From Dr. Roy Spencer:
UAH Update for January 2011: Global Temperatures in Freefall
…although this, too, shall pass, when La Nina goes away.
LA NINA FINALLY BEING FELT IN TROPOSPHERIC TEMPERATURES
January 2011 experienced a precipitous drop in lower tropospheric temperatures over the tropics, Northern Hemisphere, and Southern Hemisphere. This was not unexpected, since global average sea surface temperatures have been falling for many months, with a head start as is usually the case with La Nina.
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 0.181 0.217 0.145 -0.222
2011 1 -0.009 -0.055 0.038 -0.369
This is shown in the following plot (note the shorter period of record, and different zero-baseline):
SO WHY ALL THE SNOWSTORMS?
While we would like to think our own personal experience of the snowiest winter ever in our entire, Methuselah-ian lifespan has some sort of cosmic — or even just global — significance, I would like to offer this plot of global oceanic precipitation variations from the same instrument that measured the above sea surface temperatures (AMSR-E on NASA’s Aqua satellite):
Note that precipitation amounts over the global-average oceans vary by only a few percent. What this means is that when one area gets unusually large amounts of precipitation, another area must get less.
Precipitation is always associated with rising air, and so a large vigorous precipitation system in one location means surrounding regions must have enhanced sinking air (with no precipitation).
In the winter, of course, the relatively warmer oceans next to cold continental air masses leads to snowstorm development in coastal areas. If the cold air mass over the midwest and eastern U.S. is not dislodged by warmer Pacific air flowing in from the west, then the warm oceanic air from the Gulf of Mexico and western Atlantic keeps flowing up and over the cold dome of air, producing more snow and rain. The “storm track” and jet stream location follows that boundary between the cold and warm air masses.
Wow, I was close in the prediction thread. 0.0 +/- .05….
JER0ME says:
February 2, 2011 at 3:21 pm
Interesting that precipitation is not going up.
I understood from the CAGW crowd that the recent large amounts of snow were all because of the increased temperatures causing more moisture to be in the air (at least they said that once it started snowing a lot).
Now it seems that there is not much more moisture, but there is more snow because it is colder. I wonder how that can be spun to be caused by CAGW? I am sure it can, I’m just wondering how.
==================================================
Amazing, isn’t it?
God! I made an error. In spanish Christmas is NAVIDAD (the birth of Christ). In portuguese it is NATAL (the birth of Christ too). In my former post I said that Christmas in portuguese was NATALE. But NATALE is actually Christmas in italian… My portuguese writing skills are really poor, sorry (my portuguese talking skills aren´t so hot either… hehe).
Cheers
Where has the heat gone? Into the ocean. So we should see a rise in OHC concurrent with this drop in global atmospheric temperature.
Jeff Norman says:
February 2, 2011 at 2:31 pm
Assuming this temperature trend is correct and taking into account that temperature is only a proxy for the heat energy in the Earth fluidsphere, where did the heat energy go? As my thermodynamics professor always proclaimed, “The heat goes to Mars!”
And assuming the temperature spikes back up again, where was the heat hiding?
Sigh…..
Temperature of the atmosphere does not equal the heat content of the atmosphere
So (if you could) keeping the ‘heat content’ static while reducing the water vapor in a volume of air will result in a temperature spike up. And NO heat has gone anywhere
Similarly, keeping the heat content static and raising the water vapor content of a volume of atmosphere the volume will be at a lower temperature and no heat has gone anywhere.
This is the enthalpy of the atmosphere.
@aaron chmielewski
aaron says:
February 2, 2011 at 3:54 pm
“Shouldn’t we expect significant warming from all the latent heat released when snow forms?”
We don’t get warming we get heat radiated from the water molecules changing to liquid then ice. The heat is radiated without regard to temperature as it is latent heat being given up so Stefan Boltzmann does not apply.
look at:
http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/goes/east/natl/flash-rb.html
Watch the infrared from the top of the storm
If it had not been for the aftermaths of big eruptions (El Chichon, 1982-85; Pinatubo, 1991-94), each of which occurred during a fairly strong El Nino, the overall 31-year temperature trend appears to be basically flat with ups and downs due to Ninos/Ninas.
AGW proponents should at least be cheering this news and breathing a temporary sigh of relief. Any drop like this delays – even a little – the onset of the catastrophic results of global warming. So while I lament the effect it has had on me personally, what with the higher bill for home heating oil and all, AGW proponents can dance (carefully) in the slippery streets.
As far as trends, the chart shows that temperatres were flat between 1979 and 1996 at about the – 0.1 to -0.14C. Temperatures were again flatbetween 2002 and 2007 at about the +0.2C level. What the graph shows is that there was a significant amount of heat released and put into the system in the run up to and around the 1998 El Nino.
Apart from, there has been fairly level temperatures a little below or a little above the base line.
Someone help me out here. Looking at the daily AQUA ch05 figures for January
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps+002
I expected the overall monthly figure to be significantly lower. What am I missing? (Note: you may have to click on the average box and redraw — at the bottom — to see what I mean. It was more than .01 degrees below the average.)
The neg PDO, strong La Nina and neg AO & NAO are starting to show in the world temps. This trend should continue along with the massive winters in the northern hemisphere.
