By Steve Goddard
RSS April 14,000 Foot Anomalies
UAH and RSS satellite data have been showing record warm temperatures in 2010, despite the fact that many of us have been freezing – and CAGW types have been quick to jump on this fact. But Had-Crut surface data has 2010 at only #5 through March, which is the latest available. So Watts Up With That?
Had-Crut rankings through March
I don’t have any theories about root cause, but there are some very interesting empirical relationships correlating ENSO with satellite and surface temperatures. Satellite TLT data is measured at 14,000 feet and seems to get exaggerated relative to surface temperatures during El Niño events. Note the particularly large exaggerations during the 1998 and 2010 Niños below. UAH (satellite) is in red and Had-Crut (surface) is in green.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1978/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1978/normalise
Looking closer at the 1998 El Niño, it can be seen that both UAH and RSS 14,000 ft. temperatures were highly exaggerated vs. normalised Had-Crut and GISS surface temperatures.
Below is a chart showing the normalised difference (UAH minus Had-Crut) from 1997-1999
The chart below shows the same data as the one above, but also plots ENSO. This one is very interesting in that it shows that the satellite data lags ENSO by several months. In 1998, ENSO was nearly neutral by the time UAH reached it’s peak, and the 1999 La Niña was at full strength before UAH recovered to normal.
Conclusions: ENSO is already headed negative, but it is likely that we will see several more months of high satellite temperatures. CAGW types will abandon their long cherished Had-Crut, and declare 2010 to be the hottest year in the history of the planet. Yet another way to hide the decline.ñ
There is no fudge factor greater than failure to calibrate your instruments.
Dr. Roy says the following:
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.
Think R Spencer will/should reply soon….
So let me get this straight: The lizards on the surface are dying because the air is warming thousands of feet above them? Good thing they don’t fly…
What you ought to look at is the ARCTIC Ocean temp Anomaly (lt)… at Uah:
December: #1 … highest ever ( 3.2 degrees C. above normal ).
Feb. #4
March #10
April #7
… that, is SCARY.
Though not unsurprising if you read Shindell, who found that Cap & Trade is Quadrupling — or more, now — the Arctic temperature rise, over the 1976-2008 Global average rise. That is, the effect of Sun on Ice that has added Diesel & Coal Soot, and is no longer diffused by SO2, is STILL magnified. In Contrast the Global temp rise that, for 1977-to-2007 added the “up” half of the Pacific’s 60-year cycle to Man’s Heating — is now SUBTRACTING that cycle from Man’s Heat, since late 2007 (& the shorter Pacific cycle, reversed too, maybe since 2003 — when La Ninas became more numerous, but not Stronger), albeit we’ve had a BIG El Nino forcing temps up the last 6 months or so.
@Jack morrow
Yeh, I look at the map, and I know the temps on the surface in my area are not reflected. The satellites don’t measure surface temps. Apparently, it is assumed a direct correlation between the two. I believe what we’re seeing is the difference. What ever the case, it is the middle of May here. I’m running my space heater. Anyone can state it is the “hottest” year ever, and perhaps it is. Only it isn’t here. By now, I’ve usually got my freezer started with the fish catches and wearing shorts when I’m not at work. I’ve worn shorts for a total of 5 days so far this year. We can put whatever global map anyone wishes to, it simply doesn’t reflect the reality here. We had an extended winter, a very brief warm spell, now it is unseasonably cool here.
@ur momisugly Pearland Aggie
“Thunderstorms can reach many multiples of 14,000 ft into the atmosphere, so it seems plausible that UHI-induced heat could be transported to those levels in the atmosphere. Furthermore, the dispersion of that heat throughout the atmosphere would cover many times the actual area of the UHI itself. Afterall, we do live in a 3-dimensional world…”
Exactly right! I mean, you keep hearing the alarmists harping on about about how all the CO2 from the population centres gets quickly dispersed but they keep very quiet about how exactly the heat from those cities mixes into the atmosphere. It’s clear in the global map at the top of this page that the UHI effects created in the US eastern seaboard have spread northwards over northern Canada as some kind of red/yellow cloud of excess heat.
“Yet another way to hide the decline” – after Jones has been cleared by two enquiries to date!? Keep saying it long enough and everyone will believe!
“It needs to be established that… the urban heat island effect has not contaminated the surface temperatures, as proposed 200 times on this site”.
For an excellent and easily digestible treatment of UHI read the GISS web site. GISS show graphs of temperature without UHI correction against three different correction approaches based on night lighting, population and regional weather station data. The effect is real but small and in no way detracts from conclusions regarding global temperature changes.
@ur momisugly monckhausen
Is it possible the satellite temps don’t correspond to the surface temps on a one-to-one basis? If it isn’t, please explain. Personally, I find it silly to believe one can state if the temps are x at a particular elevation, then one only has to use a x+n formula to get the temps at the surface. I could be wrong, and would like to see the formula for extrapolating how sat reads somehow equate to surface temps, but I really don’t believe they do.
I’m curious about the trends moving upwards in elevation.
Some people here seem to think that the RSS and UAH data show higher temperatures that at the surface. This is not the case. What they show are anomalies, that is, deviation from the average of a base period, at that same elevation.
From Wankapedia: “High clouds will form between
10,000 and 25,000 ft in the polar regions,
16,500 and 40,000 ftin the temperate regions and
20,000 and 60,000 ft in the tropical region.[NOAA/NWS]
So rain and snow and hail will form between 10,000 and 60,00 feet.
