2016 Global Temperatures

[blizzard1024]

Really taking off to a new baseline.  Many of us believe this PDO flip would come later in our lifetimes (maybe 2025).  I wonder what impact this will have for global weather over the next 2 years.  It's interesting to see the powerful storms off the east coast this year due to the AMOC slowdown and higher temperatures off the seaboard.  Capital weather gang all but states they believe AGW is the primary cause of this new era of large snowstorms (even with DCAs under measuring).

 

 

I can say, here in Central Virginia, the trend is also remarkable.  It's gotten disappointing when snowfall events are under 6" these days.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2016/02/03/is-global-warming-behind-d-c-s-new-era-of-great-snowstorms/

For the most part the capital weather gang has pretty good stuff, but come on. But this is laughable. I can say for a fact that NWS have recruited so many spotters in the past couple decades that there is no doubt there is inflation in snowfall measurements, and the number of severe reports, flash flood reports etc. In the "old" days, measurements were taken in the bigger cities by NWS personnel which tended to be conservative.  Now we have spotters all over, (some who want to be the highest, be on TWC etc) that even NWS sometimes throws out. With global warming the middle atlantic to southern new England storm track for snowfall will shift north. This is a no brainer. Snow would become rare in the bigger middle Atlantic cities.  

[Sophisticated Skeptic]

For the most part the capital weather gang has pretty good stuff, but come on. But this is laughable. I can say for a fact that NWS have recruited so many spotters in the past couple decades that there is no doubt there is inflation in snowfall measurements, and the number of severe reports, flash flood reports etc. In the "old" days, measurements were taken in the bigger cities by NWS personnel which tended to be conservative.  Now we have spotters all over, (some who want to be the highest, be on TWC etc) that even NWS sometimes throws out. With global warming the middle atlantic to southern new England storm track for snowfall will shift north. This is a no brainer. Snow would become rare in the bigger middle Atlantic cities.  

 

 

with global moisture and temperature levels near or at record highs...what's your consensus then on the models not being able to agree on huge storms lately...until like 24 hours before.  (even just with our last several snowstorms) 

[FloridaJohn]

I know that every dataset has problems but the satellite in my opinion has less adjustments and is relatively consistent. It is apples to apples. The surface dataset is a hodge-podge of records woven together with many adjustments different measuring techniques UHI etc. The fact that people favor this over the satellite record is laughable. The satellite record is also corroborated by the upper air data too; a totally different measuring technique. The politics of this issue is ruining the science.

I find it interesting that you prefer indirect temperature measurement over direct temperature measurement. You do realize that the satellites are not even "measuring" temperature, and all the satellite data has to be "manipulated" to reveal temperature? Compare this to a thermometer which reads temperature directly. Why do you think the satellite data is more accurate?

 

Please take the time to watch the video posted above. It describes how the satellite temperature data is achieved, by someone who works at RSS (one of the satellite temperature datasets).

[csnavywx]

Might be able to reach 1.25C on GISS this month. February is really rocking in the heat department.

[HailMan06]

Might be able to reach 1.25C on GISS this month. February is really rocking in the heat department.

If I calculated correctly that translates to an anamoly of ~1.5C relative to the pre-industrial baseline.

[csnavywx]

If I calculated correctly that translates to an anamoly of ~1.5C relative to the pre-industrial baseline.

That's about right, yeah. Kinda puts that 1.5C Paris "goal" in perspective, eh (even with the Nino going on)?

[nflwxman]

That's about right, yeah. Kinda puts that 1.5C Paris "goal" in perspective, eh (even with the Nino going on)?

 

I'm still really not sure why they put that "goal" in there.  2C is essentially a pipe dream even to the most conservative if scientists.

[The_Global_Warmer]

A major WWB is going on the Southern side of the equatorial region.

The Northern hemisphere is roasting.

Incredible really.

The Arctic is super torching.

All in all this winter could have been a lot worse.

Anyways the cold has been totally tempered all over the NH.

[HailMan06]

I'm still really not sure why they put that "goal" in there. 2C is essentially a pipe dream even to the most conservative if scientists.

