Global Surface Air & Sea Temperatures: Current Conditions and Future Prospects

[Gael_Force]

looking at the PDO records it becomes apparent that we have never seen 'back to back' 2.0+ values during a negative state of the PDO since 1900? 

The negative state is assumed to have begun in the late nineties? Back to back positive 2.0+ values in winter 02/03.

 

2002**   0.27  -0.64  -0.43  -0.32  -0.63  -0.35  -0.31   0.60   0.43   0.42   1.51   2.10  2003**   2.09   1.75   1.51   1.18   0.89   0.68   0.96   0.88   0.01   0.83   0.52   0.33

 

I don't think this idea of clear cut 30 year phases is looking too great.

[Gray-Wolf]

Hi GF!

 

Yes the " I want it to be 30yrs!" brigade is on very solid ground atm? As for the switch to negative to me it appears to have been 98 (ish) with a rebound into positive ( which had Nasa alter its mind on the 98 start date for PDO negative) for a couple of years before going negative again around 07' ( when Nasa called the flip to negative). Some pundits look back into the mid 80's for its flip negative?? That would be a very messy negative phase!

 

As it is PDO is altering with AGW forcings. We see papers examining this and concluding that post 1980 the PDO shows behaviours modified by AGW.

 

This triple R ( ridiculously resilient ridge) over the west coast/Alaska has also impacted PDO values ( as the sea surface under the HP responds to the clear skies) and if the triple R is driven by sea ice loss over the Pacific side of the Arctic basin then we really are seeing AGW mess with PDO values/states???

 

The thing is that we see a relationship between PDO and ENSO so will this relationship hold if the PDO is 'forced' positive by sea ice loss? 

[knocker]

  Early comment on global February

 

According to my NCEP/NCAR based index, February was globally pretty warm. Very warm indeed around the 12th, but a cool start and finish. The hotspot was Central Asia/Mongolia (daily eyeballing estimate). It ended up just a little cooler than October, which after May was warmest in 2014.

 I'll have a TempLS surface report in a few days.

[knocker]

UAH reports February global atmospheric temperature anomaly of +0.30C

 

Global atmospheric temperature data for February 2015 has been reported by the University of Huntsville in Alabama (UAH).

 

The global average temperature anomaly for the lower troposphere in February 2015 according to satellite data analysed by UAH was +0.30^oC. This is below the +0.35^oC anomaly reported in January.

 

http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/uah-reports-february-global-average-temperaure-anomaly.html

[BornFromTheVoid]

El Nino is here according to NOAA

 

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/ensodisc.html

 

It will be interesting to see how things pan out for the rest of the year.

[knocker]

NOAA blog post on the subject.

 

March 2015 ENSO discussion: El Niño is here   http://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/enso/march-2015-enso-discussion-el-ni%C3%B1o-here

[Gray-Wolf]

Well that was fast!!! So this fall into record low S.O.I. ? Does it signal a robust switch to a supportive atmosphere? If so what of the warm pool? Just how much heat is sitting in that mighty mound of ocean? We saw , in 2010, what a stunted Nino could do with that 'fuel' so what now the naughty Trades are behaving? Could we be seeing the birth of a monster????

 

Back to back record years seem on the cards so I have to ask , 'pause? ,what pause?'.......... 

[knocker]

Certainly pause for thought.

[Midlands Ice Age]

More back slapping on here I see.....

 

However the report above has actually stated that the El Nino 'watch' has just been updated to an 'advisory'

 

The chances of the El Nino like conditions extending for 3 months are considered at 50 - 60%. Presumably they were just below 50% previously..

 

The summary of the paper states that the conditions are consistent with a 'borderline weak El Nino' .

 

Keep your feet on the ground guys. 

 

MIA  

 

Edited March 6, 2015 by Midlands Ice Age

[BornFromTheVoid]

More back slapping on here I see.....

 

However the report above has actually stated that the El Nino 'watch' has just been updated to an 'advisory'

 

The chances of the El Nino like conditions extending for 3 months are considered at 50 - 60%. Presumably they were just below 50% previously..

 

The summary of the paper states that the conditions are consistent with a 'borderline weak El Nino' .

 

Keep your feet on the ground guys. 

 

MIA

An advisory means we are in an El Niño.

"El Niño or La Niña Advisory: Issued when El Niño or La Niña conditions are observed and expected to continue."

[knocker]

More back slapping on here I see.....

 

However the report above has actually stated that the El Nino 'watch' has just been updated to an 'advisory'

 

The chances of the El Nino like conditions extending for 3 months are considered at 50 - 60%. Presumably they were just below 50% previously..

 

The summary of the paper states that the conditions are consistent with a 'borderline weak El Nino' .

 

Keep your feet on the ground guys. 

 

MIA  

 

I object to back slapping. This isn't a contest about who's right and who's wrong. Nobody in their right mind wishes the worst case scenario but unfortunately the problem isn't going to disappear by burying your head in the sand.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Second warmest February on record according to the NCEP reanalysis data.

