See also: RSS data: 2010 not the warmest year in satellite record, but a close second
Dec. 2010 UAH Global Temperature Update: +0.18 deg. C
By Dr. Roy Spencer, PhD.
NEW 30-YEAR BASE PERIOD IMPLEMENTED!
Sorry for yelling like that, but if you have been following our global tropospheric temperature updates every month, you will have to re-calibrate your brains because we have just switched from a 20 year base period (1979 – 1998) to a more traditional 30 year base period (1981-2010) like that NOAA uses for climate “normals”.
This change from a 20 to a 30 year base period has 2 main impacts:
1) because the most recent decade averaged somewhat warmer than the previous two decades, the anomaly values will be about 0.1 deg. C lower than they used to be. This does NOT affect the long-term trend of the data…it only reflects a change in the zero-level, which is somewhat arbitrary.
2) the 30-year average annual cycle shape will be somewhat different, and more representative of “normal” of the satellite record than with 20 years; as a result, the month-to-month changes in the anomalies might be slightly less “erratic” in appearance. (Some enterprising person should check into that with the old versus new anomaly datasets).
Note that the tropics continue to cool as a result of the La Nina still in progress, and the Northern Hemisphere also cooled in December, more consistent with the anecdotal evidence. 
I will provide a global sea surface temperature update later today.
YR MON GLOBE NH SH TROPICS
2010 1 0.542 0.675 0.410 0.635
2010 2 0.510 0.553 0.466 0.759
2010 3 0.554 0.665 0.443 0.721
2010 4 0.400 0.606 0.193 0.633
2010 5 0.454 0.642 0.265 0.706
2010 6 0.385 0.482 0.287 0.485
2010 7 0.419 0.558 0.280 0.370
2010 8 0.441 0.579 0.304 0.321
2010 9 0.477 0.410 0.545 0.237
2010 10 0.306 0.257 0.356 0.106
2010 11 0.273 0.372 0.173 -0.117
2010 12 0.180 0.213 0.147 -0.221
WHO WINS THE RACE FOR WARMEST YEAR?
As far as the race for warmest year goes, 1998 (+0.424 deg. C) barely edged out 2010 (+0.411 deg. C), but the difference (0.01 deg. C) is nowhere near statistically significant. So feel free to use or misuse those statistics to your heart’s content.
THE DISCOVER WEBSITE: NOAA-15 PROBLEMS STARTING IN MID-DECEMBER
For those tracking our daily updates of global temperatures at the Discover website, remember that only 2 “channels” can be trusted for comparing different years to each other, both being the only ones posted there from NASA’s Aqua satellite:
1) only ch. 5 data should be used for tracking tropospheric temperatures,
2) the global-average “sea surface” temperatures are from AMSR-E on Aqua, and should be accurate.
The rest of the channels come from the AMSU on the 12 year old NOAA-15 satellite, WHICH IS NOW EXPERIENCING LARGE AMOUNTS OF MISSING DATA AS OF AROUND DECEMBER 20, 2010. This is why some of you have noted exceptionally large temperature changes in late December. While we wait for NOAA to investigate, it seems like more than coincidence that the NOAA-15 AMSU status report had a December 17 notice that the AMSU scan motor position was being reported incorrectly due to a bit error.
The notice says that problem has been sporadic, but increasing over time as has the amount of missing data I have seen during my processing. At this early stage, I am guessing that the processing software cannot determine which direction the instrument is pointing when making its measurements, and so the data from the radiometer are not being processed.
The daily NOAA-15 AMSU imagery available at the Discover website shows that the data loss is much more in the Northern Hemisphere than the Southern Hemisphere, which suggests that the temperature of the instrument is probably involved in the bit error rate. But at this point, this is all my speculation, based upon my past experience studying how the temperature of these instruments vary throughout the orbit as the solar illumination of the spacecraft varies.
UPDATE from Dr. Spencer(1/3/10, 2:50 p.m. CDT): Graph fixed…it was missing Dec. 2010.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The farse continues.
