Global temperatures are heading downward, and fast

It’s no surprise to us that the “monster” El Niño of 2015/2016 created a very large global temperature spike, after all, that’s what the natural process that creates the phenomenon results in due to the Pacific ocean near the Equator not being able to dissipate heat to space as effectively as it usually does. NOAA says that “ENSO is one of the most important climate phenomena on Earth due to its ability to change the global atmospheric circulation, which in turn, influences temperature and precipitation across the globe. ”

But, as they say, “what goes up, must come down”. NOAA has this to say about the current state:

After dominating the tropical Pacific for more than a year, El Niño ended in May 2016. Near- or below-average temperatures existed in 3 out of 4 ENSO monitoring regions of the tropical Pacific. And for the first time in 2016, wind and air pressure patterns were consistent with neutral conditions. There’s a 75% chance that La Niña will develop by winter. NOAA’s next ENSO update will be released on July 14.

ENSO-changed-June2016
Source images from NOAA NESDIS OSPO http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/Products/ocean/sst/anomaly/ annotated by A. Watts

The latest forecasts show La Niña conditions developing this fall, and with it, global temperatures will come down:

nino34Sea-forecast

And in fact, they already are. Here are some selected global temperature plots. First the lower troposphere from University of Alabama Huntsville, Dr. Roy Spencer and Dr. John Christy:

UAH_LT_1979_thru_May_2016_v6[1]

The big spike from El Niño is clearly evident, followed by the drop in global temperature. And as you can see, as of May, it has already lost about half of the peak value.

Looking at RSS (the other satellite data set from Carl Mears) I chose to use Nick Stokes temperature viewer. It also shows recent global temperature plummeting.

RSS-global-temp-stokes

For the surface record, here is the NCEP 2 meter global temperature plotted along with the tropical region where El Niño resides, by Dr. Ryan Maue. It also is going down.

NCEP-2m-global-temp-tropics

The NCEP plot has also lost about half it’s value since the peak of nearly 1°C, and is now at 0.55°C as of June 14th, 2016.

A 90 day averaged version of the NCEP 2 meter global temperature data shows a sharp dropoff.

NCEP-2m-global-temp-90day-mean

When looking at the NCEP data by hemisphere, the southern hemisphere is already below the zero anomaly line:

NCEP-2m-global-temp-hemispheres

The southern hemisphere has most of the water surface on Earth, so it is interesting that it has cooled faster than the northern hemisphere, which has most of the land and surface thermometers.  This map below shows how the northern hemisphere has so many more thermometers.

Source: NOAA GHCN 2 data. From https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/15/new-claims-murky-global-warming-statistics-are-guessed-at/

Note that world population is almost entirely in the northern hemisphere, so will be the infrastructure that accompanies human population.

world-population-latitude
Plot by Bill Rankin. According to Rankin, roughly 88 percent of the world’s population lives in the Northern Hemisphere, with about half north of 27 degrees north.

Since the El Niño event clearly drove global sea surface temperatures, which in turn affect air temperatures with global air currents transporting that heat, and the northern hemisphere showed a peak signal about double that of the southern hemisphere, it is yet another suggestion that the surface temperature record is polluted by the effects of urbanization encroaching on thermometer viewsheds.

The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) Land and Ocean data plotted by Stokes viewer also shows a huge drop in temperature over a very short time:

Best-land-ocean-stokes

Here are the remaining land and ocean datasets, NOAA GHCN2, HadCRUT, and NASA GISS. It is important to note that HadCRUT and NASA GISS are interpretd derivatives of the NOAA data.

NOAA-land-ocean-stokeshadcrut-land-ocean-stokesGISS-land-ocean-stokes

What’s clear, is that no matter what dataset you look at, global temperatures are headed down, and fast. This may spoil activist plans for a planned celebration of of 2016 being yet another “hottest year ever”. Scientific American blazed a headline on May 18th that said: 99 Percent Chance 2016 Will Be the Hottest Year on Record.

Maybe, but what is equally 99% certain is that 2017 won’t be the “hottest year ever”.

We live in interesting times.

 

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

181 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Pamela Gray
June 22, 2016 9:32 am

I see that some arm-chair climate conjecturers have shown up again whose proposals are not much better than throwing everything on the wall in hopes some of it will stick. This is poor methodology in place of narrowed reasoned scientific proposal under-girded by well-explained plausible mechanism and proper literature review (IE not cherry picked literature review). These same commenters are loath to find fault with their own stew, yet it is their responsibility to do so lest we have group-think followers in love with pseudo-scientific vaporous conjecture.
I have been through the fire of research proposal, lab work, and publication. I will suggest exactly what I was told to do. Narrow your topic and explain just one thing in your bag of parameters that is both plausible and under-girded by both supported and non-supported literature review. Otherwise, your oft repeated litany of “stuff” is just blah blah blah and yada yada yada.

Reply to  Pamela Gray
June 22, 2016 10:14 am

don’t read it if you don’t like it.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Salvatore Del Prete
June 22, 2016 10:23 am

Then what is the point of peer review? You only want people who like it to comment?

Aphan
Reply to  Salvatore Del Prete
June 22, 2016 6:22 pm

How can she know if she likes it or not if she doesn’t read it? Is that like Nancy Pelosi saying you have to “pass the bill so you can find out what is in the bill”?
Pam read it, didn’t like it, and said so. You read her comment, didn’t like it, and responded. It’s called communication.

