From Dr. Roy Spencer:
Latest Global Average Tropospheric Temperatures
(Want to see how the current month’s temperatures are shaping up? Check this out.)
Since 1979, NOAA satellites have been carrying instruments which measure the natural microwave thermal emissions from oxygen in the atmosphere. The signals that these microwave radiometers measure at different microwave frequencies are directly proportional to the temperature of different, deep layers of the atmosphere. Every month, John Christy and I update global temperature datasets (see here and here)that represent the piecing together of the temperature data from a total of eleven instruments flying on eleven different satellites over the years. As of early 2011, our most stable instrument for this monitoring is the Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit (AMSU-A) flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite and providing data since late 2002.
The graph above represents the latest update; updates are usually made within the first week of every month. Contrary to some reports, the satellite measurements are not calibrated in any way with the global surface-based thermometer record of temperature. They instead use their own on-board precision redundant platinum resistance thermometers calibrated to a laboratory reference standard before launch.
The temp may go up a little in March, or stay about the same again, but I expect it is likely to then continue down until June, to about -0.2 to -0.4 °C. If the ocean oscillations crowd is right, the trend over the next 10 years should be around a baseline of 0.1 °C, varying by only about -0.01 °C per year (invisible to the eye from year to year).
The AGW believers and luke-warmers are trying to negotiate a bailout for the credibility of climate science, but serious consideration should be given to the view that anyone still promulgating the current AGW consensus (or the “greenhouse effect”, or radiation transfer theory as currently applied in climate science) should be thrown out as incompetent. Let the bad science fail, don’t bail it out.
I blame it on roo farts: http://www.theage.com.au/national/kangaroos-face-cruel-experiment-20110303-1bgke.html
“Since 1979, NOAA satellites have been carrying instruments which measure the natural microwave thermal emissions from oxygen in the atmosphere. The signals that these microwave radiometers measure at different microwave frequencies are directly proportional to the temperature of different, deep layers of the atmosphere.”
So 20% of the atmosphere, oxygen, does infact radiate based on its temperature.
I assume this must go up and down and effect the surface. : ).
Now what about N2.
John Flynn
Since we are at the top of a 60 year sine wave the temperature for 2011 will be noticeably cooler than 2010. This cooling trend will continue until 2030 or so and by that time CAGW will be dead.
The temperature since records began can be explained very well by a 1/2 ° C per century ramp and a 60 year sine wave. Since we are at the top of the sine wave the chicken littles are worried but as it cools the sinusoidal nature will be obvious to everyone.
The low part of the last cycle was 1978 when the earth is cooling articles were written. The high part was in 1998 [approx] when the Kyoto Protocol was signed.
This is the third repetition of the cycle since records began. You would think the CAGW crowd would see the obvious wouldn’t you?
Here is a peer reviewed paper which explains it better than I can.
http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/pdf/two_natural_components_recent_climate_change.pdf
SO whatever weather-like happens now can not be related to “global warming”, since the planet is as warm/or cool as in 1980. Or..?
So 32 years of SUV’s, BBQ’s, Coal Fired Electricity and all the Warmistas have to show for it is a 0.02 drop in global temperature?
They obviously didn’t stay at a Holiday Inn last night.
Kev-in-Uk says:
March 3, 2011 at 12:25 am
http://www.climate4you.com/ClimateReflections.htm#20080927:%20Reflections%20on%20the%20correlation%20between%20global%20temperature%20and%20atmospheric%20CO2
“Bob B says:
March 3, 2011 at 5:16 am
Jack, this is what Hansen said in 1988:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/13/is-jim-hansens-global-temperature-skillful/
Not even close.”
It would be even more interesting if Hansen’s models were available (I trust they are archived) and the actual CO2 growth could be put in to compare real divergence from reality.
Gee, its the coldest its been since the last La Nina 3 years ago.
In reply to Dermot O’Logical’s questions above.
The UAH anomaly being at or just below zero does not indicate a cooling trend over any period longer than the last few months. The overall trend of the UAH temperature record (since Dec 1978) is still decidedly upward. It was +0.140C/decade (with standard error of about 0.01) in January and it fell to +0.139C/decade in February. If next month’s figure is -0.5C, that would simply reduce the overall upward trend to +0.136C/decade.
