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.]
899 says:
May 6, 2010 at 9:40 am
John Finn replied
Roger Sowell says:
May 5, 2010 at 11:49 pm
….
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.
What about temperatures since the “Little Ice Age”? Have you got some temperature data from the LIA. I’ve got a few datasets that go back to ~1800. There’s also the CET (from 1659), of course, though I’m not sure what it’s got to do with the point about UHI.
Phil. says:
May 5, 2010 at 9:31 pm [ … ]
Cheap shot, Phil. On the rare occasions that I’m wrong I admit it. Unlike you, Gates, Anu and Mikael P, who never admit to being wrong, which you all are on occasion.
Roger Sowell says:
May 6, 2010 at 10:34 am
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.
I doubt you have shown any such thing. If you have a link let me have it.
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.
The satellite period covers virtually the entire modern warming period. Before that there was cooling. Which “warming” is supposedly due to UHI? You made a statement in an earlier post about the UHI contamination of US temperatures. The fact that the surface and satellite show a similar trend across the US suggests that there is very little contamination in the surface record.
Who let the trolls out?
And it’s always the same old same old tiresome cr#p.
John Finn says:
May 6, 2010 at 12:55 pm:
“The satellite period covers virtually the entire modern warming period.”
No, it doesn’t.
More here and here.
R. Gates: The solar minimum is over
AGWs as usual being slippery as eels. Before the late 20th century (non-anthropogenic cyclical) warming ended, AGWers were falling over eachother to use abusive language to deride proponents of a role of the sun in climate. Now they are trying to find solace in a sputtering rise in sun-specks most of which would be undetectable over most of the history of the sunspot record.
Looking at the troposphere and at sunspots is to look in the wrong direction. If you are interested in future climate you should look below the thermocline.
Said John Finn:
What about temperatures since the “Little Ice Age”? Have you got some temperature data from the LIA. I’ve got a few datasets that go back to ~1800. There’s also the CET (from 1659), of course, though I’m not sure what it’s got to do with the point about UHI.
*
*
The earliest known temperature records are anecdotal in nature, revealing climate/weather conditions of the various periods.
It would be completely dishonest to dismiss —out of hand— the historical records recounting events of whatever period when a particular climate/weather event was mentioned.
For instance, the freezing of the Thames river, the advance of glaciers in the Alps which decimated whole villages, the warm spells of a prior period where certain rivers ran so shallow as to afford crossing by foot, the growing of grapes in the north of England, the Norse settlement of Greenland, etc.
A mere comparison to modern weather effects which would likely result in those instance repeating themselves, is sufficient to accurately estimate what the temperatures were in those periods. You don’t numerical data when the description of an effect more than suffices to replicate such, i.e., a pan of water still boils at a certain temperature and pressure.
Insofar as the UHI goes, the implication of looking at only a particular span of dates to the exclusion of all others and declaring that there’s a significant change when in fact the change is —in respect to all which preceded— rather insignificant, raises the eyebrows of critical thinkers.
So, my question is this: Why not completely exclude the temperature data from any location which is thickly settled such as to influence the temperature record, and then evaluate matters from that point, instead of engaging in completely dishonest manipulations such as ‘homogenization’ in order to effect a desired result?
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.
On Joseph d’Aleo’s recent ENSO update I posted sarcastically “looking good for a hottest on record 2010” – meaning the precise opposite. I was mistaken for a troll and got lots of replies. R. Gates says something similar and appears – astonishingly – to be serious.
Said John Finn:
“The satellite period covers virtually the entire modern warming period. Before that there was cooling. Which “warming” is supposedly due to UHI? You made a statement in an earlier post about the UHI contamination of US temperatures. The fact that the surface and satellite show a similar trend across the US suggests that there is very little contamination in the surface record.”
*
*
Time for some truth:
[1] Are you saying that UHI effect doesn’t exist, at all?
