2015 Global Temperatures

[stadiumwave]

Not much blue on the map. Loop for full effect, you might even sense some Hansen vibes in there.

http://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/models/?model=gfs&region=global&pkg=T2ma&runtime=2015072512&fh=0&xpos=0&ypos=169.0909054259624

Just stop dude!

#1You put a link to a map in which the greatest departures are BELOW normal.

#2 Quit stoking the Hansen BS. That's all it is....pure BS that sensationalists like yourself live for.

[AvantHiatus]

Just stop dude!

#1You put a link to a map in which the greatest departures are BELOW normal.

#2 Quit stoking the Hansen BS. That's all it is....pure BS that sensationalists like yourself live for.

Speak for yourself. Hansen is king. The study was co-authored by 16 of the best scientists in the climate field.

[StudentOfClimatology]

Hansen is a joke.

[csnavywx]

This thread is getting cringeworthy, especially the last several posts.

[nflwxman]

Hansen is a joke.

 

No offense, none of us really have the ability to say that.  He lead GISS for years and has been right about many things in climate science.  His credentials are fantastic.  His alarmist beliefs have to be tested..you have no f'in idea that what he is saying may or may not come true.  It's not always in the climate mainstream, but being out of the mainstream does not automatically make you "a joke."  Wow.

[donsutherland1]

Hansen is a joke.

Just because Dr. Hansen provided a very aggressive scenario regarding ice dynamics and ensuing consequences of such a scenario does not make him a "joke." At present, there remains considerable uncertainty regarding the impact of continuing warming on the rate of ice melt, among other things. Obviously, Dr. Hansen's work will need to be examined more closely before one can be confident in the outcomes he has laid out. For now, it's an outlier and perhaps a worst-case scenario. He's clearly pushing the frontier of understanding. Perhaps that effort will stimulate more research into the issues Hansen examines and in a few years we'll have much better understanding as a result.

 

Having said that, some of his other work has not only withstood peer review, but proved quite insightful with the passage of time. Two examples include his early work that an anthropogenic warming signal would emerge from internal variability (it has) and a paper that accounts for the problem of the "missing heat." Even if his latest paper proves off the mark so to speak, he has made major lasting contributions to the field of climate science.

[StudentOfClimatology]

No offense, none of us really have the ability to say that. He lead GISS for years and has been right about many things in climate science. His credentials are fantastic. His alarmist beliefs have to be tested..you have no f'in idea that what he is saying may or may not come true. It's not always in the climate mainstream, but being out of the mainstream does not automatically make you "a joke." Wow.

I had a face to face discussion with him a little while ago. He's a sweet man who's legitimately worried about the future his grandchildren may face. That said, his interpretation of the paleoclimate data (which is the primary basis for his sensitivity estimates) is just so far outside the mainstream that I don't think it's even worth discussing.

[StudentOfClimatology]

My original comment was probably too aggressive. I believe his sensitivity estimates are a joke, as do the majority of scientists/students I've encountered. That doesn't make him a joke.

[chubbs]

My original comment was probably too aggressive. I believe his sensitivity estimates are a joke, as do the majority of scientists/students I've encountered. That doesn't make him a joke.

 

Can you be a little more specific as to the basis of your complaint. What I have seen from him on climate sensitivity is mainstream.

[stadiumwave]

No offense, none of us really have the ability to say that. He lead GISS for years and has been right about many things in climate science. His credentials are fantastic. His alarmist beliefs have to be tested..you have no f'in idea that what he is saying may or may not come true. It's not always in the climate mainstream, but being out of the mainstream does not automatically make you "a joke." Wow.

What about those that do the opposite compared to mainstream? Are they a joke? Like DR. ROY SPENCER? If he's a joke then explain why.

If it's "because he believes in God" that's completely irrelevant to the discussion.

Are you just allowed to be extreme on the warm side & not be considered a joke?

[CanadianGuy]

Last 12 months were warmest of any 12 months on record via NOAA. Top 10 are all with months ending in the last 10 months.

CKX3aFcUAAAUdNx.jpg

The next 12 month period will top this one and so on and so on. This is a very scary scenerio unfolding. Get the message out - just because we got a ridiculously resilient ridge that has caused a cooler pattern across ena doesn't mean climate change isn't happening!!

Sent from my GT-N8010 using Tapatalk

[stadiumwave]

The next 12 month period will top this one and so on and so on. This is a very scary scenerio unfolding. Get the message out - just because we got a ridiculously resilient ridge that has caused a cooler pattern across ena doesn't mean climate change isn't happening!! Sent from my GT-N8010

Ridiculous! This is a strong El Nino year. Every year will not top the next. Will the long-term trend continue up? Yes, with fluctuations. Is AGW real? Duh, yes! Is the world going to turn into a fireball & sea levels cover the whole state of Florida? From current & historical observational

data....Not anytime soon for sure if ever.

