2015 Global Temperatures

[nflwxman]

Updated GISS series over the satellite period. Blue dots are monthly values - red line is 12-month running average. Linear warming trend over this period with updated series is 0.163 per decade vs 0.158 previously.

GISS7_15.png

This is a <5% change in the trend over that time period. Compare that to a 25% change in trend that UAH had over the same time period. Not really all that scary.

[skierinvermont]

This is a <5% change in the trend over that time period. Compare that to a 25% change in trend that UAH had over the same time period. Not really all that scary.

 

So basically SOC is a liar when he says the GISS change is comparable to the UAH change?

 

I wonder why he would make such a lie up?

 

The GISS trends are robust no matter what method is used. The TLT trends are highly sensitive to essentially arbitrary methodology selections.

[StudentOfClimatology]

So basically SOC is a liar when he says the GISS change is comparable to the UAH change?

I wonder why he would make such a lie up?

Either you're delusional or you lack basic reading comprehension skills. I didn't say anything about GISS, I was referring to the differential between ERSST3 and ERSST4.

Read more carefully next time:

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.

The TLT trends are highly sensitive to essentially arbitrary methodology selections.

There's no up-to-date peer reviewed literature supporting this claim either, unless you're referring to the TMT/TUT layers, which are tougher to calibrate for.

[skierinvermont]

Either you're delusional or you lack basic reading comprehension skills. I didn't say anything about GISS, I was referring to the differential between ERSST3 and ERSST4.

Read more carefully next time:

There's no up-to-date peer reviewed literature supporting this claim either, unless you're referring to the TMT/TUT layers, which are tougher to calibrate for.

 

So basically you performed a ludicrous apples to orange comparison between the change in trend for a short period of a semi-global source, and the change in trend of a global source over a much longer period?

 

For exactly what purpose, other than the fairly obvious failed attempt to cast aspersions on GISS relative to UAH?

 

UAH changed their trend by 5X more than GISS over the same period. The comparison is silly.

[StudentOfClimatology]

So basically you performed a ludicrous apples to orange comparison between the change in trend for a short period of a semi-global source, and the change in trend of a global source over a much longer period?

What the heck are you talking about? The only statistical calculation I made was that of the differential between ERSST3 and ERSST4 from 1979-present, and 2000-present relative to the UAHv6 data over the oceans during the same period. The potential errors on UAHv6 and ERSST3/4 are calculated on decadal resolution, so it doesn't matter when I start the regression so long as it spans at least 10yrs.

Furthermore, the UAHv6 adjustments that affected the trendline occurred almost exclusively between 2000-present.

For exactly what purpose, other than the fairly obvious failed attempt to cast aspersions on GISS relative to UAH?

What does GISS have to do with anything in that post? What I said beforehand was that using ERSST4 over IOSST3 and/or HADSST3 significantly decreases GISS's resolution over the oceans and reduces the quality of the dataset. Now GISS uses one aggregated SST skin interface as opposed to two, as it did beforehand.

UAH changed their trend by 5X more than GISS over the same period. The comparison is silly.

Actually, UAH's trend adjustment over the same period was 258% larger, not 500% larger. Furthermore, both adjustments were within each dataset's margin of error on the formentioned decadal resolution.

[chubbs]

Tamino chart comparing annual means for the 2 GISS versions including a partial  2015. Differences bounce around and are minor for the series as a whole. The "hiatus" doesn't impact the long-term trend in either version. Note that 2015 (only 6 months) has warmed less vs. 2014 (12 months) in the new version.

 

[stadiumwave]

Tamino chart comparing annual means for the 2 GISS versions including a partial 2015. Differences bounce around and are minor for the series as a whole. The "hiatus" doesn't impact the long-term trend in either version. Note that 2015 (only 6 months) has warmed less vs. 2014 (12 months) in the new version.

GISSoldnew.jpeg

However, adjustments that conveniently eliminate a PR nightmare "the hiatus" is not kosher anyway you slice it. Sure, it doesn't really make a difference to the long term mean. It's just a matter of questionable science ethics.

Also, the talk of land temps has seemed to cease. Any grown idiot knows when you have a strong Nino & that warm blob in the Pacific it's going to spike global temps.

With the AMO now cooling significantly & a coming strong La Nina on the heels of this Nino things will get quiet in the headline department...except when the Spring Tornado season gets very active which occurs more often during Nina's. But the talking heads will jump on that as extreme weather caused by AGW...instead of natural phenomena due to LA Nina.

[nflwxman]

However, adjustments that conveniently eliminate a PR nightmare "the hiatus" is not kosher anyway you slice it. Sure, it doesn't really make a difference to the long term mean. It's just a matter of questionable science ethics.

