# Arctic Sea Ice : Forum

## AGW in general => Consequences => Topic started by: BornFromTheVoid on July 18, 2013, 08:18:03 PM

Title: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: BornFromTheVoid on July 18, 2013, 08:18:03 PM
I thought a thread to discuss the current and near term global temperatures might be useful.

To start off with, the NCDC June data has been updated, and it was the joint 5th warmest June on record, and 7th warmest year to date (0.07C above last year and 0.13C below the warmest on record, 2010). All the while, ENSO remains of the negative side of neutral

Quote
Global Highlights

• The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for June 2013 tied with 2006 as the fifth highest on record, at 0.64°C (1.15°F) above the 20th century average of 15.5°C (59.9°F).

• The global land surface temperature was 1.05°C (1.89°F) above the 20th century average of 13.3°C (55.9°F), marking the third warmest June on record. For the ocean, the June global sea surface temperature was 0.48°C (0.86°F) above the 20th century average of 16.4°C (61.5°F), the 10th warmest June on record.

• The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for the January–June period (year-to-date) was 0.59°C (1.06°F) above the 20th century average of 13.5°C (56.3°F), tying with 2003 as the seventh warmest such period on record

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/6 (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/6)

With upper ocean heat content building again across the ENSO region, I wouldn't be surprised to the next batch of ENSO forecast have us on the +ve side of neutral by Autumn, with maybe Nino developing during winter?

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FfzFvKPk.gif&hash=1f54d1ff0d650ce182982040bf5b44ae)
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf (http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf)

Should that happen, we could potentially challenge for a top 3 year.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: deep octopus on July 18, 2013, 09:28:25 PM
Thanks BFTV. I thought about doing one specifically for NASA's (Goddard Institute for Space Studies) GISS, and its Land-Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI) data, but you beat me to the punch. Since LOTI has very high coverage (picking up readings from the Arctic and Antarctic better than NCDC or HadCrut 4), it's my favorite source of surface temperature data.

It would be appropriate in my view to provide regular updates (ideally monthly) on the state of the world climate according to the L-OTI, NCDC, and HadCrut, similar to how we have threads dedicated to IJIS-JAXA, Cryosphere Today, and the like, which all give regular updates on the state of the climate from the perspective of Arctic sea ice. I would clarify that the thread might rather read as "Global Surface Land and Ocean Temperatures", since surface ocean temperatures can include shallow depths of open water (roughly 5 meters deep, if I'm not mistaken).

For NASA's LOTI, the wealth of data and its methodology is easily found here (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/), and includes helpful maps (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/) that can be used to analyze zonal (latitudinal, really) temperature trends as well as global.

NASA clocked June 2013 as the 2nd hottest June on record, after 1998, at 0.68 degrees C above the 1951-1980 average.

Looking at NASA's data further, it appears 2013 is the sixth warmest from the January through June period (behind 2010, 2007, 1998, 2002, and 2005.)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: deep octopus on August 14, 2013, 11:43:21 PM
NASA's maps will update on their own since I'm linking directly to them, so I imagine logging each month's temperature anomaly will be more of a time capsule than anything. Nevertheless, new data from GISS says July 2013 was 0.53 degrees above 1951-1980.

Here in the eastern US, it has felt like we've been deprived of a proper summer this year. Lots of cool, wet days, with spates of hot weather during a few weeks. Overall, a complete flip to where we were last 2012 with record-breaking heat waves. It was rather unbearable last year, but I don't much like these unseasonably cool days. August this year feels more like late September. My coriander is loving this weather, at least! We'll see what autumn brings us.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: BornFromTheVoid on August 16, 2013, 03:56:16 PM
It says +0.54C on the data table page, so joint 9th warmest July, which makes it the 7th warmest year on record to date. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt)

Not bad for 7 months that have averaged ENSO -ve anyway. I do suspect, that the continuing ENSO -ve values will prevent a top 5 year for 2013 though.

UAH still hasn't updated their long term data. They've only released the last few months of the newest version, but haven't updated the old data sets.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: deep octopus on August 16, 2013, 04:11:37 PM
Most models are projecting ENSO neutral for the remainder of the year.

Bureau of Meteorology in Australia shows the latest ensemble continuing to slowly emerge to a +ve ENSO state into winter 2013-2014, but none of the models show either a convincing El Niño or La Niña in the cards.

That said, it wouldn't be impossible to breach the top 5 without El Niño. In 2005, a neutral year that shifted to La Niña, exceptional warmth nearly every month of the year (anomalies between 0.6 and 0.8 degrees C) lifted it to hottest year status until 2010. Autumn 2005 was particularly warm. Albeit, 2005 was slightly +ve most of the year. That said, I think a combination of a sharply negative NAO/AO during the winter months in this year (in part from the SSW event?) prevented much warmer than average temperatures in the northern hemisphere. So that has worked against the global average for a while. The southern hemisphere, however, is sizzling, compared to its recent years.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: BornFromTheVoid on August 16, 2013, 04:37:24 PM
The monthly CPC ENSO forecast should be out today or tomorrow here  http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CDB/ (http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CDB/)

The weekly updates show the +ve sub surface anomalies moving east and upward.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf (http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf)

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FzDFu5k5.jpg&hash=a0bc1a644eec245fa2f8be6c3299a3d5)

There is generally a 4 month lag in the impact of ENSO variations on global temperatures, so we probably got a slight temperature boost at the beginning of this year from the +ve ESNO in Autumn 2012, and could see the recent -ve ENSO values affect the Autumn and early winter global temps.

I don't think that those +ve sub surface anomalies will act quickly enough to have much effect on global temps this year. I reckon somewhere around 9th highest by years end on LOTI.

It will be interesting to see what the SOTC report shows (hopefully this evening or Monday).
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: deep octopus on August 20, 2013, 12:12:37 AM
Latest CFS model ensemble mean for Nino 3.4 is showing positive SSTs going into autumn 2013 and upward to winter and early spring 2014.

NOAA still officially forecasting ENSO neutral conditions through the fall, and the models confirm this. But it's upping the ante for 2014 expectations.

Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: JimD on August 20, 2013, 04:55:01 PM
Deep Octopus

Question.  I have noticed over time that the focus always seems to be on Region 3.4.  Why is that the region to focus on?  I have never found an explanation for why it is the most important.  If you check this link

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/nino_regions.shtml (http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/nino_regions.shtml)

it shows that region 3.4 is in the middle of the Pacific.  Why is that region more important than the region next to South America for instance.  Is it because 3.4 is a transition area or because it is some sort of average?

Thanks
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: BornFromTheVoid on August 20, 2013, 05:44:47 PM
The July 2013 Global State of the Climate Report report is out now.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/7 (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/7)

It was the 6th warmest over land and ocean combined.

8th warmest over land, 5th warmest over ocean.

This marks the warmest July for the oceans since July 2009, when the last El Niño phase on record was beginning.

Joint 6th warmest January to July on record.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: deep octopus on August 20, 2013, 06:40:25 PM
Jim,

You're mainly correct about the point on transition. Without getting too much into the weeds of oceanographic theory, since El Niño/La Niña phenomena remain somewhat complex events, a short and skinny of Nino 3.4's origins as a metric for defining these events is explained by the topographic nature of the equatorial Pacific, functions of the trade winds, mainly. To the west (Nino 4), the Pacific Ocean has a deep mixing layer (thermocline), such that, say, the isotherm at 25 degrees C is deeper at the Solomon Islands, while the thermocline is much shallower in the east off of Peru (Nino 1+2).

The trades push against the western Pacific and an accumulation of warm water (the "warm pool") and higher sea level is formed naturally, while the eastern Pacific is shallower and cooler. Warm water upwells in the west; cool water upwells in the east. This temperature difference drives the Walker Circulation, which typifies weather patterns in the Pacific and ultimately affects weather in much of the world. The stronger the pressure gradient and trade winds, the stronger the Walker Circulation, and this usually is associated with La Niña. Because of imbalances in the wind stress, however, this circulation can (and often does) break down, and the warm water in the western Pacific  moves eastward towards the South American coast. The thermocline therefore deepens in the east, driving the positive feedback that causes trade winds to weaken, causing water to warm further, which weakens winds still. El Niño. Introducing ocean currents to this function would make this entirely too lengthy, so I'll stop there.

It is said that Nino 3.4 is kind of the "sweet spot" where the atmospheric-oceanic teleconnection takes place, where it is closer to the warm pool than Nino 3, and convection appears during El Niño. Kevin Trenberth has noted that other metrics, such as the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) and Nino 3 have been used before to define El Niño/La Niña, but their shortcomings were supplanted by the Nino 3.4 metric that has been largely adopted.

The paper that is germane to this is Trenberth 1997, "The Definition of El Niño"

Nino regions 3 and 1+2 have been considered important in recent years, due to the discovery of new El Niño and La Niña events called Modiki El Niño and Modiki La Niña, where Nino 3.4 is warmer (cooler) than average, while surrounding regions are cooler (warmer) than average. This has somewhat different atmospheric effects.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: JimD on August 20, 2013, 07:42:08 PM
Deep Octopus

Thanks.

Another question:

In the abstract of your link it states that the metric for determining an El Nino/La Nina is a 0.4C deviation from the norm for 6 months and states that this occurs 31% of the time for El Nino's and 23% of the time for La Nina's.  Since I was under the impression that La Nina's were more common than El Nino's I went searching for a graph which I had seen before.

http://ggweather.com/enso/oni.htm (http://ggweather.com/enso/oni.htm)

This is just a big version of the graph in the article it turns out except that it is current to date.

Since the paper was written in 97 the incidence of El Nino conditions have only been 50% of that of La Nina's (data at bottom of page is what I used).  This is clearly a big change from the historical norm that the paper described. It sure seems that the comment in the paper that since 1979 the bias has been warm and dominated by El Nino is no longer accurate and has now flipped entirely the other way and since 97 the norm has been cool and dominated by La Nina.  Even including the very strong El Nino that occurred right after the paper was written.

The question is:   What is the relevance of this, if any?  Does it tell us what we can expect in terms of the next El Nino and how strong it could be? Is it too short a period of time to be able to say anything?
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: deep octopus on August 20, 2013, 07:44:15 PM
I figure people may want to have spreadsheets of different global surface temperature data, so here's a kind of running list featuring many of them for reference:

Global Monthly and Annual Data

NASA's LOTI (u1951-1980 baseline):
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt)

NOAA (1901-2000 average baseline i.e. 20th century average):
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/monthly.land_ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat (http://ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/monthly.land_ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat)

Met Office's HadCRUT4 (1961-1990 average baseline):

Cowtan & Way's Interpolated HadCRUT4 (http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~kdc3/papers/coverage2013/series.html) (1961-1990 average baseline):

Regional Data

NASA's LOTI by annual zonal means (1951-1980 average baseline) (Hat-tip Chris Reynolds):
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/ZonAnn.Ts+dSST.txt (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/ZonAnn.Ts+dSST.txt)

The nice thing about NASA's maps page is how freely you can toggle the blending radii and the baselines to measure anomalies. A project I am working on is breaking down NASA's gridded data by latitude to get a better sense of how each zone is performing on a monthly basis. The gridded data, when you place them in a spreadsheet and then weigh them by longitudinal area, tend to be more precise, though it basically perfectly matches the tabulated data (as expected.)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: deep octopus on August 20, 2013, 08:12:46 PM
Jim,

There are certainly a few papers floating around that discuss the near-term predictions for ENSO that I'm hoping to get around to reading, including L'Heureux et al. 2013 on the strengthening of the Walker Circulation, putting a recent bias La Niña, while Jinbao Li argued recently that global warming may have caused El Niño to be more active in the 20th century. This area needs much more research, and I'm not comfortable saying one way or the other how the next century or so will turn out for ENSO. But my basic understanding is that ENSO, as an internal variability, has no (or shouldn't have any) long-term bias one way or the other as to whether we see more El Niños or La Niñas. Recent La Niña events should be, at some later point, be retaliated by more El Niños, such that the long-term natural output zeroes out.

It's important to recall that a warm PDO phase also tends to both encourage El Niño events and amplify their strength, while cold PDO phases have the opposite effect. We've been in a cool PDO phase since the early 2000s, ending a period of a warm phase PDO since about the late 1970s (which, by no surprise, was at the foot of the "rapid warming" trend.)

In my opinion, it's reasonable to assume that an El Niño-dominant period is perhaps within a few years away, should PDO trend warmer. This was touched upon at Skeptical Science regarding a "looming climate shift" in which we move out of the hiatus decade during a cool PDO phase and return to more rapid surface warming. Predicting the strength of the next El Niño is tricky, but a very strong El Niño is not usually without several months of warning, as was the case when El Niño appeared in May 1997 and teased its way into a stellar outburst the next winter. Scientists also have a sense of how strong an El Niño will be based on the warm water volume (WWV) and the amount of ocean heat accumulation, which peaks just as El Niño begins (with a lag of about two months.) So, a major spike in heat content would portend a stronger event.

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdata.giss.nasa.gov%2Fgistemp%2F2011%2FFig8.gif&hash=c88216119275373104788ef12fd4c8f4)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: ChrisReynolds on August 20, 2013, 09:16:31 PM
Deep Octopus,

I find GISS LOTI in zones to be quite useful.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/ZonAnn.Ts+dSST.txt (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/ZonAnn.Ts+dSST.txt)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: JimD on August 29, 2013, 07:42:12 PM
Deep Octopus (and anyone else who might be interested)

I found the following press article, and eventually a link to the research paper mentioned in it, that indicates the Potsdam Institute has developed a model that has improved the ability to predict El Nino's out as far as 12 months ahead of time.

Quote
...The new system, built on a network of temperature records around the Pacific Ocean since 1950, correctly spotted El Nino events a year in advance more than half the time and gave false alarms fewer than one year in 10.

From the abstract:
Quote
....Our approach starts from the evidence that a large-scale cooperative mode - linking the El Ni\~no-basin (equatorial Pacific corridor) and the rest of the ocean - builds up in the calendar year before the warming event. On this basis, we can develop an efficient 12 months-forecasting scheme, i.e., achieve some doubling of the early-warning period. Our method is based on high-quality observational data as available since 1950 and yields hit rates above 0.5, while false-alarm rates are below 0.1.

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/early-el-nino-warning-could-aid-farmers-20130702-2p8lg.html (http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/early-el-nino-warning-could-aid-farmers-20130702-2p8lg.html)

Josef Ludescher 30 Apr 2013

http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.8039 (http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.8039)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: deep octopus on August 29, 2013, 11:57:15 PM
Thanks, Chris. I've added the table to the list.

-----

Hey Jim,

I remember reading about this earlier in the summer, but hadn't gone through the actual paper. I just took a read through it. It's an interesting concept and would serve well to be followed up with inclusion of other variables they promise to review (wind speed, pressure, etc.), but has a few apparent shortcomings just from reading the graph showing strength versus Niño 3.4 index. It seems they've assumed quite a bit of leeway with respect to defining the threshold to forecast El Niño. For instance, though they mention false alarms, the algorithm completely misses the 1966 and 2009/2010 El Niño events, and although they say that only regard the "first alarm" if there are "multiple alarms" in a calendar year, they don't really show what the threshold crossings at 1988, 2005, or 2006 mean, though 2006 did result in a fairly weak El Niño in late 2006/early 2007. Potential overlap with La Niña must make this even more challenging to determine its usefulness. The first derivative of their function may give some clues though, since when you assume that, 1966 and 2010 are called because of spikes in their function, though it creates more false alarms. Something's missing and I understand that this is a pretty exploratory exercise. And I know they aren't making this argument, but there's some mystery as to why some threshold crossings result in much more aggressive El Niños than others. Again, maybe just something they'll review as they improve on the model.

I recall Michael Mann not yet warming up to the paper's conclusions and I'm not sure I do either. But it is interesting nonetheless. I'm not sure how close we are to El Niño forecasts going beyond a year, but I honestly don't think we're quite there yet.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: JimD on August 30, 2013, 12:15:30 AM
Thanks, that was a great rest of the story!

Putting my farmers hat on for a second I am not sure that a 50% success rate of prediction would be good enough to really help the crop farmers.   It might leave them in a sort of limbo on whether to switch crop mixes for the next year or not.   If you got to 75% that would definitely make a difference.

But the 50% might make a big difference to ocean fishing plans as the impact on that by El Nino's is so dramatic.  For a forecast El Nino year you might mothball a bunch of the fleet for the year to cut losses.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: werther on September 03, 2013, 10:40:24 AM
In the light of the last two posts, anyone put this study on the Forum yet?
" Surface cooling in equatorial Pacific drives decade-long pause in global temperature rise."
Jeff Tollefson
Nature 28 August 2013

www.nature.com/news/tropical-ocean-key-to-global-warming-hiatus-1.13620 (http://www.nature.com/news/tropical-ocean-key-to-global-warming-hiatus-1.13620)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: werther on September 03, 2013, 12:23:19 PM
BTW I saw that Tamino has a lot more on the study above... Great stuff!
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: deep octopus on September 09, 2013, 12:32:09 AM
Latest NOAA CFS (Climate Forecasting System) ensemble mean for Nino 3.4 showing a borderline, very weak El Niño for late autumn 2013/winter 2014. None of the models are predicting La Niña, and several go above the El Niño threshold of 0.5 C. The monthly bulletin for ENSO should be arriving in about a week. I expect the ENSO neutral call to remain, as close to the threshold as this is, but this should pique my curiosity over the weeks.

Whereas a positive Nino 3.4 is not an all-or-nothing for the climate response (even slightly positive would tend to lift global temperatures), if an El Niño does gain traction, 2014 could have some very warm months in store and contest 2005 and 2010 for the hottest year title.

Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: JimD on September 09, 2013, 06:45:50 PM
DO

You called it correctly.  NOAA just published the 5 Sept forecast and it says:

Quote
ENSO-neutral is favored through the Northern Hemisphere winter 2013-14.

Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: deep octopus on September 17, 2013, 05:23:08 PM
Yeah, I have a feeling 2014 is going to be another difficult year to forecast without a clear El Niño or La Niña, but a slightly +ve Pacific Ocean gives me the thought that 2013 will finish slightly warmer than 2012, and 2014 warmer than 2013. The drivers for North America and Europe could be the AO and NAO again. The PDO has been looking suspiciously in the warmer phase recently, seeing the "horseshoe" of warm water hugging the Pacific northwestern coastline.
(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ospo.noaa.gov%2Fdata%2Fsst%2Fanomaly%2F2013%2Fanomnight.9.16.2013.gif&hash=ebb173f4ae84de47b2f5fc0d4c77c4a4)

We'll see in due time.

Also, now's a good time to give an update on global temperatures again. August 2013 numbers are out from GISS and NOAA. GISS has August 2013 at 0.62 C over 1951-1980, making it the 5th warmest August on record. There was also a big downward revision to June 2013 in GISS, from 0.66 C to 0.60 C.

NOAA's State of the Climate (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/8) report is hot of the press as well:

Quote
The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for August 2013 tied with 2005 as the fourth highest in the 1880–2013 record, at 0.62°C (1.12°F) above the 20th century average of 15.6°C (60.1°F).

This year was also the 5th warmest summer on record:

Quote
The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for the June–August period was 0.62°C (1.12°F) above the 20th century average of 15.6°C (60.1°F), tying with 2009 as the fifth warmest such period on record.

Biggest news of all, 2013 tied for hottest August on record for ocean temperatures.

So, it's looking like 2013 is on pace to finish the 6th warmest year on record based on NOAA, and 9th warmest year so far based on NASA.

Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: BornFromTheVoid on October 13, 2013, 12:03:32 PM
September was the joint 3rd warmest on record (+0.37C) with 2012, behind just 2009 (+0.41) and 2010 (+0.45C), according to UAH.

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FUeypDfm.jpg&hash=5979d375eac313eb4dbd2ef76ddd6404)

The year to date is joint 5th warmest on record.

Below are Jan to Sep temperatures (red) with the 9 month ENSO 3.4 anomaly (with a 3 month lag) in green.
(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F2yYGKAR.jpg&hash=499375e39c6f896610074bf23f2c98ac)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: deep octopus on October 13, 2013, 04:15:42 PM
Despite U.S. government shutdown, NOAA's CFS page still regularly updates. It's the only guidance from NOAA at this point that seems to give updates on ENSO. For a few weeks now, the model ensembles have been stubbornly suggesting a weak El Niño starting around NDJ 2013/2014 and ending by MJJ 2014. No models predicting La Niña from winter 2013 through spring 2014.

Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: idunno on October 13, 2013, 09:03:18 PM
Spencer's page is still up too;

http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/ (http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/)

Starting to look like warming wasn't so much paused as "buffering".
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: JimD on October 18, 2013, 06:39:36 PM
Since this is sort of the ENSO thread I thought I would post this here.

Robust twenty-first-century projections of El Niño and related precipitation variability

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature12580.html (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature12580.html)

Quote
...By the mid- to late twenty-first century, the projections include an intensification of both El-Niño-driven drying in the western Pacific Ocean and rainfall increases in the central and eastern equatorial Pacific......

Quote
...This study finds that both wet and dry anomalies will be greater in future El Niño years. This means that ENSO-induced droughts and floods will be more intense in the future....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24494398 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24494398)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: deep octopus on October 23, 2013, 05:35:50 PM
Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) showing September 2013 to be the 2nd warmest going back to 1891.
(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fds.data.jma.go.jp%2Ftcc%2Ftcc%2Fproducts%2Fgwp%2Ftemp%2Ffig%2Fsep_wld.png&hash=9804b77aaca66a08550cd4f54ca1a85a)

Now that the US federal government shutdown has ended, NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis shows September 2013 well placed as the 1st warmest going back to 1948. One can view a plot I made
here (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/data/timeseries/timeseries.pl?ntype=1&var=Air+Temperature&level=1000&lat1=-90&lat2=90&lon1=0&lon2=360&iseas=1&mon1=8&mon2=8&iarea=1&typeout=2&Submit=Create+Timeseries):

All evidence so far points to September 2013 being a warm one, given UAH, JMA, and NCEP/NCAR. Just waiting for further confirmation from NCDC, NASA, and Met Office.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Neven on October 23, 2013, 08:37:41 PM
Thanks a lot for this, DO. I don't have time to keep track of all of this stuff (I used to update a GISTEMP spreadsheet, but things change every month), so it's great to read these updates.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: deep octopus on October 23, 2013, 09:36:34 PM
Thanks Neven, I'm happy to break down this kind of info for people to read.

NCDC has just released its September 2013 global temperature report, by the way. It falls in line with the other temperature data so far.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/9 (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/9)

Quote
The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for September 2013 tied with 2003 as the fourth highest for September on record, at 0.64°C (1.15°F) above the 20th century average of 15.0°C (59.0°F).

Quote
The globally-averaged temperature for the first nine months of 2013 (January–September) was 0.60°C (1.08°F) above the 20th century average of 14.1°C (57.5°F), tying with 2003 as the sixth warmest such period since records began in 1880. The average global land temperature for this period was the seventh warmest on record, at 0.93°C (1.67°F) above the long-term average. Notably, Australia, the southern Philippines, and part of central Asia were record warm for January–September.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: ritter on October 23, 2013, 10:39:48 PM
But I thought we were on hiatus!  ;D
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: BornFromTheVoid on October 23, 2013, 11:09:08 PM
Lets not forget that this is all in a year that's remained well on the negative side of neutral for ENSO. Just imagine if we had an El Nino!
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: deep octopus on October 30, 2013, 03:41:33 PM
*drum roll*

NASA's GISS figures for September 2013 are out, and they're nasty.

+0.74 C, globally, over 1951-1980. September 2013 ties with 2005 for hottest September on NASA's record. This also makes it the largest anomaly for any month since November 2010.

Graphic forthcoming.

EDIT:
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: JimD on October 30, 2013, 04:30:45 PM
DO

Very interesting.  I know you keep track of the PDO and ENSO 3.4 indices.  What are the current trends with them?  Are they a possible factor in the Sept numbers.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: deep octopus on October 30, 2013, 04:54:36 PM
Jim,

Amazingly, ENSO is pretty much neutral and had been slightly negative for several months this year (Nino 3.4 is projected to go slightly positive by next winter, but no El Niño is expected.) PDO is still negative, but trending north. Last PDO index from University of Washington was -0.48 in September, compared with -1.04 in August. Given this, oceanic variations likely had little role in September's strong figures, and if they were to, it wouldn't be apparent until a few months out (there's generally a lag between tropical ocean and atmospheric temperatures.) However, 2013 has been unquestionably one of the hottest years for global ocean temperatures (record high in North Pacific), rivaling El Niño years 1998 and 2010. Fair enough to say the sea is still rapidly heating up.

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov%2Fproducts%2FGODAS%2Focean_briefing_new%2Fmnth_sst_index_1982.gif&hash=494411c1f71a90a7aab6b1bba0886bdc)

NASA's global land-ocean reading isn't so unusual, I suppose, given that several months in the recent past have spiked north of 0.7 C several times in the past without ENSO. In March 2002, we had +0.89 C warming during a neutral period, and 2005 was a neutral year with very warm months. It's more likely that we're seeing the gradual northerly trend at work, and this is a spike that is slightly above what had been "normal" for a while. Supposing that the signal to noise ratio is declining with each reading like this past September's, AGW gives us plenty of reasons to see more months like this.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: deep octopus on November 13, 2013, 03:34:13 PM
GISS is reporting October 2013 at +0.61 C, globally, over 1951-1980. October 2013 ties with 2004 and 2011 for 8th hottest October on NASA's record.

At this point, it's looking pretty safe to bet that 2013 will have finished warmer than 2012, in large part thanks to a warmer January-March period than 2012 without a La Niña, and a strong warming in the oceans.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: BornFromTheVoid on December 14, 2013, 02:22:11 PM
November was the hottest on record according to GISS, with an anomaly of 0.77C. This makes the year to date the 6th warmest on record.

UAH had November as the joint 9th warmest, making the year to date the joint 4th warmest on record.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: BornFromTheVoid on December 17, 2013, 02:32:24 PM
JMA has updated, with November being the warmest on record, an anomaly of +0.31C, 0.05C warmer than 2nd place (2001).

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fds.data.jma.go.jp%2Ftcc%2Ftcc%2Fproducts%2Fgwp%2Ftemp%2Fmap%2F%2Fgridtemp%2Fy2013%2Fgridtemp201311e.png&hash=e669084146b1d672a6904bde1ab633b7)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: BornFromTheVoid on December 17, 2013, 03:43:42 PM
Warmest Autumn on record for the JMA too

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fds.data.jma.go.jp%2Ftcc%2Ftcc%2Fproducts%2Fgwp%2Ftemp%2Ffig%2Faut_wld.png&hash=be209917af70d127a4a37e90ddc28ef5)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: deep octopus on December 17, 2013, 05:06:50 PM
Looks like the consensus is that November was a warm one alright.

NOAA is just reporting that November 2013 was the hottest such month on record globally. January through November period was 4th hottest on record. That's an incredible jump from last month, when 2013 was 7th hottest overall. A decently warm December (and despite the cold snaps over Africa and North America, this looks to hold) would probably keep 2013 in the top 5 under NOAA's record I'm guessing. Impressive on several levels, including the fact that 2013 was an overall "cooler" than average year in the tropical Pacific.

November:

Land temperatures, +1.43 C from average, 2nd hottest.
Ocean temperatures, +0.54 C from average, 3rd hottest.
Overall, +0.78 C from average, hottest.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: BornFromTheVoid on January 04, 2014, 03:08:05 PM
Latest UAH data is out, and December had an anomaly +0.265C, making it the 2nd warmest December on record after 2003 (+0.37).

That puts 2013 at +0.24C, the 4th warmest year on record, behind 2005 (+0.26), 2010 (+0.40) and 1998 (+0.42).
It also appears to be the warmest ENSO neutral year on record.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: deep octopus on January 06, 2014, 10:13:14 PM
Japan Meteorological Agency has determined that 2013 was the 2nd hottest year since 1891, rivaled only by 1998.

Based on JMA's figures, the ranking of the five hottest years are now as follows:
1st. 1998 (+0.22°C)
2nd. 2013 (+0.20°C)
3rd. 2010 (+0.19°C),
4th. 2005 (+0.17°C),
5th. 2009,2002 (tied) (+0.16°C)]

NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis suggests that 2013 was the 3rd hottest year since 1948, behind 2010 and 2005, respectively.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: deep octopus on January 21, 2014, 06:39:33 PM
It's official.

2013 was the 4th hottest year on record.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/13 (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/13)

December 2013 was the 3rd hottest such month on NOAA's record as well. Bad news all around as we head into 2014 with possibility of El Niño later on.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: BornFromTheVoid on January 21, 2014, 08:27:26 PM
NASA has it as the 7th warmest on record. But that doesn't seem to tie in with the table data available for download, which has it as either joint 4th or 6th warmest, depending on how many decimal places you want to use.

http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/nasa-finds-2013-sustained-long-term-climate-warming-trend/#.Ut7J_xBFDIW (http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/nasa-finds-2013-sustained-long-term-climate-warming-trend/#.Ut7J_xBFDIW)

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: deep octopus on January 21, 2014, 10:27:13 PM
Here's NASA's graphic for December 2013 temperature anomalies.

And here is the summary graphic for 2013.

Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Shared Humanity on January 21, 2014, 10:59:12 PM
NASA has it as the 7th warmest on record. But that doesn't seem to tie in with the table data available for download, which has it as either joint 4th or 6th warmest, depending on how many decimal places you want to use.

http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/nasa-finds-2013-sustained-long-term-climate-warming-trend/#.Ut7J_xBFDIW (http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/nasa-finds-2013-sustained-long-term-climate-warming-trend/#.Ut7J_xBFDIW)

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

Given we are talking a 4C to 6C warmer world by 2100, I'm not sure I can draw any comfort from decimal places.  ???
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: crandles on January 22, 2014, 12:09:39 AM
NASA has it as the 7th warmest on record. But that doesn't seem to tie in with the table data available for download, which has it as either joint 4th or 6th warmest, depending on how many decimal places you want to use.

http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/nasa-finds-2013-sustained-long-term-climate-warming-trend/#.Ut7J_xBFDIW (http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/nasa-finds-2013-sustained-long-term-climate-warming-trend/#.Ut7J_xBFDIW)

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

1st 2010 67
2nd 2005 66
3rd 2007 63
4th 2002 62 (744/12)
5th 1998 62 (742/12)
6th 2003 61 (730/12)
7th 2013 61 (728/12)
8th 2006 60 (716/12)
9th 2009 60 (715/12)

Looks like 7th per table to me. Though if tied with 2006 and 2009, why not also tied with 2003?
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AndrewP on January 22, 2014, 07:30:10 AM
NASA has it as the 7th warmest on record. But that doesn't seem to tie in with the table data available for download, which has it as either joint 4th or 6th warmest, depending on how many decimal places you want to use.

http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/nasa-finds-2013-sustained-long-term-climate-warming-trend/#.Ut7J_xBFDIW (http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/nasa-finds-2013-sustained-long-term-climate-warming-trend/#.Ut7J_xBFDIW)

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

Given we are talking a 4C to 6C warmer world by 2100, I'm not sure I can draw any comfort from decimal places.  ???

umm what? You are aware the AR5 projects 1-3C aren't you? And even that requires a modest to rapid acceleration of the mean rate since 1970.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: wili on January 22, 2014, 11:43:11 AM
?? Are you thinking of the projections to 2050?

http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2013/near-term-ar5/ (http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2013/near-term-ar5/)

Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: BornFromTheVoid on January 22, 2014, 01:01:06 PM
NASA has it as the 7th warmest on record. But that doesn't seem to tie in with the table data available for download, which has it as either joint 4th or 6th warmest, depending on how many decimal places you want to use.

http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/nasa-finds-2013-sustained-long-term-climate-warming-trend/#.Ut7J_xBFDIW (http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/nasa-finds-2013-sustained-long-term-climate-warming-trend/#.Ut7J_xBFDIW)

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

1st 2010 67
2nd 2005 66
3rd 2007 63
4th 2002 62 (744/12)
5th 1998 62 (742/12)
6th 2003 61 (730/12)
7th 2013 61 (728/12)
8th 2006 60 (716/12)
9th 2009 60 (715/12)

Looks like 7th per table to me. Though if tied with 2006 and 2009, why not also tied with 2003?

I see the problem. It seems they adjusted the monthly data for this year, with some months being 0.06C different to earlier in the year, hence 2013 being ranked differently when I worked it out. Have updated the spread sheet now though.

A more detailed analysis of this years temperature http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2014/20140121_Temperature2013.pdf (http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2014/20140121_Temperature2013.pdf)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: crandles on January 22, 2014, 01:13:33 PM

has the projections for 2100 and beyond.

Fig 12.5 shows
Quote
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.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: deep octopus on January 22, 2014, 04:12:43 PM
BFTV, it seems NASA itself is aware of how fluid the rankings are.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: wili on January 22, 2014, 05:54:02 PM
Thanks for that link and analysis, cran.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Shared Humanity 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.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AndrewP on January 22, 2014, 08:16:32 PM

has the projections for 2100 and beyond.

Fig 12.5 shows
Quote
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.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: wili 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?).
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: ChrisReynolds 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/ (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/01/a-bit-more-sensitive/)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AndrewP 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.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AndrewP 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.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Csnavywx 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).
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AndrewP 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.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Shared Humanity 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 (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 (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/ (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.

Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Shared Humanity 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.

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.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: deep octopus on January 23, 2014, 08:19:20 PM
Quote
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 (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.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Shared Humanity 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?
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AndrewP 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.

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eia.gov%2Fforecasts%2Fieo%2Fimages%2Ffigure_140.jpg&hash=c775dd26b88437e1d33080746247862a)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: ccgwebmaster 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.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Shared Humanity 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.
(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eia.gov%2Fforecasts%2Fieo%2Fimages%2Ffigure_140.jpg&hash=c775dd26b88437e1d33080746247862a)

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 (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 (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.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Shared Humanity 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.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: JimD 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.

Quote
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/ (http://www.realclimate.org/)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: deep octopus on January 28, 2014, 09:17:39 PM
Quote from: 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/series.html (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.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: JimD on January 30, 2014, 05:16:17 AM
Tamino once again.

Awesome.

Global Temperature: the Post-1998 Surprise

Quote
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 (http://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/01/30/global-temperature-the-post-1998-surprise/#more-6942)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: deep octopus 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.

Quote

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 laye (http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/crutem/ge/CRUTEM4-2013-03_gridboxes.kml)r 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.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: JimD 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.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: deep octopus 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.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: ClimatePete 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. (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.
(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftheeestory.com%2Ffiles%2FUAH5.6WarmingLinearRegressions.jpg&hash=0e882291d7b16d6991c6249bfa7c9bcf)

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftheeestory.com%2Ffiles%2FCowtan_Way2013HybridDataWarmingLinearRegressionsB.jpg&hash=b1825677c90b7c9c4c36cce0680f2366)

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 :

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: BornFromTheVoid 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
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: BornFromTheVoid 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 (http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/jan_wld.html)
(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fds.data.jma.go.jp%2Ftcc%2Ftcc%2Fproducts%2Fgwp%2Ftemp%2Ffig%2Fjan_wld.png&hash=84be77cfafb68daf097998669b4de04b)
(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fds.data.jma.go.jp%2Ftcc%2Ftcc%2Fproducts%2Fgwp%2Ftemp%2Fmap%2F%2Fgridtemp%2Fy2014%2Fgridtemp201401e.png&hash=c2ec4ee1b30a89174cff127480ed8d13)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: deep octopus 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.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: CraigsIsland 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.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: BornFromTheVoid 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?
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: crandles 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 (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

perhaps the 1200km extrapolation of anomalies is more aggressive than standard product?
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: BornFromTheVoid on February 15, 2014, 02:25:45 PM
Didn't realise the table data had updated, must remember to hit refresh!
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Rubikscube 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 (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.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: CraigsIsland 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 (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!
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: ccgwebmaster 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 (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...
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: wili 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.)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: BornFromTheVoid 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 (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/1)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: BornFromTheVoid 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.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: deep octopus 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.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Shared Humanity 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.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: crandles 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.  >:(
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: crandles 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:

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.skepticalscience.com%2Fpics%2Flatitude_anomaly_trends_small.JPG&hash=2356647a1679767af3a0064928ce30e5)

BTW
(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcurryja.files.wordpress.com%2F2013%2F12%2Folr_sfct.png&hash=9f8714c410f91dc5725a1c866944a1d8)
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.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: crandles 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 (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.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Shared Humanity 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.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: crandles 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.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: BornFromTheVoid 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.

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fds.data.jma.go.jp%2Ftcc%2Ftcc%2Fproducts%2Fgwp%2Ftemp%2Ffig%2Ffeb_wld.png&hash=e5e5097a3dc9b5bfba44964a930825c3)

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fds.data.jma.go.jp%2Ftcc%2Ftcc%2Fproducts%2Fgwp%2Ftemp%2Fmap%2F%2Fgridtemp%2Fy2014%2Fgridtemp201402e.png&hash=b88b4776ab9a4c2b3fefda7b6ab2e395)

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.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Shared Humanity 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.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: crandles 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?
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: jai mitchell on March 20, 2014, 07:02:45 AM

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftherationalpessimist.files.wordpress.com%2F2011%2F12%2Fmet-airborne.jpg&hash=cea43d2fb86e5e2d2b8cd1f15a0d7d9e)

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

Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: JimD on March 22, 2014, 08:26:43 PM
Quote
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...

Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: crandles on March 22, 2014, 11:32:53 PM
Curious! With giss using a base period of 1951-1980, you would probably expect it to be longer since the last time it had been cooler than the base period because 1981 to 1990 was warmer than 1951 to 1960.

But loti gisstemp reports negative months not only of Feb 85 at -8 but also

Jul 85 at -4
Sep 87 at -2
Sep 92 at -3 and
Feb 94 at -1

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

Now if we used 1901 to 1930 as the base period, then we could claim it was much longer since the last below average month. So this type of claim is a bit weird anyway.

I guess there is more variability in loti gisstemp than in noaa perhaps because of Giss's more aggressive extrapolation into the arctic.

Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: ChasingIce on March 22, 2014, 11:47:47 PM
Can I ask what the scientific reasoning is for using baselines that are so far into the past?
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: crandles on March 23, 2014, 01:42:43 AM
Can I ask what the scientific reasoning is for using baselines that are so far into the past?

No idea really but my guesses are that it is largely to do with:

Seems traditional for the period to end with a 0.

People never get around to doing those once every 10 year tasks, for fear that it will break something such that something crazily wrong gets reported and the person doing it might therefore get some flak. i.e. If it aint broke, don't risk it.

Possibly? want to see large anomalies reported to emphasise the changes that are happening. What message does changing base period and giving smaller numbers give?
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: ChasingIce on March 23, 2014, 04:10:16 AM
I was under the impression that NASA, NOAA, etc were changing to a 30yr base period in accordance with the World Meteorological Organization.

http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/wcp/ccl/mg/documents/mg2011/CCl-MG-2011-Doc_10_climatenormals1.pdf (http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/wcp/ccl/mg/documents/mg2011/CCl-MG-2011-Doc_10_climatenormals1.pdf)

After clicking some random links, it appears that this isn't really the case as of yet.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: deep octopus on April 03, 2014, 07:49:39 PM
Based on NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis, 2014 tied with 2005 for the third warmest March on record. NCEP/NCAR data tend to track quite well with other global data sources, including NOAA and NASA, but there will be a slight variation in the rankings. NCEP/NCAR interpolates missing data grids using properties of physics, which other data sets do not capture.

One can see a plot of the recent March surface air temperature data here:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/data/timeseries/timeseries.pl?ntype=1&var=Air+Temperature&level=2000&lat1=-90&lat2=90&lon1=0&lon2=360&iseas=1&mon1=2&mon2=2&iarea=1&typeout=2&Submit=Create+Timeseries (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/data/timeseries/timeseries.pl?ntype=1&var=Air+Temperature&level=2000&lat1=-90&lat2=90&lon1=0&lon2=360&iseas=1&mon1=2&mon2=2&iarea=1&typeout=2&Submit=Create+Timeseries)

The NASA temperature map will look something close to this when they report later this month:
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: BornFromTheVoid on April 03, 2014, 08:38:43 PM
Going by the reanalysis data, north of 70N it was also the joint mildest March on record and the mildest first 3 months of the year, by 0.3C.

MARCH
(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FfqIDxfJ.png&hash=374535bda51f088ca064bd34464289c3)

JAN-MAR
(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FoJElN6u.png&hash=8c7efa304f791326c0df75f1b787b3cd)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: deep octopus on April 03, 2014, 08:52:38 PM
The Arctic warming is quite impressive this year. DMI's temperature readings for north of 80N have been above average everyday this year through at least April 2nd (yesterday). That would make sense to show up on the reanalysis data as a particularly mild winter.

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php (http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: idunno on April 03, 2014, 09:36:11 PM
Can I ask what the scientific reasoning is for using baselines that are so far into the past?

I believe that by long established convention, geologists use 1950 as "the present".
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: DoomInTheUK on April 04, 2014, 10:42:23 AM
Quote
I believe that by long established convention, geologists use 1950 as "the present".

IIRC it's due to the inabality of carbon dating to work after the 1950's due to the contamination from nuclear testing.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: icefest on April 04, 2014, 11:52:37 AM
Quote
I believe that by long established convention, geologists use 1950 as "the present".

IIRC it's due to the inabality of carbon dating to work after the 1950's due to the contamination from nuclear testing.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: BornFromTheVoid on April 10, 2014, 04:17:41 PM
UAH data has March at 0.17C above the 81-0 average, making it the joint 9th warmest on record.
http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt (http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt)

Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: BornFromTheVoid on April 12, 2014, 12:47:10 PM
GISS has updated, and March was the 4th warmest on record at +0.7C above the 51-80 average.

That makes 2014 the 7th warmest year to date, and the 12 months from April to March the 4th warmest on record.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Buddy on April 12, 2014, 01:09:44 PM
Wow.  Now you can see why the Siberian forest fire season has already started....

Russia is really off the charts....
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Buddy on April 12, 2014, 02:46:24 PM
Article on early Siberian fires and outlook for this year:

http://siberiantimes.com/ecology/casestudy/news/forest-fires-arrive-early-as-siberia-sees-record-high-temperatures/?comm_order=best (http://siberiantimes.com/ecology/casestudy/news/forest-fires-arrive-early-as-siberia-sees-record-high-temperatures/?comm_order=best)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: BornFromTheVoid on April 14, 2014, 11:52:59 AM
At 0.21C above the 81-10 average, March 2014 is the 4th warmest on record according to the JMA.

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fds.data.jma.go.jp%2Ftcc%2Ftcc%2Fproducts%2Fgwp%2Ftemp%2Ffig%2Fmar_wld.png&hash=6580871a94bcb76397e832526aa30d81)

http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/mar_wld.html (http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/mar_wld.html)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: BornFromTheVoid on April 22, 2014, 05:21:09 PM
4th warmest March and 7th warmest year to date, according to NCDC.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/3 (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/3)

Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: deep octopus on April 30, 2014, 05:30:15 PM
Based on daily composite data through April 28th, 2014 is set to have the 3rd warmest April on   NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis. Only 2010 and 2007 have greater surface air temperatures for April on this metric. 2014 would be in 3rd, with 2005 and 2012 somewhat close behind. Again, it seems likely that this predicts a strong reading on other, more "official" metrics like NASA and NOAA. Despite a cool start to the Pacific, global temperatures have remained well elevated so far in 2014, despite a minor slump in February.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: BornFromTheVoid on May 03, 2014, 12:04:57 PM
You were right DO, 3rd warmest April on record according to reanalysis data

And 5th warmest year to date

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FUSHuAJ0.png&hash=0e35771e82fd529b4a7bd018187a2cc4)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Rubikscube on May 07, 2014, 06:21:12 PM
UAH (Version 5.6) for April was released yesterday at +0,19 C, which is a minor uptick from last month (+0,17). With the Nino being neutral/slightly negative this winter, this should not really be a big surprise, though it should be noted that the tropics has warmed by 0,1 C since March according to this newest update.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: deep octopus on May 13, 2014, 02:44:09 AM
NASA GISS has released its April 2014 data, and it's an aggressive read, as expected:

On the GISS table, April 2014 was +0.73 C over 1951-1980, making it the 2nd hottest April on record. From January to April, 2014 is the 5th hottest year so far.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Buddy on May 13, 2014, 03:46:03 AM
You can understand why Russia's wildfire season started in early April.....45 days early.  Russia is "set up" to be torched as bad....or worse.....than it was in the summer of 2010.  Fire season in Russia could be pretty brutal this year.

This week Moscow should see its first real "warm anomaly" of the late spring/early summer.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: icefest on May 13, 2014, 08:00:09 AM
A repeat of the 2011 fires around Moscow, Buddy?
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: BornFromTheVoid on May 13, 2014, 11:46:17 AM
Interesting to note that, going by the GISS data, if the next 8 months averaged the same as 2013 did we'd still end up with the joint 3rd warmest year on record.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Buddy on May 13, 2014, 12:49:22 PM
<<A repeat of the 2011 fires around Moscow, Buddy?>>

I think it was 2010: http://uk.reuters.com/article/2010/08/12/us-russia-heat-peat-idUKTRE67A3H120100812 (http://uk.reuters.com/article/2010/08/12/us-russia-heat-peat-idUKTRE67A3H120100812)

Of course....there were also some bad fires in 2012 whose smoke made it all the way to Seattle and Portland:  http://blog.seattlepi.com/thebigblog/2012/07/11/thank-russia-for-seattles-gorgeous-sunsets/ (http://blog.seattlepi.com/thebigblog/2012/07/11/thank-russia-for-seattles-gorgeous-sunsets/)

But....either way.....Russia is PRIMED to burn....and it will only continue to get worse.

Moscow's record high EVER was just over 100 degrees set in July of 2010.  In about 6 days Moscow will already hit 86 degrees.

Like the song goes......"the heat is on."

Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Shared Humanity on May 13, 2014, 04:43:59 PM
What is truly amazing is that the eastern half of NA is the only part of the northern hemisphere that saw a negative temperature anomaly but, of course, since the US is the center of the universe, we now need to worry about global cooling.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: JimD on May 13, 2014, 06:50:55 PM
Ha!  Good point.  It was almost freezing at my house here in AZ this morning and I had turned off the heat as I had decided summer was here.  The wife was not happy when we woke up and it was below 60 F inside.  LOL

Record highs by Fri though.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: CraigsIsland on May 13, 2014, 09:33:09 PM
Ha!  Good point.  It was almost freezing at my house here in AZ this morning and I had turned off the heat as I had decided summer was here.  The wife was not happy when we woke up and it was below 60 F inside.  LOL

Record highs by Fri though.

The "swings" (for lack of a better word at the moment) whether they're are these quick whiplashes like in AZ or the earlier start times of wildfire seasons (long term patterns) are being reported and noticed. These negative feedbacks are circulating (pun intended) around the globe and entering the public conscious. Amazingly, I'm also seeing politicians from both sides of the aisle put more political stock into their stumps. I.E. "Most definitely caused by humans; take action NOW" and some others going "yes there's climate change but it's not cause by humans, keep supporting cheap fossil fuels". Very interesting months ahead :/. Let's hope for political action now rather than later and being unprepared.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: deep octopus on May 13, 2014, 09:58:38 PM
We reached 90 for the first (or second) time this year on the east coast. May was forecast to be a much cooler than average month in the southeastern US, but reality is showing otherwise so far.

It's disconcerting that the first four months of the year were during fairly cool tropical Pacific conditions. El Niño has just started this month and I think these temperature maps are going to get darker shades of red and brown as time goes on. Personally, I think 2014 will be the hottest year on record. NASA's data shows 2005 and 2010 roughly tied for first, at about 0.65 C above average. This is not a hard target to beat. Three of the four months this year have exceeded that number already, and El Niño will just ramp up ocean temperatures heading into next winter (then land temperatures will rocket in 2015.) If a volcano or sudden La Niña creep up unexpectedly, I'll change that position, but yeah, this year is going to be a disappointing one for AGW deniers.

I also agree that Russia wildfire season could be serious. Snow cover looks atrocious going into peak daylight.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Michael Hauber on May 14, 2014, 12:59:36 AM
History shows minimal response in global temperatures during Jan-Nov of the first year of an El Nino, and temperatures then jumping up in Dec and more so Jan, and continuing warm through much of first half of the second year.

Having run through the numbers in some detail for UAH I'd expect 2014 to almost certainly not be a record year, with my current calculated projection at 0.31 and a record of 0.42.  I project 2015 to be around 0.5, and the year will probably be a record, but a weak temperature increase similar to say 2006 could still see the record missed.

With a quick eyeball on GISS, I notice we are slightly behind the target, and with a small December jump the most likely result I'd guess on a 50/50 chance for this year, and an almost certainty for 2015.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: BornFromTheVoid on May 15, 2014, 09:41:47 AM
Warmest April on record according to the JMA

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fds.data.jma.go.jp%2Ftcc%2Ftcc%2Fproducts%2Fgwp%2Ftemp%2Ffig%2Fapr_wld.png&hash=325dc34f1377c73a04cfb5dfb6dceab5)

Five Warmest Years (Anomalies)

1st. 2014(+0.31°C), 2nd. 1998(+0.30°C), 3rd. 2010(+0.27°C), 4th. 2005(+0.21°C), 5th. 2012,2007(+0.16°C)

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fds.data.jma.go.jp%2Ftcc%2Ftcc%2Fproducts%2Fgwp%2Ftemp%2Fmap%2F%2Fgridtemp%2Fy2014%2Fgridtemp201404e.png&hash=433a984fda7e45d101beb5085e6868cd)

http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/apr_wld.html (http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/apr_wld.html)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: deep octopus on May 15, 2014, 08:06:53 PM
Wow, and usually JMA seems a more conservative data set.

I'm watching the NCEP/NCAR data again. First 13 days of this May are nearly tied for first with the monthly averages of 2010 and 2012. The CCI Reanalyzer is showing the next two weeks to be significantly above average globally: up to +0.80 C over 1979-2000 during the zeroth hours and each additional 24-hour interval.
http://cci-reanalyzer.org/Forecasts/ (http://cci-reanalyzer.org/Forecasts/)

Another +0.70 reading on GISS looks possible, and likely, this month.

I don't expect much of a difference to come out in NOAA's record.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: BornFromTheVoid on May 15, 2014, 09:08:05 PM
How are you calculating the global temps from the daily ncep/ncar data, DO?
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: deep octopus on May 15, 2014, 09:38:37 PM
Right, I should probably explain that since I keep going on about it. It's a bit laborious, but in case anyone wishes to try it, here's the method I use.

Within the Daily Mean Composite page: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/composites/day/ (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/composites/day/)

I set the variables to Air Temperature at the Surface level. For each day, or combination of days, run a plot for the entire world ("All" region). I use the "Anomaly" value. I'm sure you could get basically the same trend lines using the "Mean" values.

After plotting, I save the .txt file under "Get a copy of the text data file...", at the bottom left of the screen. You'll notice, the rows are latitudes and the columns are longitudes, in 2.5 degree grids; starting with 90N up top and 90S at the bottom. After opening the .txt file (space delimited in Excel), average the anomaly values of each row, then weigh the latitudes by area. Since the cosine of 90 is 0, for those polar values, I try to "interpolate" the area-weighted value by using a latitude value of 88.75 (average of 90 and 87.5.) Not perfect, but a good approximation. So for May 13th, 2014, I got a global air surface temperature anomaly of +0.497 over 1981-2010.

I was able to test this method by running the monthly values for each year against the plots on the timeseries page: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/data/timeseries/timeseries1.pl (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/data/timeseries/timeseries1.pl)

It seems to work well enough for purposes of keeping a daily track of the global temperature trends.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: BornFromTheVoid on May 15, 2014, 09:51:50 PM
Right, I should probably explain that since I keep going on about it. It's a bit laborious, but in case anyone wishes to try it, here's the method I use.

Within the Daily Mean Composite page: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/composites/day/ (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/composites/day/)

I set the variables to Air Temperature at the Surface level. For each day, or combination of days, run a plot for the entire world ("All" region). I use the "Anomaly" value. I'm sure you could get basically the same trend lines using the "Mean" values.

After plotting, I save the .txt file under "Get a copy of the text data file...", at the bottom left of the screen. You'll notice, the rows are latitudes and the columns are longitudes, in 2.5 degree grids; starting with 90N up top and 90S at the bottom. After opening the .txt file (space delimited in Excel), average the anomaly values of each row, then weigh the latitudes by area. Since the cosine of 90 is 0, for those polar values, I try to "interpolate" the area-weighted value by using a latitude value of 88.75 (average of 90 and 87.5.) Not perfect, but a good approximation. So for May 13th, 2014, I got a global air surface temperature anomaly of +0.497 over 1981-2010.

I was able to test this method by running the monthly values for each year against the plots on the timeseries page: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/data/timeseries/timeseries1.pl (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/data/timeseries/timeseries1.pl)

It seems to work well enough for purposes of keeping a daily track of the global temperature trends.

Thanks very much for that, well explained!
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Buddy on May 16, 2014, 05:11:55 AM
Hey....forget Miami.  I'm heading to Moscow, Russia.  Forecast for the 8 days starting on May 19th through May 26th is high temperatures between 79 F - 83 F.

The AVERAGE HIGH for May in Moscow:   64 F
The AVERAGE HIGH for June in Moscow:  71 F
The AVERAGE  HIGH for July in Moscow:   75 F

For the 8 days in May, the high is forecast to be higher than the average high for July:(

Russia is in deep s*** for wildfire season this year unless things change DRASTICALLY.

Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: CraigsIsland on May 16, 2014, 07:48:43 AM
Hey....forget Miami.  I'm heading to Moscow, Russia.  Forecast for the 8 days starting on May 19th through May 26th is high temperatures between 79 F - 83 F.

The AVERAGE HIGH for May in Moscow:   64 F
The AVERAGE HIGH for June in Moscow:  71 F
The AVERAGE  HIGH for July in Moscow:   75 F

For the 8 days in May, the high is forecast to be higher than the average high for July:(

Russia is in deep s*** for wildfire season this year unless things change DRASTICALLY.

That's amazing. Nice statistics usage.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Buddy on May 17, 2014, 02:11:34 PM
For the next 14 days....Moscow HIGH temperatures forecast to be 80 - 91 degrees F (with the exception of tomorrow, which is 77).

So...the forecast high for the next 14 days is expected to be higher than the average HIGH temperature for July (75 is the average HIGH temp for July).

http://www.timeanddate.com/weather/russia/moscow/ext (http://www.timeanddate.com/weather/russia/moscow/ext)

With cold air being pulled down into the middle of the US.....looks like the warm air is being pulled into Arctic from the Russian side...

Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Buddy on May 17, 2014, 02:31:58 PM
By the way...it looks like the 3 month outlook for the upper midwest of the US from Wyoming and Montana.....east to upper Illinois and Michigan.....is for the upper midwest of the US to be colder than normal.

I would not be surprised to see continued HEAT on the Russian side of things.....and being pulled into the Arctic from the Russian side of the world.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Shared Humanity on May 17, 2014, 03:09:41 PM
By the way...it looks like the 3 month outlook for the upper midwest of the US from Wyoming and Montana.....east to upper Illinois and Michigan.....is for the upper midwest of the US to be colder than normal.

I would not be surprised to see continued HEAT on the Russian side of things.....and being pulled into the Arctic from the Russian side of the world.

This is similar to the pattern we saw in eastern NA for most of the winter. There was actually a very light snow in the north suburbs of Chicago the night before last and the lows last night were 32F.

Do we still have that stationary high pressure ridge over the north Pacific? This contributed to this stuck pattern through the winter.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Buddy on May 17, 2014, 04:44:35 PM
The high pressure area(s) have "receded south" somewhat as you can see in the following:

http://www.opc.ncep.noaa.gov/P_sfc_full_ocean_color.png (http://www.opc.ncep.noaa.gov/P_sfc_full_ocean_color.png)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: deep octopus on May 20, 2014, 05:13:33 PM
Quote
The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for April 2014 tied with 2010 as the highest on record for the month, at 0.77°C (1.39°F) above the 20th century average of 13.7°C (56.7°F).

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncdc.noaa.gov%2Fsotc%2Fservice%2Fglobal%2Fmap-percentile-mntp%2F201404.gif&hash=5b53341f2fc03d4366ca97af0cf2dfb9)

Record warm heat observed in eastern Siberia, Mongolia, and China. Record heat in the Norwegian Sea, North Pacific, Indian Ocean, and Sargasso Sea. Like HadCRUT4, NOAA does not interpolate missing grid data, so we have the mid-latitudes overrepresented while the poles made virtually no contributions to April's reading. An unsavory reading all the same.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: deep octopus on May 20, 2014, 05:45:09 PM
In Reply #132, I explained how I was able to calculate daily global surface air temperature anomalies using NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis data. Through May 18th, I've estimated that May 2014 is (barely) edging out 2010 and 2012 for the hottest May on record. Whereas we have two weeks remaining in the month, this is a warning that May will be yet another well above-average month (I tenatively predict between +0.65 and +0.75 C over 1951-1980 on NASA's record.)

So it stands that 2014 is on pace to be likely one of the three warmest years on record, the other two years being 2005 and 2010. I'm expecting 2014 to push to the warmest on record, especially (but also despite) with the development of El Niño.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: deep octopus on June 02, 2014, 11:49:32 PM
In the last two weeks of May, a spike in warm air recorded in the NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis has pushed May to the hottest such month on record, and by a good margin. It is likely that May 2014 will be observed as among the hottest such months on record when looking at the major temperature indices. This leads me to think that on NASA's GISS Land-Ocean Temperature Index (L-OTI), for instance, with a 1951-1980 base period, a May 2014 reading of between 0.65 and 0.75 C is rather likely. The NCEP/NCAR data with a record warmest May suggests it to be on the higher end (perhaps between 0.70 and 0.75 C).

Whether May is on the lower end (0.65) or higher end (0.75), it is my prediction that 2014 will have had the 2nd warmest March-April-May (MAM) period on record, behind only 2010. Since NCEP/NCAR is not perfect, I know this kind of analysis is sort of like putting the cart before the horse. But to at least document how good of a fit my presumptions are compared to other sets, it will give me a sense of how useful it is to continue using the Reanalysis tool. So far, it is a sound predictor.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Neven on June 03, 2014, 12:01:19 AM
Thanks a lot for the update, DO!
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: BornFromTheVoid on June 10, 2014, 05:25:10 PM
3rd warmest May on record at +0.33C according to the UAH data, which I think makes it the 5th warmest year to date.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: BornFromTheVoid on June 16, 2014, 02:21:42 PM
The warmest April on record is followed by the warmest May on record according to the JMA.

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fds.data.jma.go.jp%2Ftcc%2Ftcc%2Fproducts%2Fgwp%2Ftemp%2Ffig%2Fmay_wld.png&hash=c0c035ff235c15e0c934a14576b1b21d)

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fds.data.jma.go.jp%2Ftcc%2Ftcc%2Fproducts%2Fgwp%2Ftemp%2Fmap%2F%2Fgridtemp%2Fy2014%2Fgridtemp201405e.png&hash=86bddc3fd2835fd5e13ba4870d3953aa)

Five Warmest Years (Anomalies)

1st. 2014(+0.31°C), 2nd. 1998(+0.27°C), 3rd. 2012,2010(+0.22°C), 5th. 2013(+0.21°C)

It's also the warmest Spring on record.

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fds.data.jma.go.jp%2Ftcc%2Ftcc%2Fproducts%2Fgwp%2Ftemp%2Ffig%2Fspr_wld.png&hash=7f874ef634ef84bf81eb71fe5b8672da)

Five Warmest Years (Anomalies)

1st. 2014(+0.28°C), 2nd. 2010(+0.26°C), 3rd. 1998(+0.25°C), 4th. 2002(+0.18°C), 5th. 2005(+0.17°C)

http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/may_wld.html (http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/may_wld.html)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: bassman on June 17, 2014, 08:30:43 PM
NASA .76 hottest May on record beating .70 from 2010 and 2012. 2014 is now tied with 2010 as the hottest year on record needing just .68 anomalies from here on out to be the warmest on record. The “pause” will soon be behind us.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: deep octopus on June 18, 2014, 04:06:56 AM
A convincing record.

Also, under NASA's data, 2014 had the 2nd warmest spring (MAM) on record, behind 2010. Making it also the warmest spring in an ENSO neutral year on record.

It's unclear now if El Niño will actually establish. But El Niño or not, I've been expecting either 2013 or 2014 to be the hottest year, right on schedule. We may get it. I'm not expecting an impressive read for June so far, but it tends to be that September through November are strong months, as they are the fastest warming. Even a decent JJA followed by a strong continuation of fast warming SON could get us there.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: deep octopus on June 18, 2014, 04:40:07 AM
A caveat from Gavin Schmidt at NASA:

Quote
Please note May 2014 GISTEMP LOTI numbers preliminary due to a glitch with Chinese CLIMAT data. Update to follow pic.twitter.com/F9Iv9FH7oa

May not move the needle too much in either direction, but will watch.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: deep octopus on June 23, 2014, 05:49:10 PM
And NOAA has come into agreement with the others: warmest May on record

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/5 (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/5)

Quote
The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for May 2014 was record highest for this month, at 0.74°C (1.33°F) above the 20th century average of 14.8°C (58.6°F).

The global land surface temperature was 1.13°C (2.03°F) above the 20th century average of 11.1°C (52.0°F), the fourth highest for May on record. For the ocean, the May global sea surface temperature was 0.59°C (1.06°F) above the 20th century average of 16.3°C (61.3°F), making it the record highest for May and tying with June 1998, October 2003, and July 2009 as the highest departure from average for any month on record.

The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for the March–May period was 0.74°C (1.33°F) above the 20th century average of 13.7°C (56.7°F), making it the second warmest such period on record, behind 2010.

The March–May worldwide land surface temperature was 1.26°C (2.27°F) above the 20th century average, the third warmest such period on record. The global ocean surface temperature for the same period was 0.54°C (0.97°F) above the 20th century average, also the third warmest March–May on record.

The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for the January–May period (year-to-date) was 0.66°C (1.19°F) above the 20th century average of 13.1°C (55.5°F), the fifth warmest such period on record.

4th warmest land temperatures.
1st warmest ocean temperatures, and also tying as the warmest for any month on record.
1st warmest combined land-ocean.

2nd warmest MAM (northern spring) on record, behind 2010.

From January through May, 2014 is the 5th warmest year on record.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Laurent on June 24, 2014, 12:50:30 PM
May was the hottest month ever for Earth
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10921695/May-was-the-hottest-month-ever-for-Earth.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10921695/May-was-the-hottest-month-ever-for-Earth.html)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Buddy on June 24, 2014, 01:26:56 PM
Don't tell Tony (Anthony)......he will have to make up a whole new pile of you-know-what to explain that away.... ;D
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: deep octopus on July 03, 2014, 06:46:27 PM
Based on ESRL Reanalysis data by NCEP/NCAR, June 2014 was the 9th warmest June. But this figure falls within a cluster of years with similar values (I look to 2006, 2007, 2010, and 2011), so the ranking is being very precise, and it's not as significant as it would seem. The years 1998, 2005, and 2013 had very clear peaks. June is apparently a more difficult month to translate from NCEP/NCAR to NASA figures, since the range is more dramatic. NCEP/NCAR predicted that June 2013 would be the warmest June on record, but June 1998 is actually recorded as the hottest on record in NASA. But moreover, the disparity between 1998 and 2013 is a factor 0.15 C. So there's a bit of a deviation.

Still, knowing that June 2014 falls within a cluster of years (2006, 2007, 2010, and 2011), but on the lower end, leads me to believe that a range of +0.50 to +0.60 C will be reported by NASA later this month.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: BornFromTheVoid on July 03, 2014, 06:57:44 PM
UAH has June at +0.30C, making it the joint 4th warmest on record and the year to date the joint 6th warmest on record.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: bassman on July 12, 2014, 05:02:30 AM
NASA June 2014 surface temps at .64, 2nd hottest June behind 1998 .75.  June 2005 was third at .63.  We will need Oct to Dec to go +.70 to have 2014 as the warmest.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: deep octopus on July 12, 2014, 05:59:22 AM
Thanks bassman. I don't see the June 2014 map uploaded yet on NASA, but I trust they will have something shortly. In 2nd place, this just supports that we are in a year with bona fide warming. March, April, May, and June have all been in the top three. January was I think in the top five. This has all occurred during neutral ENSO conditions.

I'm reasonably confident September, October, and November will each register high anomaly figures given their recent tendency. Autumn is possibly the fastest warming season now. At least, when I index global warming to 2000, and trace the trajectory, this is clear. For one thing, it's been noticeable the frequency of records having been broken or matched for those months in recent years. November in particular. I'd offer that part of this has had to do with recent, dramatic loss of Arctic sea ice, with stored heat in open water releasing to the atmosphere during those months as refreeze occurs, causing local warming in the northern hemisphere. A proper study on this autumnal warming trend, if one exists, would be most interesting to me.

This year may carry a trajectory similar to 2005: a fairly strong start supported by a stronger finish.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: bassman on July 14, 2014, 11:46:10 AM
JMA has June as the warmest on record by a decent margin.

