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
I always liked the the satellite soundings over surface temps as it was a better indication of the lower to mid trop than the surface date, which theoretically only measured the lower 6 feet of the trop. El Nino of course traverses several thousand feet of the tropesphere. Warm sea surface temps pulse and exhaust warm tropical waters poleward throughout the tropesphere. This is not always evident in the surface record.
The record tropespheric temps (record since 1979) could also be a reflection of accumulated atmospheric warming these last several years -especially in the tropics and subtropics. If the ENSO model is correct, corresponding Kelvin Waves should upwell cooler sea surface temps. The CFS models are predicting a near normalization in global temps for 2011-2012 (ie much closer to the 30 year mean). This means that somewhere tropespheric temps will drop significantly. I would imagine this would be in the tropical tropesphere as well as the NH.
Huh, learned something from Wikipedia today.
Also:
And:
They can’t see at night, don’t know where they are going, so they’re known for foraging in dark places? Interesting.
Between the winter and the current cool temps here in central Pennsylvania, we don’t have many insects outside and not that many songbirds. Which is just fine with me. Not to be cruel, but the same loud unchanging song(s), blending together into raucous noise, gets annoying after awhile, especially when I’m trying to concentrate on serious thought. At least the turkeys provide some variety.
Too many wrens, not enough cats. Where’s that intrepid cat Kilowatt when you need him?
stevengoddard says:
May 15, 2010 at 5:43 am
Normalization should not alter the scale, at least it does not do that in any image processing function I have ever used.
In such image processing, I would normalize to a common background level in order to cancel out atmospheric transparency variances, and thereby eliminate, upon median combine, the noise source of the atmosphere to get at faint signals from deep space.
If you should come across a normalization function that also alters scale, it’s not pure normalization.
rbateman says:
May 14, 2010 at 5:15 pm
N. Hemisphere Winter will come in like a bear.
That’s because of global warming. 😉
The family name Troglodytidae is derived from troglodyte, which means “cave-dweller”, and the wrens get their scientific name from the tendency of some species to forage in dark crevices.
I’m a little unclear on the posting protocols – I was banned for a while for not posting under my full name. But insults and ad hom (from posters who likewise don’t post their full names) are admitted?
Roy Spencer says:
May 15, 2010 at 7:32 am
I believe what you say about the “It is well know, and widely published, that year-to-year surface temperature anomalies are magnified with height”.
But how do you actually derive the Surface Temperature, which is at such odds with the reality that we have just experienced in the Northern Hemisphere.
John Finn,
2 plots of Hadcrut; one with offset=-0.23 and the other with the normalise option. The plots are identical – unless I’m going mad.
Have you tried emailing the author @woodfortrees.org (his name with that domain works) to ask for clarification? I did recently and got a reply within a few days.
Joel Shore says: “As an extreme example, compare the temperature at the top of Mt. Washington in New Hampshire to the temperature in a nearby valley.”
Are you trying to suggest that either of the 2 temperatures that you have quoted are NOT VALID in some way”.
The point is not to COMPARE them (Meerkats do that), it is to use them in AVERAGE calculations.
Thanks to Dr. Spencer for the explanations above.
So the question becomes: those claiming 2010 to be the warmest year on record – are they correct?
Jbar and Geoff Sherrington: Regarding the comment, “If ENSO causes heat, where does it come from?”
An El Nino releases heat from the tropical Pacific. A La Nina recharges the heat via increases in Downward Shortwave Radiation, which is caused by decreases in Total Cloud Amount over the tropical Pacific, which is caused by increases in trade winds. Refer to:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/11/more-detail-on-multiyear-aftereffects.html
And:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/11/more-detail-on-multiyear-aftereffects_26.html
And:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/12/more-detail-on-multiyear-aftereffects.html
Regards
Jbar: Regarding your comment, “All – on the alleged change in HadCrut 1998 temperature spike data…”
The Hadley Centre changed SST data suppliers in 1998. The two datasets weren’t compatible and caused an upward shift in their HADSST2 data, which, of course, represents about 70% of the HADCrut data. Refer to:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/12/step-change-in-hadsst-data-after-199798.html
And:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/12/met-office-prediction-climate-could.html
Jbar wrote: “The statistics over 160 years show that CO2 is the highest single correlating factor to global temperature, with an R-squared of 63% (vs Hadcrut).”
