2015 Global Temperatures

[StudentOfClimatology]

It is definitely bizarre that there is some sort of phobia to natural variation amongst many when discussing climate change.

It's also somewhat ironic, considering that a greater degree of natural variability in climate subsequently suggests a higher ESC.

In the paleoclimate realm, there's a vocal minority that loves to poo-poo significant Holocene climate variability (on multiple resolutions) despite the vast amount evidence supporting it. It's almost like they're afraid to admit that there are aspects of the climate system that are out of our control. I'm not sure why this is, but I definitely see it, and it's quite irritating.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Thanks for proving my point

Whats the problem?

On a side note the AMO has been decently low while global temps are blowing the doors off prior records.

[chubbs]

 

And why are you posting this? Who doesn't know this?  Did you think I posted the link to the study thinking it denies human contribution to global warming?  Or possibly that the -AMO coming would eliminate global warming?  In no way was that my point.  But your post proves my point.  I believe people get some freaked out when discussing PDO/AMO because they think anyone bringing it up is denying human contribution to global warming.  But that's just stupid.  However, it's even more stupid when people (not you) deny the affects of the PDO/AMO on earth's climate.

I misread your post - when you said there was significant natural variability this century I took it to be since 1900 re-reading it now and your subsequent post it is clear you meant since 2000. Yes I agree there has been significant ocean-driven natural variability since 2000

[chubbs]

Whats the problem?

On a side note the AMO has been decently low while global temps are blowing the doors off prior records.

Will be interesting to see the studies on the current multi-year warming phase, however it ends up, since currently PDO and AMO appear to be driving global temperatures in opposite directions.

[AvantHiatus]

Will be interesting to see the studies on the current multi-year warming phase, however it ends up, since currently PDO and AMO appear to be driving global temperatures in opposite directions.

It's something like this....AGW 65%, PDO 15%, AMO 10%. The rest is due to ENSO and Arctic albedo.

[nflwxman]

It's something like this....AGW 65%, PDO 15%, AMO 10%. The rest is due to ENSO and Arctic albedo.

The Pacific has a much larger pull on global temperatures on an decadal basis than the Atlantic. The Amount of heat at stake during each one of these cycles is not even close between the two basins. The AMO is more of a regional phenomenon with very very slight global implications. The PDO modulates ENSO, which has a lot more heat at stake.

[StudentOfClimatology]

The Pacific has a much larger pull on global temperatures on an decadal basis than the Atlantic. The Amount of heat at stake during each one of these cycles is not even close between the two basins. The AMO is more of a regional phenomenon with very very slight global implications. The PDO modulates ENSO, which has a lot more heat at stake.

I'm not sold on the PDO or AMO having any major effect on global temperatures, as I think they're merely reflections of the circulatory changes responsible. The PDO appears to be a reflection of ENSO and AAM transport with an inertial component, while the AMO appears to reflect the size and latitude of the Hadley Cells. At least statistically, this appears to be case.

I suspect these "ocean oscillations" merely reflect the circulatory processes that govern temporal variability in global temperatures, rather than cause them. How can the PDO/AMO possibly alter the global energy budget?

[AvantHiatus]

I'm not sold on the PDO or AMO having any major effect on global temperatures, as I think they're merely reflections of the circulatory changes responsible. The PDO appears to be a reflection of ENSO and AAM transport with an inertial component, while the AMO appears to reflect the size and latitude of the Hadley Cells. At least statistically, this appears to be case.

I suspect these "ocean oscillations" merely reflect the circulatory processes that govern temporal variability in global temperatures, rather than cause them. How can the PDO/AMO possibly alter the global energy budget?

I see the situation as a oceanic inertia process, depending on what the PDO/AMO is doing. In other words, the ocean is either absorbing or releasing and absorbing heat.

[Hambone]

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/when-will-climate-scientists-say-they-were-wrong?utm_content=bufferd4179&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

[stadiumwave]

Whats the problem?

