UAH Global Temperature Update for May, 2016: +0.55 deg. C
June 1st, 2016 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
NOTE: This is the fourteenth monthly update with our new Version 6.0 dataset. Differences versus the old Version 5.6 dataset are discussed here. Note we are now at “beta5” for Version 6, and the paper describing the methodology is still in peer review.
The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for May, 2016 is +0.55 deg. C, down 0.16 deg. C from the April value of +0.71 deg. C (click for full size version):
The global, hemispheric, and tropical LT anomalies from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 17 months are:
YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPICS
2015 01 +0.30 +0.44 +0.15 +0.13
2015 02 +0.19 +0.34 +0.04 -0.07
2015 03 +0.18 +0.28 +0.07 +0.04
2015 04 +0.09 +0.19 -0.01 +0.08
2015 05 +0.27 +0.34 +0.20 +0.27
2015 06 +0.31 +0.38 +0.25 +0.46
2015 07 +0.16 +0.29 +0.03 +0.48
2015 08 +0.25 +0.20 +0.30 +0.53
2015 09 +0.23 +0.30 +0.16 +0.55
2015 10 +0.41 +0.63 +0.20 +0.53
2015 11 +0.33 +0.44 +0.22 +0.52
2015 12 +0.45 +0.53 +0.37 +0.61
2016 01 +0.54 +0.69 +0.39 +0.84
2016 02 +0.83 +1.17 +0.50 +0.99
2016 03 +0.73 +0.94 +0.52 +1.09
2016 04 +0.71 +0.85 +0.58 +0.94
2016 05 +0.55 +0.65 +0.44 +0.72
Cooling from the weakening El Nino is now rapidly occurring as we transition toward likely La Nina conditions by mid-summer or early fall.
The “official” UAH global image for May, 2016 should be available in the next several days here.
The new Version 6 files (use the ones labeled “beta5”) should be updated soon, and are located here:
Lower Troposphere:http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0beta5.txt
Mid-Troposphere:http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tmt/uahncdc_mt_6.0beta5.txt
Tropopause:http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/ttp/uahncdc_tp_6.0beta5.txt
Lower Stratosphere:http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tls/uahncdc_ls_6.0beta5.txt
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Can someone tell the Danes to please get with the program?
Thank you.
Don’t worry about the cooling, don’t worry about the data, 6 months from now when the data has been “clarified” it will all be gone. Move along now, nothing to see.
The problem with CAGW alarmists propagandizing strong El Nino warming spikes as CO2 induced, is that once the El Nino cycles is over, it’s replaced by La Nina global cooling….
The current La Nina cycle has every indication of becoming one of the coldest La Nina cycles since 1982, which means global temps will soon spike downward for at least the next two years. By the beginning of 2018 or so, the La Nina cooling should completely offset the 2015/16 El Nino warming spike, and the “Hiatus” starting from the middle of 1996 should reappear. How will CAGW warmunists explain away a 22-year “hiatus”? They won’t be able to.
In addition, the PDO and AMO will both be in their respective 30-year cool cycles from around 2020, and when this happens, global temps have ALWAYS fallen (at least since 1850).
To add a nice little cherry on top, the current solar cycle will be at its lowest point from 2020, and the next solar cycle starting in 2022 will likely be the weakest since the Dalton Minimum started in 1790… Oh, my…
By 2022 or so, the disparity between CAGW global warming projections vs. reality will exceed 3 standard deviations for 25+ years… At that point of singularity, any honest scientist or well-informed person will have to concede CAGW is a completely disconfirmed hypothesis…
What’s always bothered me about CAGW is that it assumes CO2 forcing per doubling will generate exponential warming, however, CO2 forcing effect is actually a logarithmic function (5.35 watts/M^2*ln(560ppm/280ppm)….
How can a frigging logarithmic forcing effect generate exponential warming??? Well…. it can’t.. Each incremental increase of CO2 has less and less of a logarithmic effect, and that’s PRECISELY what long-term global temp trends are showing…
CAGW is so dead.
Cooling is relative as it has cooled off April and the cooling is on the way, but it still is the warmest May on the NCEP record and I suspect it will be on UAH too. NCEP CFSR has had 7 of last 8 months as warmest, including last 4 in a row, but I think June will not be.
