The weather for 2017

[shunyadragon]

El Nino weather conditions may return/

[shunyadragon]

Signs of a possible return to El Nino return increase. The good news is if the El Nino returns there will be fewer hurricanes in the Atlantic than expected, but warmer average temperatures, continuing deterioration of many coral reefs, and increased drought conditions are part of the bad news.



2017 represents a transition year of El Nina /LA Nina conditions that could of course go either way. There was a near record number of tornadoes this year, which is more representative of La Nina weather conditions.

[shunyadragon]

What's the difference between global warming and climate change?

The reality of changes in world climate does not change regardless of the terminology we use. Calling it Global climate change does not change the fact that the world climate is warming.

[shunyadragon]

Data for world temperature record is in on the UAH site. It shows an increase over March.

[TheLurch]

Data for world temperature record is in on the UAH site. It shows an increase over March.

Just out of curiosity, why do you keep using the satellite record?

[shunyadragon]

Just out of curiosity, why do you keep using the satellite record?

Why not? It is not the only records cited, but it is valid evidence and confirmed by other sources over time.

[TheLurch]

Why not? It is not the only records cited, but it is valid evidence and confirmed by other sources over time.

It is a very indirect measure of temperature, samples the entire troposphere, is far more variable than surface records, and has suffered from serious errors in the past. Before those errors were corrected, it actually show the opposite temperature trend from all other records.

[shunyadragon]

It is a very indirect measure of temperature, samples the entire troposphere, is far more variable than surface records, and has suffered from serious errors in the past. Before those errors were corrected, it actually show the opposite temperature trend from all other records.

I mainly post what is available concerning global temperature records. As it is, I believe the different source are relatively consistent. Please cite other source if you find them available.

[sylas]

I mainly post what is available concerning global temperature records. As it is, I believe the different source are relatively consistent. Please cite other source if you find them available.

The best sources are the surface temperature records, which you almost certainly know already. These all tell pretty much the same story when looking at a global mean anomaly. Discussion of how they differ (in method, or in regional coverage, etc) may be of interest, but has little impact on the global mean anomaly.

• GISStemp. This is produced by the climate group within NASA.
• HadCRUT4. This is produced by Met Office, in the UK.
• NOAAGlobalTemp (previously called MLOST). Produced by NOAA (the official US government body for climate data.)
• BEST. The Berkeley Earth group.
• JMA. Japan Meteorological Agency.
• Cowtan and Way infilling with HadCRUT4. (Based on HadCRUT4, but extended using kringing to cover parts of the globe omitted in the original.)

Not that there's anything wrong with using the satellite record, if that's what one really wants to look at. But it is worth noting that the satellite data is subject to much more in the way of uncertainties and systematic errors; and it is actually measuring something a bit different than surface temperature. The satellite data is certainly of interest when we specifically want to consider the response of the atmosphere. It's a bit of an indirect measure of global warming trends however, quite apart from the accuracy and precision issues.

There are a couple of satellite data sets published, based on different ways of managing all the problems with the underlying raw microwave brightness data that is provided by satellites. There are some outstanding problems of interest. Measurements suggest that the atmosphere is not warming quite as fast as expected from models. This is not a refutation of global warming itself... because the warming of the surface is not what is in question here. It's about responses of the atmosphere to the warming we do see. Whether this is a problem with models, or with the calculations of atmospheric temperatures, is not clear, IMO.

For looking at year to year trends, as Shunya is doing here, I would personally recommend using GISStemp. It's a lot more stable than the satellite products, which are being updated periodically to better manage all the problems associated with getting a consistent temperature from the microwave data available. (Surface temperature datasets get updated as well, but the changes and systematic measurement errors and uncertainties are far smaller.) GISStemp also very easily available and widely used by others. It is a direct surface temperature measure, which is what we use in weather reports; and so is a better fit with the thread topic.

However, any data you decide to look at can be of interest. I'm not all that fussed if we want to look at tropospheric temperatures rather than surface temperatures. It's Shunya's thread. I do think it is worth noting for the record, however, that the tropospheric temperature doesn't actually correspond to weather as it is conventionally reported by weather agencies or experienced by individuals living at ground level.

Cheers -- sylas

[shunyadragon]

The best sources are the surface temperature records, which you almost certainly know already. These all tell pretty much the same story when looking at a global mean anomaly. Discussion of how they differ (in method, or in regional coverage, etc) may be of interest, but has little impact on the global mean anomaly.

• GISStemp. This is produced by the climate group within NASA.
• HadCRUT4. This is produced by Met Office, in the UK.
• NOAAGlobalTemp (previously called MLOST). Produced by NOAA (the official US government body for climate data.)
• BEST. The Berkeley Earth group.
• JMA. Japan Meteorological Agency.
• Cowtan and Way infilling with HadCRUT4. (Based on HadCRUT4, but extended using kringing to cover parts of the globe omitted in the original.)

