In the tropics, 2nd warmest month since 2010
Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.11 C per decade
June temperatures (preliminary)
Global composite temp.: +0.33 C (about 0.59 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for June.
Northern Hemisphere: +0.40 C (about 0.72 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for June.
Southern Hemisphere: +0.26 C (about 0.47 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for June.
Tropics: +0.46 C (about 0.83 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for May.
May temperatures (revised):
Global Composite: +0.27 C above 30-year average
Northern Hemisphere: +0.33 C above 30-year average
Southern Hemisphere: +0.21 C below 30-year average
Tropics: +0.27 C above 30-year average
(All temperature anomalies are based on a 30-year average (1981-2010) for the month reported.)
Notes on data released July 7, 2015:
With the tropical atmosphere responding to the El Niño Pacific Ocean warming event during the past few months, temperatures in the tropics rose to their second warmest anomaly for any month since the El Niño of 2010, said Dr. John Christy, director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville.
The tropics, anomalies since 2010:
#1 2014 June +0.48 C
#2Â 2015 June +0.46 C*
#3 2013 Jan.  +0.44 C
#4 2014 July  +0.42 C
#5 2012 Nov. +0.27 C
#6 2015 May  +0.27 C
#7 2013 Feb.  +0.25 C
#8 2014 Dec.  +0.24 C
#9 2012 Dec.  +0.22 C
#10 2013 Mar.  +0.22 C
Warmest Junes in the tropics
(Since June 1979)
#1Â 1998Â +0.63 C
#2Â 2014Â +0.48 C
#3Â 2010Â +0.47 C
#4Â 2015Â +0.46 C*
#5Â 1987Â +0.40 C
#6Â 1995Â +0.36 C
#7Â 1991Â +0.34 C
#8Â 2005Â +0.31 C
#9Â 2002Â +0.22 C
#10 2007Â +0.16 C
*Preliminary data
Compared to seasonal norms, the warmest average temperature anomaly on Earth in June was just north of Green Acres, Oregon. The June temperature there averaged 3.77 C (about 6.79 degrees F) warmer than seasonal norms. Compared to seasonal norms, the coolest average temperature on Earth in June was in West Antarctica along the Antarctic Peninsula near the Larsen Ice Shelf, where the average June 2015 temperature was 3.51 C (about 6.32 degrees F) cooler than normal.
The complete version 6 beta lower troposphere dataset is available here:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0beta2
Archived color maps of local temperature anomalies are available on-line at:
As part of an ongoing joint project between UAHuntsville, NOAA and NASA, Christy and Dr. Roy Spencer, an ESSC principal scientist, use data gathered by advanced microwave sounding units on NOAA and NASA satellites to get accurate temperature readings for almost all regions of the Earth. This includes remote desert, ocean and rain forest areas where reliable climate data are not otherwise available.
The satellite-based instruments measure the temperature of the atmosphere from the surface up to an altitude of about eight kilometers above sea level. Once the monthly temperature data is collected and processed, it is placed in a “public” computer file for immediate access by atmospheric scientists in the U.S. and abroad.
Neither Christy nor Spencer receives any research support or funding from oil, coal or industrial companies or organizations, or from any private or special interest groups. All of their climate research funding comes from federal and state grants or contracts.
— 30 —
Dr. Roy Spencer reports on his blog:
We discovered there were several days during June when communication problems prevented the transfer of some of the raw satellite data to our computer. This is an update of the June 2015 numbers with the missing satellite data included.
The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for June, 2015 is +0.33 deg. C, up somewhat from the May, 2015 value of +0.27 deg. C (click for full size version):
The global, hemispheric, and tropical LT anomalies from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 6 months are:
YR MO GLOBE NH SH TROPICS
2015 1 +0.26 +0.38 +0.14 +0.12
2015 2 +0.16 +0.26 +0.05 -0.07
2015 3 +0.14 +0.23 +0.05 +0.02
2015 4 +0.06 +0.15 -0.02 +0.07
2015 5 +0.27 +0.33 +0.21 +0.27
2015 6 +0.33 +0.40 +0.26 +0.46
Notice the strong warming in the tropics over the last 2 months, consistent with the strengthening El Nino in the Pacific.
The global image for June, 2015 should be available in the next several days here.
The new Version 6 files, which should be updated soon, are located here:
Lower Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tlt
Mid-Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tmt
Tropopause: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/ttp
Lower Stratosphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tls
I think it would be interesting to know the warmest/coolest anomalies in the northern and in the southern hemispheres.
