Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - wolfpack513

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
1
Science / Re: 2020 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« on: August 05, 2020, 07:57:06 PM »
July 2020 was up 2.64 ppm over July 2019 on NOAA data for Mauna Loa.  Nothing unexpected.  We’re nearing the end of the effects from the weak Niño/warm ENSO lag from this past winter.   

2
Science / Re: 2020 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« on: July 08, 2020, 02:17:46 PM »
Yea too small to be seen.  I removed the anthropogenic trend in my chart above(*ENSO influence remains).  Inter-annual concentration growth variability, largely ENSO driven is 1 to 2 magnitudes higher than year-over-year 5 to 8% global emissions drop. 

Look at the growth variability from 2016 to 2018: about 2 ppm.  The drop in emissions and resulting impact on concentration and growth rates will be nearly undetectable without sophisticated filters/regression analysis.  You have to look at decades of data to tease out anthropogenic effects on concentration.  Don't confuse emissions & concentration.

3
Science / Re: 2020 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« on: July 07, 2020, 10:15:46 AM »
As Stephan mentioned, nothing out of the ordinary in June 2020's growth rate of 2.46 ppm.

With the 5-month lag, June 2020 lines up well well with January's ENSO level.

4
Science / Re: 2020 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« on: June 15, 2020, 03:18:33 PM »
I made a mistake in my de-trending chart above.  I didn't de-trend ENSO before de-trending Mauna Loa. If you want to de-trend just *anthropogenic* effects you have to make sure ENSO(lagged) integrates to zero. 

I went with multi-line regression.  I have 4 regression lines where ENSO integrates to zero(accounting for 5 month lag). Blending these together you'll notice that anthropogenic changes are only worth about an additional ~0.1 ppm/year by 2020 compared to 2007. 

5
Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: June 08, 2020, 03:39:57 AM »
No.  30-year averages unless otherwise specified.  Front page of IPCC Special Report 1.5. This is to eliminate internal variability(ENSO, volcanoes, etc.) and of course cherry picking(deniers/alarmists). https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/chapter-1/

Somebody able to find the error in the following? What am I missing or does this mean that we've already gone flying past Paris goal of  "pursuing" 1.5 degC above pre-industrial?

( "pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement )

From:
https://climate.copernicus.eu/surface-air-temperature-may-2020

- "with a global temperature 0.63°C above that for 1981-2010"
- "0.63°C should be added to these values to relate recent global temperatures to the pre-industrial level defined in the IPCC Special Report on “Global Warming of 1.5°C”. The average temperature for the twelve months to May 2020 is close to 1.3°C above the level. "
- ENSO is currently neutral so current global temps aren't impacted by El Nino warming although Nino 3.4 region has been slightly above zero for most of the last 12 months: (See: https://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_v5.php)
- global temperature is currently increasing at a rate of 0.183degC/decade: (from Tamino https://tamino.wordpress.com/2019/08/20/global-warming-how-fast/)
-  On top of this is the delayed heating of the atmosphere from the heating lag mainly caused by heat stored in the oceans. This article puts the full length of delay at 40 years ( https://skepticalscience.com/Climate-Change-The-40-Year-Delay-Between-Cause-and-Effect.html) Even being optimistic and saying that the full effect of the equivalent of 20 years of GHG emissions is yet to reach the atmosphere that's an additional 2 x 0.183 = 0.36degC.
- So total global temp. increase above pre-industrial already baked in is 1.3degC + 0.36degC = 1.66degC - blowing past Paris climate goal which even now is being "pursued"  (unless massive removal of GHG can take place in the very near future which appears to be fantasy at this moment in time).

It may be dispiriting but if this is the case then I think an honest assessment that this is the current situation is better than ignoring it.

6
Science / Re: 2020 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« on: June 07, 2020, 07:04:20 PM »
A couple of things.  We mostly certain did have ENSO impacts through ~March.  You think of El Niño too much in a binary view: Niño 3.4(which did hit ONI criteria BTW).  2019-2020 warm water was displaced east of the warm pool creating an ocean-atmospheric teleconnection.  Clearly seen on VPs as well as increased global AAM.  Look at my chart above in the previous post.  detrended and lagged Mauna Loa fits perfectly with our low end El Niño.

