2015 Global Temperatures

[The_Global_Warmer]

So giss and ncdc made fundamental changes that caused radical warming from 2001-2015?

[ORH_wxman]

So giss and ncdc made fundamental changes that caused radical warming from 2001-2015?

The warming became steeper from about 1980 on their revisions. The most recent period wasn't affected too much.

The point is, those are significant wholesale changes in a data set and nobody put up a huge fuss.

[skierinvermont]

It has nothing to do with being stupid, it's about getting the correct specific deviation value(s). That was the point of the graph in the first place. You'd rather "visualize" these anomalies, I'd rather know them. Whatever floats your boat.

 

No the deviation values are irrelevant. It is the change in deviation values that is important (ie the slope). Shifting the baseline will have no effect upon the latter. 

 

And whether the baselines are matched or not you are still going to have to 'visualize' the deviations and/or slope. Unless he were to post a large excel file of the numerical data (which wasn't what your complaint was). So your whole 'visualize' vs 'know exactly' is another charade. 

[StudentOfClimatology]

No the deviation values are irrelevant. It is the change in deviation values that is important (ie the slope). Shifting the baseline will have no effect upon the latter.

What a load of crap. The point of the graph was to compare UAH and RSS on a relatively high resolution, noting the periodic discontinuities that exist between the two, not determine the slope. The baseline offset changes the *sign* of a good portion of the deviations. Any long term deviations in the trend line are easily calculable without a high resolution comparison.

Read the original post.

Below is UAH6 minus RSS. There is still a strong non-random signal indicating systematic differences in the two satellite series. UAH6 is offset about 0.1C cooler. In addition there are two periodic fluctuations: a short cycle with a period of roughly 2 years and a longer cycle of roughly 20 years. Tracing the longer cycle: starting in 1979 UAH6 warmed for roughly 10 years relative to RSS then cooled for the next 20 years and has started to warm again in the past 5 years.

The *sign* of the earlier deviations, for example, is incorrect in that graph because the baseline offset has not been corrected for. The UAH dataset was deviating positively from RSS from 1979 to 1990, but the baseline offset gives the impression of a negative differential.

[The_Global_Warmer]

The warming became steeper from about 1980 on their revisions. The most recent period wasn't affected too much.

The point is, those are significant wholesale changes in a data set and nobody put up a huge fuss.

But did they actually change what they were measuring?

I doubt that.

This isn't a UAH revision it's an entirely different thing.

[AvantHiatus]

It's just one more aspect that we don't need that casts doubt on the viability of damaging AGW. If the surface datasets continue to shoot upward without response from UAH, we will be able to discount it and begin claiming scientific dishonesty.

[StudentOfClimatology]

But did they actually change what they were measuring?

I doubt that.

This isn't a UAH revision it's an entirely different thing.

UAH changed the interpolative methods and parameters associated with the measurement lower tropospheric microwave radiation. GISS did the same thing w/ their SST skin measurements. It's essentially the same thing.

[skierinvermont]

What a load of crap. The point of the graph was to compare UAH and RSS on a relatively high resolution, noting the periodic discontinuities that exist between the two, not determine the slope. The baseline offset changes the *sign* of a good portion of the deviations. Any long term deviations in the trend line are easily calculable without a high resolution comparison.

Read the original post.

The *sign* of the earlier deviations, for example, is incorrect in that graph because the baseline offset has not been corrected for. The UAH dataset was deviating positively from RSS from 1979 to 1990, but the baseline offset gives the impression of a negative differential.

 

Everything chubbs said would remain exactly the same when you shift the whole graph up .1C. UAH would warm fastest for 10 years, then RSS for the next 20, then UAH for the next 5. The short term swings would remain as well. 

 

The 'periodic discontinuities' between the two are determined by the slope. 

[The_Global_Warmer]

It's just one more aspect that we don't need that casts doubt on the viability of damaging AGW. If the surface datasets continue to shoot upward without response from UAH, we will be able to discount it and begin claiming scientific dishonesty.

March global ssta were slightly below 2010 and 1998 peaks.

April has seen the nino go to moderate to strong levels.

Id bet April will be equal to 1998 peak easy.

But UAH only has 0.07C+ anomaly.

[AvantHiatus]

As a comparison, using GISS land surface anomalies and excluding the ocean inertia. March 2014 was 0.76C+ and March 2015 was 1.09C+. Such anomalies were not seen since 2010.

 

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts.txt

 

2010's highest land warmth was only 1.11C+. 2 out of 3 months in 2015 are already above 2014's warmest month.

 

What we see since 2014 is a lessening of the valleys and peaks in the global temperature and a more homogeneous but steady warming.

