Guest Essay by Kip Hansen
Last week Dr. Roy Spencer treated us to the latest UAH Global Temperature Update. Overall, the ”global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for October, 2018 was +0.22 deg. C, up a little from +0.14 deg. C in September”.
Dr. Spencer was kind enough to include in his post, as he usually does, a chart with the actual figures from his ongoing research. The entire post was mirrored here at WUWT.
Here’s the part that I found interesting, which only can be seen if one graphs the data from this chart:
Various regional LT departures from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 22 months are:
YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPIC USA48 ARCTIC AUST
2017 01 +0.33 +0.32 +0.34 +0.10 +0.28 +0.95 +1.22
2017 02 +0.39 +0.58 +0.20 +0.08 +2.16 +1.33 +0.21
2017 03 +0.23 +0.37 +0.09 +0.06 +1.22 +1.24 +0.98
2017 04 +0.28 +0.29 +0.26 +0.22 +0.90 +0.23 +0.40
2017 05 +0.45 +0.40 +0.49 +0.41 +0.11 +0.21 +0.06
2017 06 +0.22 +0.34 +0.10 +0.40 +0.51 +0.10 +0.34
2017 07 +0.29 +0.31 +0.28 +0.51 +0.61 -0.27 +1.03
2017 08 +0.41 +0.41 +0.42 +0.47 -0.54 +0.49 +0.78
2017 09 +0.55 +0.52 +0.57 +0.54 +0.30 +1.06 +0.60
2017 10 +0.63 +0.67 +0.60 +0.47 +1.22 +0.83 +0.86
2017 11 +0.36 +0.34 +0.38 +0.27 +1.36 +0.68 -0.12
2017 12 +0.42 +0.50 +0.33 +0.26 +0.45 +1.37 +0.36
2018 01 +0.26 +0.46 +0.06 -0.11 +0.59 +1.36 +0.42
2018 02 +0.20 +0.25 +0.16 +0.03 +0.92 +1.19 +0.18
2018 03 +0.25 +0.40 +0.10 +0.07 -0.32 -0.33 +0.59
2018 04 +0.21 +0.31 +0.11 -0.12 -0.00 +1.02 +0.69
2018 05 +0.18 +0.41 -0.05 +0.03 +1.93 +0.18 -0.39
2018 06 +0.21 +0.38 +0.04 +0.12 +1.19 +0.83 -0.55
2018 07 +0.32 +0.43 +0.21 +0.29 +0.51 +0.30 +1.37
2018 08 +0.19 +0.22 +0.17 +0.12 +0.06 +0.09 +0.26
2018 09 +0.14 +0.15 +0.14 +0.24 +0.88 +0.21 +0.19
2018 10 +0.22 +0.31 +0.12 +0.34 +0.25 +1.11 +0.38
The graph looks like this:
Sharp eyes will notice that I have not used all the data — I graph only Global, Northern Hemisphere, Southern Hemisphere, Tropics and the Arctic. (Leaving out US Contiguous 48 States and Australia — which I did not need and they only added clutter — each being already represented in their respective hemispheres.)
It is an interesting looking graph from several viewpoints. Here’s what I find so interesting:
- There are four traces that form a cluster across the graph, being very close to one another in a band about 0.5 °C in width: Global, N and S Hemispheres and the Tropics. The temperature anomalies from the long-term means are generally in step, but not lock-step, between regions.
- Except one: The Arctic. The Arctic trace is very different from the other four.
Here is the Arctic annotated with the seasons:
The Arctic shows more variability, both quantitatively and qualitatively.
The two Arctic winters are far more anomalous than the two summers. To me, the Arctic trace looks a bit chaotic with a seasonal overlay. Between January and February 2018, there is a shift of 1.6 °C in the anomaly.
NOTE: UAH’s “Arctic” is really denoted “NoPol” — North Pole — and is defined as 60N – 90N. It is not DMI’s “above 80N” nor is it “within the Arctic Circle”. It is larger than both.
