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.
@ur momisugly beng says:
March 3, 2011 at 6:40 am
““Deep solar minimum” has no effect”
Cold N.H. winters are more likely at solar minimums with more rather than less sunspots. This last minimum was an exception to that, and had very low solar wind speeds occurring at times over the last 2 winters, partly due to a less coronal holes.
The most common time for cold months is around solar cycle maximum.
Nigel Harris says:
March 3, 2011 at 6:33 am
“….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.”
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
The interpretation of the graph is inherently subjective. However, my view of the graph is that if I were to draw a line through the graph, I would in fact draw two flat lenes, the first at about -0.16C level covering the period between 1979 and 1996 and a second flat line at about + 0.2C level covering the period between 2001 to date.
During these periods there does not appear to have been any statistical warming. There appears to have been a step change around the 1998 El Nino which released a lot of energy (heat) into the atmosphere.
Beng
I think you mean that you and others are hoping that there is no correlation between Solar Minimums and colder temperatures. We certainly cannot rely on the junk data from NASA GISS.
Skeptics that are looking for a fast falling trend are probably going to be disappointed. Remember, the general skeptical view is a slight warming of .5-1C per doubling of CO2. So, a flat trend over many years should be in keeping with that view while it does not support the alarmist view.
The current state of around .2C increase in 30 years is right in line with the skeptical view. Yes, it will warm and for the most part it will be beneficial. If it really starts to cool then it means the no one is even close to understanding the situation.
COLA is showing pretty massive cooling in all continents (except Africa). This does not concurr with previous AMSU satellite data ie 2008 (probably sea temps are up?)
http://wxmaps.org/pix/clim.html click on temps for each comntinent/ This is why I question current AMSU data
Kev-in-Uk says:
March 3, 2011 at 12:25 am
can we have (or is theresomewhere) a direct comparison graph
Kev,
Try
http://www.climate4you.com
Go to global temperature (left bar),
then ‘recent land temperatures’,
then scroll down until you get the comparative graphs for UAH,RSS, HadCRUt, NCDC and GISS, all with the same starting points.
Its a very informative site, and all original sources are cited…
AB
John Finn says:
March 3, 2011 at 4:49 am
“…and only slightly down on temperatures recorded during the peak of the 1986/87 El Nino . ”
You have forgotten the cooling of that time. In 1982 El Chichon in Mexico put up even more ash than Pinatubo did in 1991. Check out this graph of Mauna Loa data at:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Mauna_Loa_atmospheric_transmission.png
In essence, the 1986/87 is bracketed by two major volcanic cooling events. Is it any wonder that world temperatures of that time were a bit subdued?
What do you think current temperatures would look like, if they were bracketed by volcanoes like El Chichon and Pinatubo?
Bon from the UK said
“I was expecting a plunge at least comparable with 2008 and 1999. In fact from the fanfare preceeding it, I was expecting at to be a real decent dip down comparable with the 1990′s. Seems to be shaping up as a damp squib.”
If you look at the data for 1999 there were months where temps bumped up before falling lower.
I dont know what will happen from here but I would NOT be amazed if it had a fall in March. Even if la-nina ends the subsequent warming has some lag of a few months..
My looking at the ocean ref page and the ENSO ref page ocean profiles makes me think La nina is about to weaken but again I am no expert so what would I know, I could be completely wrong.
There’s a site for that (betting on climate): https://www.intrade.com/v4/home/
Caleb says:
March 3, 2011 at 3:07 pm
John Finn says:
March 3, 2011 at 4:49 am
“…and only slightly down on temperatures recorded during the peak of the 1986/87 El Nino . ”
You have forgotten the cooling of that time. In 1982 El Chichon in Mexico put up even more ash than Pinatubo did in 1991. Check out this graph of Mauna Loa data at:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Mauna_Loa_atmospheric_transmission.png
In essence, the 1986/87 is bracketed by two major volcanic cooling events. Is it any wonder that world temperatures of that time were a bit subdued?
What do you think current temperatures would look like, if they were bracketed by volcanoes like El Chichon and Pinatubo?
1. El Chichon was in 1982. El Nino was in 1986/87. Stratospheric aerosols cleared long before then as your Mauna Loa link shows.
2. Pinatubo cannot possibly have had any effect on global temperatures in 1986/87.
La Nina is continues in the Pacific, though weakening. So temperature will continue to go further negative.
Realizing this is only 31 years of data, but there is an obvious step change around late ’97/early ’98. Eye balling the period of ’79-’97 and you get an apparent mean of -0.15 (my best guess). Now look at the ’98-‘2010 data and I see a mean of +0.22, a step change of +0.37 approx.
