Please support this Forum and Neven's Blog

Author Topic: Global Surface Air Temperatures  (Read 302720 times)

deep octopus

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 548
    • View Profile
Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« Reply #50 on: January 22, 2014, 04:12:43 PM »
BFTV, it seems NASA itself is aware of how fluid the rankings are.

January 21, 2014: The GISS analysis was repeated this morning based on today's status of the GHCN data. The changes were well within the margin of error, e.g. the L-OTI mean for 2013 changed from 0.6048+-0.02°C to 0.6065+-0.02°C, a change of less than 0.002°C. However, rounding to 2 digits for the L-OTI table changed the 0.60°C used in some documents prepared last week to 0.61°C. This minuscule change also moved year 2013 from a tie for the 7th place to a tie for the 6th place in the GISS ranking of warmest years, demonstrating how non-robust these rankings are.

Now, the revisions to the tabular data will continue as new or old readings are vouched or dismissed. Either way, there is a considerable cluster of data around the 0.59-0.62 C range on NASA's record that makes the rankings in this zone less informative than it would seem: 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2009, and 2013 are positioned close to each other, and all are within the margin of error for 2013 that is cited above. It's possible that 2013 was the 4th warmest or the 9th warmest since 1880.

Another thing, it's interesting that NOAA's record had 2013 as the 4th warmest while NASA's was generally lower. It seems that is partially explained by polar regions that were not as warm as 2012. Most of the global warming from 2012 to 2013 took place in the mid-latitudes, which NOAA's record emphasizes by not having as much high-latitude coverage, while NASA uses wider blending to achieve higher coverage.

wili

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1929
    • View Profile
Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« Reply #51 on: January 22, 2014, 05:54:02 PM »
Thanks for that link and analysis, cran.
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

Shared Humanity

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1936
    • View Profile
Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« Reply #52 on: January 22, 2014, 06:29:48 PM »
Andrew P.........I am probably one of the less informed people who post here and incapable of a rigorous analysis. As such my "4C to 6C increase by 2100" was entirely unscientific but rather was a sense of what is likely as a result of reading so many contributions by others far more informed than I, including yourself. I can't possibly thank you and others enough for the info posted here which I am trying to absorb.

AndrewP

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 129
    • View Profile
Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« Reply #53 on: January 22, 2014, 08:16:32 PM »
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter12.pdf
(warning large download 26Mb)


has the projections for 2100 and beyond.

Fig 12.5 shows
Time series of global annual mean surface air temperature anomalies (relative to 1986–2005) from CMIP5 concentration-driven experiments. Projections are shown for each RCP for the multi model mean (solid lines) and the 5–95% range (±1.64 standard deviation) across the distribution of individual models (shading).


The range for RCP8.5 seems to be about 2.7 to 5C for 2100. If SH was talking above preindustial that would translate to about 3.3 to 5.6C above pre-industrial. So 4 to 6C looks a little higher than RCP8.5 but given Sherwood et al higher sensitivity more like reality and a belief that we will continue BAU rather than cutting ff use in response to increasing impacts, it doesn't seem an unreasonable range to suggest.

RCP6 seems to suggest about 1.2 to 3.2C above 1986–2005 for 2100.

So I don't think the confusion is with projections to 2050 but between RCP 6 and RCP 8.5.


RCP 8.5 has CO2 of just under 1000ppm by 2100.. which is unrealistic for even a BAU scenario. It involves CO2 emissions 4X higher than today by 2100.

Even RCP 6.0 could be pessimistic for a BAU scenario and involves emissions peaking at over 2X today's rates. Carbon emissions in developed economies has already plateaued. U.S. emissions are lower than they were 15 years ago. Even if the rest of the world reached the development level (doubtful) and per-capita emissions of Western Europe, global emissions wouldn't even double. I'm not even sure they would increase 50%. From these assumptions RCP 4.5 is the most realistic.

But even if we take RCP 6.0, CMIP5 points to 1.2-3.2C of warming over 1986-2005 temperatures. Not even close to the 4-6C suggested above and beyond current temperatures.

And let's not forget, the AR5 suggested CMIP5 models may be overestimating climate sensitivity and/or the rate at which it is achieved. I'm not aware of this Sherwood study, but I'll stick with the AR5, given the very slow rate of warming the last 15 years and the difficulty of reconciling that with GCMs with moderate to high sensitivity.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2014, 08:34:36 PM by AndrewP »

wili

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1929
    • View Profile
Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« Reply #54 on: January 22, 2014, 09:09:30 PM »
"CO2 emissions 4X higher than today by 2100"

Well, CO2 emissions are rising at a rate of over 2% per year now, and that number itself has been rising steadily for decades, iirc.

Even if we stay at about 2%, that's a doubling in about 35 years and a quadrupling in about 70 (unless my maths are way off--always a good possibility! :-[).

The apparent peaking of developed world emissions is largely because they have off-shored manufacturing, and many developed countries are exporting their fossil fuels for other countries to burn. Keep in mind, also, that the same amount of energy derived is coming at a higher and higher carbon price as we turn to dirtier and dirtier sources (Tar Sands, anyone?).
« Last Edit: January 22, 2014, 09:16:22 PM by wili »
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

ChrisReynolds

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1711
    • View Profile
    • Dosbat
Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« Reply #55 on: January 22, 2014, 09:24:03 PM »
For what it's worth, I've been pretty convinced that Charney sensitivity (~3degC) is correct. But now the Sherwood paper seems to have made a pretty convincing argument for 3 to 5degC climate sensitivity.