From their site:  1st. 2014(+0.32°C), 2nd. 2010(+0.26°C), 3rd. 1998(+0.25°C), 4th. 2012(+0.22°C), 5th. 2009,2005(+0.21°C)

Can anyone explain how JMA measures surface temperature?  Is there overlap with NOAA?
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: BornFromTheVoid on July 14, 2014, 08:26:03 PM
GISS LOTI data is out, and at +0.62C, June 2014 is the 3rd warmest on record. It also means the year to date is 5th warmest.

Top 10
1998: +0.75
2005: +0.64
2014: +0.62
2009: +0.61
2006: +0.60
2013: +0.60
2010: +0.59
2012: +0.58
2007: +0.55
2002: +0.54

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

The cold Arctic is quite clear.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: deep octopus on July 15, 2014, 01:51:54 AM
Looks like they've also filled in the missing China data for May. As such, no change was reported, and May 2014 anomaly over 1951-1980 remains at 0.76C, for the warmest May on record.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: deep octopus on July 15, 2014, 01:58:59 AM
JMA has June as the warmest on record by a decent margin.

From their site:  1st. 2014(+0.32°C), 2nd. 2010(+0.26°C), 3rd. 1998(+0.25°C), 4th. 2012(+0.22°C), 5th. 2009,2005(+0.21°C)

Can anyone explain how JMA measures surface temperature?  Is there overlap with NOAA?

Bassman,

From their methodology page: http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/explanation.html (http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/explanation.html)

Quote
JMA estimates global temperature anomalies using data combined not only over land but also over ocean areas. The land part of the combined data for the period before 2000 consists of GHCN (Global Historical Climatology Network) information provided by NCDC (the U.S.A.'s National Climatic Data Center), while that for the period after 2001 consists of CLIMAT messages archived at JMA. The oceanic part of the combined data consists of JMA's own long-term sea surface temperature analysis data, known as COBE-SST (see the articles in TCC News No.1 and this report).

Like the NCDC and MetOffice Hadley Centre methodologies, no interpolation is done on grids with missing data. JMA uses its own SST data.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: bassman on July 21, 2014, 05:04:52 PM
NOAA June temps hottest on record at .72 beating June 2010 at .69. This is from the "climate at a glance" page on NOAAs website.  The reg global June press release isn't out yet.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: deep octopus on July 21, 2014, 05:11:26 PM
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/6 (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/6)

Quote
The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for June 2014 was the highest on record for the month, at 0.72°C (1.30°F) above the 20th century average of 15.5°C (59.9°F).

The global land surface temperature was 0.95°C (1.71°F) above the 20th century average of 13.3°C (55.9°F), the seventh highest for June on record.

For the ocean, the June global sea surface temperature was 0.64°C (1.15°F) above the 20th century average of 16.4°C (61.5°F), the highest for June on record and the highest departure from average for any month.

The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for the January–June period (year-to-date) was 0.67°C (1.21°F) above the 20th century average of 13.5°C (56.3°F), tying with 2002 as the third warmest such period on record.

Ocean temperatures were so high in June, they more than compensated for the 7th place land temperatures, pushing the overall land-ocean temperature to a record high. In May, ocean temperatures matched the record high for any month. That ranking was just unequivocally defeated last month.

For January through June, 2014 is now the 3rd warmest year on record, behind 2010 and 1998. I see the odds of 2014 finishing the hottest year on record as 50-50. You'll recall that 2010 and 1998 were both El Niño years. As such, they had strong starts, but weaker finishes. 2005 pushed to a record high during the final laps as September through December were all the warmest months during that year's second half.

A much warmer than average autumn could easily put 2014 in the ranks of 1st or 2nd.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: crandles on July 21, 2014, 05:37:42 PM
A much warmer than average autumn could easily put 2014 in the ranks of 1st or 2nd.

Per GISS, 2005 July to Dec is hottest on record. If this year did that then it would be hottest on record though probably still rounded down to +66 same as 2005 and 2010.

So it looks to me like 2014 needs to be close to or above hottest on record for rest of year to become warmest year on record, (rather than just needing 'warmer than average'.) Of course if oceans have highest anomaly ever this may well help warm up the land and keep the anomalies high, so this is possible.

Likely el Nino is looking like it will arrive later and later and given a three to six month delay before effects become apparent in global temperatures there isn't much time for full El Nino temperature effects to help. OTOH being close to El Nino threshold for last 4 months may already be helping.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/people/wwang/cfsv2fcst/imagesInd3/nino34Sea.gif (http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/people/wwang/cfsv2fcst/imagesInd3/nino34Sea.gif)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: deep octopus on July 21, 2014, 06:25:00 PM
2005 warmed under the conditions of a transition from weak El Niño to weak La Niña, so there need not be an El Niño influence to keep the atmosphere charged up. On GISS, the 12-month average (July 2013 to June 2014) is 0.64 over 1951-1980. If the year were to finish out exactly as 2013 did from this point on (thus staying at 0.64), it would be the 3rd warmest, below 2005 and 2010. 2005 and 2010 are effectively tied for 1st. Preliminary data from NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis suggest to me that July 2014 will be warmer than July 2013, though we have a couple more weeks to go. That alone could bring 2014 to about 0.65, assuming it finishes the same as August 2013 to December 2013. Add in background global warming trends, 2014 should be warmer than 2013, generally. Again, this is all back-of-the-envelope speculation, but this is how I've derived the notion that this could be the end result. More likely that 2014 tie for first with 2005 and 2010 than outright blow past them, but I think El Niño is still an x-factor, as it were. Even with the atmospheric lag, ocean temperatures would still respond in real time to developing El Niño, bumping up anomalies.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: deep octopus on August 03, 2014, 10:46:05 PM
The NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis model gives us a figure which shows July 2014 as the 7th warmest July on record, behind 2011, 2009, 1998, 2005, 2007, and 2012; but ahead of 2002, 2008, 2003, 2010, etc. I'm expecting NASA to report a figure of between 0.55 to 0.65 over 1951-1980.

I expect the NASA GISTEMP map for July 2014 to look something very close to the attachment.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: deep octopus on August 08, 2014, 05:15:29 PM
UAH reports July 2014 at +0.31 C over 1981-2010, appearing to make it the 5th warmest July on record behind 1998, 2011, 2009, and 2010.

I expect JMA to report soon, then NASA, then NOAA.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on August 11, 2014, 06:03:25 AM
deep octopus,

Do you know whether any of the agencies reporting mean global surface temperature values, have changed their procedures in order to account for the findings of Cowtan and Way (2014)?

Cowtan, K. and Way, R. G., (2014), "Coverage bias in the HadCRUT4 temperature series and its impact on recent temperature trends", Q.J.R. Meteorol. Soc., doi: 10.1002/qj.2297

Best,
ASLR
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: deep octopus on August 11, 2014, 04:20:42 PM
ASLR,

I do know that Kevin Cowtan and Robert Way have so far been dutifully updating the HadCRUT4 data with their kriging infills. They have data up to June 2014's HadCRUT4 interpolation.

and

via

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

This use of kriging has of course been met with great interest, but to-date, outside of the website I've provided, I don't believe this methodology by Cowtan & Way has been adopted yet elsewhere. NASA GISS has the closest set of data approximating to the Cowtan & Way/HadCRUT4 data, since it uses a kriging method that blends stations up to 1200 km, thus there is some accounting for the poles and has the most robust trend. What Cowtan & Way shows is that their data is well validated by satellite and buoy data, which reinforces my confidence that their data is a very good approximation of global surface temperature data and may find its way into more official sets with time.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on August 11, 2014, 08:25:54 PM
deep octopus,

Thanks for the insightful post.  I will keep my fingers crossed that the Cowtan and Way kriging infills find their way into the official sets sooner rather than later.  Otherwise, I believe that we will be under-estimating the severity of our problem.

Best,
ASLR
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Michael Hauber on August 12, 2014, 02:28:51 AM
Some handy trivia for anyone running into someone talking about the 17 year pause in global temperatures:

I have just noticed that I can now no longer find any time period in UAH with a negative trend unless I go to just before the start of the 09/10 el nino.  I can find negative trends in HADCRUT4 and GIS going back to around 2002.  They are getting thin, and I don't think a lot of warming is required before all negative trends for start dates prior to 09/10 for these two series are wiped out.

RSS still allows negative trends going back to 97/98 el nino.  Roy Spencer has stated that the difference between RSS and UAH is due to a cooling bias in a satellite sensor that UAH corrects for and RSS does not.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: bassman on August 14, 2014, 11:53:21 AM
JMA numbers are out.  This year is certainly going to be the warmest ENSO neutral year on record as any El Niño at this point will be influencing 2015.

1st. 1998(+0.30°C), 2nd. 2014(+0.28°C), 3rd. 2010,2005(+0.24°C), 5th. 2013(+0.23°C)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Sleepy on August 14, 2014, 03:43:34 PM
Just faint El Nino conditions will probably set this year as number one.
SSTA at second place according to:
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: deep octopus on August 14, 2014, 04:27:25 PM
NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis data, using the methodology I've shown in Reply #132, shows August 2014 through the 11th as roughly tied for first with 2012 so far. There has been a burst of heat in the last week that is ramping up the moving average for this month. Looks like summer (JJA) 2014 is going to be one of the warmest on record for sure.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Sleepy on August 14, 2014, 04:45:16 PM
Thank you deep octopus, especially for your earlier explanation in #132!
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: bassman on August 15, 2014, 01:27:22 AM
I got this diagram from a Rahmstorf tweet today.  It comes from the most recent paper Coumou et al 2014. If ever there was an immediate consequence of surface warming, this would be it!
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Shared Humanity on August 15, 2014, 02:58:26 PM
A short article on wave resonance....

https://www.pik-potsdam.de/news/press-releases/weather-extremes-provoked-by-trapping-of-giant-waves-in-the-atmosphere (https://www.pik-potsdam.de/news/press-releases/weather-extremes-provoked-by-trapping-of-giant-waves-in-the-atmosphere)

Is this the same  thing as a stuck jet stream? This article does not make  this clear for me.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: deep octopus on August 15, 2014, 03:42:07 PM
SH,

I found Greg Laden's article summarizing the quasi-resonance study to be helpful. I'd say the short answer is that they are not technically the same, though it is suggested that blocking follows from quasi-resonant waves when there are interactions with other weather systems. The working theory, though, is that the more waves that form, the slower and more meandered the jet stream.

I'm curious to know what specific extremes happened during the QR events that they are referencing. For instance, I suspect that the July 2011 extreme was, in some part, the explanation for the crippling heat wave and drought that wrecked the central and eastern continental US. Though it's not explicitly stated. The graphs end in 2011, so the myriad bizarre events since 2011 are not counted yet. A follow up to this study will be timely.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Laurent on August 17, 2014, 10:12:41 AM
87 Cities, 4 Scenarios and 1 Really Hot Future (for United States)
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/87-cities-4-scenarios-1-really-hot-future-for-u.s-17866 (http://www.climatecentral.org/news/87-cities-4-scenarios-1-really-hot-future-for-u.s-17866)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: crandles on August 17, 2014, 02:59:09 PM
Only =11th warmest July per GISS: +0.52
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: deep octopus on August 17, 2014, 04:53:31 PM
12-month average of August 2013 to July 2014 on GISS now 0.650 over 1951-1980, and if the remainder of 2014 finishes the same as 2013, would be the 3rd warmest on record.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Laurent on August 20, 2014, 08:12:53 PM
July Checks In as 4th Warmest on Record Worldwide
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/july-checks-in-as-4th-warmest-on-record-worldwide-17914 (http://www.climatecentral.org/news/july-checks-in-as-4th-warmest-on-record-worldwide-17914)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Ned W on August 26, 2014, 01:42:09 PM
Moved from the "2014 Melting Season" thread...

Friv, I've been watching the global surface temperature set with great interest this year. I think the odds are good that 2014 will be the hottest year on record globally, with the oceans leading the way.
GISTEMP year-to-date is +0.64.  Record for the full year (2010) is +0.66.

Over the past 134 years, approximately 1/3 of the time the difference between year-to-date and full-year is large enough to put 2014 in first place.

Reasons to think the odds are better:  The spike in SSTs you mention.

Reasons to think the odds are worse:  Latest month in GISTEMP was cooler than preceding months.  Remaining 5 months need to average +0.69, but last two months have been +0.62 and +0.52.

I guess I'd mentally cancel out those two, and say the odds are still around 1/3 that 2014 will break the temperature record.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: deep octopus on August 26, 2014, 04:09:00 PM
Thanks Ned, appreciate your perspective. Interesting analysis, and I agree with your math that we need to see 0.69 C figures for the rest of the year. Though I would suggest that this isn't an unlikely outcome, and here's why.

My tendency has been to not look at the year-to-date averages when projecting to the rest of the year, since the monthly anomalies (at least taking GISS as an example) have apparently somewhat seasonal differences. The summer months June and July have typically ran weaker anomalies relative to, say, September through November. I'm just picking a random but fairly recent starting year, but let's say from 1981-2013, what are the averages in anomalies we would find? In units of C, here is what I've derived:

January, 0.428
February, 0.443
March, 0.464
April, 0.398
May, 0.398
June, 0.391
July, 0.390
August, 0.392
September, 0.394
October, 0.397
November, 0.398
December, 0.392

More recent years are even more dramatic. From 2001 to 2013 I get:

January, 0.570
February, 0.553
March, 0.638
April, 0.578
May, 0.565
June, 0.544
July, 0.545
August, 0.565
September, 0.609
October, 0.625
November, 0.646
December, 0.542

The 1981-2013 set shows a more accentuated Jan-Mar period, though the trajectory is ultimately similar to the 2001-2013 set, with a concave shaped curve, and the trough occurring during the summer. I'm not positive how that is the case (possibly ENSO which has relatively little effect on summer climate, but given La Niña dominance in 2001-2013, it cannot explain all of it); but in both examples, June-August (and December, as well sometimes) show the lowest average anomalies, whereas spring and autumn show the most dramatic ones. So whereas the global warming trend between these months has likely been similar, the 1951-1980 averages, as they were, suggest lower anomalies (but only for those specific months.) I held suspicions that June and July numbers on GISS would print on the lower side this year, based on that. The 0.62 and 0.52 for June and July would seem to confirm that. By my logic, we should expect that September through November will have a greater chance to print a higher anomaly, and that something consistently in the 0.65-0.75 range is reasonable. My contention is that the year-on-year average (which is to say from August 2013 to July 2014) is 0.650 C, such that assuming an August 2013 through December 2013 repeat would guarantee 2014 in 3rd, just a nick below 2005 and then 2010 (which finished at 0.653 and 0.662, respectively.) I don't know what percentage odds I'd give it that 2014 may be the record hottest, but factors I am considering to make up the gap include possible El Niño and then the background global warming trend. Tying with 2005 is very possible, and the range of uncertainty and the frequency of revisions are such that this may bear out over time. If it races ahead of 2005, with revisions, seeing a back-and-forth between 2010 looks more likely as well.

As I've stated elsewhere on this thread, I think that if a record happens, it won't be by any grand margin. More likely, 2014 ties with 2010. Either way, I'll concede otherwise that it's just a WAG beyond basing my projections on the near past and the uncertain future. I do think seeing this year be a record warm one would help shift the message away from "hiatuses" and "pauses", and back into the reality that there's a freshly minted record year to tick into the geologic history, consistent with the expectations of climate change.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: deep octopus on August 26, 2014, 04:51:51 PM
For the first time, I am posting a chart plotting the daily global surface air temperature anomalies I've been able to calculate using the NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis daily composite data. So far, I've been only tracking daily data since March 1st, since it's fairly tedious to work out every single day unless I'm updating it fairly regularly. I've only started doing this for a few months now. I'll probably add data for January and February later to see the trend over the whole year. Regardless, we have data now from March 1st through August 24th of this year.

In the attached chart, we see that August 24th posted a yearly temperature high of 0.658 C over 1981-2010. Again, this is the highest point since March 1st and continues a rapid spike in global temperatures since a brief, but sharp, drop was observed in mid-August. Armed with this data, August 2014 is so far averaging the 2nd hottest in the NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis model.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: TheWeatherMan on August 26, 2014, 05:22:34 PM
The Weatherbell site has a very nice CFSv2 display for global temperature (updated 4 times daily).

http://models.weatherbell.com/climate/cfsr_t2m_2013.png (http://models.weatherbell.com/climate/cfsr_t2m_2013.png)

The CFSv2 reanalysis data set also shows a dramatic spike.  Frankly, with the current SST levels and an increasing ONI index, I would be very surprised if we did not break the record on all 3 major surface datasets.  I'd place the odds at 70% for GISS (I don't feel the need to hedge).  The SON period has warmed at ~ 0.24C/decade the last 15 years.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Ned W on August 27, 2014, 02:39:15 PM
Thanks Ned, appreciate your perspective. Interesting analysis, and I agree with your math that we need to see 0.69 C figures for the rest of the year. Though I would suggest that this isn't an unlikely outcome, and here's why.

[...lots of good commentary snipped...]
Thanks for that.  You're quite right -- there is a seasonal pattern in the anomaly data that is non-stationary over time.   If one ignores that (as I did above) it suggests a 33% chance that 2014 will set a new record in GISTEMP.  But taking it into account, there appears to be a 57% chance of a record this year (and an 87% chance that 2014 will be in the top 3).

I will explain how I calculated that, in case anyone is as absurdly obsessive about trivia as I am:

(2) For each year, I calculated the year-to-date (YTD) average (i.e., Jan through July)
(3) For each year, I calculated the difference between the YTD and the full-year value
(4) I used a LOWESS model with a 30-year timescale to detrend the differences from (3)
(5) Using the detrended differences, I modeled a probability distribution for 2014

The expected value for GISTEMP 2014 annual is 0.666, slightly higher than the previous record of 0.60 (from 2010).

Here's a plot showing each year's difference between the YTD (Jan-July) mean and the final, 12-month mean.  Red line is the LOWESS model with 30-year timescale:

Here are the detrended differences (basically, blue line minus red line in the above), with a 95% confidence interval:
(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1202.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fbb374%2Fned_ward%2Ffig2.png&hash=9ed372e235baa651c0a9cf5d1cca6893)

Here are the resulting hindcast "predictions" for 1880-2014, based on each year's first seven months, compared to the actual annual data (2014 is missing from the latter, obviously):

This is the same as the previous figure, but enlarging the 1980-2014 period:
(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1202.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fbb374%2Fned_ward%2Ffig4.png&hash=decf66cd7ed2fbd0c53eaeef226d53eb)

Finally, here is the probability distribution for 2014's annual mean, compared to recent years:
(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1202.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fbb374%2Fned_ward%2Ffig5.png&hash=9cd72b9df46e82c45ea5c46e3134ea6a)

So ... I agree with deep octopus that 2014 is likely to set a new record for GISTEMP, even based solely on the data through July, ignoring the current spike in SSTs.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: TheWeatherMan on August 27, 2014, 03:36:46 PM
Great analysis.  Thanks Ned.

With taking the current SST spike into account, it appears likely we will break the record this year.  What makes this all very interesting is that the ONI index (with a 2 month lag) will still average solidly negative for the year (unless a dramatic ramp up in 3.4 index occurs shortly).

That begs the question- what will 2015 look like with a ONI index mostly in positive and/or bonified nino territory?

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov%2Fproducts%2Fpeople%2Fwwang%2Fcfsv2fcst%2FimagesInd3%2Fnino34Mon.gif&hash=ba4b63785c206af4cacae3b8d2e5c351)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: crandles on August 27, 2014, 03:40:33 PM
Quote
the ONI index (with a 2 month lag) will still average solidly negative for the year
??
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: TheWeatherMan on August 27, 2014, 03:43:56 PM
Hi crandles,

Here is the NOAA chart below for ONI index this past year and a half.  The CFSv2 does not quite align with the index, but was shown mostly for predictive display.  The data starts at DJF 2013 and ends at MJJ 2014.

2013

-0.6

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

-0.2

-0.3

-0.3

-0.3

-0.3

-0.2

-0.3

-0.4

2014

-0.6

-0.6

-0.5

-0.1

0.1

0.1

Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: deep octopus on August 27, 2014, 03:50:04 PM
Ned, excellent work! Thanks for sharing that.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: deep octopus on September 02, 2014, 09:15:33 PM
From NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis, it is shown that August 2014 was the hottest August on record. In the current NASA GISS record, 2011 holds the title for hottest August, at 0.69 C over 1951-1980. In 2nd is 1998, with 0.68 C. This indicates to me that August 2014 may be in the 0.65-0.75 C range on GISS.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Lord M Vader on September 02, 2014, 09:23:52 PM
Deep Octopus: really interesting graph! Would be very interesting to see the other months too! :) I think it's very likely that August 2014 will be No 1-2...

//LMV
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: deep octopus on September 15, 2014, 05:12:53 PM
Looks like you're right, LMV. Per NASA GISS, hottest August on record globally, at 0.70 C over 1951-1980.

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

Interesting updates to the previous monthly data as well. Five of the first eight months of this year have seen 0.70+ C readings. The September 2013-August 2014 average is now +0.664 C over 1951-1980, and if the remainder of this year finishes exactly as 2013, 2014 would be the 2nd hottest year on record.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: KielFish on September 15, 2014, 05:14:08 PM
From NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis, it is shown that August 2014 was the hottest August on record. In the current NASA GISS record, 2011 holds the title for hottest August, at 0.69 C over 1951-1980. In 2nd is 1998, with 0.68 C. This indicates to me that August 2014 may be in the 0.65-0.75 C range on GISS.

Right on the money. August was the warmest ever August on record, at 0.70 °C over 1951-1980. Hows September shaping up so far with the same analysis?

EDIT: Sorry deep octopus, looks like we posted that at the same time!! How warm do the next months need to be to claim the warmest year on record? Looks to me like they would have to average upwards of 0.7 °C anomalies.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: deep octopus on September 15, 2014, 05:39:26 PM
From NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis, it is shown that August 2014 was the hottest August on record. In the current NASA GISS record, 2011 holds the title for hottest August, at 0.69 C over 1951-1980. In 2nd is 1998, with 0.68 C. This indicates to me that August 2014 may be in the 0.65-0.75 C range on GISS.

Right on the money. August was the warmest ever August on record, at 0.70 °C over 1951-1980. Hows September shaping up so far with the same analysis?

EDIT: Sorry deep octopus, looks like we posted that at the same time!! How warm do the next months need to be to claim the warmest year on record? Looks to me like they would have to average upwards of 0.7 °C anomalies.

Hi KielFish,

Per your first question, for data through the 13th (latest date available) September 2014 is jostling 2012 and 2013 for close to record warmest. First few days of the month were considerably warmer than average, but there's been a slight cooling in the last week. Technically, September 2014 is slightly less than the record warm 2013, and slightly more than 2012, but the differences between them are only about 0.01 C, so I tend to disregard the significance of that at this point.

September 2013 was tied with 2005 for record hottest on GISS; 2012 was third warmest.

Your second question. The 12-month average is perilously close to tying with 2010, within a 0.002 C margin. 2010 was +0.666 C at the year's end. Because the data on GISS is revised so often, there tend to be occasions when the rankings will switch with each revision, particularly for years that are very close to each other. For instance, 1998 and 2002 have often swapped; the years 2003, 2006, 2009, and now 2013 are within a cluster of years whose rankings shift often. And 2005 and 2010 have some tendency to go back and forth, though 2010 is more often than not bearing out to be the hottest year in the record. This demonstrates that there is some small uncertainty as to the precise temperature recorded in a given year. But the revisions are never truly dramatic or game-changing. For all intents and purposes, 2014, while "technically" 2nd, is already there, tied with 2010 at record warmest that is. Assuming of course that this year finishes as 2013 did from this point forward. And I have no good reason to suspect that it won't. Those odds go up if El Niño appears this autumn. To match 2010's presently declared figure, we'd have to average roughly 0.69 C for each of the remaining months this year.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: TheWeatherMan on September 15, 2014, 05:51:22 PM
Looks like you're right, LMV. Per NASA GISS, hottest August on record globally, at 0.70 C over 1951-1980.

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

Interesting updates to the previous monthly data as well. Five of the first eight months of this year have seen 0.70+ C readings. The September 2013-August 2014 average is now +0.664 C over 1951-1980, and if the remainder of this year finishes exactly as 2013, 2014 would be the 2nd hottest year on record.

Thanks for the update all.  Given that the SOND period has warmed the quickest in the last 15 years, it seems likely with a positive MEI/ENSO that we should be warmer than 2013.

Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: BornFromTheVoid on September 16, 2014, 01:42:02 PM
Warmest August and warmest summer on record according to the JMA. That also make it 4 warmest months on record out of the last 5.

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fds.data.jma.go.jp%2Ftcc%2Ftcc%2Fproducts%2Fgwp%2Ftemp%2Ffig%2Faug_wld.png&hash=d23034b889208b18ef74036d94950590)

The top 5 Augusts

1st. 2014 (+0.32°C)
2nd. 1998 (+0.27°C)
3rd. 2009 (+0.24°C)
4th. 2012 (+0.23°C)
5th. 2013 (+0.22°C)

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fds.data.jma.go.jp%2Ftcc%2Ftcc%2Fproducts%2Fgwp%2Ftemp%2Ffig%2Fsum_wld.png&hash=594df1c7a6c4bf51d8fc7598064c0f54)

Top 5 summers

1st. 2014 (+0.31°C)
2nd. 1998 (+0.28°C)
3rd. 2012,2010 (+0.23°C)
5th. 2013,2009 (+0.22°C)

http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/sum_wld.html (http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/sum_wld.html)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: k largo on September 17, 2014, 07:50:12 AM
Looks like you're right, LMV. Per NASA GISS, hottest August on record globally, at 0.70 C over 1951-1980.

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

Seems GISS have revised the August value down to 0.68 and it is not a record after all.

However the table quoted above still shows 0.70
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: KielFish on September 17, 2014, 09:42:12 AM
The maps vary quite significantly based on which smoothing ratio is used. E.g. Aug 2011 shows only an anomaly of 0.55 °C (compared to 0.69 °C in the table) when using a smoothing ratio of 250 km. I assume the data in the table is calculated differently.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: viddaloo on September 18, 2014, 05:46:37 PM
NCDC just released (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global) the global surface temperature for August: A record high +0.75°C.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: ritter on September 18, 2014, 08:06:05 PM
A record high +0.75°C.

Where's that "pause" I keep hearing about?  ;)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: BornFromTheVoid on September 18, 2014, 08:19:01 PM
Yet another record warm monthly anomaly for the oceans

For the ocean, the August global sea surface temperature was 0.65°C (1.17°F) above the 20th century average of 16.4°C (61.4°F). This record high departure from average not only beats the previous August record set in 2005 by 0.08°C (0.14°F), but also beats the previous all-time record set just two months ago in June 2014 by 0.03°C (0.05°F).

Where's that "pause" I keep hearing about?  ;)

Probably hiding with the claim that cooling will commence once the PDO turns -ve...
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: viddaloo on September 18, 2014, 08:37:03 PM
A record high +0.75°C.

Where's that "pause" I keep hearing about?  ;)

Good question! First 8 months of the year also sport a record high mean that would make 2014 the warmest on Earth's surface in the history of recordkeeping. Same thing for Oslo and possibly Norway as a whole. (If relational "pauses" were this hot, I'd go for a "pause" any day!)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: bassman on September 19, 2014, 03:03:47 AM
Some calculations to consider:

NOAA now has a year to data temp anomaly of .68 beating .66 for 2010 and .65 for 2005.
JMA now has a year to date temp anomaly of .24 beating .22 of 1998 and .20 of 2013! (I averaged the monthly data myself for 2014)

I would say there is a 70-90% chance that both data sets set a record for 2014 even without an El Nino.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Yuha on September 19, 2014, 03:44:27 AM
I would say there is a 70-90% chance that both data sets set a record for 2014 even without an El Nino.

NCDC has an interesting page about that:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/8/supplemental/page-1 (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/8/supplemental/page-1)

including this graph:

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww1.ncdc.noaa.gov%2Fpub%2Fdata%2Fcmb%2Fimages%2Fglobal%2F2014%2Faug%2F2014-aug-eoy-scenarios.png&hash=136455de871e9fd63295f6522b277886)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Lord M Vader on September 22, 2014, 06:20:24 PM
Anyone here who knows how big the anomalies for September 1-21 have been in rough terms? I've been looking at CC_Reanalyzis forecasting maps and my perception is that September anomaly so far average somewhere around +0,8C from the 1979-2000 mean..

September 2005 and 2013 holds the record with a anomaly of +0,74C according to NASA table data. However, these numbers are not comparible as NASAs mean values refers to the 1951-1980 period.

//LMV
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: viddaloo on September 22, 2014, 06:53:56 PM
The official WMO normal period for surface temperatures is 1961-1990 according to eg Wikipedia, but so far I've only seen one country using that consistently; Norway. America seems to be following the philosophy that "standards are good, the more, the better"!
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Lord M Vader on September 30, 2014, 06:24:52 PM
September 2014 warmest on record? I've quite consistently looked at the 1-day forecasted anomalies from CC_Reanalyzer this month. From those forecasted values I took a mean of land and ocean temps. These values have through the whole month virtually been in the range 0,70-0,90C from the 1979-2000 mean. According to NASAs tabulated data the three warmest septembers are 2013 & 2005 (both +0,74C anomaly from 1951-1980 mean) and 2012 (+0,68C).

While CC_Reanalyzers values can't be fully compared to NASAs I think there is a really decent chance that September 2014 ended up as being one of the three warmest on record.. This would mean that we remains on track for 2014 to be the warmest year on record.

Anyone who have more and better data to make a more accurate estimation for September?

//LMV
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: TheWeatherMan on September 30, 2014, 09:50:52 PM

Hi LMV,

Have you ever used the Weatherbell site? I've done a quick analysis on how the CFSv2 (on weatherbell) correlates to GISS global temperatures since late 2010.  The R^2 value was a quite high 0.93. Since the baseline is different, just add 0.55C to what is shown on weatherbell and that is a rough approximation of what GISS comes in as.  Again, it's not perfect since this is reanalysis/model data and not direct measurement.  Most of the time it lands within 0.05C of the estimate.  Given those calculations, September very well may come in as warmest on record.  We are at 0.195C on Weatherbell, which would mean a 0.75C on GISS.

http://models.weatherbell.com/climate/ncep_cfsr_t2m_anom_022014.png (http://models.weatherbell.com/climate/ncep_cfsr_t2m_anom_022014.png)

