2015 Global Temperatures

[csnavywx]

Is there really in reason for that?  Roy Spencer doesn't believe that AGW runs contrary to his God & politics.  I'd put his honesty & integrity against the likes of Gavin Schmidt & Michael Mann any day.

 

Spencer is a signatory to An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming,^[30][31] which states that "Earth and its ecosystems – created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting".^[32] He believes that most climate change is natural in origin, the result of long-term changes in the Earth's albedo and that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have caused some warming, but that its warming influence is small compared to natural, internal, chaotic fluctuations in global average cloud cover.^[33] This view contradicts the scientific consensus that "most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities". ^[34]

 

Excerpt from Wikipedia.

 

 

 

Also, isn't this the same Roy Spencer who is the "Official EIB Climatologist for the Rush Limbaugh Show"?

 

Isn't this the same Roy Spencer who was a star in "The Great Global Warming Swindle", which ironically is directed by Martin Durkin (ex-Revolutionary Communist Party -- how's that for a head exploder?).

 

Yeah, there's history there. Not much of it good.

[ORH_wxman]

Usually when you attack the person rather than the methods, it means you are lacking scientific argument.

 

James Hansen was head of GISS for decades...he made wild predictions of Super Ninos and short term extreme rising sea levels that never happened and got arrested for activism multiple times....yet, his GISS temperature dataset has undergone peer review more than once with updates and over time, it has remained reliable.

 

In time, we will see how UAHv6.0 stands up to peer review. But I would base my judgements off that rather than unscientific character attacks. I've been guilty of the latter at times, but I've found it to be completely useless in the end when you are debating science....mostly because it just doesn't matter. So I've tried to stray away from it.

[csnavywx]

Usually when you attack the person rather than the methods, it means you are lacking scientific argument.

 

James Hansen was head of GISS for decades...he made wild predictions of Super Ninos and short term extreme rising sea levels that never happened and got arrested for activism multiple times....yet, his GISS temperature dataset has undergone peer review more than once with updates and over time, it has remained reliable.

 

In time, we will see how UAHv6.0 stands up to peer review. But I would base my judgements off that rather than unscientific character attacks. I've been guilty of the latter at times, but I've found it to be completely useless in the end when you are debating science....mostly because it just doesn't matter. So I've tried to stray away from it.

Yep, was just doing a bit of bubble bursting there.

[chubbs]

Below are plots of UAH6 over the ocean and HADSST. There is a widening gap between UAH6 over the ocean and SST over this ENSO cycle.  Hard to explain why the troposphere over the ocean would lag the warming ocean surface by so much. The gap should close though as this El Nino progresses so wouldn't be surprised by a spike in UAH (and RSS) to record levels.

 

 

UAH6 over ocean

[StudentOfClimatology]

Two possibilities:

1) Anomalously weak global surface winds leading to a reduction in evaporation at the sea surface, hence an anomalous spike in SSTs. This would also reduce the latent heat flux into the troposphere. In this case, the SSTs will cool when surface wind speeds increase again, and tropospheric temps will warm as the latent heat flux increases. If this Niño fails to spike lower tropospheric temps, we can probably conclude that this is the case.

2) One of the datasets is erroneous. This is less likely because the satellites that specifically measure SSTs also depict a spike as well (OISST3, et al). It appears that the heat is simply not being transferred into the troposphere at an adequate rate.

[chubbs]

Two possibilities:

1) Anomalously weak global surface winds leading to a reduction in evaporation at the sea surface, hence an anomalous spike in SSTs. This would also reduce the latent heat flux into the troposphere. In this case, the SSTs will cool when surface wind speeds increase again, and tropospheric temps will warm as the latent heat flux increases. If this Niño fails to spike lower tropospheric temps, we can probably conclude that this is the case.

2) One of the datasets is erroneous. This is less likely because the satellites that specifically measure SSTs also depict a spike as well (OISST3, et al). It appears that the heat is simply not being transferred into the troposphere at an adequate rate.

