Global effects of El Niño event seem to have passed, and we’ve cooled to a value just before the event, according to data from the UK Hadley Climate Centre
Earlier we reported on ocean temperatures dropping, now we have confirmation that global air temperature is dropping as well. The latest data is in, and now according to HadCRUT data, we are back to the same level as before the 2014/2016 super El Niño event heated up the planet.
Clive Best writes:
The HadCRUT4.5 temperature anomaly for September calculated by spherical triangulation is 0.54C, a fall of 0.17C since August. Temperatures have seemingly returned to a long trend after the 2016 El Niño.
Clive Best uses a custom triangulation method to calculate the global temperature anomaly from the raw data, so I thought I’d verify this from the publicly available HadCrut data.
Source of global temperature anomaly data:
HadCRUT4 time series
These ‘best estimate’ series are computed as the medians of regional time series computed for each of the 100 ensemble member realisations. Time series are presented as temperature anomalies (deg C) relative to 1961-1990.
Quoted uncertainties are computed by integrating across the distribution described by the 100 ensemble members, together with additional measurement and sampling error and coverage uncertainty information.
The data files contain 12 columns:
- Column 1 is the date.
- Column 2 is the median of the 100 ensemble member time series.
- Columns 3 and 4 are the lower and upper bounds of the 95% confidence interval of bias uncertainty computed from the 100 member ensemble.
- Columns 5 and 6 are the lower and upper bounds of the 95% confidence interval of measurement and sampling uncertainties around the ensemble median. These are the combination of fully uncorrelated measurement and sampling uncertainties and partially correlated uncertainties described by the HadCRUT4 error covariance matrices.
- Columns 7 and 8 are the lower and upper bounds of the 95% confidence interval of coverage uncertainties around the ensemble median.
- Columns 9 and 10 are the lower and upper bounds of the 95% confidence interval of the combination of measurement and sampling and bias uncertainties.
- Columns 11 and 12 are the lower and upper bounds of the 95% confidence interval of the combined effects of all the uncertainties described in the HadCRUT4 error model (measurement and sampling, bias and coverage uncertainties).
More details are given in the paper introducing the dataset.
According to the Japanese Meteorological Agency, the 2014-2016 El Niño event formed in May 2014.
Plotting the HadCRUT4.5 data (column 2, mean anomaly) for that period yields this:
In May 2014, at the beginning of the ENSO event, Global Temperature Anomaly was 0.608, now in September 2017, it has cooled to 0.561. It appears all affects from that ENSO event are now removed from the global temperature record.
Looks like claims of the “hottest year ever” won’t be happening in 2017, and we may see a return of “the pause” soon.
Thanks for the information. It would be nice to have the mainstream media actually report these facts, but I’m not holding my breath.
Looks to me like a Mexican stand-off on the “warming/cooling“ question.
Cooling is a natural and predictable consequence of global warming. The cooler it gets, the more we will see the adverse consequences of higher temperatures.
LOL
Brrrrrrr…the Nobel Committee wants their [Junk] Science Prize back, Mr. Gore.
Gore and the IPCC got a Nobel Peace Prize, like Obama, for not doing anything. The Peace Prize is political. The others are not, except maybe literature.
And economics.
Oh, give the data to NASA and NOAA for a while, and by the time they get through their adjustments you will be convinced the oceans are boiling.
NASA needs to be put out of the business of adjusting surface temperatures.
and NOAA needs deep reforms.
Go Trump.
AGREED. Politicized “science” s**ks.
And frozen just a few years ago.
zombie – raw data is adjusted to
correct for biases.
(not difficult to understand)
how would you like to
handle those biases ?
