2016 Global Temperatures

[wolfpackmet]

Using NCEP reanalysis, April's anomaly should finish similar to December which was +1.1 C on GISS.  This would break 2010's record of +0.87 C.  Looking ahead, unless we see a big change 2014's May record of +0.86 C could be the next to fall.  

http://www.moyhu.org.s3.amazonaws.com/data/freq/ncep.html

 

[chubbs]

HADCRUT was 1.063 in March just edging Feb by 0.002 for the highest anomaly in any month. The previous March record was 0.699 in 2002. March 1998 was relatively cool at 0.558.

2015 0.688 0.660 0.681 0.656 0.696 0.730 0.696 0.732 0.784 0.820 0.810 1.010 0.746

2016 0.908 1.061 1.063 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.009

[chubbs]

Per NOAA, GHG forcing was 485 ppb CO2 equivalent in 2015 vs 481 in 2014. There were above trend increases in both CO2 and methane in 2015.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi.html

[Snow_Miser]

Peak has definitely happened with the global surface temperature response to this El Nino. CFSv2 came in at +0.55 for April, which would translate to an anomaly of +1.1 to +1.25 on GISS, blowing the previous record out of the water.

 

May is starting at a GISS equivalent of +0.9 to +1.05. 

[chubbs]

Ed Hawkins graph of HADCRUT data through March. Temps are vs. a pre-industrial baseline which is defined as 1850-1900 - 0.31C lower than the normal HADCRUT baseline of 1961-1990.

[SVT450R]

UAH V6.0 was a 0.71 for April down .02 from March.

 

UAH V5.6 was a 0.76 for April down .09 from March

[chubbs]

UAH V6.0 was a 0.71 for April down .02 from March.

 

UAH V5.6 was a 0.76 for April down .09 from March

RSS TLT was down 0.08C in April. Both UAH6 and RSS TLT were slightly below April 1998, the satellite peak of 98 nino.

[bluewave]

New paper with full access explaining why the El Nino was so extreme.

 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016GL069204/abstract

 

How the July 2014 Easterly Wind Burst Gave the 2015-6 El Niño a Head Start

 

Following strong westerly wind bursts in boreal winter and spring of 2014, both the scientific community and the popular press were abuzz with the possibility of a major El Niño developing. However, during the boreal summer of 2014, the Bjerknes feedback failed to kick in, aided and abetted by a strong easterly wind burst. The widely anticipated major 2014-5 El Niño event failed to materialize and even failed to qualify as an El Niño by conventional definitions. However, the boreal summer easterly wind burst had the effect of not only inhibiting the growth of the El Niño event, but also preventing and then reversing the discharge of the equatorial heat content that typically occurs during the course of an El Niño event. This head start of equatorial heat content helped push the 2015-6 El Niño event to extreme magnitude.

[chubbs]

GISS was 1.11 in April down 0.18 from March, the previous April record was 0.87 in 2010.

[bluewave]

GISS was 1.11 in April down 0.18 from March, the previous April record was 0.87 in 2010.

 

It looks like May could be around 1.00 +/-.05 for the first half of the month which was close to November

 

[chubbs]

NOAA was 1.10 in April down 0.13 from March. The 2015-16 nino now has the record high for every single month. Although temperatures have started to fall we are likely to see several more record individual months. Temps should begin to fall below 2015 in late-summer or fall breaking the record streak.

[donsutherland1]

During what appears to be extremely likely the warmest year recorded on the major climate data sets (NCDC, HADCRUT, and GISS), India registered its hottest temperature on record (51.0°C/123.8°F)

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-36339523

[chubbs]

Recent comparison of GISS with CMIP5 RCP 8.5 from Tamino. Note that the GISS observations are biased a little cool vs CMIP5 since: 1) Recent net forcing has been weaker than assumed in CMIP5 due to the sun and volcanoes, and 2) GISS uses sea-surface temperature while CMIP5 is predicting air temperature above the sea which runs a little warmer than SST. For 2015 the net forcing is 5-10% to high in CMIP5, while the SST effect increases the model predictions by roughly 0.1C vs. GISS.

Forcing: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL064888/abstract

SST: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n3/full/ngeo2105.html

[chubbs]

UAH6 down to 0.55 in May.

[lookingnorth]

UAH6 down to 0.55 in May.

UAH_LT_1979_thru_May_2016_v6-550x318.jpg

Do you know why it was cooler than May 1998?

[skierinvermont]

Do you know why it was cooler than May 1998?

 

Because UAH6 is an "experimental" dataset. Other satellite and surface based measures all agree May 2016 was much warmer than May 1998.

[Isotherm]

Do you know why it was cooler than May 1998?