Solar output is one component of the downward trend which is also showing downward movement. The most important metric EUV is still on the slide and is at present lower than the SC22/23 minimum. The sunspot record is still not ramping up and continues to undercut SC5. F10.7 also refuses to move from its plateau recorded throughout 2010.
> NoAstronomer says:
> btw Don’t you mean El Nina?
I’m sure I wasn’t the only one who got your joke. Most here though have the attention span of gnats.
Wouldn’t it be easier to check the Earth’s “Average Daily Temp” –and get a much better ‘feel’ for whether (or weather) it’s getting warmer or cooler– if we did something like this:
1. Get a daily temp reading for Venus (the whole schlamasal)
2. Get a daily temp reading for Mars (the whole schlamiesel)
3. Add 1. and 2. together and divide by 2 (This is the Earth’s “Average Daily Temp”)
Well, it would be interesting, even if it didn’t change very much.
This is an interesting question. I have told some of the ardent Warmists at the Guardian that I expect to hear less from them in 2011 and hopefully onwards. This is the travesty but expect Al Gore et. al. to get louder and blame global cooling on global warming. ;O)
Hmm, global temperature has plummeted to the lowest value since……2008. Wow! I can’t wait for the next bombshell.
Guys, the base line was changed to be the average up to Dec 2010 and then the very next month we get a head line “anomaly goes negative” gees in other breaking news… yesterday was warmer than today therefore ever major scientific institution must be wrong
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/01/dec-2010-uah-global-temperature-update-0-18-deg-c/
Yeah… the CAGW theory fails again. Temperature not rising, Ice caps not melting, sea level rise not accelerating, number of cyclones not rising, glaciers not melting away, stratospheric hot spot not found. What else do they need to revise the theory?
Hey Geoff – also it is also possible that this La Nina lasts into 2012 with such a strong SOI and historical examples of 2 year La Ninas. Combined with stronger and more frequent La Ninas as part of the cold PDO and as you say with a quiet sun it would be likely that we will see an overall cooling trend with some warm bumps in between.
H’mm…
If there was no trend in the data, we would expect to spend around half the time below the average level. If dipping below the average is an event, then there seems to be an acceptance that there’s a trend.
As to where the heat goes, etc: I’m not confident in the actual numbers given. The anomalies in question are tiny compared to, say, seasonal fluctuation in temps. What is needed is some fairly-derived confidence limits on the temps.
twawki says:
February 3, 2011 at 2:54 am
Joe is also thinking the current La Nina might last or go back to back. We will see but the trend should be down. The current AMO position is probably ideal, the neg AO & NAO working better with a positive AMO.
Several years ago I did an analysis of the NCDC global land and sea temperature index.
At that time (these pesky global indexes keeping being revised) – at that time, there was an 0.7 degree per century long-term secular trend, plus an approximately 65 year zigzag running through it.
My projection at that time, was that the temperature in 2050 would be much the same as in 2009, but that itwould be somewhat colder in between. It would rise about 0.3 degrees higher by 2010. These projections were based on my assumption that the trends appearent since 1880, would continue unaltered until at least 2100.
Since then, my knowledge has increased.
I now see the secular trend as mainly an artifact of the effect of UHI on the data.
I see the 65 odd year zigzag as due to the PDO and other oceanic cycles.
We have had a dominant Le Nino upward zig and have now entered a dominant La Nina downward zag.
There is one fairly large proviso and that relates to any possible effect, if any, of the quiet sun.
That is evidenced by the relatively small number of sunspot numbers.
That may or may not add the the normal zigzag cycle, which may or may not plunge us into a new little ice age.
As usual, time will tell – these are most interesting times.
I will not live to see the like again.
Dr. Spencer,
You have for January 2011 :
-0.369 for tropics
+0.038 for the south hemisphere
-0.055 for the north hemisphere
So how in the world do you then get -0.009 for the global temperature?
I’m sure it has to do with the algorithm you use but could you just explain it for us here. I have always read that the tropics cover a higher percentage of the globe than either the north or south hemispheres combined excluding the tropics. That is a bit of a mystery.
Thanks. Enjoy your posts.
My solar causal intepretation of the UAH graph.
http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=globalwarming&thread=1488&page=1
Wayne:
(-0.055 + 0.038)/2 is c. -0.009.
I think the tropics are negative but the poles are positive which almost cancel. That’s my reading of it anyway.
Thanks Jit, that was really shallow of me, always trying to get all three values in there. NH and SH must then be as they say literally the entire hemispheres and the tropics just tossed in the printout for additional information. Got it now. That right there says I need sleep.
Ian W.
“Sigh….”
How ingraciously melodramatic. Perhaps you missed my “temperature is only a proxy for the heat energy”. Yes, I get the “enthalpy of the atmosphere”.
But seeing as how you were so willing to patiently explain the parts I obviously missed, perhaps you can explain from whence the moisture in your column of air came? You see, the “UAH Satellite-Based Temperature of the Global Lower Atmosphere” indicates a sudden, dramatic decrease in temperature (only a proxy for enthalpy) over the last two months.
Your hypothesis is that the heat energy in the column of air was “used” to vapourize some moisture therefore sustaining the overall heat content in the column of air (minus the heat loss required to satisfy the 2nd law). That is all very well and good, but where did the moisture come from? Either the moisture was just hovering around waiting to be vapourized or the heat energy in the column of air swooped down and “scooped” up some moisture that happened to be laying around on the surface. How does that work?