• Member Statistics

    15,529
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    davisinstruments
    Newest Member
    davisinstruments
    Joined
Sign in to follow this  
nflwxman

2015 Global Temperatures

Recommended Posts

Was thinking something similar when looking at the chart chubbs posted. July 1997 was the hottest July on record at the time, likely due in part to the start of the 1997-1998 El Niño. Then July 1998 blew 1997 out of the water. Is the same going to happen next year? Is July 2016 going to be something like +0.98°C?

 

No 2 ninos are alike but it is interesting to estimate the potential peak temperatures if this nino ends up similar in strength to either 97-98 or 82-83 to use as a benchmark for comparison. Using GISS, the 97-98 El Nino had a max monthly anomaly of 0.87C and a 1998 annual average anomaly of 0.61. GISS has been increasing at a rate of 0.0163 per year since 1979 which equates to an expected increase of 0.29 since 97-98. So we would expect a nino with similar strength as 97-98 to produce a max monthly anomaly of around 1.16 and a 2016 annual average anomaly of around 0.91 (doesn't quite add up due to rounding). Similarly we would expect  a 0.54 increase since 82-83 and a max month of 1.04 and a 2016 annual of 0.85 for a 82-83 strength nino.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No 2 ninos are alike but it is interesting to estimate the potential peak temperatures if this nino ends up similar in strength to either 97-98 or 82-83 to use as a benchmark for comparison. Using GISS, the 97-98 El Nino had a max monthly anomaly of 0.87C and a 1998 annual average anomaly of 0.61. GISS has been increasing at a rate of 0.0163 per year since 1979 which equates to an expected increase of 0.29 since 97-98. So we would expect a nino with similar strength as 97-98 to produce a max monthly anomaly of around 1.16 and a 2016 annual average anomaly of around 0.91 (doesn't quite add up due to rounding). Similarly we would expect  a 0.54 increase since 82-83 and a max month of 1.04 and a 2016 annual of 0.85 for a 82-83 strength nino.

 

 

The '82-'83 Nino was blunted by the El Chicon eruption...so it didn't have as big of a spike as it would have otherwise. In fact, 1983 as a year was colder than 1981 despite the Super Nino vs neutral ENSO in 1981...and '83 was only marginally warmer than 1980.  Though you can definitely see the spike vs 1982 since 1982 was affected by the eruption too as it happened early in the year...though '82 was unusually cold early in the year even before the eruption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2016 should be pretty mind numbing in terms of global temperatures.  Ninos really spike the winter temperatures so look for the most eye popping anomalies in the JAN-APR timeframe.  The last time we had 3 consecutive "warmest years" on GISS was well...never.

 

Early Guesses on GISS:

 

2015: 84

 

2016: 88

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is how 2015 compares to 1997-98. Through July, 2015 is averaging 0.38C warmer than 1997 vs 0.29C expected based on the linear trend. So 2015 temperatures are currently ahead of 1997 possibly due to the slow multi-year pace of the current ENSO cycle. Temperatures started to rise in September of 1997 and stayed high through August of 98.

 

post-1201-0-84278600-1440188001_thumb.pn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is how 2015 compares to 1997-98. Through July, 2015 is averaging 0.38C warmer than 1997 vs 0.29C expected based on the linear trend. So 2015 temperatures are currently ahead of 1997 possibly due to the slow multi-year pace of the current ENSO cycle. Temperatures started to rise in September of 1997 and stayed high through August of 98.

 

attachicon.gifGISS97-98.png

There seems to be less inter-monthly temperature variability since 2014. Not sure what process is driving this but it implies something has changed in the system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unacceptable

 

 

 

Up-to-date weekly average CO2 at Mauna Loa
Week beginning on August 16, 2015:     399.13 ppm 
Weekly value from 1 year ago:     396.81 ppm 
Weekly value from 10 years ago:     378.79 ppm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OHC continues to skyrocket. 

 Here is the NOAA/NODC 0-100M mean ocean temperature anomaly. An ENSO driven increase is underway with an 0.064C increase in the 2nd quarter alone. In the 2009/10 cycle, 0-100M temperature peaked in the 1st quarter of 2010 while the 1997-98 peak was in the 2nd quarter of 1998. So this cycle is 3 to 4 quarters from peaking most likely somewhere near  0.5C.

 

post-1201-0-67975800-1440545097_thumb.pn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please get this thread back on track.

 

Great graphic Chubbs.  One can obviously see how tied to 0-100m OHC surface temperatures are.  Does anyone have SSTa updates in graphical form?  Are those still produced? I know Bob Tisdale had updates monthly, but I haven't seen them in a while.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CFSV2 is right around +0.27 for the month and dailies are skyrocketing once again.

That should give us the warmest August ever on record if the +0.6-0.7 relationship between the Weatherbell CFSV2 and GISS continues to hold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Below is the 12-month running average of GISS and NOAA surface temperature series  This metric has been increasing steadily since the 2011 NIna, up 0.21C for GISS and 0.26C for NOAA. The 12-month running average should peak in about one year if the current El Nino has similar timing to 97-98 or 09-10.

post-1201-0-81687200-1440950801_thumb.pn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Below is a  plot of the 0-2000M ocean heat content with a linear regression trend. OHC has been increasing by 1.03 x 1022 joules per year since Argo measurements started in 2005. That equates to an average energy imbalance of 0.63 W/m2 of earth's surface or 17% of the forcing from doubled CO2

 

 

post-1201-0-50160500-1441104092_thumb.pn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there a graph showing 82.5 degrees south to 82.5 degrees north? This graph seems to omit part of the southern hemisphere.