http://models.weatherbell.com/climate/cdas_v2_hemisphere_2014.png (http://models.weatherbell.com/climate/cdas_v2_hemisphere_2014.png)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: bassman on October 12, 2014, 03:40:23 AM
s@&$t just got real, NASA LOTI at .77 for September. Hottest sept on record. This beats 2005 at .73. Check Robert Scribblers blog for a great post on it. Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: Gray-Wolf on October 12, 2014, 02:17:31 PM His last para is worth mulling over: "Overall, three more record or near record hot months would put 2014 in serious contention for hottest year on record. A rather odd result considering we still see no El Nino and almost every recent hottest year has been spurred on by this powerful atmospheric variability driver. A record hot year in 2014 with no El Nino could well be an indication that the human forcing is beginning to over-ride natural variability and that the ENSO signal, though still very powerful, is becoming more and more muted by an increasingly substantial human heat forcing." From: http://robertscribbler.wordpress.com/ (http://robertscribbler.wordpress.com/) Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: deep octopus on October 12, 2014, 03:17:50 PM A read of 0.78 on the GISS maps. Only the Ural region and pockets of the Atlantic, Southern, and Pacific Oceans were below the baseline. (https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdata.giss.nasa.gov%2Ftmp%2Fgistemp%2FNMAPS%2Ftmp_GHCN_GISS_ERSST_1200km_Anom09_2014_2014_1951_1980%2Fnmaps.gif&hash=e4d629a6b15691c8c829ec162c49b18a) Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: bassman on October 12, 2014, 07:20:42 PM Gray-Wolf, Robert nails it. I have always argued that even if we stay in a neg phase PDO or just plain similar ocean/atmospheric conditions as 2011, GHG forcing will simply overwhelm and neutral years will begin setting all time records. It's hard to say how much the Kelvins waves have contributed this year but it seems that 2014 is going to take us to a new record for atleast NOAA and JMA. 2015 will likely crush 2014 if we get the slow burn El Niño that's forecasted. See below. Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: Gray-Wolf on October 13, 2014, 11:12:54 AM I think that mother N. does here best to keep things stable when She encounters a strong short term forcing but this is only a quick fix and unravels should the forcing continues to be persistent? I believe that we have seen her give it Her best shot to 'calm' the warming we saw through the 80's/90's but the forcing has not only remained but grown stronger. As such She will now allow climate to undergo a step change to the next high 'stable' phase ( and the cycle will repeat?). We are told that the enhanced trades ( driven by the walker cell responding to imbalance between tropical Atlantic and Pacific) are a good part of the 'hiatus' but that those oceans are approaching parity and , as such, we ought expect the trades to settle back to more recognisable levels? This , in its turn, will lead to surface ocean heat warming our atmosphere ( rather than being drawn down into the ocean) leading to elevated global temps. To me that sounds like the IPO flipping positive to its 'warm surface ocean' phase. Should PDO also be faltering in its -ve phase ( lots of positive values so far this year) then 2 of the 'cold drivers' will have flipped back into augmenting AGW warming. With the heat that has been pushed down into the ocean also able to make its reappearance we may well be in for a run of very warm months/years even without El Nino pumping up the values. How would folk view a record warm year without a Nino pushing up the temp? Would that be enough to have sceptics questioning the mechanism behind such an event? It is what to expect should such events occur that most troubles me. with polar temps already in record territory what hope for arctic sea ice ( and its impact on global temps?) , what of the Brazilian rain forests (already damaged by at least 2 '1 in a hundred year' droughts over the past 15 years?), what of the permafrost and its methane cargo? What of extreme weather events? The paid misleaders have cost us ( I believe) our last, best, chance of mitigating the nastier impacts of warming by messing with folk through this period of slowed atmospheric warming when , in reality, they knew what lay behind them. What do you do with people like that??? Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: Shared Humanity on October 13, 2014, 09:21:08 PM What do you do with people like that??? Tumbrels? ;) Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: bassman on October 14, 2014, 11:32:08 AM JMA is the warmest on record for September. I think it's safe to say that JMA will have 2014 as the warmest on record. I haven't run the numbers yet but it was already in first place for the year. Before Sept. 1st. 2014(+0.34°C), 2nd. 2013(+0.26°C), 3rd. 2012(+0.25°C), 4th. 2009,2005(+0.22°C) Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: deep octopus on October 14, 2014, 07:26:24 PM Bassman, it is certainly looking that way... On JMA, warmest MAM and JJA periods; 5th warmest January; warmest September, by far. Current January-September average anomaly is +0.25 C (over 1981-2010). If that pattern continues, it would beat out 1998 (JMA's record year) pretty significantly. Less clear is where this will end up on other metrics, but securing either 2nd or 1st warmest in most indices is the picture that's emerging. And either way, the trajectory is up. NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis model through October 12th is showing October 2014 to be the 3rd warmest so far (behind 2012 and 2005). It's still quite early in the month, but that would roughly translate to another +0.70 C figure on NASA GISS if this continues. November will be very interesting to watch... Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: Ned W on October 14, 2014, 08:53:29 PM Updated now with two additional months of GISTEMP data. The projected annual mean is almost unchanged (0.6664, up trivially from 0.6662) but the confidence intervals are narrowing. There is still something like a 57% chance that 2014 will set a new annual record in GISTEMP. It is very likely to be in the top 3. Thanks Ned, appreciate your perspective. Interesting analysis, and I agree with your math that we need to see 0.69 C figures for the rest of the year. Though I would suggest that this isn't an unlikely outcome, and here's why. [...lots of good commentary snipped...] Thanks for that. You're quite right -- there is a seasonal pattern in the anomaly data that is non-stationary over time. If one ignores that (as I did above) it suggests a 33% chance that 2014 will set a new record in GISTEMP. But taking it into account, there appears to be a 57% chance of a record this year (and an 87% chance that 2014 will be in the top 3). I will explain how I calculated that, in case anyone is as absurdly obsessive about trivia as I am: (1) I downloaded the GISTEMP land + ocean data from NASA. (2) For each year, I calculated the year-to-date (YTD) average (i.e., Jan through July) (3) For each year, I calculated the difference between the YTD and the full-year value (4) I used a LOWESS model with a 30-year timescale to detrend the differences from (3) (5) Using the detrended differences, I modeled a probability distribution for 2014 The expected value for GISTEMP 2014 annual is 0.666, slightly higher than the previous record of 0.60 (from 2010). Here's a plot showing each year's difference between the YTD (Jan-July) mean and the final, 12-month mean. Red line is the LOWESS model with 30-year timescale: (https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1202.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fbb374%2Fned_ward%2Ffig1.png&hash=8feff27be5836ad944516c98412e8ec1) Here are the detrended differences (basically, blue line minus red line in the above), with a 95% confidence interval: (https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1202.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fbb374%2Fned_ward%2Ffig2.png&hash=9ed372e235baa651c0a9cf5d1cca6893) Here are the resulting hindcast "predictions" for 1880-2014, based on each year's first seven months, compared to the actual annual data (2014 is missing from the latter, obviously): (https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1202.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fbb374%2Fned_ward%2Ffig3.png&hash=c6e1e99d21377da8edc4bad802f77bf6) This is the same as the previous figure, but enlarging the 1980-2014 period: (https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1202.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fbb374%2Fned_ward%2Ffig4.png&hash=decf66cd7ed2fbd0c53eaeef226d53eb) Finally, here is the probability distribution for 2014's annual mean, compared to recent years: (https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1202.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fbb374%2Fned_ward%2Ffig5.png&hash=9cd72b9df46e82c45ea5c46e3134ea6a) So ... I agree with deep octopus that 2014 is likely to set a new record for GISTEMP, even based solely on the data through July, ignoring the current spike in SSTs. Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: deep octopus on October 20, 2014, 05:18:06 PM Bad news all around, if not surprising given the steady march of data. NOAA confirms September 2014 as the warmest in its record. Warmest ocean temperatures on record, for September and for any month. In addition the January-September period was tied for the warmest on record for the combined land-ocean index. Emphasis mine, but the same points are elaborated: Quote The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for September 2014 was the highest on record for September, at 0.72°C (1.30°F) above the 20th century average of 15.0°C (59.0°F). The global land surface temperature was 0.89°C (1.60°F) above the 20th century average of 12.0°C (53.6°F), tying with 2013 as the sixth warmest September on record. For the ocean, the September global sea surface temperature was 0.66°C (1.19°F) above the 20th century average of 16.2°C (61.1°F), the highest on record for September and also the highest on record for any month. The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for the January–September period (year-to-date) was 0.68°C (1.22°F) above the 20th century average of 14.1°C (57.5°F), tying with 1998 and 2010 as the warmest such period on record. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/9 (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/9) As it stands, 2014 is in the running to be the warmest year on record, if it maintains this performance for the remainder of the year. The warmest year in NOAA's record, 2010, finished with a +0.66 C anomaly over 1901-2000. This year is currently at +0.68 C over 1901-2000. See the attached for the year-to-date rankings. Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: BornFromTheVoid on October 20, 2014, 06:31:49 PM Another interesting part of the report: The past 12 months—October 2013–September 2014—was the warmest 12-month period among all months since records began in 1880, at 0.69°C (1.24°F) above the 20th century average. This breaks the previous record of +0.68°C (+1.22°F) set for the periods September 1998–August 1998, August 2009–July 2010; and September 2013–August 2014. Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: Laurent on October 28, 2014, 09:27:42 PM Climate deniers lost for words: 2014 set for hottest year on record http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/commentators/2612541/climate_deniers_lost_for_words_2014_set_for_hottest_year_on_record.html (http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/commentators/2612541/climate_deniers_lost_for_words_2014_set_for_hottest_year_on_record.html) Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: deep octopus on October 28, 2014, 11:27:23 PM Per NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis, it has been a very aggressive upward march in global temperatures since late summer. Although some season variation may be responsible for keeping anomalies elevated as of recent, this has already been accounted for with months like August and September registering as the hottest on record for their respective months. In the attachment, I've finally compiled the daily NCEP/NCAR model data since January 1st of this year. Noteworthy is that October 25th, the last available day, has recorded the warmest day of the year compared with the baseline. We should probably expect October 2014 to be among the three warmest Octobers on record at this point. This is going to have serious implications on where 2014 stands out in history, as it will further increase the chances of 2014 becoming the hottest year on record. Much of the heat this month has been distributed into the North Pacific, North Atlantic, the Arctic, North America, South America, Australia, south Asia, and western Europe. This is turning out to be a similar pattern as we saw in September. Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: Lord M Vader on October 30, 2014, 06:02:53 PM Deep Octopus: how did the daily anomalies look like for October 2005 (warmest October according to NASA) and 2003/2012 (both second warmest due to NASA)? Would be very interesting to compare the cases! :) Regards, LMV Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: deep octopus on October 30, 2014, 07:27:06 PM LMV, I can try to plot the daily for other years, particularly ones holding record months, a little later (takes a fair amount of time), but the monthly averages for 2003 and 2005 were both less than the current month-to-date average for 2014, while 2014 was less than 2012. Regardless, we have a good sense of where things will generally sit at the end of this. So on NASA, 2003 was +0.72, 2005 was +0.76, and 2012 was +0.72. It's reasonable that October 2014 could be the hottest on NASA's record, since it's racing ahead of 2005 and NCEP/NCAR. This late, I think we could probably expect it to print somewhere between 0.70 and 0.80 C on NASA's record, which I don't think too ballsy. Getting north of 0.80 C has pretty much been on the frontier of the worst of temperature records for any month so far, so we'd be talking a rather aggressive number, but we'll have to familiarize ourselves with them as they threaten to be more common in years ahead... We're finding out just how dangerous each incremental rise in temperatures actually is. Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: Steven on October 30, 2014, 08:04:41 PM Kevin Cowtan and Robert Way have so far been dutifully updating the HadCRUT4 data with their kriging infills. They have data up to June 2014's HadCRUT4 interpolation. (Monthly) http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~kdc3/papers/coverage2013/had4_krig_v2_0_0.txt (http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~kdc3/papers/coverage2013/had4_krig_v2_0_0.txt) and (Annually) http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~kdc3/papers/coverage2013/had4_krig_annual_v2_0_0.txt (http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~kdc3/papers/coverage2013/had4_krig_annual_v2_0_0.txt) via http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~kdc3/papers/coverage2013/series.html (http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~kdc3/papers/coverage2013/series.html) ..... Robert Way posted the following on twitter (https://twitter.com/LabradorIce/status/527692706529943552): "Coverage bias works both ways - most datasets will show 2014 as warmest globally except ours (Cowtan and Way, 2014)" (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B1K9uFiCAAAK3AK.jpg:large) Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: deep octopus on October 30, 2014, 08:31:09 PM Thanks for the update Steven. Always good to remember that there is some variability to these different data sets, that what is "underrepresented" can be shown to either boost or soften global temperatures. Which is a good reason why the trends are what matter most. Rankings are more fragile, in this way; the trends are however very robust. Seems as though 2014 would most likely top as the warmest on record in the JMA, NOAA, and MetOffice HadCRTU4 data sets. NASA has 2014 close with 2010. I presume the Berkeley Earth data will be ultimately updated for 2014's months as well, eventually: http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Global/Land_and_Ocean_complete.txt (http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Global/Land_and_Ocean_complete.txt) Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: BornFromTheVoid on November 04, 2014, 04:00:06 PM Joint warmest October (with 2012 at +0.37C) on record according to UAH, and 3rd warmest year to date. Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: Michael Hauber on November 05, 2014, 11:23:32 AM (https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.drroyspencer.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2FUAH_LT_1979_thru_October_2014_v5.png&hash=cdae4e746db20b691d301bb14d76cf59) On Uah what is curious to me is that the temperature recovery from the 2010 La Nina seems to be unusually muted. On the 13 month moving average we've gone up by about 0.15 degrees from the bottom. More typically temps have gone up by about 0.3 degrees or more after a decent La Nina (eg 88, 99 or 07). So is there plenty more warming to come? Or is this going to be an unusually low recovery. We did have an almost nino in 2012, and its now 2 years on so I would think we should have seen pretty much the full recovery by now. The other recoveries did end in El Ninos, but neutral years tend to have temperatures closer to el nino than la nina - eg early 02 is when the temperature first neared its approximate peak in the 02-06 period, but it wasn't until 02/03 that we saw an actual el nino and temperatures didn't go up any further in response to that. Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: Rubikscube on November 08, 2014, 11:55:47 PM I don't think you should read to much into those la-nina recovery number Michael. The difference between a moderate, or rather strong nino (like 2002 and 2010 respectively), and a ninoish year like 2012 (a year which actually begun as a weak nina), can be quite significant and quite easily account for 0,15C I think. Then, for some of the events in the 80s and 90s you also have volcanic interference. Don't know how many of you is following daily amsu temps on a regular basis anymore. http://ghrc.nsstc.nasa.gov/amsutemps/ (http://ghrc.nsstc.nasa.gov/amsutemps/) I still find it rather amusing, even though ch5 ultimately collapsed in 2013, but how reliable are these numbers in general (and then ch6 in particular)? Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: bassman on November 14, 2014, 03:26:54 PM NASA came in at .76, tied with 2005 for warmest October on record. My crude average gives 2014 .664 for the year compared to .66 for 2005 and 2010. Also JMA was the warmest in Oct by a big margin. Right now, year to date it is slightly above .26 beating .22 for 1998 and .20 for 2013. Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: BornFromTheVoid on November 14, 2014, 03:29:44 PM At 0.34C above the 81-10 average, JMA have October 2014 as the warmest by quite a large margin. (https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fds.data.jma.go.jp%2Ftcc%2Ftcc%2Fproducts%2Fgwp%2Ftemp%2Ffig%2Foct_wld.png&hash=56b9a536756442e405296f0fbbed18c2) (https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fds.data.jma.go.jp%2Ftcc%2Ftcc%2Fproducts%2Fgwp%2Ftemp%2Fmap%2F%2Fgridtemp%2Fy2014%2Fgridtemp201410e.png&hash=9e65881cf737dfa2088a8d8ce749c716) Five Warmest Years (Anomalies) 1st. 2014(+0.34°C), 2nd. 2003(+0.24°C), 3rd. 2006(+0.23°C), 4th. 2012,1997(+0.21°C) Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: Lord M Vader on November 14, 2014, 05:48:23 PM Interestingly, I don't think November have been as warm as October was which seems somewhat surprising given that NINO 3.4-index have increased.. In any way, the next couple of weeks will determine whether 2014 will be the hottest year ever observed or not. In any case it will for certain be one of the two warmest years. Remember that both 2010 and 2005 didn't have any lingering effect from El Niño. This year we may as well see a weak El Niño emerge by next month. The question is whether that will be enough to make 2014 a record year? NASA table data said October anomaly was 0,76. Anyone who knows wherein the difference between the two of them is? //LMV Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: deep octopus on November 14, 2014, 06:12:09 PM On JMA, NOAA, and MetOffice (HadCRUT4), I think 2014 has the best odds of finishing the record warmest. In fact, it probably will assume such titles on those metrics. NASA is iffier, but looking generally good so far. For those who like sensitivity analyses: On NASA, if 2014 performs as November-December 2013 did, it would best 2010 by a few hundredths of a point. Performing as well as the 2010s average, 2014 would be 3rd behind 2010 and 2005 (however, 2010 and 2011 were developing La Niñas.) There is still (barely) room for 2014 to falter. I only have NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis as a guide for month-to-date numbers, and November 2014 is in 2nd place behind 2012 through November 11th (but above 2013.) However, 2013 actually beat 2012 on NASA, and is the current record, so it indicates a possibility that November 2014 could be the record warmest as well. But relying solely on 11 days of data is not enough to predict the end of the month. I think 2014 is positioning in a manner similar to the tail end of 2005 or 2006: a big crescendo towards the end of the year. In 2006, the strongest months were at the end due to a late El Niño. But because December is one of the most fickle months on the record (look at the variation in the NASA spreadsheet), I think that month stands as the most likely time when 2014 is made or broken. Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: Lord M Vader on November 14, 2014, 06:48:42 PM According to NASA table data December months have ranged from 0,42-0,74C during the years 2001-2013 with 2003 and 2006 being the two warmest. The period 2007-2013 only had anomalies in the range of 0,44-0,59C. This might have been in accordance with more negative AO regimes. AO-index is currently negative and will remain so for the next couple of days according to NOAA forecast. The question is whether 2014 will end up being the warmest on record if December 2014 is in the range of 2007-2013? //LMV Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: deep octopus on November 14, 2014, 07:16:40 PM I agree that AO would have its impact, as would NAO by extension, since the tendency for negative phases of those teleconnections is for warm air to displace colder air in the Arctic. Since lower latitudes have a higher area weight than northern latitudes, a negative regime would probably keep the global average on a cooler bias. That seems to be happening this month, since global averages have been sinking in recent days as warm air has moved into the Arctic, displacing cold air to the south. The anomalies in the south are particularly acute. I think that if El Niño can establish, however, the scale of its warming impact would be more dramatic than AO/NAO, and we could see a set up similar to the 2009-2010 northern winter with -ve AO/NAO and +ve ENSO. Global anomalies were still high, regardless that North America and Europe were not getting any share of that heat all winter. No doubt it was lost on people that 2010 was undergoing record global warmth while they were shivering. El Niño's subtropical jet brought lots of snow that winter and also fueled people's perplexity and specious accusations that AGW wasn't happening. Communicating spatial relationships between local versus global has been a struggle regarding AGW. Happened in 2010, and happened again 2014. Yet the numbers can refute perceptions any day of the week. Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: crandles on November 14, 2014, 09:37:27 PM For Gisstemp, Nov Dec have to average 65 for a record. Compared with Sep Oct averaging 76. So a cooling totalling 22 relative to that average would still give a record. In the last 30 years 3 years: 2012, 1988 and 1984, have shown a cooling of more than 22. Does this make it a 90% chance of a record? Several problems with that analysis. Since it is a record hot Sept&Oct perhaps larger cooling is more likely than typical. Also ENSO, perhaps 2012 was coming out of el Nino conditions and 1988 was going into La Nina conditions making such large cooling more likely, whereas this year continues to threaten El Nino conditions starting. My gut reaction is to marginally increase that 90% chance of a record but it is entirely possible I am missing something important or that my gut reaction is making adjustment in the wrong direction. YMMV Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: Laurent on November 14, 2014, 10:05:33 PM Where is global warming’s missing heat? http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2014/11/where-global-warming-s-missing-heat (http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2014/11/where-global-warming-s-missing-heat) Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: deep octopus on November 14, 2014, 10:12:46 PM It seems likely that 2014 will set a convincing record for ocean temperatures. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2014/11/14/october-was-earths-warmest-month-on-record-as-ocean-temperatures-top-charts/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2014/11/14/october-was-earths-warmest-month-on-record-as-ocean-temperatures-top-charts/) Quote The University of Hawaii at Manao announced Thursday the global oceans were warmest on record for the summer. “[Ocean] temperatures even exceed those of the record-breaking 1998 El Nino year,” said Axel Timmermann, a climate scientist. “The 2014 global ocean warming is mostly due to the North Pacific, which has warmed far beyond any recorded value and has shifted hurricane tracks, weakened trade winds, and produced coral bleaching in the Hawaiian Islands.” ... Should 2014 set a new global temperature record, it might signal the end of the so-called hiatus in which the rate of temperature rise has slowed, likely due to a cool phase in Pacific ocean temperatures which is (at least temporarily) reversing. NCDC data shows oceans were +0.45 C over 1951-1980 in 1998. November 2013-October 2014 anomaly is +0.47 C. Last month was +0.56 C, down only slightly from September (which was +0.59 C.) At this rate, 2014's margin should widen and easily take over as the hottest year for oceans. Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: Sleepy on November 20, 2014, 04:49:36 PM Global Highlights •The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for October 2014 was the highest on record for October, at 0.74°C (1.33°F) above the 20th century average of 14.0°C (57.1°F). •The global land surface temperature was 1.05°C (1.89°F) above the 20th century average of 9.3°C (48.7°F)—the fifth highest for October on record. •For the ocean, the October global sea surface temperature was 0.62°C (1.12°F) above the 20th century average of 15.9°C (60.6°F) and the highest for October on record. •The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for the January–October period (year-to-date) was 0.68°C (1.22°F) above the 20th century average of 14.1°C (57.4°F). The first ten months of 2014 were the warmest such period on record. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/10 (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/10) Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: deep octopus on November 20, 2014, 10:22:21 PM In the first attachment, the year-to-date temperature for 2014 from NOAA NCDC shows that 2014 has clearly taken over as the 1st warmest year on this metric. In the second attachment, we are shown that it would take a substantial slowdown (both November and December being less than the 10th warmest on record, each) to keep 2014 from finishing as the hottest year on record in the NOAA NCDC dataset. To give a sense of how unlikely this is, since 1997, when monthly reports of NOAA State of the Climate (SOTC) have been released, only 2011 registered a November that was less than the 10th warmest (being 12th at the time); and only 2000 and 2012 registered a December that was less than the 10th warmest (being the 17th and 18th warmest, respectively, at the time.) Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: viddaloo on November 20, 2014, 10:59:31 PM (https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fforum.arctic-sea-ice.net%2Findex.php%3Faction%3Ddlattach%3Btopic%3D445.0%3Battach%3D11878%3Bimage&hash=4f61da873760c2fbf24d60a1f71c1e85) I remember that winter very well, Deep! A trip across town felt more like a polar expedition. I had miniature glaciers on the inside of my windows. Was this temperature pattern a variation of the 'polar vortex' syndrome we hear about lately? Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: wili on November 21, 2014, 01:35:01 AM do, robertscribbler just posted on this and came to much the same conclusion. I don't see how we can avoid a new annual record this year, especially since it seems we will be in El Nino territory through the rest of the year (and probably well beyond). http://robertscribbler.wordpress.com/2014/11/20/noaa-first-10-months-of-2014-were-hottest-recorded/ (http://robertscribbler.wordpress.com/2014/11/20/noaa-first-10-months-of-2014-were-hottest-recorded/) Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: deep octopus on November 24, 2014, 05:38:18 PM (https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fforum.arctic-sea-ice.net%2Findex.php%3Faction%3Ddlattach%3Btopic%3D445.0%3Battach%3D11878%3Bimage&hash=4f61da873760c2fbf24d60a1f71c1e85) I remember that winter very well, Deep! A trip across town felt more like a polar expedition. I had miniature glaciers on the inside of my windows. Was this temperature pattern a variation of the 'polar vortex' syndrome we hear about lately? A couple things we know about that winter go into the diagnostics: it featured a record low Arctic Oscillation (AO) index (link: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/teleconnections/ao/ (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/teleconnections/ao/)) and a strongly negative North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) index (link: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pna/nao.timeseries.gif (http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pna/nao.timeseries.gif)) The first has the effect a weaker polar vortex (-ve AO) and the second a weaker Azores High/weaker Iceland Low (-ve NAO.) The polar vortex (a strong, persistent low pressure zone in the Arctic) typically doesn't form around this time of year (mid- to late-November) and lasts until early spring. With that, the Arctic Oscillation is tied to the strength of the polar vortex, and typically matters to the north hemisphere climate from November until about early April. So a negative AO is typically indicative of a weak polar vortex, such that a disturbance to the jet stream's stability (such as a strong high pressure ridge) forces a wobbling of the polar vortex from the surface all the way to the stratosphere, breaking down the vortex. Cold air ends up diving south as a result. With the negative NAO, the normal westerlies that bring warm subtropical air up through eastern North America and Europe (through the Ural region) are weaker and we end up with this inversion (Africa is much warmer than average, Europe much cooler than average; Canada much warmer than average and the United States much cooler than Average). Combining with a negative AO is how the extremities really bore out that year. Because 2010 featured a moderate-strong El Niño, the tropics were charged up with much warmer than average temperatures. tl;dr: Yes, I think winter 2009-2010 was the epitome of a weak polar vortex. Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: deep octopus on November 24, 2014, 05:44:21 PM do, robertscribbler just posted on this and came to much the same conclusion. I don't see how we can avoid a new annual record this year, especially since it seems we will be in El Nino territory through the rest of the year (and probably well beyond). http://robertscribbler.wordpress.com/2014/11/20/noaa-first-10-months-of-2014-were-hottest-recorded/ (http://robertscribbler.wordpress.com/2014/11/20/noaa-first-10-months-of-2014-were-hottest-recorded/) Moreover, I think if El Niño maintains through early 2015 (or even potentially doubles down for a 2016 event), next year and the following could set records again, leaving the cluster of years from the last decade well behind in the rear view mirror. So I think 2011 will have been the coolest year of the 2010s decade, and 2010 is threatened to be thrown out of the top 5 by 2020. Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: wili on November 24, 2014, 07:02:47 PM "next year and the following could set records again" Good point. Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: JayW on November 30, 2014, 01:17:22 PM Daily global sea surface temperature mean anomaly. I believe it's based on 1981-2010 climatology Courtesy of tropical tidbits (https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tropicaltidbits.com%2Fanalysis%2Fglobal.png&hash=9496b0c8538ee5a133116383c6385661) http://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean.html (http://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean.html) Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: bassman on November 30, 2014, 07:44:50 PM If you review the Met ocean surface temp anamoly numbers, the hottest Nov surface temps based on a 1961 to 1990 baseline is .42 (2013). So add .15 or so to what tropical tidbits shows and it seems that the oceans are still at record breaking surface temps. I would think that cooler land temps this November will prevent Nov from another record overall, however. On another issue, I'm glad that CNN has finally run a story on record breaking surface temps. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadsst3/data/HadSST.3.1.1.0/diagnostics/HadSST.3.1.1.0_monthly_globe_ts.txt (http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadsst3/data/HadSST.3.1.1.0/diagnostics/HadSST.3.1.1.0_monthly_globe_ts.txt) Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: deep octopus on December 01, 2014, 04:13:29 PM I'm not expecting a record-breaking November this time. In the attachment, the NCEP/NCARP Reanalysis model suggests that November 28th was the coolest day (compared with the 1981-2010 baseline) since February. Alas, after a strong start, the month-to-date average suggests a 9th warmest November. Whereas much of the planet was still substantially warmer than average, the mid-latitudes had been cool enough to palliate this (the second attachment shows the area-weighted temperature anomalies by latitude from November 1st through November 29th.) Negative latitudes are in the southern hemisphere, positive latitudes in the northern. You can see the developing El Niño conditions fold up at the equator, and the northern tropics are generally warmer than average. It's when we get to the mid-latitudes at central Asia and North America that the weaknesses are apparent. One consideration is that reanalyzed air temperatures over water are not a perfect match with the reanalyzed SST data, and the degree to which this is the case is not obvious to me. So the outcome may vary from this. As bassman points out, if November 2014 sits as the warmest November for ocean temperatures, it would blunt some of the cool land temperatures. Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: deep octopus on December 03, 2014, 08:36:30 PM UAH says the lower troposphere was +0.33 C over 1981-2010 last month, which is the 2nd warmest on that index. http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt (http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt) Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: deep octopus on December 05, 2014, 02:48:18 AM Perusing through NASA, I checked out the agency's press release on the 2010 global temperature report: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20110112/ (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20110112/) In it, they state: Quote Global surface temperatures in 2010 tied 2005 as the warmest on record, according to an analysis released Wednesday by researchers at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York. The two years differed by less than 0.018 degrees Fahrenheit. The difference is smaller than the uncertainty in comparing the temperatures of recent years, putting them into a statistical tie. Emphasis mine. The 0.018 F figure translates to 0.01 C. This suggests that if 2014 were to be within the range of about 0.65 to 0.67 C to finish out the year, it would likely be declared tied with 2010 (and possibly 2005) for the hottest year. Thus I'm reasonably confident NASA will ultimately announce 2014 as the hottest year (if jointly.) Although the trends matter more than single-year data points in the longer term, I posit that witnessing a new temporary peak in temperature is still a very important (and inevitable) part of the message. Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: AbruptSLR on December 10, 2014, 10:19:04 PM According to the statistical analysis presented by Tamino in the following Skeptical Science post, there is essential no statistical evidence for a hiatus period (faux or otherwise) in the modern global surface temperature record: http://www.skepticalscience.com/is-earths-temperature-about-to-soar.html (http://www.skepticalscience.com/is-earths-temperature-about-to-soar.html) Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: bassman on December 13, 2014, 07:24:39 PM NASA LOTI updated Nov at .65, other months updated, average for first 11 months of year 66.7 anomaly. Depending on what happens for December, 2014 will now at least tie 2010 at .66 for hottest year on record. Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: deep octopus on December 13, 2014, 09:31:49 PM NASA calculated some substantial revisions to recent months. July 2014 was dropped by 3 "points" from 0.52 to 0.49 C. August 2014 rose sharply by 5 "points" from .69 to 0.74 C. September 2014 rose sharply by 5 "points" from 0.76 to 0.81 C. September-November now the hottest on record. Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: Lord M Vader on December 13, 2014, 10:04:45 PM November 2014 value according to NASA-GISS was 0.65 above normal. Just as D.O said there some values have been change afterward. The question is how much this alter the outcome for the year as a whole depending of what December anomaly will be? Anyway, November 2014 was ranked as the ninth warmest on record if one eyeballing the values. Summarizing all those values for Jan-Nov yields a preliminary anomaly of 0,667272C above the mean for the preiod 1951-1980. In order to make 2014 the hottest year on record we have to afford December to have anomaly of 0,70C which I believe will be difficult. January-December 2010 had an anomaly of 0,6575C above the normal. To achieve a value of at least 0,66 we must require December to be 0,58 above the normal. If we want to beat 2010 by a minimal margin we must demand the globe to be at least 0,55C warmer than average. In short, December 2014 must be among the 7 warmest on record to beat 2010! 7.34 Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: deep octopus on December 13, 2014, 10:58:54 PM LMV, I'm having some trouble following your points, but maybe you can clarify (sorry if I'm missing something obvious.) Quote In order to make 2014 the hottest year on record we have to afford December to have anomaly of 0,70C which I believe will be difficult. Based on the new tabulated values from NASA, December 2014 would need to be 0.55 C over the average to tie with 2010. Quote January-December 2010 had an anomaly of 0,6575C above the normal. To achieve a value of at least 0,66 we must require December to be 0,58 above the normal. If we want to beat 2010 by a minimal margin we must demand the globe to be at least 0,55C warmer than average. In short, December 2014 must be among the 7 warmest on record to beat 2010! I agree with all of this. But still I am unclear where the 0.70 C figure from earlier comes from? Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: Lord M Vader on December 14, 2014, 07:52:39 AM D.O: I see that I was somewhat too quick in my typing yesterday.. Should have done some extra notes to avoid confusing. The first number, +0,70C iN December per NASa-GISS data refers to what is being required in order to get an anomaly of +0,67C for the entire 2014 which then is a uniqe number. 2010 had an anomaly of +0,6575C which was rounded up to +0,66. I see now that I could have calculated the value to which we'll get a rounded number of +0,67C. An anomaly of 0,665 will be rounded up to 0,67. In order to get that number December must be +0,64C above normal which still may be difficult to achieve. Hope this may clarify it :) //LMV Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: crandles on December 14, 2014, 11:20:00 AM I make it that 9 out of last 30 Decembers are at least 11 cooler than the November. So about a 70% chance of marginally being warmest year on record. 18 out of 30 fall by at least 1 so only a 40% chance of being uniquely rounded up to 67. 8 out of 30 fall by more than 12 so 73.3% chance of being rounded to 66 or higher. 1 out of 30 fall by more than 24 so 3.3% chance of being rounded to 65 or lower. Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: deep octopus on December 15, 2014, 04:51:47 PM D.O: I see that I was somewhat too quick in my typing yesterday.. Should have done some extra notes to avoid confusing. The first number, +0,70C iN December per NASa-GISS data refers to what is being required in order to get an anomaly of +0,67C for the entire 2014 which then is a uniqe number. 2010 had an anomaly of +0,6575C which was rounded up to +0,66. I see now that I could have calculated the value to which we'll get a rounded number of +0,67C. An anomaly of 0,665 will be rounded up to 0,67. In order to get that number December must be +0,64C above normal which still may be difficult to achieve. Hope this may clarify it :) //LMV Gotcha, thanks! Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: deep octopus on December 15, 2014, 05:31:25 PM Preview of November 2014 report from NOAA: Quote The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces during November tied with 2008 as the seventh highest for the month, at 1.17°F (0.65°C) above the 20th century average.] ... The global land temperature was the 13th highest on record for November, at 1.46°F (0.81°C) above the 20th century average. ... For the ocean, the November global sea surface temperature was 1.06°F (0.59°C) above the 20th century average of 60.4°F (15.8°C), the highest on record for November, surpassing the previous record set in 1997 by 0.05°F (0.03°C). ... The first 11 months of 2014 was the warmest such period on record, with a combined global land and ocean average surface temperature of 1.22°F (0.68°C) above the 20th century average of 57.0°F (13.9°C), surpassing the previous record set in 2010 by 0.02°F (0.01°C). The margin of error is ±0.18°F (0.10°C). 2014 is currently on track to be the warmest year on record if the December global temperature is at least 0.70°F (0.39°C) above its 20th century average. Attached are the year-to-date trajectory paths for the warmest years in the NOAA record and what it would take for 2014 to finish out as the hottest year. December will have to all but crash for this to not happen. Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: Lord M Vader on December 15, 2014, 06:38:11 PM Given that the oceans now are so warm there is hardly anything that will stop 2014 from being the hottest year ever. NOAA are speaking about 20' century average. A quick look at the data from NASA-GISS shows that the last time December average was below 0,39C was in 2000. Then you must keep in mind that those values are referring to the 1951-1980 average which should be considerable higher than the average for 1951-1980. Looking at the global temps so far this month there have been vast areas with warm weather. This is especially true for North America, Greenland, Europe, Africa and the southern parts of Asia. In the rest of Asia there is a dominance of warmer temps but with 3 pockets of cooler temps dominating. Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: Steven on December 17, 2014, 04:05:24 PM Jan-Nov 2014: (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B47blXWCQAEDlrv.png) Apart from the global average temperatures, also interesting (to me at least) is the regional temperatures in Europe. 2014 is expected to be the warmest year on record for the European averaged temperature: http://cib.knmi.nl/mediawiki/index.php/2014_warmest_year_on_record_in_Europe (http://cib.knmi.nl/mediawiki/index.php/2014_warmest_year_on_record_in_Europe) See also: http://www.climatecentral.org/europe-hottest-year-on-record-climate-change (http://www.climatecentral.org/europe-hottest-year-on-record-climate-change) Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: deep octopus on December 17, 2014, 04:22:01 PM A building surge of warm air is taking over the globe since the beginning of the month (and since a sharp cool down in late November) that is beginning to shape up December 2014 into one of the warmest such months in the record. That's based on NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis data through December 15th (the latest date available), which I've attached. December 15th was the relatively warmest day since late October. Much of this heat is centering over the Arctic, Europe, northern Russia, North America, and Australia. This set up is similar to how 2006 closed out, and I suspect that a moderately positive NAO phase is helping out with this. Stay tuned. Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: Laurent on December 17, 2014, 04:52:55 PM 2014 will be the hottest year on record http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/dec/17/2014-will-be-the-hottest-year-on-record (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/dec/17/2014-will-be-the-hottest-year-on-record) Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: Steven on December 17, 2014, 05:16:04 PM The Met Office has released its global mean temperature forecast for next year (2015): Quote The global mean temperature for 2015 is expected to be between 0.52 °C and 0.76 °C* above the long-term (1961-1990) average of 14.0 °C, with a central estimate of 0.64 °C, according to the Met Office annual global temperature forecast. ... The table below shows the global average temperature anomalies for the last 20 years (2014 only includes data from Jan to Oct, so may change). All temperatures from observations have an uncertainty range of ± 0.1 °C so it is important not to read too much into the individual rankings for each year. The anomaly is in °C above long-term (1961-1990) average of 14.0 °C... 2014 0.57 (Jan - Oct) 2013 0.50 2012 0.47 2011 0.43 2010 0.55 2009 0.49 ... http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2014/2015-global-temp-forecast (http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2014/2015-global-temp-forecast) Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: deep octopus on December 17, 2014, 07:03:04 PM For those who enjoy a visual on the culture perspective of this year's temperature pattern, feel free to view some photographs by the Guardian in Quote The hottest year ever around the world – in pictures Link: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/gallery/2014/dec/03/hottest-year-ever-around-world-in-pictures (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/gallery/2014/dec/03/hottest-year-ever-around-world-in-pictures) Going back to the 2014 closer outlook, looks as though the next 7 days (GFS model run ending December 24th) are forecast to set some fairly dramatic global temperature averages. The north hemisphere in particular is going to experience a mild entry into the official winter season: http://cci-reanalyzer.org/Forecasts/ (http://cci-reanalyzer.org/Forecasts/) If this sustains, December 2014 should fit well in the top five warmest. No crash in the global temperature is happening, and the stone is about to engraved to mark this change in geological history--the transfer of the title from one old year to a new year. Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: AbruptSLR on December 17, 2014, 10:21:40 PM I would like to remind readers that none of the temperatures that we are talking about here include the infill by kriging by Cowtan & Way who maintain non-scientific updates to their kriging efforts at the following site. http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~kdc3/papers/coverage2013/series.html (http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~kdc3/papers/coverage2013/series.html) As Arctic temperatures are part of kriging effort by Cowtan & Way, and as Arctic temperatures are increasing at about twice the global average, we should be surprised if mean global temperatures are actually rising faster than agencies are currently reporting. Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: bassman on December 26, 2014, 07:01:19 PM JMA has issued a preliminary report saying 2014 is the warmest on record at .27 beating 1998 which was at .22 (1981-2010 baseline). Also, if anyone can answer this I would be grateful. Is Climate Reanalyzer of any use for global temps? If you look at last years daily forecasts for each individual day and then average the month vs actual surface temp anomalies from NASA or NOAA, and then compare them to this year, it seems like they are not very predictive at all. Not even close. I know it has a different baseline but their is no correlation whats so ever. Should I ignore these daily values all together and only use it for regional weather patterns? For instance DEC 2013 had an average value of .22 anomaly and temps ended up in the low .60's for NOAA and NASA. If you look at DEC 2014 there is no way it is going to be in the .80's. Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: deep octopus on December 29, 2014, 05:57:04 PM It looks as though Climate Reanalyzer uses the CFSR model (which supports data from 1979 to present) when reporting the surface temperature data. Link: https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data/climate-forecast-system-reanalysis-cfsr (https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data/climate-forecast-system-reanalysis-cfsr) I did eyeball the absolute global surface temperatures for December reported in CFSR (from the timeseries plot tool in CR: http://cci-reanalyzer.org/Reanalysis_monthly/index_tseries.php (http://cci-reanalyzer.org/Reanalysis_monthly/index_tseries.php)), wrote them down, and ran up 1981-2010 anomaly values; I did the same using NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis (data from 1948 to present.) I compared the values of both reanalysis models with NASA GISS data (I converted GISS numbers to 1981-2010 anomalies using the maps tool.) Turns out the r value when comparing CFSR with GISS is about 0.91 from 1979 to 2013; and when comparing NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis with GISS, the r value is about 0.89 from 1948 to 2013. I did try the same method again using the annual data from CFSR (because I noticed, for some reason, that the annual values are well off compared to GISS.) For instance, CFSR showed all years from 2001 through 2011 as being warmer than 1998, while 2010 was cooler than 2009 (?!), and 2012 cooler than in 1980 and 1981 (?!). The r value was again about 0.91. The average absolute difference between NASA GISS and any of these reanalysis models, I think, was calculated to about 0.09 C with a standard deviation of about 0.06. I ran some numbers yesterday that I no longer have before me, but that sounds about correct. Though correlation isn't the entire story, it does suggest some good agreement in the trend of the reanalysis models, even though there are these quirks in the year-to-year data that I have a hard time buying... The other thing is how the SSTs and surface air temperatures directly over the same locations in the sea can vary significantly with NCEP/NCAR, which I find to be a limitation in the quest for a combined land-ocean reanalysis model. I wouldn't totally disregard the numbers. But for me, because I like checking up on what NCEP/NCAR V2 is saying, I find them useful for the purpose of projecting the monthly temperature. They're improving in skill for sure, but I don't think there is anything sacrosanct about the reanalysis tools. Speaking of which, NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis data through December 27th suggests December 2014 is on track to be the 4th warmest December on record (behind 2003, 2005, and 2006.) Again, as just explained, the outcome on the climate indices may well differ. Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: bassman on December 30, 2014, 04:27:00 AM Deep Octopus, thanks for that analysis, it is much appreciated :D. I know in the grand scheme of things the final number in 2014 for NASA really doesn't matter that much at this point. When considering how warm it got without any significant influence from an el nino, a shift in PDO is apparently all it takes now with increasing ghg emissions. I wonder how many on this great blog would have predicted back in January that 2014 would be the warmest on record with ENSO neutral conditions dominating for most/all of the year. Consider the image below from NOAA. All it took for 2014 to break records were for ocean surface temps to return to the average trend line taken from 1970 to 2014. As far as December is concerned it seems that according to Levi Cowan's page, ocean temps again are likely to be the warmest on record. This gives December a good chance at being in the top 3 as you mentioned earlier, considering that 2014 will have warmer ocean temperatures than 2003,2005,2006. Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: deep octopus on December 30, 2014, 04:49:19 PM Bassman, I think if anything, the fact that 2014 is coming in so consistently as the warmest year on record, when looking at multiple climate indices--and without a strong ENSO signal--is indicative that greenhouse gases have been increasingly getting us into trouble. In fact, the last several years (2012 through 2014) started off with either La Niña (as in 2012) or borderline La Niña (as in 2013 and 2014), yet all three years witnessed increased temperatures from each of their respective previous years. We're on a three-year warming streak. I have little reason to expect 2015 will cool down from 2014 either, barring some unforeseen event like a volcanic eruption or La Niña. The PDO is beginning to wake from its slumber, and could magnificently contribute to the next era of accelerated warming. There's a melancholy in watching previous records fade away as new ones advance. The year-to-year changes may be fairly subtle at the moment, but they are noticeably accumulating. Whereas this isn't surprising (it isn't for any dilettante who is even superficially aware of the physics driving it), it doesn't make this any less worrisome. I am staying vigilant that, in some distant future, our prognosis turns around as we act, and the temperature will genuinely stop increasing. Cheers. Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: BornFromTheVoid on January 05, 2015, 10:43:41 PM The first biggie to have updated with all of 2014, the JMA, have 2014 as the warmest year on record. (https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fds.data.jma.go.jp%2Ftcc%2Ftcc%2Fproducts%2Fgwp%2Ftemp%2Ffig%2Fan_wld.png&hash=b462049f2e3f7e0fc28ca7b675bd10cb) 1st. 2014(+0.27°C), 2nd. 1998(+0.22°C), 3rd. 2013,2010(+0.20°C), 5th. 2005(+0.17°C) (https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fds.data.jma.go.jp%2Ftcc%2Ftcc%2Fproducts%2Fgwp%2Ftemp%2Fmap%2F%2Fgridtemp%2Fy2014%2Fgridtemp2014ane.png&hash=693dcf1a681176b179130ed4b1c8101a) http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/ann_wld.html (http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/ann_wld.html) Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: crandles on January 05, 2015, 10:55:00 PM Quote It was also the warmest year in the Central England Temperature series, which dates back to 1659, and is the longest running record of its type. The UK's mean temperature for the year was 9.9C - that is 0.2 degrees higher than the previous record set in 2006. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-30683339 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-30683339) Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: Laurent on January 06, 2015, 10:55:08 AM 2014 was Australia's third warmest year on record, says Bureau of Meteorology http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/jan/06/2014-was-australias-third-warmest-year-on-record-says-bureau-of-meteorology (http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/jan/06/2014-was-australias-third-warmest-year-on-record-says-bureau-of-meteorology) Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: Steven on January 07, 2015, 03:13:31 PM 2014 was the third warmest year in the UAH global satellite temperature record (lower troposphere). http://www.newswise.com/articles/2014-was-third-warmest-but-barely (http://www.newswise.com/articles/2014-was-third-warmest-but-barely) (https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newswise.com%2Fimages%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F01%2F6%2F2014LTAnomaly.png&hash=ff72f24af71c1f662b5d4c9ba742c560) Annual Global Temperature Anomalies (relative to 1981-2010), ranked: 1. 1998 0.42 °C 2. 2010 0.40 3. 2014 0.27 4. 2005 0.26 5. 2013 0.24 6. 2002 0.22 7. 2009 0.21 8. 2007 0.20 9. 2003 0.19 10. 2006 0.19 Moreover, the month December 2014 was the second warmest December on record (+0.32°C), behind December 2003 (+0.37°C). Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: jai mitchell on January 07, 2015, 08:45:54 PM 2014 was the third warmest year in the UAH global satellite temperature record (lower troposphere). Annual Global Temperature Anomalies (relative to 1981-2010), ranked: 1. 1998 0.42 °C 2. 2010 0.40 3. 2014 0.27 4. 2005 0.26 5. 2013 0.24 6. 2002 0.22 7. 2009 0.21 8. 2007 0.20 9. 2003 0.19 10. 2006 0.19 Moreover, the month December 2014 was the second warmest December on record (+0.32°C), behind December 2003 (+0.37°C). UAH and RSS are faulty datasets due to their errant sampling of lower stratosphere temperatures, compounded over the tropics (which has been cooling) This is why they overestimate temperatures during El Nino years. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JTECH-D-11-00147.1 (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JTECH-D-11-00147.1) Quote The analysis reveals that the UAH TMT product has a positive bias of 0.051 ± 0.031 in the warm target factor that artificially reduces the global TMT trend by 0.042 K decade−1 for 1979–2009 This is part of many adjustments needed (some having been made that change the outcomes considerably over the decades). I wouldn't trust those climate denial temperature series, made by ideologically biased creationists, any further. read more here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/UAHcorrections.jpg (http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/UAHcorrections.jpg) (https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.skepticalscience.com%2Fpics%2FUAHcorrections.jpg&hash=a09e0ee245a1ee0b9dc36f33e8809b9a) Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: bassman on January 10, 2015, 07:51:13 PM Does anyone know the source if this chart which I assume is made from Cowtan and Way 2013 data. I have seen the same trend from other sources but can't verify this one. Anyways, it will be interesting to see when the DJF pattern shifts back to a warmer trend. As I think Tamino has mentioned before, most of the temporary surface warming slowdown seems to exist in these 3 months. I'm guessing the PDO is the biggest culprit or possibly aerosols to some extent. Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: AbruptSLR on January 12, 2015, 06:09:25 PM Does anyone know the source if this chart which I assume is made from Cowtan and Way 2013 data. I have seen the same trend from other sources but can't verify this one. Anyways, it will be interesting to see when the DJF pattern shifts back to a warmer trend. As I think Tamino has mentioned before, most of the temporary surface warming slowdown seems to exist in these 3 months. I'm guessing the PDO is the biggest culprit or possibly aerosols to some extent. bassman, I do not know, but you might want to compare it to the data at the following website: http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~kdc3/papers/coverage2013/series.html (http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~kdc3/papers/coverage2013/series.html) Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: bassman on January 14, 2015, 12:19:35 PM JMA has just reported December 2014 as the warmest Dec on record. This is a bit warmer than I expected. http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/dec_wld.html (http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/dec_wld.html) Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: crandles on January 14, 2015, 12:24:48 PM Quote Five Warmest Years (Anomalies) 1st. 2014(+0.27°C), 2nd. 1998(+0.22°C), 3rd. 2013,2010(+0.20°C), 5th. 2005(+0.17°C) http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/ann_wld.html (http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/ann_wld.html) 1998 well beaten Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: wili on January 14, 2015, 04:50:48 PM Here's a bit of...historical perspective: (https://robertscribbler.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/petm_vs_modern_emissions.png) Rate of change is much much faster than that during "The Great Dying"--and rate of change is essentially everything: it is the difference between a harmless little lump of metal rolling slowly off a table and a bullet shot into the head. https://robertscribbler.wordpress.com/2015/01/13/dangerously-beyond-350-co2-to-remain-above-400-ppm-for-most-of-2014/ Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: crandles on January 14, 2015, 06:04:25 PM Here's a bit of...historical perspective: Not at all sure about that graphical representation. For one thing we are releasing about 36 37? billion tons of Co2 per year which is a bit different from 30 billion tons of carbon per year. http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=2664 (http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=2664) Quote Comparable carbon emissions This all happened because of a geologically-rapid release of 2,000 to 6,000 Gt of carbon to the atmosphere, compared to modern emissions that could to reach close to 2000GtC by the end of the century if business-as-usual emissions continue (but our emissions are at least 10 times faster than the PETM emissions). So I would suggest our emissions have reached no more than about a quarter of the PETM emissions but they are more than 10 times faster. So shouldn't the red line be approx quarter of the height - then perhaps change to red dashed line to indicate changes relates to future expected emissions? That graph is sourced to wunderground.com Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: wili on January 14, 2015, 10:39:25 PM Good points. The red line clearly just combines current and future expected warming on our current path. It looks like they intended to put '30 billion tons CO2 per year' but the CO2 part got left off. It was clearly from a few years ago when rates were closer to that level (shows how fast we're zooming up in annual emission rates!). The general point still holds--the graph actually understates the difference in curve slope now, even if the labels could use some more accuracy and precision. Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: Laurent on January 16, 2015, 09:07:38 AM 15 of the hottest spots around the world in 2014 http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2015/jan/16/15-of-the-hottest-spots-around-the-world-in-2014 (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2015/jan/16/15-of-the-hottest-spots-around-the-world-in-2014) Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: deep octopus on January 16, 2015, 03:31:45 PM Hearing through the grapevine that NOAA and NASA will give their annual postmortem on the previous year later today. Meanwhile, this article provides a good primer on the events of the last year. http://climatenexus.org/2014-putting-hottest-year-ever-perspective#.VLh4m-pR8S8.twitter (http://climatenexus.org/2014-putting-hottest-year-ever-perspective#.VLh4m-pR8S8.twitter) Quote 2014: Putting The Hottest Year Ever in Perspective Experts are likely to confirm on Friday, January 16 that 2014 was the hottest year on record. Assuming that the trend from January through November holds, the average temperature in 2014 will have been 0.68°C above the 20th century average of 14.1°C, according to NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center. As the Earth heats up, new temperature records are increasingly common, but 2014’s global average temperature—which represents the average of land and ocean surface temperatures—is especially remarkable given that 2014 saw little influence from El Niño warming and was an ENSO-neutral year. Here is some important context on how the anticipated 2014 temperature record reaffirms long-term, human-caused global warming trends; how recent warming is tied to extreme weather patterns; and how analysts use global temperature datasets to assess the state of the climate. Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: deep octopus on January 16, 2015, 05:01:49 PM And there you have it: NASA, NOAA Find 2014 Warmest Year in Modern Record http://www.nasa.gov/press/2015/january/nasa-determines-2014-warmest-year-in-modern-record/#.VLkoe0i5duI (http://www.nasa.gov/press/2015/january/nasa-determines-2014-warmest-year-in-modern-record/#.VLkoe0i5duI) Quote The year 2014 ranks as Earth’s warmest since 1880, according to two separate analyses by NASA and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientists. The 10 warmest years in the instrumental record, with the exception of 1998, have now occurred since 2000. This trend continues a long-term warming of the planet, according to an analysis of surface temperature measurements by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) in New York. In an independent analysis of the raw data, also released Friday, NOAA scientists also found 2014 to be the warmest on record. NASA also released this summary video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ilg75uJZZU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ilg75uJZZU) http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/17/science/earth/2014-was-hottest-year-on-record-surpassing-2010.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/17/science/earth/2014-was-hottest-year-on-record-surpassing-2010.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0) Quote With the continued heating of the atmosphere and the surface of the ocean, 1998 is now being surpassed every four or five years, with 2014 being the first time that has happened in a year featuring no real El Niño pattern. Gavin A. Schmidt, head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan, said the next time a strong El Niño occurs, it is likely to blow away all temperature records. Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: deep octopus on January 16, 2015, 05:19:26 PM According to NASA, December 2014 looks to have approximately tied 2003 and 2006 for the hottest December on record at 0.73 C over 1951-1980, though the table hasn't updated yet. This probably keeps 2014 overall well above the previous record in 2010. Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: AbruptSLR on January 16, 2015, 07:37:35 PM While wili has already referenced the linked article by Kevin Cowtan in another thread, I thought that I would provide the following quote and two associated images (Figures 1 & 2, respectively); which emphasize the importance of correcting (reconstructing) instrument measurements of mean global temperature change (whether by NASA, NOAA, Hadley or others) for such factors as Arctic coverage and thermal inertia, when using this data to validate the climate change projections of GCMs. Cowtan's Figure 2 illustrates how when correcting for such factors calculated transient climate response, TCR (which is a measure of climate sensitivity), can change from 1.3 (ala Otto et al) to 1.6 (ala Cowtan); which is a dramatic difference. http://www.skepticalscience.com/kevin_cowtan_agu_fall_2014.html (http://www.skepticalscience.com/kevin_cowtan_agu_fall_2014.html) Quote: "Let's start by looking at the current version of our temperature reconstruction, created by separate infilling of the Hadley/CRU land and ocean data. The notable differences are that our reconstruction is warmer in the 2000's (due to rapid arctic coverage), and around 1940, and cooler in the 19th century due to poor coverage in HadCRUT4 (figure 1). What impact do these differences have on our understanding of climate? The most important factor in determining the rate of climate change over our lifetimes is climate sensitivity, and in particular the Transient Climate Response (TCR). TCR measures how much global temperatures will change over a few decades due to a change in forcing, for example due to a change in greenhouse gas concentrations. It is therefore important from a policy perspective. We can look at the effect of our work on TCR estimates. One widely reported estimate of TCR comes from a 2013 paper on climate sensitivity by Otto et al., from which figure 2(a) below is derived. The origin represents a reference period in the 19th century (specifically 1860-1879), while the data points represent the change in temperature (y-axis), against the forcing or driver or climate change (x-axis) for the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and 2000s. The slope of a line through these points gives an estimate how much temperature will change due to future changes in forcing. This is expressed in terms of the transient climate sensitivity (TCR), shown in figure 2(b). The Otto paper attracted some comment due to the TCR estimate being a little lower than is typically reported for climate models. Note in particular the last datapoint, which lies almost on the line. The surface warming slowdown of the 2000s, commonly known as the 'hiatus', does not affect the estimate of climate sensitivity in the Otto et al. calculation. How does our temperature reconstruction (Cowtan & Way 2014) affect this study? The answer is shown by the green points in figure 2(c). All the data points move upwards – this is actually due to the reference period in the 19th century being cooler in our data. The last data point moves further, reflecting the warmer temperatures in the 2000s. The transient climate sensitivity (TCR) increases accordingly. One other feature of the Otto et al. calculation is that it ignores the thermal inertia of the system. In reality it takes a while for surface temperature to respond to a change in atmospheric composition: temperature change lags forcing. We can approximate this response by delaying the forcing a little (specifically by convolution with an exponential lag function with an e-folding time of 4 years, normalised to unit TCR). This gives the blue points in figure 2(d). The fit is a little better, and the TCR is now not far off from the models." Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: Steven on January 16, 2015, 07:53:43 PM And there you have it: NASA, NOAA Find 2014 Warmest Year in Modern Record http://www.nasa.gov/press/2015/january/nasa-determines-2014-warmest-year-in-modern-record/#.VLkoe0i5duI (http://www.nasa.gov/press/2015/january/nasa-determines-2014-warmest-year-in-modern-record/#.VLkoe0i5duI) Here's a similar post on the NASA website, with some additional graphs and maps: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/view.php?id=85083 (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/view.php?id=85083) The numerical data from NASA GISS for December 2014 are also available now: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt) See also the following 3 interesting tweets by Gavin Schmidt: tweet 1 (https://twitter.com/ClimateOfGavin/status/556140695162200064?lang=en), tweet 2 (https://twitter.com/ClimateOfGavin/status/556139730929455105?lang=en), tweet 3 (https://twitter.com/ClimateOfGavin/status/556142616862289920?lang=en). Update: the slides of today's NASA/NOAA press conference are available here (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/briefings/201501.pdf) (pdf-file), the corresponding audio-file is here (http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/advisories/011415-advisory-2014-global-climatehighlights.html). Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: AbruptSLR on January 16, 2015, 08:38:42 PM The attached plot from the linked NOAA site illustrates the importance of the ocean surface temperatures vs land surface temperatures in determining the combined mean: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/13/supplemental/page-4 (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/13/supplemental/page-4) Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: Laurent on January 16, 2015, 09:59:28 PM A Closer Look at the Global Warming Trend, Record Hot 2014 and What’s Ahead http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/a-closer-look-at-the-global-warming-trend-record-hot-2014-and-whats-ahead/?partner=rss&emc=rss (http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/a-closer-look-at-the-global-warming-trend-record-hot-2014-and-whats-ahead/?partner=rss&emc=rss) Quote Their bottom line: Record global temperature in 2014, achieved with little assistance from the tropical ENSO cycle, confirms continuing global warming. More warming is expected in coming years and decades as a result of Earth’s large energy imbalance, more energy coming in than going out, and with the help of even a mild El Niño 2015 may be significantly warmer than 2014. Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: Michael Hauber on January 16, 2015, 11:16:02 PM The attached plot from the linked NOAA site illustrates the importance of the ocean surface temperatures vs land surface temperatures in determining the combined mean: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/13/supplemental/page-4 (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/13/supplemental/page-4) Land is where most of us live and is warming significantly faster than the ocean. Surprising to me is that land is not a record this year. Short term there is often a trade off between land and ocean with a small change in the ocean matched by a larger opposite change in land, to the extent that the combined global temp moved opposite to the ocean. This was frequently visible when UAH had the daily channel 5 and SST temps up. With ENSO I have noted a tendency for SSTs to rise during the later part of the first year of an El Nino and land temps to move down - resulting in little change in global temperatures until roughly December or January when SSTs peak. As the heat is no longer going into the ocean it seems to be released into the land and temperature spikes up around the start of the second year. With ocean temps a comfortable record and land temps below record it seems we are primed for this spike upwards to occur, probably starting from this January's readings if it follows the typical historical pattern. I suspect the short term trade off between Land and Ocean is about clouds - more clouds over ocean = less clouds over land with corresponding changes in temperature. In the longer term off course the ocean thermal inertia is the big issue. Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: AbruptSLR on January 17, 2015, 12:52:20 AM The attached plot from the linked NOAA site illustrates the importance of the ocean surface temperatures vs land surface temperatures in determining the combined mean: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/13/supplemental/page-4 (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/13/supplemental/page-4) Land is where most of us live and is warming significantly faster than the ocean. Surprising to me is that land is not a record this year. Short term there is often a trade off between land and ocean with a small change in the ocean matched by a larger opposite change in land, to the extent that the combined global temp moved opposite to the ocean. This was frequently visible when UAH had the daily channel 5 and SST temps up. With ENSO I have noted a tendency for SSTs to rise during the later part of the first year of an El Nino and land temps to move down - resulting in little change in global temperatures until roughly December or January when SSTs peak. As the heat is no longer going into the ocean it seems to be released into the land and temperature spikes up around the start of the second year. With ocean temps a comfortable record and land temps below record it seems we are primed for this spike upwards to occur, probably starting from this January's readings if it follows the typical historical pattern. I suspect the short term trade off between Land and Ocean is about clouds - more clouds over ocean = less clouds over land with corresponding changes in temperature. In the longer term off course the ocean thermal inertia is the big issue. I would have thought that you would note how since 1980 the difference between the land and ocean temperatures have progressively widened, indicating that radiative forcing is driving the Earth Systems further from equilibrium with each passing decade, and that in this non-stationary situation it will be particularly difficult for the world to stay below Pliocene conditions after 2050. Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: Jim Hunt on January 20, 2015, 02:19:30 AM In an interesting side effect of my current battle with the forces of darkness over the confidence limits on "record" global temperatures I have stumbled across the fact that although I haven't noticed an official announcement as yet the HadCRUT4 data reveals that 2014 is indeed a record: http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2015/01/was-2014-really-the-warmest-year-in-modern-record/#comment-193074 (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2015/01/was-2014-really-the-warmest-year-in-modern-record/#comment-193074) The 2014 anomaly is +0.557 (deg C relative to 1961-1990). The 95% confidence limits are 0.47/0.647! Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: wili on January 20, 2015, 05:33:38 PM Tamino just added his two cents to the hottest-year discussion: https://tamino.wordpress.com/2015/01/20/its-the-trend-stupid-3/ It’s the Trend, Stupid Quote The reaction of the “pausemaniacs” to the record hottest year has mostly been protest. Breakin’ some temperature record just don’t mean a gosh-darn thing worth payin’ no attention to. It only broke the record by a little bit. And besides, it ain’t the individual years, record hot or not, that count, it’s the pause that counts — a record hottest year don’t end the pause! Methinks they do protest too much. Perhaps they fear that a record year really does threaten their beloved “pause.” But that’s not the real threat at all, it’s the fact that the data have followed the global-warming-continues-without-slowing-down pattern just about as closely as one could have expected, because all the while they’ve been bellowing about the pause that never was. But the record year does do this: it makes it harder to sell the whole “pause” idea… Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: Steven on January 20, 2015, 05:46:41 PM In an interesting side effect of my current battle with the forces of darkness over the confidence limits on "record" global temperatures I have stumbled across the fact that although I haven't noticed an official announcement as yet the HadCRUT4 data reveals that 2014 is indeed a record: http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2015/01/was-2014-really-the-warmest-year-in-modern-record/#comment-193074 (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2015/01/was-2014-really-the-warmest-year-in-modern-record/#comment-193074) The 2014 anomaly is +0.557 (deg C relative to 1961-1990). The 95% confidence limits are 0.47/0.647! I guess this is the temperature anomaly for January-November 2014? Data for December 2014 from Hadley Centre isn't available yet. Meanwhile, Berkeley Earth has released its 2014 data: http://static.berkeleyearth.org/memos/Global-Warming-2014-Berkeley-Earth-Newsletter.pdf (http://static.berkeleyearth.org/memos/Global-Warming-2014-Berkeley-Earth-Newsletter.pdf) Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: Jim Hunt on January 21, 2015, 02:20:02 AM Tamino just added his two cents to the hottest-year discussion Rob Honeycutt just added his two cents to Tamino's. 2+2=4? (https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.skepticalscience.com%2F%2Fpics%2Fthere-is-no-pause.gif&hash=2577bf9a16f961d89ad1eb1201a9303f) https://tamino.wordpress.com/2015/01/20/its-the-trend-stupid-3/#comment-88122 (https://tamino.wordpress.com/2015/01/20/its-the-trend-stupid-3/#comment-88122) not to mention: http://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-made-2014-record-hot-year-animated-graphics.html (http://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-made-2014-record-hot-year-animated-graphics.html) Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: AbruptSLR on January 21, 2015, 06:06:08 PM The linked articles indicate that the UK Met Office is relatively good at forecasting mean global surface temperature increases one-year in advance. For 2015 the Met Office forecast states: "The global mean temperature for 2015 is expected to be between 0.52 °C and 0.76 °C* above the long-term (1961-1990) average of 14.0 °C, with a central estimate of 0.64 °C, according to the Met Office annual global temperature forecast." The central estimate would place 2015 more than 0.08 degrees hotter than 2014. http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2015/01/how-the-met-office-forecast-a-hot-2014-and-why-it-thinks-2015-may-be-even-hotter/ (http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2015/01/how-the-met-office-forecast-a-hot-2014-and-why-it-thinks-2015-may-be-even-hotter/) http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2014/2015-global-temp-forecast (http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2014/2015-global-temp-forecast) Note: * Range is +/- two standard deviations. Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: viddaloo on January 22, 2015, 02:50:42 PM You expect annual average sea ice volume to go down during a year of record high ocean (and global) temperatures, especially when much of the Arctic cold air swapped place with warm air for long periods during that record warm year. Not like this: (https://d22d7v2y1t140g.cloudfront.net/m_13532782_lWygfui0pcDG.png) You certainly don't expect sea ice annual average volume to go from 3rd to 5th lowest during such a record hot year. That would only be expected if 2014 was colder than 2013. Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: folke_kelm on January 22, 2015, 04:25:23 PM Viddaloo, I don´t understand your reasoning. Isn´t it far too simplistic? Why has there to be a direct coupling or proportionality between global average temp and arctic ice volume? There are plenty of local factors which are influencing the ice volume. The only fact you can be sure of is, that heat transport to the arctic was not strong enough to prevent growth of ice volume, despite atmospheric mixing. Do you think that global average temp for 2014 is far too high or that the model outputs for arctic sea ice are far too low? I do not think that such conclusions could be drawn of these two variables. Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: viddaloo on January 22, 2015, 05:50:51 PM We have many more variables even though they are not mentioned. What I say is you expect ice to melt when you have a world and ocean heat record year, and you certainly don't expect average ice volume to continue it's biggest anomaly ever. Either the globtemp is wrong, the ice volume is off, or both! ;D Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: folke_kelm on January 22, 2015, 05:59:10 PM or both are right .....and expectations are way off.... ;D Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: jai mitchell on January 22, 2015, 06:17:12 PM or both are right .....and expectations are way off.... ;D There is a significant body of evidence in the scientific record that shows that global average temperatures are not the sole, or even primary, determinant of annual arctic ice volume, extent or area. Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: folke_kelm on January 22, 2015, 06:35:38 PM Yes, of course Jai, I wrote my comment only to ask Viddaloo why he "expected" a strong proportionality between mean temp and Ice volyme. It is obvious that there are multiple factors, so i find Viddaloos "expectations" at least misleading. No one who seriously thinks about developments in the arctic environment expects such simple connections. Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: jai mitchell on January 22, 2015, 06:53:49 PM folke, I was agreeing with you 8) Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: viddaloo on January 22, 2015, 07:57:37 PM Yes, of course Jai, I wrote my comment only to ask Viddaloo why he "expected" a strong proportionality between mean temp and Ice volyme. It is obvious that there are multiple factors, so i find Viddaloos "expectations" at least misleading. No one who seriously thinks about developments in the arctic environment expects such simple connections. Words can of course be twisted until the point of unrecognition, depending on what one hopes to accomplish. In this case the expectation is that a record warm year globally and in particular in the ocean with the known polar amplification and the displacement of cold air from the Arctic for large parts of the year, would more likely have an ice–melting effect than an ice–building one, and that the year of the biggest anomaly from the sea ice annual average volume trend ever would not be exactly the same as the all–time warmest year. I for one seriously think about developments in the Arctic environment, and I expect warmer years to melt more ice, and colder years to melt less ice. Call me a traditionalist when it comes to enthalpy all you want, but these are sound assumptions. Does it mean the Arctic will always act the way you expect it to? Absolutely not. Does it mean the Arctic will mostly act the way you expect it to? Yup, that's how science works. Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: Michael Hauber on January 22, 2015, 10:29:17 PM The change in temp from year to year can be 5 times as much as expected from CO2 warming in any individual year. Obviously an increase such as last year is not due to increased Co2, or solar or any other external forcing. Year to year changes are mostly due to redistribution of heat within the system. It could be because of heat from below the ocean surface (where it does not impact global surface temp) to the surface. It could be because of redistribution of cloud between ocean/land - moving cloud from ocean to land will temporarily cool the planet in general as the land cools faster than the ocean warms. Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: Jim Hunt on January 23, 2015, 02:19:38 AM See also the ECMWF news about the release of their 2014 reanalysis data: http://www.ecmwf.int/en/about/media-centre/news/2015/ecmwf-releases-global-reanalysis-data-2014-0 (http://www.ecmwf.int/en/about/media-centre/news/2015/ecmwf-releases-global-reanalysis-data-2014-0) Quote ERA-Interim’s reanalysis confirms that 2014 was indeed a warm year, but indicates that it was probably not the warmest. This discrepancy is mainly due to differences in data coverage in the Arctic and Antarctic, which are enough to affect the ranking of different years. plus Gavin Schmidt over at RealClimate: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/01/thoughts-on-2014-and-ongoing-temperature-trends/ (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/01/thoughts-on-2014-and-ongoing-temperature-trends/) Quote The excitement (and backlash) over these annual numbers provides a window into some of problems in the public discourse on climate. A lot of energy and attention is focused on issues with little relevance to actual decision-making and with no particular implications for deeper understanding of the climate system. In my opinion, the long-term trends or the expected sequence of records are far more important than whether any single year is a record or not. Nonetheless, the records were topped this year, and the interest this generated is something worth writing about. Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: viddaloo on January 23, 2015, 08:37:52 PM The criteria for something getting into the tabloid mainstream media are of course different from the scientific criteria for something being interesting. A sea–ice parallel may be the huge focus on the yearly minimum ("interesting"), as opposed to the overall growth or loss during the whole year ("boring"). Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: Jim Hunt on January 26, 2015, 01:04:56 PM The Met Office reckon 2014 is equal hottest(ish): http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/release/archive/2015/2014-global-temperature (http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/release/archive/2015/2014-global-temperature) Quote The HadCRUT4 dataset (compiled by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit) shows last year was 0.56C (±0.1C*) above the long-term (1961-1990) average. Nominally this ranks 2014 as the joint warmest year in the record, tied with 2010, but the uncertainty ranges mean it's not possible to definitively say which of several recent years was the warmest. Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: Laurent on January 29, 2015, 03:24:05 PM 5C rise in temperature tipped for Australia http://www.tongadailynews.to/?p=10044 (http://www.tongadailynews.to/?p=10044) Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: Steven on January 29, 2015, 07:39:32 PM Met Office experimental decadal forecast (for 2015-2019 global temperatures): http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-range/decadal-fc (http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-range/decadal-fc) Quote Averaged over the five-year period 2015-2019, forecast patterns suggest enhanced warming over land, and at high northern latitudes. There is some indication of continued cool conditions in the Southern Ocean, and of a developing cooling in the North Atlantic sub-polar gyre. The latter is potentially important for climate impacts over Europe, America and Africa. ... Averaged over the five-year period 2015-2019, global average temperature (see blue shading in Figure 3 below) is expected to remain between 0.18°C and 0.46°C (90% confidence range) above the long-term 1981-2010 mean ... This compares with an anomaly of +0.26°C observed in 2010 and 2014, currently the warmest years on record. (https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.metoffice.gov.uk%2Fmedia%2Fimage%2Fb%2Fh%2Ffcst_global_t_cropped.png&hash=4cf90d70d98e0be4ac7ad357c2347d69) Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: Laurent on January 30, 2015, 03:19:24 PM Grassroots sports at risk from heatwaves due to climate change, report warns http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/30/grassroots-sports-at-risk-from-heatwaves-due-to-climate-change-report-warns (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/30/grassroots-sports-at-risk-from-heatwaves-due-to-climate-change-report-warns) World's cities experiencing more heatwaves, study shows http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/30/worlds-cities-experiencing-more-heatwaves-study-shows (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/30/worlds-cities-experiencing-more-heatwaves-study-shows) Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: Sigmetnow on February 01, 2015, 02:35:53 PM Was 2014 the warmest year? Maybe. ::) An entertaining look at some math behind the facts. https://diagrammonkey.wordpress.com/2015/01/31/was-2014-the-warmest-year/ Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: Jim Hunt on February 01, 2015, 02:50:13 PM Was 2014 the warmest year? David Rose certainly doesn't seem to think so! We deconstruct his latest "argument" to that effect: http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2015/02/the-science-of-the-david-rose-climate-of-hate-self-interview/ (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2015/02/the-science-of-the-david-rose-climate-of-hate-self-interview/) Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: deep octopus on February 02, 2015, 05:42:37 PM A new post up on Skeptical Science (http://www.skepticalscience.com/cowtan_way_2014_roundup.html#.VM-dcnpKWwI.twitter), by Kevin Cowtan (from Cowtan & Way, you'll recall) delves into issues regarding coverage bias in the Arctic, Africa, and Antarctica (in particular) as they relate to some of the key indices. In one finding, the GHCN data (used by NASA and NOAA) suggest a warmer margin (i.e. clearly warmer) in 2014 relative to 2010, while CRU data (used by the MetOffice and C&W's kriging infill method) show 2014 with cooler margins (i.e. weakly warmer than or clearly cooler than) relative to 2010. Cowtan acknowledges discrepancies in accounting for the sparesely measured regions of the world. It's suggested that Africa (perhaps largely with regard to it covering more global surface area) and Antarctica have sparser coverage than the Arctic in the CRU data, increasing their total uncertainty. The conclusion herein is a cautionary tale in placing too much emphasis on one dataset over another. A basic summary of major indices reveals the 2014 rankings thusly: A.) Uniquely the hottest year on record according to NASA (GISTEMP), NOAA, JMA, Berkeley Earth B.) Tied for the hottest year on record with 2010 according to Met Office (HadCRUT4) C.) Uniquely the 2nd hottest year on record according to the Cowtan & Way kriging methodology for HadCRUT4 Improving our data collection and analysis is an obviously ongoing process, and apart from fussing over rankings, will help drive our understanding as to how precisely the Earth's temperature is changing over time, and where. Feeding back into models, and so on. Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: Jim Hunt on February 02, 2015, 10:41:53 PM Quote The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) has ranked 2014 as the hottest year on record https://www.wmo.int/media/?q=content/warming-trend-continues-2014 (https://www.wmo.int/media/?q=content/warming-trend-continues-2014) Quote After consolidating leading international datasets, WMO noted that the difference in temperature between the warmest years is only a few hundredths of a degree – less than the margin of uncertainty. Average global air temperatures over land and sea surface in 2014 were 0.57 °C (1.03°F) above the long-term average of 14.00°C (57.2 °F) for the 1961-1990 reference period. By comparison, temperatures were 0.55 °C (1.00°F) above average in 2010 and 0.54°C (0.98°F) above average in 2005, according to WMO calculations. The estimated margin of uncertainty was 0.10°C (0.18°F). Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: Jim Hunt on February 10, 2015, 12:45:31 PM In an intriguing development (to me at least!) Steven Mosher, of "Climategate: The Crutape Letters" and BEST fame, assures me (https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/02/09/guest-post-skeptics-demand-adjustments/#comment-47431) that: Quote We know that the scientifically interesting result (the world is getting warmer) STANDS. it stands with adjustments. It stands with no adjustments. Any local detail that may be wrong or questionable is not material to this conclusion. In addition Richard Muller, also of BEST fame, has made a video as part of the forthcoming University of Queensland "Climate Denial 101 (https://www.edx.org/course/making-sense-climate-science-denial-uqx-denial101x)" MOOC: http://youtu.be/wfn9FaJKPwo (http://youtu.be/wfn9FaJKPwo) Quote I can convince any skeptic who has an open mind Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: deep octopus on February 12, 2015, 05:59:47 PM A dizzying spike in global temperatures is setting up February 2015 to be one of the warmest such months on record, with a 0.93 C anomaly (today at 3:00 UTC) above the 1979-2000 baseline per CCI's compilation of GFS forecasting data. By Saturday, the anomaly will push up to 0.98 C, and will be followed by several more relatively warm days globally (well into the 0.60-0.80 C range throughout the hours of each day.) These figures are a continuation of a spike that began in earnest about a week ago. February 1998 was the hottest February in recorded history, but, maybe, it is not too early to wager that this month could challenge that title if this holds up. Most of the warm anomalies are set across Asia at large and the Arctic, but will pulse through much of the globe. Perverse, then, that the coldest anomalies will be occurring in the eastern United States, a region pullulating with politicians beholden to fossil fuel interests such as James Inhofe. Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: Lord M Vader on February 12, 2015, 08:51:45 PM Deep Octopus: correct me if I'm wrong, but the anomaly numbers from CC_Reanalyzer is referring to the air temperatures. We also have to take the ocean temperatures in account too. Those numbers are still high and I have no doubt about that February is going to be very warm when summarized. However, I don't see why February 2015 would beat out February 1998. So far, the weather conditions have been rather cool in the southeastern part of Asia, southwestern part of Europe, North Africa and the north part of North America. Well, if those negative anomalies are going to be replaced by positive anomalies I won't be too surprised if we manage to be in the 2-4 place. Looking at NASA GISS temperature anomalies for February is rather strange. The two warmest February months we have seen so far is 1998 followed by 1995 and 2010. I must say I was a bit surprised by finding February 1995 to be the second warmest... And yes, it's perverse that US have cold weather now with all their deniers and politicians who no longer serves the people but only the corporations and themselves... Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: deep octopus on February 12, 2015, 09:36:36 PM LMV, these are all valid points, and I am absolutely willing to grant the skepticism regarding air temperatures considering they don't always sit congruently with SSTs. I acknowledge the limitations with putting too much emphasis on air temperatures, and models such as these in general. I think the precedent with my suspicions on this month's outcome, however, is my own research into the NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis data, with which I've often used surface air temperatures to match them up with the likelihood of a strong reading on the more "official" indices such as GISS. The correlation between NCEP/NCAR and GISS, which I showed a while back, is quite good, if far from perfect. Through the 10th of this month, we've seen increasingly hotter readings, which are starting to bear out in the monthly average. The most recent day (February 10th) showed a daily air temperature anomaly of 0.56 C over 1981-2010, which I consider substantial--the highest anomaly in all of 2014 was but 0.11 C warmer than that figure. As we stand now, February 2015 to date is 0.26 C over 1981-2010, and this number is moving up rapidly by my own calculations (despite how it may have played out so far in certain regions.) Given the recent trajectory and near-term forecasts, I see a.) an aggressive start to 2015 at play and with that b.) a tacit continuation of record warming since last year. The average for February 1998 was 0.31 C under the same 1981-2010 baseline (though NCEP shows 2010 with a high of 0.37 C.) Whereas 1998 printed 0.85 C on GISS, 2010 printed 0.74 C (1951-1980 base.) So there's an example of the discrepancy between NCEP/NCAR and GISS. And you're correct, February has been one of the more fickle months w.r.t. recent warming trends. I think, however, 2015 may suggest a return to the long-term trend. My only other point here for now is that the next week or so suggests that the monthly average has potential to rise much further. If that's the case, we look to have a reasonably strong GISS reading. Though a new record is not necessarily what I consider a high probability, I do believe it to be statistically reasonable at this point. That's neither here nor there though. I don't want to emphasize too much on the obscurity of monthly rankings, but do want to offer the suggestion that whether it's in the top five or the very top, it still points towards a more aggressive rise in temperature than we've recently seen with this month. Particularly disturbing is that this is happening without El Niño (as we saw in 1998 and 2010.) Trends, trends, trends. Anyway, just something to put on the radar. Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: bassman on February 12, 2015, 10:17:37 PM To add further to this discussion, I think the strong PDO conditions are more influential for Dec to Feb temps than other months. In fact, as has been noted by Tamino, most of the "slow down in warming" has occurred during these 3 months. They seem to be particularly sensitive to El Niño conditions or lack of. If Jan and Feb turn out to be record or near record warm they will set 2015 up to break 2014's record. Ocean temps were 2nd warmest for Jan 2015 according to the Met office. This year seems to be starting with quite a bang. Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: deep octopus on February 12, 2015, 10:27:15 PM To add further to this discussion, I think the strong PDO conditions are more influential for Dec to Feb temps than other months. In fact, as has been noted by Tamino, most of the "slow down in warming" has occurred during these 3 months. They seem to be particularly sensitive to El Niño conditions or lack of. Bassman, good recall on that article. I seem to remember his discussions on that as well. Tamino may have written another one I'm thinking of for global temperatures, but I did find his one post on how the northern hemispheric winters went below the long term trend (from around the turn of the century through 2012), while the other seasons kept up with the trend. With December 2014 having been a particularly strong month, and we await the first two months of 2015, we will see how if the winter trends have changed (i.e. accelerated) since the PDO went positive last year. https://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/09/11/seasonal-nino/ Quote If Jan and Feb turn out to be record or near record warm they will set 2015 up to break 2014's record. Ocean temps were 2nd warmest for Jan 2015 according to the Met office. This year seems to be starting with quite a bang. Agreed. We may also have our El Niño after all down the road, which would probably accentuate the likelihood of another record. Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: bassman on February 14, 2015, 04:16:43 AM Jan 2015 from James Hansen's site (link at bottom) is in at .75 (The NASA LOTI value may differ a tad). This makes it the 2nd warmest January on record, which is a big start to the year. For comparison, Jan 2007 came in at a whopping .92 anomaly (anyone care to explain that month?). Jan 2015 at .74-.76 beats 2002 and 2003 at .71 and Jan 2014 at .68. As Deep O has mentioned, Feb is running very hot so far likely giving 2015 a big head start. A big head start to when compared to the slow 2014 (Jan .68 and Feb .43). I'm already thinking again that we don't really need an el nino for 2015 to be the warmest on record but maybe I'm getting way ahead of myself. http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/ (http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/) Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: Lord M Vader on February 15, 2015, 05:01:43 PM GISS NASA just came out with January being the second warmest such (+0,75C) behind the "unbeatable" January 2007 (+0,92C)! See: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt) Best, LMV Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: Gray-Wolf on February 15, 2015, 05:18:33 PM I believe only a pretty cold feb last year stopped it being an even warmer year than we saw? This year Feb is not appearing to be that cold so are we seeing the start of another record year (even without a Nino?)? Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: Sleepy on February 15, 2015, 05:36:47 PM Yes, last years February was the coldest, or the "normal" one. The thing that surprised me today (apart from ECMWFs Nino plumes, posted in the El Nino thread) was that the global SSTs didn't drop that much and that the Nino4 region turned up to +0.880. (https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tropicaltidbits.com%2Fanalysis%2Fglobal.png&hash=9496b0c8538ee5a133116383c6385661) (https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tropicaltidbits.com%2Fanalysis%2Fnino4.png&hash=c0d46bfbefc5999d1508e85879137d70) And oh, my 100:th post, tada! Now I only have 3834 more to catch ASLR. Ah well, global cooling is more probable, than me catching that. ;D Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: Lord M Vader on February 15, 2015, 06:23:41 PM Sleepy: where do I find the CDAS values? Gray-Wolf: as Sleepy said, February was the relatively "coldest" last year. In addition, July was the second "coldest" with a positive anomaly of +0,50C according to NASA. All other months had an anomaly in the range of 0,61-0,81C. //LMV Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: Sleepy on February 15, 2015, 06:45:10 PM LMV, those graphs are from Levi Cowan's site, http://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean.html (http://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean.html). Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: crandles on February 16, 2015, 01:09:15 AM Gistemp warmest year 2014 averages 67.67 nominally beating previous warmest year 2010 average 66.0 However for 12 month periods, 12 months ending June 2010 with average of 67.92 was nominally slightly warmer than 2014. However with Jan 15 data now out, 12 months ending Jan 2015 is now nominally warmer at an average of 68.25. The 12 months to Feb 2015 is likely to be warmer again by a bigger margin. There might even be a chance of being able to drop the 'nominally' from that one. Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: BornFromTheVoid on February 16, 2015, 11:02:04 AM JMA have January 2015 as the joint warmest on record, with 2007 and 2002, all at +0.29C above the 81-10 average. (https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fds.data.jma.go.jp%2Ftcc%2Ftcc%2Fproducts%2Fgwp%2Ftemp%2Ffig%2Fjan_wld.png&hash=84be77cfafb68daf097998669b4de04b) 1st. 2015,2007,2002(+0.29°C) 4th. 2010(+0.21°C) 5th. 1998(+0.20°C) (https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fds.data.jma.go.jp%2Ftcc%2Ftcc%2Fproducts%2Fgwp%2Ftemp%2Fmap%2F%2Fgridtemp%2Fy2015%2Fgridtemp201501e.png&hash=87d3909cb679b01a66e08c14e3265502) http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/jan_wld.html (http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/jan_wld.html) Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: Shared Humanity on February 16, 2015, 03:24:12 PM Again, a very unscientific opinion (I do this a lot) but I think global surface temperature increases will be moderated by the transfer of surface heat of the oceans into the deep ocean. I think this mechanism could continue for centuries due to the mass of the oceans. Deep ocean water makes up about 90% of the volume of the oceans and has a very low temperature, typically from 0 °C (32 °F) to 3 °C (37 °F), and a salinity of about 3.5% (35 psu). This will likely buy us some time but it will also feed skeptics claims that everything is OK. Think of the ocean as a giant battery, able to store huge amounts of energy. This deep ocean uptake of surface heat is a slow process and the release of this heat will be just as slow. We are going to be locking in a warmer planet for thousands of years. Question...how effective is the ocean at transferring surface heat to the depths? Put another way, what is the volume of surface ocean water that is transported to deep ocean via downwelling? Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: folke_kelm on February 16, 2015, 05:02:28 PM S-H Of course it will buy time, there is a massive exchange of energy (heat) between ocean and atmosphere, there are many papers on this topic and we see exchange effects when we look at the El Nino thread on this forum. There is exchange with ice too, melting requires much more energy than many people believe( 340 J / Kg ice, ok, that´s a number, but what does it mean?). This too buys us time until all ice has vanished. The problem is, that the arctic is far away, the deep ocean is far away and deep and many people do not think about it at all when they are not able to see or touch it. There are still questions how deep the energy will be transfered into the ocean, how deep will it mix. There is a risk (from paleodata) that it will not mix through the entire deep of the ocean but form a lock over the abyss as soon as an unknown threshold is reached. This will diminish the buffering effect (still much longer than most humans are capable to think...4 years ;-) and it will result in oxygen depleted deep basins, not good that either. There is a very good paper from Foster and Rahmstorf 2011 (and one from 2012 too) http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022/pdf/1748-9326_6_4_044022.pdf (http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022/pdf/1748-9326_6_4_044022.pdf) about partitioning the effects of ocean warming, volcanic aerosoles and solar irradiance and their influence on temperature, all of these influences are net negative, balancing out the effect of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: Bruce Steele on February 16, 2015, 06:45:32 PM SH, One Sv is about the flow rate of all the worlds rivers combined. The southern oceans have about 8-15 Sv of deep water formation basin wide and the North Atlantic has about 15 Sv NADW formation with a heat transport of 1.2 PW ( 1 PW = 10 to the fifteenth W ). I can't find a heat transport figure for the southern oceans. Heat flows into and out of the oceans in different water formation processes so although bottom waters have ~ 1000 year circulation times till they upwell, other processes like intermediate water formation have a much shorter circulation time. Linked below is a paper that gets into heat flow into and out of different water masses worldwide. http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/ganachwunschjclimate.pdf (http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/ganachwunschjclimate.pdf) Looking around this morning I found google linked back to ASLR and I here on the forum so I suspect this subject ( water formation processes ) isn't in common conversation for most folks. http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?topic=322.10;wap2 (http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?topic=322.10;wap2) Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: AbruptSLR on February 16, 2015, 08:52:08 PM Not to be a Jeremiah (see Wiki-link below), but I think that in order to answer how effective the ocean is as sequestering heat into the deep ocean, it is very important to consider also how fast radiative forcing is being driven into the system; and how short-term impacts (such as the possible collapse of the WAIS and Antarctic ice shelves; and/or Agulhas ocean current 'leakage' from the Indian into the Atlantic Ocean) can influence this sequestering of heat. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremiah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremiah) Obviously, a collapse of the WAIS could slow the production of Antarctic Bottom Water, which would slow the sequestering of heat; or if anthropogenic radiative forcing is applied at a fast rate then the SSTA will increase faster than in the paleo-record so we will experience a faster rate of global mean surface temperature increase until we get back into equilibrium. Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: anthropocene on February 16, 2015, 11:40:47 PM As intimated by others, also consider that the amount of mixing is not constant. It is mainly a function of the temperature difference between equator and poles. In a more equable climate there is much less mixing with the ocean deeps. This means less heat is buried. This also causes oxygen depletion at depth allowing deposition of organic matter. We have proof of this - it is the fossil fuels we burn today which were created in a warmer period.. I don't know of much solid science on the timescales or even order of the sequence of events in different scenarios. e.g. if earth warms quickly does this shut off the mixing so fast that the ocean doesn't have chance to soak up the heat? As usual, a simple question can produce complex issues which we are only starting to get a handle on. Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: Laurent on February 17, 2015, 09:55:41 AM I think the process of stratification has already begun. I don't have proofs but just heard that the gulf stream is not anymore downwelling as deep as it did. To know what is going on, we need some very very deep argos devices. The one that have been plunged last year are limitated to 5.500 m, to me it is not deep enough (thought much better) that mean we won't have the datas before a long time. I don't think the stratification is 100 % yet, it may not be a switch on/off but a slow process. What I understand is that if the stratification start, life as we know it (we just discover it) in deep ocean will die replaced by anaerobic bacterias. They will acidify the bottom where a lot of CO2 is stored in calcium carbonate CaCO3. that will release more CO2... Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: folke_kelm on February 17, 2015, 12:24:51 PM Laurent, 5500m for Argo floats will be well enough because the average depth of the oceans is only about 3800m. There is one issue with carbonate too. Deep sea sediments in the basins, outside of the ridges, reaching 5000 m or slightly over do not contain carbonates, because Calcium carbonate is dissolved under such pressure and low temperature. Already in sightly shallower water carbonates are not very abundant. The sediments contain mostly clay minerals and very very little carbonate if at all. You are on the right track when you look at carbonate sedimentation as a phenomenon of the continental shelf and coastal waters. Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: Laurent on February 17, 2015, 03:10:42 PM 3800m is only the average not the bottom ! The max depth is not far from 11.000m... That does make sense for the carbonate, thanks. But there is no fossil fuel trapped down there ? What do you think will happen if stratification occur, what about H2S would it stay at the bottom or go up ? Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: folke_kelm on February 18, 2015, 11:51:48 AM Laurent, Yes, 3800 m is average, but the deep trenches are a so tiny part they do not really count. The vast majority of seafloor are flat plains between 3000 and 5500m depth Nevertheless, you will not find much carbonate in these basins. at most in shallow depth (about 3000m) up to 7%, mostly about 1%. If you look at paleoenvironment in jurassic or creataceous time you will find deep sea sediments which are carbon and sulfide enriched and show oxygen depleeted H2S rich waters. Nevertheless there are plenty of macrofossils in these sediments which originate from the upper layers in the ocean. This is strong evidence for a continuous stratification with a stable oxigen rich upper layer. Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: Laurent on February 18, 2015, 02:27:45 PM Re thanks. Ok so the buoys sent last year should provide us with enough information to know what is going on ! Do you follow that ? Do we have some datas yet ? Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: deep octopus on February 19, 2015, 07:50:39 PM NOAA confirms JMA and NASA: January 2015 was a substantial month. Second warmest on record. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2015/1 (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2015/1) Quote The January 2015 globally-averaged temperature across land and ocean surfaces was 0.77°C (1.39°F) above the 20th century average of 12.0°C (53.6°F), the second highest on record for January since records began in 1880. The warmest January was in 2007, when the monthly global temperature was 0.86°C (1.55°F) above average. The global land surface temperature was 1.43°C (2.57°F) above average, also the second highest on record for January behind 2007. The Northern Hemisphere was third warmest for the month over land, while the Southern Hemisphere had its 19th highest January land temperature in the 136-year period of record. Across the globe, much warmer-than-average temperatures were observed across much of central to eastern Asia, much of Europe, parts of western North America and southern North America stretching through Central America into northern and eastern South America... Warmest January on record in China and substantial warmth in Norway, the report continues. Quote For the oceans, the globally-averaged temperature anomaly of +0.53°C (+0.95°F) was the third highest on record for January in the 136-year period of record. In the midst of a strong El Niño, 1998 had the highest January global ocean temperature on record at +0.56°C (+1.01°F), while 2010, also in the midst of an El Niño, had the second highest. Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: Lord M Vader on February 19, 2015, 10:04:48 PM The PDO numbers for December 2014 and January 2015 was +2,51 and +2,45 according to JISAO. An interesting fact is that according to JISAOs number since 1900 the PDO has never been above +2,0 for two consecutive months during the "cold" phase of PDO. I can't find such an event, can you? Of course, the warm phase events are not too many to make any more certain judgement of that idea. We only have 2 events to compare with, not 30 which would be more idealic... I think I've read somewhere that during the negative phase of PDO the oceans are storing more heat compared to the warm phase. If we actually are entering the warm phase now we may as well see the global average temperature rise at a faster pace... During the negative phase the trade winds are stronger while the opposite is true during the positive phase. See Kevin Trenberth & Fasullo article from 2013: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013EF000165/pdf (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013EF000165/pdf) So, what do we get from the equation: Global warming (GW) + positive PDO (PPDO) = X In this case I think X=bad news! The JISAO number for February which should be out around March 15 will be extremely interesting! If we get another PDO value of +2,0 or greater I think we really should consider the possibility that we are now leaving the negative phase of PDO and see the warm phase dominate for about 10-20 years ahead... Best, LMV Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: deep octopus on February 20, 2015, 12:13:07 AM LMV, I think your read is spot on. There have been a number of recent studies alluding to this. One was England et al. 2014, "Recent intensification of wind-driven circulation in the Pacific and the ongoing warming hiatus." http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n3/abs/nclimate2106.html (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n3/abs/nclimate2106.html) "Hiatus" has always been an unfortunate choice of word in my eyes--presuming its existence was tenuous as record warmth was attained as recently as 2010, and especially since further studies such as Cowtan & Way 2013 and the statistical analyses by the likes of Tamino reveal that top of the atmosphere warming has kept a mostly consistent pace in the last decade as in previous ones, in spite of a cool PDO phase after the 1998 El Niño. Nevertheless, I suspect that emissions have kept the warming trends mostly in tact so far, whereas oceanic variability would have probably led to a short term cooling in a world otherwise not so heavily influenced by humans. To which your last point leaves the most nervous as we look ahead to the next decade. I think 2014 marked the first year of a new warm phase of the PDO, and it being a record warmest year is a product of that flip and most obviously by the current emissions. On a decadal scale, at this stage, I feel that oceanic variability can change the sign of the second derivative, just not the sign of the first derivative. Warming will continue. Further, I think 2015 stands to overtake 2014 as the hottest year, and these first two months have been a testament to that, and it may be from these two years that we will detect the start of an actual trend change. Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: Jester Fish on February 24, 2015, 08:05:21 PM Yup....Jeff Master's blog http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2923 (http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2923) has a post that supports. Hold on to your hat, it's gonna get warm :o Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: deep octopus on February 24, 2015, 09:07:37 PM Jester, thanks. Good article... I'm also interested in the last paragraph he offers: Quote Nevertheless, snowbound New Englanders, and millions of other easterners now dealing with record cold for so late in the year, may be wondering why eastern North America has seen so much cold and snow in the past few winters--especially this one--and how long that climatic quirk might continue. Stay tuned for a separate post on that topic. Between the recent PDO warming trend, the emergence of the "Ridiculously Resilient Ridge" and the "Terribly Tenacious Trough", and Arctic amplification, I suspect that the extremities that are happening are not merely a coincidence. Reading the CCI daily summary of surface temperatures, parts of the far northern Arctic (80 N around Beaufort Sea and ESS, maybe the North Pole even it looks?) are about as "warm" as areas of the mid-Atlantic United States. That's terribly wrong. Bangor, Maine, for instance, is undergoing its coolest month (not just February, but for any of the 12 months) on record, while much of the western US is finishing its warmest Januaries and Februaries on record. I suspect his post will allude to this sort of Warm West-Cold East dichotomy happening more often in a warm PDO phase as Arctic sea ice declines. I'll be interested. Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: deep octopus on February 25, 2015, 09:20:26 PM The "supply" of cool air in the northern hemisphere is at its lowest level on record, according to a study by University of Wisconsin-Madison meteorologist Johnathan Martin. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00496.1 (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00496.1) Quote Contraction of the Northern Hemisphere, lower tropospheric, wintertime cold pool over the last 66 years JONATHAN E. MARTIN Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI 53705, jemarti1@wisc.edu, (608) 262-9845 Abstract Employing reanalysis data sets, several threshold temperatures at 850 hPa are used to measure the wintertime (DJF) areal extent of the lower tropospheric, Northern Hemisphere cold air pool over the past 66 cold seasons. The analysis indicates a systematic contraction of the cold pool at each of the threshold temperatures. Special emphasis is placed on analysis of the trends in the extent of the -5°C air. Composite differences in lower tropospheric temperature, middle tropospheric geopotential height and tropopause-level jet anomalies between the 5 coldest and 5 warmest years are considered. Cold years are characterized by an equatorward expansion of the jet in the Pacific and Atlantic sectors of the hemisphere and by invigorated cold air production in high latitude Eurasia and North America. Systematic poleward encroachment of the -5°C isotherm in the exit regions of the storm tracks accounts for nearly 50% of the observed contraction of the hemispheric wintertime cold pool since 1948. It is suggested that this trend is linked to displacement of the storm tracks associated with global warming. Correlation analyses suggest that the interannual variability of the areal extent of the 850 hPa cold pool is unrelated to variations in hemispheric snow cover, the Arctic Oscillation, or the phase and intensity of ENSO. A modest statistical connection with the East Asian Winter Monsoon, however, does appear to exist. Importantly, there is no evidence that a resurgent trend in cold Northern Hemisphere winters is ongoing. In fact, the winter of 2013-14, though desperately cold in North America, was the warmest ever observed in the 66-year time series. This is being covered in a Washington Post article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2015/02/25/even-as-the-eastern-u-s-freezes-theres-less-cold-air-in-winter-than-ever-before/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2015/02/25/even-as-the-eastern-u-s-freezes-theres-less-cold-air-in-winter-than-ever-before/) Quote In a study accepted for publication in the Journal of Climate, Martin found that four of the five smallest Northern Hemisphere cold pools on record — averaged over the winter — have occurred since 2004. “Only 12 of the 43 winter seasons before 1990-91 had below average seasonally averaged areas whereas 20 of 24 winter seasons have had below average seasonally averaged areas since,” the study says. The study only incorporates results through last winter, but reported last year’s “desperately cold” conditions in the eastern U.S. coincided with the most diminutive Northern Hemisphere cold pool on record up to that point in time. Taking into account Martin’s analysis of the current winter, the size of the Northern Hemisphere cold pool has reached records low levels in back-to-back years. ... The long-term shrinking of the Northern Hemisphere cold pool identified in Martin’s work mirrors the decline in Arctic sea ice and rise in global surface temperatures, adding another independent line of evidence for climate warming. Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: Sleepy on February 25, 2015, 09:52:58 PM Thanks deep octopus. Now I'll have something to read before going to bed. ;) This was downloadable for free at the authors site: http://marrella.meteor.wisc.edu/Cold_pool_REVISED.pdf (http://marrella.meteor.wisc.edu/Cold_pool_REVISED.pdf) Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: AbruptSLR on February 27, 2015, 08:17:55 PM Just to add some color commentary of the issue of the influence of the PDO (or PMO) and the AMO on global mean surface temperature trends (combined results in the attached figure shown by the NMO curve), the widely cited research summarized in the Real Climate article (and associated image) by Michael Mann indicates that the recent "faux pause" actually increases the risk of accelerated temperature rise in the coming decades (particularly as the PDO appears to have entered a positive phase) http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/02/climate-oscillations-and-the-global-warming-faux-pause/ (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/02/climate-oscillations-and-the-global-warming-faux-pause/) Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: wili on February 27, 2015, 09:11:42 PM "the recent "faux pause" actually increases the risk of accelerated temperature rise in the coming decades" That was my impression of the takeaway message there, too. Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: Sleepy on March 02, 2015, 08:17:58 PM February looks like it's only going to be second to February 1998? Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: deep octopus on March 02, 2015, 08:25:27 PM February looks like it's only going to be second to February 1998? Probably, though with the last few days, it finished slightly behind 2010 in the reanalysis data, so maybe third if not second. I'm guessing it will be a top five contender if anything. I'm thinking a preliminary print of about 0.75 on NASA. That would put the 12-moth average at a record high and (well) above 0.70 C for the first time. Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: Sleepy on March 02, 2015, 08:48:00 PM Thanks do, I actually found that a bit creepy, combined with the outlooks for El Nino. Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: bassman on March 08, 2015, 05:34:47 AM Big new coverage bias and hiatus paper. Maybe this comment should go in another thread but I think its really relevant to 2015. Read the abstract (paper is behind a paywall) but it essentially states the following: 1. Most of the hiatus has occurred in the NH winter temperatures as many on here have mentioned 2. This slowdown in surface warming rate is largely due to missing coverage in the NH! From abstract: Quote Estimates of the annual and seasonal temperature trends in 1998-2012 obtained by considering the concurrent effects of unforced natural variability and of coverage bias are much closer to the corresponding long-term trends. Reanalyses suggest that the coverage bias was exceptionally pronounced during recent years and that an area of strong warming was missed due to the incomplete observational coverage. So, with January and February coming in very hot, did 2015 really need the coming el nino to beat 2014, very likely not. This trend of colder temps in DJF was broken this winter This year is going be very interesting. It has the potential to be a 1998 style departure in surface temps with. Does anyone else agree? Hopefully some news stories and commentary will come out about this paper. "Contributions of Atmospheric Circulation Variability and Data Coverage Bias to the Warming Hiatus†" http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL063091/suppinfo (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL063091/suppinfo) Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: bassman on March 14, 2015, 02:59:48 AM Feb 2015 comes in as the 2nd warmest on record with a .79 anomaly for NASA LOTI. This is behind the mega el nino boosted 1998 Feb of .86. 2015 is now at .77 (Jan + Feb) so far for the year with only a small influence from el Nino at this point. I know its early, but I already don’t see how 2015 isn’t the warmest year on record unless a rapid and very unexpected shift into la nina conditions occurs. Other years have started off this warm, especially 2007, but 2015 is likely to have some very warm months ahead if this shift back to positive PDO remains. We could be looking at a much warmer year than 2014. March is looking like a + .7 month so far according to GFS numbers. Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: crandles on March 14, 2015, 12:52:08 PM Gistemp warmest year 2014 averages 67.67 nominally beating previous warmest year 2010 average 66.0 However for 12 month periods, 12 months ending June 2010 with average of 67.9285 was nominally slightly warmer than 2014. However with Jan 15 data now out, 12 months ending Jan 2015 is now nominally warmer at an average of 68.2544. The 12 months to Feb 2015 is likely to be warmer again by a bigger margin. There might even be a chance of being able to drop the 'nominally' from that one. 12 months to Feb 2015 average 71.12 Previous highest 12 month period not overlapping record period: 12 months ending June 2010 average 67.85 Is that difference (3.27) big enough to drop the 'nominally'? Edit improved accuracy of figures. Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: BornFromTheVoid on March 16, 2015, 11:45:33 AM 3rd warmest February on record according to the JMA (https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fds.data.jma.go.jp%2Ftcc%2Ftcc%2Fproducts%2Fgwp%2Ftemp%2Ffig%2Ffeb_wld.png&hash=e5e5097a3dc9b5bfba44964a930825c3) 1st. 1998 (+0.43°C) 2nd. 2002 (+0.28°C) 3rd. 2015 (+0.25°C) 4th. 2004 (+0.21°C) 5th. 2007, 1999 (+0.18°C) The 2nd warmest winter on record too (https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fds.data.jma.go.jp%2Ftcc%2Ftcc%2Fproducts%2Fgwp%2Ftemp%2Ffig%2Fwin_wld.png&hash=05506d51a2659c9b6067a815fba2bd1e) 1st. 1998 (+0.31°C) 2nd. 2015 (+0.29°C) 3rd. 2007 (+0.25°C) 4th. 2002 (+0.23°C) 5th. 2004 (+0.20°C) Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: deep octopus on March 16, 2015, 02:44:14 PM Attached are two charts I prepared showing the 12-month moving average of the global land-ocean surface temperature dataset from NASA. The first one features the period from the end of 1880 to February 2015, the second one shows the period from 1965 to February 2015 to show the most recent warming trends that resumed in earnest around the 1970s. Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: deep octopus on March 18, 2015, 08:58:10 PM The warmest winter (DJF) on record was 2014-2015, surpassing 2007, according to NOAA after releasing its surface temperature data for February 2015. On top of that, February 2015 was the 2nd hottest February on record. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2015/2 (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2015/2) Data from NASA says that 2014-2015 was the 2nd warmest winter on record, behind 2007--transposing the rankings with NOAA's dataset. Regardless, based on the pattern of record breaking months over the last year or so, we continue to see an aggressive, ongoing spike in temperatures unfold. As bassman mentioned earlier, reanalysis data is suggesting March 2015 to be a strongly warm month. A continuation of this pattern suggests March 2015 could be a challenger to the hottest Marches on record (which would be 2002 and 2010), putting it well into the +0.80 C range. If El Niño truly unfolds into at least moderate (and potentially strong) intensity over the summer, 2015 will likely shatter global surface temperature records, defiling any lingering claims of a "pause." Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: Sigmetnow on March 19, 2015, 11:57:52 PM @EricHolthaus: It’s been exactly 30 years since global temperatures were below “normal”. Our climate has officially changed. Quote It’s been exactly 30 years since the last time the world was briefly cooler than its 20th-century average. Every single month since February 1985 has been hotter than the long-term average—that’s 360 consecutive months. More than just being a round number, the 30-year streak has deeper significance. In climatology, a continuous 30-year stretch of data is traditionally what’s used to define what’s “normal” for a given location. In a very real way, we can now say that for our given location—the planet Earth—global warming is now “normal.” Forget debating—our climate has officially changed. http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2015/03/19/thirty_years_of_above_average_temperatures_mean_we_re_entering_a_new_era.html (http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2015/03/19/thirty_years_of_above_average_temperatures_mean_we_re_entering_a_new_era.html) Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: Lord M Vader on March 31, 2015, 06:37:24 PM Another month is coming to end and the main question now is about how warm this month have been... Any ideas folks? Will we manage another month with +0,70C anomaly or not? Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: deep octopus on March 31, 2015, 07:27:55 PM NCEP/NCAR reanalysis data tells me this March is slightly above 2002 (currently the 2nd warmest in that set), and below 2010 (the highest in that record). I estimate it to be about 0.40 C over the 1981-2010 average per NCEP/NCAR, tied with 2002, and below the 0.46 C anomaly in 2010. NASA reported that 2002 was 0.89 C over 1951-1980; and 2010 is 2nd place with 0.87 C over the same baseline. Going to come out and say it: I think March 2015 is going to be hideously warm. Probably +0.80 C on NASA (though I'd center it around 0.85 C, give or take a few hundredths of a point.) Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: Sleepy on March 31, 2015, 07:37:17 PM Yes, it will be warm. I've been following this guy as well for a while, Nick Stokes and his area-weighted average. 0.303 so far (Mar 29). http://www.moyhu.blogspot.com.au/p/latest-ice-and-temperature-data.html#NCAR (http://www.moyhu.blogspot.com.au/p/latest-ice-and-temperature-data.html#NCAR) Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: deep octopus on March 31, 2015, 08:06:07 PM Thanks Sleepy, interesting stuff. The trajectory of his daily anomalies appears to be pretty much exact to my own, but apparently he is using a 1994-2013 baseline, compared to the 1981-2010 baseline I've been using, for folks wondering about the discrepancy (his 0.303 C versus my 0.399 C.) Looks as though the new warmest 12-month period on record will also be April 2014-March 2015. And to think, El Niño is just getting rolling. Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: Lord M Vader on March 31, 2015, 08:27:19 PM Thx guys! :) Well, if the warming of the Pacific continues I don't find it impossible that 2015 could more or less wipe out the record from 2014 with at least +0,05C. And one shouldn't be too surprised if the anomaly will be 0,75C or more... A strong El Niño followed by a weak or moderate La Niña would almost certainly make 2015 and 2016 the warmest years on record.... NASA ranks 2002 as the warmest March on record (+0,89C) with March 2010 on second place (+0,87). Somewhat surprising is that March 1990 holds the third place with an anomaly of +0,71C... The interesting question is also how much of the current Kelvin wave that will surface by April-May... Best, LMV Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: Sleepy on March 31, 2015, 09:28:51 PM do, I think that is correct. Nick Stokes is using 1994-2013 as the anomaly base, there's a link on that page, it's easy to miss (at least with my old eyes...) so I'll post it here. http://www.moyhu.blogspot.com.au/2014/11/a-new-surface-temperature-index.html (http://www.moyhu.blogspot.com.au/2014/11/a-new-surface-temperature-index.html) LMW, I speculated last spring (on another blog) that we might see 2014 as the warmest year ever followed by 2015 beating it. But I also thought we needed a strong fully coupled El Nino to do so. I was wrong, hmm... Now, I don't know what will stop 2015 to be the warmest ever, and it's only March. Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: Sleepy on April 01, 2015, 08:26:26 AM This article fits almost anywhere in here. http://e360.yale.edu/feature/how_long_can_oceans_continue_to_absorb_earths_excess_heat/2860/ (http://e360.yale.edu/feature/how_long_can_oceans_continue_to_absorb_earths_excess_heat/2860/) Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: BornFromTheVoid on April 03, 2015, 12:22:21 PM NCEP/NCAR reanalysis has March 2013 as the 3rd warmest on record at +0.39C (+0.80C) above the 81-10 (51-80) average. This lies behind 2010 at +0.46C (+0.87C) and 2002 at +0.40C (+0.81C). (https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FS2Kz0OX.png&hash=9605c373df8f56ab9fdf987a3cfb3b54) This also means that we're 2nd warmest on record for the first 3 months of the year at +0.33C (+0.66C), just behind 2010 at +0.39C (+0.72C) and just ahead of 2007 at +0.32C (+0.65C). (https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F8UrpmI8.png&hash=68af8af2bdab8037c6f8b9c0c794e9dd) Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: deep octopus on April 03, 2015, 05:46:50 PM Using the monthly/seasonal composites reanalysis data from NCEP/NCAR, and coverting to a 1951-1980 anomaly (conversions only available after monthly data is published), I calculate a surface temperature anomaly of 0.801 C. This reinforces my hunch that March 2015 was an exceptionally warm month which will likely rival the likes of what was observed in 2002 and 2010. EDIT: Re-reading BFTV's post, I see he also did the work of making the 1951-1980 conversion, so my apologies. Still, it's good that we've come to this conclusion independently. Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: BornFromTheVoid on April 14, 2015, 02:05:09 PM Warmest March on record according to the JMA (https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fds.data.jma.go.jp%2Ftcc%2Ftcc%2Fproducts%2Fgwp%2Ftemp%2Ffig%2Fmar_wld.png&hash=6580871a94bcb76397e832526aa30d81) 1st. 2015 (+0.31°C) 2nd. 2010 (+0.28°C) 3rd. 2002 (+0.26°C) 4th. 1990 (+0.25°C) 5th. 2014 (+0.22°C) (https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fds.data.jma.go.jp%2Ftcc%2Ftcc%2Fproducts%2Fgwp%2Ftemp%2Fmap%2F%2Fgridtemp%2Fy2015%2Fgridtemp201503e.png&hash=f87bdafcd438f756daeb2250afd28cb5) http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/mar_wld.html (http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/mar_wld.html) Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: Sleepy on April 15, 2015, 07:49:08 AM GISS placed March as No3 after 2002 and 2010. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt) Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: S.Pansa on April 15, 2015, 07:55:05 AM According to NASA GISS Temp March 2015 was 0.84 (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=3&type=anoms&mean_gen=03&year1=2015&year2=2015&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=1200&pol=rob) above the 1951-80 average. Makes it the third warmest march on record, if I am not mistaken. Furthermore, early 2015 was the warmest Jan-March-period (http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/T_moreFigs/2015vs2014+2010.pdf) in the last 136 years - quite a bit warmer than 2014 for example (hat tip to Kevin Jones on Robert Scribblers Blog) Edit: Ah, Sleepy was faster :P Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: BornFromTheVoid on April 15, 2015, 10:13:17 AM Cumulative averages over the last 30 years. (https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FOeFeyr7.png&hash=24410d3265517d6368dd155ccb47d247) Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: crandles on April 15, 2015, 10:31:15 AM Cumulative averages over the last 30 years. What does cumulative average mean? Is it 12 months cumulative? It doesn't look high enough for that so presumably from Jan of year in question by way of large variations in Feb and Mar declining to end of year? Is there much logic to that? Isn't 12 months average better as each period includes a whole year thereby removing (most of? the) seasonal effects. If trying to see if we will get a record warm 2015 then it has some merit. However, I would prefer to see stats on rate to date and required rate for rest of year and what proportion of years fail to fall by that difference so that a record is expected. Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: BornFromTheVoid on April 15, 2015, 10:55:30 AM Cumulative averages since over the last 30 years. What does cumulative average mean? Is it 12 months cumulative? It doesn't look high enough for that so presumably from Jan of year in question by way of large variations in Feb and Mar declining to end of year? Is there much logic to that? Isn't 12 months average better as each period includes a whole year thereby removing (most of? the) seasonal effects. If trying to see if we will get a record warm 2015 then it has some merit. However, I would prefer to see stats on rate to date and required rate for rest of year and what proportion of years fail to fall by that difference so that a record is expected. It's the average from January to whatever other month, the year to date. So January is just January. February is the Jan-Feb average. March is the Jan-Feb-Mar average, and so on. NCDC produce a similar image for their global SOTC reports, so I thought it might be useful to try the same with the GISS data. Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: crandles on April 15, 2015, 12:41:32 PM GISStemp LOTI Average year to date 79.333 Required rate rest of year for a record warm year 63.5 So decline in rate of more than 15.9 needed to avoid a record warm year. Of last 30 years just 6 have declined by that much (2007,2002,1995,1993,1992,1986) So 80% chance of record before factoring in likelihood and effect of El Nino that has started lasting long enough to prevent lowest 20% outcome. So it is a very good chance of a record warm year. But you probably knew that already ;) Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: BornFromTheVoid on April 15, 2015, 01:00:18 PM Now work out how many have declined during a strengthening El Nino... Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: crandles on April 15, 2015, 01:02:13 PM 1992 to 1995 are Pinatubo aerosols giving warm winter cold summer. 2007 goes from El Nino to La Nina values. Bit puzzled as to 1986 and 2002 cooling so much. Have I missed some explanation? Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: crandles on April 15, 2015, 01:06:17 PM Now work out how many have declined during a strengthening El Nino... Was that 1986 and 2002 answer fast enough for you? ;D Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: BornFromTheVoid on April 15, 2015, 01:13:41 PM 6 minutes from asking to answered... B+, I think there's room for improvement :P Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: crandles on April 15, 2015, 01:14:57 PM 6 minutes from asking to answered... B+, I think there's room for improvement :P I was claiming less than 2 minutes. :P Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: BornFromTheVoid on April 15, 2015, 01:29:37 PM A- it is. However, what did you use for ENSO? EDIT: 2002 and 1986 do seem somewhat odd. Although some of '86 could be explained by the lag time between ENSO state and global temps (only the last 4 months reached Nino territory, and 1987 started off very warm by comparison). 2002 still seems odd. Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: crandles on April 15, 2015, 02:10:02 PM I used MEI http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/table.html (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/table.html) A lag based of average of MEI 1 to 6 months previously is about the best correlation I found a few years ago. Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: BornFromTheVoid on April 17, 2015, 04:56:35 PM Warmest March and warmest January to March average on record according to the NCDC http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2015/3 (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2015/3) The average temperature across global land and ocean surface temperatures combined for March 2015 was 0.85°C (1.53°F) higher than the 20th century average of 12.7°C (54.9°F). This marks the highest March temperature in the 136-year period of record, surpassing the previous record of 2010 by 0.05°C (0.09°F). The first quarter of 2015 was the warmest such period on record across the world's land and ocean surfaces, at 0.82°C (1.48°F) above the 20th century average, surpassing the previous record of 2002 by 0.05°C (0.09°F). Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: deep octopus on April 17, 2015, 05:01:04 PM With El Niño still waiting in the wings, I suspect the remainder of 2015 and the first half of 2016 will witness a very significant departure from the trend line. Looks like we're on course for moderate El Niño conditions by summer, and if it holds, it could fester into a fairly strong event by the end of the year. Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: Laurent on April 22, 2015, 01:06:16 PM Ymir, there is some serious people thinking that 6°C is achievable at the end of the century... Well that's not even equilibrium...gloups... http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/global-warming-experts-say-temperatures-could-rise-by-6c-by-2100-with-cataclysmic-results-10193506.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/global-warming-experts-say-temperatures-could-rise-by-6c-by-2100-with-cataclysmic-results-10193506.html) Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: Sleepy on April 22, 2015, 04:56:51 PM Regarding Laurent's link above. Show your support here. http://earthstatement.org/statement/ (http://earthstatement.org/statement/) Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: deep octopus on April 27, 2015, 07:02:36 PM A new study by Erich Fischer and Reto Knutti argues, by highlighting the statistical likelihood of extreme events, that global warming has already made 75% of today's heatwaves more probable compared to if humans had not had a warming effect. Also interesting is the (IMO) startling finding that the risk of heatwaves doubles at 2 C compared to 1.5 C warming; and at 2 C, the risk is increased five-fold from today's heatwave occurrences. Implicit in this is the notion that we must take rather seriously the incremental rise in global temperature. The difference between 0.5 C, 0.6 C, and so forth may seem nominal and subtle, but they can dramatically tip the odds in favor of extreme events. Looking out for the PDF of this study in the meantime. Quote Future warming will shift the odds even further, the new study finds. “The probability of a hot extreme at 2 C warming is almost double that at 1.5 C and more than five times higher than for present-day,” the authors write. This statistic, they add, illuminates a sharp difference between trying to hold global warming to 1.5 degrees C — as many African nations, small island states, and other countries seek — and 2 degrees C, a target generally more supported by large industrialized countries, such as the U.S. and European nations. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/04/27/study-global-warming-has-already-dramatically-upped-the-odds-of-extreme-heat-events/?postshare=1291430150381385 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/04/27/study-global-warming-has-already-dramatically-upped-the-odds-of-extreme-heat-events/?postshare=1291430150381385) Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: crandles on April 27, 2015, 08:51:29 PM Looking out for the PDF of this study in the meantime. try this link? (http://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2617.epdf?referrer_access_token=kVhOHiZOa6jJYRohMAiGi9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0MiqNJsr0khJzfLkhisC13QcS45BnWyX1giYD8vtOz3-5HTC-02WuPLdP0WERy5il5oywqhiuwz3fm4LgDmOcCjdyxWO4biwSz1IzR7cAlC28Vzsr79JBE_l1IAjpk5aaCr75F5FBDcPGJspsTPZucGW-lCNtxU6uzzWRqakrhubN-WyXU5wGCSeooUBWTAA726p37hWFPsugH1dTbaESxTD0knv4eEefYhpbvfIWbcNHr-jyCIrHmXBefJ7gUZGr4TU4O-R2qvT0TkWldqhTFWLRL68ZYhvmtGxRu1A0BDIuNPXK3hqtnx5yce0w67dPU%3D&tracking_referrer=www.washingtonpost.com) I clicked the nature link in the washington post article and got redirected to a pdf of the paper. Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: deep octopus on April 27, 2015, 09:13:22 PM Thanks crandles. Looks like it was recently updated, as the original article led to a bad link. Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: crandles on April 27, 2015, 09:39:29 PM Also interesting is the (IMO) startling finding that the risk of heatwaves doubles at 2 C compared to 1.5 C warming; and at 2 C, the risk is increased five-fold from today's heatwave occurrences. Implicit in this is the notion that we must take rather seriously the incremental rise in global temperature. The difference between 0.5 C, 0.6 C, and so forth may seem nominal and subtle, but they can dramatically tip the odds in favor of extreme events. Not sure I would assume that acceleration in risk factor continues (https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fearthobservatory.nasa.gov%2FFeatures%2FRisingCost%2FImages%2Fextreme_events_mid.gif&hash=fb2d56be53826c414f8a8670d5815b79) http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/RisingCost/rising_cost5.php (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/RisingCost/rising_cost5.php) For temperature, it is mainly increase in average temperature and little change in variance. I.e. top panel. Move the new climate further to the right and the probability of hot weather increases further but it doesn't keep on accelerating. You can't get probability above one so the acceleration has to change to deceleration. Of course change the threshold to looking at moderately rare events again and you can show rapid acceleration again. +0.85C to +1.5C, an increase of 0.65C changes risk by factor of 2.5 +1.5C to +2C, an increase of 0.5C changes risk factor by factor of 2 Not much difference between those two so I am probably babbling about the wrong thing. What are we used to now? Probably what we have had over last 20 or 30 years so +0.45C to +0.85C When we get to +1.5C, what will we then be used to? Probably +1.2C to +1.5C. Yes there will be record heat but it will only be a similar amount warmer than we are used to as occurs in heatwaves today. An increase in the variability would make things worse but I suggest there is scant evidence for that with temperature. Precipitation on the other hand does have better evidence for increasing variability. Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: deep octopus on April 27, 2015, 10:23:50 PM Obviously having the actual paper to read (and not just the abstract) would go a long way to understand better about which extremes they are defining. The way I read it: What counts as an "extreme" temperature event today from a probabilistic standpoint (i.e. “We find that what used to be a one-in-1,000-days event or a one-in-three-years event becomes, for instance, a four-in-three-year or five-in-three-year event") is to be more "normal" in the future, and as you say, there is a limit to the peak probability of that occurrence before it declines. But in addition, since the new baseline is now a higher temperature threshold, extremes in temperature will then carry new meaning. Evidently, it's the warmer extremes that gain favor, and the cooler ones fade out. Agree on precipitation variance since here we have a low threshold (zero) that is going to be present and persistent for some regions, whereas the water vapor increase with temperature will boost the high thresholds as well. Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: AbruptSLR on April 27, 2015, 10:28:05 PM Obviously having the actual paper to read (and not just the abstract) would go a long way to understand better about which extremes they are defining. The third link below provides guest access to the entire paper. Furthermore, I think that the majority of the public and most policy makers are confused by the level of risk for climate consequences that they are accepting for both themselves and for future generations by playing brinksmanship with climate change limits. In this regard, I think that the linked Guardian article provides a more accessible explanation of the extreme weather risks cited by Fischer & Knutti (2015). In particular, depending on radiative forcing pathway and on the true climate sensitivity, the world could reach a global mean surface temperature rise of 3C circa 2040; which per the attached image from The Guardian article would expose society to roughly 14 times the number of extreme heat days as compared to current (2014) conditions (and I doubt that most people are expecting the need to adapt this quickly) http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/apr/27/extreme-weather-already-on-increase-due-to-climate-change-study-finds (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/apr/27/extreme-weather-already-on-increase-due-to-climate-change-study-finds) E. M. Fischer & R. Knutti (2015), "Anthropogenic contribution to global occurrence of heavy-precipitation and high-temperature extremes", Nature Climate Change, doi:10.1038/nclimate2617 http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2617.html (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2617.html) or for guest access to the pdf: http://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2617.epdf?referrer_access_token=KIUvXX8j8e3zbvwlY3ALPtRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0MiqNJsr0khJzfLkhisC13QcS45BnWyX1giYD8vtOz3-81jGv4Zj55ek3qf-I-Dy_JiiClXt6UzW_Mt0wFBVsYrylY7Psp55Pp7rvYueUACRNLgb3Buu786bkmLN2nOpoPhwIetLOsF5fu1gbP9Jpe3x8HijWGW8D3orO7sYGo0QLpEb3ZGaRdmNNNTmUJ_KLZ83Baz-zxHbDYezE08LMUt09rRzi3fqVS6imxPF8JWwQ%3D%3D&tracking_referrer=www.theguardian.com (http://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2617.epdf?referrer_access_token=KIUvXX8j8e3zbvwlY3ALPtRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0MiqNJsr0khJzfLkhisC13QcS45BnWyX1giYD8vtOz3-81jGv4Zj55ek3qf-I-Dy_JiiClXt6UzW_Mt0wFBVsYrylY7Psp55Pp7rvYueUACRNLgb3Buu786bkmLN2nOpoPhwIetLOsF5fu1gbP9Jpe3x8HijWGW8D3orO7sYGo0QLpEb3ZGaRdmNNNTmUJ_KLZ83Baz-zxHbDYezE08LMUt09rRzi3fqVS6imxPF8JWwQ%3D%3D&tracking_referrer=www.theguardian.com) Abstract: "Climate change includes not only changes in mean climate but also in weather extremes. For a few prominent heatwaves and heavy precipitation events a human contribution to their occurrence has been demonstrated. Here we apply a similar framework but estimate what fraction of all globally occurring heavy precipitation and hot extremes is attributable to warming. We show that at the present-day warming of 0.85 °C about 18% of the moderate daily precipitation extremes over land are attributable to the observed temperature increase since pre-industrial times, which in turn primarily results from human influence. For 2 °C of warming the fraction of precipitation extremes attributable to human influence rises to about 40%. Likewise, today about 75% of the moderate daily hot extremes over land are attributable to warming. It is the most rare and extreme events for which the largest fraction is anthropogenic, and that contribution increases nonlinearly with further warming. The approach introduced here is robust owing to its global perspective, less sensitive to model biases than alternative methods and informative for mitigation policy, and thereby complementary to single-event attribution. Combined with information on vulnerability and exposure, it serves as a scientific basis for assessment of global risk from extreme weather, the discussion of mitigation targets, and liability considerations." Edit: For those who question my posing the plausibility that global mean surface temperature rise could reach 3C circa 2040, see the top red curve (with ECS = 4.5C), in the second and third attached images from Michael Mann (SciAm 2014). Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: Lord M Vader on April 27, 2015, 10:31:53 PM Does anyone have an idea about how warm April has been so far? My impression is that April 2015 will be in the range 4-8 warmest e.g in the range of 0,57-0,65C. //LMV Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: crandles on April 27, 2015, 10:45:38 PM In particular, depending on radiative forcing pathway and on the true climate sensitivity, the world could reach a global mean surface temperature rise of 3C circa 2040 Edit: For those who question my posing the plausibility that global mean surface temperature rise could reach 3C circa 2040, see the top red curve (with ECS = 4.5C), in the second attached image from Michael Mann. Rate of temp rise in last 4 decades seems about 0.17C per decade. Currently at about +0.85C. 2040 is 2.5 decades away. We haven't seen acceleration over last 4 decades, but maybe we will see some over next 2.5 decades. Assuming no acceleration we get to 0.85+.17*2.5 = +1.28C To get to +3C we would need the rate of warming over next 2.5 decades to be 0.86C per decade. That is 5 times faster rate of warming on average and we haven't seen any acceleration over last 4 decades. Are you sure that wasn't committed to +3C warming by 2040 (but we would actually be at about +1.3C in 2040)? Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: deep octopus on April 27, 2015, 10:56:34 PM Does anyone have an idea about how warm April has been so far? My impression is that April 2015 will be in the range 4-8 warmest e.g in the range of 0,57-0,65C. //LMV You've got it about right I think, going by the reanalysis data. This April is likely to be the coolest month relative to the norm so far this year. The year-to-date may put 2010 temporarily ahead of 2015, but I am kind of betting the farm on El Niño to make the difference in the end (i.e. 2015 will angle for the hottest year, and significantly so I'm going to say.) Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: crandles on April 27, 2015, 11:01:12 PM Now I have seen the full image, it doesn't seem like a committed warming. Note the red line is about .5C higher than actual in 2013. Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: jai mitchell on April 27, 2015, 11:27:56 PM In particular, depending on radiative forcing pathway and on the true climate sensitivity, the world could reach a global mean surface temperature rise of 3C circa 2040 Edit: For those who question my posing the plausibility that global mean surface temperature rise could reach 3C circa 2040, see the top red curve (with ECS = 4.5C), in the second attached image from Michael Mann. Rate of temp rise in last 4 decades seems about 0.17C per decade. Currently at about +0.85C. 2040 is 2.5 decades away. We haven't seen acceleration over last 4 decades, but maybe we will see some over next 2.5 decades. Assuming no acceleration we get to 0.85+.17*2.5 = +1.28C To get to +3C we would need the rate of warming over next 2.5 decades to be 0.86C per decade. That is 5 times faster rate of warming on average and we haven't seen any acceleration over last 4 decades. Are you sure that wasn't committed to +3C warming by 2040 (but we would actually be at about +1.3C in 2040)? I expect we will see rapid acceleration in warming in the next 2.5 years The earth is currently at a warming response rate of 1994 CO2e levels due to thermal inertia and anthropogenic aerosols. As aerosols decline the impact will be a very rapid increase in the top of atmosphere forcing, coupled with an strong decrease in arctic albedo. of course, there could be 10 new volcanoes erupting between now and then and we would still be stuck at 1994 warming rates for another decade or so. . . Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: crandles on April 27, 2015, 11:43:07 PM I expect we will see rapid acceleration in warming in the next 2.5 years The earth is currently at a warming response rate of 1994 CO2e levels due to thermal inertia and anthropogenic aerosols. As aerosols decline the impact will be a very rapid increase in the top of atmosphere forcing, coupled with an strong decrease in arctic albedo. of course, there could be 10 new volcanoes erupting between now and then and we would still be stuck at 1994 warming rates for another decade or so. . . 2.5 years = El Nino duration ;) If aerosols decline rapidly, yes that could cause some acceleration maybe even 0.5C which would mean we wouldn't quite need a quadrupling of rate of warming from GHGs to get to 3C by 2040. Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: jai mitchell on April 28, 2015, 12:06:20 AM Maximum warming occurs about one decade after a carbon dioxide emission http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/9/12/124002/article (http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/9/12/124002/article) losing aerosols will compound this effect (https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdge.stanford.edu%2Flabs%2Fcaldeiralab%2FCaldeira%2520images%2FRicke_PulseFig1.jpg&hash=98dc1ccad068c9e0df49b14c9758233d) Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: AbruptSLR on April 28, 2015, 01:43:31 AM Now I have seen the full image, it doesn't seem like a committed warming. Note the red line is about .5C higher than actual in 2013. crandles, While I cannot guarantee that ECS is 4.5C (corresponding to the red curve in the Mann graph) anymore than you can guarantee that we will follow something comparable to the 0.17C per decade that you cite that global mean surface temperature has been following for the past 4 decades. However, following the Ringberg Climate Sensitivity Workshop, Gavin Schmidt increased his estimate of the likely range for ECS to be from 2C to 5C (with a mean value of 3.5C) as cited at the linked RealClimate web article below. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/04/reflections-on-ringberg/ (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/04/reflections-on-ringberg/) Nevertheless, it is my position that given the consequences of possibly reaching 3C circa 2040; it is advisable to follow the Precautionary Principle rather than to play brinksmanship with the wellbeing of society. Best, ASLR Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures Post by: crandles on April 28, 2015, 12:22:00 PM I agree that we don't want "to play brinksmanship with the wellbeing of society." But is the correct response to overdo things? Maybe some people need something dramatic to shake them up but overdoing things seems to me to be counter-productive allowing deniers to claim our side is always crying wolf. A sensible rational assessment is bad enough to make more action seem sensible. You point to the realclimate article. I agree that this pushes up the range for ECS, with effects of last 40 years underestimating ECS. But look at the graph and text Quote For instance, plotting$\Delta N$against$\Delta T_s$in an experiment with an abrupt forcing (such as 4xCO2) should give a straight line (red) if$\lambda\$ were constant, but instead there is almost always some curvature implying that temperature changes a[re] more for the same forcing change after a century or so than at the start (blue line).