It’s currently 69F in Oklahoma City, today. Sure feels like an anomaly, to me. Today’s temp may set a new record for the “coldest high” for this date, 70F set in 1905. Average high temp for July 8th is 93F.
This means nothing, as it is just typically variable weather, out here in the middle of the continent.
If the eruption of pinatubo in June 1991 Is supposed to be the reason for the resultant cooling, what were the reasons behind the notable cooling events centred on 1989 1985 and 1982?
Tonyb
Mt. St. Helens in Washington State erupted in May of 1980, but that may be a little too early to be a cooling event for 1982.
Mount St Helens’ eruption was a lateral one, so little ash would be ejected into the stratosphere. ’82 was El Chichon, that was a biggy, put 7 millions tonnes of sulpher into the stratosphere. Nevada del Ruiz popped in ’85, 89 had Mt Redoubt erupt. Remember there’s a lot of debate about the effect of volcanoes, Pinatubo also coincided with a La Nina.
Tropical volcanoes also have more global effect than those at higher latitudes.
Off-year elections; lower level of hot air.
1982 was El Chichon’s eruption, far larger than St. Helens.
June was cool in the deep yellow part of France/Germany.
June was unusually cool in the part of the UK shown as light yellow. This report is just meaningless nonsense.
Try to remember that this is the lower troposphere, not land surface temperature we’re talking about.
The Central England Temperature (CET) anomaly, which uses only 3 stations, for June was -0.5 deg C compared with the 1981-2010 period, which is the same 30-year period which is used in calculating the anomalies on the map.
According to Met Office figures, over England and Wales as a whole, the June anomaly was generally between +0.5 and -0.5, while over Scotland it was between -0.5 and -1.5.
So, for whatever reason, the lower troposphere anomalies for the UK appear to about about 1 degree C warmer than the surface.
What about the rest of the world? It would be interesting to compare the monthly averages over a reasonable sized area – not just “it was cold in my garden on Tuesday afternoon”……..
If you give Pinatubo credit for the early 90s cooling it would not take to much imagination to see no warming since the late 1980s. We are talking close to 30 years with no warming. When are we going to lynch the turkeys that are trying to keep this meme going?
Adrian, do not forget that 1979 was peek ice age scare, with surface T records at one point showing a .4 degree global cooling from the 1940s high. How I wish our satellite record went back at least another 15 years.
temperatures in the tropics rose to their second warmest anomaly for any month since the El Niño of 2010…
one or two..10th of a degree….can can’t touch 1998 at .17 difference
Personally I don’t think anyone on this planet can actually measure 1-2 10th of a degree difference…
….when it all gets upgraded, changed, adjusted….fiddled and fudged with
It is common to see the CET (Central England Temperature ) dataset referred to here when the question of regional or global temperatures are being discussed .
I assume that in England it owed its origins to the “scientific revolution” of the 17th Cent , but Britain was not the only european country to display scientific progress in that period . In France there was Descartes and Fermat , Galileo and Torricelli and some of Europe’s oldest Universities in Italy, whilst in Seville resides the enormous archive relating to Spain’s American colonies.
Surely , given the importance of the weather to , say, the grape harvest and wine trade alone , there would in those countries be temperature datasets similar to the CET . Perhaps fragmentary , or affected by revolution and war more than in England , but it seems unlikely that no records were maintained , or that none have survived .
I have not seen them referred to here in the short time I have been visiting this site. Are there really no such records?
Since CET relates to a maritime climate , records from a more central european or continental, area could be interesting .
Mikewaite
I have written on these other temperature data sets here at various times. The French revolution destroyed a lot of their records. Germany and Italy in their current form are relatively recent constructs so many of heir records, where they still exist, are rather scattered. In the case of Germany if written in old German they are not especially accessible.
It is interesting that there were several groups of countries that collaborated on trying to create a global or regional data set that precedes GISS by several centuries.
Google James jurin of the royal society and the Mannheim palatine and you will see a lot of information on these groups.
However, the things that elevates CET above others is the work done by Gordon Manley in putting together all the pieces to create the monthly CET database from 1659 and that of David Parker of the met office in creating the daily CET record from 1772. I had the pleasure of meeting DAvid Parker at the met office a couple of years ago.
Tonyb
Mikewaite
Here is my website
It contains many of the European records in which you are interested. Also note the various articles written from a historical persoective one of which relates directly to your query
http://climatereason.com/Articles/
Tonyb
Tony
Thank you for your response, especially the link to the articles in your website . Some intriguing further links , especially to the genuinely scholarly activities of one Phil Jones of CRU.
