2015 Global Temperatures

[ORH_wxman]

It seems that BEST only has data through 2014 (http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Global/Land_and_Ocean_complete.txt) unless more current data is elsewhere on the site.

I'm only on my phone now but I was pretty sure I saw them updating it every few months...I will see if I can find it when I get back to my computer on Sunday. I could be wrong though.

BEST is good to verify other surface data sets because they process raw surface data independently whereas NCDC, GISS, JMA, etc use the already processed and adjusted GHCN data for their land temperatures. So they are not truly independent data sets.

I haven't seen anything egregious though in the past when comparing BEST and GHCN. There's been some small differences but well within any margins of error expected when dealing with the type of data available.

[donsutherland1]

I'm only on my phone now but I was pretty sure I saw them updating it every few months...I will see if I can find it when I get back to my computer on Sunday. I could be wrong though.

BEST is good to verify other surface data sets because they process raw surface data independently whereas NCDC, GISS, JMA, etc use the already processed and adjusted GHCN data for their land temperatures. So they are not truly independent data sets.

I haven't seen anything egregious though in the past when comparing BEST and GHCN. There's been some small differences but well within any margins of error expected when dealing with the type of data available.

Thanks. I'll certainly look forward to seeing any later data.

[donsutherland1]

So far, there have been no problems found with the upgrade to UAHv6.0, so I don't think "tainted" is the right word to use. In fact, it would be abnormal to see a TLT ENSO response this early in the game.

The TLT response to the 2009-10 Niño did not occur until January. The TLT response to the 1997-98 Niño did not occur until November. The TLT response to the 1982-83 Niño did not occur until December. So, there is no "disconnect" occurring right now..RSS is in lockstep with UAH, so I suspect it has the right idea.

I'm less concerned with the lag than I am with the differences between 6.0 and 5.6. Why did v. 6.0 rank January-July 2002 ahead of January-July 2015 in temperature anomalies unlike v. 5.6 when 2015's January-July ENSO anomalies were much warmer than those of 2002? Such an outcome may well be a product of the linear cooling trend of v.6.0 relative to v.5.6.

 

Without a peer reviewed paper, the kind of rigorous examination for 6.0 that could alleviate my concerns (particularly with the linear cooling trend of v.6.0 vs. v.5.6), not to mention the findings in the paper I noted earlier in this thread is lacking.

[StudentOfClimatology]

I'm less concerned with the lag than I am with the differences between 6.0 and 5.6. Why did v. 6.0 rank January-July 2002 ahead of January-July 2015 in temperature anomalies unlike v. 5.6 when 2015's January-July ENSO anomalies were much warmer than those of 2002? Such an outcome may well be a product of the linear cooling trend of v.6.0 relative to v.5.6.

Supposedly, UAHv5.6 was running (increasingly) warm over time due to some orbital drift and noise/decay in two of the radiometers used. When this was corrected for, UAH fell into line with RSS.

Without a peer reviewed paper, the kind of rigorous examination for 6.0 that could alleviate my concerns (particularly with the linear cooling trend of v.6.0 vs. v.5.6), not to mention the findings in the paper I noted earlier in this thread is lacking.

I agree they should waited and published the data first. That being said, so far, there have been no problems uncovered with the new dataset, so I'm okay with using it for now.

[StudentOfClimatology]

Here's some information on the UAHv6.0 update:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Version-61.pdf

We describe the major changes in processing strategy, including a new method for monthly gridpoint averaging; a new multi-channel (rather than multi-angle) method for computing the lower tropospheric (LT) temperature product; and a new empirical method for diurnal drift correction. We also show results for the mid-troposphere (“MT”, from MSU2/AMSU5), tropopause (“TP”, from MSU3/AMSU7), and lower stratosphere (“LS”, from MSU4/AMSU9). The 0.026 C/decade reduction in the global LT trend is due to lesser sensitivity of the new LT to land surface skin temperature (est. 0.010 C/decade), with the remainder of the reduction (0.016 C/decade) due to the new diurnal drift adjustment, the more robust method of LT calculation, and other changes in processing procedures.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Here is the graphic.

Pretty hard to just explain away the sat temps when ssts have been blow torching for 15 months now.

[chubbs]

Global surface temperature warming has reached 1C above 1850-99 baseline. With roughly 75% of warming coming in last 40 years.