Nomination for Climate Quote of the Week:
“So feel free to use or misuse those statistics to your heart’s content.”
😉
ah..well someone fixed it!
Ron Cram says:
January 3, 2011 at 1:35 pm
Eric (Skeptic) brings up a good point. How is the strength of El Nino measured? Do we know for certain the 2010 El Nino was stronger (or possibly stronger but shorter) than the El Nino of 1998? I had always heard the 1998 El Nino was very strong.
So three questions regarding comparing 2010 with 1998 – Which El Nino was stronger? How many months out of each year was the El Nino in effect? Where can we find the data?
The Multivaraite ENSO Index http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/people/klaus.wolter/MEI/ has the data you are looking for
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/people/klaus.wolter/MEI/table.html
1998 had 7 of 12 values as positive (El Nino) and the other 5 negative (LaNina), 4 of the 7 were strongly positive (greater than 2.0)
2010 is still missing the final value, which is certain to be negative, only the first 5 values are positive, none of them strongly so. It is therefore without doubt that the 1998 El Nino was far stronger and had a far larger effect on the global temperature anomaly than 2010
I have put together a comparison of the RSS, UAH, GHCN and the CRU annual temps for the past 40 years (yes, 31 for the satellites). I also compare 1998 and 2010 by the month. Some of you might enjoy it. Certainly it shows how different the satellite and the station data are.
http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2011/01/2010-by-the-numbers/
markinaustin says:
January 3, 2011 at 2:10 pm
ah..well someone fixed it!
now the years are off by 2
So, UAH says 0.42K since 1980 by eyeball, or 1.4K/century. Considering we were looking at about 1.8K/century before the CO2 days, we must be in a reduced warming time over the decades, unless GISS shows UAH to be wrong. Hansen said we were warming at about 3K/century, in line with “projections” of the IPCC. Hmmm.
Any legal challenge to Hansen’s adjustments will involve the UAH and RSS datasets. Could get ugly. How does Hansen/NASA dismiss the divergence of land and satellite datasets when NASA collects both?
Ryan Maue says:
January 3, 2011 at 1:49 pm
OH MY, the newest forecast models have the mother of all cold blasts descending from Canada in the next 7-10 days. Record all-time lows would occur if this comes to fruition.
Mr Ryan Maue
I have been reading that the Arctic is warming. If that is true how can this happen? Maybe what I have read is not true?
Peter says:
3rd January 2011 at 2.20pm
“The Multivaraite ENSO Index http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/people/klaus.wolter/MEI/ has the data you are looking for
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/people/klaus.wolter/MEI/table.html
1998 had 7 of 12 values as positive (El Nino) and the other 5 negative (LaNina), 4 of the 7 were strongly positive (greater than 2.0)
2010 is still missing the final value, which is certain to be negative, only the first 5 values are positive, none of them strongly so. It is therefore without doubt that the 1998 El Nino was far stronger and had a far larger effect on the global temperature anomaly than 2010″
And yet the Australian BoM
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/soihtm1.shtml
shows 7 positive values for 1998 ranging from 9.8 to 13.3
and
7 positive values for 2010 ranging from 10.1 to 25.
Am I missing something?
Matt G says:
January 3, 2011 at 1:41 pm
0.1c difference between 1998 and 2010 is about what this should be comparing the two different strength El Ninos. Therfore this also shows there has been little warming since this period.
My response: Try again Matt G, because you misplaced the decimal point. The difference is only about 0.014, which is so statistically insignificant, that a coin toss is almost as likely to determine which year was hotter. This is in spite of a much stronger, and longer, El Nino in 1998, and in spite of low solar insolation in 2010.