As they form, heats of vaporization and freezing are released to the atmosphere. More rain & snow –> more heat –> more anomaly.
What about the fact that 71% of the globe is covered by ocean and Spencer has already suggested that readings over the ocean would not be as cold ( during a cold NH winter) as the more land based readings during this El nino event?
Perhaps Goldman Sachs hacked into the Satellite and is adjusting the data higher so that they can make their money on carbon trading and then betting that our economy will collapse?
😉
Atmospheric temperature is NOT a measure of heat energy content. The atmospheric energy content is hugely affected by humidity. Humid air can hold close to 80 times the energy of dry air (look up enthalpy). Therefore it is possible to have a higher temperature but lower heat content. It is the heat content that melts ice (provision of latent heat) not the absolute temperature.
It is therefore quite possible to have atmospheric temperatures go up while atmospheric heat content goes down.
Atmospheric temperature is the WRONG METRIC for atmospheric heat content.
So it is perfectly possible for major cold problems to occur in Mongolia and the entire northern hemisphere – while ‘average global _temperatures_’ are high. Atmospheric temperature is a meaningless metric as it bears no relation to atmospheric heat content.
Hello, Steve. Your newer readers may be interested in the global moisture animation, available here:
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/extreme/gfs/current/plan_water.html
Curently there is a large moisture accumulation (= heavy precipitation and consequent release of latent heat into the troposphere) around Indonesia, a knock-on effect of the recent El Nino. That activity will subside soon and the troposphere will noticeably cool.
El Nino causes additional tropical thunderstorms and those extra storms inject their warmth into the troposphere. I believe that’s why the tropospheric temperature shows such a strong response to El Nino.
Does anyone want to speculate on how the waning El Nino and current trends might affect the drought in South America? If the rainy season is late or light in Venezuela it could have some profoundly negative implications for the people of Venezuelian people due to state mismanagement of the Guri Dam and the energy system in general, agravated by the El Nino induced drought. The generators are already at risk from the low water level and the rainy season needs to be heavy to keep the problem from occuring in the next dry season.
Will the rainy season be back to normal or will it be a weak one and possibly cause a catastrophy by next year?
I am not sure how to interpret the above “UAH minus Had-Crut vs. ENSO” graph.
Here, it looks as if ENSO was already negative in June 1998. However, according to this http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/people/klaus.wolter/MEI/#LaNina>NOAA graph, June/July 1998 was still slightly positive. But it looks like ENSO in 2010 for the months May-August to come will be lower than in 1998.
For a moment, before April data came out, I thought the same. But wouldn’t we need El Nino conditions until the end of the year for 2010 to beat 1998?
Now that UAH April temperatures are lower than May, and with UAH temperatures in 1998 being
0.645 May 1998
0.572 June (Enso index still positive)
0.520 July
0.513 August 1998
, thus higher (albeit not significantly) than April 0.501. That’s why it seems to me that we should not worry anymore about any bets for 2010 to become the warmest year. It’s very unlikely, just wishful thinking of CAGWarmists.
Doug in Seattle says: “Regardless, I trust the satellite data more than the ground data as there are far fewer fudge factors and sources of error.”
Over 180 equations, over 17 variables necessary to process to make a temperature reading from a sensor on a satellite!
I believe the word people are looking for in this abnormality is pressure build-up.
Extra pressure build-up does not come back to the planet surface due to centrifugal force and an elastic atmosphere.
This is another observation that supports my view that the energy flux from atmosphere to space is set from above (most likely by the level of solar activity – hence a cooling stratosphere when the sun is active and a warming stratosphere when it is less active) and the energy flux from below is set by sea surface temperatures.
Thus during an El Nino the upward flux from the oceans ‘backs up’ in it’s progress up through the atmosphere if it is not matched by the energy flux to space set by the level of solar activity.
Look for evidence of temperature inversions in the upper troposphere of the supercells. The quiescent Sun, cooling oceans since 1998, and consequent decreases in tropical storm activity suggests decreased upper air mixing, stratification of the troposphere, and development of colder lower tropospheric conditions and warmer than usual upper tropospheric conditions due to the decreased circulation within the supercells and between the supercells.
I always felt this animation provides some insight into why certain regions are affected the way they are by an El Nino or La Nina and why the climate, climate regions and even ocean currents are the way they are.
https://www.ucar.edu/publications/nsf_review/animations/ccm3.512×256.mpg
And it is the extent of that ‘backing up’ during an El Nino episode that influences the strength of the polar high pressure cells to give a more negative polar oscillation.
The difference with 1998 being that then the sun was more active so less ‘backing up’ occurred and the effect of that El Nino on the polar high pressure cells was far less than we are seeing now during a spell of quiet sun.
The latitudinal positioning of ALL the air circulation systems is thus dependent on the interplay between sun and oceans with a consequent effect on global albedo which feeds back into the system via the oceans over longer time scales as per my New Climate Model.
ENSO data is from here:
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml
Charles Wilson
Normalisation is a shift, not a scaling. The X and Y scales are identical on all four temperature sources, and the “higher peak” is real. You might want to test the data for yourself before making such incorrect claims.
stevengoddard says:
May 14, 2010 at 4:45 pm
monckhausen
UHI effects would drive the UAH minus HadCrut numbers in the opposite direction.
———
Except at sea, unless ships are spreading the UHI effect after leaving harbors. Probably not at Glacier National Park and a few other places too.