If the anomaly fell to -0.5C and stayed there until September 2014, then the overall trend since 1978 would become statistically insignificant (although still upward). At that point, I’d certainly be having some serious doubts about whether the world is actually in a warming trend.
It is often said that there has been no warming since 1998. But the trend in UAH data since January 1998 is still positive (albeit not statistically distinguishable from zero). To get a statistically significant negative trend from 1998, the anomaly would have to remain at or below its current level until early 2014, or would have to fall to -0.5 and stay there or below for the rest of this year. Again, if either of those things were to happen (without a massive volcanic event), then I’d start to seriously doubt that the earth is in a warming trend.
But for now, any rational investigation of the available data is going to conclude that the earth is warming. There’s nothing in UAH or any other data set that suggests otherwise.
****
John Finn says:
March 3, 2011 at 4:49 am
Cool?? In what way? Despite a strong La Nina, deep solar minimum and negative PDO (or is it?) LT temperatures have only dropped to the average for the 1981-2010 period.
****
“Deep solar minimum” has no effect, in my & some others’ opinions. IMO, Atlantic & Arctic oscillations do, and they’re not in their coldest modes by any means.
Not having a higher resolution graph to view, it looks like the highest temps each year are in the 1st Quarter of the year and the lowest in the 2nd or 3rd Quarter of the year.
Are the Southern hemisphere or Equitorial temperatures weighted or over-sampled?
With this year’s 1st Quarter being more the 0.5 cooler then last years 1st Quarter, it is clear that the La Nina has an effect on global averages.
Nigel Harris,
I think you made a typo in your final paragraph.
In the penultimate paragraph you say that the trend over the last 13 years is not statistically distinguishable from zero.
The statement in the final paragraph should therefore be:
“any rational investigation of the available data is going to conclude that the earth is not warming”.
netdr2 says:
March 3, 2011 at 5:48 am
John Flynn
It’s Finn actually but we’ll let that pass.
Since we are at the top of a 60 year sine wave the temperature for 2011 will be noticeably cooler than 2010. This cooling trend will continue until 2030 or so and by that time CAGW will be dead.
Are you prepared to bet on that. Exactly the same things were being said in 2008/2009 during and after the last La Nina.
The temperature since records began can be explained very well by a 1/2 ° C per century ramp and a 60 year sine wave. Since we are at the top of the sine wave the chicken littles are worried but as it cools the sinusoidal nature will be obvious to everyone.
Can it? There might be oscillatory factors at play but the underlying trend cannot be easily explained. It certainly cna’t be explained by Akasofu who without any justification (or data) whatsoever assumes the 19th century trend was the same as the 20th century trend. Long term records suggest that the 19th century temperature trends were essentially flat.
The low part of the last cycle was 1978 when the earth is cooling articles were written. The high part was in 1998 [approx] when the Kyoto Protocol was signed.
So there should have been cooling since 1998. There hasn’t been. It should also be noted that you chose the anomalously warm year of 1998 as the ‘peak’. However, the years immediately before 1998 were much cooler than those between 2001-2010.
This is the third repetition of the cycle since records began. You would think the CAGW crowd would see the obvious wouldn’t you?
I don’t know about the CAGW crowd, but I am familiar with the pattern of 20th century temperatures. I am also familiar with the CET record, the Uppsala record, the Armagh record and several other long term regional records. I fully expect decadal (and possibly longer) pauses in warming but there is no evidence of significant cooling.
And in reply to Nigel Harris (as pointed out previously in this comment thread) this rise in global temperatures is the same as has been seen three times over the past 150 years or so and so does not signify anything other than natural variation.
Very few people argue that the “global mean temperature” has NOT increased since 1978, the issue is whether humans have anything to do with it. I hesitate to suggest what CAGW proponents really would treat as evidence they were wrong, but suggesting three very cold years (to bring down the average precipitously) is ignoring the approximately 30 year cycles we have been seeing for the past century and a half.
Sadly, I doubt even the three years you suggest would do very much for most CAGW proponents.
Ok so it seems that readjustment of ch 5 AMSU satellite data at the end of the month gives -0.02C. I will accept anything Roy Spencer says or does, concerning climate, period.
This article answers a question for those still confused about how O2 and N2 can absorb/emit energy, yet accomplish this without absorbing/emitting in the thermal IR spectrum. How would an individual O2 or N2 molecule cool off in a vacuum, if not by emitting photons in the thermal IR spectrum?
