The weather for 2016

[sylas]

You cannot claim the hottest year on record would have occurred without the El Niño. It may have, but the hotter years do follow a tend with El Niño, and the trend is that El Niños appear to be getting stronger. ...

Any claim of this sort would have to be somewhat tentative, of course. We cannot really test such inferences directly. Be that as it may, there are attempts to quantity the impact of El Nino on temperature. This work has been going on for a number of years now; and there have been available "ENSO-corrected" temperature records, which basically give a picture of global temperature with the ENSO effect factored out, as best we can manage.

Such estimates are the basis for the tentative inference, repeated now by a number of researchers actively involved in this very question, that 2015 would most likely have set a new record even without the El Nino effect.

There's a direct relevance to OP of this thread. The effect of El Nino on temperature tends to be somewhat delayed. This is the basis for my estimate of a high likelihood for 2016 setting another new record. What El Nino did, quite definitely, is push the last three months of 2015 to be substantially higher than the earlier months. The thing is... 2015 was on its way to a record even without this boost to the latter months. El Nino did help 2015 shatter the records by a large margin. But it isn't the whole story. The real reason we keep getting new hottest years, again and again and again, is because there's a consistent underlying increasing trend. That is, global warming. And in so far as we can estimate in quantified terms the contribution of El Nino; it looks like 2015 would have been a record in any case even without that boost. But WITH the boost; 2016 is going to get a big kick from El Nino as well. It will come down to how long this El Nino lasts. In 1998, it was 1997 that caught an El Nino effect in latter months and 1998 which caught an El Nino effect in earlier months. 1997 came within a whisker of setting a new record at the time (beaten only by 1995, using the GISTEMP dataset; others will show roughly similar patterns) 1998 blew it away. If the current El Nino lasts a reasonable time, it's likely that 2016 will beat out 2015.

Some references (papers which attempt to quantify the ENSO impact – all written well before this year) showing work that sets the theoretical basis for claims that 2015 would probably have been a record even without the ENSO boost.

• Thompson et al, A large discontinuity in the mid-twentieth century in observed global-mean surface temperature, Nature 453, 646-649 (29 May 2008) doi
• Foster et al, Global temperature evolution 1979–2010, in Environmental Research Letters, Volume 6, Number 4, Dec 2011, doi.
• Fawcett et al, On tropical cyclone activity in the Southern Hemisphere: Trends and the ENSO connection, Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 35, Issue 14, July 2008, doi

Some recent blog articles from (what I consider to be) reputable active working scientists in the field, specifically on the role of ENSO for the 2015 record.

• At open mind, by tamino (actually a statistician rather than pure scientist, but active publishing on climate related statistical analysis): el Niño and the 2015 Record-Breaking Heat.
• At realclimate, by Gavin Schmidt: 2015 temperatures. (Look at the update at the end of the blog post, which was added specifically to address this question of the ENSO contribution.)

Some data with my own comments. (Data from the most recent GISTEMP dataset.)

ElNinoYearsGISTEMP.JPG
This is month by month global temperature anomaly for 1997-1998, and for 2015. Vertical axis is a temperature anomaly in hundredths of a degree, measuring the rise above a baseline set 1951-1980. Horizontal axis is the month.
For 1997-1998 you can see the El Nino begin to kick in around about October 1997, with a big high in Feb 1998, and last through to about August 1998. In 2015 you have a substantial overall increase (which can be solidly attributed to 17 years warming) but the EL Nino effect kicks in for October 2015.

So – two points looking on the data.

• If we could ignore the impact of El Nino… then note that 2015 had to have average anomaly of 90 to set a new record over 2014. The first nine months already had an average of 92, even before the El Nino driven highs in the last three months. So yeah… the data gives a credible basis for thinking that we did not need the El Nino effect for 2015 to set a record.
• If we consider the El Nino impact… then indeed 2015 smashed the old records, with a help from those last three very high months. But El Nino usually lasts more than six months, so 2016 is probably going to get a bigger boost from the El Nino than 2015. So in real life, where El Nino does have a strong impact.. the data gives a credible basis for thinking 2016 is going to be another hot year and credibly likely to beat out 2015 if we get another six months of El Nino fuelled warmth.

[sylas]

Update to previous post... just after posting, I found another blog post on this very topic. The source in this case is a not particularly widely known blog called "Climate Lab Book"; one of my favourites. It is by another working climate scientist, Ed Hawkins -- and colleagues. Ed is not much involved in fights over the mostly trivial matters which dominate much of the popular debate, but he has a big interest into looking into tricky questions in active climate research, and in analysis and substantive contributions. In his own words: the blog is "an experiment in ‘open source’ climate science. It is written by climate scientists, for climate scientists, but open to anyone to see and comment. [...] Please keep the discussion scientific and on topic – this is not meant to be a typical blog discussion of the consensus view on climate science." That is: the blog is more about open questions than about rehashing the basics.