[2] If it does exist, then it MUST affect, i.e., bias the temperature record. Are you saying that no such biases are taking place?
[3] If the satellite data is used ONLY to support the thermal records of UHI areas instead of being used to measure ALL areas, then the record is indeed biased. Do you agree?
John Finn says:
May 6, 2010 at 12:55 pm – re wanting a link. You got it. Note which cities trends show a slight warming, and which of those cities showed a corresponding population growth.
http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/usa-cities-hadcrut3-temperatures.html
Note also the curious effect that I call the Abilene Effect, where the appearance of global warming occurred not by hotter summers or warmer winters, but by colder winters beginning at the start of your “modern warming period” of the late 1970’s.
http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/abilene-tx-not-impacted-by-global.html
I am tired of seeing that mismarked satellite temperature graph again and again where the natural La Nina cooling of 1991/92 is designated as “Pinatubo cooling.” Pinatubo cooling was restricted to the stratosphere at 17 to 22 kilometer height and never reached ground level. The reason it is considered a cooling is due to Self et al. whose article in the big Pinatubo book assigns it a 0.6 degree cooling influence. But he goes even further and asserts that this cooling stopped an El Nino warming which is entirely false. The eruption took place at the moment that an El Nino had just peaked and a La Nina cooling had started. But the Pinatubo aerosols were injected into the stratosphere and actually warmed it at first, and the cooling did not get started until later. El Chichon in 1982 had an aerosol cloud two-thirds of Pinatubo’s and should have had some warming influence according to his theory. But it lucked out in timing – its eruption started when an El Nino warming had just begun and there was no convenient La Nina to hijack for its “cooling” influence. It’s timing was ideal for taking down that uppity El Nino but nothing happened – no one could find a trace of its cooling influence.
899 says:
May 6, 2010 at 1:43 pm
*
*
The earliest known temperature records are anecdotal in nature, revealing climate/weather conditions of the various periods.
Ah – anecdotal. Is that where soe one notices it’s particualrly hot, cold, dry or wet and records the fact. Are you sure we get typical conditions from anecdotal records?
It would be completely dishonest to dismiss —out of hand— the historical records recounting events of whatever period when a particular climate/weather event was mentioned.
I’m not dismissing anything. However it might be wise to treat such records with caution.
For instance, the freezing of the Thames river,…..
The Thames has been frozen on many occasions throughout history – even during the MWP. Thames freezing events are noot unique to the LIA.
…. the advance of glaciers in the Alps which decimated whole villages, the warm spells of a prior period where certain rivers ran so shallow as to afford crossing by foot, the growing of grapes in the north of England, the Norse settlement of Greenland
We grow grapes in England now. The Romans did attempt to grow grapes as far north as Hadrian’s wall which while possible would not provide ideal conditions.
A mere comparison to modern weather effects which would likely result in those instance repeating themselves, is sufficient to accurately estimate what the temperatures were in those periods. You don’t numerical data when the description of an effect more than suffices to replicate such, i.e., a pan of water still boils at a certain temperature and pressure.
About as reliable as tree-rings.
Insofar as the UHI goes, the implication of looking at only a particular span of dates to the exclusion of all others and declaring that there’s a significant change when in fact the change is —in respect to all which preceded— rather insignificant, raises the eyebrows of critical thinkers.
So, my question is this: Why not completely exclude the temperature data from any location which is thickly settled such as to influence the temperature record, and then evaluate matters from that point, instead of engaging in completely dishonest manipulations such as ‘homogenization’ in order to effect a desired result?
like the oceans, do you mean?
899 says:
May 6, 2010 at 1:56 pm
Time for some truth:
[1] Are you saying that UHI effect doesn’t exist, at all?
No – I know it exists.
[2] If it does exist, then it MUST affect, i.e., bias the temperature record. Are you saying that no such biases are taking place?
