APRIL 2010 UAH Global Temperature Update: +0.50 deg. C
By Dr. Roy Spencer
The global-average lower tropospheric temperature continues warm: +0.50 deg. C for April, 2010, although it is 0.15 deg. C cooler than last month. The linear trend since 1979 is now +0.14 deg. C per decade.
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 2010 4 0.501 0.796 0.207 0.634
Arctic temps (not shown) continued a 5-month string of much above normal temps (similar to Nov 05 to Mar 06) as the tropics showed signs of retreating from the current El Nino event. Antarctic temperatures were cooler than the long term average. Through the first 120 days of 1998 versus 2010, the average anomaly was +0.655 in 1998, and +0.602 in 2010. These values are within the margin of error in terms of their difference, so the recent global tropospheric warmth associated with the current El Nino has been about the same as that during the peak warmth of the 1997-98 El Nino.
As a reminder, two months ago we changed 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 added the NOAA-18 AMSU to the data processing in v5.3, 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.]
Roger Sowell says:
May 5, 2010 at 11:49 pm
Finally, the entire historical temperature record is corrupt, as Chiefio has shown in marvelous detail. My own feeble efforts showed that hadCRUT3 published data for the USA lower 48 states has essentially zero warming. What little warming appears there is easily explained by population growth and Urban Heat Island effects. (see sowellslawblog and hadCRUT3 temperatures)
The UAH record shows that the USA lower 48 states has warmed at the rate of 0.21 deg per decade since 1979. Perhaps the warming cannot be “easily explained by population growth and Urban Heat”.
Pam re La Nada. I got it from aurbo May 2, 2010 at 1:52 pm at El Nino Modoki
“Re the naming of neutral phases of the ENSO, I’ve always been partial to “La Nada”.”
I thought it was a great name too and I am hoping it will catch on.
R. Gates says:
May 5, 2010 at 9:53 pm
Why is it so difficult for AGW skeptics to accept the basic physical greenhouse effects of increasing amounts CO2?
Because
1. The increase in CO2 LAGS that of temperature and CO2 is LESS soluble in water at higher temperatures.
2. Seventy percent of the earth is WATER therefore the solubility of CO2 in H2O just might explain the increase.
3. WATER is the more abundant and much more variable and powerful green house gas AND it overlaps the CO2 absorption bands.
4. Plants tell us there was a lot more CO2 on earth and we are presently in a CO2 starved time. (THAT was the real crisis)
5. The IR absorption is logarithmic in regards to concentration. A look at the spectra shows there just isn’t very much more energy to be absorbed by CO2 so we are at the point of diminishing returns in spades.
6. Climate is very complex we are kidding ourselves if we think we completely understand all the factors that control it. CO2 is just one of many factors and a minor one at that. WATER is a more likely candidate for a major player.
And last but not least do not forget the politics involved or the data
Skeptics do not deny greenhouse gases we just do not think CO2 is the monster under the bed.
@R. Gates Four questions:
‘1) Where in the atmosphere does the primary physical phenomenon of the the absorption and retransmission of longwave radiation occur? Or said another way, at what layer of the atmosphere is CO2 at the highest concentration by mass where its greenhouse characteristics will exhibit the largest effect?’
In the oceans.
‘2) What percentage of the retransmitted longwave radiation will be directed into space, and what percentage is eventually directed back to the ground?’
Well, keeping to the same simplistic reasoning, molecules in the air, about 25% back to earth and 75% to space. Here, I show with picture, right side of earth ) now the co2 molecule . hence ). and co2 molecule radiating back to earth )>. et voila 25%. Simple enough huh?
‘3) What should the effect of a increasing amounts of longwave absorbing CO2 in the troposphere have on the stratosphere?’
First you have to figure if there actually is an observed effect to boot otherwise it’s kind of moot.
‘4) Isn’t it healthy that someone get on a primarily AGW skeptics site and act as a skeptic about the skeptics? Otherwise, wouldn’t the skeptics just keep agreeing with each other like bobble-headed dolls looking at their own reflection in the mirror?’
Sceptics tend to already be sceptical of everyone and everything, that’s the nature of the sceptic. But you’re not being sceptical of the sceptics I hope.
And the last bit should read: Otherwise, wouldn’t you guys just keep agreeing with each other like the bobble-headed dolls over at RC.
