2016 Global Temperatures

[nzucker]

Even if those numbers are correct, and I'm not so sure they are, that means that all low solar activity did is temporarily slightly slow the warming.

So unless solar activity got even lower, the higher rate of warming would resume shortly.

Where are those numbers from?

And isn't solar activity supposed to be lower the next 50 years?

[Chinook]

northern hemisphere winter 2015-2016 was a crazy 0.707 C above average as per these graphics

 

 

 

 

 

[blizzard1024]

He's had this all explained to him before.  He's not interested in learning and acknowledging this but rather just rehashing the same stupid arguments over and over again.

 

Your comments are inappropriate. You are totally biases by the heavily adjusted surface datasets. So you are telling me these are better than the satellite data over the oceans. What a joke. The NCEP reanalysis for March 2016 came in at +.88c for the 1981-2010 normal period.

 

I'm going to have to word this stronger than Chubb did. 

 

It's one month. That's how. A f****ing 8 year old could answer that question. 

 

Also, NCEP reanalysis is on a different baseline so it's not remotely comparable. Again 8 year old material.

 

And finally, the CFS has an identified error and was not designed as a long-term measure or indicator of global temperature. Again, 8 year old material. Except you've been explained this before, so really you are just a liar.

 

Sorry, not going to use the kid gloves on you. You should be embarrassed to post such stupid nonsense.

 

You are as naïve as a F**** 8 year old. You are an embarrassment to this site. Not me. I am a realistic. So a comment that states that the satellite data looks on track is an embarrassment?  The surface data and all its adjustments and air temperature over the ocean etc is much more flawed than the satellite data.  There are many scientists who agree with this. And you think these people are embarrassments??? really. grow up dude.

[SVT450R]

UAH V5.6 was a .85 for March down .05 from February making it the second hottest month on record.

[Snow_Miser]

GISS March 2016: +1.28

 

Second highest anomaly ever on record, only surpassed by February 2016.

 

Going to be near impossible to not see record warmth this year as a whole, with such a warm first quarter. 

[nflwxman]

GISS March 2016: +1.28

 

Second highest anomaly ever on record, only surpassed by February 2016.

 

Going to be near impossible to not see record warmth this year as a whole, with such a warm first quarter. 

 

A staggering first quarter of the year.  The J-M period recorded a 0.4C!! warmer than the 2nd place year (2015).  This is particularly impressive since the winter of 2015 was under the influence of a weak El Nino.

 

As far as future projections, It's tough to see where we go from here, but i'd imagine this will be the largest step up the global temperature "ladder" in human history.  My WAG: The period 2017-2020 will feature temperatures very close to that of the averages of 2015-2016 with continued anthropogenic forcing of methane and co2.  This major step up in surface temperatures will begin to reverberate through the system with increased atmospheric moisture and stronger rainfall events.  Who knows what the implications will be in the arctic, but if early this year is any indication, it will not be favorable.

 

Anyone tracking CO2 recently?  The year to year increase of CO2 levels this year at Mauna Loa are eye popping..

[Jonger]

A staggering first quarter of the year.  The J-M period recorded a 0.4C!! warmer than the 2nd place year (2015).  This is particularly impressive since the winter of 2015 was under the influence of a weak El Nino.

 

As far as future projections, It's tough to see where we go from here, but i'd imagine this will be the largest step up the global temperature "ladder" in human history.  My WAG: The period 2017-2020 will feature temperatures very close to that of the averages of 2015-2016 with continued anthropogenic forcing of methane and co2.  This major step up in surface temperatures will begin to reverberate through the system with increased atmospheric moisture and stronger rainfall events.  Who knows what the implications will be in the arctic, but if early this year is any indication, it will not be favorable.

 

Anyone tracking CO2 recently?  The year to year increase of CO2 levels this year at Mauna Loa are eye popping..

 

Has the year to year rate increased?

[chubbs]

Here is 2015/16 compared to 1997/98 from the Moyhu blog. March 2016 was 0.67C above March 1998 the largest monthly increase vs 97/98 so far.

[chubbs]

Below is a chart of progressive year-to-date GISS temperatures for recent years from Hotwopper. Temperatures should fall for the rest of the year as the el nino transitions to la nina like 2010 and 1998. For now I will stick with my 1.06 outlook for the 2016 annual average but the risk looks to be on the high-side due to the warm temperatures through March.

[nflwxman]

Has the year to year rate increased?

The last 2 years have seen a >3 ppm increase versus the year prior.  For the week ending this past Friday, we are 4.6 ppm higher than last year.  It's most likely related to the super nino, but the year to year increase is still significantly higher than anything we saw in 1998.