You think that this is the first May where SSTs turned cold?  This happens in nearly every warm ENSO cycle.  slosh model: El Niños kill themselves because eventually an upwelling wave forms in response. These cooler waters won’t be seen for months in the CO2 data.  You guys often forget that Mauna Loa is used for a reason. At 11,000 ft it separated from the boundary layer atmosphere due to a nearly continuous strong marine inversion. Mauna Loa is measuring well mixed (globally)gases with little local impacts. 

rboyd,
of course it is important to set the annual increases into context with [global] weather and current patterns. With definitively no El Niño in 2020 the increase rate is far too big to be acceptable. But it is above my pay grade to interprete the values. My intention was simply to present the actual numbers and compare the increase rates with those of the last decade(s).
I did so as well for the other "NOAA gases" (see the posts in the individual threads).

7
Consequences / Re: Temperature signals from Covid-19
« on: June 03, 2020, 02:27:02 PM »
When you start a new thread the opening post matters.  It's 2020 & you seem surprised that CO2 concentration is up even though emissions are down.  CO2 ACCUMULATES IN THE ATMOSPHERE! This is AGW 101. 

The current warming rate is roughly +0.20°C per decade.  That's an alarming rate but on a monthly basis worth: +0.0017°C per month.  Global mean temps monthly variability (largely ENSO) is ~0.50°C.  That's 2 orders of magnitude higher than the background warming rate!

We already have several threads on aerosols as well as CO2 concentration, CO2 emissions, CO2 equivalent and a thread on tracking global mean temps.


What kind of climate signals should we expect from the lockdown policies related to Covid-19?

We know that economic activity is down a lot, there is a global recession/depression.

CO2 emissions down, but CO2 levels at Mauna Loa increasing.

Will be interesting to follow temperature developments. Will the recession, the increadible decrease in economic activity, in travel, in transport have any effect on global temperatures?

The null hypothesis is that temperatures will follow CO2 up.

I was playing around with temperature and CO2 data at woodfortrees, and created the attached graph.

We have an interesting temperature signal in the UAH6 temperatures, going down in April.
Hadcrut isn't updated yet.

https://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2015/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2015/plot/esrl-co2/from:2015/normalise

8
Science / Re: 2020 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« on: June 02, 2020, 04:07:15 PM »
I calculated 417.03 ppm for May 2020. This is roughly a growth rate of 2.4 ppm over May 2019.  Average done with a total of 26 daily NOAA readings. 

Once you de-trend Mauna Loa and offset for the 5-month ENSO lag, we're right where you would expect to be for growth rates.  May's growth rate reflects December 2019 ENSO conditions. 

I chose a trailing 7-month average to capture 5 ONIs(tri-monthlies).  2019-2020's weak El Niño for example: OND to FMA or October to April: 7 months.

9
Consequences / Re: Temperature signals from Covid-19
« on: May 27, 2020, 03:16:02 PM »
Come on guys the CO2 impact from COVID-19 & the impact on global temperatures is so minuscule it's noise at best.  The fact that you think will be able to track it month-by-month global mean temps affects is silly.

You realize that CO2 concentration growth year-over-year is responsible for an additional radiative forcing of like ~0.03 W/M².  Estimates have 2020 *annual* emissions down 7%.  That's doesn't even account for all anthropogenic CO2: land use changes, etc..  Regardless, that 7% drop in emissions due to COVID-19 is a drop in radiative forcing of  ~0.00021 W/M².

Also what's the obsession with satellite data?  Surface temperature data is way more accurate for global mean estimates.  You realize that satellite data goes through massive algorithms & corrections because of changes in orbits & time of day passes.

The focus should be on aerosols not CO2 concentration changes when talking about COVID-19.

