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

[knocker]

Apropos nothing at all really but it's a very nice graphic

A band of equal average annual temperature between Europe and North America. Demonstrates the importance of the gulf stream for keeping Europe quite a few degrees above it's latitude would expect.

 

[knocker]

 

Edited April 1, 2019 by knocker

[Duncan McAlister]

Wow, is this a mistake? (It shows a global negative anomaly, first time I have ever seen that and 0.4 down on yesterday) https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx/DailySummary/#t2anom

 

Edited June 13, 2019 by Duncan McAlister

[Derecho]

47 minutes ago, Duncan McAlister said:

Wow, is this a mistake? (It shows a global negative anomaly, first time I have ever seen that and 0.4 down on yesterday) https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx/DailySummary/#t2anom

 

They have just rolled out the new version of the GFS which is causing an issue with the anomalies based off that product.

http://www.karstenhaustein.com/climate

[knocker]

 

Edited June 18, 2019 by knocker

[cheeky_monkey]

5 hours ago, knocker said:

 

do NASA always use the 1951-80 average as the benchmark?

Edited June 18, 2019 by cheeky_monkey

[BornFromTheVoid]

1 hour ago, cheeky_monkey said:

do NASA always use the 1951-80 average as the benchmark?

They address this in the FAQ on the GISS website
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/#q102

[cheeky_monkey]

8 hours ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

They address this in the FAQ on the GISS website
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/#q102

thanks..so why doesn't everyone use this benchmark?

[Methuselah]

If a picture paints a thousand words: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48678196 ?

[tablet]

pictures "DO" paint a thousand words , here are 2 heat maps from December 2016 , one is the " Modelled " temperature of our planet , the other is where NASA has Actual temperature reading equipment , from  realclimatescience.com , but if you check with NASA , it's very true

[tablet]

.. and we all know how really good the climate models have been in the last 20 years ,, don't we

 

[Devonian]

12 hours ago, tablet said:

.. and we all know how really good the climate models have been in the last 20 years ,, don't we

 

Yes, climate models have been amazingly accurate. Even Dr Hansen's climate model from 1988 (30 years ago)  is doing very well compared to observations,

Edited June 23, 2019 by Devonian

[Midlands Ice Age]

Dev.

Mr Hansen's graphs were produced assuming that CO2 was the control knob of temperature. I assume that we all know that this is incorrect.   Climate is much more than CO2. 

 

He was looking at an  increase by now of 2.5C (2020) compared to the long term average, based upon CO2 alone.

What is now correct (and you are clearly referring too ) is that the retrofitting of actual data has been applied to his data,  and has reduced the upper reaches considerably, and feedbacks (both positive and negative) are now being included in the models.

Just a reminder that currently  average of the surface data sets is about 0.6C.  The TLT satellite datasets are showing in the region of 0.3C over the last 9 months.

El Nino is now showing real signs of dissipating.  AMO is on the turn  as well. 

Lets see what the next year brings.

The last 2 years will have been the peak of the warming for now (from natural causes) and  we are still below  his predictions.

MIA

 

Edited June 23, 2019 by Midlands Ice Age

[Methuselah]

16 minutes ago, Midlands Ice Age said:

Dev.

Mr Hansen's graphs were produced assuming that CO2 was the control knob of temperature. I assume that we all know that this is incorrect.   Climate is much more than CO2. 

 

He was looking at an  increase by now of 2.5C (2020) compared to the long term average, based upon CO2 alone.

What is now correct (and you are clearly referring too ) is that the retrofitting of actual data has been applied to his data,  and has reduced the upper reaches considerably, and feedbacks (both positive and negative) are now being included in the models.

Just a reminder that currently  average of the surface data sets is about 0.6C.  The TLT satellite datasets are showing in the region of 0.3C over the last 9 months.

El Nino is now showing real signs of dissipating.  AMO is on the turn  as well. 

Lets see what the next year brings.

The last 2 years will have been the peak of the warming for now (from natural causes) and  we are still below  his predictions.

MIA

 

To what 'natural causes' do you refer, MIA? According to what's known about Milankovitch cycles, the Earth should have been cooling for decades...and, the Solar Cyclists have been promising global cooling ever since I joined NW, in 2003...

