Home/BlogNOTE: This is the fourth monthly update with our new Version 6.0 dataset. Differences versus the old Version 5.6 dataset are discussed here.
The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for July, 2015 is +0.18 deg. C, down considerably from the June, 2015 value of +0.33 deg. C (click for full size version):
The global, hemispheric, and tropical LT anomalies from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 7 months are:
YR MO GLOBE NH SH TROPICS
2015 1 +0.28 +0.40 +0.16 +0.13
2015 2 +0.18 +0.30 +0.05 -0.06
2015 3 +0.17 +0.26 +0.07 +0.05
2015 4 +0.09 +0.18 -0.01 +0.10
2015 5 +0.29 +0.36 +0.21 +0.28
2015 6 +0.33 +0.41 +0.25 +0.46
2015 7 +0.18 +0.33 +0.03 +0.48
Strong July cooling occurred in the Southern Hemisphere extratropics, with a weak drop in the Northern Hemisphere extratropics. The tropics continue to warm with El Nino conditions there.
The global image for July, 2015 should be available in the next several days here.
The new Version 6 files (use the ones labeled “beta2”) should be updated soon, and are located here:
Lower Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tlt
Mid-Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tmt
Tropopause: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/ttp
Lower Stratosphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tls
More of the same.
It is going to be quite interesting going forward from here now that solar activity has started to decline.
AGW theory has taken away so much of where the real focus should be when it comes to the science of climate.
That being climate governors and how they are stressed.
I think there is more then one climate governor or regulator. One is terrestrial bound as Willis has suggested(tropical governor for example) , which is subject to terrestrial changes such as land/ocean arrangements, volcanic activity, ice dynamics and clouds to name a few.
The other climate regulator I think is extra -terrestrial due to Milankovitch Cycles, which is subject to solar variability, extra terrestrial impacts, super nova, geo magnetic strength to name a few.
The dynamics of how all this relates then determines how effective the climate governors are which can vary from being able to maintain a stable climate lasting 1000’s of years to one that can change from an inter-glacial state to a glacial state over a rather short time period, but nevertheless will still be range bound to a degree in that the climate will not keep going in a warm/cold direction indefinitely.
The big unknown are climatic thresholds due to all of the above which are very likely to occur due to the fact the climatic system of the earth is chaotic, random and non linear and when it changes it does so in step fashion rather then in a slow gradual fashion.
All of that being evidence of thresholds in the climatic system.
This area is being so over looked because of the obsession we have with AGW theory unfortunately.
“…here is my prediction for climate going forward, this decade will be the decade of cooling.”
– Salvatore del Prete, 11/23/2010
http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2010/10/20/andrew-dessler-debating-richard-lindzen/#comment-8875
By the summer of 2013 the arctic will be ice free
Al gore
Avidly supported by David a
“…2013 the arctic will be ice-free…”
From the LA Times, May 16th 1972:
“Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice-cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000…Weather across the Northern half of the USA would be 20-25 Degrees F warmer than it is now.”
That is not what Al Gore said. Get your facts straight.
Al has been so quiet lately. I wonder why. I guess even the screechiest of alarmists reach the point when they realize that everyone is laughing at them.
I don’t know what Al Gore is thinking. Neither do you. But he definitely had a large impact on the issue.
My favorite Al Gore is when his face turns from pink to red to purple and he pushes his nose out of joint while he pounds the table with his fists screaming “Bullshit! Bullshit!”
Large impact on the table.
Some people seem unable to mention Al Gore without lying.
David A:
You are the one who has said climate conjecture cannot be “tested.”
You avoid subjecting the CAGW hypothesis to testing by ignoring the abject failures of Hansen and FAR predictions put forward more than twenty years ago. That absolutely falsifies it.
Yet, you jump to attack Salvatore when he has had only five years to fulfill his predictions.
Your previous post comments breach the 1st Law of T and you scurry off to hide under the bed covers when challenged.
Your are somewhat inconsistent. NO, that’s not right: you are perfectly consistent. Just what I expect from you.
“Your previous post comments breach the 1st Law of T”
Boo-ring. If you really want to shoot Roy in his foot, start complaining about the 1st law of thermodynamics.
Hugh…
If I want you to write on my behalf I will ask you!
If I want your advice I will ask you.
The usual saying is don’t call me etc.
“You are the one who has said climate conjecture cannot be “tested.””
Never said that in my life. Get your facts straight.
Really.
I must have invented the following:
David A. says:
November 4, 2014 at 11:45 AM
“Climate science isn’t an experimental science — you can’t do experiments with the only climate you have. (You also can’t do that in many areas of geology, ecology, evolutionary biology, epidemiology, medicine, astronomy, and more.) No one has defined a clear, quantifiable, falsifiable hypothesis about whether smoking causes lung cancer. Yet the evidence that it does is overwhelming. It’s the same with climte science:”
.
TonyM: My comment was correct. It also did not include the word “tested,” which you put in quotes and attributed to me. That was wrong.
“You avoid subjecting the CAGW hypothesis to testing by ignoring the abject failures of Hansen and FAR predictions put forward more than twenty years ago. That absolutely falsifies it.”
False. In fact, climate models predict total warming to within 5%:
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/07/gistemp-only-004c-behind-models.html
Nonsense. This is what you said:
David,
you should get your facts right. You are either delusional or lack introspection. I am never surprised at your obfuscation and avoidance but to openly be in denial of your own statements when I have hit you with it a few times now is bemusing.
But then to be in denial is common among extreme warmists; denial of science.
How could you forget when you made a most profound statement that goes at the core of science itself saying:
David A. says:
November 4, 2014 at 11:45 AM
“Climate science isn’t an experimental science — you can’t do experiments with the only climate you have. (You also can’t do that in many areas of geology, ecology, evolutionary biology, epidemiology, medicine, astronomy, and more.) No one has defined a clear, quantifiable, falsifiable hypothesis about whether smoking causes lung cancer. Yet the evidence that it does is overwhelming. It’s the same with climte science:”
tonyM says:
November 4, 2014 at 7:36 PM
“David,
You now have me in stitches. You wish to hang on to the “science” label but not subject it to testing. What you claim is not science, by definition. Feynman has some really nice colourful ways to talk about the scientific method and cargo cult science.
Pointless taking it any further.
And you are wrong that it can’t be tested. Every quantifiable prediction ever made based on whatever ephemeral, fairy land hypothesis you have in mind is a test of that elusive hypothesis. Even stating we are going to warm by X is a test. The only difference is you don’t wish to be subjected to hypothesis testing.
I will give Hansen his dues; he did have the guts to subject his hypothesis to testing.”
The whole conjecture fails and no amount of Karlizing, homogenizing, pasteur”eyes”ing or criticizing skeptic findings or denial of science on your part will fix that.
Tony: As I showed originally, many aspects of certain sciences are not testable in the traditional sense of experimental science. That doesn’t make them wrong, just that they are applied sciences based on more fundamental sciences that are experimenable testable — in this case, of the Planck law, of CO2’s molecular and radiative properties, of conservation of energy, etc.
If you have a way to do a unique, controlled test of AGW, now would be the time to put it forward.
AGW lies on the ground in rags and tatters, a tottering heap of junk science and solitary last ditch stands notwithstanding.
“AGW lies on the ground in rags and tatters….”
Only in your mind. Read the scientific journals. Talk to the scientists. Go to their conferences. Scientists now take AGW for granted — it is a known, proven phenomena. Now they’re working out the consequences.
David A, so far it looks like his prediction is going well.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2010/plot/rss/from:2010/trend
The decade started in 2011, not 2010.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2011/plot/rss/from:2011/trend
When did the century start, David. For me it started in 2000; hence 2010 is the first year of the second decade. Quibbling aside, we have seen a cooling trend since 2010, have we not?
Sal is right on target.
Myself, I don’t like cooling. It kills.
The century started in 2001. We don’t begin counting years (or anything) with 0, we begin counting them with 1.
“Quibbling aside, we have seen a cooling trend since 2010, have we not?”
Absolutely not. It’s absurd to talk about trends over 4.5 years — the noise is huge, and therefore the uncertainty in any calculated trend is huge.
Why don’t you calculate the trend’s uncertainty for me?
For that matter, why doens’t WFT? Not doing so makes their results useless.
David,
Yours is a fantasy land.
