Global Temperature Report: Warmest Ever February, driven by El Niño

From UAH:

February was warmest month in satellite record

Feb2016_graph

Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.12 C per decade
February temperatures (preliminary)
Global composite temp.: +0.83 C (about 1.50 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for February.
Northern Hemisphere: +1.17 C (about 2.11 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for February.
Southern Hemisphere: +0.50 C (about 0.90 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for February.
Tropics: +0.99 C (about 1.78 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for February.
January temperatures (revised):
Global Composite: +0.54 C above 30-year average
Northern Hemisphere: +0.69 C above 30-year average
Southern Hemisphere: +0.39 C above 30-year average
Tropics: +0.85 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 March 1, 2016:

By a statistically significant amount, February 2016 was the warmest month in the satellite temperature record, according to Dr. John Christy, director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. Interestingly, however, that record might have as much to do with an extraordinarily warm month in the Arctic as it does with warming caused by the El Niño Pacific Ocean warming event.
Globally, the average temperature anomaly in February (+0.83 C) was warmer than the previous record set in April 1998 (+0.74 C) during the so-called “El Niño of the century.”
In the Northern Hemisphere, the February anomaly (+1.17 C) was a full 0.32 C (0.58 F) warmer than the previous NH record (+0.85 C) set in April 1998. Temperatures in the tropics and the Southern Hemisphere were not at record levels in February.

FEBRUARY_2016_map
While the Arctic temperature anomaly is large, big temperature swings in the Arctic region aren’t unusual, especially during the winter months. Those swings are also normally somewhat transient, so the extra heat represented in February could dissipate over the next few weeks. If that happens, it doesn’t appear the heat from the El Niño by itself will be enough to continue pushing temperatures to new records later in the year, in which case this February anomaly might stand out as a singular spike in the dataset rather than part of an ongoing trend.
The warmest months in the satellite temperature record are:

Warmest Months, Global
How much warmer than seasonal norms
Feb. 2016   0.83 C
Apr.  1998    0.74 C
Feb.  1998    0.65 C
May  1998    0.64 C
June 1998    0.57 C
Jan.  2016    0.54 C
Aug. 1998    0.52 C
Mar.  2010    0.50 C
Jan.  1998    0.48 C
Mar.  1998    0.47 C
Feb.  2010    0.47 C
Warmest NH Months

Feb. 2016   1.17 C
Apr.  1998    0.85 C
Jan.  2016    0.70 C
Feb.  1998    0.66 C
July  1998    0.65 C
Oct.  2015    0.63 C
June 1998    0.60 C
Jan.  2010    0.60 C
May  2010    0.60 C
Mar.  2010    0.59 C
Warmest Februaries, Global
2016  0.83 C
1998   0.65 C
2010   0.47 C
2002   0.30 C
2003   0.25 C
2004   0.25 C
2007   0.19 C
2015   0.19 C
2005   0.18 C
2006   0.17 C
1999   0.17 C
Compared to seasonal norms, the warmest average temperature anomaly on Earth in February was over north central Russia, near the small town of Beloyarsky. February temperatures there averaged 5.20 C (about 9.36 degrees F) warmer than seasonal norms. Compared to seasonal norms, the coolest average temperature on Earth in February was over the Sea of Okhotsk, between the Russian mainland and the Kamchatka Peninsula, where the average February 2016 temperature was 3.25 C (about 5.85 degrees F) cooler than normal for February.
The complete version 6 beta lower troposphere dataset is available here:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0beta5.txt

Archived color maps of local temperature anomalies are available on-line at:
http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/

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 are collected and processed, they are 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 Spence adds from his blog:

Further Analysis of the Record February Warmth

The 1-month increase of +0.29 C in global average temperature from January to February is not unprecedented…for example, during the last El Nino (2009-10) there was +0.38 C warming from December to January.

The February warmth is likely being dominated by the warm El Nino conditions, which tends to have peak warmth in the troposphere close to February…but it appears that isn’t the whole story, since the tropical anomaly for February 2016 (+0.99 C) is still about 0.3 C below the February 1998 value during the super-El Nino of that year. In addition to the expected tropical warmth, scattered regional warmth outside the tropics led to a record warm value for extratropical Northern Hemispheric land areas, with a whopping +1.46 C anomaly in February…fully 0.5 deg. C above any previous monthly anomaly (!):

UAH-v6-LT-NExt-thru-feb-2016-2-768x576

As a sanity check on the latest data, I compared our monthly anomalies to the 2m surface temperatures analysed from the NCEP CFSv2 by Ryan Maue atWeatherBell.com. His calculated global average anomalies (from the 1981-2010 mean) for January and February 2016 were +0.51 and +0.70 C, respectively, which is close to our +0.54 and +0.83 C values (some amplification of tropospheric anomalies vs. surface is always seen during El Nino). Here are the regional temperature anomaly patterns for February in the two datasets:

UAH-LT-vs-CFSv2-Tsfc-Feb-2016-1

Even though the CFSv2 surface temperature analysis in the above plot is not “official”, I think it is a pretty good representation of what really happened last month, since it includes all sources of data in a physically consistent way within the daily weather forecast model framework. Note that on a monthly time scale we do not expect perfect correspondence between surface temperature and deep-tropospheric temperature anomaly patterns…especially in the deep tropics; the agreement in regional patterns seen above is about as good as it gets.

125 thoughts on “Global Temperature Report: Warmest Ever February, driven by El Niño

  1. So February 2016 is 0.2 degrees warmer than 18 years ago. That comes out to about 0.1 degrees a decade and 1 degree a century.

    • February could well be the peak with the El Nino being ~2 months ahead compared with 1997/98.

      Feb. 2016 0.83 C
      Apr. 1998 0.74 C

      If this is the case then only 0.09 c warmer than 18 years ago and represents ~0.05 c per decade, so only 0.5 c a century.

    • Global Temperature Report: Warmest Ever February
      ==================
      nope. Warmest February in past 40 years. Before that, no data.

      Go sit on the beach. The very first wave you see is the biggest ever. The next wave might also be the biggest, or it might be the second biggest.

      • ferd
        The title is
        “Global Temperature Report: Warmest Ever February 2016 driven by El Niño”
        It is also, of course, the Coldest Ever February 2016.
        No exclamation mark needed.

        Auto

      • It is also, of course, the Coldest Ever February 2016.
        ==============
        perfect, I see a bright future for you in advertising. Or in climate science communications.

    • jared:

      You say

      So February 2016 is 0.2 degrees warmer than 18 years ago. That comes out to about 0.1 degrees a decade and 1 degree a century.

      So what? 1 degree a century is trivial.
      Northern and Southern hemisphere temperatures vary by tens of degrees Celsius during each year. Global temperature varies during each year, too, and global temperature is lowest when the Earth is farthest from the Sun in its orbit (i.e. global temperature is lowest when solar radiative forcing is lowest during each year).