Your point #2 only indicates that errors in HADSST. are unlikely but doesn't clear UAH6.

[StudentOfClimatology]

Your point #2 only indicates that errors in HADSST. are unlikely but doesn't clear UAH6.

The UAHv6.0 data is fairly close to RSS now, so there's corroboration on both ends. I suspect point #1 is to blame for the divergence.

If this is the case, the absence of the Niño spike in the satellite data, and the exaggerated spike in the surface data, both make sense.

[StudentOfClimatology]

It should be noted that, thus far, there is still no sign of any Niño spike in the AMSU data. Eventually the warmth at the sea surface will either be transferred to the troposphere, or be transported into the deeper oceans. Either way, it'll be showing up somewhere very soon.

June might even come in colder than May in the AMSU datasets:

https://ghrc.nsstc.nasa.gov/amsutemps/amsutemps.pl?r=003

[chubbs]

The UAHv6.0 data is fairly close to RSS now, so there's corroboration on both ends. I suspect point #1 is to blame for the divergence.

If this is the case, the absence of the Niño spike in the satellite data, and the exaggerated spike in the surface data, both make sense.

 The warming during this enso cycle extends though out the whole ocean, below is data for the top 100m in the ocean, so the winds are strong enough to mix heat into the ocean. .

 

The surface is exchanging IR radiation with the atmosphere. If the temperature data are correct then the sea surface has increased outgoing IR radiation but the troposphere over the ocean is not radiating any faster back to the surface or to space. Also the tendency to evaporate is increasing as SST increases. So, as the sea surface warms relative to the troposphere, the  reduction in latent heat loss from light winds has to work harder and harder to compensate   A perfect storm for ocean warming, if the data are correct.

 

[StudentOfClimatology]

Agree with the idea of warming oceans as a result. The latent heat flux into the troposphere (especially on the tropics) accounts for a huge portion of energy exchange within the surface/atmosphere boundary layer. This mechanism and it's relativity by latitude is the reason why ENSO usually shows up stronger in the satellite data than the surface data.

Right now it's the other way around..definitely unusual. If history has anything to say, this should reverse eventually.

[stadiumwave]

Agree with the idea of warming oceans as a result. The latent heat flux into the troposphere (especially on the tropics) accounts for a huge portion of energy exchange within the surface/atmosphere boundary layer. This mechanism and it's relativity by latitude is the reason why ENSO usually shows up stronger in the satellite data than the surface data.

Right now it's the other way around..definitely unusual. If history has anything to say, this should reverse eventually.

Hypothetically speaking...if it doesn't I know you've said it has to do with global winds. What would be your thoughts on the "cause" of the changes in global winds? Is it natural variation or some other underlying cause?

Thanks

[AvantHiatus]

[Typhoon Tip]

No one here, per se, but out there; it is funny how most are missing the point about GW/AGW

 

It doesn't matter if a 'specific' consequential prediction verifies, when the fact that such predictions can be made in the first place ... and yes, from a root of science and technology as assistance, that is paramount.  

 

They waste their time arguing about petty details of the thing.

[Typhoon Tip]

Usually when you attack the person rather than the methods, it means you are lacking scientific argument.

 

James Hansen was head of GISS for decades...he made wild predictions of Super Ninos and short term extreme rising sea levels that never happened and got arrested for activism multiple times....yet, his GISS temperature dataset has undergone peer review more than once with updates and over time, it has remained reliable.

 

In time, we will see how UAHv6.0 stands up to peer review. But I would base my judgements off that rather than unscientific character attacks. I've been guilty of the latter at times, but I've found it to be completely useless in the end when you are debating science....mostly because it just doesn't matter. So I've tried to stray away from it.

 

 

I think the tendency to do that, though, isn't always because one lacks insight? Thinking about this for a minute ..  "Trust" is the key term that is danced around in the game of science, and trust needs to happen not just in the data, ...but the source of that data. 

