UAH Global Temperature Update for May, 2016: +0.55 deg. C
June 1st, 2016 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
NOTE: This is the fourteenth monthly update with our new Version 6.0 dataset. Differences versus the old Version 5.6 dataset are discussed here. Note we are now at “beta5” for Version 6, and the paper describing the methodology is still in peer review.
The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for May, 2016 is +0.55 deg. C, down 0.16 deg. C from the April value of +0.71 deg. C (click for full size version):
The global, hemispheric, and tropical LT anomalies from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 17 months are:
YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPICS
2015 01 +0.30 +0.44 +0.15 +0.13
2015 02 +0.19 +0.34 +0.04 -0.07
2015 03 +0.18 +0.28 +0.07 +0.04
2015 04 +0.09 +0.19 -0.01 +0.08
2015 05 +0.27 +0.34 +0.20 +0.27
2015 06 +0.31 +0.38 +0.25 +0.46
2015 07 +0.16 +0.29 +0.03 +0.48
2015 08 +0.25 +0.20 +0.30 +0.53
2015 09 +0.23 +0.30 +0.16 +0.55
2015 10 +0.41 +0.63 +0.20 +0.53
2015 11 +0.33 +0.44 +0.22 +0.52
2015 12 +0.45 +0.53 +0.37 +0.61
2016 01 +0.54 +0.69 +0.39 +0.84
2016 02 +0.83 +1.17 +0.50 +0.99
2016 03 +0.73 +0.94 +0.52 +1.09
2016 04 +0.71 +0.85 +0.58 +0.94
2016 05 +0.55 +0.65 +0.44 +0.72
Cooling from the weakening El Nino is now rapidly occurring as we transition toward likely La Nina conditions by mid-summer or early fall.
The “official” UAH global image for May, 2016 should be available in the next several days here.
The new Version 6 files (use the ones labeled “beta5”) should be updated soon, and are located here:
Lower Troposphere:http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0beta5.txt
Mid-Troposphere:http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tmt/uahncdc_mt_6.0beta5.txt
Tropopause:http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/ttp/uahncdc_tp_6.0beta5.txt
Lower Stratosphere:http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tls/uahncdc_ls_6.0beta5.txt
Does the Dewey Decimal system work for Anomaly works of “Climature”.
Happy that el nino is off to bed.
G
More proof that the “warmest evah” is just natural variation and can’t be the fault of man.
Ah but the NOAA is predicting higher than normal temperatures this summer for most of the U.S. & Alaska. Ignoring approaching La Nina??
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/featured-images/noaa-2016-summer-outlook-where-are-highest-chances-hot-summer-us
Well, I would love to see the middle of the U.S. being cooler than either coast throughout the summer, but I’m skeptical. Normally, the central U.S. is the hottest part of the nation in summer.
I could see that happening if they were just talking about a few weeks, but this is a prediction for the entire summer. Like I say, I hope it happens. If it does, it will be unusual.
Wishful thinking.
TA,
Correct me if wrong, but IMO the SW is the hottest region. Humidity in the central region might make the heat feel worse, however.
Record highs by state above 120 degrees F:
SW: 127.25 F. Ave.
CA 134 at -178 feet elevation
AZ 128 at 505 feet
NV 125 at 605 feet
NM 122 at 3418 feet
South Central: 120.00 Ave.
TX 120 at 2660 feet
OK 120 at 1350 feet
AR 120 at 396 feet
North Central: 120.67 Ave.
ND 121 at 1857 feet
KS 121 at 1651 feet
SD 120 at 1750 feet
I guess that TX and OK could be considered as southwestern rather than south central states. But the TX high was recorded at Monahans, in the far SW of the state. And even without Death Valley, the SW would “win”.
Gabro June 2, 2016 at 12:10 pm wrote: “TA, Correct me if wrong, but IMO the SW is the hottest region. Humidity in the central region might make the heat feel worse, however.”
Yes, you are correct, Gabro, the desert regions are hotter. That 134 temp in CA was in Death Valley I assume.
My comment was more related to the West coast and East coast versus the central U.S., not the desert regions.
Normally, around this time of year, a high pressure system will set up over the central U.S. and will just sit there and things get hotter and hotter under it as long as it stays in place.
Usually, both coasts are cooler than the central U.S. because they are near the oceans, and outside the high pressure system.
On occasion, the center of the high pressure system will not be located in the central U.S. but wil be offset to one coast or the other, which makes the coast hotter than the central U.S., because the center of the high is located there, and normally the eastern edge of the high (if the center is offset to the west) will be located over the central U.S., which brings storm fronts through the central U.S. as the jetstream arcs up over the high and then south.
That seems to be what they are describing in the NOAA forecast. I have seen this type of setup before, but usually the high pressure system will drift this way rather than sitting still out west for very long. I look forward to a cooler summer! 🙂
In the past, California had a drought that lasted for about 200 years. A high pressure system sitting on top of California, like the one predicted for this summer, would certainly cause a drought if it sat there long enough. My question would be: Is there some kind of circumstance where a high pressure system would sit over Calfornia for 200 years? Would that be necessary to cause a 200-year drought or could some other factor be the cause?
I don’t think this tornado season is going to amount to much. We haven’t had very many tornadoes and the ones we have had have mostly been lower power tornadoes. And now the season is about over. Although if the jetstream can manage to bring storm fronts into the central U.S. we might generate a few tornadoes, even later this year.
When the high pressure system is sitting on top of us, no storm fronts, or very few, can pentrate the high, so that’s the end of the tornado season usually, for us.
It’s been a real cool spring. We are going to hit our first 90 degree temperature later this week. We’ll see how it goes from there.
Dinsdale: More proof that the “warmest evah” is just natural variation and can’t be the fault of man.
That is not so. All it shows is that if there is persistent warming caused by accumulating CO2, there is also natural variability so that the “persistent warming” is not strictly monotonic. The dynamics are too complicated, and there is too much known to be unknown, for much more of an inference than that.
Wow @matthewrmarler the dropoff in UAH temps ‘shows there is persistent warming caused by….” amazing deduction from a single graph.
The dropoff in UAH show how powerful the internal variation is and how WEAK your god-C02 is.
Timo Soren,
It’s not often that I agree with Matthew (and here I only partially agree with him), but you might want to check your fire: he’s no warmist.
matthewrmarler,
The question is one of magnitude, not one of inferring that there’s an effect — laboratory experimentation and well-established physcial theory get us that much. ~3 K/2xCO2 is the value upon which different lines of evidence converge according to Knutti and Hegerl (2008), with the lower end of the lower end of the range (2 K/2xCO2) being better constrained and the upper bound of 4.5 K/2xCO2 being fuzzier and higher values being difficult to rule out.
brandon, would I be correct if I told my children that there is actually no empirical evidence that humans cause any warming – that it is assumed, based on the knowledge of physics and chemistry that we have, and of a lack of cause by any other factor? Would that be an accurate description? Thanks.
“The dynamics are too complicated.” So the science isn’t “settled?” That would explain why the climate models totally fail to predict temperatures. But what proof do you have that recent warming (or the lack thereof) isn’t completely due to natural variability?
Timo. He did say “IF.”
timo soren, ‘shows there is persistent warming caused by….”
since you truncated what I wrote, I shall repeat it: if there is persistent warming caused by accumulating CO2, there is also natural variability so that the “persistent warming” is not strictly monotonic.
the conditional is clearly stated.
brandonrgates: ~3 K/2xCO2 is the value upon which different lines of evidence converge according to Knutti and Hegerl (2008), with the lower end of the lower end of the range (2 K/2xCO2) being better constrained and the upper bound of 4.5 K/2xCO2 being fuzzier
The theories all rely on untested assumptions. For here, let me just note that the theories make different predictions for different altitudes, and to date they “run hot” at each altitude.. At the surface, the main theories ignore the non-radiative cooling of the earth surface, hence over-estimate the surface warming.
All of the energy transport processes within the climate system are poorly quantified.
I may lose my tomatoes but I planted more than usual of beets and you should do also.
[OK? .mod]
Persistent warming caused by co2 ? And your proof is models from 2002? Increased co2 man made or natural, I haven’t been convinced. There are no negative numbers, the sinks should be smaller not gigantic larger, and the rate of co2 production does not match the rate of increase in ppm/v per year. Slight warming? I’ll go along with the late 1990’s being warmer. Do I know that for sure, no. Correlation is not causation.
How did the IPCC get all the numbers to match in 2001 when the TSI was wrong? Don’t believe me, do the math. The correct TSI drops the temperature 2 to 3 C. Let’s go with 2 C the lower number. Still a huge difference. How do you explain that? That’s all the warming predicted till 2100. Even the small differences in TSI which show up in solar cycles is enough to wipe out the predicted warming.
By the way, even the current models which are lower , are still higher than the observed increases in temperature.
bazzer1959,
No, that would not be an accurate description.
matthewrmarler,
That statement relies on fantasy. Start with Harvard’s HITRAN database.
And latitudes. But no, not all models run hot at the surface:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ZY_oL2cq4r4/VQiX3rRH2aI/AAAAAAAAAYo/0VNOKoRIQJw/s1600/CMIP5%2Bvs%2BHADCRUT4%2Btrend%2B1860-2014%2B01.png
Sorry, no, non-radiative cooling at the surface is anything but ignored by the “main theories”:
Net LW loss from the surface is given as 63 W/m^2, compared to 97 W/m^2 for net sensible and latent heat transfers to the atmosphere carried away from the surface by convection. Seriously, think about what you are arguing. *IF* teh modulz “ignored” on the order of 100 W/m^2 of net flux away from the surface, they’d *really* be running damn hot.
lol. You just got done confidently declaring that teh modulz overestimate warming because they ignore non-radiative cooling. Now all of a sudden energy transport processes are poorly quantified. Which is it?
Oh never mind, whatever, fine; let’s assume that uncertainty means no problem. The best way to be certain there is a problem is for a problem to be made manifest. I agree, that is a perfectly valid scientific protocol.
Brandon Gates
A premise to the argument of Knutti and Hegerel is that the equilibrium climate sensitivity is a constant but this premise is not necessarily true. Thus there is no logical reason for belief in the proposition that the conclusion of this argument is true.
La Nina or the ENSO is cycling cold, just as the AMO and PDO are cycling cold, and solar activity is heading toward a multi-century nadir. these are predictable natural cycles the produce natural variability. If indeed these all crater at around the same time, a mini ice age is very real possibility.
Looks like El Niño as the main effect. If some of the people claiming El NIño is regulated by lunar tide precession could do a formal post, it would be nice.
Again, cooling in the presence of increased C02.
Andrew
it’s warm cooling though 🙂
It’s much worse than “warm cooling”.
Bad Andrew
You can’t establish any relation between temperature anomalies and CO2 atmospheric concentration increase over such a short term. That’s a matter you need a century for I guess…
Please download the CO2 data since 1880 into e.g. Excel, build the logarithm of that, and compare it with some surface temperature datasets (GISS, NOAA, HadCRUT4).
Bindi, i find it some what disturbing these days that so many of y’all are taking this CO2 warming thing back 150 years when the ipcc is only making a claim for the last 50 years. (and perhaps as little as just half of recent warming or less when one considers natural warming and other sources of anthro warming besides CO2) This seems to be rather new to me and i have been watching for this as i’ve always assumed that one day y’all would eventually go there. You may not exactly be drinking the kool aid, but your getting a little too close to the vat…
afonzarelli on June 1, 2016 at 4:43 pm
To be honest, afo: I’m not at all a CO2 warmism fan. I sometimes simply react on really meaningless short term relations.
The same obviously applies for the relation between CO2 emissions and its atmospheric concentration: it varies all the time, depending on how much CO2 is stored in / released off the oceans.