I DO NOT understand why this thread is taking an alarmist direction

[CanadianGuy]

Ridiculous! This is a strong El Nino year. Every year will not top the next. Will the long-term trend continue up? Yes, with fluctuations. Is AGW real? Duh, yes! Is the world going to turn into a fireball & sea levels cover the whole state of Florida? From current & historical observational

data....Not anytime soon for sure if ever.

I DO NOT understand why this thread is taking an alarmist direction

I think your comments are derailing the thread here, hun. I didn't say the world is melting (yet). I just observed that each year seems to be warmer than the last, and it's likely the next 12 months will be the warmest on record globally, and so on, and so on.. Even if 2016-2017 ends up being a "cool" year, it will still end up on the top 10 or 20 warmest years on record list. This is a very alarming trend and people who know what they are seeing have every reason to be alarmed.

Sent from my GT-N8010 using Tapatalk

[AvantHiatus]

Ridiculous! This is a strong El Nino year. Every year will not top the next. Will the long-term trend continue up? Yes, with fluctuations. Is AGW real? Duh, yes! Is the world going to turn into a fireball & sea levels cover the whole state of Florida? From current & historical observational

data....Not anytime soon for sure if ever.

I DO NOT understand why this thread is taking an alarmist direction

Do you support geoengineering up the ***? It will happen, 2-4m SLR is locked in. Don't be disrespectful and inhumane.

[stadiumwave]

Dr. Judith Curry on Hansen paper:

http://judithcurry.com/2015/07/26/hansens-backfire/

Interesting quotes from Dr Michael Mann on Hansen's piece:

“Their climate model scenario wherein Greenland and Antarctic meltwater caused by warming poles, leads to a near total shutdown of ocean heat transport to higher latitudes, cooling most of the globe (particularly the extratropics), seems rather far-fetched to me.” “Whether or not all of the specifics of the study prove to be correct, the authors have initiated an absolutely critical discussion.”

And Kevin Trenberth:

“The question is how relevant these are to the real world and what is happening as global warming progresses? They do not seem at all realistic to me.” “There are way too many assumptions and extrapolations for anything here to be taken seriously other than to promote further studies.”

And others...good read!

[stadiumwave]

Do you support geoengineering up the ***? It will happen, 2-4m SLR is locked in. Don't be disrespectful and inhumane.

I'm being neither...I'm being realistic

[UnionWeatherWx]

I don't understand all the need for warnings. It's a good thing I barely hang out in the climate thread.

[AvantHiatus]

I don't understand all the need for warnings. It's a good thing I barely hang out in the climate thread.

You will understand in a few decades.

[nflwxman]

Weatherbell CFSv2 showing us ending the month around 0.15C.  This will likely mean July will be a cooler month relative to the rest of the year thus far.  As per most years, as ice melt begins to slow down towards September, we begin to heat up globally faster.  Look for anomalies to begin to skyrocket in August and September.  I suspect our first 1.0 C+ month on GISS will be later in 2015.

 

[Snow_Miser]

Weatherbell CFSv2 showing us ending the month around 0.15C. This will likely mean July will be a cooler month relative to the rest of the year thus far. As per most years, as ice melt begins to slow down towards September, we begin to heat up globally faster. Look for anomalies to begin to skyrocket in August and September. I suspect our first 1.0 C+ month on GISS will be later in 2015.

January, April, and May all ended between +0.1 and +0.17 on the Weatherbell CFSv2. And all three of those months were above +0.70 on GISS. So even if we finish July in that range, I think this month has a good shot finishing at +0.70 or higher still.

Dailies have shot up to ~+0.25-0.30.

[ORH_wxman]

Due to the recent sizeable adjustments on GISS, you would have to add more than the usual 0.55-0.60 to the weatherbell numbers to get the GISS value. The relationship between the two changed when GISS changed their method of calculating global temps.

[StudentOfClimatology]

Weatherbell CFSv2 showing us ending the month around 0.15C. This will likely mean July will be a cooler month relative to the rest of the year thus far. As per most years, as ice melt begins to slow down towards September, we begin to heat up globally faster. Look for anomalies to begin to skyrocket in August and September. I suspect our first 1.0 C+ month on GISS will be later in 2015.

Highly doubtful that ice melt (or ice melt alone) is to blame for the weaker July anomalies. Most of the cooling relative to May/June occurred south over Eurasia, North America, and in the eastern hemisphere.

[nflwxman]

Highly doubtful that ice melt (or ice melt alone) is to blame for the weaker July anomalies. Most of the cooling relative to May/June occurred south over Eurasia, North America, and in the eastern hemisphere.