It’s not a question as to whether it biases the record but whether it biases the trend. If there has always been a bias then it makes no difference to the trend. I also think that most of any UH contamination is removed anyway. In some cases I believe they over-compensate for UHI. You also need to remember that the oceans cover ~70% of the globe, so for UH to have a significant effect on the global trend you need virtually all land station locations to have undergone substantial development.
[3] If the satellite data is used ONLY to support the thermal records of UHI areas instead of being used to measure ALL areas, then the record is indeed biased. Do you agree?
I don’t know what you’re on about. Satellites provide even spatial coverage across the earths’s surface. UH is not an issue. Satellite temperature readings show warming trends which are similar to the surface trends – particularly during the past 20 years where they are almost identical. This suggests that the surface trends are not hugely affected by UH.
Said John Finn:
“Ah – anecdotal. Is that where soe one notices it’s particualrly hot, cold, dry or wet and records the fact. Are you sure we get typical conditions from anecdotal records?”
*
*
You condescend well. Does that come with practice?
Were I to take your tack on matters, then virtually no historical record is worthy of mention, and therefore even the current instrument records are null and void, because after all they are anecdotal in the entirely scientific sense, i.e., that’s just so yesterday! That was then, and this is now …
Hell, why not toss out every history book too? Who cares what happened, because —according to yourself— the historians of yore were all a pack liars too, and given to exaggeration, right?
It is one heck of a stretch to declare that the chroniclers of old were engaging in a keen deception so in order to fool future generations whom they would never know.
That might work all except for one thing: What would they gain by deception?
Hello to all.
@ur momisugly R Gates , May 5, 2010 at 9:53pm:
“Why is it so difficult for AGW skeptics to accept the basic physical greenhouse effects of increasing amounts CO2?”
I find it difficult to believe the ‘basic physical greenhouse effects’ are anything more than negligible on two counts:
1. The Theory.
CO2 exists in the atmosphere at less than 400 ppmbv. To my non-scientific brain, this means that each CO2 molecule is surrounded by approximately 2500 molecules of either O2 or N2, both of which are ‘greenhouse inert’ (I daresay the exact number will be answered by someone). Although CO2 is undoubtedly capable of absorbing and re-radiating certain wavelengths of radiation, the only way the greenhouse-inert molecules can heat up is by conduction from the vibrating CO2 (and other gg) molecules. To my mind, only the molecules immediately next to, or very close to, the greenhouse molecule can warm up. To use an analogy, consider a large stadium such as Melbourne Cricket Ground which contains 100,000 seats. If you painted the inert seats white and the greenhouse seats red, you would have about 40 red seats (this would currently include ALL the greenhouse gasses, not just CO2). I ‘find it difficult’ to imagine that any vibration of someone in a red seat would transfer heat efficiently to anyone sitting more than a few seats away, let alone several hundred seats away. Of course the CO2 molecule re-transmits radiation, but that radiation can only be absorbed by another greenhouse gas molecule. Notice I am ignoring water vapour; but then apparently so do many of the pro-AGW supporters. And, anyway, see point 2…
2. The Data.
Since 1850 the level of CO2 has increased by about 40%. At the same time, but not necessarily dependant upon, the global temperature as measured by the accepted datasets has increased by about 0.8 deg C. Even if one assumes ALL of the warming is caused by CO2 and ALL of the CO2 was emitted anthropogenically, then the effect is certainly not catastrophic. It is even less so when one considers that the temperature has not increased in the last 12 years (HadCRUT3 and satellite) whilst the amount of CO2 has increased fairly steadily. To argue that the lack of acceleration is due to natural variation is to concede that natural effects overwhelm anthropogenic effects.
The main argument against the [C]AGW theory is that the theory implies the ‘warming’ should be both rapid and accelerating. Both of these adjectives are subjective in terms of paleoclimate but, seeing as how the MBH98 Hockey Stick was sold to the public as evidence of them, it is clear to me that both adjectives have not manifested themselves since that ‘hype’.
