The drop was mainly in land temperatures, and central N America was quite cold, as was central Europe, and less so, China/Mongolia. Africa and Brazil were warm, and also the Arctic. SST has been drifting down slowly, but is still warm.
Here is the temperature map, using now a LOESS-based map of anomalies.
And here is the map of stations reporting:
This post is part of a series that has now run since 2011. 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.
A list of earlier monthly reports of each series in date order is 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.
A list of earlier monthly reports of each series in date order is here:
Posts
I appreciate your attempts to convince Monckton of the error of his ways... one issue that you didn't raise (and which he is apparently entirely unaware of) is his assumption that 255 degrees K should be the reference temperature for the Earth. That is the temperature of a body at Earth's distance from the sun with, and this is the important part, the albedo of today's earth.
ReplyDeleteBut albedo feedbacks are part of the total feedbacks! So, the real reference temperature of the earth with no greenhouse gases would probably be a slushball earth, with high albedo, so much much less than 255K. Which would mean that even using Monckton's erroneous assumption that feedback is close to linear over a wide range of temperatures just because 255 K is 92% of 278K, if 255K was corrected to the actual no-GHG temperature, Monckton's approach would yield a much higher climate sensitivity.
Monckton also, of course, completely ignores the use of glacial to interglacial temperature and forcing changes as a way to estimate climate sensitivity, which would completely rule out his conclusion of a climate sensitivity of 1 degree.
-MMM
Monckton's earlier analysis was based on the 2010 paper by Lacis et al which used GISS E to model the removal of GHGs. It did produce rising albedo, mainly because of clouds rather than slush. Now one could take the purist view that if there are clouds, there is water vapor. But the point is that if you approach the limit of low GHG, cloud albedo becomes more important than dry air. And so the temperature gets down to about 243K.
DeleteAs I have been saying, I think his treatment of feedback is nuts. But even on the arithmetic he has, the low point at which temperature equals feedback-free temperature is not 0K, but 255K (or maybe 243, doesn't matter much). And then the same arithmetic gives a sensitivity of about 3K/doubling. Arithmetic here.
MMM, I have been following the comments there and I don't recall seeing anyone bringing up the reference albedo. Interesting and valid point. There is a recent comment by "kribaez" that makes good sense to me here. He points out that control theory is not needed in assessing climate sensitivity.
DeleteI hadn't read Lacis et al. recently, thank you for pointing me to it again. Also, I hadn't realized that Monckton was using 0 kelvin as his feedback-free temperature... that's even more crazy than I had assumed when I glanced over his analysis the first time! (I don't see much value in trying to actually figure out what Monckton is saying most of the time... it was fairly evident that he was trying to fit a round peg into a square hole from the outset, you've just convinced me that he was actually trying to fit a round peg into a lightsocket)
ReplyDelete-MMM
Many (mostly engineers suffering from D-K) think that the feedback is either negative or runaway positive, but don't consider that there is a class of positive feedback that is self-limiting and doesn't runaway. When you calculate the stable points of one such a system -- governed by an Arrhenius rate law -- it settles down to two set points. In the case of the climate system, it would be 255K and 255+33 K, with the +33K set point determined by the combined activation energy of H2O and the appropriate mix of GHGs. This explanation is found in only one climate science reference AGAIK, but it is well-known in materials science circles.
Delete"it settles down to two set points. In the case of the climate system, it would be 255K and 255+33 K, with the +33K set point determined"
DeleteThat is the arithmetic that I have been setting out, eg here, as the proper version of Lord M's rigmarole. It yields a CS in the middle of the IPCC range.
Can't bear reading Monckton, who thinks that science is more about stylish pretension than grunt-worthy math.
ReplyDelete