Friday, September 8, 2017

August global surface temperature down 0.013°C

TempLS mesh anomaly (1961-90 base) was down from 0.69°C in July to 0.677°C in August. This very small drop compares with the small rise of 0.038°C in the NCEP/NCAR index, and a bigger rise (0.12) in the UAH LT satellite index. The August value is less than August 2015 or 2016, but higher than 2014.

There was a moderate fall in Antarctica, which as usual affects TempLS mesh and GISS more than others. I'd expect NOAA and HADCRUT to show increases for August. Regionally, the Old World was mostly warm; US was cold cental and East, but N Canada was warm. S America mostly warm (still awaiting a few countries). :

This post is part of a series that has now run for six years. The TempLS mesh data is reported here, and the recent history of monthly readings is here. Unadjusted GHCN is normally used, but if you click the TempLS button there, it will show data with adjusted, and also with different integration methods. There is an interactive graph using 1981-2010 base period here which you can use to show different periods, or compare with other indices. There is a general guide to TempLS here.

The reporting cycle starts with a report of the daily reanalysis index on about the 4th of the month. The next post is this, the TempLS report, usually about the 8th. Then when the GISS result comes out, usually about the 15th, I discuss it and compare with TempLS. The TempLS graph uses a spherical harmonics to the TempLS mesh residuals; the residuals are displayed more directly using a triangular grid in a better resolved WebGL plot here.


  1. This is the forcing for the ENSO model, the non-mixed Draconic and Anomalistic cycles:

    Solar eclipse alignment

    Note that the maximum excursions (perigee+declination excursion) align with the occurrence of total solar eclipses.

    Here are all the listed total solar eclipses:

    Anomalistic*Draconic multiplier

    The ENSO model uses this to align the phases of the Anomalistic and Draconic cycles, and then these are locked in during the fitting process, whereby only the amplitudes are allowed to vary.

    That and the mixed lunar terms are all that are required to model ENSO. It becomes increasingly difficult to overfit the model, because the phase remains stationary to the accuracy of the known periods.

    1. Here is the second chart

      Aomalistic*Draconic multiplier

      And Then There's the physics guy that seems afraid of physics and so deletes innocuous comments such as this.

    2. whut - I think ATTP (or Willard - not sure who was editing that day) just get tired of you trying to turn every post into an ENSO thread. They asked you to not hijack the thread - again.

    3. or a QBO thread, lol

      It's slim pickings as far as discussion forums are concerned.

    4. I should clarify that deep discussion forums on climate science, in particular are hard to come by. I tend to use these as a sounding board to get some ideas out there before I blog on it myself. Here's the details on using the total solar eclipses to calibrate the ENSO model

    5. While working on the models of ENSO and QBO, I got this opinion from a climate scientist that I had previously cited and then engaged with on Twitter.

      Roundy quote

      He thinks that if the lunar-forcing models for ENSO and QBO are true, then the currently accepted models for wave forcing theory are incorrect. That's a bit much because all I'm showing is the missing forcing. Everything that follows from physics should still hold.

      I like to use the electrical circuit analogy. If there was some weird signal on an output that no one could decipher, and then it was finally revealed that it was due to a 60Hz leakage, then we wouldn't throw out Kirchoff's laws. No, we would say that the input to the circuit was being forced by a line voltage signal and it became amplified in the output.

      In the case of QBO, we can simply say that the denier Richard Lindzen did not look hard enough for the forcing, couldn't find it, and so made up and elaborate theory to explain an emergent oscillation. Perhaps some variation of Lindzen's theory still holds to some degree, it just needs to be stimulated by the lunar forcing.

      Same thing with the models of ENSO by the denier A.A.Tsonis, who thinks that variations of of ENSO are likely the result of chaotic emergence. Well, one theory of chaos describes the Butterfly Effect leads to an apparent chaos, as changes in the initial conditions leads to different outcomes. But what happens if a forcing supercedes the initial conditions and leads to what is called the forced response? Of course, we don't throw away chaos theory as that can be used for something else. What we do is simply ignore Tsonis and use a non-chaotic forcing model. Then instead of the Butterfly effect, we look at the Hawkmoth effect instead.

      I really don't think much will change in the foundational models, other than they will be firmed up and the parametric characteristics will be further refines.

  2. Mr Pukite: I apologise, but... as noticed by other commenters here and there, these endless remakes on your ENSO QBO linar tidal blah blah get over the long term incredibly boring.

    Why don't you restrict that stuff to your blog? Ask anyone here, and I'm sure nearly everybody will answer not to be interested in.

    And above all, Nick is way too polite to make it clear to you.
    I guess you silently abuse on that, right?

  3. Bindidon: I thought this was a blog that had a computational fluid dynamics theme. Or shall we defer all of our knowledge on this subject to hack scientists such as Tsonis?

    Note published on 9-15-2017!

    1. That is oddly written. Tsonis work usually makes it clear that natural variability is imposed on warming that is being caused by greenhouse gases.

    2. There's no other reason that Tsonis would be a member of the board of the GWPF unless he has a political axe to grind.

      Tsonis is a flat-out denier, but who equivocates on purpose, following the uncertainty gospel of Curry. The equivocation fools many people into thinking that he is reasonable.
      So he says (1) it's primarily due to chaos (2) there may be some AGW trend, but (3) who knows how big the chaotic fluctuations can get in the long term.