Wouldn’t you agree that “you guys” actually makes more sense? ;-)p
#
#
John Finn says:
May 6, 2010 at 3:02 am
Roger Sowell says:
May 5, 2010 at 11:49 pm
Finally, the entire historical temperature record is corrupt, as Chiefio has shown in marvelous detail. My own feeble efforts showed that hadCRUT3 published data for the USA lower 48 states has essentially zero warming. What little warming appears there is easily explained by population growth and Urban Heat Island effects. (see sowellslawblog and hadCRUT3 temperatures)
The UAH record shows that the USA lower 48 states has warmed at the rate of 0.21 deg per decade since 1979. Perhaps the warming cannot be “easily explained by population growth and Urban Heat”.
________________________________________________________________________
I think Roger Sowell was talking about this:
US temp graphs.
Very strange. I took the data from Dr. Spencer’s site and calculated a fifth column for NH+SH-Tropics. That curve’s regression line is basically level. Didn’t expect that. Seems to lead that all changes in last sixteen months are totally in the tropics!
Perhaps it has something to do with the Calculations see
Przemysław Pawełczyk says:
May 5, 2010 at 5:43 pm
NOAA – hottest in Europe!
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/noaa—hottest-in-europe-177.php
Interesting comparison between SST of UNISYS and NOAA
Regards
posted on the Tips & Notes
We have nice pretty frost outside my door this morning at 5:00 AM. It rained a bit in the night so it was pretty slick too. The dogs slid off the porch in their haste to find a good spot to “mark”. With the freeze warning we have had, I am reminded of something my green thumbed gardening grandma counted on. She never planted before May 7th up here in Wallow County. She said that occasionally and without warning, it would freeze the first week of May.
I bet Gavin or Hansen didn’t have a grandma like mine. But if they did, their grandmas would likely have called them both idiots. Mine was a short, fiery, redheaded roaring 20’s Chicago stage dancer with a sharp tongue and ready wit. I chuckle at the thought of what she might have called them.
And I never plant before May 7th.
R. Gates
It is very well known that the lower troposphere temperatures lag ENSO by approx 6-7 months. So if El Nino is just now beginning to fade, we can expect lower troposphere temps to fade in around 6-7 months.
So, if the recent El Nino peaked around Feb 2010, then we would expect the corresponding lower troposphere temperatures to peak around August 2010 (other factors, e.g. volcanic activity, notwithstanding).
I’m surprised you aren’t aware of this. I thought it was pretty common knowledge (although I’m also surprised nobody else has pointed it out)
Gail Combs says:
May 6, 2010 at 4:27 am
#
#
________________________________________________________________________
I think Roger Sowell was talking about this:
US temp graphs.
Was he? Since when did Hansen have anything to do with HadCrut3? Also RS talks how the warming can be explained by UHI and adjustments. The “warming” has taken place since the 1970s and is evident in the satellite record as well as the surface record. My point, therefore, is still valid. Whatever the reason for the warming it does not appear to be related to either of the factors cited by Roger Sowell.
I suggest you read his post again.
I comment here fairly often, but never get even 10% the number of replies that Mr. R Gates gets.
I’m wicked jealous.
That’s the big problem. Throughout this winter we had plenty of evidence of a circulation speed up; record snow cover, record ice extent and a strong El Niño are the best symptoms of that, but also several localized extreme events (Canada’s sunny winter, UK’s cold, China’s droughts, etc). This points to increased thermal deficit, but this data set is showing the contrary.
Does this data set covers the entirety of the Arctic, especially Greenland and the Quasi-Triangle? What method is used to calculate Arctic temperature?
Thanks.
R Gates
Why is it so difficult for AGW skeptics to accept the basic physical greenhouse effects of increasing amounts CO2?>>
I accept them. But AGW relies on a linear extrapolation of their effects combined with a linear extrapolation of increasing acceleration of fossil fuel consumption, ignores cooling effects, and assumes that the effects are dominant over natural processes.
The facts are the CO2 has a diminishing effect as concentration rises, the planet must radiate heat to space and this increases exponentially with temperature, itz not possible to increasingly accelerate fossil fuel consumption, and the variability of natural processes appear to be so large in comparison to CO2 as to render it a rounding error. Everything I see from the AGW camp is misdirection and obfuscation designed to divert attention from these facts. And BTW, your comment about skeptics all agreeing with one another? sorry, but the best threads on this site frequently feature skeptic camps ripping each other’s heads off over science, and that is how it should be… and is.