The Danes have been treating us to Arctic temperature comparisons for many years. The three years covered by the UAH graphs above look like this when overlaid on one another:
We see that the Danish Meteorological Institute has calculated the average temperatures above the 80th parallel (yes, it is a model result) and we see that Arctic temperatures have been a lot less cold than the long-term average — 10-15 °C less cold. Even at that, Winters are running 20 degrees below freezing and Falls about 15 degrees below freezing. The Summers, however, have not been anomalously warmer. Summers show about 100 days of temperatures above freezing — and that by only a degree or so (never breaking above 275K — 0 °C = 273.15K)
This (painstakingly created) animation shows the DMI above 80N from 1970 thru Oct 2018. Images sourced from DMI’s Arctic Temperatures page.
The DMI data is in agreement with the UAH data, at least in a qualitative sense, in the last three years of the animation. It takes a good eye to see that nothing really changes much until after 2005, when there is an oddity, then after 2010 things change even more.
The Northern Hemisphere, in the UAH data, taken as a whole, does not show this type of variation.
Now, north of the 80th parallel is a very small portion of the planet but “the Arctic”– defined as the area inside the Arctic Circle at 66.5N — is quite a bit larger. UAH’s “NoPol” is defined as 60N-90N, is larger yet.
Both are part of the Northern Hemisphere.
For comparison, here is the Arctic Sea Ice extent long term average laid over the Arctic Circle. The 1981-2010 average is outlined in red (I think). You see that the 2016 and 2017 Maximum extents just about fill the long term average, with some empty space around the edges in the Bering Sea and the area north of Scandinavia.
Why show you Sea Ice Extent? — just to show that the UAH temperature high winter anomaly (north of the 80th parallel) isn’t caused by a lack of sea ice — almost all of that area is covered in sea ice in the dead of Winter.
Here is one last set of graphs, again from the DMI:
These graphs start in 1960 — about the middle of the 1945-1975 cooling period. Globally, temperatures start to rise again in about 1980 but NOT Arctic temperatures. DMI’s Arctic temperature (above 80 ° North) are steady, if variable, right around the long term (1958-2002) mean. It is not until 2005 that anything exceptional begins to be seen.
So, what does that leave? That’s what I’d like to know. Here’s Dr. Spencer’s UAH Lower Troposphere Global (top — marked with a blue line at 2005) and that regional three year graph (bottom):
One last one, really this time. This is UAH Arctic (UAH’s “NoPol 60N-90N” which is spatially considerably more than DMI’s “above 80N” and more area than “above the Arctic circle”):
Since the beginning of 2016 (highest spike in Arctic blue on the left), Global seems to follow the Arctic signal (which is 60N-90N) and has the same profile. The last data point is Oct 2018. [Note: The reference period for this graph is 1981-2010]
Here is my list of questions: (I have no answers — and I hope the readers here can shed some light on the matter)
- Why is the Lower Troposphere Temperature in that circle at the top of the world, 60N-90N, behaving so differently than the rest of the world ?
- How much does that odd behavior affect the global record?
- The DMI modelled Arctic Temperature, for north of the 80th parallel, also shows anomalously warm winters and springs, seemingly confirming that there is something going on, but only since 2005. Why is that?
- How is it that the DMI above 80N seasonal graphs show seasonal anomalies from 5-8 degrees, but UAH Arctic Lower Trop shows less than 1.5 as an extreme? Is there some physical measurement error in the DMI figures since 2005? Was there some change in the measurement or model? Or is there something physical happening (sea ice doesn’t change in the same period)?
# # # # #
Author’s Comment Policy:
Readers can consider this an Open Thread for comments on ALL MATTERS ARCTIC.
I thought I would find something interesting — and I did, but not answers. Not to worry, good questions are always more valuable than good answers.
I know Arctic warming is predicted by the AGW Hypothesis — but it only substantially appears after 2005.
All collegial comments are welcome — please discuss, not argue.
# # # # #
“The DMI modelled Arctic Temperature, for north of the 80th parallel, also shows anomalously warm winters and springs, seemingly confirming that there is something going on, but only since 2005. Why is that?”
