Guest Post by Bob Tisdale
Last year, we discussed in a number of posts how the claims of record high global surface temperatures were due primarily to the unusual, naturally occurring warming event in the eastern extratropical North Pacific…known as “The Blob”. See the list of posts about The Blob and its impacts at the end of this post.
This year, in addition to The Blob (which still exists), there is an El Niño developing in the eastern tropical Pacific. This has driven global surface temperatures even higher…once again naturally. As a result, it seems that NOAA has proclaimed “theee warmest ever [insert month name here]” each time they update their monthly State of the Climate Report.
Next year, can we expect a repeat of the monthly “warmest ever” claims?
Global surface and lower troposphere temperatures will often peak during the decay year of a strong El Niño, not the evolution year. And 2015 is the evolution year of the 2015/16 El Niño. This lagged effect is not always the case, though. Sometimes, but as an exception, they can peak during the evolution year.
This on-and-off (mostly on) lagged effect is easy to see if we detrend the global surface temperature (GISS land-ocean temperature index) and lower troposphere temperature (UAH TLT, version 6) data and compare them to an (arbitrarily scaled) ENSO index. I’m using NINO3.4 region sea surface temperature anomalies as the ENSO index. The NINO3.4 data typically peak during the evolution year of the El Niño. The obvious exception is the multiyear 1986/87/88 El Niño, when the NINO3.4 region temperature anomalies peaked during the second year.
Update: I forgot to mention that I’ve included lower troposphere temperature data as a reference.
Figure 1
And for your information, Figure 2 includes the annual GISS land ocean temperature index and UAH lower troposphere temperature anomalies, with the year-to-date (January to August) average highlighted with a red horizontal line.
Figure 2
The big question mark continues to be The Blob. IF (big if) The Blob disappears after the 2015/16 El Niño, that drop in temperature in the eastern extratropical North Pacific SHOULD (big SHOULD) offset some of the typical lagged effects of the El Niño. Personally, I wouldn’t bet on a complete departure of The Blob.
POSTS ABOUT THE BLOB
- The Hotspot in the North Pacific (February 2014)
- On The Recent Record-High Global Sea Surface Temperatures – The Wheres and Whys (August 2014)
- Axel Timmermann and Kevin Trenberth Highlight the Importance of Natural Variability in Global Warming… (November 2014)
- Researchers Find Northeast Pacific Surface Warming (1900-2012) Caused By Changes in Atmospheric Circulation, NOT Manmade Forcings (December 2014)
- Did ENSO and the “Monster” Kelvin Wave Contribute to the Record High Global Sea Surface Temperatures in 2014? (December 2014)
- Alarmists Bizarrely Claim “Just what AGW predicts” about the Record High Global Sea Surface Temperatures in 2014 (January 2015)
- North Pacific Update: The Blob’s Strengthening Suggests It’s Not Ready to Depart (April 2015)
And the most recent update (August 12, 2015) on The Blob is here.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
http://realclimatescience.com/2015/09/mindblowing-fraud-from-gavin-and-tom-in-victoria/#comment-3861
If USA, EU ect lawmakers are going to jail some of the top guys at Volkswagen for manipulating data to suit their needs/agenda, we now have tons of proof against NOAA, ect for exactly the same fraud. Lawyers get ready!
VW could have a case for counter-suit or similar. EPA etc. are dishonest in their demands. Also, don’t know what NOx levels and limits are in play, but the talk of ‘toxic’ NOx may be just the usual urban neurotic myth, for people with no comprehension of dose rates.
It ain’t hot everywhere here is the West. Put your coat on weather:
http://w2.weather.gov/climate/getclimate.php?wfo=pdt
41 F here this morning. About right for WY, late September.
Surface temps have been jiggered. Satellite temps still show no waming for 18+ years.
Should still be warming in any event during this 12, 000 year interglacial warming period.
Prior to this interglacial the ice was about 2 miles thick here.
Getting worried about how quickly those glaciers can return.
Might be able to walk to Siberia again soon.
“Might be able to walk to Siberia again soon.”
now there’s a whopper. c’mon, give us the proof for when you did it the first time…….
Cold blob in the North Atlantic Ocean
The warm blob in the Pacific ocean will be replaced with a cold blob, same as is currently observed in the North Atlantic. The cold blob is due to increasing wind speed, increased low level cloud cover, increased cloud albedo, and a decrease in cirrus clouds.