What imho is more interesting: to have a look at spectralcalc.com, and to plot there CO2’s absorption/emission power in the IR range (4-40µ).
Or, on the other hand, simply look up Ernst Beck paper collating 80,000+ chemical bottle CO2 readings from the last 200 years. You will see that there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature other than CO2 changes ALWAYS LAG temperature changes. It also shows the lie that CO2 was historically low until we started really realizing CO2 around 1950. CO2 had been much higher than now during three periods of the last 200 years, with two of these in the first half of the 1800s—definitely no human-released CO2.
Bindidon
Let’s see: you have approx. 20 years of temp flat lining since the second half of the 1990s [the “pause” or “hiatus”, no longer disputed even by the IPCC] and during those very same 20 years you have mankind putting into the atmosphere some 35% of all man-made CO2 since 1750 ! Massive CO2 boost – no change in temps…
Bummer negative correlation issues aside, how long do you propose we actually wait to see all that CO2 drive up temperatures as forecast by the 150+ IPCC GCMs?
higley7 on June 1, 2016 at 5:10 pm
It also shows the lie that CO2 was historically low until we started really realizing CO2 around 1950. CO2 had been much higher than now during three periods of the last 200 years, with two of these in the first half of the 1800s—definitely no human-released CO2.
Well highley… before speaking about lies, what about evaluating all possible sources you may find? One of them is (look at column 6):
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/law/law2006.txt
There are many more showing nearly the same data. Have a look at e.g.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/ice_core_co2.html
Big conspiracy?
Actually the claim is that fossil fuel emissions cause global warming, sp why not compare those two variables? Short or long term the correlation is poor.
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2016/03/07/claim-fossil-fuels-cause-global-warming/
Been there, done that. See my post a few months ago.
Regarding the Beck paper showing times earlier in the past 200 years with high CO2: CO2 near ground level in or just downwind of areas with lots of biomass and vegetation often varies greatly, and somewhat unilaterally upward from the general atmospheric level. When the sun is not shining, plants are not sinking CO2 but animals, bacteria and fungi are sourcing it, and there is usually not convection to keep the surface air mixed with the rest of the lower troposphere. When the sun is shining, plants are sinking CO2 but convection is usually keeping the lower troposphere better mixed. Studies with CO2 as does on tall towers find major deviations upward from the general atmospheric CO2 concentration are common close to the ground, downward ones much less so, and the upward deviations are a fraction as great at 1,000 feet as at ground level.
“You can’t establish any relation between temperature anomalies and CO2 atmospheric concentration increase over such a short term. That’s a matter you need a century for I guess…”
I strongly disagree. Radiation and so-called “backradiation” (that GHG are supposed to modify) process happen at literally light speed, so any CO2 atmospheric concentration variation (being much slower) should immediately show. No need to wait years or century, which effect on data would be that of a running average : filter away high frequency signals so that slower signals appears.
The trouble is, GHG effect is the kind a high frequency signal that years filter away.
Bindidon, as you well know, you can’t establish a relationship between CO2 and temperature over centuries either.
Or rather you can, but it is a negative one. IE, in every instance, the change in CO2 occurred centuries after the change in temperature.
Bindidon-
I have it on pretty good authority that somebody got cold during the last glaciation and made a small fire. Could that have ended the ice age?
You’re full of crap! Even the (best) least awful of your precious models show no effect above noise levels for CO2 added before 1950.
I have done just that. How do you explain the sinks? They should be smaller not larger. By every standard of global warming, the sinks cannot possibly be doing what there doing. How are there no negative numbers in co2 year over year, especially before 1900? One of the legs that AGW stands on is that the co2 lasts for hundreds of years in the atmosphere, that doesn’t seem to be the case. Further, with consideration of how large the current sinks are, was earlier rises in co2 the sole result of burning fossil fuels? Has some natural variations in the production of co2 been at work? Additionaly, much argumentation was spent on the ratio of isotopes in co2 with respect to its orgin. Now the green groups in California are claiming that burning fossil fuels has a radioactive source, thereby increasing the isotopic ratio when, since it was buried and not subject to cosmic rays and the like, the IPCC could tell the orgin of co2 and how long it had been in the atmosphere.
Suppose AGW is correct. How would you explain a drop in co2 ppm/v in spite of continuous production and increase in co2. In fact, in the record such an event occured, 1999. In 1999 the rate of co2 increase was below the rate of increase in 1965. I fully expect to see this again as the current el nino has ended.
Also of note, if you look at the cosmic rays AND solar cycles you will see a direct pattern for increases and decreases in the accumulation of co2.
Temperature increases associated with co2 rely too much on positive feedbacks at this level of co2 ppm/v. Additionally, higher amounts of co2 with relation to heat are log and not linear. It does not provide a refractive index to retain the IR at the stated levels. The next phase of the heat transfer does not occur in the IR spectrum but in the translational movement. Any mechanical increase is lost through work action.
More than a drop in temperature, a drop in co2 is a very big concern. Current levels of food production are probably more dependent on the current levels than we realize. A drop in both would be a diaster.
The numbers for TSI were in error. The watts in/ watts out have to be adjusted along with the relationship of temperature increase associated with co2. It results in at least a 1/3 of a decrease from 1.2 K to 0.8 K.
Maybe someone from WeatherBell can post the graphic (behind the paywall), but Ryan Maue’s NCEP CFSR CFSv2 Global 2 meter temp anomaly graph is now down to +.33C from +1.0 in March. With the current trend extrapolated, should be null in a few months and then negative.
Do models forecast El Niño and its effects?
El Nino/La Nina are considered “weather” and aren’t factored into the models.
The fact that the ENSO regions aren’t factored in to the models is one of the reasons why the models can never work. I used to be puzzled that the ENSO changes could be so easily dismissed by the alarmists and climate modelers. If the ENSO region effects went away, then the world’s climate and weather would be vastly different.
El Nino is
certainly factored into every NPR and MSM report that it’s the warmest something ever and we’re all doomed.
Nino/Nina phenomena are absent in the models as well. It is one of many qualitative differences between the modelled climate in GCMs and the real one.
I have always been annoyed by the obsessive focus on global average temperature in the GCMswhich ignores the fact that the worlds that the worlds that they describe don’t look anything like ours. The rain falls in the wrong places in the wrong amounts. Monsoons are missing. Storms are absent. ENSO doesn’t work. Ice behaves strangely. Why should we give any credence to the global average temperatures produced by models that are so unrealistic in these other respects.
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf
section 9.5.3.4.1 El Niño-Southern Oscillation
Thank you.
Your point?
Thank you Mr. Mosher,
Well worth the read. Some very interesting statements.
“Most simulations of the historical period do not reproduce the observed reduction in global mean surface warming trend over the last 10 to 15 years. There is medium confidence that the trend difference between models and observations during 1998–2012 is to a substantial degree caused by internal variability, with possible contributions from forcing error and some models overestimating the response to increasing greenhouse gas (GHG) forcing. Most, though not all, models overestimate the observed warming trend in the tropical troposphere over the last 30 years, and tend to underestimate the long-term lower stratospheric cooling trend.”
“No correlation is found between biases in global mean surface temperature and equilibrium climate sensitivity, and so mean temperature biases do not obviously affect the modelled response to GHG forcing. There is very high confidence that the primary factor contributing to the spread in equilibrium climate sensitivity continues to be the cloud feedback. This applies to both the modern climate and the LGM. There is likewise very high confidence that, consistent with observations, models show a strong positive correlation between tropospheric temperature and water vapour on regional to global scales, implying a positive water vapour feedback in both models and observations.”
“In general, there is no direct means of translating quantitative measures of past performance into confident statements about fidelity of future climate projections. However, there is increasing evidence that some aspects of observed variability or trends are well correlated with inter-model differences in model projections for quantities such as Arctic summertime sea ice trends, snow albedo feedback, and the carbon loss from tropical land. These relationships provide a way, in principle, to transform an observable quantity into a constraint on future projections, but the application of such constraints remains an area of emerging research. There has been substantial progress since the AR4 in the methodology to assess the reliability of a multi-model ensemble, and various approaches to improve the precision of multi-model projections are being explored. However, there is still no universal strategy for weighting the projections from different models based on their historical performance.”
“The omission of internally consistent feedbacks among the physical, chemical and biogeochemical processes in the Earth’s climate system is a limitation of AOGCMs.”
“The most common approach to characterize MME* results is to calculate the arithmetic mean of the individual model results, referred to as an unweighted multi-model mean. This approach of ‘one vote per model’ gives equal weight to each climate model regardless of (1) how many simulations each model has contributed, (2) how interdependent the models are or (3) how well each model has fared in objective evaluation. The multi-model mean will be used often in this chapter. Some climate models share a common lineage and so share common biases … As a result, collections such as the CMIP5 MME cannot be considered a random sample of independent models. This complexity creates challenges for how best to make quantitative inferences of future climate.”
*Multi Model Ensembles.
“The approach to model evaluation taken in the chapter reflects the need for climate models to represent the observed behaviour of past climate as a necessary condition to be considered a viable tool for future projections. This does not, however, provide an answer to the much more difficult question of determining how well a model must agree with observations before projections made with it can be deemed reliable.”
From these and other extracts I understand that the IPCC still had grave reservations as to the ability of CGCMs to predict the future with any degree of accuracy.
No.
No model can predict when the next el Nino will be.
I understood that the models predict the approximate number of El Nino’s and La Nina’s aveaged over time, but were not useful for predicting excatly when they would occur. A bit like being able to predict that certain conditions will cause thunder storms, but not being able to predict exactly when and where they will occur. The models are of climate, not weather. Is that a reasonable summary?
Let’s think about that. A proven cyclical event that occupies a very large area on the planet’s surface, with fairly well understood origins and yet it can’t be represented or predicted by dozens of models that billions have been spent on. Also, the science is settled and billions more are needed for research. No contradictions there!
John Harmsworth. It is commendable that you were able to spot that there are no contradictions there. Many here would naively view the inability to accurately forecast the detail as proof that you cannot predict the broad trends. That would, as you have spotted, be wrong. Hurricanes are proven events that cover significant portions of the globe. Just as we cannot predict when a hurricane will form, we know what conditions lead to their formation and can predict that they will occur during certain conditions only. It would be silly to say that because we cannot predict exactly when hurricanes will form means we cannot predict there will be more hurricanes in summer.
Well, that was fast. Thanks.
Is beta5 the one that is anticipated to go live? Or do you anticipate a beta6 before Version 6 is settled in?
0.55, Humbug, I predicted 0.40. I was looking for a really, really dramatic drop.
“The Last Leif Falling: Global Cooling In The Near Future”
This may be IT, folks! Break out your long underwear, cause this COULD BE the last we see of warmer global temps “EVAH”! The moment that we eggheads (and wanna be eggheads, like me…) have been waiting for has FINALLY arrived. This up and coming WILL finally separate the warmists from the skeptics. One group will finally be “RIGHT” and the other will finally be “WRONG”. (Hopefully GAIA will deliver us all from the limbo that we’ve been in for SO long) The so called “PAUSE” has represented a stalemate that in all likelihood should now END! Get yer popcorn ready, everyone, AND y’all enjoy the ride…
No NO No
The temperature fall off with with El Nina will be moderated with the increasing C02 don’t ya know.
Looks like “The Storm Channel” will have more storms to exaggerate and imply that our burning anything is their cause.
(I do miss the real “The Weather Channel”.)
Well to his credit Jim Cantore did make fun of the large spreads in the official hurricane forecast this morning.
Crystal ball says upper level sheer winds weaker under La Niña thereby chance of major Atlantic storms is higher when moon is full
If the trend of the last 2 months continues, then we might see the trend come close to the zero line by the end of August. Whatever would the alarmists say then?
