Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,502
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    Weathernoob335
    Newest Member
    Weathernoob335
    Joined

2015 Global Temperatures


nflwxman

Recommended Posts

3-4 months after the peak (whenever that is). So maybe in late fall/early winter?

 

Temps in 1998 and 2010 peaked in Feb-Apr looking at GISS+RSS. Yearly average temperatures peaked in 1998 and 2010 so expect 2016 to be the peak year in this ENSO cycle assuming El Nino peaks in late fall/early winter this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Nino has steadied out in the strong territory.

Cfs for June is about a 0.75C Giss equivalent.

Thanks to a very very cold Antarctica that prevented something much higher.

But ncdc doesnt do the poles so it will be higher than giss probably record breaking since global sst are at record levels.

Still tho through 7 months giss will have had no months below 0.70C.

With the warmest part of the year to come.

And Winds are off the charts good for another kelvin wave.

post-917-0-07037800-1435639296_thumb.png

post-917-0-60141500-1435639321_thumb.png

post-917-0-68270900-1435639344_thumb.gif

post-917-0-27917200-1435641590_thumb.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually some good news for a change.

http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/data-consistent-with-moderate-global-warming-says-study.html

DURHAM, N.C. - A new study based on 1,000 years of temperature records suggests global warming is not progressing as fast as it would under the most severe emissions scenarios outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

"Based on our analysis, a middle-of-the-road warming scenario is more likely, at least for now," said Patrick T. Brown, a doctoral student in climatology at Duke University's Nicholas School of the Environment. "But this could change."

The research, published today in the peer-reviewed journal Scientific Reports, uses empirical data, rather than the more commonly used climate models, to estimate decade-to-decade variability.

No surprise...but this will drive the sensationalists crazy!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone have any idea why July has historically the colder anomalies (the last 25 years or so)?  I can't find anything about the topic through google scholar.  It's strange since August has posted some of the higher monthly anomalies during the same period.  Curious if anyone has any idea/theories?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone have any idea why July has historically the colder anomalies (the last 25 years or so)?  I can't find anything about the topic through google scholar.  It's strange since August has posted some of the higher monthly anomalies during the same period.  Curious if anyone has any idea/theories?

 

GISS zonal temperature trends by month. Looks like the arctic has the biggest impact  -  melting ice is capping temps.

 

post-1201-0-76003400-1436895307_thumb.gi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JMA put June at warmest on record, +0.76 C the 20th century baseline.  Also read this interesting blogpost from Dr. Sobel.  Talks about the extreme state of the Pacific and record MJO thanks to the warm Pacific, some of that related to ENSO.  Increasing MJO and AAM in the future will lead to further warming of the poles 

http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2015/07/14/the-extreme-pacific-climate-now/

 

post-1853-0-74025900-1436968059_thumb.pn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GISS came in at 0.76 tying 1998 for the warmest June. GISS switched to ERSST v4 with this update. Chart below shows global temperatures for v4 minus v3b. There are a couple of peaks and valleys but overall temperatures are higher at the beginning and end of the series and lower in the middle with v4. Like the NOAA series, the relative warming in v4 relative to v3b over the past 10 years reduces the magnitude of the "hiatus" but there is very little change in warming over the entire series since 1880.

 

 

post-1201-0-24921600-1437005392_thumb.pn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2015 ranks as the warmest January-June on record. The five warmest figures are:

 

1. 0.802°C, 2015 (1.96 standard deviations above the January-June 1981-2010 mean)

2. 0.795°C, 2010

3. 0.742°C, 2007

4. 0.735°C, 2014

5. 0.695°C, 2002

 

The five warmest years on record are:

 

1. 0.755°C, 2014

2. 0.725°C, 2010

3. 0.697°C, 2005

4. 0.668°C, 2007 and 2013

5. 0.657°C, 2009

 

Finally, the following change in the dataset became effective with the current report (all prior data was re-calibrated for the change):

 

July 15, 2015: Starting with today's update, the standard GISS analysis is no longer based on ERSST v3b but on the newer ERSST v4. Dr. Makiko Sato created some graphs and maps showing the effect of that change. More information may be obtained from NOAA's website. Furthermore, we eliminated GHCN's Amundsen-Scott temperature series using just the SCAR reports for the South Pole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To make a note, this is the third SST series that GISS has used since January 2013 when they switched from OISSTv2 to ERSSTv3.

 

I am actually a bit surprised they flipped to ERSSTv4 this soon considering there is still quite a bit of debate of their findings...at odds with the Hadley team findings with buoy adjustments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why did they switch from OISST to ERSST anyway? That has always confused me, and I think it really reduces the value of GISS.

The ERSST4 dataset is largely based on buoys and ship intake measurements, and a lot of the buoy data is homogenized to the ship data, and visa versa. I don't like the fact that the ship intake data was never designed for aggregation and the measuring climate change. The variations in engine design and subsequent contamination potential is just too large.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why did they switch from OISST to ERSST anyway? That has always confused me, and I think it really reduces the value of GISS.

The ERSST4 dataset is largely based on buoys and ship intake measurements, and a lot of the buoy data is homogenized to the ship data, and visa versa. I don't like the fact that the ship intake data was never designed for aggregation and the measuring climate change. The variations in engine design and subsequent contamination potential is just too large.

 

Since it doesn't actually change the trend at all, it doesn't matter, and your post is pure hyperbole and denier tactics.

 

All it shows is the results are robust no matter what method is used.

 

We can leave the oceans out entirely and use only the best 80 land based measurements since 1900 and corroborate the GISS results (actually a bit more warming since warming has been strongest on land).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since it doesn't actually change the trend at all, it doesn't matter, and your post is pure hyperbole and denier tactics.

You're the one using hyperbole and ad-hominem rhetoric to make a non-existent point. Kudos on trying to sneak that in, though.

All it shows is the results are robust no matter what method is used.

Robust how? The 2000-2014 trend on ERSST4 is now .058C/decade higher than it was on ERSST3. That's on par with the UAHv6 upgrade as far as magnitude is concerned.

It's a semantical difference, but it's on the same magnitude as other adjustments that have come under scrutiny here from you and others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why did they switch from OISST to ERSST anyway? That has always confused me, and I think it really reduces the value of GISS.

The ERSST4 dataset is largely based on buoys and ship intake measurements, and a lot of the buoy data is homogenized to the ship data, and visa versa. I don't like the fact that the ship intake data was never designed for aggregation and the measuring climate change. The variations in engine design and subsequent contamination potential is just too large.

Large diesel engines of the era (most of which are still around) all have water intakes of the same basic design -- via a mechanically operated raw water pump connected to a sea chest, which is then piped up to a heat exchanger to cool off the fresh water in the main pump system of the engine. There's limited potential for contamination there that can't be corrected for. A bigger source is the actual thermometers used, which usually have a coarser reading scale than ones used for scientific data.

 

Anyways, here's a paper covering some of that: http://www.ocean-sci.net/9/683/2013/os-9-683-2013.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...