Yesterday, we noted the drop in global surface temperature from HadCRUT data. Today, we have this report from the UAH dataset that points out the heat has not left the lower troposphere (about 14,000 feet altitude) based on this report from the University on Huntsville’s Dr. John Christy.
Lower troposphere dataset has warmest October in satellite temperature record
By Phillip Gentry, UAH
Global Temperature Report: October 2017
Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.13 C per decade
Notes on data released Nov. 2, 2017:
Apparently 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 October, according to Dr. John Christy, director of the Earth System Science Center (ESSC) at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. October 2017 was the seventh warmest month in the 39-year satellite temperature record. It joins September 2017 as the warmest months on record not associated with a typical El Niño Pacific Ocean warming event.
Of the 20 warmest monthly global average temperatures in the satellite record, only October and September 2017 were not during a normal El Niño. Compared to seasonal norms, the global average temperature in October made it the seventh warmest month in the satellite record.
October temperatures (preliminary)
Global composite temp.: +0.63 C (about 1.13 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for October.
Northern Hemisphere: +0.67 C (about 1.21 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for October.
Southern Hemisphere: +0.59 C (about 1.06 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for October.
Tropics: +0.47 C (about 0.85 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for October.
September temperatures (revised):
Global Composite: +0.54 C above 30-year average
Northern Hemisphere: +0.51 C above 30-year average
Southern Hemisphere: +0.57 C above 30-year average
Tropics: +0.53 C above 30-year average
(All temperature anomalies are based on a 30-year average (1981-2010) for the month reported.)
Warmest months (global average)
(degrees C warmer than 30-year October average)
- Feb. 2016 +0.85 C
- March 2016 +0.76 C
- April 1998 +0.74 C
- April 2016 +0.72 C
- Feb. 1998 +0.65 C
- May 1998 +0.64 C
- Oct. 2017 +0.63 C
- June 1998 +0.57 C
- Jan. 2016 +0.55 C
- Sept. 2017 +0.54 C
Among the 39 Octobers in the satellite temperature dataset, October 2017 was the warmest for both the globe and the southern hemisphere by statistically significant amounts: Globally, at 0.63 C warmer than seasonal norms, October 2017 was 0.20 C warmer than October 2015 (+0.43 C). In the southern hemisphere, October 2017 was 0.59 warmer than seasonal norms. The second warmest southern hemisphere October was in 2016, with an average temperature that was 0.42 warmer than seasonal norms.
October 2017 was also the warmest October in the northern hemisphere, but by a smaller amount: +0.67 C in 2017 compared to +0.63 in 2015.
In the tropics, October 2017 was tied as the second warmest October in the temperature record. October 2015 was the warmest tropical October on record with an average temperature +0.54 C warmer than seasonal norms. Octobers in 2016 and 2017 tied for second at +0.47 C warmer than seasonal norms.
Warmest Octobers (global average)
(degrees C warmer than 30-year September average)
- 2017 +0.63 C
- 2015 +0.43 C
- 2016 +0.42 C
- 1998 +0.40 C
- 2003 +0.28 C
- 2005 +0.27 C
- 2014 +0.25 C
- 2012 +0.24 C
- 2006 +0.22 C
- 2010 +0.20 C
Compared to seasonal norms, the coldest spot on the globe in October was in eastern Russian, near the town of Omtschak. Temperatures there were 1.97 C (about 3.55 degrees Fahrenheit) cooler than seasonal norms.
Compared to seasonal norms, the warmest place on Earth in October was over the Northeast Greenland National Park. Temperatures there averaged 4.61 C (about 8.30 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 —
Dr. Roy Spencer adds from his website:
The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for October, 2017 was +0.63 deg. C, up from the September, 2017 value of +0.54 deg. C (click for full size version):
Global area-averaged lower tropospheric temperature anomalies (departures from 30-year calendar monthly means, 1981-2010). The 13-month centered average is meant to give an indication of the lower frequency variations in the data; the choice of 13 months is somewhat arbitrary… an odd number of months allows centered plotting on months with no time lag between the two plotted time series. The inclusion of two of the same calendar months on the ends of the 13 month averaging period causes no issues with interpretation because the seasonal temperature cycle has been removed as has the distinction between calendar months.