10
Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: May 21, 2020, 01:55:20 AM »
OTOH the more sensitive satellite only temp. data, i.e. RSS and UAH, show strong declines in the last couple of (Covid) months.

https://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/gistemp/last:12/offset:-0.43/plot/hadcrut4gl/last:12/offset:-0.29/plot/rss/last:12/offset:-0.13/plot/uah/last:12

As stated a couple months ago, the Australian wildfires influenced L-T satellite readings.  Your trend is just the residence time of aerosols precipitating out.

11
Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: May 20, 2020, 09:09:18 PM »
Berkeley Earth global mean through April 2020.  The 1860-1910 mean is -0.36°C. The end point of the 20-year trend in 2020 is 0.90°C.  That’s a total of 1.26°C warming(of course a little more with some AGW prior to 1860). 

Current trend is 0.21°C per decade.  That conservatively puts us at +1.5°C in less than 12 years.  IPCC and supporting impacts use 20 year means.  So single years or months is incorrect to say “we’ve already past 1.5°C.”

12
Science / Re: 2020 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« on: May 14, 2020, 12:45:55 AM »
Another thing that needs to be normalized or de-trended some is the fact that ENSO has been dis-proportionally warm phase the last 10 years.  The Niño index is already de-trended but depending on endpoints can influence the trend.  We all remember "no global warming since 1998."

13
Science / Re: 2020 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« on: May 13, 2020, 05:52:09 PM »
The internal variability is still mostly ENSO and that's the problem! We like to think that the 2008-2009 global financial crisis or corona-virus will make a big impact on *concentration* but it's tiny compared to where we need to be globally. Cumulative gas in the atmosphere doesn't care about your occasional emissions drop because the pie just keeps getting bigger. 

At the time it was a big deal when global emissions dropped ~0.50 GT from 2008 to 2009. That's a little less than a 2% drop in emissions.  Now compared that to ENSO which is responsible for plus or minus 2 ppm in growth rates variability: strong El Niño to strong La Niña.  You're working in different magnitudes.  Now if emissions were dropping 2% annually that would start to show up after some time.

14
Science / Re: 2020 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« on: May 13, 2020, 08:48:31 AM »
...  I do need to adjust the quadratic used for de-trending Mauna Loa because the 2009-2010 moderate El Niño has the same amplitude as weak El Niños later in the time series.  A sign that acceleration in growth rates has picked up.

Thanks, wolfpack!

You say that the "acceleration in growth rates has picked up."
I don't see any such acceleration in the chart? To me, it looks like a deceleration, a slight negative trend in CO2 growth, ie. the blue curve.

No, it’s de-trended.  Therefore the slope is flat.  However, the quadratic I used wasn’t perfect so the blue line could be adjusted some.  Any *short term* trend that you’re seeing is mostly ENSO. Of course after the super El Niño of 2015-2016 and nearly moderate El Niño of 2018-2019 your eyes see a negative trend.   Kind of my point.  Making any big declaration month to month or even year to year because growth rates went up or down is usually just ENSO.  Changes in emissions, including this year will be very small to detect but do have an impact in the longrun. 

15
Science / Re: 2020 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« on: May 12, 2020, 04:11:35 PM »
I de-trended NOAA's Mauna Loa C02 growth rates.  Included are Niño 3.4 monthly anomalies.  Niño indexes are already de-trended(3.4 uses a moving centered baseline). To smooth both I placed a 7-month trailing average.  I chose 7 months because the minimum criteria for La Niña or El Niño is 5 tri-monthlies(ONIs) or roughly 7 months.

Once you account for the 3-5 month lag of ENSO to CO2 concentration impacts, the residuals or variability in growth rates is nearly all ENSO.  I do need to adjust the quadratic used for de-trending Mauna Loa because the 2009-2010 moderate El Niño has the same amplitude as weak El Niños later in the time series.  A sign that acceleration in growth rates has picked up.

16
Consequences / Re: 2020 ENSO
« on: May 11, 2020, 05:29:32 PM »
It was pretty obvious a month ago that we were going to trip 5-ONIs in a row criteria for weak El Niño.  Simple math.  The JFM ONI was +0.6°C & the ERSSTv5 January value used for ONI was +0.5°C.  So for FMA to reach the 5th ONI(tri-monthly) of +0.50°C you just had to replace that January value with a +0.40 to 0.50°C.

