2016 Global Temperatures

[Jonger]

RSS version 3.3 up 0.31 in Feb to a record 0.97 beating the 0.86 from April 1998.

RSS_TS_channel_TLT_Global_Land_And_Sea_v03_3.png

 

That fits the .126 per decade trend (closely).

[Jonger]

Spencer updated UAH, but the graph has a bad link. Any other source for that thing?

[Sophisticated Skeptic]

With all this going on, one would think there'd be massive storms and historic flooding globally.  But the additional heat might be helping to 'move things along' better...compared to other more stubborn patterns / blocking signatures ,etc.  

 

But still this is all very favorable in the long term for bigger storms globally. 

[chubbs]

Historic temperature and water vapor spike. Super El Nino +AGW is the real deal.

 

 

The recent wxbell temp spike on the chart above looks too large. It has been warm recently, but not that warm. The wxbell march month-to-date chart has a global anomaly of 0.887 so far, which agrees better with other sites

[blizzard1024]

With all this going on, one would think there'd be massive storms and historic flooding globally.  But the additional heat might be helping to 'move things along' better...compared to other more stubborn patterns / blocking signatures ,etc.  

 

But still this is all very favorable in the long term for bigger storms globally. 

 

Why would there be massive storms? the Arctic is at record warm levels and this reduces the temperature gradient between the high latitudes and the low latitudes reducing baroclinicity and hence storm activity. This fear mongering about more storms is baseless.

[Jonger]

Why would there be massive storms? the Arctic is at record warm levels and this reduces the temperature gradient between the high latitudes and the low latitudes reducing baroclinicity and hence storm activity. This fear mongering about more storms is baseless.

 

Yup, the storm fears have never panned out. If the arctic warmed slower, they might have though.

[Sophisticated Skeptic]

Yup, the storm fears have never panned out. If the arctic warmed slower, they might have though.

 

 

lol..climate change has barely even started. 

 

give it time. 

[Chinook]

I found a new web site to check temp anomalies from the GFS/ CFSR/ NCEP Reanalysis

 

http://www.karstenhaustein.com/climate.php

[The_Global_Warmer]

The most recent temp thread on WUWT is awesome.

The books have been cooked!!!

Apparently global cooling will be well underway by 2020.

One thing is for sure this nino has helped the SH oceans go beserker.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Incredible and completely unprecedented global ssts but especially for the SH.

Going back to 2009. 2016 is so warm it's almost hard to believe and it's quite crazy when you consider 2010 matched 1998 super nino in global ssta.

And now 2016 has absolutely skull crushed both years and curb stomped every other year since the early mid ages.

Absolutely insane. Beautiful and terrifying.

[chubbs]

Below are daily NCEP re-analysis surface temperatures from 1996 through March 4. The late Feb/early Mar peak is roughly 0.4C warmer than the max before this nino and roughly 0.5C warmer than the max in the 97/98 nino.

[Isotherm]

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

 

 

This El Nino - as per the OISST dataset - actually finished quite a bit stronger/warmer than 1998. So the comparison of Nino's may not be totally apples to apples, and one would expect 2016 to be warmer than 1998's peak due to the magnitude of the El Nino alone.

 

OISST – 2016 peak in region 3.4: +2.95C [November 2015]

 

OISST – 1998 peak in region 3.4: +2.69C [December 1997]

 

 

Thus, to me, the disparity between 1998’s peak global temperature anomaly and 2016’s global temperature anomaly– so far – is suggestive of mostly ENSO induced heat release superimposed upon the slow, background anthropogenic induced signal. The difference between the two years isn’t sufficient to assert that anthropogenic induced warming is contributing significantly or is largely responsible, especially considering 2016’s super Nino has been slightly stronger than 1998. The real test to me is not right now, but what occurs thereafter. If the post Nino drop is substantially less significant than prior Nino’s, it will be suggestive of variables beyond natural variation/solar forcing the warming trend.

[Mallow]

This El Nino - as per the OISST dataset - actually finished quite a bit stronger/warmer than 1998. So the comparison of Nino's may not be totally apples to apples, and one would expect 2016 to be warmer than 1998's peak due to the magnitude of the El Nino alone.

 

OISST – 2016 peak in region 3.4: +2.95C [November 2015]

 

OISST – 1998 peak in region 3.4: +2.69C [December 1997]

 

 

Thus, to me, the disparity between 1998’s peak global temperature anomaly and 2016’s global temperature anomaly– so far – is suggestive of mostly ENSO induced heat release superimposed upon the slow, background anthropogenic induced signal. The difference between the two years isn’t sufficient to assert that anthropogenic induced warming is contributing significantly or is largely responsible, especially considering 2016’s super Nino has been slightly stronger than 1998. The real test to me is not right now, but what occurs thereafter. If the post Nino drop is substantially less significant than prior Nino’s, it will be suggestive of variables beyond natural variation/solar forcing the warming trend.