There is the start of record rainfall along the west coast as the persistent coastal high abates. We are going to have a front row seat to watch the end of NGW.
What is delaying the change to NGC are persistent solar wind bursts from coronal holes. The solar wind bursts create a space charge differential in the ionosphere which in turn causes a current flow from high latitude regions of the planet to the equator. The current flow affects cloud properties, duration, and cloud lifetimes in both regions.
The majority of the warming in the last 150 years was caused by solar cycle changes, rather than the increase in atmospheric CO2. Observations to support that assertion (prove that assertion) would be significant global cooling.
This is one of the first stories of unexplained NGC. Unfortunately the media interviewed the cult of CAGW so the entire story concerns zombie theories and manipulated data.
The cult of CAGW did not mention the fact that there is a cold blob that has started in the Northern Pacific and there has been a cold blob in the southern hemisphere for almost three years. There is a physical explanation (a forcing function) for all climate changes. The silly appeal to chaos or climate jumping from one state to another, or climate tipping from one state to another are Zombie theories filling the theoretical void. Solar cycle changes is the cause of all past and recent climate ‘changes’.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/09/24/why-some-scientists-are-worried-about-a-cold-blob-in-the-north-atlantic-ocean/
http://beta.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget/
Greenland Ice sheet melt started two months late, last summer.
http://beta.dmi.dk/uploads/tx_dmidatastore/webservice/e/n/i/b/m/Melt_combine.png
The cult of CAGW neglected to mention that Greenland Ice Sheet gained 200 GT 2014/2015.
http://beta.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget/
Having fun looking at a cherry-picked data point instead of long term trends?—
‘Data from NASA’s Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005.’
For the data, go to http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence or to the National Snow and Ice Data Center.
Oh, please. That link deliberately selects only the past 650K years before present. Why? Because it lets them delete important information.
Here is a much more relevant view, showing that the biosphere is currently starved of CO2 (click in chart to embiggen):
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_cHhMa7ARDDg/SoxiDu0taDI/AAAAAAAABFI/Z2yuZCWtzvc/s1600/Geocarb%2BIII-Mine-03.jpg
Notice that CO2 has been up to twenty times (20X) higher in the past — without ever causing runaway global warming.
[Snip. This is the ‘David Socrates’ identity thief, impersonating a legitimate commenter. ~mod.]
[Snip. Another ‘David Socrates’ puppet. -mod]
..
[Snip. This is the ‘David Socrates’ identity thief again, impersonating a legitimate commenter. ~mod.]
CO2 over the last 750 million years. All 2,600 estimates made under reliable methods, which are primarily direct ice core measurements and other proxy measurements (versus any kind of modeling)..
http://s12.postimg.org/kuw5mqdst/CO2_LAST_750_Mys.png
And GeoCarb III is based on real isotope proxies.
http://earth.geology.yale.edu/~ajs/2001/Feb/qn020100182.pdf
[Reply: Recent comments by “Bubba Cow” were not legitimate. An identity thief stole the name. Those comments have been removed and saved. ~mod.]
thankyou
that explains the farming and ranching I’ve seen lately on my last trip to greenland
Tell us, wlb, what was Grace’s designed purpose, and its true margin of error at ice volumes? While at it, what about volumes since the PDO went negative? On its c.32yr cool cycle.
Here is a much more relevant view, showing that the biosphere is currently starved of CO2 (click in chart to embiggen):
Thanks to the evolution of C4 plants which are better adapted to high O2 and low CO2 the biosphere’s doing fine.
The biosphere is booming due directly to the rise in completely harmless, beneficial CO2.
More CO2 is better. Sorry about the CO2=CAGW scare. Didn’t happen.
“NGC” ??? “NGW” ??? Care to share what they mean?
cooling…..warming
NGW, Natural global warming. NGC, Natural global cooling.
Solar cycle direct and and indirect modulation of planetary cloud cover and changes to wind speed is the forcing function, the cause of the warming in the last 150 years. If that assertion is correct, global warming is reversible.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-6596/440/1/012001/pdf/1742-6596_440_1_012001.pdf
I have to LOL at the hand-waving over “ice”. What we’re observing is entirely natural. Global ice is right at its 35 year average:
http://www.climate4you.com/images/NSIDC%20GlobalSeaIceAreaSince2000.gif
Since all the bluster is about global warming (which anyway has stopped). It is nothing but deceptive cherry-picking to select only the Arctic.
