomalies will conserve, which is what the question “where is all the heating going”. Temperature anomaly changes do not represent the changes of heating except in a convoluted non linear distorted manner.
Example:
An anomaly change in the arctic of 15C, from 233K to 248K
a) melts no ice
b) represents a change in watts/m^2 radiated 214-167=47watts/m^2
An anomaly change in Canada, where we were just told that it was 24C, from
24C (297K) to 9C(282K) gives 441-359=82watts/m^2
A fifteen degree anomaly in Canada has a different energy content than a 15 degree anomaly in the arctic. When the averaging happens between positive and negative anomalies the results are, if not nonsense, highly distorted.
It is energy that is conserved and creates the local temperatures not the anomalies of temperatures that create heat content.
Another blowout record high month for the UAH anomaly… The previous March record was 0.53 in 1998, and the only other March anomalies over 0.40 were in 2004 and 2007. These were measured before the changes in the UAH anomaly calculation to try and smooth out the rather weird annual cycle.
Since Jan 2010 was about 0.72 in the old system, and this is “about the same”, then March 2010 apparently was over 0.70 using the old system, and this simply blows out the previous March 98 record of 0.53.
So January and March blew out the previous UAH records for those months, and in the last nine months, six has been either the hottest or 2nd hottest for those months. Even with the really BIG Adjustments to the UAH data set (much bigger than any adjustments to the GISS data), January, February, and March have set a record pace. Since Spencer is now essentially shifting the annual cycle, this means there is a “baked in temperature rise” for May and June.
Clearly, either June or July will see the highest 13 month running average in the UAH… So 2010 will see the hottest “year” in the data.
PJB (14:24:51) :
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) 😉
Scotland had the coldest December and January since 1914, and the coldest February since 1963. The first two 2 weeks of March were cold, since then it has been average. We still have snowdrops in flower, and I have yet to see a dafodill this year. In England they are saying the Spring is 3 weeks later than average. But it is all just weather 😉
Sorry, re-posted with end italics tag in right place:
PJB (14:24:51) :
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) 😉
Scotland had the coldest December and January since 1914, and the coldest February since 1963. The first two 2 weeks of March were cold, since then it has been average. We still have snowdrops in flower, and I have yet to see a dafodill this year. In England they are saying the Spring is 3 weeks later than average. But it is all just weather 😉
Okay, I give up.
No source code = unverifiable claim.
So the old march record from 1998 (0.53 °C above 1979-1998 average) was broken. With version 5.2 the march 2010 deviation would have been 0.70. The new version fits better to the calculations of RSS. For March both are exactly the same (0.65 °C).
So February’s .613 has declined to .603 under the new new system? Hide the decline indeed. Glass House anyone?
REPLY: Big difference, and you are waaaayy off base. This was announced beforehand, and announced again when actually implemented. Unlike CRU that hid data and email and its director Jones that sought to destroy emails that would be divulged as a part of an FOI request, UAH took criticisms that I brought to their attention from WUWT, decided there was a problem, and did something about it. They did it all in the open. – Anthony
I also (as Paul K2) think that the quick succession of new versions makes the whole unmanageable. How can we compare two months (e.g. March 2010 and March 1998) when we know only the new version v5.3 since the year 2009?
I noticed following adjustments for the month January 2010:
– original value: +0.724
– WUWT article of February 2010: two values are in the run (v5.2: 0.721; v5.3: 0.630);
– This present thread gives a brand-new value for January 2010: 0.649!
How can we compare the two mentioned months when for the calculation of the new value the data of NOAA-18 AMSU are only read in since June of 2005?
What is the name of this new version since this month?
Clean up that mess! It’s driving me up the wall!!
I ask you to make us the following tables
– v5.2 from Jan. 1979 until now;
– v5.3 from Jan. 1979 until now;
– v5.2 adjusted with the data of NOAA-18 since June 2005;
– v5.3 adjusted with the data of NOAA-18 since June 2005;
You have a great job tracking the surface temperature from satellite data. I hope you will succeed checking your results with direct measurements on earth.
The “twin peaks” are much like 1998. Expect an amazing plunge to follow, like in 1998?