I guess it has something to do with wind. I have used the CERES data 2000-2016. The monthly wind speed anomaly 2000-2016 is shown here,
http://www.gigapico.de/CERES_4_0_75_90N_-180_180E_skin_temperature_anomaly_2000-2016.jpg
the anomaly of the skin temperature is shown here.
http://www.gigapico.de/CERES_4_0_75_90N_-180_180E_wind_speed_anomaly_2000-2016.jpg
The green lines are obtained by a Gauss low pass filter. Obviously, there is some correlation.
P.B.
Thanks for that.
Regards
Volcanic activity, maybe.
You r getting close. See my comment elsewhere.
I seen that. What I’m thinking is the satellites can see volcanoes easier than some station away from there. Right now, there are 2 minor heating events at volcanoes in Alaska. The molten exchange from below could cause that.
More grist for the mill … here is the CERES data for the same area:
Best to all,
w.
w. ==> Thanks for those ….
Willis,
I see large winter increases in the CERES anomalies around 2004 and 2015, and wonder (no more than that at this stage) if there could possibly be a link with the increases seen in the HadSST3 data during the preceeding summers (http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3nh/from:1990/plot/hadsst3sh/from:1990).
Great post. I was about to comment that nullschoolearth is available…
Some possible causes
– Delayed heat transfer effects of the 1998 Super El Nino
– Changes in the solar Ap-index, which possible affects the vortex.
I recall Anthony had discusions on the Ap index drop in Oct 2005.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/06/the-ap-solar-magnetic-index-remains-low-going-on-4-years/
The fact that the fluctuation are only in winter tends to make sense if the vortex is being impacted by the low Ap index. Of course we need to wait to see what happens when the Ap returns to higher levels.
Serge ==> Thanks for the suggestions….
“Arctic amplification” of surface temperatures is often referred to, but seldom with any serious physical insight. For starters, it should be recognized that advection of heat from lower latitudes, rather than local isolation, is the dominant driver of temperature variations in that region–especially in winter. Furthermore, given the nonlinear S-B relationship between energy and temperature, any given change in the former necessarily produces a larger change in the latter as the local regional temperatures diminishes with increasing latitude.
What the recent arctic upsurge seems to show is that advective heating has increased, thereby decreasing the energy content concentrated at lower latitudes–all in accordance with the natural principle of maximizing entropy in a closed system. That sort of disparate behavior should be expected primarily in the latter stages of a warming episode, when the nonlinear dynamics of global advection are operating at peak level.
I think the phrase also gives an insight into the mind-set of the climatist. “Arctic amplification” conjures up a getting-even-worse-than-we-thought scenario in the mind of the low information reader, so the journalist class also love the phrase. From there it is a short step to the infamous “Arctic death spiral”.
The same thinking probably also applied in the case of the water vapor feedback: Not only did it turn out to be physically necessary to invoke a large, unproven, water vapor feedback term into the models to turn a mild global warming into a catastrophic global warming, but it also strongly appealed to the modelers in the linguistic sense I have just described. Almost everybody grasps the concept of feedback quite well, certainly well enough to help envisage a runaway train going down a steep hill, which is what they wanted. Confirmation bias is not just an affliction the experimentalist, but also of the theoretician.
Well-grounded skepticism notwithstanding, I fear that you still give too much credit to “climatists.” The “feedback” that they often claim is not at all feedback in any rigorous system-analysis sense of the word. Instead of referring to a physical loop between system output and its excitation, it is used vaguely to describe evolving changes in the response characteristics of the system. The physical meaning and analytic implications of true feedback is seriously grasped by only a minute minority.
Well
There are several problems here Kip.
First and foremost is you dont understand that UAH ( like DMI) is a ALSO a model of temperatures.
In order to estimate the temperature UAH uses radiative physics ( for the microwave channel)
One of the assumptions Spencer has to make regards the emissivity of the surface.
They assume one value for all of the ocean
They assume one value for all of the land.
Looking at their code it seems clear they treat the area covered by ice in the artcic as if it were
Ocean, and give it the emissivity of the ocean.
