2015 Global Temperatures

[skierinvermont]

The eventual magnitude of this El Nino event is still quite uncertain. If we remain weak intensity over the next 6-12 months, it's highly doubtful that the satellite datasets will be breaking global temperature records. If we can get to moderate, particularly high-end moderate, we might have a shot at the record. Given the first year occurrence of a weak el nino, statistics (at least since 1950) argue for the second year Nino peaking < 1.2c for the trimonthly. Small sample size, but I don't think we're looking at a terribly robust Nino at this juncture.

 

This time's a little different than 1998 and 2010 though because we're already starting off in +ENSO conditions. On the other hand, even if we do make it to moderate ENSO the real heat would be mostly next year in 2016. This year is really more comparable to 1997 and 2009 but with a much warmer start, so that might give this year a small chance if we stay warm and the last 4 months are really hot. Then we'd have a shot next year again, but only if we make it to moderate and also depending on how fast we crash into Nina.

[skierinvermont]

Bold is complete speculation on your part.

 

Yes it is. But if they were sleezy enough to fit such a stupid curve to their data in the first place, there's a reasonable chance they'd remove it for the same reasons.

[LakeEffectKing]

Yes it is. But if they were sleezy enough to fit such a stupid curve to their data in the first place, there's a reasonable chance they'd remove it for the same reasons.

 

This was the accompanying statement with EVERY graph with the curve....hardly sleazy!!

 

"The 3rd order polynomial fit to the data (courtesy of Excel) is for entertainment purposes only, and should not be construed as having any predictive value whatsoever."

 

But I could see someone considering it "sleazy" if they have a subconscience bias...or can't read....

Your purposeful omission of that statement, while trying to diminish a scientist you disagree with, is what is sleazy.

[skierinvermont]

This was the accompanying statement with EVERY graph with the curve....hardly sleazy!!

 

"The 3rd order polynomial fit to the data (courtesy of Excel) is for entertainment purposes only, and should not be construed as having any predictive value whatsoever."

 

But I could see someone considering it "sleazy" if they have a subconscience bias...or can't read....

Your purposeful omission of that statement, while trying to diminish a scientist you disagree with, is what is sleazy.

 

The statement doesn't diminish the sleaziness in any way IMO. Such a misleading curve should never have been fit to the data.

[AvantHiatus]

Let's put it all together for a sec. We know University of Huntsville is home to several climate deniers including Roy Spencer. Safe to say that the curve was not simply an honest representation of the trend at the time. So happy to see their prediction fail, and continue to do so more every day.

 

Common sense guys, don't defend these idiots please.

[StudentOfClimatology]

Let's put it all together for a sec. We know University of Huntsville is home to several climate deniers including Roy Spencer. Safe to say that the curve was not simply an honest representation of the trend at the time. So happy to seetheir prediction fail, and continue to do so more every day.

What "prediction"? The manner in which uneducated hacks "critique" PHD climate scientists is laughable. This is normally a denier tactic but your post here is just as bad.

They say explicitly that the polynomial fit "has no predictive value whatsoever". So what "prediction" are you referring to? I personally wouldn't have put the polynomial fit on there, but it's clearly not designed to predict anything in the future.

Furthermore, while Spencer/Christy are definitely in the scientific minority with their negative feedback hypothesis, that doesn't make them "deniers", IE Steven Goddard et al. They don't deny the magnitude of radiative forcing as a byproduct of CO^2 increase. They're both PHDs with extensive physics/remote sensing educations.

[AvantHiatus]

Why is there not a space in my post? You do some bizarre stuff man. I think our time together is over.

 

 

 

Furthermore, while Spencer/Christy are definitely in the scientific minority with their negative feedback hypothesis, that doesn't make them "deniers", IE Steven Goddard et al. They don't deny the magnitude of radiative forcing as a byproduct of CO^2 increase. They're both PHDs with extensive physics/remote sensing educations. 

Keep playing the good guy and using deception. We can't afford to be wrong at this point in the game, even by 20% or so. Thus, I am obligated to discredit them at every possible stage, because I strongly think their assumptions are incorrect, on a scientific and non-emotional basis.

 

It may be a tactic used by deniers, give them a taste of their own medicine right.

[skierinvermont]

What "prediction"? The manner in which uneducated hacks "critique" PHD climate scientists is laughable. This is normally a denier tactic but your post here is just as bad.

They say explicitly that the polynomial fit "has no predictive value whatsoever". So what "prediction" are you referring to? I personally wouldn't have put the polynomial fit on there, but it's clearly not designed to predict anything in the future.