The main reason was to appease the more vulnerable countries for some form of an agreement. When they were originally planning on limiting global warming to 2C it was known to require a fundamental global transformation of our energy systems. When they brough that goal down to 1.5C I felt like they just pulled it right out of their a**. The very same pledges that they came up with don't even limit warming to 2C, and no country has to follow them either.

[HailMan06]

That's about right, yeah. Kinda puts that 1.5C Paris "goal" in perspective, eh (even with the Nino going on)?

Right? The same goal limit they just passed two months ago may be surpassed this month.

[Chinook]

Now the Weatherbell graph (CFSR) global anomaly is over +0.8C again, higher than it was the other day!

[Msalgado]

Right? The same goal limit they just passed two months ago may be surpassed this month.

 

Not exactly.  Hitting it for a single day, a week, month, or even a group of months isn't the same as it being the mark for a year.  Still a ways to go for the latter.  (Not that I believe there's much of a chance of not hitting it)

[The_Global_Warmer]

Not exactly. Hitting it for a single day, a week, month, or even a group of months isn't the same as it being the mark for a year. Still a ways to go for the latter. (Not that I believe there's much of a chance of not hitting it)

Totally agree.

On a side note global land ice, sea ice, and snow cover had a huge increase post 1998 nino that ramped up the next 10-15 years.

So will be looking to see if we see another huge acceleratio in these things.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Incredible really

[blizzard1024]

The northern hemisphere is incredibly warm.  Canada and Russia being the epicenters of historic warmth.

 

 

 

Arctic temperatures in January via MSU were way out of the range of normal fluctuations. Insanely warm....

 

 

February looks impressively too CFSv2. Sea ice is at record lows for this time of year too. It will be interesting to see if temperatures fall back to recent levels when and if ENSO flips to La Nina. After the last super Nino in 1998 temperatures stabilized about .3C higher than the normal based on satellite temps.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Arctic temperatures in January via MSU were way out of the range of normal fluctuations. Insanely warm....

MSU%20UAH%20ArcticAndAntarctic%20MonthlyTempSince1979%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif

February looks impressively too CFSv2. Sea ice is at record lows for this time of year too. It will be interesting to see if temperatures fall back to recent levels when and if ENSO flips to La Nina. After the last super Nino in 1998 temperatures stabilized about .3C higher than the normal based on satellite temps.

Upper ocean ohc has sky rocketed.

It will certainly fall.

But this will have very strong feedbacks in other areas.

For instance April and may the next 5 years IMO will see jaw dropping snow cover anomalies.

Right now the Western 1/3rd of Russia is virtually snow free paid

Outside the mountains and arctic coast.

another incredible thing happening is the Atlantic side sea ice not just the absolute ice edge but ended up to 85 North it very clear first satellite imagery that a swath of ice Nansen basin has suffered from either a bottom melt event or it just hasn't grown.

These things cause massive local warm anomalies

[blizzard1024]

Weatherbell just updated the global temperature graph to add 1.2C to the y axis and the NH is +1.3C and still rising. insanity. Even the CFSv2 which some say has a cold bias is warmer than ever.

 

see

 

 

[Snow_Miser]

February 2016 will be the first month to attain an anomaly higher than +0.70 on the WeatherBell CFSv2. We are currently at +0.69 for the month, and with dailies around +0.9 right now, that should be enough to push us over the +0.70 threshold.

 

That would be a GISS equivalent of +1.25 to +1.40 for the month.

 

If we maintain this level of warmth into March, it could be even warmer than February globally.

 

Wow. 

[Snow_Miser]

Weatherbell just updated the global temperature graph to add 1.2C to the y axis and the NH is +1.3C and still rising. insanity. Even the CFSv2 which some say has a cold bias is warmer than ever.

 

see

 

cdas_v2_hemisphere_2016.png

 

Maybe those crazy climate scientists knew what they were talking about, after all. 

[blizzard1024]

Maybe those crazy climate scientists knew what they were talking about, after all. 

 

come on. its the el nino causing most of this warmth superimposed on a very slow warming trend.