The global, hemispheric, and tropical LT anomalies from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 22 months are:
YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPICS
2016 01 +0.55 +0.72 +0.38 +0.85
2016 02 +0.85 +1.18 +0.53 +1.00
2016 03 +0.76 +0.98 +0.54 +1.10
2016 04 +0.72 +0.85 +0.58 +0.93
2016 05 +0.53 +0.61 +0.44 +0.70
2016 06 +0.33 +0.48 +0.17 +0.37
2016 07 +0.37 +0.44 +0.30 +0.47
2016 08 +0.43 +0.54 +0.32 +0.49
2016 09 +0.45 +0.51 +0.39 +0.37
2016 10 +0.42 +0.43 +0.42 +0.47
2016 11 +0.46 +0.43 +0.49 +0.38
2016 12 +0.26 +0.26 +0.27 +0.24
2017 01 +0.32 +0.31 +0.34 +0.10
2017 02 +0.38 +0.57 +0.19 +0.07
2017 03 +0.22 +0.36 +0.09 +0.05
2017 04 +0.27 +0.28 +0.26 +0.21
2017 05 +0.44 +0.39 +0.49 +0.41
2017 06 +0.21 +0.33 +0.10 +0.39
2017 07 +0.29 +0.30 +0.27 +0.51
2017 08 +0.41 +0.40 +0.41 +0.46
2017 09 +0.54 +0.51 +0.57 +0.53
2017 10 +0.63 +0.67 +0.59 +0.47
The linear temperature trend of the global average lower tropospheric temperature anomalies from January 1979 through October 2017 remains at +0.13 C/decade.
Why Are the Satellite and Surface Data Recently Diverging?
John Christy and I are a little surprised that the satellite deep-layer temperature anomaly has been rising for the last several months, given the cool La Nina currently attempting to form in the Pacific Ocean.
Furthermore, the satellite and surface temperatures seem to be recently diverging. For the surface temperatures, I usually track the monthly NCEP CFSv2 Tsfc averages computed by WeatherBell.com to get some idea of how the most recent month is shaping up for global temperatures. The CFSv2 Tsfc anomaly usually gives a rough approximation of what the satellite shows… but sometimes it differs significantly. For October 2017 the difference is now +0.23 deg. C (UAH LT warmer than Tsfc).
The following charts show how these two global temperature measures have compared for every month since 1997 (except that September, 2017 is missing at the WeatherBell.com website):
Monthly comparison since 1979 of global average temperature anomalies (relative to the monthly 1981-2010 averages) between UAH LT deep-layer lower tropospheric temperature and the surface temperatures in the CFSv2 reanalysis dataset at WeatherBell.com.
As can be seen, there have been considerably larger departures between the two measures in the past, especially during the 1997-1998 El Nino. Our UAH LT product is currently using 3 satellites (NOAA-18, NOAA-19, and Metop-B) which provide independent monthly global averages, and the disagreement between them is usually very small.
While we can expect individual months to have rather large differences between surface and tropospheric temperature anomalies (due to the time lag involved in excess surface warming to lead to increased convection and tropospheric heating), some of the differences in the above plot are disturbingly large and persistent. The 1997-98 El Nino discrepancy is pretty amazing. As I understand it, the NCEP CFS reanalysis dataset is the result of collaboration between NOAA/NCEP and NCAR, and uses a wide range of data types in a physically consistent fashion. I probably need to bring in one of the dedicated surface-only datasets for further comparison…I don’t recall the HadCRUT4 Tsfc dataset having this large of disagreements with our satellite deep-layer temperatures. Unfortunately, these other datasets usually take a few weeks before they are updated with the most recent month.
…UPDATE…(fixed)…
…the 2nd of the following two plots has been fixed)…
Here’s the comparison between UAH LT and Tsfc from the HadCRUT4 dataset, through September 2017. Note that the difference with the satellite temperatures isn’t as pronounced as with CFSv2 Tsfc data, but the HadCRUT4 data has more of an upward trend:
As in the previous figure, but now CFSv2 Tsfc data has been replaced by HadCRUT4 surface data (with the latter having anomalies recalculated relative to the 1981-2010 base period).
The UAH LT global anomaly image for October, 2017 should be available in the next few days here.
The new Version 6 files should also be updated in the coming days, and are located here:
Lower Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
Mid-Troposphere:http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tmt/uahncdc_mt_6.0.txt
Tropopause:http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/ttp/uahncdc_tp_6.0.txt
Lower Stratosphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tls/uahncdc_ls_6.0.txt
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
MSJ: Maybe if the climate modelers had the resources of Microsoft and applied the equivalent level of QA and testing their models would be better. Maybe some knows which of the 50 million lines of code in Windows 10 causes my computer to freeze several times a week.
CMS: When I first started following the climate thing (1990s), it was all about 2 C above current levels. So who got to decide that the average global temperature in 1850 was ideal? And, since there was no credible instrumental measurement of the pre-industrial global temperature, just what temperature is 1.5 C above that? IMHO it’s all much ado about nothing.
Apparently you are ignorant of how software engineering works.
Sounds more like you are. You do know software has bugs, right?
Yea, I’m pretty old and stopped doing programming when Fortran, Basic and C+ became obsolete. I was being paid too much to spend time writing code anyway. I’ve used many computer models including complex FEA packages for thermal and structural analysis and have enough experience to know the importance of testing and validation. I see a big difference between operating system software and programming for number crunching data where a misplaced parenthesis or sign error may give reasonable looking, but wrong results and an error in an operating system that will cause a crash or erratic behavior.
In structural analysis you can design a truss, run a model that calculates stresses and deflection, then build it and run tests to validate the model – typically the agreement is within a few percent. With climate models no such validation seems to be possible.