Mike
I took you direct to an inside page, here is the home page from which historic temperatures may be more easily accessed
http://climatereason.com/LittleIceAgeThermometers/
Tonyb
Posted this on Tips and Notes but here seems more appropriate now. .
World Temperature drop.?
Like many on this site I record climate data from many sources, I have been looking at the Climate Reanalyzer site now for some time http://cci-reanalyzer.org/DailySummary/index_ds.php and noticed a drop in the world temperature anomalies of over 0.5c in a week. I would like to here comments about this from those who know more than me. Is this site representative of world temperatures and are there other indicators that temperatures are on the drop or is this just a blip. .
Keith Gordon,
There was a correction to the data that might explain it:
“*** 7/8/2015 — Note on regional temperature anomaly summaries ***
On July 3rd a bias correction was implemented for GFS temperature anomaly calculations in order to bring regional values into better accord with CFSR/CFSV2 (e.g., see the daily CFSR/CFSV2 maps). GFS biases for each region were estimated by calculating the average daily difference between GFS-CFSR and CFSV2-CFSR for the month of June (World -0.3, Northern Hemisphere -0.6, Southern Hemisphere -0.1, Arctic -0.7, Antarctic +1.1, and Tropics -0.4 °C). This simple methodology is being further tested, but will likely be replaced by incorporating daily CFSV2 output instead of GFS. In either case, a detailed methodology on any bias correction will be posted along with CSV datafiles for the complete daily 2-meter air temperature timeseries for CFSR/CFSV2 from Jan 1, 1979 to June 30, 2015 for each summary region. We appreciate error checking and constructive feedback from users — thanks! ”
http://cci-reanalyzer.org/DailySummary/index_ds.php
Many thanks for the explanation David, I missed that.
The last millennium 1000AD – 2000AD has been the coldest of the Holocene overall.
Most of the Holocene temperature loss ~-1.5°C has been in the last 3 millennia since 1000BC
edhoskins says which is spot on.
Going forward the long term climate drivers Milankovitch Cycles, Solar Variability (secondary effects),and these factors which moderate the first two factors those being , Geo Magnetic Field Strength (enhancing solar variability when weak)., Land /Ocean Arrangements., Ice Dynamic are all in an overall cooling pattern since the Holocene Optimum.
The warm periods since the Holocene Optimum being tied to solar variability which is superimposed upon the general climatic trend. MEDIEVAL ,ROMAN warm periods to name two.
Further refinement to the temperature trend since the Holocene Optimum ,coming from ENSO, PDO/AMO phase and Volcanic Activity.
I would say all the above when combined and superimposed upon one another can account for all of the climatic changes since the Holocene Optimum – Present Day.
Therefore going forward the trend in the global temperature should be down as soon as the maximum of solar cycle 24 ends and solar activity in general remains at sub-solar levels which it has been since 2005, and approaches my low average value solar parameters going forward, with a sufficient duration of time at or around these values.
Solar Flux 90 or less, AP index 5.0 or less, Solar Wind 350 km or less to name some of them.
These values much above these levels during the maximum of solar cycle 24 through today , although the maximum of solar cycle 24 is very weak, however the balance of this decade going forward should feature these low solar parameter readings as the very weak maximum of solar cycle 24 ends ,and once this is takes place I fully expect the global temperature trend to be in a jig saw down trend.
The latest temperature data keeps intact what I say in the above which is CO2 has no effect upon the temperature, it is all ENSO,PDO/AMO ,and Volcanic Activity driven (short term climatic factors) which are superimposed over the longer term climatic factors, which I mentioned in the above which now all point to cooling going forward.
For all the talk about AGW it has done nothing to bring us into a new climatic regime ,we are simply in the same climatic regime post the Dalton Minimum , with climate variability associated with the 11 year rhythmic solar cycle ,pdo/amo phase, volcanic activity and enso.
For the big picture Milankovitch Cycles(favorable for cooling on balance in contrast to 8000 years ago), the weakening Geo Magnetic Field and the switch from active to inactive solar activity post 2005 will work to bring the climate into a cooler and possibly a climatic regime change, maybe back to Dalton conditions.
Land /Ocean arrangements so very favorable for cooling ,and the Ice Dynamic in the S.H. becoming very interesting.
10^21(proton) x yes.
(Another wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod)
Reported data to ±0.01 C. I’d expect the satellite data is really no better than ±0.3 C, with that an uncertainty in accuracy not a statistical standard deviation.
That’s about the accuracy of the Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) satellite that measures SSTs. If ±0.3 C were the case, the 10 hottest months would be formally indistinguishable to 1σ.