They make no previsions for the emmissivity of snow or ice, and there is no accounting
consequently, for the changes in emmissivity due to changes in snow cover or ice cover.
https://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/sds/cdr/CDRs/Mean_Layer_Temperatures_UAH/AlgorithmDescription_01B-10.pdf
From their document
“From a practical perspective, however, the atmospheric temperature
measurement (at least in the troposphere, where weather and climate variations are
concentrated) cannot be made without also measuring at least some amount of thermal
emission from the Earth’s surface shining up through the atmosphere for layers below TLS.
Therefore, more surface-sensitive channels were included in the AMSU sensor design in
order to better correct for this contaminating influence on the atmospheric measurements.
This is important for the wide range of surface backgrounds in different regions,
since the intended use of AMSU for monitoring regional temperature variations for input
into numerical weather prediction models. We do not, however, perform any such
corrections to our products.”
Hint, they are telling you its no good for regional analysis
Hint, Reanalsysis products will be better for the arctic (numerical weather prediction)
Mr Mosher, you are correct, as I remarked earlier, UAH doesn’t ‘do’ the white stuff.
Adjusting the October NH accordingly gives a global anomoly of approx 0.14 , same as September.
Of course to any sane person, 0.14 and ZERO are the same given the BS qualities of these models ( including yours).
“Why is the Lower Troposphere Temperature in that circle at the top of the world, 60N-90N, behaving so differently than the rest of the world ?”
Remember the earth in the tropics has net radiative energy flow in. Ie. The sun’s inbound radiation is consistently greater than the top of atmosphere outbound radiation.
And at the poles it is of course the opposite. Especially in winter their is little or no inbound solar radiation.
We have 2 poles, so let’s me stage that fact.
In the winter the Antarctic interior is aabsolutely fridged! Why? The only source of heat is the air and air is a very low density carrier of energy. The air simply can’t keep up with the black body radiation and the land just gets ultra cold before equilibrium is established.
The arctic isn’t as cold in its winter. Why? Most of the arctic is readily accessible to the “warm” ocean. In this case all liquid water is “warm”, at least relative to Antarctica’s winter.
The arctic in winter is probably the only place on earth that is getting a majority of its heat from the ocean. That’s what makes it unique. It simply isn’t like the rest of the globe; its not even similar to Antarctica.
So, back to your question. The surprise isn’t that it behaves differently. The surprise would be if it didn’t since the energy flows are totally different.
Sudden temperature changes in the troposphere can only be attributed to changes in air circulation.
The highly dynamic week to week part sure, but baseline winter energy in the arctic has to come from the ocean. Otherwise the Arctic winter would be as cold as the Antarctic winter, and it is far from it.
This is because the geomagnetic field in the south and north is completely different.
http://www.geomag.nrcan.gc.ca/images/field/fnor.gif
http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/images/charts/jpg/polar_s_f.jpg
Therefore, the polar vortex in the north will always be weaker than in the south.
North Pole Projections
http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/data_service/models_compass/polarnorth.html
Greg Freemyer November 11, 2018 at 6:54 am
ren November 11, 2018 at 8:26 am
Sorry, ren, but that’s not true. It’s because a) the Antarctic is mostly ice underlain with solid frozen rock while the Arctic is mostly ice underlain with liquid water, and b) the Antarctic is mostly high altitude plateau while the Arctic is mostly sea level.
As a result, the Antarctic is much, much colder than the Arctic, and the polar vortex, which is temperature driven, is correspondingly stronger.
w.
Willis Eschenbach the winter stratospheric polar vortex develops in the stratosphere and no on the surface.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_UGRD_MEAN_OND_NH_2018.png
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_UGRD_MEAN_ALL_NH_2018.png
.
❶①❶①❶①❶①
❶①❶①❶①❶①
❶①❶①❶①❶①
❶①❶①❶①❶①
.
Which temperature series are correct?
Which do you believe, GISTEMP, HadCRUT4, UAH, or RSS?