Crackers, I was going to reply to this question, but then I realized you’re a zealot. You won’t be swayed by evidence, because you’ve swallowed the Kool-Aid and hitched your “self” to the CAGW bandwagon. You believe that “Mike’s nature trick” was simply a description of a technique of presenting data, not an actual attempt at deception. You believe the “bias removal” argument even when on it’s face, there is no evidence of bias in the old readings (that keep getting cooler and cooler, despite historical evidence to the contrary). You believe some “catastrophe” is coming – despite years of lower overall cyclone energy and no evidence of increasing rainfall (or droughts, or flooding). Like some street preacher, you believe “the end is nigh” and facts, figures, and data be damned! Good luck with that….you’ll need it. BTW – even the IPCC has dropped the “3 degree climate sensitivity” dogma, so you might want to update your little red book…..
Adjusting raw data is just the one-way ticket to scientific and communication hell. Biggest no-no.
Just imagine:
We tested the chemical to know if it cause cancer, and “adjusted for bias” no cancer occured in my lab rats so with very high confidence the product is not carcinogen.
Do you buy it? I don’t. So i ask for more investigation, and it happens that actually “adjusting for bias” meant disappearing 2 cancer cases, and they are doomed.
As opposed to
We tested the chemical to know if it cause cancer, and 2 cancer occured in exposed lab rats while 3 occured in not exposed, so with very high confidence the product is not carcinogen.
Do you buy it? I do
that’s the effect of “adjusted data” versus “raw data”.
Bottom line: handle the bias the way it is done in each every science and technical area. Real one. Meaning, publish raw. or go to well deserved hell
The pattern of changes to the ‘picture’ of global surface temperatures has jumped around a great deal in the last 5 years. Before then, the 1997-8 El Nino was a striking feature, but now it has all but disappeared. The months since about 2002 are now dominant when one looks for warmth in the data.
There was a brief outcry when the Karl recommendations seem to have found their way into official acceptance. Were they really valid, in hindsight, or were they beyond the pale as many asserted?
Personally, as one used to lots of data that do not get altered over time, I find the process rather subjectively mystical and I place little faith in the veracity of what we are told to believe today. Especially the juvenile spin like ‘Hottest month ever’ by amounts far less than the noise – noise that officials do not seem to know how to compute honestly.
Normally pretty conservative, just rather uneasy now about the establishment view of ‘science’ of climate.
Geoff.
No. The Karl adjustment that used ship intake temp data to adjust the more accurate buoy data set will be turned around in the next revision. That dubious SST buoy data adjustment by Karl is widely viewed by insiders as his most egregious attempt to cancel the Pause for political reasons (the Paris COP21 meeting was 5 months away). When NOAA does that finally, their dataset will look at lot more like HADCRUT.
And the Pause prior to the 2015 El Nino will be real.
Karl used a bogus SST/Night Marine Temperature correlation. It is now falling apart.
See Bob Tisdale: https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/
Dave Fair commented –
“Karl used a bogus SST/Night Marine Temperature correlation”
did you or Bob Tisdale write a
letter for publication to the editors
of Science magazine?
why not?
real scientists don’t
read blogs, this or Tisdale’s.
Have you read anything by Bob Tisdale, crackers345? See: https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/
He has published (free) E books, by the way:
‘On Global warming and the Illusion of Control – Part 1’ presents the basics and illusions behind the hypothesis of global warming and climate change.
‘Who Turned on the Heat?’ is a comprehensive examination of the processes and long-term global-warming aftereffects of El Niños and La Niñas, which are the dominant weather events on Earth.
‘Climate Models Fail’ as its title suggests, is about the poor performance of climate models.
What have you attempted to publish? Could it have gotten by the thuggish gatekeepers revealed in the Climategate emails?
I am an educated critic of CAGW nonsense, especially the fantasies about electric power production. I have actually planned, financed, designed, constructed and operated and maintained electric power generation, transmission and distribution facilities.
I lobbied the Nevada Legislature and Public Utilities Commission on legislation in support of, among other initiatives, renewable electric power generation portfolio standards. Among many other accomplishments, I obtained financing for a geothermal power plant.
Tell me what you have done, crackers345.
Seriously crackpot,…. how the **** would you have the remotest idea what real scientists do.