Precision is 0.01 K. Accuracy is quite a bit worse. AVHRR SST are 0.5 K quality. IIRC, the AMSU channel data are 1 K.
Averaging random errors, though, does reduce the uncertainty of the averaged quantity. Illustration and math at http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2010/03/how-can-annual-average-temperatures-be.html
Thanks for the comment and link Robert Grumbine, but I’m not concerned with random error.
The willful refusal of Climate Science to honestly evaluate what is happening, in the name of a politcal effort aimed at an ideology, is rather sickening to me.
The fact that cold is far worse than warm, the fact that CO2 helps grow and green the biosphere, and the fact that renewables like wind farms and solar panels are an ecological disaster, it all boggles the mind at how sick today’s Climate Science has become.
Joel, not only sick but wrong and clueless.
It’s not just climate science, Joel. They’re aided and abetted by every single major scientific organization in the US. The entire establishment is either willfully corrupt, or become delusional and incompetent. The most amazing thing to me is how easily they were bulldozed into it.
I previously had faith in the universal hardmindedness of, especially, physicists. But no more.
It’s become clear that among those who do science, even among physicists and even among the technically brilliant, only a minority consciously know what science itself is about (ruthless objectivity toward theory and data) and likewise consciously hew to that scientific principle throughout their analytical thinking (not just in their specialty).
In supporting AGW, the scientific establishment has eschewed scientific thinking.
Pat – yes, it is amazing. Amongst educated, concerned people.
I believe this has happened partly because the Marxists, beginning with the Frankfurt School, had a major effort to understand psychology and sociology. So, they figured out the nuts and bolts of attitude formation, in-group and out-group dynamics, how the prevailing beliefs of a society were maintained, and so on.
With those tools, they put them to use.
A parallel situation is in medicine/healthcare. There is very good data that abortion leads to breast cancer (ABC), and this should be receiving good research attention. But try even putting abortion history in a study as a control variable. You won’t get funded or published. In the meantime, outside of the Anglican/Northern European world, such as in China and the Asian sub-continent, they have a very different history and politics – they are producing the studies with ABC information.
Try to bring up the topic of sex-selection abortion in the U.S. – it has been documented – your research will not go far. A few studies squeaked out before this could be capped.
Whether abortion is OK or immoral, it ought to be open to scrutiny for such issues. It is not.
The American Medical Association used to, by policy, be against abortion. That changed. Believe it or not, they even changed the Hippocratic Oath. The well-recognized original has an admonition against helping end a pregnancy. Now, that part is just left out.
At the same time, birth control chemicals are on the carcinogen list: “Estrogen-progestogen oral contraceptives (combined) (Note: There is also convincing evidence in humans that these agents
confer a protective effect against cancer in the endometrium and ovary).”
http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/generalinformationaboutcarcinogens/known-and-probable-human-carcinogens
–How many women taking this most-common birth control pill know this?
Scary.
Sadly, the scientific establishment have eschewed scientific thinking in favour of doublethink – not unlike the politicos in the US who maintain that illegal aliens are good for the economy.
If you believe that, I’ve got some carbon credits you can buy. They fell off a truck.
TLD, the list of carcinogens you referenced is the least indicative of danger. It includes everything from really vile carcinogens like aflatoxin, to the relatively innocuous ethanol in alcoholic drinks, sunlight, and outdoor air pollution, to the virtually harmless mineral oil. Estrogen/progesterone fall in this list but not in any of the lists of materials known to be significantly dangerous.
To get a good idea of cancer risk, Bruce Ames’ paper comparing the carcinogenicity of naturally occurring dietary pesticides (those made by plants), with synthetic pesticides is very instructive.
Every jar of peanut butter has detectible amounts of aflatoxin in it. Aflatoxin is made by a mold that is always found on peanuts. Ames has suggested that cancer risk be reported in units of peanut butter sandwich equivalents. The risk from estrogen/progesterone would be usefully perceptible if converted into peanut butter sandwich units.
We eat large amounts of plant-derived cancer-causing chemicals that occur naturally in our diets (probably grams per day), but we mostly don’t get cancer anyway because of the multi-layered protections with which evolution has provided us (liver, first and foremost).
A discussion of abortion is clearly off-topic here, but if the moderator allows, here is the PubMed abstract of a literature study done in China that finds no association between abortion and breast cancer. Here’s another; a direct study.
“It’s not just climate science, Joel. They’re aided and abetted by every single major scientific organization in the US”
And pretty much the entire world…..
Thanks, Anthony. I will update my pages.
