Guest post by John Kehr
With two completed months of the year there is starting to be discussion of how 2013 is shaping up for the annual anomaly. Several comments around the web have caught my attention as they demonstrate a basic misunderstanding of how the Earth’s climate is behaving. This is one of those articles that may seem OCD, but this one misunderstanding is what allows warmists to get away with as much as they do when it comes to climate.
I am going to pick on Anthony Watts and Roy Spencer for this one. The article in question was the one where Roy Spencer provided an update of the UAH anomaly. Here is a screen shot of the article.
From March 4th, 2013
The title states that there was a big drop in surface temperature in the month of February from ~ 0.5 to 0.2 °C. This is correct for the anomaly, but it has nothing to do with the Earth’s temperature. The reality is the Earth warmed up, but the anomaly dropped.
Let me explain. January is the coldest month of the year for the planet as a whole. Depending on the source, the average temperature is between 12.0 and 12.5 °C for the month. February is on average 0.18 °C warmer than January, also source dependent. Here is what the basic generic behavior of the Earth is on an annual basis.
Illustration 1: Annual Temperature of the Earth and the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. The average temperature of the Earth is different for each month of the year.
This is based on the average from the 1900-1990 data and I have used this extensively as the baseline behavior for the Earth today. Anomaly has no place on this chart because this shows the actual temperature of the Earth and each hemisphere. How the seasons affect the global average is readily apparent. To me it also shows how many factors can influence the global anomaly. January and February are perfect examples of this.
If I switch to Weatherbell I can show some cool graphics that they produce.
Here is January and February of 2013 from their site.
Notice that the Earth is about 0.25 °C warmer in February, but since it was closer to average the anomaly was much less. Climate scientists hate it when people show real temperature because it is impossible to see much warming when you look at the seasonal changes in the actual temperature.
Now for something interesting. In January the anomaly in the Arctic was well above average. By simple physics that meant the Arctic was losing energy to space at a much higher rate than average. Normally the Arctic is losing energy at a rate of 163 W/m^2. In January of 2013 it was losing energy at a rate of 173 W/m^2. That 6% increase in rate of energy loss meant that the Arctic ended up with a negative anomaly in February. The dramatic change in Arctic anomaly played a big role in the drop of the global anomaly in February.
The rate of energy loss is a self-correcting mechanism. Physics don’t allow it to operate in any other way. As a whole the Earth lost ~ 4 W/m^2 more than average over the entire surface in the month of January. Data for February is not yet available, but it will be close to average because the anomaly was closer to average. The higher rate of energy loss in January resulted in a more average February. That is how the climate operates.
Finally I have to get a dig in at CO2. In January of 2013 it was 395 ppm and in 1985 it was 50 points lower at 345 ppm. So despite the fact that CO2 was higher, the Earth was losing energy at a higher rate to space. CO2 was not blocking the energy from escaping despite all the claims that increased CO2 prevents heat from escaping the Earth. The Earth 30 years later was losing a significantly larger amount of energy to space than it was in the past.
Science, ignore at your own peril.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Normally the Arctic is losing energy at a rate of 163 W/m^2. In January of 2013 it was losing energy at a rate of 173 W/m^2.
Because the Earth is closest to the Sun in January it receives more energy from the Sun, so it is understandable that it must also lose more…
“Physics don’t allow it to operate in any other way.”
Ahem. Correct me if I’m wrong, but “physics” as plural?
I think most of the people who have been following this for a while understood that it was a drop in the anomaly, not the absolute temperature. But it is probably good to point that out for people who might not understand that. I remember a few years back when Steve McIntyre noticed an anomaly in temperatures in Russia (I think, it’s been a while and I have been to sleep since then.) They reported the previous month’s results again. I believe it was September results being reported in October. The result was a “hot spot” showing up in the gridded GISS data. It was mentioned at the time that had this happened in the middle of summer or middle of winter, it might not be noticed but it happened at a time and in a place where temperatures from one month to the next were dramatically different and the difference stood out.