Joe– What I find so humorous about CAGW alarmist talking about “the warmest month/year evah” is that such data is completely meaningless absent trend data…
It reminds of the 38-year old village idiot that believes he’s still growing because he’s been at his tallest height for the past 20 years…..
The fact of the matter is that the village idiot stopped growing at 18….
When the village idiot retorts he can show a linear growth trend between the ages of 10 and 38, it still doesn’t negate the fact that he stopped growing at 18….
And so it goes…
Who’s the idiot here?
Well it appears you are Bob, After all it took quite a few years for your average climate warrior to notice the pause, despite all the evidence, and even now some are still indulging in esoteric sophistry to wish it away.
Sparky – there is no need for esoteric sophistry to wish away the pause. A simple recourse to the definition supplied by Lord Monckton will do. The pause has not disappeared, but it stands at about 4 months.
For UAH, May 1998 was the warmest May. (0.643 in 1998 versus 0.55 in 2016)
As for RSS, I expect it to be lower also but we will have to wait and see.
The planet is definitely warming. If only we knew why. CO2 is not doing very much of it, unless, like a virus, it has suddenly learned new tricks it has never before possessed in earth history.
…unless, like a virus, it has suddenly learned new tricks…
But it needs no new tricks, gymnosperm!
CO2 was born a few million years after the Big Bang, and does since that time the same job: where it is, to absorb and partly reemit IR radiation between 1 and 30 µ.
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/160603/id6cbw4x.jpg
Until last year I didn’t think it would ever become possible to measure that, but…
http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/
Today it seems that the abosrption lines in the HITRAN-2012 database inbetween are so fine that you become aware to make a difference between back radiation originating from carbon dioxide, water vapor or the other “GHG” gases like CH4, N2O etc etc.
Lots of people repeatedly tell us back radiation be in contradiction to the 2nd law of Thermodynamics, but ignore the fact that at many places in the troposphere it is simply warmer than at the surface.
Everybody who downloads and evaluates the complete IGRA radiosonde dataset soon knows about the temperatures at the different pressure layers above us.
Well…
If you look at the UAH data – the rest of the year is going to have to have a net negative anomaly to avoid a “warmest year” and the same is probably true of NCEP.
Now the question is: if 2017 or 2018 are the coldest year in the 21st Century what does this tell us? The first year a new global 21st Century cold record is set it is “game over” for the pause deniers.
You guys all belong in the loony bin. You’re like a dog chasing his tail. Give it up, you’re all wrong. There are always at least two sides to every story, but your side is indefensible; philosophically and mathematically. You all talk of conspiracies that are figments of your imaginations. Wake up! There must be better ways to spend your time.
“There are always at least two sides to every story, but your side is indefensible; philosophically and mathematically. ”
i notice you didn’t include scientifically. 😉
Or even actually!
Out in the forest looking for rabbits?
Yes bobthevillageidiot, we “must” be wrong. Because otherwise, you’d have to change your irrationally- arrived- at climate ideology. No, much easier to keep guzzling the Kool Ade, right bob?
I love it when trolls come here to tell us how we are wrong.
But can’t manage to make an actual argument. As usual it’s all whine and complaining.
The definition of irony! Bob tells us there are two sides to every story. But then goes on to say that there is only one truth regarding climate change, it that truth is his. “But Bob… I thought you said there were two sides to every story?”
So if the global average goes up by 0.1, it’s just made up because you can’t measure a global average with that precision. If it goes down 0.1, then it’s a sign of massive global cooling…
Apples and oranges.
The warming claims are based on the ground based temperature network, which has error bars of somewhere between 5C and 10C. So a 0.1C change is meaningless.
The article references the satellite measurement system which can measure the temperature of the earth to within 0.1C.
So satellites, which don’t actually measure temperature directly, don’t cover the whole planet, and integrate over a huge portion of the (not constant) atmosphere can measure to 0.1C. But you can’t read a thermometer to closer than 5-10C. Yea, that makes perfect sense. (not bashing satellites, they’re extremely important and useful)
PD,
It’s not the thermometer reading that has error bars that large, but the cooked book, phony, science fiction, corrupt “surface data” sets which have big margins of error.
pd, your a little late for school on this one. This has been discussed here a lot. Your 4 line comment isn’t going to impress anyone here. Publish several well reassured articles and maybe we can talk.