Thanks Anthony, Dr. Spencer and Dr. Christy.
The Atlantic and Indian Oceans look nominal, while much of the Arctic and Antarctic Oceans are cool. Absent the El Nino, all looks pretty stable.
Correction: Southern Ocean.
looks like the Blob has moved out of the north pacific onto the pacific north west. best summer in years. global warming has my vote!!!
ferd,
Get on I-90 in Seattle and travel east 100 miles. The past 2 weeks have been a tad warm. The tomatoes and summer squash like the heat but I longingly await Saturday when our highs are forecast to drop by 20 F. degrees – into the low 80s.
the low 80s. (F)
==========
the unprotected human dies of exposure at that temperature. we cannot generate enough heat to maintain our body temperature.
In the tropics it is not unusual to find people raised there to be wearing long pants and long sleeves, without breaking a sweat. while people from cold climates are sweating up a storm dressed in shorts and T shirts.
As Jo Nova says: Where is the tropical hotspot?
Where is the tropical hotspot?
As many are aware it is fact that there is cyclic climate change in the paleo record that correlates with solar cycle changes and it is fact that the solar cycle is currently abruptly changing. While we are waiting for the sun to do its thing and to see if there will or will not be abrupt cooling, I have been looking into one of the key logical pillars of the climate war issue.
Salby in one of his interesting but dry technical lectures eluded to an incorrect assumption that the IPCC had made concerning the troposphere and radiative forcing or more accurately the lack of radiative forcing, in the troposphere.
P.S. As most are aware there has been 18 years without warming, as noted above there is no tropical troposphere hot spot, and there are periods of millions of years when atmospheric CO2 is high and the planet is cold and vice versa. If CO2 is the knob that controls climate, why are there multiple observational paradoxes (note there is a longer list of paradoxes)? What is the physical/logical reason for the paradoxes?
I am looking at Salby’s text book Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate to see if I can find the incorrect assumption.
First Salby notes that due to convection in the troposphere radiative ‘equilibrium’ cannot and does not occur in the troposphere (equilibrium in the case of radiative ‘equilibrium’ means stratification caused by greenhouse gases which is a idiotic naming convention) and hence the greenhouse gases cool the troposphere rather than warm the troposphere which is consistent with the basic calculation in this paper and other similar papers.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/acs.2014.45072
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.ca/2015/07/new-paper-finds-increased-co2-or.html
Page 237
Next Salby explains the assumption that is made to calculate IPCC AGW forcing following the party line. If I understand what he has written the IPCC radiative forcing calculation at the tropopause is made with the assumption that there is no convection motion in the troposphere.
Page 238
A few pages later Salby quotes the IPCC table of Radiative Forcing of Climate values from IPCC (2007) which is the party line and then refers to the equations which use the Good and Yung incorrect assumption.
“”An alternative that circumvents ambiguities surrounding convection requires the convection layer to supply the same upward radiative flux at the tropopause as would be supplied under radiative equilibrium (Good and Yung, 1995). This formalism is tantamount that the stratosphere is unaffected by vertical motion below.”
I still emphasize it. The stratosphere depends only on the sun and the Earth’s magnetic field. This changes in temperature and causes the movement of air.
I still emphasize it. The stratosphere depends only on the sun and the Earth’s magnetic field. This changes in temperature and causes the movement of air.
How the magnetic field effect on climate the US?
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/geomag/data/mag_maps/pdf/F_map_mf_1915.pdf
If a weaker solar wind, the more important for the weather is Earth’s magnetic field.
How important is the polar vortex for the weather?
Weatherzone says South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria, New South Wales, the ACT, Queensland and the Northern Territory will experience the coldest spell in at least two years, and more than five years in some places.
Snow is forecast to fall in areas of Australia’s south east down to 600 metres, including in some Melbourne suburbs and in the Blue Mountains, west of Sydney.
http://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/a-strong-cold-front-is-set-to-deliver-heavy-snow-and-wild-winds-for-much-of-australia/story-e6frflp0-1227434649892
Good for the tropics. Here in the Upper Peninsula, Michigan, my heater has come on twice in June. We have one day at around 80 degF; many in the 60s. Plus about two years worth of rain. Global warming sure is a funny thing.
I’m in the lower Peninsula, and just put on a long sleeved shirt before I go out shopping. It’s 64 degrees in the middle of July.
no hotspot here:
7 July: ShanghaiList: Joyc Ng: Yesterday, Shanghai recorded its coldest July day in 112 years
The highest temperature in Shanghai yesterday reached only 21.2 degrees Celsius, making it the coldest July day recorded in the past 112 years, thanks to the impact of a cold air mass and heavy rains.