 

A significant contributing factor is likely the more rapid collapse of tropical Pacific SST’s in May 2016 vs. May 1998.

27APR2016     24.7-0.3     27.7 0.4     28.7 0.8     29.5 0.9 04MAY2016     25.1 0.4     27.6 0.4     28.6 0.8     29.5 0.8 11MAY2016     24.9 0.5     27.6 0.4     28.4 0.6     29.4 0.6 18MAY2016     24.3 0.2     26.9-0.1     28.1 0.2     29.4 0.6 25MAY2016     24.0 0.2     26.6-0.3     27.7-0.1     29.4 0.6

29APR1998     28.3 3.4     28.9 1.6     28.7 0.8     28.7 0.1 06MAY1998     27.8 3.2     29.4 2.1     29.1 1.3     28.7 0.1 13MAY1998     28.1 3.8     28.7 1.6     28.8 0.9     28.7-0.1 20MAY1998     27.9 3.9     27.6 0.7     28.3 0.5     28.6-0.2 27MAY1998     27.0 3.3     27.1 0.2     27.9 0.1     28.8 0.0

[donsutherland1]

Do you know why it was cooler than May 1998?

UAH 5.6 was almost the same as May 1998 (0.01°C cooler). Version 6 has a statistically significant linear cooling trend relative to 5.6. It was about 0.1°C cooler, but that is suspect.

 

In addition, Version 6 still has not been submitted for peer review. Despite repeated statements by its authors that it would be submitted for peer review, it has not. That failure to submit it for peer review raises additional questions. It should have been peer reviewed and then released, not released in the absence of peer review.

 

In coming days and weeks, the major data sets will be released. The data will very likely show that May 2016 was at least as warm as May 1998, and probably quite a bit warmer. UAH version 6 is an outlier and probably an unreliable one.

[skierinvermont]

 

A significant contributing factor is likely the more rapid collapse of tropical Pacific SST’s in May 2016 vs. May 1998.

 

 

I doubt that is a contributing factor at all yet given the 5-6 month lag from SST to satellite temps. It may have begun to slightly effect surface temps since they rely upon SST data over the oceans, but even the surface data has a 3 month lag. 

 

It's most likely some natural factor combined with UAH6's cooling bias.

[Isotherm]

With respect to UAH V6, Dr. Spencer wrote a post on April 28th, 2015, and in it, noted that it would likely be approximately 2 years - from the that point - for a published peer reviewed paper w/ greater detail. Thus, we will not see the published paper until later this year or early 2017, per Dr. Spencer. I know many are eager to discard UAH V6 as quickly as possible given it doesn't jive with the warmer surface datasets, but it's simply not being objective to categorize the dataset as possessing a cool bias without first reading the evidence from peer review. The authors have also stated that they're confident UAH V6 is more accurate than the previous version.

 

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/version-6-0-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-released-new-lt-trend-0-11-cdecade/

 

 

"This should be considered a “beta” release of Version 6.0, and we await users’ comments to see whether there are any obvious remaining problems in the dataset. In any event, we are confident that the new Version 6.0 dataset as it currently stands is more accurate and useful than the Version 5.6 dataset."

 

 

“It will likely be close to two years before a peer reviewed paper with greater detail gets published in a scientific journal.”

 

 

 

So let's allow the time frame to elapse before impugning the veracity of the dataset or the intentions of its authors.

[skierinvermont]

It's not that it does not jive with the surface data. It doesn't jive with multiple other satellite data sources. Nor does it jive with UAH v5.6 which is peer-reviewed. Nor does it jive with radiosonde estimates. We can't just discard the peer-reviewed version of UAH just because the authors come up with a new version that better fits their all too obvious agenda.

 

 

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, it has been well established at this point that satellite estimates are just not a reliable way to estimate long-term temperature trends in the troposphere. There is too much uncertainty in the adjustments/corrections/and piecing together of different sources required.

 

This is in contrast to the surface data sources where the corrections required can be determined with a fairly high degree of accuracy and precision.

 

It's possible to get a rough estimate from the satellites, if the right corrections are applied, but the uncertainty is still very high probably +/- .1C/decade.

[Isotherm]

If by multiple other satellite data sources, you mean two - namely, UAH V5.6 (the former version by the same authors), and RSS. Not exactly the greatest sample size of data sources to compare against, in terms of purely satellite readings. I think the jury's still very much out insofar as the veracity of UAH 6.0. It's possible there's a cool bias, but, if we'e being completely objective here, one must also acknowledge that there's a possibility of bias(es) in other datasets as well (for example; GISS, which I believe could have a warm bias). 