[chubbs]

Through the 26th the NCEP re-analysis has February at 0.809 (1994-2013 baseline) and that will only increase when the last 3 days are included. That is 0.51C warmer than the previous February record set in 2010. Wouldn't be surprised if Feb ends up as the peak for this nino.

 

 

 

[Snow_Miser]

come on. its the el nino causing most of this warmth superimposed on a very slow warming trend.

We are peaking at about ~+0.4 Degrees C higher than what the 1998 event peaked at in the surface temperature record, despite having a similar intensity event. That can't be explained by El Niño.

[skierinvermont]

We are peaking at about ~+0.4 Degrees C higher than what the 1998 event peaked at in the surface temperature record, despite having a similar intensity event. That can't be explained by El Niño.

 

I've been meaning to update my ENSO and solar adjusted temperature data. It was running a little low 2012-2014 but I wonder if it has bounced up recently.

 

.4C in 20 years is .2C/decade which is at or above predicted.

[donsutherland1]

We are peaking at about ~+0.4 Degrees C higher than what the 1998 event peaked at in the surface temperature record, despite having a similar intensity event. That can't be explained by El Niño.

That's correct. All the credible data sets show temperatures reaching levels well above those reached during the 1997-98 super El Niño event.

[Snow_Miser]

I've been meaning to update my ENSO and solar adjusted temperature data. It was running a little low 2012-2014 but I wonder if it has bounced up recently.

 

.4C in 20 years is .2C/decade which is at or above predicted.

 

The regression trend since 1998 is closer to +0.14 Degrees C/decade on GISS. I suspect that will inch up a bit in the coming months, as the surface temperature response peaks in February/March. 

 

[blizzard1024]

We are peaking at about ~+0.4 Degrees C higher than what the 1998 event peaked at in the surface temperature record, despite having a similar intensity event. That can't be explained by El Niño.

The sfc temperature record has been doctored to exaggerate warming. The satellite record is by far the best. The satellite record is corroborated by the weather balloon data a totally different source of measurement. The surface record is rife with station moves, changing instruments through the years, land use changes. Plus long term ocean temperature trends have problems. How anyone believe the sfc record over the satellite record is beyond me. Its called brainwashing and the cart leading the horse. You assume CO2 causes most of the warming so we adjust and look for datasets that corroborate this. Climate science has become political and you all know it. It frustrates me because I just want to know what is really happening and they have destroyed the sfc record. The satellite record is the only record that is consistent with only geometric adjustments needed for orbital decay. Plus it measures a slab of atmosphere which eliminates the problems of a microclimate which can change or if a station is moved change completely representing an entire grid box. This is a methodology rife with errors but since it can be fiddled with it shows the most warming and hence is believed. They are making science look bad.

[Snow_Miser]

The sfc temperature record has been doctored to exaggerate warming. The satellite record is by far the best. The satellite record is corroborated by the weather balloon data a totally different source of measurement. The surface record is rife with station moves, changing instruments through the years, land use changes. Plus long term ocean temperature trends have problems. How anyone believe the sfc record over the satellite record is beyond me. Its called brainwashing and the cart leading the horse. You assume CO2 causes most of the warming so we adjust and look for datasets that corroborate this. Climate science has become political and you all know it. It frustrates me because I just want to know what is really happening and they have destroyed the sfc record. The satellite record is the only record that is consistent with only geometric adjustments needed for orbital decay. Plus it measures a slab of atmosphere which eliminates the problems of a microclimate which can change or if a station is moved change completely representing an entire grid box. This is a methodology rife with errors but since it can be fiddled with it shows the most warming and hence is believed. They are making science look bad.

 

If you look at the actual adjustments made to the surface temperature data, you would see that your statement about adjustments 'made to exaggerate warming' is neither scientific nor factual. Net adjustments made to the surface temperature data actually reduce the total warming during the 20th Century.

 

 

Secondly, there are a host of adjustments that are made to the satellite based temperature datasets. Orbital drift is an important one due to frictional effects from the Earth's atmosphere slowing down the satellite's motion. Without this adjustment, there would be no correction for the satellite measuring the brightness radiation at a slightly later time than a couple decades prior. 