This article compares these 4 “major” temperature series, to see how well they agree, or disagree, with each other.
You may be surprised at the results.
https://agree-to-disagree.com/comparing-temperature-series
“Which do you believe, GISTEMP, HadCRUT4, UAH, or RSS?”
I trust more those who do not change the past, very simple.
I have not much trust in somebody who changes the past and exactly none in somebody who does that repeatedly.
And you? Who do you trust?
Sheldon
they must be all wrong?
none of them shows that it is cooling, globally.
by my results…
henryp,
you are correct. The LOESS curve calculation is not sensitive to changes near the end-points, so it misses the recent cooling.
So don’t take too much notice of the end-points, but the rest of the LOESS curve should be ok.
I am working on a new way of smoothing, using iterative smoothing with a binary filter (1, 2, 1). I am hoping that this will show the recent cooling, and also allow me to accurately calculate the “almost instantaneous” warming rate (rather than a warming rate averaged over a period of 10 years or more).
The wider variation is due to errors in the map projection used to get unit areas of sampling. The errors/distortions are larger at the poles than at the equator. The minute you see latitudinal variability, you change map projection to see which one has the least temperature anomaly.
“The Summers, however, have not been anomalously warmer. Summers show about 100 days of temperatures above freezing — and that by only a degree or so (never breaking above 275K — 0 °C = 273.15K)
DO you know WHY the 2m temperature over ice would be limted during the melting season?
hint
the excess heat goes into melting ice
can’t have been much “excess heat” (who deems it to be excess rather than just heat ?) since 2000 given summer ice extent levels.
Mosher ==> Someday you might actually read the whole essay beofre commenting — or read nore closely with an honest intention to understand what the author is saying, rther than looking for things to snipe at.
UAH 60N-90N (really 85N) also hugs the line — and that’s the troposphere — from 60N up.
The quote is about DMI.
duh
This has been around for quite some time:
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/ocean/surface/currents/overlay=sea_surface_temp/orthographic=15.54,74.18,1604/loc=5.942,77.915
Notice the hot spot just west of Spitsbergen, nicely in front of the entrance of the bay on along which Longyearbyen is situated.
SE of Spitsbergen is another, less pronounced hot spot.
Could very well have something to do with this:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/02/hot-times-near-svalbard-volcanic-range-discovered/
Depending on the wind direction the warm water will directly influence the readings of the thermometers at Lonyearbyen airport.
Anomalous Warm Waters in the Arctic Did Underwater Volcanoes Awake?
https://medium.com/@globalcooling/anomalous-warm-waters-in-the-arctic-did-underwater-volcanoes-awake-30ace2331e96
Hi Ben
your observations seem to support my theory
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/11/10/uah-arctic-temperature-profile/#comment-2513657
must say: I have again lost those graphs of yours that show the relationship with T and depth into the earth. I don’t know how that could have happened….I am not really a great computer nerd. Could you perhaps just dig those up for me again?
Many thanks.
H
henryp November 11, 2018 at 2:14 am
I don’t see how a single vulcanic eruption would be an indication of movement of Earth’s core.
In this case the eruption is on or near the Midatlantic ridge, the division between two tectonic plates moving away from each other.
Another factor could be a mantle plume. The whole area from Iceland northwards is pretty active.
For the graph (and other relevant ones) google “earth’s crust temperature profile”.
Ben
the shift North East of earth’s inner core
as observed by the results of the various magnetic measurements and as also observed by myself by the drop in T min in the SH
obviously puts more pressure on the known areas of volcanic activity and those susceptible to earth quakes. The direction north east is a pointer.
e.g. Iceland, the Arctic, Japan, etc. Problems happened or are happening already? It seems likely to me that California might be next up for disaster as it also lies on some dangerous fault line.
Look at the ice west of Svalbard.
http://masie_web.apps.nsidc.org/pub/DATASETS/NOAA/G02186/latest/4km/masie_all_zoom_4km.png
ren November 11, 2018 at 2:15 am
Thanks. Seems logical that the ocean doesn’t freeze over when the surface temperature is ~19C.
