• 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

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.

 

In August UAH6 went to beta3 (with small changes) so they are still tweaking it. Would like to see a detailed comparison of satellite, re-analysis and radiosonde data

 

NCEP, MERRA and other re-analysis datasets all have similar trends showing more warming at 500, 700 + 850mb than UAH6 and RSS after 2000. Below is the MERRA 700mb plot.

post-1201-0-81085900-1441731786_thumb.gi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In August UAH6 went to beta3 (with small changes) so they are still tweaking it. Would like to see a detailed comparison of satellite, re-analysis and radiosonde data

 

NCEP, MERRA and other re-analysis datasets all have similar trends showing more warming at 500, 700 + 850mb than UAH6 and RSS after 2000. Below is the MERRA 700mb plot.

attachicon.gifMerra700mb.gif

 

 

Some of that is likely related to the UAH algorithm counting much of the atmosphere that is not warming as quick, like near the tropopause for example.  Technically, MERRA is only reporting a sliver of what UAH or RSS is in terms of the 3D atmosphere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

So they are publishing version 6.0 calling it beta with no publication of their changes submitted?

Did the submit version 5.6 to peer review it also had a major cooling bias post 2010?

The denier blogs eat up UAH 6.0 like its gospel.

99% of their readers don't give a f*** if Its been reviewed or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SSTs snd upper ocean OHC say UAH and RSS are wrong.

The other most important factor in warming is that in the last 15 years global land ice everywhere has seen accelerated to dramatic ice mass loss.

At all elevations almost everywhere.

The snow lines have continued to recede almost everywhere as well.

Maybe dark particulates causing the surface warming are also causing cooling just above from blocking some incoming energy.

I don't know but everything jives with a rapidly warming Earth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SSTs snd upper ocean OHC say UAH and RSS are wrong.

No, they don't say anything about UAH or RSS. You're looking at two completely different domains in a non-linear, cooperative thermodynamic relationship.

The accelerated SST/OHC warming may, in fact, explain the lack of lower tropospheric warming. An reduction in global surface wind speeds by just 0.4m/s, for example, may account for reduced evaporative cooling of the oceans (warming), and reduced latent heat transport into the troposphere (cooling).

Could a reduction in global wind speeds be attributed to AGW? There is some modeling suggesting this to be the case as the Hadley Cells expand and the equator-pole thermal gradient weakens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, they don't say anything about UAH or RSS. You're looking at two completely different domains in a non-linear, cooperative thermodynamic relationship.

The accelerated SST/OHC warming may, in fact, explain the lack of lower tropospheric warming. An reduction in global surface wind speeds by just 0.4m/s, for example, may account for reduced evaporative cooling of the oceans (warming), and reduced latent heat transport into the troposphere (cooling).

Could a reduction in global wind speeds be attributed to AGW? There is some modeling suggesting this to be the case as the Hadley Cells expand and the equator-pole thermal gradient weakens.

 

I think what many of us are saying here is; UAH 6.0 doesn't pass the sniff test.  Let's see if it passes per review, of course, but there have already been a few papers suggesting cold bias on RSS post 2000.  That, coupled with MERRA, RATPAC, and several other reanalysis data sets disagreeing with post 2000 MSU behavior makes me personally skeptical. 

 

If global winds were truly the issue (and it may contribute), we would expect the surface to be warming even faster than modeled projections, unless the TCR assumed in CIMP5 is way off. 

 

On GISS; 2000-2015 shows a warming of 0.19C

 

ON RSS: 2000-2015 shows a warming of 0.02C

 

ON UAH v5.6: 2000-2015 shows a warming of 0.19C

 

 

Is all that extra heat staying in the ocean, because the surface hasn't warmed all that fast until recently? It certainty seems like there was pretty good agreement with GISS and UAH 5.6 prior to the update...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So they are publishing version 6.0 calling it beta with no publication of their changes submitted?

Did the submit version 5.6 to peer review it also had a major cooling bias post 2010?

The denier blogs eat up UAH 6.0 like its gospel.

99% of their readers don't give a f*** if Its been reviewed or not.

I know 5.0 was peer-reviewed. I'm not completely sure about 5.6.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Overlay this with UAH 5.5 then with UAH 6.0.