Johnson LACKS VALIDITY in basically every comment he makes.
As someone who has spent his life writing code I can assure you that the ignorant one is, as usual, Johnson.
I have a curiosity about this…
“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.”
I’m wondering how much tampering might be going on with the data BEFORE it is provided by NOAA & NASA?
I wonder because RSS came ‘into line’ (If I am reading the literature correctly) with the AGW expectations by calibrating against climate models instead of anything real world.
UAH on the other hand (again with the proviso above) uses other satellites to calibrate.
I’m wondering what the chances are that the Church of AGW is forcing UAH to comply with the climatology models by changing data BEFORE they hand it over. e.g. how does this post info compare to the radiosonde data?
It’s CO2!
Lower Troposphere?
Lower troposhchmeer!
What concerns me about these global temperatures is that they do not reflect reality, last winter when the whole of the east of Europe and Asia were frozen and covered in snow these temperatures were very high for the winter months in the northern hemisphere even these areas must represent a huge proportion of the Northern Hemisphere. I question the assumption that if we went into a glacial period of this ice age that global temperatures would reflect this change, they might remain high or even rise the only real things here are proxies and level of ice and snow coverage.
I note also the arctic sea ice re-freeze is slow… it is now at about 3rd lowest level for this time of year.
Irrelevant. Look at 2014 in your graph and how it turned out in the 2014-2015 winter.
Griff will grab onto any straw, not matter how irrelevant.
Considering how little ice melted this summer, it’s not surprising that the re-freeze is slow.
Ice that didn’t melt doesn’t need to re-freeze.
PS: Third lowest of the last 7 years.
Griff as always, cherry picks the time frame that puts his religion in the best light.
Comrade Griff! Ice is ice! thickness, Extent, temperature…it is all irrelevant! Only thing that matters is how high it comes up on running dog Capitalist Pigs!
A typically misleading claim from Griff.
Griff,as usual you made a misleading claim,
Here is what it really is,from Ron Clutz’s blog:
?w=1000&h=595
October Arctic Ice is Back
“Given the fluctuations in daily sea ice measurements, climatology typically relies on monthly averages. October daily extents are now fully reported and the 2017 October monthly results can be compared with years of the previous decade. MASIE showed 2017 reached 6.8M km2, exceeding the 6.6M October 10 year average. SII was close behind at 6.7M for the month. The 11 year linear trend is more upward for MASIE, mainly due to early years, especially 2007 and 2008 reported higher in SII. In either case, one can easily see the Arctic ice extents have not declined; MASIE shows 2017 higher than 2016 by 800k km2, and more than 2007 by 1M km2.”
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2017/11/01/october-arctic-ice-is-back/
“it is now at about 3rd lowest level for this time of year.”
Since 2011…
Yeah, right, we’re all doomed!
Now go and apologise to you-know-who for maliciously lying about her scientific credentisls.
Normal.
Someone recently pointed to an article by a Norwegian chap, aiming to create a mental picture of the GHGE. (An attempt to bring warmists and skeptics closer)
The article itself https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-016-1732-y points to a pdf.
It is quite heavy going but talks about something called the Bulk Emission Layer, aka the Z254K isotherm. Seemingly ‘a place in the atmosphere’ from where the Earth does all its outgoing radiation.
Appears very easy to visualise and indeed measure – just float a thermometer, via balloon or airplane, up into the sky and note the height at which it records a temperature of 254 Kelvin.
254K being the Stefan – Planck temperature at which a surface would radiate energy out at an equal rate to what the sun radiates in. Is that 240 or 340 Watts per sq metre? No matter. No matter at all.
Intrepid scientists have been recording the height of Z254K for some little while – it averages about 7,200 metres up (In fact closer to chimney-pot height for Canadia but for the rest of us, about where the stratosphere starts, so the radiation bit makes sense?)
Now ‘The Problem’, in many senses. This thing is recorded as rising.
At 23 metres per decade, plus/minus 3 metres.
Global warming theory says that that is exactly to be expected, Warmer Earth > Warmer atmosphere and if nothing else, Gas Laws say the atmosphere will expand. Fine.
But, let’s regard the isotherm as a surface which is always (and by definition) radiating the same number (x) of Watts per square metre.
By gaining altitude, it has increased in area.
I get 23 metres of extra height gives it 3,500 million extra square metres of area – an extra 3,500,000,000 multiplied by x Watts/sqm of extra energy leaving Earth than a decade ago. And each preceding decade since whenever the Greenhouse Gas Effect became an issue (Is that 1850 or 1880).
Again and roughly, the expansion of the isotherm area is losing a Hiroshima Bomb’s worth of grunt every 68 seconds. Per decade.
But that matters Not One Jot – all that’s important is that given a constant input from Old El Sol, more energy is leaving than was any number of decades ago. If GHGs have been a problem since 1850, that is 17 decades, hence Earth is now losing a Hiroshima bomb every 4 seconds compared to the Start Value of one extra bomb per 68 seconds in 1850.