The January to May 5 month average for 1998 was
(0.479 + 0.653 + 0.475 + 0.743 + 0.643)/5 = 0.5986.
The January to May 5 month average for 2016 is
(0.540 + 0.832 + 0.734 + 0.715 + 0.55)/5 = 0.6742.
This is a difference of 0.0756 C over 18 years which amounts to 0.42 C/century.
However this will be lower next month since anomalies are plummeting and the 2016 May value of 0.55 is already below the 1998 June value of 0.575.
Will 2016 beat the 1998 record? Stay tuned.
Wermer Brozek — the higher 0.0756 oC in 2016 over 1998 is due to the 60-year cycle component that reached positive peak in the sine curve in 2016 and there onwards it is in descending phase along with El Nino moving towards La Nina.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
Well… that’s a little bold. I tend to expect the current malaise to continue.
The constant fishing for more warming that occurred in the Obama administration is going to end in a Trump presidency.
The global warmers are going to have to measure warming, they aren’t going to be able to go to their computer and dial it in.
This makes it make more likely that it won’t warm.
If 2017 or 2018 is the coldest 21st century year then you might be right and global warming has a problem.
That may be. My point in bringing this up was to show that IF it was due to our CO2, it is certainly not catastrophic.
Dr S. Jeevananda Reddy: and there onwards it is in descending phase
Not known yet is whether the 2015-2016 El Nino will be followed by an epoch of higher mean temperatures, as was the 1997-1998 El Nino. The 20th century rise looks like the sum of a monotonic (nearly linear) increasing function and a sinusoidal function; I claim that we can not now tell whether that apparent trend will continue, but there are multiple models with conflicting prognoses.
Werner, did the identical months in 98 and now have the same trend. (In other words, which El Nino produced the highest 12 consecutive months regardless of which month or year.)
mothewrmarler — 60-year cycle sine curve starting from 1880, repeating and thus after 2016 show the falling trend of Sine curve upto the next 30 years.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
[But, that short cycle 60 year sine wave superimposed on a long cycle 1000 year sine wave? .mod]
Dr S Jeevananda Reddy: 60-year cycle sine curve starting from 1880, repeating and thus after 2016 show the falling trend of Sine curve upto the next 30 years.
Yes it does. We shall soon enough be able to judge how accurate that model is.
At the moment, 1998 is still ahead, but that could change. See:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/mean:12
Whilst I understand the point being made (the warming at this extrapolated rate is only modest), how can one scientifically begin to discuss a difference of 0.0756 degC with respect to global measurements given all the errors and uncertainties inherent in measuring? We cannot realistically measure to within a few tenths of a degree and to pretend that we should take note of changes of hundreds or thousands of a degree as saying something significant about Earth’s climate is absurd and anti scientific
+100
Extrapolating on a number that is a mere fraction of the overall margin of error falls in the realm of fantasy land.
1998 was not immediately followed by a strong La Nina. It sure looks like 2015 will be. Could be very interesting by yearend. Pause back, possible cooling trend.
I plan on spending the same amount of time proclaiming that the lengthening of the pause caused by the La Nina while it is still in effect, as the warmistas spent proclaiming that the El Nino was proof that global warming was back with a vengeance.
Undoubtedly, a major volcanic eruption will occur shortly to ruin your proclamation. Murphy doesn’t play favorites.
ristvan, when I look at NOAA records, they show a La Nina starting one month after the 97/98 El Nino ended. It was the longest lived one in their records at nearly 3 years. I could only find 2 La Nina’s stronger in 73/74 and 88/89. Those 2 lasted just over 1 year.
Where did I put those long johns?
The El Nino was only ever going to a transient effect.
Gone now… Strong La Nina predicted.
AMO starting to head downwards.
The Sun having a snooze
This is probably the last year of the zero temperature trend of this century.
A cooling trend is coming that will be a wake-up call to all those sucked in by the AGW alarmism.
AndyG55
“A cooling trend is coming that will be a wake-up call to all those sucked in by the AGW alarmism.”
______________________
Where have we heard that sort of prediction before?
How about here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/02/solar-cycle-24-update/
Or here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/29/don-easterbrooks-agu-paper-on-potential-global-cooling/
Maybe this time things will be different.
Both of those predict that when certain things happen, then cooing could occur.
The predicate actions are only now occurring.
MarkW
“Both of those predict that when certain things happen, then cooing could occur. The predicate actions are only now occurring.”
________________
Not so. David Archibald predicted cooling associated with solar cycle 24, which began in Jan 2008 and is now well past its peak intensity and currently in decline. Even during the period of SC24’s decline global temperatures have reached record new peaks; according to both surface and satellite sources.
Don Easterbrook associated cooling with the shift in the PDO that he reckoned started in 2000. All data sets, both surface and satellite, show continued warming since 2000, despite the cooling phase in PDO.
At what point do we call these predictions ‘failed’?
DWR54
Do you mean like all the predictions of sea level rise acceleration, which will become measurable any day now?
DWR54 June 1, 2016 at 2:53 pm
Hi,
How much crop lost has there been in the last two months due to snow freezes and hail?
This happened a couple days a go in France.
All this warmest year evah hype is beginning to remind me of that old Frank Zappa tune “Cosmik Debris”
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-wine-idUSKCN0YL1O0
michael
Just remember, those who kept predicting a crash in the mortgage market were wrong for a long time, too. Then, they weren’t.
“global temperatures have reached record new peaks”
Of course they have, all previous peaks were reduced by hammer, axe and saw.
It IS man-made global warming
Don Easterbrook’s prediction is pretty much busted.
?w=720
Figure form that post. We have diverged a lot further from Don’s projection than from any IPCC projection. To salvage his theory Don would need to come up with a reasonable explanation of why reality did not turn out like he projected.
There is a lesson in the coments too- don’t be too quick to assume nefarious motives to others.
Jared “How come a schmuck like me could look at these graphs back in the early 2000’s and clearly see we were about to go into a cold spell, yet Nobel Prize winners who invented the Internet couldn’t? One has to be blind not to see the cycles. My guess is Al Snore and his crew could see the cycles too, but they have an agenda that they want to get through and know most people are sheep, so they just disregard it.”
Dear Troll, solar cycle 24 has not ended.
On the Easterbrook chart why is the current warming period projected to be shorter than the others? Shouldn’t it have been projected to end in 2010? The warming and cooling seems to coincide with the PDO. Isn’t that full cycle about 65 years?
@DWR54…you say “Even during the period of SC24’s decline global temperatures have reached record new peaks…”. You must be unaware then of the temp lag that is maintained by the oceans. Thus the solar influence declines, but temps can continue to rise for years afterwards. That shows that the solar tsi is a minor influence for temperature change in the global climate system, mainly observed in the years close to the solar minimum.
Imo, the end of the warm trend was in 2006, from 1976/77 to 2006/07. The cycles is around 30+ years. So the next trend should be cool and end around 2036/37. I think the oceans are clearly showing a move towards cooler conditions with changes in key regions. I expect this upcoming negative ENSO to stay in place into 2018, before we see the next positive ENSO. The next solar minimum should be close by at that point in time.
”How much crop lost has there been in the last two months due to snow freezes and hail?”
The losses in the French wine growing regions were as a result of violent thunderstorms and large hail. Nothing to do with snow and freezes, and more usually associated with warm summer weather.
It was just bad luck for those who were hit, and more newsworthy because of the wine connection
DWR54,well seeing as the predictions are supposed to take some years to be discernable ( as stated in the predictions ) about 20 or 30 years
+1
Despite the month-on-month fall between April and May, the best estimate trend in UAH v6.5 beta since 1998 actually rose slightly. Up from 0.02C to 0.03C per decade since Jan 1998. May 2016 was the second warmest May in the UAH record, behind 1998. It was 0.13C warmer than the 3rd placed candidate, 2010.
Notice how the troll demonstrates the art of lying with statistics.
Despite the fact that temperatures are currently falling rapidly, they are still above the mean.
So when the troll points out that mean has increased he isn’t saying anything important or even relevant in regards to climate trends.
No one said the ‘mean’ has increased. Just that the linear ‘trend’ since 1998 (the start of the ‘pause’) has increased with this latest UAH update. That’s just a fact. Do you dispute it?
May 2016 was the second warmest May in the UAH record, behind 1998…
Does that mean it was warmer 18 years ago…
Mark W: Notice how the troll demonstrates the art of lying with statistics.
That was not a lie, just a description of an observed trend. The most relevant selection of data is everything since about 1880, and the recent near record high May slightly raises the trend observed since then. Right now, no one is saying anything important or relevant regards climate trends except those (like me!) saying that we do not have enough information to claim to know the trend over the next two decades.
Troll dances around on meanings, without addressing substance.
Replace “mean” with “linear trend” and the result is the same.
You doing the dance of the cherry pickers and trying to pretend you are relevant.
It’s a lie because it tries to tell a story that isn’t true.
Cherry picking isn’t technically lying, but the difference is hard to discern.
Let me get this right. You actually believe a trend that ends with a super El Nino is meaningful???? No one is that slow, are they? I can only assume you are intentionally being dishonest.
Since this discussion will be happening next June we can look at the trends next June after the El Nino has passed and see what is happening to the temperature trend, sea ice, etc.
Bbbbbbbuuuuut … it IS going to be …. hottest. summer. evah!
A dilemma.
Do they claim it will be now (The models say so.) or do they wait a few years and adjust it to be so?
To wait admits to a “pause”. To claim it will be “the hottest” depends on people not remembering past years, the years they’ve experienced.
OLR or ‘Cloudiness’ at the equatorial dateline 7.5S – 7.5N, 170E – 170W (large sea surface area) has been below norm for 15/16 months. Below average OLR is the result of increased cloud cover, which in turn = reduced insolation, less incoming solar energy.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/mjo/graphics/region.ts.dateline.gif
Long may we continue to live in interesting times
Less incoming solar energy for 15/16 months over a climatically important area, yet record surface temperatures globally over that same period. Interesting times indeed.
Fascinating how the mind of a troll works.
The fact that there are many things that affect temperatures is conveniently skipped over.
The idea that the influence of the now past El Nino might be able to temporarily over ride the small increase in cloud cover is ignored.
Must support the doctrine at all cost.
Ah, the instant solar effect man! Long time no see DW! Trust you and yours are all well?
Interesting stuff is water, its a bit dense, takes its own (long) time to warm and to cool. It is also choosy about where it gets its warmth from and who it gives it up to!
Yet you still think the last 15/16 months incoming solar energy has an influence on surface temperatures over the same actual period? And there I was thinking you would eventually train on. Pity…
Mark, very well put… The ONLY thing that i disagree with about your comment here is the choice of the word “Fascinating”. (i don’t think it’s “Fascinating”, i think it’s “Sickening”)…
fonzie
Green Sand
“Trust you and yours are all well?”
__________________
You too GS, sincerely. Paul Hudson has done a bunk! Is he running scared, or is he another casualty of the dreaded BBC cutbacks?
Back to business: re this ‘delay’ in solar effect: where is all this solar heat energy stored whilst in waiting to be released upon us?
If it’s in the oceans, then we should see a concurrent fall in ocean heat content during the period of surface and atmospheric warming. We see no such fall in ocean heat content; in fact, a rise!
How can this be?
DWR54: You wrote: “If it’s in the oceans, then we should see a concurrent fall in ocean heat content during the period of surface and atmospheric warming. We see no such fall in ocean heat content; in fact, a rise!
How can this be?”
It’s complex, but perfectly laid out in Bob Tisdale’s “Who Turned on The Heat” I bought the e-book. It was a thorough read, and well documented. I may do this injustice, but let me give it a whirl. And – by the way, he does not answer the question, per se, but what I learned in the book, helps me understand how heat is stored and released by ENSO.