He was right so far:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2010/plot/rss/from:2010/trend
So, what’s your point?
Oops. Hadn’t scrolled down to Richard M yet.
Bart, he’s just being a Major League (David)A…
Bart: The decade started in 2011. Have another look:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2011/plot/rss/from:2011/trend
See my comment above @ 3:43 am
See my earlier comment. Decades start with a year ending in one.
I think everyone should also take a look at the study by Murry Salby on the delineation between natural CO2 and human caused Co2. Excellent scientific and logical analysis. Mr. Spencer, you and Murry should combine your minds…good stuff. Video of his lecture below:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCya4LilBZ8
So where does Salby think all our CO2 emissions have gone??
No replies???
Does not look El Nino-ish from this dataset.
It does to me. Look at the anomaly for the tropics. However, it is interesting that so far this has not spread across the planet as usually happens during an El Nino. I wonder what is different this time?
This may answer your questiion. Just take the time to watch it through.
https://youtu.be/w4hbKF5-qUE
But it does not matter if the temperatures spike due to an El Nino ,because it is a natural driver of the climate. El Nino having nothing to do with AGW unless it could be proven AGW is causing more El Nino’s, which as of today is NOT the case.
And never has been nor ever will be the case. As Dr. Roy explained on his previous post, ENSO is all about the rate of oceanic overturning/circulation, particularly in the eastern tropical Pacific.
However, ENSO is not understood by AGW types, who insist that the warming comes not from insolation but from the ocean itself in a “redistribution” of warm water. AGW is a tottering pile of rubbish.
“However, ENSO is not understood by AGW types, who insist that the warming comes not from insolation but from the ocean itself”
Really? Can you point to one credible “AGW type” scientist who holds this view? Kindly provide a quote or a link to a webpage. I can’t imagine anyone who thinks such a blatant violation of Conservation of Energy would be correct. (Sure, there might be some kooks on the fringes who might say such a thing, but it is hardly worth combating the kooks on either side).
Tim, do you have any non-kooks on your side?
One Steve Fitzpatrick blogging here a few weeks ago insisted that El Ninos were the redistribution of western Pacific “pooled” waters. Another, one Slipstick, a frequent blogger here, claims El Ninos to be “pockets of warm water” coughed up somehow by the ocean. They have both been corrected, by yours truly, but they refuse to be corrected. I have discussed this with a few other AGW types who all seem to buy into the “redistribution” hypothesis. I assume they imbibe this swill from such sites as SKS, HotWhoppers, RealClimate™.
Here is the exchange at Roy’s July 14 post:
Steve Fitzpatrick says:
July 15, 2015 at 6:27 PM
What the “AGW types” normally use as an argument against say Bob Tisdale’s expositions on the subject of ENSO and “global warming” is something to this effect:
“But where’s the energy coming from? How can ENSO create global warming when it’s only redistributing heat in the ocean!?”
These ‘types’ hang out a lot on sites like SkS. So I guess Folkerts here should go over there and give them a lecture.
Or all they all ‘kooks’ anyway, so why bother ‘combating’ them?
Considering they start from the premise that the cold atmosphere warms the oceans more than the sun, it is not hard to see how they get caught up in the “redistribution” meme.
Plus, redistribution is how they see fixing the economy as well.
So it sounds like that on the short term, an El Nino *is* a redistribution of thermal energy. More of the warm water is nearer the surface, leading to a larger-than-usual energy flow from ocean to atmosphere. In La Nina, the opposite occurs.
But of course, in the long term, the energy to warm the ocean came from the sun, not from teh ocean itself.
In any case, it seems like many people (on both sides) are oversimplifying the whole topic.
“But of course, in the long term, the energy to warm the ocean came from the sun, not from teh ocean itself.”
_______
Gosh Tim, you seem to be getting it. Get off the ship before it sinks.
Yes, Folkerts, you have answered your own question. The kooks are everywhere, including universities, NOAA, AGW blogs. In regard to the water flowing eastwards across ten thousand miles of the equatorial Pacific (the redistribution) at what rate does this flow?….and the crickets go chirp, chirp
It comes down to ignorance of what occurs in the southern oceans.The ENSO cycle is simply a response to the variable upwelling off the west coast of South America, itself being a component of the ocean overturning coupled to the circumpolar Antarctic Convergence Zone, where frigid water subsides beneath warmer waters.
When the upwelling is strong, La Nina conditions obtain. As the cool water flows west, it warms under the tropical sun. Thus there is a SST temperature gradient at the equator from the warmer west to the cooler east, with about 10° C difference.
This is where the poor lame brain AGW types get confused. In the coupled ocean-atmosphere ENSO cycle, all depends on the cool surface waters of the eastern tropical Pacific-the upwelling. The trade winds result from this (cool surface in the east, warm in the west) and these push the water westward as the equatorial current.
When the upwelling slows or stops, the surface water in the east warms via insolation. The coupled system grinds to a halt; the trade winds weaken, then stop, as does the equatorial current. Eastern waters warm in situ, from insolation. The AGW types hate to admit that the sun can warm anything, but in fact, the warming during the La Nina phase is the same; the eastern waters then flow west while being warmed under the sun.
The last paragraph refers to El Nino.
Kevin Trenberth et al. on the ENSO process:
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/papers/2000JD000298.pdf
And
The Trenberth et al paper is notable in that in the whole 22 page study there is not to be found the the word “upwelling”. Trenberth et al have banished from ENSO studies the mainspring of the ENSO cycle, and the bleating AGW herd follows.
The upwelling has its counterpart west of Africa, as part of what oceanographers term “western boundary currents”- cold water upwelling which creates the trade winds and equatorial currents. The Atlantic equatorial current eventually flows into the Caribbean and through the Gulf of Mexico. It is then called the Gulf Stream.
The upwelling off the west coast of South America is known to oceanographers as the Humboldt Current. It provides some insights into how the earth’s surface temperature is maintained at above theoretical levels, i.e., the 255° K of theory.
Consider: the upwelling brings water from depth at a temperature circa 4°C. It upwells at, say, one meter/day and reaches the photic zone at 100 meters depth and starts to warm via insolation; it reaches the surface offshore Peru at circa 22° C. From that point it is driven west by the trade winds, warming under the tropical sun as it flows westward. It eventually warms to 30°C.
So we see that insolation at the earth’s surface suffices to warm from 4°C to 30 °C. The AGW hypothesis holds that such cannot happen according to black body and Stephan-Boltzmann physics. But the ocean is not a black body and S-B physics gives spurious results when applied to the earth’s surface. The thermal inertia of water and the accumulation by the ocean of the energy of insolation is ignored by the AGW crowd, who spin their theoretical junk science without reference to observations.
? for Tim Folkberts.
When you say the water piles up “This actually piles up water (about half a meter’s worth) in the western part of the Pacific. In the eastern part, deeper water (which is colder than the sun-warmed surface water) gets pulled up from below to replace the water pushed ”
it doesn’t immediately make sense. A half meter of water would hardly make a measureable difference in the rest of the Pacific, even the Atlantic. One can suppose that the water is turning over, the warm waters being pushed west, pile up causing that on the bottom to push down and back. A constant wind would do that. Then when the wind stopped blowing that direction, for a period of time, the water would settle back, with the warmer water spreading east.
Am I following this correctly?
mpainter says, August 4, 2015 at 5:14 AM:
“The Trenberth et al paper is notable in that in the whole 22 page study there is not to be found the the word “upwelling”. Trenberth et al have banished from ENSO studies the mainspring of the ENSO cycle, and the bleating AGW herd follows.”
Not so. In the conclusions, Trenberth says:
However, it is hardly the upwelling in the east that drives the ENSO cycle. Upwelling of cool subsurface waters in the tropical East Pacific is a part result of the shallow thermocline in that region, in turn a product of the trade winds normally blowing from east to west.
Kristian,
Thanks for the Trenberth et al quote.
So in a 22 page study he uses the word “upwelling” once, in an aside. My point stands: the El Nino/La Nina cycle is the effect of upwelling conditions west of South America. More specifically, the effect of eastern boundary current conditions offshore western SA.
You say
“However, it is hardly the upwelling in the east that drives the ENSO cycle. Upwelling of cool subsurface waters in the tropical East Pacific is a part result of the shallow thermocline in that region, in turn a product of the trade winds normally blowing from east to west.”