 

 

3rd warmest January and February combined, after 2007 and 2010.

 

[Gray-Wolf]

Hi Knocks! I somehow do think that the other place only sees the world it exists in and so judges everyone on the basis on what 'they' would be doing in any given situation?

 

What I do not get is they label ( some of ) us 'catastrophists' and then if they have to concede any part of the warnings we give as being 'real/observed' then they believe that we will obviously be dancing in the streets now that the coming apocalypse is again confirmed???? How do you even begin to get into a mindset like that?

[Midlands Ice Age]

Hi Knocks! I somehow do think that the other place only sees the world it exists in and so judges everyone on the basis on what 'they' would be doing in any given situation?

 

What I do not get is they label ( some of ) us 'catastrophists' and then if they have to concede any part of the warnings we give as being 'real/observed' then they believe that we will obviously be dancing in the streets now that the coming apocalypse is again confirmed???? How do you even begin to get into a mindset like that?

 

GW....

 

Re your statements about  my position above (as a sceptic who believes in a CO2 effect) .......

 

As soon as your posts reflect actual (real/observed) if you want to call it that, then I will be the first to congratulate you!

But it is still all in your mind only....

.

What has happened in the 6 months since I joined here that should have made me change my mind?

 

1) Certainly not a maybe large ElNino in 3- 4 months time, which we have been waiting for 13 months to occur and when it occurs will remove all your hidden heat in the oceans.

2) Certainly not a trend of flat for the surface temps, with maybe an occasional pop over the top by 2/100 of a degree.

3) Certainly not for a combined 3rd warmest Jan/Feb in recorded times. (see BFTV's post above).

 

For your theory to be true (catastrophic) we should be looking at temperature increases  of upwards of 0.2C every 10 years , not 0.06C increase after 15 years( maybe, and pushing it). - ...

 

Rest assured, when and if your touted 0.4C per decade starts to happen I will join in worldwide applause for your truly heroic effort to save the world. 

 

However back on the real world (away from that in your mind for what could  happen)  we are still bungling along on a flat pattern of at least 15 and probably 17 years with no increased warning COMPARED  to that which had occured in the previous 150 years.

 

How can you ignore data which shows warming rates between 1910 and 1940 ( no CO2 warming) turned out to be greater than the rates achieved between 1970 and 2000 -  when your CO2 warming was at it greatest in the last 50 years.

 

You accuse sceptics of ignoring all your protestations and yet my above points 1 2 and 3 are actual data, but you appear to see them in a totally different way.     .How can you still believe your GCM's are correct! 

 

EG   How can you ignore your GCM models (it turns out) having a 3% chance of a hiatus lasting 17 years, with a 1% chance of it lasting 20 years? -  and this from the most recent papers by the modellers themselves.

Does it not suggest to you that they have not got everything correct yet? 

 

Does 2 sigma distribution (92%)  mean anything to you?  Obviously not......

 

Any scientific work  (but apparently not climate change)  which doesn't get closer  than 2 sigma is regarded as for the rubbish bin as being statistically unsound. Yet you continue to believe they are totally accurate.

 

Believe me, if the stats come up with the figures I WILL BELIEVE YOU......But until then  I'll just keep watching the data and see what is happening rather than trying to second guess every other day..

 

MIA

[stewfox]

 

Believe me, if the stats come up with the figures I WILL BELIEVE YOU......But until then  I'll just keep watching the data and see what is happening rather than trying to second guess every other day..

 

MIA

 

Great post. I think most folk will take a interest in 'man made climate change' when we see real sustain changes.

 

Trying to compare 0.02c cf 1880 if just plain daft and most folk see that. 

 

If we see 20 record warm years in the next 30 it would be of interest

[BornFromTheVoid]

Great post. I think most folk will take a interest in 'man made climate change' when we see real sustain changes.

 

Trying to compare 0.02c cf 1880 if just plain daft and most folk see that. 

 

If we see 20 record warm years in the next 30 it would be of interest

 

But we've already had 20 of the warmest years in the last 30? Actually, 20 warmest in the last 26, 31 warmest in the last 40, so that clearly won't convince you. Last year was another record, this year is probably 50/50 to set another. Solar activity has been in decline since the 60s, the PDO negative between 10 and 18 years, 2 of the things we were told would cause cooling, but we keep warming instead. All the data shows we're still warming, the vast majority of experts also agree too.

 

What will it actually take for you to think otherwise? The planet was cooling thousands of years before the industrial revolution, then we rapidly reversed that trend. How long does the change need for you to consider it sustained? How much more of a change do you need to see?

 

[Gray-Wolf]

Indeed BFTV but will that scientific 'proof' be enough?

 

If our sensibilities are already rattled by the changes we have seen ( and their logical conclusion) how do you think we'll feel by the time the 'Wattsy's' of this world concede they were dead wrong?