These ssta are also verified by hadsst and others.

lyv8FSh.jpg

The LT temps haven't just stopped warming.

There is no way things haven't warmed.

I agree about the LT temperatures. That warming shows up on alternative data sets e.g., RATPAC. Moreover, such warming fits the scientific understanding of what should be occurring with the increase in water vapor in the lower troposphere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what many of us are saying here is; UAH 6.0 doesn't pass the sniff test. Let's see if it passes per review, of course, but there have already been a few papers suggesting cold bias on RSS post 2000. That, coupled with MERRA, RATPAC, and several other reanalysis data sets disagreeing with post 2000 MSU behavior makes me personally skeptical.

Yes, this was discussed by the RSS team and it was found that the vast majority of the divergence between RSS and the radiosonde datasets can be attributed to the lack of spatial sampling in the radiosonde datasets.

This is actually a fascinating read.

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

If global winds were truly the issue (and it may contribute), we would expect the surface to be warming even faster than modeled projections, unless the TCR assumed in CIMP5 is way off.

On GISS; 2000-2015 shows a warming of 0.19C

ON RSS: 2000-2015 shows a warming of 0.02C

ON UAH v5.6: 2000-2015 shows a warming of 0.19C

Is all that extra heat staying in the ocean, because the surface hasn't warmed all that fast until recently? It certainty seems like there was pretty good agreement with GISS and UAH 5.6 prior to the update...

Some paleoclimate studies have come to the conclusion that TCR/ESC is unstable and non-linear, owning to an every changing boundary state. I wouldn't rule anything out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree about the LT temperatures. That warming shows up on alternative data sets e.g., RATPAC. Moreover, such warming fits the scientific understanding of what should be occurring with the increase in water vapor in the lower troposphere.

When accounting for the lack of spatial sampling in the radiosonde data (by sub-sampling the RSS data only in areas covered by the radiosonde data), close to 90% of the divergence is eliminated.

It can therefore be concluded that the lack of spatial sampling in the radiosonde data is the primary reason for the divergence.

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

Using HadAT, which has the largest spatial coverage of any radiosonde dataset, you can see that when the lack of spatial sampling is accounted for via sub-sampling, the divergence is eliminated:

640.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the problem you run into when comparing radiosonde datasets to satellite datasets.

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

Radiosonde sampling must be taken into account when comparing radiosonde datasets to MSU/AMSU TLT, since the temperatures are likely to behave differently in the sampled and non-sampled areas.

Most of the radiosonde launching stations are located in the same geographic realms, and all have similar sampling issues over the oceans and over the SH. This explains why the radiosonde datasets tend to trend closer to one another, and visa-versa regarding the satellites.

Simply comparing them with no quality control is a pretty dumb way to go about this, because the numbers will never match up.

To illustrate the importance of sampling, we performed two comparisons using TLT data. In the first, we calculated area weighted global averages for each dataset, ignoring whether a given pixel in the satellite data was sampled by the radiosonde dataset - we will call these raw global averages. In the second, we calculated area-weighted dataset only using those pixels that were sampled by both the satellite and the radiosonde dataset. Note that this results in multiple versions of the subsampled satellite data, one for each radiosonde dataset.

We plotted similar plots for each radiosonde dataset, for global, tropical, northern extratropical and southern extratropical averages. The short time scale differences were nearly always improved by sub sampling, while the differences in long-term trends were sometimes increased by sub sampling, particularly in the southern extratropics where the number of radiosonde stations is small thus increasing the importance of errors in individual stations. The trend results are summarized in Fig. 5 below. For the global and tropical latitude bands, sub sampling improves the agreement between satellite and radiosondes. In the northern extratropics, sub sampling has little effect (a small increase) on the satellite trends, since this region is well sampled in all datasets. In the southern extratropics, sub sampling increases the difference in trends between the satellite datasets and 3 of the adjusted radiosonde datasets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GISS posted a .81C above the 1951-1980 baseline for August.  This is the 2nd warmest August by a hair (2014).  Oddly enough, JMA smashed the record by 0.12C.  The variance between GISS and the other datasets in heavily favored ENSO years is often apparent.  