[StudentOfClimatology]

Everything chubbs said would remain exactly the same when you shift the whole graph up .1C. UAH would warm fastest for 10 years, then RSS for the next 20, then UAH for the next 5. The short term swings would remain as well.

Yes, but without calibrating for the offset, the sign & relevant anomalies on will not reflect reality. You can estimate them all you want, I want to know exactly what they are.

[StudentOfClimatology]

March global ssta were slightly below 2010 and 1998 peaks.

April has seen the nino go to moderate to strong levels.

Id bet April will be equal to 1998 peak easy.

But UAH only has 0.07C+ anomaly.

OISST/RTG etc interpolate SSTs via a similar method to the one UAH/RSS use to interpolate lower tropospheric temperatures. The satellite SST data has error bars similar to those of the LT datasets. It could very well be that OISST is running warm.

[The_Global_Warmer]

They are not to warm. The global ssts and surface temps are independently verified.

[StudentOfClimatology]

They are not to warm. The global ssts and surface temps are independently verified.

What do you mean by that?

[nflwxman]

TGW.  I agree with you.  From a pure relative and circumstantial perspective, the TLT measurements don't make that much sense.  2013 was barely warmer than 2000-2001 with ocean temperatures 0.25C higher.  Something seems fishy about that.

 

It could be one of three things:

 

1) surface heat from the ocean is not translating to the TLT due enhanced trade winds and reduced global winds and will ultimately reverse with a major El Nino event (possibly) 

 

2) The theory that the TLT should warm faster than sfc is incorrect (I find this unlikely, just based on pure thermo)

 

3) the measurements have too much uncertainty to resolve at the levels in which we all desire (most likely)

 

 I've essentially written off TLT measurements as a gauge of AGW due to their uncertainty at this point.  It's really strange how UAH (and to a lesser extent RSS) shows very little warming in the 80s and than a pulse of warmth related to the 1998 El Nino. 

 

From a pure political perspective, this is going to really excite the blowhards trying to deflect any reasonable action.

[StudentOfClimatology]

I think your #1 scenario is correct. Global wind speeds declined significantly in 2013 and remained low in 2014. This reduces evaporative cooling of the sea surface, hence reducing the latent heat flux into the lower troposphere. This also explains why SSTs broke records in 2014, but land surface temps did not.

Given this, and the fact that UAH and RSS are now in relatively close agreement, I think it's pretty clear. "Writing off" the satellite data doesn't make sense.

[nflwxman]

I think your #1 scenario is correct. Global wind speeds declined significantly in 2013 and remained low in 2014. This reduces evaporative cooling of the sea surface, hence reducing the latent heat flux into the lower troposphere. This also explains why SSTs broke records in 2014, but land surface temps did not.

Given this, and the fact that UAH and RSS are now in relatively close agreement, I think it's pretty clear. "Writing off" the satellite data doesn't make sense.

 

I'm writing them off due to the fact the published uncertainty is large.  Many papers in the IPCC report essentially say the same thing.   Not for nothing, the change in UAH from .14C/decade to .12C/decade is a pretty small amount of heat all else being considered.  As we all know, sfc and TLT measurements are not the best guage of AGW.  Argo seems to confirm that we more rapidly warming at 0-2000 and 0-700 in the last 3 years than the prior 10.

[StudentOfClimatology]

They're not that large..as of 2009, RSS's published uncertainty estimate is +/- 0.07C/decade. That's larger than the uncertainties in the surface datasets, but not by much. Certainly not enough to throw out an entire dataset, especially considering the other dataset (UAH) is in relatively good agreement now.

Also, the uncertainties in the deep ocean temperature trend are much larger than those of the TLT data. I don't get why you'd trust that data over two satellite networks that are in relatively close agreement. Also, the deep oceans warm kinematically in response to AGW, and have a huge thermal capacity, so they'll lag the surface-TOA forcing(s) by a substantial margin anyway. Given that, and the fact that deep ocean data is quite uncertain, I don't like using it to measure AGW.

[AvantHiatus]

Most of the heat goes into the ocean or ice. Measuring these domains is really a vital necessity and mid troposphere temps are warming even faster now.

 

The hydroxyl (OH) hole in the West Pacific and the fact that cloud tops are increasing have probably contributed to low TLT temperatures.

[StudentOfClimatology]

Hydroxyl hole? You might want to research the concentration and radiative properties of that molecule. It has no measurable effect on the TLT even if it existed in measurable quantities.

As for cloud cover, we really have no adequate way to measure that now. The closest thing we have is ISCCP, and it's a crap dataset.

If cloud cover has increased, that would also have a cooling effect on the lower troposphere overall..how much is contamination and how much is real?

