Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,514
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    CHSVol
    Newest Member
    CHSVol
    Joined

2015 Global Temperatures


nflwxman

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

UAH for April dropped to +0.07C. Still no lower tropospheric response, which as has been discussed, likely can be attributed (partially) to weaker global winds. However, I would anticipate that the response will occur probably by later this summer and particularly the autumn. I suspect we may have a fairly impressive surge on the UAH numbers during the second half to final third of 2015.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The lower troposphere would warm via latent heat release with increased sfc evaporation/convection.

In addition, higher global winds would promote ocean overturning which would generally have a cooling influence on SSTas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

UAH for April dropped to +0.07C. Still no lower tropospheric response, which as has been discussed, likely can be attributed (partially) to weaker global winds. However, I would anticipate that the response will occur probably by later this summer and particularly the autumn. I suspect we may have a fairly impressive surge on the UAH numbers during the second half to final third of 2015.

 

 

The previous Nino event in 2009-10 featured UAH numbers peaking during the first three months of 2010, essentially at the Nino's maturity/slightly thereafter.

 

For 2006-07, the UAH peak also occurred in January of 2007, slightly following the peak maturity in SSTA. 2004-05 had a January relative peak, and 2002-03 had a bit of a maximum in January 2003 as well.

 

Point being, for those looking for a UAH surge, I don't think it'll be coming until later this year w/ the maximum possibly not until the beginning of 2016.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The previous Nino event in 2009-10 featured UAH numbers peaking during the first three months of 2010, essentially at the Nino's maturity/slightly thereafter.

 

For 2006-07, the UAH peak also occurred in January of 2007, slightly following the peak maturity in SSTA. 2004-05 had a January relative peak, and 2002-03 had a bit of a maximum in January 2003 as well.

 

Point being, for those looking for a UAH surge, I don't think it'll be coming until later this year w/ the maximum possibly not until the beginning of 2016.

With the Nino being this strong already at this time of year, does that increase the odds of an early peak?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the stats are pretty solid regarding a sfc versus lower tropospheric response regarding NInos.  It's generally 2-3 months for the surface and 3-4 months on the TLT.

 

We aren't even close to see this current pulse of warmth being felt globally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The lower troposphere would warm via latent heat release with increased sfc evaporation/convection.

 

 

Heat is converted into "latent" form upon evaporation at the surface. This latent heat is subsequently released in the troposphere during the processes of condensation and crystallization.

 

Thanks, I get it now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very impressive daily -SOI reading to go along with the continuing strong WWB pattern.

It would be interesting to see what the record lowest May values are.

 

9 May 20151007.451012.05-46.90

Yeah, there is some continuing tropical activity down there helping out.  I'd imagine the WWB helping produce more hefty subsurface anomalies.  It's pretty clear this Nino is going anywhere anytime soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the stats are pretty solid regarding a sfc versus lower tropospheric response regarding NInos.  It's generally 2-3 months for the surface and 3-4 months on the TLT.

 

We aren't even close to see this current pulse of warmth being felt globally.

 

I think the peak response is 5-6 months later for TLT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a overlay i did of the old version 5.6 to the new version 6.0

YR MON GLOBAL NH SH TROPICS

v5.6

2015 1 +0.351 +0.553 +0.150 +0.126

2015 2 +0.296 +0.433 +0.160 +0.015

2015 3 +0.257 +0.409 +0.105 +0.083

2015 4 +0.162 +0.337 -0.013 +0.074

v6.0

2015 1 +0.261 +0.379 +0.143 +0.119

2015 2 +0.157 +0.263 +0.050 -0.074

2015 3 +0.139 +0.232 +0.046 +0.022

2015 4 +0.065 +0.154 -0.024 +0.074

attachicon.gifUAH 5.6 vs 6.0.gif

It's nice to see adjustments go the other way for once.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amazing: 

"March 2015 was the warmest March since record-keeping began in 1880, says the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. And the first quarter of 2015 was the warmest first quarter on record in those same 136 years."

 

 

Not according to the UAH and RSS satellite temperatures. Also the CFSv2 in close agreement with the satellite record. This is nowhere near the warmest on record. It is somewhere around 5th place since 1979 which is warmer than normal but not near a record warm period. The surface stations with all the adjustments and cooling of the past and warming of the present will obviously be at record levels and continue to run warm. 3 independent datasets plus the radisonsondes ( a fourth) all show some warming since the late 1970s but not as exaggerated as the surface records show.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's nice to see adjustments go the other way for once.

 

Yes. This is one area of research where there is some objectivity. The surface records always end up warming the recent years and cooling the past. I read that they are now looking at revising some of the record high temperatures of the 1930s stating the stations were not accurately sited or flawed. One way or another they will find a way to revise these inconvenient records. You read it here first.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've explicitly told you many times that CFSv2 is not to be used for global temperatures. You don't discount datasets completely, you average them all together at the very least. As a result, we are running quite warm right now.

 

However, I won't be sure of UAH's effectiveness until after the el nino. The claims about alterations to surface datasets are nothing compared to the changes from UAH v5 to UAH v6.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not according to the UAH and RSS satellite temperatures. Also the CFSv2 in close agreement with the satellite record. This is nowhere near the warmest on record. It is somewhere around 5th place since 1979 which is warmer than normal but not near a record warm period. The surface stations with all the adjustments and cooling of the past and warming of the present will obviously be at record levels and continue to run warm. 3 independent datasets plus the radisonsondes ( a fourth) all show some warming since the late 1970s but not as exaggerated as the surface records show.

You talking about cfs at all in this thread in the context you do is disingenuous.