Earth is thus losing energy, due supposedly to the GHGE but somehow getting hotter.
How?
Simple. The incoming energy is heating surface/substance with lower specific heat capacity than it did previously and THAT is very simple to do. All you do is remove water from whatever that surface or substance is.
Farmers do it every spring-time using things called ploughs and THE major consideration within their thinking is to create a friable, easily worked and WARM seedbed. I know that, been there, dome that, got the T-shirt (and scars)
So, now what?
I forgot. Other people create dry and easily warmed patches of dirt.
Such people are in fact ‘most everyone who is not A Farmer and are identified by the fact that they live in places called ‘cities’.
And why are cities warm – because they are very dry and also 3 dimensional structures.
In the morning, sun shines perpendicular to vertical structures and thus has max heating effect. At noon it shines straight down. Max heating effect again.
Hence a large part of the UHI – cities work (in reverse) just as the heat sink does in the back of you audio amplifier, computer or TV
The rest of the UHI comes from them being perishly dry, hence very easy to heat.
Water must rank as THE most appallingly misunderstood substance in the entire universe
Ooh look! Here are 6 big cities, over there are 6 big farms. I have a box of thermometers. Off you go and do the PROPER EXPERIMENT(S)/OBSERVATION(S) to quantify UHI effect.
Simples.
And Cheap, and Easy,
AND NOT DONE YET.
We could virtually crowd fund it ourselves.
Peta, at last someone who is asking the right sort questions.
This is a question for NIck Stokes.
If we had had Satellite measurements and ground measurements equivelent to today during the Onset of the Last Ice Age and the mini LIA what do you think they would have shown?
We know the cooling couldn’t have been caused by changes in the Sun, because we are told the variation in TSI is too small to have caused the current changes.
So as the Earth cooled would you expect to see the Surface Warmer or Colder than normal compared to the Troposphere normal during that process?
A C Osborn November 3, 2017 at 3:33 am
Easy. They would have shown that was Jew’s fault.
We just changed scapegoat (not so much actually)
You take the incoming W/m2 from the sun. You logically argue that for the earth to not melt or freeze (eventually) the radiation OUT must be the same. You use S-B to calculate the temperature at which a black body would radiate said figure. You take this numerical temperature and wander up and down the atmospheric lapse rate till you find a physical chunk of wispy gas with the same figure.
WooHoo!
So THIS is where ALL the radiation comes from.
If ANYONE cannot spot the error please get your coat and leave RIGHT NOW.
No, I am being a bit harsh really, I’ll give you all a couple of days to properly research what exactly the ERL is and where it came from. You can do your own homework and excercise those little cells, mon amis.
If anyone wants to argue after 2 days I reserve the right to call them by the appropriate name.
peta, i asked a similar question regarding an increase in radiation area due to the expansion of the atmosphere. i believe i was told at the time it was insignificant.
will try again, yet another disappearing comment.
peta, some time ago i asked a similar question regarding the increased area of radiation due to an expanding atmosphere. i believe i was told it was insignificant at the time. i have not been able to find any literature on this issue.
as if by magic the disappearing comment appears when i re post . did someone mention glitches in code above !
Here we have masses of data and final conclusions (anomalies) with figures quoted to 1/100th of a degree.
I don’t know much about the techniques of microwave scanning of atmospheres from satellites but I would like to hear about their initial (pre-launch) calibration, resolution and accuracy and their subsequent (if any) in orbit calibration techniques and general MU (measurement uncertainty).
If final conclusions are given to the 1/100th of a degree then clearly these must be extremely accurate and sensitive instruments. They must have cost a lot to make them that good. One wonders why the specification was so high (I am guessing it must be to 1/1000th of a degree or something similar) when the thermometers on earth itself are typically about +/- 1 degree (or more) when all MU, calibration and resolution errors are considered.
Those values to 1/100ths of a degree do not reflect the accuracy of the measuring equipment, they are an artifact of the Mathematical processing.
Anybody that believes we can measure the average temperature of the atmosphere to 100ths of a degree is crazy, just consider the way temperatures vary within a distance of 1 mile or how quickly they change due to winds, clouds and pressure.
They are an artifact of incompetence and a failure to understand what accuracy, calibration and MU mean in the context of conducting science with integrity. Frankly the Spencer’s and Christy’s of this world who allow this shite to stand in their work are no better than any other scientist in this field who just play games with the truth to preserve their career or kudos. Not enough cojones to stand up as be counted on the side of science with integrity. Unless of course they REALLY are ignorant of how to treat data properly.
Shame on them. I wouldn’t trust them to feed my cat.
[?? .mod]
See Spencer’s 1993 paper.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0442(1993)006%3C1194%3APLSTMW%3E2.0.CO%3B2
Calculated Standard Error of Measurement varies with latitude, from about 0.05C in the tropics to 0.2C at high latitudes for every month reported. Errors are shown in global spacial plots in the paper with explanations of the error calculations. Also, references to Spencer’s early 1990s papers explaining the basics.