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.realclimate.org%2Fimages%2Fgregory.jpg&hash=aff39a17f16305807b99c7fc36ff3a15)

With an extreme pulse, it looks to me like the response starts at half that of the fixed lamda and increases to double. So maybe a quadrupling of response is possible.

However,

1. This is an extreme pulse and such an effect when there is a fairly steady change in forcing is going to be more muted.

2. The timeframe is mentioned to be a century. 4+2.5 decades is perhaps getting to where we might be able to see an effect. But to get to +3C by 2040 you need to see really rapid effect between 40 and 50 years after 1975 when a lot of the forcing has only arrived after 2000.

I said we might see some acceleration. If you were suggesting 50% acceleration I might think that sounds high but accept it as plausible. But quadrupling the rate? ???
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: jai mitchell on April 28, 2015, 06:33:05 PM
Fyi

historically, the decade with the highest warming rate happened right after the clean air act and a rapid reduction of atmospheric aerosols.  The forcing parameter of greenhouse gasses was significantly lower back then but the warming rates observed was about .25C per decade.

http://goo.gl/S6Zl1w (http://goo.gl/S6Zl1w)

A doubling of this rate coinciding with a return to positive PDO and a significant reduction in aerosol emissions is all that it would take to produce the warming by 2040 being discussed here.  This is because the loss of aerosols will cause a collapse of arctic sea ice and the albedo forcing from that alone will produce a near instantaneous warming addition to the GHG-less aerosol forcing.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on April 28, 2015, 07:09:56 PM
I agree that we don't want "to play brinksmanship with the wellbeing of society."

But is the correct response to overdo things? Maybe some people need something dramatic to shake them up but overdoing things seems to me to be counter-productive allowing deniers to claim our side is always crying wolf. A sensible rational assessment is bad enough to make more action seem sensible.

You point to the realclimate article.
I agree that this pushes up the range for ECS, with effects of last 40 years underestimating ECS.

But look at the graph and text

...

However,

1. This is an extreme pulse and such an effect when there is a fairly steady change in forcing is going to be more muted.

2. The timeframe is mentioned to be a century. 4+2.5 decades is perhaps getting to where we might be able to see an effect. But to get to +3C by 2040 you need to see really rapid effect between 40 and 50 years after 1975 when a lot of the forcing has only arrived after 2000.

I said we might see some acceleration. If you were suggesting 50% acceleration I might think that sounds high but accept it as plausible. But quadrupling the rate? ???

crandles,

What your post essentially says is: (a) I am not intentionally playing brinksmanship with the wellbeing of society, therefore, I must be a "good" person so what makes me feel good must also be good; (b) unfortunately what you are saying ASLR makes me feel uncomfortable therefore it must be unreasonable; and (c) however, in the spirit of our current Anthropocene Era (where man determines what happens), I am willing to negotiate a compromise as to what is a reasonable evaluation of the current risks that mankind is creating by its never-seen-before levels of anthropogenic radiative forcing.

Unfortunately, the responses of the Earth Systems, could not care less about human negotiated evaluations of our current climate change risk profile (neither between yourself and myself nor between scientists and policy makers).  Without any anthropogenic radiative forcing the natural Earth Systems would almost certainly be headed towards another glacial period by now, and we are just now coming out of a negative PDO phase going back to about 1997; and taken together with the influence of anthropogenic aerosols, natural DMS production, volcanic aerosols, the recent vegetation bloom, and incomplete global mean temperature recording coverage; therefore, it is not surprising that the effective ECS has been masked for multiple recent decades.   The data provided by Fasullo at the Ringberg Workshop shows that the ocean has been sequestering more heat (going back to circa 1900) than previously realized, indicating that ECS has been higher than previously realized before 2014.

Furthermore, the figure that you point to is an example of the emergent nature of ECS from climate models; and if as anthropogenic radiative forcing has been going on significantly since the early 1900's the Earth Systems are already out of equilibrium, so for a very large portion of our past radiative forcing is already in the high climate sensitivity portion of the non-linear curve in that image.  Furthermore, the curvature, and response period, of that non-linear curve is illustrative only and certainly does not include the possible impact of the tropical deep convective mixing discussed by Sherwood, Trenberth and others; as it also does not include the likely acceleration of non-ECS related Earth Systems, like the pending collapse of the rainforests, natural methane sources, permafrost degradation, loss of boreal peatlands and forests, wildfires, etc.

Best,
ASLR

http://news.agu.org/press-release/thawing-permafrost-feeds-climate-change/ (http://news.agu.org/press-release/thawing-permafrost-feeds-climate-change/)

and

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2590.html (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2590.html)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Michael Hauber on April 29, 2015, 05:30:04 AM
I have done some basic work on projecting where the GISS temperature may be this year and next.  I chose several ENSO 'analog' years, being previous significant el ninos:  1982, 1986, 1987, 1997, 2002, 2006 and 2009.  The el ninos during the early 90s are excluded due to the influence of Pinatubo.  For each analog year I take the temperature observed and increase it for an assumed long term warming rate of 0.23 deg/decade (CMIP5 multi model mean trend from 1980 to 2015), and finally average all these results together.  I perform this calculation separately for each 'month' over a two year period.  (ie. Jan year 1...Dec year 1, Jan year 2...)

This suggests that the temperature for this year should hover between 0.8 and 0.9 degrees, before spiking up very late in the year to a peak of 1.05 in January.  The average of the 12 months for 2015 is projected at 0.84 degrees, and then for 2016 is 0.93.  The previous 12 month record (almost but not exactly the same as annual record) was 0.67 for 2014.  This crude model suggests that we could see substantial temperature records for this year, and for 2016.

The choice of analog years basically treats the current situation as a neutral ENSO state that is about to evolve into an El Nino during the next few months.  This could be expected to underestimate temperatures for the start of this year if we were experiencing a significant el nino impact on temperatures, however it is my opinion that what we had was not fully el nino, and that global temperatures have not responded as they normally would in an el nino.   The UAH tropic temps are currently near normal and UAH responds more to ENSO than surface based measures.  In UAH the increase in temperature from the 2010 La Nina to now is very low compared to other increases from one La Nina to the following El Nino, although in GISS this increase is much closer to the last few times.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: TheWeatherMan on April 29, 2015, 03:25:26 PM
UAH released their version 6 dataset.

Shockingly, it changed the 36 year trend from .14C/decade to .114C/decade (a reduction of nearly 20%).  It is particularly notable given how long this trend line is. This is a major revision of the TLT temperature trend and in my mind, casts significant doubt on the continued viability of remote sensing for trends.  How anyone could use UAH/RSS for empirical studies with this type of uncertainty and revision is beyond me.  For example, Feb 2015 had it's anomaly changed from 0.28 to 0.11C. WOW.

Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Rubikscube on April 29, 2015, 07:44:28 PM
UAH released their version 6 dataset.

Shockingly, it changed the 36 year trend from .14C/decade to .114C/decade (a reduction of nearly 20%).  It is particularly notable given how long this trend line is. This is a major revision of the TLT temperature trend and in my mind, casts significant doubt on the continued viability of remote sensing for trends.  How anyone could use UAH/RSS for empirical studies with this type of uncertainty and revision is beyond me.  For example, Feb 2015 had it's anomaly changed from 0.28 to 0.11C. WOW.

Oh my, thats a lot, so much that celebrations have already started in the denialosphere I can sense, another straw they can cling on to.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: jai mitchell on April 29, 2015, 08:00:49 PM
It is just another in a long list of Spencer/Christy pseudoscience hitjobs.   Producing another "deliverable" to the koch brothers and the coal lobby.  Similar to Climate gate, they rework the temperature record, while at the same time the GWPF is being paid to cast doubt on the revisions of the actual temperature record.  And congressional representatives for the coal and oil lobby are attempting to kill funding for real science.

The fossil fuel industry is running scared now.  This is when these extreme activities of control start to show.  They know that the El Nino is coming, and they are terrified.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Michael Hauber on April 30, 2015, 03:25:59 AM
So now Uah lines up with RSS and they are both somewhat below the surface record.  It is interesting to read through Spencer's article on the upgrade and the problems that he is having with the measurement.  Certainly seems reasonable that this is the best he can do with a problematic source, and also that the surface record should be considered more reliable.

I also note that the satellite measurements do not measure the surface, but the lower atmosphere, meaning a slice up to 10km high, but dominated by the lower 3 or 4.  Is it possible that the satellite measurements are real?  If so what implications would it have if the surface is warming faster than the lower troposphere?  If this happens it could have important implications on cloud and water vapor feedbacks, and for the hydrological cycle as the atmosphere would become inherently unstable if it cools faster with height and cloud and water vapor behaviour would be forced to change in some way.  My gut feel is that the difference would not be physical possible, but would be curious if anyone knows enough to say for certain.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: BornFromTheVoid on May 05, 2015, 03:18:55 PM
NCEP/NCAR reanalysis has April 2015 as the 6th warmest on record (though 3rd down to 8th place are separated by less than 0.1C)

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F6Nh7JcK.png&hash=6b6c51c765c62a080556c075b60b0581)

January to April 2015 is now the 3rd warmest on record

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FDAsVrjt.png&hash=da701134f03fd4eb9f7952d671a249c8)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: bassman on May 07, 2015, 03:50:29 AM
BornFTV,  I think the fact that the Met Office has April surface temps of .557 (warmest April surface temp anomaly on record) means that April has a good shot at being in the mid 70's or possibly higher despite what I assume is just land surface temps (maybe I'm wrong?) that you are showing.  Thanks for doing that by the way its much appreciated.  I should credit Olof, who made the same argument on Nick Stokes blog.

www.moyhu.blogspot.com (http://www.moyhu.blogspot.com)

Ocean Surface temps from Met Office for the top 4 April months:

2015   .557
2010   .501
1998   .489
2014   .478

From

Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: BornFromTheVoid on May 13, 2015, 10:17:14 PM
GISS has updated with the 2nd warmest April on record, +0.75C, behind 2010 at +0.81C

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FLQm8aVC.png&hash=c0587a4d039ed2680758b8bcae94dd3e)

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

The year to date is now the warmest on record

2015 +0.79C
2010 +0.78C
2007 +0.73C
2002 +0.72C
1998 +0.69C
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: deep octopus on May 14, 2015, 02:26:07 AM
At 0.73, the 12-month average from May 2014-April 2015 is the hottest such period on record. This year is threatening to beat 2014 as the hottest year on record by a wide margin if this keeps up, especially with El Niño ramping up.

Less relevant, though interesting, but this most recent NASA data looks to have reduced the 2007 values by a good amount (about 0.02 C annually), with large-ish downward revisions during the summer months. In fact, there are a number of changes in the last half century. It also looks, by comparable amounts, 1993 was revised up, 1982 revised up, 1980 revised down, 1962 up, 1961 down, and then revisions are very minor before 1955. I haven't found out what the reasoning for this was since revisions are usually rather minor month-to-month, but if it's an improved dataset, the better for it I guess.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Sleepy on May 14, 2015, 05:10:19 AM
Oh, 0.75 with that chilly start for April, which May hasn't had.

PDO dropped a bit, but other than that, 2015 starts to look more like a penalty kick without a goalie.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: plinius on May 14, 2015, 03:23:32 PM
To quickly come back to the UAH twist called version 6.0:
Satellite measurements are not measuring the surface and that's also Spencer's trick. The old version had a far lower altitude profile, while the new version was shifted upwards in the atmosphere.

Compare the pink/purple and black lines in this plot. Source is Spencer's page itself.

As you can see their new weight function goes nicely up into the stratosphere, while cancelling a major part of the anyway meagre surface contributions.
That's only one of the problems with satellite measurements, though.

Edit: So first of all - you are mixing in some parts of the atmosphere that are actually close or above the cooling line. Second, there must be a large difference between surface and 5 km altitude measurements (which is their maximum weight altitude): Many effects of global warming target the night inversions (less radiation into space at night weakens the inversion) and natural inversions, e.g. over snow layers - so the satellite data by construction miss most of the arctic amplification effects. Then you are more governed by ENSO effects and oceans (having a lower trend currently for obvious reasons) that have an increased impact in the mid-level atmosphere.  And there are very suspicious spots near mountainous regions like the Himalaya's, where the satellite data do not reproduce the surface measurements very well. Plus you are lacking the polar regions. Can I stop?...

In short: Yes, satellite measurements are real, but they have not very much in common with what you would understand as Earth's surface temperature.

So now Uah lines up with RSS and they are both somewhat below the surface record.  It is interesting to read through Spencer's article on the upgrade and the problems that he is having with the measurement.  Certainly seems reasonable that this is the best he can do with a problematic source, and also that the surface record should be considered more reliable.

I also note that the satellite measurements do not measure the surface, but the lower atmosphere, meaning a slice up to 10km high, but dominated by the lower 3 or 4.  Is it possible that the satellite measurements are real?  If so what implications would it have if the surface is warming faster than the lower troposphere?  If this happens it could have important implications on cloud and water vapor feedbacks, and for the hydrological cycle as the atmosphere would become inherently unstable if it cools faster with height and cloud and water vapor behaviour would be forced to change in some way.  My gut feel is that the difference would not be physical possible, but would be curious if anyone knows enough to say for certain.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: BornFromTheVoid on May 15, 2015, 11:44:54 AM
3rd warmest April on record according to the JMA

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fds.data.jma.go.jp%2Ftcc%2Ftcc%2Fproducts%2Fgwp%2Ftemp%2Ffig%2Fapr_wld.png&hash=325dc34f1377c73a04cfb5dfb6dceab5)

1st. 2014, 1998 (+0.31°C)
3rd. 2015 (+0.30°C)
4th. 2010 (+0.27°C)
5th. 2005 (+0.20°C)

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fds.data.jma.go.jp%2Ftcc%2Ftcc%2Fproducts%2Fgwp%2Ftemp%2Fmap%2F%2Fgridtemp%2Fy2015%2Fgridtemp201504e.png&hash=f038e2978e6e4a505d5b36c3044fc803)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Lord M Vader on May 17, 2015, 03:29:41 PM
According to GISS NASA the average for April was +0,71oC.

This far in 2015, the average for January-April  now is +0,775oC.

Given the strong warming up of the Equatorial Pacific there should be a rather good chance that May 2015 will exceed the value for April...

Best, LMV
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: BornFromTheVoid on May 17, 2015, 03:48:20 PM
I wish the folks at GISS would make up their minds, the constant data corrections are getting a tad annoying!
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: plinius on May 17, 2015, 04:05:54 PM
I wish the folks at GISS would make up their minds, the constant data corrections are getting a tad annoying!

There is nothing about "making up their minds". An optimum data model (and GISS is pretty close to that) _needs_ future measurements to detect and eliminate breaks in single station data. This implies that GISS can never deliver "final" data in the same year. So, nothing fishy, funky, or whatever, just the consequence of a decent and pretty robust data correction algorithm.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: BornFromTheVoid on May 17, 2015, 04:11:37 PM

There is nothing about "making up their minds". An optimum data model (and GISS is pretty close to that) _needs_ future measurements to detect and eliminate breaks in single station data. This implies that GISS can never deliver "final" data in the same year. So, nothing fishy, funky, or whatever, just the consequence of a decent and pretty robust data correction algorithm.

I realise they're necessary and that there isn't some nefarious intent behind it all. My comment was intended to be rather tongue in cheek.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: plinius on May 17, 2015, 06:32:49 PM
;-) just pointing out the necessary, since when you leave that little bubble of people here who use their brains and actually read facts, exactly this adaption process will be proclaimed fraud and data manipulation.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Neven on May 17, 2015, 09:59:27 PM
I wish the folks at GISS would make up their minds, the constant data corrections are getting a tad annoying!

;D

I used to update a GISTEMP spreadsheet, but those data canges drove me nuts, and I'm not smart enough to write an automated script to do all the tedious work for me.

So I decided to set up this forum and hope someone keeps me up-to-date with regards to GISTEMP. I have received far more than I could hope for. Thanks, everyone!
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: deep octopus on May 18, 2015, 09:56:35 PM
I wish the folks at GISS would make up their minds, the constant data corrections are getting a tad annoying!

Looks like those myriad revisions I spotted a week ago went away as well (e.g. 2007 is again in the top 4 warmest years.) Given the trajectory really hasn't changed much at all over the last several years, I was surprised the first cut of the April 2015 figures altered so much of the data after the mid-1950s. Normally I wouldn't fuss about their month-to-month revisions, but the last one was particularly aggressive compared to the norm. Seeing it "corrected" yet again, the classical trajectory seems to have been restored. False alarm I guess. I don't have a trust issue with NASA--probably a goof somewhere before the data went public--but their tendency to revise data at a far more frequent clip than most other indices sure makes it more strenuous to track. Unless something like this happens again with a significant press release going with it, I'm just going to write off the revisions until they settle down.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: deep octopus on May 19, 2015, 06:09:28 PM
NOAA is reporting April 2015 as the 4th warmest such month on record: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201504 (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201504)

Ocean temperatures were the warmest on record for the month of April. Per NOAA in this April 2015 State of the Climate report:

Quote
El Niño conditions strengthened in the eastern and central equatorial Pacific in April. Ocean temperature anomalies in the Niño 3.4 region—the area between 5°N and 5°S latitude and 170°W to 120°W longitude where ENSO conditions are monitored—were +1.0°C (+1.8°F) during early May according to NOAA's Climate Prediction Center (CPC), indicating that a weak-to-moderate phase El Niño is present. According to the CPC, there is about a 90 percent chance that El Niño will continue through Northern Hemisphere summer 2015, and more than 80 percent chance it will last through 2015. El Niño conditions tend to enhance global temperatures, with stronger events having generally larger impacts.

While it's too early to speculate on where May 2015 will finish, temperatures have had a strong running so far this month globally. This month has positioned well with the likes of 2010, 2012, and 2014: the three warmest Mays on record, evidently. This tells me that May 2015 is going to sustain this +0.70 C hot streak, and where things stand with El Niño, this streak is not about to end anytime soon.

Meanwhile, record all-time European temperatures for May were set earlier this month in the Iberian Peninsula. In Washington, DC, the city is in the running for its hottest May on record, with daily highs of the high 80s/low 90s (F) and lows in the high 60s/low 70s (F) more reminiscent of July than mid-May.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Jester Fish on May 19, 2015, 10:00:53 PM
To expand on DO's post from Wunderblog:

April 2015's warmth makes the year-to-date period (January - April) the warmest such period on record, and the past twelve months the warmest 12-month period in recorded history.

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2994 (http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2994)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Laurent on May 19, 2015, 10:30:16 PM
Climate change: Global warming slowdown tracked to Indian Ocean
http://www.livemint.com/Politics/pbwSHC0MQD2oVcemPnDI6O/Climate-change-Global-warming-slowdown-tracked-to-Indian-Oc.html (http://www.livemint.com/Politics/pbwSHC0MQD2oVcemPnDI6O/Climate-change-Global-warming-slowdown-tracked-to-Indian-Oc.html)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Yuha on May 24, 2015, 10:34:03 PM
I wish the folks at GISS would make up their minds, the constant data corrections are getting a tad annoying!

Looks like those myriad revisions I spotted a week ago went away as well (e.g. 2007 is again in the top 4 warmest years.) Given the trajectory really hasn't changed much at all over the last several years, I was surprised the first cut of the April 2015 figures altered so much of the data after the mid-1950s. Normally I wouldn't fuss about their month-to-month revisions, but the last one was particularly aggressive compared to the norm. Seeing it "corrected" yet again, the classical trajectory seems to have been restored. False alarm I guess. I don't have a trust issue with NASA--probably a goof somewhere before the data went public--but their tendency to revise data at a far more frequent clip than most other indices sure makes it more strenuous to track. Unless something like this happens again with a significant press release going with it, I'm just going to write off the revisions until they settle down.

It seems the first version was simply erroneous:

"May 15, 2015: Due to an oversight several Antarctic stations were excluded from the analysis on May 13, 2015. The analysis was repeated today after including those stations."

Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Lord M Vader on May 29, 2015, 06:31:54 PM
Another month will soon be ended. Any one who roughly knows how May 2015 will look like compared to the statistics?

The warmest areas seems to have been Northwestern North America, Central Sibiria and North Africa as well as part of northeastern South America..

Looks like central US will be the area with largest negative anomalies this month..

/LMV
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: wehappyfew on May 29, 2015, 08:04:06 PM
Another month will soon be ended. Any one who roughly knows how May 2015 will look like compared to the statistics?

/LMV

I look at Nick Stoke's page:

http://www.moyhu.blogspot.com.au/p/latest-ice-and-temperature-data.html (http://www.moyhu.blogspot.com.au/p/latest-ice-and-temperature-data.html)

Third section has "Daily Reanalysis Temperature data" with the last 31 days and the current month-to-date average of  NCEP/NCAR reanalysis surface temp anomalies.

May is ending on a high note, and the average is similar to Feb15.

Last 12 months averages
Year   Month   Anomaly
2015   May   0.268
2015   Apr   0.169
2015   Mar   0.287
2015   Feb   0.271
2015   Jan   0.209
2014   Dec   0.212
2014   Nov   0.106
2014   Oct   0.281
2014   Sep   0.241
2014   Aug   0.226
2014   Jul   0.145
2014   Jun   0.13

Recent days global anomaly
May 26   0.418
May 25   0.391
May 24   0.377
May 23   0.257
May 22   0.175
May 21   0.261
May 20   0.308
May 19   0.292
May 18   0.22
May 17   0.163
May 16   0.08
May 15   0.166

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.moyhu.org.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fdata%2Ffreq%2Fdays.png&hash=911d5d999b43292db58d7e6ff1a8f724)

Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Lord M Vader on May 29, 2015, 08:29:45 PM
Thx! Are those numbers relative 1981-2010 or what? If May 2015 actually ends up like Feb 2015 it would yield an anomaly of roughly 0,75-0,79 above normal translating these numbers to NASA GISS values.. We are well on course to break 2014 record and 2016 will likely be even warmer..
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: wehappyfew on May 29, 2015, 11:26:46 PM
Thx! Are those numbers relative 1981-2010 or what? If May 2015 actually ends up like Feb 2015 it would yield an anomaly of roughly 0,75-0,79 above normal translating these numbers to NASA GISS values.. We are well on course to break 2014 record and 2016 will likely be even warmer..

The baseline for the anomaly is 1994-2013 (it's there on the page I linked to).

New record seems almost certain.

Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Yuha on May 30, 2015, 12:05:13 AM
Thx! Are those numbers relative 1981-2010 or what? If May 2015 actually ends up like Feb 2015 it would yield an anomaly of roughly 0,75-0,79 above normal translating these numbers to NASA GISS values.. We are well on course to break 2014 record and 2016 will likely be even warmer..

The Climate Reanalyzer forecasts have shown really high anomalies for the last days of May and I'm guessing a NASA GISS value in the range 0.80-0.85, which would make it the warmest May on record.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: James Lovejoy on June 02, 2015, 01:41:24 AM
The latest from Nick Stoke's page:

2015   May   0.273

data is in thru May 30.

I'm guess-calculating 0.77C over 20th Century, missing a record by 0.02 to 2014.

I'd say I'm probably within 0.10C, better than even that I'm within 0.05C, there are too many uncertainties to have confidence better than that.

(Method, assume Nick Stoke's 0.273 holds for the full month, take the average anomolies from gistempV_3, then add 0.273 to it.  My results were 0.7675.  FWIW
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: James Lovejoy on June 03, 2015, 04:15:47 PM
Nick Stoke has updated for all of May.

The May anomaly finished at 0.275C compared to his '94 to 2013 reference period.

My back of the napkin calculations remain the same.  0.77 over 20th Century average still 0.02 less than the record 2014 0.79.

Edit:  I noticed that GISS uses the base period 1951-1980 and that is what I've been comparing with.  Sorry.   :(
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: James Lovejoy on June 07, 2015, 11:30:12 PM
Nick Stoke has his updates for the first 4 days of June.  The anomaly is 0.399C.  I expect some reversion to the mean, but that's one heck of a start!

It won't take much to have a new June record.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: James Lovejoy on June 09, 2015, 06:14:01 AM
UAH satellite temperature for May 2015 is out.  It's +0.27C above 30 year average.

As a reference Jan was +0.35 Feb was +0.30 March was +0.26 and April +0.14.

Extrapolating to GISS V3 my SWAG is this confirms May as among the hottest in recorded history, but probably not the hottest May.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: jai mitchell on June 09, 2015, 06:50:44 AM
Nick Stoke has updated for all of May.

The May anomaly finished at 0.275C compared to his '94 to 2013 reference period.

My back of the napkin calculations remain the same.  0.77 over 20th Century average still 0.02 less than the record 2014 0.79.

Edit:  I noticed that GISS uses the base period 1951-1980 and that is what I've been comparing with.  Sorry.   :(

sorry, I wouldn't trust a single thing that guy does.  Anybody that associates with GWPF, a disinformation outlet funded indirectly from fossil fuel companies ( http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/02/nigel-lawson-climate-sceptic-organisation-funders (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/02/nigel-lawson-climate-sceptic-organisation-funders) )  to further their sociopathic death cult agenda should be held accountable for their actions.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/06/08/were-still-waking-up-to-the-long-term-consequences-of-burning-fossil-fuels/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/06/08/were-still-waking-up-to-the-long-term-consequences-of-burning-fossil-fuels/)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Sleepy on June 09, 2015, 07:30:18 AM
jai, in which way is Nick Stokes associated with GWPF? I think I was the first who posted his NCEP/NCAR reanalysis here so I would rather remove those links if he is. I haven't followed his blog though.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Neven on June 09, 2015, 10:19:23 AM
jai, in which way is Nick Stokes associated with GWPF? I think I was the first who posted his NCEP/NCAR reanalysis here so I would rather remove those links if he is. I haven't followed his blog though.

I think Jai has Stokes mixed up with Nic Lewis.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: jai mitchell on June 09, 2015, 02:18:17 PM
:-[

dammit! not again!!!  sorry Nick. . .
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: James Lovejoy on June 09, 2015, 08:09:21 PM
If you want to talk about not trusting anything.  I mentioned the UAH satellite temperature data, maintained by Roy Spencer.

I don't trust his data, but I do think it gives an indication of where the other temperature series will be when they release their data next week, so I use the data, but solely as an advanced indicator.

Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Sleepy on June 10, 2015, 05:47:34 AM
deep octopus made a nice post earlier in this thread on how he used NCEP/NCAR.
http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,445.msg26104.html#msg26104 (http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,445.msg26104.html#msg26104)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: BornFromTheVoid on June 15, 2015, 12:15:28 PM
Warmest May on record, by 0.06C, according to the JMA.
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/may_wld.html (http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/may_wld.html)

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fds.data.jma.go.jp%2Ftcc%2Ftcc%2Fproducts%2Fgwp%2Ftemp%2Ffig%2Fmay_wld.png&hash=c0c035ff235c15e0c934a14576b1b21d)

1st. 2015 (+0.37°C)
2nd. 2014 (+0.31°C)
3rd. 1998 (+0.27°C)
4th. 2010 (+0.23°C)
5th. 2012 (+0.22°C)

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fds.data.jma.go.jp%2Ftcc%2Ftcc%2Fproducts%2Fgwp%2Ftemp%2Fmap%2F%2Fgridtemp%2Fy2015%2Fgridtemp201505e.png&hash=b7ca2efd835c396ed5dd80c279cdca48)

We've also set the warmest Spring on record too.

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fds.data.jma.go.jp%2Ftcc%2Ftcc%2Fproducts%2Fgwp%2Ftemp%2Ffig%2Fspr_wld.png&hash=7f874ef634ef84bf81eb71fe5b8672da)

1st. 2015 (+0.33°C)
2nd. 2014 (+0.28°C)
3rd. 2010 (+0.26°C)
4th. 1998 (+0.25°C)
5th. 2002 (+0.18°C)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: BornFromTheVoid on June 15, 2015, 07:06:03 PM
Joint 2nd warmest May and 2nd warmest Spring on record, according to GISS

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

Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: jai mitchell on June 15, 2015, 08:14:32 PM
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/jun/15/the-latest-global-temperature-data-are-breaking-records (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/jun/15/the-latest-global-temperature-data-are-breaking-records)

The latest global temperature data are breaking records

Today’s global temperature data keep 2015 as hottest year to date

Quote
Just today, NASA released its global temperature data for the month of May 2015. It was a scorching 0.71°C (1.3°F) above the long-term average. It is also the hottest first five months of any year ever recorded.

. . .

When we combine surface temperatures with ocean heat content, as seen below, a clear picture emerges. Warming is continuing at a rapid rate.

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.guim.co.uk%2Fstatic%2Fw-620%2Fh--%2Fq-95%2Fsys-images%2FGuardian%2FPix%2Fpictures%2F2015%2F6%2F13%2F1434208670730%2F1fe9f686-42a6-49c7-bb40-3f8a334f79f6-620x416.png&hash=15b220be1705f40413ce6361462c5d91)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: deep octopus on June 15, 2015, 08:20:43 PM
Based on NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis, June 2015 is on pace for the warmest such month on record. Through June 13th, at a month-to-date average of +0.474 C above the 1981-2010, this month is ahead of 1998 and 2005 by 0.1 C, which were the warmest in the NASA record.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Lord M Vader on June 15, 2015, 09:59:43 PM
Interestingly, the poles were the relatively coldest areas in May.

As some you already have pointed out, June have started very warm. There should be a high chance that 2014 record will be shattered by almost 0,1oC if the current streak of months equal to or warmer than +0,70oC continues.

In order to tie 2014 we only need to be at approx +0,63oC for the rest of the year.

It will be a tough mission to get June-August to be about +0,70oC.. But who knows.. Sooner or later....

//LMV
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: James Lovejoy on June 19, 2015, 05:10:47 AM
First, a recap of May values.  Using Nick Stokes's values through May 31, I predicted NASA GISS would be at 0.77, it ended up at 0.71.  Not good, but I'd say slightly better than a completely naive guess.

Now for June.

According to Nick Stokes, thru June 16, the Anomaly (1994-2013 base) is at 0.289.  As I thought, the temperature got to more normal values from it's early nearly +0.4 anomaly, but I didn't think we'd get down to 0.01 (June 16).  Interesting times.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Lord M Vader on June 21, 2015, 08:09:39 PM
Question now is whether this downward trend will continue or reverse the next couple of days?

Many data are not coming in until the month is finished which also affects the result as well as hiccups in the measurements.

/LMV
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: plinius on June 21, 2015, 11:45:50 PM
well, did you check for day-cycles? GFS has frequently an intense oscillation of anomalies during the day (0.2-0.4K amplitude or so). Checking with this:
http://www.karstenhaustein.com/climate (http://www.karstenhaustein.com/climate)

You can see that we currently have such an oscillation (going from -0.02 to 0.4 or so) and that the month is still expected to be around 0.35K anomaly. (last and next week 0.25ish).
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: James Lovejoy on June 24, 2015, 05:23:15 AM
Nick Stokes' June anomaly (vs '94 to 2013) is down to 0.226.

Recent days are:

Jun   20   0.018
Jun   19   -0.054
Jun   18   -0.034
Jun   17   -0.045
Jun   16   0.01

Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: James Lovejoy on June 28, 2015, 06:37:33 AM
Nick Stokes' June anomaly is now in through June 25.

The anomaly is now at 0.207.  If this keeps up, we can expect the 2nd warmest June on record.

Keep in mind that there are 5 more days, that the last 11 plus days have been below 0.207, and that there is probably a +/- 0.10 between Nick Stokes' anomaly plus the GISS anomaly, and what actually happens.

(Translation, take with liberal amounts of salt.)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Rubikscube on June 30, 2015, 04:45:57 PM
The latest daily AMSU temp (June 27th) sets an all time record for any date. Though, it is to be said that this reading is from ch06 which measures temps at 7,5km (25 000 ft) altitude as neither ch04 or ch05 are reporting anymore. Don't know how much you should put into these numbers, but they have previously proven to be a good indicator of the monthly UAH temps at least.

https://ghrc.nsstc.nasa.gov/amsutemps/amsutemps.pl
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: deep octopus on July 01, 2015, 07:53:34 PM
NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis figures through the 29th of June suggest that June 2015 may not be a record warmest, but it should prove to be one of the warmest (maybe the top 5.) It's usually hard to tell with the months of June and July just how the reanalysis data will stack with the observed data. The deviation is more noticeable during this time when comparing it with NASA GISS, for instance. Still, this year is well on track to be the warmest on record. El Niño is menacing the world over as it appears to be shifting out of moderate strength and into the "strong" category with Niño 3.4 region SST anomalies straddling the 1.5 C threshold; and also as a very intense westerly wind burst (WWB) is underway with twin cyclones mirroring one another about the equatorial axis.

All-time and all-month temperature records have been set in parts of North America, Europe, and South America as dangerous heatwaves have built in those regions.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: James Lovejoy on July 03, 2015, 04:54:22 AM
In May I did a projection using Nick Stokes' May '94-2013 anomalies vs NASA GISS.  My result was an unimpressive 0.07 off of actual GISS results.  Which global temperature data series should I use for better results?

BTW, for what it's worth (not much), the same methodology would yield 0.7145C anomaly.  Putting it at since records were kept.  Again, only slightly better than rolling the dice.  I'd appreciate any recommendations for increasing accuracy.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: BornFromTheVoid on July 03, 2015, 10:45:10 AM
4th warmest June according to the ncep reanalysis data. The top 8 are within 0.1C of each other though.

