I'll show the map comparisons below the fold. The updated comparison plots with 1998 are here
Here is the GISS map for the month
The Moyhu spherical harmonics map is here:
Tuesday, September 13, 2016
GISS up 0.13°C in August
GISS is up from 0.85°C in July to 0.98°C in August. This compares with a larger rise of 0.21° in TempLS (but GISS rose in July when TempLS dropped slightly, so over two months, about the same), and is much more than the small rise in the NCEP/NCAR index. It is also the warmest August in the record (next was 0.79°C in 2011).
I'll show the map comparisons below the fold. The updated comparison plots with 1998 are here
Here is the GISS map for the month
The Moyhu spherical harmonics map is here:
I'll show the map comparisons below the fold. The updated comparison plots with 1998 are here
Here is the GISS map for the month
The Moyhu spherical harmonics map is here:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Looks like TempLS was a good predictor that GISS LOTI would also have a big jump, even if not quite so big. Again it looks like the "hot" spot in Antarctic, where temperatures were well below freezing, was a big part of the global jump, with a lesser contribution from the high anomaly in Central Russia. Not too much blue on the maps referenced to the cold period 1951-1980.
ReplyDeleteI noticed that the BEST ice air global temperature anomaly had a big jump from 0.37C in July to 0.59C in August referenced to 1981-2010, a 0.22C increase which is a tiny bit bigger than TempLS. I guess BEST must use a mesh approach as well.
Now we have 11 month of record an a row, and it is possible the the GISS September breaks the 0.90 form 2014 too. My model predicts 1.00+-0.17°C for September 2016.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if it is a glitch in the data processing, but the South pole region has suddenly gone missing on the Gistemp maps for June, July and August. Also, there is no data for Amundsen-Scott base through this period in the Giss station archive.
ReplyDeleteIf the +4 C August anomaly for Amundsen-Scott gets included later and extrapolated 1200 km, it would make a noticeable difference on the global average, about +0.04 C
Good catch! I'll try and take a look at the subbox files, but I'm tied up with another problem. I suggest pinging Reto Ruedy on this ASAP.
DeleteYes, it's in the subbox files. Last 3 months only.
DeleteThat was hopelessly cryptic. Try again:
DeleteYes, the central Antarctic is missing in the subbox files for the last 3 months. Which is certainty consistent with Amundsen-Scott being missing from the station files.
I can't believe the ignorance of the guy Dan Hughes on Curry's blog regarding GCMs. The stuff he spews is obviously recycled garbage from the engineering company at where he works. I have seen this stuff so many times and can smell it a mile away. He probably pulled it from a proposal mill, especially the stuff at the end.
ReplyDeletehttp://judithcurry.com/2016/09/13/global-climate-models-and-the-laws-of-physics/
Hughes is pitiful, yet the only way to skewer him is to come up with simpler models of climate. It can be done and so we should never listen to the naysaying of contrarians such as Lindzen and the do-nothing third-rate engineers such as Hughes.
Nick gave a brilliantly simple answer to the spewers on that thread:
Delete"Differentiate the solution (discretely) as required and see if it satisfies the de."
They probably don't realize the significance of this trick. Of course it doesn't check for other possible solutions, but for the resolution of interest it works effectively.
I am using something akin to this with a wave-equation transform approach, whereby you don't actually have to solve the DiffEq, but leave it in its original formulation and calculate and use the derivatives.
http://contextearth.com/2015/07/11/enso-transformation/
Other neat tricks such as commutivity/transitivity of filter operations, so that one can pre-filter the data to reduce noise on the derivative computations. This will then be equivalent to post-filtering the data on the output. That's a trick that Nick has described here as well.
I would jump in there but I got banned from commenting by Curry long ago, so doing the play-by-play here.
Here is another accurate and enlightening response that Nick gave:
Delete“The forces associated with vertical acceleration and viscous shear are assumed negligible.”
That's what I am reasoning about when it comes to a behavior such as QBO. It's pretty clear that the horizontal energy in the QBO wind vastly overpowers that of any vertical acceleration (except for isolated and localized instances of storms). So that means the amount of detail that one has to apply to getting the vertical continuity correct in the details of QBO is likely second-order.
As I like to remind people, the stratosphere is called that for a reason -- the layers are stratified wrt altitude so that they do not interact so much. But within that layer, its an entirely different matter.
While the Arctic ice melt seems to have firmly ended, very strange happenings in the Antarctic, at what is normally approaching peak ice. Five days of melting have taken the ice level from lower mid-range to less than any this century. It's tempting to think it is linked with the recent atmospheric warmth there.
ReplyDeleteWell, there was going to be more ice, but one butterfly electron flipped it to less ice than any this century...
DeleteYes, the Antarctic sea ice is so volatile. In an instant it has fallen back back to the start level of satellite measurements around 1980.
DeleteCould that happen with the Arctic sea ice? Hardly...