What’s with the counter-rotating whirlpools at 70N 68E?
correction: 1.68E
verdeviewer November 11, 2018 at 3:18 pm
Most probably still part of the Gulfstream moving along the Norwegion coast.
Creates all kinds of turbulent effects.
Have a look further south and see all kind of eddies related to the Gulfstream.
Arctic winter warming amplified by the thermal inversion and consequent low infrared cooling to space
R. Bintanja, R. G. Graversen & W. Hazeleger
Nature Geoscience volume 4, pages 758–761 (2011)
Abstract
Pronounced warming in the Arctic region, coined Arctic amplification, is an important feature of observed and modelled climate change1,2. Arctic amplification is generally attributed to the retreat of sea-ice3 and snow, and the associated surface-albedo feedback4, in conjunction with other processes5,6,7,8. In addition, the predominant thermal surface inversion in winter has been suggested to pose a negative feedback to Arctic warming by enhancing infrared radiative cooling9. Here we use the coupled climate model EC-Earth10 in idealized climate change experiments to quantify the individual contributions of the surface and the atmosphere to infrared radiative cooling. We find that the surface inversion in fact intensifies Arctic amplification, because the ability of the Arctic wintertime clear-sky atmosphere to cool to space decreases with inversion strength. Specifically, we find that the cold layers close to the surface in Arctic winter, where most of the warming takes place, hardly contribute to the infrared radiation that goes out to space. Instead, the additional radiation that is generated by the warming of these layers is directed downwards, and thus amplifies the warming. We conclude that the predominant Arctic wintertime temperature inversion damps infrared cooling of the system, and thus constitutes a positive warming feedback.
Relation between geomagnetic field and climate variability. Part 2: Probable mechanism
N. Kilifarska, V. Bakhmutov, G. Melnik
Abstract
In this study we show that correspondence of the main structures of geomagnetic field, near surface air temperature and surface pressure in the mid-latitudes, reported previously in the 1st part of the paper, has its physical foundation. The similar pattern, found in latitude-longitude distribution of the lower stratospheric ozone and specific humidity, allows us to close the chain of causal links, and to offer a mechanism through which geomagnetic field could influence on the Earth’s climate. It starts with a geomagnetic modulation of galactic cosmic rays (GCR) and ozone production in the lower stratosphere through ion-molecular reactions initiated by GCR. The alteration of the near tropopause temperature (by O3 variations at these levels) changes the amount of water vapour in the driest part of the upper troposphere/lower stratosphere (UTLS), influencing in such a way on the radiation balance of the planet. This forcing on the climatic parameters is non-uniformly distributed over the globe, due to the heterogeneous geomagnetic field controlling energetic particles entering the Earth’s atmosphere.
Ozone displaces water vapor under the tropopause.
It is well known that the unique source of charged par-ticles i n the lower stratosphere are the GCR, which consist from protons, alfa-particles and heavier nuclei (Z>3) with energy >1—2 GeV/nucI. The GCR depose their energy mainly at a height of 10-20 km, where the maximum of the air ionization (maximum of Pfotzer) is. This ionization takes place In the lower stratosphere, where the photo-dissociation rate decr eases ess entially and becomes comparable, even less than the CR ionization rate. The GCR are a source of ozone formation in the lower stratosphere, because of radiol ysis in the oxygen molecules . In t h i s way two mechanisms of ozone formation from GCR are observed: first, the radiolysis of the oxygen molecules; second, a participation of ions in the ion -molecular processes.
Winter temperature inversion: “We experience this temperature inversion almost every day while we are in the high Arctic at Eureka (Nunavut, Canada) for the Canadian Arctic ACE validation campaign. Due to the inversion, we experience much warmer temperatures (sometimes up to 20°C higher) at our research laboratory PEARL (the Polar Environment Atmospheric Research Laboratory), which is approximately 600 m (above sea level) higher than Eureka, which is at sea level. While our colleagues in Eureka are experiencing -50°C, those of us working at PEARL are often enjoying the relatively “warm” temperature of -30°C.”