 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22730324-200-earth-now-halfway-to-un-global-warming-limit/

 

 

[donsutherland1]

Here's some information on the UAHv6.0 update:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Version-61.pdf

 

That methodology needs to be subjected to peer review. It's a changed methodology but one can't assess whether or not it is more robust, more effective, etc., until it has been reviewed.

 

On the issue of January-July 2002 vs. January-July 2015 (v.6.0 showed the former as warmer; v.5.6 showed the latter as warmer) during which January-July 2015 had far warmer ENSO anomalies, I looked at the MEI for another measure of the ENSO.

 

January-July 2002: +0.276

January-July 2015: +0.952

 

It's difficult to conclude that January-July 2002 should be shown as "warmer" than January-July 2015. This isn't a matter of a lagged response, as even if one goes back to the preceding 12-18 months, 2014-15 was much warmer than 2001-02 in the ENSO regions and on the MEI.

[donsutherland1]

Here is the graphic.

Pretty hard to just explain away the sat temps when ssts have been blow torching for 15 months now.

 

I don't think they can be explained away in the absence of peer review. The linear cooling trend with a high coefficient of correlation on v.6.0 vs. v.5.6 is a red flag for caution. That the new version is registering cooler conditions during a prolonged period of much warmer ENSO conditions (not to mention global SSTs) than in 2002 is a very troubling indication that the linear cooling trend on the new data set may well be making that tool less representative of actual conditions than the earlier data set.

[skierinvermont]

Supposedly, UAHv5.6 was running (increasingly) warm over time due to some orbital drift and noise/decay in two of the radiometers used. When this was corrected for, UAH fell into line with RSS.

I agree they should waited and published the data first. That being said, so far, there have been no problems uncovered with the new dataset, so I'm okay with using it for now.

 

Even if were true that there was a warm bias due to drift, there were numerous papers pointing out probable cool biases. If they had corrected for that as well the result would have been unchanged, or perhaps even a stronger warming trend. It appears they only changed the method in ways that made it cooler and which were not peer-reviewed.

[nflwxman]

That methodology needs to be subjected to peer review. It's a changed methodology but one can't assess whether or not it is more robust, more effective, etc., until it has been reviewed.

On the issue of January-July 2002 vs. January-July 2015 (v.6.0 showed the former as warmer; v.5.6 showed the latter as warmer) during which January-July 2015 had far warmer ENSO anomalies, I looked at the MEI for another measure of the ENSO.

January-July 2002: +0.276

January-July 2015: +0.952

It's difficult to conclude that January-July 2002 should be shown as "warmer" than January-July 2015. This isn't a matter of a lagged response, as even if one goes back to the preceding 12-18 months, 2014-15 was much warmer than 2001-02 in the ENSO regions and on the MEI.

Don, I agree with this. The only explanation I may have for something like that is the fact the 1998 EL NIno event lingered for several years in terms of additional atmospheric heat. Even on the surface, there is a clear signal of higher temperatures for several years after that event./

[StudentOfClimatology]

That methodology needs to be subjected to peer review. It's a changed methodology but one can't assess whether or not it is more robust, more effective, etc., until it has been reviewed.

Definitely agree, and it likely will do so. That said, the coding and programming is publicly available, and no major issues have been found thus far. I'd say it's safe to use this data for experimental purposes.

On the issue of January-July 2002 vs. January-July 2015 (v.6.0 showed the former as warmer; v.5.6 showed the latter as warmer) during which January-July 2015 had far warmer ENSO anomalies, I looked at the MEI for another measure of the ENSO.

January-July 2002: +0.276

January-July 2015: +0.952

It's difficult to conclude that January-July 2002 should be shown as "warmer" than January-July 2015. This isn't a matter of a lagged response, as even if one goes back to the preceding 12-18 months, 2014-15 was much warmer than 2001-02 in the ENSO regions and on the MEI.

That's not unusual at all..interdecadal to decadal scale variability in climate can come from a number of sources outside ENSO/PDO. Even minor changes to the Hadley Cells can cool the TLT over 10-20 years. The 1997-98 Niño did lead to a subsequent expansion and weakening of the Hadley Cells that was anomalous even under the underlying AGW trend.

[StudentOfClimatology]

Even if were true that there was a warm bias due to drift, there were numerous papers pointing out probable cool biases. If they had corrected for that as well the result would have been unchanged, or perhaps even a stronger warming trend. It appears they only changed the method in ways that made it cooler and which were not peer-reviewed.