Given the uncertainties involved this is within the ballpark of, for example, Annan & Hargreaves' use of Bayesian methods to limit the upper bound to 4.5degC. But seems to cast in doubt figure below 3degC. So I've shifted to the upper bounds of Charney and suspect a PDF peaking and with bulk probability within 3degC to 5degC.

Other than that I can't add anything to the discussion.  :o

PS Realclimate on Sherwood:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/01/a-bit-more-sensitive/

AndrewP

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 129
    • View Profile
Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« Reply #56 on: January 22, 2014, 11:13:14 PM »
"CO2 emissions 4X higher than today by 2100"

Well, CO2 emissions are rising at a rate of over 2% per year now, and that number itself has been rising steadily for decades, iirc.

Even if we stay at about 2%, that's a doubling in about 35 years and a quadrupling in about 70 (unless my maths are way off--always a good possibility! :-[).

The apparent peaking of developed world emissions is largely because they have off-shored manufacturing, and many developed countries are exporting their fossil fuels for other countries to burn. Keep in mind, also, that the same amount of energy derived is coming at a higher and higher carbon price as we turn to dirtier and dirtier sources (Tar Sands, anyone?).

Yes I had considered the offshoring of manufacturing. But for example, per-capita emissions in China are already higher than in Francy and almost as high as Germany and the UK. How much higher can per-capita emissions in China go? We'll probably see more rises in less developed nations like Malaysia. But I don't see how we see a quadrupling of emissions this century. That would require east asia and latin america to have per capita emissions twice that of France. Even that might not do it, you'd need some increase from the developed world as well.

AndrewP

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 129
    • View Profile
Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« Reply #57 on: January 22, 2014, 11:20:39 PM »
I find it very difficult to reconcile an ECS much above 3C with temperature trends for the last 50 years, the current planetary energy imbalance, and forcing estimates over the same period from the AR5.

From what I've read and looking at observations the last 50 years, I'd peg it somewhere from 2-3.5C. Basically the middle of the AR5 range. I always leaned a little lower than the AR4.

The reduced uncertainty from aerosol forcing in the AR5 makes it very difficult to peg the slower warming on aerosols.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2014, 11:26:35 PM by AndrewP »

Csnavywx

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 388
    • View Profile
Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« Reply #58 on: January 23, 2014, 01:26:22 AM »
I would agree RCP 8.5's CO2 concentration is probably unrealistic at 2100. I would have to argue it's a pretty valid assumption up through 2050-2060 though.

For the medium-term it holds up due to the following reasons:

1) Developing nations will likely overwhelm the modest declines from the developed world. China, India and Africa's contributions are all likely to increase substantially further. There is some solid evidence China will be strongly turning to coal gasification to take care of short-term air pollution problems. This alone will be a significant contributor.

2) Carbon-cycle feedbacks (via increasing sink saturation) will likely become a significant issue between now and then.

3) Estimated 9-9.8 billion population at 2050.

4) We have boxed ourselves into a late start on emissions controls. The later we start, the harder it will be and the greater the risk of a backlash from the populace (as effective policy essentially has to become more radical over time to accommodate the increasingly unpleasant math).

AndrewP

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 129
    • View Profile
Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« Reply #59 on: January 23, 2014, 02:08:39 AM »
I could see something between RCP8.5 and the other RCPs through 2040 or so. The other RCPs are a little slow out of the gate. But I can't see emissions anywhere near RCP8.5 by 2060.

Shared Humanity

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1936
    • View Profile
Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« Reply #60 on: January 23, 2014, 07:07:54 PM »
How much higher can per-capita emissions in China go?


My crystal ball is broken but it would seem that CO2 emissions might continue to climb in China for some time.

This......

http://www.wri.org/blog/majority-china%E2%80%99s-proposed-coal-fired-power-plants-located-water-stressed-regions

As of July 2012, China’s government planned 363 coal-fired power plants for construction across China, with a combined generating capacity exceeding 557 gigawatts (for reference, installed capacity at the end of 2012 was 758 GW). This amounts to an almost 75 percent increase in coal-fired generating capacity. China already ranks as world’s largest coal consumer, accounting for almost 50 percent of global coal use.

......and this.....


http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8c649078-78f8-11e3-b381-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2rFIGCWdK

China car sales rose 16 per cent year-on-year to 18m units in 2013, compared with an almost 10 per cent drop in India to 1.8m units. The annual decline, reported on Thursday by the Society of Indian Automobile Manufacturers, was the first for India’s auto market in 11 years.

The surprise acceleration in Chinese car sales, announced by the China Association of Automobile Manufacturers, contrasts sharply with other major markets as well. According to initial estimates, US car sales expanded 8 per cent to 15.6m vehicles last year after enjoying double-digit growth in 2012. Brazil’s car market, the world’s fourth largest, last year reported its first annual decline in a decade.


With 18.1 million cars sold, China accounts for 30% of worldwide auto sales.

http://www.oica.net/category/sales-statistics/

When the nation that accounts for 50% of the world's coal consumption plans to increase coal fired generating capacity by 75% and this same nation which is the largest automobile market is seeing annual growth of 16% in auto sales, my guess is we should expect rapid increases in CO2 emissions out into the indefinite future.

« Last Edit: January 23, 2014, 07:23:25 PM by Shared Humanity »

Shared Humanity

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1936
    • View Profile
Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« Reply #61 on: January 23, 2014, 07:54:35 PM »

Yes I had considered the offshoring of manufacturing. But for example, per-capita emissions in China are already higher than in Francy and almost as high as Germany and the UK. How much higher can per-capita emissions in China go? We'll probably see more rises in less developed nations like Malaysia. But I don't see how we see a quadrupling of emissions this century. That would require east asia and latin america to have per capita emissions twice that of France. Even that might not do it, you'd need some increase from the developed world as well.