Top 10

2013:  15.93
2005:  15.907
1998:  15.906
2015:  15.886
2012:  15.875
2010:  15.851
2007:  15.836
2011:  15.835
2006:  15.828
2014:  15.811

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F51QRyff.png&hash=c8c527d8800732030ebd23487853dd8d)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Tor Bejnar on July 03, 2015, 04:28:37 PM
BFTV,
Do you mean 'within 0.1C of each other'?
#1=2013=15.93
#8=2011=15.835
15.930-15.835=0.095

Each of the top ten is within 0.024C of their neighbor.  How close must two bits of data be for their difference to be considered not statistically relevant?
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: BornFromTheVoid on July 03, 2015, 04:36:21 PM
BFTV,
Do you mean 'within 0.1C of each other'?
#1=2013=15.93
#8=2011=15.835
15.930-15.835=0.095

Each of the top ten is within 0.024C of their neighbor.  How close must two bits of data be for their difference to be considered not statistically relevant?

Yeah, I meant 0.1C. Will edit my post.

I'm not sure what the error margins are for the reanalysis data, but I doubt it's less than 0.1C.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Lord M Vader on July 03, 2015, 10:43:02 PM
From Nick Stokes june value of +0,204oC, there are some similarities between January 2014, March2014, December 2014 and January 2015. These months produced an anomaly according  to NASA being:
0,69
0,71
0,73
0,75

It seems very plausible to me that the June value is roughly 0,70oC. This would put June 2015 to be the second warmest June, only trailing 1998. The second warmest June right now is from 2006 which saw an anomaly of +0,65oC.

Given the current El Niño strengthening I find it very likely that June 2015 is the second warmest June on record! I won't be surprised if June 2016 will be even hotter...
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: BornFromTheVoid on July 14, 2015, 06:45:11 PM
Warmest June on record according to the JMA

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fds.data.jma.go.jp%2Ftcc%2Ftcc%2Fproducts%2Fgwp%2Ftemp%2Ffig%2Fjun_wld.png&hash=d0bed3a728fd90451da464f3303e0f93)

1st. 2015 (+0.41°C)
2nd. 2014 (+0.33°C)
3rd. 2010, 1998 (+0.26°C)
5th. 2012 (+0.22°C)

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fds.data.jma.go.jp%2Ftcc%2Ftcc%2Fproducts%2Fgwp%2Ftemp%2Fmap%2F%2Fgridtemp%2Fy2015%2Fgridtemp201506e.png&hash=cec2eb822ff22d5c592f1c599ebaf15f)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: wili on July 14, 2015, 09:07:20 PM
Nice work, bftv. I posted this at various places and pass on others thanks for it to you.

I don't see, with this and with the big El Nino apparently baked, how we could possibly not break a record for global annual temperature this year.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: BornFromTheVoid on July 16, 2015, 12:43:30 AM
Joint warmest June on record with 1998 at +0.76C according to the GISS.

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

Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Lord M Vader on July 16, 2015, 07:49:59 AM
BFTV: have you noticd the bizarre change in the NASA GISS numbers for different months? January 2007 for example is now up to +0,98oC(!). And the global average for 2014 is up from +0,68oC to +0,75oC(!) That's a HUGE difference! What the heck are they doing at NASA???

//LMV
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Wipneus on July 16, 2015, 07:57:02 AM
LMV:

Quote
News

2015-07-15: Please note that the input ERSST sea surface temperature data provided by NOAA has changed from version 3b to version 4. Further details in the Update to Analysis.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Shared Humanity on July 16, 2015, 03:54:08 PM
Joint warmest June on record with 1998 at +0.76C according to the GISS.

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

4 degree temperature anomaly over the Yamal Peninsula.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: BornFromTheVoid on July 16, 2015, 07:13:01 PM
I'd say the chances of recording the first month with a >1.0C anomaly with GISS are quite high this year, most likely in Autumn.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: plinius on July 18, 2015, 11:29:24 PM
I'd say the chances of recording the first month with a >1.0C anomaly with GISS are quite high this year, most likely in Autumn.

Potentially September, though I would expect the temperature maximum round Jan/Feb/Mar/. We are coming from a higher baseline in ENSO than in the 1997/98 event, but that year only went to 0.63 in the same fall, peaking at 0.87 in Feb. With that background and looking at last year, we can expect values at 0.9x, but 1.x would be quite a leap.

Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Steven on July 19, 2015, 06:01:14 PM
Joint warmest June on record with 1998 at +0.76C according to the GISS.

There was a revision today:

Quote
2015-07-19: Closer inspection showed that there was a bug in the ERSST v4 part of the automated update of the ocean data files. The temperature analysis was repeated based on a separate manual construction of the basic ERSST v4 file (SBBX.ERSSTv4). We'd like to acknowledge and thank Nick Stokes for noticing that there might be a problem with the data made public on 2015-07-15. All data and displays were corrected and replaced on the public site today.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/)
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: BornFromTheVoid on July 19, 2015, 06:19:29 PM
Cheers. That makes June 2015 the warmest on record.

Top 5

1st: 2015: +0.80C
2nd: 1998: +0.77C
3rd: 2009: +0.67C
4th: 2005, 2014:+0.66C

And the year to date.

1st: 2015: +0.82C
2nd: 2010: +0.78C
3rd: 2007: +0.73C
4th: 2014: +0.72C
5th: 1998: +0.71C

An anomaly of just +0.70C for the next 6 months is needed for a new record. The lowest so far this year has been +0.74C.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: BornFromTheVoid on July 20, 2015, 05:28:45 PM
At 0.88C above the 20th century average, June 2015 is the warmest on record by 0.12C according to the NCDC. It's also the warmest year to date, and the warmest 12 months on record.

The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for June 2015 was the highest for June in the 136-year period of record, at 0.88°C (1.58°F) above the 20th century average of 15.5°C (59.9°F), surpassing the previous record set just one year ago by 0.12°C (0.22°F). This was also the fourth highest monthly departure from average for any month on record. The two highest monthly departures from average occurred earlier this year in February and March, both at 0.90°C (1.62°F) above the 20th century average for their respective months, while January 2007 had the third highest, at 0.89°C (1.60°F) above its monthly average.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201506 (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201506)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: James Lovejoy on July 28, 2015, 05:04:55 AM
We are in the last week of July.  Nick Stoke's global surface temperature anomaly through July 25th is 0.141 above the '94-2013 averages.  There is a fair amount of uncertainy trying to extrapolate to the July anomaly.  The central value is for a July '51-'80 anomaly of 0.641.  If this is even close, there are two conclusions.  (1)  The string of hotest for the month in recorded history comes to an end.  (2) The string of hotest 12 months in recorded history will continue.

Warning:  Take with large amount of salt.  We have another 6 days to go, and that can change the results.  Also, in the past, missing stations have resulted in rather big changes.  So results are only preliminary and subject to change.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: wili on July 30, 2015, 06:22:52 PM
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22730324-200-earth-now-halfway-to-un-global-warming-limit/ (https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22730324-200-earth-now-halfway-to-un-global-warming-limit/)

Earth now halfway to UN global warming limit

Quote
IT’S the outcome the world wants to avoid, but we are already halfway there. All but one of the main trackers of global surface temperature are now passing more than 1 °C of warming relative to the second half of the 19th century...
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: James Lovejoy on August 02, 2015, 05:08:37 AM
Nick Stokes has updated his surface temperature anomaly thru July 30th.  The anomaly '94-2013 is 0.160 C.  That works out to a central value of 4th hottest July, and continue the series of the last 12 months being the hottest on record.   There is +- 0.10 which can change results, in addition, late reporting of stations can change results, so take it as it is, preliminary results only.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: BornFromTheVoid on August 05, 2015, 09:54:14 AM
According to the ncep reanalysis data, July 2015 was the 5th warmest on record.

2011: 16.198
2009: 16.192
1998: 16.151
2005: 16.148
2015: 16.124

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FWd9uzj9.png&hash=f25127ac4f9eee58a64e591f8f792461)

The year to date is the 2nd warmest on record.

2010: 14.407
2015: 14.372
2007: 14.371
2005: 14.361
2014: 14.32

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FCAMqXGd.png&hash=fa1658ccb00510b17312d37488a67d8b)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: James Lovejoy on August 13, 2015, 12:29:57 AM
Data for early August.

Nick Stokes's data thru Aug 10th is in.  It gives an August anomaly of 0.297 C vs base years 1994-2013.

If this continued through August it would be approximately a 0.80 C anomaly vs '51-'80 base period, and would be the hottest August since records began.

Obviously temperature anomalies for the rest of August could change things drastically.  This is only for a look at what is happening now in global temperatures.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: BornFromTheVoid on August 14, 2015, 12:09:20 PM
July 2015 was the warmest on record according to the JMA, and by quite a margin.

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fds.data.jma.go.jp%2Ftcc%2Ftcc%2Fproducts%2Fgwp%2Ftemp%2Ffig%2Fjul_wld.png&hash=a38a5efbd0cd220d9d8b552611b31686)

1st. 2015 (+0.38°C)
2nd. 1998 (+0.30°C)
3rd. 2014 (+0.28°C)
4th. 2010, 2005 (+0.24°C)

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fds.data.jma.go.jp%2Ftcc%2Ftcc%2Fproducts%2Fgwp%2Ftemp%2Fmap%2F%2Fgridtemp%2Fy2015%2Fgridtemp201507e.png&hash=4c2906be05dee1e43b2ca159d945acc0)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: BornFromTheVoid on August 14, 2015, 04:30:24 PM
GISS agree with the JMA and have July 2015 as the warmest on record at +0.75C.

2015: +0.75C
2011: +0.74C
2009: +0.72C
1998: +0.71C
2005: +0.66C

EDIT: The year to date.

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FFN4ipsR.png&hash=bda0cd3f7f207a4dd188770eb46bc9a0)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: BornFromTheVoid on August 14, 2015, 05:42:28 PM
According to the GISS data, for 1997, September, October, November and December were +0.07C, +0.16C, +0.19C and +0.12C, respectively, warmer than any month before.
If we managed the same this year, the anomalies would be +0.96C, +1.01C, +0.99C and +0.90C, and would almost certainly beat last years record annual temperature by over 0.1C.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Sigmetnow on August 15, 2015, 02:24:38 AM
Hottest July On Record Keeps 2015 On Track To Crush 2014 For Hottest Year
Quote
NASA reports this was the hottest July on record. So we are now in “bet the mortgage” territory that 2015 will be the hottest year in NASA’s 125-year temperature record.
In fact, 2015 is likely to crush the previous record — 2014 — probably by a wide margin, especially since one of the strongest El Niños in 50 years is adding to the strong underlying global warming trend.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/08/14/3691940/hottest-july-hottest-year-record/ (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/08/14/3691940/hottest-july-hottest-year-record/)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Sigmetnow on August 15, 2015, 02:51:45 AM
More data:

Watching the global thermometer - year to date GISTemp with July 2015
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/08/watching-global-thermometer-year-to.html (http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/08/watching-global-thermometer-year-to.html)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Sigmetnow on August 16, 2015, 01:47:03 AM
Analysis by Tamino.

Hottest Month
Quote
Now that NASA has released their data updated through July, we know that in that data set, this July was the hottest July on record with a temperature anomaly of 0.75 deg.C, i.e. it was 0.75 deg.C above “climatology” (which is what’s usual for the given month). It’s not the hottest temperature anomaly in the data set, however; that record still belongs to January 2007, at 0.96 deg.C above climatology.

Yet it does seem that this July, while not the hottest temperature anomaly on record, is the hottest month on record.

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2015/08/15/hottest-month/
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Lord M Vader on August 20, 2015, 05:58:18 PM
It is still about 2 weeks to go until August 2015 is ended but so far this month the average temp according to Nick Stokes(?) page at http://www.moyhu.blogspot.com.au/p/latest-ice-and-temperature-data.html#webgl (http://www.moyhu.blogspot.com.au/p/latest-ice-and-temperature-data.html#webgl) is a stunning 0,309oC above normal for 1994-2013(!). If this number holds through the rest of the month we should be in serious trouble as it would likely mean that August 2015 by far will be the warmest August on record, smashing the previous record from 2014...

//LMV
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: BornFromTheVoid on August 20, 2015, 06:12:29 PM
Warmest month on record and warmest year to date, according to the latest NCDC SOTC report.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201507 (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201507)

The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for July 2015 was the highest for July in the 136-year period of record, at 0.81°C (1.46°F) above the 20th century average of 15.8°C (60.4°F), surpassing the previous record set in 1998 by 0.08°C (0.14°F). As July is climatologically the warmest month of the year globally, this monthly global temperature of 16.61°C (61.86°F) was also the highest among all 1627 months in the record that began in January 1880. The July temperature is currently increasing at an average rate of 0.65°C (1.17°F) per century.

The first seven months of 2015 comprised the warmest such period on record across the world's land and ocean surfaces, at 0.85°C (1.53°F) above the 20th century average, surpassing the previous record set in 2010 by 0.09°C (0.16°F). Five months this year, including the past three, have been record warm for their respective months. January was the second warmest January on record and April third warmest.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: James Lovejoy on August 22, 2015, 03:58:02 AM
Satellite temperatures also higher than 2014.

https://ghrc.nsstc.nasa.gov/amsutemps/amsutemps.pl?r=003

I don't give satellite temperatures that much weight, but they can give an idea of how this year is doing relative to last year.  And this August's temperature, so far, is significantly higher than August 2014.

Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Sleepy on August 22, 2015, 05:52:27 AM
Spencer would probably have used 2010 as comparison instead of 2014. ;)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: jai mitchell on August 22, 2015, 06:46:28 PM
UAH has revised their methodologies, I suspect to reduce the impact (bleeding) of middle troposphere readings into their lower troposphere results.  These have resulted in overall lower TLT temperatures in the UAH series during non El Nino years but has significantly increased temperatures during El Nino years as the relative height of the Lower Troposphere increased during this period in the tropics.

They want, quite desperately, to ensure the "pause" talking point during this El Nino year.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Lord M Vader on August 24, 2015, 07:01:21 PM
With only 9 days left for Nick Stokes page there are increasingly more hints that August 2015 literally will SMASH the previous record(!!!) The question is of course how reliable these indications are.

For the period August 1-22 the anomalies relative 1994-2013 is an astonishing +0,333oC!!!

//LMV
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: deep octopus on August 25, 2015, 05:13:13 PM
With only 9 days left for Nick Stokes page there are increasingly more hints that August 2015 literally will SMASH the previous record(!!!) The question is of course how reliable these indications are.

For the period August 1-22 the anomalies relative 1994-2013 is an astonishing +0,333oC!!!

//LMV

Agree. I'm looking at the NCEP/NCAR reanalysis myself, and the month-to-date info is pointing to about a 0.1 C rise from 2014. Could mean the strongest anomaly of 2015 so far is printed in August (maybe 0.9 C in GISS.) Heading into autumn with the start of September, when the anomalies have traditionally been more aggressive, 2015 is looking like it will obliterate 2014 for the hottest year on record. Indications of a record El Niño (though even just failing that, it looks to at least be very strong by year's end) are priming the rest of 2015 and the start of 2016 for some scary times.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: plinius on August 25, 2015, 11:13:03 PM
UAH has revised their methodologies, I suspect to reduce the impact (bleeding) of middle troposphere readings into their lower troposphere results.  These have resulted in overall lower TLT temperatures in the UAH series during non El Nino years but has significantly increased temperatures during El Nino years as the relative height of the Lower Troposphere increased during this period in the tropics.

They want, quite desperately, to ensure the "pause" talking point during this El Nino year.

Jai, I do not know, which change you address precisely, but the last one was actually UP. So, the main effect for them is to get rid of the stronger heating surface and to get more contamination from the cooling stratosphere (please remember that no satellite/limb sounding actually probes just the claimed altitude, but a very broad distribution of altitudes that peaks in weight near its lower rim). After all they enjoy with that a smaller overall temperature trend, and indeed as a side effect a different impact by ENSO.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: jai mitchell on August 26, 2015, 05:36:49 PM

Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Csnavywx on August 26, 2015, 06:44:12 PM
Thanks Jai. I was going to post something on it, but that pretty much says it all. Definite shift down.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on August 26, 2015, 08:32:13 PM
The linked SkS article and associated image proposes to track our movement towards the IPCC 2C limit; however, the 30-year straight line projection ignore both the facts that:
(a) we have just left a hiatus period so the linear tend line is likely biased on the low side,
(b) the increase in global mean temperature trend should be a non-linear curve and not a linear extrapolation; and
(c) the Cowtan & Way corrections have not been applied to the data:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/2c-2015-07.html (https://www.skepticalscience.com/2c-2015-07.html)

Extract: "With that in mind, I'm creating a very simple naming convention so that people can always find the latest data. The URL will always start with, of course, skepticalscience.com. Then if you ever want to find the latest update just add: /2c-[YYYY]-[MM].html. So, for instance, this post is: 2c-2015-07 for July 2015.
The main chart image will always reside at: skepticalscience.com//pics/2c-[YYYY]-[MM].png"
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Lord M Vader on August 26, 2015, 09:28:29 PM
Huge drop in global temps today. Down to +0,195 according to Nick Stokes. Let's see if this is just a temporarily blip down or a more persistent pattern with lower temps or not.

//LMV
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: plinius on August 26, 2015, 10:21:56 PM
cold spell in antarctica, that's all. Will probably pass in a couple of days, rest of globe hardly changes.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: James Lovejoy on August 31, 2015, 02:10:19 AM
The global temperature from satellites is in through August 30th.  Again, I have reservations about the satellite temperature record, but the comparison of this year's data with last years can give some indication of August's temperature.

August 2015 has been significantly hotter than August 2014 for almost all the month.  It now appears very likely that 2015 will see the hottest August since records began.   I'm looking forward to official announcements to see if my guess is correct or not.

https://ghrc.nsstc.nasa.gov/amsutemps/amsutemps.pl?r=003

Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Sigmetnow on September 01, 2015, 03:48:32 PM
Climate change: 2015 will be the hottest year on record 'by a mile', experts say
Quote
Even though there are still several months left in the year to gather temperature readings from around the world, climate researchers believe nothing short of a Krakatoa-sized volcanic eruption that cuts out sunlight for months on end can now stop last year’s record being beaten.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/climate-change-2015-will-be-the-hottest-year-on-record-by-a-mile-experts-say-10477138.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/climate-change-2015-will-be-the-hottest-year-on-record-by-a-mile-experts-say-10477138.html)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: James Lovejoy on September 03, 2015, 06:53:00 AM
August may be the hottest on record.  2014 August (GISS) had an anomaly of 0.81 C.  August 2015 may have exceeded that.

From Moyhu:

Here are the results for the Moyhu NCEP/NCAR reanalysis index for August. It looked for a while to be a record breaking month, with steady warmth. But then there was a sudden late cool spell, apparently mostly Antarctica, and then an equally sudden recovery to warmth. The end result was 0.306°C, a big rise from July's 0.164. That is just slightly cooler (in this record) than May 2014 at 0.315°C. But it is the warmest for 2015 so far.

It makes a slight difference month-month what anomaly base period is used, and so the Moyhu table gives results also on the 1951-80 base (gor GISS) and 1961-90 (NOAA Mlost). So the comparable GISS-base number would be 0.87°C. But as mentioned in earlier posts, the NCEP index, being air temperature, has been running rather cool relative to the land/ocean indices which using the warm current SST. So I would not be surprised if GISS were even higher - maybe even 0.9°C. The record GISS anomaly is Jan 2007 at 0.96°C.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: BornFromTheVoid on September 05, 2015, 06:49:55 PM
According to the NCEP reanalysis data, August 2015 was the warmest on record by 0.08C.

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FnnYmpTy.png&hash=fb9ba5582687c2bca7b3812fb784be76)

2015   16.149
2014   16.069
2012   16.039
2003   16.021
2013   16.012
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: BornFromTheVoid on September 14, 2015, 10:58:51 AM
According to the GISS, August 2015 was the 2nd warmest on record after 2014.

Top 5

2014   0.82C
2015   0.81C
2011   0.74C
2006   0.71C
1998   0.69C

Warmest summer on record

Top 5

2015   0.78C
1998   0.72C
2009   0.69C
2011   0.69C
2014   0.69C

The last 4 months of this year would need to be quite a bit cooler than the average of the last 10 years to avoid the warmest year on record.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: BornFromTheVoid on September 14, 2015, 12:51:12 PM
JMA reporting in now. They have August 2015 as the warmest on record by a huge margin (as far as records go), at +0.45C above the 81-10 average, and +0.12C higher than the previous record set last year.

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fds.data.jma.go.jp%2Ftcc%2Ftcc%2Fproducts%2Fgwp%2Ftemp%2Ffig%2Faug_wld.png&hash=d23034b889208b18ef74036d94950590)

Five Warmest Years (Anomalies)

1st. 2015 (+0.45°C),
2nd. 2014 (+0.33°C),
3rd. 1998 (+0.28°C),
4th. 2013, 2012, 2009 (+0.23°C)

At +0.42C, this summer is also the warmest on record, +0.1C above the previous record set last year.

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fds.data.jma.go.jp%2Ftcc%2Ftcc%2Fproducts%2Fgwp%2Ftemp%2Ffig%2Fsum_wld.png&hash=594df1c7a6c4bf51d8fc7598064c0f54)

1st. 2015 (+0.42°C),
2nd. 2014 (+0.32°C),
3rd. 1998 (+0.28°C),
4th. 2012, 2010 (+0.23°C)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Lord M Vader on September 14, 2015, 08:41:40 PM
What I find mot remarkable is the huge difference between NASA and JMA wrt global temperature anomalies during August!! JMA calculations showed that August 2015 smashed the previous record from ladt years August. OTOH, NASA showed that August 2014 was marginally warmer (+0,01oC)

With this result the report from NOAA, most likely by next week, will be extremely interesting!

/LMV
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on September 15, 2015, 06:44:53 PM
Here is the SkS Tracker through August 2015, which shows a 0.014C increase from July 2015.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Lord M Vader on September 16, 2015, 06:26:50 PM
If current trend as seen by Nick Stokes calculations continues for this month, September 2015 will most likely break the record from last year. If so, I won't even be surprised if the NASA or NOAA anomaly will exceed 1oC above their respective normal...

So far, September 2015 have averaged +0,343oC for the the first 14 days. Most of the days the anomalies have been in the range 0,3-0,4oC above the 1994-2013 normal.

Best, LMV
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: jai mitchell on September 16, 2015, 09:08:25 PM
We are moving rapidly above the linear trend beginning this year.  The rate of increase will likely be double the 1960-2010 linear trend over the next 30 years.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: ritter on September 16, 2015, 11:08:37 PM
We are moving rapidly above the linear trend beginning this year.  The rate of increase will likely be double the 1960-2010 linear trend over the next 30 years.

Do you think this is attributed to El Nino or is it the beginning of a "runaway" type scenario with input from feedbacks? That may not be a fair question, so feel free to ignore it.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Lord M Vader on September 17, 2015, 05:49:16 PM
NOAA just came out with their report for August 2015. As one might have expected, the global avg temperature anomaly for August smashed the previous record from 2014 with 0,09oC, further increasing the odds for a record warm 2015. This also means that the Summer 2015 was record warm. The precious record from 2014 was smashed by 0,11oC.

SST for august was again record warm and the warmest for- any month during the period 1880-2015. The record from July 2015 was broken by 0,04oC which is a very large difference, at least if one consider the fact that this was between two consecutive months.

It should be no surprise to anyone that the period January-August 2015 is record warm, besting 2014 with +0,07oC.

The main question now should be why NASA diverge so much between JMA and NOAA?

For September, Nick Stokes calculations for September 1-15 show that there should be a good chance to smash last years record warm September. So far, Stokes calculations are +0,346oC which should be compared to May 2014 which had an anomaly of +0,315oC....

Best, LMV
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: jai mitchell on September 17, 2015, 09:04:44 PM
We are moving rapidly above the linear trend beginning this year.  The rate of increase will likely be double the 1960-2010 linear trend over the next 30 years.

Do you think this is attributed to El Nino or is it the beginning of a "runaway" type scenario with input from feedbacks? That may not be a fair question, so feel free to ignore it.

NODC ocean heat content values have indicated a significant increase in top of atmosphere energy imbalance.  It appears that the previous emissions over the last 10 years is catching up with the attempts to reduce aerosol emissions in asia.  I believe that we are set for rapid warming for the next several decades as the water vapor and lapse rate feedbacks respond to this increased atmospheric forcing.  El Nino is going to produce much higher water vapor values which is a very potent climate feedback.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: deep octopus on September 18, 2015, 12:48:13 AM
New study, bluntly titled "Debunking the climate hiatus."

Quote
Abstract

The reported “hiatus” in the warming of the global climate system during this century has been the subject of intense scientific and public debate, with implications ranging from scientific understanding of the global climate sensitivity to the rate in which greenhouse gas emissions would need to be curbed in order to meet the United Nations global warming target. A number of scientific hypotheses have been put forward to explain the hiatus, including both physical climate processes and data artifacts. However, despite the intense focus on the hiatus in both the scientific and public arenas, rigorous statistical assessment of the uniqueness of the recent temperature time-series within the context of the long-term record has been limited. We apply a rigorous, comprehensive statistical analysis of global temperature data that goes beyond simple linear models to account for temporal dependence and selection effects. We use this framework to test whether the recent period has demonstrated i) a hiatus in the trend in global temperatures, ii) a temperature trend that is statistically distinct from trends prior to the hiatus period, iii) a “stalling” of the global mean temperature, and iv) a change in the distribution of the year-to-year temperature increases. We find compelling evidence that recent claims of a “hiatus” in global warming lack sound scientific basis. Our analysis reveals that there is no hiatus in the increase in the global mean temperature, no statistically significant difference in trends, no stalling of the global mean temperature, and no change in year-to-year temperature increases.

Frankly, this just confirms the opinion I've held for a while: there is no pause and there was never a pause.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Sigmetnow on September 18, 2015, 01:51:21 AM
Quote
@billmckibben: Here's how 2015 stacks up against all the other hot years of recent past. We're in literally uncharted territory http://t.co/mskNI8WEmj (http://t.co/mskNI8WEmj)

Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Theta on September 18, 2015, 01:49:39 PM
We are moving rapidly above the linear trend beginning this year.  The rate of increase will likely be double the 1960-2010 linear trend over the next 30 years.

Do you think this is attributed to El Nino or is it the beginning of a "runaway" type scenario with input from feedbacks? That may not be a fair question, so feel free to ignore it.

NODC ocean heat content values have indicated a significant increase in top of atmosphere energy imbalance.  It appears that the previous emissions over the last 10 years is catching up with the attempts to reduce aerosol emissions in asia.  I believe that we are set for rapid warming for the next several decades as the water vapor and lapse rate feedbacks respond to this increased atmospheric forcing.  El Nino is going to produce much higher water vapor values which is a very potent climate feedback.

I agree that this feedback could have some significant effects over the next several decades, but given the sensitivity of the climate due to anthropogenic forcing, would there be any significant short-term implications as well?
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: jai mitchell on September 18, 2015, 07:57:36 PM
We are moving rapidly above the linear trend beginning this year.  The rate of increase will likely be double the 1960-2010 linear trend over the next 30 years.

Do you think this is attributed to El Nino or is it the beginning of a "runaway" type scenario with input from feedbacks? That may not be a fair question, so feel free to ignore it.

NODC ocean heat content values have indicated a significant increase in top of atmosphere energy imbalance.  It appears that the previous emissions over the last 10 years is catching up with the attempts to reduce aerosol emissions in asia.  I believe that we are set for rapid warming for the next several decades as the water vapor and lapse rate feedbacks respond to this increased atmospheric forcing.  El Nino is going to produce much higher water vapor values which is a very potent climate feedback.

I agree that this feedback could have some significant effects over the next several decades, but given the sensitivity of the climate due to anthropogenic forcing, would there be any significant short-term implications as well?

yes

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/co2-emissions-peak-heat-18394 (http://www.climatecentral.org/news/co2-emissions-peak-heat-18394)

Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Theta on September 18, 2015, 10:42:25 PM
We are moving rapidly above the linear trend beginning this year.  The rate of increase will likely be double the 1960-2010 linear trend over the next 30 years.

Do you think this is attributed to El Nino or is it the beginning of a "runaway" type scenario with input from feedbacks? That may not be a fair question, so feel free to ignore it.

NODC ocean heat content values have indicated a significant increase in top of atmosphere energy imbalance.  It appears that the previous emissions over the last 10 years is catching up with the attempts to reduce aerosol emissions in asia.  I believe that we are set for rapid warming for the next several decades as the water vapor and lapse rate feedbacks respond to this increased atmospheric forcing.  El Nino is going to produce much higher water vapor values which is a very potent climate feedback.

I agree that this feedback could have some significant effects over the next several decades, but given the sensitivity of the climate due to anthropogenic forcing, would there be any significant short-term implications as well?

yes

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/co2-emissions-peak-heat-18394 (http://www.climatecentral.org/news/co2-emissions-peak-heat-18394)

Thanks, very informative while also being simply written. What I am confused about though is how to add things like the current El Nino along with possible Methane eruptions to the temperature response, is that just applied to the Maximum temperature response, sorry, I don't understand the way in which earth works very well.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: jai mitchell on September 19, 2015, 04:16:27 AM
there are no methane eruptions to date.  Methane abundances are not rising above the normal trend and any indication of methane releases do not yet show that this is beyond normal emissions.

El Nino is a part of the natural variability and there will likely be a resultant La Nina, however the abnormal warmer sea surface temps in the northern hemisphere indicate a global warming signature.

It is applied to any changes that occur in GHG emissions or Aerosol reductions.  it takes about 10 years for the warming to produce the water vapor and lapse rate feedbacks.  Aerosols may have an increased impact on Lapse rate due to its cooling of the upper troposphere and so would have an increased feedback response in their absence.

We have locked in considerable warming in the next decade or so.  A reduction of fossil fuel consumption by 70% would produce aerosol driven warming equal to the current GHG warming experience by the planet in 10 years.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Sigmetnow on September 20, 2015, 04:20:35 PM
Quote
@UNKlima: Der August 2015 war laut @BMVI der zweitwärmste seit über einem Jahrhundert: http://t.co/mBdNOflG2s (http://t.co/mBdNOflG2s) http://t.co/VWDPpRyjoN (http://t.co/VWDPpRyjoN)

August 2015 was according to @BMVI the second warmest in Germany for over a century.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Sigmetnow on September 20, 2015, 04:58:19 PM
NOAA's math nerds use their data to calculate the risk of a record 2015.

Somewhat. Very. Extremely. How likely is it that 2015 will be the new warmest year on record?
Quote
The strong El Niño event currently underway in the tropical Pacific Ocean is another leading indicator that 2015 may become the warmest year on record: El Niño events typically coincide with warm conditions globally.

These circumstances raise an interesting question: given the global surface temperature data through July 2015, what is the likelihood that 2015 will be the warmest year on record? A few of us at NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) decided to investigate.

To answer this question, we consider two approaches that rely only on historical statistics that describe how the remainder of the year may play out.

In other words, we don’t rely on any physical predictors such as El Niño conditions or forecasts of future weather or climate. We use only the well-documented, quality-controlled historical monthly global surface temperature data archived at NCEI
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/beyond-data/somewhat-very-extremely-how-likely-it-2015-will-be-new-warmest-year (https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/beyond-data/somewhat-very-extremely-how-likely-it-2015-will-be-new-warmest-year)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Lord M Vader on September 20, 2015, 05:05:25 PM
According to Nick Stokes, September 18 was the single warmest day since March. The average for September 1-18 is now up to +0,367oC above the 1994-2013 mean. Highest tempanomaly so far is +0,315oC for May 2014...

The values for NCEP GISS lo adj is +0,955oC while the NCEP NOAA lo adj is +0,927oC....

See more at: http://www.moyhu.blogspot.com.au/p/latest-ice-and-temperature-data.html#webgl (http://www.moyhu.blogspot.com.au/p/latest-ice-and-temperature-data.html#webgl)

IF this heat continue for the month, one might wonder if September 2015 will be the first month exceeding +1,0oC above some agencys baseline...

//LMV
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: deep octopus on September 23, 2015, 10:57:57 PM
September 2015 is starting to look like a serious blowout. The most recent figures from NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis shows September 19th with a 1981-2010 anomaly of +0.728 C. Again, that's using the 1981-2010 baseline, not GISS' 1951-1980. The month-to-date average is registering at +0.563 C over that same baseline, up about 0.12 C from 2014. If these figures are any indicator, as a very strong El Niño inches closer to belching heat into the atmosphere worldwide, the final months of 2015 and beginning of 2016 could be rather intense.

Another impressive thing I'm finding out about this year is that there has not been a single day during which the average global surface temperature has gone below the 1981-2010 baseline. Not one. This should give a sense of how far this year as a whole is about to be a record.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: ritter on September 24, 2015, 12:37:24 AM
@DO: Yikes! Any idea what the anomaly has been for other el nino years? i.e., is this spike just from el nino or independent of?
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: James Lovejoy on September 26, 2015, 01:02:13 AM
Dick Stokes has now reported up through September 23, with a 0.375 anomaly ('94-2013 base year.)

A very good chance of the warmest September on record, and IMHO, NOAA's 97% chance of 2015 being the hottest year on record just went up.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: James Lovejoy on October 01, 2015, 01:58:31 AM
Dick Stokes has now reported up through September 28, with a 0.363 anomaly ('94-2013 base year.)  It is now all but certain that September 2015 will be the warmest September in the instrumental record, and the odds for 2015 becoming the the warmest year in the instrumental record increase further.  My guess, more than 99%.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: DrTskoul on October 01, 2015, 04:07:29 AM
Dick Stokes has now reported up through September 28, with a 0.363 anomaly ('94-2013 base year.)  It is now all but certain that September 2015 will be the warmest September in the instrumental record, and the odds for 2015 becoming the the warmest year in the instrumental record increase further.  My guess, more than 99%.

Nick... not Dick
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: James Lovejoy on October 02, 2015, 03:57:31 AM
Oops!  Thank you for the correct.  I'll try to do better.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Lord M Vader on October 02, 2015, 04:47:22 PM
Nick Stokes have now summarized September. The last day was telling for the month as the anomaly spiked into a staggering +0,516oC which made the temperature anomaly for the month as a whole to end up at +0,368oC. This is by far the highest anomaly seen during 2014 and 2015. The NCEP anomaly for September was +0,928oC and +0,956oC, respectively.

The reference period is 1994-2013. If not NASA, JMA and NOAA all end up with September 2015 being the hottest September month ever it would surprise me a lot!

//LMV
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: BornFromTheVoid on October 03, 2015, 05:32:55 PM
At 15.554C September 2015 is the warmest on record by over 0.1C, beating the record set in 2013, according to the NCEP reanlaysis data.

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fs56X9tT.png&hash=21f51289d0e23b037f901bed94108978)

Top 5 Septembers

2015: 15.55C
2013: 15.43C
2014: 15.42C
2012: 15.41C
2005: 15.38C

Of note, this September is 0.49C warmer than 1997, the last time El Nino was at a similar level.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Lord M Vader on October 05, 2015, 05:37:04 PM
And the heat goes on... First 3 days in October have been among the three warmest days this year according to Nick Stokes. The average for October 1-3 is a staggering +0,552oC above the 1994-2013 mean. One just wonder where this will end?

/LMV
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: BenB on October 06, 2015, 04:35:06 PM
LMV, 0.552oC is nothing compared with the anomaly for 4 October: 0.697oC!! Does anyone know whether there's ever been a higher daily value? It certainly appears to be the higher than any of the other peaks on Nick Stokes' graph going back to July 2014.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: deep octopus on October 06, 2015, 05:00:38 PM
Or, if using the 1981-2010 baseline, October 4th was 0.913 C above the average. Again, that is against the baseline of 1981-2010! The largest single-day anomaly ever? I don’t know, although it’s certainly the largest one I see in the record I’ve kept going back to December 2013 (see attached.)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Lord M Vader on October 07, 2015, 04:46:45 PM
Another epic day with record heat over the globe was noted by Nick Stokes as the daily anomaly for October 5 was an astonishing +0,782oC above the 1994-2013 mean. Anomaly for October 1-5 is now +0,627oC(!!!). I just wonder how much longer this exceptional warmth will persist... The NCEP values is +1,201oC and +1,235oC respectively...

This will be a very exciting month!!

//LMV
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Neven on October 07, 2015, 11:42:30 PM
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on October 08, 2015, 01:32:59 AM
Another epic day with record heat over the globe was noted by Nick Stokes as the daily anomaly for October 5 was an astonishing +0,782oC above the 1994-2013 mean. Anomaly for October 1-5 is now +0,627oC(!!!). I just wonder how much longer this exceptional warmth will persist... The NCEP values is +1,201oC and +1,235oC respectively...

This will be a very exciting month!!

//LMV

Maybe next month will make this month look boring.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Sleepy on October 08, 2015, 04:56:36 AM
In a couple of decades, 2015 will be immensely boring.

The graph (from today) by Nick Stokes attached.
Australia might be exciting really soon, adding a positive IOD to the ongoing El Nino and an unusally warm spring. More heat, more drought, more bushfires.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/drought/ (http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/drought/)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Neven on October 08, 2015, 10:43:42 AM
Holy guacamole...
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Lord M Vader on October 08, 2015, 05:10:09 PM
Neven:what do you say if I tell you that October 6 went through the roof according to Nick Stokes and had an anomaly of +0,865oC? And that is just the anomaly for the 1994-2013 period(!!!) I would like to call it absolutely mindboggling!!!

Funny, the average anomaly for October 1-6 is now up to a "devilish" +0,666oC... NCEP avg anomaly went up to 1,24oC and 1,274oC...

Best, LMV

Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Neven on October 08, 2015, 06:06:47 PM
Well, I thanked you for the updates, but now I'm not so sure I want to know anymore.  ;)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: deep octopus on October 08, 2015, 06:24:39 PM
While only six days into the month, the month-to-date average is impossibly ahead of 2014, by 0.4 C. The question for me at this stage is not if October will exceed 1.0 C on NASA, but by how much. I'm figuring a read of 1.10-1.20 C based on present data. Granted, some sort of cooling trough (albeit maybe not very deep) at some point this month is to be expected (although we keep seeing an ascension for now), yet with El Niño becoming nastier each week (a very strong westerly wind burst to add to matters), the overall trend should be up over the next few months IMO. I agree with ASLR, November could be feverish. I've said this before, but autumnal anomalies are more pronounced compared to other periods in the calendar year. You might also say I am playing the long game here: global warming will co-opt this super El Niño.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Buddy on October 08, 2015, 07:13:09 PM
Just think.....we have the next 30 years or more of record setting temperatures ALREADY BOOKED and waiting ;)

I don't think most people (except for climate scientists and those that follow climate scientists) have any clue what is coming down the pike.

Flooding in South Carolina.....flooding in New Jersey....wildfires in California.....are just the "warm-up acts" for what is to come.

Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: jai mitchell on October 08, 2015, 09:39:52 PM
Holy guacamole...

Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on October 09, 2015, 12:06:40 AM
Neven:what do you say if I tell you that October 6 went through the roof according to Nick Stokes and had an anomaly of +0,865oC? And that is just the anomaly for the 1994-2013 period(!!!) I would like to call it absolutely mindboggling!!!

Funny, the average anomaly for October 1-6 is now up to a "devilish" +0,666oC... NCEP avg anomaly went up to 1,24oC and 1,274oC...

Best, LMV

This increase puts us at the top of the range for Gavin Schmidt's bounding of the IPCC model projections (relative to 1980-1999) through June of 2015.  Any further increases up and the IPCC may need to increase the sensitivity of their models.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: crandles on October 09, 2015, 12:15:46 AM
Any further increases up and the IPCC may need to increase the sensitivity of their models.

Or maybe we need to adjust for El Nino before reaching such a conclusion?
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on October 09, 2015, 12:28:20 AM
Any further increases up and the IPCC may need to increase the sensitivity of their models.

Or maybe we need to adjust for El Nino before reaching such a conclusion?

Per BornFromTheVoid in Reply #526: "Of note, this September is 0.49C warmer than 1997, the last time El Nino was at a similar level."

Therefore, if you are going to adjust for El Nino you had better account for both global warming and the increasing frequency and intensity of El Nino events with continued global warming.  Note that most current models do not account for ENSO phase relationships and are particularly poor at identifying any possible tipping points for accelerating climate sensitivity.

Edit: Also note that it was Gavin who posted the actual June 2015 temperature data star on the graph (without correcting for El Nino), so at least he must think that it would be correct to post an October 2015 data point on his graph.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: crandles on October 09, 2015, 12:24:52 PM
Any further increases up and the IPCC may need to increase the sensitivity of their models.

Or maybe we need to adjust for El Nino before reaching such a conclusion?

Per BornFromTheVoid in Reply #526: "Of note, this September is 0.49C warmer than 1997, the last time El Nino was at a similar level."

Therefore, if you are going to adjust for El Nino you had better account for both global warming and the increasing frequency and intensity of El Nino events with continued global warming.  Note that most current models do not account for ENSO phase relationships and are particularly poor at identifying any possible tipping points for accelerating climate sensitivity.

Edit: Also note that it was Gavin who posted the actual June 2015 temperature data star on the graph (without correcting for El Nino), so at least he must think that it would be correct to post an October 2015 data point on his graph.

Not sure how you would adjust for 'the increasing frequency and intensity of El Nino events'. Surely you can only adjust for ENSO as has occurred.

'2015 is here as of June' indicates to me that this is Jan to Jun 2015. Maybe I misunderstand? Maybe half normal length is acceptable but maybe a month (1/12 of length of other periods plotted) perhaps isn't long enough?

They are impressively hot temperature numbers, but do they take the observations outside the band for forcings adjusted CMIP5 spread? Not yet as far as I can see.

Even if we suppose current super high temperatures persist and do take observations outside that band, what then? Do we adjust for current ENSO and bring it back within the band?

Suppose it is worse than that, what then? Do we figure that maybe we have to account for not only ENSO but also other oscillations - Pacific blob / PDO maybe?

Suppose it is worse than that and after adjusting for all relevant oscillations it still goes above that forcings adjusted band, what then? If that persists then we would have a good case for suggesting the CMIP5 sensitivities might be too low.

That requires a few 'suppose's'.

Currently, with ENSO as a prominent feature explaining high temperatures such that after adjusting for this we do not have observations outside the band, it would be jumping to conclusions to suggest the CMIP5 sensitivities are too low.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Neven on October 09, 2015, 02:24:48 PM
We're just playing the hiatus-boomerang game, crandles.  ;)

Just kidding. I know very little about obs vs models, with or without forcings etc.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on October 09, 2015, 05:16:13 PM
Any further increases up and the IPCC may need to increase the sensitivity of their models.

Or maybe we need to adjust for El Nino before reaching such a conclusion?

Per BornFromTheVoid in Reply #526: "Of note, this September is 0.49C warmer than 1997, the last time El Nino was at a similar level."

Therefore, if you are going to adjust for El Nino you had better account for both global warming and the increasing frequency and intensity of El Nino events with continued global warming.  Note that most current models do not account for ENSO phase relationships and are particularly poor at identifying any possible tipping points for accelerating climate sensitivity.

Edit: Also note that it was Gavin who posted the actual June 2015 temperature data star on the graph (without correcting for El Nino), so at least he must think that it would be correct to post an October 2015 data point on his graph.

Not sure how you would adjust for 'the increasing frequency and intensity of El Nino events'. Surely you can only adjust for ENSO as has occurred.

'2015 is here as of June' indicates to me that this is Jan to Jun 2015. Maybe I misunderstand? Maybe half normal length is acceptable but maybe a month (1/12 of length of other periods plotted) perhaps isn't long enough?

They are impressively hot temperature numbers, but do they take the observations outside the band for forcings adjusted CMIP5 spread? Not yet as far as I can see.

Even if we suppose current super high temperatures persist and do take observations outside that band, what then? Do we adjust for current ENSO and bring it back within the band?

Suppose it is worse than that, what then? Do we figure that maybe we have to account for not only ENSO but also other oscillations - Pacific blob / PDO maybe?

Suppose it is worse than that and after adjusting for all relevant oscillations it still goes above that forcings adjusted band, what then? If that persists then we would have a good case for suggesting the CMIP5 sensitivities might be too low.

That requires a few 'suppose's'.

Currently, with ENSO as a prominent feature explaining high temperatures such that after adjusting for this we do not have observations outside the band, it would be jumping to conclusions to suggest the CMIP5 sensitivities are too low.

I note that I said that the IPCC "may" need to increase the climate sensitivity of their models, I did not conclude definitively that it is higher.  However, I would prefer to err on the side of safety rather than on the side of least drama; as I note that nothing crandles cites provides definitive proof that the climate sensitivity within the IPCC models is appropriate for good policy making.

Part of my point, as Neven says, is playing the hiatus-boomerang game, as indeed I believe that during the faux hiatus period that many positive feedback systems were temporarily suppressed and that not only will they be expressed in the current positive PDO phase but that they will be stronger than in previous phases.  For example: (a) ocean heat content is higher than ever before; (b) Antarctic Sea Ice extent is high which slows venting of heat to space in the Southern Ocean; (c) Low levels if Deep Tropical Atmospheric convection suppressed the formation of high altitude tropical clouds (a positive feedback) and promoted the formation of low altitude tropical clouds (a negative feedback) but now this trend is reversing; (d) methane emissions from the tropical rainforests were suppressed in the faux hiatus, but now this will reverse; and (e) evaporation from the tropical ocean was suppressed in the faux hiatus, but now the emission of this GHG is increasing and is being advected to the polar regions.

However, I am also implying that the IPCC models are biased to err on the side of least drama as indicated by: (a) their double-ITCZ bias; (b) poor modeling of the Southern Ocean; and (c) poor modeling of sea ice extents.

Also, I am implying that a number of other masking factors may very well be hiding a high climate sensitivity such as: (a) the IPCC models ignore hosing of ice sheet melt water that is presently cooling both the North Atlantic and the Southern Ocean; (b) DSM & other natural pre-cursors (both negative feedbacks) emitted by plankton & forests were recently high but are now dropping due to such factors as ocean acidification, ocean heat content, wildfires and severe drought/flood cycles; (c) the absorption of both CO2 & CH4 have been relatively high recently and are projected to decrease with continued global warming; and (d) anthropogenic aerosols (a negative forcing) have been relatively high recently and are projected to drop rapidly in coming decades.

crandles seems to be more comfortable with a BAU approach than I am, but in coming years developments such as: (a) the ACME program is tasked to better refine climate sensitivity estimates & results will be available in the next 2 to 8 years; (b) programs have been established to better refine the aerosol negative forcing values with the next 10 to 15 years; and (c) as we watch global mean surface temperatures rise in the post-faux-hiatus period it will not be so easy to hide behind uncertainty as in the past.

Edit: There are many other positive feedback mechanisms that are likely to accelerate with continued warming including: (a) numerous carbon cycle feedbacks (like permafrost degradation, etc.); (b) decreases in albedo (not only due to reduce sea ice area but due to reduced snow cover and increase high-latitude shrub growth and the increased deposition of both black and brown carbon in the Arctic and on Greenland); (c) Hansen et al. (2015) positive feedback due to slowing MOC and increasing sea ice area in the Southern Ocean; etc.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Lord M Vader on October 09, 2015, 06:04:27 PM
As no surprise, the global temperature anomaly for October 7 was down to "just" +0,794oC... However, the average temperature anomaly for October 1-7 was up to +0,685oC which still is bizarrly high!

//LMV
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: citrine on October 09, 2015, 06:26:58 PM
Does anyone here pay attention to the monthly Global Analysis report from NOAA?
I'm new to this stuff, so I don't know if it is the absolute best source of up-to-date information.

I've been waiting for the September report and I think they keep moving the release date back - I think they have done it twice so far. I was waiting for it to be released today, now it is set to be released on Monday.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: James Lovejoy on October 10, 2015, 12:41:00 AM
NOAA is going to release the global data September Release: 19 October 2015, 11:00 AM EDT
So not next Monday, but Monday week.

Usually it's releaseed in the middle of the Month to a little later.  The Japanese meteorological agency and NASA seem to release their temperature data a little sooner.  Both JMA and NASA are much sparser, just the Monthly Anomalies and their rankings, while NOAA's 'State of the Climate' gives a great deal more information.

Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: crandles on October 10, 2015, 11:53:47 AM
We're just playing the hiatus-boomerang game, crandles.  ;)

I would have thought the first rule of playing the hiatus-boomerang game is you do not mention you are playing the hiatus-boomerang game.
The second rule ....    ;) ;D
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Neven on October 10, 2015, 12:21:34 PM
Darn it!
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on October 10, 2015, 06:11:40 PM
"Not sure how you would adjust for 'the increasing frequency and intensity of El Nino events'. Surely you can only adjust for ENSO as has occurred."

I will just note that as strong El Nino events always increase global mean surface temperatures, and that an increasing frequency and intensity of El Nino events (& models project that the increasing frequency of strong El Ninos will out-pace the frequency of strong La Ninas) will result in higher global mean surface temperatures in the future; which is the same thing as having a higher climate sensitivity.

Edit: I note that per Andrews presentation at Ringberg 2015 (see attached image) models with frequent & intense (like our current Super to Godzilla 2015-16 El Nino) El Ninos have higher climate sensitivities.  Also, I note that after the Ringberg 2015 meeting Gavin Schmidt increased his best estimate for ECS from 3.2C to 3.5C; and I wonder what he will increase his best estimate to after Ringberg 2016.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: citrine on October 11, 2015, 01:35:07 AM
NOAA is going to release the global data September Release: 19 October 2015, 11:00 AM EDT
So not next Monday, but Monday week.
...

Thanks for setting me straight; I lose track of the date often since I'm not working.
(though you'd think I would have noticed since the current date is displayed all over the place on this site)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: BornFromTheVoid on October 11, 2015, 12:37:56 PM
At +0.81C above the 51-80 average, GISS have September 2015 as the second warmest on record, behind last year (+0.90C).

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FboLAUPv.png&hash=744f711d8d708a3be5fec84f620afae5)

Top 5 Septembers

1st - 2014:              +0.90C
2nd - 2015:            +0.81C
3rd - 2005, 2013:   +0.77C
5th - 2012:             +0.75C

Doesn't look like much can stop 2015 from being warmest on record.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: BornFromTheVoid on October 14, 2015, 12:38:43 PM
At +0.50C, September 2015 is the warmest on record by a large margin, according to the JMA.

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fds.data.jma.go.jp%2Ftcc%2Ftcc%2Fproducts%2Fgwp%2Ftemp%2Ffig%2Fsep_wld.png&hash=9804b77aaca66a08550cd4f54ca1a85a)

Top 5 Septembers
1st. 2015 (+0.50°C)
2nd. 2014 (+0.35°C)
3rd. 2013 (+0.26°C)
4th. 2012 (+0.25°C)
5th. 2009, 2005 (+0.22°C)

It also looks like the first month in the JMA records to be at least 0.5C above the 81-10 average.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: BenB on October 14, 2015, 05:01:30 PM
JMA 0.15°C above last year, and NASA 0.09°C below - I know the temperature series never quite move in sync, but that's quite a big difference. Mainly due to different treatment of Antarctica, which was relatively cold? Any other theories?
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Steven on October 15, 2015, 08:56:44 PM
Also, I note that after the Ringberg 2015 meeting Gavin Schmidt increased his best estimate for ECS from 3.2C to 3.5C

I'm not sure where you get that from.  Note that CarbonBrief.org just posted a September 2015 interview with Gavin Schmidt, in which Schmidt says that he thinks climate sensitivity is between about 2.5°C and 3°C:

http://www.carbonbrief.org/the-carbon-brief-interview-dr-gavin-schmidt#sensitivityvalue (http://www.carbonbrief.org/the-carbon-brief-interview-dr-gavin-schmidt#sensitivityvalue)

Quote
CB: So, your personal view, or from your own research, what do you think is the likely value of climate sensitivity? Where do you put it?

GS: I think it’s between about 2.5 and 3C. We’ve got some work that we’ve been looking at trying to reconcile different estimates that come from different kinds of experiments or different kinds of observations. And one of the things that we’ve found is that in some of the calculations where they come up with a slightly lower number there are some systematic problems with those kind of calculations that mean that that’s not really a valid response and it really should be little bit higher, in line with the estimates that have comes from paleoclimate, which I think are the more robust ones.

(Anyway, this is off-topic here.)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on October 16, 2015, 12:30:07 AM
Also, I note that after the Ringberg 2015 meeting Gavin Schmidt increased his best estimate for ECS from 3.2C to 3.5C

I'm not sure where you get that from.  Note that CarbonBrief.org just posted a September 2015 interview with Gavin Schmidt, in which Schmidt says that he thinks climate sensitivity is between about 2.5°C and 3°C:

http://www.carbonbrief.org/the-carbon-brief-interview-dr-gavin-schmidt#sensitivityvalue (http://www.carbonbrief.org/the-carbon-brief-interview-dr-gavin-schmidt#sensitivityvalue)

Quote
CB: So, your personal view, or from your own research, what do you think is the likely value of climate sensitivity? Where do you put it?

GS: I think it’s between about 2.5 and 3C. We’ve got some work that we’ve been looking at trying to reconcile different estimates that come from different kinds of experiments or different kinds of observations. And one of the things that we’ve found is that in some of the calculations where they come up with a slightly lower number there are some systematic problems with those kind of calculations that mean that that’s not really a valid response and it really should be little bit higher, in line with the estimates that have comes from paleoclimate, which I think are the more robust ones.

(Anyway, this is off-topic here.)

If Neven decides that this is too off topic, then he can let us both know.  However, in the mean time: in the following linked RealClimate article Gavin estimates of the likely range for ECS of 2 to 5C, which indicates that the most reasonable value for ECS is 3.5C.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/04/reflections-on-ringberg/ (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/04/reflections-on-ringberg/)

In the CarbonBrief article when Gavin responses to the question about "climate sensitivity", he very well may be referring to something besides ECS (such as TCR, possibly) as he does not make this matter clear.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Neven on October 16, 2015, 12:45:33 AM
You can continue as far as I'm concerned, but it will be difficult to trace later on.

BTW, that JMA graph is astounding, a peak just like in the 40's, but so much higher...
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: jai mitchell on October 16, 2015, 01:49:57 PM
IMO only the 1975-current trend line matters.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Steven on October 16, 2015, 10:05:49 PM
Note that CarbonBrief.org just posted a September 2015 interview with Gavin Schmidt, in which Schmidt says that he thinks climate sensitivity is between about 2.5°C and 3°C:

http://www.carbonbrief.org/the-carbon-brief-interview-dr-gavin-schmidt#sensitivityvalue (http://www.carbonbrief.org/the-carbon-brief-interview-dr-gavin-schmidt#sensitivityvalue)

In the CarbonBrief article when Gavin responses to the question about "climate sensitivity", he very well may be referring to something besides ECS (such as TCR, possibly) as he does not make this matter clear.

In case the Twitter link doesn't work properly, here (http://i.imgur.com/vUWTLel.png) is a screenshot.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on October 16, 2015, 10:13:45 PM
Note that CarbonBrief.org just posted a September 2015 interview with Gavin Schmidt, in which Schmidt says that he thinks climate sensitivity is between about 2.5°C and 3°C:

http://www.carbonbrief.org/the-carbon-brief-interview-dr-gavin-schmidt#sensitivityvalue (http://www.carbonbrief.org/the-carbon-brief-interview-dr-gavin-schmidt#sensitivityvalue)

In the CarbonBrief article when Gavin responses to the question about "climate sensitivity", he very well may be referring to something besides ECS (such as TCR, possibly) as he does not make this matter clear.

In case the Twitter link doesn't work properly, here (http://i.imgur.com/vUWTLel.png) is a screenshot.

Thanks.  In my opinion, this estimate shows how far on the side of least drama that Gavin is prepared to err.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on October 17, 2015, 10:49:27 AM
As most of the other graphs in this thread are not referenced to a pre-industrial baseline, I provide the attached SkS Tracker for the 2C Limit through the end of September 2015.

Furthermore, I note that as carbon emissions are essentially a form of theft against damaged parties, the concepts of both a Carbon Budget and a 2C Limit indicate that our current international crony capitalistic system is underpinned by the principle of legalized theft.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: James Lovejoy on October 18, 2015, 06:40:28 AM
Another delay in reporting NOAA's 'State of the Climate, Global Analysis'.  It's been delayed again until October 21.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: James Lovejoy on October 19, 2015, 03:53:09 AM
With Nick Stokes's NCEP/NCAR reanalysis surface temp anomaly at 0.611 through October 16, I'd say it's better than even odds that October NASA GISS will have it's first >1.00C Anomaly ever.

It's possible that we'll have a cold spell and we'll dodge the bullet.  But if someone gave me even odds, I'd put a moderate amount of money on the +1C.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Lord M Vader on October 19, 2015, 08:35:14 AM
The fact that NOAA is delaying their report makes me believe this: Given the extremely high anomaly the JMA reported with an astonishing +0,15 difference from last years record value means that NOAA may be announcing that September 2015 was a staggerign +1,00oC warmer than normal and therefore NOAA wants to get as much data as possible before they are making any such statement.

Of course, other reasons are possible but if I would put one single reason...

//LMV
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Shared Humanity on October 19, 2015, 03:32:43 PM
As most of the other graphs in this thread are not referenced to a pre-industrial baseline, I provide the attached SkS Tracker for the 2C Limit through the end of September 2015.

Furthermore, I note that as carbon emissions are essentially a form of theft against damaged parties, the concepts of both a Carbon Budget and a 2C Limit indicate that our current international crony capitalistic system is underpinned by the principle of legalized theft.

Whenever I look at these graphs, I feel as if I am seeing evidence of earth temperature behavior that is far more sensitive to current CO2 emissions than research would seem to suggest. It looks as if a stall in the growth of CO2 emissions has an almost immediate effect on temperature increases.

Why do I say this? I admit that I am looking at this, informed only by my economics background. During the 30's we see a leveling off of temperature increases as the western world economy collapsed during the great depression when I would think CO2 emissions also contracted. We then see a dramatic increase in the run up to WWII as the western world ramped up the war machine. Post WWII saw an economic contraction followed by a lengthy stagnation in the developed world and we again see a leveling off of temperature increases. As the undeveloped and underdeveloped world was absorbed into the growth system that is capitalism, we have seen a rapid increase that has been sustained since the 1960's.

I have a strong suspicion that I am seeing a correlation that does not exist, informed by my own personal biases. Can someone produce a CO2 annual emissions graph to see if there is any correlation? What about a graph that charts CO2 levels in the atmosphere?
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Shared Humanity on October 19, 2015, 03:37:02 PM
If this short term sensitivity is real, it provides me with a faint glimmer of hope. It would suggest that a rapid reduction in CO2 emissions could cause an equally rapid stall in global temperature increases which would buy us some time. I realize this would have little impact on our long term fate as long term climate sensitivity would eventually result in very high temperatures.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Laurent on October 19, 2015, 03:52:55 PM
I do not see any hope :
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/co2_800k_zoom.png

Just an exponential curve...
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: jai mitchell on October 19, 2015, 10:47:33 PM
::)

Hope, by definition, entails not looking too closely at what has been.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: BenB on October 21, 2015, 05:41:09 PM
NOAA have just released their State of the Climate global analysis for September (https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201509 (https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201509)). They say it was record warm -  0.90°C above the 20th century average. This was not just the highest anomaly for September (beating last year's record by 0.12°C), but also the highest anomaly for any month.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: ritter on October 21, 2015, 05:57:06 PM
NOAA have just released their State of the Climate global analysis for September (https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201509 (https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201509)). They say it was record warm -  0.90°C above the 20th century average. This was not just the highest anomaly for September (beating last year's record by 0.12°C), but also the highest anomaly for any month.

That's insane.  :o
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Theta on October 21, 2015, 08:22:05 PM
That's one hell of a jump. Hopefully it is merely the influence of the current El Nino and that once it peaks, if it peaks, then we can go back to somewhat more normal conditions without the scary air temperature records
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: James Lovejoy on October 22, 2015, 01:08:59 AM
Yes, after the el Nino influences fade, then we can go back to xx months with no global warming.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: deep octopus on October 22, 2015, 01:21:40 AM
There will likely be a retracement, perhaps in 2017 and deepened by a by strong La Niña mirroring the El Niño (not a guarantee!—see aftermath of 1957-1958, 1982-1983, and 1991-1992). But positive feedbacks are growing more troublesome by the year, not less. But anyway, October 2015 looks just alarming.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: James Lovejoy on October 22, 2015, 01:23:58 AM
Agreed.  With Nick Stokes's NCEP/NCAR surface temperature data in through October 19th, it looks increasingly like October is going to be another record month!  Very likely by a big amount.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on October 22, 2015, 02:40:01 AM
Yes, after the el Nino influences fade, then we can go back to xx months with no global warming.

Global warming preferentially promotes more and more intense El Ninos relative to La Ninas; thus on balance ENSO will result in net warming due to climate changes in the ENSO cycle.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Pmt111500 on October 22, 2015, 04:00:05 AM
With all the excitement about the pretty large or large, or great El Nino, to cool things down I'm sharing again the version of Age of Mammals temperature history I made using a dataset from GISS. Granted, the temperatures of the world are heading to the territory favoring small mammals like after K-T event. This is just because small mammals lose heat more readily than the large ones. I'd say there's a significant chance of large hotheads in 2016.

Any stable UFO cultures observing the planet will probebly soon be guessing what sort of animal will next be using the abundant natural resources provided by the planet in the Age of Altered Chemistry (earth). I'd think they'll think this place as an interesting case of a struggle between animals and plants, if the planet was nearer to it's host star, plants would dominate and no chance of intelligent (they use the word for 'capable to extract metals of the rocky planets and asteroids') life would be found. On the outer rim of the habitable sphere invention of fire would lead to a more stable culture of animals geoengineering their way through the slight disturbances in the luminosity of the host star.

Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: sedziobs on October 22, 2015, 04:37:01 PM
Nick Stokes commented on the very hot October so far on his blog today.

Quote
In other news, the NCEP/NCAR index continues very hot for October. I commented here on a remarkable peak early in the month. It eased off from that, but only down to the level of earlier peaks, and is now rising again. With 19 days now gone, and the temperature last above the month-to-date average of 0.609°C, it will be by far the hottest month anomaly in the record. That index has anomaly base 1994-2013; on the 1951-80 base of GISS, the level would be 1.217°C.
http://moyhu.blogspot.com/2015/10/noaa-global-anomaly-up-001-in-september.html (http://moyhu.blogspot.com/2015/10/noaa-global-anomaly-up-001-in-september.html)

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.moyhu.org.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fdata%2Ffreq%2Fdays.png&hash=911d5d999b43292db58d7e6ff1a8f724)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Laurent on October 27, 2015, 04:33:32 PM
Earth now halfway to UN global warming limit
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22730324-200-earth-now-halfway-to-un-global-warming-limit/ (https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22730324-200-earth-now-halfway-to-un-global-warming-limit/)
Quote
IT’S the outcome the world wants to avoid, but we are already halfway there. All but one of the main trackers of global surface temperature are now passing more than 1 °C of warming relative to the second half of the 19th century, according to an exclusive analysis done for New Scientist.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Lord M Vader on October 27, 2015, 06:47:22 PM
The two last days (October 24-25) have been rather "cool". October 25 is, according to Nick Stokes page, so far the first day this month as the anomaly dropped below +0,4oC.. Let's see if this trend continues and the ridiculuos high anomaly (+0,585oC) so far in October will drop any significant during the remaining days of the month.

//LMV
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: James Lovejoy on October 28, 2015, 02:33:09 AM
Under any reasonable temperature forecasts between now and October 31st we are going to get a +0.5 + anomaly, if the Climate Reanalyzer forecasts are correct at anomalies of approx +0.45, we'll get somewhere around +0.525 or more.  That's going to come out to a new record anomaly.

I'm not sure about the GISS record, I expect a record October anomaly, but GISS has surprised me before.  I'm pretty that the japanese metro and NOAA will both give record October anomalies.  I'm betting by a pretty big margin.

Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Theta on October 28, 2015, 09:35:23 PM
Not sure where to put this article so I'll throw it here. Recent Arctic News article states that we could experience a 6C temperature rise by 2028: http://arctic-news.blogspot.ie/2015/10/september-2015-sea-surface-warmest-on-record.html (http://arctic-news.blogspot.ie/2015/10/september-2015-sea-surface-warmest-on-record.html)

Quote
The following comments refer to Figure 224 below. All historical floating ice appears to have been lost in the Arctic by September 2015 so we can assume that the 5+ year old ice pack has largely gone by this time. The 5+ year old ice pack was only predicted to melt back by 2021.7 consequently this year's volume of ice melting has occurred 6 years earlier than the previous prediction. The previous estimate of the final loss of 1 year Arctic floating ice from polynomial data was 2037.7 which now corrects to 2031.7, 16 years in the future.

Previous estimates of when the average atmospheric global temperature anomaly increase would reach 6°C was 2034.7, by which time massive global extinction would be proceeding. The new corrected time for this event is 2034.7 - 6 = 2028.7 which is 13 years in the future. During the major Permian Extinction event, which was caused by a massive methane build-up in the atmosphere, the mean surface atmospheric temperature increased by 5°C over 13 years. As the present mean global surface atmospheric temperature is already greater than 1°C hotter than the mean, we will be looking at at least a 6°C temperature increase by 2028 with its associated global extinction event. This is a frightening correlation between the new predicted 6°C average global surface atmospheric temperature rise and what is known to have occurred during the major Permian extinction event, both of which were caused by a massive buildup of methane in the atmosphere. We are clearly in for a very rough-hot ride in the next decade as the terminal global extinction event approaches.