Also, the talk of land temps has seemed to cease. Any grown idiot knows when you have a strong Nino & that warm blob in the Pacific it's going to spike global temps.

With the AMO now cooling significantly & a coming strong La Nina on the heels of this Nino things will get quiet in the headline department...except when the Spring Tornado season gets very active which occurs more often during Nina's. But the talking heads will jump on that as extreme weather caused by AGW...instead of natural phenomena due to LA Nina.

 

No, it's a question of science.  If ERRST4 has passed peer review by several sources, who are you to say it's a question of ethics?  Just because the temperature adjustment doesn't fit some notion that AGW models are way off?  The magnitude of adjustment is really not large in that grand scheme of things. Nothing like the bouncing around of a single sensor measuring tool like UAH.

 

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00007.1

 

Good luck with the AMO helping you with global temperatures.  There is not a lot of science suggesting the AMO has much of a pull on global temps.  It's much more of a regional phenomenon.  Like the 1997-1998 nino, there will be a lots of leftover heat in the atmosphere for a few years to come, which will likely keep the temperatures from dropping anywhere close to 2008, 2011, 2012, or 2013 levels.  In fact, I doubt we see those type of annual temperatures ever again.

[AvantHiatus]

Good call nflwxman. Did we already forget about UAH? This is not the first time a dataset has been updated in mysterious circumstances.

 

This is a two-way street, you cannot just cherrypick your favorite dataset without immense scentific analysis.

 

 

No, it's a question of science.  If ERRST4 has passed peer review by several sources, who are you to say it's a question of ethics?  Just because the temperature adjustment doesn't fit some notion that AGW models are way off?  The magnitude of adjustment is really not large in that grand scheme of things. Nothing like the bouncing around of a single sensor measuring tool like UAH.

 

http://journals.amet...LI-D-14-00007.1

 

Good luck with the AMO helping you with global temperatures.  There is not a lot of science suggesting the AMO has much of a pull on global temps.  It's much more of a regional phenomenon.  Like the 1997-1998 nino, there will be a lots of leftover heat in the atmosphere for a few years to come, which will likely keep the temperatures from dropping anywhere close to 2008, 2011, 2012, or 2013 levels.  In fact, I doubt we see those type of annual temperatures ever again.

[AvantHiatus]

Climate Re-analyzer recently changed their baseline for whatever reason but this is still useful in conjunction with CFSv2 which has us around 0.70C GISS-equivalent for the monthly average thus far. Somewhat impressive for July.

[StudentOfClimatology]

Good call nflwxman. Did we already forget about UAH? This is not the first time a dataset has been updated in mysterious circumstances.

What's so mysterious about it? If that weren't rich enough, you follow up with this gem:

This is a two-way street, you cannot just cherrypick your favorite dataset without immense scentific analysis.

This is double irony. You're cherry picking, and I've never seen you do any "immense scientific analysis" on this forum.

[stadiumwave]

No, it's a question of science.  If ERRST4 has passed peer review by several sources, who are you to say it's a question of ethics?  Just because the temperature adjustment doesn't fit some notion that AGW models are way off?  The magnitude of adjustment is really not large in that grand scheme of things. Nothing like the bouncing around of a single sensor measuring tool like UAH.

 

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00007.1

 

Good luck with the AMO helping you with global temperatures.  There is not a lot of science suggesting the AMO has much of a pull on global temps.  It's much more of a regional phenomenon.  Like the 1997-1998 nino, there will be a lots of leftover heat in the atmosphere for a few years to come, which will likely keep the temperatures from dropping anywhere close to 2008, 2011, 2012, or 2013 levels.  In fact, I doubt we see those type of annual temperatures ever again.

 

#1 I don't expect a -AMO to drop global temps long-term at all. But it's been a long while since we've had a strong La Nina & a -AMO. I expect the temporary drop to be greater than what the La Nina did in 1999 after the last strong El Nino. I also disagree that we will not ever see 2008, 2011, 2012, or 2013 levels. That's just stupid...nothing has happened that will prevent us from going down to levels just from 2 years ago.  What are you smoking?  I'd bet the farm that either 2017 or 2018 or both will be as cool or cooler than 2013 after the coming strong La Nina. This kind of insane thinking is what I'm talking about.

 

#2 Nor was I or have I made a point that -AMO or a solar minimum is going to save us from AGW....my point is that we will at least have a break for a year or two from all the BS headlines from media talking heads.  Everyone has gone ape nuts since the NOAA paper eliminating the hiatus & this Strong El Nino brewing.  

 

#3 IF your implying that the climate models are good & are doing a good job that's just bologna.  We just can't stomach the thought that with all we "know" today that we still don't know enough to "get it right". 