Anyhoo... his latest blog post is Expectations for 2016 global temperatures. It repeats some of what I've been saying above, but gets a little deeper into the issues with analysis of ENSO impacts. It includes some graphs similar to those I posted myself -- but including also the 1982-83 El Nino. It uses HadCRUT4.4 rather than GISTEMP as the data. (Ed actually works for the Met Office in the UK which produces the HadCRUT temperature set.) There are significant differences in the patterns of monthly data, but the overall pattern of annual anomalies is very similar. (... and that could be a rather subtle topic for another thread.)

Ed also links to the official Met Office 2016 global mean temperature forecast -- another highly credible source suggesting 2016 has a good prospect of being hotter even than 2015. It opens as follows:

The global mean temperature for 2016 is expected to be between 0.72 °C and 0.96 °C above the long-term (1961-1990) average of 14.0 °C, with a central estimate of 0.84 °C...

This came out in Dec 2015. The 2015 result for the Met Office has since been released, and was 0.75.

[shunyadragon]

Back to some real science, and climb out of the moldy sewage of catacombs of superstitious blind flat earthers with ink stained fingers.

Source: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/

January was warmer, drier than average for contiguous US

A record-breaking snow storm impacted the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast. The contiguous U.S. drought footprint contracted to lowest extent since 2010.

The January contiguous U.S. average temperature was 32.2°F, 2.1°F above the 20th century average, ranking as the 34th warmest January on record. The January precipitation total for the contiguous U.S. was 2.03 inches, 0.28 inch below the 20th century average, the 36th driest January on record. Precipitation in the West slightly improved long-term drought conditions.

This analysis of U.S. temperature and precipitation is based on data back to January 1895, resulting in 122 years of data.

U.S. climate highlights: January

Temperature

January 2016 Temperature Departure from Average Map
January 2016 Percent of Normal Precipitation
January 2016 Temperature Departure from Average
(top) and Precipitation Percent of Average (bottom)
Above-average temperatures were observed across the West, Northern and Central Plains, Upper Midwest, and the Northeast. Maine observed its 11th warmest January on record. Below-average temperatures occurred in the Mid-Atlantic and Southeast.
Alaska had its fifth warmest January on record. The statewide average temperature of 17.1°F was 15.0°F above the long-term average. Much-above-average temperatures were observed throughout the state, with slightly above-average temperatures across the Aleutians.
Precipitation

Below-average precipitation was observed across much of the eastern United States. Ohio had its ninth driest January with a precipitation total of 1.28 inches of precipitation, 1.53 inches below average.
Above-average precipitation fell across parts of the West and in Florida. Parts of Florida were record wet and the statewide precipitation total of 5.96 inches was 3.00 inches above average and ranked as the fourth wettest January for the state.
According to an analysis of NOAA data by the Rutgers Global Snow Lab, the January contiguous U.S. snow cover extent was 1.65 million square miles, 286,000 square miles above the 1981-2010 average, and the seventh largest in the 50-year period of record. Above-average snow cover was observed across the West, Northern Plains, and Northeast, with below-average snow cover in parts of the Southern Plains.
According to the February 2nd U.S. Drought Monitor report, 15.5 percent of the contiguous U.S. was in drought, down from 18.7 percent at the end of December. Drought conditions improved for parts of the West and Northeast, with drought worsening in parts of the Northern Rockies and Plains. January was drier than average for much of Hawaii, with many locations receiving less than 25 percent of normal monthly precipitation. Abnormally dry and moderate drought conditions expanded to the entire state.

© Copyright Original Source

Record winter Northeasters (actually winter tropical storms which sometimes reach hurricane strength) are periodically associated with strong El Ninos.

[shunyadragon]

The world has also been very very warm for January 2016

Source: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/02/uah-v6-global-temperature-update-for-january-2016-0-54-deg-c/

UAH V6 Global Temperature Update for January, 2016: +0.54 deg C
February 1st, 2016 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
NOTE: This is the tenth monthly update with our new Version 6.0 dataset. Differences versus the old Version 5.6 dataset are discussed here. Note we are now at “beta5” for Version 6 (hopefully the last beta before submission of the methodology for publication), discussed more below.