 

Do you have evidence to support the assertion that 3.4 is more important than the full ENSO signal (for which 1998 is stronger, because it was significantly stronger in the East Pacific) for global temperatures?

[Jonger]

Below are daily NCEP re-analysis surface temperatures from 1996 through March 4. The late Feb/early Mar peak is roughly 0.4C warmer than the max before this nino and roughly 0.5C warmer than the max in the 97/98 nino.

NCEPreanalysisdaily.png

 

Interesting how you can clearly see the 2015-2016 el nino signal, but the 1997-1998 signal looks like a typical oscillation.

[HailMan06]

This El Nino - as per the OISST dataset - actually finished quite a bit stronger/warmer than 1998. So the comparison of Nino's may not be totally apples to apples, and one would expect 2016 to be warmer than 1998's peak due to the magnitude of the El Nino alone.

OISST – 2016 peak in region 3.4: +2.95C [November 2015]

OISST – 1998 peak in region 3.4: +2.69C [December 1997]

Thus, to me, the disparity between 1998’s peak global temperature anomaly and 2016’s global temperature anomaly– so far – is suggestive of mostly ENSO induced heat release superimposed upon the slow, background anthropogenic induced signal. The difference between the two years isn’t sufficient to assert that anthropogenic induced warming is contributing significantly or is largely responsible, especially considering 2016’s super Nino has been slightly stronger than 1998. The real test to me is not right now, but what occurs thereafter. If the post Nino drop is substantially less significant than prior Nino’s, it will be suggestive of variables beyond natural variation/solar forcing the warming trend.

I'm not sure that you can directly compare the anamoly differences of NINO 3.4 to the global anamoly. NINO 3.4 is a very tiny portion of the Earth's surface. You can't simply say that because NINO 3.4 is 0.3C warmer than the 1998 peak the globe would also warm by 0.3C, which you seem to be infering.

[Isotherm]

Do you have evidence to support the assertion that 3.4 is more important than the full ENSO signal (for which 1998 is stronger, because it was significantly stronger in the East Pacific) for global temperatures?

 

 

 

The greater anomalies in the eastern regions aren’t as impactful as the central/western regions due to the disparity in absolute temperatures/heat – specifically, +4C in region 1+2, is not as significant as +1.7c in region 4 in terms of absolute heat release.

 

If you note the differences in peak SST warmth b/t the two years – it was significant.

1998 climax: 29.50C [occurred in region 4]

2016 climax: 30.30C [occurred in region 4]

 

The climax in absolute SST warmth occurred in 2016 with a difference of +0.8C.

The warmer water further east in 1997-98 was impressive but still did not match the magnitude of absolute heat released further west in 2015-16. The anomalies were most impressive in the eastern regions in 1997-98, but the corresponding absolute warmth fell short due to the lower averages further east. So I would argue that regions 4 / 3.4 are a bit more important than regions 3 / 1.2 insofar as the climate response.

[Mallow]

The greater anomalies in the eastern regions aren’t as impactful as the central/western regions due to the disparity in absolute temperatures/heat – specifically, +4C in region 1+2, is not as significant as +1.7c in region 4 in terms of absolute heat release.

 

If you note the differences in peak SST warmth b/t the two years – it was significant.

1998 climax: 29.50C [occurred in region 4]

2016 climax: 30.30C [occurred in region 4]

 

The climax in absolute SST warmth occurred in 2016 with a difference of +0.8C.

The warmer water further east in 1997-98 was impressive but still did not match the magnitude of absolute heat released further west in 2015-16. The anomalies were most impressive in the eastern regions in 1997-98, but the corresponding absolute warmth fell short due to the lower averages further east. So I would argue that regions 4 / 3.4 are a bit more important than regions 3 / 1.2 insofar as the climate response.

 

I am not convinced that "absolute heat released" was greater in the Niño regions this year than in 1998. Do you have a calculation using integrated heat (presumably from SST) over area for the equatorial Pacific to support that? Moreover, do we know that "absolute heat released" over the Niño regions is the cause for the ENSO-global temperature correlations we observe? Isn't it much more complicated than just a surface heat exchange over the equatorial Pacific?

 

Additionally, even if we are to assume that you are right above, how does one separate the natural variability part from the anthropogenic part? In other words, if 2016 did have more "absolute heat release" over the ENSO boxes, why not assume the warmer SSTs are merely a consequence of the global warming since 1998?

[The_Global_Warmer]

No the difference is record ssts elsewhere.

And other regionalized factors like the arctic heat exchange being much different.

We were already ahead of 1998s peak before this nino even materialized at least at the surface.

[chubbs]

This El Nino - as per the OISST dataset - actually finished quite a bit stronger/warmer than 1998. So the comparison of Nino's may not be totally apples to apples, and one would expect 2016 to be warmer than 1998's peak due to the magnitude of the El Nino alone.