 

Understanding the character/integrity of the individual pushing across a design on nature is the motivation for doing so.  But I understand what you mean ... The better approach is to abase the seemingly absurd by logic and reasoning, and leave the personal attacks aside. Because if one chooses to challenge someone's merit via exposing their character/integrity ... they'd better have some convincingly damning evidence, otherwise ... their attempts to refute are just as failing.   

[AvantHiatus]

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/summary-info/global/201505 

 

May 2015 warmest on record, large disagreement between NCDC and GISS.

 

• During May, the average temperature across global land and ocean surfaces was 1.57°F (0.87°C) above the 20th century average. This was the highest for May in the 1880–2015 record, surpassing the previous record set last year in 2014 by 0.14°F (0.08°C).
• The May globally-averaged land surface temperature was 2.30°F (1.28°C) above the 20thcentury average. This tied with 2012 as the highest for May in the 1880–2015 record.
• The May globally-averaged sea surface temperature was 1.30°F (0.72°C) above the 20thcentury average. This was the highest for May in the 1880–2015 record, surpassing the previous record set last year in 2014 by 0.13°F (0.07°C).

[The_Global_Warmer]

<p>

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/summary-info/global/201505

May 2015 warmest on record, large disagreement between NCDC and GISS.

• During May, the average temperature across global land and ocean surfaces was 1.57°F (0.87°C) above the 20th century average. This was the highest for May in the 1880–2015 record, surpassing the previous record set last year in 2014 by 0.14°F (0.08°C).
• The May globally-averaged land surface temperature was 2.30°F (1.28°C) above the 20thcentury average. This tied with 2012 as the highest for May in the 1880–2015 record.
• The May globally-averaged sea surface temperature was 1.30°F (0.72°C) above the 20thcentury average. This was the highest for May in the 1880–2015 record, surpassing the previous record set last year in 2014 by 0.13°F (0.07°C).

Was Antarctica below normal?

NCDC doesnt fill in at the poles

[AvantHiatus]

Was Antarctica below normal?

NCDC doesnt fill in at the poles

This is what I gather from the situation. There is no sun down there so local dynamics can quickly take off if the 500mb winds wrap around the extra SIE. Antarctica is a violent place for sure in regards to temperature swings.

[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

moyoncar.png

 Looks like CFS2 was much better for GISS which came in at a relatively low 0.71 for May while the  NCEP re-analysis was closer for NOAA. The NOAA May monthly value at 0.85 was only 0.01 below the all-time monthly high of 0.86. June could be the warmest NOAA month ever.

[StudentOfClimatology]

Hypothetically speaking...if it doesn't I know you've said it has to do with global winds. What would be your thoughts on the "cause" of the changes in global winds? Is it natural variation or some other underlying cause?

Thanks

Well, El Niño is normally correlated with weaker global wind speeds, as are +AO/+NAO patterns, both for different reasons. In this case, I think we can add the abrupt broadening/weakening of the Hadley Cells since 2012 to the list of culprits.

[StudentOfClimatology]

Anyway, I think I might have found something interesting regarding the Southern Annular Mode (SAM) and global temperature variations. I'm still doing some statistical verifications, but I believe the SAM may be a good predictor of the global temperature integral, 12-16 months later.

[stadiumwave]

Well, El Niño is normally correlated with weaker global wind speeds, as are +AO/+NAO patterns, both for different reasons. In this case, I think we can add the abrupt broadening/weakening of the Hadley Cells since 2012 to the list of culprits.

I understand that much but I can't find a period in the satellite era where the lag in tropospheric warming is so great. If UAH & RSS do not spike by fall then something very unusual is occurring...we could possibly already say that is the case.

[chubbs]

Review article on AMOC in Science, behind a pay wall though.