I doubt you have ever even met one !!
“real scientists don’t read blogs”.
LOL. You really believe their are people that don’t read blog? scientists even WRITE blog, you know.
Whoops, better go ‘correct’ the data and destroy the original.
paul – who’s destroying raw data?
are you saying you don’t understand why the
raw
data has to
be corrected for
biases?
poor crackpot.. tourette syndrome with the “return” key.
crack and pot will do that. Turn an idiot into a cretin.
(You need to back off on this line of commenting) MOD
Please respond to my last missive crackers345. It is impossible to relate to someone without knowing their education, background, strengths, orientation, etc.
You should know that I will respond positively to cogent posts. It is only to mindless talking points and unsupported assertions that I respond flippantly or acerbically.
If you truly want a conversation, please respond. Otherwise, I will assume you are a Troll and will cut you down on sight.
Another Icelandic volcano looks poised to erupt soon, giving the commies their escape-clause out of warming hysteria and onto whatever their next scheme is that will save KGB Putin and his nationalized Russian oil industry.
Another Icelandic volcano looks poised to erupt soon, giving the commies their escape-clause out of warming hysteria and onto whatever their next scheme is that will save KGB Putin and his nationalized Russian oil industry.
No! This can’t be true or fact. The Snowflakes and the Millenials won’t believe it anyway.
Please say this is a Holiday Hoax, please!
Without “Truth” in a man-made global warming, the Snowflakes and the Millennials will have no reason to get up in the morning and face the day!
They will wilt. Their reality will fade away.
They will be offended.
The average global outside air temperature remains within 1 °C over decades? That’s remarkable in many ways – not least taking into consideration Earth’s atmosphere isn’t stable or constant by any measure.
http://apollo.lsc.vsc.edu/classes/met130/notes/chapter1/graphics/vert_temp.gif
Wouldn’t mind relocating to a place where the average local outside air temperature is above the global. Anyone here wishing the opposite for themselves, eh?
Jaakko: so then move. noone’s
stopping you. do we really have
to warm up the entire world just for
you?
many people don’t want it warmer.
arctic natives. laborers in the
tropics. those who live at sea level.
skiers. those who live in and love
mountains. climbers. winter
sports enthusiasts. lovers
of nature. small farmers in
the Niger. Puerto Ricans, worried
about the next monster storm.
etc. get it?
You really do need to prove that CO2 is driving global temperatures, crackers345. Simply asserting that temperatures will get to an unacceptable level, or any effects therefrom derived, will not convince anyone, especially long-term readers at WUWT.
With your Puerto Rico comment, you seem to equate stronger hurricanes with increased global warming. There is no proof of that, and bald assertions can’t change it. On the contrary, all empirical data and even IPCC statements belie the “worse weather” meme.
And what makes you believe I haven’t, Crackers? Well, you’re wrong. I have. About 1000 miles farther south in total. In the green blob optimum temperatures at the end of 19th century 10% of my people starved to death due to years skipping summer.
It’s still too cold to grow corn in there. I don’t want that, but have a property to sell you. In the arctic. Granted, the country isn’t much above the sea level, but the shorelines recede due to Weichselian glaciation rebound.
And what makes you believe that’s what I want from “you” Cracker? Well, you’re wrong again. As far as I’m concerned everyone is free to do what they see best as long as they allow others the same. Did you get that Cracker?
Even “The entire world” cooling CACA faithful are free to what they want. Multiply their own own CO2 emissions if they wish. What I object their unsatisfiable misuse of scare common resources for marketing a constraining and misanthropic CACA religion. I’m not in favour of the opposite extreme, anarchism, but can imagine how CACA could backlash into it.
“do we really have
to warm up the entire world just for
you”
NOBODY is warming up the world, certainly NOT with CO2 emissions.
There is absolutely NO CO2 warming signature in the satellite temperature data.
NONE WHAT-SO-EVER. !!
You are living is a substance induced LIE, crackpot !!
“so then move.”
