September Global Temperature Unchanged from August – but still cooler than 1998 or 2010

From Dr. Roy Spencer:

UAH Global Temperature Update for September 2016: +0.44 deg. C

The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for September 2016 is +0.44 deg. C, statistically unchanged from the August, 2016 value of +0.43 deg. C (click for full size version):

uah-sept-2016

[Note that the August value of +0.43 is changed slightly from its previously reported value of +0.44. This is because inter-satellite calibrations are improved with each additional month of global data, which can change previous months’ results by several thousandths of a degree.]

The global, hemispheric, and tropical LT anomalies from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 21 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
2016 06 +0.34 +0.51 +0.17 +0.38
2016 07 +0.39 +0.48 +0.30 +0.48
2016 08 +0.43 +0.55 +0.32 +0.50
2016 09 +0.44 +0.50 +0.39 +0.37

The pause in El Nino cooling continues as recent Climate Prediction Center forecasts have been leaning more toward ENSO-neutral conditions rather than La Nina.

To see how we are now progressing toward a record warm year in the satellite data, the following chart shows the average rate of cooling for the rest of 2016 that would be required to tie 1998 as warmest year in the 38-year satellite record:

uah-v6-lt-with-2016-projection-1

Based upon this chart, as we enter the home stretch, it looks increasingly like 2016 might be a new record-warm year (since the satellite record began in 1979) in the UAH dataset.

The “official” UAH global image for September, 2016 should be available in the next several days here.

NOTE: This is the eighteenth 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 has been conditionally accepted for publication.

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

Advertisements

65 thoughts on “September Global Temperature Unchanged from August – but still cooler than 1998 or 2010

  1. According to the text data file, if I read it right, September of 2016 was not cooler than September of 1998 (tied at .44 degree anomaly) or September of 2010 (which was cooler at .37 degree anomaly).

    • Yes, but still, temps are now lower than they were in ’98 & ’10 (at both of their peaks in temps)…

      • And on top ‘o that, the running average is about .03C higher than it was in ’98… (be afraid, be very afraid!)

      • I feel sooo much warmer!
        Hopefully we won’t see snow and ice here in Vermont and I can go fishing all winter.

  2. This is the warmest we have ever been. We might even be at Peak Warmth. Considering how bad we humans are at predicting, enjoy it just in case it doesn’t last.

      • afonzarelli,

        I don’t know what to make of it. Lean’s data on insolation is not the best around, but an 11 year cycle on insolation is not controversial in the least. That is what the cycle is about. However the cycle is highly irregular so the error bars there must be huge. For example if you follow the orange curve forward from 2004, the next minimum 2009 falls on #5 and it was a very low minimum.

        Now going to the temperature, again that the solar cycle has an effect of about 0.1°C is also not controversial in the least, but that you can pick that small change over such a variable data is surprising, and again the error bars must be huge.

        All in all the information that the graph conveys is non-controversial, but the graph probably is.

      • Global solar radiation presented 10.5 + or – 0.5 years and its multiples in Indian data. Also, net radiation followed this.

        Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

    • Javier, this is a graph that dr spencer made back in 2010 in a post critiquing a paper which based ecs estimates on a comparison with the warming of the sun. This is detrended data, with three year smoothing to remove el nino/la nina, and he removed pinatubo cooling as well… what is your thinking about the 11 year cycle in the temperature record? i see this so seldom mentioned that i really want to get your take on it… thanx

  3. Why is it the headlines here so often imply conclusions not supported by the article or are just plain incorrect?

      • Stewart Pid

        “…. you don’t think Sept 2016 is cooler than 1998 or 2010?”
        _____________

        The UAH data from the link in the article shows that September 2016 was the same temperature as in September 1998 (0.44) and quite a bit warmer than September 2010 (0.37). The headline refers to September global temperatures, so it’s wrong.

      • September 2016 is warmer than September 2010, and the mean anomaly averaged for 2010 is lower than September 2016 anomaly.

