Warmest September in satellite temperature record
Boosted by warmer than normal water in the equatorial eastern Pacific Ocean that peaked in June and July, global average temperatures in the atmosphere rose to record levels in September, according to Dr. John Christy, director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. Not only was it the warmest September on record, it was also the warmest month (compared to seasonal norms) in the 38-year satellite temperature record that wasn’t associated with an “officially recognized” El Niño Pacific Ocean warming event.
Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.13 C per decade
September temperatures (preliminary)
Global composite temp.: +0.54 C (about 0.97 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for September.
Northern Hemisphere: +0.51 C (about 0.92 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for September.
Southern Hemisphere: +0.57 C (about 1.03 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for September.
Tropics: +0.53 C (about 0.95 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for September.
August temperatures (revised):
Global Composite: +0.41 C above 30-year average
Northern Hemisphere: +0.40 C above 30-year average
Southern Hemisphere: +0.41 C above 30-year average
Tropics: +0.46 C above 30-year average
(All temperature anomalies are based on a 30-year average (1981-2010) for the month reported.)
Notes on data released Oct. 2, 2017:
Of the 20 warmest monthly global average temperatures in the satellite record, only September 2017 was not during an El Niño. Compared to seasonal norms, the global average temperature in September made it the ninth warmest month in the satellite record.
Warmest Septembers (global average)
(degrees C warmer than 30-year September average)
1. 2017 +0.54 C
2. 2016 +0.45 C
3. 1998 +0.44 C
4. 2010 +0.37 C
5. 2009 +0.27 C
6. 2015 +0.25 C
2005 +0.25 C
8. 1995 +0.22 C
2013 +0.22 C
2012 +0.22 C
Warmest months (global average)
(degrees C warmer than 30-year seasonal averages)
1. Feb. 2016 +0.85 C
2. Mar. 2016 +0.76 C
3. Apr. 1998 +0.74 C
4. Apr. 2016 +0.72 C
5. Feb. 1998 +0.65 C
6. May 1998 +0.64 C
7. Jun. 1998 +0.57 C
8. Jan. 2016 +0.55 C
9. Spt. 2017 +0.54 C
10. May 2016 +0.53 C
While September was not during a typical El Niño, it did follow a summer of warmer than normal sea surface temperatures in the equatorial eastern Pacific, Christy said.
“We saw a big rise in sea surface temps in June and July. The atmosphere tends to respond two or three months later, so this is what you would expect. The atmosphere is still feeling this big heat anomaly, so this is the right time for the atmosphere to see this peak.”
In the past two months, however, sea surface temperatures in that critical central Pacific region have fallen significantly; so much so that what had been a forecast for an upcoming El Niño warming event has transitioned into a forecast for a possible La Niña Pacific Ocean cooling event. (See attached graph.)
“Based on what we saw during past events, we would expect some atmospheric cooling in the coming months,” Christy said. Cooling is more passive, while warming is active, so that transition might take a bit longer than the warming did. “Cooling is a bit more muted,” Christy said. “It might take a few months for the cooling to filter in.”
Compared to seasonal norms, the coldest spot on the globe in September was in the Western Antarctic, near Alexander Island. Temperatures there were 5.65 C (about 10.17 degrees Fahrenheit) cooler than seasonal norms.
Compared to seasonal norms, the warmest place on Earth in September was the Norwegian archipelago of Svalbard in the Arctic Ocean. Temperatures there averaged 4.64 C (about 8.35 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than seasonal norms.
As part of an ongoing joint project between UAH, NOAA and NASA, Christy and Dr. Roy Spencer, an ESSC principal scientist, use data gathered by advanced microwave sounding units on NOAA and NASA satellites to get accurate temperature readings for almost all regions of the Earth. This includes remote desert, ocean and rain forest areas where reliable climate data are not otherwise available.
The satellite-based instruments measure the temperature of the atmosphere from the surface up to an altitude of about eight kilometers above sea level. Once the monthly temperature data are collected and processed, they are placed in a “public” computer file for immediate access by atmospheric scientists in the U.S. and abroad.
The complete version 6 lower troposphere dataset is available here:
http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
Archived color maps of local temperature anomalies are available on-line at:
Neither Christy nor Spencer receives any research support or funding from oil, coal or industrial companies or organizations, or from any private or special interest groups. All of their climate research funding comes from federal and state grants or contracts.
— 30 —
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Once again, the culprit of greater atmospheric temperatures are the oceans. What warms the oceans warms the atmosphere. Can anyone explain how CO2 can warm the oceans? Unless someone can explain how more CO2 results in more visible radiation reaching the oceans, I think there is a problem with the AGW theory. What warms the oceans warms the atmosphere, and it isn’t CO2 or IR between 12 and 18 microns.
Yep, spot on.
Could Nick or Mosher or anyone else for that matter, please go through the mathematics of how another 10 or 20 ppm of CO2 on a background of 40,000 ppm of water vapor can put additional heat into the tropical Pacific Ocean to any kind of depth? Is this the biggest quantitation error ever in the entire history of science or have cosmologist nincompoops got these climate nincompoops beat ??
50 orders of magnitude off ?? Who’s counting anyway ??
.
The sea absorbs an average of 160W/m2 of sunlight. GHGs don’t change that. But that 160W/m2 can’t remain in the sea, else they would boil. The sea has to become warm enough so that the 160 W/m2 is lost, much by radiation.
CO2 increases down IR onto the surface. The sea then has to get warmer still, because it has to emit a net 160 W/m2, over and above the received IR.
“50 orders of magnitude” ??
That’s a big quantification error.
Nick Stokes October 3, 2017 at 3:21 pm: “CO2 increases down IR onto the surface”
WR: Nick Stokes, how many percent increase of down IR can we expect from 100 ppm extra CO2 as the air already has on average 40,000 ppm water vapour and 400 ppm CO2?