While we all stare at the short-term ups and downs of the global temperatures, pay a little thought to the fact that the Earth’s orbit around the Sun causes snow in the winter and warmth during the summer, so it may be important?
Perihelion presently occurs around January 3, (Northern hemisphere winter, Southern summer) while aphelion is around July 4. Therefore, the southern hemisphere receives more solar radiation and is therefore warmer in summer and colder in winter (aphelion). The Northern hemisphere has cooler summers and milder winter (solar radiation-wise).
Also the northern hemispheres autumn and winter are slightly shorter than spring and summer, because the Earth is moving faster around the Sun in winter slower in summer.
This alone could account for “Global Warming” attributed to CO2, (which no doubt plays some part in it).
Over the next 10,000 years, northern hemisphere winters will become gradually longer and summers will become shorter, due to the change in the Earth’s Orbital Eccentricity.
Couple this with changes in the Earth’s tilt, which varies from 22.1 degrees to 24.5 degrees, (currently at 23.4 degrees). More tilt means more solar radiation gets to the poles (global warming) and less tilt means less radiation gets to the poles (global cooling). The last maximum tilt occurred in 8700 BC (Holocene maximum) and the next minimum tilt will happen in 11,800 AD (the advance of the ice sheets), precisely at the time of longer northern winters and shorter summers.
So while the moronic greens, politicians, and other activists are jumping up and down, quixotically legislating and paying monetary sacrifices to the Great God CO2, in the hope of appeasing it, the Earth is going along its own merry way slipping inexorably towards its next ice age.
For an Ol’ I&E designer down here in Texas, I truly enjoy learning on this site. Thanks to all.
Yes, on this matter it appears U.N. has failed. But have they? An excuse being used to pursue their goals.
We have seen that the truth will take time to appear. About 2020! Based on multiple discussions, U.N. goals,
religious goals, and on and on, ETC etc….. Even here you can search on year 2020, as well as the web.
Smoke and mirrors is all I actually see.
It will be interesting to see what comes next. The major difference between the 1998 el nino and this one is that in 1998 the sun was increasing in solar activity, while this one solar activity is decreasing. The best CAGW scientists can do now is show a log increase ( calling doctor data, calling doctored ata, stat) in temps and not an expo.As for the catastrophic part, it is a complete failure along with the temp projections. The warmest are are no where near projections.
While warming is speckled with wild speculation of impending doom, catastrophic global cooling is for certain. The four horsemen come trotting out when it gets colder. Nuclear weapons certainly adds to that dimension of ” Nightmare on Earth ” . ( hey China, the little captain may not be pointing his sword solely at the US if he doesn’t get his way, in fact what is he thinking? without US presence in Korea, there is no reason N. Korea wouldn’t be just another province, I’m sure he’s thinking about Tibet ) Not once in human history has cooling been good….. opps wait, I just checked the hockey stick graph, nope, no warming or cooling for the last several thousand years. (sarc on the hockey stick)
I recall a professor in an earth science lecture saying: “Our science is a continual process of 3 steps forward and 2 steps backward”
The problem we have is that alarmists have taken 10 steps forward. I wonder who will become the denialists if their theory turns to custard
Here’s 2 simple questions,
1) “While we had El Nino, the ocean was throwing lots of extra water vapour into the atmosphere and raising the atmosphere’s temperature. Additionally this extra water vapour must have been causing more warming feedback to the surface (the AGW amplifier). Overall how much of the El Nino warming was caused by heat from the ocean and how much by the additional feedback from the additional water vapour?”
2) What value of transient climate sensitivity can be deduced from the answer to Q1?
I calculated the sensitivity of the min and max surface station air temp to the change in solar energy calculated for that station location by latitudinal bands. This is temperature change F per day for a change of 1 watt/M^2 as the isolation changes throughout the year.
https://micro6500blog.wordpress.com/2016/05/18/measuring-surface-climate-sensitivity/
You realize that if the TSI declines as little as 0.5 w/m^2 , it’ll completely wipe out any warming induced feedback. There was a post not long ago about the decline in TSI from SORCE. Interesting times ahead.
I’m not sure there is any. If there is it’s not measurable.
And the N20-N30 graph shows the step in temp from the 97 El Nino, but it also shows it didn’t happen anywhere else.