After a dramatic drop to 23.1 degrees Celsius this past Sunday, the mercury in Shanghai fell further yesterday to 21.2 degrees. As of 2:00 p.m. yesterday, various districts recorded temperatures lower than 20 degrees, with the Pudong New Area falling to almost 18.2 degrees, Xinmin Reports.
According to the city’s meteorological bureau, the coldest July day on record was in 1903, when the mercury dropped to 20.9 degrees…
From June 26 through July 5, the average temperature in the city was about three degrees lower than the same period last year.
With many people layered in long sleeves and even woolen sweaters, netizens could not help but jokingly ask, “Has Shanghai entered the Autumn season yet?”
http://shanghaiist.com/2015/07/07/yesterday_was_shanghais_coldest_jul.php
The rare 3-year El Nino event we’re currently in has given the Warmunists a bit of a break leading up to their Paris Warmfest this November.
Regardless, according to RSS/UAH 6.0 satellite data, there hasn’t been a global warming trend in 18.5 years.
The next La Nina cycle will likely start in December of this year and should be a cold one since strong and/or long El Nino events are usually followed by abnormally cold La Nina events.
By early 2018, satellite data will likely show 21+ years without a global warming trend, and a global cooling trend for 17+ years, despite 30%+ of all manmade CO2 emissions since 1750 being made over the last 21 years…
By 2018, the discrepancies between CAGW CMIP5 model mean projections vs. reality should be approaching 3 standard deviations, which should be sufficient divergence and duration for the CAGW hypothesis to be officially disconfirmed under the rules of the Scientific Method.
We’re getting tantalizing close to CAGW’s demise.
The Warmunists are quickly running out of both time and excuses.
The figure clearly shows a cyclic variation — 18 years below the average and 18 years above the average — of 60 year cycle and its sub-multiples. That means after around 12 more years, the below the average pattern may repeat.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
Yes, Dr. Reddy, the PDO cycle in particular has a strong 30-yr effect on global temps. When the PDO is in its 30-yr cool cycle, global temps fall and when it’s in a 30-yr warm cycle, global temps rise:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1850/to:1880/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1850/to:1880/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1880/to:1921/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1880/to:1921/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1921/to:1943/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1921/to:1943/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1943/to:1977/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1943/to:1977/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1977/to:2005/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1977/to:2005/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2005/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2005/trend
The current 30-yr PDO cool cycle started in 2005 and has been somewhat skewed by the 2009/10 and 2013~15 El Ninos, but by 2035, a clear cooling trend will be apparent, as evidenced by every 30-yr PDO cool cycle over the past 165 years.
SSTA all around Italy, France and Spain right now is showing up to +8.2 C, west of central Italy.
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/ocean/surface/currents/overlay=sea_surface_temp_anomaly/orthographic=-356.56,42.98,408
On the Hudson Bay anomaly shows -4 degree C.
It was hotter in 1987…28 years ago TLT! Yes pretty meaningless the whole thing
In reply to ‘Unmentionable’
Odd that you do not provide a link to global ocean surface temperatures.
It is interesting that the ‘greenhouse’ gases cause cooling rather than warming of the troposphere which explains why the predicted tropical tropospheric hot spot is not observed and why there has been no warming for that last 18 years. The corollary of that fact is the majority of the warming in the last 150 years was caused by solar cycle changes rather than AGW. Observational evidence to support that assertion would be in your face cooling.
The blue in this diagram is moving from east to west. Large regions of the ocean warm or cool when there is either a change in cloud cover, cloud properties, cloud duration, and/or a change of wind speed over the ocean.
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2015/anomnight.7.6.2015.gif
There has been significant high latitude cooling which explains why there is now record sea ice for every month of the year in the Antarctic and why there has been a very large increase in multi-year Arctic sea ice.
The majority of the cloud and wind changes are caused by solar modulation of planetary charge distribution. Although solar activity is the currently the lowest in 150 years (and dropping quarter by quarter) and GCR is the highest ever recorded for this period in the solar cycle, there are still persistent coronal holes in low latitude regions that are causing solar wind bursts. Wind bursts from coronal holes create a space charge differential in the earth’s ionosphere which affects cloud cover in high latitude regions and the equatorial region. The coronal holes are starting to dissipate and/or are moving to high latitude regions of the sun where they no longer affect the earth’s climate.