 

aug_wld.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some additional perspective from GISS:

 

August:

1. +0.82°C, 2014

2. +0.81°C, 2015

3. +0.74°C, 2011

4. +0.71°C, 2006

5. +0.69°C, 1998

 

June-August:

1. +0.780°C, 2015

2. +0.720°C, 1998

3. +0.693°C, 2009, 2011

5. +0.687°C, 2014

 

Year-to-Date (January-August):

1. +0.811°C, 2015

2. +0.753°C, 2010

3. +0.716°C, 2014

4. +0.704°C, 1998, 2007

 

Annual:

1. +0.748°C, 2014

2. +0.721°C, 2010

3. +0.689°C, 2005

4. +0.663°C, 2007

5. +0.659°C, 2013

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GISS posted a .81C above the 1951-1980 baseline for August. This is the 2nd warmest August by a hair (2014). Oddly enough, JMA smashed the record by 0.12C. The variance between GISS and the other datasets in heavily favored ENSO years is often apparent.

aug_wld.png

The huge rise in OHC, ssts, global ice loss, early record matching or breaking NH Spring snow cover loss, arctic sea ice loss, slr increasing....

Means nothing to deniers.

The current mantra is how the niño is basically faux warming.

It's essentially statistically certain 2008 is out of reach now.

I mean global temps are destroying the records.

Global ssts as well.

If that's not global warming then????

Upper ocean OHC tells us a massive OHC drop will have to happen to not see continues warming as we go into 2016-2020.

Co2 will be around 417ppm by 2020 and 445ppm or higher by 2030.

Nasty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The current mantra is how the niño is basically faux warming.

 

Of course, that argument is badly flawed regardless of the sources of that argument. The current El Niño is occurring in the context of greater greenhouse gas forcing. Hence, like with other recent El nIño events, global temperature anomalies have exceeded past marks.

 

In the wake of the El Niño event, there will very likely be some cooling, but if it is like recent past post-El Niño periods, temperature anomalies won't return to prior levels. In the larger scheme of things, one is continuing to witness a phenomenon where the El Niño-driven increase in temperatures is followed by a smaller decline afterward Overall, global temperatures continue to increase on a longer-term basis, consistent with what one would expect given the increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration. If one considers oceanic heat content, the impact of rising greenhouse gas forcing is highly evident.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Silly, newbie question -- how is OHC calculated? Is it essentially calculated just from the average ocean temperature over the top 700 or 2000 meters of the ocean across the globe?

Yes.

The standard Argo mission is a park and profile mission where the float descends to a target depth of 1000m to drift and then descends again to 2000m to start the temperature and salinity profile. In 2015, 80% of floats profile to depths greater than 1500m. Another 12% profile to between 1000 and 1500m.

http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/How_Argo_floats.html

There are currently 3881 floats working.

Incredible really

statusbig.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is ARGO used in the assimilation of the RTG high resolution SST/SSTA charts? Interested in learning if it's satellite based and the methodology behind it. We've come a long ways from the 50km days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NCDC's August figure: +0.88°C (warmest August on record). 8 of the last 9 months have had anomalies of +0.80°C or above on the NCDC dataset.

NOAA 2015 average through August is 0.84, 0.12 higher than last year. Both NOAA +HADCRUT are increasing a little faster this year than GISS.

 

post-1201-0-71098800-1442583881_thumb.pn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NCEP re-analysis through Sept 19 is 0.374 vs 0.306 in Aug and 0.241 in Sept 2014. GISS projection - 0.96 - NOAA projection - 0.93

 

http://www.moyhu.org.s3.amazonaws.com/data/freq/ncep.html

Yep. It appears that the end of September will end incredibly warm.  If GISS does not hit 1.0 C above it's baseline one month this year, I'd be surprised.  The tropics are really spiking now.

 

cdas_v2_tropics_2014.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep. It appears that the end of September will end incredibly warm.  If GISS does not hit 1.0 C above it's baseline one month this year, I'd be surprised.  The tropics are really spiking now.

 

cdas_v2_tropics_2014.png

Yup. Global SST anomalies are still on the rise heading for an ENSO peak in Nov/Dec followed by surface temperatures sometime in early 2016.

 

post-1201-0-68875600-1443191511_thumb.pn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CFS finishes off September just a hair above +0.30° C.  Should be another big anomaly and likely record.  Current dailies at ~+0.52° C.  This is at or the highest daily anomaly of 2015 on wxbell.

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.