“how many percent increase of down IR”
As GHG increases, there are two effects that increase down IR. One is simply that the air is warmer. That means that all GHGs, including water, radiate more.
The other is that the lower boundary of the CO2 emission zone is lower in altitude, and so warmer. This is separate from the effect of warming of the atmosphere.
Nick Stokes: “That means that all GHGs, including water, radiate more.”
WR: The above is not an answer on my question: “Nick Stokes, how many percent increase of down IR can we expect from 100 ppm extra CO2 as the air already has on average 40,000 ppm water vapour and 400 ppm CO2?” So far I can only conclude that there is no scientific answer on the question of “how many percent “.
To make it a bit more complicated (sorry, this matter IS complicated) I have got another question. You stated: “CO2 increases down IR onto the surface.” (Nick Stokes October 3, 2017 at 3:21 pm). Because radiation is random in direction, CO2 also increases UP radiation. Indeed, direction ‘space’. My second question is, what is the net radiation effect of up and down IR by that 100 ppm of extra CO2, is it upwards or downwards? And of course I want to know: how many percent of extra net radiation will result in that specific direction?
Nature is a Freak Show of Un-predictability, notwithstanding that an Industry has developed on Mitigation of Co2. Universities have Re-Branded Environmental Studies to Climate Warming. Government Ministries have done the same adding the catch phrase “Global Warming” to their Environment Portfolio’s. The Prophets of Doom are wearing Horse Blinders ignoring the recent dramatic fluxes. Ref:
Given the cold water going into winter, the current “Ice Breaking Fleet …
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/…/given-the-cold-water-going-into-winter-the-curre…
Oct 16, 2014 – great-lakes-ice-feb-6-2014 With the Great Lakes at 92% ice coverage during the winter of 2013-2014 and far below … The Great Freeze Over The Great Lakes · Cold winter may actually cause Great Lakes water levels to rise ….. If the presented graph were current, and it should be, it would show the current …
Water has a thousandfold higher heat storage capacity than air. IR from the atmosphere cannot penetrate water, but sunlight can. Sunlight is only controled by cloud cover – so this is the main temperature control knob.
The temperature of the top layer of some meters of the oceans run quite parallel with air temps – or vice versa.
Excuse my sense of mandatory urgency, but I’ll get back to you in 10 years.
Oh no. The world is a half-degree C above average!!! We’re doomed! Doooooommmmmmed…
Margins of error? Tell me about all the adjustments used in the calculations, the associated margins of error and the cumulative margin of error. Then we can talk about what, if anything, these measurements tell us.
Why do climate scientists almost never seem to address the margin of error issue?
Indeed Patrick B, the error bands far exceed any change from average. Satellites of course don’t ‘measure’ temperatures, they use ‘models’ to interpret atmospheric readings which are interpreted as being likely to mean temperatures are such and such. An intelligent species looking at humans using complicated computer models to justify other complicated computer models must think we are completely nuts.
Anyway my personal global warming has deserted me. I can definitely confirm the ‘blue’ over SW France and soon myself and my wife will be going to Florida where I note its almost ‘blue’. Why have you forsaken me, oh godlike CO2 molecule??
Christy explained it all quite well. This higher value is due to being in the +AMO while having El Nino conditions in the tropical Pacific for about 3 months.
The El Nino conditions affect temperature about 3 months later as Bill Illis has pointed out many times. That should just about be over. You could see the effect on surface temperatures which was almost immediate in the CFSR data. If you look at that data you can see the bump in temperatures and the fact they have recently fallen.
The AMO has its largest effect in the NH winter by keeping sea ice levels lower and allowing the oceans to vent heat. We will probably see a drop in the UAH anomaly in October and November. After that it depends on whether a La Nina forms but even then it will be fighting the warming effect of the +AMO.
Interesting CFSR says its 6th and Oct is off to the coolest start since the super nino. CFSR is the model initialization of global temps every 6 hours. I suspect this will come down quite a bit as the la nina evolves
“degrees C warmer than 30-year September average”
Can’t we just tell people the actual temperature? That would be so much less confusing.
“actual temperature?” Where? UAH is measuring from near surface to high troposphere.
And so much less useful. The change is what matters. And don’t change the way you measure it or process the measurements. Both HIE and satellite drift change the way you measure it. The processing of the raw data needs to compensate objectively for these changes in measurement.
FWIW, Toronto here.
80 years of data, September 2017 was the 6th “hottest” month (direct median temp, not +/- 20 year avg)
Rank
2002 1
2003 17
2004 8
2005 5
2006 39
2007 9
2008 18
2009 20
2010 28
2011 13
2012 30
2013 35
2014 23
2015 2
2016 3
2017 6
Thing is, we set record highs from the 23rd to the 27th, but the rest of the month was cooler than normal. No “cold” records set, but this certainly demonstrates the unreliability of using “records” to measure anything.
More “weather”. The temperature at my house this month went from a high of 33.8 C to a low of minus 7.7 C. A record high one day and record lows shortly thereafter. Records of some sort are set somewhere every day. Considering much of our monitoring is only decades old, it’s pretty hard to distinguish climate from weather except when using a certain WMO policy which doesn’t really reduce certaintly at all. Expect Climate – but weather is what you get. So much ado about nothing.
Nevertheless I read and learn.
Useless factoid from the depths of my withering brain. “Gossip” is said to derive from the British habit of going for a sip in the afternoon to talk and imbibe and eventually the word “Gossip” was derived from this pastime. True or not, it makes a good story.
I suspect a great deal of Climate Science has been derived in this way. m 😉
Link
https://www.wunderground.com/personal-weather-station/dashboard?ID=IALBERTA501#history/s20170903/e20171003/mmonth