TempLS mesh was down from 0.704°C in May to 0.586°C in June. This follows the slightly larger fall of 0.16°C in the NCEP/NCAR index, and falls in the satellite indices, which had risen in May. The June anomaly (1961-90 base) is now a little below mid-2015 values, and is the coolest month since Nov 2014. In fact, it is similar to the 2014 annual average, which was still a record in its day.
The big turnaround was in the Antarctic, which went from quite warm to very cool. This is reflected in the TempLS grid values, which are less sensitive to the poles; T grid actually warmed. This pattern tends to be reflected in the main indices, with GISS generally picking up the polar changes; NOAA and HADCRUT less so. Otherwise as with the reanalysis, Europe was warm, NW Russia cold, Arctic neutral, warm spots in the Americas. Here is the map, and I'll show below that the breakdown, which emphasises the Antarctic turnaround.
Nick, You are publishing June temps without Australian data ;-)ReplyDelete
Anyway, the fall from May has seemingly been reduced a little bit by rising SST..
"You are publishing June temps without Australian data"Delete
Yes, but I have inside information :)
Which is, that is was weekend here, and nothing is likely before Monday.
Australian data has arrived now, and pulled down global temps by 0.005 C.Delete
Robert Rodhe has tweeted BEST l/o for June, 0.67 C, fourth warmest June but coolest anomaly since July 2015.
BEST 0.67 is down 0.17C, a little more than TempLS.Delete
There are like 1500 monthly data points in the modern-day temperature record yet whenever a new data point comes out, it's like Navin Johnson yelling "The new phone book's here! The new phone book's here!"Delete
I just don't get the excitement ... unless we can model the variability of the past, any additional data point by itself is meaningless.
Thanks to the confirmation bias and group-think promoted by deniers such as Tsonis and Lindzen, we are way behind where we should be in understanding natural temperature variability.ReplyDelete
Read this post http://contextearth.com/2017/07/06/confirmation-bias/ to understand how this happens.
Interesting that within the last year, geophysicists are finally admitting that the lunar tidal forces are a strong contributor to triggering earthquakes, and it is just a matter of time that the same is recognized for climate phenomena such as ENSO and QBO. Science eventually self-corrects.
They call off the El Niño prediction and show Niño 3.4 temp collapsing into negative ONI in June. Now July 10, and Niño 3.4 is still very warm: nowhere close to negative ONI.ReplyDelete
Because of the Antarctica cooling in June.ReplyDelete
If I plot the May trends from 1991 to 2016 here, I get a strong warming for Antarctica in May for this period.
If I plot the June trends from 1991 to 2016, I got a similar strong cooling over Antarctica in June for this period. For July too.
Are there other changes, wind ... there?
The Antarctic cooling doesn't show up in sea ice extent. 2017 is the second lowest for the time of the year, behind 1986 only, according to the Charctic sea ice graph..Delete
I guess what is cooling are the land masses, and the origin of the persisting sea ice extent decline might be due to the warming of the deeper ocean layers around the continent.
ENSO has a sharp seasonally modulated forcing that is narrow to the month. There are all sorts of patterns, such as a strict biennial oscillation buried in the data that few seem interested in. Or they may be interested once they understand how to extract it.ReplyDelete
Was there a blog post discussing the 2011 correction the MMH Atmos Sci Lett debable? Climate Audit post (specifically) or some other blog (less desirable, but still let me know)?
I am interested in how much they came to grip with the errors in the 2010 paper. Also if they were open about discussing their correction. (Was bothered a bit by the "doesn't change anything" tone in it. Wonder if the major logic errors were never admitted. But still like the discussion as it played out.)
I haven't written a post. But I read the correction. It seems that all the significant results become "marginally" significant (ie not). I haven't heard of the paper since. I see from Google that it was cited 32 times, often by McKitrick. The correction was cited once.Delete
Interesting if it was not written about on Climate Audit.Delete