Very Nice John !
I have visited your website (the Inconvenient Sceptic) only a few times in the past, but I sure may do it more often. The above info is very good – look at the actual temperatures, along with the anomaly. It gives a better picture.
And your last paragraph is really something. So why would the earth be losing more heat now (in January) than 30 years ago ( I also assume it was January)? Maybe clouds? Maybe atmospheric flows that might be affected, by maybe, say – a change in solar activity? ( . . calllng Leif now . . ! ) , that although total irradiance may not change much, does the spectrum change ?( . .I recall seeing that UV changes quite a bit . . .). And what might those effects be?
Not saying that is the ‘final answer’ – but shouldn’t that be looked into more . . ?
So, as others have noted, you are saying the use of a temperature “anomaly” is a poor measure of what is really happening? So all these climate “scientists” are measuring the wrong thing. Interesting. Wouldn’t be the first time. In fact, measuring the “wrong thing” is somewhat endemic. Just search it on the web. Are we measuring the right things?
http://books.google.ca/books?id=3bxS994XrnYC&pg=PR15&lpg=PR15&dq=examples+of+measuring+the+wrong+thing+scientifically&source=bl&ots=zO8sUULHKZ&sig=r0joWFrdkqKOErqpQomMJL_y7NI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=QRA4UemoG4WWyAG_3IHoBw&ved=0CFcQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=examples%20of%20measuring%20the%20wrong%20thing%20scientifically&f=false
http://brainatthedoor.blogspot.ca/2009/11/is-there-such-thing-as-scientific-fact.html
http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2011/12/15/measuring-the-wrong-things-has-the-scientific-method-been-compromised-by-careerism/
http://books.google.ca/books?id=wnUpwdlu3YsC&pg=PA83&lpg=PA83&dq=measuring+the+wrong+thing+scientifically&source=bl&ots=jtIQtqyAwH&sig=tKUQqAUwOHzgcnLmPGqYCxqAFNg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=DRE4Ua3FJ-rGygGPpICABw&ved=0CGMQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=measuring%20the%20wrong%20thing%20scientifically&f=false
http://mikeurbonas.com/2009/06/19/doing-the-wrong-things-right/
First water vapor and now temperature. WHEN is the lame stream media going to take note of these DATA based findings and start asking the Michael Mann’s and Jimbo Hansen’s of the world the tough questions?
[snip]
CO2 is not a “green house” gas. No gas is a green house gas. Its time to stop the charade. Stop using the term Green House in place of a more correct term Glass House. This simple shift in terminology will help disconnect the popular phraseology linking green house (warm) and a warming atmosphere; by linking the two to CO2 and warming with green house gas.
Until there exists a proven reproducable experiment demonstrating that CO2 acts as a warming agent and thus defys normal science. It is time to drop this nonsense of a fictitious Glass House gas. It is the subliminal linkage of the commonly used, but inaccurate term “Green House” that makes Green House gas “SOUND” RIGHT AND THUS WIDELY ACCEPTED. However, it remain a fictitious construct, it is not reality.
Truly not trying to be snarky, but you lost me at:
“Depending on the source, the average temperature is between 12.0 and 12.5 °C for the month.”
Was it really? We know this as a fact?
“CO2 was not blocking the energy from escaping despite all the claims that increased CO2 prevents heat from escaping the Earth. The Earth 30 years later was losing a significantly larger amount of energy to space than it was in the past.”
Yes, NOAA outgoing longwave radiation data shows an increase of ~1.3 Wm-2 from 1975-2012 despite a steady increase of CO2 levels. In contrast, the IPCC formula predicts that OLR should have decreased .93 Wm-2 since 1975, and MODTRAN likewise predicts OLR should have decreased .83 Wm-2 since 1975.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/03/man-made-global-warming-theory-is.html
Thanks Mr. Kehr,
“Depending on the source, the average temperature…” Please provide links to the sources. This is the closest I’ve seen to real temperatures.
