Sales of my ebooks (and tips) allow me to continue my research into human-induced and natural climate change and to continue to blog here at Climate Observations and at WattsUpWithThat?
Over the past few months, there have been a number of articles about how the climate science community could have presented their message differently, or responded differently, so that they could have avoided the problem they’re now facing with the halt in global warming. Example: the problems with communications by climate scientists to the public were the subject of a recent editorial, and linked webpages, at Nature Climate Change titled Scientist communicators. In reading it, you’ll find the editorial is really nothing more than a rephrasing of manmade-global-warming dogma.
One of the climate science community’s primary problems was a very basic message…an intentionally misleading message. That is, it wasn’t how it was communicated; it was the message itself. I ran across that message again as I was searching for links for a chapter on atmospheric temperatures for my upcoming book The Oceans Ate My Global Warming. It appeared on the Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) Climate Analysis webpage. That webpage includes data that runs through 2013 in many cases, so it’s relatively new. Under the heading of TROPOSPERIC TEMPERATURE, RSS write (my boldface):
Over the past decade, we have been collaborating with Ben Santer at LLNL (along with numerous other investigators) to compare our tropospheric results with the predictions of climate models. Our results can be summarized as follows:
- Over the past 35 years, the troposphere has warmed significantly. The global average temperature has risen at an average rate of about 0.13 degrees Kelvin per decade (0.23 degrees F per decade).
- Climate models cannot explain this warming if human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are not included as input to the model simulation. Continue reading
GENERAL NOTES – BOILERPLATE
The February 2014 Reynolds OI.v2 Sea Surface Temperature (SST) data through the NOAA NOMADS website won’t be official until Monday, March 10,, 2014. Refer to the schedule on the NOAA Optimum Interpolation Sea Surface Temperature Analysis Frequently Asked Questions webpage. The following are the preliminary Global and NINO3.4 SST anomalies for February 2014 that the NOMADS website prepares based on incomplete data for the month. I’ve also included the weekly data through the week centered on February 26, 2014, but I’ve shortened the span of the weekly data. As noted in the recent mid-April 2013 update, I’ve started using February 2001 so that the variations can be seen AND so that you can see how “flat” global sea surface temperature anomalies have been since then.
The base years for anomalies are 1971-2000, which are the standard base years from the NOAA NOMADS website for this dataset.
PRELIMINARY MONTHLY DATA
The preliminary global sea surface temperature anomalies are presently at about +0.2 deg C. Based on the preliminary data, they basically remained the same (an increase of about +0.01 deg C) since January.
Monthly Global SST Anomalies
In this post, we’ll discuss a recent article and blog post about the recently published England et al. (2014). This post includes portions of past posts and a number of new discussions and illustrations.
We’ve already discussed (post here) the paper England et al. (2014) Recent intensification of wind-driven circulation in the Pacific and the ongoing warming hiatus. Since then, NBC News has an article by John Roach with the curious title Global Warming Pause? The Answer Is Blowin’ Into the Wind. And the team from RealClimate have agreed and disagreed with England et al. (2014) in their post Going with the wind.
I find it surprising that England et al. is getting so much attention. It’s simply another paper that shows quite plainly that the past and current generations of climate models are fatally flawed…because they cannot simulate coupled ocean atmosphere processes that cause global surface temperatures to warm and that stop that warming. Maybe the attention results from their use of “wind” as a metric. Everyone understands the word wind.
A FEW PRELIMINARY COMMENTS
We’ve illustrated and discussed in past posts how the current generation of global models cannot simulate how, when and where the surfaces of the oceans have warmed since 1880 and during the satellite era. See the posts:
The sea surface temperature anomalies of the NINO3.4 region in the equatorial Pacific (5S-5N, 170W-120W) are a commonly used metric for the frequency, strength and duration of El Niño and La Niña events. For the week centered on Wednesday February 19, 2014, they were at about -0.4 deg C. That is, they’re back in ENSO-neutral conditions (cooler than +0.5 deg C but warmer than -0.5 deg C), which means they’re not in El Niño or La Niña conditions.
[UPDATE: I corrected the dates in the title blocks of Figures 10 and 11. My thanks to blogger Bob.moe for finding the typos.]
England et al. (2014) Recent intensification of wind-driven circulation in the Pacific and the ongoing warming hiatus continues to receive attention, and with it comes basic questions for many people about trade winds. NBC News has an article by John Roach with the title Global Warming Pause? The Answer Is Blowing Into the Wind. And the team from RealClimate have agreed and disagreed with England et al. (2014) in their post Going with the wind. We’ve already discussed England et al. (2014) in the post here, and we’ll discuss that NBC News article and the RealClimate post in an upcoming one.
For this post, we’re going to concentrate on why the trade winds blow and why they’ve grown stronger in recent years. This is an “introduction to” post. It is not intended to confirm or contradict the findings of England et al. (2014). It is intended to illustrate that the trade winds of the tropical Pacific depend on the sea surface temperatures there and vice versa. It might be considered an add-on to (a reinforcement of) the post An Illustrated Introduction to the Basic Processes that Drive El Niño and La Niña Events.