17
Science / Re: 2020 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« on: May 07, 2020, 07:17:54 PM »
Repeating the note I've made several times over the years. It's not surprising the CO2 keeps on rising in the spring, it is the high point of anthropogenic CO2  in the atmosphere. Once the plants have woken up from their hibernation they likely notice there's more of the stuff and adjust accordingly. Any anthropogenic decrease in CO2 production should thus be easiest to see in late summer-autumn numbers, once the natural cycle is changing it's direction.

That's why I have a trailing 12-month average on my graph.  It smooths or removes the seasonal cycle.  Once you remove the seasonal cycle the rest of the variability is mostly ENSO.  The small changes from global economic ups and downs has an incredibly small impact of concentration time-series.  You can see dips on emissions charts but the impact is incredibly small on concentration time-series.  Something people confuse quite often.

18
Science / Re: 2020 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« on: May 06, 2020, 02:19:08 PM »
NOAA's April Mauna Loa CO2 data was released: 416.21 ppm.  That's an increase of 2.88 ppm over April 2019.

April 2020's annual growth was higher than any of the previous 6 months & also higher than the running 12-month trailing average as well as the long-term linear average.

My next project is to detrend this dataset(subtract the linear regression from each month). Once detrended measure ENSO peaks to peaks & troughs to troughs trends: weak El Niño to weak El Niño, moderate La Niña to moderate La Niña and so forth for all strengths and flavors. I may even assign a lag of 2-4 months too account for the delay.

This should tease out acceleration better and see how much ENSO impacts these numbers. 

19
Science / Re: 2020 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« on: April 03, 2020, 01:32:51 AM »
I calculated 414.50 ppm for March 2020 using NOAA Mauna Loa data. Nothing out of the ordinary — growth rate of 2.53 ppm over March 2019.  People will likely blame the growth rate drop the next 6+ months on coronavirus but we’re now post peak in the cycle.

20
Science / Re: 2020 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« on: March 30, 2020, 01:14:45 PM »
Yea I feel like we've beat this drum a lot -- these initial weeks, months are way too early to decipher any Coronavirus impacts on CO2(a well mixed gas).  Look how noisy the data is the first 3 months of both 2019 & 2020 at Mauna Loa.

21
Consequences / Re: 2020 ENS
« on: March 19, 2020, 07:54:28 PM »
Again saying yay or nay is binary.  That’s just criteria to keep objective annual records for CPC, BOM, etc..  SSTs anomalies are only part of the story.  Something important to remember is that Niño 4’s baseline is much warmer than 3.4, 3, 1&2.  The SSTs are >28°C the entire year.  So adding +1°C is giving you 29-30°C waters.  That’s a lot of heat for deep tropical convection = ENSO impacts. 

Even if 2019-2020 isn’t *officially* an El Niño, the displacement of warm water east still had impacts, including on the global mean surface temperature.  Pretty obvious the bump in GISS-LOTI in the fall of 2018 to 2019 and another bump in fall of 2019 to now. 

22
Consequences / Re: 2020 ENSO
« on: March 19, 2020, 05:10:07 PM »
Naw, we're finishing up the current ENSO cycle with El Niño type conditions for the 2nd year in a row.  People think of it as binary when the teleconnections or SSTs don't always fit a certain box.  The displacement of warmer than normal water in the equatorial Pacific & the ocean-atmosphere connection is what's important. 

Even though the warmest water has been in Niño 4 we still may trip the criteria for Niño 3.4 -  NOAA/CPC: 5 ONIs of +0.50°C or higher.  JFM should easily be the fourth ONI in a row.  For the last 3 months the strongest forcing as been centered right over the Niño 4 or near the dateline.

23
Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: March 17, 2020, 05:37:29 PM »
Satellites record a catastrophic heating of the atmosphere comparable to 2016 and 1998.