      Global temperature rises by 3.8°C from January to June each year.
      and
      Global temperature falls by 3.8°C from June to January each year.

      This is a rate of global temperature change (in both directions) of 76.0°C per decade and 760.0°C per century.

      This happens during each and every year while nobody notices.

      Richard

      • While the annual cycle is indeed large, what is forgotten is that “anomalization” of data removes that cycle. Its range thus is irrelevant to the issue here.

      • Its range thus is irrelevant
        ==============
        not at all. Richard is simply pointing out why the great wailing and gnashing of teeth that happens every time the temperature changes 1/10 th of a degree over a decade is such farce.

        The thermostat in your house cannot hold temperatures to 1/10 of a degree, but scientists the world over are somehow mystified that the earth’s temperature also changes, and as a result foretell that all manner of plague and rain of frogs will descend upon us.

      • My fellow Courtney: Here in Ohio, this happens (it seems) during each and every 5 minutes, and speaking for myself, I notice. Dammit.

      • Paul Courtney:

        You say to me (I think humorously)

        My fellow Courtney: Here in Ohio, this happens (it seems) during each and every 5 minutes, and speaking for myself, I notice. Dammit.

        For the benefit of any onlookers who may not understand, I point out that your comment emphasises my point.

        People notice the actual temperature changes where they are. Nobody can notice global temperature changes. And global temperature changes of tenths of a degree are completely insignificant.

        Richard

      • Average monthly change of 0.1K is insignificant only in the context of superficial human impressions of temperature in the presence of sizable seasonal cycles. In the context of secular changes in the miniscule climate signal, 0.1K/decade becomes quite significant. Expressing short-term cyclical changes as if they were secular trends is patently sensationalistic clap-trap, no matter on what side of the climate change debate that is done.

      • Hi Richard.
        Usually you are spot on with your facts but I think you have reversed the sun/earth proximity.

        Perihelion, which is in the SH summer and the planet is closest to the sun, shows a cooler earth average. This is attributed to the higher heat capacity of the oceans which dominate in the SH. You are correct on the actual timing but not on proximity to the sun.

        According to a reference to Dr Spencer the earth is cooler by 4F or 2.3C on avg at perihelion compared to aphelion. I feel I have seen it quoted as 4C too but have never been able to find that reference again.

        http://spaceweather.com/glossary/perihelion.htm

      • tonym:

        You said to me

        I think you have reversed the sun/earth proximity.

        That worried me so I checked it e.g. here where it says

        The Earth is closest to the Sun – or at its Perihelion – about two weeks after the December solstice and farthest from the Sun or at its Aphelion, about two weeks after the June Solstice.

        One could argue about my dates being wrong by approximately two weeks but except for that argueable point, what I wrote is right; i.e.

        Northern and Southern hemisphere temperatures vary by tens of degrees Celsius during each year. Global temperature varies during each year, too, and global temperature is lowest when the Earth is farthest from the Sun in its orbit (i.e. global temperature is lowest when solar radiative forcing is lowest during each year).

        Global temperature rises by 3.8°C from January to June each year.
        and
        Global temperature falls by 3.8°C from June to January each year.

        Richard

      • 1sky1:

        You say

        Average monthly change of 0.1K is insignificant only in the context of superficial human impressions of temperature in the presence of sizable seasonal cycles. In the context of secular changes in the miniscule climate signal, 0.1K/decade becomes quite significant. Expressing short-term cyclical changes as if they were secular trends is patently sensationalistic clap-trap, no matter on what side of the climate change debate that is done.

        Average monthly change of 0.1K is insignificant by any rational consideration.

        All observed global climate changes are secular (unless you have discovered otherwise but have yet to publish your discovery and claim your Nobel Prizes).

        I very strongly agree that “Expressing short-term cyclical changes as if they were secular trends is patently sensationalistic clap-trap”.
        That is why I ridiculed Jared having done it..
        My pointing out a “rate of global temperature change (in both directions) of 76.0°C per decade and 760.0°C per century”
        is no more valid and no less valid than
        Jared’s calculation of “about 0.1 degrees a decade and 1 degree a century”.

        Richard

      • tonym:

        Aha! I think I have made an error that you were trying to inform me about.
        I wrote

        Global temperature varies during each year, too, and global temperature is lowest when the Earth is farthest from the Sun in its orbit (i.e. global temperature is lowest when solar radiative forcing is lowest during each year).

        but should have written

        Global temperature varies during each year, too, and global temperature is HIGHEST when the Earth is farthest from the Sun in its orbit (i.e. global temperature is HIGHEST when solar radiative forcing is lowest during each year).

        Thankyou for drawing attention to my error.

        Richard

      • Richard:

        By no means are all changes in monthly global average temperature “secular,” i.e., persistent. They are usually highly transient, short-lived fluctuations that have scant effect upon the long-term climatic averages or trends. While Jared’s secant-line calculation is indeed a very tenuous estimate of trend, your outlandish counter-example is not the way to dispute it.

      • 1sky1:

        You say to me

        While Jared’s secant-line calculation is indeed a very tenuous estimate of trend, your outlandish counter-example is not the way to dispute it.

        What you call my “outlandish counter-example” is reality and fact concerning the matter.

        I will continue to refute nonsense with reality and fact and take no notice of carping from anonymous members of the ‘peanut gallery’.

        Richard

      • Richard:

        Resort to ridicule and ad hominems scarcely conceals your lack of analytic insight into the question of what is significant in the context of the global climate signal. That you fail to distinguish between truly secular trends and high-frequency fluctuations places the peanut bag in this circus show directly in your hands.

      • 1sky1:

        You say to me

        Resort to ridicule and ad hominems scarcely conceals your lack of analytic insight into the question of what is significant in the context of the global climate signal. That you fail to distinguish between truly secular trends and high-frequency fluctuations places the peanut bag in this circus show directly in your hands.

        Are you for real?
        I ridicule ridiculous assertions and I do NOT use ad hominems.

        A rise of 0.1 K difference between global temperature values for the months of February in years 18 years apart is trivial. Indeed, there is no possibility of resolving the difference if it is only 0.1K.

        If you think such triviality is significant then it is up to you to explain what the significance is.

        I repeat, I will continue to refute nonsense with reality and fact and take no notice of carping from anonymous members of the ‘peanut gallery’.

        Richard

      • Richard:

        On the one hand you claim “1 degree a century is trivial” when referencing a deseasonalized ANOMALY series, on the other hand you compute the R.O.C. of the SEASONAL cycle to buttress your point. That ‘s outlandish sleight of hand, transparent to anyone with a modicum of analytic insight. And then you claim to “refute nonsense,” while pretending that “carping from anonymous members of the ‘peanut gallery’” is not an ad hominem. I’ve got no time for such polemical ploys.