On a side note the AMO has been decently low while global temps are blowing the doors off prior records.

 

To be fair....RSS & UAH paint a different story than GISS & HadCrut for 2014-2015.  There have been AMO affects felt even with the neutral/negative values.

 

1. It's seems more than coincidental that as the northern Atlantic has cooled DMI has shown cooler ARCTIC summers:

 

2013

 

 

2014

 

 

 

2015

 

Certainly there are other factors but those other factors could be related indirectly to the AMO. DMI, RSS, & UAH are at odds with the numbers dreamed up by GISS, & HadCrut.

 

 

2. Another coincidence is during the same period ARCTIC Sea Ice Volume has improved:

 

 

 

 

The Arctic Sea Ice anomalies show this also:

 

Noticeable difference since 2013. Sure there are other favorable factors that will be mentioned but those favorable factors could be a response to the cooling Atlantic.

 

So...my point is I'm not saying a cooling Atlantic is going to return global temps & Arctic Sea Ice to 1970 values...lol.  But I am saying there will be some noticeable affects...more so if PDO is experiencing a positive blip but returns to negative. 

 

Some of you that are acting like greenhouse gases are the "main" driver & natural drivers are non-existent need someone besides Michael Mann to come to your rescue.  Science does not support it.  Science does support human contribution to warming & increasing greenhouse gases & anyone that says otherwise has their 'head in the sand'; however, those who are in complete denial of nature's contribution since early 1700's to a warming globe & still a contributor also have their 'head in the sand'.

 

It's impossible to really learn more about our climate with such a huge investment of our emotions in this.  Emotions blind.  Emotions create wrong realities.  So...let's stay objective.

[StudentOfClimatology]

I see the situation as a oceanic inertia process, depending on what the PDO/AMO is doing. In other words, the ocean is either absorbing or releasing and absorbing heat.

Problem is that during a -PDO, the NPAC is actually warmer/releasing heat, visa versa in a +PDO. The PDO is mostly a reflection of ENSO and longer term trends in AAM bias/tendencies, and can't actually influence climate itself. It's a reflection of circulatory changes that influence global temperature. Like the former, the AMO also lags changes in Hadley/Ferrel cell amplitude, though the two are also coupled.

Same goes for ENSO. It's merely product of a change in global circulation, for all intents a purposes. It's not a self sustaining, free oscillation. Sure there are coupled feedbacks that maintain it on certain frequencies/etc, but it is also subject to external influence and large scale inconsistencies.

There are longer term changes in global circulation that alter climate on longer timescales as well. See the centennial swings in temperature throughout the Holocene. The ENSO phenenon is just a shorter term manifestation of this spatiotemporal-scale behavior.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Hadcrut ncdc and giss are not dreaming up anything.

UAH was fundamentally changed.

It literally cannot be compared to its previous versions.

[StudentOfClimatology]

The 3D/spatial integration(s) on UAHv6.0 are vastly improved. It's a state-of-the-art POV algorithm well above anything RSS is currently using.

[The_Global_Warmer]

The 3D/spatial integration(s) on UAHv6.0 are vastly improved. It's a state-of-the-art POV algorithm well above anything RSS is currently using.

That may be true.

But its still incomparably different from its earlier versions.

[chubbs]

This site has some handy global temperature tracking tools including a daily global temperature record using NCAR reanalysis as an alternative to CFS2. Through May 29 it has the May anomaly at 0.271 using a 1994-2013 baseline exactly equal to its Feb value and just below March. So it is indicating roughly 80 for GISS for May while CFS2 is a little lower roughly 74. We will soon see which re-analysis product is closer.

 

http://www.moyhu.blogspot.com.au/p/latest-ice-and-temperature-data.html

[csnavywx]

Careful with those DMI temps. I know they get thrown around here a lot, but make sure you know what it's actually measuring. It's really more akin to a pole temp than a regional temp:

 

 

The temperature graphs are made from numerical weather prediction (NWP)

"analysis" data. Analyses are the model fields used to start NWP models. They

represent the statistically most likely state of the atmosphere, given the

information available to make the analysis. Since the data are gridded, it is

straight forward to deduce the average temperature North of 80 degree North.