Look at the whole Pacific Ocean, Normally during ENSO nuetral conditions, the equatorial winds blow from around Central America westward. Cool water wells up from the East and flows westward on the surface. The ocean literally piles up on the Western Pacific coast. The water warms as it travels Westward.
During La Nina, the winds blow a little harder. During El Nino, the winds die down and reverse.
During La Nina, the equatorial winds blow harder and upwell more cold water. The cold water produces fewer clouds, allowing more sun to radiate heat into the westward traveling water. This warm water piles up on the Western Pacific and is driven down deep and stored. When the ENSO turns to El Nino and the winds die down, the ocean literally sloshes/plunges down and all that heat travels in the reverse direction onto the surface. All of the heat and cold all over the world can be traced to El Nino and what Bob describes as the supercharging of the ocean heat content.
So, I think what people are claiming, and I agree, is that subtle reductions in solar energy, should accumulate less heat into the oceans. The heat can be stored for years before it shows itself.
DWR54: Interesting times indeed.
I agree. I do not believe that there is a complete and coherent explanation of all the complexities. We are stuck with incomplete descriptions of parts of the system, and poor quantifications of most energy flows.
Dear troll: Water has 1000 times the heat capacity that air does.
It only takes a tiny bit of cooling for the oceans to dramatically warm the air.
We don’t have the capability of measuring the tiny drop in temperature that is occurring. That is, we can’t measure the oceans to 1000th of a degree.
MarkkW “Fascinating how the mind of a troll works. The fact that there are many things that affect temperatures is conveniently skipped over.”
Did you read the comments up above? Apparently the fact that temperatures did not rise very much (using satellite data only) over a period proves that CO2 and temperature are not related. Are we to lable everyone who makes such an argument a troll now?
I recommend taking a leaf out of Judith Curry’s book (or blog) before labelling people as trolls. Where you find insults you often find scientific dishonesty.
DWR54:
Not exactly an issue. If there are more clouds then the LOWS will not be as low and the “average” will be higher. Isn’t that exactly what we have seen in the temperature records? It’s certainly what I see in the records in Alberta, BC, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, North West Territories and Nunavut. It isn’t getting warmer, it is getting less cold. I can live with that.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/73bzb5btpja32ms/MedicineHatExtremes.tiff?dl=0
I’ve been watching for the past 20 years and I have seen as many record cold days as record hot ones. “The hottest month in 35 years” is based on revisionist history and area, it simply is not that hot anywhere in particular. Even on Earth.
KLohrn “I’ve been watching for the past 20 years and I have seen as many record cold days as record hot ones.”
Can you point me to the lowest global temperature reports you mention? I do not recall any such.
DWR54
Not sure how this works but hopefully it finds you. Locally the word is Hudson has other fish to fry, onwards and upwards etc, not really interested as I am in a similar situation. Life dictates time and I am not really enthused in playing games:-
“Back to business: re this ‘delay’ in solar effect: where is all this solar heat energy stored whilst in waiting to be released upon us?”
You know and have known, for at least 5 years to my personal knowledge, how the ‘warm pool’ is charged during generally accepted ‘La Nina’ conditions and released during generally accepted ‘El Nino’ conditions. Not only do you have knowledge of the processes, you have at times expressed yourself as being an ‘informed’ person carrying out your own research on the delay between ENSO, global and Trop temperatures. So DW whilst I love you dearly, please train on!
Give it a rest because you are blatantly justifying the nomenclature you are presently objecting to.
PS just in case the clouds have not yet cleared – less solar insulation over the last 15/16 months can only have an effect upon the strength/timing of the next El Nino and who knows when that may or may not appear?
We live in interesting times! Not as some think in the known unknown future
Naturally, the decreased OLR as a result of increased cloud cover over a Niño warmed Pacific surface is also the reason for the tropospheric temperature spike?
Full marks for realizing it is not CO2. Yet both the reflectance from those cloud tops and the solar near IR absorbed by the liquid clouds and surrounding vapor and dissipated to the atmosphere to further tropospheric warming, represent a lot of energy the ocean in your section through the Niño zone did not receive.
This is going to bite you my friend. Godzilla, I mean gecko, is gone. Upwelling of cold water along the coasts of the Americas and along the ITCZ will rule. Tropospheric temperature free fall…until clearer skies allow the trade winds to pile enough warm water against Indonesia again…
Of course It depends upon which wavelengths are being blocked by the cloud cover. Some wavelengths penetrate quite a long way into the oceans.Perhaps its the reduction in these long penetrating wavelengths which has given rise the the mass of cooler water below the surface which by surfacing has quickly ended this El Nino
Dump of almost 1 metre across the three skifields here in NZ that I just happen to possess a Three-Mountain current-year pass for. nzski.com Thanks, Climate Gods!
Wayne
You needed the gods. Autumn here has been so warm.
Assuming you are talking Australia, east coast, the start of winter has been record breaking cold.
The surface winds have much to do with the difference between warm or cool. No need for gods..https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/orthographic=-223.30,-35.84,497
I will get on my usual enthalpy horse for a bit. The temperature of the surface of the earth averaged over its area is declining after an increase. The total enthalpy of the first thousand feet or so hasn’t changed all that much before, during, or after. All that has happened is that the matter with higher enthalpy was more evenly spread on the surface. When the we can get people to wake up to the fact that “climate change” caused by CO2 implies increased enthalpy and we simply have not observed much of that in the past number of years, the escathological cargo cult of the CAGW can be buried.
Watch now as the heat vanishes into the deep oceans without a trace. Amazing stuff, CO2 heat.
” Watch now as the heat vanishes into the deep oceans without a trace. ”
Into the “old” deep water, or the “young” deep water? LOL
Dangerous! And now it’s gaining invisibility!
MarkW
“Fascinating how the mind of a troll works.”
_______________
I wish you would stop referring to me as a ‘troll’, Mark; because I’m not.
I’m genuinely interested in how this debate developed and in how it pans out and, I must say I, appreciate Anthony Watts’s efforts in that respect, even though I disagree with his viewpoint.
DWR54: “…even though I disagree with his viewpoint.”
On what grounds?
Climate models can’t predict the effect of GHG emissions.
The global air temperature record is so inaccurate it cannot support any claim of an unprecedented rate or rise in surface air temperature.
Proxy climate reconstructions reveal nothing about paleo-temperature.
What’s left of your case?
All of AGW comes down to a political narrative decorated with mathematics. Much of it can be diagnosed as pseudo-science.
DWR54: I wish you would stop referring to me as a ‘troll’, Mark; because I’m not.
fwiw (usually not much), I agree that you are not a troll.
If you aren’t a troll, engage in honest debate.
Stop ignoring most of the relevant factors.
Stop using cherry picked dates.
Those are the strategies that trolls use.
I would like to see someone like Willis produce a chart and regression of (a) the positive or negative rate of temperature change month to month and (b) the functionality and accessibility of climate charts and data at custodian sites such as NOAA, BOM etc. I would conjecture they would rise and fall together.
Here is rate of change info
https://micro6500blog.wordpress.com/2015/11/18/evidence-against-warming-from-carbon-dioxide/
Werner Brozek on June 1, 2016 at 2:25 pm
The January to May 5 month average for 1998 was
(0.479 + 0.653 + 0.475 + 0.743 + 0.643)/5 = 0.5986.
The January to May 5 month average for 2016 is
(0.540 + 0.832 + 0.734 + 0.715 + 0.55)/5 = 0.6742.
This is a difference of 0.0756 C over 18 years which amounts to 0.42 C/century.
You are right! But you forgot to mention the source (UAH6.0beta5). This is the lower troposphere at an altitude of about 4 km, with absolute temperatures lower than at surface by about 24 °C.
Let’s talk about the surface average differences (from january to april, this shouldn’t matter very much here):
– http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/time_series/HadCRUT.4.4.0.0.monthly_ns_avg.txt
– http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
That gives:
– HadCRUT4: 0.406 °C;
– GISS/TEMP: 0.540 °C.
That gives for e.g. HadCRUT4 a difference of 2.25 °C/century.
TLT isn’t surface, and even the radiosonde world has its own peculiarities, it differs from both too 🙂
I did not think it was necessary since that is what this whole post was about. The very first sentence says:
“UAH Global Temperature Update for May, 2016: +0.55 deg. C”
Furthermore, only UAH is out so far for May. Not even RSS is out. As for the others, they are continually being adjusted so now the pause is gone.
Werner Brozek on June 1, 2016 at 8:20 pm
Furthermore, only UAH is out so far for May.
Was that the point in my comment?
I don’t think so, Werner…
I did address your other point with my last sentence:
“As for the others, they are continually being adjusted so now the pause is gone.”
See:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/05/hadcrut4-adjustments-discovering-missing-data-or-reinterpreting-existing-data-now-includes-september-data/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/05/is-wti-dead-and-hadcrut-adjusts-up-again-now-includes-august-data-except-for-hadcrut4-2-and-hadsst3/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/09/huge-divergence-between-latest-uah-and-hadcrut4-revisions-now-includes-april-data/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/01/is-there-evidence-of-frantic-researchers-adjusting-unsuitable-data-now-includes-july-data/
Benben, lets us talk about then entire atmosphere and where the greatest warming per the IPCC physics say it is suppose to occur, but simply is not…
See benben, the models are simply wrong throughout.
Hi David A.
Could you give us newbies a brief description of this graph you have posted.
The global electric circuit has links to atmospheric pressures.
hi Carla, it simply shows the RCP 4.5 (not the worst case scenario) models listed vs. the observations in .1 degree increments per decade. The models progressively get worse throughout the atmosphere until a forced crossing. The models fail throughout the atmosphere.
Bindidon
Historically the UAH, RSS and radio sond data sets have shown closely similar results – that is until RSS was persuaded a while ago to “adjust” its methodology, upping its numbers.
For the first couple of decades of the CAGW/CACC story, the various go-to cardinals of the climate establishment told us ad nauseam that the TLT was the source of all temperature verity – the canary in the coal mine, and the place where we would find the incriminating hotspot fingerprints of our anthropogenic CO2 sins.
That is, until the separately sourced, separately analyzed satellite and radio sond TLT data sets refused to cooperate, showing instead something close to flat lining since the latter half of the 1990s Then -officially- TLT data were no longer useful – strange that – and we have since been treated to some 70 different explanations for the flat lining -even though the science is of course settled. BTW, those very same climate establishment cardinals knew about the flat lining around 2007 – as evidenced by Trenberth’s famous email saying ” there is an absence of warming and it’s a travesty we can’t explain it”.
Meanwhile we would all be wise to treat GISS and HadCRUT data as worse than poison because as long as anyone continues to accept it at face value, we continue to lend what is essentially badly contaminated GIGO garbage credence it absolutely does not deserve.
tetris wrote: “Meanwhile we would all be wise to treat GISS and HadCRUT data as worse than poison because as long as anyone continues to accept it at face value, we continue to lend what is essentially badly contaminated GIGO garbage credence it absolutely does not deserve.”
Absolutely! We are just playing into their Alarmist propaganda by treating this data as legitimate.
tetris on June 2, 2016 at 9:52 am
Sorry tetris, your explanations concerning a similarity between UAH, RSS and the radiosonde world are simply not correct.
Please download UAH6.0beta5 TLT, RSS4.0 TTT, GISS and RATPAC B monthly combined from their respective sources, normalize them wrt UAH’s baseline and compare the result, e.g. since Jan 1997:
(scalable pdf format: http://fs5.directupload.net/images/160529/qk9fdeln.pdf).
1. You can clearly see here that UAH6.0beta5 TLT measurements show anomalies below RATPAC B sondes at a pressure level of 250 hPa. That means an altitude of about 10 km.
But the average absolute temperature measured by UAH in 2015 was about -9 °C, i.e. 24 °C lower than the temperature at the surface (about 15 °C). That means an altitude of about 4 km… how is that possible?