 

And as long as people like Gavin Schmidt are involved in adjustments, I'm sorry I do not trust him as far as I can throw him.

 

Dr. Roy Spencer had a great piece recently that made a great point about ECS

 

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/07/new-pause-busting-temperature-dataset-implies-only-1-5-c-climate-sensitivity/

[nflwxman]

#1 I don't expect a -AMO to drop global temps long-term at all. But it's been a long while since we've had a strong La Nina & a -AMO. I expect the temporary drop to be greater than what the La Nina did in 1999 after the last strong El Nino. I also disagree that we will not ever see 2008, 2011, 2012, or 2013 levels. That's just stupid...nothing has happened that will prevent us from going down to levels just from 2 years ago. What are you smoking? I'd bet the farm that either 2017 or 2018 or both will be as cool or cooler than 2013 after the coming strong La Nina. This kind of insane thinking is what I'm talking about.

#2 Nor was I or have I made a point that -AMO or a solar minimum is going to save us from AGW....my point is that we will at least have a break for a year or two from all the BS headlines from media talking heads. Everyone has gone ape nuts since the NOAA paper eliminating the hiatus & this Strong El Nino brewing.

#3 IF your implying that the climate models are good & are doing a good job that's just bologna. We just can't stomach the thought that with all we "know" today that we still don't know enough to "get it right".

And as long as people like Gavin Schmidt are involved in adjustments, I'm sorry I do not trust him as far as I can throw him.

Dr. Roy Spencer had a great piece recently that made a great point about ECS

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/07/new-pause-busting-temperature-dataset-implies-only-1-5-c-climate-sensitivity/

So, what happened after 1997-1998 that didn't return us ever to 1996 levels of global temperatures? What about after 1982-1983 that didn't return us to 1980 temperatures? Throwing around the word "insane" doesn't help your cause here.

How much do you care to bet? I'm all for it. We will never see an annual temperature below 2013 levels. Major volcanic eruption is a disqualifier, of course.

[stadiumwave]

So, what happened after 1997-1998 that didn't return us ever to 1996 levels of global temperatures? What about after 1982-1983 that didn't return us to 1980 temperatures? Throwing around the word "insane" doesn't help your cause here.

How much do you care to bet? I'm all for it. We will never see an annual temperature below 2013 levels. Major volcanic eruption is a disqualifier, of course.

 

You need to clarify what you mean by 2008, 2011, 2012, or 2013 levels.

[nflwxman]

You need to clarify what you mean by 2008, 2011, 2012, or 2013 levels.

2013 on GISS. I don't believe we ever go below that again. A strong La Niña could get us close in 2017, but not quite there with an extra 4 years of forcing, IMO.

Basically, this is a step up the latter just as 97-98 was.

[StudentOfClimatology]

2013 on GISS. I don't believe we ever go below that again. A strong La Niña could get us close in 2017, but not quite there with an extra 4 years of forcing, IMO.

Basically, this is a step up the latter just as 97-98 was.

Four years of forcing at the current rate of CO^2 increase is equal to 0.108W/m^2. That's not even going to register in the global temperature data.

There's no reason we can't match or go colder than 2011-2013 under a moderate or strong La Niña scenario.

[stadiumwave]

2013 on GISS. I don't believe we ever go below that again. A strong La Niña could get us close in 2017, but not quite there with an extra 4 years of forcing, IMO.

Basically, this is a step up the latter just as 97-98 was.

 

 

Then I do disagree...I think.  I agree that this "could be" the next step up, but if you're implying that we never globally fell to any levels before the super nino's you're wrong.  That's what I'm saying.  We may be saying two different things but agreeing overall.

 

 

[chubbs]

There are a several nina years that temperatures never returned to: 1985, 1996, 1999, 2000, 2008 and 2011-12. Even a few neutral years 1986 + 1993-4 (volcano impacted) were never reached again (going by chart). So I don't expect temps to get down to 2011+2012 levels again.  Even negative neutral 2013 is probably safe.

 

[stadiumwave]

You guys must be speaking about averages for the year. I'm speaking about it getting as cool or cooler globally for a given space of time in that year...monthly. Refer to the GISS graph I posted.

Global temps plummeted after the 98 spike until the next spike during the Nino 2002

[chubbs]

You guys must be speaking about averages for the year. I'm speaking about it getting as cool or cooler globally for a given space of time in that year...monthly. Refer to the GISS graph I posted.

Global temps plummeted after the 98 spike until the next spike during the Nino 2002

Yes I am speaking about yearly averages - not a one month spike

[nflwxman]

Yes I am speaking about yearly averages - not a one month spike

Oh yeah, me too. On a monthly basis, anything is on the table.