      • 1sky1:

        I said to you

        A rise of 0.1 K difference between global temperature values for the months of February in years 18 years apart is trivial. Indeed, there is no possibility of resolving the difference if it is only 0.1K.

        If you think such triviality is significant then it is up to you to explain what the significance is.

        YOU HAVE NOT EXPLAINED WHY YOU THINK SUCH TRIVIALITY IS IMPORTANT.

        Instead, you have pretended your carping is not complete nonsense by replying with this ludicrous polemical ploy

        On the one hand you claim “1 degree a century is trivial” when referencing a deseasonalized ANOMALY series, on the other hand you compute the R.O.C. of the SEASONAL cycle to buttress your point. That ‘s outlandish sleight of hand, transparent to anyone with a modicum of analytic insight. And then you claim to “refute nonsense,” while pretending that “carping from anonymous members of the ‘peanut gallery’” is not an ad hominem. I’ve got no time for such polemical ploys.

        I repeat, I ridicule ridiculous assertions and I do NOT use ad hominems; a pertinent truth is NOT ad hominem.

        And I also repeat, I will continue to refute nonsense with reality and fact and I refuse take notice of carping from anonymous members of the ‘peanut gallery’: I refute it so it does not mislead onlookers.

        Your reply I am answering has made me certain that you know the triviality is insignificant and you also know my appropriate comparison demonstrates its insignificance. You did not notice my ‘deliberate error’ of (twice) using “0.1 K” and not 0.2K. If you truly thought the difference of 0.2K between February global temperatures over 18 years apart was significant then you would have objected to my having halved it.

        Stop carping, explain why you think the triviality is significant, and stop pretending my very appropriate comparison is inappropriate. Or clear off.

        Richard

      • Get back here when you finally do your own homework leading to understanding:

        1) the difference in resolution between deseasonalized global average anomalies based on tens of thousands of satellite measurements and mere individual observations
        and
        2) that one degree per century would turn the climate of Cleveland into that of Nashville within half a millennium.

        Until you grasp such basics, the pretense that you’re performing a great service to readers here is laughable.

      • Richard:

        I’m not going to do your homework for you. Get back to me when you finally grasp the crucial difference between extremes of deseasonalized global average anomalies based upon tens of thousands of measurements and individual obervations of seasonal cycles. Until then, the pretense that you’re performing a valuable service for readers is as laughable as the trivialization of a degree per century secular trend.

      • Egregious troll posting as 1sky1:

        You have twice post this ignorant idiocy as attempted excuse for your inability to justify your silly assertion

        Get back here when you finally do your own homework leading to understanding:

        1) the difference in resolution between deseasonalized global average anomalies based on tens of thousands of satellite measurements and mere individual observations
        and
        2) that one degree per century would turn the climate of Cleveland into that of Nashville within half a millennium.

        Until you grasp such basics, the pretense that you’re performing a great service to readers here is laughable.

        I will explain “the basics” which you state you don’t know because your post makes clear that you think untrue insults justify your refusal to do the “homework” needed to remove your arrogant ignorance.

        Firstly, I did NOT compare “the difference in resolution between deseasonalized global average anomalies based on tens of thousands of satellite measurements and mere individual observations”.
        I compared a global temperature difference over 18 years to a global temperature difference over 6 months.

        Secondly, the difference between “deseasonalized global average anomalies” for two February values are THE SAME as the difference between “global average temperatures” for the two values.
        Clearly, you do not know what the anomalies are and you cannot do your “homework” so I will spell it out for you.

        The difference between a global average temperature (T1) and an earlier global average temperature (T2) is (T1-T2).

        A global temperature anomaly (Ax) is the global average temperature value (Tx) minus a constant (k which is the average global temperature for a period of 30 years); i.e.
        Ax = (Tx-k)

        Therefore, the difference between a “deseasonalized global average anomaly” (A1) and an earlier “deseasonalized global average anomaly” (A2) is (A1-A2).

        But A1 = (T1-k) and A2 = (T2-k)

        Therefore, (A1-A2) = (T1-k) – (T2-k) = T1-k – T2+k = (T1 – T2)
        QED

        Then you extrapolate a change over 18 years to 500 years. Saying

        2) that one degree per century would turn the climate of Cleveland into that of Nashville within half a millennium.

        500 years would provide ample time for the people of Cleveland to adapt to the climate of Nashville if that were required. Indeed, the rate of climate change would be so small that the people of Cleveland would probably not notice they were adapting.

        Anyway, I rightly ridiculed that ludicrous extrapolation and pointed out that average global temperature rises by 3.8°C during 6 months of each year and nobody notices.

        Until you learn these basics your trolling here will continue to be laughed at by the knowledgeable readers of WUWT.

        Richard

      • Richard:

        Stop the polemical shell game. Nowhere did I embrace Jared’s February to February anomaly comparison over a span of 18yrs as a sound estimate of “trend,” although it’s not far off the 1.2K per century trend of the available satellite data. What I criticized is your use of SEASONAL cycle data to compute a sensational, meaningless “trend” in order to ridicule him and trivialize a statistically significant trend of !K per century. And it’s only in the context of individual observations that your claim of “0.1K cannot be resolved” is remotely credible. I’m not going to respond to any more of your evasions.

      • Egregious troll posting as 1sky1:

        Stop telling falsehoods!
        You say

        Stop the polemical shell game. Nowhere did I embrace Jared’s February to February anomaly comparison over a span of 18yrs as a sound estimate of “trend,” although it’s not far off the 1.2K per century trend of the available satellite data.

        The ONLY “polemical shell game” is YOU repeatedly changing the subject each time I show your ridiculous assertions are falsehoods.

        You DID embrace “Jared’s February to February anomaly comparison over a span of 18yrs as a sound estimate of “trend,””. Your first post in this subthread said

        While the annual cycle is indeed large, what is forgotten is that “anomalization” of data removes that cycle. Its range thus is irrelevant to the issue here.

        That is a direct support of the post from Jared and ferdberple immediately refuted it saying

        Its range thus is irrelevant
        ==============
        not at all. Richard is simply pointing out why the great wailing and gnashing of teeth that happens every time the temperature changes 1/10 th of a degree over a decade is such farce.

        The thermostat in your house cannot hold temperatures to 1/10 of a degree, but scientists the world over are somehow mystified that the earth’s temperature also changes, and as a result foretell that all manner of plague and rain of frogs will descend upon us.

        You ignored that refutation and started your “polemical shell game”.

        And you are still playing your childish game now writing

        SEASONAL cycle data to compute a sensational, meaningless “trend” in order to ridicule him and trivialize a statistically significant trend of !K per century. And it’s only in the context of individual observations that your claim of “0.1K cannot be resolved” is remotely credible. I’m not going to respond to any more of your evasions.