However, since the model is gridded in a regular 0.5 degree grid, the mean

temperature values are strongly biased towards the temperature in the most

northern part of the Arctic! Therefore, do NOT use this measure as an actual

physical mean temperature of the arctic. The 'plus 80 North mean temperature'

graphs can be used for comparing one year to an other.

 

Link

 

Hell, just looking at DMI for 2012 wouldn't have suggested anything out of the ordinary.

[SVT450R]

That may be true.

But its still incomparably different from its earlier versions.

Well to be fair it just looks like everything is cooled down when compared to version 5.6.  Both versions look to be in lock step with each other.  For those skeptical of 6.0 it looks like for the time being they will be continuing 5.6 at each update.

YR MON GLOBAL NH SH TROPICS

v5.6

2015 1 +0.351 +0.553 +0.150 +0.126

2015 2 +0.296 +0.433 +0.160 +0.015

2015 3 +0.257 +0.409 +0.105 +0.083

2015 4 +0.162 +0.337 -0.013 +0.074

v6.0

2015 1 +0.261 +0.379 +0.143 +0.119

2015 2 +0.157 +0.263 +0.050 -0.074

2015 3 +0.139 +0.232 +0.046 +0.022

2015 4 +0.065 +0.154 -0.024 +0.074

[The_Global_Warmer]

Well to be fair it just looks like everything is cooled down when compared to version 5.6. Both versions look to be in lock step with each other. For those skeptical of 6.0 it looks like for the time being they will be continuing 5.6 at each update.

YR MON GLOBAL NH SH TROPICS

v5.6

2015 1 +0.351 +0.553 +0.150 +0.126

2015 2 +0.296 +0.433 +0.160 +0.015

2015 3 +0.257 +0.409 +0.105 +0.083

2015 4 +0.162 +0.337 -0.013 +0.074

v6.0

2015 1 +0.261 +0.379 +0.143 +0.119

2015 2 +0.157 +0.263 +0.050 -0.074

2015 3 +0.139 +0.232 +0.046 +0.022

2015 4 +0.065 +0.154 -0.024 +0.074

Right.

But they changed how they weigh the Atmosphere away from the surface which happens to be warming the most.

[stadiumwave]

Hadcrut ncdc and giss are not dreaming up anything.

UAH was fundamentally changed.

It literally cannot be compared to its previous versions.

Too much "fill in the gap" data has to be used with GISS & NCDC. It's just a reality since there's just not enough coverage globally...especially in the Arctic.

I'm sorry, with all the emotions connected to the climate I'm not sure I'm comfortable with any human filling in the gaps.

We don't have to worry about that with satellite measurements, since coverage is global.

[stadiumwave]

Careful with those DMI temps. I know they get thrown around here a lot, but make sure you know what it's actually measuring. It's really more akin to a pole temp than a regional temp:

Link

Hell, just looking at DMI for 2012 wouldn't have suggested anything out of the ordinary.

Right...it's just 80n.

Don't look at 2012...it's 2013-14 that I posted

[nflwxman]

Too much "fill in the gap" data has to be used with GISS & NCDC. It's just a reality since there's just not enough coverage globally...especially in the Arctic.

I'm sorry, with all the emotions connected to the climate I'm not sure I'm comfortable with any human filling in the gaps.

We don't have to worry about that with satellite measurements, since coverage is global.

UAH and RSS have a much higher published uncertainty than any of the surface datasets from 8 different peer reviewed organizations.

Not only that, RSS and UAH both measure partially above the tropopause, where the atmosphere is cooling. In addition, both sat datasets have plenty of human tempering by designing algorithms. You think they just pull the raw data and that's it?

But despite this, RSS shows what you want, so nothing will change your mind.