In other ways this El Nino was quite different from 1998. It was centered far out in the Pacific, rather than along the South American coast. In some senses it was not so much the “driver” as the “driven.”
It will be interesting to see if this El Nino’s heat translates to northern latitudes as much as 1998. I’ll be watching Bob Tisdale’s graphs, to see if there is as much of a “step change.” I doubt there will be. This El Nino is a different critter, influenced by a different phase of the PDO. It should be called an “El Bill,” after Bill Gray, who predicted the switch in PDO and a downturn in temperatures thirty years ago.
Question, how do scientists discern the difference between a static temperature reading at a point in space and time, and where that energy has come from and where it is going?
Or do the satellites making measurements, actually tell you both?
I look at that spike and it is as if it makes a “whoohsing” sound of something going somewhere. Please excuse my infantile questions, I’m just a curious layman.
anna v (22:24:26) :
“When the averaging happens between positive and negative anomalies the results are, if not nonsense, highly distorted.”
This is very interesting, and I can almost follow it.
“It is energy that is conserved and creates the local temperatures not the anomalies of temperatures that create heat content.”
But aren’t anomalies just a different starting point in a temperature scale, therefore, are temperatures, just with a different number due to the choice of a different starting point (different zero, as in ºF and ºC and K)? And aren’t temperatures a measure of heat content, hence heat, hence thermal energy?
Summing up, aren’t then temperature anomalies a measure of thermal energy?
(I think I’ll regret getting into this.)
For those who question Pt resistance thermometers, they are the most stable resistance thermometers available. Being a Noble Metal, Pt doesn’t oxidize as easily at other metals, or carbon (from which most resistors used on the ground are made). The radiation induced changes are predictable, and a lot of research has gone in to finding out what the changes are, as they are used throughout the world’s space programs.
You calibrate to a known reference, to check for drift in the sensors. Having the reference on the satellite, rather than relying on a ground based reference reduces errors.
Personally I take all the temperatures high and low with a pinch of salt. Natural variations and patterns within yep, but talking temperature changes globally – pointless.
Claude Harvey (19:33:58) : When the very positive Global Temperature Anomaly is depenedant on the northern hemisphere being +0.853 when most (not all) of the Northern hemisphere is experiencing Record Low Temperatures it makes those used to dealing with “adjusted” Land Temperatures worry about the Algorithms used by NASA to calculates these values.
They are after all not Temperature Measurements, they are “brightness” measurements that require a lot of “calculations” to get them to thermal temperatures.
Thank god it’s getting warmer. I hope it keeps going up, warmer is better. It will be a glorious day when coconut palms can survive year round in Canada.
[snip – no valid email address – see policy page]
Re: Josualdo (Apr 6 04:43),
Taking an average of a temperature for a few years and using it as a base is not the same as having an absolute temperature scale , as the Kelvin scale is. The Celsius and Fahrenheit scales are absolutely defined, with no ambiguities. Averages depend on start and end points and can be all over the place as far as connection with energy content goes.
Summing up, aren’t then temperature anomalies a measure of thermal energy?
No, is the short answer. I posted on this on another thread:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/05/march-global-sea-surface-temperatures/#comment-361280
@docmartyn
“which would explain the increase in sea ice area.”
Actually, air temp has little effect on sea ice. it’s the ocean temps that regulate ice due to much higher thermal conductivity.
anna v (10:30:00) :
Thanks for your answer. I’ve been reading your comments at the other post.
I would disagree with you on this and that, but these are really not important. For instance, Kelvin is a unit, not a scale. The zero Kelvin value happens to be at -273.15 ºC (in the centigrade temperature scale). I know this is freakish nitpicking when you first see it, and it’s not a subject useful to pursue. Never mind, given that I think you meant any temperature scale.
I assume your exception with average temperatures is that goalposts can be changed. Otherwise, the “average temperature from xxxx to yyyy”, provided it is well defined, is equivalent to a given value for temperature (a given point in a temperature scale). Actually, it is nothing but a rationale to chose a value in the fixed temperature scale. Or am I missing something crucial?
Regarding energy as measured by temperature, I suppose we’re talking of thermal energy only, not kynetic, potential chemical, etc…? Obviously, temperatures don’t measure anything other than the heat form of energy.