TSI (total solar radiation) changes or changes in greenhouse gases cannot be the explanation for the warming in the last 30 years. As the earth is a sphere due to the geometry of a sphere, the highest amount of TSI is at the equator and the highest amount of long wave radiation emitted to space is hence also at the equator. As greenhouse gases including the CO2 are evenly distributed in the atmosphere, the highest amount of greenhouse gas warming should have occur at the equator. The same is true for an increase in TSI. As we are aware there has been almost no warming in the equatorial region. The fact that there has been almost no warming at the equator is the ’20th century Latitude Warming Paradox’. A paradox is an observation that indicates there are one or more errors in the assumed mechanisms and related theory. Another paradox is the fact that in the paleo record the planet warms and then CO2 rises 500 to 600 years later. The paradox is cause should lead rather than follow effects.
http://www.eoearth.org/files/115701_115800/115741/620px-Radiation_balance.jpg
http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/acs.2014.45072
William Astley
July 9, 2015 at 1:12 am
In reply to ‘Unmentionable’
Odd that you do not provide a link to global ocean surface temperatures.
___
My goodness! No, that for sure wasn’t a reply to me, as all I did was post a link to a rather impressive +T anomaly around Italy at present. What you wrote there seems to be written for entirely other reasons, and what they were I’m not sure.
In reply to ‘Unmentionable’
P.S. Very appropriate nom de plume. (A pen name, nom de plume, or literary double is a pseudonym adopted by a writer.)
18 years without warming can be waved away with an appeal to heat is hiding in the ocean. This graph shows the start of high latitude cooling, not warming. As most are aware there has been an abrupt change to the solar cycle. What we are waiting for is the end of ‘global’ warming.
We certainly live in interesting times!!!
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
There must be a scientific explanation as to why there are piles and piles of climate paradoxes (something is fundamental incorrect with the basic greenhouse gas theory and the sun is a serial climate changer). I am truly curious how the different cult of CAGW fractions will react to in your face cooling.
Almost everyone knows that the planet has cyclically warmed and cold in the past with the majority of the warming and cooling occurring in high latitude regions, the same regions that warmed in the last 30 years.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/davis-and-taylor-wuwt-submission.pdf
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/2003GL017115.shtml
http://www.springerlink.com/content/w57236105034h657/
A 2003 paper that predicts the sun is heading towards a Maunder minimum.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003SPD….34.0603S
Accepting that humans apparently have a tendency to “see patterns” even when the aren’t any, it has to be said that UAH V.6 bar graph/chart for 1978 – 2015, seems to give a pretty strong hint that there is a “broad” sine-wave in play.
Doubtless that broad wave is the product of several sometimes amplifying and sometimes cancelling sub-waves, the sum of the impacts of factors as varied as sea surface temperatures, variations in insolation, variations in cloud formation et etc. Perhaps one day we will discover vulcanism is cyclical, there being more active and less active periods on a more or less predicable basis.
Perhaps we will also find out empirically that the broad sine-wave posited above oscillates around a 0 anomaly, whether the 0 baseline is an Ice Age baseline or a late Holocene baseline (I refuse to use Anthropocene) for extremely long periods unless “shocked” out of stasis. An example of the sort of shock I’m thinking of is the Younger-Dryas event.
Just perhaps the currently stable “broad” sine wave simply went from a period of cooler “negative” anomalies to warmer “positive” ones some time in the early 90s. Perfectly naturally, as the product of all the other cylical and chaotic factors in play. Science should be focusing on these factors, rather than emoting about CO2.
1988 is the first significant positive anomaly. 2015 is the current one. In between there is a peak at 1998 or thereabouts. The positive anomaly trend from the 1998 peak to date is decidedly downward. So perhaps at some stage in several decades, a a result of perfectly natural rhythms, we will be seeing negative anomalies predominating again, until the cycle reverses…
I am sure there are a lot of people with vested interests who don’t want to look at the total variability over the length of the CET in this sort of light. I understand the CET trend since the mid-17th C is to all intends an purposes only slightly positive, but variability along that trend line can be quite significant.
Even without reference to the CET, there were times in 12th C Mediaeval Optimum when summers were so hot and dry that the Thames could be crossed on foot above and below London Bridge (eg ca 1150 and 1180). We haven’t come close to these sorts of conditions today. Wine producing vineyards were grown as far north as Bergen in Norway, parts of Western Scotland and York.
And yet there was a “great frost” from Dec 1150 to March 1151 that froze the Thames at London for two months. There are countless other examples of this sort of variability from the Mediaeval Optimum and through the Little Ice Age into modern times for anyone who knows a little European history.