Furthermore, while Spencer/Christy are definitely in the scientific minority with their negative feedback hypothesis, that doesn't make them "deniers", IE Steven Goddard et al. They don't deny the magnitude of radiative forcing as a byproduct of CO^2 increase. They're both PHDs with extensive physics/remote sensing educations.

 

There's a big difference between what Spencer has actually published (in peer-reviewed journals as opposed to his money making book) - some of which has some value - and what he writes on his blog. What he blogs about isn't even supported by his own research. He basically denies almost any effect from CO2 and claims that a deity has designed the climate to be stable. He also believes in intelligent design instead of evolution. Both opinions are strongly contradicted by science. Pretty much a denier as far as I am concerned - if we're using labels. 

[Sophisticated Skeptic]

even India's joining in.  heyooo.

 

NEW DELHI: The India Meteorological Department has said there's a 50% chance of an El Nino this summer, joining the ranks of weather agencies from the US and Australia in predicting a high probability of the weather condition that's linked to poor monsoons in India.

While it is early days yet for El Nino forecasts for this year's summer to be high on reliability, the Pacific Ocean has continued to warm in the regions which spell the onset of the phenomenon.

"Warm-neutral conditions persist in the Pacific at the moment. Our models predict a 50% probability of a weak El Nino forming by mid-2015," said D Sivananda Pai, head of long range forecasting in IMD.

The forecast is likely to be released on the IMD website on Monday.

The possibility of a sub-par monsoon this year comes at a time when farmers in India have been facing the brunt of unseasonal rains since the start of March, which have officially impacted crops in 105 lakh hectares, not counting the damage incurred in rain storms during the past week.

An evolving El Nino had affected the first half of the monsoon last year before suddenly subsiding and paving the way for good rains in August. The season ended with an 11% rain deficit, affecting the kharif output in the country.

Updates released earlier this week by US's Climate Prediction Center (CPC) and Australian Bureau of Meteorology continue to predict an El Nino this summer. CPC, in an advisory on March 30, reiterated its earlier prediction of a 50%-60% chance of an El Nino continuing into this summer. The agency has declared weak El Nino conditions are already present in the Pacific.

The Australian agency, which had put out an El Nino 'watch' alert earlier in March, said all international climate models monitored by it were predicting that El Nino thresholds will be reached or exceeded by mid-year.

"However, the accuracy of model outlooks at this time of year, the traditional El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) transition period, is lower than for outlooks made at other times of the year," it added.

Not all El Nino occurrences prove to be bad for India's monsoon. Pai said what would be crucial to look out for, if an El Nino does form this summer, is whether the atmosphere responds to the warming of the ocean.

"If the ocean warming signals are picked by the atmosphere, chances of monsoon getting affected in India go up," Pai said.

A clearer picture about El Nino would emerge only by May, when there's a higher accuracy in forecasts for the summer.

 

 

 

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/IMD-predicts-50-chance-of-El-Nino-this-year/articleshow/46801384.cms

[PhillipS]

This was the accompanying statement with EVERY graph with the curve....hardly sleazy!!

 

"The 3rd order polynomial fit to the data (courtesy of Excel) is for entertainment purposes only, and should not be construed as having any predictive value whatsoever."

 

But I could see someone considering it "sleazy" if they have a subconscience bias...or can't read....

Your purposeful omission of that statement, while trying to diminish a scientist you disagree with, is what is sleazy.

 

The kindest description for the curve was that it was disingenuous.  It was removed as soon as its 'entertainment' value disappeared and it no longer implied global cooling in the near future.  And it is not an ad hominem attack on Dr Spencer to point out that he is openly skeptical of mainstream AGW, or that he is outspoken in his belief in Creationism.  Those facts are relevant to understanding the context of his work.

[Msalgado]

This was the accompanying statement with EVERY graph with the curve....hardly sleazy!!

 

"The 3rd order polynomial fit to the data (courtesy of Excel) is for entertainment purposes only, and should not be construed as having any predictive value whatsoever."

 

But I could see someone considering it "sleazy" if they have a subconscience bias...or can't read....

Your purposeful omission of that statement, while trying to diminish a scientist you disagree with, is what is sleazy.

 

Thats a pretty ridiculous defense of what they were doing.  You're welcome to give them a pass, but theres a reason they removed the trend line and its obvious that it had no place there to begin with.  At the worst, they're manipulative deniers, but at best they're really ****ty at presenting scientific data properly.  Either way thats hardly a good thing for scientists.

[blizzard1024]

Thats a pretty ridiculous defense of what they were doing.  You're welcome to give them a pass, but theres a reason they removed the trend line and its obvious that it had no place there to begin with.  At the worst, they're manipulative deniers, but at best they're really ****ty at presenting scientific data properly.  Either way thats hardly a good thing for scientists.

