2016 Global Temperatures

[Chinook]

Is the "viral spiral" a helpful graphic with regard to climate change?  Tell me what you think. I saw this on twitter once or twice recently, and apparently the "viral spiral" has been shared all over twitter and the rest of the internet.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/05/11/this-scientist-just-changed-how-we-think-about-climate-change-with-one-gif/

[Isotherm]

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.

 

 

 

Yes, I'm well aware of the new version of RSS, and knew you would broach that subject given the correction warmer. However, there are potential problems with this new version which seem to run counter to objective science. 

 

Given that the number of scientists knowledgeable in this field (specifically, analyzing satellite measurements of global temperature) is quite small, it is rather interesting that both Dr. Christy and Dr. Spencer were precluded (to date) from reviewing the paper. The following email response from Dr. Spencer:

 

"I assume neither you or Christy were asked to review this paper?

There aren’t many satellite temperature data experts in the world."

 

"Interesting question….

John reviewed their original paper submission to JGR, in detail, asking for additional evidence — but not advocating rejection of the paper.  The JGR editor ended up rejecting it anyway.

Mears & Wentz then revised the paper, submitted it to J. Climate instead, and likely asked that we be excluded as reviewers."

 

 

 

Dr. Christy and Spencer found material flaws in the data utilized. 

 

Dr. Spencer's commentary on this:

 

 

 

"The paper is for MT, not LT…but I think we can assume that changes in one will be reflected in the other when Mears completes their analysis.

From what little we have looked at so far, it appears that they did not correct for spurious warming in NOAA-14 MSU relative to NOAA-15 AMSU…see their Fig. 7c.  They just leave it in.

Since this spurious warming is near the middle of the whole time period, this shifts the second half of the satellite record warmer when NOAA-14 MSU (the last in the MSU series) is handed off to NOAA-15 AMSU (the first in the AMSU series).

Why do we think NOAA-14 MSU is at fault?

1) AMSU is supposed to have a “Cadillac” calibration design (that’s the term a NASA engineer, Jim Shiue, used when describing to me the AMSU design, which he was involved in).

2) NOAA-14 MSU requires a large correction for the calibrated TB increasing with instrument temperature as the satellite drifts into a different orbit.  The NOAA-15 AMSU requires no such correction…and it wasn’t drifting during the period in question anyway.

So, it looks like they decided to force good data to match bad data.  Sound familiar?"

 

 

Furthermore, Carl Mears, the chief scientist of RSS, appears to have undertaken this RSS correction effort in order to suppress "denialists" (his word) from utilizing data which contradicts IPCC modelling. His objectivity is clearly lacking given the categorization of individuals as "denialists". Mears' statement: 

 

"Recently, a number of articles in the mainstream press have pointed out that there appears to have been little or no change in globally averaged temperature over the last two decades.  Because of this, we are getting a lot of questions along the lines of “I saw this plot on a denialist web site.  Is this really your data?”  

 

"For this plot we have averaged over almost the entire globe, from 80S to 80N, and used the entire TLT dataset, starting from 1979.  (The denialists really like to fit trends starting in 1997, so that the huge 1997-98 ENSO event is at the start of their time series, resulting in a linear fit with the smallest possible slope.)"

 

 

Link:

 

http://www.remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-global-temperatures

 

 

Whether you, or anyone else, desires to believe it or not -- the brutal truth is that the peer review process does not preclude data manipulation, falsification of data, or conflicts of interests -- far from it. One would hope that something peer-reviewed is more invaluable than not, but certainly, it is highly flawed. In another field (but still applicable), the current editor in chief of the Lancet (one of the most respected peer reviewed medical journals in the world) noted that half of peer-reviewed papers are likely false.

 

 

“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.”

 

Link:

 

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/05/16/editor-in-chief-of-worlds-best-known-medical-journal-half-of-all-the-literature-is-false/

 

 

 

Upon examination of a peer reviewed paper -- the most important initial step is to note any associations disclosed, potential conflicts of interest, possible motivations, etc. To me, independent scientists such as Spencer and Christy are much more trustworthy than those who possess conflicts (financially, politically, etc.) and choose to impugn the credibility of any entity/person who dissents from "popular opinion." Science is about objective, intellectual disagreement and discourse -- yet often times, that doesn't occur due to various reasons. I know I represent the minority opinion on this particular forum; however, thousands of scientists believe similarly (but are not being heard). Anyone who disputes the fact that peer-review is a highly flawed system which cannot preclude conflicts of interest is simply uninformed. That's the truth. 