See also his list of publications on his home page.
bw – but that was several
satellites ago. spencer should
address this question but wont.
but his jan17 post about dec16
and 16 at large gave a 1-sigma
deviation for their annual
avg number
as 0.05 C
A C Osborn commented >> Anybody that believes we can measure the average temperature of the atmosphere to 100ths of a degree is crazy <<
why?
(seriously, why?)
The Lower Troposphere is “warm” compared to a baseline, OK, and warm air carries what? I’m curious about absolute humidity or the amount of water vapor in the LT and how it impacts surface temperatures. We get the LT anomaly for October, but I always think “temperature of what?…air?”
mair – the avg amt of w.v
in the atmosphere depends
expontentially on temperature.
any more and it rains out.
Cracker, when in the last 1,000 years is there any evidence that once it rained out that it failed to evaporate someplace else a nearly equal amount in average?
micro – the evidence is throughout any time
period you want to cite.
the atmosphere can only hold so much water
vapor. more than that (saturation) rains out.
and that amount is a function
of temperature. evap and sat are usually
in equilibrium
this is basic thermo.
How can it be equal planetary wide, when there are 100 and 1,000 year ocean cycles?
Also you realize this effectively eliminate any water vapor amplification from an increase in Co2, and in fact since the energy released during cooling from water vapor is both temperature controlled, and about 10x the forcing from any change in co2, the added RF from Co2 is just regulated out?
https://micro6500blog.wordpress.com/2016/12/01/observational-evidence-for-a-nonlinear-night-time-cooling-mechanism/
For Nick Stokes, your comment Nov 3rd 1:09 am
You said: “COE at the surface comes simply from balancing upflux and down, as per the Trenberth diagram.”
You appear to have treated radiative flux intensity from different sources as things you can numerically add.
As Trenberth does. This is scientific nonsense. And as an aside if you want to use an electrical analogy I think you will find VOLTAGE is the thing you need as a substitute for radiative flux intensity.
Voltage is the potential (hence the name and p.d.) to transfer energy via current. Radiative flux intensity is the potential to transfer energy from something hot to something cold. It represents the Maximum possible. The minimum being of course zero when the two things, source and sink are in thermal equilibrium i.e. at the same temperature.
It is simple to do experiments at home to actually confirm that radiative flux intensity does not add numerically. You cannot use additional sources at the same temperature to get a sink temperature higher than any source (it’s sort of what we called “bleedin’ obvious” in lectures). IF you could simply mathematically add radiative flux intensity from source 1, source 2 etc it would imply that you could.
Simple logical argument. Easily confirmed by home experiment.
Still want to argue Trenberth is scientifically correct? Feel free Nick (this could be very funny, guys).
“And as an aside if you want to use an electrical analogy I think you will find VOLTAGE is the thing you need as a substitute for radiative flux intensity.”
No, temperature is the potential, heat flux, including radiative, is the current. It’s the flow that responds to voltage. Or heat flux intensity, since cross section area behaves like conductance. Ohm’s law – heat flux is proportional to temperature difference.
And yes, of course Trenberth is scientifically sound. It’s just budgetting.
Nick Stokes
Only if you believe in a “scientifically” flat earth rotating in a perfect circle around a constant sun with an average atmosphere at an average latitude.
It’s a budget. An annual budget. It simply accounts for energy moving between specified regions, expressed as averages. It isn’t a GCM.
“And yes, of course Trenberth is scientifically sound. It’s just budgetting.”
Budgetting…ah, right.
Remind me never to let you and/or Trenberth anywhere near my financial affairs!
Yes Nick, we all know how politicians do “budgets”
And if you think Trenberth isn’t a wannabe politician, like you, then again, shows your naivity.
ive met trenberth.
i doubt you have.
he is as far from a wannabe
politician as one can get.
but a brilliant scientist
” The Reverend Badger
November 3, 2017 at 3:03 am
Ooh look! Here are 6 big cities, over there are 6 big farms. I have a box of thermometers. Off you go and do the PROPER EXPERIMENT(S)/OBSERVATION(S) to quantify UHI effect.
Simples.
And Cheap, and Easy,
AND NOT DONE YET.
We could virtually crowd fund it ourselves.
”
It has been done on here, Anthony and many others have measured the UHI affect many times with various different measurement devices. The Weather people mention it al the time.
But it’s affect on trends is much harder to measure, funnily enough Dr Spencer had a good go at it some years ago by comparing Temperature Trends with Population Growth.
What he showed was that the impact happens very early on in the population growth and then the affect slows with subsequent growth.
Thanks, I’ll see if I can find it then. Links invited.
Here is one
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/03/spencer-using-hourly-surface-dat-to-gauge-uhi-by-population-density/
And this one
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/30/spencer-shows-compelling-evidence-of-uhi-in-crutem3-data/
but they are not the one that I seem to remember, where he showed the increase in population and UHI were not linear.