[StudentOfClimatology]

UAH and RSS have a much higher published uncertainty than any of the surface datasets from 8 different peer reviewed organizations.

Not only that, RSS and UAH both measure partially above the tropopause, where the atmosphere is cooling. In addition, both sat datasets have plenty of human tempering by designing algorithms. You think they just pull the raw data and that's it?

But despite this, RSS shows what you want, so nothing will change your mind.

This is semantical at best.

RSS's published error bars are 0.08C/decade, GISS's are 0.05C/decade, so yeah GISS's are a bit smaller. Meanwhile, UAHv6.0 has yet to be published but the claim is that uncertainty has been lowered from 0.07C/decade w/ v5.6 to to 0.05C/decade w/ v6.0. This is of course pending publication but I suspect it will pass peer review.

In regards to a cooling tropopause, there is little to no potential error regarding vertical contamination because the O^3's quantum oscillatory rate slows with decompression hence does the microwave emission frequency. Physics 101. That's easy to isolate and interpolate.

[stadiumwave]

UAH and RSS have a much higher published uncertainty than any of the surface datasets from 8 different peer reviewed organizations.

Not only that, RSS and UAH both measure partially above the tropopause, where the atmosphere is cooling. In addition, both sat datasets have plenty of human tempering by designing algorithms. You think they just pull the raw data and that's it?

But despite this, RSS shows what you want, so nothing will change your mind.

I know both can have human tampering...but I'll take the one that has more global coverage.

That's when the integrity of those handling the data play a huge role. It's sad that it comes to that but there's so much at stake for some individuals & organizations that it's hard to eliminate subjective bias on both sides.

[chubbs]

This is semantical at best.

RSS's published error bars are 0.08C/decade, GISS's are 0.05C/decade, so yeah GISS's are a bit smaller. Meanwhile, UAHv6.0 has yet to be published but the claim is that uncertainty has been lowered from 0.07C/decade w/ v5.6 to to 0.05C/decade w/ v6.0. This is of course pending publication but I suspect it will pass peer review.

In regards to a cooling tropopause, there is little to no potential error regarding vertical contamination because the O^3's quantum oscillatory rate slows with decompression hence does the microwave emission frequency. Physics 101. That's easy to isolate and interpolate.

 

I know both can have human tampering...but I'll take the one that has more global coverage.

That's when the integrity of those handling the data play a huge role. It's sad that it comes to that but there's so much at stake for some individuals & organizations that it's hard to eliminate subjective bias on both sides.

 BS^2.  We've been over it countless times the surface temperature record isn't being impacted by "human tampering" only by adjustment to improve data quality. All procedures are well documented and there is no scientific controversy. Hopefully the satellites will wake-up to this El Nino and come into better agreement with the surface temperature datasets. If not then it will be clear they are not a good proxy for surface temperature

[skierinvermont]

This is semantical at best.

RSS's published error bars are 0.08C/decade, GISS's are 0.05C/decade, so yeah GISS's are a bit smaller. Meanwhile, UAHv6.0 has yet to be published but the claim is that uncertainty has been lowered from 0.07C/decade w/ v5.6 to to 0.05C/decade w/ v6.0. This is of course pending publication but I suspect it will pass peer review.

In regards to a cooling tropopause, there is little to no potential error regarding vertical contamination because the O^3's quantum oscillatory rate slows with decompression hence does the microwave emission frequency. Physics 101. That's easy to isolate and interpolate.

 

The structural uncertainty cannot be reduced simply by changing the algorithm. The problem with the satellite datasets is that the warming trend is highly dependent on the algorithm selected. Unless it can be shown that one algorithm is definitively better than another, the structural uncertainty will remain quite large (>.1C/decade). 

 

The disparity between different algorithms (each of the UAH algorithms, RSS, STAR, the recent paper published here, Vinikov etc. etc.) is larger than .05C/decade. So unless it can be said that UAHv6 is somehow vastly superior to these other methods, the structural uncertainty is much greater than .05C/decade.