Antarctic ozone today: Ozone depletion is now extensive and the ozone hole covers Antarctica. The ozone hole grew rapidly from mid August onwards and is near its largest at some 25 million square kilometres. This is a larger hole than the average of those over the last decade.
The polar vortex was the largest over the past decade in the upper part of the ozone layer from July to September and the area with PSCs was also larger than average during this period.
http://theozonehole.com/images/sep272015ozone_hole_plot.jpg
http://theozonehole.com/2015.htm
By “right at its average” you mean today’s total of 18.2 million sq km is “right at” the average of 20.2 million sq km, rather than 10 per cent below it?
Global sea ice coverage will cross the longterm average either twice or four times every year, four times this year probably. Compared with the average for the day global seaice is about 2 million km^2 below average.
Observations of Solar Activity (Mg II Index) by GOME, SCIAMACHY, and GOME-2
http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gome/solar/mgii_composite.png
http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gome/gomemgii.html
Comparison of solar activity in September 2014 and September 2015.
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startday=29&startmonth=08&startyear=2014&starttime=00%3A00&endday=29&endmonth=09&endyear=2015&endtime=00%3A00&resolution=Automatic+choice&picture=on
Sorry Bill, but your link clearly says “The calving loss is greater than the gain from surface mass balance, and Greenland is losing mass at about 200 Gt/yr”
&
“satellites measuring the ice sheet mass have observed a loss of around 200 Gt/year”
I believe you are referencing an average over many years vs. the current data for 2014-15 where we saw an increase in the SMB.
Richard, I’m just repeating what the link states.
We could do with with a better reference to any gain.
Ozspeaksup is wondering how ‘they’are going to make the cold blob in the Atlantic a global warming roblem. They’ve already started Oz! I’ve seen a number of articles recently blaming the cold blob on warming melting the Greenland ice sheet and the resulting melt water disrupting the Gulf Stream and pushing it further south thereby creating the cold blob! Yes that old chestnut!!
Where is El Niño?
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-amo/from:1995
hiding in the noize
Quite clearly the AMO has significant affect on global temperatures because the North Atlantic Ocean region changes the most during all phases of climate over the past few millions of years.
http://i772.photobucket.com/albums/yy8/SciMattG/RSS%20Global_v_RemovedAMO2_zpsssrgab0r.png
Removing the AMO almost changes all the warming this scare has been about to a flat trend.
There is one thing I have never understood. Lets say you have 100 weather stations recording temperature for 100 years. During that 100 years, each weather that station have a record 100-year high temperature right? There can only be one. Now, assuming temperatures were randomly distributed, one might expect to set a record temperature each year at least one of the weather stations. However, in a chaotic system, we might expects there to be several stations that set the record in one year, and none the next, all evening out to one record set at one station each year.
During our 100 year measurement period, there is nothing to say that the first year might be the record cold, or the record hot, right? I mean we are assuming the temperatures are random. And, it is possible, that purely randomly, there could be apparent “trends” in the data. By chance some of the highs clustered at one end of the scale, while the lows clustered at the other.
But of course the trend would be meaningless, because as I have said, the data is random.
How many stations do we have the in U.S.? My guess is hundreds, right? So each year, if weather and temperature were simply random, we would expect to set 30-50 record 100-year highs and record lows, and record precipitation, and record drought, right? So when you define climate change as being “anything out of the ordinary” and account for both flood, droughts, hot, cold, storms, no storms, then every year you are going to be able to report on 30 to 50 weather stations show this to be the hottest summer ever, or coldest winter, or stormiest July, and whatnot.
Am I missing something? This is just the math, right?
Okay I just put together an excel spreadsheet. I used a random number generator to create random “high” temperatures for an imaginary weather station over a period of 100 years. I used a range of 90 to 100 degrees. I then graphed the data and put a linear trend line on it.
My trend line shows that the temperature is increasing at that imaginary weather station by 2 degrees over century! Clear evidence of global warming!
Again, purely random data can show “trends”. But the trends themselves are random.
THIS YEAR IS THE WARMEST EVER SAVE FOR THE NEXT – GOTTIT YET !!