You may have considered these things but you have not researched them in the same rigorous manner in which you investigate AGW.

I will always defer to posters here regarding the science of AGW. I have little knowledge and even less understanding of this topic. With an BA in Economics and MBA from the University of Chicago, I challenge anyone in a debate regarding global business trends.

China now has the largest middle class in the world, 247 million people, and this middle class is expected to more than double by 2020 to 607 million.

http://daveporter.typepad.com/global_strategies/2012/06/the-potential-buying-power-of-chinas-middle-class-is-vast.html

Look at those numbers for a second and let them sink in! What I mean by this is to get a real mental picture of ordinary middle class people heading out to buy the things they want and need. Now imagine 607 million of them! Here, let me help. The definition of "middle class" in the U.S. varies, 25% to 66% depending on classification method, but lets assume that 66% of Americans are middle class. This would mean there are 200 million middle class Americans. Imagine what our malls and auto dealerships would look like if there were 600 million of us.

Not only do near term increases in CO2 emissions in China dwarf other nations but these increases will accelerate with no end in sight.

Your casual "How much higher can per-capita emissions in China go?" is nothing more than whistling past the graveyard.

deep octopus

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 548
    • View Profile
Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« Reply #62 on: January 23, 2014, 08:19:20 PM »
China now has the largest middle class in the world, 247 million people, and this middle class is expected to more than double by 2020 to 607 million.


Good... night...

I remember visiting Turkey a couple of years ago, spending a week in Istanbul as part of the trip. I was overwhelmed by how much construction was going on. Just feverish, unmitigated construction. Cranes poking above the most densely packed, cheek-by-jowl buildings one could imagine, still squeezing in as much development as seemed physically possible. You leave the loop road of Ataturk airport and enter the outside, and laid out before you is the intense visual experience of seeing planes angle upwards into the sky, and in the foreground what seemed like dozens and dozens of high-rise buildings and dense, massive commercial strips sprawled against endlessly long highways leading into urban oblivion. And traffic! Like nothing I've seen before.

Istanbul is a fascinating city, with a very deep, cosmopolitan culture. I was so intrigued, I wanted to learn more about the ongoing urbanization of the city. Like Chinese cities, the city's population is surging from an influx of rural immigrants, the "floating population." It vies for the title of "world's fastest growing city" and the pace of development is about to get another injection of demand once the third bridge on the Bosphorus opens up... You walk around Istanbul, and it's absolutely taking inspiration from Western consumerism. And coal is big in Turkey, and is about to get much bigger.

http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2146538/erdogans_turkey_embarks_on_massive_dash_for_coal.html

There's a developing world beyond China that's just getting tapped into and I maintain a resolute skepticism about things suddenly changing towards a more environmentally conscious future. Economic growth has a voracious appetite.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2014, 08:25:11 PM by deep octopus »

Shared Humanity

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1936
    • View Profile
Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« Reply #63 on: January 23, 2014, 08:43:32 PM »
My real reason for posting with regards to how high should we expect China's CO2 emissions to climb is an effort to support this debate regarding forcings. China's CO2 emissions have doubled since the mid 90's. Looking at this chart we see the classic exponential growth you would expect to find in any growth system. I would argue that this exponential trend will continue so long as China is able to provide the growth needed to meet the expectations of its citizens.

Given this trend in China(I suspect we would see similar trends in much of the developing world.), what models are better predictions of global CO2 levels over the next century?

AndrewP

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 129
    • View Profile
Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« Reply #64 on: January 23, 2014, 09:32:33 PM »
I'm not disputing that developing nation emissions will rise rapidly over the next 20-30 years. But I don't think you've shown anything like RCP8.5 long-term.

For what it's worth, the EIA projects only a 45% increase in energy emissions from 2010-2040 assuming no emission controls, with the rate of increase  slowing down substantially toward the end of that period. Again this indicates the same type of plateauing witnessed in developed nations.

This graph looks pretty reasonable to me and would have us falling substantially below RCP8.5 by 2040. Given the slow rate of increase after that, peak emissions might be reached by 2050 or 2060 at 1.5-1.8X current levels. Not even close to the 4X achieved in RCP8.5, and even below the 2X in RCP6.0. The most reasonable scenario looks to be somewhere between RCP4.5 and 6.0.

Just to consider some of the other unrealistic assumptions of RCP8.5, it assumes population growth well above UN estimates, and it assumes a very low rate of technological advance and deployment.

« Last Edit: January 23, 2014, 09:47:59 PM by AndrewP »

ccgwebmaster

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1085
  • Civilisation collapse - what are you doing?
    • View Profile
    • CCG Website
Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« Reply #65 on: January 23, 2014, 11:17:32 PM »
Not only do near term increases in CO2 emissions in China dwarf other nations but these increases will accelerate with no end in sight.

Your casual "How much higher can per-capita emissions in China go?" is nothing more than whistling past the graveyard.

Assuming correlation between GDP growth and emissions (not unreasonable in my view), China has plenty of potential to grow. At ~7% growth they are doubling consumption every decade. That's a very big deal in terms of resources as well as emissions.

At per capita usage in the current day - they were ~20% of US emissions figures last I checked - a lot of room to grow - indeed they could continue in this vein theoretically for 2-3 more decades, by which time it would be like we'd added another 4 Americas to the world (if it were possible to do so - it isn't).