Caleb says:
May 6, 2010 at 6:35 am
I comment here fairly often, but never get even 10% the number of replies that Mr. R Gates gets.
I’m wicked jealous.
Perhaps you speak more sense.
Caleb says:
May 6, 2010 at 6:35 am
I comment here fairly often, but never get even 10% the number of replies that Mr. R Gates gets.
I’m wicked jealous.
That’s because you speak the common sense of observations.
John Finn says:
May 6, 2010 at 3:02 am
The UAH record shows that the USA lower 48 states has warmed at the rate of 0.21 deg per decade since 1979. Perhaps the warming cannot be “easily explained by population growth and Urban Heat”.
Too bad the UAH can’t go back another 30 years … we might see a .21 deg/decade drop.
“UAH Global Temperature Anomaly, A Bit Cooler In April”
Does anyone else have the feeling that if we had UAH Global Temp Anomaly Data for the past 10,000 years that the comments would be ‘nearly’ the same? Watching interglacial temperature chart changes each month is like watching paint dry. I’m now fairly convinced that our species does not think well when the temp is warm. I don’t think CO2 or the flatulance of cows, pigs, birds, or people has anything to do with it. But factories and volcanoes, now that’s a different can of worms.
evanmjones says:
May 5, 2010 at 7:43 pm
What exactly are you measuring?
Microwave reflections.
Are you really measuring the earth’s surface?
No. Lower troposphere. (And other atmospheric layers as well.)
What technology is employed?
Satellites only. MW readings are converted into temperature, so the measurement is indirect. No ground-based sensors. Polar orbits. Since the sensors look “across” rather than “ahead”, measurement of the poles themselves is not possible.
But it avoids the micro- and mesosite issues with ground sensors. And there’s near-full coverage. It’s probably the best measure available.
Do clouds interfere? Is there an algorithm in place to adequately account for interference?
Yes and yes.
———————————-
Not entirely accurate evanmjones.
The MSU/AMSU record measures emission of microwaves at 53 GHz I believe (if they use AMSU Channel 5). The sensitivity of this emission (primarily from Oxygen molecules) peaks at about 5 km above the surface. It is still sensitive a tiny bit at the surface and even at 20 km or so (but the sensitivity decreases above and below 5km).
Measurements of the poles IS possible. This is a polar-orbiting cross-track scanner. Look up NOAA-18 AMSU and you’ll see the orbital characteristics and scan geometry. It actually samples polar regions more than once a day, which actually begs the question of which observations they use – where as regions between + and – 30 degrees latitude are sampled twice a day (satellite descending and ascending).
The key to the MSU/AMSU record is equatorial crossing time remaining the same across all platforms, from the first MSU to the now included AMSU on NOAA-18. Orbits drift (sometimes by 5-10 hours over the life of the satellite), and they have to apply a correction to account for the differences in microwave observations you would expect if you measured the same location at different times (big difference in temperatures over desert at 2PM and 6PM local time). Not to mention differences between all the MSU or AMSU instrument characteristics, noise levels, degradation over the life of the instrument, etc. These all have to be accounted for and a correction applied to all instruments to make the record consistent, and it helps to have the lifetime of a couple MSU/AMSUs overlap. Starting in late 2011 we’ll have ATMS replacing AMSU.
There is also scan dependence in observations from MSU/AMSU (depending on scan angle) – I’m not sure how that is handled. There is negligible effect from cloud, but a little from ice clouds, mainly only deep convection and large graupel particles (which would cool the observations).
Although it would seem to not have some of the issues associated with surface observing systems, it is not without its own issues. The difference seems to be that at least UAH recognizes the shortcomings and tries their best to improve the accuracy – where as “others” ignore even the most basic issues like UHI, ASOS siting, etc.
R. Gates: The solar minimum is over, and unless we see some major volcanic activtiy (hundreds of times larger than what we’ve seen in Iceland so far) than the next few years are going to be warmer. The small drop from March to April could very well be from the fading El Nino, but with the solar max ahead of us, we’ve got warming ahead over the next few years as well…
*
*
Isn’t that remark a thinly veiled admission of that fact that so-called ‘AGW’ is actually a fiction?
IF CO2 were really the driver of any kind of warming, then regardless the minor vagaries of the Sun and whatever volcanoes, the temperature would still have risen. That it has not puts the truth to the matter.