 

 

[The_Global_Warmer]

Temps won't drop very much from here

[skierinvermont]

 

Yes, I'm well aware of the new version of RSS, and knew you would broach that subject given the correction warmer. However, there are potential problems with this new version which seem to run counter to objective science. 

 

Given that the number of scientists knowledgeable in this field (specifically, analyzing satellite measurements of global temperature) is quite small, it is rather interesting that both Dr. Christy and Dr. Spencer were precluded (to date) from reviewing the paper. The following email response from Dr. Spencer:

 

"I assume neither you or Christy were asked to review this paper?

There aren’t many satellite temperature data experts in the world."

 

"Interesting question….

John reviewed their original paper submission to JGR, in detail, asking for additional evidence — but not advocating rejection of the paper.  The JGR editor ended up rejecting it anyway.

Mears & Wentz then revised the paper, submitted it to J. Climate instead, and likely asked that we be excluded as reviewers."

 

 

 

Dr. Christy and Spencer found material flaws in the data utilized. 

 

Dr. Spencer's commentary on this:

 

 

 

"The paper is for MT, not LT…but I think we can assume that changes in one will be reflected in the other when Mears completes their analysis.

From what little we have looked at so far, it appears that they did not correct for spurious warming in NOAA-14 MSU relative to NOAA-15 AMSU…see their Fig. 7c.  They just leave it in.

Since this spurious warming is near the middle of the whole time period, this shifts the second half of the satellite record warmer when NOAA-14 MSU (the last in the MSU series) is handed off to NOAA-15 AMSU (the first in the AMSU series).

Why do we think NOAA-14 MSU is at fault?

1) AMSU is supposed to have a “Cadillac” calibration design (that’s the term a NASA engineer, Jim Shiue, used when describing to me the AMSU design, which he was involved in).

2) NOAA-14 MSU requires a large correction for the calibrated TB increasing with instrument temperature as the satellite drifts into a different orbit.  The NOAA-15 AMSU requires no such correction…and it wasn’t drifting during the period in question anyway.

So, it looks like they decided to force good data to match bad data.  Sound familiar?"

 

 

Furthermore, Carl Mears, the chief scientist of RSS, appears to have undertaken this RSS correction effort in order to suppress "denialists" (his word) from utilizing data which contradicts IPCC modelling. His objectivity is clearly lacking given the categorization of individuals as "denialists". Mears' statement: 

 

"Recently, a number of articles in the mainstream press have pointed out that there appears to have been little or no change in globally averaged temperature over the last two decades.  Because of this, we are getting a lot of questions along the lines of “I saw this plot on a denialist web site.  Is this really your data?”  

 

"For this plot we have averaged over almost the entire globe, from 80S to 80N, and used the entire TLT dataset, starting from 1979.  (The denialists really like to fit trends starting in 1997, so that the huge 1997-98 ENSO event is at the start of their time series, resulting in a linear fit with the smallest possible slope.)"

 

 

Link:

 

http://www.remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-global-temperatures

 

 

Whether you, or anyone else, desires to believe it or not -- the brutal truth is that the peer review process does not preclude data manipulation, falsification of data, or conflicts of interests -- far from it. One would hope that something peer-reviewed is more invaluable than not, but certainly, it is highly flawed. In another field (but still applicable), the current editor in chief of the Lancet (one of the most respected peer reviewed medical journals in the world) noted that half of peer-reviewed papers are likely false.

 

 

“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.”

 

Link:

 

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/05/16/editor-in-chief-of-worlds-best-known-medical-journal-half-of-all-the-literature-is-false/

 

 

 

Upon examination of a peer reviewed paper -- the most important initial step is to note any associations disclosed, potential conflicts of interest, possible motivations, etc. To me, independent scientists such as Spencer and Christy are much more trustworthy than those who possess conflicts (financially, politically, etc.) and choose to impugn the credibility of any entity/person who dissents from "popular opinion." Science is about objective, intellectual disagreement and discourse -- yet often times, that doesn't occur due to various reasons. I know I represent the minority opinion on this particular forum; however, thousands of scientists believe similarly (but are not being heard). Anyone who disputes the fact that peer-review is a highly flawed system which cannot preclude conflicts of interest is simply uninformed. That's the truth. 

 

 

 

 

I see a lot of big words and zero evidence in this post. 