Step changes indicate that an additional input occurred, not the gradual warming projected by the AGW camp. This happened in the second half of Solar Cycle 23, which was the biggest of three close together and intense Solar Cycles. We saw the PDO go negative in ’02 and the AMO is supposedly swinging to negative now. These should have resulted in more cooling than are seeing in the satellite data, even accounting for the thermal lag from Earth’s oceans. I believe that some external source of energy other than our Sun’s raised the mean temp of the Earth and is finally gradually dissipating. Any comments, ideas or suggestions as to the source of this step change? Again, a gamma ray burst might be the cause.
Bill
richard verney says: “There appears to have been a step change around the 1998 El Nino which released a lot of energy (heat) into the atmosphere.”
The warm water released from the Pacific Warm Pool during the 1997/98 El Nino was also redistributed throughout the Pacific and Indian Oceans. Also, keep in mind that the surface warming outside of the tropical Pacific during an El Nino is the result of teleconnections (changes in atmospheric circulation) and not the direct transfer of heat.
****
Sunspot says:
March 3, 2011 at 12:30 pm
Beng
I think you mean that you and others are hoping that there is no correlation between Solar Minimums and colder temperatures. We certainly cannot rely on the junk data from NASA GISS.
****
No, I’m not hoping anything, just what I observe from Leif S’s very extensive & detailed work on this subject. I’ll agree that it isn’t settled yet.
Richard Varney
My apology, I missed your post.
You and I came to the same conclusion. I doubt this step change was due to the El Nino, because the Earth’s mean temp has not reacted as strongly in the negative direction after the ’98 El Nino as it has done in the past. We definitely see a step change in the satellite data around ’98, and are only now seeing that excess energy dissipate!
Bill
To those who have posted links to my initial query – thank you. I have added them to be viewed more thoroughly later.
Maybe it’s not been noticed but Mike Borgelt asked what I think is a very pertinent question in his comment above, concerning the reliability of the instrument in question. Perhaps Roy S or John C could find some time to answer it — I think a number of visitors here are wondering the same thing.
This is one thing I appreciate about WUWT versus the alarmist sites: critical thinking and skepticism from all directions is considered health, encouraged, and openly discussed. And enough knowledgeable folks — like Mike himself — visit here with expertise that raises the bar for discussion of such subjects.
Beng
I didn’t mean to offend. All hell will break loose if there is any correlation and subsequently the penny drops that we cannot control climate. It’s early days yet and there are very interesting times ahead in the solar department. Current SC24 has shattered the dreams of many a high profile Solar Physicists. I know Leif said that SC 25 will be a big one but my theory is SC25 will be a dud and if it is it will be a real test of any climate correlation.
RE: John Finn says:
March 3, 2011 at 5:38 pm
“1. El Chichon was in 1982. El Nino was in 1986/87. Stratospheric aerosols cleared long before then as your Mauna Loa link shows.
2. Pinatubo cannot possibly have had any effect on global temperatures in 1986/87.”
Remarkable. Truly remarkable.
May I remind you that you are the one who brought up the subject of “cooling events.” You are the one who suggested current “cooling events” should have dropped world temperatures lower than minus .02, and therefore current cooling actually proves how warm it is.
However current “cooling events” involve things such as the “quiet sun,” which many dispute has any effect at all.
Then I bring up the subject of the two biggest “cooling events” of the past hundred years, which everyone knows did have an effect.
And you say they had no effect.
Remarkable. Truly remarkable.
“Dermot O’Logical says:
March 3, 2011 at 2:50 am
If I may ask two honest questions of AGW proponents.
For how long would the UAH anomaly need to be at or below zero for you to accept that the AGW theory is incorrect?
How low would the UAH anomaly need to be for you to accept that the AGW theory is incorrect?”
I am not an AGW proponent, but talked to one about a year ago. We discussed Phil Jones’ answers from the February, 2010 interview regarding the past 8 years (cooling by 0.12 C per decade) and the past 15 years (warming by 0.12 C per decade). He said he did not pay much attention to anything 8 years or less but 15 years was somewhat significant. He was also extremely upset with newspapers simply giving the headline “No warming for 15 years” without mentioning the other detail about the significance.
So in terms of the questions raised above, I would say the questions need to be modified slightly to read as follows: If the UAH anomaly averages 0 until the end of October, 2011, would it be the case that one could say that the significance level of warming over the last 15 years is less than 50%, or that the significance level of no change over the last 15 years is more than 50%? (As you may guess, I chose October since that is just before the next big conference in South Africa.) I know the experts at WUWT can wordsmith my questions much better. I do have one question of the statistics experts here. If an average of 0 over the next 8 months does not allow that statement to be made, what would the average anomaly have to be over the next 8 months so we can say there is less than a 50% chance of warming over the last 15 years?
Hm, Bastardi predicted we would be down into 1980s temperatures. Well, ain’t that cold yet.