Please provide a link that verifies this. Sounds unlikely to me.
Jbar wrote: “Guys, it’s pointless to look at month to month temperature data, or even year to year, and then argue about whether anthro GH gases are responsible or not. GHG increases only affect the underlying long-term temperature trend. With feedbacks, this only amounts to a little over 0.02 degC per year on average. The range of natural variability is +/- 0.4C from the average, 40 times the contribution of GHGs, and global temperature can move from the top to the bottom of that range in a year.”
Please provide a link to the bases of your numbers. You’re jotting down lots of temperatures, percentages, etc., on this thread and providing no documentation.
BTW: If you assume the oceans integrate the effects of ENSO, there is no need to introduce anthropogenic greenhouse gases to explain the rise in global temperature:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/01/reproducing-global-temperature.html
David L. Hagen: Regarding Easterbrook’s predictions, the PDO, in and of itself, has no mechanism for raising or lowering global temperatures. The PDO represents only the pattern of SST anomalies (warm in the east and cool in the west for a postive PDO) for the North Pacific, north of 20N. It does not represent the SST anomalies of the north Pacific. It does not represent detrended SST anomalies, like the AMO. The PDO is an aftereffect of ENSO, with additional variations caused by changes in Sea Level Pressure. Refer to:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/04/misunderstandings-about-pdo-revised.html
And:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/05/revisiting-misunderstandings-about-pdo.html
And:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2010/04/is-difference-between-nino34-sst.html
A C Osburn says:
What does that mean? It is at odds with the anecdotal reports that you have heard? That is why data is better than anecdotes. In much of the middle and southern part of the U.S., they did experience colder than normal temperatures this winter, but places in Canada were above normal. Here in Rochester (which is sort of in-between), we had about an average winter followed by a March and April that were in the top few warmest on record.
In the real world, we cannot take temperature measurements at every place on the earth’s surface and so it is good to actually average a quantity that has properties that make it more amenable to averaging, particularly under circumstances of limited data. My (and Hansen’s) point is that the variable “surface temperature” does not have such properties. Temperatures are often very different even for stations quite close together. Hence, letting one particular place represent the temperature for a region can lead to large errors depending on the measurement location that you choose.
However, temperature anomalies show a significant positive correlation even out to distances of about 1000 km. Hence, if one uses temperature anomalies, one is able to get good results for an average with much fewer, widely-spaced measurement locations than one can with temperature.
I’m not sure why this concept should be that difficult to grasp, although it does appear to be, at least for some.
The Earth is ON FIRE!
How cheap is RED inkjet when bought with other peoples´money!
They like RED…….and Kool aid, of course!
Jbar says: “The Hadcrut dataset does not contain data from the arctic region.”
Depends on how you’re defining Arctic. If you define the Arctic as being North of the Arctic Circle, there are weather stations North of the 66N included in HADCrut. There are also sea surface temperatures North of the Arctic Circle included in HADCrut.
http://i43.tinypic.com/2d97bth.png
Steve Goddard: You wrote, “The HadCrut Arctic hole is about the same size as the RSS Arctic hole, so your theory doesn’t work.”
Refer to link above and the one that follows. The RSS “Arctic hole” is much smaller.
http://i40.tinypic.com/21lmz9t.png
I tweaked the contour levels in the plots to show coverage. That’s why the reds are so intense.
A C Osborn says: “The Northern Sea temperatures as measured by Argo Bouys do not show the Seas warmer now than in the past 10 years.”
Please provide a link that verifies this.
Where does the heat come from during an El Nino?
It is mainly just a cyclical +/- exchange of ocean heat with the atmosphere versus what normally happens. Sometimes the equatorial Pacific ocean is putting a little more sun-derived heat into the atmosphere (El Nino); sometimes it is putting a little less heat into the atmosphere versus normal (La Nina).
Let’s look at a map of the Out-going Long-Wave Radiation in the 3 months that the 1997-98 El Nino was pumping most of its heat into the Earth system.