 

As far as I can tell Spencer thinks NOAA-14 MSU is not being corrected for properly is that it warms more during that period. There's no evidence presented that they did not properly correct for NOAA-14 MSU drift. 

 

The RSS team made clear that the 1999-2005 period shows more warming not because of a change to NOAA-14 MSU and thus "shifting the second half of the record warmer." Which is what Spencer was guessing.

 

The 1999-2005 period shows more warming because of the diurnal adjustment to NOAA-15 MSU which was rapidly drifting during that period and required a large adjustment. 

 

So unless Spencer has a problem with the new diurnal adjustment, he should stop whining on his personal blogs.

[Sophisticated Skeptic]

I've never seen this type of abrupt change in the sun from last week to now.

 

Massive Coronal Hole

 

[Isotherm]

I see a lot of big words and zero evidence in this post. 

 

As far as I can tell Spencer thinks NOAA-14 MSU is not being corrected for properly is that it warms more during that period. There's no evidence presented that they did not properly correct for NOAA-14 MSU drift. 

 

The RSS team made clear that the 1999-2005 period shows more warming not because of a change to NOAA-14 MSU and thus "shifting the second half of the record warmer." Which is what Spencer was guessing.

 

The 1999-2005 period shows more warming because of the diurnal adjustment to NOAA-15 MSU which was rapidly drifting during that period and required a large adjustment. 

 

So unless Spencer has a problem with the new diurnal adjustment, he should stop whining on his personal blogs.

 

 

As per Dr. Spencer/Christy's analysis, the NOAA-14 MSU calibration drift was an issue in the previous RSS version as well (which they did not correct for in the new version either), and it's likely a combination of the calibration drift and the usage of a climate model for the diurnal cycle adjustment (rather than UAH's purely empirical approach). An analysis of UAH V6 temperature trends versus various other radiosonde and reanalysis datasets indicate that UAH more closely fits the trends of the vast majority of datasets, giving it more credence than RSS or NOAA3.0.

 

I suggest reading their analysis here:

 

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/03/comments-on-new-rss-v4-pause-busting-global-temperature-dataset/

 

Image demonstrating UAH's stronger correlation with most radiosonde/reanalysis datasets than RSS/NOAA. It also appears that the utilization of modelling for diurnal cycles can be potentially hazardous insofar as accuracy [Dr. Spencer comment:  "Trenberth has published work on how bad the diurnal cycles are in climate models. Models tend to do convective adjustment over land too rapidly, while in the real atmosphere it takes more time for convection to form and develop. This distorts the timing of temperature changes."]

 

 

[ORH_wxman]

The discussion of UAH 6.0 is pretty much fodder until the time it gets peer reviewed (whenever that occurs).

[chubbs]

Per Mears response (link below), Spencer's criticism is off-base. As ORH says, we will need to see more detailed peer-reviewed information to make any judgement on RSS vs UAH. One thing the two blogs clearly show, the satellite data are more uncertain than the surface data due to limited satellite overlap and the substantial disagreement between individual satellites. Note that RSS keeps NOAA-14 while UAH discards it because it warms too much.

 

http://www.remss.com/blog/RSS-TMT-updated

[skierinvermont]

As they point out even if they completely remove the NOAA-14 satellite the trend is reduced only by .019C/decade. Significant but RSS 4.0 is still much warmer. Nor is there compelling evidence that NOAA-14 is at fault vs the slower warming NOAA-15 during their period of overlap. I find this especially compelling given that NOAA-14 agreed well with other satellites earlier in its orbit and it seems unlikely that it suddenly started drifting in 1999. 

 

The RSS team assumes the error is shared by NOAA-14 and NOAA-15 but that that period of overlap is the largest source of uncertainty. 

[skierinvermont]

Also the validation work performed by Spencer above is flawed. For one, he includes many different radiosonde datasets some of which I believe are outdated. More importantly, the raw comparison to radiosonde data cannot be performed because the coverage of the radiosonde data is spatially biased. RSS has performed validation work which takes this into account by sub-sampling the UAH, RSS and STAR data to include only the regions sampled by radiosonde.

 

The results are below. Unfortunately, they it has not been updated with RSS v4. It appears the radiosonde data, which was in good agreement with RSSv3.3 would now likely fall halfway between UAH and RSSv4. As can be seen UAH was much too cool. 