Whilst I accept that CO2 is a ‘greenhouse’ gas, the evidence shows that its contribution to the ‘greenhouse’ effect is small and, until the facts (evidence) support the theory, it will (and must) remain open to scepticism. I cannot see how CO2 contributes more than about 6% of the total greenhouse effect. Probably less. Predictions of future AG-warming are meaningless without some evidential basis.
Sorry my first post on this blog is so long, but I have tried to answer R Gates’ final question, at least from my own perspective. If I have got any part of the science wrong, I hope to be corrected!
Anthony, thanks for an interesting blog!
Roger Sowell says:
May 6, 2010 at 2:41 pm
John Finn says:
May 6, 2010 at 12:55 pm – re wanting a link. You got it. Note which cities trends show a slight warming, and which of those cities showed a corresponding population growth.
Ok – I’m not going over each and every station you’ve plotted , so let’s try a different approach.
I acknowledge Urban Heat (UH) exists but I don’t believe it significantly influences the general trend. You, on the other hand, think it does. Since December 1978, UAH have been analysing temperature data from MSUs on board orbiting satellites. This data is not contaminated by UH. The UAH trend between 1979 and 2008 (30 years) over the 48 states is ~0.25 deg per decade. The surface (station) record trend over the same period is also ~0.25 deg per decade. Now if the surface trend includes a UH trend it means that at least part of the troposphere (satellite) warming is due to a factor which does not affect the surface and, what’s more, that warming just happens to be of the same magnitude as the urban heat warming. I think this is unlikely. I think the most likely explanation is that urban heat has very little effect on the surface trend. Furthermore, because ~70% ofthe earth’s surface is covered by oceans (no UH effect), it has even less effect on the global trend.
In central Utah, this spring has been uncharacteristically cold. Today is May 6th. Last night it dropped to 32 F. and today it snowed. This is unusual, and I ought to know. I’ve lived in the same area for 45 years. Spring has been colder for the last three years. I attribute it to reduced solar activity.
Smokey
I can do much better than that-there has been warming in CET since 1690. Its hardly rapid and hardly large at around 0.8C. A gentle rise of around .8C since the depths of the LIA, who would have thought it?
tonyb
in 2009 there was a upwards step function of approx. 0.5 deg Celsius due to this El Nino.
Is it then reasonable to subtract 0.5 deg Celsius to arrive at an El Nino adjusted anomaly ?
899 says:
May 5, 2010 at 3:48 pm
As a comparison to Mt. Pinatubo, why didn’t the eruption of Mt. St. Helens have any ‘noticeable’ affect on weather?
St. Helens was smaller, but more importantly the Helens blast was directed sideways, not up. So much less stuff was injected into the stratosphere than happened with Pinotubo.
First week of May in Holland is extremely cold and this looks like continuing for another week.
@ur momisugly John Finn, May 6, 2010 at 5:01 pm
I do hope you can find time to examine the charts I referred to above, and contemplate why CO2 failed in its assigned mission to warm so many cities in the lower 48 states. Especially the charts that show dramatic cooling for Eureka, Los Angeles, and San Diego (all in California), Washington D.C., and Marquette (Michigan).
If CO2 causes warming across the globe, how then can those cities be cooling so dramatically? And, lest your answer be that the California cities all are on the coast and cooled by the Pacific, please consider the chart for San Francisco – it shows a gradual warming, but is also on the coast, and located approximately mid-distance between Eureka and Los Angeles.
RR Kampen says:
May 7, 2010 at 12:55 am
First week of May in Holland is extremely cold and this looks like continuing for another week.
We were lucky to catch one sunny afternoon last Saturday when we visited the Keukenhof tulip park at Lisse (from Belgium) in spite of a forcast for rain all day.
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 7, 2010 at 10:58 am
@ur momisugly John Finn, May 6, 2010 at 5:01 pm
I did post a response to this but I’m not sure what’s happened to it.