No. RSS omits part of the Northern Hemisphere and an even larger part of the Southern Hemisphere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RSS measures from 70S to 82.5N, or ~ 95% of the globe.

 

Slightly more, even (~96.5569%, for a spherical Earth). But, of course, since polar temperatures may change more than low-latitude temperatures, there could be a non-negligible contribution in that small area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is totally crazy talk.

This guy used to do NODC OHC updates and stopped a while back when OHC near the surface started to explode upwards with the recent weakening trades and continuing strengthening GHG forcing.

So yeah when is the "natural" cooling coming?

Looking at the OHC charts and using historical trends the next La Niña is likely to produce 2013 level global temps.

That's sure as hell isn't cooling.

The actual forcing is much higher than it was post 1998.

So the warming during Nina events will keep increasing as well.

But this is mostly driven by upper ocean OHC and ssts which are currently at unprecedented levels.

Again the standard drop off would drop is back down to just below mid 2000s weak niño levels.

Heat in the upper ocean depths is just building almost every where at what is becoming an alarming rate.

I look forward to how the SH responds this winter. Could see incredible wall to wall warm anomalies globally this fall.

https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2015/08/11/july-2015-sea-surface-temperature-sst-anomaly-update/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Below is a comparison of 700 mb temperatures from the NCEP re-analysis to UAH6 (12-month running average). 700 mb is roughly in the middle of the satellite TLT altitude band. There is very good agreement between UAH6 and the NCEP re-analysis prior to 2002 and after 2009. Between 2002 and 2009 though, UAH6 (and RSS) has a cooling  bias of roughly 0.2C relative to the NCEP re-analysis. UAH6 also cools by a similar amount relative GISS in this period. Could be a problem in one of the satellites or in the adjustment factors during this period.

post-1201-0-31596800-1441713536_thumb.pn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What data is being used in the NCEP reanalysis? If it's radiosonde data, the divergence is probably related non-homogenous sampling between NCEP and the satellite data before extrapolation.

The RSS team found that the accounting for sampling differentials corrected about 90% of the divergence w/ the radiosonde data.

http://www.remss.com/measurements/upper-air-temperature/validation

Meanwhile, if it's satellite data they're using, the question is what satellite(s) are they using and have they accounted for orbital and diurnal drift to an adequate extent?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Below is a comparison of 700 mb temperatures from the NCEP re-analysis to UAH6 (12-month running average). 700 mb is roughly in the middle of the satellite TLT altitude band. There is very good agreement between UAH6 and the NCEP re-analysis prior to 2002 and after 2009. Between 2002 and 2009 though, UAH6 (and RSS) has a cooling  bias of roughly 0.2C relative to the NCEP re-analysis. UAH6 also cools by a similar amount relative GISS in this period. Could be a problem in one of the satellites or in the adjustment factors during this period.

attachicon.gifUAH6NCEP700mb.png

UAHv6 has a linear cooling trend vs. Version 5.6 with a high coefficient of determination. That it shows a cooling trend relative to other data is probably related to that possible issue. Until the new data set is peer-reviewed, it's difficult to go beyond stating that there appears to be a possible issue. With peer review, we'll know more. I might be wrong, but as of September 1, no paper has been submitted for peer review. In the meantime, UAHv6 figures have been reported for several months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What data is being used in the NCEP reanalysis? If it's radiosonde data, the divergence is probably related non-homogenous sampling between NCEP and the satellite data before extrapolation.

The RSS team found that the accounting for sampling differentials corrected about 90% of the divergence w/ the radiosonde data.

http://www.remss.com/measurements/upper-air-temperature/validation

Meanwhile, if it's satellite data they're using, the question is what satellite(s) are they using and have they accounted for orbital and diurnal drift to an adequate extent?

With respect to the reanalysis, the following summarizes the data (Item #3):

 

ftp://ftp.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/wd51we/reanal/bams_paper.2001/reanl2.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With respect to the reanalysis, the following summarizes the data (Item #3):

ftp://ftp.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/wd51we/reanal/bams_paper.2001/reanl2.htm

That looks like an old validation paper from 1999. Is there anything newer regarding their interpolation/sampling procedures w/ the newer AMSU/sonde data? Most of the sondes and sounding units used back in 1999 are no longer operable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Word in the E.S dept on science here on campus is that UAH will submit a validation paper sometime this winter. For their sake, I hope they do it sooner rather than later.

That's good news. The sooner the better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That looks like an old validation paper from 1999. Is there anything newer regarding their interpolation/sampling procedures w/ the newer AMSU/sonde data? Most of the sondes and sounding units used back in 1999 are no longer operable.

I haven't found a more recent paper,yet, but there might be one. The one I posted is from 2001, so there undoubtedly have been changes since then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.