[AvantHiatus]

 

Hydroxyl hole? You might want to research the concentration and radiative properties of that molecule. It has no measurable effect on the TLT even if it existed in measurable quantities.

As for cloud cover, we really have no adequate way to measure that now. The closest thing we have is ISCCP, and it's a crap dataset.

If cloud cover has increased, that would also have a cooling effect on the lower troposphere overall..how much is contamination and how much is real? 

 

 

I have the impression that the evolving cloud dynamics are changing how heat is transported, and the greatest changes are along the Equator where heat is accumulating. The TLT domain may be cold-biased but still indicate the Earth is fighting back in a sense that it is trying to cool itself down thru an unspecified process.

 

Global cloud height anomaly

 

[skierinvermont]

Yes, but without calibrating for the offset, the sign & relevant anomalies on will not reflect reality. You can estimate them all you want, I want to know exactly what they are.

 

And you still won't know them any better once the graph is shifted up .1C. You will still be estimating by eyeballing a graph. 

[StudentOfClimatology]

And you still won't know them any better once the graph is shifted up .1C. You will still be estimating by eyeballing a graph.

Not if you're calculating them. These are simple calibrations..adjusting for baselines is elementary.

[StudentOfClimatology]

I have the impression that the evolving cloud dynamics are changing how heat is transported, and the greatest changes are along the Equator where heat is accumulating. The TLT domain may be cold-biased but still indicate the Earth is fighting back in a sense that it is trying to cool itself down thru an unspecified process.

Global cloud height anomaly

Gallery_Image_8865.jpg

Okay, but the uncertainties in these type of measurements are far greater than those in the TLT data itself.

[skierinvermont]

Not if you're calculating them. These are simple calibrations..adjusting for baselines is elementary.

 

You can't calculate it based off a graph. You would need the actual numerical data. Interpreting a graph is always a matter of estimation. Shifting the graph up .1C mentally doesn't make interpreting the graph any more difficult.

[StudentOfClimatology]

You can't calculate it based off a graph. You would need the raw excel file.

Yes, but at least the sign of the anomalies will be correct. If you wish to "visualize" the data, that's your preference. It's not mine.

[The_Global_Warmer]

TGW. I agree with you. From a pure relative and circumstantial perspective, the TLT measurements don't make that much sense. 2013 was barely warmer than 2000-2001 with ocean temperatures 0.25C higher. Something seems fishy about that.

It could be one of three things:

1) surface heat from the ocean is not translating to the TLT due enhanced trade winds and reduced global winds and will ultimately reverse with a major El Nino event (possibly)

2) The theory that the TLT should warm faster than sfc is incorrect (I find this unlikely, just based on pure thermo)

3) the measurements have too much uncertainty to resolve at the levels in which we all desire (most likely)

I've essentially written off TLT measurements as a gauge of AGW due to their uncertainty at this point. It's really strange how UAH (and to a lesser extent RSS) shows very little warming in the 80s and than a pulse of warmth related to the 1998 El Nino.

From a pure political perspective, this is going to really excite the blowhards trying to deflect any reasonable action.

There is circumstantial evidence of the LT warming.

996 in 1000 glaciers on Earth anywhere have seen an increase in melt rates everywhere since 2000.

The snow lines all over the world are also moving up the mountains pretty much everywhere.

SLR has seen a large increase from glacial ice melt while thermal expansion slowed.

Then there is the ssts.

They speak for themselves.

[StudentOfClimatology]

There is circumstantial evidence of the LT warming.

996 in 1000 glaciers on Earth anywhere have seen an increase in melt rates everywhere since 2000.

Assuming that's true, that would be more relevant to surface-based temperatures than lower tropospheric temperatures. Do you have a reference?

The snow lines all over the world are also moving up the mountains pretty much everywhere.

Mountains with semi-permanent snow over cover 8.3% of the Earth's surface. I'm assuming you've quantitatively determined the snow-level rise?

SLR has seen a large increase from glacial ice melt while thermal expansion slowed.

Not relevant to the intedecadal trend in lower tropospheric temperatures.

Then there is the ssts.

They speak for themselves.

Not relevant to the interdecadal trend in lower tropospheric temperatures.

[skierinvermont]

Here, I fixed the baselines for you SOC. WOW I feel so much better now.. the graph looks totally different!!!! Oh wait, nothing changed.

[ORH_wxman]

I agree with skier...I don't see how zeroing the baselines really changes any of the argument from a qualitative standpoint. We're just looking to see where the inflection points in the graph are and we don't need to zero the baselines to do that.

 

All zeroing does is perhaps give a more precise year when UAH runs warmer/colder rather than eyeballing near -0.10C. But that is a semantical nitpick IMHO.