Reply to  Salvatore Del Prete
June 28, 2016 9:18 am

I advise you to ignore Ms. Gray’s character attacks and continue posting comments here, even if they don’t meet her “standards”.
My climate blog didn’t meet her standards either (which is proof she knows little about climate history), and she character attacked me too.
But she didn’t scare me. When a leftist character attacks me viciously about my climate blog (blog at link below), as Ms. Gray did, I know I’m on the right track !
http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com
I imagine Ms Gray’s favorite activity, beyond criticizing people here,
is screaming at school children who walk across her lawn?
I imagine she might be a retired school teacher,
who misses the ‘good old days’ when she was frequently
slamming little boys’ on their knuckles with a ruler,
after they got a question wrong in her class.
You have provided some interesting ideas in your posts worth further examination.
But if ideas presented in these comments do not have a link to a white paper worthy of a PhD., Ms. Gray may respond with a character attack, and she did, calling you an: “arm-chair climate conjecturer” and describing your list as: “blah blah blah and yada yada yada”.
Ms. Gray. like most leftists, knows only three ways to “debate”:
(1) Character Attacks (no debate at all),
(2) Misleading, and
(3) Lying
Those three tactics are usually the ONLY way to “win” a debate when you take the weak leftist position.
How could one possibly win a debate in favor of socialism over free markets, or claiming a global warming catastrophe is coming (that never comes!), or demanding a $15 minimum wage to help unskilled workers, etc., any other way?
One can’t support these leftist positions with facts, data and logic !
So leftists, whether they are arguing for a coming climate catastrophe, or for a $15 minimum wage, almost always resort to their three “weapons”: Character attacks, misleading and lying.
In summary, don’t let a character attack from Ms. Gray inhibit or shut down your comments here.

June 22, 2016 10:42 am

Pam what matters in the end is how/ why the cooling has occurred.

Aphan
Reply to  Salvatore Del Prete
June 22, 2016 6:27 pm

Salvatore-
You said the how/why the cooling has occurred was-“this initial cooling is due to the ending of the strong El NINO.” Then went on with the blah blah blah about numerous other things. I think Pam is trying to be helpful to you.

June 22, 2016 10:46 am

WHAT I WILL BE WATCHING AS /IF THE COOLING PROEEDS GOING FORWARD FOR CL UES.
Yes this initial cooling is related to El Nino ending but as the cooling evolves this might give us clues if something other then the El Nino’s end is contributing to the cooling. I am talking solar.
If these solar related items respond in the following manner to prolonged solar minimum conditions if the cooling progresses the case for a solar climate connection is going to be stronger.
SOLAR RELATED ITEMS RESPONSES:
1. Global cloud coverage increase linked to Galactic Cosmic Rays.
2. A more Meridional Atmospheric Circulation linked to changes in EUV light which effects Ozone distributions in the atmosphere.
3. An increase in Volcanic Activity linked to Muons a by product of Galactic Cosmic Rays
4. Surface /Ocean Heat Content drop off linked to a decrease in UV light just below the wavelengths of Visible light.
5. The cooling itself, how does it CONTRAST in degree of intensity to past cooling events when El Nino conditions ended and La Nina conditions commenced when the sun was in an active state such as was the case last century.
As of now minimum solar conditions are getting close to the solar criteria I have called for which would impact the climate.
For example EUV light has recently fallen below 100 units and the Cosmic Ray count is close to 6500 units, while Solar Flux readings have fallen to less then 90.
Solar Wind /AP INDEX – still elevated but they should subside to the criteria I have called for going forward , which is AP index 5 or less and Solar Wind Speeds of 350 km/sec. or less.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Salvatore Del Prete
June 22, 2016 11:39 am

Narrow your topic. Take your first proposed parameter and tell us why it is first (just a random place or does it have to be first?) as well as what is currently known about clouds and cosmic rays. Provide references that both argue for and argue against the connection. Otherwise it is just the first blah and yada of your treatise.

June 22, 2016 12:09 pm

I have done that in detail and will send you something, but we should find out over the next few years. I have presented a very comprehensive argument. if you think it is lacks so be it.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Salvatore Del Prete
June 22, 2016 1:01 pm

Many people have debated your treatise. Vigorously and with supported research review. I would assume you have taken this feedback into account thus informing your treatise accordingly. I also assume you have done your due diligence and have an improved ready paragraph or two with literature review regarding your first cause and effect in your chain of events. Post it. Unless my assumptions are not true.

Reply to  Pamela Gray
June 22, 2016 3:56 pm

JAMES-MARUSEKS LITTLE ICE AGE THEORY ECHOES MINE..

Aphan
Reply to  Pamela Gray
June 22, 2016 6:32 pm

I don’t think he gets what you are trying to help him with. 🙂

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Pamela Gray
June 22, 2016 6:55 pm

A single source citation weakly peer reviewed if at all, does not rise to the level needed to put forth your thesis as a serious contender, especially one based on old reconstructions of solar output. Try again.

June 23, 2016 2:41 am

Pam a contender in the eyes of who?
Pam it has been explained to you in detail if you choose not to accept what has been said to you fine, move on.
As for my part I will continue to push my solar/climate connection theory and people like yourself who do not choose to embrace it make it that much more worth while.
We will see who is correct going forward I plan to be correct.

LRShultis
June 23, 2016 12:01 pm

Regan Power:
“All interactions in nature are by the mutual consent of all parties involved. All interactions in nature are by the mutual consent of all parties involved….”
Everybody, lets hear it now: ” The only consent in the universe is possible from certain living beings.” The concept of ‘consent’ is a concept that presupposes the concept of consciousness. Matter has properties by which interactions can take place, but almost all matter does not have the property of giving consent.

Joseph Toomey
June 24, 2016 2:40 am

What would it look like using Mike’s Nature Trick?

toncul
June 24, 2016 3:30 am

Very nice truncation of all the surface temperature curves.
Looks like there is no warming.