Oh my solar input I’m pretty sure came from here
http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant
And I will confirm this.
The correct number is 1360 w/m^2 and some tenths. The previous numbers vary depending from 1370 to 1368. That gives a difference of 2 to 3 C lower in all calculations. Do the math yourself. The reason those numbers are high is that light was leaking into the instrument…. . If they are talking about tenths of a degree, 0.5 w/m^2 overwhelms it.
I haven’t seen anywhere a revision from CAGW using the correct number. I was initially against using the corrected number. However, I have checked and that is right.
I looked at the link you provided all the w/m^2 were about 1368.
It also impacts the calculation from adding co2 in the atmosphere lowering the stated IPCC number by 30%.
In fact many links and pro CAGW statements still use the calculation with 1368. How do you suppose they got all the numbers to agree?
I would like to see an analysis of when the so called ‘pause’ may resume. What would the next few months have to look like to get back into the 20+ years with no warming.
Yeah, jeff, i can’t wait til monkton gets back with his “pause posts”… That speedometer thingy that he recently put out there was a little to confused for my simple(ton) tastes.
RSS has to drop to 0.24 from the April value of 0.757 before anything can happen. After it goes below 0.24, it becomes a combination of how low and for how long. For example, if it hits -0.25, it would take months. But if it stays at 0.20, it could take years. Then there is everything in between. This assumes of course that there are no adjustments to RSS.
PA June 2, 2016 at 1:01 pm
As far as SC25:
————————————————————————–
And keep an eye on the positive magnetic field. Positive is having trouble getting off the line. Positive was weaker in Solar cycle 23-24 and 25?
Positive in the graphs below is blue.
Negative is red.
Don’t ask me why they did that, ok.
Earth magnetically reconnects more readily? with negative IMF. At least is what was thought.
Thanks Dr. S. for the maintenance on these solar images.
http://www.leif.org/research/WSO-Polar-Fields-since-2003.png
I’m sort of torn because if the umbral magnetic field drops to 1500 gauss (no sunspots) we will have a pure play.
1. Record CO2 Emissions.
2. Record minimum in solar activity.
The two claimed principal sources of temperature change fighting it out mano-a-mano,
The good news is we will find out which influence is stronger.
CO2 was responsible for a claimed 110% of late 20th century warming. With record emissions the planet should be heating like an oven on high and far exceeding the 90s warming trend. The reality has been a little different.
If it actually starts cooling we need to consider fraud charges and legal sanctions against global warmers.
Do not forget that the first 150 meters of the solar charged oceans contain hundreds of times the energy of the atmosphere, thus ocean cycles have a large short term multi decadal impact, and solar input into the oceans can be very lagged with very long ocean residence time (energy is hidden from the atmosphere) of some solar changes. Top of atmosphere down changes due to solar are perhaps a more immediate affect of solar changes. The immediate affect of CO2 is suppose to be just that, instant.
Well, the theoretical downward IR from CO2 warms nanometers of ocean.
The Solar radiation penetrates over 100 meters.
So theoretically even with strong forcing a solar decline could cool the oceans even if the surface warms.
I have my popcorn out and am watching the show.
If the ocean heat content plateaus, this to me would be a big problem for the warmers. Further it would put a fork in the runaway sea level claims.
I do not think it is possible for sea surface temperatures to rise while solar radiation falls and we observed sea surface temperatures going up during the previous solar minimum and now it is claimed that the present el nino is larger than that in 1998. I propose a possible explanation for this and it is as solar radiation falls then solar radiation penetrates the ocean to a shorter depth making the sea surface seem warmer. It seems to me that our measurement of sea surface temperatures must be wrong just as it likely was when it was measured by buckets collected by ships.
The current El Nino is not larger, in many respects it is smaller. See recent Bob T post.
Not sure that’s true.
The 1998 El Nino went from a La Nina to a strong El Nino. The 2015 El Nino spent a year as a neutral to weak El Nino before it developed into a strong one.
It lasted a lot longer and had a higher peak.
I am puzzled about something. If you go to:
https://ghrc.nsstc.nasa.gov/amsutemps/amsutemps.pl
and click on ch06 and compare 2010 with 2016 for the month of May, then the area above the lines and below the lines are approximately equal. So I predicted that May 2016 would be very close to May 2010.