2. Look at GISS (surface) and RSS4.0 TTT (whole troposphere): they show a quite similar anomaly trend, but still far below RATPAC surface measurements!
You can take RAOBCORE, RICH or any freely chosen IGRA radiosonde subset you might extract yourself: you will obtain similar results.
tetris on June 2, 2016 at 9:52 am / TA on June 2, 2016 at 11:32 am
Meanwhile we would all be wise to treat GISS and HadCRUT data as worse than poison…
I guess you couldn’t really explain what you mean here! Let’s talk facts instead.
Here some trend info in °C per decade (without 2 sigma CI, not of interest here) concerning five surface, one radiosonde and three satellite records, all encompassing the satellite era since Jan 1979 till Dec 2015.
– Berkeley Earth: 0.172
– HadCRUT4: 0.165
– Japan’s JMA: 0.132
– NASA/GISS: 0.163
– NOAA: 0.158
– RATPAC B 700 hPa (LT, 3 km): 0.157
– RATPAC B 500 hPa (LT, 5.5 km): 0.158
– UAH5.6 LT: 0.142
– UAH6.0beta5 LT: 0.114
– RSS3.3 LT: 0.123
We are here within an anomaly interval of no more than 0.172 – 0.114 = 0.058 °C / decade, i.e. around 0.6 °C per century!
Please keep on Earth, the GIGO you’re talking about must be somewhere else 🙂
P.S. One day somebody will have to explain why temperatures measured by radiosondes in the lower tropsphere are at exactly the same level at those measured at the surface using thermometers… and not at the level measured by satellites via O2’s microwave brightness.
That gives for e.g. HadCRUT4 a difference of 2.25 °C/century.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/time_series/HadCRUT.4.4.0.0.annual_ns_avg.txt
1850 was -.375,. 2015 0.746, 2016 0.989 (so far but dropping).
Looks like 2016 HadCrut4 is going to be about as warm as 2015 (any dispute will be revisited at the end of the year).
So 0.746 – – 0.375 = 1.121. Divided by 1.66 (centuries) that dives a HadCrut4 difference of 0.675 °C/century.
PA on June 2, 2016 at 2:01 pm
Could you please read comments before answering?
Here is what Brozek wrote:
Werner Brozek on June 1, 2016 at 2:25 pm
The January to May 5 month average for 1998 was
(0.479 + 0.653 + 0.475 + 0.743 + 0.643)/5 = 0.5986.
The January to May 5 month average for 2016 is
(0.540 + 0.832 + 0.734 + 0.715 + 0.55)/5 = 0.6742.
This is a difference of 0.0756 C over 18 years which amounts to 0.42 C/century.
What I answered was that if you choose HadCRUT4 instead of UAH6.0beta5 to determine the difference of these two January-May averages, you obtain 0.406 °C, i.e. 2.25 °C / century.
What in the world does that have to do with HadCRUT’s trend since 1850?
Well, lets take a more honest comparison than the one you used.
The El Ninos aren’t the same type or temporally aligned. Picking a sequence of months is cherry picking.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/time_series/HadCRUT.4.4.0.0.annual_ns_avg.txt
The 1998 El Nino year according to Hadcrut4 is 0.536
The 2015 El Nino year is 0.746
The difference is 0.21
There is an 17 year difference.0.21/0.17 = 1.24°C/century.
Even though the hottest months of the El Nino were this year, we still might not set a record. It doesn’t look like the temperature for 2016 is going to be a lot different than 2015. Assuming 2016 comes in equal to 2015 that is 1.17°C/century which is higher than long term average but not that much higher.
The 1998 El Nino didn’t peak until February and didn’t decay until August. When September rolls around we’ll revisit your comparison for 8 months and see what we see.
Your bigger problem is 2017 or 2018 could set the record for coldest year this century. And with Trump in the White House the temperatures won’t be “wind assisted”.
PA on June 2, 2016 at 5:55 pm
Please, PA: tell that W. Brozek, not me! He is the cherry-picker here.
My way to compare looks like this:
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/160507/yu22yeo6.jpg
OK?
PA, I think the more correct comps would be 97:15 and 98:16.
I think a big difference between the two is that the 97/98 was preceded by a quick la nina burst which super charged the IPWP. I think, but haven’t verified, that 97/98 had more intense westerly’s pushing heat into el nino 1&2 regions and transferring heat more into the continental northern tropical and mid latitudes. My guess is that more heat ended up over the pacific ocean and northern mid continental atmosphere this time. Less SW contribution to eastern pacific in 15/16 too.
Well… the problem with the 97:15 98:16 comparison is the 2015/2015 El Nino really started in October 2014. The 1997/1998 El Nino started in April of 1997. 1997 started in La Nina territory. 2015 started in El Nino territory.
2016 is exactly following 1998 except 0.1°C warmer.
The ONI chart was changed the last day or two… It used to show the 2015/2016 El Nino with a 1/10 °C higher peak. The numbers have been rearranged to make 2016 and 1998 virtually identical.
Posted two days ago…
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/30/may-2016-enso-update-the-201516-el-nino-has-reached-its-end/comment-page-1/#comment-2226677
Hi Bob,
Thank you for your work.
I just plotted UAH Lower Troposphere (UAHLT) global temperature anomalies vs Nino34 anomalies and there appears to be a fair-to-good correlation especially for the 1997-98 and 2015-16 El Nino’s, with a ~4-month lag of UAHLT after Nino34.
It appears reasonable to conclude that global temperatures will fall steeply for the rest of 2016 and then continue to decline for an equal or greater time, but on a flatter trajectory.
I also predicted net global cooling (defined as colder than +0.2C UAHLT anom) by about mid-2017 based on low solar activity, but hope to be wrong about that. Warm is good, cold is bad – it IS that simple.
Regards to all, Allan
I was thinking of making just such a plot to make a rough forecast of what UAH will do in the next 3-12 mo.
It would be interesting if you could post your plot.
TonyL – trying to post graph – hope this works…
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1012901348787427&set=a.1012901982120697.1073741826.100002027142240&type=3&theater
Success with posting of graph, TonyL!
I do wonder why the 1982-83 El Nino had so little effect on UAHLT.
But as noted in my above post “there appears to be a fair-to-good correlation especially for the 1997-98 and 2015-16 El Nino’s, with a ~4-month lag of UAHLT after Nino34.”
In the green line, I multiplied the UAHLT temperatures *3 and lagged them by 4 months.
Regards, Allan
Allan MacRae – “I do wonder why the 1982-83 El Nino had so little effect on UAHLT.”
El Chichon volcanic eruptions. Early April 1982, -0.4C cooling impact lasting for 3 years with a diminishing effect over time of course.
Thank you Bill Illis.
Those pesky volcanoes – they just love to mess up otherwise beautiful correlations.
Tell that to someone in Florida. Heat bad. Cold good.
If, all of a sudden, you guys got the same climate we have here in New England, your economy would crumble.
Glenn999 – suggest you read this.
COLD WEATHER KILLS 20 TIMES AS MANY PEOPLE AS HOT WEATHER
June 13, 2015
By Joseph D’Aleo and Allan MacRae
https://friendsofsciencecalgary.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/cold-weather-kills-macrae-daleo-4sept2015-final.pdf
Cold weather kills. Throughout history and in modern times, many more people succumb to cold exposure than to hot weather, as evidenced in a wide range of cold and warm climates.
Evidence is provided from a study of 74 million deaths in thirteen cold and warm countries including Thailand and Brazil, and studies of the United Kingdom, Europe, the USA, Australia and Canada.
Contrary to popular belief, Earth is colder-than-optimum for human survival. A warmer world, such as was experienced during the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period, is expected to lower winter deaths and a colder world like the Little Ice Age will increase winter mortality, absent adaptive measures.
These conclusions have been known for many decades, based on national mortality statistics.
Florida’s economy would crumple. All the tourist would be going to the Arctic to see palm trees…
sorry to be so flippant folks; just having a little fun in my sarc-tag-free world.
But I really bum out having to run my AC 8 months out of the year.
maybe we’re spoiled in FL
Allan, it remains to be seen what a solar min after a weak (but prolonged) solar max will do. This is uncharted (and very interesting) territory. I never thought the solar max/el nino would ever end; it’s been dullsville for climate change junkies up until now. So this is (finally) IT !!! I think some extended global cooling would be a worthy trade off for a number of reasons. Primarily, i think it will be necessary so as to prove beyond a shadow of a (ferdinand engelbeen) doubt that your theory of carbon growth rate/ temperature is true. This would go a long way toward falsifying agw theory. Secondly, colder temps may force the end of this foolish quest for green energy, especially in europe, so that poor people can begin once again to heat their homes in winter. So cooler temps (hopefully) will mean warmer (but perhaps hungry) people. And lastly, but not leastly, wouldn’t it be nice to shut the “greens” up for good? This has been a rather obnoxious period in human history. A little cooler weather will go a long way toward the making of a humbler humanity…
fonzie
Agree with you, Fonzie. I hope you and yours are all well.
Not sure what all is driving the growth of atm. CO2, could be many factors, both natural and humannmade, but I do expect this growth rate to flatten in a cooling world.
But here is the downside if I am right about imminent global cooling (posted in 2013) – so I hope to be wrong:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/31/blind-faith-in-climate-models/#comment-1462890
An Open Letter to Baroness Verma
“All of the climate models and policy-relevant pathways of future greenhouse gas and aerosol emissions considered in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) recent Fifth Assessment Report show a long-term global increase in temperature during the 21st century is expected. In all cases, the warming from increasing greenhouse gases significantly exceeds any cooling from atmospheric aerosols. Other effects such as solar changes and volcanic activity are likely to have only a minor impact over this timescale”.
– Baroness Verma
I have no Sunspot Number data before 1700, but the latter part of the Maunder Minimum had 2 back-to-back low Solar Cycles with SSNmax of 58 in 1705 and 63 in 1717 .
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/space-weather/solar-data/solar-indices/sunspot-numbers/international/tables/
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/solar/image/annual.gif
The coldest period of the Maunder was ~1670 to ~1700 (8.48dC year average Central England Temperatures) but the coldest year was 1740 (6.84C year avg CET).
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/data/download.html
The Dalton Minimum had 2 back-to-back low SC’s with SSNmax of 48 in 1804 and 46 in 1816. Tambora erupted in 1815.
Two of the coldest years in the Dalton were 1814 (7.75C year avg CET) and 1816 (7.87C year avg CET).
Now Solar Cycle 24 is a dud with SSNmax estimated at ~65, and very early estimates suggest SC25 will be very low as well.
The warmest recent years for CET were 2002 to 2007 inclusive that averaged 10.55C.
I suggest with confidence that 10.5C is substantially warmer as a yearly average than 8.5C, and the latter may not provide a “lovely year for Chrysanths”.
I further suggest with confidence that individual years averaging 7.8C or even 6.8C are even colder, and the Chrysanths will suffer.
So here is my real concern:
IF the Sun does indeed drive temperature, as I suspect, Baroness Verma, then you and your colleagues on both sides of the House may have brewed the perfect storm.
You are claiming that global cooling will NOT happen, AND you have crippled your energy systems with excessive reliance on ineffective grid-connected “green energy” schemes.
I suggest that global cooling probably WILL happen within the next decade or sooner, and Britain will get colder.
I also suggest that the IPCC and the Met Office have NO track record of successful prediction (or “projection”) of global temperature and thus have no scientific credibility.
I suggest that Winter deaths will increase in the UK as cooling progresses.
I suggest that Excess Winter Mortality, the British rate of which is about double the rate in the Scandinavian countries, should provide an estimate of this unfolding tragedy.
As always in these matters, I hope to be wrong. These are not numbers, they are real people, who “loved and were loved”.