Furthermore I'm not aware coal is at peak yet - plenty of carbon left to dump into the atmosphere, even before one includes more marginal resources.

Shared Humanity

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1936
    • View Profile
Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« Reply #66 on: January 24, 2014, 05:12:06 PM »
I'm not disputing that developing nation emissions will rise rapidly over the next 20-30 years. But I don't think you've shown anything like RCP8.5 long-term.

For what it's worth, the EIA projects only a 45% increase in energy emissions from 2010-2040 assuming no emission controls, with the rate of increase  slowing down substantially toward the end of that period. Again this indicates the same type of plateauing witnessed in developed nations.



Since you've brought them up, government projections of CO2 emissions trends and peak CO2 levels are not worth the paper they are printed on. Some of the recent government authored reports on world emissions have projected future levels of emissions that had been reached before the reports were even published.

With regards to "technological advance and deployment" China is installing wind powered generation faster than any nation in the world.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25623400

Already the largest producer of electricity by wind in the world, they expect to triple the electricity produced by 2020, adding 125GW! Despite this, wind generated electricity accounts for only 2% of total energy requirements and the growth in energy demand virtually guarantees that wind generated energy will not climb much above 2% of requirements any time soon. It is a simple fact that it is impossible to alter substantially reliance on fossil fuels for electricity generation in a time frame of less than 3 decades. No developing nation can afford to replace those coal fired plants that will be coming on line until they reach the end of their lives.

Would you like to argue that the 3rd world will retire coal fired plants before end of life due to AGW? Let's look at the U.S. to see if we are doing this. Of the 1466 coal fired generating units in operation in the U.S., 1122 or 76% of them are at least 30 years old. 545 of these, 37% of the total, are more than 50 years old!

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Existing_U.S._Coal_Plants#Age_comparison_of_coal_plants

Do you want to know where the Co2 emissions of any, and I mean any, of the developing nations will go? You only need look at present growth levels. Lets revisit the chart of actual CO2 emissions for China. Total CO2 emissions have doubled since 1995. The growth in emissions on this chart are exponential and this behavior will continue for the next 3 decades so long as China continues to grow at the rate it is. Their middle class will triple in size during this time and these newly middle class will purchase those things that the middle class in the western world have come to expect.

China's emissions will likely double again in the next 20 years, reaching 3600 million metric tons.  You might want to argue that they will choose not to grow this rapidly but there is no reason China will act any differently than the western world as they grapple with poverty and work to improve the lives of their citizens. Let me be clear, the only way that growth rate in China's emissions will be reduced or level off is if China chooses not to grow their economy.

So, my question remains. Given that CO2 emissions of the developing nations will continue to grow for the next 40 years at or near the rate they have exhibited historically what does that say about the models regarding temperature increases through the remainder of this century? Which model acknowledges these increases and what do they say will be the resulting temperature increases? I do not understand these models and I realize you do. This is why I am asking the question. Please don't bother responding if you merely want to call into question the emissions growth that is locked in for the next 40 years.
« Last Edit: January 24, 2014, 07:50:34 PM by Shared Humanity »

Shared Humanity

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1936
    • View Profile
Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« Reply #67 on: January 24, 2014, 08:53:06 PM »
Let me see if I can put a stake in the heart and permanently kill the argument that CO2 emissions need not follow the growth trends in the world economy. Look (yes again) at the charts of actual growth in emissions of the U.S. and China that have occurred since 1900.

If we look at the U.S. we see emissions growing from 1900 until a pronounced dip in the early 30's. Yes, this was the Great Depression. You will also see a second dip that occurs in 1937 that is a result of the U.S. trying to balance a growing deficit which triggered a double dip recession. We then see emissions growing rapidly as a result of WWII. Post WWII emissions dropped as a result of a recession and growth rates were subdued throughout the 50's as the U.S. struggled to grow the economy. These rates jumped dramatically as the U.S. economy roared to life in the 1960's. The dip you see in the early 70's was triggered by the 1973 oil embargo and the resulting stagflation while the dip in the late 70's was triggered by a second oil shock, the Iranian revolution and the deep recession that followed at the beginning of the Reagan administration. The dip in the early 90's was due to the recession that got George Bush (not Dubya) booted out of office in 1992.

Let's take a look at China's emissions. China really did not begin its industrial revolution until after WWII and their prewar CO2 emissions reflect this. Post WWII, CO2 emissions began to grow with a large spike around 1960. This was a direct result of Mao's Great Leap Forward, an artificial expansion in the Chinese economy that could not be sustained. The Chinese economy and CO2 emissions collapsed and remained flat in the 1960's, in part due to Mao's last attempt to maintain control through the Cultural Revolution. It is not until the liberalization of the Chinese economy in the 1970's that we see sustained growth in the Chinese economy and CO2 emissions linked to that growth. There are two noticeable dips, one around 1980 as a result of the Reagan recession and one in the late 1990' triggered by the Asian financial crisis.

This analysis tells us something we already know. Human civilization has as its foundation a fossil fuel based industrial, consumer economy. Due to this, CO2 emissions mirror the growth in the economy in a very spooky fashion. Nothing we do to nibble around the margins (alternative energy, electric cars etc.) is going to alter this fact.

JimD

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2146
    • View Profile
Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« Reply #68 on: January 28, 2014, 07:57:08 PM »
Real Climate has a main article just put up on the rankings of the surface air temperatures. Definitely worth a look.