[donsutherland1]

Bloomberg.com has a story about the record warm start to this year. In part, the article states:

 

This has been the hottest start to a year by far, according to data released today by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The record heat is likely to continue as an already strong El Niño weather pattern in the Pacific Ocean continues to intensify, ripping more heat into the atmosphere. This monster El Niño may itself be on track to break records. 

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2015-07-20/monster-el-ni-o-makes-record-hot-year-look-inevitable

 

The article also has a great animation that puts the warming that has occurred in recent years in perspective:

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2014-hottest-year-on-record/embed/

 

The monthly temperature anomalies referenced in the story can be found at: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/p12/12/1880-2015.csv

[wolfpackmet]

Last 12 months were warmest of any 12 months on record via NOAA.  Top 10 are all with months ending in the last 10 months.  

[donsutherland1]

Last 12 months were warmest of any 12 months on record via NOAA.  Top 10 are all with months ending in the last 10 months.  

 

That's very impressive.

[nflwxman]

With the update of GISS to ERRST4.  I've calculated the following trends:

 

June 1985-June2015: .167 C/Decade

 

Jan 1998-June2015: .124 C/Decade

 

Jan 2003-June2015: .093 C/Decade

 

Jan 2008-June2015: .254 C/Decade

 

Clearly NASA still shows a slowdown of warming that appears to becoming to abrupt end now.

[chubbs]

With the update of GISS to ERRST4.  I've calculated the following trends:

 

June 1985-June2015: .167 C/Decade

 

Jan 1998-June2015: .124 C/Decade

 

Jan 2003-June2015: .093 C/Decade

 

Jan 2008-June2015: .254 C/Decade

 

Clearly NASA still shows a slowdown of warming that appears to becoming to abrupt end now.

 Its becoming the clear that the hiatus will have no lasting impact. There was rapid warming just before and now at the exit of the hiatus so 30-year trends have not been impacted much. Looking at the big picture the hiatus can be seen as a regression to the mean to correct the rapid warming associated with the 1998 super nino. 

[donsutherland1]

The paper's conclusion:

 

The circulation trends detected here cannot as yet be attributed to

anthropogenic or natural causes, nor can they be projected to continue

into the future. Attribution and projection will require an increased

understanding of the causes of the circulation trends, including the

ability to identify the signal of an anthropogenically forced trend from

the noise of internal decadal-scale climate variability16,29. However, our

quantitative partitioning, in conjunction with targeted climate model

simulations16,29,30, offers the potential to fingerprint dynamic and thermodynamic

climate influences in isolation, which in turn may facilitate

attribution of the observed trends, and projection of future trends.

We hypothesize that the main assumption of our quantitative partitioning—

pattern stationarity—is justified given the expectation that

circulation responses to enhanced radiative forcing are likely to reinforce

pre-existing modes of natural variability15,16. A related assumption

is that the reanalyses act as reasonable proxies for the state of the

three-dimensional atmosphere through time. Given uncertainties in

the data assimilation and numerical modelling that underpin atmospheric

reanalysis,we have restricted our identification criteria to those

trends that are statistically significant in all three reanalyses.

 

Our approach finds robust trends in mid-atmospheric circulation

patterns over some regions, and suggests that both dynamic and thermodynamic

effects have contributed to observed changes in temperature

extremes over the past 35 years. Although thermodynamic

influences have largely dominated these changes, dynamic influences

have been critical in some regions and seasons. Long-term projections

of future dynamic contributions are challenging given the substantial

underlying decadal-scale variability, as well as the uncertain impact of

anthropogenic forcing on mid-latitude circulation15,16. However, given

our finding that many patterns have exhibited increasing (decreasing)

intensity of extreme hot (cold) events, and that those trends are coincident

with a nearly categorical increase in thermodynamic forcing,

the observed trends of increasing hot extremes and decreasing cold

extremes could be expected to continue in the coming decades, should

greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere.

[chubbs]

This study, led by a Chinese researcher, produces an updated 0 to 700m OHC trend and compares it to CMIP5 model predictions. The new OHC estimate has a somewhat larger increase than previous estimates. Climate models do a good job of estimating the overall OHC increase but cannot replicate the year-to-year variability which is dominated by ENSO.

 

http://english.cas.cn/newsroom/research_news/201506/t20150617_148976.shtml

 

[AvantHiatus]

Not a good sign, it hints at instability in the ocean-atmosphere coupled processes.

[AvantHiatus]

Not much blue on the map. Loop for full effect, you might even sense some Hansen vibes in there.

http://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/models/?model=gfs&region=global&pkg=T2ma&runtime=2015072512&fh=0&xpos=0&ypos=169.0909054259624