Proclaiming cfs is in close agreement with the satellite record is straight intellectual dishonesty.

Is there something we need to know about you?

Or do you just lack integrity?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've explicitly told you many times that CFSv2 is not to be used for global temperatures. You don't discount datasets completely, you average them all together at the very least. As a result, we are running quite warm right now.

 

However, I won't be sure of UAH's effectiveness until after the el nino. The claims about alterations to surface datasets are nothing compared to the changes from UAH v5 to UAH v6.

 

If a dataset doesn't show as much warming as you guys like it is discounted. That is what they do in climate science. The CFSv2 had similar anomalies to the UAH and RSS for April 2015. They are pretty close. You guys bash the UAH all the time but this and the RSS are by far the BEST way to measure the Earth's temperatures because they take a layer approach. Not a point approach which is rife with land use changes, microclimates and station moves. It is amazing that people agree with the surface record. The surface record is way more flawed than the any other dataset and you folks take it as the gold standard. amazing. Just look at an IR satellite in the winter with clear skies, you can see almost every small and big city and it is warmer....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You talking about cfs at all in this thread in the context you do is disingenuous.

Proclaiming cfs is in close agreement with the satellite record is straight intellectual dishonesty.

Is there something we need to know about you?

Or do you just lack integrity?

 

 

I don't think the CFSv2 is a bad dataset at all. I think it is better than the surface record that is for sure. Is it 100% accurate? No...but the surface record is farther off...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the CFSv2 is a bad dataset at all. I think it is better than the surface record that is for sure. Is it 100% accurate? No...but the surface record is farther off...

 

Furthermore Dr Maue who does the CFSv2 climo is a PHD atmospheric scientist who graduated from Florida State. He is well known and respected. Who are you guys to criticize him? He can run circles around you in this global warming debate and his methods are genuine. To call this disingenuous is to call him disingenuous too. Why would they post that stuff if it were false??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Furthermore Dr Maue who does the CFSv2 climo is a PHD atmospheric scientist who graduated from Florida State. He is well known and respected. Who are you guys to criticize him? He can run circles around you in this global warming debate and his methods are genuine. To call this disingenuous is to call him disingenuous too. Why would they post that stuff if it were false??

It should be noted that the CFSv2 is an NCEP product.

 

http://cfs.ncep.noaa.gov/

 

Dr. Maue's CFSv2 maps are derived from the NCEP product.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Furthermore Dr Maue who does the CFSv2 climo is a PHD atmospheric scientist who graduated from Florida State. He is well known and respected. Who are you guys to criticize him? He can run circles around you in this global warming debate and his methods are genuine. To call this disingenuous is to call him disingenuous too. Why would they post that stuff if it were false??

Below are Euro (ERA) and NASA MERRA re-analyses from 2005 - 2014. They don't have 2012-14 cooler than 2005-6.   Would be interesting to get Maue's response to a query.

 

post-1201-0-26871600-1431439972_thumb.jp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Furthermore Dr Maue who does the CFSv2 climo is a PHD atmospheric scientist who graduated from Florida State. He is well known and respected. Who are you guys to criticize him? He can run circles around you in this global warming debate and his methods are genuine. To call this disingenuous is to call him disingenuous too. Why would they post that stuff if it were false??

 

 

There's a clear step down in roughly April 2010...not seen on any other dataset including satellites. It is a red flag in the CFSv2 if you are using it to determine global temperature trends. It's been explained to you numerous times but I'm not sure why you insist on ignoring it. The onus is on you to prove that this major stepdown in April 2010 is real if your intention is to argue that the dataset is viable for global temp trends. This stepdown subsequently causes much of 2011 and 2012 to be nearly as cold as parts of early 2008...which is not supported by any other datasets including both satellites.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Below are Euro (ERA) and NASA MERRA re-analyses from 2005 - 2014. They don't have 2012-14 cooler than 2005-6.   Would be interesting to get Maue's response to a query.

 

attachicon.gifeuro_merra2.jpg

From the technical paper on the CFSR:

 

It is extremely difficult to assimilate T2m over land in systems like the CFSR. For this reason, ERA-40 post-processed observed T2m into their output.

 

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2010BAMS3001.1(p.5)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the technical paper on the CFSR:

 

It is extremely difficult to assimilate T2m over land in systems like the CFSR. For this reason, ERA-40 post-processed observed T2m into their output.

 

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2010BAMS3001.1(p.5)

 

I am going to try to get a hold of Dr Maue. I know an FSU professor than worked with him. I can see if I can get his email and get his take. I really want to see what is up with the CFSv2. The CFSv2 now is in line with UAH and RSS with anomalies...the step down noticed in 2010 can be seen in the satellite data just not to the extent the CFSv2 shows...

 

The sfc data shows significant warming in 2013-14 and begins to diverge from MSU, RSS and CFSv2. The older version of Hadcrut did show this drop and actually does have 05-06 warmer than 2010 but the newer version gets rid of it (of course).

 

post-1184-0-11861900-1431452768_thumb.gi

 

post-1184-0-57783100-1431452791_thumb.gi

 

post-1184-0-54369000-1431452826_thumb.gi

 

 

post-1184-0-74570500-1431452851_thumb.gi

 

post-1184-0-11818800-1431452871_thumb.gi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've explicitly told you many times that CFSv2 is not to be used for global temperatures. You don't discount datasets completely, you average them all together at the very least. As a result, we are running quite warm right now.

 

However, I won't be sure of UAH's effectiveness until after the el nino. The claims about alterations to surface datasets are nothing compared to the changes from UAH v5 to UAH v6.

 

 

Can you point me to several peer-reviewed studies that discredit the accuracy of UAH?

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...