I eagerly await your peer-reviewed paper On The Non-Existent Drivers of Non-Observed Global Cooling...I'm sure it'll be an interesting read...

[Devonian]

1 hour ago, Midlands Ice Age said:

Dev.

Mr Hansen's graphs were produced assuming that CO2 was the control knob of temperature. I assume that we all know that this is incorrect.   Climate is much more than CO2. 

 

He was looking at an  increase by now of 2.5C (2020) compared to the long term average, based upon CO2 alone.

What is now correct (and you are clearly referring too ) is that the retrofitting of actual data has been applied to his data,  and has reduced the upper reaches considerably, and feedbacks (both positive and negative) are now being included in the models.

Just a reminder that currently  average of the surface data sets is about 0.6C.  The TLT satellite datasets are showing in the region of 0.3C over the last 9 months.

El Nino is now showing real signs of dissipating.  AMO is on the turn  as well. 

Lets see what the next year brings.

The last 2 years will have been the peak of the warming for now (from natural causes) and  we are still below  his predictions.

MIA

 

No, look at the graph, three scenarios...And do read the article I link to.

[Derecho]

18 hours ago, tablet said:

pictures "DO" paint a thousand words , here are 2 heat maps from December 2016 , one is the " Modelled " temperature of our planet , the other is where NASA has Actual temperature reading equipment , from  realclimatescience.com , but if you check with NASA , it's very true

Why have you compared anomalies with percentiles? They are different things, here are the actual global temperature anomalies when taking all the SST data as well.

Bear in mind that the interpolation products are relying on SSTs more in data sparse areas due to greater sampling. The warm SSTs are clearly playing a greater role here. Bear in mind percentiles don't tell you how variable the temperatures actually are. So if the temperature variability of a site like that in Central Africa is small then it does not take much to make it into the upper percentile.

Furthermore the averages map focused on here is the 1981-2010 so given the warming trend observed with the SSTs around Africa, then an average month from 1981-2010 is still going to appear in upper percentiles.

There is uncertainties in temperature estimates over data sparse regions but these are accounted for in global temperature calculations. The fact that global temperature datasets derived from different methods all show the same thing only adds further validation. You will find on the below graph the Hadley temperature dataset (you have shown the NOAA product) does not use interpolation and therefore leaves these grid boxes blank. So what does that suggest?

[Midlands Ice Age]

3 hours ago, Ed Stone said:

To what 'natural causes' do you refer, MIA? According to what's known about Milankovitch cycles, the Earth should have been cooling for decades...and, the Solar Cyclists have been promising global cooling ever since I joined NW, in 2003...

I eagerly await your peer-reviewed paper On The Non-Existent Drivers of Non-Observed Global Cooling...I'm sure it'll be an interesting read...

I think I alluded to the natural causes as the ENSO and AMO in the main.

ENSO can increase world temperatures by as much a 0.6C over the varies ENSO cycles as shown by El Nino and La Nina over the satellite history, and the AMO has an amplitude of 0.3C over the 65 year cycle. 

Both of these have been in a positive maximum phase (and in sync) for the last 20 - 30years. The next 5 years will see both start to enter a more variable or in the case of the AMO a downward phase.

The graph below is taken from the fully detrended HADCRUt4 dataset on a 30 year basis. The only omitted 'trend' is the AMO. It shows the impact of the AMO on world temperatures very clearly.

 

There may be other natural factors about to come into play such as a long-term solar minimum period (as you suggest)..

It now looks as though the lower  SC 23 may actually be extending into 24 and 25..

We have not seen the like of it for over 100 years.

History teaches us that prolonged lower Solar Cycle intensity have a lowering effect on world temperatures.

This is leading to much research into the high strength particles now able to hit the earth.  I,  unlike yourself,  do not know the outcome of all this research.

I await the results of the above with interest. 

MIA

  

[Midlands Ice Age]

14 minutes ago, Midlands Ice Age said:

I think I alluded to the natural causes as the ENSO and AMO in the main.

ENSO can increase world temperatures by as much a 0.6C over the varies ENSO cycles as shown by El Nino and La Nina over the satellite history, and the AMO has an amplitude of 0.3C over the 65 year cycle. 