        Absolutely not!
        Those assertions were refuted completely by the reply to you from ferdberple that I have here copied.

        You did not answer the refutation then and you evade it now when you say I “trivialize a statistically significant trend of !K per century”. NO! I say the simple truth that a trend of 1K per century IS trivial ; e.g. global temperature changes by 3.8K during 6 months of each year and nobody notices. In response you have provided nothing – nil, zilch, nada – which suggests “a statistically significant trend of 1K per century” is not trivial.

        The only “evasions” are yours and you have yet to provide anything which has not been refuted completely and absolutely.

        Richard

      • Richard:

        It’s clear that you have no analytical grasp of the issue. FYI the monthly average anomaly a(m) in any year is given by the average temperature T(m) for that year’s m-th month minus S(m), the long-term average for that month. S(m) is not a simple constant, as you would have it, but an m-periodic variable expressing the average seasonal cycle. The variance of that cycle, even for global averages, is more than an order of magnitude greater than the variance of the random anomalies a(m). Thus T(m+6) – T(m) is NOT equal to a(m+6) – a(m). That is what makes your calculation of the 6-month “trend” based upon T(m), rather than a(m), so grossly misleading.

        How ironic that you would point to my ignoring fred berple’s equally blind response to my comment about the irrelevance of seasonal cycles to the issue of truly secular trends as evidence of my “evasion.” I don’t suffer fools gladly.

      • Egregious troll posting as 1sky1:

        You said you were leaving but that was as false as everything else you have posted to this thread because subsequently you have written to me saying

        It’s clear that you have no analytical grasp of the issue

        NO! It is abundantly clear that you know nothing and understand less than nothing about this issue. Your silly post I am now answering again demonstrates that you post nonsense, get it refuted here, then check back to ‘troll central’ to get something else to say.

        This is clearly demonstrated when you write

        FYI the monthly average anomaly a(m) in any year is given by the average temperature T(m) for that year’s m-th month minus S(m), the long-term average for that month. S(m) is not a simple constant, as you would have it, but an m-periodic variable expressing the average seasonal cycle.

        Oooh! Troll central gave you some words that sound ‘sciencey’ to use! It is a pity you demonstrate you fail to understand what they say.
        I introduced my explanation for you saying

        Secondly, the difference between “deseasonalized global average anomalies” for two February values are THE SAME as the difference between “global average temperatures” for the two values.
        Clearly, you do not know what the anomalies are and you cannot do your “homework” so I will spell it out for you.

        There is only ONE constant (k) for February values.
        Each other month has a different constant but that is NOT relevant because the subject under discussion was and is “the difference between “deseasonalized global average anomalies” for “two February values”.

        And the fact that other months use different constants to “deseasonalize” them is WHY the seasonal variation is not seen in the monthly data of anomalies.
        This explains the matter.

        Having demonstrated your complete ignorance of the meaning of the words you have copied from somewhere, you write

        That is what makes your calculation of the 6-month “trend” based upon T(m), rather than a(m), so grossly misleading.

        NO! The “6 month trend” is real and NOT “misleading”: read the link I have provided for you. Its provision demonstrates the triviality of the trend calculated by Jared from two February values taken from 18 years apart.

        As I said

        I compared a global temperature difference over 18 years to a global temperature difference over 6 months.

        And

        My pointing out a “rate of global temperature change (in both directions) of 76.0°C per decade and 760.0°C per century”
        is no more valid and no less valid than
        Jared’s calculation of “about 0.1 degrees a decade and 1 degree a century”.

        You conclude with these falsehoods

        How ironic that you would point to my ignoring fred berple’s equally blind response to my comment about the irrelevance of seasonal cycles to the issue of truly secular trends as evidence of my “evasion.” I don’t suffer fools gladly.

        You did not and you have not answered ferdberple’s cogent statement that 0.2°C rise in global temperature over 18 years is trivial. And you obviously do “suffer” at least one fool “gladly”; viz. yourself.

        Do yourself a favour and stop coming back here where you get your idiocy refuted in public.

        Richard

      • Egregious troll posting as 1sky1:

        I am wondering if your irrational behaviour is a clever ploy.

        If it is a ploy then it must be you being used by whomever is employing you to do your trolling because, obviously, it is far too clever for you to have devised it. Hence, you can take this post as a warning about whomever is employing you.

        You keep posting nonsense and when knocked down you bounce back up like one of those round-bottomed ‘men’ on the floor of bird cages. And you are a very easy push-over because you don’t understand the nonsense you post so it is easily refuted.

        Your posts are so silly that it could be thought their only purpose is to disrupt WUWT threads. I know you are posting from behind the coward’s screen of anonymity, but it seems you may be being being used. If so, then you would do well to consider the wisdom of working for whomever is employing you.

        Richard

      • Richard:

        Your persistent ad hominems fail to conceal the fact that you incorporate the large seasonal cycle S when computing monthly temperature differences over six months,
        T(m+6) – T(m) = a(m+6) + S(m+6) – [a(m) + S(m)] = a(m+6) – a(m) + [S(m+6) – S(m)]
        whereas anomaly differencing a(m+k) – a(m), for any k, never does. Thus, in your haste to ridicule Jared, you compare apples to kiwi fruit. Nothing in your subsequent postings here cured that problem.

        It’s purely a red herring to point to the numerical coincidence of the two differences for February-to-February comparisons, because in that case the seasonal difference is zero. In the context of reported EXTREME global UAH anomalies, that misrepresents what indication is provided when successive February extremes, which happen to be 18 years apart, are differenced. Although it’s not equivalent to the least-squares trend, this is not just an arbitrarily chosen interval, as you would imply. It at least places this highly tenuous measure in the right ballpark for trend in a way that your seasonal ROC can never be. Seasonal, and other cycles, are indeed irrelevant to questions of secular trend.

        Finally, no matter how you try to spin a trend of 1K per century as trivial, that is half again as high as the UHI-corrupted “global” station indices have it and nearly four times the secular trend of the CET record. And if you truly believe that a 5K change over half a millennium would be “trivial,” then you should likewise dismiss the 120kyr ice age cycle, since its estimated range in temperate latitudes was likewise 5K.

        Vitriolic polemics is a sure sign of amateurism.

      • Egregious troll posting as 1sky1:

        A difference of 0.2°C between estimates of monthly global temperature for two February months 18 years apart is trivial. Its triviality is demonstrated by the fact that monthly global temperature varies by 3.8°C (in both directions) during each year and nobody notices.

        Nothing you have said alters those facts. But you keep repeating your errors that I have already repeatedly corrected.

        What you call my “vitriolic abuse” (i.e. my pointing out that you are an anonymous and egregious troll) is merely my rejection of the untrue personal insults you have posted about me.

        I am through with wasting time on you.