        But anyway, I guess that the fact that WUWT makes headline with the fact that some non-September individual month anomaly in 2010 were higher than the September 2016 value must indicate something.

        (And why didn’t they use “still cooler than 1998, 2010, 2015 or 2016”? There are months in 2015/6 that were also higher than 2016-09)

    • So which part of “September Global Temperature Unchanged from August – but still cooler than 1998 or 2010” is incorrect based on the shown UAH series?

      The only problem I see is that the title is not tightly connected to the content, but it has a ‘news-flashy’ tone raising one point of view instead of another.

      • Hugs, slip’s no dummy… That’s why he stuck that word ‘imply’ in there. (and i don’t think he was implying that anything was incorrect… ☺)

      • Hugs

        “So which part of “September Global Temperature Unchanged from August – but still cooler than 1998 or 2010” is incorrect based on the shown UAH series?”
        ________________

        Just about all of it. September 2016 was warmer than September 2010 and the same temperature as September 1998 according to the UAH data link. In terms of year-to-date values, 2016 is well ahead of 2010 and statistically tied with 1998 to September.

  4. A month ago, I warned that the decline in temps may NOT happen. Quite a few on here rushed to say there was nothing of any concern. I say again, if temps don’t cool VERY soon, we have some explaining to do. I really do think that, post El Nino, temps should have cooled.

    • bazzer, easy explanation… The other large el ninos happened at the solar minimum. This one happened right after the solar max. We might be presumptuous in thinking that temps should be cooling much more than they already have…

      • If it doesn’t cool soon then the lukewarmers win.

        Why? If all temperatures are naturally driven, it follows that if there is no further cooling that is the result of what nature dictates; it does not follow that it is the result of modest warming from the increase in CO2.

      • If it doesn’t cool soon then the lukewarmers win.

        Why, we already won a long time ago. It is just that nobody is recognizing our victory.

      • There is still plenty of cooler than average water in the subsurface tropical Pacific that will surface over the next few months and La Nina’s typically develop at this time of year if they are going to materialize. This will continue the cooling trend.

    • It looks like at the end of the 97 El Nino, part of the N Hemisphere warmed and stayed warm. Either wind patterns altering the path water vapor out of the tropics are blown, or not blown and maybe altering cloud patterns. But there was a very real response in min temps, which drive daily max temps.
      Look at the change in sensitivity in the N 20-40 lat band.
      This sensitivity is the rise in temperature divided by the calculated flat power in joules (Whr’s). The units are Degrees F/Watt hr, but it breaks down to the same F per w/^2.
      But it is obviously the one big change after the el nino in 97. I’m working on being more specific about what happened to cause this.

      But it’s not co2.

    • It doesn’t really matter, this is all perfectly consistent with a naive forecast model of less than .2 degrees per decade.

      I’m not sure people really understand how much the temperature curve is supposed to bend according to the GCMs. We could have record temps for 100 straight years and they could still be forecasting way too much warming.

  5. It would appear that presently we are in La Nada conditions, and a La Nina is not just around the corner.

    Whilst predicting the future is a mugs game, if the next ENSO cycle turns out to be a La Nina, say perhaps developing sometime in 2017, then it is all but certain that during that La Nina the ‘pause‘ will reappear, and when it does it will be more than 20 years in duration.

    The critical issue is whether going into AR6, there is an El Nino or whether La Nina conditions were encountered in 2017/early 2018. since if we do see La Nina conditions, as noted above, it is all but certain that the ‘pause’ will have reappeared and will be over 20 years in duration during which time almost 40% of all manmade CO2 emissions will have occurred without resulting (according to satellite data) any increase in temperature.

    That will be an issue that will have to be dealt with by AR6. Especially since 2 further points will arise from that. In the scenario described above, (i) all models will be outside their 95% confidence levels, and, (ii) there will be an increasing number of papers putting Climate Sensitivity to CO2 at ever lowering levels; materially less than 1.5degC per doubling.