The global temperature data for 2013 are now published. 2010 and 2005 remain the warmest years since records began in the 19th Century. 1998 ranks third in two records, and in the analysis of Cowtan & Way, which interpolates the data-poor region in the Arctic with a better method, 2013 is warmer than 1998 (even though 1998 was a record El Nino year, and 2013 was neutral).


Note that by some measures 2013 was hotter than 1998.  This is close to what we were talking about in having a new top temperature in a non-El Nino year being more significant than one in an El Nino year.

http://www.realclimate.org/
We do not err because truth is difficult to see. It is visible at a glance. We err because this is more comfortable. Alexander Solzhenitsyn

How is it conceivable that all our technological progress - our very civilization - is like the axe in the hand of the pathological criminal? Albert Einstein

deep octopus

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 548
    • View Profile
Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« Reply #69 on: January 28, 2014, 09:17:39 PM »
: JimD
Note that by some measures 2013 was hotter than 1998.  This is close to what we were talking about in having a new top temperature in a non-El Nino year being more significant than one in an El Nino year.


This is interesting. I've always had trouble reconciling HadCRUT as being particularly useful compared to other temperature data, as it makes no attempt at all to interpolate missing grid data. NOAA's NCDC data falls into a similar methodology, but generally has better global coverage. OK, so this essentially leaves me with putting most of my energy into reporting NASA's data. That, and HadCRUT4 has been the cherry-picked, favorite index of climate change deniers, since it reports the slowest trend (again, a product of unrealistically ignoring missing grids in the fast warming poles).

I would be interested to see if Cowtan & Way's kriging methods hold as accurate and are amended to HadCRUT4 (as some other version, like a HadCRUT5).

Oh, the kriged HadCRUT data is available publicly. Superb!

http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~kdc3/papers/coverage2013/had4_krig_v2_0_0.txt
http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~kdc3/papers/coverage2013/series.html

Ran the data, here's what we get for the 10 hottest years on the record (global anomalies versus 1961-1990):

1st. 2010, +0.6279 el Niño
2nd. 2005, +0.5884
3rd. 2007, +0.5635
4th. 2009, +0.5535 la Niña
5th. 2013, +0.5444
6th. 2006, +0.5361 la Niña
7th. 1998, +0.5309 el Niño
8th. 2002, +0.5236
9th. 2003, +0.5222
10th. 2012, +0.5129 la Niña

I want to point out that I've used NOAA's March 2012 definition for el Niño/la Niña years, which needs a 3-month running average of over 0.5 C in Niño 3.4 spanning DJF and a minimum of 5 overlapping seasons. So 2013 would still not "officially" be the warmest neutral year, but this is a minor detail. Two la Niña years were warmer than 1998. In addition, the list provides very robust evidence of ongoing global warming, and 1998 sits at 7th place on the HadCRUT4/Cowtan & Way record.

From 1975 to 2013, the data also results in a 0.182 C warming per decade, r2 value of 0.835.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2014, 09:35:23 PM by deep octopus »

JimD

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2146
    • View Profile
Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« Reply #70 on: January 30, 2014, 05:16:17 AM »
Tamino once again.

Awesome.

Global Temperature: the Post-1998 Surprise

Given how rapidly global temperature was rising prior to 1998, what’s the most surprising thing about global temperature since 1998?....


http://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/01/30/global-temperature-the-post-1998-surprise/#more-6942
We do not err because truth is difficult to see. It is visible at a glance. We err because this is more comfortable. Alexander Solzhenitsyn

How is it conceivable that all our technological progress - our very civilization - is like the axe in the hand of the pathological criminal? Albert Einstein

deep octopus

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 548
    • View Profile
Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« Reply #71 on: February 04, 2014, 04:41:14 PM »
For anyone who uses Google Earth, you'll likely appreciate this layer file that the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (UEA CRU) has put together. Save and open the file, and you can then explore CRUTEM4's grid data in Google Earth, with complimentary graphs and data tables for all the covered land grids. Really neat tool.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/feb/04/global-warming-google-earth-uea

If you've ever wondered how much global warming has raised local temperatures in your area or elsewhere on the globe, the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (UEA CRU) has just released a new interactive Google Earth layer that will let you answer this question with ease. UEA CRU is one of the scientific organizations that compile temperature data from around the world. Their temperature dataset over land is called CRUTEM4, and is one of the most widely used records of the climate system.

The new Google Earth format allows users to scroll around the world, zoom in on 6,000 weather stations, and view monthly, seasonal and annual temperature data more easily than ever before. Users can drill down to see some 20,000 graphs – some of which show temperature records dating back to 1850.

JimD

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2146
    • View Profile
Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« Reply #72 on: February 04, 2014, 04:56:45 PM »
DO

Thanks.  I checked out my area of AZ and our average temp is up about 1C since 1980.  2013 was our hottest year.
We do not err because truth is difficult to see. It is visible at a glance. We err because this is more comfortable. Alexander Solzhenitsyn

How is it conceivable that all our technological progress - our very civilization - is like the axe in the hand of the pathological criminal? Albert Einstein

deep octopus

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 548
    • View Profile
Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« Reply #73 on: February 04, 2014, 05:20:50 PM »
In my neck of the eastern US/Chesapeake Bay region, the 20-year rolling average of temps was at its lowest around the mid-1870s, and at present is 1.4 C above that lowest trough. It's startling to see how much more amplified the change becomes the farther north you go. In Maine, the change is nearly 2 C from the 1870s. Around Great Slave Lake, 4 C since the early 1900s.