        Richard

      • The seasonal cycle, which varies enormously with location, has nothing to do with questions of climate change. In fact it obscures secular changes as seen in: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/03/uah-v6-lt-global-temperatures-with-annual-cycle/ By ignoring the fact that the previous extreme February ANOMALY was exceeded by a SIGNIFICANT 0.2K, placing it more than 4 sigmas above the February mean, Richard establishes a firm claim on impressionable amateurism.

    • Keep in mind that we also have a lot less Arctic ice extent this winter than we did in 1998. This has been warming not only the areas of the ocean not covered with ice, but also much of Europe and western Russia. I doubt very much there are many people in those areas complaining about the warmth.

      This represents and even larger planetary cooling than what happened in 1998. The heat is now gone. As La Nina unfolds this could lead to some of the coldest anomalies in decades by next year.

    • Ok so accepting February 2016 is 0.2 degrees warmer than 18 years ago, February 2016 was cooler than (place some other arbitrary date here) in global weather history.

      So what? Numbers are fun?

  2. I’d say The Warmers that have attempted to dismiss satellite data as unreliable actually accidentally stumbled into the truth.

    It’s obviously broken. ;)

    Andrew

    • what annoys me is i live in the northern hemisphere, yet any warming near me happens to be in the troposphere. why the hell can we not get some at ground level . we hardly saw winter temps below zero last winter anywhere in the uk, yet this winter we have been minus double digits, all while other northern hemispherites get the warmest february ever.

      when is this warming going global ? i am tired of the warming in places no one ever goes type warming,gimme some of this damn warming i have been promised !

      • It makes me wonder whether you ever looked out of the window.

        Here are some facts from England’s winter.

        The Central England Temperature (CET) for December beat the previous highest in the 357-year series by 1.7 degrees. Nowhere in the Midlands or South of England recorded a single air frost

        January and February were respectively 1.01 and 0.51 degrees warmer than the 1981-2010 average. The coldest temperature recorded in England was -8.8 deg C in Oxfordshire on the 20th January

        The winter CET (Dec,Jan,Feb) would have broken the previous record for warmth by 0.01 degrees if this had not been a leap year. As it was, February 29th was on the chilly side, and so the winter took second place behind 1868-69.

        Birmingham is probably typical of many central England locations. On only 10 of the 91 winter nights did the temperature drop below freezing, with a lowest all winter of -4 deg C

        All in all, it was a reasonable reflection of the rest of the Northern hemisphere warmth.

  3. Another update from Dr. Roy Spencer at http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/03/record-rainy-cloudy-humid-february-over-the-oceans/ (Use the link to see the images):

    Record Rainy, Cloudy, Humid February over the Oceans
    March 2nd, 2016 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

    It’s been about eight months since I’ve updated the SSM/I- and SSMIS-based satellite estimates of the RSS ocean products (vapor, clouds, rain, and surface wind speed). Given the record warm tropospheric temperatures in February, and the likely role of El Nino in that, I thought it would be interesting to see if (for example) there was a big increase in rain activity, which is how the troposphere can warm so rapidly…through the latent heating of the air as heat is transferred from the ocean surface to the atmosphere.

    By way of background, here are the monthly HadSST3 sea surface temperature anomalies (thru January). The anomalies are calculated over the same period that we have SSM/I data (since July, 1987), and they indicate record-warmth in the global ocean average (60N to 60S):
    HadSST3-thru-201602

    The SSMIS vertically integrated water vapor anomalies, which are dominated by boundary layer vapor and are tightly coupled to SST variations, mirror the SST anomalies with record high vapor amounts in December and February:
    SSMI-Vapor-thru-201602

    When the anomalies are computed at the gridpoint level, we see that most of the “action” is occurring in the central tropical Pacific, consistent with the mature El Nino conditions (I’ve included Feb. 1998 for comparison):
    ssmi-vapor-grids-201602-vs-199802
    Note that the current El Nino does not seem to have the ring of depressed water vapor values around the region where the enhanced rainfall activity occurs in the high-vapor zone that was seen in 1998. That depression in 1998 was likely due to subsiding air driven by the convection pushing the top of the humid boundary layer downward, making a thinner layer of moist air. I have no explanation for this difference between the two El Ninos.

    What is exceptional is the rainfall anomaly in February, with a global ocean anomaly of almost 16% above the 29-year average:
    SSMI-rain-thru-201602

    The total cloud water anomaly for February was also at a record high, at 13% above average:
    SSMI-cloudwater-thru-201602

    Finally, the ocean surface wind speeds from SSMIS are seen to be recovering in the last few months…they are typically low during El Nino…supporting the view that El Nino is beginning to weaken:
    SSMI-windspeed-thru-201602

    I will remind folks that I still think there are problems with the SSMIS water vapor, as it is increasing considerably faster than expected based upon a 7% increase per degree of SST increase. I believe this is due to assumptions in the water vapor retrieval algorithm. The retrieval assumes a vertical water vapor profile shape, and if that shape has changed, it can bias the retrieval. I believe RSS also assumes a climatological average SST field in the retrieval, which might also affect the results.

    So, it seems that much of the exceptional tropospheric warmth in February was driven by a rather spectacular “burp” of convective energy released by storms into the troposphere.

      • From the abstract (full article is paywalled). Paraphrase: ‘Previous version used GCM CAM3 to make diurnal drift adjustments. Here, we test a variety of methods using satellite signals themselves, and select one that gives better agreement between satellites… It shows more warming than previously, particularly in the period after 1998.’
        Karlized RSS, Mears did. He stops disavowing his RSS, rather changes it al la Karl.
        Now a greater discrepancy again between UAH 6.0beta5 and RSS4.0.

      • The question is if the UAH team will be doing similar corrections in their data treatment, or if they will write an article that explains their view on why the RSS team is wrong with this update.

      • There was a likely a problem with the prior processing of AMSU ( all the data after May 1998 ).

        To see this its rather simple:

        Take the difference of the Surface and RSS ( prior version )

        Look at the slope of the difference

        circa 1979- may 1998 ( MSU sensor)
        may 1998 to Present (AMSU sensor )

        here is what you will see: Until may 1998 the surface and RSS agreed quite well. ( slope of the difference is ZERO)

        After the introduction of AMSU, the series diverge.

        I will look at the new version.. I will guess that the RSS series is more consistent now.

        Dang.. I have about 2 months of work on the old product that just went down the drain if they fixed the problem.

        There is one other issue that needs checking…

      • Steven:

        “There was a likely a problem with the prior processing of AMSU ( all the data after May 1998 ).”

        Yes, RSS (V3.3) also deviated from RATPAC sonde data since around that time.

      • circa 1979- may 1998 ( MSU sensor)
        may 1998 to Present (AMSU sensor )

        here is what you will see: Until may 1998 the surface and RSS agreed quite well. ( slope of the difference is ZERO)

        After the introduction of AMSU, the series diverge.