Sea Surface Temperatures were 2.8C above normal (or about 33C) but the OLR was down by 60 watts/m2 versus normal. Tropical convection storms hold the heat in the atmosphere and do not let it escape into space as readily as it would.
http://cawcr.gov.au/bmrc/clfor/cfstaff/matw/maproom/OLR/ARCHIVE/map.3mths/19971201.gif
The SST’s at the surface were putting out 500 watts/m2 (or 33.0C) but only 440 watts/m2 (or 23.0 C) was escaping into space in the normal manner.
This moderately-sized important region was pumping out 10.0C of extra heat into the areas west of the ENSO regions (and the prevailing winds over 3 months meant it extended across the entire tropics) and some of the other heat was pushed directly north toward the pole (and the prevailing winds meant it ended up in north-west North America and the Arctic).
These are the stardard areas impacted by an El Nino or a La Nina (the wide-tropics and northern North America). The storm tracks change slightly so that California gets more storms in an El Nino and Oregon/British Columbia get more during a La Nina. The Indian Ocean heats up, the equatorial/mid-latitude Atlantic Ocean heats up during an El Nino. Just 1 or 2 degrees C impact in these areas is noticeable.
50 and 60 watts/m2 of extra heat held in is a very big number. Doubled Co2 is only supposed to be result in 3.7 watts.
Geoff Sherrington says: “I cannot comprehend why scientists do not abandon the ‘anomaly’ method and use actual temperatures, even if they are degrees C and not K.”
Here is a graph of Global RSS TLT in deg K:
http://i40.tinypic.com/141qvra.png
From this post:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2010/03/absolute-rss-msutlt-data.html
Personally, I’d rather look at anomaly data.
Geoff Sherrington says: “How do you determine which is the dependent variable?”
Scale of variations and time lags. Global TLT anomalies lag NINO3.4 SST anomalies and their variation is much less.
Smokey says:
May 15, 2010 at 5:52 am
Wren says, May 14, 2010 at 9:33 pm:
“Do you have a specific null hypothesis in mind?”
Dr Roy Spencer explains the climate null hypothesis: No one has falsified the theory of natural climate variability. That is the null hypothesis.
The climate fluctuates naturally; always has, always will. The current climate is completely ordinary. What is happening on various parts of the globe has happened many times in the pre-SUV past.
Point out the human signal in the climate, if you can. And no models, please. Programmed speculation isn’t science.
The one human emitted CO2 molecule out of every 34 that the planet normally emits can not be shown to have any measurable effect — unlike scary scenarios, which have the measurable effect of increasing government grants.
I say this in all sincerity: wise up. CAGW is driven by money, not by science.
===========
Thank you for your sincerity, Smokey.
I asked you what null hypothesis you had in mind, and you replied the “theory of natural climate variability.” Unfortunately, to be a valid your null hypothesis needs a corresponding hypothesis, but there isn’t one, so your null, as stated, is a nonstarter.
Perhaps you mean one of the following:
#1 Hypothesis: All global warming is anthropogenic.
Null: Some global warming is not anthropogenic.
#2 Hypothesis: Some global warming is anthropogenic.
Null: No global warming is anthropogenic.
Climate scientists aren’t trying to falsify Null #1 and Null #2 is falsified by the fact CO2 from man’s activities adds to the greenhouse effect, and this effect is a know warming influence.
If anthropogenic CO2 recycled as fast as “that the planet normally emits” you might have a point. However, it doesn’t as evidenced by the fact CO2 levels in the atmosphere continue to rise, and a growing proportion of that CO2 is from man. That’s the human signal.
Over and over, I hear that the earth has warmed before man could have been a cause. The implication is if nature can cause global warming, man can’t, which is an obvious logical fallacy. The fact is anthropogenic warming plus natural warming could result in a world far warmer than the climate in which modern civilization has been developed, with serious consequences to our descendants.
Bill Illis says:
May 15, 2010 at 4:52 pm
During the 1997-8 El Nino?
“Sea Surface Temperatures were 2.8C above normal (or about 33C) but the OLR was down by 60 watts/m2 versus normal. Tropical convection storms hold the heat in the atmosphere and do not let it escape into space as readily as it would.”