####
Most assuredly it is the upwelling in the eastern Pacific, and the fluctuations thereof that drive the El Nino/La Nina cycle.
You demonstrate the typical confusion over ENSO cause and effect. You have it backwards: it is the upwelling that produces the shallow thermocline, and not the reverse. It is the upwelling that causes the trade winds, and not the reverse. The trade winds do not create themselves, as your version has it, nor does the shallow thermocline just “happen”. These are the effect of the upwelling and the cool surface waters of the eastern Pacific.
The upwelling originates with the Humboldt Current,aka known as the Peru current, known in oceanographic terms as an eastern boundary current (which see). Eastern Boundary currents (examples:the Benguela current, the Peru current, California current) generate upwelling.The operative
mechanism which produces the upwelling is a manifestation of the Coriolis Force known as Eckmann transport, aka known as the Eckmann Pump (which, see).
Trade winds increase upwelling but do not initiate it. Failure of the upwelling means weakening and eventual cessation of the trade winds. But as long as the upwelling continues (the normal state, with cool surface water in the east), so do the trade winds. El Nino results from the cessation of the upwelling, which in fact is a weakening of the Humboldt Current.
Painter, little confused here… the trade winds are created by the rotation of the earth (no?). How might this fit into what your saying?
Fonzarelli,
If the rotation of the earth causes trade winds,they would not weaken and cease during an El Nino. Rotation never quits; trade winds do.
Wind is caused by atmospheric pressure differentials. This condition is supplied by a cool surface in the east (high pressure) and a warm surface in the west (low pressure).
It is not complicated. Cool water in the eastern Pacific is the normal condition, this condition maintained by the upwelling. When the Humboldt Current weakens, upwelling falters, the surface warms, the trade winds weaken and quit, likewise the equatorial current, and the surface water warms even more under the tropical sun- this is El Nino.
Resumption of the upwelling restores the normal conditions of cool surface in the eastern tropical Pacific, trade winds, equatorial current. La Nina is the phase when these conditions are especially strong, and this condition usually follows on the heels of El Nino.
It should not be difficult to grasp :
Eastern boundary current===>upwelling===>cool surface waters===>trade winds===>equatorial current
painter, i over simplified there for the sake of brevity… Trade winds are caused by the north/south (s/n in the sh) flow of air being deflected by the rotation of the earth toward the west. NOT by some pressure difference from cooler east to warmer west. This is well known and it sounds like you’re offering a counter explanation for why trade winds exist. (trade winds exist around the globe, not just in the pacific) El Ninos cause a prevailing weather pattern that disrupt the trades. But, that doesn’t render null and void the process that causes trade winds…
As well, trade winds don’t exactly cease during an el nino. Note that hurricanes still generally travel from east to west during an el nino only changing course when they hit the prevailing winds (caused by the el nino)…
Fonzarelli, you say:
“painter, i over simplified there for the sake of brevity… ”
###
Indeed, more than you realize. Study Walker Cell and Hadley Cell and the reconcile the two w/r to the conditions of the tropical eastern Pacific. To reconcile, you must explain Hadley Circulation when tropical waters are _cooler_ than subtropical and extra_tropical waters. Go read up and learn about it.
####
You also say :
“But, that doesn’t render null and void the process that causes trade winds…”
####
How do you explain the the fact that the Pacific trade winds stop during El Nino? …The earth does not stop rotation, does it? It is Walker Circulation that makes the Pacific trade winds, augmented by Hadley Circulation. But the Walker Cell is the driver, and that depends on a cool surface in the eastern tropical Pacific.
Fonzarelli, you say
“As well, trade winds don’t exactly cease during an el nino. Note that hurricanes still generally travel from east to west during an el nino only changing course when they hit the prevailing winds (caused by the el nino)…”
#####
El Nino has nothing to do with hurricanes, which are confined to the North Atlantic and contiguous waters. Nor am I aware that trade winds have anything to do with hurricanes.
fonzarelli,
You’ve got it correct. It is mpainter here that’s got it backwards.
Corrected nesting:
mpainter says:
August 6, 2015 at 10:19 AM
Also, my friend, Pacific trade winds certainly weaken as El Nino intensifies, becoming intermittent and stopping all together at the peak of El Nino, when SST of the eastern tropical Pacific maximizes. Trade winds resume with restoration of upwelling, maximizing when SST in the eastern tropical Pacific is at the lowest point.
mpainter,
It’s the tradewinds that cause the normal tropical pattern of cool east and warm west and the accompanying shallow eastern thermocline and deep western one.
Kristian,
Too much nesting. See my response at the bottom.
How much of sea level rise is caused by warming of the sea water? If the number is relatively large, then sea level should be proportional to the temp. Other than at near freezing temps top and bottom,it should make no difference how granular the temp is.
Dear Fred,
Your question in a sense sounds easy, but it is harder than it seems.
The coefficient of thermal expansion of water is well established by experiments. This tells you how much water will expand if it is warmed. But unfortunately, the expansion coefficient depends on temperature, pressure (i.e. depth in oceans) and salinity. The relationship is quite complicated in fact. See for example this plot:
http://www.nature.com/srep/2012/121218/srep00993/fig_tab/srep00993_F3.html
No sane person can argue with the data since experiments have been done for hundreds of years, (even these days in middle school science classes). Water expands when heated, but not in a uniform way.
Given that our oceans vary in temperature, density, and pressure by depth and location, a simple answer to the question “How much sea level rise is due to thermal expansion?” is not simple. Nevertheless, there are many computational models estimating this. Predicting thermal expansion given a prescribed rise in sea water temperatures (although tricky) is still a much, much, MUCH easier calculation than deciding what the surface temperature rise might be given a rise in CO2.
A rough estimate is that approximately half of the rapid sea level rise in the last 100 years is due to thermal expansion and the other half due to melting of the major ice sheets and glaciers. This percentage is likely to stay somewhat constant in the near term but may decrease if major ice fields destabilize. There is enough ice in
Greenland to raise global sea level by about 6 meters and ten times that in Antarctica. I am not saying all this ice will melt anytime soon, rather that the increase in the rate of melting given an atmospheric temperature change is much more speculative than the thermal expansion of the oceans given a temperature rise of the oceans.
There is a lot of heated rhetoric on websites like this about whether the climate is warming, or how much, or whether it is natural or man-made. But there should be no arguments about what a warming planet will mean for sea levels. It is “simple” physics. Warmer oceans mean
higher sea-levels. Uncertainty in the estimates of sea-level due to temperature rise are dominated by uncertainties in the rise and distribution of ocean temperatures and not by the understanding of thermal expansion.
Unless of course you are Doug Cotton. Then everything we know about thermal physics can be disproved simply by repeating semantic nonsense.
L.M.
L Morgan,
If I recall the math correctly, taking an estimate of the volume of ice fields in Antarctica and assuming it melted at the same rate as the glaciers have been melting, it would take another 20,000 years to melt and the oceans would rise another 200 to 250 feet.
That being the case, I believe P Obama is correct in trying to shut down the electricity production in the US, thereby raising costs on all, which will affect the poor much more than the rich. Which will, of course, be offset by a higher minimum wage, on jobs which aren’t being produced.
“But there should be no arguments about what a warming planet will mean for sea levels.”
Really?
But the question is how little and how slowly, and that is the argument. I don’t think the seas will warm deeply. Only very cold saline water may sink. If the sea surface temp goes up, increasing evaporation will increase albedo. I hope it does not cause glaciation.
The models can’t get it right because you’d need to get the parameters right and the question is computationally impossible.
Morgan, the ipcc pegs it at 80% thermal expansion and 20% ice melt…
Then prove me wrong L Morgan …
Watch https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-TXYe4rJp0xmbBh51AD8jptu34LAJc-b
There’s details as to how to submit a claim for the $5,000 reward for proving me wrong in this comment.
Also, my friend, Pacific trade winds certainly weaken as El Nino intensifies, becoming intermittent and stopping all together at the peak of El Nino, when SST of the eastern tropical Pacific maximizes. Trade winds resume with restoration of upwelling, maximizing when SST in the eastern tropical Pacific is at the lowest point.
What’s noticeable, of course, is how much warmer the surface is for this El Nino compared to that of 1997-98. There’s your warming.