        Disagree, the MSU and AMSU matched the surface data well when it was hadcrut3. Justifying to alter RSS just to match the recent surface data adjustments to hadcrut4 is circular reasoning and bad science. Hundreds of extra stations added in the northern hemisphere for hadcrut4 changes the control and makes it incomparable to previous data. Making one data set a bad apple doesn’t justify making another one too. The hadcrut series has very poor observations in the Arctic over the long term and doesn’t show warmer periods in the Arctic when the NAO and AO was historical negative like now because there were few observations back then.

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1979/to:2014.5/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1979

      • well done on keeping your eye on that pea matt g. it sure is moving fast these days :)

  4. The humanity! It may actually be .2C warmer than 1998. It is even outside the probable measurement error. Everything is immediately going straight to hell.:-)

    • Apparently, or so “I’ve heard”, hell is a bit warmer than even early “molten magma” earth.

      “Well, that’s what I _heard_.” (Bill Murray, Ghostbusters)

  5. Fascinating how its regional warming not global The global average is driven by Arctic warmth, particularly around the Barents Sea. Has the wind patterns been analyzed? Is there a circulation pattern that has reduce Barents sea ice and advocated the ventilating warmth over north Eurasia?

    • Jim
      Much of this warming l think has been due to the wind patterns caused by the weather pattern set up during the month. Due to low pressure sitting over europe for most of the month. The high pressure over Russia has had to extend north/south rather then east/west. Which at times has allowed warm air from as far south as NW Africa and the middle east to push northwards into the Arctic over this region.

    • dewitt payne has an interesting hypotheses on that over on the blackboard. it would appear to have some merit.

  6. Climate alarmists were not expecting this from satellite data. I think they might be a bit stunned. What can they do now? Can they say, “Denier satellite data is even now confirming that it’s worse than we thought”?

  7. These reported statistics are unable to show the human CO2 influence without the removal of the natural warming trend coming out of the little ice age. Then prior warm bursts such as these need to be considered:

    1860 – 1880 0.16 C 20 year warm spurt(AMO?)
    1910 – 1940 0.15 C as above
    compared to:
    1975 – 1998 0.16 C

    Trends : Phil Jones

    That gets to the statistical methods done by Nick Lewis and others.

    http://climateaudit.org/2015/04/20/pitfalls-in-climate-sensitivity-estimation-part-3/

    A Paris 2C limit was to be our upper bound because the ice core records show that we were that warm several times in the past 8000 years. Nick Lewis shows that to be unlikely.

    I don’t yet see a “dangerous problem” resulting from our added CO2.

    Thank you WUWT for the ongoing education.

    • A Paris 2C limit
      ==========
      depends where you measure. The tropics have been the same temperature for millions of years. It is the polar regions where there have been large shifts in temperature.

      For example, about 6-8 thousand years ago the Arctic was ice free in the summer for almost 1000 years. Clearly temperatures would have been warmer than now yet this was the time that human civilization first developed.

      • ferdberple: For example, about 6-8 thousand years ago the Arctic was ice free in the summer for almost 1000 years.

        How is that known? Links? Published papers?

      • 6-8 thousand years ago the NH received more insolation. It’s by no means certain the Arctic was ‘ice free in the Summer for a thousand years,’ but surface temps in Greenland were very warm.

      • I’m tired of posting the peer reviewed publication that says the Arctic was very likely ice free 6,000 – 8,000 years ago. You will believe whatever you want to believe.

      • That’s ok. Reasonable people wouldn’t want just one point of view, as if that was the oracle. Here are three papers [PDF] on the subject. There are more. None are the oracle. It is by no means certain that the summertime Arctic was sea-ice-free for a thousand years in the early Holocene.

        http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/mholland/papers/Polyak_2010_historyofseaiceArctic.pdf
        https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Svend_Funder/publication/51547629_A_10000-year_record_of_Arctic_Ocean_sea-ice_variability–view_from_the_beach/links/00b7d5208dd643635e000000.pdf
        http://gizmo.geotop.uqam.ca/devernalA/Dyck_et_al_QSR_2010.pdf

      • barry,

        On your planet, maybe. But here on Earth it was significantly warmer earlier in the Holocene. On Earth, when it’s warm the ice melts. What does it do on your planet?

        On Planet Earth:

      • Seems you’re arguing for the sake of it. My first comment stands.

        “It’s by no means certain the Arctic was ‘ice free in the Summer for a thousand years,’ but surface temps in Greenland were very warm.”

        So, we agree, it was very warm in the Arctic back then. Whether this axiomatically translates to sea ice-free conditions in the summer you seem to be convinced. fredberple seems to be, too. I’m more skeptical.

      • dbstealey: I’m tired of posting the peer reviewed publication that says the Arctic was very likely ice free 6,000 – 8,000 years ago.

        I missed it. Sorry.

      • dbstealey:

        Why is that Alley graph still published on here as including modern warming?

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/13/crowdsourcing-the-wuwt-paleoclimate-reference-page-disputed-graphs-alley-2000/

        That graph ends 95 years before present and therefore omitted modern warming.

        “I this thread I’d like to solidify the classifications for the graphs based upon Alley, 2000. The dispute around Alley, 2000 has focused on the axis labels, as WUWT commenter Phil states here

        “Any graph that claims to use Alley’s GISP2 data must either finish at 95 years Before Present (BP=1950) or AD1855 because that is the final date in his database which is on-line and freely available to us all. Lappi’s graph mistakes Present for 2000 as does Easterbrook, they should have a note added pointing out their error or be excluded.””

      • Toneb,

        As stated many times before, what we are observing is neither unusual, nor unprecedented.

        I understand your terror. But it is misplaced. You are worried about a black cat under your bed. You can almost hear it breathing. But when you turn on the lights and look… there is no cat.

        And there never was.

      • dbstealey;

        Thank you for that illuminating response.
        So you knew that graph was deceptive.
        Plainly.

      • Toneb March 3, 2016 at 1:37 am

        That graph ends 95 years before present and therefore omitted modern warming.

        It actually ends in 1855, i.e. 95 years before 1950.

      • John:
        Thank you.
        Written in haste (though Anthony’s quote had it right).
        Yes, the Alley graph, as posted by dbstealey is about as deceptive as it could be in a Blog that is considering anthro GHG emissions post the industrial age.

      • “anthro GHG emissions post the industrial age”

        If (big if) “GHG emissions” supplied any real perceptible warming, then we would not be seeing maximal world-wide winter ice extents in recent years. But we have. (Antarctica, Great Lakes, etc.)

        Just which camp is being “about as deceptive as it could be”?

        I sincerely hope that “anthro GHG emissions” might delay the onset of the next glaciation. Don’t you?

      • @Toneb,

        All you have is your opinion. I post graphs, and your opinion is that they’re “deceptive”.