    AR6 will not be able to ignore those points.

    We will have to wait and see what happens in 2017/18 since it will be interesting.

    • AR6 will not be able to ignore those points.

      You underestimate their The Nile capacity. It will lead to interesting discussions in some working groups followed by some slightly embarrassing drafts, but all will be made good in the final version, and the executive summary will be as if they were writing it today.

      • According to the numerical data posted by BOM, the 3-month (13 week) mean SST temperature in Nino 3.4 is around -0.35C; still above the -0.50C it needs to reach before NOAA declare La Nina conditions.

      • Thanks the further info. Always good to see more data,

        Summary

        ENSO neutral conditions are slightly favored (between 55-60%) during the upcoming Northern Hemisphere fall and winter 2016-17.”

        The site you refer to suggests that ENSO neutral conditions are probable, and this site (WUWT) is showing on its ENSO metre less than – 0.5degC. It had been showing colder conditions but these have slipped back.

        Granted that the plot you post is showing a strengthening of the cold conditions especially through to 4th October, which I must confess at the time when I made my comment I was not aware of how much colder that index is showing for the past 7 days. Mea Culpa in that regard.

        Many had predicted a 2016 La Nina, and my comment was inferring that this may well have slipped back to 2017. As I said in my comment, it is a mugs game predicting the future. Time will tell, and we will not have that long to wait.

        The material point that I was trying to make is that if (and when) La Nina conditions occur, the pause will reappear. That is the significant point as far as I am concerned, rather than the precise timing as to when La Nina conditions appear.

    • If you read IPCC releases, AR6 is simply going to repeat AR5 conclusions about AGW. “Nothing new here. Move on, rubes.”

    • Not much chance of the Pause ever returning I’m afraid. It was gradually whittled away for months before finally disappearing and the recent El Niño spike will stop it coming back even if 2017 is a cool year like 1999

  6. Based on the 15 relevant stations within Australia’s climate observation network, September 2016 average temperatures across southern Western Australia and in the capital of Perth were the coldest recorded for the month since 1897 in the Bureau of Meteorology’s unadjusted raw dataset and the coldest since 1910 in the homogenised ACORN dataset.

    See http://www.waclimate.net/september-coldest-2016.html

    • waclimate said:

      “Based on the 15 relevant stations within Australia’s climate observation network, September 2016 average temperatures across southern Western Australia and in the capital of Perth were the coldest recorded for the month since 1897 in the Bureau of Meteorology’s unadjusted raw dataset and the coldest since 1910 in the homogenised ACORN dataset.

      See http://www.waclimate.net/september-coldest-2016.html

      OK, and?

      • And when the BoM and Australian media don’t mention that the south west quarter of Australia, pushing towards a million sq km, had its coldest September mean temperature since 1897 during what UAH suggests might be the world’s hottest year, I think it’s worth mentioning.

      • waclimate, given that 1 million sq. km represents less than 0.2% of the Earth’s surface, I think you might be giving the temperature measurements in that area a bit more weight than is appropriate on a global scale.

      • have to laugh at slipstick . i can thin k of at least one area of 1 million square kilometres that appears to be the most important area of the planet according to many alarmists ;)

  7. It’s unfortunate that 1979 marks the time where satellite measurements of global temperatures began, since the late 70s was also when average temperatures hit their nadir. Do you remember ‘global cooling”? You should. It was real.

    The 70s marked the end of a three decade period where average global temperatures dropped. It was cooler than normal. Measurably so. Why has this fact been forgotten?

    What’s vital to understand now is that the small variations in average worldwide temperatures cannot be connected to anything significant involving human safety or comfort or even the health of virtually all of the world’s plants or animals. It’s much ado about nothing. These tiny variations in temperature are of no consequence.

    On the other hand, over the past 100 years, the population of many of the word’s large land animals has plummeted. Why? It hasn’t nothing to do with climate.