I looked at the graph of AMSU temps and Ch. 9 (lower stratosphere). Raw data was above all years listed since 2002. Very interesting. Wonder if that will continue into the coming months.
https://ghrc.nsstc.nasa.gov/amsutemps/
If we don’t get our El Niño spike soon, do we get our money back?
I’m talking the billions wasted on AGW.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/fcce-report-to-congress.pdf
You have to love Obama’s Clean Energy Plan. It works so well it built a time machine and caused cooling 10 years before it was proposed. If this is the height of El Niño, when it turns Nina, it is going to get really cold. Salvatore is waiting in his Parka in the tropics.
June 2015 was the warmest June in GISTEMP’s record. The first six months of this are the warmest Jan-June in GISTEMP’s record. Where is the cooling?
UAH shows that the pause continues. Where’s the warming?
The real warming is, of course, in the ocean. One oceanographer has said, “Global warming IS ocean warming.” And the data back that up:
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
Argo data is suspect. More cooking by the NOAA.
According to GISTEMP? When s NASA going to discover space and satellites?
How about you show everyone how to measure surface temperatures from a satellite? Thanks.
Your El Nino is here: the first 6 months of 2015 was the warmest first six months of any year since record keeping began (GISTEMP).
Show us how that big red blob in the north Pacific was caused by CO2, please and thank you, David.
By the way, GISTEMP is unreliable, another one of your cooked data sets, compliments of the inveterate data chef (raw data, get thee hence). For reliable data, see UAH or RSS.
mpainter, you seem to have no idea just how much ‘cooking’ is involved in even getting any temperature data from satellites.
You want to say GISTEMP is “unreliable” only because you don’t like its results. You have no scientific reasons for that, it’s simply what you need to maintain your prejudices.
It would be cool to plot the relationship between the El Nino data and the UAH response. Roy has mentioned a 4 month lag, but im unclear if this El Nino is late for the party or not.
It may be the blob is countering the effect of the El Nino. According to NOAA the blob is a result of lower than average winds across vast areas of the North pacific. This means less evaporation and less heat being released into the atmosphere. This does leave the sea surface warmer helping create an illusion of warm global temperatures.
In any event the lack of heat loss to the atmosphere over the blob may be reducing the impact of the El Nino.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. If the blob dissipates when we move into La Nina conditions it also may not cool as much as we have seen in the past.
Now, that’s an interesting theory that I have not heard before.
I’ve been noticing this El Niño is acting somewhat out of the “norm”. If fact, the last few weeks have seen warm/dry in the southwest US, and cool/wet in the northwest, almost exactly opposite of the “norm”.
I’ll be watching ENSO unfold, as I also keep the “blob theory” in mind. Thanks for sharing.
No, the last few weeks haven’t been “cool/wet” in the northwest. Hard to see where you ever got that idea, but as someone living in Oregon, I can tell you it’s been hot. Not warm, not. And very dry.
As a non expert can I summarise by saying
Ocean currents define surface temps which control trade winds which pools warm and cold water
The warm pools give off heat/energy and cool pools absorb energy from the sun
Elnino is the release of this energy and lanina is the absorption?
As another non expert i believe a big part of the el nino is a positive feedback where prevailing winds push warm pacific surface water west during normal conditions which persistently increases upwelling to the east and thus the gradient in temperature bt east and west also increases. The increased gradient strengthens the winds driving the system until enough water stacks up in the western pacific that the system destabilizes and we get an el nino. The upwelling then reduces and the surge of hot stacked up tropical pacific water equilibrates the hydrostatic head by flowing backwards east and the pacific warms. The La Nina is the restart of the upwelling minus the accumulation of the warm water to the west… so it is a cool phase after a el nino as the system builds up more heat. Perhaps another can improve this explanation?
That’s good for me. I’m trying to learn what the mechanics of La Nina and El Nino are.
I have been getting a large supply of wood in ready for a cold UK winter. Still no warming since 1998 and we are looking at 30/40 years of colder winters.
I did that last year,
“…supply of wood…”
Mine is seasoning nicely, at present. I bought another massive iron fireback, to capture more heat from the firewood, and radiate it into the house.
I grew up w heat from wood in northern Indiana winters. Had to carry it to the house every week. I think i prefer nat gas… basically free bc of supply is so high and no wood moving. But great memories
“…memories…”
(1) They used to say that wood warms you twice. Once, when you chop it…
(2) A French traveller to England in the 18th Century wrote that the English loved their wood fires – even though their chimneys were so inefficient that they got no heat!
I have a quadrafire fireplace. Excellent piece of work. It is very efficient.
FTOP”Considering they start from the premise that the cold atmosphere warms the oceans more than the sun, it is not hard to see how they get caught up in the “redistribution” meme.
Plus, redistribution is how they see fixing the economy as well.”
That gets to the crux of the matter, literally any possible observation can be attributed, redistributed within a theory that changes with the weather. Because science was never the driving force here, it can always be altered as needed.
If you like the ‘solutions’ nothing will ever make you question the ‘problem’
Redistribution is the reason you can’t argue science with the AGW’s. It is not about science it is about control. See the EPA and their attempt to control electricity production and the entire economy.
As they succeed, we will become relatively poorer, life tougher – unless you live in or about DC.
They demonize industrialists and entrepreneurs because they have escaped the chains of government enslavement. What is sad is the generation of “everyone gets a trophy” youth that don’t recognize we are on the road to Athens and fervently support their own demise.
Yes, DC will be rich, every lamp post will have a least one politician hanging from it.
Control? You will still plug your toaster into the same outlet. Where’s the “control” in that?
Thanks, Dr. Spencer.
I have updated your graph in my climate and meteorology pages.
I hope this month the page at http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/ will be updated properly.
Still today, this page is showing a reduced version of the June Global Temperature Report map with links to the May graph.
Dr. Spencer, I am trying to understand the math that produces a .18 deg. anomaly. If I take the NH + SH I get .36/2=.18 with the tropics still at .48. I’m sure it has to do with the weighting, but could you simplify it for me and others? In fact, just a quick glance at the first 7 months of this year, it looks like NH + SH/ 2 is pretty close to the global anomaly each time regardless of the Tropics. Help. Thanks.
Travis:
You have to look at the detail in the accompanying files.
NH+SH INCLUDES Tropics already.
Thank you, dave.
I think we have a potential similar situation today as was the case around 1275 AD, if things happen in the right sequence.
This time if nothing else is probably the first time since the Dalton Solar Minimum ended that exhibits a potential to a change back to cooler conditions rather then warmer conditions going forward.
The explanation below is for the Little Ice Age and I think it can be applied to the YD, despite the fact Milankovitch Cycles were not that favorable at that time , but the Ice Dynamic for sure was and that changed the whole dynamic of the playing field and is the factor I think which made abrupt climatic changes, to happen so frequently 20000 to 10000 years ago.
The YD was just one of many abrupt climatic changes during that time period.
This theory combined with my input for how the Little Ice Age may have started can also be applied to the YD, with the big difference being the all important Ice Dynamic at the time of the YD ,which made the climate more vulnerable to change with much less forcing.
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL050168.pdf
This article is good but it needs to emphasize the prolonged minimum solar /volcanic climate connection( which it does not mention ), and other prolonged minimum solar climate connections such as an increase in galactic cosmic rays more clouds?, a more meridional atmospheric circulation due to ozone distribution/concentration changes (which it does not do which gives more snow cover?) which all lead to cooler temperatures and more extremes .
In addition they do not factor the relative strength of the earth’s magnetic field.
When this is added to the context of this article I think one has a comprehensive explanation as to how the start of the Little Ice Age following the Medieval Warm Period may have taken place and how like then (around 1275 AD) is similar to today with perhaps a similar result taken place going forward from this point in time.
I read recently of a study that claims the YD event may have beeb due to a comet impact. I think it is on Dr. Curry’s blog.
been. Sorry
Not an impact, but the coma of a near-miss.
This “hypothesis” is so speculative that it hardly rates as serious science.
For genuine possibility of an ice age impact, see Carolina bays Saginaw impact.
Today is nothing at all like 1275 AD — the GHG comoposition of the atmosphere is very different, so the forcings are very different.
Salvatore, this presentation from Professor Richard Alley at the National Academy of Sciences Symposium in June this year might help.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujkcTZZlikg
What I find in this field that is disturbing is more often then not many climate scientist go with the existing climatic trend, always try to have a one factor /climate change cause and effect, always predict a slow gradual change in the climate rather then abrupt step like changes as if abrupt step like climate change never has occurred.