OOPS, that is the one LOL.
Sounds logical : people settle down, chop down trees, Plant new ones, which grow…
Science becomes interesting when unexpected results are found. The recent divergence between satellite and surface temperature anomalies is unexpected. It can have several explanations, starting with instrumental error. Radiosonde balloons should be able to say if it is an instrumental error, as the difference is big enough.
If the divergence is real, then it is more interesting. Not to correct Roy Spencer, but it would indicate the surface is cooling more than the lower troposphere. Lower troposphere temperatures depend more on surface temperatures and less on direct tropospheric solar warming, and the Sun is not precisely very active as of lately.
If the surface is cooling more than the lower troposphere, the divergence would indicate a negative imbalance in the energy budget, due to more energy leaving the Earth, and the CERES system might be able to detect it in the Outward Long wave Radiation measurement. After looking at the instruments that is where I would be looking at.
This poses a dilemma to many skeptics. Stick to UAH and assume the Earth is not cooling and farther from a return to the pause, or migrate to HadCRUT and defend the cooling, thus playing into the argument that whoever shows the least warming is the rightest at any time for skeptics.
maybe the answer is to remain sceptical of all the data sets javier. far too many adjustments added to the initial mathturbation in all of them to call them “data” imo.
you have’nt
studied why the
adjustments are so
absolutely
necessary?
i am well aware why some adjustments are made. what i do not agree with are various maths techniques being used to imply temperature where no measurements were taken .
ocean heat content is a made up number . anyone declaring they know this number is a liar. anyone using this made up number to back up any position that requires people to make changes to their everyday lives should be in jail.
two examples, i am sure there are many more. i have no trouble with people using made up numbers for experimental reasons, when do so to effect policy change it should be an imprisonable offence.
Not making any claims, but there was an unusual burst of solar activity (flares / wind) on the down slope of solar cycle 24 in this period. Strong auroras.
This is what is happening and this is what lies in store for many cities in low lying coastal areas.
A lot of sceptics think – more C02 … Ah a greener planet si everything is just hunky dory Shows how they really are living in cloud cuckoo land:
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/ng-interactive/2017/nov/03/three-degree-world-cities-drowned-global-warming
Look everybody, someone who believes what he reads in the Guardian.
Perhaps you would like to do some reading while you are here.
WUWT can now be defined as an Echo Chamber – if you don’t what this means, then look it up.
No Ivan, the echo-chamber is between your ears.
Certainly nothing else there. !
The latest forecast predict a strong La Niña in the winter.
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/people/wwang/cfsv2fcst/images3/nino34MonadjPDFSPRDC.gif
-1 C is not a “strong” la nina.
Let’s see how the stratospheric polar vortex works in the troposphere.
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/clisys/STRAT/gif/zu_nh.gif
The forecast is very interesting.
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00944/pwu1jxgf6vql.png
That is reality.
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/blocking/real_time_nh/500gz_anomalies_nh.gif
“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.”
The State is also a special interest group and many times private.
spencer did receive $8k
to testify for Peabody Energy.
I doubt we’ll see alarmists attacking the satellite data sets’ accuracy at this point in time – until the numbers are lower than the surface data again ;).
RSS4 TLT for October just came out. After a 3 month rise, the anomaly dropped from 0.843 in September to 0.802 in October. It is the warmest October on record for RSS4. If the present 10 month average is maintained, 2017 would come in second place.
From the UAH chart, nearly all the very slight warming is in the COLDEST regions, coming into winter…
Fractions of a degree, totally unnoticeable by anything but the most precise thermometer.
Why is this almost infinitesimal warming SEEN AS ANY SORT OF A PROBLEM ?????
Hi Andy – please see the posts referenced below.
Warming is not the problem – moderate warming is good for both humanity and the environment.
My question is WHY is there a divergence of a strong long-term correlation of UAH LT temperatures with Pacific Ocean temperatures.
When atm. temperature diverged in the opposite direction (UAH LT was lower than predicted from ocean temperature) it was due to MAJOR volcanoes such as El Chichon (1982) or Pinatubo (1991+). BUT this time LT temperature is diverging higher than predicted from ocean temperatures, so what is the cause now?
It is probably just some delay in the cooling after the major El Nino, which will sort itself out in time. Better hypos welcomed.
Regards, Allan
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/02/while-global-surface-temperature-cools-the-lower-troposphere-has-record-warmest-october/comment-page-1/#comment-2653634
I agree RWT and not just for October. Examine this plot and see how UAH LT is higher than expected for several months and has diverged from its strong long-term correlation with Pacific Ocean temperatures.
What is the cause?
I do expect the close correlation to re-establish itself.
More info here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/04/cooler-global-temperatures-ahead-indications-are-that-la-nina-is-returning/comment-page-1/#comment-2628573
Maybe you need to think about hurricanes and latent heat?