Not that there's anything wrong with using the satellite record, if that's what one really wants to look at. But it is worth noting that the satellite data is subject to much more in the way of uncertainties and systematic errors; and it is actually measuring something a bit different than surface temperature. The satellite data is certainly of interest when we specifically want to consider the response of the atmosphere. It's a bit of an indirect measure of global warming trends however, quite apart from the accuracy and precision issues.

There are a couple of satellite data sets published, based on different ways of managing all the problems with the underlying raw microwave brightness data that is provided by satellites. There are some outstanding problems of interest. Measurements suggest that the atmosphere is not warming quite as fast as expected from models. This is not a refutation of global warming itself... because the warming of the surface is not what is in question here. It's about responses of the atmosphere to the warming we do see. Whether this is a problem with models, or with the calculations of atmospheric temperatures, is not clear, IMO.

For looking at year to year trends, as Shunya is doing here, I would personally recommend using GISStemp. It's a lot more stable than the satellite products, which are being updated periodically to better manage all the problems associated with getting a consistent temperature from the microwave data available. (Surface temperature datasets get updated as well, but the changes and systematic measurement errors and uncertainties are far smaller.) GISStemp also very easily available and widely used by others. It is a direct surface temperature measure, which is what we use in weather reports; and so is a better fit with the thread topic.

However, any data you decide to look at can be of interest. I'm not all that fussed if we want to look at tropospheric temperatures rather than surface temperatures. It's Shunya's thread. I do think it is worth noting for the record, however, that the tropospheric temperature doesn't actually correspond to weather as it is conventionally reported by weather agencies or experienced by individuals living at ground level.

Cheers -- sylas

It is not that I simple want to look at to look at this source. I wish to present all the different sources and compare to demonstrate the trends in climate over time. I also cite NOAAs data and analysis, but it shows up later in the month.

Great post!!!! Thank you!!!

[sylas]

It is not that I simple want to look at to look at this source. I wish to present all the different sources and compare to demonstrate the trends in climate over time. I also cite NOAAs data and analysis, but it shows up later in the month.

Fair enough. NOAA global anomaly data is available for March now.

You can access "NOAAGlobalTemp" data, and in particular the summary as a global anomaly, here: NOAAGlobalTemp. There's a simple tool to give plots directly, or you can look up data files to plot, process, or analyze yourself.

In brief, this March shows up in this data as an increase over February.

GISS also has their data available, and they show March as a slight decrease over February.

We are not looking at trends when we drill down into individual months like this. This is a very short term phenomena indeed, with strong regional influences. The differences between independent calculations can arise for a number of reasons. Looked at over time, the datasets track very close to each other indeed, as they are all estimates of the same basic thing. UAH is bound to be a bit of an outlier in such a comparison, as it is measuring something slightly different, as noted previously.

Cheers -- sylas

[TheLurch]

Thanks to Sylas for expanding my one-liner into a detailed explanation.

Easiest way to track what's up with GISS-TEMP is through this link:
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/t...LB.Ts+dSST.txt

[shunyadragon]

Thanks to Sylas for expanding my one-liner into a detailed explanation.

Easiest way to track what's up with GISS-TEMP is through this link:
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/t...LB.Ts+dSST.txt

Good to cite this source, but April data not yet available here.

[shunyadragon]

Fair enough. NOAA global anomaly data is available for March now.

You can access "NOAAGlobalTemp" data, and in particular the summary as a global anomaly, here: NOAAGlobalTemp. There's a simple tool to give plots directly, or you can look up data files to plot, process, or analyze yourself.

In brief, this March shows up in this data as an increase over February.

GISS also has their data available, and they show March as a slight decrease over February.

We are not looking at trends when we drill down into individual months like this. This is a very short term phenomena indeed, with strong regional influences. The differences between independent calculations can arise for a number of reasons. Looked at over time, the datasets track very close to each other indeed, as they are all estimates of the same basic thing. UAH is bound to be a bit of an outlier in such a comparison, as it is measuring something slightly different, as noted previously.

Cheers -- sylas

The purpose of this series of thread is not drilling down on month by month data. Based on the discussion of this data over time, and the El Nino/La Nina pattern over the years of this chain of threads, and this is the most consistent warmest period in recent history when supposedly by the evidence of climate cycles we should be in a cooling trend. It is not significant on a month by month data, but over time it is an interesting discussion on climate trends over time. I believe El Nino/La Nina pattern we are experiencing is intimately related to the warming trend in climate. You were optimistic that we may not even have the La Nina at this time in the cycle, and you may be correct.

[shunyadragon]

The latest report is in concerning the El Nino/La Nina. The conclusion is inconclusive, and we are in a neutral status with no conclusive evidence on which way this will go.