Salvatore:
According to the predictive algorithms, for smoothing Sunspot numbers, used by the Royal Observatory of Belgium, we are unlikely to have a DECIDEDLY spotless Sun until the middle of next year.
Which is as expected Dave.
I hope the Sun will ‘show its hand’ before we are all dead.
Q: if temperature is the driving force for Co2 (temp goes up, Co2 follows), then why has Co2 increased in the face of the “pause”? Should Co2 have pause as well, or is there a lag, and if so, what is that lag?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1959/mean:24/derivative/plot/hadcrut4sh/from:1959/scale:0.22/offset:0.10
Joel, it is carbon growth that increases with temperature. As long as the pause continues we should see carbon growth also hold steady at about 2 ppm per year…
Got it…thanks Fonz. So it is the rate of Co2 growth that will pause at an increase of 2ppm per year. Forgive my naivety, so for the last 18 years there has been approx increase of 36ppm? Has this been demonstrated? thx.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
Yes, we are currently at 401 ppm and were at 364 ppm in july 1997
Don’t worry about that “naivety thing”. Every time i turn around it seems the commentors on this blog are getting smarter and smarter (which means i’m feeling dumber and dumber). We can ALL learn something from one another. We’re here to help each other along…
Excellent…so given the “new data” that showed that the pause hasn’t happened (this should have shaken their credibility), then the Co2 ppm should actually be higher…but it isn’t, so confirms that the new data is bad data, lol.
I believe this year, due to the El Nino, will be very hot overall. But is just a blip on the plateau and we will be heading into a long cooling phase. Thoughts?
Yeah, Joel, temp trends of the last few years (in many a data set) show some warming and that is consistent with slightly higher carbon growth that we’ve also seen the last few years. People quibble over it, but i think we’re making too much of what amounts to (as you say) “just a blip”…
Joel, this presentation from Professor Richard Alley at the National Academy of Sciences Symposium in June this year might help.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujkcTZZlikg
Hi.
I may have missed it, but could you tell how much the reference for the anomaly has changed during time and versions.
It is a hot topic regarding GISS and NOAH, where the highest anomaly might be just the reference getting lower.
Svend, my recollection is that dr spencer change the anomaly just once a few years ago. It went from “1979 to present” to “1981 to 2010” (a standard period of thirty years). I don’t recall him changing anomalies with the advent of 6.0— you might want to check the archives (in the right hand margin) for your answer. (the anomaly is printed along the vertical axis) I hope i’ve been of some help here…
Former anomaly was ’79 to ’98 and there was no change in anomalies with the update to version 6.0
“…a standard period of thirty years…”
The writer of a textbook on climate* once opined:
“Thirty years of data should be enough to establish the average for a locality.”
Now it is a funny thing about textbooks. Once something has been stated in a textbook, it will be repeated for ever after, by other textbooks. And so it has proven with this little rule of thumb.
* “The Climates of the Continents,” W.G. Kendrew, 1922, which is actually rather a good book.
“…thirty years…”
He actually said 35 years, I find on re-examination.
Svend: Trends are independent of the choice of baseline.
You have to bring the data to a common baseline before you can compare them individually.
Kristian says:
August 6, 2015 at 10:39 AM
mpainter,
It’s the tradewinds that cause the normal tropical pattern of cool east and warm west and the accompanying shallow eastern thermocline and deep western one
Kristian says:
August 6, 2015 at 10:34 AM
fonzarelli,
You’ve got it correct. It is mpainter here that’s got it backwards.
Kristian,
No support for these statements? It appears that you are not all that conversant in the matter. Possibly, you are out of your depth in this. For example, you don’t seem acquainted with Walker Circulation. Nor ocean meridional overturning circulation. Nor eastern boundary currents. Nor Eckmann transport. Nor upwelling causes in general. Nor Hadley Circulation. And you need to be. It would help your understanding of this.
In fact, the ENSO cycle is all about ocean meridian overturning circulation. This is a good place to begin, if you wish to inform yourself.
painter, i’m glad you moved this thing to the bottom of the page where we have easier access…
mpainter says: “El Nino has nothing to do with hurricanes, which are confined to the north atlantic and contiguous waters. Nor am i aware that trade winds have anything to do with hurricanes”
El Ninos cause strong winds crossing mexico and the southeastern part of the u.s. This causes any hurricanes headed for the states to be turned back out into the atlantic thus acting as a barrier. (it also causes wind shear so that formation of storms in the caribbean is hindered)
Keep in mind that trade winds exist round the globe. Hurricanes often form off the west coast of africa and travel west. It is trade winds that carry them west (never east). So even during an el nino, there are in existence trade winds occurring elsewhere…
The mechanics, painter, of trade winds are fairly simple. Winds heading north to south encounter a progressively faster moving surface (due to the rotation of the earth) as they near the equator. The winds can’t keep pace and end up falling behind to the west creating what we call trade winds…
Fonzarelli,
There seems to be some confusion of what is meant by the term “trade winds”. My understanding is that these are surface easterlies of the tropics.
Hence, when you say ” Keep in mind that trade winds exist round the globe.”, I have to wonder if we are talking about the same thing.
Your “mechanics of trade winds” is inventive, but has little to do with what actually happens. Trade winds originate in Hadley Circulation. I urge you to learn about this. Also, the deflection is due to Coriolis forces, which I also urge you to study up on.
“Trade winds originate in Hadley Circulation”
Correction: True, but misleading because the Pacific trade winds originate in Walker Circulation. This might be augmented by Hadley Circulation.
Painter, hadley circulation IS north/south and the coriolis effect is about what happens when an object moves toward the faster (or slower in the case of the westerlies) part of a rotating sphere or disk. I have yet to look up walker cells (lazy me…), i assume that moves air east to west? If that’s the case hadley would come first being then augmented by walker. (the cooler eastern surface would have to be created by hadley trade winds) Plus, and i know this may be just semantics, technically the term trade winds would apply to those winds induced by hadley circulation. Sorry for not reading up on walker before posting— by posting first, it will motivate lazy me to then look it up! (smiley face or grimace, which ever you prefer…)
fonzarelli,
It almost appears as if mpainter has left this thread for good. However, here’s a brief rundown (by Bob Tisdale) of the basic ocean-atmosphere processes taking place in the normal (‘neutral’) state tropical Pacific (starting on page 16). I am hopeful that mpainter wouldn’t allow himself to accuse Tisdale of being “not all that conversant” in this particular matter:
https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/preview-of-who-turned-on-the-heat-v2.pdf
Notice particularly what is being pointed out on page 21:
Hi Kristian, yeah, i think when painter took a look at the wiki link he must have realized his mistake (and made a hasty exit…). His is an understandable mistake though. The easterly winds from the walker cell circulation are commonly known as trade winds even though they are not. I lived on maui for a while and those winds (from walker circulation) kick up around noon and are very strong. People commonly would refer to them as trade winds. (even the wiki page on walker cell circulation calls them trade winds) Who knows, maybe at the end of the day i’ll find that it is i who is in the wrong here (but i seriously doubt that). Any how, nice to hear from you and thanx for the link (as well as the moral support)…
Fonzarelli,
Call it trade wind or what you like, but it is Walker Circulation that causes the easterlies in the equatorial Pacific. The Walker Cell is set up by high pressure in the eastern equatorial Pacific (cool SST) coupled with low pressure in the western equatorial Pacific (warm SST).
Also, Fonzarelli, you confuse the sea breeze with Walker Circulation. Sea breeze/land breeze are local diurnal effects found everywhere. Walker Cell Circulation is a permanent (or semi-permanent) phenomena of the tropics, the wind/circulation always parallel to the equator. Again, I urge you to read up and inform yourself.
Also, Fonzarelli, the steering of hurricanes is due to the high pressure ridge known as the Bermuda High or the Atlantic Ridge.