ClimatePete

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« Reply #74 on: February 05, 2014, 12:51:44 PM »
Here's an alternative way to present the trends for UAH 5.6 and the hybrid (HadCRUT4+ kriging + UAH fit) dataset provided by Cowtan & Way at http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~kdc3/papers/coverage2013/methods.html.

The source Excel spreadsheets smooth the data over 12 months (using the given date as the 7th month of the smoothing range), then uses the Excel function LINEST (but SLOPE would do ) to do a series of linear regressions starting at each different month but always ending on the last available smoothed date.

As the start dates get closer to the single end date then random variability gives you wild oscillations, so the graph display has been chopped before this happens to enable the values of interest to be shown with a decent scale.




The two graphs are very similar shapes - hopefully because the two data sets represent the same just slightly different aspects of the real world.   According to the Cowtan and Way web site FAQs :

We use the spatial information from the satellite data to address the spatial incompleteness of the surface data. This could increase or decrease the trend in the surface data. The trend in the satellite data plays no part: This was a design decision of the method on the basis of the temporal stability issues. Adding an arbitrary time varying signal to the satellite data would not affect our results.


Both graphs clearly show a minimum for periods starting around 1997, and a lower minimum (both around 0.025 C / decade) starting at the end of 2002.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2014, 03:08:39 PM by ClimatePete »

BornFromTheVoid

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 952
    • View Profile
Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« Reply #75 on: February 05, 2014, 05:38:52 PM »
UAH Janaury data is out, and it was the joint 6th warmest on record, at 0.291C

The top 10 Januaries

2010:... 0.56
2013:... 0.5
1998:... 0.47
2007:... 0.42
2005:... 0.31
2014:... 0.29
2003:... 0.29
2002:... 0.2
2006:... 0.2
2004:... 0.19

BornFromTheVoid

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 952
    • View Profile
Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« Reply #76 on: February 14, 2014, 03:17:48 PM »
JMA have released their January data, and have 2014 as the 5th warmest on record at +0.18C above the 81-10 average. http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/jan_wld.html


deep octopus

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 548
    • View Profile
Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« Reply #77 on: February 14, 2014, 09:20:10 PM »
NASA: January 2014 was the fourth (4th) hottest January on record.

+0.70 C over 1951-1980



The wheels of global warming just keep turning.

CraigsIsland

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 187
    • View Profile
Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« Reply #78 on: February 14, 2014, 09:33:17 PM »
Impressive anonomly; can anyone tell me with statistics how anonomlous the anomolies are? I.e. .7 doesn't mean that much globally if that temperature change was evenly distributed throughout the world. What really impresses me and what I'm curious about is how much of a difference there is from a baseline say from the svelbard region of last month to what it was averaging many years ago. If I have the time to do some analysis, I will.

BornFromTheVoid

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 952
    • View Profile
Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« Reply #79 on: February 15, 2014, 12:03:10 PM »
NASA: January 2014 was the fourth (4th) hottest January on record.

+0.70 C over 1951-1980



The wheels of global warming just keep turning.


How did you work out that it's the 4th warmest? At 0.72, it looks like the joint 2nd warmest to me?

crandles

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1701
    • View Profile
Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« Reply #80 on: February 15, 2014, 01:44:19 PM »
How did you work out that it's the 4th warmest? At 0.72, it looks like the joint 2nd warmest to me?


Think that referred to giss's 0.70 in this table

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

shows 0.7 with warmer Januarys of
2007 0.93
2002 0.72
2003 0.72

I am also a little puzzled at the image showing 0.72 and it does appear to be giss not JMA and also appears to be Land Ocean Temperature Index (L-OTI) with same base period. So why the 0.70 0.72 discrepancy?

map is at
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/tmp/gistemp/NMAPS/tmp_GHCN_GISS_ERSST_1200km_Anom01_2014_2014_1951_1980/nmaps.gif

perhaps the 1200km extrapolation of anomalies is more aggressive than standard product?

BornFromTheVoid

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 952
    • View Profile
Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« Reply #81 on: February 15, 2014, 02:25:45 PM »
Didn't realise the table data had updated, must remember to hit refresh!

Rubikscube

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 242
    • View Profile
Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« Reply #82 on: February 16, 2014, 03:26:04 PM »
Impressive anonomly; can anyone tell me with statistics how anonomlous the anomolies are? I.e. .7 doesn't mean that much globally if that temperature change was evenly distributed throughout the world. What really impresses me and what I'm curious about is how much of a difference there is from a baseline say from the svelbard region of last month to what it was averaging many years ago. If I have the time to do some analysis, I will.

If you where looking for for stats from Svalbard in particular, this might be to some help;
http://www.yr.no/place/Norway/Svalbard/Longyearbyen/climate.html
I must admit the same question has struck me as well, but I do not have any good answer. The only thing I can say is that the current 30 day mean, of 14,7 C above average, is quite unprecedented for Svalbard.

CraigsIsland

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 187
    • View Profile
Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« Reply #83 on: February 16, 2014, 04:04:50 PM »
Impressive anonomly; can anyone tell me with statistics how anonomlous the anomolies are? I.e. .7 doesn't mean that much globally if that temperature change was evenly distributed throughout the world. What really impresses me and what I'm curious about is how much of a difference there is from a baseline say from the svelbard region of last month to what it was averaging many years ago. If I have the time to do some analysis, I will.

If you where looking for for stats from Svalbard in particular, this might be to some help;
http://www.yr.no/place/Norway/Svalbard/Longyearbyen/climate.html
I must admit the same question has struck me as well, but I do not have any good answer. The only thing I can say is that the current 30 day mean, of 14,7 C above average, is quite unprecedented for Svalbard.