Malcolm P.R. Light (Dr)
Earth Scientist
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on October 28, 2015, 09:47:13 PM
For those who do not know, Malcolm Light tends to err on the side of most drama.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Theta on October 28, 2015, 09:48:12 PM
For those who do not know, Malcolm Light tends to err on the side of most drama.

He does? Hmm, I wasn't aware of that, but what he proposes seems plausible in terms of a worse case scenario, especially if you combine the loss of global dimming with that prediction.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on October 29, 2015, 12:22:53 PM
For those who do not know, Malcolm Light tends to err on the side of most drama.

He does? Hmm, I wasn't aware of that, but what he proposes seems plausible in terms of a worse case scenario, especially if you combine the loss of global dimming with that prediction.

In my opinion much/most of what "Arctic News" posts errs on the side of most drama, as I believe that it is one thing to actively pull a toddler away from a snake when the child thinks that the snake is a toy vs. teaching the same toddler to be paranoid about all snakes.  Similarly, just because one losses ones job doesn't mean that the whole economy is in a depression, so even if some of the things on Arctic News may have some merit doesn't mean that they can see the forest from the trees. However, I am too busy to address all/any of the Arctic News partial truths, so just say before policymakers are going to act on any such concerns that some form of more rigorous probability analysis, or rigorous ESM projections, would need to be provided.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Neven on October 29, 2015, 02:08:55 PM
I don't know where he gets this from:

Quote
Previous estimates of when the average atmospheric global temperature anomaly increase would reach 6°C was 2034.7, by which time massive global extinction would be proceeding. The new corrected time for this event is 2034.7 - 6 = 2028.7 which is 13 years in the future.

But it doesn't sound plausible at all.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: wili on October 29, 2015, 02:26:01 PM
I think the argument is that the (probably exaggerated) predicted jump of global temperatures by 2 degrees from loss of aerosols will spark very rapid carbon feedbacks (massive wildfires...) that will drive us quickly to that higher temperature.

I agree that it doesn't sound plausible, but mostly because of timescales rather than the actual events. It's like The Day After Tomorrow where everything happens in a few days rather than the decades-to-centuries-long coming-apart-of-the-whole-system we seem to be actually experiencing.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Theta on October 29, 2015, 02:37:18 PM
I think the argument is that the (probably exaggerated) predicted jump of global temperatures by 2 degrees from loss of aerosols will spark very rapid carbon feedbacks (massive wildfires...) that will drive us quickly to that higher temperature.

I agree that it doesn't sound plausible, but mostly because of timescales rather than the actual events. It's like The Day After Tomorrow where everything happens in a few days rather than the decades-to-centuries-long coming-apart-of-the-whole-system we seem to be actually experiencing.

I agree, but that's probably why he's advocating for a decadal jump from our current temperature to 6 degrees in 2028.

Perhaps I have derailed the thread in a way that I shouldn't have and I apologise for that, perhaps the worst case stuff that I posted should be left until we find a more definitive conclusion to the possibility, rather than clogging up threads with speculation.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Neven on October 29, 2015, 03:11:00 PM
Yes, let's see what the Global SAT for October 2015 will be. That's interesting enough in itself.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: wili on October 29, 2015, 04:06:45 PM
There is a lot of discussion around here about how scientists tend to go for the least-drama conclusions, especially in their published works.

It's just that this doesn't mean that the going for the maximum-drama scenario gets necessarily gets us closer to the truth, unless mechanisms to get there are clearly laid out.

I and it seems others here are...nervous...about how multiple feedbacks may take us relatively quickly into a climate that is much more hostile to human and other life.

But so far I haven't seen anything that convincingly shows that it is possible (much less inevitable) that things could go quite that fast (short of some type of blow out from clathrates, perhaps). We do keep getting surprises with things moving along faster than anticipated, though, so it's hard, it seems to me, to put an absolute limit on how fast things could develop (Short of ridiculous Hollywood dramas like DAT).
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: jai mitchell on October 29, 2015, 04:44:37 PM

But so far I haven't seen anything that convincingly shows that it is possible (much less inevitable) that things could go quite that fast (short of some type of blow out from clathrates, perhaps). We do keep getting surprises with things moving along faster than anticipated, though, so it's hard, it seems to me, to put an absolute limit on how fast things could develop (Short of ridiculous Hollywood dramas like DAT).

how about a doubling in the rate of heat being absorbed by planet earth due to GHG in the last 7 years?

edit:  this is in no way advocating for the 6C in 15 years as stated above.  While I see a longer-term feedback that is pushing for 6C in the next 80 years under BAU, I find this shorter estimate quite implausible.  Possible 2C by then but certainly not 6.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: wili on October 29, 2015, 06:48:29 PM
"how about a doubling in the rate of heat being absorbed by planet earth due to GHG in the last 7 years?"

Good point, but as you know, it's devilishly difficult to draw reliable conclusions about long term trends from relatively short time periods. Is this the beginning of a period of doubling like this every six or seven years till we're deep into GW hell. Or does it just the El Nino, and we will be back to something like our previous rate of heating in a couple years?

It's quite maddening, really. We won't really know till it's in the rear view window, and by then we'll have...other things to think about.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: jai mitchell on October 29, 2015, 09:23:01 PM
"how about a doubling in the rate of heat being absorbed by planet earth due to GHG in the last 7 years?"

Good point, but as you know, it's devilishly difficult to draw reliable conclusions about long term trends from relatively short time periods. Is this the beginning of a period of doubling like this every six or seven years till we're deep into GW hell. Or does it just the El Nino, and we will be back to something like our previous rate of heating in a couple years?

It's quite maddening, really. We won't really know till it's in the rear view window, and by then we'll have...other things to think about.

The El Nino had nothing to do with the calculations used above.  The process of reducing anthropogenic aerosols, the feedback of natural aerosols, the further reduction in snow cover and sea ice impacts on albedo and the 10-year lag time for full lapse-rate and water vapor feedbacks associated with GHG emissions and aerosol emission reductions will ensure at least another doubling in the next 10 years, with a real possibility of a doubling within the next 3 years.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Theta on October 29, 2015, 09:59:19 PM
"how about a doubling in the rate of heat being absorbed by planet earth due to GHG in the last 7 years?"

Good point, but as you know, it's devilishly difficult to draw reliable conclusions about long term trends from relatively short time periods. Is this the beginning of a period of doubling like this every six or seven years till we're deep into GW hell. Or does it just the El Nino, and we will be back to something like our previous rate of heating in a couple years?

It's quite maddening, really. We won't really know till it's in the rear view window, and by then we'll have...other things to think about.

The El Nino had nothing to do with the calculations used above.  The process of reducing anthropogenic aerosols, the feedback of natural aerosols, the further reduction in snow cover and sea ice impacts on albedo and the 10-year lag time for full lapse-rate and water vapor feedbacks associated with GHG emissions and aerosol emission reductions will ensure at least another doubling in the next 10 years, with a real possibility of a doubling within the next 3 years.

That's why I was under the impression that the addition of El-Nino would allow for a very high temperature rise (2 or 3C) over a very short space of time, especially in the context of peak oil which is rapidly catching up on us...
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: ritter on October 29, 2015, 10:02:40 PM
"how about a doubling in the rate of heat being absorbed by planet earth due to GHG in the last 7 years?"

Good point, but as you know, it's devilishly difficult to draw reliable conclusions about long term trends from relatively short time periods. Is this the beginning of a period of doubling like this every six or seven years till we're deep into GW hell. Or does it just the El Nino, and we will be back to something like our previous rate of heating in a couple years?

It's quite maddening, really. We won't really know till it's in the rear view window, and by then we'll have...other things to think about.

The El Nino had nothing to do with the calculations used above.  The process of reducing anthropogenic aerosols, the feedback of natural aerosols, the further reduction in snow cover and sea ice impacts on albedo and the 10-year lag time for full lapse-rate and water vapor feedbacks associated with GHG emissions and aerosol emission reductions will ensure at least another doubling in the next 10 years, with a real possibility of a doubling within the next 3 years.

That's catastrophically bad, if so. Just for clarification, your saying potentially another 1C (we'er at 1C above preindustrial) in 10 years or potentially within 3 years?
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: anotheramethyst on October 30, 2015, 02:16:04 AM
"how about a doubling in the rate of heat being absorbed by planet earth due to GHG in the last 7 years?"

Good point, but as you know, it's devilishly difficult to draw reliable conclusions about long term trends from relatively short time periods. Is this the beginning of a period of doubling like this every six or seven years till we're deep into GW hell. Or does it just the El Nino, and we will be back to something like our previous rate of heating in a couple years?

It's quite maddening, really. We won't really know till it's in the rear view window, and by then we'll have...other things to think about.

The El Nino had nothing to do with the calculations used above.  The process of reducing anthropogenic aerosols, the feedback of natural aerosols, the further reduction in snow cover and sea ice impacts on albedo and the 10-year lag time for full lapse-rate and water vapor feedbacks associated with GHG emissions and aerosol emission reductions will ensure at least another doubling in the next 10 years, with a real possibility of a doubling within the next 3 years.

That's why I was under the impression that the addition of El-Nino would allow for a very high temperature rise (2 or 3C) over a very short space of time, especially in the context of peak oil which is rapidly catching up on us...

i agree that oil is nearing a peak (now... sometime within 10 years, we won't know that one til it 's in the rearview mirror either). but what on earth does a present or future oil peak have to do with today's temperature?  seems to me that peak oil would reduce our ghg footprint and reduce the hypothetical temperature that follows 2 decaeds later.  if we are talking about unrest or famine, maybe there's a more immediate effect, but i don't see how that influences temperature either.  did i miss your point somewhere?  i'm confused.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Theta on October 30, 2015, 02:18:44 AM
"how about a doubling in the rate of heat being absorbed by planet earth due to GHG in the last 7 years?"

Good point, but as you know, it's devilishly difficult to draw reliable conclusions about long term trends from relatively short time periods. Is this the beginning of a period of doubling like this every six or seven years till we're deep into GW hell. Or does it just the El Nino, and we will be back to something like our previous rate of heating in a couple years?

It's quite maddening, really. We won't really know till it's in the rear view window, and by then we'll have...other things to think about.

The El Nino had nothing to do with the calculations used above.  The process of reducing anthropogenic aerosols, the feedback of natural aerosols, the further reduction in snow cover and sea ice impacts on albedo and the 10-year lag time for full lapse-rate and water vapor feedbacks associated with GHG emissions and aerosol emission reductions will ensure at least another doubling in the next 10 years, with a real possibility of a doubling within the next 3 years.

That's why I was under the impression that the addition of El-Nino would allow for a very high temperature rise (2 or 3C) over a very short space of time, especially in the context of peak oil which is rapidly catching up on us...

i agree that oil is nearing a peak (now... sometime within 10 years, we won't know that one til it 's in the rearview mirror either). but what on earth does a present or future oil peak have to do with today's temperature?  seems to me that peak oil would reduce our ghg footprint and reduce the hypothetical temperature that follows 2 decaeds later.  if we are talking about unrest or famine, maybe there's a more immediate effect, but i don't see how that influences temperature either.  did i miss your point somewhere?  i'm confused.

The point is that we would lose the global dimming effect of our aerosols from coal plant's which would induce a high.temperature spike, the effect is unknown however
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: anotheramethyst on October 30, 2015, 02:35:56 AM
oh ok, now i understand your point.  i've seen estimates that put peak coal 10-20 years after peak oil, but there's a lot of variables to consider.  i suppose oil would also emit dimming aerosols, but not as many as coal.  but there are some up sides to energy peaks, too.  they cause recession, which is intensely painful for the people experiencing them, but recessions reduce our carbon emissions.  at present, it's unlikely that everyone's going to shut off the co2 and aerosols on the same day, so i think it will be a gradual transition.  i wonder if it's possible that a near term peak in oil could save us from some of the worst outcomes.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: wili on October 30, 2015, 02:57:05 AM
jai, ok, sorry, for some reason I couldn't see the graph before.

Would you mind sharing a link to its source so I can share it with others?

What do you think is behind this? Do you really think that aerosols have been reduced over this time period enough to account for this (along with the albedo shifts and other points you note)?
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Sigmetnow on October 30, 2015, 01:41:51 PM
South Africa Sets Earth's Hottest October Temperature on Record: 119°F
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=3171 (http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=3171)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: jai mitchell on October 30, 2015, 07:17:32 PM
This was primarily caused by adiabatic heating due to regional topography.  while significant it is not near what we will be experiencing in the southern hemisphere in January/february.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: smeagol on October 31, 2015, 12:04:17 AM
I think my big question is to what extent will the water vapour feedback resulting from Octobers temps produce a feedback loop. I'm informed that runaway feedback wont happen as a result of rising temps(it hasn't in the past) I'm just not really clear why not?  If anyone is up on the physics on this an explanation for dimwits would be appreciated.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: crandles on October 31, 2015, 07:59:24 AM
It just isn't strong enough. 1c of co2 warming creates maybe roughly a third of a degree warning from water vapour. That one third creates another one ninth of a degree which creates one 27th so it rapidly decreases in size. To get a runaway effect you need one degree of co2 warming to create a whole degree of warming from feed backs.

Ice albedo feedback adds to the water vapour feedback but we are still not near the level of feedbacks needed to reach a runaway effect.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: sedziobs on October 31, 2015, 05:39:52 PM
The main reason runaways (caused by any factor) do not occur is because of the Planck response.  This is a negative feedback whereby outgoing radiation is proportional to the fourth power of temperature.  That is, as temperature increases, outgoing radiation increases much faster.  Any feedback would have to overcome that response to achieve a runaway.  Such a runaway occurred on Venus because the surface became hot enough to liberate all water into the atmosphere and eliminate carbon sinks.  Venus is much closer to the sun, however.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Theta on October 31, 2015, 05:44:25 PM
The main reason runaways (caused by any factor) do not occur is because of the Planck response.  This is a negative feedback whereby outgoing radiation is proportional to the fourth power of temperature.  That is, as temperature increases, outgoing radiation increases much faster.  Any feedback would have to overcome that response to achieve a runaway.  Such a runaway occurred on Venus because the surface became hot enough to liberate all water into the atmosphere and eliminate carbon sinks.  Venus is much closer to the sun, however.

Is this what would have prevented earth from becoming Venus during the Permian Extinction, where temperatures rose to 6C? What would be the point for that feedback becoming overrun though, because there are a lot of tipping points that we have breached already with ice albedo, land albedo, permafrost degradation, possible methane hydrate decomposition, wildfires and increasing severity of El Nino events?
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on October 31, 2015, 06:03:32 PM
Is this what would have prevented earth from becoming Venus during the Permian Extinction, where temperatures rose to 6C? What would be the point for that feedback becoming overrun though, because there are a lot of tipping points that we have breached already with ice albedo, land albedo, permafrost degradation, possible methane hydrate decomposition, wildfires and increasing severity of El Nino events?

In addition to diminishing returns on positive feedbacks, and the leakage of radiative forcing to space, there are also negative feedbacks and buffers that provide further limitations on any possible run away conditions.  For example, the ocean's thermal inertia is huge which thus limits the rate of possible acceleration of many positive feedbacks.  Similarly, it can be difficult to rapidly decompose methane hydrates as they are frequently buried deeply enough that it can take decades/centuries for enough heat to reach them to cause decomposition.  Lastly, I point to the negative feedback of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations promoting the growth of vegetation [particularly in arid regions] which absorb CO2.  To keep track of the impacts of these various Earth Systems is why the US DOE is currently developing the state-of-the-art Earth Systems Model, called the Accelerated Climate Model for Energy, ACME; which hopefully will provide better information to policy makers so that they can better try to keep modern society away from possible tipping points.  ACME's first order projections are scheduled for release in late 2017; and many policy makers make their decisions on what economically competing countries do rather than on science; therefore, there is still both considerable uncertainties about not only how sensitive the Earth Systems are, but also how fragile our policies and economic systems are to an increasingly stressed world.

Edit: Note that if our economic systems collapse before the various positive feedbacks reach their tipping points then anthropogenic radiative forcing may drop fast enough to avoid run away conditions regardless of our policies.  Also, I note that all ESM projections that I have seen show that we are a long ways away from any true run away condition, but we may not be so far away from James Hansen's "Storms of My Grandchildren" condition.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Theta on October 31, 2015, 06:07:00 PM
Is this what would have prevented earth from becoming Venus during the Permian Extinction, where temperatures rose to 6C? What would be the point for that feedback becoming overrun though, because there are a lot of tipping points that we have breached already with ice albedo, land albedo, permafrost degradation, possible methane hydrate decomposition, wildfires and increasing severity of El Nino events?

In addition to diminishing returns on positive feedbacks, and the leakage of radiative forcing to space, there are also negative feedbacks and buffers that provide further limitations on any possible run away conditions.  For example, the ocean's thermal inertia is huge which thus limits the rate of possible acceleration of many positive feedbacks.  Similarly, it can be difficult to rapidly decompose methane hydrates as they are frequently buried deeply enough that it can take decades/centuries for enough heat to reach them to cause decomposition.  Lastly, I point to the negative feedback of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations promoting the growth of vegetation [particularly in arid regions] which absorb CO2.  To keep track of the impacts of these various Earth Systems is why the US DOE is currently developing the state-of-the-art Earth Systems Model, called the Accelerated Climate Model for Energy, ACME; which hopefully will provide better information to policy makers so that they can better try to keep modern society away from possible tipping points.  ACME's first order projections are scheduled for release in late 2017; and many policy makers make their decisions on what economically competing countries do rather than on science; therefore, there is still both considerable uncertainties about not only how sensitive the Earth Systems are, but also how fragile our policies and economic systems are to an increasingly stressed world.

Interesting set of feebacks, thanks, that was very informative, and hopefully ACME provides enough insight on the future of both the Climate and the possible risks to the global economy.

I will say though, the plant growth feedback would be transient as it would release CO2 into the atmosphere as soon as the plants begin to die, which would be rapid I believe?
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on October 31, 2015, 06:18:54 PM
I will say though, the plant growth feedback would be transient as it would release CO2 into the atmosphere as soon as the plants begin to die, which would be rapid I believe?

Anthropogenic societies are playing a game of chicken with climate change.  Negative forcing feedbacks like the recent bloom in vegetation could well last for several decades before they flip to become positive feedbacks (due to plant die-offs from climate change stress); however, world leaders think that they understand the Carbon Budget well enough that they can push the Earth Systems right to the very limit before we activate various tipping points for the various positive feedbacks.  However, if the advice that scientists give the policy makers err too far on the side of least drama, then no matter how much cut-backs in anthropogenic forcing that CoP21 (and its follow-up activities) does (or does not) achieve, then natural GHG emissions could keep us on a RCP 8.5 scenario (this is the highest IPCC recognized forcing scenario) for centuries to come.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: sedziobs on October 31, 2015, 07:08:29 PM
Is this what would have prevented earth from becoming Venus during the Permian Extinction, where temperatures rose to 6C?
The Planck response is the main negative feedback, in addition to all of the ones ASLR listed.  The key distinction regarding Venus is that none of ASLR's mentioned negative feedbacks existed.  With no oceans or photosynthetic life, there was no mechanism for carbon storage.  All CO2 was free to accumulate in the atmosphere indefinitely.  It is my understanding that Earth's greater distance from the sun prevents the possibility of the oceans completely evaporating.  I do not believe that any forcings generated within Earth's climate system will be able to overcome the Planck response indefinitely (which is how I would define a runaway).

I think I'm getting off topic here though, since his thread is about Earth's current temperatures.  In that regard, October is still more than 0.2 degrees hotter than September according to Nick Stokes, with only 2 days remaining.  I think it is remarkable that every individual date in October has had a higher anomaly than the September average.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: jai mitchell on October 31, 2015, 09:05:43 PM
it is a fatal mistake to assume that paleoclimate earth system responses to warming signals on time scales of 1000+ years, in an environment with full global life system capacity (i.e. oceans full of every possible fish and every square inch of land being covered with trees if they can survive there) is in ANY way similar to the 100+ year (now 30+ year) warming spike caused by Anthropogenic Global warming with fully 50% of all biomass in the earth's seas and tree biomass currently missing from the pre-agricultural earth system).

the warming is much too fast and the earth system carbon sequestration capacity is being destroyed far too rapidly.

this is not to say that a venus effect runaway is remotely possible under current circumstances.  Only that the paleoclimate analog is a fatal error in analysis.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Theta on October 31, 2015, 09:10:13 PM
it is a fatal mistake to assume that paleoclimate earth system responses to warming signals on time scales of 1000+ years, in an environment with full global life system capacity (i.e. oceans full of every possible fish and every square inch of land being covered with trees if they can survive there) is in ANY way similar to the 100+ year (now 30+ year) warming spike caused by Anthropogenic Global warming with fully 50% of all biomass in the earth's seas and tree biomass currently missing from the pre-agricultural earth system).

the warming is much too fast and the earth system carbon sequestration capacity is being destroyed far too rapidly.

this is not to say that a venus effect runaway is remotely possible under current circumstances.  Only that the paleoclimate analog is a fatal error in analysis.

That's what I had in mind and is what is worrying about the current state of the Climate as a result of AGW. I'm not sure how likely it is that we will experience a Venus Type Runaway Global Warming situation and I'm not sure, if it was likely, how fast that would occur. But we don't have to even have Venus Syndrome for things to be bad. The rapidity of the warming could bring us towards extinction by the end of the century if not by mid century or even 2030 if we are really unlucky.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: jai mitchell on October 31, 2015, 09:26:45 PM
James Hansen published a paper that looked at the possibility of a venus effect if we burned all known fossil fuels, his conclusion was that it still would not be enough.  Not sure how good it was but if anyone would know it would be someone who started his career studying venus.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Neven on October 31, 2015, 11:06:13 PM
So, what has happened these past few days of October temperature-wise, and will it have any influence on the final monthly average?  :)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Csnavywx on October 31, 2015, 11:54:30 PM
It appears that "reprieve" was short lived. Temps quickly shot back up over 0.5C vs 1994-2013 in the last few days (on Nick Stoke's site), so we're going to close October with a healthy lead on any other month on record. I fully expect GISS to soar well over 1.00 for Oct, especially given that Antarctica isn't going to hold back its averages like it did in Sept. NCEP/NCAR data has it 0.2C above September and by far the hottest month so far in this (very hot) year.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Theta on October 31, 2015, 11:57:42 PM
James Hansen published a paper that looked at the possibility of a venus effect if we burned all known fossil fuels, his conclusion was that it still would not be enough.  Not sure how good it was but if anyone would know it would be someone who started his career studying venus.

He has been criticised as being conservative buy Guy McPherson, but I'm not so sure if that can be held to scrutiny, just an interesting observation though.

After this El-Nino, what is the likely trajectory for these temperatures anyway? Is the growth going to slow, or will the feedbacks pick up the slack from the El Nino's peak?
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Csnavywx on November 01, 2015, 12:12:06 AM
James Hansen published a paper that looked at the possibility of a venus effect if we burned all known fossil fuels, his conclusion was that it still would not be enough.  Not sure how good it was but if anyone would know it would be someone who started his career studying venus.

He has been criticised as being conservative buy Guy McPherson, but I'm not so sure if that can be held to scrutiny, just an interesting observation though.

After this El-Nino, what is the likely trajectory for these temperatures anyway? Is the growth going to slow, or will the feedbacks pick up the slack from the El Nino's peak?

Guy McPherson isn't a reliable source (many eloquent critiques of his analysis are available).

There's a multi-month lag between El Nino's peak and global temps, often on the order of 4 months. Given the fact that the satellite temps haven't even really responded yet, we're likely looking at a large boost in temps well into next year (probably into summer). Strong Ninos are often followed by a "slingshot" Nina, but it's unlikely we'll dip below say.... 2012's temps ever again.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: sedziobs on November 02, 2015, 05:06:39 PM
October NCEP/NCAR finishes at 0.567.

Quote
Relative to the 1951-80 base of GISS, October would be 1.18°C, and on the NOAA 20th Cen base, it would be 1.14°C. I wouldn't expect to see those indices rise so high, because they have been somewhat lagging the NCEP/NCAR index recently. In September, GISS was only 0.81°C. Still, there is clearly a possibility of GISS reaching 1°C, and a very strong probability of being the highest anomaly ever, in all indices.
http://moyhu.blogspot.com/2015/11/ncepncar-index-up-02.html (http://moyhu.blogspot.com/2015/11/ncepncar-index-up-02.html)

As noted earlier, every individual day in October posted a higher anomaly than the September average, which was a very high monthly average in its own right.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Sigmetnow on November 02, 2015, 10:07:30 PM
Australia:  October blew away heat records for any month of any year: Bureau of Meteorology
Quote
The red-hot start to October barely let up, setting Australia up for its most abnormally warm month in records going back to 1910, the Bureau of Meteorology said.

The arrival of summer-like conditions several months early has combined with on-going dry conditions in many southern parts of the country to create dangerous fire conditions, authorities say.

Nationally, maximum temperatures were 3.44 degrees above average for October, eclipsing the previous record deviation of 3.41 degrees set in September 2013, the bureau said its monthly climate report.
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/october-blew-away-heat-records-for-any-month-of-any-year-bureau-of-meteorology-20151102-gkoo51.html (http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/october-blew-away-heat-records-for-any-month-of-any-year-bureau-of-meteorology-20151102-gkoo51.html)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Neven on November 02, 2015, 10:16:58 PM
There's a multi-month lag between El Nino's peak and global temps, often on the order of 4 months. Given the fact that the satellite temps haven't even really responded yet, we're likely looking at a large boost in temps well into next year (probably into summer). Strong Ninos are often followed by a "slingshot" Nina, but it's unlikely we'll dip below say.... 2012's temps ever again.

I just had a look at Roy Spencer's blog, as he had posted the October update of UAH global temp data. How can the trend line still be so low when compared to 97/98? When can we expect the uptick that equals the El Niño to start?
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: jai mitchell on November 03, 2015, 08:49:04 PM
Roy Spencer made a revision that allowed UAH to deviate significantly from the previous revision in recent years.  This was, (in my view), a revisionist detent to prevent the appearance of a resurgence in warming and should be considered a complete invalidation of the UAH series for future scientific work.   Of course, I had already made that understanding based on his refusal to incorporate significant shortcomings to the series as published by Po-Chedley et. al. (2015)

paper here:  http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00767.1 (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00767.1)

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-3yifjjPoTvo%2FVU9fiHIDuCI%2FAAAAAAAABDc%2FzmLR99FC4RQ%2Fs1600%2FRplot.jpg&hash=59bb8169208e47ded2ca23e30cbab4c3)

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F&hash=35d7d5d7526c9897dfb55501e320295a)

edit:  good article about it here:  http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/mar/25/one-satellite-data-set-is-underestimating-global-warming (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/mar/25/one-satellite-data-set-is-underestimating-global-warming)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: BornFromTheVoid on November 03, 2015, 09:44:33 PM
According to the NCEP reanalysis data, October 2015 was the warmest on record by +0.24C. This is 0.77C above the 71-10 average, and 1.07C above the 61-90 average.

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FGq9hFoy.png&hash=ec4d71d87349b6e64cc2c524c66efd81)

Top 5

2015: 14.82C
2012: 14.58C
2014: 14.54C
2005: 14.53C
2006: 14.49C
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: GeoffBeacon on November 09, 2015, 09:00:40 PM
BBC Report Warming set to breach 1C threshold (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-34763036)

Quote
Global temperatures are set to rise more than one degree above pre-industrial levels according to the UK's Met Office.

Figures from January to September this year are already 1.02C above the average between 1850 and 1900.

If temperatures remain as predicted, 2015 will be the first year to breach this key threshold.

I was a meeting hosted by Met Office and Climate Change Committee today. Julia Slingo, Chief Scientist at Met Office gave talk that worried me.  It should have worried others but didn't seem too much. Perhaps more later from a useful hand-out - possibly on another thread.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: deep octopus on November 10, 2015, 12:03:42 AM
As we await the first sets of data for October 2015, I figure we can start assessing November 2015 conditions. Per NCEP/NCAR, the first 7 days of November have seen global surface temperatures at +0.557 C above the 1981-2010 average. The current record for the month in that index is held by 2012, with a +0.436 C anomaly. So November 2015 is on the path to a record warm month right now.

The warmest November on record in the NASA GISS record occurred in 2013, at +0.81 C over 1951-1980, followed by 2010 with +0.80 C, and then 2009 with +0.78 C.

With El Niño steamrolling to new heights, attaining super/Godzilla/kaiju strength, it's unlikely that the broken record of broken records is going to stop for a while.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Buddy on November 11, 2015, 06:05:45 PM
Quote
Perhaps more later from a useful hand-out - possibly on another thread.

Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on November 15, 2015, 02:08:41 AM
Hopefully, such statistical analyses as that presented in the linked (open access) research will help future climate change models to be improved:

Mikšovský, J., Holtanová, E., and Pišoft, P.: Imprints of climate forcings in global gridded temperature data, Earth Syst. Dynam. Discuss., 6, 2339-2381, doi:10.5194/esdd-6-2339-2015, 2015.

http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/6/2339/2015/esdd-6-2339-2015.html (http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/6/2339/2015/esdd-6-2339-2015.html)

Abstract. Monthly near-surface temperature anomalies from several gridded datasets (GISTEMP, Berkeley Earth, MLOST, HadCRUT4, 20th Century Reanalysis) were investigated and compared with regard to the presence of components attributable to external climate forcings (anthropogenic, solar and volcanic) and to major internal climate variability modes (El Niño/Southern Oscillation, North Atlantic Oscillation, Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, Pacific Decadal Oscillation and variability characterized by the Trans-Polar Index). Multiple linear regression was used to separate components related to individual explanatory variables in local monthly temperatures as well as in their global means, over the 1901–2010 period. Strong correlations of temperature and anthropogenic forcing were confirmed for most of the globe, whereas only weaker and mostly statistically insignificant connections to solar activity were indicated. Imprints of volcanic forcing were found to be largely insignificant in the local temperatures, in contrast to the clear volcanic signature in their global averages. An attention was also paid to the manifestations of short-term time shifts in the responses to the forcings, and to differences in the spatial fingerprints detected from individual temperature datasets: it is shown that although the resemblance of the response patterns is usually strong, some regional contrasts appear. Noteworthy differences from the other datasets were found especially for the 20th Century Reanalysis, particularly for the components attributable to anthropogenic and volcanic forcing over land, but also in some of the teleconnection patterns related to the internal variability modes.

Extract: "Finally, it should be accentuated once again that the issue of attribution of climate variability cannot be completely resolved by statistical approach alone. Statistical solutions to this multifaceted problem need to be considered alongside the GCM-based simulations, conceptually more universal than purely statistical approaches, yet still only partially successful in completely reproducing the observed features of the climate system (IPCC, 2013, Ch. 9). Our results here hope to contribute to future efforts in this field: by showing the character and variability of temperature components formally attributable to various forcings across several datasets, their robustness (or lack thereof) was illustrated, providing a picture of the respective fingerprints, as well as support guidelines for the use of the respective data in validation of the related aspects of the climate models."
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: BornFromTheVoid on November 16, 2015, 11:03:40 AM
According to the JMA, October 2015 (+0.53C) is a new record, beating the record set last year by whopping +0.19C. This makes is just the second month on record, and second month in row, with an anomaly of at least +0.5C above the 81-10 average. This is now also the largest anomaly for any month on record.

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fds.data.jma.go.jp%2Ftcc%2Ftcc%2Fproducts%2Fgwp%2Ftemp%2Ffig%2Foct_wld.png&hash=56b9a536756442e405296f0fbbed18c2)

Top 5

1st. 2015 (+0.53°C),
2nd. 2014 (+0.34°C),
3rd. 2003 (+0.24°C),
4th. 2006 (+0.23°C),
5th. 2012 (+0.22°C)

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fds.data.jma.go.jp%2Ftcc%2Ftcc%2Fproducts%2Fgwp%2Ftemp%2Fmap%2F%2Fgridtemp%2Fy2015%2Fgridtemp201510e.png&hash=8aee70c750f90fe979cfdf71258f9df8)

http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/oct_wld.html (http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/oct_wld.html)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: GeoffBeacon on November 16, 2015, 03:02:11 PM
Buddy

I have replied to your comment above on the "Fail to act" thread here (https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,68.msg66109.html#msg66109)

Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: James Lovejoy on November 17, 2015, 01:37:29 AM
Gisstemp data for October is out.  Anomaly 104 making this the hottest October on record, the highest anomaly in the Gisstemp record, the hottest 12 months on record, and making it virtually certain that 2015 will be the hottest year on record.

Especially as a combination of Nick Stoke's NCEP/NCAR reanalysis surface temperature anomaly through Nov 14, and the Climate Reanalyer 7 day forcast thru November 23rd keep us on track for another 12 month record, and possibly a record hot November.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on November 17, 2015, 04:38:47 PM
Here is the SkS plot thru October 2015, tracking the 2C limit:
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on November 17, 2015, 10:10:45 PM
Per the linked article & associated attached image, based on the first ten months, 2015 should end-up something less than 1.1C above pre-industrial (all things being equal):

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/incredible-october-warmth-guarantees-record-hot-2015-19695 (http://www.climatecentral.org/news/incredible-october-warmth-guarantees-record-hot-2015-19695)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: BornFromTheVoid on November 18, 2015, 06:45:40 PM
Latest SOTC report from NOAA https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201510 (https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201510)

October 2015 was warmest on record for the globe and greatest above-average departure from average for any month

The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for October 2015 was the highest for October in the 136-year period of record, at 0.98°C (1.76°F) above the 20th century average of 14.0°C (57.1°F). This marked the sixth consecutive month a monthly global temperature record has been broken and was also the greatest departure from average for any month in the 1630 months of recordkeeping, surpassing the previous record high departure set just last month by 0.13°F (0.07°C). The October temperature is currently increasing at an average rate of 0.06°C (0.11°F) per decade.

Separately, the October average temperature across global land surfaces was 1.33°C (2.39°F) above the 20th century average, the highest for October on record. This surpasses the previous record set in October 2011 by 0.17°C (0.31°F). This margin is larger than the uncertainty associated with the dataset. Large regions of Earth's land surfaces were much warmer than average, according to the Land & Ocean Temperature Percentiles map above. Record warmth was observed across the entire southern half of Australia, part of southern and southeastern Asia, much of central and southern Africa, most of Central America and northern South America, and parts of western North America. Regionally, Oceania and the African continent were both record warm. Argentina, part of northeastern Canada, scattered regions of western and central Russia, and central Japan were cooler or much cooler than average....

...With strong El Niño conditions in place, the October global sea surface temperature was 0.85°C (1.53°F) above the 20th century average of 15.9°C (60.6°F), the highest departure for October on record. This surpasses the previous record set in 2014 by 0.15°C (0.27°F). This margin is larger than the uncertainty associated with the dataset. The October temperature was also the highest departure from average for any month since recordkeeping began in 1880, surpassing the previous record set last month by 0.04°C (0.07°F)...

...The first 10 months of 2015 comprised the warmest such period on record across the world's land and ocean surfaces, at 0.86°C (1.55°F) above the 20th century average, surpassing the previous record of 2014 by 0.12°C (0.22°F). This margin is larger than the uncertainty associated with the dataset. To date, eight months this year have been record warm for their respective months. January was the second warmest January on record and April third warmest.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: James Lovejoy on November 23, 2015, 05:23:32 PM
Time to project the November anomaly.

With Nick Stokes value of 0.46 through Nov 21, and Climate Reanalyzer's  values through the end of November, I project that November will not have the huge anomaly we saw for October.  It will very likely be warmer than November '14, and has a chance for record warmest November on record.

I also project that this means that 2015 is almost a lock for the warmest year on record.

Expect to hear the usual suspects say 'but the satellite record' though.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on November 26, 2015, 12:39:46 AM
Per the linked article, the World Meteorological Organization says that 2015 will be the warmest year on record and that the temperatures in 2016 will likely exceed those in 2015:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/25/us-climatechange-summit-hottest-idUSKBN0TE10820151125#CUBI2TJ3sel1dsCV.97 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/25/us-climatechange-summit-hottest-idUSKBN0TE10820151125#CUBI2TJ3sel1dsCV.97)

Extract: "This year will be the hottest on record and 2016 could be even hotter due to the El Niño weather pattern, the World Meteorological Organization said on Wednesday, warning that inaction on climate change could see global average temperatures rise by 6 degrees Celsius or more."
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Lord M Vader on November 26, 2015, 06:25:17 PM
With 6 days left to summarize of November 2015 we see the temp anomalies to ramp up again according to Nick Stokes. November 24 had an anomaly of +0,68oC  which is the biggest anomaly so far in November. Only the ridiculously warm beginning of October saw higher anomalies.

According to NASA, the warmest November on record was 2013 with an anomaly at +0,81oC. Given the record warm oceans and the very strong El Niño I think we'll smash the record by a big margin for this November. Of course, it won't be as big anomalies as was seen in October. An anomaly in the range of +0,85o-0,95o is a decent guess IMO :)

Best, LMV
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Lord M Vader on November 29, 2015, 05:28:43 PM
Only 3 days left of November until weäll summarize november 2015. According to Nick Stokes, the temps have ramped up during the last week and the monthly average so far is now +0,492oC above the 1994-2013 period. If also the last 3 days of November remains at 0,5-0,6o above the normal I think there is a decent chance that November 2015 will end up being +0,5oC above the normal.

In terms of GISS temperature I think a value about 0,90-0,95oC above the normal is a fair guess.

Best, LMV
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: BornFromTheVoid on November 30, 2015, 03:24:34 PM
Only 3 days left of November until weäll summarize november 2015. According to Nick Stokes, the temps have ramped up during the last week and the monthly average so far is now +0,492oC above the 1994-2013 period. If also the last 3 days of November remains at 0,5-0,6o above the normal I think there is a decent chance that November 2015 will end up being +0,5oC above the normal.

In terms of GISS temperature I think a value about 0,90-0,95oC above the normal is a fair guess.

Best, LMV

Last November had an anomaly of +0.68C with GISS. Nick Stokes anomaly for last November was just +0.106C.
I think this November could potentially challenge the +1.0C mark on the GISS record.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: James Lovejoy on December 01, 2015, 07:17:43 AM
If there were a one to one correspondence between the NCEP/NCAR reanalysis data supplied by Nick Stokes and the various official global temperature data sets, I'd estimate GISS at 0.95 to 0.99 d C anomaly.  However, we can get swing of 0.10 either way, probably because additional weather stations report by the time the official temperatures are reported.  Even so, I'd estimate the odds are this will be the warmest recorded November, and if so, it goes from 99% certain to 99.9% certain that 2015 will be the warmest year since records have been kept, until 2016 that is.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Lord M Vader on December 01, 2015, 07:38:56 PM
With 1 day left to summarize Nick Stokes calculations of November we can now be virtually sure that the anomaly will be above +0,5oC from the 1994-2013 average. This comes after that November 29 delivered an anomaly of a astonishing +0,75oC. To get a November anomaly below +0,5oC it will require that November 30 have an anomaly of just +0,297oC. I don't see how the daily anomaly would switch that much in just one day.

Ryan Maues tweet here at https://twitter.com/RyanMaue/status/671535623275180032 (https://twitter.com/RyanMaue/status/671535623275180032) postulates that November 2015 was +0,458oC above the 1981-2010 average. He has used the NCEP CFSv2 data to get this result.

So, by how much will November 2015 smash the record from November 2013?

/LMV
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Lord M Vader on December 02, 2015, 04:30:57 PM
The final November temperature anomaly from Nick Stokes estimations ended at +0,513oC above the 1994-2013 mean value after a very warm end of the month.

That should be compared with the +0,567oC anomaly from October.

In any case, the November record from 2013 at +0,81oC will be smashed by huge margin. While I think the most likely outcome is a GISS anomaly at +0,95oC I would say that the odds is roughly 50-50 that we'll see a GISS anomaly at +1,00oC for November.

Best, LMV
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: James Lovejoy on December 03, 2015, 12:44:31 AM
I'll adjust my projection from November up to +1.00 to +1.01, again if there were an exact correspondence between NCEP/NCAR reanalysis data and GISS.  However weather stations that report between now and when NASA reports GISS may move that anomaly either up or down.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: James Lovejoy on December 07, 2015, 06:42:00 AM
Preliminary results through December 14, (Nick Stokes through Dec 4, and Karsten Haustein for forecasts through December 14), suggest that December will blow the October Anomalies away.   Anomalies over 0.7C, suggesting GISS anomalies of 1.2-1.3C.

That need to be taken with two big cautions however.  (1)  This is just the 1st 1/2 (approx) of December, and (2) most of it is from forecasts, the forecasts can give an idea, but things change.

Even so, I'll add another 9 to the chances of 2015 taking the record for warmest year since global records were kept to 99.99%.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on December 07, 2015, 10:37:52 AM
While NOAA's weekly NCEP Nino 3.4 data shows that the ocean's Equatorial Pacific SSTA's (see first link) are comparable to the 97-98 El Nino (as do NOAA's ONI values, see second link), while the MEI data (see plot & third link) indicates that the current El Nino is appreciably weaker than either the 82-83 or the 97-98 El Ninos.  This makes me suspect that when the current El Nino goes away, the global mean surface temperatures will remain anomalously high compared to the observed record:

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/indices/wksst8110.for (http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/indices/wksst8110.for)

Extract:
Nino1+2      Nino3        Nino34        Nino4
Week          SST SSTA     SST SSTA     SST SSTA     SST SSTA

05NOV1997     25.0 3.7     28.4 3.4     29.2 2.6     29.2 0.6
12NOV1997     25.8 4.3     28.5 3.6     29.3 2.7     29.5 0.8
19NOV1997     25.8 4.1     28.6 3.6     29.3 2.7     29.7 1.1
26NOV1997     25.9 3.9     28.7 3.7     29.4 2.8     29.7 1.1
03DEC1997     26.2 3.9     28.6 3.6     29.2 2.6     29.4 0.9
10DEC1997     26.7 4.2     28.7 3.6     29.2 2.7     29.4 0.9
17DEC1997     27.0 4.1     28.8 3.6     29.3 2.7     29.3 0.8
24DEC1997     27.2 4.0     28.8 3.5     29.3 2.7     29.3 0.9
31DEC1997     27.7 4.1     28.9 3.5     29.2 2.7     29.2 0.8

07OCT2015     23.4 2.7     27.7 2.8     29.1 2.4     29.7 1.0
14OCT2015     23.3 2.5     27.5 2.6     29.1 2.4     29.7 1.1
21OCT2015     23.1 2.2     27.5 2.6     29.2 2.5     29.9 1.3
28OCT2015     23.4 2.3     27.7 2.8     29.4 2.7     30.0 1.4
04NOV2015     23.4 2.1     27.8 2.8     29.5 2.8     30.3 1.7
11NOV2015     23.5 2.0     27.9 3.0     29.7 3.0     30.3 1.7
18NOV2015     23.8 2.1     28.0 3.0     29.7 3.1     30.4 1.8
25NOV2015     24.4 2.4     28.0 3.0     29.6 3.0     30.3 1.8

For the ONI values see:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml (http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml)

For the MEI values see:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/ (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Csnavywx on December 11, 2015, 02:19:41 AM
December has been rocking. First 8 days from Nick Stokes have averaged .755 (!) above 1994-2013 and a new one-day record of 0.94 was set on Dec. 8th. Incredible.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: James Lovejoy on December 11, 2015, 03:51:44 AM
If you include the NCEP Global Forecast System and Reanalysis as reported by karstenhaustein, through Dec 17, the anomaly is almost 0.7D 1994-2013  C which would lead to a GISS anomaly of well over 1.0C.

Expect a reversion to the mean. But also expect a December 2015 global temperatures among the highest in recorded history, likely the highest.  You are a fool if you bet on 2015 not being the warmest in recorded history, even if you get 1000 to 1 odds.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: BornFromTheVoid on December 11, 2015, 03:21:14 PM
At +0.68C above the 81-10 average (and +0.88C above the 61-90 average) November 2015 is the warmest on record by a massive 0.247C, according to the NCEP reanalysis data. The top 10 warmest Novembers have all occurred since 2001, and 14 of the 15 warmest are from the last 15 years.

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FikqRePh.png&hash=4c197d960065124936f9e79ba2dbc5cd)

The top 5 Novembers

2015:    13.852C
2012:    13.605C
2010:    13.561C
2013:    13.536C
2005:    13.532C

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/data/timeseries/timeseries.pl?ntype=1&var=Air+Temperature&level=2000&lat1=90&lat2=-90&lon1=0&lon2=360&iseas=1&mon1=10&mon2=10&iarea=1&typeout=1&Submit=Create+Timeseries (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/data/timeseries/timeseries.pl?ntype=1&var=Air+Temperature&level=2000&lat1=90&lat2=-90&lon1=0&lon2=360&iseas=1&mon1=10&mon2=10&iarea=1&typeout=1&Submit=Create+Timeseries)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: oren on December 11, 2015, 05:37:42 PM
That's one hell of a breakout, even if it has random elements and an El-Nino. It looks much different from the spike in 1998.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Csnavywx on December 12, 2015, 02:38:01 PM
Dec. 9 sets (another) one day record: 0.975 above 1994-2013.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: James Lovejoy on December 13, 2015, 09:11:20 PM
Nick Stokes is reporting an incredible 0.803 anomaly for the 1st 11 days of December.  However, according to Karsten Haustein's report on the NCEP Global Forecast, their is going to be a rapid cooling to around 0.2-0.25 around the end of the current forcast period Dec 18 12z to Dec 20 12z.

Right now, assuming the forecasts are correct, we would have about 0.65C anomaly vs 1994-2013.  If the forecast cool weather continued through the end of the month, we would get a still warm approx 0.5c anomaly just a little smaller than November's .

As an aside, NOAA still has Dec 17 for their release of November's Global State of the Climate, by then NASA's GISS, and probably Japan's global temperature results should also be out.  I'll be interested in finding out what they report.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: BornFromTheVoid on December 14, 2015, 12:28:53 PM
Just as with the NCEP data, JMA shows November 2015 smashing the previous November, this time by +0.23C

Five Warmest Years (Anomalies)

1st. 2015 (+0.54°C),
2nd. 2013 (+0.31°C),
3rd. 2001 (+0.26°C),
4th. 2012 (+0.25°C),
5th. 2014, 2006, 2004, 1997 (+0.24°C)

The Autumn record, also thoroughly smashed, beating the record set last year by +0.22C

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fds.data.jma.go.jp%2Ftcc%2Ftcc%2Fproducts%2Fgwp%2Ftemp%2Ffig%2Faut_wld.png&hash=be209917af70d127a4a37e90ddc28ef5)

http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/aut_wld.html (http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/aut_wld.html)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: James Lovejoy on December 14, 2015, 11:11:13 PM
NASA GISS for November is out.  1.05C and a revision of October to 1.06C.

So November is the warmest November forever in the temperature record, it has the second highest anomaly for any month in the GISS record.

GISS also shows 2015 as the warmest autumn (SON) in GISS history (but by only 0.17C, and the warmest D-N period in GISS history by 0.11C.

2015 continues to blow the previous warmest year (2014) out of the water. How warm would it be if there weren't a "pause"?  /sarc
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: BornFromTheVoid on December 15, 2015, 11:27:10 AM
According to GISS, November 2015 is warmest on record by +0.25C. It's also 0.4C warmer than the last similar November El Nino, in 1997

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FPmNdvzH.png&hash=5b84ebaed2402964594324b84bac1730)

Top 5 Novembers

2015: +1.05C
2013: +0.80C
2010: +0.79C
2009: +0.78C
2005: +0.75C
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: BornFromTheVoid on December 15, 2015, 08:51:39 PM
Can you spot "the pause"?

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FnHAgjzf.png&hash=0fb622fa3ce5f536687b41dfbeb76f81)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Tor Bejnar on December 15, 2015, 09:30:01 PM
BFTV,
The one that started in the 1940's and ended before 1980? Or the one that started in the 1880's and ended in the 1930's?  ;D

It is interesting looking for the two-year periods (nothing to do with climate) where the 12-month rolling average changes very little.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: plinius on December 16, 2015, 12:38:33 AM
BFTV,
a) The one that started in the 1940's and ended before 1980? Or the one that started in the 1880's and ended in the 1930's?  ;D
b) It is interesting looking for the two-year periods (nothing to do with climate) where the 12-month rolling average changes very little.

To a) btw. the 1940s spike is with all likelihood an artifact caused by the altered ship data during world war II. Which is why the spike covers exactly those years. See this essay:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2015/20150824_GlobalTemperatureUpdate.pdf (http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2015/20150824_GlobalTemperatureUpdate.pdf)

To b) This is red noise and quasi-periods caused by the length of the moving average. Always fascinating how it fools the eye. You will be prone to see periods of 2, 4, 6, etc. years. Most notable occurences: Poor fooled people who believe in 60 year periods on 30year smoothed datasets (they call themselves skepticists), and some astrophysicists who saw pseudo-oscillations in solar flares.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: jai mitchell on December 16, 2015, 10:00:09 PM
BFV

Yes, the "Pause" is located between 1946 and 1977.   Isn't it interesting how a relatively small reduction (as a percent of global) aerosol emissions sparked the post 1978 warming trend?

Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: plinius on December 16, 2015, 10:04:43 PM
The important thing is not the reduction, but the difference in trend. Before 1980 the (mostly anthropogenic) aerosols compensated for the methane and CO2 warming effects. After that, the CO2 levels rose further, while we held the SO2 emissions nearly constant globally (shifting the emitting regions of course).
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: skanky on December 17, 2015, 12:56:56 PM
UKMO's annual global temp. forecast: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2015/global-temperature (http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2015/global-temperature)

Looks like they expect it to be the 3rd record in a row, or thereabouts.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Buddy on December 17, 2015, 08:37:06 PM
I was always curious about "other countries temperatures".  In the US....there are many charts floating around over the past several years that show the "ratio of new record high temperatures....to new record low temperatures."  In the US.....the ratio is now up to 1.73 for THIS DECADE (1.73 new daily record high temperature records set.....for every 1.0 new record daily low temperature set).

But I was curious about Russia...Brazil....maybe Australia.  So I have started a "little project" and I have now added Russia (from 1960 up to today....I will add 1930 - 1960 when I get a break from my "Santa duties".

But when I prepared the spreadsheet and power point page......my jaw kind of "hit the floor".  The ratio of new record highs to new record lows in Russia is MUCH GREATER than that of the US.

Of course....my first thought is that Russia has a lot more permafrost.....melting permafrost at that....and that might be the culprit that creates many more new record highs to new record lows.  But I must say...it was a bit "disconcerting" to me.

I will likely be "combining" both the Russia chart and the US chart onto one chart in the near future.  As well....I will be doing a chart for Brazil and Australia in the next couple of weeks as well.

Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: James Lovejoy on December 18, 2015, 05:08:08 AM
Nick Stoke's anomaly of 1994-2013 through December 15 is 0.755, if you add in Karsten Haustien's NCEP forecasts through the 24th, the anomaly falls to 0.617, which is still greater than October and November's anomaly, and would, if it continued to the end of the month, not only result in the warmest December in the temperature record, but the highest anomaly ever.  Right now, the warmest December ever   since records have been kept is extremely likely, and it's almost certainly going to be the warmest year since records have been kept.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Seumas on December 18, 2015, 04:40:22 PM
But when I prepared the spreadsheet and power point page......my jaw kind of "hit the floor".  The ratio of new record highs to new record lows in Russia is MUCH GREATER than that of the US.

I'm afraid that link doesn't work for me. It looks like it's a link that will only work for you logged in. Could you try creating the link from another browser that isn't logged in?
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Buddy on December 18, 2015, 07:53:32 PM

http://climatechangegraphs.blogspot.com/2012/08/ratio-of-new-record-high-temps-to-new_36.html (http://climatechangegraphs.blogspot.com/2012/08/ratio-of-new-record-high-temps-to-new_36.html)

You can see from the first chart of the US....vs the second chart of Russia...that Russia has almost TWICE the ratio of new record daily highs to new daily record lows.  I guess I was NOT expecting that it would be so much greater than the US.

Also....keep in mind....that the variability WITHIN a decade can be substantial.  For instance....the US ratio was 3.0 to 1.0 if you would have measured it at the end of the FIRST THREE YEARS OF THIS DECADE.  But 2013 and 2014 were "cool years" in the US....and the ratio has dropped.

This chart shows the variability within the US over the past couple decades BY YEAR:

http://climatechangegraphs.blogspot.com/2012/08/ratio-of-new-daily-record-high-temps-to_30.html (http://climatechangegraphs.blogspot.com/2012/08/ratio-of-new-daily-record-high-temps-to_30.html)

Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: James Lovejoy on December 18, 2015, 08:05:21 PM
NOAA has published its State of the Climate - Global Nov 2015.

NOAA's figures vary slightly from NASA, but agree with both NASA and Japan Met, in finding November the Warmest in the history of temperature records, with the fall season, and year to date also being the warmest in recorded history, all by a significant margin.

The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for November 2015 was the highest for November in the 136-year period of record, at 0.97°C (1.75°F) above the 20th century average of 12.9°C (55.2°F), breaking the previous record of 2013 by 0.15°C (0.27°F). This marks the seventh consecutive month that a monthly global temperature record has been broken. The temperature departure from average for November is also the second highest among all months in the 136-year period of record. The highest departure of 0.99°C (1.79°F) occurred last month.

The September–November seasonal temperature was 0.96°C (1.73°F) above the 20th century average of 14.0°C (57.1°F). This marks the highest departure from average for the season in the 136-year period of record, surpassing the previous record set last year by 0.21°C (0.38°F).

The first 11 months of 2015 were the warmest such period on record across the world's land and ocean surfaces, at 0.87°C (1.57°F) above the 20th century average of 14.0°C (57.2°F), surpassing the previous record set last year by 0.14°C (0.25°F). Nine of the first eleven months in 2015 have been record warm for their respective months, with January second warmest for January and April third warmest.

Other details on NOAA's report are at  https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201511 (https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201511)

Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on December 21, 2015, 08:24:41 PM
While this is old news, I do like the format that SkS uses to compare the 12-month running average, and 30-year linear trend through the end of Nov 2015.  While it is pleasant to believe/hope that the trend will remain linear, I am concerned that the closer that we get to the 2C limit, the more likely that this trend will become non-linear.  Also, as at the end of Nov 2015 we were at 1.095C, I believe that it is highly likely that by the end of 2015 we will be over 1.1C
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Laurent on December 21, 2015, 09:09:35 PM
If I mix CO2 en temperature, that give that...

Well, no scientific validity but I do think at some point the temp will match the inflexion that we see on the CO2 and then things should accelerate... dramatically...
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Shared Humanity on December 21, 2015, 09:46:00 PM
If I mix CO2 en temperature, that give that...

Well, no scientific validity but I do think at some point the temp will match the inflexion that we see on the CO2 and then things should accelerate... dramatically...

While I certainly expect the warming to accelerate dramatically, I would be shocked to see the increase in temperature to come anywhere close to the slope of the increase in CO2, unless of course, we finally get serious about emissions. I think what we are seeing in the ever widening gap between CO2 and temperature increase is exactly what we should expect. This gap is essentially demonstrating how the CO2 increases are locking in temperature increases for perhaps hundreds of years.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on December 21, 2015, 09:59:58 PM
If I mix CO2 en temperature, that give that...

Well, no scientific validity but I do think at some point the temp will match the inflexion that we see on the CO2 and then things should accelerate... dramatically...

While I certainly expect the warming to accelerate dramatically, I would be shocked to see the increase in temperature to come anywhere close to the slope of the increase in CO2, unless of course, we finally get serious about emissions. I think what we are seeing in the ever widening gap between CO2 and temperature increase is exactly what we should expect. This gap is essentially demonstrating how the CO2 increases are locking in temperature increases for perhaps hundreds of years.

While growth of atmospheric CO2 concentration only cause logarithmic changes in temperatures, the linked article explains why we should still be concerned:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/C02-emissions-vs-Temperature-growth.html (http://www.skepticalscience.com/C02-emissions-vs-Temperature-growth.html)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: James Lovejoy on December 22, 2015, 01:40:41 AM
Nick Stoke's anomaly of 1994-2013 through December 19 is 0.673, if you add in Karsten Haustien's NCEP forecasts through the 28th, the anomaly falls to 0.610, which is still greater than October and November's anomaly, but will likely not be enough to create the largest anomaly in GISS or NOAA.  It will almost certainly be the warmest December in the Temperature record, and certainly the warmest year since record keeping began.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: James Lovejoy on December 25, 2015, 08:10:52 PM
We have enough information to make some educated guesses of the December, and Annual temperature anomalies for 2015.

Here's my take.  Using Nick Stoke's data through Dec 23, and Karsten Haustien's NCEP forecasts for the rest of the year, December will be the warmest on record, and probably the 3rd highest anomaly on record, behind October 2015 and November 2015,  There's a some chance that it will be higher or lower than 3rd, but that's the way to bet.  2015 will be the warmest on record, with the annual anomaly probably either 85 or 86, either way more than 1/10th of a degree above the 2nd warmest.

Now for some speculation.  I think 2016 is likely to be warmer than 2015, but not as much a lock as some people seem to think.  In any case, unless the el nino gets a second life, I do not expect 2016 to blow 2015 away like '98 did '97.

Interesting times.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Sigmetnow on December 26, 2015, 05:32:39 PM
Russia warming 'more than twice as fast' as rest of the world
Quote
MOSCOW: Russia is warming more than twice as fast as the rest of the world, the environment ministry said on Friday, sounding an alarm on the rise in floods and wildfires nationwide.

A government report on environmental protection said temperatures in Russia had warmed by 0.42 degrees Celsius per decade since 1976, or 2.5 times higher than the global warming trend of 0.17 degrees.

“Climate change leads to growth of dangerous meteorological phenomena,” the ministry said in a comment to the report published Friday.

There have been 569 such phenomena in Russia in 2014, “the largest since monitoring began,” the ministry said, including last year’s ravaging floods and this year’s “water deficit” east of Lake Baikal, which led to a “catastrophic rise in fires.”

President Vladimir Putin rarely voices concerns about climate change, having famously said in the past that a little warming would not hurt the  country and seeing it as a boon for Arctic development.

Experts however have cautioned that warming could hurt energy infrastructure on permafrost in Siberia and increase other risks.
http://nation.com.pk/international/25-Dec-2015/russia-warming-more-than-twice-as-fast-as-rest-of-the-world (http://nation.com.pk/international/25-Dec-2015/russia-warming-more-than-twice-as-fast-as-rest-of-the-world)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Buddy on December 27, 2015, 12:36:18 AM
Take a look at the second graph down on the link below.  It shows the ratio of New Daily Record High Temperature Records.....to New Low temp records.  I have done this for the US, Russia, and Canada (Canada is still in process...but done from 1970 - today...will be finishing Pre 1970 soon).  You can see that Russia is off the charts.

http://climatechangegraphs.blogspot.com/2012/08/ratio-of-new-record-high-temps-to-new_36.html (http://climatechangegraphs.blogspot.com/2012/08/ratio-of-new-record-high-temps-to-new_36.html)

Russia is in trouble in a LOT of ways.  A country so dependent on natural resources....especially oil...  BIG TROUBLE in their future.

Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Sigmetnow on December 28, 2015, 02:46:26 AM

Warm Arctic Storm To Hurl Hurricane Force Winds at UK and Iceland, Push Temps to 72+ Degrees (F) Above Normal at North Pole
Quote
(The Arctic region as a whole is expected to experience a [frankly quite insane] temperature anomaly in the range of 4 degrees Celsius above average by January 3rd of 2016. Note the broad regions over Northern Canada, Siberia, and the Arctic Ocean that are predicted to experience temperatures in the range of 20 degrees Celsius above the already hotter than normal 1979 to 2000 baseline readings. For some areas — particularly in Northern Canada — this will mean near or even above freezing temperatures for tundra and permafrost zones in the depths of Winter. A set of conditions that has serious implications for permafrost thaw and related carbon store feedbacks. Image source: Climate Reanalyzer.)
http://robertscribbler.com/2015/12/27/warm-arctic-storm-to-hurl-hurricane-force-winds-at-uk-and-iceland-push-temps-to-72-degrees-f-above-normal-at-north-pole/ (http://robertscribbler.com/2015/12/27/warm-arctic-storm-to-hurl-hurricane-force-winds-at-uk-and-iceland-push-temps-to-72-degrees-f-above-normal-at-north-pole/)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Sigmetnow on December 29, 2015, 07:24:50 PM
Switzerland has warmest December ever as average temperatures rise 3.4C
The country that founded winter tourism has seen the mildest end to the year since records began 150 years ago with ski resort owners set to suffer
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/29/switzerland-has-warmest-december-ever-as-average-temperatures-rise-34c (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/29/switzerland-has-warmest-december-ever-as-average-temperatures-rise-34c)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Theta on December 29, 2015, 07:44:17 PM
Switzerland has warmest December ever as average temperatures rise 3.4C
The country that founded winter tourism has seen the mildest end to the year since records began 150 years ago with ski resort owners set to suffer
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/29/switzerland-has-warmest-december-ever-as-average-temperatures-rise-34c (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/29/switzerland-has-warmest-december-ever-as-average-temperatures-rise-34c)

Something similar happened in 2011 to 2012 if I am correct
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: deep octopus on December 30, 2015, 06:33:55 PM
As the sun sets over 2015, December is finishing the year true to form, with record breaking warmth across the globe. In the attached graphic, using surface air temperature data from NCEP/NCAR, we find that not a single day of 2015 was below the 1981-2010 baseline (data through December 27th.) This illustrates just how off the charts 2015 was. We find also that the daily global temperature had generally vacillated between the mean and up to anomalies of about 0.6 C from when I started tracking in late 2013 up until the end of July, when surface temperatures began to creep upwards and expressed some intense spikes of over 1 C in October and December. Much of this short term spike is due to the furious growth of El Niño. El Niño now promises a volatile 2016, and it is possible that La Niña sweeps in as a change of the guards, which may blunt some of the expected record warming later in 2016 (I suspect the peak 12-month average of the warming spike will occur sometime in the northern summer of 2016).
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Theta on December 31, 2015, 03:19:41 PM
I don't really know where else to put this, so I decided to place it here. Attached is a video of Guy's presentation in Miami where he talks about the effects of aerosol loss, the most important point he makes is that without the return of aerosols to the atmosphere, the earth experiences rapid warming that leads to 4C rapidly (within weeks I think)

Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: plinius on December 31, 2015, 08:35:19 PM
how about reading a scientific paper, instead of multi-posting pretty pathetic and mostly political babble mistaken for facts?
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Buddy on January 01, 2016, 04:50:07 PM
Warm December in Europe:

Here are some figures I compiled from NOAA (here is the link if any of you want it:  http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/datatools/records (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/datatools/records))

I ran some "query's" for Norway, Finland, Sweden, UK, France, Spain, and Italy.  I looked for Ne Record Highs.....and New Record Lows (no TIED records....only NEW records).

For December so far....here are the numbers;

Norway:  28 new record highs....0 new record lows
Finland:  69 new record highs....0 new record lows
Sweden:  23 new record highs...0 new record lows
UK:         81 new record highs....0 new record lows
France:   111 new record highs...1 new record low (on their island in the middle of the Pacific)
Spain:     180 new record highs... 2 new record lows
Italy:       45 new record highs.....1 new record low

If you ignore the 1 new record high from France's island in the middle of the Pacific (and concentrate on Europe).....then the ratio is a staggering 179 to 1.

Yes Europe.....you're having a very warm December.... :-X
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: werther on January 01, 2016, 10:16:45 PM
Thanks Buddy,
I just put a post on the 'Weird weather'-thread concerning The Netherlands'new December mean temp record....
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Buddy on January 01, 2016, 10:37:57 PM
Regarding "warm December weather in Europe".....

Just ran some numbers for a few other countries just for grins:  Ukraine, Poland, Hungry, Romania.  No record lows among any of them.  If you add those countries to the other countries I ran....you get a ridiculous ratio of 278 to 1.

For the United States....I have run numbers from 1930 through 12/30/2015.  The highest ratio of "new record highs to new record lows" that I came up with for ANY month in that time frame.....was March of 2012, and that was 32 to 1.

Also...the ratio is so high....not so much from the number of record high temperatures you folks are having....but from the LACK of record low temperatures.  Because of the additional loading of the atmosphere with CO2...the nights and early mornings are maintaining their heat (as explained by the scientists who first did research in 2009 on the "record high to record low" numbers in the US).