Furthermore, the 12 month global anomaly really only shows the rate of heat transfer into the troposphere during the El Nino. As typically happens on our planet, the energy balance in the tropics is strongly positive, with net outgoing infrared energy much less than incoming solar radiant energy. Some of the excess heat is convected to higher latitudes where the energy balance is negative; in spite of lower temperatures, the net OLR exceeds the absorbed solar radiation. In an El Nino, more of the heat that builds up in the tropical Pacific waters transfers into the troposphere causing a higher global temperature anomaly. For this reason, the 12-month and shorter lower troposphere anomaly moving averages during El Nino periods are one of the worst measured indicators of planetary heat buildup. The longer term rolling averages, such as 13, 14, 15 and 16 month averages, hit new highs in 2010, as well as 48 month and up moving averages (which span more than one ENSO cycle).
Since 1998 the amount of heat that has been absorbed into heat sinks (oceans, soils, ice caps, glaciers, and ice sheets) exceeds the amount of heat need to raise the global temperature anomaly 0.10 deg C in that timeframe, by roughly a 200 to 1 ratio. There is no doubt at all, that the planet in 2010 is much, much hotter than in 1998.
The only thing I care about is whether the 10year average now has a downward trend!
It is really academic whether 2010 or 1998 is the warmest year. More importantly is whether 2010-2019 will be warmer on average than 2000-2009. It seems there are several interesting possibilities, and regardless of which on comes to pass, we’ll all learn a great deal more about the climate than we know now. Some things I’ll be watching:
1) Will next few weak solar cycles be enough to counter any warming effect from CO2 derived AGW?
2) Will the Arctic seasonal summer ice continue to contract and how might this affect global atmospheric circulation patterns? (currently we have the lowest extent in Arctic Sea ice for this date since accurate satellite records started in 1979).
3) How will the phases of the PDO, NAO, etc. effect the climate over the next decade, and could it be possible that the nature of these longer ocean cycles are being affected by AGW?
4) Will we continue to see evidence of an acceleration in the hydrological cycle globally, with an increase in the frequency of epic floods like Pakistan and Australia? (note: these events in and of themselves are within the bounds of normal weather variations, but it is the increased FREQUENCY of these types of events that would be predicted by GCM’s when factoring in the continued rise in CO2 over the next decade on top of the 40% additional CO2 added since the 1700’s)
All in all, the decade ahead will prove to be a highly interesting for those who enjoy studying the factors influencing the climate, but the fact as to whether or not 2010 was a bit cooler than the record warm year of 1998 is insignificant.
It’s always Marcia, Marcia says:
January 3, 2011 at 3:03 pm
Ryan Maue says:
January 3, 2011 at 1:49 pm
OH MY, the newest forecast models have the mother of all cold blasts descending from Canada in the next 7-10 days. Record all-time lows would occur if this comes to fruition.
Mr Ryan Maue
I have been reading that the Arctic is warming. If that is true how can this happen? Maybe what I have read is not true?
_____
The Arctic region is at or above normal temps this winter (with areas around N. Canada and Greenland way above normal). Unusual high pressure systems over the Arctic this winter has forced the cold air out and created much of the warm in the Arctic. Currently, Arctic sea ice extent is at a record low since accurate satellite measurements have been taking place. In short, it is very incorrect to think just because there is record cold south of the Arctic, that the Arctic would also be experiencing record cold.
Whilst I understand the reason behind the change of base, changing the base makes comparisons with earlier data sets more difficult. In any event, the chosen base is often artificial, intented only to highlight the trend which the author wishes to highlight. Thus one should be sceptical when considering the chosen base.
If one looks at the UAH plot, the anomaly was fairly flat at about -0.1C between 1979 and 1997 and following the 1998 El Nino, it has remained fairly flat at about +0.2C.
What appears to have happened is that there was a significant step change brought about by the 1998 El Nino which has increased the UAH variation by about 0.3C. Does anyone have any thoughts on this and the reasons behind such step change.
Peter O’Brien – perhaps this gives a different story.
http://www.weatherzone.com.au/climate/indicator_enso.jsp?c=nino34&p=monthly
After further research, I have seen the error of my ways – duh!
It seems Aust BoM calculates ENSOI using a formula that results in negative figures being associated with El Nino and positive figures with La Nina.
the 30 year base might artificially amplify trending of the 30 year heating/cooling phase of the 60 year PDO.