[StudentOfClimatology]

The structural uncertainty cannot be reduced simply by changing the algorithm. The problem with the satellite datasets is that the warming trend is highly dependent on the algorithm selected. Unless it can be shown that one algorithm is definitively better than another, the structural uncertainty will remain quite large (>.1C/decade).

The algorithms weren't changed without parallel, the measurement method and subsequent spatial interpolation methods were changed. The UAH v5.6 used a flat spatial plane then merged on a basis of angle and curvature. The UAHv6.0 uses a homogenized plane hence does not need to tune for angle and curvature of the emission plane.

This is a 100% new technique..I have no idea what to think yet. Spencer claims 0.05C/decade error potential...I'll reserve judgement until it passes peer review.

[StudentOfClimatology]

BS^2. We've been over it countless times the surface temperature record isn't being impacted by "human tampering" only by adjustment to improve data quality. All procedures are well documented and there is no scientific controversy. Hopefully the satellites will wake-up to this El Nino and come into better agreement with the surface temperature datasets. If not then it will be clear they are not a good proxy for surface temperature

Any talk regarding "human tampering" is denier bulls**t, I agree. That being said, a lot of the criticism of the satellite measurements I've seen here is pure nonsense. Anyone arguing for stratospheric contamination of TLT emission interpolation is laughably uninformed.

[stadiumwave]

Any talk regarding "human tampering" is denier bulls**t, I agree. That being said, a lot of the criticism of the satellite measurements I've seen here is pure nonsense. Anyone arguing for stratospheric contamination of TLT emission interpolation is laughably uninformed.

 

I'm not a denier in any shape form or fashion, so I totally disagree.  But I think it's ridiculous to assert that human subjectiveness will never play a role in any data collecting.  We've already seen that in Climategate, being very subjective indeed plays a role in science at times...so let's not go there.  I just hope for pure honesty from all data sets...I'm not sure that can always be counted on. 

 

I hope you're correct & it's never an issue at all.  But when you have government agencies doing work & a President that just flat out lied about extreme weather events the other then forgive me for not being as trusting.  It doesn't change the facts that humans are indeed contributing in an unfortunate way to a warming globe, but it does put a dent on my trust modulator.  I wish politics didn't play a role at all but we know that's not going to happen.

[nflwxman]

Any talk regarding "human tampering" is denier bulls**t, I agree. That being said, a lot of the criticism of the satellite measurements I've seen here is pure nonsense. Anyone arguing for stratospheric contamination of TLT emission interpolation is laughably uninformed.

 

Is it?  Please show us how it's laughably uninformed?

 

I suggest you do some reading on the weighing algorithms of RSS.  The spatial distribution is up to 12 km above the surface, and if you remember from your undoubetly rigorous coursework, the tropopause can reach as low as 7-8km above the surface in high latitudes.  Due to this, much of the high latitude regions of Siberia and Northern Canada show a much much slower warming rate on RSS/UAH than the surface.  

 

This is not some major trick to hoodwink the public.  It's just how the algorithm is weighed by need.

 

 

http://www.remss.com/measurements/upper-air-temperature

[StudentOfClimatology]

Sure, each layer's temperature must be interpolated wth it's own homing algorithm. That said, stratospheric contamination of TLT microwave emissions is a non-issue..O^2's microwave emission rate is tied to it's oscillation frequency (given the fact it's bi-atomic) which is determined by the surrounding air pressure. This makes it easy to decipher the height of the so-called tropopause..this is exactly how we found out that the tropopausal altitude varies with latitude.

The uncertainties in the satellite data are largely a result of sensor degradation, merging inconsistencies, and orbital drift...though the latter is fairly easy to adjust for..

Not to be rude, but I suspect you (and others) have an ulterior motive for talking down the satellite data. The fact that we're quarreling over a few hundreds-of-a-degree difference in error potential between the various datasets pretty much gives it away. The argument you're proposing is semantical.