Inner-city fossil fueled life for you, isn’t it crackpot !!
You will be ok, so long as you have your fossil fuel heating in winter, and/or fossil fuel cooling in summer.
Right ??
And let’s not forget the SJW latte machine.. !!
“many people don’t want it warmer”, your list is quite short, and mostly silliness (you seriously worry about dudes rich enough to afford skiing? small farmers in the Niger want it more rainy, as it is now, not dryer as it was in the colder 60s and 70s, etc.).
On the other hand, lots of people want’s it hotter. All those who spend more on heating than on cooling, or plan to retire in Florida (Mediterranean coast, for Europeans) rather than Montana (or Scandinavia). And you can bet this is true in currently poor country, too, as soon as they will be able to afford, they will head to sunny hot seaside.
crackers names off less than 1% of the Earth’s population who like it colder. They can enjoy fossil fuel powered air conditioning or even refrigeration and have whatever temperature their hearts desire. That is the beauty of a wealthy world supported by cheap energy!
Jaysus! It’s hotter at 115 km in altitude than it is at the earth’s surface. Not many molecules there, I assume, Jaakko.
Cannot exclude CACA includes it in the global outside air temperature hottest evah records. Wouldn’t mind relocating there either, provided Al, Barack, Elon, Richard, Leonardo, Charles, Francis and stay on the surface. Having said that Gaia or whatever their deity is nowadays, may dispatch them deeper down or on Venus when their time is up. And that’s fine by me too.
Humboldt current is very cold now.
Mean and anomalous equatorial temperatures.
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ocean/weeklyenso_clim_81-10/wkteq_xz.gif
The glaciers here in Wyoming and Montana have been growing for quite some time but this means nothing to the religion of liberal control global warming.
None of this matters.
We’ve been assured many times, on the basis of settled science, that if we failed to take drastic action by a stated date, we would pass a tipping point and that climate change would be irreversible.
We missed those deadlines. It’s too late; anything we do now will be futile – the science is settled. We may as well continue to enjoy our fossil fuels and party on while we can.
Anyone who is still advocating remedial action and continuance of climate research grants at this point is denying the science.
Hear, hear Richard Millard.
Settled science? Is that like settled history?
Naw. Unlike settled history, settled science is like that stuff that settles in a wastewater plant pond…didn’t you know that?
Solar activity decreases. The jet stream is meridional.
http://squall.sfsu.edu/gif/jetstream_norhem_00.gif
Isn’t that what I always said. It will get cooler. What fun it will be with the snow and all that…
See, Al Gore was right all along…crops will fail & there will be 1,000s of climate refugees,
I will become a climate refugee & move south to the warm.
You will need to ski South
Sea ice satellite data is about to stop due to failure to replace satellites:
http://www.nature.com/news/ageing-satellites-put-crucial-sea-ice-climate-record-at-risk-1.22907?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20171102&spMailingID=55269410&spUserID=MTgyNjI5MjAwMDEwS0&spJobID=1280170708&spReportId=MTI4MDE3MDcwOAS2
This is what we pay NASA et al for.. FAILURE !!!
Their ONLY attribute.
And you can BET that should those satellites cease to function, ice ice measurements will drop rapidly.
In FACT, I BET they actually know that the AMO and PDO are turning and that Arctic sea ice will be increasing… so the instruments NEED to fail…. just like so many surface temperature sites have failed.
Climate Scientist “ESTIMATES™” will be the way of the future
“ice ice” => “sea ice”
AndyG55 November 2, 2017 at 2:11 am
This is what we pay NASA et al for.. FAILURE !!!
Had you bothered to read the article you would have learned that NSIDC use data collected by the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) not NASA and have done for the last 30 years. The final probe in the series, the unlaunched F-20, was dismantled last year after Congress stopped funding the program because Mike Rogers thought it was a waste of money. After all why would the US armed forces need weather forecasts covering the Middle-East!
Convenient, we can now be told all the ice has gone & no easy way to dispute.