Best regards to all, Allan MacRae
Turning and tuning in the widening gyre,
the falcon cannot hear the falconer…
– Yeats
Allan, what’s the (very) latest on SC25? Thanx…
As far as SC25:
It looks like the Umbral magnetic field is if anything weakening.
SC25 at best will be as strong as 24. If the field declines to 1500 gauss, SC25 is going to be very quiet.
Thankyou PA, these are uncharted waters… (this should be fun to watch!)
Fonz re SC25:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/28/bbc-real-risk-of-a-maunder-minimum-little-ice-age/#comment-1461494
Allan MacRae says: October 30, 2013 at 11:38 am
Have you made any prediction for SC25?
lsvalgaard says: October 30, 2013 at 11:43 am
A highly speculative one is here: http://www.leif.org/research/apjl2012-Liv-Penn-Svalg.pdf
Come 2016 we should see the new polar field build and from then on I think we can predict with some confidence, not before.
DECREASING SUNSPOT MAGNETIC FIELDS EXPLAIN UNIQUE 10.7 cm RADIO FLUX
By extrapolating our sunspot formation fraction to the predicted peak of Cycle 24 (in mid-2013) the sunspot formation fraction would be approaching 0.5. This suggests a rather small SSN for this cycle, in agreement with some recent Cycle 24 predictions (Svalgaard et al. 2005; Hathaway 2012). And while there is no physical mechanism which suggests that we should extrapolate further, it is fascinating to see that the sunspot formation fraction would drop below 0.2 by 2020. This would suggest that although magnetic flux would be erupting at the solar surface during Cycle 25, only a small fraction of it would be strong enough to form visible sunspots or pores.
Such behavior would be highly unusual, since such a small solar maximum has not been observed since the Maunder Minimum. During that period from roughly 1645 to 1715, few sunspots were observed, although cosmic-ray studies suggest the Sun did have a functioning magnetic activity cycle (Usoskin et al. 2001); this is consistent with the scenario provided by our fit extrapolation.
A recent study of sunspot records suggests that the Maunder Minimum began with two small sunspot cycles with roughly the same amplitude as predicted by our extrapolation for Cycle 25 (Vaquero et al. 2011). Finally, it is interesting to note that there seems to be a strange lack of the normal precursors for Cycle 25 as observed with helioseismic and coronal emission line indicators (Hill et al. 2011; Altrock 2011).
************
Thank you Leif. You suggest, at a highly speculative level, that SC25 looks very weak.
You and NASA are apparently in approximate agreement, although it is still very early in the game.
This suggests that I should consider moving south – ‘way south.
Best regards, Allan
Fonz – I emailed Leif and he sent this:
http://www.leif.org/research/Comparing-HMI-WSO-Polar-Fields.pdf
Wish I had more time to study. Still looks a bit early for his prediction basis – see slides 3 and 4.
“Preliminarily it looks like a repeat of Cycle 24, or at least not any smaller.”
Best, Allan
No Allan, warm isn’t good, at least for us here in Europe, sorry to be sooo egocentric.
Global warming inevitably means local cooling in the northwest Atlantic through increase of ice melting.
More cooling at ocean’s surface means more atmospheric perturbations, more precipitations, and over the long term a possible disturbance in the thermohaline circulation in the ocean near us.
Really Bindidon?
Witness the death rate in Northern Europe during the Little Ice Age – up to 1/3 of some Northern populations died.
So you say that global warming causes European cooling, and global cooling also causes European cooling? Right-o!
Bob,
Thanks for your great work. I looked at the LT data set and plotted it against a true 13-month LP filter and a linear least squares fit. The next few month will be interesting. A link to the plot is:
https://www.icloud.com/sharedalbum/#B0h5oqs3qGcal2A
If I can help with any data analysis let me know.
Regards,
Rick
rbspielman,
Assuming your 13 point filter is centered, the filter should start 7 points after the start of the data and end 7 points before the end of the data. It appears you have padded the start and end of the filter (with zero’s?) making the first and last 6 months of the filter of dubious value.
Are you sure you meant to post this on Roy Spencer’s post?
Can someone tell the Danes to please get with the program?
Thank you.
Don’t worry about the cooling, don’t worry about the data, 6 months from now when the data has been “clarified” it will all be gone. Move along now, nothing to see.
The problem with CAGW alarmists propagandizing strong El Nino warming spikes as CO2 induced, is that once the El Nino cycles is over, it’s replaced by La Nina global cooling….
The current La Nina cycle has every indication of becoming one of the coldest La Nina cycles since 1982, which means global temps will soon spike downward for at least the next two years. By the beginning of 2018 or so, the La Nina cooling should completely offset the 2015/16 El Nino warming spike, and the “Hiatus” starting from the middle of 1996 should reappear. How will CAGW warmunists explain away a 22-year “hiatus”? They won’t be able to.
In addition, the PDO and AMO will both be in their respective 30-year cool cycles from around 2020, and when this happens, global temps have ALWAYS fallen (at least since 1850).
To add a nice little cherry on top, the current solar cycle will be at its lowest point from 2020, and the next solar cycle starting in 2022 will likely be the weakest since the Dalton Minimum started in 1790… Oh, my…
By 2022 or so, the disparity between CAGW global warming projections vs. reality will exceed 3 standard deviations for 25+ years… At that point of singularity, any honest scientist or well-informed person will have to concede CAGW is a completely disconfirmed hypothesis…
What’s always bothered me about CAGW is that it assumes CO2 forcing per doubling will generate exponential warming, however, CO2 forcing effect is actually a logarithmic function (5.35 watts/M^2*ln(560ppm/280ppm)….
How can a frigging logarithmic forcing effect generate exponential warming??? Well…. it can’t.. Each incremental increase of CO2 has less and less of a logarithmic effect, and that’s PRECISELY what long-term global temp trends are showing…
CAGW is so dead.
Cooling is relative as it has cooled off April and the cooling is on the way, but it still is the warmest May on the NCEP record and I suspect it will be on UAH too. NCEP CFSR has had 7 of last 8 months as warmest, including last 4 in a row, but I think June will not be.
Joe– What I find so humorous about CAGW alarmist talking about “the warmest month/year evah” is that such data is completely meaningless absent trend data…
It reminds of the 38-year old village idiot that believes he’s still growing because he’s been at his tallest height for the past 20 years…..
The fact of the matter is that the village idiot stopped growing at 18….
When the village idiot retorts he can show a linear growth trend between the ages of 10 and 38, it still doesn’t negate the fact that he stopped growing at 18….
And so it goes…
Who’s the idiot here?
Well it appears you are Bob, After all it took quite a few years for your average climate warrior to notice the pause, despite all the evidence, and even now some are still indulging in esoteric sophistry to wish it away.
Sparky – there is no need for esoteric sophistry to wish away the pause. A simple recourse to the definition supplied by Lord Monckton will do. The pause has not disappeared, but it stands at about 4 months.
For UAH, May 1998 was the warmest May. (0.643 in 1998 versus 0.55 in 2016)
As for RSS, I expect it to be lower also but we will have to wait and see.
The planet is definitely warming. If only we knew why. CO2 is not doing very much of it, unless, like a virus, it has suddenly learned new tricks it has never before possessed in earth history.
…unless, like a virus, it has suddenly learned new tricks…
But it needs no new tricks, gymnosperm!
CO2 was born a few million years after the Big Bang, and does since that time the same job: where it is, to absorb and partly reemit IR radiation between 1 and 30 µ.
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/160603/id6cbw4x.jpg
Until last year I didn’t think it would ever become possible to measure that, but…
http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/
Today it seems that the abosrption lines in the HITRAN-2012 database inbetween are so fine that you become aware to make a difference between back radiation originating from carbon dioxide, water vapor or the other “GHG” gases like CH4, N2O etc etc.
Lots of people repeatedly tell us back radiation be in contradiction to the 2nd law of Thermodynamics, but ignore the fact that at many places in the troposphere it is simply warmer than at the surface.
Everybody who downloads and evaluates the complete IGRA radiosonde dataset soon knows about the temperatures at the different pressure layers above us.
Well…
If you look at the UAH data – the rest of the year is going to have to have a net negative anomaly to avoid a “warmest year” and the same is probably true of NCEP.
Now the question is: if 2017 or 2018 are the coldest year in the 21st Century what does this tell us? The first year a new global 21st Century cold record is set it is “game over” for the pause deniers.
You guys all belong in the loony bin. You’re like a dog chasing his tail. Give it up, you’re all wrong. There are always at least two sides to every story, but your side is indefensible; philosophically and mathematically. You all talk of conspiracies that are figments of your imaginations. Wake up! There must be better ways to spend your time.
“There are always at least two sides to every story, but your side is indefensible; philosophically and mathematically. ”
i notice you didn’t include scientifically. 😉
Or even actually!
Out in the forest looking for rabbits?
Yes bobthevillageidiot, we “must” be wrong. Because otherwise, you’d have to change your irrationally- arrived- at climate ideology. No, much easier to keep guzzling the Kool Ade, right bob?
I love it when trolls come here to tell us how we are wrong.
But can’t manage to make an actual argument. As usual it’s all whine and complaining.
The definition of irony! Bob tells us there are two sides to every story. But then goes on to say that there is only one truth regarding climate change, it that truth is his. “But Bob… I thought you said there were two sides to every story?”
So if the global average goes up by 0.1, it’s just made up because you can’t measure a global average with that precision. If it goes down 0.1, then it’s a sign of massive global cooling…
Apples and oranges.
The warming claims are based on the ground based temperature network, which has error bars of somewhere between 5C and 10C. So a 0.1C change is meaningless.
The article references the satellite measurement system which can measure the temperature of the earth to within 0.1C.
So satellites, which don’t actually measure temperature directly, don’t cover the whole planet, and integrate over a huge portion of the (not constant) atmosphere can measure to 0.1C. But you can’t read a thermometer to closer than 5-10C. Yea, that makes perfect sense. (not bashing satellites, they’re extremely important and useful)
PD,
It’s not the thermometer reading that has error bars that large, but the cooked book, phony, science fiction, corrupt “surface data” sets which have big margins of error.
pd, your a little late for school on this one. This has been discussed here a lot. Your 4 line comment isn’t going to impress anyone here. Publish several well reassured articles and maybe we can talk.
While we all stare at the short-term ups and downs of the global temperatures, pay a little thought to the fact that the Earth’s orbit around the Sun causes snow in the winter and warmth during the summer, so it may be important?
Perihelion presently occurs around January 3, (Northern hemisphere winter, Southern summer) while aphelion is around July 4. Therefore, the southern hemisphere receives more solar radiation and is therefore warmer in summer and colder in winter (aphelion). The Northern hemisphere has cooler summers and milder winter (solar radiation-wise).
Also the northern hemispheres autumn and winter are slightly shorter than spring and summer, because the Earth is moving faster around the Sun in winter slower in summer.
This alone could account for “Global Warming” attributed to CO2, (which no doubt plays some part in it).
Over the next 10,000 years, northern hemisphere winters will become gradually longer and summers will become shorter, due to the change in the Earth’s Orbital Eccentricity.
Couple this with changes in the Earth’s tilt, which varies from 22.1 degrees to 24.5 degrees, (currently at 23.4 degrees). More tilt means more solar radiation gets to the poles (global warming) and less tilt means less radiation gets to the poles (global cooling). The last maximum tilt occurred in 8700 BC (Holocene maximum) and the next minimum tilt will happen in 11,800 AD (the advance of the ice sheets), precisely at the time of longer northern winters and shorter summers.
So while the moronic greens, politicians, and other activists are jumping up and down, quixotically legislating and paying monetary sacrifices to the Great God CO2, in the hope of appeasing it, the Earth is going along its own merry way slipping inexorably towards its next ice age.