 

For May, the global anomalies were very similar between the three satellite sources:

 

UAH V5.6 for May: +0.55c

RSS for May: +0.525c

UAH V6.0 for May: +0.55c

 

I posted extensively awhile back concerning the sfc vs satellite dataset debate. I think the latter possesses greater value, but again, that discussion has occurred ad nauseam already. 

 

I'm not sure precisely what agenda they'd be propelling, or the motives of such agenda. I am; however, certain that an agenda exists on the other side. This is, again, a topic which we will unlikely ever reach agreement on. 

[Vandy]

So let's allow the time frame to elapse before impugning the veracity of the dataset or the intentions of its authors.

 

If they are going to make bold claims, such as it being superior to existing peer-reviewed datasets, then it becomes eligible for intense scrutiny. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

[skierinvermont]

If by multiple other satellite data sources, you mean two - namely, UAH V5.6 (the former version by the same authors), and RSS. Not exactly the greatest sample size of data sources to compare against, in terms of purely satellite readings. I think the jury's still very much out insofar as the veracity of UAH 6.0. It's possible there's a cool bias, but, if we'e being completely objective here, one must also acknowledge that there's a possibility of bias(es) in other datasets as well (for example; GISS, which I believe could have a warm bias). 

 

For May, the global anomalies were very similar between the three satellite sources:

 

UAH V5.6 for May: +0.55c

RSS for May: +0.525c

UAH V6.0 for May: +0.55c

 

I posted extensively awhile back concerning the sfc vs satellite dataset debate. I think the latter possesses greater value, but again, that discussion has occurred ad nauseam already. 

 

I'm not sure precisely what agenda they'd be propelling, or the motives of such agenda. I am; however, certain that an agenda exists on the other side. This is, again, a topic which we will unlikely ever reach agreement on. 

 

There are several other satellite analyses and papers on satellite based temperature measures other than UAHv5.6 UAHv6 and RSS. And they've all been peer-reviewed, except UAHv6. And then there are the radiosondes. And surface measurements. And the thermally expanding oceans. And numerous other measures of a rapidly warming world. None of which is consistent with the slow rate of warming in UAHv6.

 

It is very unlikely there is a significant (>.05C/decade) warm bias in GISS. The adjustments made to GISS are well-documented with verifiable levels of uncertainty. Unless there is some significant flaw in the methodology which nobody has thought of, the error is very likely within .05C/decade over the last 30 years. The warming trend is likely very close to .2C/decade.

 

For satellite based measures you get results over the last 30 years, depending on methodology, you can get results from as low as .1C/decade to as high as .25C/decade. It depends on the method and the adjustments made. 

 

With each version Spencer and Christy have insisted that version is correct and has low uncertainty. Each and every time they have insisted this, it has been revised significantly. Why should we believe that somehow they got it right this time? The fact is it is very difficult and unreliable to try and produce satellite derived global temperatures.

[skierinvermont]

 

I'm not sure precisely what agenda they'd be propelling, or the motives of such agenda. I am; however, certain that an agenda exists on the other side. This is, again, a topic which we will unlikely ever reach agreement on. 

 

I am certain that there are people on both sides of the science (the wrong side and the right side) that have agendas. 

 

I'm also certain that Spencer and Christy are two such people.

 

And I'm also certain that peer-review helps remove agendas from science and promote the truth.

[chubbs]

I would expect an updated RSS TLT v4 product to look similar to RSS TTT v4 since the elevation weighting is similar.

[Isotherm]

While noticeably warmer than V5.6, UAH V6 versus RSS yields a very similar global temperature anomaly trend. 

 

 

[skierinvermont]

While noticeably warmer than V5.6, UAH V6 versus RSS yields a very similar global temperature anomaly trend. 

 

 

 

 

 

That is the old version of RSS. There is a new, much warmer, peer-reviewed version. TMT and TTT have been released. TLT should be released soon. The method is already peer-reviewed.

 

Even the old version of RSS is significantly warmer than UAHv6 if you look carefully at the graph you postted. They are pretty close the last few years, but RSS is warmer 2000-2010.

 

Here is the TMT comparison. RSSv4 agrees well with STAR and is actually a little warmer. RSS is .125C/decade STAR is .103C/decade and UAH is .052C/decade. Remember this is TMT global. TLT global has warmed more than TMT.

 

You've probably not heard of STAR on the blogs you read. It is peer-reviewed and commonly used in the literature. Along with several other methods that either suggest more warming or higher uncertainty than you seem to believe.

[chubbs]

Steady drop in temperature since the Feb peak as nino has dissipated. Down to roughly the same temps as late last summer. Looks like this nino doesn't have as much staying power as 97/98.

[Sophisticated Skeptic]

It's kinda of interesting how quiet the sun's been the last few months as well.

 

...just throwin it out there. 

 

maybe 'perfect timing' for the deniers.