 

[lookingnorth]

The May 2016 temperature data from GISS is out. It looks like it was the warmest May on record but the coolest month since September 2015. It was 0.93 C above the 1951-80 normal.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

[Sundog]

When was the last time we had a month which came in below normal?

[skierinvermont]

When was the last time we had a month which came in below normal?

 

It would depend a lot on what baseline you use to define normal and also what source you use.

 

A 1900-1950 baseline might be fairly representative of a pre-industrial climate. The early century was quite cold but the 40s were very warm due to GHGs + the sun + probably some other natural factors. A 1951-1980 baseline was initially used when developing temperature sources and falls near the midpoint of a 20th century climate (which was warmer than the pre-industrial climate).

 

Scanning GISS which uses a 1951-1980 baseline I see that September 1992 had an anomaly of 0.00 (that was during the height of Pinatubo volcanic cooling) and before that July 1985 had an anomaly of -.02 (guessing that was a La Nina perhaps aided by some lingering 1982 El Chichon cooling).

 

The last month that had a pre-industrial temperature was probably during the 1920s during a La Nina and -AO.

[ORH_wxman]

When was the last time we had a month which came in below normal?

 

It depends what dataset you are using because they have different baselines.

 

GISS uses a pretty old baseline of 1951-1980...their last below average month globally was September 1992 after Pinatubo erupted.

 

For Hadcrut4 which uses 1961-1990, February 1994 is the last month below average.

 

For the satellites who use 1981-2010 the last month was Feb 2012.

[chubbs]

Temperatures are well above what was normal in the past but they should be back to the trendline sometime this summer. So they are getting close to the new "normal'.  Also May is just below the old pre-2015 monthly record of 96 set in January 2007, so temperatures have returned to the upper end of the range established before the recent nino spike.

[Sundog]

Thanks to skier and orh for the detailed answers. I figured different baselines would be involved and you both broke it down accordingly for me.

[ORH_wxman]

 

 

The last month that had a pre-industrial temperature was probably during the 1920s during a La Nina and -AO.

 

There are months after Agung erupted in 1963 that have anomalies of -0.3 on GISS...also a few during the 1950s La Ninas.

 

Those would be quite comparable to pre-1900 temps.

[skierinvermont]

There are months after Agung erupted in 1963 that have anomalies of -0.3 on GISS...also a few during the 1950s La Ninas.

 

Those would be quite comparable to pre-1900 temps.

 

Ah yes, probably should have looked at a graph before saying that. Looks like a couple years in the 30s had annual temps around pre-industrial too.

[Jonger]

Ah yes, probably should have looked at a graph before saying that. Looks like a couple years in the 30s had annual temps around pre-industrial too.

 

I don't think there was much warming outside of natural variability until ~1980. The amount of co2 was so low until around that period.

 

I made this graph for fun recently. This just shows the amount of co2, versus temp increases. We didn't have a problem until 1980 IMO.

 

 

 

[csnavywx]

I don't think there was much warming outside of natural variability until ~1980. The amount of co2 was so low until around that period.

 

I made this graph for fun recently. This just shows the amount of co2, versus temp increases. We didn't have a problem until 1980 IMO.

 

 

 

co2 overlay.jpg

I think this point is arguable. The end result was the same, but the causes are important. There's good evidence to suggest that CO2+other GHG warming was suppressed during the 1950-1980 period because of a strong, sustained increase in tropospheric aerosol loading via (largely) SO2 emissions. Once that trend began to substantially weaken, warming began to poke its head through the "noise" so to speak. There was also a change in the PDO in the late 70s, which undoubtedly helped to kickstart the trend (via trade wind weakening and reduced downwelling of warmer ocean surface waters).

 

It might seem like a quibble -- but it has important repercussions for today. China's coal boom is coming to an end and India is slowly taking over that role. Both countries have miserable air quality -- so I expect some increased focus on stack scrubbing. The bottom line here is that we should see a slow decline in SO2 emissions going forward (barring some truly explosive coal consumption growth by India -- which is possible). That means the resultant dimming will reduce and compound already high annual GHG emissions. It doesn't take very long to see the effects of what is essentially 4+ ppm of CO2e per year at the ground. The latest effective GHG minus aerosol CO2e number I saw last year was about 420 ppm. 15-20 years of current emissions will throw us over 500 pretty easily and put 2C completely out of reach (if it isn't already).

 

The lead-on argument is that the "Paris numbers" of 1.5 and 2C are essentially a joke -- nobody seriously looking at the math can possibly think those are attainable at this point.