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=indo×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
Sorted – atmospheric cooling will resume soon. See the plot below of the UAH LT TROPICAL Anomaly vs the East Equatorial Upper Ocean Temperature Anomaly and the situation becomes more clear.
This is a typical pattern after major El Nino’s, in which atmospheric (LT) temperature diverges above the level predicted by the long term relationship with the East Equatorial Upper Ocean Temperature Anomaly. The pattern will converge again soon, and atmospheric cooling will resume. WHY this happens after major El Nino’s is still to be explained.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1483830358361188&set=a.1012901982120697.1073741826.100002027142240&type=3&theater
More sorted:
The El Nino heat in the atmosphere just needs time to dissipate.
The close relationship noted above will converge again.
Atmospheric cooling will resume soon.
resume??
ps: care to say what your graph is about?
it looks wrong no matter
what.
What your argument is on GW. Is it that there is no warming or that there is warming but it’s not a problem?
I’m never too sure.
I have argued on many pro-CAGW sites that there is warming due to additional CO2 (basic Physics tells us this must be the case) but it is unlikely to cause any significant harm. I have held this view for 15 years. It’s one shared by a number of very experienced scientists.
JohnFinn – so what increase in
avg global
surface temp would
cause “significant harm?”
WAY more than the current slight warming out of the COLDEST period in 10,000 years.
The world has been warmer than now MANY times in the past,
… heck, its been significantly warmer than now for something like 90% of the current inter-glacial.
The thing that should REALLY worry people is if the NATURAL variability takes the temperature back down to LIA values. That would cause all sorts of food shortage and heating problems.
“(basic Physics tells us this must be the case)”
And there is your error, right there.
Basic physics allows for basically zero CO2 warming.
There is no mechanism that allows CO2 to cause warming in a convectively controlled atmosphere.
It has never been measured. There is NO empirical proof.
That is why there is absolutely NO CO2 warming signature in the satellite temperature data..
…only warming from major El Nino events.
I haven’t made an error. LW radiation leaves the earth directly from several different layers of the atmosphere (including the surface). It is the method by which the earth remains in (within a narrow range) thermal equilibrium. It receives approx (on average) 240 w/m2 from the sun and emits approx 240 w/m2 to space.
If MORE energy is received from the sun than is emitted to space – the earth warms
If LESS energy is received from the sun than is emitted to space – the earth warms
We know,, from emission spectra, that emission at higher levels of the troposphere is from CO2 molecules in the atmosphere. As GHGs accumulate in the atmosphere, the average altitude at which emission occurs increases. In other words, emission occurs higher in the atmosphere. BUT WE KNOW ….
HIGHER IS COLDER
And we know (from Stefan-Boltzmann) that the rate of emission is dependant on temperature (i.e. E is proportional to T^4). Thus, more ghgs will create an energy imbalance between incoming and outgoing energy (i.e. incoming greater than outgoing). This means the surface and lower atmosphere MUST warm.
Jack Barrett has been studying the chemistry and spectroscopy of small molecules for several decades. His is also a long time opponent of the more extreme positions taken by some climate scientists but he acknowledges that doubling CO2 in the atmosphere is likely to result in warming of around 1.3 deg C. I suggest you read some of the articles on his blog. You may learn something.
Don’t be silly. ENSO events are cyclical. They can’t affect the the long term (multi-decadal) trends.
Simple John.
Find me one paper that proves empirically that CO2 causes warming of our convectively controlled atmosphere.
Basic physics tells us that any CO2 absorption in a tiny narrow band will be immediately passed onto the other 99.96% of the atmosphere and become part of the convective transfer of energy..
Just another conduit for surface cooling.
Misuse of the S-B forumla is no excuse. The Earth’s surface is nowhere near being a black body.
“They can’t affect the long term ”
They can if you get 3 or 4 large ones in a row from solar forcing.
Look at the satellite data
No warming from 1980-1997
No warming from 2001 – 2015.
Only warming has come from the two large El Ninos.
Data, John.. try it some time !!
“Thus, more ghgs will create an energy imbalance between incoming and outgoing energy ”
ROFLMAO..
No they won’t . Fantasy land stuff !!
Andy asks: “Find me one paper that proves empirically that CO2 causes warming…” Andy, don’t you know that nothing is ever PROVEN in science? You can PROVE something in mathematics, but in science a hypothesis or theory is never proven. Science works more like “the best explanation wins.” So far there has been no better explanation for the recent rise in global temps than the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere. Additionally, radiative physics dovetails elegantly with the explanation. If you have a competing theory/hypothesis that can better explain the observed warming, please provide it.
@ur momisugly Rob Bradley, Nov 05, at 01:20 pm. “no better explanation …”
Please read my entries above at
Bevan Dockery November 2, 2017 at 5:39 pm
and
Bevan Dockery November 5, 2017 at 5:37 am
together with my previous entry:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/16/climate-change-debate-latest-results/
Almost 40 years of satellite lower troposphere temperature data (UAH) has shown zero correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentration and temperature. The planets and the Moon modulate the incoming Sun’s radiation giving us our climate change. The resulting temperature controls the rate of change of CO2 probably via soil microbes.