 

OISST – 2016 peak in region 3.4: +2.95C [November 2015]

 

OISST – 1998 peak in region 3.4: +2.69C [December 1997]

 

 

Thus, to me, the disparity between 1998’s peak global temperature anomaly and 2016’s global temperature anomaly– so far – is suggestive of mostly ENSO induced heat release superimposed upon the slow, background anthropogenic induced signal. The difference between the two years isn’t sufficient to assert that anthropogenic induced warming is contributing significantly or is largely responsible, especially considering 2016’s super Nino has been slightly stronger than 1998. The real test to me is not right now, but what occurs thereafter. If the post Nino drop is substantially less significant than prior Nino’s, it will be suggestive of variables beyond natural variation/solar forcing the warming trend.

Not surprising that 3.4 is warmer in 2015/16 vs 97/98 since ocean was 0.3 - 0.4C warmer when the nino started. MEI indicates that this was a slightly weaker nino. That said should look at all the data to estimate the trend and not focus solely on super nino conditions.

[chubbs]

NCEP re-analysis 300mb heights spiked upwards in Febuary like satellite TLT. Now well above previous nino peaks in 98 and 2010.

[Isotherm]

I am not convinced that "absolute heat released" was greater in the Niño regions this year than in 1998. Do you have a calculation using integrated heat (presumably from SST) over area for the equatorial Pacific to support that? Moreover, do we know that "absolute heat released" over the Niño regions is the cause for the ENSO-global temperature correlations we observe? Isn't it much more complicated than just a surface heat exchange over the equatorial Pacific?

 

Additionally, even if we are to assume that you are right above, how does one separate the natural variability part from the anthropogenic part? In other words, if 2016 did have more "absolute heat release" over the ENSO boxes, why not assume the warmer SSTs are merely a consequence of the global warming since 1998?

 

 

Well, the primary mechanisms by which heat is transferred to the lower troposphere in an El Nino event is via increases in tropical Pacific surface temperatures and evaporation / condensation / latent heat release through convective processes. My hypothesis is that this heat exchange process is enhanced when absolute sea surface temperatures are higher in the tropical Pacific, and thus the LT response is a bit more significant. No, I have not done any calculations, but it makes sense (IMO) given what we know meteorologically.

 

I’m not arguing that this recent LT spike is devoid of anthropogenic contribution. In fact, I think the background AGW forcing has likely played a role. It is difficult to determine relative attribution at this point, with the data available. However, if we compare the two el ninos, I think the 2015-16 should be more effective in transferring heat into the lower troposphere due to the warmer absolute tropical pacific SST’s and thus the accelerated convective / latent heat process. While 1997-98 may have been “stronger” due to its anomalous east based nature, 2015-16 may have been more effective in warming the lower troposphere due to the aforementioned reasons.

[Mallow]

Well, the primary mechanisms by which heat is transferred to the lower troposphere in an El Nino event is via increases in tropical Pacific surface temperatures and evaporation / condensation / latent heat release through convective processes. My hypothesis is that this heat exchange process is enhanced when absolute sea surface temperatures are higher in the tropical Pacific, and thus the LT response is a bit more significant. No, I have not done any calculations, but it makes sense (IMO) given what we know meteorologically.

 

I’m not arguing that this recent LT spike is devoid of anthropogenic contribution. In fact, I think the background AGW forcing has likely played a role. It is difficult to determine relative attribution at this point, with the data available. However, if we compare the two el ninos, I think the 2015-16 should be more effective in transferring heat into the lower troposphere due to the warmer absolute tropical pacific SST’s and thus the accelerated convective / latent heat process. While 1997-98 may have been “stronger” due to its anomalous east based nature, 2015-16 may have been more effective in warming the lower troposphere due to the aforementioned reasons.

 

Regarding your first point, I think you hit on an important point--that is, the latent heat release via convection. In that sense, the biggest sensitivity should come from the area of SSTs that are beyond the convective threshold temperature, which can occur even in the eastern regions with strong enough positive anomalies.

 

Regarding your second point, I don't think I was clear enough... let me put my question another way. If you believe that the most important aspect of the 2016 El Niño is that it had stronger warmth in Niño 3.4 than did the 1998 El Niño (because of its effectiveness at transferring heat into the lower troposphere), why don't you assume that that additional SST warmth is CAUSED by the overall global warming since 1998. In other words, if the water was 1°C warmer this year, how much of that is just the higher baseline temperature? We can't assume it's zero.

[The_Global_Warmer]

My God the Southern Hemisphere is on FIRE!!!

And it's almost all between the equator and 40S.