But in Europe for December........it is just OFF THE CHARTS, because of the almost absolute lack of new record low temps for December.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: deep octopus on January 02, 2016, 01:32:19 AM
Every major weather station east of the Mississippi River logged its warmest departure over a one week period during the week of Christmas. Washington, DC (and many other places in eastern North America) had its warmest December, overtaking the second warmest by a massive 5.5 F (3.1 C). The monthly departure was something like 13 F from the 20th century average. It was also the warmest departure from average for any calendar month.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on January 02, 2016, 06:04:41 PM
The linked Skeptical Science article about global mean surface temperatures highlights several considerations:
- The GISS (LOTI) value above pre-industrial for November 2015 was 1.306C (see extract); which was well above the 12-month running average value of 1.095C
- The first attached associated image shows that the current El Nino has not yet contributed much to the current high temperatures, and that the El Nino contributions are more likely to occur in the Feb to April 2016 timeframe.
- The second attached associated image shows the 2015 temperatures well above other recent years.
- The third attached non-associated image shows Gavin Schmidt's Dec 14 2015 projection for 2015 temps, and as December has shown record heat we can assume that the 2015 temp will be near (or above) the top of Gavin's error bar (in a week, or more, we should know the actual measured value for 2015):

https://www.skepticalscience.com/2c-2015-11.html (https://www.skepticalscience.com/2c-2015-11.html)

Extract: "November produced another scorcher in the GISS record, coming in at 1.05°C over baseline. If we add our preindustrial baseline adjustment of -0.256 we get a preindustrial anomaly of 1.306°C (this is the difference between the GISS baseline and the 1880-1909 preindustrial baseline)."

Edit: With regards to the second attached image, note that while the El Nino didn't start until the middle of 2015, the first half of 2015 was well above all other years; thus indicating that climate change played a stronger role than the El Nino in achieving the warmest year on record.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Buddy on January 02, 2016, 08:25:23 PM
One additional tidbit for the "ratio of new daily record high temps to new daily record low temps" for Europe in December:

I took a "broader look" at Europe for the entire month of December through the 31st....and also broadened my scope to include EVERY country in "continental Europe" + Ireland, UK, and Iceland.  so I included the eastern European countries.  33 Countries in all (couldn't get data for Germany).

There were only 5 new record daily LOWS for the month.....3 in Iceland and 2 in Italy.  There were 882 new daily record high temperatures set.

Spain had 182....France 113.....Ukraine 98.....U. Kingdom 84....Finland 69....Belarus 66.....Italy 45.....Estonia 43.....Norway 30.  Those had the most numerous new record daily highs.

It should be pointed out.....that Russia had 461 new record highs to 15 new record lows as well.  So....temperature wise it was warm from the east coast of the United States.....all the way east through all of Europe and Russia.  THAT....is a LARGE AREA to have a lot of warmth.

This is just the beginning....we have another 50+ years of this and much...much...more I'm afraid.

Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: James Lovejoy on January 03, 2016, 05:16:45 AM
To quote from Nick Stokes' blog

"The Moyhu NCEP/NCAR index for December was 0.621°C, up from November's 0.513°C, and ahead of the previous record - October 2015 at 0.567°C, which itself was a big jump on the previous record. It was an eventful month, with another extraordinary peak early, then mid-month the steepest plunge in recent years (but only to values which would have been high a few months ago) and then back to hot at the end.

There were some late data troubles - a data pause from NCEP for three days, and at my end, I have some end of year issues to fix. But they don't affect the results posted.

Adjusted to the 1951-1980 baseline of GISS, that would give a month anomaly of 1.18°C. The current record there is October at 1.06°C. I would expect that GISS might be a bit lower than 1.18, but still the hottest month in the record. Which makes 2015 even more securely the hottest year. "

My guess for December is around 1.10C for GISS.  Very likely highest monthly anomaly in the temperature record.  Certainly both the highest December anomaly on record, and the warmest year by a lot.  My estimated anomaly for the year is up slightly from .85-.86 to .86-.87.

Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Steven on January 13, 2016, 12:56:54 PM
According to Berkeley Earth, the 2015 annual average global surface temperature anomaly was about +0.78°C  (relative to 1951-1980), exceeding the previous warmest years 2014, 2010 and 2005 by about 0.14°C:

http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Global/Land_and_Ocean_summary.txt (http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Global/Land_and_Ocean_summary.txt)

Press release:

Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: BenB on January 14, 2016, 10:53:40 AM
JMA's December anomaly just came in, and it's virtually off the scale: +0.67°C vs the previous record of +0.31°C set just last year. Both values are measured against a 1981-2010 baseline. Here's a link to the graph:

http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/dec_wld.html (http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/dec_wld.html)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: James Lovejoy on January 14, 2016, 06:15:40 PM
Nick Stokes's data for the first 12 days of January is a scorching anomaly of 0.776.  Fortunately climate reanalyzer predicts cooler weather for the next week.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on January 15, 2016, 03:17:48 PM
JMA's December anomaly just came in, and it's virtually off the scale: +0.67°C vs the previous record of +0.31°C set just last year. Both values are measured against a 1981-2010 baseline. Here's a link to the graph:

http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/dec_wld.html (http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/dec_wld.html)

I get the impression that Robert Scribbler is concerned about global warming when he uses words like "Terrifying jump" to describe the JMA mean global temperature increase in December.

http://robertscribbler.com/2016/01/14/december-of-2015-at-1-4-c-above-1890-is-a-terrifying-new-jump-in-global-temperatures/ (http://robertscribbler.com/2016/01/14/december-of-2015-at-1-4-c-above-1890-is-a-terrifying-new-jump-in-global-temperatures/)

Extract: "A Terrifying Jump in Global Temperatures — December of 2015 at 1.4 C Above 1890"

Edit: Here is the JMA plot that both Scribbler & BenB are referring to
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Laurent on January 15, 2016, 04:44:25 PM
What may be terrifying is that all these gentlemen who met at Paris recently for the cop21 would have to meet again very soon, the target is supposed to be 1.5°c, at that pace we will meet it sooner than they think !!! Come back food is good in France (used to). ;)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Lord M Vader on January 16, 2016, 08:44:55 PM
Nick Stokes values for 1-14 of January shows an astonishing anomaly of +0,791o. If this warmth continues through the rest of the month we'll be very close to have an anomaly close to +1,5o above pre-industrial time. One may also wonder what effect the current restrengthening of El Nino will have on the global temp anomalies.

Best, LMV
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: James Lovejoy on January 18, 2016, 12:10:33 AM
The values thru Jan 15 are up to 0.793!

Climate Reanalyzer's global anomaly forecasts have us going to more reasonable temperatures.  I've been tracking both Nick Stokes's data, and the Climate Reanalyzer global forecasts (as provided by http://www.karstenhaustein.com/climate (http://www.karstenhaustein.com/climate) ).  Unfortunately, Nick Stokes values have not dipped down as predicted.  It looks likely that the series of highest anomaly months on record will continue.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Buddy on January 18, 2016, 12:18:19 AM
Note that.....COMBINED sea ice cover is VERY LOW with the Arctic sea ice at all time lows for this date....and the Antarctic sea ice has now moved below the average for 1980 - 2010.

All that ice gone.....more heat absorbed by the earth rather than reflected back out into space...
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: James Lovejoy on January 19, 2016, 05:13:24 PM
I've been waiting impatiently for the December GISS figures to come out.

When they didn't come out on the 18th, I put it down to the Holiday (Martin Luther King B-Day -Observed for the non-USians).  Since it's still not out, I am thinking they are delaying the announcement until the joint NASA-NOAA Telecon, Climate and weather.  January 20, 11AM US Eastern Time (4PM GMT).  http://www.nasa.gov/newsaudio (http://www.nasa.gov/newsaudio)

Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on January 19, 2016, 05:15:58 PM
I've been waiting impatiently for the December GISS figures to come out.

When they didn't come out on the 18th, I put it down to the Holiday (Martin Luther King B-Day -Observed for the non-USians).  Since it's still not out, I am thinking they are delaying the announcement until the joint NASA-NOAA Telecon, Climate and weather.  January 20, 11AM US Eastern Time (4PM GMT).  http://www.nasa.gov/newsaudio (http://www.nasa.gov/newsaudio)

That seems like a reasonable guess as somewhere I read that administratively both NASA and NOAA have committed to releasing this information no later than Jan 21, 2016.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: deep octopus on January 20, 2016, 04:44:56 PM
Surprise! 2015 was the hottest year on record. Today, NASA, the Met Office, and NOAA jointly reported the year as the hottest year ever.

Here's a graphic (attached) produced by NASA's GISS showing surface temperature anomalies compared to 1951-1980.

NASA reports an annual anomaly of 0.87 C over 1951-1980. In fact, December was 1.12 C above that average, the biggest anomaly ever registered on that index.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on January 20, 2016, 04:55:58 PM
Surprise! 2015 was the hottest year on record. Today, NASA, the Met Office, and NOAA jointly reported the year as the hottest year ever.

Here's a graphic (attached) produced by NASA's GISS showing surface temperature anomalies compared to 1951-1980.

NASA reports a 0.85 C anomaly over 1951-1980. In fact, December was 1.12 C above that average, the biggest anomaly ever registered on that index.

If I am not mistaken, Skeptical Science uses a 0.256C adjustment to the GISTEMP (LOTI = Land Ocean Temperature Index) to reference to the 1880-1909 preindustrial baseline.  If so this would imply that 2015 was 1.106C above pre-industrial temperatures.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: deep octopus on January 20, 2016, 05:15:32 PM
Surprise! 2015 was the hottest year on record. Today, NASA, the Met Office, and NOAA jointly reported the year as the hottest year ever.

Here's a graphic (attached) produced by NASA's GISS showing surface temperature anomalies compared to 1951-1980.

NASA reports a 0.87 C anomaly over 1951-1980. In fact, December was 1.12 C above that average, the biggest anomaly ever registered on that index.

If I am not mistaken, Skeptical Science uses a 0.256C adjustment to the GISTEMP (LOTI = Land Ocean Temperature Index) to reference to the 1880-1909 preindustrial baseline.  If so this would imply that 2015 was 1.106C above pre-industrial temperatures.

Based on the maps tool, I can confirm this is about right. Though the calculation I come up with suggests 1.15 C (so actually a tad warmer than that.) See attached.

This indicates that the recently arbitrated 1.5 C figure that came out of COP21 is not very distant. For instance, in 1995 (20 years ago and also the hottest year at the time, which in this way makes it a useful interval) was 0.71 C above 1880-1909. We could be pushing above 1.5 C in 20 years time, which is staggeringly little time to rapidly move away from fossil fuels, and perhaps, too, if there are non-linear feedbacks, it could reasonably occur in less than 20 years. But this isn't really the sort of math we need to negotiate. Each passing year is getting more dangerous.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on January 20, 2016, 05:23:07 PM
I will post the Skeptical Science 2C Tracker image through Dec 2015, when it becomes available, but if my 1.106C value (let alone DO's 1.15 value) is correct referenced to the 1880-1909 preindustrial baseline, then the attached Met Office plot indicating about a 1C value referenced to the preindustrial baseline average between 1850-1900, may be an intentional effort on the part of mainstream climate scientists (like Gavin Schmidt who should be reporting data baselined to 1880-1909) to reduce the drama associated with their announcement.  I think that the different scales used by scientists confuses the public and reduces pressure on policymakers to take adequate action:

http://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-2015-became-the-hottest-year-on-record (http://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-2015-became-the-hottest-year-on-record)

Extract: "Global temperature in 2015 was 0.75C above the 1961-1990 long-term average and a full 1C above preindustrial times, according to official figures from the UK’s Met Office.
Rising greenhouse gases and a “small contribution” from the El Niño in the Pacific combined to cause the record temperatures in 2015, the Met Office’s Prof Adam Scaife tells Carbon Brief.
There is unlikely to be any respite – scientists expect 2016 to be even warmer than 2015, says Scaife.
Overall, we expect El Niño to contribute around 25% to what will most likely be a new record global temperature in 2016.

(Note: The Met Office traditionally uses a 1961-1990 baseline, rather than the less well-defined “preindustrial” level. Where it uses term ‘preindustrial’, this refers to the average between 1850-1900, which is taken to be representative of a time before industrialisation took effect.)"
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on January 20, 2016, 05:55:55 PM
I don't mean to be a nitpicker but per the attached plot from the linked Mashable article, the 2015 GISTEMP was +0.87 which by my calculation would give a value of +1.126C above the 1880-1909 preindustrial baseline:

http://mashable.com/2016/01/20/2015-hottest-year-record/#r.51Nr4aqkqJ (http://mashable.com/2016/01/20/2015-hottest-year-record/#r.51Nr4aqkqJ)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on January 20, 2016, 06:22:42 PM
Again, I do not want to sound like a nitpicker but if one were to use the NOAA data referenced to 1951-1980, and used the Skeptical Science adjustment of 0.256C then per the attached figure (buried deep in the NOAA-NASA public announcement and which shows nonlinear behavior as does the JMA data), this would indicate that the Global Mean Surface Temperature is now +1.14C above the 1880-1909 preindustrial baseline (and I note that this value is essentially the same as DO's +1.15C value within my error of calculation):

http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-noaa-analyses-reveal-record-shattering-global-warm-temperatures-in-2015 (http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-noaa-analyses-reveal-record-shattering-global-warm-temperatures-in-2015)
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/noaa_nasa_global_analysis_2015.pdf (http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/noaa_nasa_global_analysis_2015.pdf)

PS if I seem confused as to just what mainstream NOAA-NASA climate scientists are saying, just imagine what the general public are thinking (or worse not thinking).

PPS note that during the faux hiatus the values are relatively flat while large amounts of heat were being sequestered in the ocean, where they may be contributing to our current extreme weather and/or Super El Nino.

PPPS I imagine that the Paris Agreement probably considers the 1850-1900 average as preindustrial which would give them more time before reaching 1.5C; however, as nature does not care about such diplomatic slight of hand, we will all be exposed to greater danger until we get radiative forcing under control.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Jim Hunt on January 20, 2016, 06:58:59 PM
My initial report on the recent briefings on 2015 global average surface temperatures from NOAA/NASA and the UK Met Office:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2016/01/2015-really-is-the-warmest-year-in-modern-record/#Briefing (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2016/01/2015-really-is-the-warmest-year-in-modern-record/#Briefing)

See in particular the "Storify" of recent events on Twitter. I waited patiently in the NASA/NOAA queue to ask some Arctic related questions, but never received the call. I'll let you know when I receive the promised answers by email.

Meanwhile, here's a novel graphic from Larry Hamilton (https://twitter.com/ichiloe/status/689850658527318017):
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Tor Bejnar on January 20, 2016, 07:40:08 PM
DMI's North of 80N current temperature (http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php) is about what one used to expect for mid April (or late October :D), or about 10C above 'normal'.
(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Focean.dmi.dk%2Farctic%2Fplots%2FmeanTarchive%2FmeanT_2016.png&hash=ed3bc1964e488b5d83cfae05c243a1bc)

But for perspective, a dozen other years have had a January temperature spike higher than this in the past 30 years, per these DMI graphs (http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php).  2006 looks to have had the warmest January in those dark northern reaches.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: oren on January 20, 2016, 07:55:14 PM
What a huge spike. It does look impressive.
It would be nice if all those idiots who posted articles about a global warming hiatus would apologize and/or explain that they were wrong. Too much to ask for, I know.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: S.Pansa on January 20, 2016, 08:34:19 PM
Here (http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2016/20160120_Temperature2015.pdf) is a short summary from James Hansen. Interesting stuff. Some quotes:

Quote
Accounting for interannual variability, it is fair to say that global warming has now reached ~1°C, almost ~2°F.

Quote
The late-2015 record warmth was spurred by a strong El Niño (Fig. 3).  Global temperature anomaly, averaged over many El Niños, is strongly correlated with Niño3.4  temperature anomaly, with global temperature lagging Niño3.4 anomaly by ~3 months.  Thus we can
anticipate that 2016 will again be very warm on global average, as temperature in the first half of the year will be boosted by the fading El Niño and Earth’s continuing average energy imbalance of 0.5-1 W/m-2 also creates a tendency toward warming.

So if we account for the El Nino, the warming ist ~1 °C. The reference period seems to be the 1880-1920 mean. But is that realy the pre-industrial temperature? Or is it the temperature around 1750? Call me confused.

Tom Curtis and Rob Honeycutt, who makes the Skeptical Science 2-C-tracking graph, had an interesting discussion (http://www.skepticalscience.com/2c-2015-11.html) about this very topic. They seem to agree that the 1750 temps baseline is ~0.2 C lower than the 1880-1909 baseline. So if we account for that it would be more like 1.2°C. Could that be correct?

Sou at  HotWhopper cites a recent article (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-e-mann/how-close-are-we-to-dangerous-planetary-warming_b_8841534.html) by Michael Mann in the Huffington Post. He writes:

Quote
The graph has been annotated to indicate the warming observed by 1800 and 1900. It is evident that roughly 0.3C greenhouse warming had already taken place by 1900, and roughly 0.2C warming by 1870. While that might seem like a minor amount of warming, it has significant implications for the challenge we face in stabilizing warming below 2C, let alone 1.5C, as we shall see below.

That would roughly confirm the 0.2/1.2 C numbers. Nonetheless, all pretty confusing - and way too warm for my taste.

Edit: I have attached the graph Mann is referencing in the quote above
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on January 20, 2016, 08:52:16 PM
Here (http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2016/20160120_Temperature2015.pdf) is a short summary from James Hansen. Interesting stuff. Some quotes:

Quote
Accounting for interannual variability, it is fair to say that global warming has now reached ~1°C, almost ~2°F.

Quote
The late-2015 record warmth was spurred by a strong El Niño (Fig. 3).  Global temperature anomaly, averaged over many El Niños, is strongly correlated with Niño3.4  temperature anomaly, with global temperature lagging Niño3.4 anomaly by ~3 months.  Thus we can
anticipate that 2016 will again be very warm on global average, as temperature in the first half of the year will be boosted by the fading El Niño and Earth’s continuing average energy imbalance of 0.5-1 W/m-2 also creates a tendency toward warming.

So if we account for the El Nino, the warming ist ~1 °C. The reference period seems to be the 1880-1920 mean. But is that realy the pre-industrial temperature? Or is it the temperature around 1750? Call me confused.

Tom Curtis and Rob Honeycutt, who makes the Skeptical Science 2-C-tracking graph, had an interesting discussion (http://www.skepticalscience.com/2c-2015-11.html) about this very topic. They seem to agree that the 1750 temps baseline is ~0.2 C lower than the 1880-1909 baseline. So if we account for that it would be more like 1.2°C. Could that be correct?

Sou at  HotWhopper cites a recent article (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-e-mann/how-close-are-we-to-dangerous-planetary-warming_b_8841534.html) by Michael Mann in the Huffington Post. He writes:

Quote
The graph has been annotated to indicate the warming observed by 1800 and 1900. It is evident that roughly 0.3C greenhouse warming had already taken place by 1900, and roughly 0.2C warming by 1870. While that might seem like a minor amount of warming, it has significant implications for the challenge we face in stabilizing warming below 2C, let alone 1.5C, as we shall see below.

That would roughly confirm the 0.2/1.2 C numbers. Nonetheless, all pretty confusing - and way too warm for my taste.

Edi: I attache the graph Mann is referencing in the quote above

Thanks for the interesting post.  Attached are two images from the Hansen et al 2016 paper that you linked to.  Also per the following link it does appear that the IPCC considers 1750 as preindustrial, so maybe your 1.2C value is what policy-makers will hold themselves to:

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/mains2-2.html (https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/mains2-2.html)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: S.Pansa on January 20, 2016, 09:06:00 PM
Thanks AbruptSLR.

To add another fact from the Mann article.

Quote
Let's summarize. We're already close to 1.2C net warming for the Northern Hemisphere relative to a true pre-industrial baseline. If we were to suddenly halt all fossil fuel burning (and other human activities generating carbon emissions), then greenhouse warming would cease [...] However, we would see another ~0.5C warming owing to the disappearance of sulphate pollutants, yielding 1.2C+0.5C = 1.7C total warming, perilously close to the 2C limit

So much about the 1.5 C goal ...

(Note: Mann is talking about the Northern Hemisphere because he based his calculations on the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature. And the data in this record for the 1750 - 1850 timeframe are only available for te NH,  to a meaningfully extent at least.)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: BornFromTheVoid on January 20, 2016, 10:17:55 PM
Here's a graph of the GISS LOTI data for December

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F0j1LsVL.png&hash=647d386dab2e534407d26dff03afa875)

And all monthly data with a 12 monthly rolling average.

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FNtTifwr.png&hash=f2652737252d3b38ca4c1fe2710264ba)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on January 20, 2016, 11:20:35 PM
Thanks AbruptSLR.

To add another fact from the Mann article.

Quote
Let's summarize. We're already close to 1.2C net warming for the Northern Hemisphere relative to a true pre-industrial baseline. If we were to suddenly halt all fossil fuel burning (and other human activities generating carbon emissions), then greenhouse warming would cease [...] However, we would see another ~0.5C warming owing to the disappearance of sulphate pollutants, yielding 1.2C+0.5C = 1.7C total warming, perilously close to the 2C limit

So much about the 1.5 C goal ...

(Note: Mann is talking about the Northern Hemisphere because he based his calculations on the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature. And the data in this record for the 1750 - 1850 timeframe are only available for te NH,  to a meaningfully extent at least.)

Also, I would like to note that while individuals like Mann, Hansen, Schmidt, etc are mostly interested in comparing to AR5 values/targets; AR5 projections all used linear climate models and ignored the influence of phenomena like the ENSO cycle (assuming that on balance its influence nets to zero; however, I have posted numerous peer-reviewed papers that state otherwise).  Thus, if one is concerned with ENSO peak values (say due to concern with accelerated rainforest degradation) and one likes NOAA's values, then considering the 1998 was about 0.15C above 1997, as 1750 is 0.2C above 1880-1909 mean, then it is very likely that we are already committed to at least a 2016 value of 1.14C (see Reply #699) + 0.15 + 0.2 = 1.49C above 1750.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on January 21, 2016, 12:24:30 AM
The linked article states that the 2015 record was overwhelmingly the result of anthropogenic global warming, with a limited contribution from the record El Nino.  Furthermore, it cites a high probability that 2016 will be considerably warming than 2015:

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/2015-hottest-year-2016-could-surpass-19929 (http://www.climatecentral.org/news/2015-hottest-year-2016-could-surpass-19929)

Extract: "While El Niño contributed to the record, a Climate Central analysis has shown that 2015’s high temperature was overwhelmingly the result of manmade warming."
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on January 21, 2016, 01:01:07 AM
I am not sure what this Nick Stokes HadCRUT Temp Anom plot is showing, but it looks like the January 2016 are accelerating as compared to Dec 2015

http://www.moyhu.blogspot.com.au/p/temperature-trend-viewer.html (http://www.moyhu.blogspot.com.au/p/temperature-trend-viewer.html)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Sleepy on January 21, 2016, 05:46:30 AM
Now there's finally a somewhat larger dip in Stokes NCEP/NCAR reanalysis. Jan 18 at 0.449.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: BornFromTheVoid on January 21, 2016, 01:36:35 PM
AMA with Gavin Schmidt and Reto Ruedy on reddit currently

Science AMA Series: We are Gavin Schmidt and Reto Ruedy, of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and on Wed., Jan. 20 we released our analysis that found 2015 was the warmest year — by a lot — in the modern record. Ask Us Anything!

Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Jim Hunt on January 21, 2016, 03:28:47 PM
Thanks for the heads up BFTV. I've asked 'em some Arctic questions:

Please feel free to vote positively on my enquiry!
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on January 21, 2016, 04:06:11 PM
In July 2015 Gavin Schmidt posted the attached plot with the star showing the June 2015 GISS temperature change compared to his linear climate model projections, & he noted how close the measured data correlated to the mean value of his projections.  However, the data from the following GISS monthly temperature change table shows an increase in temperature from June to December 2015 of (1.12 - 0.78) = 0.32C.

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

Furthermore, if the temperature difference between 2016 and 2015 is the same as from 1998 and 1997; then for 2016 we need to add another 0.15C

If one makes these adjustments then by the end of 2016 measured temperatures are almost guaranteed to be near (it actually exceeds his force-adjusted curve) Gavin's 95% CL upper bound.  With a positive PDO phase underway, with China cleaning up their aerosol emissions and with the Paris Agreement not kicking in until 2020, within less than 5 years we will see whether mainstream climate researchers will be able to continue clinging to the 95% CL of their linear climate model projections; or whether they will admit that they need to include nonlinear feedback terms, this century, in order to match the data.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Csnavywx on January 21, 2016, 06:32:58 PM
El Nino temp influence is strongest during boreal winter and spring and drops off after summer. In 1998, there was a notable drop from August to September. Overall, if the relationship holds, then we can expect a GISS number very close to 1C (against the 1950-80 baseline) for 2016.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on January 21, 2016, 06:50:22 PM
El Nino temp influence is strongest during boreal winter and spring and drops off after summer. In 1998, there was a notable drop from August to September. Overall, if the relationship holds, then we can expect a GISS number very close to 1C (against the 1950-80 baseline) for 2016.

The Met Office projects that 2016 will be +0.12C warmer than 2015; so if GISTEMP for 2015 (baselined to 1880-1909) was +1.12C, then 2016 should be at least: +1.24C (with a 1880-1909 baseline).

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/2015-hottest-year-2016-could-surpass-19929 (http://www.climatecentral.org/news/2015-hottest-year-2016-could-surpass-19929)

Extract: "The U.K.’s Met Office predicts that 2016 will be 1.5°F (0.84°C) above the 1961-1990 average, while 2015 was 1.3°F (0.72°C) above this average. (That prediction assumes there are no major volcanic eruptions, which have a cooling influence.)

"This forecast suggests that by the end of 2016 we will have seen three record, or near-record years in a row for global temperatures,” Adam Scaife, head of long-range prediction at the Met Office, said in a statement."

Edit: I note that with a 1950-80 baseline GISS for 2015 was +0.87C, so Csnavywx's forecast of +1.0 in 2016, is essentially the same as the Met Office's forecast for 2016 (nevertheless, personally I still suspect that 2016 will be at least +0.15 above 2015, giving a 2016 temp of +1.03C (with a 1950-80 baseline) or +1.27C (with a 1880-1909 baseline).
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Jim Hunt on January 21, 2016, 07:18:25 PM

Quote
The NASA GISTEMP product is trying to estimate the surface air temperature globally since that is what we can most easily compare to models. In the open ocean, SST is a reasonable estimate of the SAT above (though see some recent work on that by Kevin Cowtan and colleagues), but SST under ice doesn't tell you anything about the air temperature above the ice (since SST is always going to be about -1.8ºC). Thus we use interpolation from land-based weather stations. Comparisons of this to Arctic Buoy records shows a pretty good relationship. Satellite MSU records aren't great in the Arctic because of the changes in surface emissivity associated with ocean/ice transitions and miss some area near the pole because of their orbit. Additionally, the weighting functions of the satellites are generally focused above the lower boundary layers that are warming fastest in the Arctic. That's a contrast to the tropics where the atmosphere is more connected vertically through convection.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on January 21, 2016, 07:26:39 PM
El Nino temp influence is strongest during boreal winter and spring and drops off after summer. In 1998, there was a notable drop from August to September. Overall, if the relationship holds, then we can expect a GISS number very close to 1C (against the 1950-80 baseline) for 2016.

The Met Office projects that 2016 will be +0.12C warmer than 2015; so if GISTEMP for 2015 (baselined to 1880-1909) was +1.12C, then 2016 should be at least: +1.24C (with a 1880-1909 baseline).

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/2015-hottest-year-2016-could-surpass-19929 (http://www.climatecentral.org/news/2015-hottest-year-2016-could-surpass-19929)

Extract: "The U.K.’s Met Office predicts that 2016 will be 1.5°F (0.84°C) above the 1961-1990 average, while 2015 was 1.3°F (0.72°C) above this average. (That prediction assumes there are no major volcanic eruptions, which have a cooling influence.)

"This forecast suggests that by the end of 2016 we will have seen three record, or near-record years in a row for global temperatures,” Adam Scaife, head of long-range prediction at the Met Office, said in a statement."

Edit: I note that with a 1950-80 baseline GISS for 2015 was +0.87C, so Csnavywx's forecast of +1.0 in 2016, is essentially the same as the Met Office's forecast for 2016 (nevertheless, personally I still suspect that 2016 will be at least +0.15 above 2015, giving a 2016 temp of +1.03C (with a 1950-80 baseline) or +1.27C (with a 1880-1909 baseline).

While NOAA's CFSv2 Nino 3.4 forecast for issued Jan 21 2016 (corrected and uncorrected, respectively) may be bullish compared to those from other agencies, nevertheless, the two attached plots show mean values that do not go negative and that actually increase after October 2016.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on January 21, 2016, 08:17:11 PM
In my opinion the following questions/responses from Reddit show how mainstream climate scientists actively discount the risk that with continued warming the ENSO/PDO/AMO/etc. cycles could contribute to positive feedback

Question1: "How much did the warming El Niño trend contribute to this finding? Is there a way to 'normalize' the data for these types of oscillations?"
Response1: "ENSO generally has an influence on the year following an event because there is a lag in the global response to tropical perturbations. The annual mean is most correlated to Nov-Dec-Jan ENSO index at the beginning of the year/end of the last year. Thus the 2015/2016 El Niño will most affect 2016, not 2015. However, we've been in El Niño conditions since the summer, and we saw an spike in Oct/Nov/Dec that was related to that. As one of the commenters points out below, you can normalise the index using these regressions, and get an ENSO-corrected version. 2015 would still be a record. – gavin"

Question2: "Since El Nino contributed to 2015's warmth (and we might expect relatively lower temperatures for a few years -- e.g., post-1998 el nino), when might we expect temperatures similar to 2015 to become "normal"?"
Response2: "The current long term trend is ~0.15ºC/decade, so for an anomaly like 2015 which is ~0.1ºC above trend, you can expect 2015 levels to be normal in about 7 years. – gavin"

Furthermore, as mainstream climate scientist seem to prefer lower drama they seem to be prefer baselining the 2C target to a 1850-1899 baseline:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=3080 (https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=3080)

Extract: "Using 1850-1899 as a preindustrial baseline."
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Lord M Vader on January 21, 2016, 09:19:43 PM
As already have been stated, the second year in an El Nino-cycle use to be considerably warmer than the first year. While everything depends on whether a La Nina develop, or not, it seems reasonable to believe that NASAs value for 2016 will be somewhere around +0,95oC above the 1951-1980 average.

I think there might be a chance that the 2015 temperatures WILL be the new normal as 2016 probably be higher and ease back if La Nina does emerge. Look at NASA and you'll see that 1997 temps were normal and actually higher after 2001 when the very long La Nina had diminished.

If 2016 will be significantly higher than 2015 it seems reasonable to believe that it will take 7 years to have 2016 as the new normal. It could however get faster if a La Nina doesn't develop and is followed by a new El Nino sometime about 2018-2020..

In about 2035 at latest we should hit the 1,5oC limit...

Best, LMV
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Lord M Vader on January 21, 2016, 09:41:56 PM
Of short note, but may be important! As you can see our El Nino now has morphed to a more Modoki one if one looks at the temp anomalies!!!

//LMV
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on January 22, 2016, 01:03:43 AM
I note that the NOAA/NCDC GMT for 2015 was +0.90C with a 1951-80 baseline.
Also, Gavin Schmidt provides the two attached images at Real Climate.  The first image gives GMT with a 1880-1899 baseline, and the second image uses a 1951-80 baseline

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/01/2015-temperatures/#more-19030 (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/01/2015-temperatures/#more-19030)

Edit: I must admit that it is a bit discouraging that there is only a 50%-50% chance that the actual temperature is not higher than the reported values.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on January 22, 2016, 05:31:34 PM
SkS has now released the attached plot through December 2015 "Tracking the 2C Limit", which roughly (but not exactly) matches the Goddard values announced by Gavin Schmidt recently.  While I very much appreciate the insights that SkS offers, I have at least the following issues with the information that they are presenting:

1) Who told them that the 1880-1909 baseline represents "preindustrial"; as certainly the IPCC does not define "preindustrial" in this timeframe.  As definition of "preindustrial" could make a 0.2 increase in the anomaly values, it seems to me that they are not "Tracking the 2C Limit" established by the IPCC, but rather they are trying to establish their own dumbed-down tracking system.
2) Why do they show a 30-year linear trend line instead of a quadratic curve that would match ESM projections better.  Or in other words, why are they dumbing-down the expectations of the general public w.r.t. potential future non-linear temperature increasing, in keeping with the best science available?
3) Why don't they try to characterize the uncertainties associated with the data that they present, and provide a link to the Cowtan & Way efforts to include polar amplification in the measured data?  In other words why doesn't SkS use Cowtan & Way's data?
4) Why don't they provide any acknowledgment of the system state (ENSO, PDO, AMO etc) or positive feedback mechanisms (albedo changes, etc.) that current ESM projections are being calibrated for?
5) Why doesn't SkS's LOTIvs3 value of +1.112C match the GISTEMP value of +1.12C cited at the following link:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Steven on January 22, 2016, 05:33:25 PM
Cowtan & Way's (http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~kdc3/papers/coverage2013/series.html) data for 2015 is available.  According to their data, the 2015 annual average global surface temperature anomaly was about 0.75°C (relative to baseline 1961-1990), exceeding the previous warmest year 2010 by about 0.12°C:

Plot from 1970 to 2015:

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F1AG6O7a.png&hash=72714efd9314c492ffbca7f946230c83)

... and from 1850 to 2015:

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FFurlkZV.png&hash=ab9c94bb5feef44abbfaa1ff7fe2ec72)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on January 22, 2016, 06:07:26 PM
As a follow-on to Steven's post presenting Cowtan & Way's data (which I suspect is about as good of data as is publically available, although I am not an expect), I note that they infill the HadCRUT4 data by kriging, and that they use the same 1961-1990 baseline that the UK Met Office uses in the first attached image (previously posted); and that both the Hadley Centre and the Met Office both give a current temperature anom of about 0.75C (baselined to 1961-1990).

However, as shown by the second image (taken from Steven's post) the Cowtan & Way data has much lower temperatures in the 1850 to 1900 timeframe than does the UK Met Office.  Thus baselining the Cowtan & Way data to an 18 hundred baseline would result in a higher present temperature anomaly than any indicated in the first figure for the NOAA/NASA/Met Office data:
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on January 22, 2016, 07:07:17 PM
The attached curve of atmospheric CO2 concentrations illustrates why the IPCC defines the pre-industrial era as ending by 1750.  Thus baselining temperature anoms (preferably Cowtan & Ways back to 1850) as close as practicable to this date is just good science, which should be reported in an intelligent manner if we want effective policy from decision makers.

Edit: Note two times 275ppm = 550ppm so if ECS turns-out to be somewhere between 3 to 5C, then we had better get off our current BAU pathway and plant large numbers of trees sooner rather than later.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Steven on January 22, 2016, 09:50:04 PM
In other words why doesn't SkS use Cowtan & Way's data?

Actually it doesn't matter much in this case.  For the Cowtan & Way data, the 2015 annual average temperature is +1.119°C above the 1850-1899 average, and +1.124°C above the 1880-1909 average.  That is practically the same as for the 2015 annual average GISS LOTI data, which is about +1.11°C above the 1880-1909 average.

For the 2 graphs below, I downloaded some data from the Cowtan & Way, HadCRUT4, and GISS LOTI websites respectively, and I used a common baseline 1961-1990 for each of them.  As can be seen, Cowtan & Way (red curve) tends to be lower than the other 2 curves during the late 19th century.  But for the early 20th century, GISS (green curve) tends to be lower than the other 2 curves.

Plot from 1850 to 2015  (note that GISS starts only from 1880 onwards):

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FZLqb736.png&hash=74482102ea02885d33a5e81517c13d75)

... and from 1970 to 2015:

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F8a33HV3.png&hash=f5b9ee1fdebfb14aa2afed1e352ca2da)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Sleepy on January 23, 2016, 05:48:51 AM
Kevin Cowtan has a trend viewer on his page.
http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html (http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on January 23, 2016, 05:08:39 PM
In other words why doesn't SkS use Cowtan & Way's data?

Actually it doesn't matter much in this case.  For the Cowtan & Way data, the 2015 annual average temperature is +1.119°C above the 1850-1899 average, and +1.124°C above the 1880-1909 average.  That is practically the same as for the 2015 annual average GISS LOTI data, which is about +1.11°C above the 1880-1909 average.

Thank you for the very nice plots.  However, as we are interested in what the globally observed temperature record tells us about the temperature change since preindustrial conditions, could you please let me know what the Cowtan & Way data gives for a 2015 temperature anomaly when baselined to the 1850-1870 average?
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Steven on January 23, 2016, 08:17:20 PM
However, as we are interested in what the globally observed temperature record tells us about the temperature change since preindustrial conditions, could you please let me know what the Cowtan & Way data gives for a 2015 temperature anomaly when baselined to the 1850-1870 average?

That is about 1.13°C   for Cowtan & Way's data  (this can be calculated from their data on this webpage (http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~kdc3/papers/coverage2013/had4_krig_annual_v2_0_0.txt)).

And for Berkeley Earth (http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Global/Land_and_Ocean_summary.txt), the corresponding value is about 1.17°C.  (The temperature increase from the mid-19th century to the present is larger for Berkeley Earth than for the other global temperature datasets.)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on January 23, 2016, 08:23:11 PM
However, as we are interested in what the globally observed temperature record tells us about the temperature change since preindustrial conditions, could you please let me know what the Cowtan & Way data gives for a 2015 temperature anomaly when baselined to the 1850-1870 average?

That is about 1.13°C   for Cowtan & Way's data  (this can be calculated from their data on this webpage (http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~kdc3/papers/coverage2013/had4_krig_annual_v2_0_0.txt)).

And for Berkeley Earth (http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Global/Land_and_Ocean_summary.txt), the corresponding value is about 1.17°C.  (The temperature increase from the mid-19th century to the present is larger for Berkeley Earth than for the other global temperature datasets.)

Thank you very much.

Edit: Steven's analysis confirms that Gavin Schmidt's rule-of-thumb estimates (see attached image) from Dec 14, 2015 result in projections that are too low during periods of AGW and/or during periods of Super El Ninos.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: James Lovejoy on January 25, 2016, 03:53:02 AM
Nick Stokes has reported through January 22, so far the 1994-2013 is 0.726, the recent trend is lower, but January GISS will likely be near or above 1.0C on a 1951-1980 baseline.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: James Lovejoy on January 25, 2016, 04:02:47 AM
to Lord M Vader@ the second year in an El Nino-cycle use to be considerably warmer than the first year.

On the one hand, if it hadn't been for a recalibration of the SST's, this el Nino would have started in late 1996.  On the other hand the '97-98 el Nino went to la Nina territory by August.  On the gripping hand, 2016 will likely be warmer than 2015.  If 2016 avoids going into el Nino, we may well have a 1951-1980 giss anomaly of over 1C for the year.

Oops!  I meant 'avoids going into la Nina'
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on January 25, 2016, 05:51:26 PM
Data through 2014 indicates a very low probability that global warming is not man-made:

Extract: "New calculations shows there is just a 0.01% chance that recent run of global heat records could have happened due to natural climate variations"

Also see:
http://www.nature.com/articles/srep19831 (http://www.nature.com/articles/srep19831)

Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on January 25, 2016, 09:55:24 PM
The linked SkS article discusses some of the factors contributing to the 2015 Global Mean Surface Temperature Anom record, including the ENSO cycle.  The attached plot shows a SkS plot showing trend lines for El Nino years, for ENSO Neutral years and for La Nina years.  If I am correct and 2016 end about 0.15 +/- 0.03C higher than 2015, then the 2016 will far exceed the El Nino year trend line, indicating the possibility that we have reached a bifurcation point away from linear response into the realm of nonlinear responses:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/record-hot-2015-glimpse-future-global-warming.html (https://www.skepticalscience.com/record-hot-2015-glimpse-future-global-warming.html)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on January 25, 2016, 10:11:59 PM
The attached plot Tweeted by Gavin Schmidt on Jan 21 2016, makes me wonder what ENSO correction factor Gavin will apply to the likely 2016 record temperature to get it to fit into his ESLD paradigm.

Edit: This plot evidently has a 1951-80 baseline

Edit2: My comment is meant to imply that I wonder whether Gavin mistakenly applied the full MEI correction to 2015, when he should be applying it to 2015-16 (as the MEI is currently dropping but the 2016 temperatures are still increasing rapidly).
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: plinius on January 25, 2016, 11:17:54 PM
I would contend that his calculation is formally correct (as expected).
The problem is the relatively early rise to larger values and quite small lag-time, which is important, since the underlying regression did not employ a monthly dependence. What that means: relatively high MEI start into 2015 and then gradual increase gives a relatively large correction in summer and fall, while in my naive mind one should apply a month-dependent correction, which would concentrate on the NH and spring months of 2016.
Also I would expect another rise in the MEI due to the west wind burst and the recent excursion of the Nino3.4 back to 3K anomaly (now again a bit lower around 2.5).
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on January 25, 2016, 11:40:28 PM
Data through 2014 indicates a very low probability that global warming is not man-made:

Extract: "New calculations shows there is just a 0.01% chance that recent run of global heat records could have happened due to natural climate variations"

Also see:
http://www.nature.com/articles/srep19831 (http://www.nature.com/articles/srep19831)

In the following linked RealClimate article Michael Mann updates the paper cited above to include data for 2015 (which makes his case stronger).  Furthermore, Mann raises the question of whether global warming is making strong El Ninos more frequent (see extract below):

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/01/how-likely-is-the-observed-recent-warmth/ (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/01/how-likely-is-the-observed-recent-warmth/)

Extract: "That analysis, however, neglects one intriguing possibility. Could it be that human-caused climate change is actually boosting the magnitude of El Niño events themselves, leading to more monster events like the ’98 and ’15 events? That proposition indeed finds some support in the recent peer-reviewed literature. If the hypothesis turns out to be true, then the record warmth of ’98 and ’15 might not have been flukes after all.
To summarize, we find that the various record temperatures and runs of unusually warm years since 2000 are extremely unlikely to have happened in the absence of human-caused climate change, and reasonably likely to have happened when we account for climate change. We can, in this sense, attribute the record warmth to human-caused climate change at a high level of confidence."

Edit: Attached is Figure 2 from the Mann article showing the measured record vs modeled results without anthropogenic radiative forcing, indicating a clear man-made signal.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on January 26, 2016, 04:05:17 PM
The linked Carbon Brief article helps to quantify the role of the current Super El Nino in contributing to the 2015 global temperature record.  It notes that this contribution was small and was somewhere between 6 and 10% depending on what baseline is used; while the El Nino contribution in 2016 is expected to be two to three times that amount:

http://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-much-did-el-nino-boost-global-temperature-in-2015 (http://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-much-did-el-nino-boost-global-temperature-in-2015)

Extract: "Carbon Brief has spoken to climate scientists working on this question, who all seem to agree El Niño was responsible for somewhere in the region of 10% of the record warmth in 2015.

With some commentators and climate skeptic websites on social media appearing keen to use the strong El Niño as a reason to downplay climate change as a driver of the record-breaking temperatures, the less-than-definite language has led to some speculation and confusion.

As part of Carbon Brief’s coverage of last week’s hottest-year news, we spoke to Dr Adam Scaife, head of the Met Office’s long-range forecasting division. Scaife suggested only a cursory role for El Niño, telling Carbon Brief:
We think El Niño made only a small contribution (a few hundredths of a degree) to the record global temperatures in 2015."

Schmidt estimated El Niño was responsible for 0.07C of the above-average warming we saw in 2015.

Compared to a period indicative of preindustrial times (1880-1900), however, the contribution from El Niño contribution comes out lower – around 6%.

The forecast for next year is about 0.8C above the 1961-1990 baseline. About 0.2 of that is likely to come from El Niño, hence the 25%.
There’s no doubt the El Niño that developed in 2015, which is still underway, has been abnormally strong, exceptional even. But with a contribution somewhere around the 10% mark, it seems clear from scientists that El Niño can’t be blamed for 2015’s record warmth. In fact, it’s contribution was strikingly small."

Edit: I still suspect that any ENSO correction should be applied to the 2015-16 event and not the 2015 year.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: crandles on January 26, 2016, 05:38:54 PM

Edit: I still suspect that any ENSO correction should be applied to the 2015-16 event and not the 2015 year.

From
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022/pdf (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022/pdf)

Quote
The influence of exogenous factors can have a delayed effect on global temperature. Therefore for each of the three factors we tested all lag values from 0 to 24 months, then selected the lag values which gave the best fit to the data.

Why would you think they hadn't found the optimal lag and used that?
If you did assume they did that, what makes you think this El Nino will have a different lag to normal?
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on January 26, 2016, 06:02:02 PM
Why would you think they hadn't found the optimal lag and used that?
If you did assume they did that, what makes you think this El Nino will have a different lag to normal?

Since you asked, the MEI correction made to 1997 by NASA looks smaller on the first accompanying plot than the correction that NASA made to 2015; while the second plot shows that the MEI in 1997 was significantly larger than in 2015.  This makes me wonder whether the MEI correction was applied correctly:
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: crandles on January 26, 2016, 07:44:29 PM
Since you asked, the MEI correction made to 1997 by NASA looks smaller on the first accompanying plot than the correction that NASA made to 2015; while the second plot shows that the MEI in 1997 was significantly larger than in 2015.  This makes me wonder whether the MEI correction was applied correctly:

But if there is a lag of something like 3 or 4 months then we should be looking at Sept 14 to Sept 15 MEI values compared to Sept 96 to Sept 97

1996   -.64   -.587   -.243   -.495   -.13   .053   -.197   -.377   -.443   -.349   -.13   -.325
1997   -.485   -.602   -.244   .537   1.17   2.339   2.826   3.038   3.049   2.417   2.575   2.368

2014   -.312   -.258   .012   .193   .967   .997   .923   .938   .602   .411   .772   .611
2015   .406   .468   .65   .953   1.567   2.06   1.972   2.367   2.527   2.225   2.308   2.123

97 only has larger MEI than 2015 for May/June onwards so there are only 3 or 4 relevant months where the 97 adjustment should be larger (largest difference 2.826-1.972=.854 and 8 or 9 months where the 2015 adjustment should be larger (largest difference -.602 - .468=-1.07).

So it looks to me like the 97 adjustment should be smaller.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on January 26, 2016, 07:49:36 PM
So it looks to me like the 97 adjustment should be smaller.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion; but it should be interesting to see how NASA fiddles with the 2016 data a year from now.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Steven on January 26, 2016, 08:10:04 PM
This makes me wonder whether the MEI correction was applied correctly

The "MEI" labels in Gavin Schmidt's graph are wrong.  He pointed out at RealClimate last week that he actually used the Oceanic Nino Index (ONI), rather than the MEI:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/01/2015-temperatures (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/01/2015-temperatures)

Quote from: Gavin Schmidt
Ignore the ‘MEI’ labels, it really was the ONI index

I'm a bit surprised that Schmidt used a time lag of only 2 months between ENSO (ONI) data and global temperature data.  I tried to repeat his calculation, and I get a better correlation by using a 4-month or 5-month lag.

Below is a graph that I made by using Schmidt's method, but with a 4-month (rather than 2-month) lag.  For convenience, I used similar layout and colors as in Schmidt's graph.  FWIW, this graph/calculation suggests that the ENSO contribution to the annual mean global temperature was about 0.06°C for 2015,  0.10°C for 1998,  0.01°C for 1997, and 0.04° for 2010.

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FxFyjkEd.png&hash=953351ef92b61a10b17b6a557bef8154)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: crandles on January 26, 2016, 08:29:42 PM
I'm a bit surprised that Schmidt's graph uses a time lag of only 2 months between ENSO (ONI) and global temperature data.  I tried to repeat his calculation, and I find a better correlation by using a 4-month or 5-month lag.

I was trying to figure out what 3 month MEI averages meant as MEI does 2 month averages. So ONI which does do 3 month averages makes more sense.

2 month lag does sound too short. With that difference in lag, I wonder if by 3 month averages he used an average of 3 ONI figures (representing 5 months) rather than a single figure for 3 months. I think I remember trying this a long time ago and finding that it seemed to work better.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on January 26, 2016, 09:02:45 PM
I'm a bit surprised that Schmidt's graph uses a time lag of only 2 months between ENSO (ONI) and global temperature data.  I tried to repeat his calculation, and I find a better correlation by using a 4-month or 5-month lag.

I was trying to figure out what 3 month MEI averages meant as MEI does 2 month averages. So ONI which does do 3 month averages makes more sense.

2 month lag does sound too short. With that difference in lag, I wonder if by 3 month averages he used an average of 3 ONI figures (representing 5 months) rather than a single figure for 3 months. I think I remember trying this a long time ago and finding that it seemed to work better.

I concur that Steven's plot (using ONI corrections with 4-month lag) seem reasonable.  Also, I concur that it is more reasonable to use an ONI correction than a MEI correction (when considering global mean temperature).
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: crandles on January 26, 2016, 10:32:39 PM
Interesting.

MEI data page suggests
Quote
My claim here is that the MEI does a better job than other indices for the overall monitoring of the ENSO phenomenon, including, for instance, world-wide correlations with surface temperatures and rainfall.

Isn't the best world-wide correlations with surface temperatures what we would want in order to sensibly back out ENSO effects? Or maybe you don't believe that claim? I had impression it was true but it is a long time since I looked at that.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Steven on January 26, 2016, 10:48:00 PM
With that difference in lag, I wonder if by 3 month averages he used an average of 3 ONI figures (representing 5 months) rather than a single figure for 3 months.

I guess not.  In last week's RealClimate article (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/01/2015-temperatures) Gavin Schmidt describes his graph (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CZRWUGgW0AAmK_b.jpg:large) as follows:

Quote from: Gavin Schmidt
In the following figure I took the ONI index (http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml) and found the lead with the greatest correlation to the monthly GISTEMP values (2 months), regressed that out, and recalculated the annual means.

He doesn't say anything there about averaging different ONI values?

Upthread I posted a graph using 4-month lag between ONI data and global surface temperature data.  Here is the corresponding graph (http://imgur.com/zsJ22Pp) for 2-month lag; this one seems to be practically the same as Gavin Schmidt's graph.

Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on January 26, 2016, 11:38:55 PM
Interesting.

MEI data page suggests
Quote
My claim here is that the MEI does a better job than other indices for the overall monitoring of the ENSO phenomenon, including, for instance, world-wide correlations with surface temperatures and rainfall.

Isn't the best world-wide correlations with surface temperatures what we would want in order to sensibly back out ENSO effects? Or maybe you don't believe that claim? I had impression it was true but it is a long time since I looked at that.

Maybe Gavin prefers the ONI because it averages three months (so less noise), and possibly the MEI may be better at forecasting and the ONI my be better for hind-casting.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: crandles on January 27, 2016, 01:18:21 AM
Yes, your 2 month lag graph looks very close to Gavin's graph. Your 4 month lag graph looks much smoother, so yes the 2 month lag choice does look odd.

In case you haven't seen it, here is Tamino's updated version that removes volcanoes and solar variations as well as El Nino
more at https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/01/24/weather-and-climate/
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on January 27, 2016, 01:36:24 AM
Yes, your 2 month lag graph looks very close to Gavin's graph. Your 4 month lag graph looks much smoother, so yes the 2 month lag choice does look odd.

In case you haven't seen it, here is Tamino's updated version that removes volcanoes and solar variations as well as El Nino

more at https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/01/24/weather-and-climate/ (https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/01/24/weather-and-climate/)

The same Tamino article provides the first attached plot comparing NASA observed vs modeled temperature increases through 2015.  It will be interesting to see where 2015-16 is just another fluctuation in the observed record, or the beginning of an accelerated warming trend.

Edit: If it is not obvious, as 2016 is forecast to be warmer than 2015 (per the following Met Office link by about 0.09C, see also the second attached image of the Met Office 95% CL range on the 2015 estimate), by this time next year the 2015-16 temp anom spike will look significantly larger than indicated in the first Tamino image)

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2015/global-temperature (http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2015/global-temperature)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Tor Bejnar on January 27, 2016, 06:51:57 PM
Coverage bias and recent trends in global surface temperature, part 1
(http://deepclimate.org/2016/01/20/coverage-bias-and-recent-trends-in-global-surface-temperature-part-1/) is the first post in three years on the http://deepclimate.org/ (http://deepclimate.org/) website.

(https://deepclimate.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/gmst-1990-2014.jpg)
The post (almost) starts
Quote
...
In retrospect, 2014 was an interesting year for climate watchers, and a turning point of sorts. That year, global mean surface temperature matched record highs for the instrumental period, without any assist from the El Nino weather pattern that usually accompanies such warm years.  That turned out to be a prelude to a record-smashing 2015. And 2016 may well provide an unprecedented third surface temperature record in a row, as the influence of  the current super El Nino will likely peak in the first half of this year.

But 2014 was also notable scientifically for the emergence of a previously under-examined scientific issue: namely coverage bias in observed surface temperature series, especially the HadCrut4 record issued by the UK Met Office.

This most widely cited temperature series does not account for missing areas, especially in high latitudes, likely leading to an underestimate of the overall rise in global temperature since the 19th century.

Not only that, but there is increasingly compelling evidence that the recent short-term slowdown in the surface temperature record was much less pronounced than previously estimated, if rapid Arctic warming is fully reflected, along with potential biases from the changing mix of sea surface temperature measurement sources in recent years.  Thus the discrepancy between very short-term and multi-decadal trends in the observations appears to have been exaggerated in prior estimates, including IPCC AR5.
...

Because many may not know of this resource, I thought I'd pass it along.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: oren on January 27, 2016, 09:01:24 PM
Is there somewhere a resource showing some kind of breakdown of surface temperatures by area?
I'm wandering if such a breakdown will show the same trends. I know that land temperatures have risen faster than ocean temps, and that the arctic is heating faster than other areas. But nothing like a set of good old charts to help understand the trends.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: plinius on January 28, 2016, 12:01:11 PM
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/)
Graphs, also the Maps tool. Apart from the arctic ocean all very good. What else would you need?
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: oren on January 28, 2016, 05:28:36 PM
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/)
Graphs, also the Maps tool. Apart from the arctic ocean all very good. What else would you need?

Thanks! I'll go have a look.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Steven on January 28, 2016, 06:04:37 PM
In case you haven't seen it, here is Tamino's updated version that removes volcanoes and solar variations as well as El Nino
...
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/01/24/weather-and-climate/

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/01/27/el-nino-and-the-2015-record-breaking-heat/

Quote from: Tamino

...

So, I’ve added these elements to the mix of factors by which el Niño can influence global temperature. The best model I’ve found so far (there’s a lot more to test) involves a linear el Niño effect which lags only 2 months behind the el Niño itself, a nonlinear el Niño effect which lags 10 months, and a seasonal effectiveness of the el Niño impact. In agreement with the research of Kosaka and Xie, the el Niño impact is strongest in northern-hemisphere winter and weakest in northern-hemisphere summer.

...

We can also plot the impact of el Niño on each year’s temperature:

(https://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/mei_1yr.jpeg?w=750&h=498)

My result indicates that el Niño led to 0.08 deg.C warmer temperature in 2015. That’s hardly enough to explain the record heat, which was mainly due to global warming. Note, however, that el Niño caused fully 0.2 deg.C warming in 1998, so the record heat of that year — which the deniers love to point to as the “end” of global warming — really was due to el Niño.
...
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/01/27/el-nino-and-the-2015-record-breaking-heat/
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on January 28, 2016, 06:27:12 PM

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/01/27/el-nino-and-the-2015-record-breaking-heat/

Tamino's analyses are a valuable asset when trying to assess climate trends.  Unfortunately, I am concerned that such experts spend so much time & effort battling denialist babble that they do not provide adequate notice about coming climate risks.  For instance the plot that Tamino provides (with both linear & nonlinear corrections) shows (w.r.t. GMST Anom) that the 82 El Nino contributed less than the 97 El Nino; which contributed less than did the 15 El Nino.  Furthermore, Hadley has only forecast that 2016 will only be about 0.08C hotter than 2015; while Tamino's plot shows that the el nino influence contributed more than 0.15C to the subsequent years for both 1982 and 1997; thus empirically one would expect 2016 to be at least 0.15C hotter than 2015.

I understand that if authorities like Hadley, NOAA, NASA or the Met Office do not err on the side of least drama, that the denalists will make so much hay about their bullish forecasts that doubts will creep into the public mind.  Unfortunately, as I have shown the data that Tamino presents shows an increasing climate contribution in the first year of two-year Super El Nino events, and that the world is running a serious risk of seeing much greater global damage in 2016 than was experienced in either 83 or 98.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: crandles on January 28, 2016, 07:52:52 PM
Quote
The best model I’ve found so far (there’s a lot more to test) involves a linear el Niño effect which lags only 2 months behind the el Niño itself, a nonlinear el Niño effect which lags 10 months, and a seasonal effectiveness of the el Niño impact

10 months is a long lag.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Steven on January 28, 2016, 09:04:54 PM
10 months is a long lag.

Yes, it's strange.  Tamino's model seems to involve lots of parameters (i.e. multiple lags and multiple coefficients in linear and non-linear regressions), so it may be prone to overfitting?  Hopefully he will describe the precise details of his calculation later in a paper or at his blog.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on January 29, 2016, 04:52:38 PM
Tamino has again updated his review of the influence of correcting for more than just El Nino (to include volcanic & solar activity).  While Tamino shows cases for NASA, Hadley, Cowtan & Way, in the attached plot I show the Tamino corrected NOAA Global Mean Surface Temperature Anoms through 2015 (under the possibly incorrect assumption that NOAA tracks the ONI so who knows ENSO better than them).

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/01/29/correcting-for-more-than-just-el-nino/ (https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/01/29/correcting-for-more-than-just-el-nino/)

Extract: "My corrected data show a lot less wiggling around. For example, my correction accounts for the 1998 heat nicely, showing that it’s extremity was entirely due to el Niño, while Gavin’s still has 1998 well above the trend line even after correction. Also, mine doesn’t show some of the dips in Gavin’s curve, such as the extreme cooling in 1992.
There are two reasons for the differences. One is that I’ve used a more complex model of the el Niño effect, one which matches the 1998 outburst (and others too) much better. The other is that I’ve corrected for more than just el Niño; I’ve adjusted for solar variations and volcanic aerosols too, so my correction removes the 1992 dip which was because of the eruption of the Mt. Pinatubo volcano. The result of correcting for three factors instead of just one, and of a more sophisticated el Niño correction, is a much steadier warming for about the last forty years. We can see this more clearly by plotting just the corrected data (black lines are a piecewise-linear fit by change-point analysis):

..

When it comes to preparing for the climate change to come, it’s the 2015 heat that tells the most important tale. But when it comes to denier propaganda, the big story is that the 1998 mega-heat really was due to el Niño, and with that factor accounted for 1998 is shown to be just another year on the trend line, part of the continuing march of temperatures upward.
If 2016 shows a similar outburst (as it well may), expect it to awaken many people to the reality and risk of man-made climate change. But you should also expect it to revive the deniers when, a few years later, they begin to crow about how its mega-heat was the end of global warming. It’ll be the 1998 story all over again — not the end of global warming, just a lot of extra heat from el Niño and a lot of hot air from the usual suspects."

While Tamino very reasonably points to the clearly linear trend for global warming, I note that in the NOAA plot 2015 is above the trend line & it is likely that 2016 will be further above the trend line.  Finally, I note that in the linked Real Climate article Michael Mann speculates that climate change could be boosting the magnitude of current & future El Nino events.  If so, I note that El Nino cycles would then act as a positive feedback mechanism; which could be activated by global warming such like other positive feedbacks [see Royer (2016), for paleo-evidence that during interglacial periods (above Holocene temperature levels) that ECS would increase above 3C due to such temperature boosted positive feedbacks].

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/01/how-likely-is-the-observed-recent-warmth/ (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/01/how-likely-is-the-observed-recent-warmth/)
Extract from Michael Mann: "That analysis, however, neglects one intriguing possibility. Could it be that human-caused climate change is actually boosting the magnitude of El Niño events themselves, leading to more monster events like the ’98 and ’15 events? That proposition indeed finds some support in the recent peer-reviewed literature. If the hypothesis turns out to be true, then the record warmth of ’98 and ’15 might not have been flukes after all.

Dana L. Royer (2016), "Climate Sensitivity in the Geologic Past", Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Vol. 44

http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-earth-100815-024150?src=recsys (http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-earth-100815-024150?src=recsys)

Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: James Lovejoy on January 30, 2016, 05:08:21 PM
Nick Stokes has data in through Jan 28.  January is very likely to be as warm or warmer than December.  The anomaly for January so far is 0.05 degrees greater than the December 2015 anomaly, but after a blazing start about mid-month, it 'cooled' to merely very high.  I expect it to drop further, but that the anomaly for January will end up higher than that for December by 0.02 to 0.03C.

Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Sigmetnow on January 31, 2016, 04:38:07 PM
Summing up:  the five-year global forecast from the UK Met Office.

Here is the weather forecast for the next five years: even hotter
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jan/31/weather-forecast-next-five-years-even-hotter (http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jan/31/weather-forecast-next-five-years-even-hotter)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Sigmetnow on February 01, 2016, 04:19:09 AM
Quote
@NWSFairbanks:  The Fairbanks airport has yet to hit -30° F this season. This is only the 3rd time Fairbanks has made it to 1/31 without hitting -30° F.

Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: BenB on February 01, 2016, 03:10:23 PM
The average temperature at Svalbard airport was -3.8°C in January, 11.5°C higher than the long-term average of -15.3°C. Over the past 12 months, temperatures were almost 5 degrees C above normal. Clearly not global temperatures, but another symptom of the changes that are taking place everywhere, and particularly in the Arctic.

Edit: I've just seen that these figures had already been posted by someone else on the freezing season thread, but as I posted them here I may as well leave them...
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: James Lovejoy on February 02, 2016, 04:58:15 PM
Nick Stokes has data in through January.  His estimate of the '93 to 2012 anomaly is 0.665 or just over 0.04C higher than December.  We have a new consecutive 12 month record!
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on February 04, 2016, 04:35:48 PM
The linked article & associated image shows that the UK Met Office GMST forecast from 2016 to 2020 is running well above Gavin Schmidt's historical trend line, probably indicating that climate change is already accelerating:

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/five-year-forecast-more-warming-in-store-19988 (http://www.climatecentral.org/news/five-year-forecast-more-warming-in-store-19988)

Extract: "This five-year forecast isn’t like the ones that appear on the evening news, rather, it is a research effort aimed at improving climate models. The goal is to get models to the point where they can have skill in predicting features like drought or seasonal hurricane activity a few years ahead, said climate scientist Doug Smith, who leads the Met Office effort. Such predictions would allow governments and societies time to prepare, he said."
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Laurent on February 04, 2016, 06:49:32 PM
If you want to hear this new tune that is global warming, it is here :
https://youtu.be/yDdaTSnAFlo

I don't like the melody... (to be continued)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Laurent on February 08, 2016, 06:07:48 PM
No climate conspiracy: NOAA temperature adjustments bring data closer to pristine
Quote
A new study finds that NOAA temperature adjustments are doing exactly what they’re supposed to
The U.S. Climate Reference Network consists of 114 stations, including this one in Capitol Reef National Park, Torrey, Utah.
The U.S. Climate Reference Network consists of 114 stations, including this one in Capitol Reef National Park, Torrey, Utah. Photograph: NOAA

Dana Nuccitelli

Monday 8 February 2016 11.00 GMT

Share on Pinterest

Shares
79
221
Save for later

Congressman Lamar Smith (R-TX) has embarked upon a witch-hunt against climate scientists at NOAA, accusing them of conspiring to fudge global temperature data. However, a new study has found that the adjustments NOAA makes to the raw temperature data bring them closer to measurements from a reference network of pristinely-located temperature stations.

Before delving into the new study, it’s worthwhile to revisit the temperature adjustments that Lamar Smith disputes. Volunteers have been logging measurements from weather stations around the world for over 150 years, and climate scientists use that data to estimate the Earth’s average surface temperature. But over a 150-year period, things change, as the authors of this study explain.

Stations have moved to different locations over the past 150 years, most more than once. They have changed instruments from mercury thermometers to electronic sensors, and have changed the time they take temperature measurements from afternoon to morning. Cities have grown up around stations, and some weather stations are not ideally located. All of these issues introduce inconsistencies into the temperature record.

To find out how much actual temperatures have changed, scientists have to filter out these changes in the way the measurements were taken. Those are the adjustments under attack from Lamar Smith. They’re important, scientifically justified, and documented in the peer-reviewed literature.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: James Lovejoy on February 11, 2016, 07:29:54 AM
Nick Stokes reports that January was down 0.09C from December. http://moyhu.blogspot.com/2016/02/january-templs-surface-temperature-down.html (http://moyhu.blogspot.com/2016/02/january-templs-surface-temperature-down.html)

February seems to be warming up though.  Nick Stokes has 8 days of February data, but www.karstenhaustein.com/climate (http://www.karstenhaustein.com/climate) has forecasts to the beginning of February 18th.  They seem to point to an increase.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: BornFromTheVoid on February 13, 2016, 07:36:06 PM
GISS have released their January data, and, with an anomaly of +1.13C above the 51-80 average, it's the warmest on record by +0.18C.

The 12 month average climbing quickly too, up to +0.89C

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F9egAsZZ.png&hash=fe7e62e69d87022ab55f45facd16fe38)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on February 13, 2016, 08:20:54 PM
GISS have released their January data, and,

...

The 12 month average climbing quickly too, up to +0.89C

I remind readers that in December 2015 the 12 month GISS average was +0.87C.  So we are already up +0.02C in one month from last year's record.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: BornFromTheVoid on February 13, 2016, 08:48:42 PM

I remind readers that in December 2015 the 12 month GISS average was +0.87C.  So we are already up +0.02C in one month from last year's record.