Thus it is high pressure circulation that determines hurricane movement which is always westerly, at first, as you say. But it is not Hadley Circulation, from which trade winds originate, in the sense generally understood.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_winds
Yeah, it seems that we’re getting to be like two ships passing in the night here… SO, i thought i’d bring in a wikipedia link just so that we can gain some clarity here. Check it out, tell me what you think. Bear in mind that i’m the resident new orleanian, so alot of this is ingrained from years of hurricane watching (almost learning by osmosis). You pick up alot of things that people elsewhere are clueless about simply because they’re never exposed to it. One find years ago that really intrigued me was the existence of a belt of tropical waves (clusters of clouds) that circles the globe at the equator. These waves march westward around the entire globe like solders across a bridge. The waves will cross the african continent from east to west and when they reach the atlantic, some form into hurricanes as they continue on their westward journey. Of course cyclones in the pacific do the same thing forming off the west coast of central america. Point is, it took me years of being around this stuff before i picked up that little nugget of truth. Up until that point i never really got the big picture of just how hurricanes came into being. Key here is the “westward” march. (the surface is traveling a thousand miles an hour at the equator and the unattached atmosphere is in essence being left behind) THAT was my “ah ha” moment; up until then i only had a narrow view of what was going on…
Hi Fonzarelli,
Like your comments on hurricanes. It is important to understand them because they are the H-bombs of the atmosphere and they are unpredictable. I have thought about them and I have a couple of questions for you. Where are hurricanes conceived? Why did you choose your answer? If you do not answer I will offer my answers Monday or Tuesday, otherwise I will try to monitor this and reply to your comments.
Have a good day, Jerry
Hello there Jerry, nice to see you… This one has been an interesting and enlightening exchange with painter. He brings alot to the table and this has been my first introduction to walker cell circulation. At least, that is, from an intellectual stand point. I was actually born in honolulu and lived for a while on maui as a young adult. What are commonly called “trade winds” in hawaii are in actuality winds that come from walker circulation. They are really a remarkable phenomenon as these are fairly strong winds which kick up at mid day after warming from the morning sun. I do think it is an incorrect designation to call them “trade winds”, perhaps i have more to learn on this point. As for your questions, i’ll start with the second one first. I brought up hurricanes as evidence that trade winds exist globally and as such are caused by something other than walker circulation (north/south hadley circulation “deflected” west by the rotation of the earth). When painter countered my argument by suggesting that the burmuda high causes easterly motion, i elaborated on my point by sharing my experiences here in new orleans on obtaining the big picture as well as (finally) giving him the wikapedia link on trade winds. And alas… i haven’t heard from painter since. To bad really, because i really wanted to share with him my experiences in hawaii. Not only to tell him my view of the differences between “trade winds” (hadley circulation) verses walker cell circulation on the island of maui, but also to get his take on what my experiences were. As for your first question, “where are hurricanes conceived?”, i assume you mean “how” are they conceived? My recollection on “where” is that it statistically changes during hurricane season at times from tropical waves coming off the west coast of africa and other times in the carribean and still others else where. It’s been a while since i’ve watched the weather channel on this. I finally decided that if i just forget about hurricanes then they’ll go away! (so far so good…) As far as how they are conceived, i’m a bit sketchy on that. I do know that once a tropical wave becomes more of a cluster of clouds rotation begins due to the rotation of the earth. (faster surface movement on the southern edge than the northern edge) At that point i’m fuzzy as to why and how that rotation holds the storm together to eventually give us a full fledged hurricane. If you know the answer, i’d be happy to have you share it. It’s nice to see that you are still checking in here at the spencer blog. I view the fact that you are here as an indicator that all is not lost. It seems more and more brilliant minds are indeed coming here. However, the quality of the “debate” still leaves much to be desired. (i put debate in quotes as i know you must bristle with the term when science is involved, but it is what it is…) I’ve got an idea or two on how to move things forward in that regard. One might be to just start ignoring alarmists altogether. Engaging them never seems to foster rational debate. The tone and civility is much greater when skeptics debate skeptics. And since skeptics can never seem to agree on anything (we all have our own indepedent ideas), there is plenty to discuss. This will at least move things forward with far less acrimony. Gotta go with what works AND with what will make this site a place that’s worth coming to (other than to view dr spencer’s excellent work). Again, nice to hear from you. I’ve enjoyed the homework assignment (your questions) & I look forward to your reply… fonzie
Hi fonzie,
You have an advantage over me because of your personal experiences. Galileo is said to have stated (as translated by someone): “We cannot teach people anything; we can only help them discover it within themselves.” I think you are aware that I was a chemistry instructor and now believe I made mistakes by trying to teach students somethings. How can we help them discover it within themselves? By asking questions. So this is an experiment if you care to participate.
A central issue of the debate about the greenhouse effect is the Second Law. The Second Law originally, I believe, had to do with heat engines and their limited capacity to do useful work. I have yet to read the words, relative to this debate, ‘atmospheric heat engine’. So I begin this experiment by asking: Name some atmospheric heat engines and explain how they function.
Have a good day, Jerry
Hi Fonzie,
One thing I learned while teaching at a small community college is there no teaching advantage to have classes of two or three students. For when a class is asked a question, one of ten or twenty students have a greater possibility of giving an acceptable answer than do two or three students. So if you are having a problem coming up with answers that satisfy yourself, why don’t you invite the others with whom you have dialogues to help you by giving their answers to my basic questions.
Have a good day, Jerry
mpainter says, August 6, 2015 at 11:10 AM:
“No support for these statements?”
I need ‘support’ for stating that trade winds naturally blow from east to west on both hemispheres?
“It appears that you are not all that conversant in the matter.”
No, it appears that you are not all that conversant in this matter, mpainter.
Kristian,
When you have informed yourself on Walker Circulation and it’s particular application to the equatorial Pacific, then perhaps you will understand. ENSO is in fact the strengthening/weakening of ocean overturning. Tisdale shares general misconceptions about ENSO, as does anyone who takes Trenberth seriously.
Best wishes.
David A says:
August 6, 2015 at 9:11 PM
“You are the one who has said climate conjecture cannot be “tested.”” (tonyM said).
Never said that in my life. Get your facts straight. (DavidA says)
———————————————–
David,
you should get your facts right. You are either delusional or lack introspection. I am never surprised at your obfuscation and avoidance but to openly be in denial of your own statements when I have hit you with it a few times now is bemusing.
But then to be in denial is common among extreme warmists; denial of science.
How could you forget when you made a most profound statement that goes at the core of science itself saying:
David A. says:
November 4, 2014 at 11:45 AM
“Climate science isn’t an experimental science — you can’t do experiments with the only climate you have. (You also can’t do that in many areas of geology, ecology, evolutionary biology, epidemiology, medicine, astronomy, and more.) No one has defined a clear, quantifiable, falsifiable hypothesis about whether smoking causes lung cancer. Yet the evidence that it does is overwhelming. It’s the same with climte science:”
tonyM says:
November 4, 2014 at 7:36 PM
“David,
You now have me in stitches. You wish to hang on to the “science” label but not subject it to testing. What you claim is not science, by definition. Feynman has some really nice colourful ways to talk about the scientific method and cargo cult science.
Pointless taking it any further.
And you are wrong that it can’t be tested. Every quantifiable prediction ever made based on whatever ephemeral, fairy land hypothesis you have in mind is a test of that elusive hypothesis. Even stating we are going to warm by X is a test. The only difference is you don’t wish to be subjected to hypothesis testing.
I will give Hansen his dues; he did have the guts to subject his hypothesis to testing.”
The whole conjecture fails and no amount of Karlizing, homogenizing, pasteur”eyes”ing or criticizing skeptic findings or denial of science on your part will fix that.
“Even stating we are going to warm by X is a test.”
No, it isn’t, because models don’t use the actual forcings that happen. Because modelers can’t foresee the future. Neither can you.
Models also can’t do projections over the next few decades. Because they are not constructed to do so — the basic mathematics simply isn’t solving that problem. Models do not work off initial conditions, they start with an equilibrium state that is spun up from hundreds of years ago.
You need to learn what climate models are and what they are not.
However, models do an excellent job of predicting how much warming has already occurred. I put the numbers together here — the agreement for surface warming is to within 5%:
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/07/gistemp-only-004c-behind-models.html
Hello Dr. Spencer,
Above, you say:
“The new Version 6 files (use the ones labeled “beta2″) should be updated soon, and are located here”
However we now have version 3 instead and there have been huge jumps from the version 2. For example March 2015 jumped from 0.139 to 0.165 etc. Could you please give all new rankings and average anomalies for all years with the new version? Thank you in advance!