The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for January, 2016 is +0.54 deg. C, up from the December, 2015 value of +0.45 deg. C (click for full size version):

The global, hemispheric, and tropical LT anomalies from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 13 months are:

YR MO GLOBE NH SH TROPICS
2015 01 +0.30 +0.44 +0.15 +0.13
2015 02 +0.19 +0.34 +0.04 -0.07
2015 03 +0.18 +0.28 +0.07 +0.04
2015 04 +0.09 +0.19 -0.01 +0.08
2015 05 +0.27 +0.34 +0.20 +0.27
2015 06 +0.31 +0.38 +0.25 +0.46
2015 07 +0.16 +0.29 +0.03 +0.48
2015 08 +0.25 +0.20 +0.30 +0.53
2015 09 +0.23 +0.30 +0.16 +0.55
2015 10 +0.41 +0.63 +0.20 +0.53
2015 11 +0.33 +0.44 +0.22 +0.52
2015 12 +0.45 +0.53 +0.37 +0.61
2016 01 +0.54 +0.70 +0.39 +0.85

We are now approaching peak warmth in the tropics due to El Nino conditions. Only time will tell if warming continues for a few more months, or whether January was the peak.

© Copyright Original Source

See website for graphs and maps.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/02/...16-0-54-deg-c/

[TheLurch]

NASA's just released the surface temperatures for January. Highest divergence from the average yet, and marks the fourth month in a row that the divergence from their baseline (1951-1980) was over a degree C.

[shunyadragon]

This data is preliminary, but . . . All records were broken big time for February 2016 temperatures worldwide. It appears that it is the first time in history that the deviation from normal was more than 2 degrees.

Source: http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2016/03/01/february_2016_s_shocking_global_warming_temperature_record.html

Update, March 3, 2016: Since this post was originally published, the heat
wave has continued. As of Thursday morning, it appears that average
temperatures across the Northern Hemisphere have breached the 2 degrees
Celsius above “normal” mark for the first time in recorded history, and
likely the first time since human civilization began thousands of years ago.*
That mark has long been held (somewhat arbitrarily) as the point above
which climate change may begin to become "dangerous" to humanity.
It's now arrived—though very briefly—much more quickly than anticipated.
This is a milestone moment for our species. Climate change deserves our
greatest possible attention.

Original post, March 1, 2016: Our planet’s preliminary February temperature
data are in, and it’s now abundantly clear: Global warming is going into
overdrive.

There are dozens of global temperature datasets, and usually I (and my
climate journalist colleagues) wait until the official ones are released about
the middle of the following month to announce a record-warm month at
the global level. But this month’s data is so extraordinary that there’s no
need to wait: February obliterated the all-time global temperature record
set just last month.

Using unofficial data and adjusting for different base-line temperatures,
it appears that February 2016 was likely somewhere between 1.15 and
1.4 degrees warmer than the long-term average, and about 0.2 degrees
above last month—good enough for the most above-average month ever
measured. (Since the globe had already warmed by about +0.45 degrees
above pre-industrial levels during the 1981-2010 base-line meteorologists
commonly use, that amount has been added to the data released today.)

Keep in mind that it took from the dawn of the industrial age until last
October to reach the first 1.0 degree Celsius, and we’ve come as much
as an extra 0.4 degrees further in just the last five months. Even
accounting for the margin of error associated with these preliminary
datasets, that means it’s virtually certain that February handily beat
the record set just last month for the most anomalously warm month
ever recorded. That’s stunning.

It also means that for many parts of the planet, there basically wasn’t
a winter. Parts of the Arctic were more than 16 degrees Celsius
(29 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than “normal” for the month of
February, bringing them a few degrees above freezing, on par with
typical June levels, in what is typically the coldest month of the
year. In the United States, the winter was record-warm in cities coast
to coast. In Europe and Asia, dozens of countries set or tied their
all-time temperature records for February. In the tropics, the
record-warmth is prolonging the longest-lasting coral bleaching
episode ever seen.

© Copyright Original Source

[Jorge]

My guesstimate:

2016 will be even hotter than 2015. That's a big call; because 2015 was a huge spike in temperatures; generally we'd expect things to cool down a bit after a big spike. I do expect a cool down; but I think it may well be in 2017 rather than 2016. El Nino generally seems to have a slightly delayed effect on global temperatures; which means that even as the current El Nino fades, its effects should continue well into 2016... which means 2016 is very likely to be another hot year (mean global anomaly).

Hurricanes: a harder call. El Nino is generally associated with more pacific hurricanes and less atlantic hurricanes: and so it was in 2015. But 2016... I dunno. Regressing back towards the mean is usually a good betting tactic; the problem is that the mean is shifting under our feet. Under duress; I'd expect 2016 to see above average hurricane activity in the Pacific (though maybe not quite as much as 2015) and a generally unexceptional year in the Atlantic.

No offense, but I had to snicker a little at your concluding "prediction": 'Drought may still be a problem in some regions". That's a safe bet for just about any year. :-) For my part on drought... I dunno.