Much like the church tried to keep the bible in Latin to stop the plebs questing its content.
yes, why pay a few $millions for real data, when you can pay $billions in non-working solutions (fans and solar) to non-problem?
Science or Elon Musk toys, the choice is easy.
The “science” hasn’t relied on real temperatures for years now. Decades, practically!
Physics seems to be malleable to climate scientists, John.
Good. We can forget Global Warming.
Now we just need to wait for when we also can forget Global Cooling.
It is the Sun people. Sun is in a dorm.ant state of activity. This happened a few years back and we saw snow in July in North Dakota. Time to subsidize SUV’s? This could have a profound effect on global harvest and food supplies. During the Maunder Minimum, this type of cooking led to famine. This is proof of why even if we could control the climate and lower temperatures, why would we. Just more leftist anti business, and anti human race probaganga is all that the so called man made climate change is. We are just insignificant ants on this planet and the liberal ego just can’t accept that.
Is the chart below you can see the human impact?
In my opinion you can see the influence of the magnetic activity of the Sun.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/polar/gif_files/ozone_hole_plot.png
Your neighbour to the North here in Saskatchewan. The last 20 years have been very good for agriculture in the Northern Plains. That keeps food prices reasonable and millions fed. After 60 years of this so-called catastrophe the world , with higher population, has record levels of grain stores. We need more catastrophes like this!
Pray for global warming!
The ocean’s heat capacity is the 8000 lb gorila vs the atmosphere:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/06/energy-content-the-heat-is-on-atmosphere-vs-ocean/
Wondering if this explains the big effect of El Nino? As Jeff Id implies, it’s the oceans, stupid!
I found the graphic (Fig 1 in the link) researching for data to estimate the effects of the latent heat of fusion and vaporization of H2O on the atmosphere from sea level to space, due to a 1″ water equivalent layer, on a normalized basis. Amazing result: +11.4F, just latent heat. (I did this calc because I noticed it always warms when it snows, and being an engineer, I wondered what the effect would be from the 540 + 80 cal/gm latent heat as water vapor in a cloud goes from gas -> solid. My simple answer assumes it’s distributed, but concentration at the phase change location is more realistic. Still shows how huge the latent heat effect is. But best of all I found the link above.)
Never say “El Niño event heated up the planet.” El Niño is not a source of thermal energy to Earth. It is a distribution mechanism of thermal energy accumulated from the Sun a 1 ± 0.5 Centuries ago. It is weather-significant, but noise to climate.
Jeff Glassman November 2, 2017 at 5:47 am: “It is a distribution mechanism of thermal energy accumulated from the Sun a 1 ± 0.5 Centuries ago”
WR: It is called PDO, Pacific DECADAL Oscillation. The release of heat during an El Nino is not about energy that is accumulated in a time frame of a century. Think in decades. You can follow the process by graphs as shown by ren November 2, 2017 at 12:30 am: graph 2 and 3
Persistent heat rise since the depths of the LIA are more likely attributable to ocean heat mass delays. Quite long term.
Yes and no. Yes it’s stored, not generated, heat. Duh. See the link I posted above. It’s the deep ocean (8000 lb gorilla) vs. atmosphere (little monkey). Does affect climate, unless you define climate on a centuries long basis. But then current events are noise, so why are you concerned? Which is it? Can’t have your cake and eat it too.
ocean heating isn’t noise. and it’s been
very large and very sustained.
In my post of 11/2 @ur momisugly 5:47 am, I criticized the article for saying that the “El Niño event heated up the planet.” Then in my explanation, I compounded a pair of equally bad errors of my own. Apologies.
First, the best model of surface temperature (HadCRUT 3) follows the best model of the Sun (Wang, et al., 2005) with a major lag of about a century and a half. SGW (Solar Global Warming), rocketscientistsjournal.com. The lag is a modeling fit, quite possibly due to the fact that HadCRUT3 data span the period of thermometer data, which have been available only about a century and a half. My second error was to confuse El Niño heating of waters upwelling along the Equatorial Pacific with the thermal energy carried by those waters.