[sokolow]

@Jonger

Grant Foster aka Tamino has said before that ~1975-1980 is the key date range when the warming trend becomes unambiguous -- really distinct from natural variabilty in the statistical sense & basically in agreement with your point

Its also the key date range when things go off the cliff for alpine glaciers & ice

@csnavywx re: 2C

Its always a grim party to watch Kevin Anderson work somebody over using the 2C commitment

[Bhs1975]

I think this point is arguable. The end result was the same, but the causes are important. There's good evidence to suggest that CO2+other GHG warming was suppressed during the 1950-1980 period because of a strong, sustained increase in tropospheric aerosol loading via (largely) SO2 emissions. Once that trend began to substantially weaken, warming began to poke its head through the "noise" so to speak. There was also a change in the PDO in the late 70s, which undoubtedly helped to kickstart the trend (via trade wind weakening and reduced downwelling of warmer ocean surface waters).

It might seem like a quibble -- but it has important repercussions for today. China's coal boom is coming to an end and India is slowly taking over that role. Both countries have miserable air quality -- so I expect some increased focus on stack scrubbing. The bottom line here is that we should see a slow decline in SO2 emissions going forward (barring some truly explosive coal consumption growth by India -- which is possible). That means the resultant dimming will reduce and compound already high annual GHG emissions. It doesn't take very long to see the effects of what is essentially 4+ ppm of CO2e per year at the ground. The latest effective GHG minus aerosol CO2e number I saw last year was about 420 ppm. 15-20 years of current emissions will throw us over 500 pretty easily and put 2C completely out of reach (if it isn't already).

The lead-on argument is that the "Paris numbers" of 1.5 and 2C are essentially a joke -- nobody seriously looking at the math can possibly think those are attainable at this point.

Going to have to start scrubbing CO2 out of the air at this point.

[lookingnorth]

Does anyone know if June is expected to be above the 0.77 C anomaly set in 1998 and 2015 according to GISTemp data? Obviously it is too early to know for sure, but I'm just kind of curious about what seems likely

[skierinvermont]

I don't think there was much warming outside of natural variability until ~1980. The amount of co2 was so low until around that period.

 

I made this graph for fun recently. This just shows the amount of co2, versus temp increases. We didn't have a problem until 1980 IMO.

 

 

 

co2 overlay.jpg

 

 

This graph is a radical oversimplification. Natural warming and cooling overlaying greenhouse warming makes it impossible to pick out which is which just looking at a graph. 

 

By 1970 CO2 had risen 30ppm from pre-industrial or just over 10%. Assuming a very conservative 2C/doubling, that would be almost .3C warming.

 

That makes most of the warming by 1970 anthropogenic.

[Chambana]

Does anyone know if June is expected to be above the 0.77 C anomaly set in 1998 and 2015 according to GISTemp data? Obviously it is too early to know for sure, but I'm just kind of curious about what seems likely

I think if I remember correctly this June is currently 3rd warmest on record, don't quote me though.

[chubbs]

I think if I remember correctly this June is currently 3rd warmest on record, don't quote me though.

Per Wxbell, June so far is 0.26 on CFS vs 0.196 last year. On GISS, June 2015 tied for the warmest June ever so a record June is certainly possible this year. A June record would be the 9'th GISS monthly record in a row.

[wolfpackmet]

NCEP/NCAR has done pretty decent this ENSO cycle.  I would say the difference between this month and last June is enough to be pretty confident for another monthly GISS record.

 

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

 

[Jonger]

Did the 97-98 nino trigger a streak of record months? I would assume every strong nino would pop at least 6 straight.

[chubbs]

Did the 97-98 nino trigger a streak of record months? I would assume every strong nino would pop at least 6 straight.

 

Eyeballing the GISS data, 97/98 had 12 straight from Sept 97 to Aug 98. 09/10 had 3 straight.

[chubbs]

From Ed Hawkins blog, an apples-to-apples comparison of  HADCRUT to climate models (blue triangles are with adjustments) produces good agreement. The adjustments needed to get an apples-to-apples comparison include 1) air temperature over water (models) vs SST (HADCRUT) and 2) coverage gaps in the early part of the HADCRUT record. In the figure adjustment #1 is "blended" and adjustment #1+#2 is "blended-masked".

 

http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2016/reconciling-estimates-of-climate-sensitivity/