 

Spencer and Christy are heroes in the climate science community. The fact that people call them deniers or any scientist that does not go with the mainstream is very childish. What about the scientists at NCDC?  Look what they did to Maine's average annual temperature in the spring of 2014? Why wait until 2014 to do this massive adjustment?

 

 

 

 

I hardly believe anything the climate "scientists" do when it comes to record adjustments. They ALWAYS warm the present and cool 100 years ago and you folks think this is better than the satellite record? That is laughable.

[ORH_wxman]

Spencer and Christy are heroes in the climate science community. The fact that people call them deniers or any scientist that does not go with the mainstream is very childish. What about the scientists at NCDC? Look what they did to Maine's average annual temperature in the spring of 2014? Why wait until 2014 to do this massive adjustment?

Maine_before.png

Maine_after.png

I hardly believe anything the climate "scientists" do when it comes to record adjustments. They ALWAYS warm the present and cool 100 years ago and you folks think this is better than the satellite record? That is laughable.

How are Spencer and Christy "heroes"? Their satellite data is nice and an important tool to climate science but it is clear that they have extreme view on one end of the spectrum. I view them as no different than an alarmist who always touts the worst case scenario...someone like Hansen who also provided some great tools but can't help themselves in spouting the extremist line when a microphone or keyboard are put in front of them.

You always point to the NCDC adjustments and every single time I have to correct you on this. The older data set wasn't even homogenized. It was a really outdated method on those graphs. The newer data set is more accurate and the adjustments are legit. It doesn't mean they are perfect....no data set is...but there is legit reasoning behind them. I believe the main difference between the two data sets was the adjustment for MMT vs liquid thermometers. The switch to the new MMT thermos over the years created a cold bias. They read several tenths colder than the old liquid thermos.

Some of the adjustments are worthy of criticism, but when you dig into it, you will quickly find they don't make that much of a difference. The adjustments still are undoubtably upward from the older data set.

[blizzard1024]

How are Spencer and Christy "heroes"? Their satellite data is nice and an important tool to climate science but it is clear that they have extreme view on one end of the spectrum. I view them as no different than an alarmist who always touts the worst case scenario...someone like Hansen who also provided some great tools but can't help themselves in spouting the extremist line when a microphone or keyboard are put in front of them.

You always point to the NCDC adjustments and every single time I have to correct you on this. The older data set wasn't even homogenized. It was a really outdated method on those graphs. The newer data set is more accurate and the adjustments are legit. It doesn't mean they are perfect....no data set is...but there is legit reasoning behind them. I believe the main difference between the two data sets was the adjustment for MMT vs liquid thermometers. The switch to the new MMT thermos over the years created a cold bias. They read several tenths colder than the old liquid thermos.

Some of the adjustments are worthy of criticism, but when you dig into it, you will quickly find they don't make that much of a difference. The adjustments still are undoubtably upward from the older data set.

 

So basically all the warming in Maine (and other parts of the country) are due to adjustments. Nice. We are comparing apples to oranges. The satellite record does need adjustments for orbital drift but it goes both ways, colder at times and warmer at times too.  The surface record is warmer now, colder 100 years ago. It exaggerates the trends. Also climate stations measure microclimates too, especially on clear calm nights, like in winter for example. You move one of these stations you begin measuring another microclimate that is exaggerated on a calm cold night. Since most of these stations are located near humans the trend is up for nighttime mins. The best measure of temperature macroscopically is during a well-mixed atmosphere usually during the max temperature. Surface stations are just not a good measure of long term trends. And the oceans....bah. How do we know the oceans were so much colder 100 years ago. Give me a break. All we know is that there has been a small warming trend since 1979. The arctic sea ice summer minimum has declined since 1979 but the Antarctic sea ice is at or near record levels so global sea ice is near normal. 2014 was not the warmest on record by .03C that is a ridiculous statement. The measurement error is so much bigger. anyway, sorry to rant as you tend to be one of the more "professional" posters on this page.

[blizzard1024]

How are Spencer and Christy "heroes"? Their satellite data is nice and an important tool to climate science but it is clear that they have extreme view on one end of the spectrum. I view them as no different than an alarmist who always touts the worst case scenario...someone like Hansen who also provided some great tools but can't help themselves in spouting the extremist line when a microphone or keyboard are put in front of them.

 

Dr Spencer and Christy are heroes for having the guts to speak out against the mainstream climatologists. They are getting blasted for it. I have read a lot of their work and it is rock solid, especially the water vapor feedback issues. Just my opinion here...