True to an extent but here is an interpretation based upon a study of associated phenomena. For El Nino events read, ‘Generalized sea surface warming in the tropics’. My focus is the globe rather than just the Pacific ocean:
1. The near equatorial zone loses heat mainly via decompression. That it has warmed appreciably is shown by the rapid advance of temperature at 850hPa over the period of record, an advance almost three times that at the surface. The greatest convection is seen over land in the tropical rain forests of the Congo and the Amazon. Convection is driven by release of latent heat in turn driven by evaporation from plant stomata. Long wave radiation from this zone has diminished as the surface has warmed showing the importance of decompression as a cooling mechanism.
2. The sea surface in the near equatorial zone has warmed very little. The atmosphere here is close to saturation with respect to water vapor most of the time. Rain tends to fall each afternoon but it is a fact that this occurs much more intensively near land than in open ocean areas. The ocean tends to store energy from sunlight because sea surface temperature is a long way short of the boiling point of water.
3. What goes up must come down. It is in the subtropical high pressure zones located over the oceans that the atmosphere heats via compression. This leads to a loss of cloud cover over an expanded area of the ocean. But the ocean, unlike the near equatorial zone is cooler, is not heat saturated, does not respond with an immediate increase in evaporation and therefore has the capacity to store the extra energy that is gained via the expanded zone of cloud free sky.
4. As the ocean stores energy it is entirely natural that long wave radiation from the Earth should diminish. After all, more energy is going into storage in the ocean. So, we have the paradox of diminished outgoing long wave radiation during El Nino events.
5. La Nina events are characterized by increased long wave radiation from the Earth as the atmosphere vents the moisture that it has picked up via increased evaporation during El Nino events.
The atmosphere stores energy in the form of water vapor. As the temperature of the atmosphere increases its capacity for energy storage also increases.
The ocean stores much more energy than the atmosphere. Its energy storage performance is mediated by cloud cover which controls the level of energy incident at the surface and wind speed which affects the rate of evaporation and mixing of surface waters with waters at depth.
Sunlight penetrates to a depth of up to 300 metres in clear water. It is in this near surface zone that the variation in energy storage mainly occurs.
Long wave radiation from the Earth has increased over the period of measurement. This reflects increased precipitation. Australian rainfall has been increasing for 100 years.
The only way a body like the Earth can emit more long wave radiation over time, see increased precipitation over time and experience surface warming is for energy intake to increase. Energy intake is mediated by cloud cover over the oceans.
Steve Goddard,
Thanks for this post. It raises an issue of fundamental importance. You note that:
“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.”
And the issue is: Which is the chicken and which is the egg?
Is it the increase in surface temperature that is responsible for the much greater increase in atmospheric temperature at 14000 Ft (3000 metres). You note that temperature peaks at 14,000 metres after the increase in surface temperature so it seems that the atmosphere is responding to change in surface temperature and it could well be via the release of latent heat of condensation.
But there is an even greater increase in atmospheric temperature at 7000 to 10,000 metres that is coincident with the increase in surface temperature. Is the consequent reduction in ice cloud density responsible for increased surface temperature due to higher levels of incident radiation.
And where does this heating occur?
Wren, May 15, 2010 at 6:32 pm,
Hm-mm-m. Who to believe, you? Or Dr Spencer?
There really is no CAGW “hypothesis.” It is simply a conjecture; an opinion, based on always-inaccurate computer models.
To elevate CAGW to the status of a hypothesis, you will need to provide testable, reproducible, empirical evidence quantifying the effect of human CO2 emissions on the planet’s temperature. And a good hypothesis makes accurate predictions. Sorry about your CAGW models, which can’t predict their way out of a paper bag.
So far, all attempts to provide empirical, testable evidence have failed so badly that the proponents of CAGW no longer even make the attempt. Instead, they resort to endless appeals to authority, ad hominem attacks, and the stale old chestnut of “consensus” — a non-scientific argument if there ever was one.
But you, my little
chickadeeWren, can be in the history books by providing testable evidence showing the specific fraction of a degree warming per teragram of anthropogenic CO2 emitted. Simple, no?But if you can’t provide such testable, reproducible measurements, then you are back at the conjecture stage, demanding $trillions based upon your …opinion.