"Weathermen" - the only profession where you actually get paid for being wrong 95% of the time.

On other news, from day one I've said that "Global Warming" (now "Climate Change") was nothing but a front for a more sinister agenda. Now, just as for Evolution, the criminals behind the agenda are seeking to employ the powers of the State to literally force people to accept that agenda or pay heavy penalties. Here's a clip:

"The US Department of Justice has been considering whether people should be prosecuted for the offense of climate change denial.

“This matter has been discussed. We have received information about it and have referred it to the FBI to consider whether or not it meets the criteria for which we could take action on,” said Attorney General Loretta Lynch, responding to a question from green activist Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) at a Senate Judiciary Hearing.

Full article here: http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...hange-deniers/

Yup, you will either submit to the establishment's edicts or it's off to the gallows with you!

If that doesn't bring Evolution and EXPELLED! to mind then nothing will.

My recommendation is to imprison Loretta Lynch - better yet, to lynch Lynch! - for abuse of powers. Follow that with the same for Clinton, Clinton, Obama, Holder, Bush, Bush, Cheney, Dimon, Blankfein, Bernanke, Greenspan, Yellen, Fisher ... and a very long list of others.
.
.
.
Carry on, children ... do carry on.

Jorge

[Roy]

Go here Jorge

[TheLurch]

I love how "People have complained, and we've forwarded the complaints to the FBI" suddenly becomes "it's off to the gallows with you!"

It must be interesting to lead a life that's completely unconstrained by reality.

[Jorge]

I love how "People have complained, and we've forwarded the complaints to the FBI" suddenly becomes "it's off to the gallows with you!"

It must be interesting to lead a life that's completely unconstrained by reality.

Let no one say that figurative language escapes The Lurch. Yeah ... right.
Note also how, like a cheap magician, he tries to distract from the primary issue.
Oh well, he's had plenty of practice in his defense of alternate realities.

Jorge

[TheLurch]

Let no one say that figurative language escapes The Lurch. Yeah ... right.
Note also how, like a cheap magician, he tries to distract from the primary issue.
Oh well, he's had plenty of practice in his defense of alternate realities.

The Justice Department has received complaints. What exactly is it supposed to do? Is the "primary issue" you're upset with that someone in the government is actually doing their job as they're supposed to?

And let's not even get started about your claim that there's some "sinister agenda" behind something Arrhenius told us about a century ago.

[klaus54]

Just curious -- is someone proposing that AGW denial be considered a crime???

[Jorge]

Just curious -- is someone proposing that AGW denial be considered a crime???

Does it need to be spelled out for you? Yes, that is precisely what is going on
right now as we speak. I discovered more news on it just yesterday.

Why is this happening? It's because the true reason behind AGW is a Totalitarian
Collectivist agenda. Helping the environment or the 'little man' is merely their
cover story for the witless sheeple. It's connected with a push for a cashless
economic system. This isn't the place for a defense of that - nor would I even
attempt such a thing with this group - just keep your eyes and ears open.
You will be hearing increasingly more on these subjects. Heaven help us
should these monstrous criminals ever succeed in achieving their goals.

Jorge

[Jorge]

The Justice Department has received complaints. What exactly is it supposed to do? Is the "primary issue" you're upset with that someone in the government is actually doing their job as they're supposed to?

And let's not even get started about your claim that there's some "sinister agenda" behind something Arrhenius told us about a century ago.

See my previous post # 28.
Yes, sadly YOU are one of the "witless sheeple" that I alluded to.

Jorge

[oxmixmudd]

See my previous post # 28.
Yes, sadly YOU are one of the "witless sheeple" that I alluded to.

Jorge

jorge is wrong in his 'world domination conspiracy fears.

But he is right in that some are trying to find ways to use RICO laws in the US (and other approaches in other countries) to to quiet dissent over global warming.

This is a VERY bad idea.

You just can't legislate a scientific position, and you just can't silence contrary voices.

(1) the 1st amendment gives all of us the right to voice our disagreement with any political policy or idea.
(2) the instant you legislate which ideas are scientifically correct and which ones are not, science dies. From that moment forward, ALL science is suspect.
(3) if a scientific idea needs prosecution of dissent by the law to gain acceptance, it is not very good science to start with.

I hope most of you already understand these things. And I hope most of us will be opposed to those that want to try to force the silence of those that doubt AGW.

The only possible exception would be a conspiracy to knowingly lie and deceive the ignorant. PROVING that is the case would be exceptionally difficult, but that is no excuse for trying to bypass first amendment rights and the free expression of ideas to accomplish the goal of widespread UNDERSTANDING of the science that leads to the conclusion AGW is a reality.


Jim