Observing the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation yields a decade of inevitable surprises

1. M. A. Srokosz¹,*,
2. H. L. Bryden²

+

BACKGROUND

A 2002 report, Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises, highlighted the North Atlantic circulation as possibly subject to abrupt change in a warming climate. Likewise, the 2001 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report suggested that the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) could weaken over the 21st century. As this circulation carries heat northward, giving the United Kingdom and northwest Europe a temperate climate, this generated renewed efforts to make observations of the AMOC. In particular, it led to the deployment of an observing system across the Atlantic at 26.5°N in spring 2004, which last year achieved a decade of measurements.

ADVANCES

In addition to the baseline decade of 26.5°N observations, there have been other ongoing measurements that capture components of the AMOC, some of which are not continuous or of much shorter duration. Together these observations are leading to a more complete picture of the AMOC. The 26.5°N AMOC observations have produced a number of surprises on time scales from subannual to multiannual. First, the range of AMOC variability found in the first year, 4 to 35 Sv (Sverdrup, a million cubic meters per second, the standard unit for ocean circulation), was larger than the 15 to 23 Sv found previously from five ship-based observations over 50 years. A similarly large range to that at 26.5°N has subsequently been observed at 34.5°S. Second, the amplitude of the seasonal cycle, with a minimum in the spring and a maximum in the autumn, was much larger (~6.7 Sv) than anticipated, and the driving mechanism of wind stress in the eastern Atlantic was unexpected as well. Third, the 30% decline in the AMOC during 2009–2010 was totally unexpected and exceeded the range of interannual variability found in climate models used for the IPCC assessments. This event was also captured by Argo and altimetry observations of the upper limb of the AMOC at 41°N. This dip was accompanied by significant changes in the heat content of the ocean, with potential impacts on weather that are the subject of active research. Finally, over the period of the 26.5°N observations, the AMOC has been declining at a rate of about 0.5 Sv per year, 10 times as fast as predicted by climate models. Whether this is a trend that is a decline due to global warming or part of the so-called Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation/Variability, inferred from sea surface temperature measurement, is also a subject of active research. There is no doubt that continuously observing the AMOC over a decade has considerably altered our view of the role of ocean variability in climate.

 

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/348/6241/1255575.abstract

 

 

[Isotherm]

I understand that much but I can't find a period in the satellite era where the lag in tropospheric warming is so great. If UAH & RSS do not spike by fall then something very unusual is occurring...we could possibly already say that is the case.

 

 

Why? I'm not sure what's so unusual, especially considering history in LT global temperature progression during El Nino's. By NOAA's recent update, this past winter is no longer classified as a weak Nino, and we've yet to officially begin the El Nino by the ONI trimonthly standards:

 

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml

 

 

An examination of the UAH data since 1979 for mod/strong El Nino's reveals a tendency for fairly stable global temperatures until September-December, with a sharp rise generally beginning in the mid to late autumn, and not peaking until Jan-Mar of the following year (in this case, 2016). Years like 1982-83, 1986-87, 1997-98, 2009-10, all followed a similar pattern in which LT temperature anomalies were fairly steady until Sept-Dec, at which time the sharp rise began, peaking around the end of the year but more likely in the first 1-2 months of the following year. Nothing seems to be unusual at all. I think the disparity between the surface datasets and the satellite datasets may continue for another 1-3 months at minimum. If this strong Nino peaks a bit earlier than usual, maybe we'll see the maximum anomalies occur at the end of 2015. Too early to tell.

[chubbs]

The north Atlantic cool pool has strengthened further recently while the E Pacific continues to be very warm.

 

[AvantHiatus]

Damn, that is not good. Didn't realize the AMOC was this sensitive to the global climate. We need a early detection warning system for abrupt climate change.

[AvantHiatus]

It's better news for the Arctic and Greenland since a weaker AMO and AMOC are associated with cooler conditions there relative to the warm phase.