[Isotherm]

Your comments are inappropriate. You are totally biases by the heavily adjusted surface datasets. So you are telling me these are better than the satellite data over the oceans. What a joke. The NCEP reanalysis for March 2016 came in at +.88c for the 1981-2010 normal period.

 

 

You are as naïve as a F**** 8 year old. You are an embarrassment to this site. Not me. I am a realistic. So a comment that states that the satellite data looks on track is an embarrassment?  The surface data and all its adjustments and air temperature over the ocean etc is much more flawed than the satellite data.  There are many scientists who agree with this. And you think these people are embarrassments??? really. grow up dude.

 

 

I would tend to agree that the satellite datasets (e.g., UAH, RSS) are more trustworthy than the surface datasets. There have been reputable scientists who uncovered significant data manipulation, for example, in the GISS dataset [e.g., see the work of Dr. Ewert]. I trust independent sources which are not controlled by those who have a political agenda in terms of propelling the ideology. 

[Isotherm]

Obviously not all the warming is attributable to solar and volcanic activity...there is an anthropogenic component. But you can't expect a lot of cooling from one solar minimum after 150 years of high activity, at least not more than the standard .2C adjustment from peak to trough. The Maunder and Dalton were composed of many cycles, all lower than average. I'm sure there's cumulative radiative and albedo effects.

We have not had a climate influencing eruption since Pintabo in 1991. There was El Chichon in the 80s and the 1800s had a much stronger event in Tambora.

 

 

We had a thorough discussion in a solar thread back in September in which I posted numerous scientific studies demonstrating the cumulative component to solar forcing. Many attempt to confine solar activity to a small box of only radiative forcing variations as a consequence of TSI in the 11-year cycle. However, solar forcing upon the atmosphere is significantly more complicated than that. We have already begun to see the rate of warming decrease in the 2000-2016 period vs 1985-2000 as per the objective satellite data. If my hypothesis and the hypotheses of thousands of other independent scientists are correct, we will begin to notice a stronger response in the coming 10-20 years. As I've said numerous times, the upcoming period will be a crucial test phase for relative attribution of solar forcing.

[The_Global_Warmer]

The rate of warming slowed because of the record strong trade winds.

Post super nino 1998 global land ice everywhere saw accelerated melting.

The trades could only hold things in check so long.

Now the arctic is crushing records.

Upper ocean ohc is insane.

Just....nevermind.

It's not worth arguing.

[chubbs]

We had a thorough discussion in a solar thread back in September in which I posted numerous scientific studies demonstrating the cumulative component to solar forcing. Many attempt to confine solar activity to a small box of only radiative forcing variations as a consequence of TSI in the 11-year cycle. However, solar forcing upon the atmosphere is significantly more complicated than that. We have already begun to see the rate of warming decrease in the 2000-2016 period vs 1985-2000 as per the objective satellite data. If my hypothesis and the hypotheses of thousands of other independent scientists are correct, we will begin to notice a stronger response in the coming 10-20 years. As I've said numerous times, the upcoming period will be a crucial test phase for relative attribution of solar forcing.

RSS TTT recently updated to v4 - no slowdown here.

[Isotherm]

RSS TTT recently updated to v4 - no slowdown here.

RSS_TS_channel_TTT_Global_Land_And_Sea_v04_0.png

 

 

I was referring to the post 2000 rate of warming, which featured a decreased rate vs. the previous 15 year period. We will have to see the level at which we equalize following this super Nino event, as clearly, utilizing an endpoint of the past couple months would not be representative of the true trend line.

[Mallow]

I was referring to the post 2000 rate of warming, which featured a decreased rate vs. the previous 15 year period. We will have to see the level at which we equalize following this super Nino event, as clearly, utilizing an endpoint of the past couple months would not be representative of the true trend line.

 

Was the 2000-2015 rate of warming not similar to (or faster than) the 1980-1995 rate of warming in the satellite record? Obviously having 1997-1998 near the end of your 15-year time period is just as misleading as having 2015-2016 near the end of your 15-year time period.

[Msalgado]

The last 2 years have seen a >3 ppm increase versus the year prior.  For the week ending this past Friday, we are 4.6 ppm higher than last year.  It's most likely related to the super nino, but the year to year increase is still significantly higher than anything we saw in 1998.

 

As the temperature of water goes up, Henry's law states that the solubility of CO2 will drop.  As we've seen very warm oceans over the past couple of years it is quite likely that at least part of the increase is directly related to that.  I doubt that is all of it, though.  We are likely emitting more as well.

[ORH_wxman]

Was the 2000-2015 rate of warming not similar to (or faster than) the 1980-1995 rate of warming in the satellite record? Obviously having 1997-1998 near the end of your 15-year time period is just as misleading as having 2015-2016 near the end of your 15-year time period.