 

 

The surface temperature adjustments are also important. The time of observation bias adjustment is important, as is the urbanization adjustment correction. Without these adjustments, there would be biases within the surface temperature dataset that would not be reflective of what is actually taking place. 

 

I used to agree with you, Blizzard. Researching this more, and developing a better understanding of the science changed my mind. 

[chubbs]

Below is a link to an 2011 assessment of uncertainty in satellite temperature trends by RSS scientists. Compared to surface temperature, satellite temperature trends have a much higher uncertainty due mainly to inter-satellite merging and diurnal adjustment. The 95% uncertainty ranges for the TLT 1979 to 2011 temperature trend are also shown below. Note that the surface temperature trends lie within the satellite trend uncertainty band. The satellite trend uncertainty is even larger for shorter periods. So very little can concluded about satellite temperature trends since the 97/98 super nino with any statistical validity.

 

The paper also shows that the radiosondes do not validate the satellite trends vs surface measurement trends because of the wide error bands in both the satellite and radiosonde measurements. Here is a quote from the paper abstract: "A comparison of trends for the globe, tropics, and extratropics between the best estimate data set along with these error estimates and homogenized radiosonde estimates and available MSU/AMSU estimates from other groups is undertaken. This shows consistency between our product and those produced by others within the stated uncertainty for many regions and layers. In almost as many cases, however, the interdata set differences of the estimated trends are too large be accounted for by the internal uncertainty estimates derived herein."

 

Paper:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010JD014954/abstract

 

Here are the uncertainty bands for RSS TLT:

 

ftp://ftp.remss.com/msu/data/uncertainty/percentile_realizations/tlt/tlt_realization_trend_list.txt

percentile realization Trend (K/decade)       5         381    0.0750433      10         121    0.0910074      20         278     0.102518      30         127     0.113902      40         344     0.123428      50         309     0.133916      60         359     0.141880      70         162     0.151353      80         282     0.159842      90         389     0.176477      95         122     0.189717

[blizzard1024]

If you look at the actual adjustments made to the surface temperature data, you would see that your statement about adjustments 'made to exaggerate warming' is neither scientific nor factual. Net adjustments made to the surface temperature data actually reduce the total warming during the 20th Century.

 

2000.jpg

 

Secondly, there are a host of adjustments that are made to the satellite based temperature datasets. Orbital drift is an important one due to frictional effects from the Earth's atmosphere slowing down the satellite's motion. Without this adjustment, there would be no correction for the satellite measuring the brightness radiation at a slightly later time than a couple decades prior. 

 

adjustmentsuah.png

 

The surface temperature adjustments are also important. The time of observation bias adjustment is important, as is the urbanization adjustment correction. Without these adjustments, there would be biases within the surface temperature dataset that would not be reflective of what is actually taking place. 

 

I used to agree with you, Blizzard. Researching this more, and developing a better understanding of the science changed my mind. 

 

Look at these graphs and you will see all the adjustments. Why did Karl et al 2015 cool temperature right before 2000??? What is so special about 2000? anyway, the surface data changes are higher than the satellites changes which are mostly due to orbital drift which is geometry and on the order of hundreths of a degree. There is a concerted effort to discredit the satellite data because it does not conform to the rapid warming that CO2 is supposed to be causing. If global warming continues to be less and very slow versus what the climate models say....a lot of climate scientists won't have jobs anymore.... There is a reason to exaggerate and sensationalize claims. Its called survival. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[FloridaJohn]

 If global warming continues to be less and very slow versus what the climate models say....a lot of climate scientists won't have jobs anymore....

 

Are you saying that there is no reason to study the climate unless global warming is a "thing?" You don't think people would study the climate anyway?

 

If that is the case, then why do scientists study galaxies, gravitational waves, exoplanets? Most of those things were purely theoretical until recently. No one had ever seen one, or seen the effects of one, yet they continued to do research in those areas.

 

The weather has a lot more direct affect on humans, so I think it is unlikely that scientists would just stop studying it altogether.