For an Ol’ I&E designer down here in Texas, I truly enjoy learning on this site. Thanks to all.
Yes, on this matter it appears U.N. has failed. But have they? An excuse being used to pursue their goals.
We have seen that the truth will take time to appear. About 2020! Based on multiple discussions, U.N. goals,
religious goals, and on and on, ETC etc….. Even here you can search on year 2020, as well as the web.
Smoke and mirrors is all I actually see.
It will be interesting to see what comes next. The major difference between the 1998 el nino and this one is that in 1998 the sun was increasing in solar activity, while this one solar activity is decreasing. The best CAGW scientists can do now is show a log increase ( calling doctor data, calling doctored ata, stat) in temps and not an expo.As for the catastrophic part, it is a complete failure along with the temp projections. The warmest are are no where near projections.
While warming is speckled with wild speculation of impending doom, catastrophic global cooling is for certain. The four horsemen come trotting out when it gets colder. Nuclear weapons certainly adds to that dimension of ” Nightmare on Earth ” . ( hey China, the little captain may not be pointing his sword solely at the US if he doesn’t get his way, in fact what is he thinking? without US presence in Korea, there is no reason N. Korea wouldn’t be just another province, I’m sure he’s thinking about Tibet ) Not once in human history has cooling been good….. opps wait, I just checked the hockey stick graph, nope, no warming or cooling for the last several thousand years. (sarc on the hockey stick)
I recall a professor in an earth science lecture saying: “Our science is a continual process of 3 steps forward and 2 steps backward”
The problem we have is that alarmists have taken 10 steps forward. I wonder who will become the denialists if their theory turns to custard
Here’s 2 simple questions,
1) “While we had El Nino, the ocean was throwing lots of extra water vapour into the atmosphere and raising the atmosphere’s temperature. Additionally this extra water vapour must have been causing more warming feedback to the surface (the AGW amplifier). Overall how much of the El Nino warming was caused by heat from the ocean and how much by the additional feedback from the additional water vapour?”
2) What value of transient climate sensitivity can be deduced from the answer to Q1?
I calculated the sensitivity of the min and max surface station air temp to the change in solar energy calculated for that station location by latitudinal bands. This is temperature change F per day for a change of 1 watt/M^2 as the isolation changes throughout the year.
https://micro6500blog.wordpress.com/2016/05/18/measuring-surface-climate-sensitivity/
You realize that if the TSI declines as little as 0.5 w/m^2 , it’ll completely wipe out any warming induced feedback. There was a post not long ago about the decline in TSI from SORCE. Interesting times ahead.
I’m not sure there is any. If there is it’s not measurable.
And the N20-N30 graph shows the step in temp from the 97 El Nino, but it also shows it didn’t happen anywhere else.
Oh my solar input I’m pretty sure came from here
http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant
And I will confirm this.
The correct number is 1360 w/m^2 and some tenths. The previous numbers vary depending from 1370 to 1368. That gives a difference of 2 to 3 C lower in all calculations. Do the math yourself. The reason those numbers are high is that light was leaking into the instrument…. . If they are talking about tenths of a degree, 0.5 w/m^2 overwhelms it.
I haven’t seen anywhere a revision from CAGW using the correct number. I was initially against using the corrected number. However, I have checked and that is right.
I looked at the link you provided all the w/m^2 were about 1368.
It also impacts the calculation from adding co2 in the atmosphere lowering the stated IPCC number by 30%.
In fact many links and pro CAGW statements still use the calculation with 1368. How do you suppose they got all the numbers to agree?
I would like to see an analysis of when the so called ‘pause’ may resume. What would the next few months have to look like to get back into the 20+ years with no warming.
Yeah, jeff, i can’t wait til monkton gets back with his “pause posts”… That speedometer thingy that he recently put out there was a little to confused for my simple(ton) tastes.
RSS has to drop to 0.24 from the April value of 0.757 before anything can happen. After it goes below 0.24, it becomes a combination of how low and for how long. For example, if it hits -0.25, it would take months. But if it stays at 0.20, it could take years. Then there is everything in between. This assumes of course that there are no adjustments to RSS.
PA June 2, 2016 at 1:01 pm
As far as SC25:
————————————————————————–
And keep an eye on the positive magnetic field. Positive is having trouble getting off the line. Positive was weaker in Solar cycle 23-24 and 25?
Positive in the graphs below is blue.
Negative is red.
Don’t ask me why they did that, ok.
Earth magnetically reconnects more readily? with negative IMF. At least is what was thought.
Thanks Dr. S. for the maintenance on these solar images.
http://www.leif.org/research/WSO-Polar-Fields-since-2003.png
I’m sort of torn because if the umbral magnetic field drops to 1500 gauss (no sunspots) we will have a pure play.
1. Record CO2 Emissions.
2. Record minimum in solar activity.
The two claimed principal sources of temperature change fighting it out mano-a-mano,
The good news is we will find out which influence is stronger.
CO2 was responsible for a claimed 110% of late 20th century warming. With record emissions the planet should be heating like an oven on high and far exceeding the 90s warming trend. The reality has been a little different.
If it actually starts cooling we need to consider fraud charges and legal sanctions against global warmers.
Do not forget that the first 150 meters of the solar charged oceans contain hundreds of times the energy of the atmosphere, thus ocean cycles have a large short term multi decadal impact, and solar input into the oceans can be very lagged with very long ocean residence time (energy is hidden from the atmosphere) of some solar changes. Top of atmosphere down changes due to solar are perhaps a more immediate affect of solar changes. The immediate affect of CO2 is suppose to be just that, instant.
Well, the theoretical downward IR from CO2 warms nanometers of ocean.
The Solar radiation penetrates over 100 meters.
So theoretically even with strong forcing a solar decline could cool the oceans even if the surface warms.
I have my popcorn out and am watching the show.
If the ocean heat content plateaus, this to me would be a big problem for the warmers. Further it would put a fork in the runaway sea level claims.
I do not think it is possible for sea surface temperatures to rise while solar radiation falls and we observed sea surface temperatures going up during the previous solar minimum and now it is claimed that the present el nino is larger than that in 1998. I propose a possible explanation for this and it is as solar radiation falls then solar radiation penetrates the ocean to a shorter depth making the sea surface seem warmer. It seems to me that our measurement of sea surface temperatures must be wrong just as it likely was when it was measured by buckets collected by ships.
The current El Nino is not larger, in many respects it is smaller. See recent Bob T post.
Not sure that’s true.
The 1998 El Nino went from a La Nina to a strong El Nino. The 2015 El Nino spent a year as a neutral to weak El Nino before it developed into a strong one.
It lasted a lot longer and had a higher peak.
I am puzzled about something. If you go to:
https://ghrc.nsstc.nasa.gov/amsutemps/amsutemps.pl
and click on ch06 and compare 2010 with 2016 for the month of May, then the area above the lines and below the lines are approximately equal. So I predicted that May 2016 would be very close to May 2010.
For UAH, May 2016 was 0.545 but May 2010 was 0.414.
For RSS, May 2016 was 0.525 and May 2010 was also 0.525!
Does anyone have any idea why UAH was so different than RSS?
Werner Brozek
1. The question Does anyone have any idea why UAH must all the time be similar to RSS? in my mind is not less menaingful than yours. Both use the same data, but process it in a completely different manner.
2. What are you doing at channel 6 when you intend to compare two TLT records? Channel 6 operates at a pressure level of 400 hPa, i.e. 7.5 km altitude, and measures absolute temperatures arond 238 K; but UAH measured in 2015 temperatures around 264 K, what denotes an altitude of about 4 km.
3. It is not very meaningful to compare temperature records solely at global level, when they offer much finer zonal means. UAH and RSS have eight of these (globe, NH, SH, tropics, NH mid, SH mid, North Pole, South Pole, with in addition some specific zones).
So if you want to really compare them, download UAH6.0beta5 and RSS3.3 in their TLT variant into e.g. Excel, and build the difference between them for each latitude zone they have in common.
Others are not available. However the “mystery” seems to have been solved. There is a huge difference in how they cover the south pole. Compare May 2010 versus May 2016 for the south pole. In 2010, it was -0.84 and in 2016 it was +0.93.
Others are not available.
Sure they are. You don’t see the graphics displayed, but a link to a part of the data tells you pretty good about the absolute K temperature measured by the corresponding channel.
A little plot:
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/160606/223tcf88.pdf
Can you show me channel 5 to the present date?
Mea maxima culpa! I didn’t look accurately enough at
https://ghrc.nsstc.nasa.gov/amsutemps/data/amsu_daily_85N85S_ch04.r000.txt
what indeed doesn’t show what you really need :-((
But I repeat: better you download and normalize the data UAH and RSS provided us with, and compare them zone by zone. Simply because the absolute temps related to the channels may be subject to manifold corrections.
And the central problem remains for you: to explain why Roy Spencer published for UAH6.0beta5 in 2015 an average absolute temperature of about 264 K, i.e. 24 °C lower than at surface, what should locate the measurement altitude at about 24 K / 6.5 K/km = 3.7 km.
Pressure level at this altitude is 640 hPa. But the comparison (deliberately restricted to USA49) with a processing of the IGRA radiosonde records tells you that the UAH6.0beta5 trend lies, for 1979-2016, just between 300 and 250 hPa, i.e. at 9.7 km:
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/160606/dfakifss.pdf
IGRA processing is a bit more work, as you have to merge the data of all concerned stations (US: 127) into a monthly record with 13 pressure layers like in RATPAC B.
The comments on this site are hilarious and seem to completely ignore the fact that temperatures are not going down. And if they keep going up, you’ll myopically look at some small window of time and say the same as you do now.
Two reasons for that, the sun is quiet and el nino is over. The last el nino the sun was ramping up, this time the sun is heading into a minimum.
You are also implying that the cause of the very slight warming is co2. The models and the math aren’t right. Even with adjusting the data there is no correlation. And in no case has it been catastrophic.
The last el nino the sun was ramping up, this time the sun is heading into a minimum.
Like many commenters, you overestimate the sun’s role during El Niño events.
To be convinced (should this ever be possible), you just need to analyze and compare 3 El Niño anomaly records (ranging from january till april of the consecutive year) for 1982/83, 1997/98 and 2015/16
with the recent sunspot number statistics
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/ssn_recent2.gif
Apart from the very high response of the lower troposphere in 1997/98 (its anomalies became by december higher than those of the surface), the 1997/98 event does not appear stronger than the one in 2015/16 (which, despite a far weaker sunspot number, is even a bit higher at the surface level).
I think you are overestimating co2 and underestimating solar activity. Still in use are numbers related to TSI that was in error. You do realize that 0.5 C decline in the global warming story related to co2 puts the entire theory in error. How did they get the numbers to match?
rishrac on June 8, 2016 at 4:52 pm
I think there is need to stress a little detail: I didn’t mention CO2 in my comment, nor did Ron McKernan. You are here the person placing emphasis on that gas.
I have no idea of wether or not CO2 is responsible for the slight warming we actually can measure.
We are able to measure CO2’s radiative forcing, but can’t accurately translate that forcing into temperature deltas. Point final.
But what we very well can do, for example, is to compare the radiative forcing of all trace gases with that of the sun.
– Radiative forcing for CO2 is 5.35 * ln(CO2_i/CO2_i0) where ln is natural log, CO2_i is CO2 concentration (ppmv) in year i, and CO2_i0 is CO2 in some reference year.
– Radiative forcing for TSI is (1-a)*(TSI_i)/4 – (1-a)*(TSI_i0)/4 where a is the planetary albedo (0.3), TSI_i is top-of-atmosphere total solar irradiance in year i, TSI_i0 is solar for some reference year.