As the 2nd image points out these lower-tropospheric numbers need to be ignored.  Several independent groups have shown that Australia's wildfire aerosols have distributed globally in the stratosphere.  Another reason why surface GMST >>> satellite MSU-LTT.  Changes in the QBO and BDC really helped to distribute these aerosols in December-February.

24
Science / Re: 2020 CO2 emissions
« on: March 10, 2020, 12:05:34 PM »
Just remember when everyone is high-fiving the drop in emissions, there will be long term damage. Here's a flash back to 2012 -  *4* years after the financial crisis & *after* Obama was reelected to his *final term* he still didn't have the political capital/cover to act on climate because the need to "focus on the economy."  https://www.politico.com/story/2012/11/obama-says-climate-change-to-take-backseat-to-economy-083865

25
Science / Re: 2020 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« on: March 02, 2020, 09:31:39 PM »
I calculated 414.12 PPM for February 2020 at Mauna Loa using NOAA’s data.  That’s a growth rate of 2.37 ppm over February 2019. Nothing that unexpected if you follow the underlying cycle of growth rates.  The peak was October 2019 and we should see growth rates dropping off until the next bottom.

It could be all ENSO but I think there’s some sort of cycle and ENSO adds constructive or destructive interference. If we see an El Niño at the time of a typical peak you get constructive interference & the opposite if the ENSO phase and trough/peak don’t line up.  Take the bottom in 2014-2015, it was higher than the bottom in 2017-2018.  The weak El Niño in 2014 and into early 2015 was enough to elevate the trough: destructive interference.  That’s why the 2014-2015 trough was higher than 2018 bottom when you had La Niña and a trough: constructive interference.

26
Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: March 02, 2020, 03:35:31 PM »
Yea Moyhu's NCEP reanalysis has done a great job as of late.  When you do the conversion for GISS-LOTI: +1.15°C.  That would be a hair above February 2017 but well short of 2016's +1.37°C. 

Of course with the lag, February 2016 was the peak monthly anomaly from 2015-2016's Super Niño.

27
Consequences / Re: Global recession
« on: March 02, 2020, 08:37:30 AM »
The impact on AGW is dependent on the extent and time frame .
Expect a spike in global temperatures as aerosols fall due to less air travel, sea freight and energy use. This  is due the removal of  aerosol's masking our real effect on global temperatures.
An economic down turn will result in less emissions.  Even if they later return to previous levels it still represents a delay in using up the available carbon budget.

Don’t step over a dollar to pick up a quarter.  The drop in emissions will give us a few extra months to the carbon budget but the economic impacts will be much worse in long term efforts to fight AGW.  Governments and corporations will now have to delay investments, transitions, priorities because of the massive hit.  I would gladly trade for the ~2GtCo2 in the Carbon budget from 2008-2010 rather than the delay that financial crisis caused.  The right wing governments emerging worldwide the last 5 years is a symptom.

28
Consequences / Re: Global recession
« on: March 02, 2020, 01:28:45 AM »
All these companies that pledged net zero emissions over the last few months just got a 10-20% haircut and are still bleeding.  So yes the stock market does matter.  Boards report to their investors which also expect dividends.  Investing in carbon capture and storage is going to be unimaginable now for some.

Baby boomers are past the age of adding to their retirement accounts.  Withdrawing money to meet bills at that same time it’s tanking just adds to the pain.  At best you can hope for a V shape recovery.

How many companies are over leveraged with corporate debt?  In the U.S. we just wasted billions on deficit spending so corporations could do stock buybacks with 2017’s corporate tax cut. Gone just like that. 

The everything bubble just popped and the little priority global warming acquired the last few years is going to take a back seat.  We’re just getting started with this mess.

29
Science / Re: 2020 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« on: February 25, 2020, 06:14:38 PM »
Mauna Loa is sampling well mixed air.  Impacts from the virus will be so small in the current carbon cycle that any signal will probably comes months-years later.  Daily ups & downs are noisy. This noise is on top of a seasonal cycle that shifts slightly from year to year. Tack on ENSO impacts & accelerating concentration growth and any small dip could lead to confirmation bias.