Thanks Friends! Quite fascinating what we're looking at!

ccgwebmaster

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1085
  • Civilisation collapse - what are you doing?
    • View Profile
    • CCG Website
Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« Reply #84 on: February 16, 2014, 06:27:18 PM »
If you where looking for for stats from Svalbard in particular, this might be to some help;
http://www.yr.no/place/Norway/Svalbard/Longyearbyen/climate.html
I must admit the same question has struck me as well, but I do not have any good answer. The only thing I can say is that the current 30 day mean, of 14,7 C above average, is quite unprecedented for Svalbard.


Maybe it won't ultimately be such a good location for the so called "doomsday" seed vault... the design is relying on the permafrost for long term cooling in the event of power failure and presumably for structural integrity.

How fast can permafrost melt depth wise? Obviously it must take some time as heat must get transported to where it needs to work...

wili

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1929
    • View Profile
Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« Reply #85 on: February 16, 2014, 06:54:04 PM »
It's not a purely physical process, though. As biological systems warm up, you start getting roots that grow down into the frost, creatures that start burrowing ever deeper in it...All of these create passage ways for warm summer rains to seep down and create yet more environments for biological activity. Just the start of microbial activity mean that the soil itself will heat up. (Have you ever felt or measured the temp of the inside of a well managed compost--temps can get up to the 180+ F/ 80+ C range.)
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

BornFromTheVoid

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 952
    • View Profile
Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« Reply #86 on: February 20, 2014, 09:26:35 PM »
NCDC has January as the 4th warmest on record
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/1

BornFromTheVoid

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 952
    • View Profile
Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« Reply #87 on: March 13, 2014, 07:22:33 PM »
GISS temperatures for February are in, and at 0.45C above the 51-80 average, it's just the 17th warmest February on record. This ties in with the ENSO 3.4 anomaly being at its most negative in February since January 2012 (which had an anomaly of just +0.36C).


 
Meanwhile, the UAH value for February was +0.18C above the 81-10 average, and the joint 9th warmest on record (January 2012 was -0.14C).
 

 
It will be interesting to see how those anomalies change during the year as we move towards a more +ve ENSO state.

deep octopus

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 548
    • View Profile
Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« Reply #88 on: March 13, 2014, 07:40:42 PM »
February has been one of the slowest months to warm up globally in the last couple of decades, maybe even the slowest, period. This obviously hasn't meant a slowness to the warming of the other 11 months out of the year, but February is one oddity that stands out. The two warmest Februaries on record are 1998 and 1995, respectively; not even in the 21st century. Actually, February 2010 ties 1995 as one exception and was an El Niño. But either way, 1995 and 1998 are really stale at this point. Meanwhile, we've seen the fastest warming months to have been September, October, and November. Why is February warming much more slowly?

My a priori guess into this is that it has to do with the generally negative PDO/La Niña, and maybe more recently the arrival of SSW events that cool the mid-latitudes in the northern hemisphere at the obvious expense of the Arctic. Though we may see more months in the 0.40-0.49 range in the future, these types of months are becoming much rarer as global warming advances.

Shared Humanity

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1936
    • View Profile
Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« Reply #89 on: March 13, 2014, 08:06:31 PM »
February has been one of the slowest months to warm up globally in the last couple of decades, maybe even the slowest, period. This obviously hasn't meant a slowness to the warming of the other 11 months out of the year, but February is one oddity that stands out. The two warmest Februaries on record are 1998 and 1995, respectively; not even in the 21st century. Actually, February 2010 ties 1995 as one exception and was an El Niño. But either way, 1995 and 1998 are really stale at this point. Meanwhile, we've seen the fastest warming months to have been September, October, and November. Why is February warming much more slowly?

My a priori guess into this is that it has to do with the generally negative PDO/La Niña, and maybe more recently the arrival of SSW events that cool the mid-latitudes in the northern hemisphere at the obvious expense of the Arctic. Though we may see more months in the 0.40-0.49 range in the future, these types of months are becoming much rarer as global warming advances.

I think the reason may be simpler than this. Couldn't this simply be related to the loss of Arctic sea ice and the resultant albedo loss? February is near the sea ice maximum and, while it is less than it has been historically, the reductions in maximums are far less than the reductions in minimums we see in September.

crandles

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1701
    • View Profile
Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« Reply #90 on: March 13, 2014, 08:24:18 PM »
Though we may see more months in the 0.40-0.49 range in the future, these types of months are becoming much rarer as global warming advances.

4 consecutive years with feb anomaly below 55. That hasn't happened since 1991-1994 and then happens in every 4 year period prior to that. Oh no, now we will have septics saying no warming in 20 years.  >:(

crandles

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1701
    • View Profile
Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« Reply #91 on: March 13, 2014, 08:28:53 PM »

I think the reason may be simpler than this. Couldn't this simply be related to the loss of Arctic sea ice and the resultant albedo loss? February is near the sea ice maximum and, while it is less than it has been historically, the reductions in maximums are far less than the reductions in minimums we see in September.


 ???
albedo loss means more heat absorbed and higher temperatures doesn't it?