        Pure projection on your part. All the deception comes from the alarmist crowd, who are trying to deceive the public into believing that CO2 is the driver of the planet’s temperature.

        That is complete deception on your part. Rational folks here clearly see the complete disconnect between the rise in CO2 and global T. The only verified correlation shows that changes in CO2 follow changes in temperature. You’ve had it completely backward from the start. Skeptics are right; you are wrong.

        Since you have no charts of your own and only make comments from the peanut gallery, here is a chart that goes right up to 2016.

        It shows clearly that there is nothing either unprecedented, or unusual happening. That means you are wrong.

  8. Ever as in satellite record maybe, but “ever” is on a different time scale for geoscientists.

  9. i suppose warmists and sceptics now both agree the planet is warming, the differences being what effect the warming will have and how much warming is human related. I suspect there is some convergence of opinions on this.

    • “i suppose warmists and sceptics now both agree the planet is warming”

      I don’t agree it’s “the planet is warming”. There’s pretty blue cooling spots, too.

      Andrew

      • It is the CAGW people who try to brand the rational groups as deniers when virtually all such groups talk about warming but little or no AGW footprint.
        This does not even consider the difference between CAGW and AGW which in itself would define the need for action with cost or no action but watch carefully.

    • @gareth – Its been that way for as long as I can remember. The argument isn’t really ever about any actual ‘warming’ – just the real quantity ( ie in measurement terms with error etc) and the ‘possible’ cause(s). The hyped up AGW bandwagon was and still is the same scam – without demonstrable proof!

    • There is no reasonable doubt that the planet has been warming since the LIA. No more Thames ice fairs in London. There is also no doubt that until about 1950, there was not enough increase in CO2 to explain the warming from ~1920-1950. And there is little doubt that it didn’t warm from ~1950-1975 despite increasing CO2. And that means there is BIG doubt about anthropogenic CO2 attribution thereafter.

    • Gareth, why would anyone think the release of pent up ocean energy during an El Nino tells us anything about whether the planet is warming or cooling?

  10. Will be funny to watch after this peak subsides, probably before the end of the year. :-)

    Poor alarmist won’t have a crevasse to crawl back into. :-)

  11. “Compared to seasonal norms, the warmest average temperature anomaly on Earth in February was over north central Russia, near the small town of Beloyarsky. February temperatures there averaged 5.20 C (about 9.36 degrees F) warmer than seasonal norms. ”

    Wanna bet the warmunists would use something like this to show that “the arctic is melting”, even though, one would presume, this “warming” is actually just “less cold”, and still far below freezing?

  12. There is a very positive aspect to these spikes that show up in (supposedly) in all the temperature recording systems. It provides an opportunity to compare sensitivity and conclusions without too much discrepancy, which is the case when temperature shifts are small. Very useful

  13. First a warming trend was discovered. Then a theory was widely adopted and promoted which predicted accelerated (also known as runaway) warming with increased CO2 concentrations.
    The warming rate has failed to accelerate.
    No acceleration has been revealed by satellites or radiosondes.
    And the rate of warming which they indicate is approximately equal to that discerned to have existed between 1915 and 1945, as observed above by Ristvan.
    This very simple point must be continually clarified and repeated.
    I never agreed with the obsession with a (probably temporary) flat trend as a demonstration of the failure of the CO2 causes runaway greenhouse warming hypothesis.
    If skeptics emphasize the point, “the trend for 18 years has been flat, therefore – CAGW hypothesis is false”, then should this period of flat trend end many will conclude conversely that “the trend is now shown to be positive – therefore CAGW is not false”.
    Of course, this is not a logical interpretation but, emphasizing a temporary hiatus could potentially lead to such a misunderstanding in the minds of many.
    For CAGW to be demonstrated as having some potential validity then we should at least expect that the rate of warming during 2015 to 2045 should dramatically exceed that which existed between 1915 and 1945.
    But a continuation of a feeble warming trend is meaningless. Since we discovered that trend before the CO2 hypothesis was widely adopted and promoted. And we discovered also that it had existed since before the post war industrialization. Even if we did sometimes ask pertinent questions such as “why the blip?”
    It’s not the only hypothesis regarding how the climate is driven over multi-decadal timescales.
    But, yes, we do know that there is a slight warming trend.
    And climate scientists had generally discerned that trend before they developed any concern about the CO2 driven warming catastrophe theory.
    So, there’s a slight warming trend.
    Let’s not frame the discussion in such a way that the recurring re-discovery of such a trend is embraced by alarmists as a great triumph.
    P.S. this is an interesting article on RSS and the Radiosondes (how’s that for a band name?) – which I just happened to discover. The various levels of the atmosphere. With graphs to 2016:
    http://euanmearns.com/ratpac-an-initial-look-at-the-global-balloon-radiosonde-temperature-series/

  14. The satellite always shows the biggest changes in global temperatures with strong El Nino’s or strong La Ninas. This has been expected as it would have been very close to 1997/98 either way.

    The surface data sets trick people by exaggerating the current El Nino too high, but when the period has gone past slightly reduce it for further years after, hoping nobody notices. This is done intentionally to make it easier to warm after and claim more warming has occurred because the cooled data of the recent past. They have been doing this for decades for the cause and conning the public into believing the planet is warming more than has actually happened. These tricks have been occurring to reduce peak and troughs in favor of increasing the current warming trend, reducing the cooling trend or differences between historic periods. Many changes to the data sets always behave in the same way, so it becomes obvious the intentions for the cause of course. They are in contact with each other for all surface data sets making sure everybody is reading the same page.

    These tricks have hidden more cooling shown by satellite data at times and shown a little warming where the satellites had none. It has took a recent strong El Nino for satellites to show a very slight warming, but the surface data sets were already in place with adjustments as described above to show this earlier. These changes have caused divergence between the rate of warming of surface sets, compared to satellite data sets.

  15. This is very good news because it confirms Dr Spencer as 100% reliable and not prejudiced. Watch the warmistas quote UHA non stop for the next few months as being very reliable LOL. It will of course fall once El nino shifts to La nina

    • Or Dr. Spencer is winking at Warmers for dissing his product… what are they gonna say? Where’s Mosher to frame this correctly for us? ;)

      Andrew

  16. The warming spike is clearly due to El Nino, a (more or less) natural phenomenon. Meaning:

    1) It cannot be attributed to CO2, which simply continued on its merry (slow but steady) increase during the past year

    2) Natural effects have much more influence on global temperature than accepted by IPCC.

    • I’m pretty sure CO2 affects the brains of the weakly minded. I can come up with no other explanations.

  17. has been warmer Jan and Feb here in Maine than normal.
    lot of temp swings with highs.
    still, tonight -4F, Thursday night -12F, Friday night -4F.
    I’ll take the warming..