For UAH, May 2016 was 0.545 but May 2010 was 0.414.
For RSS, May 2016 was 0.525 and May 2010 was also 0.525!
Does anyone have any idea why UAH was so different than RSS?
Werner Brozek
1. The question Does anyone have any idea why UAH must all the time be similar to RSS? in my mind is not less menaingful than yours. Both use the same data, but process it in a completely different manner.
2. What are you doing at channel 6 when you intend to compare two TLT records? Channel 6 operates at a pressure level of 400 hPa, i.e. 7.5 km altitude, and measures absolute temperatures arond 238 K; but UAH measured in 2015 temperatures around 264 K, what denotes an altitude of about 4 km.
3. It is not very meaningful to compare temperature records solely at global level, when they offer much finer zonal means. UAH and RSS have eight of these (globe, NH, SH, tropics, NH mid, SH mid, North Pole, South Pole, with in addition some specific zones).
So if you want to really compare them, download UAH6.0beta5 and RSS3.3 in their TLT variant into e.g. Excel, and build the difference between them for each latitude zone they have in common.
Others are not available. However the “mystery” seems to have been solved. There is a huge difference in how they cover the south pole. Compare May 2010 versus May 2016 for the south pole. In 2010, it was -0.84 and in 2016 it was +0.93.
Others are not available.
Sure they are. You don’t see the graphics displayed, but a link to a part of the data tells you pretty good about the absolute K temperature measured by the corresponding channel.
A little plot:
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/160606/223tcf88.pdf
Can you show me channel 5 to the present date?
Mea maxima culpa! I didn’t look accurately enough at
https://ghrc.nsstc.nasa.gov/amsutemps/data/amsu_daily_85N85S_ch04.r000.txt
what indeed doesn’t show what you really need :-((
But I repeat: better you download and normalize the data UAH and RSS provided us with, and compare them zone by zone. Simply because the absolute temps related to the channels may be subject to manifold corrections.
And the central problem remains for you: to explain why Roy Spencer published for UAH6.0beta5 in 2015 an average absolute temperature of about 264 K, i.e. 24 °C lower than at surface, what should locate the measurement altitude at about 24 K / 6.5 K/km = 3.7 km.
Pressure level at this altitude is 640 hPa. But the comparison (deliberately restricted to USA49) with a processing of the IGRA radiosonde records tells you that the UAH6.0beta5 trend lies, for 1979-2016, just between 300 and 250 hPa, i.e. at 9.7 km:
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/160606/dfakifss.pdf
IGRA processing is a bit more work, as you have to merge the data of all concerned stations (US: 127) into a monthly record with 13 pressure layers like in RATPAC B.
The comments on this site are hilarious and seem to completely ignore the fact that temperatures are not going down. And if they keep going up, you’ll myopically look at some small window of time and say the same as you do now.
Two reasons for that, the sun is quiet and el nino is over. The last el nino the sun was ramping up, this time the sun is heading into a minimum.
You are also implying that the cause of the very slight warming is co2. The models and the math aren’t right. Even with adjusting the data there is no correlation. And in no case has it been catastrophic.
The last el nino the sun was ramping up, this time the sun is heading into a minimum.
Like many commenters, you overestimate the sun’s role during El Niño events.
To be convinced (should this ever be possible), you just need to analyze and compare 3 El Niño anomaly records (ranging from january till april of the consecutive year) for 1982/83, 1997/98 and 2015/16
with the recent sunspot number statistics
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/ssn_recent2.gif
Apart from the very high response of the lower troposphere in 1997/98 (its anomalies became by december higher than those of the surface), the 1997/98 event does not appear stronger than the one in 2015/16 (which, despite a far weaker sunspot number, is even a bit higher at the surface level).
I think you are overestimating co2 and underestimating solar activity. Still in use are numbers related to TSI that was in error. You do realize that 0.5 C decline in the global warming story related to co2 puts the entire theory in error. How did they get the numbers to match?
rishrac on June 8, 2016 at 4:52 pm
I think there is need to stress a little detail: I didn’t mention CO2 in my comment, nor did Ron McKernan. You are here the person placing emphasis on that gas.
I have no idea of wether or not CO2 is responsible for the slight warming we actually can measure.