Truly off the charts

[A-L-E-K]

impressive

[chubbs]

ECMWF ERA reanalysis was up 0.14 in Febuary to 0.86. Feb 2016 was 0.49 higher than the previous Feb max in 2010 and 2015; and 0.32 higher than Jan 2007 which was the max month before this nino.

http://climate.copernicus.eu/resources/data-analysis/average-surface-air-temperature-analysis/monthly-maps/february-2016

[skierinvermont]

This El Nino - as per the OISST dataset - actually finished quite a bit stronger/warmer than 1998. So the comparison of Nino's may not be totally apples to apples, and one would expect 2016 to be warmer than 1998's peak due to the magnitude of the El Nino alone.

 

OISST – 2016 peak in region 3.4: +2.95C [November 2015]

 

OISST – 1998 peak in region 3.4: +2.69C [December 1997]

 

 

Thus, to me, the disparity between 1998’s peak global temperature anomaly and 2016’s global temperature anomaly– so far – is suggestive of mostly ENSO induced heat release superimposed upon the slow, background anthropogenic induced signal. The difference between the two years isn’t sufficient to assert that anthropogenic induced warming is contributing significantly or is largely responsible, especially considering 2016’s super Nino has been slightly stronger than 1998. The real test to me is not right now, but what occurs thereafter. If the post Nino drop is substantially less significant than prior Nino’s, it will be suggestive of variables beyond natural variation/solar forcing the warming trend.

 

Are these raw or trendline removed anomalies? Because if they are raw, the .3C warmer reading in 2015 is explained by a baseline increase in global temperatures and ocean temperatures. Thus the two Ninos would be exactly comparable in terms of magnitude. 

 

Moreover, a .3C difference is splitting hairs.

 

Plus that is one month. What was the peak trimonthly? And what was the peak across the whole ENSO region not just 3.4?

 

 

EDIT: Looks like Mallow already hit on almost all these points.

 

 

I'm not ruling out the possibility this Nino cause a greater spike in temperature due to the nature of the Nino. But I don't think the evidence you've offered thus far comes nearly close to supporting that idea. It seems more like wish-casting based on one metric rather than a comprehensive analysis with respect to time, space and dynamics.

 

If I had to guess, I'd actually guess you are right simply because the temperature spike IS bigger than 1998 (I think - somebody correct me if I'm wrong). Whether this is due to the magnitude/nature of the Nino is the question. My guess is you are probably right. But I'm not willing to just assume that.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Just comparing right now versus 2010. The difference is staggering.

Clearly the current global ssts are above the current equilibrium.

However we are clearly in a much more rapidly warming phase.

The 0-100M, 0-300M, and 0-700M OHC shows the last 5 years after roughly 7-8 years of much slower OHC rise has accelerated upwards again.

There will be a solid drop in global temperature in 2017.

However it's almost certain 2017 will be at least at 2014 levels which is currently the 2nd warmest year on record.

Its about to be the 3rd warmest once 2016 shatters 2015 which shattered 2014.

The GISS anomaly is looking like it might end up around 0.85C to 0.90C+.

By no means am I calling anyone out.

But back in 2014 the general consensus was that going above 0.70C+ for a year before 2020 isn't a guarantee.

2015 already decimated that and 2016 will certainly be above 0.80C+.

We might not have another year below 0.70C+ on GISS without a volcano or a year long strong Nina. Not 5-8 months but a legit 10-15 month Nina.

The South Pacific for March is going to crush the previous ssta monthly record.

The SH itself will also crush the previous.

And the Indian ocean has a shot as well.

[chubbs]

Below is GISS for 97-98 and for 2015-16. The average difference between 15/16 and 97/98 over the past 13 months is 0.40C. The difference bounces around from month-to-month and, with the month-to-month variability, there isn't enough data yet to to indicate any differences between the two ninos other than the 0.4C warmer offset for the current nino. Need to get through the peak and into the aftermath to make a full comparison.

[bluewave]

Below is GISS for 97-98 and for 2015-16. The average difference between 15/16 and 97/98 over the past 13 months is 0.40C. The difference bounces around from month-to-month and, with the month-to-month variability, there isn't enough data yet to to indicate any differences between the two ninos other than the 0.4C warmer offset for the current nino. Need to get through the peak and into the aftermath to make a full comparison.

GISS97-98.png

 

My guess is that we hold onto the warmth longer into the year than 1998 did since the cooling is running behind 1998 levels.

 

March 2016

 

 

March 1998

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[skierinvermont]

Below is GISS for 97-98 and for 2015-16. The average difference between 15/16 and 97/98 over the past 13 months is 0.40C. The difference bounces around from month-to-month and, with the month-to-month variability, there isn't enough data yet to to indicate any differences between the two ninos other than the 0.4C warmer offset for the current nino. Need to get through the peak and into the aftermath to make a full comparison.

GISS97-98.png

 

I was suggesting if you go back a few years, the current bounce is more pronounced. The conditions in early 1997 weren't comparable to early 2015.