    Massive animal extinction has everything to do with human hunting, human-caused habitat destruction, human-caused pollution, and human overpopulation. This is the ongoing crisis it there is one.

    • The 70s marked the end of a three decade period where average global temperatures dropped. It was cooler than normal. Measurably so. Why has this fact been forgotten?

      That cooling period, which took non-urban global temps >0.5K below their 20th-century mean in 1976, has been largely forgotten because it has been erased from published GSAT indices through various ad hoc adjustments and reliance upon UHI-afflicted station records. The systemic amnesia is intentional!

      • This is very material.

        There is quite some evidence that the temperatures of today are no warmer than they were in the late 1930s/early 1940s. The reason that this is material is because approximately 95% of all manmade CO2 emissions has occurred since then and it may well be the case that there has been zero rise (or very nearly zero rise) in temperature during those emissions. That would place Climate Sensitivity to CO2 at or near to zero.

        All our ‘concerns’ may be based upon inappropriate adjustments to past data and in particular the eradication of the 1940 warm peak and the 1940 to mid 1970s cooling.

      • Further to my last comment, it is not only the temperature data that has been adjusted post 1940 to remove the peak and lessen the cooling through to the mid 1970s, adjustments have also been made to sea level rise. See:

        Steven Goddard frequently explores this meme on his site.

      • Richard:

        Indeed, the climate index-makers have been no less busy in eradicating the cooling of third-quarter 20th century than they have been in diminishing the global warming during the MWP. In reality, the global temperatures of recent decades are no more than ~0.25K above the peaks in the early decades of record. All of these efforts are purposefully aimed at suppressing natural temperature cycles and bringing the manufactured indices closer to the simplistic trend plus “red noise” model of climatic variability. All of these illegitimate measures make the extremely tenuous empirical relationship between temperature and CO2 concentrations seem unrealistically closer.

    • @ mark green
      October 4, 2016 at 10:29 am : Main wildlife threat seems to be “natural’ medicine production and ornamentation of bodies and homes. All very much a primitive and Hippy trait. We do know the cures, but seem to only wring hands.

  8. For more than a year I have been saying that this el Nino “Modoki” is the kind of el Nino that does not engage the Bjerknes feedback of mutual reinforcement of the trade winds and Peruvian upwelling. That is why equatorial Pacific warming is centered in the central Pacific, not the eastern part off South America. There was no cutoff or reversal of the trade winds. There was no cutoff of Peruvian upwelling as evidenced by the only modest disruption (southward displacement) of the Peruvian anchovy fishery.

    This is what el Nino Modoki means, an apparent el Nino (warming of the central equatorial Pacific) but by some mechanism other than the Bjerknes feedback.

    It also means that there will be no following strong La Nina. By contrast the 1999 el Nino was of the normal kind and there was a very powerful excursion of the Bjerknes feedback with reversal of both the direction of gradient of the thermocline and the direction of the trade winds; plus cutoff of Peruvian upwelling and a big hit to the anchovy fishery. Nothing close to that happened this time. El Nino Modoki is being followed by La Nina Modoki.

    The following La Nina after el Nino is a two edged sword. It brings temporary cooling in some places but pumps warm Pacific water poleward powerfully, causing a step up in global temperatures such as happened after 1999. There will be no such step up this time.

      • how much “left over” warm water depends on how much heat was there to start with. i have a feeling satellite sea surface temp readings are not as accurate ,at least some of the time, as portrayed . the very thin band of air just above the surface of the oceans, the actual surface and just below the surface often have big differences in temperature depending upon conditions.

        someone that is smart enough may be able to explain what ,if any , known issues are with satellite sea surface temps , but personally having seen differences in several degrees difference in the north sea ,i am not convinced of their accuracy at all times.