An example:
http://s1202.photobucket.com/user/ned_ward/media/co2_tsi_comp.jpg.html
(Courtesy Ned Ward)
Please publish valid sources falsifying the actual TSI computation methods, instead of simply writing “Still in use are numbers related to TSI that was in error” in your comments. That’s a bit too easy…
SORCE
http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/TSI_Composite.png
This exactly confirms what I told: sun’s activity declining, surface temperature anomalies increasing… I don’t understand what you mean, try to explain it better, in a more convincing manner!
The TSI was wrong to start with from the beginning. There is no correlation between temperature and co2. It’s pure speculation. CAGW made the numbers fit. The incoming and outgoing radiation, it’s all smoke and mirrors. The difference now and 2001 is that all that data is part of the public record. Unlike the original temperature records that are buried in a landfill.
Maybe you don’t understand, it knocks off a 1/3 of the temperature rise from co2 according to the IPCC own math. And yet the 2 numbers from back radiation and the alleged temperature rise match. The graph that shows the certainty rate at 95% of what the temperature would like like now is also wrong, both in the model and far below it in actuality.
We can only think that the temperature is going to decline based on past observations. Its not wishful thinking. There are too many uncertainties to claim what is known. It is a very dynamic system.
Cold is a very big concern. Warming not so much.
So few takers to date on my Challenge Question…
Scientific understanding includes the ability to predict future performance, with a fair degree of success.
When engineers design a bridge, we predict that it will not fall – “Galloping Gertie” (the Tacoma Narrows Bridge collapse in 1940) being a notable exception. We are embarrassed when we get it wrong; also, we can lose our licence to practise.
Warmists say Earth is suffering from dangerous global warming due to increased atmospheric CO2, and wilder weather is also being caused by global warming – their predictive track record on this and ALL other matters has been utterly DISMAL – a total failure to date.
As a result of warmist hysteria, many trillions of dollars have been squandered on green energy schemes that are not green and produce little useful energy.
So once again, I ask you to make your best scientific prediction, and kindly provide your reasoning:
WHEN WILL GLOBAL COOLING START?
Regards to all, Allan
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/19/new-noaa-forecast-suggests-current-el-nino-will-fade-fast-and-be-replaced-by-a-strong-cooling-la-nina-this-year/comment-page-1/#comment-2149428
CHALLENGE QUESTION – FIRST POSTED 16FEB2016
WHEN WILL GLOBAL COOLING START?
I am saying it is not a “Pause”, it is a Plateau, and naturally-caused global cooling will start soon.
Regards to all, Allan
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/15/weekly-climate-and-energy-news-roundup-215/comment-page-1/#comment-2146382
This post on SC24 is interesting:
http://notrickszone.com/2016/02/10/solar-report-january-2016-current-solar-cycle-quietest-in-almost-200-years-as-triple-whammy-approaches/#sthash.tRQqXhWz.IVP32gMG.dpbs
Question: When will global cooling start?
In 2002 we wrote that global cooling would start by 2020 to 2030.
We now say global cooling will start before 2020, probably by 2017.
[Definition: The commencement of global cooling is deemed to start when the Lower Tropospheric (LT) temperature anomaly as measured by UAH satellite data starts to decline below the +0.2C anomaly and the trend then declines further.]
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
Bragging rights to whoever gets it right.
Ladies and germs – faites vos jeux!
I predict in the near future this El Nino peak that we just had, will be the last big El Nino in this warm cycle.
The step from the 97 El Nino happen when enough of the surface stations in the N20 to N30 lat band’s sensitivity to solar jumped up about 1996, and has not yet dropped, this has to be related to the oceans decadal cycles.
I think this will be the key to northern hemisphere cool.
Let me note it’s in the upper 60’s, and sunny, last night near 40F here @N41 W81
Allan MacRae on June 9, 2016 at 9:10 am
Do you really view this as a “Challenge Question” ? It looks to me a bit too much confused to be one.
Above all, following your “definition”, a simple look at UAH’s anomaly chart indicates that the years 1979-1984 for example could have been, with an average maximum of 0.16 °C per year and a trend of 0.032 °C per decade, a “commencement of cooling”.
You know what then happened.
Such a “commencement” in my opinion would become noticeable when the OLS trend for the both polar regions, calculated over the last 20 years, would become negative. That would be a clear indicator I guess.
Actually, we are at 0.270 °C for the North Pole, and at -0.048 °C for the South Pole.
Mesdames, Messieurs: faites vos jeux!
BINDI – PLEASE RE-READ MY DEFINITION BELOW – ESPECIALLY THE BIT IN CAPS BELOW.
[Definition: The commencement of global cooling is deemed to start when the Lower Tropospheric (LT) temperature anomaly as measured by UAH satellite data starts to decline below the +0.2C anomaly AND THE TREND THEN DECLINES FURTHER.]
**********
QUESTIONS (sorry for all caps here):
WHY DO YOU THINK TEMPERATURES AT THE POLES MATTER SO MUCH?
DO WE EVEN HAVE GOOD DATA AT THE NORTH POLE? FROM WHAT SOURCE?
Allan MacRae on June 9, 2016 at 6:45 pm
Excuse me Allan, but I’m a bit surprised of theories being built upon data one seems to know so few about.
1. WHY DO YOU THINK TEMPERATURES AT THE POLES MATTER SO MUCH?
Simply because it is known since longer time that the North Polar Region (60-90N) is the region on Earth warming the most, and that conversely the South Pole (60-90S) cools the most. That’s clearly visible on their respective 37 year trends.
You can easiliy compare them here:
http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html
by selecting the different regions.
You see immediately that Grand North has warmed during 37 years nearly 3 times more than the globe. As long as this remains, speaking about cooling is bare speculation I guess…
2. DO WE EVEN HAVE GOOD DATA AT THE NORTH POLE?
All institutions busy with temperature measurement operate internally with a cell grid of say 5 x 5 °, i.e. 72 long x 36 lat cells. Some work on even finer grids.
Japan’s Tokio Climate Center publishes its monthly and yearly records that way:
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/map/download.html
If you don’t trust surface measurements, both satellite-based measurement sites (RSS, UAH) publish zonal means instead:
RSS:
http://data.remss.com/msu/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_3.txt
UAH6.0beta5:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0beta5.txt
But caution with UAH! Till aprol 2015, they had a completely different dataset (UAH5.6, valid since July 2011):
http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt
with huge differences in comparison with the actual one
(you see the amplitude differences between this UAH revision and consecutive GISS revisions).
That nice UAH revision moved literally overnight its North Pole trend from 30% higher than RSS3.3 downto 30% lower.
Don’t be condescending Bindi – since you are often far off base.
Your comments re grid size are irrelevant – where are the weather measurement stations? There is a station at the South Pole but not at the North Pole – so where are the nearest quality surface measurements taken, and who is taking them?
Satellites, as I recall, do not cover the poles well either. I could email the gents at UAH for details, but I just can’t be bothered with you.
Allan MacRae June 11, 2016 at 10:01 pm
1. Your comments re grid size are irrelevant – where are the weather measurement stations? There is a station at the South Pole but not at the North Pole – so where are the nearest quality surface measurements taken, and who is taking them?
Maybe you will again say I’m “condescending”. But I must recall that we aren’t speaking here about the poles (90N / 90S), but about their respective polar regions (60N-90N / 60S-90S).
I propose you download
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/daily/ghcnd-stations.txt
and have a closer look at all lines whose latitude column value is over 60 or below -60.
Look in these two subsets at lines with country id ‘CA’, ‘RS’, ‘NO’, ‘FI’, ‘AY’ etc etc. Antarctica has about 100, Russia about 300. (Not all of them are active actually; which are you first know when you process the measurement files, e.g.
ghcnd_all.tar.gz
and mark all stations producing valid data in the periods you investigate.
N.B.: The grid size is highly relevant. Each grid cell is weighted differently, so kriging and infilling may differ from cell to cell.
2. Satellites, as I recall, do not cover the poles well either. I could email the gents at UAH for details…
Maybe you first have a look at
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0beta5.txt
at the file’s bottom, where you will see ‘NoPol 60N-90N, SoPol 90S-60S’.
I can’t imagine Roy Spencer telling you that “yes, Allan, you are right, we do not cover the poles well either”…
Bindi,
So now you say you mean polar regions, not the poles. OK, try to be specific. I really thought you were blowing smoke, and maybe you still are.,,
The surface temperature data is so badly corrupted by multiple “adjustments” that I don’t bother with it. If you believe it is of any value, good luck to you. I think it is mostly crap. Whoever “adjusts” their temperature data and then throws out the original readings in this age of computers and limitless cheap storage is probably a scoundrel as well as a proven imbecile.
I will withhold my comments on the satellite data until I have more information.
I recalled correctly Bindi;
The satellite temperature data does NOT cover the poles above/below +/- 85 degrees.
Your suggestions of using the poles to measure global cooling seems inappropriate, since you must rely on Gridded Surface Temperatures which are demonstrably unreliable and subject to adjustments that are not credible or reproducible.
From John Christy:
Allan:
The polar orbiters do not pass directly over the poles to maintain the sun-synchronis orientation. The highest latitude varies among the spacecraft, I believe the nadir is usually around the low 80’s latitude (see attached). Because these are cross-track scanners, there are footprints closer to the pole than the nadir latitude. We usually cut off around 82.5 or 85 N/S latitude.
John C.
Allan MacRae June 13, 2016 at 6:37 am
We usually cut off around 82.5 or 85 N/S latitude.
Yeah. That means, to express it in clear words, that UAH’s polar region inspection in V6.0beta5 didn’t only move down to the niveau of V5.6 (60N-85N – 60S-85S) but even down to that of RSS3.3:
http://data.remss.com/msu/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_3.txt
Anyway: that’s not so important, as the few degrees around the poles build a very small surface in comparison to their polar regions.
Bindi, I still would never use the generally unreliable Surface Temperature (ST) data, with all its “adjustments” and its spatial inhomogeneity, for any serious analysis of global temperature. I think the ST data is so heavily “adjusted” as to be essentially worthless. No sensible scientist would discard the original readings and just keep their “adjusted” results, as some of the keepers of the ST data have done.
I use UAH data because I trust the good people there and their methodologies. I have less trust in RSS, but the two satellite datasets generally are not too far apart.
If you chose to use satellite data from the polar regions from 60 to say 82.5 or 85 degrees to analyse global cooling (or warming) then so be it, but please do not suggest that the ST data is of any value – I reject that notion, except in cases where the original data remains intact and has not been discarded. Even then, the spatial inhomogeneity is a serious problem, as is the drop-off (discontinuation) of surface stations in recent decades, remarkably by governments who are spending trillions on global warming alarmist nonsense.
Regards, Allan
” I still would never use the generally unreliable Surface Temperature (ST) data, with all its “adjustments” and its spatial inhomogeneity, for any serious analysis of global temperature.”
Alan, I strongly disagree, but you have to use the data we have properly.
https://micro6500blog.wordpress.com/2015/11/18/evidence-against-warming-from-carbon-dioxide/
Thank you micro,
The problem is that there has been so much chicanery with the ST record that only a few dedicated experts know the good from the bad.
There is still the ST problem of inhomogeneity and loss (reduction) of surface stations over the past decades.
For those of us who are not dedicated ST experts, the satellites are a preferred option.
A couple points about the modifications to the surface record, I think one key point is that since “they” use daily mean, it’s much harder to adjust the mean to get the number they want, without creating artifacts in min and or max since the solution set of min and max for a particular mean is very large. And I particularly reject homogenization and infilling since temp is not a linear field as a minimum, and it is plain bad science in the worse case.
When I started my work, I was interested in two things, nightly cooling rate, and to see what the actual measurements say, not the made up claptrap being spread.
But I’m far from an expert on the surface record, I just have the skills and tools to work with a large data set, and simple goals based on observations of falling temps while working with my telescope and my skeptical view of the processing of the data.