I have no scientific training – but I am an historian and keen observer of the world at large. Whatever the “science”, I’m pretty confident in saying that there is nothing, absolutely nothing, in the weather or the climate today that we haven’t seen before. CO2 has very little if anything to do with climate change – which it will perfectly naturally.
KO
I reconstructed CET to 1538 and wrote about the fluctuating climate at some length.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/12/01/the-long-slow-thaw/
There is a clear upwards trend from 1700 with the biggest hockey stick being the period 1695 to 1740 when the warming trend came to a grinding halt n the very severe winter of 1740
Tonyb
Thanks for the reply TonyB. I will read the link with interest. I was aware of the 1695 uptick but didn’t realize it ran quite to 1740. Its start coincided with Marlborough’s wars more or less – and those campaign accounts, and the accounts of events at sea in those wars, makes fascinating reading – for references to prevailing weather and climate as much as anything else.
I put the UAH version 6.0 data in a spreadsheet and the trend line since March 1997 has a zero or less slope. Indicating no global warming for 18 years and 3 months.
Wait, I think that’s 18 years and 4 months.
Wind bursts from coronal holes create a space charge differential in the earth’s ionosphere which affects cloud cover in high latitude regions and the equatorial region. The coronal holes are starting to dissipate and/or are moving to high latitude regions of the sun where they no longer affect the earth’s climate
William Astley , brings this point out which is a very important part of the solar picture which is often times lost and or over looked.
This debate will be over before this decade ends and it will be in favor of natural climate variability , while AGW theory should become obsolete.
Which it is already as far as I am concerned.
Wind bursts from coronal holes create a space charge differential in the earth’s ionosphere which affects cloud cover in high latitude regions and the equatorial region. The coronal holes are starting to dissipate and/or are moving to high latitude regions of the sun where they no longer affect the earth’s climate
William Astley , brings this point out which is a very important part of the solar picture which is often times lost and or over looked.
This debate will be over before this decade ends and it will be in favor of natural climate variability , while AGW theory should become obsolete.
Which it is already as far as I am concerned.
The gorilla in the room regarding global temperatures is the persistent cold anomaly in the southern ocean SSTs around Antarctica. It seems that just not talking about it is not making it go away.
Indeed, I’m in eastern aust and in for mid-winter high latitude air injection to tropics over the next week. May see some min ‘records’ (for what they’re worth now) drop lower in places (don’t worry, BOM will adjust those away in time), but it’s been a humid winter, which is odd, from a persistent easterly flow coming from warmer waters of coral sea. So this will be the first really dry chill pushing over the continent. Anecdotally, the early to mid 1970s were waaaay colder, and for a far longer periods each year, than anything we’ve seen in the past 20 years. So if we’re headed for some ‘in-your-face-cooling’, there has been no sign of that here so far. If anything the winters are milder. Frankly the 1970s winters will be hard to beat, even if BOM-adjusted ‘data’ struggles today to reflect that reality, as lived through.
PS: we may have a new standard term for data biasing, “BOM-adjusted”.
It’s interesting that while Australia was colder in the 1970’s, it appears that Antarctic sea ice was less, and has increased since then and now:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
There is a point of view that global changes between warmer to cooler require change in the heat exchange between the equator and poles. Thus reduced heat exchange makes low latitudes such as Australia warmer and Antarctica colder – but an overall result of cooling. In the NH there is evidence of some slowdown in the AMOC which could signify the same thing. We shall see perhaps in the next few years.
It’s a very interesting point you make. Just one thing though, Aust is not low Lat., about 3/5 of the continent is south of the tropic. I am actually quite surprised the last few winters have not been cooler than normal, because the US had severe cold years in the 1970s at about the same time we did last time. But this time they’re apparently out of sync, even though the cold clearly is present to the south.
Have a look at the current 4-day phil, this may change the picture some, have not seen a deep southern air set up like this for a few years and looks set to keep going.
http://www.bom.gov.au/australia/charts/4day_col.shtml
That forecast pattern is precisely the sort of persistent reoccurring pattern required to produce the sustained colder longer winters in the 1970s.
Something locks that pressure pattern in situ for a few months, and apparently it isn’t the quantity of sea ice.
This is wonderful – I’ve never really read the comments on this website before – it is simply the best treasure trove of the wackiest and most delusional mindsets I’ve ever seen. How your mob manages to evade the reality of anthropogenic warming with mind blowing irrelevance and wilful ignorance is spectacular. Keep it up my white, middle class, overweight middle aged friends, we need a sense of humour during these exciting times.
[ah, another ThinkProgress groupie who puts the hate before he has anything intelligent to say -mod]