Werner Brozek says:
“…huge jumps…from 0.139 to 0.165…”
Angels on pins alert! It isn’t even the season for Strictly Come Prancing.
Werner: Yes, some of the changes are big. Some of the regional monthly LT numbers have changed by +/-0.13 C. I break down the changes here:
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/08/changes-to-uah-tropospheric-data.html
Clearly the UAH model v6.0 still have some issues — too many, in my opinion, to be releasing numbers to the public.
Thank you for that! What we have at any time may not be perfect, but beta 2 was the best we had for a while. Of course, now that we have beta 3, that should be used from now on by all people. I will use beta 3 from now on which is why I asked the question I did.
Here you go Roy .. I even linked your temperature chart on this thread in this email to about 150 Aussie politicians. Maybe it will help your understanding also:
Dear Prime Minister Abbott and Politicians in all Parties
How can I explain the complicated physics of climate change to Politicians?
I’ve been thinking about that question and hopefully have come up with something you will all understand, because this is perhaps one of the most vital issues facing the world today.
I respect the fact that few, if any of you, have qualifications in physics. My background, I assure you, is more than adequate, but more important is the time that I’ve put into studying the physics of climate change and discussing it with thousands of others, and writing papers, articles and a book on the subject “Why It’s Not Carbon Dioxide After All” available through Amazon.
The infant science of climatology has been strongly influenced by James Hansen who thought he could explain the surface temperature of Earth with radiation calculations. A body in space will be warmed to a certain equilibrium temperature by uniform radiation from the Sun. That is indeed the case for the whole Earth-plus-atmosphere system, and the mean (average) temperature is about -18°C because that is about the (weighted) mean temperature in the atmosphere and it is about the temperature to which the same solar radiation would heat even a small non-reflecting rock in space at the same distance from the Sun.
In the case of Earth the above temperature is calculated after deducting about 30% of the solar radiation, because that percentage is reflected mostly by clouds and has no warming effect, just as a mirror is not warmed when it reflects radiation from a heater.
Now there can be natural variations in the distance of the Earth from the Sun, and also in the percentage of cloud cover. We can understand that the distance has something to do with planetary orbits and we know that’s all well predicted these days. You can probably accept also that cloud cover may vary in the long term, and that may have something to do with cosmic ray levels and/or solar activity, because even the intensity of the Sun’s radiation can vary. So these three natural factors (the Sun’s distance and intensity, and the cloud cover) can well explain all the natural variations which we know about and which seem to follow superimposed cycles, which in turn seem to relate to planetary orbits which somehow do the regulating. We don’t fully understand, but we know there have been climate cycles in the past and warming, such as we experienced late last century, has also occurred in the past – as in the lead up to the medieval Warming Period nearly a thousand years ago. There has been nothing unusual about last century’s warming, and it has stopped anyway in the period since 1998 as shown here.
Getting back to that solar radiation, you will probably be surprised to learn that it is quite insufficient, by the time some gets absorbed in the atmosphere, to raise the mean surface temperature to what is observed. In fact it could only manage about -40°C over the whole globe – yes that is a minus sign before 40. James Hansen realised this and thought the “answer” must be that radiation from the cold atmosphere is somehow helping the Sun to raise the surface temperature. Well, that should grate on you if you remember school-boy physics that says heat is not transferred from cold to hot. In any event, the figures still don’t add to enough to explain mean temperatures above about 4°C and the “back radiation” from the atmosphere should not have been counted anyway.
So what does explain the observed mean surface temperatures of at least 14°C? Basically it is energy from the Sun which is absorbed often high up in the troposphere (the lowest region of the whole atmosphere – being about 8 to 17Km high) and which then makes its way to the surface, not by radiation, but by non-radiative processes. The atmosphere actually “supports” the surface temperature in the same way that hot water in a bath tub keeps the section of the wall that is under the water at about the same temperature.
But, you ask, how does the heat get down from the colder atmosphere and into the warmer surface? The answer lies in the fact that a force field like gravity has an influence on temperatures. This is proven in experiments with centrifugal force such as on my website and the reason has to do with the fact that gravity accelerates individual molecules. As those molecules gain speed in any downward motion between collisions. That extra speed is extra kinetic energy, and extra kinetic energy leads to higher temperatures. There is indeed a “sloping thermal plane” in a planet’s troposphere or, in other words a temperature gradient, aka “lapse rate” as climatologists call it. But it is set up by gravity, not by air heated by the surface and then just cooling as it rises. There does not need to be rising air for the temperature gradient to be established, and it happens even in the nominal troposphere of the planet Uranus where there is no solar radiation at the base, no surface there either, and yet it’s nearly 50°C. Further down it gets up around 5,000°C by the process I have called “heat creep” in my paper “Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures.”
So carbon dioxide’s radiation has nothing to do with surface temperatures which are set by this temperature gradient formed by gravity. We can calculate what that gradient ought to be, and we find it on all planets with significant atmospheres. This is the new 21st century paradigm shift in climate science that I first wrote about in an article published nearly three years ago. It is the truth of the matter, and all your efforts to reduce carbon dioxide levels are pointless and ineffective in so far as surface temperatures are concerned. Long term natural cooling will start within the next 100 years or so and last for nearly 500 years, just as was the case between the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age.
Your only response to the controlling efforts of the US is to present them with this correct physics and I guarantee that I can defend it against anyone in the world. I do so regularly on climate blogs, just for starters – out arguing thousands of the warmist hoaxsters, and I’m happy to help you in any discussion or negotiation anywhere in the world if need be. Why not contact the best physicists and watch them debate these issues with me? Only then will you really learn about it all and respect the fact that I am presenting correct physics. Perhaps you need a Senate Enquiry at which I could be a witness.
Regards
Doug Cotton
PO Box 4339
North Rocks 2151
Australia
Phone: …..
LOL! That’s hilarious Doug. Do you write for the Onion? Or the Flat Earth Society?
There are details as to how to submit a claim for the $5,000 reward for proving me wrong in this comment.
Easy. You’ve been proven wrong probably before you were born.
http://www-ramanathan.ucsd.edu/files/pr15.pdf
Now where do I get the $5000? 😀
By the way, the only scientists who might be interested in discussing your views with you – might be Dunning and Kruger.
When someone uses sockpuppet fake ‘scientists’ on Amazon to give positive reviews of their own self-published 34 page pseudoscience book…. well perhaps a psychiatrist would help.
Lewis asks:
“Am I following correctly [the El Nino flows] ?”
Not really, if you are thinking the counter-flow at depth is local to the Pacific. The overturning of the Oceans is a global affair, working itself out over hundreds of years. If water sinks from the surface to the bottom anywhere, for any reason, there must be an upwelling SOMEWHERE ELSE, but there is no obvious, individual, cause and effect. Chicken and egg comes to mind.
tim is right to stock up on firewood for this coming uk winter http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2015/anomnight.8.6.2015.gif does not look good for large el nino forecasters either.
UAH’s new data model, v6.0beta3, involves some significant changes to beta2 results. The global LT numbers have changes up to 0.07 C. Some regional monthly LT numbers have changed by as much as 0.13 C:
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/08/changes-to-uah-tropospheric-data.html
v6 clearly isn’t a stable model yet. So why publish the numbers, especially without a journal paper explaining them? That’s what Karl et al did recently, and their changes are a lot smaller than UAH’s changes.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/348/6242/1469.abstract
Learn about the 21st Century Breakthrough science which explains all planetary core and surface temperatures and is based on the laws of physics …
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-TXYe4rJp0xmbBh51AD8jptu34LAJc-b
Mate, as a fellow Aussie, please stop with this embarrassingly ignorant pseudoscience/strawman nonsense.
You’re coming across as a nutter with a few ‘roos loose in your top paddock.
Water vapor cools, Roy:
If we pick one of the driest regions in my study, such as
Paraburdoo, Western Australia at altitude = 389m and we consider the hottest month when the Sun passes overhead, as it does twice a year in Singapore, we get ..
Mean maximum temperature in hottest month = 41.2°C,
Mean minimum temperature in hottest month = 26.0°C
If we adjust using the lapse rate for an altitude around sea level, as in Singapore, we get temperatures at least 3 degrees higher, say 44°C and 29°C.