We are able to measure CO2’s radiative forcing, but can’t accurately translate that forcing into temperature deltas. Point final.
But what we very well can do, for example, is to compare the radiative forcing of all trace gases with that of the sun.
– Radiative forcing for CO2 is 5.35 * ln(CO2_i/CO2_i0) where ln is natural log, CO2_i is CO2 concentration (ppmv) in year i, and CO2_i0 is CO2 in some reference year.
– Radiative forcing for TSI is (1-a)*(TSI_i)/4 – (1-a)*(TSI_i0)/4 where a is the planetary albedo (0.3), TSI_i is top-of-atmosphere total solar irradiance in year i, TSI_i0 is solar for some reference year.
An example:
http://s1202.photobucket.com/user/ned_ward/media/co2_tsi_comp.jpg.html
(Courtesy Ned Ward)
Please publish valid sources falsifying the actual TSI computation methods, instead of simply writing “Still in use are numbers related to TSI that was in error” in your comments. That’s a bit too easy…
SORCE
http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/TSI_Composite.png
This exactly confirms what I told: sun’s activity declining, surface temperature anomalies increasing… I don’t understand what you mean, try to explain it better, in a more convincing manner!
The TSI was wrong to start with from the beginning. There is no correlation between temperature and co2. It’s pure speculation. CAGW made the numbers fit. The incoming and outgoing radiation, it’s all smoke and mirrors. The difference now and 2001 is that all that data is part of the public record. Unlike the original temperature records that are buried in a landfill.
Maybe you don’t understand, it knocks off a 1/3 of the temperature rise from co2 according to the IPCC own math. And yet the 2 numbers from back radiation and the alleged temperature rise match. The graph that shows the certainty rate at 95% of what the temperature would like like now is also wrong, both in the model and far below it in actuality.
We can only think that the temperature is going to decline based on past observations. Its not wishful thinking. There are too many uncertainties to claim what is known. It is a very dynamic system.
Cold is a very big concern. Warming not so much.
So few takers to date on my Challenge Question…
Scientific understanding includes the ability to predict future performance, with a fair degree of success.
When engineers design a bridge, we predict that it will not fall – “Galloping Gertie” (the Tacoma Narrows Bridge collapse in 1940) being a notable exception. We are embarrassed when we get it wrong; also, we can lose our licence to practise.
Warmists say Earth is suffering from dangerous global warming due to increased atmospheric CO2, and wilder weather is also being caused by global warming – their predictive track record on this and ALL other matters has been utterly DISMAL – a total failure to date.
As a result of warmist hysteria, many trillions of dollars have been squandered on green energy schemes that are not green and produce little useful energy.
So once again, I ask you to make your best scientific prediction, and kindly provide your reasoning:
WHEN WILL GLOBAL COOLING START?
Regards to all, Allan
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/19/new-noaa-forecast-suggests-current-el-nino-will-fade-fast-and-be-replaced-by-a-strong-cooling-la-nina-this-year/comment-page-1/#comment-2149428
CHALLENGE QUESTION – FIRST POSTED 16FEB2016
WHEN WILL GLOBAL COOLING START?
I am saying it is not a “Pause”, it is a Plateau, and naturally-caused global cooling will start soon.
Regards to all, Allan
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/15/weekly-climate-and-energy-news-roundup-215/comment-page-1/#comment-2146382
This post on SC24 is interesting:
http://notrickszone.com/2016/02/10/solar-report-january-2016-current-solar-cycle-quietest-in-almost-200-years-as-triple-whammy-approaches/#sthash.tRQqXhWz.IVP32gMG.dpbs
Question: When will global cooling start?
In 2002 we wrote that global cooling would start by 2020 to 2030.
We now say global cooling will start before 2020, probably by 2017.
[Definition: The commencement of global cooling is deemed to start when the Lower Tropospheric (LT) temperature anomaly as measured by UAH satellite data starts to decline below the +0.2C anomaly and the trend then declines further.]
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
Bragging rights to whoever gets it right.
Ladies and germs – faites vos jeux!
I predict in the near future this El Nino peak that we just had, will be the last big El Nino in this warm cycle.
The step from the 97 El Nino happen when enough of the surface stations in the N20 to N30 lat band’s sensitivity to solar jumped up about 1996, and has not yet dropped, this has to be related to the oceans decadal cycles.