30
Science / Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« on: February 04, 2020, 05:31:40 PM »
CMIP5 data in the IPCC 5th AR uses RCPs in 20-year centered periods: "Twenty-year AR5 climatologies and climatological anomalies are calculated for the averaging periods 2016-2035, 2046-2065, 2081-2100 for the CMIP5 scenario experiments rcp26, rcp45, rcp60 and rcp85."  So not exactly 20-year running averages. 

The 1998-2012 hiatus period is highlighted for issues with timescales of 15 years or less. Heat uptake is still occurring but internal variability may briefly slow GMST trends.  20-year period are long enough to average out most of this internal variability.  https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf


Thanks.

Not sure about the 20 year running average; as gerontocrat says it would be very misleading. I know that aerosols are included. They are also included in the numbers posted here from external sources. For example the 454ppm number in 2017.

31
Science / Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« on: February 04, 2020, 01:09:55 AM »
I’m not a fan of 5-year averages gerontocrat.  2015-2019 was dominated by +ENSO.  2010-2014 which was weighted more -ENSO.  There has been some acceleration the last 40 years but majority of the last 5 years bump was internal variability.  The 20-year and 30-year trend are identical.  You can hardly see the red line overlaid the green line. 

32
Science / Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« on: February 03, 2020, 04:56:20 PM »
I'm not 100% sure but I believe RCPs use a 20-year running average/smooth and include anthropogenic aerosols(negative forcing).  Therefore endpoints or single years will have much higher CO2e than the 20 year average.  Lower pathways have less aerosols and less cooling.  Higher end RCPs: 6 & 8.5 have more cooling from aerosols.  Since all pathways begin at 2000 it takes a while for separation especially with inverse negative forcing/cooling in emission mitigation.

I don't believe the below graph has been posted yet and seems essential to the topic of this thread.

Assuming I'm reading this graph right we are well above RCP 8.5 at this point for CO2eq, as we are already above 450ppm CO2eq according to all of the numbers presented in this thread...

Also, I still haven't figured out how you get from ppb in CH4 to ppm in CO2eq if it's not using the GWP multiplier (some posters in this thread have claimed that GWP is not for atmospheric CO2 concentrations).

33
Science / Re: 2020 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« on: February 03, 2020, 03:10:23 PM »
I calculated 413.44 ppm for January 2020 with NOAA's Mauna Loa data.  That's a growth rate of 2.61 ppm over January 2019.  12-month moving average is still above the linear & polynomial but appears to be peaking in the growth cycle.

34
Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: January 31, 2020, 08:42:16 AM »
Reanalysis is pointing to another very warm month for January 2020.  GISS-LOTI conversion on Moyhu’s site is currently around +1.10°C.

35
Science / Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« on: January 27, 2020, 01:43:02 PM »
Instantaneous CO₂ equivalent is basically why NOAA/ESRL created AGGI.  The AGGI is made up of all the major GHGs and even the 15 minor GHGs.

2019 data hasn't been added yet but through 2018, radiative forcing is currently 3.1 Watts/m² above pre-industrial.  https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi.html
 

36
Science / Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« on: January 12, 2020, 01:52:25 AM »
I started the thread/poll and it was for the annual average growth rate at Mauna Loa: January-December 2.92 ppm.  A centered 4-month average may be the technical but not what I had in mind.  I’ll specify next time. 

37
Science / Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« on: January 09, 2020, 01:12:17 AM »
My estimate was right on the number from earlier post.   NOAA released 2019’s mean CO2 level: 411.44 ppm.  Up 2.92 ppm over 2018. 

38
Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: January 08, 2020, 07:05:53 PM »
Copernicus(ERA5) came down today.  December 2019 tied with 2015 as the warmest December on record.  The calendar year 2019 was the 2nd warmest on record behind 2016.   2019 was +0.59°C above the 1981-2010 average or ~+1.20°C.  2016 was +0.63°C for the year.

39
Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: January 06, 2020, 01:37:42 AM »
JMA is one of the first to release 2019 global mean temperature.  Tied for 2nd warmest with 2015. Of course 2016 still holds the record. 