Caleb says:
March 4, 2011 at 6:40 pm
I’m not sure what your point is. I commented that current LT temperatures – during a La Nina AND a weak solar cycle – were only slightly lower than LT temperatures during the 1986/87 El Nino when the sun was particularly active. Now we know that ENSO events (El Nino/La Nina) can affect global temperatures by up to 0.5 deg. This suggests
1. Solar activity is a bit part player in climate change. This is something we know already since the sun’s output does not change sufficiently to explain the changes.
2. Some other factor apart from the known factors such as ENSO is causing warming.
You mentioned that Pinatubo and El Chichon may be a factor in the lower 1986/87 temperatures. I responded by saying that stratospheric aerosols had cleared by the mid-1980s and that Pinatubo could no possibley have affected the 1986/87 temepratures. Perhaps you think it could. You might not be alone here. After all, a number of people seem to think that a solar cycle which didn’t get underway until 1964 was responsible for post-1940 cooling.
That, like your suggestion that the 1991 Pinatubo eruption somehow caused coolings ~5 year earlier, would be “remarkable”.
[Change your tone – lose the sarcasm – or your next comment will be snipped. The other commenter may be in error, but you can at least be more civil ~jove, mod]
John Finn,
Hope you read this, though it has slipped off the bottom of the home page.
Your tone does not bother me. I understand I must exasperate you, especially by seeing an event which occurred 1986/87 as having any connection to an event which didn’t even happen until 1991. How could cooling which didn’t happen until 1991 have any effect on 1986?
OK. I’ll concede that point, just for the moment, to calm you down. This still doesn’t erace the cooling from El Chichon. Although El Chichon’s ash may have been washed from the atmosphere by 1986/87, the cooling it caused is still somewhere in the system. It may be “down stream,” but it still exists.
Now let me un-concede the point about 1991 effecting 1986/87, just for the fun of making you adopt my over-view, rather than being stuck in the present tense.
You state, “2. Pinatubo cannot possibly have had any effect on global temperatures in 1986/87.”
That would seem a logical statement, but apply it to other events in nature and it becomes less than logical.
For example, my goats start to grow thicker coats before the weather gets cool. Using your logic the fact they grow thicker coats in August has nothing to do with weather cooling in September. In the same manner, before a minor earthquake in New Hampshire, which was barely felt, my goats became restless and made a lot of noise. Your logic states there is no way they could have sensed the earthquake before it happened.
Does the climate system contain anything that could have sensed Pinatubo before it happened? Hmmm. How about plankton? Plankton may not have a brain, or computers, but it has been around for eons, and may have natural responces to factors we are blithely unaware of. And when plankton vents, the climate listens. (Not just when it vents CO2, either; bromine and clorine effect the ozone layer.)
It seems fairly obvious “something” was going on that led to a couple of big volcanic eruptions. You can perhaps dismiss the “something” as sheer coincidence. And you may be right. On the other hand, you may be wrong.
Just for the fun of driving you bonkers, I will play the devil and suggest your logic is limited. You are sticking Pinatubo in a little compartment, relegating it to 1991, and in doing so you are inadvertantly stating nothing that occurred in 1986/87 had anything to do with setting Pinatubo off in 1991. You are denying cause and effect, and stating Pinatubo occurred without reason.
Another view would be that “something” was occurring between 1980 and 1991 that caused two huge volcanoes to pop off. That “something,” whatever it was, likely had effects on other aspects of climate, ranging from plankton, to methane-produced-by-my-goats, to world temperatures. Signs of that “something” would be all over the place, like clues strewn about for a detective to find.
You view data like an ant walking along the clothesline of world temperatures. El Chichon is like a heavy, wet pair of pants hung on the clothes line, dipping it down right on top of you, but Pinatubo hasn’t happened yet, so you keep crawling along the clothesline, unaware of what you are in the middle of, until 1991, when POW! The second pair of pants hits you.
I stand back and see the two eruptions hanging there on the clothesline, bracketing the 1986/87 El Nino, and I think about what I am seeing in a manner very different from you.
Note to Moderator: I have a thick skin. Don’t worry if Mr. Finn is now very rude to me. After all, I’m asking for it.
[Thanks, but the point is to raise the standard of politeness; somedays I’d have let it go, but feeling zero-tolerant today, ~jove, mod]
Bear in mind that Dr Spencer recently moved the anomaly ‘zero reference’ up by about 0.1C
– the anomaly used to reference to the average for 1979 – 2000, and now it’s referenced to the 1970 – 2010 average.
– and since the temperature of the period 2000 – 2010 were generally higher than peceding 20 years, this (re-calibrating the anomaly zero reference) has had the effect of bringing all the anomalies down by 0.1C
– so, if Dr Spencer had still been using the zero point he was using last year, then last month’s anomoly would have would have been about +0.1C.
– and so the headline wouldn’t have been quite so eye-catching.
Can I just add this correction…
– the anomaly used to reference to the average for 1979 – 2000, and now it’s referenced to the 1979 – 2010 average.