El Nino weather conditions may return/
Announcement
Collapse
Natural Science 301 Guidelines
This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
The weather for 2017
Collapse
X
-
Signs of a possible return to El Nino return increase. The good news is if the El Nino returns there will be fewer hurricanes in the Atlantic than expected, but warmer average temperatures, continuing deterioration of many coral reefs, and increased drought conditions are part of the bad news.
2017 represents a transition year of El Nina /LA Nina conditions that could of course go either way. There was a near record number of tornadoes this year, which is more representative of La Nina weather conditions.Last edited by shunyadragon; 05-08-2017, 06:49 AM.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostWhy not? It is not the only records cited, but it is valid evidence and confirmed by other sources over time."Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."
Comment
-
Originally posted by TheLurch View PostIt is a very indirect measure of temperature, samples the entire troposphere, is far more variable than surface records, and has suffered from serious errors in the past. Before those errors were corrected, it actually show the opposite temperature trend from all other records.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostI mainly post what is available concerning global temperature records. As it is, I believe the different source are relatively consistent. Please cite other source if you find them available.- GISStemp. This is produced by the climate group within NASA.
- HadCRUT4. This is produced by Met Office, in the UK.
- NOAAGlobalTemp (previously called MLOST). Produced by NOAA (the official US government body for climate data.)
- BEST. The Berkeley Earth group.
- JMA. Japan Meteorological Agency.
- Cowtan and Way infilling with HadCRUT4. (Based on HadCRUT4, but extended using kringing to cover parts of the globe omitted in the original.)
Not that there's anything wrong with using the satellite record, if that's what one really wants to look at. But it is worth noting that the satellite data is subject to much more in the way of uncertainties and systematic errors; and it is actually measuring something a bit different than surface temperature. The satellite data is certainly of interest when we specifically want to consider the response of the atmosphere. It's a bit of an indirect measure of global warming trends however, quite apart from the accuracy and precision issues.
There are a couple of satellite data sets published, based on different ways of managing all the problems with the underlying raw microwave brightness data that is provided by satellites. There are some outstanding problems of interest. Measurements suggest that the atmosphere is not warming quite as fast as expected from models. This is not a refutation of global warming itself... because the warming of the surface is not what is in question here. It's about responses of the atmosphere to the warming we do see. Whether this is a problem with models, or with the calculations of atmospheric temperatures, is not clear, IMO.
For looking at year to year trends, as Shunya is doing here, I would personally recommend using GISStemp. It's a lot more stable than the satellite products, which are being updated periodically to better manage all the problems associated with getting a consistent temperature from the microwave data available. (Surface temperature datasets get updated as well, but the changes and systematic measurement errors and uncertainties are far smaller.) GISStemp also very easily available and widely used by others. It is a direct surface temperature measure, which is what we use in weather reports; and so is a better fit with the thread topic.
However, any data you decide to look at can be of interest. I'm not all that fussed if we want to look at tropospheric temperatures rather than surface temperatures. It's Shunya's thread. I do think it is worth noting for the record, however, that the tropospheric temperature doesn't actually correspond to weather as it is conventionally reported by weather agencies or experienced by individuals living at ground level.
Cheers -- sylas
Comment
-
Originally posted by sylas View PostThe best sources are the surface temperature records, which you almost certainly know already. These all tell pretty much the same story when looking at a global mean anomaly. Discussion of how they differ (in method, or in regional coverage, etc) may be of interest, but has little impact on the global mean anomaly.- GISStemp. This is produced by the climate group within NASA.
- HadCRUT4. This is produced by Met Office, in the UK.
- NOAAGlobalTemp (previously called MLOST). Produced by NOAA (the official US government body for climate data.)
- BEST. The Berkeley Earth group.
- JMA. Japan Meteorological Agency.
- Cowtan and Way infilling with HadCRUT4. (Based on HadCRUT4, but extended using kringing to cover parts of the globe omitted in the original.)
Not that there's anything wrong with using the satellite record, if that's what one really wants to look at. But it is worth noting that the satellite data is subject to much more in the way of uncertainties and systematic errors; and it is actually measuring something a bit different than surface temperature. The satellite data is certainly of interest when we specifically want to consider the response of the atmosphere. It's a bit of an indirect measure of global warming trends however, quite apart from the accuracy and precision issues.