The temperature dip at the end of December interresting.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/12/globe-cooled-by-056-c-in-four-days.html
This level results in a large dip, -0.2 C, or something like that, in January if it continues.
(If it drops a lot now I don’t think it’s a repetition of 2007, but more unpleasant but good in the fight against “climate justice” a.k.a. socialism.)
Paul K2 says:
January 3, 2011 at 3:30 pm
Paul,
The o.1c is not a decimal place out, you have misunderstood that this is a figure taking into account what the difference between the two should be if there was no warming.
The most energy is stored in the oceans and these surface temperatures all over the globe don’t show that claim about 2010 being much warmer than 1998. The year 1998 still shows the most warming in all ocean data below. (hadsst)
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/normalise/from:1997/to:1999/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2009/normalise
Since 0.1c-0.014c = 0.086c, so that means 2010 is approximately this value warmer than 1998 taking the strength of the different El Ninos into account. Hence, why there has been little warming and is also shown the same with global SST’s.
R. Gates says:
January 3, 2011 at 4:09 pm
2) Will the Arctic seasonal summer ice continue to contract and how might this affect global atmospheric circulation patterns? (currently we have the lowest extent in Arctic Sea ice for this date since accurate satellite records started in 1979).
Arctic sea ice has generally been recovering since 2007, with a slight blip down for 2010. You are harping now on the fact that ice extent is a little low for this time of year and you were harping the same thing in the early summer. You seen to concentrate on the ice extent at the two points in the cycle where extent means the least and ignore the general recovery in extent and the recovery in multi-year ice that has been going on since 2007.
Gary says:
January 3, 2011 at 2:07 pm
Nomination for Climate Quote of the Week:
“So feel free to use or misuse those statistics to your heart’s content.”
Yeah, like that could ever happen!
🙂
R. Gates says:
January 3, 2011 at 4:09 pm
1) Will next few weak solar cycles be enough to counter any warming effect from CO2 derived AGW?
================================
What, of any consequence, “warming effect from CO2-derived AGW”??
You are breaking logic and reason completely.
You must first establish that such a beast exists in the first place….even with a rhetorical question.
Your question is like:
“Will significant suburban development in the Pacific Northwest have any effect on the populations and natural territory of the Sasquatch?”
You must first prove Sasquatch to exist before you can earn the right to question human’s encroachment on its territory.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Alex says:
January 3, 2011 at 2:05 pm
“The farse continues.”
Spot on. What can be concluded from a window of this time scale anyway? If peak to trough was 30 years, would you see it?
R. Gates says:
January 3, 2011 at 4:09 pm
3) How will the phases of the PDO, NAO, etc. effect the climate over the next decade, and could it be possible that the nature of these longer ocean cycles are being affected by AGW?
===============================
Get your facts straight, first. (But I know that is too much to ask of a spin doctor).
The NAO is not an “ocean cycle.” It is an atmospheric one.
Listening yo your half-truth littered posts over the months I might make a recommendation:
Have you thought of applying to do support work for a governmental organization such as the EPA, or perhaps the IPCC itself?
Just asking. But I think you would feel right at home at one of those organizations, no doubt.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Dr. Roy Spencer,
The year labels at the bottom of the graph (http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_Dec_102.gif) above are confusing. There is an arrow on the far right saying “Dec 2010” yet “2011” is to the left of that! Would it be possible to clearly mark the graph in such a way that the year labels VISUALLY correspond to the year lines or boxes? There are 32 columns corresponding to years 1979 through the end of 2010. Part of the confusion is that the year labels are on an angle, it would be better if they were vertical directly under their year column… and if all the columns were labeled… you’d also not need to use the label 2011 at all since it’s not even got data on the graph thus removing that part of the confusion.
Thanks, any improvements would be appreciated… and sorry if I’m nitpicking… it just took longer than I expected it should to get which columns go with which years…. I design information systems and user interfaces to be clear for people as part of my professional career so this is a free-be for you. Thanks again. [:)]
All the best,
Peter