      • Warmth is always flowing to the poles and the depths, because they’re colder. But the average temperature of the oceans over the last 50 years has not changed by more than .1 degrees (or more accurately it is within the bounds of measurement error which is probably closer to half a degree). So while the temperature distribution might change, “all that leftover warm[th]” at the surface is a rounding error that can be lost pretty easily anywhere within the hydrosphere as a whole.

    • charlieskeptic

      The equatorial excess oceanic heat could just dissipate to space, via thunderstorms for instance – maybe some stats on those would be interesting (if available).

  9. By contrast the 1999 el Nino was of the normal kind and there was a very powerful excursion of the Bjerknes feedback with reversal of both the direction of gradient of the thermocline and the direction of the trade winds; plus cutoff of Peruvian upwelling and a big hit to the anchovy fishery. Nothing close to that happened this time.

    As I mentioned in a post up above https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/10/03/september-global-temperature-unchanged-from-august-but-still-cooler-than-1998-or-2010/comment-page-1/#comment-2312131
    where I say

    It looks like at the end of the 97 El Nino, part of the N Hemisphere warmed and stayed warm. Either wind patterns altering the path water vapor out of the tropics are blown, or not blown and maybe altering cloud patterns. But there was a very real response in min temps, which drive daily max temps.
    Look at the change in sensitivity in the N 20-40 lat band.
    This sensitivity is the rise in temperature divided by the calculated flat power in joules (Whr’s). The units are Degrees F/Watt hr, but it breaks down to the same F per w/^2.
    But it is obviously the one big change after the el nino in 97. I’m working on being more specific about what happened to cause this.

    But it’s not co2.

    Maybe it’s the difference in whether all of this

    there was a very powerful excursion of the Bjerknes feedback with reversal of both the direction of gradient of the thermocline and the direction of the trade winds; plus cutoff of Peruvian upwelling

    that happened, has this disappeared since then? Any of it remaining?

  10. @ ptolemy2
    October 4, 2016 at 10:30 am et al: I like your reasonings. The Nino energy discharge seems to have happened and still ongoing atmospherically. Now to see what sort of recharge goes on, or not. watching the Nada/Nina/Nino relations may teach us a lot yet.. Winds, current, and clouds as well as solar inputs may be our tutors.

    • I like your reasonings. The Nino energy discharge seems to have happened and still ongoing atmospherically.

      The peak in 1999 the average daily swing was 20.5F, post el nino was about 18.5F, 1996 was under 17F. Your charge cycles was before the El Nino.

  11. Why is it that everytime I read a bunch of comments about what is going to happen with any climate metric in the future I have to replace my keyboard? Could it be the amount of head-pounding I involuntarily do have any effect?

    Look at:

    https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/uah-v6-lt-with-2016-projection-1.gif?w=1040&h=624

    Tell me that something happened between mid-2001 and mid-2015. Fifteen years of nothing happening, heh? Modelly masturbate your way out of that one, Warmistias.

    All ENSO events are unique. Ask Bob Tisdale.

    Charlie Skeptic

  12. I repeat: If you read IPCC releases, AR6 is simply going to repeat AR5 conclusions about AGW. “Nothing new here. Move on, rubes.”

  13. RSS was also up in September, by much more than UAH. This makes September 2016 the warmest September on Record in RSS: http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/rss/from:1979.66/every:12

    Unless the average temperature anomaly falls below 0.241 for Oct-Dec 2016, a new annual temperature record will be set in RSS this year. The RSS anomaly hasn’t fallen below 0.288 in any of the previous 17 months, so a new record warmest year now looks highly likely.

    • RSS was also up in September, by much more than UAH.

      Check out these other changes as well!
      2009 +0.007
      2010 +0.009
      2011 +0.006
      2012 +0.006
      2013 +0.013
      2014 +0.020
      2015 +0.023
      2016 +0.019 (partial year January through August)

  14. Yes but what if the De Vries cycle has hit the nail. Please, no cheering. In reality, a sad day for life on Earth.

Comments are closed.