[frontranger8]

Let's put it all together for a sec. We know University of Huntsville is home to several climate deniers including Roy Spencer. Safe to say that the curve was not simply an honest representation of the trend at the time. So happy to see their prediction fail, and continue to do so more every day.

 

Common sense guys, don't defend these idiots please.

 

If only life was so simple as to put everyone in neat little boxes.

[frontranger8]

There's a big difference between what Spencer has actually published (in peer-reviewed journals as opposed to his money making book) - some of which has some value - and what he writes on his blog. What he blogs about isn't even supported by his own research. He basically denies almost any effect from CO2 and claims that a deity has designed the climate to be stable. He also believes in intelligent design instead of evolution. Both opinions are strongly contradicted by science. Pretty much a denier as far as I am concerned - if we're using labels. 

 

Just FYI, those aren't mutually exclusive. In a lot of people's heads they are.

[frontranger8]

You always point to the NCDC adjustments and every single time I have to correct you on this. The older data set wasn't even homogenized. It was a really outdated method on those graphs. The newer data set is more accurate and the adjustments are legit. It doesn't mean they are perfect....no data set is...but there is legit reasoning behind them. I believe the main difference between the two data sets was the adjustment for MMT vs liquid thermometers. The switch to the new MMT thermos over the years created a cold bias. They read several tenths colder than the old liquid thermos.

Some of the adjustments are worthy of criticism, but when you dig into it, you will quickly find they don't make that much of a difference. The adjustments still are undoubtably upward from the older data set.

 

However, it's worth pointing out that NCDC does not adjust for increased UHI at many stations over the long term trend. That's a warm bias...not adjusted for in their graphs.

[FloridaJohn]

However, it's worth pointing out that NCDC does not adjust for increased UHI at many stations over the long term trend. That's a warm bias...not adjusted for in their graphs.

Example, please. What stations are not being adjusted? Thanks.

[AvantHiatus]

I've seen UHI confused with higher minimums caused by warming SST/higher dew points. It's not so easy to calibrate temperatures and the true signal is hard to isolate within a given range.(1.00 - 0.10C).

[skierinvermont]

However, it's worth pointing out that NCDC does not adjust for increased UHI at many stations over the long term trend. That's a warm bias...not adjusted for in their graphs.

 

GISS actually does do a UHI adjustment. Not sure about NCDC. Numerous papers have looked into this, including some by noted AGW denier like Anthony Watts, and they have all found no unaccounted bias due to UHI or station siting. I believe this is one of the things the BEST team was looking into as well.

[ORH_wxman]

So basically all the warming in Maine (and other parts of the country) are due to adjustments. Nice. We are comparing apples to oranges. The satellite record does need adjustments for orbital drift but it goes both ways, colder at times and warmer at times too.  The surface record is warmer now, colder 100 years ago. It exaggerates the trends. Also climate stations measure microclimates too, especially on clear calm nights, like in winter for example. You move one of these stations you begin measuring another microclimate that is exaggerated on a calm cold night. Since most of these stations are located near humans the trend is up for nighttime mins. The best measure of temperature macroscopically is during a well-mixed atmosphere usually during the max temperature. Surface stations are just not a good measure of long term trends. And the oceans....bah. How do we know the oceans were so much colder 100 years ago. Give me a break. All we know is that there has been a small warming trend since 1979. The arctic sea ice summer minimum has declined since 1979 but the Antarctic sea ice is at or near record levels so global sea ice is near normal. 2014 was not the warmest on record by .03C that is a ridiculous statement. The measurement error is so much bigger. anyway, sorry to rant as you tend to be one of the more "professional" posters on this page.

 

UHI has mostly been accounted for...you could argue it isn't perfect, but the most you will find is something that affects the trendlines on the order of 10% or less...it's not nearly as significant as something like TOBS or MMT adjustments.

 

People have dug deep into this over and over and over again, and you still come out with adjustments that have to cool the past and warm the present...if you don't do this, then you end up with a cold biased trend. This is even confirmed on the very few stations that have not changed their obs time over the entire period...they show warming that is close to the adjusted trend for all the data as a whole.

 

Again, it's not perfect, but it's pretty good. Nitpicking over something like 0.09C per decade vs 0.07C per decade over the past 100 years is something that really can't be resolved with the data we have. But if you try and get a trend from 0.09C per decade down to 0.01C per decade (or lower), you will quickly find that it is not possible to do this without omitting crucial adjustments. Or...if you take the very few GHCN stations that have no adjustments due to same TOBS and same measurement technique, they will have a warming trend close to the original one.