  18. [Comment deleted. Read the site Policy. Labeling those with a different point of view as “deniers” violates policy. This is strike two. -mod.]

  19. Apologies if this point has been raised already and I missed it, but the current La Niña transient may not differ significantly from that of 1998 because the baseline preceding the latter is cooler than that preceding the current La Niña.

  20. The epicenter of the warming is close to the Yamal peninsula – it’s that darn tree again! ;-)

    More seriously, here’s what winter “heat” in the Arctic really looks like – the city of Salekhard south of Yamal had one single day in February with a maximum temperature of 0 C, otherwise it was unseasonally “warm”, but still well below the freezing point:
    http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/USDD/2016/2/3/MonthlyCalendar.html?req_city=Salehard&req_state=&req_statename=Russia&reqdb.zip=00000&reqdb.magic=1&reqdb.wmo=23330

  21. Why a skeptic like Roy Spence would say that its a record year without making a disclaimer that this is in the last 40 years. Whilst I don’t know for sure but I suspect that February in 1930s and 1890s may have been hotter. Headlines need context otherwise we will start to sound like warmists.

    • And why do you “suspect” ?
      There will have been moths in some regions, even such as the contiguous USA where that *may* have been the case.
      But not Globally…. which is the point.

      • I don’t know much about moths.

        But I do know a little about the Medieval Warming Period, the Roman Warming Period, the Minoan Warming Period, and the Holocene Optimum.

        Please discuss.

  22. Higher temperatures during an interglacial period of sudden rise followed by slow jagged falls is a natural variation pattern seen in ice cores as well as in other reconstructions using various flora and fauna proxies on land and in sea beds. Our short period of CO2 monitoring simply follows this ocean heat disgorging interglacial period. I see nothing outside of natural variation at work. Zooming out to 400,000 years, we are simply riding a warm peak measured at an increasing finer scale than previous warm peaks (a measurement artifact you can clearly see in the proxies). Let us not ever forget the hardships endured during the jagged fall to extensive glacial advance. Cities like New York and Seattle will still be in their infancy when the iceman cometh and scrapes every last evidence of their existence into a rubble field of metal chunks of erratics.

    http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html

    • I have occasionally wondered about this.

      The next ice age will come one day, but only long after everyone reading this today is dead. But it surely won’t be characterised by endless year-long snowfall from Day 1 in those industrial cities. There’ll be decades of warning (at least), and I imagine that the technology and engineering which built those cities in a few decades could also find some way to protect them from slowly advancing ice

  23. Three month lag from the ENSO.

    The El Niño peaked in mid-November so the temperature peak happens sometime in February. The El Niño looks it will dissipate fairly fast now and the global temperature will decline afterward with the same 3 month lag.

    What really happens is that the warm water from an El Niño takes time to be released the tropics atmosphere. As it gets warmer, there is a huge increase in thunderstorms and cloud cover in the Tropicical Pacific. These clouds then actually hold much the extra heat in. Clouds are the strongest GHG there is.

    Then the normal atmospheric circulation patterns take over. Energy moves away from the tropics to the mid-latitudes. The west to east winds in the mid-latitudes then sweep the extra heat into the northern Pacific. It moves into North America and the area between Alaska and Minnesota are much warmer than normal.

    The big area from Alaska to Minnesota was as much as 9.0C above normal in February which is an astounding number. It can only happen in a Super El Niño.

    The lag happens because it takes time for the energy to be released to the atmosphere, for cloudiness to increase, for general atmospheric circulation to move the energy north and south and then for the snow to melt etc. Three months is the normal amount of time it takes.

    This also tells us something about how energy can accumulate and drawdown in the Earth system.

  24. Not to be negative, just realistic – but it’s not saying much (although I’m sure alarmists will be happy).
    I like the way Christopher Essex points out how the length of time we’ve been keeping surface air records, when compared to the grand scale of history doesn’t even show up. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvhipLNeda4

  25. Anthony,

    “2016”
    The heading of your article should not include the “year”: there is only one February of 2016.

    Regards,
    WL

    [Fixed, thanks. ~mod]

  26. I quote:

    “By a statistically significant amount, February 2016 was the warmest month in the satellite temperature record, according to Dr. John Christy….”

    While I respect Dr. John Christy, he and all others questing for the “warmest ever” month are ignorant of the fact that there is no warming and there has been none since 1979. First, they are victims of their own unspoken consensus that if global temperature is up, carbon dioxide dunnit. Don’t look for anything else. IPCC is also to blame for this belief in greenhouse warming. To make sure everyone gets it they, along with GISS, NCDC, and HadCRUT3, went so far as to falsify official temperature records and create a non-existent “late twentieth century” warming in the eighties and nineties. That wiped out the hiatus that exists there as satellite temperatures prove. Combine the consensus and this temperature fixing and small wonder they think that twenty-first century warming is real. But these high twenty-first century temperatures were not created by any greenhouse warming. What caused them was a one-time injection of warm ocean water in 1999. It came from the super El Nino of 1998. It took the form of a short step warming that in only three years lifted global temperature by a third of a degree Celsius and then stopped. All twenty-first century temperatures were thereby uplifted without any actual warming having taken place. The result is graphically shown as the red section that follows the super El Nino above. The sudden change of slope at the beginning of the twenty-first century hiatus is impossible for any climate models to emulate. This injection of warm water starting in 1999 caused the only actual temperature rise during the entire satellite era from 1979 to the present. If we allow for the existence of this uplift as an externality, neither 2014 nor 2015 will qualify for the warmest month or year title. To understand the full story, we need better resolution than your graph has. With better resolution we see that the blue laundry on the line to the left of the super El Nino is an ENSO wave train consisting of five well-defined El Nino peaks [1]. Their peak to peak separation is four to five years. ENSO is then followed by the super El Nino of 1998. The base of this super El Nino is only two years wide but its height is twice that of the ENSO peaks. Obviously it does not belong to ENSO. Since there is no other warming the injected warmth has to eventually wear off and cool down. ENSO remained active during this period but the first two La Ninas of the twenty-first century were partially inundated by warm water. Only as the third La Nina of the century appears in 2008 can we begin to see its profile. That La Nina of 2008 is then followed by the El Nino of 2010 and by some smaller oscillations. The current El Nino starts to rise in 2013 and reaches its peak in the winter of 2015/16. I expect the temperature trend that preceded it to return when it is over. By that time, we may also see some decrease of the general warming background of the injected warm water. If we could remove all the warm water that holds up the twenty-first century temperatures on the right the twenty-first century hiatus would line up with the one in the eighties and nineties. The entire satellite era temperature curve would then look like one long hiatus, interrupted only by the super El Nino of 1998 and the short step warming that followed it.
    [1] Arno Arrak, “What Warming? Satellite view of global temperature change.” (2010), Figure 15, p. 32

Comments are closed.