A Repeat Of 2014?

Arctic temperatures this year have been behaving almost identically to 2014, which went on to be one of the coldest summers on record  north of 80N.

2016-04-24111722

meanT_2016.png    meanT_2014.png

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to A Repeat Of 2014?

  1. Don says:

    I’m sure the ‘boys’ are at work right now to adjust as necessary.

  2. BUT it is an Election Year!
    HOT AIR ALERT!!!!!!

  3. RAH says:

    You’ll be pretty close to correct if the forecasts I’ve seen have it right. And the US Navy will have some explaining to do. Hopefully before congress:
    US Navy predicts summer ice free Arctic by 2016
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/dec/09/us-navy-arctic-sea-ice-2016-melt

  4. oz4caster says:

    Tony, do you have any idea how DMI derives their Arctic temperature? I’m curious if they use land stations only, buoy stations only, or a combination of the two and what latitude they use to define “Arctic”.

    I recently found Arctic buoy data and have noticed that some of the buoys are reporting obviously bad data. One of the worst this year is WMO ID 48507, which has been reading much too high all winter and would bias high any Arctic temperature estimates that used it. Here is the data at the International Arctic Buoy Programme (IABP):
    http://iabp.apl.washington.edu/maps_daily_table.html

    The IABP has a current Arctic map that shows “Sea Level Pressure” color coded for each buoy and has a button to switch to “Surface Temperature” for the plotted data, but the button doesn’t work for me with Firefox, Chrome, or IE.

    Based on UM CCI CFSR estimates, the Arctic average temperature anomalies for latitudes 60N-90N spiked very high for January through March of 2016, much higher than in early 2014.

    I don’t know if the bad buoy data are being ingested into the UM CCI GFS/CFSR system, but I would not be surprised if they are included.

  5. RAH says:

    Their SSTs come from Satellite data
    http://ocean.dmi.dk/satellite/index.uk.php

    I found this under “General FAQs”.

    How are the data obtained? Do they come from observations or have they been derived from numerical models?

    Reanalysis (as well as analysis) is a process by which model information and observations of many different sorts are combined in an optimal way to produce a consistent, global best estimate of the various atmospheric, wave and oceanographic parameters. S …

  6. RAH says:

    Here you go oz4caster
    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/documentation/arctic_mean_temp_data_explanation_newest.pdf

    The money line:
    “An NWP analysis is based on vastly more information than available from any single observing system. Data from ground, aircraft, bouys, ship, satellites, radiosondes, etc. are all combined to adjust the first guess field. As a consequence the quality of an analysis is much better than what can be obtained from gridding, or treating in other ways, data from a single or a few observing systems.”

    So yes they do use bouys and every other system available. It seems to me DMI is pretty serious about QC.

    • oz4caster says:

      Thanks RAH. That is exactly what I was looking for. Looks like they use input for the ECMWF which should be very similar to the GFS based input that UM CCI uses. Hard to tell if either one is including the bad buoy data, but I would not be surprised if it made it into both systems.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s