 

That whole period is problematic because of volcanic eruptions...ending in 1995 means you have a big Pinatubo influence at the end of a linear regression trend. There was also the 1982-1983 Super Nino which kind of got stunted by El Chicon, and the subsequent La Nina was very cold globally as a result (even the neutral year of 1986 was significantly colder than the neutral year of 1981 prior to El Chicon.

[Mallow]

That whole period is problematic because of volcanic eruptions...ending in 1995 means you have a big Pinatubo influence at the end of a linear regression trend. There was also the 1982-1983 Super Nino which kind of got stunted by El Chicon, and the subsequent La Nina was very cold globally as a result (even the neutral year of 1986 was significantly colder than the neutral year of 1981 prior to El Chicon.

 

Then subtract out the volcanic impact and recalculate. Better yet, subtract out the volcanic and ENSO impacts and recalculate.

[ORH_wxman]

Then subtract out the volcanic impact and recalculate. Better yet, subtract out the volcanic and ENSO impacts and recalculate.

Yeah I wish we could do volcanic impacts a bit more precise than we actually can. The tough part about it is since we're using pretty small time periods, an error of like 0.08C over two years or something ends up mattering. It would be just minor noise over like a 50-60 year period vs 15.

[chubbs]

Here is GISS with a running 15-year average to minimize enso and other short-term effects. For all the fuss about short-term trends, the long-term warming rate hasn't varied much since around 1970.

[Mallow]

Yeah I wish we could do volcanic impacts a bit more precise than we actually can. The tough part about it is since we're using pretty small time periods, an error of like 0.08C over two years or something ends up mattering. It would be just minor noise over like a 50-60 year period vs 15.

 

I think the point remains that there's no clear evidence that there has been a slow down in the long-term rate of warming (in satellite or surface-based datasets) over the past 10-20 years or so. At that point, you're getting down to a time period that's too short to make strong statements like that.

[Isotherm]

Disagree. A new paper was published this year (February) highlighting the existence of the slowdown period 2000-2015, regardless of attribution. A few quotes:

 

"It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming slowdown or hiatus, characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming, has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims."

 

"Fyfe says that his calculations show that the planet warmed at 0.170 °C per decade from 1972 to 2001, which is significantly higher than the warming of 0.113 °C per decade he calculates for 2000–14."

 

"Susan Solomon, a climatologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, says that Fyfe’s framework helps to put twenty-first-century trends into perspective, and clearly indicates that the rate of warming slowed down at a time when greenhouse-gas emissions were rising dramatically."

 

Secondary source article:

 

http://www.nature.com/news/global-warming-hiatus-debate-flares-up-again-1.19414#b2

 

 

Primary source article:

 

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n3/full/nclimate2938.html

[nflwxman]

Here is GISS with a running 15-year average to minimize enso and other short-term effects. For all the fuss about short-term trends, the long-term warming rate hasn't varied much since around 1970.

GISS15-year average.png

 

I've been hammering this point since 2012 (when I first posted here), but look at the last time the PDO went negative in the 40s. There was a noticeable and significant slump in global temperatures even in 15 year trends.  This time around, the -PDO phase barely caused a blip.  Increased forcing makes quite the difference.  Slowdowns in the rate of warming are going to happen the future, but a true decade long flatline in temperature will become increasingly hard without a major volcanic event.

[Isotherm]

I've been hammering this point since 2012 (when I first posted here), but look at the last time the PDO went negative in the 40s. There was a noticeable and significant slump in global temperatures even in 15 year trends.  This time around, the -PDO phase barely caused a blip.  Increased forcing makes quite the difference.  Slowdowns in the rate of warming are going to happen the future, but a true decade long flatline in temperature will become increasingly hard without a major volcanic event.

 

 

I would strongly doubt that the -PDO decadal phase has ended. I'm expecting that we shift back toward the negative state either later this year or in 2017, beginning a multi-year period of -PDO / Cold ENSO overall. There are typically interludes of positives, sometimes strongly positive, PDO values amidst the background state. 1957 through the middle of 1960 was predominately positive PDO, prior to transitioning back negative again for the duration of the 60s and 70s. The PDO has been positive for a little over 2 years now (Jan 2014-present). And yes, I know the 1957-60 period was not as strongly positive, but one cannot expect identical repeat performances in climate.

[skierinvermont]

We had a thorough discussion in a solar thread back in September in which I posted numerous scientific studies demonstrating the cumulative component to solar forcing. Many attempt to confine solar activity to a small box of only radiative forcing variations as a consequence of TSI in the 11-year cycle. However, solar forcing upon the atmosphere is significantly more complicated than that. We have already begun to see the rate of warming decrease in the 2000-2016 period vs 1985-2000 as per the objective satellite data. If my hypothesis and the hypotheses of thousands of other independent scientists are correct, we will begin to notice a stronger response in the coming 10-20 years. As I've said numerous times, the upcoming period will be a crucial test phase for relative attribution of solar forcing.