I think this will be the key to northern hemisphere cool.
Let me note it’s in the upper 60’s, and sunny, last night near 40F here @N41 W81
Allan MacRae on June 9, 2016 at 9:10 am
Do you really view this as a “Challenge Question” ? It looks to me a bit too much confused to be one.
Above all, following your “definition”, a simple look at UAH’s anomaly chart indicates that the years 1979-1984 for example could have been, with an average maximum of 0.16 °C per year and a trend of 0.032 °C per decade, a “commencement of cooling”.
You know what then happened.
Such a “commencement” in my opinion would become noticeable when the OLS trend for the both polar regions, calculated over the last 20 years, would become negative. That would be a clear indicator I guess.
Actually, we are at 0.270 °C for the North Pole, and at -0.048 °C for the South Pole.
Mesdames, Messieurs: faites vos jeux!
BINDI – PLEASE RE-READ MY DEFINITION BELOW – ESPECIALLY THE BIT IN CAPS BELOW.
[Definition: The commencement of global cooling is deemed to start when the Lower Tropospheric (LT) temperature anomaly as measured by UAH satellite data starts to decline below the +0.2C anomaly AND THE TREND THEN DECLINES FURTHER.]
**********
QUESTIONS (sorry for all caps here):
WHY DO YOU THINK TEMPERATURES AT THE POLES MATTER SO MUCH?
DO WE EVEN HAVE GOOD DATA AT THE NORTH POLE? FROM WHAT SOURCE?
Allan MacRae on June 9, 2016 at 6:45 pm
Excuse me Allan, but I’m a bit surprised of theories being built upon data one seems to know so few about.
1. WHY DO YOU THINK TEMPERATURES AT THE POLES MATTER SO MUCH?
Simply because it is known since longer time that the North Polar Region (60-90N) is the region on Earth warming the most, and that conversely the South Pole (60-90S) cools the most. That’s clearly visible on their respective 37 year trends.
You can easiliy compare them here:
http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html
by selecting the different regions.
You see immediately that Grand North has warmed during 37 years nearly 3 times more than the globe. As long as this remains, speaking about cooling is bare speculation I guess…
2. DO WE EVEN HAVE GOOD DATA AT THE NORTH POLE?
All institutions busy with temperature measurement operate internally with a cell grid of say 5 x 5 °, i.e. 72 long x 36 lat cells. Some work on even finer grids.
Japan’s Tokio Climate Center publishes its monthly and yearly records that way:
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/map/download.html
If you don’t trust surface measurements, both satellite-based measurement sites (RSS, UAH) publish zonal means instead:
RSS:
http://data.remss.com/msu/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_3.txt
UAH6.0beta5:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0beta5.txt
But caution with UAH! Till aprol 2015, they had a completely different dataset (UAH5.6, valid since July 2011):
http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt
with huge differences in comparison with the actual one
(you see the amplitude differences between this UAH revision and consecutive GISS revisions).
That nice UAH revision moved literally overnight its North Pole trend from 30% higher than RSS3.3 downto 30% lower.
Don’t be condescending Bindi – since you are often far off base.
Your comments re grid size are irrelevant – where are the weather measurement stations? There is a station at the South Pole but not at the North Pole – so where are the nearest quality surface measurements taken, and who is taking them?
Satellites, as I recall, do not cover the poles well either. I could email the gents at UAH for details, but I just can’t be bothered with you.
Allan MacRae June 11, 2016 at 10:01 pm
1. Your comments re grid size are irrelevant – where are the weather measurement stations? There is a station at the South Pole but not at the North Pole – so where are the nearest quality surface measurements taken, and who is taking them?
Maybe you will again say I’m “condescending”. But I must recall that we aren’t speaking here about the poles (90N / 90S), but about their respective polar regions (60N-90N / 60S-90S).
I propose you download
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/daily/ghcnd-stations.txt
and have a closer look at all lines whose latitude column value is over 60 or below -60.
Look in these two subsets at lines with country id ‘CA’, ‘RS’, ‘NO’, ‘FI’, ‘AY’ etc etc. Antarctica has about 100, Russia about 300. (Not all of them are active actually; which are you first know when you process the measurement files, e.g.
ghcnd_all.tar.gz
and mark all stations producing valid data in the periods you investigate.
