Guest post by David Middleton
A funny thing may have happened on the way to 2016 being the hottest year in the history of “life, the universe and everything”…
If the RSS global temperature anomaly continues to drop at its current rate, the pause will be back just in time for Christmas…
Note: I am not predicting that the pause will return by the end of the year. I’m just pointing out the fact that the most recent 5-month trend of the RSS anomaly will bring the pause back, if it continues through the end of the year.
Data downloaded from Wood For Trees.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
You may well be right in estimating that the pause might return.
I have taken the time to analyzed many of the datasets. The figure furnished below is my latest effort in analyzing the most recent RSS data. I do this with and without a contribution from CO2. For a fairly precise match to the measurements I do not really need a contribution from CO2.
However, I can accommodate a contribution from CO2 and still get a precise match to the measurements. With the limited range of the data only going back to 1980 I don’t trust the projection of anomalies beyond what has been measured as having much in the way of fidelity. The correlation with the measured data you see below is 0.94 and the sum of the squares error for the figure is only 2.78. The ECS is only 0.15.
https://1drv.ms/i/s!AkPliAI0REKh_S4qJF0Taiygt1i3
In getting to the RSS value you have estimated it may be required that the El Nino be followed by a La Nina as occurred following the 97-98 El Nino.
Using the analysis procedures, I used in analyzing the RSS data I have also analyzed each of the four Nino regions. I will furnish the results from one of them, Region 3.4.
For these regions the data go back to 1854. With that longer period of time I feel more secure in making projections. The raw data I have analyzed are the monthly data from 1854 to 2014 then followed by daily data thereafter. The overall correlation coefficient for this extensive dataset is 0.93. For the more recent data that goes back to 1996 the correlation coefficient is 0.95. In the figure you will see the La Nina that followed the El Nino in 97-98. The cyclic analysis also captures it as well.
https://1drv.ms/i/s!AkPliAI0REKh_S_NQyYETzpbNiAQ
My use of daily data are plain to see in the figure.
In this instance projections are in order. Presently, a La Nina is not indicated.
https://1drv.ms/i/s!AkPliAI0REKh_TAafTKKtsfVhfo0
More data are required to make final determination of which way this will go. Perhaps, another month or so of daily data will make it clear.
In the figure below you will sense how the analysis has changed with the available data. The adjustment may soon be through.
https://1drv.ms/i/s!AkPliAI0REKh_TFnyebot4VMALmL
We shall see.
“In this instance projections are in order. Presently, a La Nina is not indicated.”
Your chart of Nino 3.4 indicates going right back into an El Nino at least as large as the one just ended.
One might suggest that your cyclic analysis is descriptive but not very predictive.
A description of your cyclic analysis might prove interesting.
With regard to the analysis I use I start off with the Optimal Fourier Transform (OFT) developed by Dr. Evans. It is in the form of a spreadsheet. You can download the spreadsheet here.
http://sciencespeak.com/climate-nd-solar.html
It can be found under the “Transform Lab” tab. I usually specify 90 cycles and then wait for the results. I then take those results as inputs and use a Marquardt procedure to minimize the sum of the squares. With 90 cycles there are 270 resulting guesses. After working with this method for a while now I have come to appreciate it. What I documented in my comment is this method applied to two different datasets.
With regard to my results it may or may not be predictive. I am hopeful that with another 30 days worth of daily data things might be made clear.
In my last chart I showed how the analysis changed as newer data were acquired. I expect the same to happen on the way up, if that happens. In this instance, I expect the height of the peak will be tempered as more data are included.
I have looked at some historical data and maybe this is the only thing that is close.
http://climexp.knmi.nl/getindices.cgi?WMO=RapidData/nino3_mann&STATION=Mann_Nino3&TYPE=i&id=someone@somewhere&NPERYEAR=1
Between 1200 – 1400 there are a succession of events that standout.
I too am waiting to verify the predictive capability. It may not be that precise but more generally correct. I don’t think anyone would dispute that I have a precise fit to existing data.
Thank you for the explanation. I will study this a bit.
I am a little later on this than I wanted to be but I did go back to look at just analyzing the daily data only. That does not go back to 1854 like the monthly data. I think I give up something when I dismiss that much data to consider. There are now over 12,700 data points now so it takes longer to struggle through things.
The analysis of the full range is given here.
https://1drv.ms/i/s!AkPliAI0REKh_TNycv5K8Aj2VgCK
A close up,
https://1drv.ms/i/s!AkPliAI0REKh_TRrMCoOJydhvFET
In comparison to the previous effort which was a combination of monthly and daily data you can notice that in the recent data it did not track with the spur but went through it.
Just using the daily data I also get a different projection that you can see here.
https://1drv.ms/i/s!AkPliAI0REKh_TWu-Wqiy5PmuZI1
This one does get into the La Nina range a short time from now but both of them indicate we are on the way back up.
No question that I am out on a limb. I am not sure how it will go but I do follow this and want to see which way it goes.
Thank you for your interest.
Are you a betting man?…https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/ocean/primary/waves/overlay=sea_surface_temp_anomaly/orthographic=-105.58,1.83,497/loc=-90.355,0.443
I’m so tired of headlines saying “this year may be the hottest year on record” or “this storm may be the worst in 50 years” and then no headline at all when they are not the hottest or the worst. So a headline that says “the pause may be back by Christmas” is just irritating.