Don't think it will help the Russian side, we can already see this in the 2015 melt season. Addtionally, the Gulf Stream is still actively flowing into the Arctic, just in a different way. Disrupting circulation has wide-sweeping affects and kills the health of the ocean.

 

It's not just an ordinary cold phase, it was possibly caused by AGW and is the first of many holocene systems to fall by the wayside.

 

What about the possibility of the rampant +NAO/-EPO combo driving down surface warmth? We know OHC is stagnant but not falling in this region. Possibly a perfect storm of many different factors.

 

I'll have to find that paper about Greenland bottom melt. This new configuration might even be more damaging locally to Greenland ice sheets. Although it will drive European temperatures down and dampen the global temperature average as long as other regions stay at constant warming rates.

 

There will most like be added warming elsewhere caused by AMOC slowdown in the Tropics and/or West Atlantic.

 

 

 

But the new study, which resulted in the most detailed topographic map of the periphery of Greenland to date, found that wasn’t the case: Valleys underlying many of the glaciers stay below sea level and extend much farther inland than previously suggested, so warm ocean currents that have migrated northward with the changing climate could eat away at the ice for much longer than current climate models suggest. “It will take much longer for these glaciers to lose contact with the ocean,” study author Mathieu Morlighem, of the University of California, Irvine, told Climate Central.

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/greenland-glaciers-melt-sea-level-rise-17457

[AvantHiatus]

Good post Bluewave. Greenland summer temperatures are already warm so I guess dampening the response doesn't really change the big picture outcome.

 

A waterfall of ice sheet flowing into a progressively colder North Atlantic relative to the global climate. Would probably generate some unprecedented weather patterns due to the gradient and slow down the progression of Greenland collapse slightly. I think the recent Greenland cold temperatures are more related to the +NAO than AMOC collapse.

 

Most of the discussed above won't kick in more deeply for a few more decades. yet earlier than the Vavrus/Francis projections.

 

In my opinion.

[stadiumwave]

Don't think it will help the Russian side, we can already see this in the 2015 melt season. Addtionally, the Gulf Stream is still actively flowing into the Arctic, just in a different way. Disrupting circulation has wide-sweeping affects and kills the health of the ocean.

It's not just an ordinary cold phase, it was possibly caused by AGW and is the first of many holocene systems to fall by the wayside.

What about the possibility of the rampant +NAO/-EPO combo driving down surface warmth? We know OHC is stagnant but not falling in this region. Possibly a perfect storm of many different factors.

I'll have to find that paper about Greenland bottom melt. This new configuration might even be more damaging locally to Greenland ice sheets. Although it will drive European temperatures down and dampen the global temperature average as long as other regions stay at constant warming rates.

There will most like be added warming elsewhere caused by AMOC slowdown in the Tropics and/or West Atlantic.

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/greenland-glaciers-melt-sea-level-rise-17457

Oh brother...sigh

[stadiumwave]

Good post Bluewave. Greenland summer temperatures are already warm so I guess dampening the response doesn't really change the big picture outcome.

A waterfall of ice sheet flowing into a progressively colder North Atlantic relative to the global climate. Would probably generate some unprecedented weather patterns due to the gradient and slow down the progression of Greenland collapse slightly. I think the recent Greenland cold temperatures are more related to the +NAO than AMOC collapse.

Most of the discussed above won't kick in more deeply for a few more decades. yet earlier than the Vavrus/Francis projections.

In my opinion.

AMOC & +NAO are connected

[AvantHiatus]

AMOC & +NAO are connected

People shouldn't throw AGW under the bus because of this AMOC event. That is all, infact it makes things worse for me locally by contributing to SLR.

 

Is there a definitive link between NAO and AMO? We had almost constant -NAO with brief breaks during 2007-2012 so the temperature state of Greenland was biased warm. A +NAO without the AMOC collapse would of been much colder for Greenland in the 2000s.

 

This is all a mute point tho. GHG inertia is kicking in and overwhelming natural oscillations as primary drivers.