N.B.: The grid size is highly relevant. Each grid cell is weighted differently, so kriging and infilling may differ from cell to cell.
2. Satellites, as I recall, do not cover the poles well either. I could email the gents at UAH for details…
Maybe you first have a look at
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0beta5.txt
at the file’s bottom, where you will see ‘NoPol 60N-90N, SoPol 90S-60S’.
I can’t imagine Roy Spencer telling you that “yes, Allan, you are right, we do not cover the poles well either”…
Bindi,
So now you say you mean polar regions, not the poles. OK, try to be specific. I really thought you were blowing smoke, and maybe you still are.,,
The surface temperature data is so badly corrupted by multiple “adjustments” that I don’t bother with it. If you believe it is of any value, good luck to you. I think it is mostly crap. Whoever “adjusts” their temperature data and then throws out the original readings in this age of computers and limitless cheap storage is probably a scoundrel as well as a proven imbecile.
I will withhold my comments on the satellite data until I have more information.
I recalled correctly Bindi;
The satellite temperature data does NOT cover the poles above/below +/- 85 degrees.
Your suggestions of using the poles to measure global cooling seems inappropriate, since you must rely on Gridded Surface Temperatures which are demonstrably unreliable and subject to adjustments that are not credible or reproducible.
From John Christy:
Allan:
The polar orbiters do not pass directly over the poles to maintain the sun-synchronis orientation. The highest latitude varies among the spacecraft, I believe the nadir is usually around the low 80’s latitude (see attached). Because these are cross-track scanners, there are footprints closer to the pole than the nadir latitude. We usually cut off around 82.5 or 85 N/S latitude.
John C.
Allan MacRae June 13, 2016 at 6:37 am
We usually cut off around 82.5 or 85 N/S latitude.
Yeah. That means, to express it in clear words, that UAH’s polar region inspection in V6.0beta5 didn’t only move down to the niveau of V5.6 (60N-85N – 60S-85S) but even down to that of RSS3.3:
http://data.remss.com/msu/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_3.txt
Anyway: that’s not so important, as the few degrees around the poles build a very small surface in comparison to their polar regions.
Bindi, I still would never use the generally unreliable Surface Temperature (ST) data, with all its “adjustments” and its spatial inhomogeneity, for any serious analysis of global temperature. I think the ST data is so heavily “adjusted” as to be essentially worthless. No sensible scientist would discard the original readings and just keep their “adjusted” results, as some of the keepers of the ST data have done.
I use UAH data because I trust the good people there and their methodologies. I have less trust in RSS, but the two satellite datasets generally are not too far apart.
If you chose to use satellite data from the polar regions from 60 to say 82.5 or 85 degrees to analyse global cooling (or warming) then so be it, but please do not suggest that the ST data is of any value – I reject that notion, except in cases where the original data remains intact and has not been discarded. Even then, the spatial inhomogeneity is a serious problem, as is the drop-off (discontinuation) of surface stations in recent decades, remarkably by governments who are spending trillions on global warming alarmist nonsense.
Regards, Allan
” I still would never use the generally unreliable Surface Temperature (ST) data, with all its “adjustments” and its spatial inhomogeneity, for any serious analysis of global temperature.”
Alan, I strongly disagree, but you have to use the data we have properly.
https://micro6500blog.wordpress.com/2015/11/18/evidence-against-warming-from-carbon-dioxide/
Thank you micro,
The problem is that there has been so much chicanery with the ST record that only a few dedicated experts know the good from the bad.
There is still the ST problem of inhomogeneity and loss (reduction) of surface stations over the past decades.
For those of us who are not dedicated ST experts, the satellites are a preferred option.
A couple points about the modifications to the surface record, I think one key point is that since “they” use daily mean, it’s much harder to adjust the mean to get the number they want, without creating artifacts in min and or max since the solution set of min and max for a particular mean is very large. And I particularly reject homogenization and infilling since temp is not a linear field as a minimum, and it is plain bad science in the worse case.
When I started my work, I was interested in two things, nightly cooling rate, and to see what the actual measurements say, not the made up claptrap being spread.
But I’m far from an expert on the surface record, I just have the skills and tools to work with a large data set, and simple goals based on observations of falling temps while working with my telescope and my skeptical view of the processing of the data.