[frontranger8]

GISS actually does do a UHI adjustment. Not sure about NCDC. Numerous papers have looked into this, including some by noted AGW denier like Anthony Watts, and they have all found no unaccounted bias due to UHI or station siting. I believe this is one of the things the BEST team was looking into as well.

 

Right, like I said NCDC. They make adjustments to the national data, but not to individual stations.

 

What about the UHI paper by Dr. Edward Long?

[frontranger8]

I've seen UHI confused with higher minimums caused by warming SST/higher dew points. It's not so easy to calibrate temperatures and the true signal is hard to isolate within a given range.(1.00 - 0.10C).

 

Nah, it's pretty easy to differentiate when you compare rural stations temp trends to sites that have seen increased urbanization over their period of record.

[frontranger8]

Example, please. What stations are not being adjusted? Thanks.

 

http://arizonaindicators.org/sustainability/average-june-low-temperatures

[frontranger8]

Go to NCDC's website and plot the temperature trend for Phoenix, and this is what it shows. 7.8F/century rise...increased UHI has played a huge role there.

 

[ORH_wxman]

The individual sites have not been adjusted for UHI on that site. You have to expand it to a more regional level.

 

The old dataset was called "Drd964x" and the new one is called "nClimDiv" for the regional/state level data. The newer dataset is more accurate.

 

 

 

The individual sites like Phoenix or Boston or New York City, etc are all purely raw data. There's no UHI adjustment for these cities. They don't need TOBS adjustments or anything since they were major stations with hourly obs. So they are left as is...when Boston breaks their record for coldest February or warmest June on record, the NWS doesn't say "we adjusted the temp down 1 degree for UHI"...that doesn't exist on the individual level and NCDC keeps the data clean of adjustments on those sites. However, when they incorporate that data into the state level or regional level, it is adjusted for UHI.

[skierinvermont]

The individual sites have not been adjusted for UHI on that site. You have to expand it to a more regional level.

 

The old dataset was called "Drd964x" and the new one is called "nClimDiv" for the regional/state level data. The newer dataset is more accurate.

 

 

 

The individual sites like Phoenix or Boston or New York City, etc are all purely raw data. There's no UHI adjustment for these cities. They don't need TOBS adjustments or anything since they were major stations with hourly obs. So they are left as is...when Boston breaks their record for coldest February or warmest June on record, the NWS doesn't say "we adjusted the temp down 1 degree for UHI"...that doesn't exist on the individual level and NCDC keeps the data clean of adjustments on those sites. However, when they incorporate that data into the state level or regional level, it is adjusted for UHI.

 

I really appreciate your detailed knowledge of this subject. I've read quite a few papers on the subject and am comfortable with the methodology but it's not fresh in my mind and I haven't dug into the datasets like you have.

[ORH_wxman]

I really appreciate your detailed knowledge of this subject. I've read quite a few papers on the subject and am comfortable with the methodology but it's not fresh in my mind and I haven't dug into the datasets like you have.

 

Thanks...I've dug a lot into the subject ever since it became popular on skeptic blogs several years ago. So many were convinced that the adjustments were greatly exaggerated and that the trend was much closer to the raw data. But as people like Anthony Watts have found out, when you start digging into the data deeper, the adjustments aren't crap and they make a lot of sense.

 

The past is actually colder and the present is warmer the more data you gather. It might not be what the skeptics of the adjustments want to hear, but that is what the data shows.

 

The NCDC site that many were talking about had graphs of state data in the US (and for the U.S. as a whole). The graphs they showed from that older dataset was not the same data that was used to calculate NCDC global temperatures. It was an archaic out-of-date dataset that was missing a lot of the necessary adjustments. So it showed a much flatter trend in temperatures versus "official" data such as adjusted USHCN data (the U.S. component of GHCN). When they corrected it last year, it caused a lot of stir on the blogs once again. They all initially viewed it as nefarious adjustments that got rid of flat temperature trends because it disagreed with their views on climate change, but in reality, it was just updating an already obsolete dataset.

 

Discrediting the temperature record is a loser's path for being a skeptic. There's plenty of aspects of climate change to be skeptical about, but the land-based temperature datasets shouldn't be one of them. There's errors/uncertainty in there for sure, but nothing so egregious as to change the trendlines more than about 10-15%. It's pretty good data.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Go to NCDC's website and plot the temperature trend for Phoenix, and this is what it shows. 7.8F/century rise...increased UHI has played a huge role there.

Screenshot_1.jpg

Its still real tho.

On a local level UHI should stay. It its what it is.

Of course it should be

Weighted at largest regions to not skew that regions average temp