The issue you're referring to is spectral line-broadening (contamination) due H^2O interference. This issue was supposedly resolved by replacing the multi-angle emissive depth interpolation(s) with a multi-channel approach.

[donsutherland1]

Don, I agree with this. The only explanation I may have for something like that is the fact the 1998 EL NIno event lingered for several years in terms of additional atmospheric heat. Even on the surface, there is a clear signal of higher temperatures for several years after that event./

Perhaps, but what's interesting is that the anomalies on UAH v.6.0 were negative soon afterward.

 

Annual averages:

 

1998 +0.482°C

1999 -0.018°C

2000 -0.020°C

2001 +0.115°C

 

That's one of the reasons I'm concerned that the 2002 vs. 2015 difference may be an artifact of 6.0's linear cooling trend over time. And, of course, if that trend is changing figures and rankings, the data is becoming less useful over time.

[nflwxman]

Perhaps, but what's interesting is that the anomalies on UAH v.6.0 were negative soon afterward.

Annual averages:

1998 +0.482°C

1999 -0.018°C

2000 -0.020°C

2001 +0.115°C

That's one of the reasons I'm concerned that the 2002 vs. 2015 difference may be an artifact of 6.0's linear cooling trend over time. And, of course, if that trend is changing figures and rankings, the data is becoming less useful over time.

Fair point. I'm most concerned about UAH and RSS simply because they don't match the well accepted theory that the LT should warm faster than the surface. Could be partially an artifact that some parts of the atmosphere measured by the MSU products are actually cooling (above 250 mb), which weighs down the overall linear trend. Either way, there is no reason to believe the said theory above is incorrect based on all the available datasets we have.

[donsutherland1]

Fair point. I'm most concerned about UAH and RSS simply because they don't match the well accepted theory that the LT should warm faster than the surface. Could be partially an artifact that some parts of the atmosphere measured by the MSU products are actually cooling (above 250 mb), which weighs down the overall linear trend. Either way, there is no reason to believe the said theory above is incorrect based on all the available datasets we have.

I agree. Certainly, RATPAC is consistent with the theory. UAH and RSS appear to be outliers.

[StudentOfClimatology]

I agree. Certainly, RATPAC is consistent with the theory. UAH and RSS appear to be outliers.

I'm not trying to be rude (you're one of my favorite posters here), but this is pure conjecture. The lower troposphere should warm faster than the surface in the long term. However, on shorter (up to 15-20 year) timescales, there are numerous factors than can invert this relationship.

I'd argue that RATPAC is the outlier amongst the TLT datasets. The UAHv6.0 update is now in excellent agreement with RSS, both long term and on a year to year basis:

[nflwxman]

I'm not trying to be rude (you're one of my favorite posters here), but this is pure conjecture. The lower troposphere should warm faster than the surface in the long term. However, on shorter (up to 15-20 year) timescales, there are numerous factors than can invert this relationship.

We've been measuring since 1979.  That a long time to decipher trends. And right now the TLT trend on MSU related products is ~30% less than the surface data....and growing.  Perhaps this nino will close the gap, but the point stands; We've been measuring for a while now.

[StudentOfClimatology]

We've been measuring since. That a long time to decipher trends. And right now the TLT trend on MSU related products is ~30% less than the surface data....and growing. Perhaps this nino will close the gap, but the point stands; We've been measuring for a while now.

I don't think that's nearly long enough to gauge climate sensitivity, speaking from a paleoclimatological standpoint as well as a practical one. There's always going to be prolific variability superimposed on the AGW trend, some of which will manifest more potently in the TLT. Not to mention the changable nature of ESC/TCR itself. If the satellite record were 100+ years long, it'd be another story.

It could very well be that the TLT resumes warming rapidly in the future while the surface lags..35 years isn't enough time to gauge exactly where we're going.

[donsutherland1]

I'm not trying to be rude (you're one of my favorite posters here), but this is pure conjecture. The lower troposphere should warm faster than the surface in the long term. However, on shorter (up to 15-20 year) timescales, there are numerous factors than can invert this relationship.

I'd argue that RATPAC is the outlier amongst the TLT datasets. The UAHv6.0 update is now in excellent agreement with RSS, both long term and on a year to year basis:

We disagree. The reality is until there is peer review, It's difficult to be sure whether the measure is reasonably reliable or whether it is suffering from issues that undermine its reliability.