A ready cause for lags in T(TSI) is branches of the MOC, aka the THC. The first order effect of this circulation is to drain the ocean surface layer in the North Atlantic and return it in about one millennium later along the Pacific Equator by the Ekman transport. There it is heated by the Sun to outgas CO2 into Hadley cells (bathing Mauna Loa in CO2-rich air, by the way). At this point, the phenomenon has the name El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO). In La Niña conditions, the return water lies in a cold belt stretching across about three fourths of the Pacific. In El Niño, the return water appears fully heated and in the pattern of a tongue from Peru to mid Pacific. See L’Heureux, 5/5/2014. http://www.climate.gov/print/233902
Röst 11/2 @ur momisugly 7:17 am mistakenly thought that the PDO was involved, and thanks in part to my error, confused its decadal oscillations with the lag in GAST in response to the Sun. ENSO varies on interdecadal time scales much like PDO, but with a bit shorter periods. Regardless, the frequency of these oscillations has everything to do with the random variability in the flow of the Equatorial upwelling, but nothing to do with the age of that water (or its energy content).
harmsworth 11/2/17 @ur momisugly 1:14 pm and Rod 11/3/17 @ur momisugly 5:24 pm suggest that the ocean heat mass was more likely involved. Perhaps so, someday when that heat mass is as thoroughly measured as TSI and surface temperature. For now, the SGW model is surprisingly good without it, and if the ocean heat mass were added as a variable, it would be purged by Occam’s Razor. The same can be said for the temperature of Earth’s core and CO2, contradicting the AGW conjecture.
Crackers345 11/3/2017 @ur momisugly 5:33 pm says, ocean heating isn’t noise. and it’s been very large and very sustained. The problem here seems to be distinguishing weather from climate. El Niño is a large, though nevertheless local, ocean heating that is noise on climate scales. Only the average over a single El Niño/La Niña interdecadal cycle contributes to estimates of climate on its minimum time scale.
Exactly! SUNSPOTS! Many scientists not selling the Global Warming narrative have been saying this for years. Look at history: Middle age warm up, Maunder Minimum, etc. We have had periods of extreme warmth and cold. It’s cyclical and since about the 70’s it’s been warm. But that also coincides with an increase in sunspots. Now, we are going into Solar Minimum and that means the earth will cool over the next 20-30 years. Sorry Global Warming alarmists, your argument is about to blow up in your face.
What face? They just run silent and move on to other causes with similar, shallow arguments. There won’t be any truth and reconciliation court for them.
Solar scientists would take issue with that.
“Any reduction in global mean near-surface temperature due to a future decline in solar activity is likely to be a small fraction of projected anthropogenic warming. ”
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms8535
TSI is only one mechanism by which the sun influences the earth’s temperature.
And the others are?
robots: the LIA wasn’t
created by the Maunder Min.
Contrary to some expectations, the October update for UAH TLT global data is a very high 0.63, even warmer than September. It’s also the warmest October anomaly in the UAH record.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_October_2017_v6.jpg
Data: https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/tltglhmam_6.0.txt
Dr Spencer discusses this at the update:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2017-0-63-deg-c/
no one (else) wants to hear it.
Cracker, if you were half as smart as you seem to think you are, you’d be a genius. Now, Dr. Spencer is smart. Your brilliant statement that GW has been proven, and you even compared it to induction. I’m an EE. I suggest you learn just enough to get yourself past the dangerous stage before such comments. WE understand electromagnetic theory to a depth climate scientists can only dream of. THAT is why, for example, your car starts, your computer works (sort of), etc. etc. Ditto for mechanics (Newtonian and relativistic). There are, of course, things we don’t know but on balance it seems FAIR to write that electromagnetic theory, quantum theory, and mechanics employ very difficult but precise mathematics. By comparison, climate theory is may be as advanced as alchemy. Maybe.