So the temperature can be 20 degC colder at surface than it is in the “lower troposphere”.
nobodysknowledge,
An interesting direct observation of arctic inversion inducing + 20C delta T at 600M.
Thanks for that!
And the UAH “arctic” consists of many weather systems. Greenland with much winter temperature inversion, Siberia, North Canada, Barents Sea and others.
nobody ==> Only since 2005?
Kip
it IS the movement of earth’s inner core
just google: map of movement of the magnetic north pole/
it shows the movement over the last 1000 years but it accelerated quite fast over the last 10 years {first map].
I call this the magnetic stirrer effect. It is just that the inside of earth has to re-align with whatever the sun is dictating.
Might help to explain the contradiction between DMI surface and UAH TLT Arctic trends in recent years.
“Why is the Lower Troposphere Temperature in that circle at the top of the world, 60N-90N, behaving so differently than the rest of the world ?”
Partly because El Nino episodes drive major warm pulses to the AMO with around an 8 month lag.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/correlation/amon.us.data
Thomas
CO2 warming is a hoax. It was never and it will never be. Click on my name to read my final report on that.
El Niño does not develop.
https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/soi/
I told you
global cooling is here.
it plays out exactly as I thought it would
at the higher lats: warmer and dryer summer and cooler and dryer winters
at the lower lats: more clouds and rain /storms
Tomorrow in the west, very high pressure.
The UAH NoPol region is significantly driven in real-time by the NH and ocean climate:
First post over here. To me it does not seem to be related to ice extent as, according to Masie, the winter extent has even increased slightly from 2005, so this cannot be the explanation, see gif below:
http://www.climate4you.com/images/NorthernHemisphere-SeaIceMASIE.gif
What has happened from 2005 is that solar cycle 23 has entered its minumum for a few years. As commonly understood, solar minums coincide with increased meridional patterns and less zonal winds. As the Atlantic is the main gateway to the Arctic the answers could/should be found in the NOA index as this leads to an increased exchange of heat between the subtropical areas and the arctic. One of the studies that has shown this link is listed below. This study seems to confirm, at least partially, the behaviour from 2005 onwards and would be interesting to extend this analysis with arctic winter temperature anomalies.
https://www.clim-past.net/13/1199/2017/cp-13-1199-2017.pdf
The Arctic Ocean is a difficult place to live if you happen to be a human. Food, and water are scarce, and it is difficult to provide warm structures that allow humans to survive the cold, dark winters. We also have less permanent living organic systems to investigate the past warmth or lack of warmth. So both current measurements and past measurements are suspect, and averages of winter temps are even more suspect.
Understanding of the variations in temperatures during the winter time is limited to a relatively short time frame from a climate perspective.
The local areas of interest that we currently have some short term knowledge of are: the water temperature, the sea ice coverage, the land ice coverage, and the air temperatures.
The air temperature is influenced by the local factors, and by non-local circulation patterns. The other areas of interest are also potentially influenced by a combination of local and non-local factors. Some second tier elements to keep in mind would be solar variations, changes in volcanic activity, changes in air chemistry.
So you have a situation where you are investigating the end result of a matrix of many inputs, where some are local, some are not. We have many potential driving factors for changes in observed air temperature during recent winter years.
It is likely that every driving factor will have to be analyzed to arrive at a consistent hypothesis. A few likely guesses would be:
1) Arctic Ocean warm water intrusions / oscillation
2) lack of cold air intrusions (from Siberia) -> warm air intrusions from warm water sources.
3) less isolation between the warm water and the air
4) greater cloud cover that slows the radiation of warmth to space
5) a combination of many factors: warmer water leads to less sea ice, leads to more cloud cover, leads to warmer low temps…etc.
More info is needed, but there is plenty to speculate about. And you have at least one thing working for you. Limited UHI 😉
Russ ==> Thanks for your input — I have mentioned that the UAH North Pole graph looks similar to a chaotic output overlaid by a seasonal signal. Many chaotic systems can shift to a chaotic randomness from a stable pattern under very small changes in conditions.