 

Nothing cannot be captured by radiative forcing. The whole purpose of radiative forcing is it is a measure of all energy flows.

 

Now, if solar caused a change in energy flows it would have a cumulative effect on absolute global T (just like any other forcing).

 

But the effect on the rate of temperature change is immediate. 

 

So cooling would commence immediately, but it would take many years for all the cooling to occur.

 

For math people, the underlying variable (global T) takes many years to see a full response, but the 2nd derivative (rate of T change) immediately sees a complete response. 

 

 

We have not seen that. The earth has gone right on gaining immense incomprehensible amounts of energy nearly completely ignoring any change in solar activity.

 

 

Another example is if you had a very big pot of water on a burner that is on low holding the pot at a constant 180F. There is a balance between the energy added to the pot (via the burner) and leaving the pot (via steam, conduction, etc).

 

If I turn the burner down (turn the sun down), the pot does not immediately cool to 150F. It takes several hours to fully cool (what some might call 'thermal inertia of the oceans' although that is not a very good term). But the cooling commences immediately.

 

 

What these deniers would have us believe is if I turn the burner down, the pot will not start cooling for several hours.

[Isotherm]

Nothing cannot be captured by radiative forcing. The whole purpose of radiative forcing is it is a measure of all energy flows.

 

Now, if solar caused a change in energy flows it would have a cumulative effect on absolute global T (just like any other forcing).

 

But the effect on the rate of temperature change is immediate. 

 

So cooling would commence immediately, but it would take many years for all the cooling to occur.

 

For math people, the underlying variable (global T) takes many years to see a full response, but the 2nd derivative (rate of T change) immediately sees a complete response. 

 

 

We have not seen that. The earth has gone right on gaining immense incomprehensible amounts of energy nearly completely ignoring any change in solar activity.

 

 

Another example is if you had a very big pot of water on a burner that is on low holding the pot at a constant 180F. There is a balance between the energy added to the pot (via the burner) and leaving the pot (via steam, conduction, etc).

 

If I turn the burner down (turn the sun down), the pot does not immediately cool to 150F. It takes several hours to fully cool. But the cooling commences immediately.

 

 

Yes, as we discussed in that thread, one should see a fairly quick response in the rate of warming.

 

However, it is your opinion (and apparently, most others here), that we haven't seen a change in the rate.

 

I have already posted scientific research and could post countless other studies demonstrating that the rate of warming has decreased over the past 15 years.

[HailMan06]

Nothing cannot be captured by radiative forcing. The whole purpose of radiative forcing is it is a measure of all energy flows.

Now, if solar caused a change in energy flows it would have a cumulative effect on absolute global T (just like any other forcing).

But the effect on the rate of temperature change is immediate.

So cooling would commence immediately, but it would take many years for all the cooling to occur.

For math people, the underlying variable (global T) takes many years to see a full response, but the 2nd derivative (rate of T change) immediately sees a complete response.

We have not seen that. The earth has gone right on gaining immense incomprehensible amounts of energy nearly completely ignoring any change in solar activity.

Another example is if you had a very big pot of water on a burner that is on low holding the pot at a constant 180F. There is a balance between the energy added to the pot (via the burner) and leaving the pot (via steam, conduction, etc).

If I turn the burner down (turn the sun down), the pot does not immediately cool to 150F. It takes several hours to fully cool (what some might call 'thermal inertia of the oceans' although that is not a very good term). But the cooling commences immediately.

What these deniers would have us believe is if I turn the burner down, the pot will not start cooling for several hours.

You're arguing with someone who believes that the surface temperature datasets are being maliciously altered to show more warming. I wouldn't waste my breath.

[Isotherm]

You're arguing with someone who believes that the surface temperature datasets are being maliciously altered to show more warming. I wouldn't waste my breath.

 

 

Rather than resort to ad hominem attacks, which seems to be a typical tactic of those who like to suppress/silence objective intellectual discourse, I'd suggest conducting more research of your own. Impugn the assertions with valid reasoning and rebuttals.

[HailMan06]

Rather than resort to ad hominem attacks, which seems to be a typical tactic of those who like to suppress/silence objective intellectual discourse, I'd suggest conducting more research of your own. Impugn the assertions with valid reasoning and rebuttals.

My apologies I try not to attack others but making the assertion that scientists are manipulating data for their own person reasons is completely false.

 

I have read the papers and comments from one of the RSS scientists themselves. If I have time and the literature isn't pay-walled I'll post the studies that support the surface temperature datasets.