In contrast, because of the water vapor above Singapore we get …
Singapore is 1 degree north of the equator. Singapore’s climate is classified as tropical rainforest climate …
The temperature hovers around a diurnal range of a minimum of 23 °C (73.4 °F) and a maximum of 32 °C (89.6 °F). [source]
When I included 15 such tropical locations in my study, there was clear and statistically significant evidence that water vapor cools.
This single fact shatters the greenhouse.
PS: When temperatures are adjusted for altitude, not a single location in the driest 9 out of 15 locations in my study had a mean maximum lower than the 32°C maximum in Singapore. For SIngapore: “The highest recorded temperature is 36.0°C (96.8°F) on 26 March 1998.” Well, that was the year, that was – 1998 – hottest in your records.
I would like to thank you guys for getting down and doing the hard yards. I am a sedimentary geologist. I really depend on good unbiased data from which to get some understanding of what is going on. The greatest concern for me is that the scientific method has been abused. It remains the only means by which we can get a robust understanding
It has been argued that science is initially dependent on instinct or curiosity i.e. ‘social science’. I am guilty. From the very beginning my greatest concern was that there has been too little consideration of feed-back systems. Earth is extremely efficient at re-establishing equilibrium after imbalance occurs. The ratio of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere has also been a big question mark to me in relation to impact
Another subject I have been researching is ‘ocean acidification’. Available data is very sparse and I don’t see a trend. The most bandied data relates to some testing in Hawaii where it is charted in relation to CO2 increase with the PH scale leading to a steep slope. This is a volcanic zone for goodness sake. Submarine volcanism obviously has an impact on marine PH – and localised temperature. The acidic component is assumed to be carbonic acid. As far as I know only PH is being measured. What of sulphuric acid?
Then we get to methane. How much methane is being liberated via natural submarine seeps? How does this compare with emissions from livestock?
There is some really bad science going on. So you guys please stick to the method. Let data and statistics do the talking. Sooner or later you will establish the most probable truth
Michael Carter says:
“…bad science…”
Some if it is OK, but much of it lacks perspective. For example:
As a sedimentary geologist you know, of course, that the record of the rocks shows that the sea level has risen and fallen thousands of times eustatically* (sorting out the resulting rock sequences is soooo boring). Yet, somehow, the planet is supposed to be in danger from a possible meter of rise in the next hundred years?
*not to mention billions of times with tidal waves.
Nigel says: “Some of it is okay..”
###
I can’t think of any that is okay. For example, regarding sea level, NOAA Mean Sea Level charts based on tidal gauges at stable coastlines show _no_ rise in sea level these past three decades. The sea level rise calculated by the AGW types are based on satellite altimeter data. Go to the NASA website. There it tells you that the Jason data is accurate to within 33 mm.
Thus various studies claim SL rise to within half a mm!
The whole of AGW science is like that. The term ” junk science” may be pejorative, but it aptly describes their science.
Maybe it is more a case of good science being abused through slanted interpretation e.g in New Zealand research established oh so quickly how much methane is being generated from grazing animals whereas, to the best of my knowledge, nothing has been done to establish how much methane emission was reduced through the draining of wetlands and peat for agricultural production.
Some work is being done on establishing carbon uptake in productive soils but you can bet your boots they will not compare this with the original soils. It could be that soil uptake more than offsets animal production.
The problem is that with these attitudes we can’t get at the net effect of development. No one wants to know about that.
Often, it is a case of “experts” simply not remembering the most basic facts. I took a course with the OU in England on the science of the environment, and the Tutor was a perfectly pleasant and balanced woman, with degrees. She started to explain to us how carbon dioxide dissolved in pure water all turned to carbonic acid. I opened my book of Chemical Tables and pointed out the first dissociation coefficient which essentially says that 99.7% of dissolved carbon dioxide is in the form of complete molecules.
She simply could not get her head around it. She just started to repeat her sentence…and repeat…She MUST have been taught this in school, it is BASIC stuff, but…
It was like I had killed her rabbit. But, I am sure that a year later, she was saying to another class. “When carbon dioxide dissolves in pure water it all turns to carbonic acid.”
Dave,
It is the AGW mentality. CO2 _must_ “acidify” the ocean, it MUST. Hence, carbonic acid, not molecular CO2; molecular CO2 does not compute.
And, Dave.
I didn’t know that 99.7% of CO2 dissolved as complete molecules. Thanks for that information. Would you have any data on how much CO2 is contained in, say, a liter of rainwater?
When I said “it” I meant “all Earth Science.” If by “it” you mean stuff from rude, publicity-mad, AGW camp, then yes it is hard to find anything that is OK, IMO.
I am not sure when Geography became a science. When I was accepted to Cambridge University, in 1961, the College Admissions Tutor told me in all earnestness, “You are welcome here – provided you do not intend to read Geography. We do not disparage Geography, as part of general education. It is simply that, in the opinion of our body of Fellows, it is too descriptive to ever form a discipline.”
“…Geography…”
Actually, I did later take some Geography courses. “Human” Geography was useful as background for certain aspects of Economics; and “Physical” Geography was useful as background for certain aspects of Geology. But as stand-alone subjects? No.
Political geography, no, or at best a social science. But physical geography involves much more. It involves climate, as well. In many schools in the US, Climatology is a discipline of study within the school of Geography. I often say “climate is determined by geography”. This is correct in an absolute sense.
Climatology was a science of good repute before it got hijacked by the “Climate Scientists”. Now it is a cult.
“…how much CO2 in a liter of rainwater…”
This depends on temperature and on how much CO2 is in the air.
At 20 C and and 400 ppm, and allowing some time for equilibrium to be established – (1/200)th gram.
Sea-water is much more complicated, as it has many different ions in it; and a whole system of simultaneous equations has to be solved – which, however, modern computer maths programs do with ease. Sea-water is heavily “buffered” and most of the buffers come from erosion rather than the atmosphere. It gets a bit confusing, because some people, when they talk about contained CO2, include bicarbonate which been brought to the sea by rivers. I feel a headache coming on.
Just look how the the text here is pitched. On the Web site the first line is in large text. I find this slant to be grossly irresponsible. I am flabbergasted that official organisations should be actively feeding alarmism given the susceptibility of the general public. Is this all about money?
Source: NOOA
July 2015 warmer and wetter than average for the US
The Northwest and Southeast were warm while the central U.S. was cool. Record precipitation in parts of California did little to improve long-term drought.
The July contiguous U.S. average temperature was 73.9°F, 0.2°F above the 20th century average and ranked near the middle in the 121-year period of record.
The average contiguous U.S. temperature for January-July was 53.0°F, 1.7°F above the 20th century average, and the 10th warmest year-to-date on record.
Michael C:
You ask ” Is this all about money?”
###
Well, sort of, but it is mostly about politics. The public, in general, do not realize the degree to which an administration can bend the government organs to toe the political line.
From the NOAA blurb which you cited:
“Record precipitation in parts of California did little to improve long-term drought.”
Note the “improve long-term drought” instead of “relieve long-term drought”. What do we see? Is it borderline illiteracy? Or somebody kicking against the goad?
You see what I am getting at aye?
“The July contiguous U.S. average temperature was 73.9°F, 0.2°F above the 20th century average and ranked near the middle in the 121-year period of record”
They conveniently use the average of the 20th century to say that is above average (0.2F – wow!) to be able to say it is “above average”(0.2F – wow!), yet when they bring in the full record they say it is “near the middle”
This is science?
“This is science?”
###
Nope. This AGW newspeak, meant to reinforce and propagate the faith. Actually, if compared to the last twenty years, it would probably rank below average. Can’t let the public hear such a blasphemy, though; the house of cards must be supported in every way possible.
Recent report by Huffington Post
“http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/july-hottest-month-record_55d5eeabe4b055a6dab32183”
claims that NASA and the Japan Meteorological Agency are reporting July 2015 to be the hottest month in recorded history. The article claims july average T was 61.86 °F up 1/7th degree from previous global records set in 1998 and 2010.
The July chart published on this site indicates that July 2015 was about average for the 2000-2015 period and about 0.5°C ( about 0.9°F) lower than 1998 and about .3°C (about .5°F) lower than 2010.
Is the Huffington Post reporting NASA correctly? is their reported information correct for some particular atmospheric layer or some sector of the earth? Is the difference based on how the temperatures are measured or globally averaged? How can all of the reported data (theirs and yours) be rationalized?
Dr. Spencer, I’d love to see your reply to this.