[Snow_Miser]

Impressive warmth for the first half of the month. GISS equivalent for the month so far is between ~ +0.89 and +0.99.

[skierinvermont]

I don't think that's nearly long enough to gauge climate sensitivity, speaking from a paleoclimatological standpoint as well as a practical one. There's always going to be prolific variability superimposed on the AGW trend, some of which will manifest more potently in the TLT. Not to mention the changable nature of ESC/TCR itself. If the satellite record were 100+ years long, it'd be another story.

It could very well be that the TLT resumes warming rapidly in the future while the surface lags..35 years isn't enough time to gauge exactly where we're going.

 

It's not long enough to get a good empirical measure of climate sensitivity. But it is long enough that if our understanding of the atmosphere is remotely correct, then TLT should be warming faster than the surface. UAH 6.0 and RSS are inconsistent with the surface data. UAH 5.6, other MSU products, and RATPAC are more consistent with the surface data.

[ORH_wxman]

It's not long enough to get a good empirical measure of climate sensitivity. But it is long enough that if our understanding of the atmosphere is remotely correct, then TLT should be warming faster than the surface. UAH 6.0 and RSS are inconsistent with the surface data. UAH 5.6, other MSU products, and RATPAC are more consistent with the surface data.

I don't think UAH 6.0 should be even discussed until it is peer reviewed. I get that it is available but it doesn't mean it is useful. I know the current version of RSS is peer reviewed so it's interesting, but until UAH is, I'd be a bit skeptical. I do not find that the theory of GHG warming being colder at the surface as a viable reason to be skeptical of the upper air data sets. This is circular reasoning in my opinion. It's circular reasoning to assume one data set is good but the other isn't when there are major inconsistencies in each from year to year on adjustments.

I am not saying this to cast doubt on GHG warming or AGW theory in general, but rather to try and get people to not take data that fits their bias as sound without treating it with equal scrutiny. The theory of AGW itself is sound in my opinion but I find the use of each adjusted temperature trend a bit tedious and unscientific to make a point. I have been guilty of it in the past. But in the past two to three years or so actually reading the literature carefully, I've become completely unconvinced that the stated error bars are valid, mostly because they are admitted in the literature indirectly. But we've seen in first hand now in the recent adjustments to both UAH and now NCDC and GISS. The adjustments were outside the previously stated error bars. And some digging through history in the literature reveals that this hasn't been a one time scenario.

I hope during the course of these discussions that people can appreciate the uncertainty in these data sets. People should understand that all surface data sets are somewhat constrained by GHCN data. The SST data differs on Hadley vs GISS/NCDC but there's a ton of overlap.

But I agree UAH 6.0 is not relevant until it is peer reviewed.

[skierinvermont]

I don't think UAH 6.0 should be even discussed until it is peer reviewed. I get that it is available but it doesn't mean it is useful. I know the current version of RSS is peer reviewed so it's interesting, but until UAH is, I'd be a bit skeptical. I do not find that the theory of GHG warming being colder at the surface as a viable reason to be skeptical of the upper air data sets. This is circular reasoning in my opinion. It's circular reasoning to assume one data set is good but the other isn't when there are major inconsistencies in each from year to year on adjustments.

I am not saying this to cast doubt on GHG warming or AGW theory in general, but rather to try and get people to not take data that fits their bias as sound without treating it with equal scrutiny. The theory of AGW itself is sound in my opinion but I find the use of each adjusted temperature trend a bit tedious and unscientific to make a point. I have been guilty of it in the past. But in the past two to three years or so actually reading the literature carefully, I've become completely unconvinced that the stated error bars are valid, mostly because they are admitted in the literature indirectly. But we've seen in first hand now in the recent adjustments to both UAH and now NCDC and GISS. The adjustments were outside the previously stated error bars. And some digging through history in the literature reveals that this hasn't been a one time scenario.

I hope during the course of these discussions that people can appreciate the uncertainty in these data sets. People should understand that all surface data sets are somewhat constrained by GHCN data. The SST data differs on Hadley vs GISS/NCDC but there's a ton of overlap.

But I agree UAH 6.0 is not relevant until it is peer reviewed.

 

RSS has also been critiqued in the literature for potential cool bias and large uncertainty. So has UAH 5.6.

 

Admittedly, I don't find RATPAC and other TLT data sources superior solely on their own merits. The fact that they are consistent with theory is a plus. It is the combination of critiques on the UAH/RSS methodology, and the fact that they are inconsistent with theory and other empirical data that make them outliers. For these reasons, RATPAC and other MSU products are likely to be more representative of reality.