Biggest take away is look at the jump in the 5-year average (blue-line). Of course 2015-16 & 19 had El Niño influence but still a big step up.  The next closest comparison would be maybe the step up in the late 1970s?

40
Science / Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« on: January 01, 2020, 06:17:16 PM »
I estimated 411.73 ppm for December 2019 using NOAA data.  That's a growth rate of 2.66 ppm over December 2018.  This puts 2019's annual average growth rate at 2.92 ppm. This will be close to 1998 and just under 2015 & 2016.  Those 3 years of course were associated with high end El Niños.

Official data should come down from NOAA in the next week.  Also, just noticed that technically I did the poll wrong: there's no choice for 2.91 to 3 ppm.  Whoops.   

41
Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: December 16, 2019, 07:24:05 PM »
NOAA & GISS place November 2019 as 2nd warmest November on record behind November 2015. 

2019 is also clearly the 2nd warmest YTD on record after 2016.

42
Science / Re: 2019 CO2 emissions
« on: December 13, 2019, 06:27:42 PM »
With 2019 emissions estimates now in, we’ve got updated mitigation curves with remaining carbon budgets. 

Bunny slopes to black diamonds in the last few decades.  2.0°C & 1.5°C targets. 

43
Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: December 13, 2019, 06:24:15 PM »
Reanalysis puts daily GMST anomalies at around the highest values of the entire year of 2019. 

http://www.moyhu.org.s3.amazonaws.com/data/freq/ncep.html

44
Science / Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« on: December 05, 2019, 05:29:56 PM »
But what does that mean? It tells us that the 3.4 region lags global CO2 by about 5 month?

Whoops brain fart.  I have it backwards.  The CO2 growth rate lags ENSO.  the peaks in CO2 growth rate lag Niño 3.4 by ~4-6 months. 

45
Science / Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« on: December 05, 2019, 04:46:57 AM »
**Edit** chart is backwards.  Should say CO2 growth rate lags ENSO by 5 months.

Here's NOAA monthly CO2 growth rates vs Niño 3.4 ONIs.  I lagged CO2 Growth rate by 5 months and seemed to line up with NIÑO 3.4 ONI.

46
Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: December 04, 2019, 09:46:05 PM »
November 2019 tied 2016 on Copernicus for warmest November on record. 

This is an interesting time of the year because the ENSO cycle lag on GMST is either ramping up or ramping down.  In the 2015-2016 super Niño the 2 highest monthly anomalies were in February & March 2016.  That's why it took until 2015 to break 1998's February record on GISS.

47
Science / Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« on: December 04, 2019, 02:04:24 AM »
Nice catch Hefaistos.  Yea I was playing around with the polynomial and  forgot to make note of it.  I increased it to the 4th degree.  My understanding in this regression is limited and was concerned about overfitting but wanted something other than just linear. 

I use the monthly data from: ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_mm_mlo.txt

 November 2019 was just an estimate based on daily/weekly data until the monthly value comes down. 

48
Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: December 02, 2019, 06:39:02 PM »
If you correct for ENSO, 2019 could finish above 2016 but actual anomalies that's not going to happen.

Here's the running 10-month for BEST which includes October 2019.  Look how much lower this year is compared to the peak in 2016.  Even if November & December 2019 beat 2016 it still wouldn't be enough.


49
Science / Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« on: December 02, 2019, 05:33:24 PM »
I calculated 410.30 ppm for November 2019 from NOAA Mauna Loa data.  Official data will come down in a few days.

That's a growth rate of 2.28 ppm over November 2018.  Trailing 12-month average is now beginning to dip below the most recent peak.  Looks like 2019 will come in around ~2.90 ppm but of course that depends on the next 4 weeks.

50
Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: November 20, 2019, 03:12:38 PM »
NOAA & Berkeley Earth also came in at 2nd warmest October behind 2015.

Here's overlapping 30-year trends for Berkeley Earth.  Trend has slowly risen from 0.18° per decade starting in the early 1970's to currently 0.20°C per decade.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5