There are a couple of satellite data sets published, based on different ways of managing all the problems with the underlying raw microwave brightness data that is provided by satellites. There are some outstanding problems of interest. Measurements suggest that the atmosphere is not warming quite as fast as expected from models. This is not a refutation of global warming itself... because the warming of the surface is not what is in question here. It's about responses of the atmosphere to the warming we do see. Whether this is a problem with models, or with the calculations of atmospheric temperatures, is not clear, IMO.
For looking at year to year trends, as Shunya is doing here, I would personally recommend using GISStemp. It's a lot more stable than the satellite products, which are being updated periodically to better manage all the problems associated with getting a consistent temperature from the microwave data available. (Surface temperature datasets get updated as well, but the changes and systematic measurement errors and uncertainties are far smaller.) GISStemp also very easily available and widely used by others. It is a direct surface temperature measure, which is what we use in weather reports; and so is a better fit with the thread topic.
However, any data you decide to look at can be of interest. I'm not all that fussed if we want to look at tropospheric temperatures rather than surface temperatures. It's Shunya's thread. I do think it is worth noting for the record, however, that the tropospheric temperature doesn't actually correspond to weather as it is conventionally reported by weather agencies or experienced by individuals living at ground level.
Cheers -- sylas
Great post!!!! Thank you!!!Last edited by shunyadragon; 05-14-2017, 08:33 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostIt is not that I simple want to look at to look at this source. I wish to present all the different sources and compare to demonstrate the trends in climate over time. I also cite NOAAs data and analysis, but it shows up later in the month.
You can access "NOAAGlobalTemp" data, and in particular the summary as a global anomaly, here: NOAAGlobalTemp. There's a simple tool to give plots directly, or you can look up data files to plot, process, or analyze yourself.
In brief, this March shows up in this data as an increase over February.
GISS also has their data available, and they show March as a slight decrease over February.
We are not looking at trends when we drill down into individual months like this. This is a very short term phenomena indeed, with strong regional influences. The differences between independent calculations can arise for a number of reasons. Looked at over time, the datasets track very close to each other indeed, as they are all estimates of the same basic thing. UAH is bound to be a bit of an outlier in such a comparison, as it is measuring something slightly different, as noted previously.
Cheers -- sylas
Comment
-
Thanks to Sylas for expanding my one-liner into a detailed explanation.
Easiest way to track what's up with GISS-TEMP is through this link:
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/t...LB.Ts+dSST.txt"Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."
Comment
-
Originally posted by TheLurch View PostThanks to Sylas for expanding my one-liner into a detailed explanation.
Easiest way to track what's up with GISS-TEMP is through this link:
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/t...LB.Ts+dSST.txt
Comment
-
Originally posted by sylas View PostFair enough. NOAA global anomaly data is available for March now.
You can access "NOAAGlobalTemp" data, and in particular the summary as a global anomaly, here: NOAAGlobalTemp. There's a simple tool to give plots directly, or you can look up data files to plot, process, or analyze yourself.
In brief, this March shows up in this data as an increase over February.
GISS also has their data available, and they show March as a slight decrease over February.
We are not looking at trends when we drill down into individual months like this. This is a very short term phenomena indeed, with strong regional influences. The differences between independent calculations can arise for a number of reasons. Looked at over time, the datasets track very close to each other indeed, as they are all estimates of the same basic thing. UAH is bound to be a bit of an outlier in such a comparison, as it is measuring something slightly different, as noted previously.
Cheers -- sylas
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by rogue06, 04-27-2024, 09:38 AM
|
0 responses
11 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by rogue06
04-27-2024, 09:38 AM
|
||
Started by shunyadragon, 04-26-2024, 10:10 PM
|
5 responses
23 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
04-28-2024, 08:10 AM
|
||
Started by shunyadragon, 04-25-2024, 08:37 PM
|
2 responses
12 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
04-25-2024, 10:21 PM
|
||
Started by eider, 04-14-2024, 03:22 AM
|
64 responses
223 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
04-26-2024, 08:07 AM
|
||
Started by Ronson, 04-08-2024, 09:05 PM
|
41 responses
169 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Ronson
04-12-2024, 09:08 AM
|
Comment