 

There is uncertainty in all these products, and you can't rule out something like UAH 5.6 or even 6.0. But are they supported by the balance of evidence? No. The published critiques of UAH/RSS, the other TLT datasets that show more warming, and theory, all suggest more warming in the troposphere.

[ORH_wxman]

RSS has also been critiqued in the literature for potential cool bias and large uncertainty. So has UAH 5.6.

Admittedly, I don't find RATPAC and other TLT data sources superior solely on their own merits. The fact that they are consistent with theory is a plus. It is the combination of critiques on the UAH/RSS methodology, and the fact that they are inconsistent with theory and other empirical data that make them outliers. For these reasons, RATPAC and other MSU products are likely to be more representative of reality.

There is uncertainty in all these products, and you can't rule out something like UAH 5.6 or even 6.0. But are they supported by the balance of evidence? No. The published critiques of UAH/RSS, the other TLT datasets that show more warming, and theory, all suggest more warming in the troposphere.

I agree on being skeptical of RSS and UAH 6.0. I'm not really arguing that in my post you quoted. Mostly that I keep seeing people referring to surface datasets as being sound because they were independently agreeing. And this is done by referencing GISS, NCDC, etc. This is bothersome to me because it tells me everyone who does this hasn't read the literature. They aren't independent. They rely heavily on GHCN data. It's the same line of reasoning I crush these posters who try and say "adjustments" are the only reason we have a warming trend...and they try to discredit those adjustments. I defend the adjustments. I know they are sound. The reason is because I read through the ugly math of why they are sound.

I'm honestly not trying to come across as contrarian. I've met you before and you seemed like a very decent fellow so I've always thought you think the same way as me. Trying to find the truth in the literature. Not what press releases tell us or what some politically slanted website tells us what the paper proves.

But I just posted these diatribes to get people to try and view these data sets with some real skepticism. Give it fair scrutiny. I'm on the side of most that I believe the sfc data sets are more accurate, but I do not like to see their certainty overstated. They should not be overstated. And I think it is only fair that everyone understands their shortcomings. Just as everyone is reminded of the upper air shortcomings.

[AvantHiatus]

Global SSTA is spiking upwards again after a lull. The ocean heat is very extensive with the 28C isotherm covering 20% of the global ocean. 

 

 

[chubbs]

NOAA came in at 0.81 topping the July 1998 record of 0.73

[donsutherland1]

From a Bloomberg.com article on the NCDC monthly and year-to-date data:

 

Blunden said the fact that 2015 is trending even warmer than during the last strong El Nino shows that all the heat in the world isn’t caused by the ocean. When you take away the El Ninos, temperatures will still likely be higher in 2015, she said.

 

“Climate change is happening,” Blunden said in a telephone interview. “There are underlying trends with global warming.”

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-08-21/earth-0n-track-for-back-to-back-records-for-highest-temperatures

[AvantHiatus]

From a Bloomberg.com article on the NCDC monthly and year-to-date data:

 

Blunden said the fact that 2015 is trending even warmer than during the last strong El Nino shows that all the heat in the world isn’t caused by the ocean. When you take away the El Ninos, temperatures will still likely be higher in 2015, she said.

 

“Climate change is happening,” Blunden said in a telephone interview. “There are underlying trends with global warming.”

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-08-21/earth-0n-track-for-back-to-back-records-for-highest-temperatures

Agree 100%. This will be more obvious post-2015/2016. ENSO is not the only region on the Earth with torching sea surface temperatures.

[Mallow]

From a Bloomberg.com article on the NCDC monthly and year-to-date data:

 

Blunden said the fact that 2015 is trending even warmer than during the last strong El Nino shows that all the heat in the world isn’t caused by the ocean. When you take away the El Ninos, temperatures will still likely be higher in 2015, she said.

 

“Climate change is happening,” Blunden said in a telephone interview. “There are underlying trends with global warming.”

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-08-21/earth-0n-track-for-back-to-back-records-for-highest-temperatures

 

Was thinking something similar when looking at the chart chubbs posted. July 1997 was the hottest July on record at the time, likely due in part to the start of the 1997-1998 El Niño. Then July 1998 blew 1997 out of the water. Is the same going to happen next year? Is July 2016 going to be something like +0.98°C?