Also, my eyeball estimate of April on the left is 13.8 °C, but April on the right appears to be closer to 13.6 °C. Something missing? I also expect about ±1.5 °C. I know measurement can be better, but that is a good normal nominal precision. So, it could just be in the error.
Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis and commented:
John Kehr posting at WUWT includes a graph of the month-to-month global temperature rather than the more commonly reported departure from average.
Yep, use of anomalies causes confusion. That is reason enough to get rid of them. But there is another important reason. Use of anomalies hides the actual data – thermometer readings. Taking a thermometer reading is an act of reaching into the environment and withdrawing a fact from it. To convert a thermometer reading to an anomaly you have to compare the thermometer reading to an average reading – you have to hide the fact behind a human contrivance. So much for empirical science.
To enhance Leif’s point, since the Earth is closest to the Sun in January and apogee (farthest away) is in July, it can’t be right that the Earth is coolest in January, regardless of the temperature record. This is a model anyone can understand.
Secondly, I quite agree that the Earth is radiating heat away into space as well as it ever did, and all can test this hypothesis using your old automobile. Just leave it parked out on the street on a night when the temperature goes some degrees below zero. In the morning you will find that the windshield has frozen over, but the side windows still have only liquid water. This is because the ground is heating the side windows with infrared (IR) radiation, but the windshield is pointing to the sky and does not receive IR, either from the ground nor from the so-called “forcing” in the sky. It radiates its heat into sky & space and freezes. There is no useful “forcing”. So the Earth is radiating its heat into space just the same as it ever did. After the 200th such lesson, I keep my car under cover overnight now.
I’m a big fan of anomaly myself. It does the interpretation for you. It’s like ‘seasonally adjusted’ economic data. It removes the cyclic info that is not relevant to the question (climate/economic performance). It tends not to mislead the uninformed.
John, good to see you here on WUWT. Thanks for the interesting post.
The title states that there was a big drop in surface temperature in the month of February from ~ 0.5 to 0.2 °C. This is correct for the anomaly, but it has nothing to do with the Earth’s temperature. The reality is the Earth warmed up, but the anomaly dropped.
February is on average 0.18 °C warmer than January
Notice that the Earth is about 0.25 °C warmer in February
You lost me. Is February on the average 0.18 warmer or 0.25 warmer than January? And note that the anomaly dropped by about 0.3. So according to my math, February was either 0.12 colder or 0.05 colder than January, yet you say: “ The reality is the Earth warmed up”. What am I missing?
hmmm, I am of a slightly different opinion. I can see why posting both is good, but am not sure why there is so much criticism of the anomaly. It seems quite useful actually. If the world is naturally warmer during the North American summer (can’t remember if that is true, so consider this a hypothetical) then what is important is the anomaly is it not?
…And to gild the lily on the topic of Earth’s heat budget, it will be lowest at the orbital equinox in October and highest at the opposite equinox in April, *regardless of the atmospheric heat latency*. We see the equivalent effect with the tilt-dependent Arctic ice caps which max out in March, not the December solstice — the orbital perehilion-apehelion schedule happens to follow one month after the Arctic ice caps — maximum heat budget 1 month after the max Arctic ice (without causal link). Until the comprehensive planetary temperature record shows that heat budget, it will be incomplete.
” CO2 was not blocking the energy from escaping despite all the claims that increased CO2 prevents heat from escaping the Earth. The Earth 30 years later was losing a significantly larger amount of energy to space than it was in the past.”
Don’t be confused by the “popularization” or “dumbing down” of the GW theory.
1. C02 does not prevent heat from escape the earth.
2. C02 along with other gases ( including water vapor) SLOW the rate at which the earth loses
energy to space.
How does that work?