John Finn replied
Roger Sowell says:
May 5, 2010 at 11:49 pm
Finally, the entire historical temperature record is corrupt, as Chiefio has shown in marvelous detail. My own feeble efforts showed that hadCRUT3 published data for the USA lower 48 states has essentially zero warming. What little warming appears there is easily explained by population growth and Urban Heat Island effects. (see sowellslawblog and hadCRUT3 temperatures)
The UAH record shows that the USA lower 48 states has warmed at the rate of 0.21 deg per decade since 1979. Perhaps the warming cannot be “easily explained by population growth and Urban Heat”.
*
*
Tunnel vision.
If the only thing you see is what you want to see to the exclusion of all other things, then you are looking through a tunnel.
What about temperatures since the Little Ice Age? What about prior times?
If you’re inclined to ignore everything save that point on a graph which exhibits a rising trend, then you’ve tossed the baby with the bath water.
John Finn said:
Was he? Since when did Hansen have anything to do with HadCrut3? Also RS talks how the warming can be explained by UHI and adjustments. The “warming” has taken place since the 1970s and is evident in the satellite record as well as the surface record. My point, therefore, is still valid. Whatever the reason for the warming it does not appear to be related to either of the factors cited by Roger Sowell.
I suggest you read his post again.
*
*
Satellite measurements which reenforce questionable Earth-based measurements are valid for one purpose only: They confirm the fact that a bias in measurement was made.
Since in almost all cases the preferred location of referenced sensors happens to be in large urban areas, with little if any being used in the rural areas, then using a satellite to confirm the error and calling it good is the height of intellectual dishonesty.
Further, if the satellite measurements for areas OUTSIDE the UHI areas are not included in a complete assessment of an entire land mass, then for all intents an purposes the record is specious in and of itself and is invalid save to demonstrate how to construct an entirely dishonest assessment.
The quintessence of this matter is one placing a drop of sewage into a bottle of fine wine: The net result is that you’ve a bottle of sewage.
Steve M said:
Too bad the UAH can’t go back another 30 years … we might see a .21 deg/decade drop.
*
*
But then you’ll have taken the tunnel away from those who need it.
But of course they may still hire the hockey stick mann …
The point of my earlier comment was that the warming, if any, may be man-made but not by CO2. Chiefio shows biased temperature records due to deliberate selection of thermometers over time, and I show the slight warming from the hadCRUT3 data is due to urban heat island effects. Of the 86 cities in the US with temperature records from hadCRUT3, very few show any warming at all. See Abilene, Texas for example. Some show an overall cooling. Some show a dramatic recent cooling, with the most pronounced being Eureka, California.
The satellite measurements, the topic of this post, are interesting but of too short duration for anything other than saying “hey, that’s interesting.” With no disrespect to Dr. Spencer, indeed, I applaud much of his work, what Dr. Spencer and others who monitor and report on the satellite data likely are measuring is not the result of increases in CO2, but a mix of factors such as I described in part above: clouds and albedo, etc.
CO2 is innocent as an agent of warming, as my references to process control demonstrate. This is relevant because most climate scientists (IPCC in particular) strongly advocate controlling the earth’s temperature increase by slowing or eliminating the input of CO2 into the atmosphere caused by man’s activities: primarily fossil fuel combustion but also other so-called greenhouse gases. For any control system to work, the fundamentals of process control must be met. CO2 does not meet those requirements.
Until climate scientists reconcile process control fundamentals with their assertion that CO2 reduction will decrease earth’s global average temperature, they have no physical foundation upon which to stand. As Dr. Pierre Latour stated, it won’t work. (my paraphrase). Dr. Latour holds Professional Engineer designations in both chemical engineering and process control, a PhD in chemical engineering, and more than 40 years success implementing process control systems world-wide. Engineers world-wide pay close attention when he speaks or writes. Climate scientists would do well to do likewise.
I have spoken professionally on this topic (the process control aspect of global warming) to hundreds and hundreds of engineers over the past two years, with almost unanimous agreement among my audiences. The few dissenters are employed in government agencies. Under the prevailing conditions in those agencies, they lose their jobs if they agree.
R. Gates says: May 5, 2010 at 4:20 pm
May tropo temps at 14, 000 feet is above 20 year averages
well i can see 14,000ft out my window, and you know what i see?
snow, and lots of it
and there is more on the way
well it may be warming slightly at 14,000ft but i don’t think it makes much difference. here is 188% snowpack and still climbing at 10,000ft.