Both of these have been in a positive maximum phase (and in sync) for the last 20 - 30years. The next 5 years will see both start to enter a more variable or in the case of the AMO a downward phase.

The graph below is taken from the fully detrended HADCRUt4 dataset on a 30 year basis. The only omitted 'trend' is the AMO. It shows the impact of the AMO on world temperatures very clearly.

 

There may be other natural factors about to come into play such as a long-term solar minimum period (as you suggest)..

It now looks as though the lower extended minimum of SC 23 , and  now with SC 24 which may actually be extending into 25 (and probably into 26).  (IMO) ..

Whilst it is not yet fully defined it does now look as though this cycle minimum is being extended to one of the longest  observed since the late 17th century. (Maunder Minimum). Scientists who were predicting a more 'active' cycle 25, are now admitting that so far there is little serious sign of the start of the cycle.

We have not seen the like of it for over 100 years.

History teaches us that prolonged lower Solar Cycle intensity have a lowering effect on world temperatures.

This is leading to much research into the high strength particles now able to hit the earth.  I,  unlike yourself,  do not know the outcome of all this research.

I await the results of the above with interest. 

MIA

  

 

Edited June 23, 2019 by Midlands Ice Age

[Derecho]

18 minutes ago, Midlands Ice Age said:

I think I alluded to the natural causes as the ENSO and AMO in the main.

ENSO can increase world temperatures by as much a 0.6C over the varies ENSO cycles as shown by El Nino and La Nina over the satellite history, and the AMO has an amplitude of 0.3C over the 65 year cycle. 

0.6C? This would be a figure reserved for individual months during the biggest El Nino's like 2016 and 1998.

Both of these have been in a positive maximum phase (and in sync) for the last 20 - 30years. The next 5 years will see both start to enter a more variable or in the case of the AMO a downward phase.

If the AMO is so influential on global temperatures then why did global temperatures increase from 1980-1994 (minus Pinatubo years)? Where is the evidence it affects global temperature and what is the mechanism behind it? The AMO is known to affect Atlantic SSTs and land temperatures around it, but its not global is it?

The graph below is taken from the fully detrended HADCRUt4 dataset on a 30 year basis. The only omitted 'trend' is the AMO. It shows the impact of the AMO on world temperatures very clearly.

Yet it also shows global temperatures increasing very clearly. There is potentially some impact on the global temperature but the warming trend from GHGs clearly overwhelms it. We get a rising staircase in global temperatures despite the variability in AMO. That demonstrates it won't stop the increase in global temperatures over the long term,

There may be other natural factors about to come into play such as a long-term solar minimum period (as you suggest)..

So why have global temperatures continued to rapidly increase since 1985 (the grand solar maximum) when solar activity has decreased?

It now looks as though the lower  SC 23 may actually be extending into 24 and 25..

We have not seen the like of it for over 100 years.

2010 was the warmest year on record yet almost the whole year was spotless and the years before it were very quiet.

History teaches us that prolonged lower Solar Cycle intensity have a lowering effect on world temperatures.

No it doesn't, there is no correlation between global temperature of the last 150 years and 11 year solar cycle intensity. The only links that have been suggested are that solar activity slightly increases the chances of notably cold winters over western Europe and the SE USA.

This is leading to much research into the high strength particles now able to hit the earth.  I,  unlike yourself,  do not know the outcome of all this research.

I await the results of the above with interest. 

MIA

  

 

Edited June 23, 2019 by Quicksilver1989

[Midlands Ice Age]

18 minutes ago, Quicksilver1989 said:

 

QS...

Thanks for the reply.

1) Yep I do not disagree.

2)You have misunderstood the graph.

HADCRUT4 is a worldwide temperature measurement. It is showing a variability (shown in my chart) which is being ascribed to an AMO type effect. As can be seen it is 30 years behind, and during the whole period you ascribe too it was increasing, only reaching a maximum in 2007. The change to any impact would only be expected to show up in the last 10 years, and even then it is like turning a tanker.  

3) The graph I presented as a rate of change  graph. NOT an absolute temperature chart..

4) Temperatures will only start to fall when we get below the zero mark for the particular cycle.

5) History goes back further than the last 150 years. CO2 cannot explain what happened during the periods that history teaches us actually happened.