Save the headlines for when events really occur. Please.
There are not enough dramatic events to fill the news arena. Besides, reality is boring. The new media considers itself very, very important so they have to “misspeak” or use future predictions now and then or people won’t stay afraid and glued to the news.
I can’t see other than CO2 must make the temperature drop. What else could it be. Perfect correlation between rising CO2 and dropping temperature. With a little funding i would be able to predict when the disaster happens.
“Save the headlines for when events really occur. Please.” That is so old school. Make the headlines now before it happens. It might never happen, so you will never get a headline, better be ahead of time and make your day. There are no fame in telling we are in shit to the neck, when all realise it.
Headlines (pressure) + CO2 = Dry Ice
Dry Ice is cold!
But then again, CO2 causes warming. (At least, Man’s does.)
Hmmm….
Maybe the key to stopping CAGW is to changed the Headlines about CO2?
(I’ll build a fire if someone will bring the limestone.8-)
What really pisses me off, is when the alarmists, and the sycophants in the media holler “the hottest day/month/year in history”. How do we know that? History goes back about 4,000 years, with some claiming it goes back further, especially if oral traditions are thought of as history. Were are the temperature records to the hundredth of a degree going back to the beginning of history?
And what about the idiotic idea of “the hottest day/month/year ever”??? Every? Hotter than 4.5 Billion years ago? How do you know that? (and most would dispute that anyway)
The temperature record for the planet is very recent, and it is totally corrupted by politics. We know darn little about the past — less than we used to before the “Team” stared cooking the books.
The recent El Nino has added between 2-3 C of anomaly above the pause baseline. This is what needs to be compensated for in order of the pause to continue. And, we are still likely to have one more month adding to this total. The pause baseline for RSS is around .24. So, for example, a 10 month period of a zero average anomaly will subtract 10*.24 or 2.4 C. That will be about what it takes. If it falls faster then the pause will surface faster. I don’t think this is likely for a variety of reasons.
Most important, the Arctic has been adding a lot to the global anomaly. It will need to cool for the anomaly to drop very low in the winter months. That will require more ice forming this winter which is a distinct possibility given all the heat loss over the past winter and a lower AMO value. However, if it doesn’t happen it could take a couple of years for the pause to return.
[2-3 degrees above the baseline??? .mod]
“2-3 degrees above the baseline???”
I think he means degree-months above the pause average of 0.24 (I think it’s 0.25). It’s the right arithmetic. The average since the pause foundered during Feb has to be not more than the average before (over short times) if the pause is to return. And as RichardM says, that would require zero values for the rest of the year and maybe more. RSS is still well above the pause average, so the trend is still rising, not falling. And if you look at Fig 2 in the OP, sustained periods of zero anomaly weren’t seen even back around 2000. There’s no reason to expect them now.
The “pause” wasn’t at zero. It was at 0.255081.
“It was at 0.255081.”
As I said. What RM is rightly saying, is that since Feb, when the pause exited, there is an accumulation of 2-3 degree-months of excess – eg March = 0.978-0.255=0.723 adds to April 0.842-0.255 etc. The pause will revive if this total comes back to zero, but currently it is still increasing. It would take 8-12 months of zero anomaly (excess 0-0.255) to bring this sum back to zero. And that is unlikely.
I hate to rain on your Santa Claus Parade; I’d rather snow on it instead. The coming La Nina appears to be evaporating before our eyes. See http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frsgc/research/d1/iod/sintex_f1_forecast.html.en and select “El Nino index”. Scripps’ forecast issued in early July http://meteora.ucsd.edu/~pierce/elnino/pictures_made_2016-07.html has backed off a lot from early June’s forecast http://meteora.ucsd.edu/~pierce/elnino/pictures_made_2016-06.html NOAA is predicting “La Nada” http://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/people/wwang/cfsv2fcst/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
Those are the forecasts. The Nino3.4 anomaly has been stuck at -0.4 for the past 3 weeks according to http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/indices/wksst8110.for The only thing favouring further cooling now is a global 3-month lag behind La Nina. We might also get to find out if a sunspot minimum does or does not drive down temperatures.
My tracking of the global NCEP/NCAR anomaly indicates that July so far has a higher anomaly than June. This corraborates with the output from Nick Stokes’ website https://moyhu.blogspot.ca/p/latest-ice-and-temperature-data.html#NCAR Note the daily anomalies in the right hand column of his site. They have to drop to below +0.250 before we stop pulling away, and start heading back to pauses extending back to 2005 or 2001 or 1997.
I hate to sound so pessimistic, I’m just calling it as I see it.
The ways of climate science change.
They will cook up more heat from where they have no data, Greenland and the arctic, and smear it across the top of the planet and claim a record
Darwin is having a cold spell 26 degrees Celsius ,which means out comes the winter woollies .
Tennant creek went from 30 yesterday to 10 today now that’s a change .
This will be a test of Treberth (and other) stepwise increase in temperatures. Perhaps will the next ten years show a higher mean. I will not predict
But if we look at the global warming the last 120 years, it looks like it gets up.
It won’t happen. But is the pause possible in 2017? How low does the near term future have to be before we have a pause again?
Meanwhile the made up / terrestrial datasets face the risk that 2016 will not beat 2015. They’ve already completely disappeared the 1998 El Niño, time to start adjusting out this one.