[stewfox]

 

What will it actually take for you to think otherwise? The planet was cooling thousands of years before the industrial revolution, then we rapidly reversed that trend. How long does the change need for you to consider it sustained? How much more of a change do you need to see?

 

 

 

Like 99% of folk some on going evidence year on year ? 

 

The reason why 6-10 folk out post in the climate thread out of 17,000 members isn't because 16,990 have no interest in our planet but there isn't sufficient evidence to convince them otherwise. 

 

Your graph shows warming, cooling and now warming and not 'cooling for thousands of years'.

Edited March 11, 2015 by stewfox

[knocker]

There are roughly 500,000 thousand glaciers in the world. They do in fact act as the worlds thermometer and the majority are melting. Perhaps those who don't believe the empirical evidence that warming is taking place, and that mankind is playing a key role, can offer an alternative explanation backed up with scientific evidence for this rather than empty, repetitive, rhetoric

[BornFromTheVoid]

Like 99% of folk some on going evidence year on year ? 

 

The reason why 6-10 folk out post in the climate thread out of 17,000 members isn't because 16,990 have no interest in our planet but there isn't sufficient evidence to convince them otherwise. 

 

Your graph shows warming, cooling and now warming and not 'cooling for thousands of years'.

 

Em, it shows warming out of the last glacial period, then cooling for about 8,000 years (so cooling for thousands of years), before rapid warming.

So now how many people post here determines the value of scientific evidence? I guess that using that logic, the fact that almost every one of the 17,000 members don't discuss evolution on here means that the evidence for it isn't good enough for them either?

Seems like a handy way to avoid evidence you don't like and discussion points that you have no answer for.

[stewfox]

There are roughly 500,000 thousand glaciers in the world. They do in fact act as the worlds thermometer and the majority are melting. Perhaps those who don't believe the empirical evidence that warming is taking place, and that mankind is playing a key role, can offer an alternative explanation backed up with scientific evidence for this rather than empty, repetitive, rhetoric

 

Its called the natural variability of climate there is no sustained empirical evidence that man is the main driver of climate variability.

 

So from IPCC 2007 we have

 

• There has been an increase in hurricane intensity in the North Atlantic since the 1970s, and that increase correlates with increases in sea surface temperature.
• The observed increase in hurricane intensity is larger than climate models predict for the sea surface temperature changes we have experienced.

 

To

 

--------------

The 2014 Atlantic hurricane season was forecast to be a relatively inactive one, and it ended up with the fewest number of named storms in seventeen years.

[stewfox]

Em, it shows warming out of the last glacial period, then cooling for about 8,000 years (so cooling for thousands of years), before rapid warming.

So now how many people post here determines the value of scientific evidence? I guess that using that logic, the fact that almost every one of the 17,000 members don't discuss evolution on here means that the evidence for it isn't good enough for them either?

Seems like a handy way to avoid evidence you don't like and discussion points that you have no answer for.

 

I think the debate is going around in circles and before mods pop in lets leave it  for folk to make their own minds up.

 

----------------

 

Re 2014

 

Yet the Nasa press release failed to mention this, as well as the fact that the alleged ‘record’ amounted to an increase over 2010, the previous ‘warmest year’, of just two-hundredths of a degree – or 0.02C. The margin of error is said by scientists to be approximately 0.1C – several times as much.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2915061/Nasa-climate-scientists-said-2014-warmest-year-record-38-sure-right.html#ixzz3U76RuT1g 

 

-----------

Edited March 11, 2015 by stewfox

[BornFromTheVoid]

Its called the natural variability of climate there is no sustained empirical evidence that man is the main driver of climate variability.

 

So from IPCC 2007 we have

 

• There has been an increase in hurricane intensity in the North Atlantic since the 1970s, and that increase correlates with increases in sea surface temperature.
• The observed increase in hurricane intensity is larger than climate models predict for the sea surface temperature changes we have experienced.

 

To

 

--------------

The 2014 Atlantic hurricane season was forecast to be a relatively inactive one, and it ended up with the fewest number of named storms in seventeen years.

 

What point are you trying to make here? The IPCC says that the increase in hurricanes was more than predicted, then we have the quietest in 17 whole years. In one, single hurricane basin? It's a single data point from a single region. Not only does that not come into conflict with the IPCC, but it's akin to trying to say "It's cold outside, global warming isn't real". I thought you were better than those kinds of arguments.

[Gray-Wolf]

Snow balls to show how it isn't happening next BFTV??? surely not......

[stewfox]

What point are you trying to make here? The IPCC says that the increase in hurricanes was more than predicted, then we have the quietest in 17 whole years. In one, single hurricane basin? It's a single data point from a single region. Not only does that not come into conflict with the IPCC, but it's akin to trying to say "It's cold outside, global warming isn't real". I thought you were better than those kinds of arguments.

 

What I would expect to see is increase hurricane activity (globally) next 20/30 years. Its been cold outside now for 45 years.

 

Nothing so far

Edited March 11, 2015 by stewfox