 

Ice melt is likely the cause of the lower July anomalies in recent history.  The arctic has showed a slower surface temperature rise in the summer months likely related to entropy of ice melt.  The image below shows that fairly well.  What magnitude to which that occurred this year is nearly impossible to isolate.

 

[StudentOfClimatology]

In the Arctic I'm sure that's true. This year, much of the cooling occurred in Eurasia, North America, and in the Subtropical Eastern Hemisphere.

[Snow_Miser]

Due to the recent sizeable adjustments on GISS, you would have to add more than the usual 0.55-0.60 to the weatherbell numbers to get the GISS value. The relationship between the two changed when GISS changed their method of calculating global temps.

With this year so far, adding 0.6 to 0.7 to the Weatherbell CFSv2 anomaly for the month seems to do a good job overall "predicting" the GISS anomaly.

With this month around +0.14 now on the Weatherbell CFSv2, we should expect a +0.74 to a +0.84 anomaly for July on GISS. Would very likely be the warmest July on record on GISS.

[PB GFI]

Not everyone likes " filling in data" 

 

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/07/27/mind-blowing-temperature-fraud-at-noaa/ 

 

The biggest component of this fraud is making up data. Almost half of all reported US temperature data is now fake. They fill in missing rural data with urban data to create the appearance of non-existent US warming. 

 

 

There are many who see him as obsessed . 

global warming skeptic Judith Curry characterized Goddard's analysis of NASA's data as "bogus." ^[13]

[ORH_wxman]

Not everyone likes " filling in data" 

 

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/07/27/mind-blowing-temperature-fraud-at-noaa/ 

 

The biggest component of this fraud is making up data. Almost half of all reported US temperature data is now fake. They fill in missing rural data with urban data to create the appearance of non-existent US warming. 

 

 

Lol, that dude is a nutjob. He thinks all sfc data is a conspiracy.

[PB GFI]

Lol, that dude is a nutjob. He thinks all sfc data is a conspiracy.

 

Thanks bud . 

I didn`t get to insert how even Judith Curry thought he was nuts , hit post  before 

 

 

global warming skeptic Judith Curry characterized Goddard's analysis of NASA's data as "bogus." ^[13]

[ORH_wxman]

With this year so far, adding 0.6 to 0.7 to the Weatherbell CFSv2 anomaly for the month seems to do a good job overall "predicting" the GISS anomaly.

With this month around +0.14 now on the Weatherbell CFSv2, we should expect a +0.74 to a +0.84 anomaly for July on GISS. Would very likely be the warmest July on record on GISS.

 

Yes.

 

Here's what we have had to add to weatherbell each month this year after the big adjustments on GISS:

 

1. +0.67

2. +0.67

3. +0.67

4. +0.65

5. +0.59

6. +0.60

 

The last two months have been closer to 0.60 after the first 4 months were very consistent. But it looks like these days, it is best to add an extra 0.1C to the anomaly versus our previous estimates.

[ORH_wxman]

Thanks bud . 

I didn`t get to insert how even Judith Curry thought he was nuts , hit post  before 

 

 

global warming skeptic Judith Curry characterized Goddard's analysis of NASA's data as "bogus." ^[13]

 

We've had this topic come up frequently over the years. It's one that is a legit question at first glance. The land data has a lot of adjustments that are necessary. Many of them by coincidence happen to cool the past and warm the present. That looks a bit suspicious at first glance, but when you break down the adjustments, most of them are valid. The adjustments are most noticeable in the USHCN data...land data for the United States. It is because we have the densest network of stations over the years and the old "coop" system of taking obs in the afternoon...which then gradually transitioned to morning, so the time of observation (TOBS) difference had to be accounted for. In addition, we switched from the old liquid thermometers to the newer MMT thermometers which also creates a cool bias in the MMT data, so we have to adjust for that. The effect is way more muted in GHCN (global) data.

 

All surface datasets use GHCN data. Hadcrut uses additional data beyond GHCN.

 

The biggest difference in the sfc datasets is SST anomalies. Specifically, the new ERSSTv4 that NCEP and GISS converted to, but Hadcrut has not. They still use their own Hadsst3 data for the sea surface temperature anomalies...and the differences post-2000 are pretty big with ERSSTv4 showing significantly more warming than Hadsst3. Ironically, ERSST4 shows less warming going back to the 1800s than Hadsst3....mostly because ERSSTv4 is about 0.15C warmer in the 1860-1880 time period than Hadsst3. The SST data is more uncertain than the land data, and the differences between the two datasets will undoubtedly receive more scrutiny now that ERSSTv4 has been published.