1. C02 and other gases are relatively, not completely, opaque to LW radiation. We know this from measurements.
2. Because of this earth radiates energy to space from a point in the atmosphere known as the ERL.
3. Add more GHGs to the atmosphere and you raise the ERL
4. When the ERL is raised, earth radiates from a higher colder place.
5. Radiating from a colder height means the loss rate is lower.
heat is not blocked from escaping. It escapes. But with more GHGs this escape happens from a higher colder location, and consequently it happens less rapidliy than it would otherwise.
Slowing the cooling, is referred to as warming.
The silver lining of a thermos does not warm the coffee. By reflecting radiation it slows the rate of cooling and keeps your coffe warmer than it would have been otherwise.
Think of C02 and other greenhouse gases as a leaky radiation screen. eventually the radiation escapes, but at a slower rate than it would otherwise.
Finally, the temperature data you are showing is the pretty color maps….. That’s a model output.
Just for your information. And Oh, the model used to create those temperatures?
That model agrees with me. It’s physics says c02 causes warming. So, rather funnily you used model temperature data ( NCEP) and the models used to create that data, agree that c02 causes warming.
Probably worth mentioning again that temperature is not the same thing as heat. (Which is no easier to model or measure, otherwise Kevin and Phil wouldn’t have lost so much of it).
1) The earth is cooler on average when it’s closest to the sun, because the southern hemisphere gets tilted towards the sun then, and the side of the world that gets most of the sun is mostly water. Water is harder to heat up due to heat of vaporization.
2) It makes sense that since the planet is slightly warmer now than it was in 1985, the atmosphere would be losing more heat into space because the delta T is larger… the warmer it gets, the more heat goes into space… otherwise, we’d boil 😉
Does not a warmer Earth lose heat at a greater rate than a cooler Earth, all other factors being equal? Well, yes – it does. But energy is lost only by the atmosphere. Nothing here tells us if we had a net accumulation of energy or a net loss of energy to the Earth system. It really annoys me that we don’t speak of global climate in terms of energy balance, but of atmospheric temperature. But that does not tell us if other features of the planet are accumulating or shedding energy.
If you are an alarmist you should be happy to know that warm air is a good thing because that heat heads to space. Double good if that heat has come from the ocean. negative balance of energy. Yet we can expect endless complaints of a warming planet. N0 – that is a cooling planet! Hot air – radiant energy to space. Good! It cannot ping pong around the atmosphere for ever. It has to leave. It cannot be helped. If you have a nuclear reactor on a space craft that needs to shed excess heat the fastest way to do that without adding area/weight is to allow the radiators to get very hot.
Here are 2 maps from the Australian BoM for early Jan 2013 (summer) when there were several days in succession setting records at many sites for hot.
http://www.geoffstuff.com/Double%20heatwave%20map.jpg
Up higher, Leif notes “Because the Earth is closest to the Sun in January it receives more energy from the Sun, so it is understandable that it must also lose more…”
Scenario. After the first really hot day in the vast inland, it cools at night, Next day, it gets very hot again. Energy is coming into the system. Should it not follow as per Leif that it must also lose more? How does it become so much hotter than historical?
Is the answer that the daily cycle is a fast dynamic compared to the global energy exchange rate? If you were able to constrain the hot air in the centre with a propertyless barrier, how long would it take to cool and how cool would it get?
I’m lost on this one too. If the average temp in January is 12.5 C and the anomaly is +0.5 C that brings it to 13 degrees C for the month. If February is 0.18 C warmer on average than January then the average is 12.68.C Add in the anomaly of 0.18 C and you get an average of 12.88 C. I understand that the anomaly is above the average but it seems to me the Earth actually cooled down from January.
There are three temperatures mentioned above. The NH temperature and the SH temperature which together derive the GLOBAL temperature. All explained in more detail in John’s book “The Inconvenient Skeptic” available on Kindle. Easy read for the average layman.