The article specifies that the satellites detect the temperature of O2 by taking readings in the microwave spectrum. Thus, O2 absorbs/emits in the microwave spectrum (which is directly adjacent to the thermal IR spectrum). It’s too bad that this wasn’t easily available with a Google search of “O2 absorption spectrum”. But if you change that to “O2 microwave absorption” you’ll get plenty of hits. As for N2, the only article I could find is behind a paywall. Radio band energy emission?
The physical chemists are right. A black body is an imaginary, ideal surface that can absorb/emit any wavelength. Individual atoms can only absorb/emit in specific quanta. The larger the variety of atoms in your object, the more it will approximate a black body. The more your object is composed of a single lighter element, the less it will approximate a black body (fewer orbiting electrons equals fewer possibilities in energy level changes).
Thanks for the update Dr. Spencer,
Btw, NASA did a great job with the new 3D presentation of satellite data. Its a shame data isn’t available for many of the satellites but I’m guessing it will be at some point.
There appears to be a mistake on the website pages:
http://climate.nasa.gov/ indicates 3.27mm sea level rise/year
http://climate.nasa.gov/Eyes/ indicates 3.27mm sea level rise since 1992
Based on other sites that record sea level data — 3.27mm sea level rise since 1992 is likely to be the correct value but as the 3D satellite presentation ( http://climate.nasa.gov/Eyes/ ) clearly shows, it relative to the region, time of year, etc.
I hope NASA gets funding to extend the 3D data modeling for the public, what a fantastic educational tool and I can’t wait to see overlays of various satellite data sets.
I’m not sure what is the significance of a global temperature record of only 30 year duration. Even if 2011 turns out to be the hottest on record, the record is only 30 years long, it is not relevent. Planning to alter our entire global economy due to a 30 year trend is like changing our economy based on the stock market trend during the final .1 seconds before the closing bell rings. Three decades in earth years does not a trend make.
***
Nigel Harris says:
March 3, 2011 at 6:33 am
In reply to Dermot O’Logical’s questions above.
***
Thanks Nigel – I understand the point that a single month at -0.5C does not ‘stop’ the trend.
Would it be valid to interpret your position as “if the anomaly is statistically zero from 1978 to the present day, then we are not in a warming world, let alone a man-made-warming world” ?
Anyone else?
To someone who was there, 2010-2011 looks very much like 1975-1976. Most of February was warm in 1976. However, 1976 was the beginning of remarkably cold weather in most of the nation but especially in the midwest. In fact, 1977 through 1982 were the stuff of nightmare in the midwest. That is what I expect for the next five years.
Kev-in-Uk says:
March 3, 2011 at 12:25 am
can we have (or is theresomewhere) a direct comparison graph
Try this
http://junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.html
In response to an earlier comment, deep solar minimum certainly does have an effect as does the strong La Nina. Given two marked ‘negative’ forcings the global temperatures have remained remarkably high. I wonder what other forcing might be at work here?
John Finn said:
“So there should have been cooling since 1998. There hasn’t been. It should also be noted that you chose the anomalously warm year of 1998 as the ‘peak’. However, the years immediately before 1998 were much cooler than those between 2001-2010. ”
I think we can agree that temps have been flat since 1998. The big question now is whether solar forcing is starting to show up. Although the latest thinking is that it is only a .25 watt/sqmtr compared to 1 watt/sqmtr from ghg forcing we shall now see as we continue with the obviously low cycle 24 and the decline in solar wind as measured by the Ulysses satellite. The Altai glacier solar proxy/temperature reconstruction shows a twenty year lag between group sunspot number and temperature change in the atmosphere as preserved in the ice core. This is probably due to the thermal lag of the ocean and the integrative affect of the change in the solar parameters. Therefore a temperature decrease due to solar forcing should start to show up now. The jury is out, it will be fun to watch.
http://lch.web.psi.ch/files/Publikationen/analytic/Eichleretal_GRL2009.pdf
Juraj V. says:
March 3, 2011 at 5:48 am
SO whatever weather-like happens now can not be related to “global warming”, since the planet is as warm/or cool as in 1980. Or..?
/////////////////////////////////////////////////
Whilst this point is rather simplistic, whenever any one suggests to me that recent ‘extreme’ events are caused by global warming, this is the response that I give them. It is crazy to suggest that a warming of a few tenths of a degree C can have caused so called recent extrem events.