Ignoring things like to LIA, the MWP, the Roman warming actually happened are a true believers response.

I do not deny that some warming is being caused by CO2. 

MIA

Edited June 23, 2019 by Midlands Ice Age

[Methuselah]

10 hours ago, Midlands Ice Age said:

QS...

Thanks for the reply.

1) Yep I do not disagree.

2)You have misunderstood the graph.

HADCRUT4 is a worldwide temperature measurement. It is showing a variability (shown in my chart) which is being ascribed to an AMO type effect. As can be seen it is 30 years behind, and during the whole period you ascribe too it was increasing, only reaching a maximum in 2007. The change to any impact would only be expected to show up in the last 10 years, and even then it is like turning a tanker.  

3) The graph I presented as a rate of change  graph. NOT an absolute temperature chart..

4) Temperatures will only start to fall when we get below the zero mark for the particular cycle.

5) History goes back further than the last 150 years. CO2 cannot explain what happened during the periods that history teaches us actually happened.

Ignoring things like to LIA, the MWP, the Roman warming actually happened are a true believers response.

I do not deny that some warming is being caused by CO2. 

MIA

Then, what would you call the, seemingly vain, hope that somehow, just somehow, Mother Nature will come to our rescue?

Whatever these 'natural saviours' are, they are being comprehensively swamped by anthropogenic greenhouse gases...?

The globe is warming!

[Gray-Wolf]

43 minutes ago, Ed Stone said:

Then, what would you call the, seemingly vain, hope that somehow, just somehow, Mother Nature will come to our rescue?

Whatever these 'natural saviours' are, they are being comprehensively swamped by anthropogenic greenhouse gases...?

The globe is warming!

Sadly I think Mother N has been coming to our rescue Pete but it appears that She could do nought and so is resigned to allow climate to 'flip up' to the next stable setting?

Doubly saddening is that the dirty side of our polluting had also been aiding Her in trying to keep temp rises down but we are busy taking away this 'help'.

I'm still not liking the mess we currently see in the Arctic and if that is the 'weak link' it would be useful for someone to calculate just how much 'New Energy' is now pouring into the climate system ( on top of our attempts to keep more of that energy on the planet for longer?) via 'dark water' over peak insolation beyond the Arctic circle?

Yet another year of Arctic towns setting new high daily temp records, yet another summer of ever earlier wildfires across our tundra/permafrost.....

We are at the point that we must see dramatic impact from all these forcings pushing the planet in one direction?

[Gray-Wolf]

How can a near 'Nada' Enso year, in full low solar, be posting monthly temps higher than the last super Nino's best efforts ( June 2016?).

This does not bode well for the rest of the year and surely signals what I have been warning of?

Are we now in a renewed rapid warming period with Naturals aiding AGW warming and then the addition of the Arctic New Energies ( solar milked by open waters, from sun up, over peripheral areas of the basin and many other sea areas as the melt season progresses) and further augmented by the clean up of sulphates/particulates from China reducing global dimming?.

Will we see this year challenge for warmest ever?

[daz_4]

6 hours ago, Gray-Wolf said:

Are we now in a renewed rapid warming period with Naturals aiding AGW warming and then the addition of the Arctic New Energies ( solar milked by open waters, from sun up, over peripheral areas of the basin and many other sea areas as the melt season progresses) and further augmented by the clean up of sulphates/particulates from China reducing global dimming?.

Central Europe will turn into steppe in ten years if things continue on current pace. It's scary how quickly things are progressing and the way records are broken is mindblowing. June was another sobering reminder of that.

  

[tablet]

Urban heat island effect photographed in June's heat wave  by NASA's ECOSTRESS Maps , the heat sink properties of concrete , tarmac , and urbanization can be clearly seen early in the day

Using  any temperature readings from these area's would almost certainly skew recorded temperature records warmer than the true temperature of the surrounding areas , which can be clearly seen to be much cooler , and well below the half a degree correction used for the UHIE ( urban heat island effect ) at the present time ( note the airports are marked , as temperature recording equipment is present at most )

source -  https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=7445&fbclid=IwAR06X9kqUS6NWWaGRqvCQcMisTjI54eXun1BhyL3TdAmrOkMYWEHacZIrZs