The extra heat gained by Arctic in summer is being vented in autumn and early winter which would explain warming in Feb being less than earlier in winter and autumn. But shouldn't GHGs cause more warming in winter than summer the same as more warming at night than during day?  ???

some graphs:




BTW

looks like Feb is normally about 285.9K and Jan about 285.7K so GISS anomaly change from 70 for Jan to 45 for Feb suggests this February was unusually (but not uniquely) colder than January.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2014, 08:38:55 PM by crandles »

crandles

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1701
    • View Profile
Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« Reply #92 on: March 13, 2014, 08:45:01 PM »
A better explanation might be more landmass in Northern hemisphere. In Feb southern ocean doesn't warm much but Northern land can get colder as snow cover expands. Warming can increase precipitation and hence expansion of snow cover area.

http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_anom.php?ui_set=1&ui_region=nhland&ui_month=2

Southern hemisphere just doesn't have much shrinkage of snow cover area because of lack of land at appropriate latitudes.

Shared Humanity

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1936
    • View Profile
Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« Reply #93 on: March 13, 2014, 09:12:10 PM »

I think the reason may be simpler than this. Couldn't this simply be related to the loss of Arctic sea ice and the resultant albedo loss? February is near the sea ice maximum and, while it is less than it has been historically, the reductions in maximums are far less than the reductions in minimums we see in September.

 ???
albedo loss means more heat absorbed and higher temperatures doesn't it?

The extra heat gained by Arctic in summer is being vented in autumn and early winter which would explain warming in Feb being less than earlier in winter and autumn. But shouldn't GHGs cause more warming in winter than summer the same as more warming at night than during day?  ???


I agree with the venting of extra heat as a reason for warming in the autumn and early winter but still think albedo explains the lower increase in temperatures that we see in February.

Yes albedo loss means more heat absorbed and thus February, when ice is at its maximum, the albedo loss and subsequent warming would be less. The reason for this is that the SIA maximums have shrunk less over the last 3 decades than the SIA minimums in September.

crandles

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1701
    • View Profile
Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« Reply #94 on: March 13, 2014, 09:50:02 PM »
Yes albedo loss means more heat absorbed and thus February, when ice is at its maximum, the albedo loss and subsequent warming would be less. The reason for this is that the SIA maximums have shrunk less over the last 3 decades than the SIA minimums in September.

Not sure I am convinced by this. It still means albedo is adding to temperature increase caused by extra GHGs. In summer the albedo has decreased for larger area, but if you look at temperatures north of 80N (see first graph posted in above post at 8:28), they haven't risen despite increased GHGs and larger area albedo effect because there is still ice holding temperatures close to 0C.

BornFromTheVoid

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 952
    • View Profile
Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« Reply #95 on: March 14, 2014, 11:49:39 AM »
The JMA have February as equal to the 81-10 average, so around the 18th warmest on record.






As for the lack of February temperature increases,  many recent years have had February after or on the peak of a -ve ENSO period, which when taking into account the lag time with ENSO, would explain much of the slow down in warming for this particular month I think.

Shared Humanity

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1936
    • View Profile
Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« Reply #96 on: March 14, 2014, 04:27:08 PM »
Yes albedo loss means more heat absorbed and thus February, when ice is at its maximum, the albedo loss and subsequent warming would be less. The reason for this is that the SIA maximums have shrunk less over the last 3 decades than the SIA minimums in September.

Not sure I am convinced by this. It still means albedo is adding to temperature increase caused by extra GHGs. In summer the albedo has decreased for larger area, but if you look at temperatures north of 80N (see first graph posted in above post at 8:28), they haven't risen despite increased GHGs and larger area albedo effect because there is still ice holding temperatures close to 0C.

Thanks for your responses. I tend to just put my speculations out there. I actually am looking for more informed responses from people like you. It helps me learn.

crandles

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1701
    • View Profile
Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« Reply #97 on: March 14, 2014, 04:38:01 PM »
Thanks for your responses. I tend to just put my speculations out there. I actually am looking for more informed responses from people like you. It helps me learn.

Thanks, but am I allowed to say "snap" to refute that?

jai mitchell

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1637
    • View Profile
Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« Reply #98 on: March 20, 2014, 07:02:45 AM »




these from this http://therationalpessimist.com/2011/12/18/a-fraction-for-your-thoughts/

sadly, the MET doesn't include this:

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2013/storing-carbon-in-the-arctic-1204.html/

Now researchers at MIT have found that with the loss of sea ice, the Arctic Ocean is becoming more of a carbon sink. The team modeled changes in Arctic sea ice, temperatures, currents, and flow of carbon from 1996 to 2007, and found that the amount of carbon taken up by the Arctic increased by 1 megaton each year.

But the group also observed a somewhat paradoxical effect: A few Arctic regions where waters were warmest were actually less able to store carbon. Instead, these regions — such as the Barents Sea, near Greenland — were a carbon source, emitting carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

While the Arctic Ocean as a whole remains a carbon sink, MIT principal research scientist Stephanie Dutkiewicz says places like the Barents Sea paint a more complex picture of how the Arctic is changing with global warming.



Haiku of Past Futures
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

JimD

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2146
    • View Profile
Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« Reply #99 on: March 22, 2014, 08:26:43 PM »
It's been exactly 29 years — or 348 consecutive months — since the last cooler-than-average month on this planet, according to new data released on Wednesday morning. The data, from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), reflects the warming trend seen around the world during the past century...

The last cooler-than-average month (based on a 1961 to 1990 average) on a global level was February of 1985...


http://www.desdemonadespair.net/2014/03/its-been-exactly-29-years-since-earth.html
We do not err because truth is difficult to see. It is visible at a glance. We err because this is more comfortable. Alexander Solzhenitsyn

How is it conceivable that all our technological progress - our very civilization - is like the axe in the hand of the pathological criminal? Albert Einstein