This post also includes a good number of model-data comparisons. And as we’ve seen before, when illustrating Pacific sea surface temperature data, model-data comparisons never put the models in a good light. Then again, I’m trying to think of any circumstance in which the models performed well. Hmm. I can’t think of any. None. Nada. Zip.
WHY THE TRADE WINDS BLOW
We’ve already discussed Cowtan and Way’s infilling of HADCRUT4 data in the post On Cowtan and Way (2013) “Coverage bias in the HadCRUT4 temperature series and its impact on recent temperature trends”. The paper is available here. In that earlier post, I presented the following graph and noted:
If we compare the HADCRUT4 data to the CMIP5 models (historic and RCP6.0) for the period of 1997 to 2012, Figure 1, we can see that the models over-estimate the warming from 65S to 65N (the vast majority of the planet) and underestimate the warming at the poles. Therefore, if the Cowtan and Way (2013) data are increasing the warming in the Arctic, they are creating a greater divergence from the models there, but failing to reduce the differences between the models and data where the models overestimate the warming.
(I changed the above Figure number for this post. It was Figure 9 in the earlier post.)
The Cowtan and Way (2013) data do increase the warming at the poles and exaggerate the failings in the models there, while doing little to explain the hiatus in the non-polar regions, which make up about 90% of the planet.
Initial Notes: This post contains graphs of running trends in global surface temperature anomalies for periods of 13+ and 16+ years using GISS global (land+ocean) surface temperature data. They indicate that we have not seen a warming halt and slowdown this long since the early-1970s (13-year+ trends) or late-1970s (16-years+ trends).
Much of the following text is boilerplate. It is intended for those new to the presentation of global surface temperature anomaly data.
Most of the update graphs in the following start in 1979. That’s a commonly used start year for global temperature products because many of the satellite-based temperature datasets start then.
We discussed why the three suppliers use different base years for anomalies in the post Why Aren’t Global Surface Temperature Data Produced in Absolute Form?
GISS LAND OCEAN TEMPERATURE INDEX (LOTI)
Introduction: The GISS Land Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI) data is a product of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Starting with their January 2013 update, it uses NCDC ERSST.v3b sea surface temperature data. The impact of the recent change in sea surface temperature datasets is discussed here. GISS adjusts GHCN and other land surface temperature data via a number of methods and infills missing data using 1200km smoothing. Refer to the GISS description here. Unlike the UK Met Office and NCDC products, GISS masks sea surface temperature data at the poles where seasonal sea ice exists, and they extend land surface temperature data out over the oceans in those locations. Refer to the discussions here and here. GISS uses the base years of 1951-1980 as the reference period for anomalies. The data source is here.
Update: The January 2014 GISS global temperature anomaly is +0.70 deg C. It warmed (an increase of about 0.1 deg C) since December 2013.
El Niño and La Niña events are the dominant modes of natural climate variability on Earth, which is why the state of the tropical Pacific is continuously monitored. El Niños and La Niñas impact weather patterns globally. As a number of recent papers have argued, the dominance of La Niña events in recent years is responsible for part of the cessation in global surface warming outside of the Arctic, so by inference, those papers are also stating that a string of strong El Niño events were responsible for part of the long-term warming from the mid-1970s to the turn of the century. There’s nothing new about that; for years we’ve been discussing the naturally occurring, sunlight-fueled processes that drive El Niño events and cause long-term warming of global surface temperatures. If this subject is new to you, see the link at the end of this post for an overview.
The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) provides the following summary of their ENSO forecasts in their January 30, 2014 El Niño/La Niña Update:
- ENSO conditions are currently neutral (neither El Niño nor La Niña);
- As of mid-January 2014, except for a small possibility for weak and brief La Niña development during the next couple of months, outlooks indicate likely continuation of neutral conditions into the second quarter of 2014;
- Current forecasts indicate approximately equal chances for neutral conditions or the development of a weak El Niño during the third quarter of 2014, reflecting increased chances for development of a weak El Niño.
It appears no one is suggesting that a full-fledged La Niña will form for the 2014/15 season. As of the week centered on February 5th, the sea surface temperature anomalies of the NINO3.4 region of the equatorial Pacific indicated that the tropical Pacific was experiencing La Niña conditions, though not an “official” La Niña. See the monthly sea surface temperature update for January 2014.
What’s your prediction? Please provide links to the variables you monitor. Here’s what I predict.
MONTHLY SEA SURFACE TEMPERATURE ANOMALY MAP
The following is a Global map of Reynolds OI.v2 Sea Surface Temperature (SST) anomalies for January 2013. It was downloaded from the NOMADS website. The contour levels are set at 0.5 deg C, and white is set at zero.
January 2013 Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomalies Map
(Global SST Anomaly = +0.201 deg C)
England et al. (2014) paper Recent intensification of wind-driven circulation in the Pacific and the ongoing warming hiatus has been getting a lot of press around the blogosphere. The HockeySchtick has an excellent overview here, Anthony Watts introduced the paper in his WattsUpWithThat post here, Jo Nova has a guest post by William Kininmonth here, and Dana Nuccitelli added the warmist spin on the paper for SkepticalScience here. The following are a few quick comments about England et al. (2014).