Er …. yes they will. Try arguing your case with Richard Lindzen or Jack Barrett or even Steve McIntyre (who debunked Mann’s Hockey stick reconstruction). Check out Steve’s comments on his Climate Audit site in 2008
https://climateaudit.org/2008/01/08/sir-john-houghton-on-the-enhanced-greenhouse-effect/
Scroll down to the upwelling spectrum plot (Fig 3) and note the CO2 notch. Then read Steve’s comments underneath.
The large notch or “funnel” in the spectrum is due to “high cold” emissions from tropopause CO2 in the main CO2 band. CO2 emissions (from the perspective of someone in space) are the coldest. (Sometimes you hear people say that there’s just a “little bit” of CO2 and therefore it can’t make any difference: but, obviously, there’s enough CO2 for it to be very prominent in these highly relevant spectra, so this particular argument is a total non-starter as far as I’m concerned. )
These emission graphs using actual observations are easily modelled with great accuracy using programs such as MODTRAN which model the transfer of energy through the atmosphere.
No, because all other things are not equal, and water vapor reacts to cooling temps by condensing and dumping huge amounts of IR towards the surface.
Now you wonder how it dumping a bunch of IR causes co2 warming to disappear.
What you ignore is how much energy is dumped before co2 went up is more than it has to dump after to restore an equal min T. So now, it just consumes slightly less water vapor to compensate. So the net it nearly the same.
Ron Bradley, if you are correct then how do you explain the fact that the autocorrelation function for the satellite lower troposphere Tropics temperature and the Mauna Loa CO2 annual rate of change both show a dominant 42 month cycle as does the amplitude of their Fourier Transform, equivalent to the synodic period of the Sun, Earth, Moon configuration. Furthermore how does the Transform come to show frequency maxima for the synodic periods of Venus and the Moon and, perhaps, Mercury. Is not the 11.86 year orbit period of Jupiter remarkably similar to the cycle of Sun spot activity which, in turn, is reflected in the variation of the Earth’s atmospheric temperature ?
If there is a real correlation, I think it’ll be in part due to the interactions of the magnetic fields between the Sun and planets with dynamos, and there does appear to be hints of patterns as you suggested. Mercury is also involved because it’s a big chunk of iron getting waved around in a magnetic field.
And Leif has mentioned that the coming solar cycle is based on the residual magnetic field in the sun’s polar region as it’s switches polarity at the end of it’s cycle.
The 1907 sunspot record has a pulse, very close to the period of mercury.
It’s a little faster than it’s period, but I think that’s because the other planet(s) have moved during mercury’s orbit.
Plus, we know the suns field does connect to the earth’s magnet field when it’s polarity is the right way, and has to buck during the next solar cycle. These force are small compared to other energies in the planetary system, but are still very large, so it’s not impossible they have some sort of an effect.
I missed this – but just in case cracker is still following the blog:
It’s not a case necessarily of “significant harm”. History is littered with weather (or climate) events that have caused massive devastation. 25% of Europe’s population was wiped out in the early 14th century due to “climate change”. Remember that in the UK and across much of Europe cold causes far more deaths than heat.
So we’re really interested in the point at which negative effects significantly out-number the beneficial effects and that would be when temperatures are at least 2 degrees C above pre-industrial levels.
Thank you micro6500 for adding another tile to the jigsaw puzzle.
My thought has been to apply wavelet analysis to the data in the hope of getting better definition of the periods involved. There are a number of local maxima on the Fourier Transform amplitudes that I have not associated with the interaction between planetary orbits due to a lack of knowledge in that field.
I would love to see a electromagnetic simulation of the active dynamos, and mercury to see how the magnetic fields merge over 100 years.
They should be very weak at those distances, but they are very strong fields, and earth and sun do connect. So………
PGentry – you’re comparing a Sept surface temp
change with the Oct lower trop change.
not copacetic.
micro6500 November 5, 2017 at 6:33 pm
Have you written a paper on this (with data) – if so I’d like to read it – but I suggest, from memory, the data doesn’t support you. If you haven’t done a paper then take the issue up with Richard Lindzen or Jack Barrett because I haven’t the time to follow up every “theory” I read on a blog. Like. I say, I will look at any paper which supports your assertion but I’m not prepared to do the research myself.
BUT I will make this comment: In order to ‘cool’ (lose heat) the climate system, as a whole, must radiate energy to space. There is no other way. Anything that impedes the flow of outgoing energy (e.g. increased ghgs) will resulting the climate system gaining energy and ,over time, warming. Convection, latent heat etc simply redistribute energy (heat).
https://micro6500blog.wordpress.com/2016/12/01/observational-evidence-for-a-nonlinear-night-time-cooling-mechanism/