I think maybe the data was adjusted again slightly. My current stats say it's up 0.3C (0.26C), from +0.86C last month.
We're up +0.52C on January 1998 too.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on February 14, 2016, 10:14:17 AM
The linked article quote both Gerald Meehl and Kevin Trenberth of NCAR, that if the global society stopped emitting GHG today we still committed to reach 1.5C GMST rise; and that following the Paris Pact we will reach the 1.5C level by 2030, for a rate of temperature rise of 0.5/1.5 = 0.333C/decade (which is about twice the rate Gavin Schmidt is citing based on linear regression, but which in my opinion still errs on the side of least drama, as I suspect that El Nino conditions may prevail throughout 2016).

http://www.dailycamera.com/science_environment/ci_29514273/boulder-scientists-warn-planet-nearing-critical-warming-threshold (http://www.dailycamera.com/science_environment/ci_29514273/boulder-scientists-warn-planet-nearing-critical-warming-threshold)

Extract: "…. NCAR senior scientist Gerald Meehl believes the Earth is effectively already well beyond the 1 degree C that the planet is confirmed to have already warmed.
Given the physics of Earth's climate system, warming continues well after greenhouse gases are put into the atmosphere. That is because the oceans keep warming for decades in response to greenhouse gases that already have entered the atmosphere. That makes for a lag in the climate system.
Therefore, Meehl asserts that research shows the Earth is already assured about 0.5 degrees C of additional warming, even if levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could be immediately stabilized.

Meehl gets support in his remarks from colleague Kevin Trenberth, distinguished senior scientist at NCAR — but Trenberth said "it's actually worse" than Meehl has said.
"The problem is that firstly there is a lot of inertia in the infrastructure and in the climate system, so that even if we, in the U.S., and globally, decided to act now to prevent 2 degree warming there is almost nothing we can do to stop it," said Trenberth, adding that its onset can, however, be slowed.
"Coal-fired power stations have a planning life time of over 40 years, so even with the EPA and administration's Clean Power Plan, it takes 20 years to make a noticeable difference. And it takes 40 years for the climate system to respond, as the oceans are still responding to what has happened thus far," Trenberth said.
The scientists' remarks come the same week that the U.S. Supreme Court at least temporarily blocked the Obama administration's implementation of new Environmental Protection Agency regulations calling for cutting emissions from electric power plants, with a stay ordered in response to a lawsuit from 29 states and a coalition of industry groups and corporations.
"Carbon dioxide levels will continue to climb for the foreseeable future," Trenberth said, "and we will blow right through a 1.5 C warming by about 2030, and 2 degrees C warming by 2060 or so. We might be able to delay that till 2080. with big efforts."
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: BornFromTheVoid on February 15, 2016, 10:25:02 AM
The JMA have released their January data, and as expected, January 2016 was the warmest on record. At +0.52C above the 81-10 average, it beats 2nd place by +0.23C

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fds.data.jma.go.jp%2Ftcc%2Ftcc%2Fproducts%2Fgwp%2Ftemp%2Ffig%2Fjan_wld.png&hash=84be77cfafb68daf097998669b4de04b)

Five Warmest Years (Anomalies)

1st. 2016 (+0.52°C),
2nd. 2015, 2007, 2002 (+0.29°C),
5th. 2010 (+0.21°C)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Sigmetnow on February 16, 2016, 09:50:09 PM
"Today is 50th consecutive day without measurable snow at Juneau [airport]. Longest winter streak on record. @NWSJuneau "

Average temperature during the period: 36°F (2.2°C)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on February 17, 2016, 07:50:56 PM
SkS has put out their Tracker for the 2C Limit through January 2016 (see the following link and the two associated images).

https://www.skepticalscience.com/2c-2016-01.html (https://www.skepticalscience.com/2c-2016-01.html)

I note that in this version of Track SkS uses a different conversion for GISTEMP (LOTI = Land Ocean Temperature Index) preindustrial baseline adjustment than a few months ago they used -0.256 (this is the difference between the GISS baseline and the 1880-1909 preindustrial baseline).  I suspect that the adjustment factor changes because the hindcast changes with each new data input, and with adjusts for the ENSO (see second image).  This keeps the analysis current but also means that it is very difficult to make comparisons with old projections (like those made when developing the Paris Pact).
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on February 17, 2016, 08:23:48 PM
GISS have released their January data, and, with an anomaly of +1.13C above the 51-80 average, it's the warmest on record by +0.18C.

For anyone who prefers this GISS data baselined to 1951-1980, I provide the attached plot from NASA through January 2016:
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Sigmetnow on February 18, 2016, 01:57:41 PM
January 2016: Shattering the Global Warming Monthly Record
By Phil Plait
Quote
The global temperature anomaly for January 2016 was 1.13° Celsius. That makes it the hottest January on record (the previous record was 0.95° C in 2007). But there’s more: 1.13° is the largest anomaly for any month since records began in 1880. There have only been monthly anomalies greater than 1°C three times before in recorded history, and those three were all from last year. The farther back in the past you go, the lower the anomalies are on average.

Yes, the world is getting hotter.
...

A lot of deniers will say this is a statistical fluctuation; sometimes things are just hotter. That is utter baloney. If that were true, you’d expect just as many record cold days/months/years as warm ones. Two Australian scientists looked into this and found record hot and cold days were about even … until the 1960s, then hot days started outpacing cold ones, and from 2000 to 2014 record heat outnumbered record cold by a factor of 12 to 1.

As it happens, we’re in the middle of an El Niño, an event in the Pacific Ocean that tends to warm surface temperatures. This is also one of if not the most intense on record. Some of that record-breaking heat in January is due to El Niño for sure, but not all or even a majority of it. As I pointed out recently, climate scientist Gavin Schmidt showed that El Niño only accounts for a fraction of a degree of this heating. Even accounting for El Niño years, things are getting hotter.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: LRC1962 on February 18, 2016, 06:47:12 PM
For those looking forward to La Nina to 'cool' things down. I have a very sickening feeling that we are in for a bad surprise. Too many other feedbacks are starting to show their muscle and things are no longer the way they used to be.
In the new world global weather system environment I get the feeling 'we are no longer in Kansas Toto'.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Lord M Vader on February 18, 2016, 09:01:54 PM
NOAA reported today that January was +1,04C warmer than the 20' century average. Only December 2015 was warmer with +1,11C. The margin to the old January record was big with 0,18C. Now we are looking forward to see how big the anomaly for February will be. If the rest of February will remain as warm as the first of it have been, then there is a possibility that we will have a nrw monthly record, again...

And,yes, I would not be surprised if we willsee some big and bad surprises as this El Nino fades. The most annoying thing is how much of the Pacific that is warmer than normal. Does anyone know whether there have been any El Nino that have covered such a huge area as this one? Another thing to look at is the lack of big cooling of the western Pacific.

Best, LMV
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: James Lovejoy on February 19, 2016, 02:00:00 AM
With the data we have so far, between Nick Stokes report of  recent temperatures and http://www.karstenhaustein.com/climate (http://www.karstenhaustein.com/climate) forecasts, we have somewhat reliable data  through February 25th.  It is very likely that we will be at or near another record.  It is almost certain that February will be the warmest February on record.

Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Lord M Vader on February 21, 2016, 07:16:41 PM
With 10 days left of February, it is virtually certain that February 2016 will be the warmest February that have been observed. Of more importance is how warm the last days of the month wil be, does anyone have an idea about this?

If the big anomalies remains in charge and in terms of Nick Stokes normal period 1994-2013 exceed 0,7oC there are a small chance that the monthly anomaly will be close to +1,5oC above pre-industrial time.

Eyeballing the forecast there seems to be a decent chance for the warmth to continue through the rest of the month.

Best, LMV
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on February 21, 2016, 08:03:24 PM
With 10 days left of February, it is virtually certain that February 2016 will be the warmest February that have been observed. Of more importance is how warm the last days of the month wil be, does anyone have an idea about this?

If the big anomalies remains in charge and in terms of Nick Stokes normal period 1994-2013 exceed 0,7oC there are a small chance that the monthly anomaly will be close to +1,5oC above pre-industrial time.

Eyeballing the forecast there seems to be a decent chance for the warmth to continue through the rest of the month.

Best, LMV

Per the attached GFS 2m temp anom forecast for Feb 28, 2016 the Global temp anom then will be 0.809C.  That said, I note the relatively low 2m temperatures over the Southern Ocean, which is likely a result of ice meltwater from the acceleration of AIS mass loss.  Thus looking at the measured GMST changes may be giving a false sense of security, and perhaps policy makers should have listened to Hansen in the early 1980's.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: James Lovejoy on February 23, 2016, 12:27:36 AM
With a combination of Nick Stokes reports through February 20, and http://www.karstenhaustein.com/climate (http://www.karstenhaustein.com/climate) for the rest of the month, the best estimate of the February anomaly is 0.789C.  This will very likely result in the highest GISS anomaly in the GISS records.  Best estimate is a GISS anomaly of +1.25+/- 0.10.

Note that so far 2015/2016 is retracing 1997/1998, except 0.4-0.5C warmer.   If this continues 2016 will end up about 0.15C warmer than 2015.  That would be just over 1C higher than GISS's 1951-1980 base period.

Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Lord M Vader on February 23, 2016, 07:58:28 AM
James Lovejoy, IF the GISS anomaly for February ends up being about +1,24C above normal, then February is roughly 1,5C warmer than the 1881-1900 average... The anomaly for the first 20 years is -0,26C relative the 1951-1980 normal period.Should give a huge echo around the world!!!

Best, LMV
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: oren on February 23, 2016, 01:41:38 PM
James Lovejoy, IF the GISS anomaly for February ends up being about +1,24C above normal, then February is roughly 1,5C warmer than the 1881-1900 average... The anomaly for the first 20 years is -0,26C relative the 1951-1980 normal period.Should give a huge echo around the world!!!

Best, LMV

It really should. That farce in Paris and all. But not sure it will though.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on February 23, 2016, 10:00:29 PM
With 10 days left of February, it is virtually certain that February 2016 will be the warmest February that have been observed. Of more importance is how warm the last days of the month wil be, does anyone have an idea about this?

If the big anomalies remains in charge and in terms of Nick Stokes normal period 1994-2013 exceed 0,7oC there are a small chance that the monthly anomaly will be close to +1,5oC above pre-industrial time.

Eyeballing the forecast there seems to be a decent chance for the warmth to continue through the rest of the month.

Best, LMV

Per the attached GFS 2m temp anom forecast for Feb 28, 2016 the Global temp anom then will be 0.809C.  That said, I note the relatively low 2m temperatures over the Southern Ocean, which is likely a result of ice meltwater from the acceleration of AIS mass loss.  Thus looking at the measured GMST changes may be giving a false sense of security, and perhaps policy makers should have listened to Hansen in the early 1980's.

Not to sound too much like a Jeremiah, but not only is ice meltwater in the Southern Ocean masking some of the GMST increase (while still promoting climate change), the following two articles show that: (a) Per Francey et al (2016) a relatively recent atmospheric circulation pattern is trapping more CO₂ in the NH than in the SH (see the first image) which will likely accelerate temperature increase in the NH (where most of the people are) faster than the AR5 projections; and (b) Per the Pedro et al (2016) reference in the second half of this century changes in ocean circulation patterns could result in a rapid/abrupt warming of Antarctica (see the second & third image); which would rapidly increase GMST at that time:

The first linked (open access) reference cites an example of inhomogeneity in atmospheric CO₂ distribution, in this case a 2009-2010 step in atmospheric CO₂ difference between the Northern & Southern Hemispheres.  This difference appears to be due to a sustained (at least until 2015) change in atmospheric circulation; which must also be modeled by future state of the art ESMs:

Francey, R. J. and Frederiksen, J. S.: The 2009–2010 step in atmospheric CO2 interhemispheric difference, Biogeosciences, 13, 873-885, doi:10.5194/bg-13-873-2016, 2016.

http://www.biogeosciences.net/13/873/2016/ (http://www.biogeosciences.net/13/873/2016/)

Abstract. The annual average CO2 difference between baseline data from Mauna Loa and the Southern Hemisphere increased by  ∼  0.8 µmol mol−1 (0.8 ppm) between 2009 and 2010, a step unprecedented in over 50 years of reliable data. We find no evidence for coinciding, sufficiently large source and sink changes. A statistical anomaly is unlikely due to the highly systematic nature of the variation in observations. An explanation for the step, and the subsequent 5-year stability in this north–south difference, involves interhemispheric atmospheric exchange variation. The selected data describing this episode provide a critical test for studies that employ atmospheric transport models to interpret global carbon budgets and inform management of anthropogenic emissions.

Caption: "Figure 1. North–south differences and growth rates in CO2 since 1990. Panel (a) shows, on the left axis, annual average (January–December) 1C (ppm) from three programs – CSIRO, NOAA (mlo–cgo), and SIO (mlo–spo) – plotted mid-year. On the right axis are reported anthropogenic emissions (dashed line), with the correction suggested by Francey et al. (2013) (shaded), scaled so that the overall slope is similar to that from the long-term mlo–spo SIO record. Panel (b): CSIRO (mlo, cgo, spo) and NOAA (mlo) growth rates, dC / dt , plotted mid- month."

J.B. Pedro, T. Martin, E. J. Steig, M. Jochum, W. Park & S.O. Rasmussen (20 February 2016), "Southern Ocean deep convection as a driver of Antarctic warming events", Geophysical Research Letters, DOI: 10.1002/2016GL067861

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016GL067861/abstract (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016GL067861/abstract)
Abstract: "Simulations with a free-running coupled climate model show that heat release associated with Southern Ocean deep convection variability can drive centennial-scale Antarctic temperature variations of up to 2.0 °C. The mechanism involves three steps: Preconditioning: heat accumulates at depth in the Southern Ocean; Convection onset: wind and/or sea-ice changes tip the buoyantly unstable system into the convective state; Antarctic warming: fast sea-ice–albedo feedbacks (on annual–decadal timescales) and slow Southern Ocean frontal and sea-surface temperature adjustments to convective heat release (on multidecadal–century timescales) drive an increase in atmospheric heat and moisture transport toward Antarctica. We discuss the potential of this mechanism to help drive and amplify climate variability as observed in Antarctic ice-core records."

Caption for third image: "Figure S2. Map showing the surface-air-temperature (SAT) anomaly during stage 2 (cf. Figure 3d). Circles mark locations of ice-core records. Color-coding of the circles depicts the maximum lagged correlation coefficient of modeled local SAT with SAT over the convection area (black cross in Weddell Sea). Lower panels show time series of modeled SAT anomalies at selected ice-core sites (red) together with the SAT anomaly over the convection region (black). Note different y-axis scaling for red lines."
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Wouter on February 24, 2016, 04:56:23 PM
It looks like 22 February being the warmest day on average on earth since at least 1994, with an anomaly of 0.997°C above 1994-2013, beating the previous record of 9 December 2015 (0.975°C).

Furthermore, it looks like that the 54 warmest days since 1994 were all found in the last 141 days, beating the value of +0.673°C that was the maximum value between the second of December 2013 and the 3rd of October 2015.

Source data: http://moyhu.blogspot.com (http://moyhu.blogspot.com)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Lord M Vader on February 24, 2016, 05:02:09 PM
Damn, it was annoyingly close to exced 1,00C above the 1994-2013 normal!! I think we should see a drop in thr daily anomalies from now and on. Beside that, we'll soon enter spring time and somewhat less huge anomalies...
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Buddy on February 24, 2016, 05:17:14 PM
Quote
Furthermore, it looks like that the 54 warmest days since 1994 were all found in the last 141 days

THAT....is rather "jaw dropping."  And not in a good way :-[
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Lord M Vader on February 24, 2016, 05:32:50 PM
How big anomalies for the next 5 days are the forecasts calling for? If no significant drop occurrs the odds are rather good that at least one of the NASA, NOAA or JMA will give an anomaly exceeding 1,50oC above pre-industrial for the month of February.

Will be scaring, exciting and sad to see if this prospect materializes. "Godzilla El Nino" doesn't care about politicians big words nor if you are right or left.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Csnavywx on February 24, 2016, 10:11:45 PM
How big anomalies for the next 5 days are the forecasts calling for? If no significant drop occurrs the odds are rather good that at least one of the NASA, NOAA or JMA will give an anomaly exceeding 1,50oC above pre-industrial for the month of February.

Will be scaring, exciting and sad to see if this prospect materializes. "Godzilla El Nino" doesn't care about politicians big words nor if you are right or left.

The GFS has temps near where they are now (maybe very slightly cooler, but still at or around 0.9C above 1994-2013 til the end of the month.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on February 25, 2016, 02:43:36 AM
Per the linked article (& linked pdf) prominent climate scientists including: Gerald Meehl, Benjamin Santer, John Fyfe and Michael Mann, demonstrate that the faux hiatus was real w.r.t. global mean surface air temperature, but not w.r.t. global warming.  I concur with their position:

www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/02/24/top-scientists-insist-global-warming-really-did-slow-down-in-the-2000s/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/02/24/top-scientists-insist-global-warming-really-did-slow-down-in-the-2000s/)

Extract: "The authors also argue that a large body of research into the causes of the apparent slowdown — which tended to target natural fluctuations, and especially the behavior of the Pacific Ocean — represents valuable work that advances our understanding of “a basic science question that has been studied for at least twenty years: what are the signatures of (and the interactions between) internal decadal variability and the responses to external forcings, such as increasing GHGs or aerosols from volcanic eruptions?”"

See a pdf of the paper at:

http://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2938.epdf?referrer_access_token=nya8U4bgjv_I-3aAfFgc6dRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0OqExA1EwYluYLwiaayT9bldKYisAn--P5Djex2GxwUVaxHJvGZA6CV3RoVsacjc4Bn86sGs2o0Cf_t7bvmgVnexAsZGl_sj5cl968-0rn3-TKKTiKqC_s3Q09j3pThfDPycXe8LzueeRscl4CKDNi58tDKzjk6Fo1kd_kiv-sXePQULXJKqbaBW3mwQCOJRZ0zTsXiJoOiCZRHrvkxPZVJcuTcY6hxbXXpeVnHNR20oYrvi2d-OoFX7Jid961YhTM%3D&tracking_referrer=www.washingtonpost.com (http://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2938.epdf?referrer_access_token=nya8U4bgjv_I-3aAfFgc6dRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0OqExA1EwYluYLwiaayT9bldKYisAn--P5Djex2GxwUVaxHJvGZA6CV3RoVsacjc4Bn86sGs2o0Cf_t7bvmgVnexAsZGl_sj5cl968-0rn3-TKKTiKqC_s3Q09j3pThfDPycXe8LzueeRscl4CKDNi58tDKzjk6Fo1kd_kiv-sXePQULXJKqbaBW3mwQCOJRZ0zTsXiJoOiCZRHrvkxPZVJcuTcY6hxbXXpeVnHNR20oYrvi2d-OoFX7Jid961YhTM%3D&tracking_referrer=www.washingtonpost.com)

Edit: See the associated Fig 1.

Edit2: Here is my standard citation:

John C. Fyfe, Gerald A. Meehl, Matthew H. England, Michael E. Mann, Benjamin D. Santer, Gregory M. Flato, Ed Hawkins, Nathan P. Gillett, Shang-Ping Xie, Yu Kosaka & Neil C. Swart (2016), "Making sense of the early-2000s warming slowdown", Nature Climate Change, Volume: 6, Pages: 224–228, doi:10.1038/nclimate2938

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n3/full/nclimate2938.html (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n3/full/nclimate2938.html)

Summary: "It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming slowdown or hiatus, characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming, has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims."
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Richard Rathbone on February 25, 2016, 12:35:53 PM
I prefer Tamino's change point analysis to theirs.

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/02/25/no-slowdown/

"A new paper by Fyfe et al. speaks with apparent certainty of a “slowdown” in the rise of global mean surface temperature (GMST). What it doesn’t give is any real evidence of it."
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Lord M Vader on February 25, 2016, 05:49:00 PM
Csnavywx, thanks for the answer! Where can I find these forecasts from GFS?

Feb 23 was +0,967C above the normal and the anomaly according to NCEP is now roughly +1,37C. During the last four months the difference between NOAAand GISS number haven't been higher than 0,189C. That implies, to me, that February right now is at least 1,19C above GISS normal. Extrapolating for the years 1881-1900 which had sn February anomaly being about -0,25C the odds for break through Paris talks are rather high as that give us an anomaly of at least +1,44C above "pre-industrial"!!
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on February 26, 2016, 10:09:13 AM
I prefer Tamino's change point analysis to theirs.

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/02/25/no-slowdown/ (https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/02/25/no-slowdown/)

"A new paper by Fyfe et al. speaks with apparent certainty of a “slowdown” in the rise of global mean surface temperature (GMST). What it doesn’t give is any real evidence of it."

While I have nothing against Tamino's hindcasting efforts, if one ignores the "slowdown" (or faux hiatus) in GMST rise, then one may be unpleasantly surprised when a "speedup" occurs in the GMST rise for the next two to three decades.

The linked reference indicates that research that points-out that at the low end of AR5's ECS most probable range (1.5 to 4.5C); are likely in error because they do not adequately consider decadal feedback.  The reference indicates that the best way to address this matter is by diagnosing the role played by effective radiative forcing (ERF) within climate models:

Piers M. Forster (Volume publication date June 2016), "Inference of Climate Sensitivity from Analysis of Earth's Energy Budget", Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Vol. 44

http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-earth-060614-105156 (http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-earth-060614-105156)

Abstract: "Recent attempts to diagnose Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) from changes in Earth’s energy budget point towards values at the low-end of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Report’s (AR5) likely range (1.5 to 4.5 K). These studies employ observations but still require an element of modeling to infer ECS. Their diagnosed effective ECS over the historic period of around 2 K holds up to scrutiny but there is tentative evidence that this underestimates the true ECS from a doubling of carbon dioxide. Different choices of energy imbalance data explain most of the difference between published best estimates while effective radiative forcing (ERF) dominates the overall uncertainty. For decadal analyses the largest source of uncertainty comes from a poor understanding of the relationship between ECS and decadal feedback. Considerable progress could be made by diagnosing ERF in models."

If it is not clear what decadal feedbacks are, they are associated with such phenomena as the PDO/IPO, AMO, etc.  As we have just left a period of negative PDO and are now in a period of positive PDO, we can expect El Ninos to keep driving up estimates of the ECS based on the future satellite record.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Richard Rathbone on February 26, 2016, 11:50:18 AM
I prefer Tamino's change point analysis to theirs.

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/02/25/no-slowdown/ (https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/02/25/no-slowdown/)

"A new paper by Fyfe et al. speaks with apparent certainty of a “slowdown” in the rise of global mean surface temperature (GMST). What it doesn’t give is any real evidence of it."

While I have nothing against Tamino's hindcasting efforts, if one ignores the "slowdown" (or faux hiatus) in GMST rise, then one may be unpleasantly surprised when a "speedup" occurs in the GMST rise for the next two to three decades.

Why should a  statistician be unpleasantly surprised by a reversion to the mean? Its the people that think there has been a real change in trend that are going to be surprised, not those that can do the statistics and see the trend hasn't actually changed.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on February 26, 2016, 07:02:36 PM
Why should a  statistician be unpleasantly surprised by a reversion to the mean? Its the people that think there has been a real change in trend that are going to be surprised, not those that can do the statistics and see the trend hasn't actually changed.

While people may like to watch statistics being revised with each new data point; what climate change cares about is physics, including chaotic strange attractors that current paleo-data is beginning to document that the Earth Systems are more sensitive than AR5 projections indicate.  Thus it is possible that our current positive PDO phase could activate nonlinear components of positive feedbacks that are not well represented by statistical regression techniques.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on February 26, 2016, 07:26:33 PM
Further to my comments in Reply #797, in the linked article Robert Scribbler does a nice job of summarizing some of the key physics related issues of our current situation; including the possibility (probability) that the current positive PDO phase, and a CFSv2 ENSO forecast of a weak El Nino in the second half of 2016, may drive the GMST into record territory in 2016 (for the third year in a row [with a possibility of four records in a row if a moderate El Nino occurs in the second half of 2016, which could drive the 2017 GMST into record territory):

Extract: "But as El Nino weakens and the Equator cools, the Jet Stream would tend to slow even more. Such an atmospheric state would tend to further exaggerate already significant Jet Stream wave patterns — transferring still more low-Latitude heat poleward. In addition, the ocean gyres tend to speed up as El Nino fades or transitions to La Nina. The result is an amplified pulse of warmer waters emerging from southern Latitudes and entering the Arctic.
It’s for these combined reasons — tendency to amplify south to north atmospheric heat transfer into the Arctic post El Nino and tendency to flush warmer waters toward Arctic Ocean zones during the same period that it appears we are entering a high risk time for potential new sea ice melts and possible related Greenland land ice melts during 2016 and 2017.

Finally, extreme above average sea surface temperatures are predicted to intensify over the Barents and Greenland seas through to end of Summer 2016. This is an area to watch. The added ocean heat would tend to pull the Jet Stream northward over Eastern Europe and Western Russia — generating risk of heatwaves and drought for this region even as Central Asia fell under risk of floods. Long range CFS precipitation and temperature model runs for Europe have not yet picked up this risk. However, given the intensity of heat predicted for Barents sea surfaces and the related tendency of warmth over oceans and in the far north to influence the formation of blocking patterns, heat domes, and high amplitude troughs, it’s worth keeping a weather eye on the situation.

Though the primary driver of global warming is a massive human fossil fuel emission, the response of the world ocean system can significantly wag the rate of atmospheric temperature increases on a decadal time scale. If the ocean tendency is for La Nina, this would tend to somewhat suppress the overall decadal rate of temperature increase — and we saw this during the 2000s. But if the ocean tendency is to produce El Ninos (in a switch to a positive Pacific Decadal Oscillation, as appears to be happening now), then the overall pace of global atmospheric temperature increase would tend to be enhanced.

In contrast, the CFSv2 model forecast from NOAA (above image) shows El Nino only weakening through to July and then re-strengthening in the October-November time-frame. This CFS model scenario would result in higher atmospheric temperatures in 2016 — practically guaranteeing a lock on an unprecedented three back-to-back-to-back record warm years for 2014, 2015, and 2016. But such a scenario — implying that the Pacific Ocean had entered a new period of El Nino tendency — would also tend to keep atmospheric temperatures nearer to the newly established record highs.
Under the CFSv2 scenario, we may expect annual average global temperatures to rise as high as 1.08 to 1.2 C above 1880s values during 2016 (a very extreme departure and one uncomfortably close to the 1.5 C warming mark). These extreme values would, perhaps, recede to around between 0.9 and 1.1 C during 2017 so long as the second El Nino pulse did not remain in place for too long. However, if the bounce back toward El Nino conditions was strong enough in late 2016, there would be an outside chance that the globe may experience not 3, but an absolutely obnoxious 4 back-to-back record warm years.

However, it’s worth re-iterating that the CFSv2 model forecasts have been quite accurate in predicting the path of the current record El Nino to date."

Edit:  While Scribbler provides the PDF correct CFSv2 Nino 3.4 forecast issued Feb 25 2016; I attached both the uncorrected and the corrected CFSv2 Nino 3.4 forecasts issued Feb 26 2016 (respectively); which are even more bullish for weak El Nino conditions in the second half of 2016 than yesterday's forecast.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: nowayout on February 26, 2016, 09:52:35 PM
Let me put it with a simpler wording: we're nuking the climate - so start to imagine what that may mean, to us , for us.

Every paleoclimate record must fail at this point to compare: speed. I'd like to conjecture, that we've just seen the start of an ugly transition. No longer it is about weather, freezing season or melting season, whatever. It is about changing weather patterns. Robert Scribbler does not state it, but he describes it, in his very skillful ways.

We are about 1° C above preindustrial levels. Nice. The point to consider: we lag the equlibrium of ~485 ppm co2e by more than 4° C. And we are still adding, hopefully at a reduced rate, given the state of the world economy. And exactly this temperature difference and lag in change is responsible for the speed of our current climate change.

(Second derivative; 'til the end of my days I'll be amused about the fact, that everyone can handle this one while driving a car - but most stop doing it when having arrived at home. Mankind won't survive, and this is the reason why.)

Prepare for a rough ride. A very rough ride. Regardless of precipitation, or lack thereof. That is, prepare for both. And equally: warm and cold. Don't take an April weather in February for granted, here in Europe.

You may want to (re-)read the Wikipedia entries on Lake Agassiz and the Younger Dryas. And then place a bet, how long it will take for the melted water beneath the Greenland interior to spill out big time. An event for your grandchildren? For your children? For you, happening in your lifetime?

(Tag: Doomerpr0n, fitting my nick; sry)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Wouter on February 27, 2016, 08:10:54 AM
It also seems certain now that February will be warmer on average, than the warmest day was before October 2015... Daily data since 1994, source: moyhu.blogspot.be
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Laurent on February 27, 2016, 10:20:33 AM
I don't think we should think with CO2e over 100 years, the most relevant now is the CO2e over 10 years ! That mean we are over 700 ppm of CO2e !!! The consequences are unraveling now.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on February 27, 2016, 10:36:08 AM
I don't think we should think with CO2e over 100 years, the most relevant now is the CO2e over 10 years ! That mean we are over 700 ppm of CO2e !!! The consequences are unraveling now.

However, do not forget the negative radiative forcing currently caused by aerosols [at least until we reduce anthropogenic aerosol emissions and allow deforestation and ocean acidification (think DMSP) to reduce natural secondary organic aerosol emissions].
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Lord M Vader on February 27, 2016, 04:27:46 PM
For the first time, the daily anomaly according to Nick Stokes, exceeded +1,0C. The anomaly for February 25 was an astonishing +1,027C above the 1994-2013 average!
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Sigmetnow on February 28, 2016, 02:43:03 PM
OK, umm...  wow.  :o
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Lord M Vader on February 28, 2016, 05:21:36 PM
February 26 was +1,084C above the 1994-2013 normal, absolutely mind-boggling!!! :o :o
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: James Lovejoy on February 28, 2016, 06:59:24 PM
With data in from Nick Stokes through February 26th, and with http://www.karstenhaustein.com/climate (http://www.karstenhaustein.com/climate) giving a very good look through the 29th, the central value of the February anomaly above the 1994-2013 normal is 0.830C.  This could lead to a GISS February anomaly of as much as +1.30C .  Expect NASA and hadcrut to be quite a bit lower, they both underweight the Arctic which was absolutely scorching this month.

Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Lord M Vader on February 28, 2016, 07:26:31 PM
James Lovejoy, a GISS anomaly at +1,30C would seal our first month with an anomaly above the 1,5C compared to pre-industrial as the big talkers agreement in Paris.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: James Lovejoy on February 28, 2016, 10:52:13 PM
Yes, and since Tamino has shown that global temperatures stay high until 2 months after the end of el Nino, its extremely likely that March and April will show a GISS anomaly of +1C, with a more than 75% chance that May and June will as well.

I wish this were enough to wake up the doubters to the seriousness of the situation.   :-[
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: oren on February 29, 2016, 07:05:15 AM
I am afraid nothing is going to be enough for that.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Lord M Vader on February 29, 2016, 06:31:39 PM
And the heat goes on... A new daily record anomaly at +1,137oC above the 1994-2013 normal was set at February 27. The February anomaly according to Nick Stokes is now a mind-boggling +1,41oC. Will be very exciting and tragic at the same time to see how big anomalies NASA, NOAA and JMA will report. Any guesses?
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: BornFromTheVoid on March 02, 2016, 11:54:20 AM
Roy Spencer is reporting that the February UAH anomaly is +0.83C, the warmest monthly anomaly on record and a +0.3C jump from January.
With perfect timing, he claims to have changed website host and his graph of global temps is no longer accessible, and he can't fix it ::)

EDIT: Put together a graph with this years data.

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FmwkCs37.png&hash=67782c60725e09ee5facfb53c63b7bb9)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: DrTskoul on March 02, 2016, 02:44:21 PM
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 03, 2016, 12:15:14 AM
And the heat goes on... A new daily record anomaly at +1,137oC above the 1994-2013 normal was set at February 27. The February anomaly according to Nick Stokes is now a mind-boggling +1,41oC. Will be very exciting and tragic at the same time to see how big anomalies NASA, NOAA and JMA will report. Any guesses?

With a hat-tip to Sigmetnow, the linked Slate article confirms the points that you have been making:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2016/03/01/february_2016_s_shocking_global_warming_temperature_record.html (http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2016/03/01/february_2016_s_shocking_global_warming_temperature_record.html)

Extract: "Using unofficial data and adjusting for different base-line temperatures, it appears that February 2016 was likely somewhere between 1.15 and 1.4 degrees warmer than the long-term average, and about 0.2 degrees above last month—good enough for the most above-average month ever measured. (Since the globe had already warmed by about +0.45 degrees above pre-industrial levels during the 1981-2010 base-line meteorologists commonly use, that amount has been added to the data released today.)"
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: LRC1962 on March 03, 2016, 01:15:18 AM
Based on the chart a somewhat similar spike occurred in 98 during the last El Nino, then promptly fell back down to return to the normal ascending trend line. As the article did point out was the question of what will happen when the next La Nina goes to work. Will it drop down and return to our current trend line, or will this be a step up, because of the enormous amount of heat stored in the oceans that La Nina will not in fact bring about a cooling trend.
As has been pointed out in other posts we are now getting into a situation that we almost can no long base future trends on what has happened in the past because nothing is working out the way it supposed to happen.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 03, 2016, 02:46:42 AM
As has been pointed out in other posts we are now getting into a situation that we almost can no long base future trends on what has happened in the past because nothing is working out the way it supposed to happen.

I am confident that a state-of-the-art nonlinear Earth Systems Model, like ACME, will be able to replicate what is currently happening; however, the real challenging is getting policy makers to have confidence in such highly nonlinear models; which is why I start the "Testbed" thread in the Science folder.  One thing is clear is that using statistical hindcasts of old events to project the future, just isn't going to cut it anymore, and we need to learn to use properly calibrated physics.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Laurent on March 04, 2016, 11:31:47 AM
2016 is smashing heat records — and El Niño is only a small reason why
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/04/is-el-nino-or-climate-change-behind-the-run-of-record-temperatures (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/04/is-el-nino-or-climate-change-behind-the-run-of-record-temperatures)

Quote
No, according to Professor Michael Mann, the director of Penn State Earth System Science Centre. He said it was possible to look back over the temperature records and assess the impact of an El Niño on global temperatures.

“A number of folks have done this,” he said, “and come to the conclusion it was responsible for less than 0.1C of the anomalous warmth. In other words, we would have set an all-time global temperature record [in 2015] even without any help from El Niño.”
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Buddy on March 04, 2016, 01:06:00 PM
Quote
2016 is smashing heat records — and El Niño is only a small reason why

Polar amplification continues unabated.  Here's a look at the ratio of new record high temps...to new record low temps.   If you look at Russia and Canada......especially since about the year 2000....the trend is clear, which probably surprises none of you:

http://climatechangegraphs.blogspot.com/2012/08/ratio-of-new-daily-record-high-temps-to_30.html (http://climatechangegraphs.blogspot.com/2012/08/ratio-of-new-daily-record-high-temps-to_30.html)

Here's a LONGER LOOK on a decade-by-decade basis.  Again...no surprises.  The warm up started in the 1980's....but I believe Arctic amplification "kicked it up a notch" in the early 2000's....and I believe it is now kicking it up ANOTHER KNOTCH.  Also note that the ramp up in heat is greater in Russia and Canada than it is in the US (just as those idiotic climate scientists said it would back in the 1980's a 1990's ;)

http://climatechangegraphs.blogspot.com/2012/08/ratio-of-new-record-high-temps-to-new_36.html (http://climatechangegraphs.blogspot.com/2012/08/ratio-of-new-record-high-temps-to-new_36.html)

And in the Arctic, as we lose more and more ice.....sooner and sooner......I believe that the RATE of amplification will continue to increase (more accurately....it is being FORCED to increase by the increasing positive feedback effects).  The Arctic will serve as a "sponge" for additional heat absorbed by all that nice dark blue water.

Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 04, 2016, 05:58:14 PM
Normally, others cite the following Nick Stokes evaluation, but as they have not & as he is citing extremely high values for February 2016, I provide the following:

http://moyhu.blogspot.com/2016/03/surface-temp-up-0175-satellite-temp.html (http://moyhu.blogspot.com/2016/03/surface-temp-up-0175-satellite-temp.html)

Extract: "The Moyhu NCEP/NCAR index rose from 0.665°C in January to 0.84°C in February, continuing to set records. Similar rises are likely in the main surface indices. The base period for that index is 1994-2013, but reset to the 1951-80 period used by GISS, it would be 1.436°C (see the linked table, bottom left). Currently GISS has been running about 0.1°C cooler than NCEP/NCAR, on the same base. Here is the plot of the last year or so, daily:

A huge spike in recent days, again breaking records. The warmth was in Arctic, Canada/Alaska, East US, a large swathe of Central Asia, E Siberia, and still the ENSO Pacific region. Cool in Mid and W USA, and mixed in Antarctica."

Edit: Even though wili has opened another thread with the following link to Robert Scribbler's preliminary assessment, I provide it here:

http://robertscribbler.com/2016/03/03/the-roof-is-on-fire-looks-like-february-of-2016-was-1-5-to-1-7-c-above-1880s-averages/ (http://robertscribbler.com/2016/03/03/the-roof-is-on-fire-looks-like-february-of-2016-was-1-5-to-1-7-c-above-1880s-averages/)

Extract: "Nick Stokes, a retired climate scientist and blogger over at Moyhu, published an analysis of the recently released preliminary data from NCAR and the indicator is just absolutely off the charts high. According to this analysis, February temperatures may have been as much as 1.44 C hotter than the 1951 to 1980 NASA baseline. Converting to departures from 1880s values, if these preliminary estimates prove correct, would put the GISS figure at an extreme 1.66 C hotter than 1880s levels for February. If GISS runs 0.1 C cooler than NCAR conversions, as it has over the past few months, then the 1880 to February 2016 temperature rise would be about 1.56 C. Both are insanely high jumps that hint 2016 could be quite a bit warmer than even 2015."
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: wili on March 04, 2016, 06:12:19 PM
Thanks for posting this here, as well. Probably where it belongs.

I see the Grist is now covering the issue: http://grist.org/climate-energy/global-warming-is-now-in-overdrive-we-just-hit-a-terrible-climate-milestone/ (http://grist.org/climate-energy/global-warming-is-now-in-overdrive-we-just-hit-a-terrible-climate-milestone/)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Buddy on March 05, 2016, 02:33:32 PM
On the NOAA 6-10 day......30 day....and 3 month temperature outlook for the US (and by implication.....Canada).....the upper Midwest of the US and Canada look to be much warmer than normal.  That could/should lead to an earlier start to the melt season in Hudson Bay.

And...no surprise...Alaska is forecast to continue its warmth as well (note:  lack of snow for this years Iditarod caused they to ship in snow from Fairbanks and shorten the race).

If you look at the bottom of the linked page...you'll find the 3 NOAA temperature outlook maps (they update automatically each day).

http://climatechangegraphs.blogspot.com/2012/08/ratio-of-new-record-high-temps-to-new_36.html (http://climatechangegraphs.blogspot.com/2012/08/ratio-of-new-record-high-temps-to-new_36.html)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Sigmetnow on March 05, 2016, 04:01:48 PM
And...no surprise...Alaska is forecast to continue its warmth as well (note:  lack of snow for this years Iditarod caused they to ship in snow from Fairbanks and shorten the race).

Well, they've had to bring in snow for the "ceremonial" start, in Anchorage, on and off for decades now -- hence the "real" Iditarod start some days later from a snowier location.  But yes, this year they had to go farther north than usual to get enough snow to dress the Anchorage streets.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 05, 2016, 04:41:57 PM
For what it is worth, in the El Nino 2015-16 thread I have just posted information indicating that another downwelling pulse of the ocean's Equatorial Kelvin Wave, EKW, has just formed; which should slow the rate of decline of the current strong El Nino conditions (thus likely supporting continued high GMST values for a few more months).  This is further supported by the two attached images of the CFSv2 Nino 3.4 forecasts issued March 5 2016 for the PDF corrected, and the uncorrected, cases respectively.  These forecasts indicate weak to moderate El Nino conditions lasting at least until early Fall of 2016 (which may support relatively high GMST values for at least the next 9 months, if not the next 18 months if a moderate El Nino actually forms by Fall of 2016).
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Lord M Vader on March 05, 2016, 05:06:24 PM
Interestingly, the latest CFSV2/NOAA run depicts a possible new weak to moderate WWB to emerge around dateline by equinox and last through the rest of March. This is quite oppose to what we may expect as the MJO is moving into the phases where it destructively interferes with ENSO.

What I'm thinking of is if there is a possibility that El Nino will be prolonged thanks to the excess of heat. This excess of heat might have the ability to sustain ENSO conditions for a longer time than previous events. If I'm not mistaken, there have been studies indicating "Mega El Ninos" in the future as global warming is continuing.These would last for years.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Sigmetnow on March 06, 2016, 06:31:57 PM
"Wow! Great banner drop at the start of the Exxon-sponsored Iditarod slushfest! #exxonknew. Way to go @AKRisingTide!"
-Bill McKibben
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: deep octopus on March 06, 2016, 11:17:59 PM
On the NOAA 6-10 day......30 day....and 3 month temperature outlook for the US (and by implication.....Canada).....the upper Midwest of the US and Canada look to be much warmer than normal.  That could/should lead to an earlier start to the melt season in Hudson Bay.

And...no surprise...Alaska is forecast to continue its warmth as well (note:  lack of snow for this years Iditarod caused they to ship in snow from Fairbanks and shorten the race).

If you look at the bottom of the linked page...you'll find the 3 NOAA temperature outlook maps (they update automatically each day).

http://climatechangegraphs.blogspot.com/2012/08/ratio-of-new-record-high-temps-to-new_36.html (http://climatechangegraphs.blogspot.com/2012/08/ratio-of-new-record-high-temps-to-new_36.html)

The pattern for mid-March across North America is reminiscent of 2012, when summer took a head start by several months with temps for numerous areas climbing to the upper 70s F and low 80s F, and lasting for about two weeks. That we are revisiting such a pattern is just another troubling sign that these sorts of events are becoming common. Looks like we may be done with mornings below freezing for the year here in the mid-Atlantic.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Buddy on March 07, 2016, 01:54:05 PM
Quote
The pattern for mid-March across North America is reminiscent of 2012, when summer took a head start by several months with temps for numerous areas climbing to the upper 70s F and low 80s F, and lasting for about two weeks. That we are revisiting such a pattern is just another troubling sign that these sorts of events are becoming common.

YES....absolutely agree.  I also expect this to be a warm spring...with LOTS of record high temps in the upper Midwest of the US.

These are the sorts of things (record melting in the Arctic....record high temps...etc) that have continued to "chip away" at the Deniers (both the FAKE deniers who are lying.....as well as the "sheep deniers" that are just blindly following).  I expect this year to produce more "headlines" as record temps and Arctic melting proceeds.  Could be an interesting summer in the US as the election process proceeds.  Maybe it will be a WARM JULY in Cleveland this summer (US Republican convention).... ;D

If indeed we DO have a "record plunge" to a new low in Arctic sea ice (which I expect).....that will have impact in the late summer/early fall.

Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Shared Humanity on March 07, 2016, 02:33:55 PM
While watching the ice recede to record lows is riveting for those who are well informed, it will be weather events that will finally grab people's attention. This will happen when heat waves, flooding events or unprecedented storms cause massive loss of life and/or permanent dislocation of large groups of people. Of course, this needs to occur in the developed west to have the required effect.

It is essential that climate scientists continue to drive home the point that the freakish weather is, in fact, driven by AGW which is increasing energy in the system. The message must be unrelenting.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Laurent on March 08, 2016, 07:43:17 PM
Northern hemisphere temperature breaches a terrifying milestone
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2079775-northern-hemisphere-temperature-breaches-a-terrifying-milestone/ (https://www.newscientist.com/article/2079775-northern-hemisphere-temperature-breaches-a-terrifying-milestone/)

Quote
Warming appears to have gone into overdrive, with the northern hemisphere going 2°C above pre-industrial temperatures for the first time, says Eric Holthaus
Arctic scene
Unusually warm

Frank Olsen/Getty

Preliminary February and early March temperatures are in, and it’s now abundantly clear: warming is going into overdrive.

As of 3 March, it appears that average temperatures across the northern hemisphere breached 2°C above pre-industrial levels for the first time in recorded history, and probably the first time since human civilisation began thousands of years ago.

The 2°C mark has long been held (somewhat arbitrarily) as the point above which climate change may begin to become “dangerous” to humanity. It has now arrived – though very briefly and only in the northern hemisphere – much more quickly than anticipated. This is a milestone moment for our species. Climate change deserves our greatest possible attention.

As for the planet as a whole, there are dozens of global temperature datasets, and usually I (and other climate journalists) wait until the official ones are released to announce a record-breaking month at the global level. But February’s global data is so extraordinary that there is no need to wait: it obliterated the all-time temperature record set only in January.

Using unofficial data and adjusting for different baseline temperatures, it appears that February was somewhere between 1.15°C and 1.4°C warmer than the long-term average, and about 0.2°C above January – making it the most above-average month ever measured. (Since the globe had already warmed by about 0.45°C above pre-industrial levels during the 1981-2010 baseline meteorologists commonly use, that amount has been added to the data.)
Stunning rise

Keep in mind that it took from the dawn of the industrial age until October 2015 to reach the first 1.0°C rise. That means we have come as much as an extra 0.4°C further in just the last five months. Even accounting for the margin of error associated with these preliminary datasets, that means it is virtually certain that February beat the record set in January for the most anomalously warm month for the entire globe ever recorded. That’s stunning.

It also means that for many parts of the northern hemisphere, there basically wasn’t a winter. Parts of the Arctic were more than 16°C warmer than average for February, bringing them a few degrees above freezing, on par with typical June temperatures, in what is often the coldest month of the year.

In the US, the winter was record-warm in cities coast to coast. In Europe and Asia, dozens of countries set or tied their all-time temperature records for February. In the tropics, the record-warmth is prolonging the longest-lasting coral bleaching episode ever seen.

The northernmost permanent settlement, Norway’s Svalbard archipelago, has averaged 10°C above what is usual in winter, with temperatures rising above freezing on 21 days since 1 December. That kind of extremely unusual weather has prompted a record-setting low in the maximum extent of Arctic sea ice, especially in the Barents Sea.
Sceptical converts

The data for February is so overwhelming that even prominent climate change sceptics have embraced the record. Writing on his blog, former NASA scientist Roy Spencer said that according to satellite records – the dataset of choice by climate sceptics for a variety of reasons – February  featured “whopping” temperature anomalies, especially in the Arctic.

Spurred by disbelief, Spencer checked his data with others and said the overlap is “about as good as it gets”. Speaking with The Washington Post, Spencer said the February data proves “there has been warming. The question is how much warming there’s been.”

Of course, all this is happening in the context of a record-setting El Niño, which tends to boost global temperatures for six or eight months beyond its usual peak at the end of the calendar year – mainly because it takes that long for excess heat to filter its way across the planet from the tropical Pacific Ocean.

But El Niño isn’t entirely responsible for the absurd numbers we are seeing. Its influence on the Arctic still isn’t well-known and is probably small. In fact, El Niño’s influence on global temperatures as a whole is likely to be small – on the order of 0.1°C or so.
No more normal

What’s actually happening now is the liberation of nearly two decades’ worth of global warming energy that has been stored in the oceans since the last major El Niño in 1998.

Numbers like this amount to a step-change in our planet’s climate system. Peter Gleick, a climate scientist at the Pacific Institute in Oakland, California, said it is difficult to compare the current temperature spike: “The old assumptions about what was normal are being tossed out the window… The old normal is gone.”

Almost overnight, the world has moved within arm’s reach of the climate goals negotiated just last December in Paris. There, small island nations on the front line of climate change set a global temperature target of no more than 1.5°C rise by the year 2100 as a line in the sand, and that limit was embraced by the global community.

On our current pace, we may reach that level for the first time – though briefly – later this year. In fact, for individual days, we are probably already there. We could now be in the heart of a decade or more surge in global warming that could kick off a series of tipping points with far-reaching implications on our species and the countless others we share the planet with.

Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Buddy on March 08, 2016, 09:55:10 PM
Quote
While watching the ice recede to record lows is riveting for those who are well informed, it will be weather events that will finally grab people's attention. This will happen when heat waves, flooding events or unprecedented storms cause massive loss of life and/or permanent dislocation of large groups of people.

It's "cumulative."  The ice plunge this year will garner plenty of attention.....but the floods, hurricanes, etc....are also needed (and coming).

I expect to see global warming headlines this summer and fall.....leading up to the US elections.
Record high temps in the US and Canada this spring and summer will also grab some attention.

Gee.....global warming is real after all.  Who would have "thunk" it?  Only 97% of climate scientists.  Just be sure to say a little prayer for Judith Curry, Joe Batardi, FOX News, Sean Hannity and others.  I have a feeling people won't be so compassionate a couple years from now....I know I won't.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Lord M Vader on March 09, 2016, 05:40:50 PM
Seems like the exceptionally high temperatures is decrasing now. Todays value from Nick Stokes was "just" +0,877oC above the normal for 1994-2013. This is the lowest anomaly since February 17. Quite amazing! does anyone know if these numbers should continue to drop, plateauing or rise again?

//LMV
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: James Lovejoy on March 09, 2016, 10:53:15 PM
Quote
does anyone know if these numbers should continue to drop, plateauing or rise again?

Karsten Haustein's Global Forecast summeries   http://www.karstenhaustein.com/climate (http://www.karstenhaustein.com/climate) are dropping further, with the 3 to 7 day part down to 'only' about 0.66C above 1981-2010 normal.  This looks more like a wiggle than a trend.  And even as a wiggle should be taken with caution because for the last month or more the long term forecast has gone up as we get to the short term, and gone up again when we get to Nick Stoke's real time measurements.

For the arctic watchers, the arctic portion is forecasting colder than normal from about hour 120 out to 168.  We'll see how that holds up.

Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Sigmetnow on March 10, 2016, 02:05:19 AM
It’s Official: This Was America’s Warmest Winter on Record
Quote
In news that will surprise exactly no one, we just finished America’s warmest winter in history.

On Tuesday, NOAA released its official assessment of December, January, and February’s temperatures across the United States, and the results are striking: Not a single state in the U.S. had a cooler than average winter. (NOAA treats Alaska and Hawaii separately, due to shorter weather data records there—though both states were significantly warmer than normal this winter. Weather records for the contiguous United States go back to 1895.)

NOAA blames the recent warm weather on a record-strength El Niño “and other climate patterns,” most notably, global warming. As a whole, this winter in the lower 48 was about 4.6 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the 20th century average: a sharp contrast to the previous back-to-back frigid polar vortex winters, especially in the Northeast. But that doesn’t mean there was a lack of wintry weather: New York City, for example, had one of its warmest and snowiest winters on record, an odd combination to say the least.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/03/08/noaa_data_show_warmest_winter_on_record_in_usa.html (http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/03/08/noaa_data_show_warmest_winter_on_record_in_usa.html)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Lord M Vader on March 12, 2016, 07:14:40 PM
It is official now. GISS just came in with an anomaly of +1,35oC above the 1951-1980 average. Translated to pre-industrial yields a number of a staggering +1,63oC above the 1881-1900 average.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 12, 2016, 09:01:41 PM
It is official now. GISS just came in with an anomaly of +1,35oC above the 1951-1980 average. Translated to pre-industrial yields a number of a staggering +1,63oC above the 1881-1900 average.

LMV,  thanks for the quick notice on the news of this significant temporary pulse in GMST.  The linked article indicates that we will most likely be permanently over 1.5C by 2020, and permanently over 2C by 2030:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/10/dangerous-global-warming-will-happen-sooner-than-thought-study (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/10/dangerous-global-warming-will-happen-sooner-than-thought-study)

Extract: "University of Queensland and Griffith University researchers have developed a “global energy tracker” which predicts average world temperatures could climb 1.5C above pre-industrial levels by 2020.

That forecast, based on new modelling using long-term average projections on economic growth, population growth and energy use per person, points to a 2C rise by 2030."
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Jim Hunt on March 12, 2016, 09:17:09 PM
It is official now. GISS just came in with an anomaly of +1,35oC above the 1951-1980 average. Translated to pre-industrial yields a number of a staggering +1,63oC above the 1881-1900 average.

Richard Betts one week ago:

Quote
Some places warm faster than others!

Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Steven on March 12, 2016, 10:56:20 PM
The linked article indicates that we will most likely be permanently over 1.5C by 2020, and permanently over 2C by 2030:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/10/dangerous-global-warming-will-happen-sooner-than-thought-study (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/10/dangerous-global-warming-will-happen-sooner-than-thought-study)

Extract: "University of Queensland and Griffith University researchers have developed a “global energy tracker” which predicts average world temperatures could climb 1.5C above pre-industrial levels by 2020.

That forecast, based on new modelling using long-term average projections on economic growth, population growth and energy use per person, points to a 2C rise by 2030."

That Guardian article is wrong.

See the discussion at this link:

Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 12, 2016, 11:07:40 PM

That Guardian article is wrong.

See the discussion at this link:

It might be the case that the Guardian article is wrong, & it might be possible that the first attached SkS graph from the following link is subject to change (see the circled point).  In any case, it is poor risk management to delay climate change action:

www.skepticalscience.com//pics/2c-2016-02.png (http://www.skepticalscience.com//pics/2c-2016-02.png)

Edit: The second image shows the SkS 2C Tracker through January 2016 (see the following link), which shows a marked lower 12-month running average than the first plot.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/2c-2016-01.html (https://www.skepticalscience.com/2c-2016-01.html)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Steven on March 13, 2016, 12:03:33 AM
It might be the case that the Guardian article is wrong

It is definitely wrong.  Here is an actual quote from the Australian study (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0149406) on which that Guardian article is based:

Quote
Following a business-as-usual scenario for the total global population (3.9% GDP, 0.61% energy efficiency savings) would result in Safely extractable reserves within the 2°C limit being depletion by ~2029 (Fig 3A light orange) [45]. This suggests that by 2030 the CO2 emissions from the global economy should minimally be in balance with the sustainable rate of global CO2 absorption [50,51] (i.e. ~ 48% of global anthropogenic CO2 emissions in 2010 [50,51], if the 2°C global warming ‘safe limit’ of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is not to be exceeded[4,52].

To stay within a 1.5°C global warming limit, safely extractable reserves are forecast to be consumed by 2020

What those scientists are basically saying, is that the IPCC carbon budget could be depleted by 2020/2030.  So the amount of carbon emitted by 2020/2030 could result eventually (several years or decades later) in global temperatures permanently above 1.5°C/2°C relative to pre-industrial.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 13, 2016, 01:20:39 AM
It might be the case that the Guardian article is wrong

It is definitely wrong.  Here is an actual quote from the Australian study (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0149406) on which that Guardian article is based:

Quote
Following a business-as-usual scenario for the total global population (3.9% GDP, 0.61% energy efficiency savings) would result in Safely extractable reserves within the 2°C limit being depletion by ~2029 (Fig 3A light orange) [45]. This suggests that by 2030 the CO2 emissions from the global economy should minimally be in balance with the sustainable rate of global CO2 absorption [50,51] (i.e. ~ 48% of global anthropogenic CO2 emissions in 2010 [50,51], if the 2°C global warming ‘safe limit’ of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is not to be exceeded[4,52].

To stay within a 1.5°C global warming limit, safely extractable reserves are forecast to be consumed by 2020

What those scientists are basically saying, is that the IPCC carbon budget could be depleted by 2020/2030.  So the amount of carbon emitted by 2020/2030 could result eventually (several years or decades later) in global temperatures permanently above 1.5°C/2°C relative to pre-industrial.

While I appreciate the logic of your statements; if you base logic on false precepts then you come to false conclusions rather than absolute certainty (i.e. "It is definitely wrong.").  I believe that the IPCC carbon budget very clearly errs on the side of least drama; which means that I believe that you have no certainty that an increase of 2C will not occur by 2030.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 13, 2016, 10:02:45 AM
While I have provided more evidence in other threads that the actual carbon budget is much lower than that assumed by AR5; here, I provide the following ESLD reference (including several authors that developed the RCP scenarios) that confirms that the true carbon budget is actually much lower than previously believed:

Joeri Rogelj, Michiel Schaeffer, Pierre Friedlingstein, Nathan P. Gillett, Detlef P. van Vuuren, Keywan Riahi, Myles Allen & Reto Knutti (2016), "Differences between carbon budget estimates unraveled", Nature Climate Change, Volume: 6, Pages: 245–252, doi:10.1038/nclimate2868

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n3/full/nclimate2868.html (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n3/full/nclimate2868.html)

Abstract: "Several methods exist to estimate the cumulative carbon emissions that would keep global warming to below a given temperature limit. Here we review estimates reported by the IPCC and the recent literature, and discuss the reasons underlying their differences. The most scientifically robust number — the carbon budget for CO2-induced warming only — is also the least relevant for real-world policy. Including all greenhouse gases and using methods based on scenarios that avoid instead of exceed a given temperature limit results in lower carbon budgets. For a >66% chance of limiting warming below the internationally agreed temperature limit of 2 °C relative to pre-industrial levels, the most appropriate carbon budget estimate is 590–1,240 GtCO2 from 2015 onwards. Variations within this range depend on the probability of staying below 2 °C and on end-of-century non-CO2 warming. Current CO2 emissions are about 40 GtCO2 yr−1, and global CO2 emissions thus have to be reduced urgently to keep within a 2 °C-compatible budget."

http://ecowatch.com/2016/02/26/world-carbon-budget/ (http://ecowatch.com/2016/02/26/world-carbon-budget/)

Extract: "There is general agreement that a limit of 590 billion tons would safely keep the world from overheating in ways that would impose ever greater strains on human society. The argument is about the upper limit of such estimates.

Dr. Rogelj said:
“In order to have a reasonable chance of keeping global warming below 2 C, we can only emit a certain amount of carbon dioxide, ever. That’s our carbon budget.
“This has been understood for about a decade and the physics behind this concept are well understood, but many different factors can lead to carbon budgets that are either slightly smaller or slightly larger. We wanted to understand these differences and to provide clarity on the issue for policy-makers and the public.
“This study shows that, in some cases, we have been overestimating the budget by 50 to more than 200 percent. At the high end, this is a difference of more than 1,000 billion tons of carbon dioxide.”
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 13, 2016, 10:48:23 AM
Steven is correct about the lag between GHG emissions and the associated increase in GMST, and as the attached graph from the following link indicates, for the past ten years CO₂, CH4 and N2O emissions have been increasing at a record pace.  So if AR5 scientists has erred on the side of least drama with regard to their estimates of: (a) climate sensitivity; (b) negative forcing and negative feedback from aerosols; and (c) Earth Systems state (e.g. ocean heat content, etc.); then we have already used-up more of the carbon budget than was previously believed:

http://www.stateofourclimate.com/ (http://www.stateofourclimate.com/)

Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Theta on March 13, 2016, 11:51:49 AM
Since we're talking about projections, I thought I would put a video here from Guy, who erred on the side of most drama, and has put forward a bunch of projections regarding temperature. I'll put down some timestamps so people won't have to go through the video as he spends time talking about Human Extinction, when all I want to do here is point to the temperature projections as to not derail the thread.

Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: GeoffBeacon on March 13, 2016, 02:16:12 PM
ALSR

Thanks for #840

I manage to get to presentations by top economists (usually at the LSE) and often get a quick word with them afterwards and sometimes an email exchange.  This led me to write “Is Green Growth a Fantasy (http://www.brusselsblog.co.uk/is-green-growth-a-fantasy/)” which simplifies the Kaya Identity, looking at carbon emissions as (1)the carbon intensity of production in dollar terms times (2) the world's production i.e. the total of the world's GDPs.

Quote
Carbon emissions are still increasing – boosted somewhat by an increased population; reduced substantially by a lower Carbon Intensity but swamped by increased Personal Product, the GWP per person.

Some, if not most, policy makers say that “Green Growth” is possible – and an increase in production can be counter balanced by a much lower carbon intensity so that carbon emissions fall fast enough to avoid dangerous climate change. The questions are

1. Can the world decarbonise fast enough?
2. Is Green Growth a fantasy?

As a thought experiment (or reductio ad absurdum?), I assumed that carbon extraction from the atmosphere (e.g. BECCS) begins to work seriously after 2050. It's simple maths to find what rate of carbon reduction keeps within the remaining carbon budget until the world is saved by BECCS in 2050.

For the remaining carbon budget I had assumed 843 billion tonnes,. This required a carbon intensity  reduction of  4% pa with no increase in personal consumption but 1% pa rise in population. Doing similar sums on 590 billion tonnes CO2e requires a rate of decarbonisation of  6% pa - or 7% pa on the assumption of  a 1% rise in population.

PWC's Low Carbon Economy Index 2015 (http://www.pwc.co.uk/services/sustainability-climate-change/insights/low-carbon-economy-index-2015-download-section.html) has on it's front page:

Quote
1.3% Annual fall in carbon intensity since 2000

6.3% Annual carbon intensity reduction needed for 2°C

The economists I hear at the LSE still seem to think green growth is possible.

If anyone has any idea how to get any economists to engage with this I'd like too know.

QUESTION 1 (That you have mostly answered on #841)

To get to the question, which I wanted to ask. This is: Have you or anyone here any background information on the Nature Climate Change Article?

I notice that Myles Allen is one of the authors. I had assumed he  “erred on the side of least drama” because of his views on methane and short term climate forcing agents (http://www.brusselsblog.co.uk/now-co2-is-short-lived-cows-really-are-bad/) and saying that hurricane Sandy was only a category 1 hurricane (true but!).

Have the "official climate scientists" got round to telling the whole story as it is known at present?

e.g.
Do they measure methane over 20 or 100 years?
Any missing or underestimated feedbacks?

QUESTION 2

I have read an excellent article in the Atlantic magazine 1491 (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2002/03/1491/302445/). This discusses the theory that the Amazon was mostly cultivated before European invasions that caused and enormous decline in population due to disease. The Amazon forest is basically an overgrown garden.  This would have extracted CO2 and cooled the Earth. This seems almost plausible looking at ice-core CO2 readings.

Is this plausible? I do remember reports black death and plague affecting climate.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Jim Hunt on March 13, 2016, 02:38:31 PM
This led me to write “Is Green Growth a Fantasy (http://www.brusselsblog.co.uk/is-green-growth-a-fantasy/)” which simplifies the Kaya Identity

[sarc]

Surely you mean the "Bill Gates Identity" Geoff?

[/sarc]
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 13, 2016, 05:35:59 PM
ALSR

Thanks for #840

...

QUESTION 2

I have read an excellent article in the Atlantic magazine 1491 (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2002/03/1491/302445/). This discusses the theory that the Amazon was mostly cultivated before European invasions that caused and enormous decline in population due to disease. The Amazon forest is basically an overgrown garden.  This would have extracted CO2 and cooled the Earth. This seems almost plausible looking at ice-core CO2 readings.

Is this plausible? I do remember reports black death and plague affecting climate.

Geoff,

So as not to clog-up this thread with too much off-topic discussion: W.R.T. your first question, I noted in Reply #840 that I think that the authors are still erring on the side of least drama, as they do not address the nonlinear nature of climate change feedbacks that could be being triggered by high GMST values, including the current high GMST values partially related to our strong El Nino.  W.R.T. your second question I provide the following (open access) reference & associated images that confirms that when the Old World invaded the New World, indeed the GMST (and atmospheric CO2 concentration) dropped (circa 1610) temporarily due to numerous anthropogenic factors (see the "Early Anthropocene" thread in the Science folder for more discussion):

Lewis, S. L.; Maslin, M. A. (12 March 2015). "Defining the Anthropocene". Nature 519: 171–180. doi:10.1038/nature14258

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7542/full/nature14258.html (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7542/full/nature14258.html)
https://eorder.sheridan.com/3_0/app/orders/4609/article.php#171 (https://eorder.sheridan.com/3_0/app/orders/4609/article.php#171)

Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 13, 2016, 06:21:11 PM
In the linked article Nick Stokes discusses the Feb 2016 GISS temps (baselined to 1951-80), and he provided the attached graph to show that the Jan 2016 to Feb 2016 increase was slightly less than the Jan 1998 to Feb 1998 GISS increase; which raises the possibility that the March 2016 GISS value might (or might not) be significantly lower than the Feb 2016 value:

http://moyhu.blogspot.com/2016/03/huge-rise-in-giss-in-february-now-135.html (http://moyhu.blogspot.com/2016/03/huge-rise-in-giss-in-february-now-135.html)

Extract: "GISS in Jan was 1.14°C, revised up from 1.13. We had been expecting a big rise - maybe to 1.3°C. But this rise of 0.21°C way exceeded expectations. And of course it is the hottest month ever, etc, and puts 2016 well on the way to being hottest year. As well as the surface TempLS, the reanalysis and satellite measures showed similar rises (satellites even higher).

Here is a plot of the comparison with 1998. In fact the jump was slightly less than the big Jan-Feb jump in that year, and just lately, the two sequences move in parallel, with 2016 0.4-0.5°C warmer."
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Lord M Vader on March 13, 2016, 08:14:16 PM
For March 1-11 we've had an anomaly of +0,919oC. There should be a decent chance that March will end up at +1,5oC above pre-industrial time if the big anomalies continue. However, I doubt that March will equal or beat February but it could still be really bad though.

Does anyone know how the following days look like according to the forecasts? If you do, I would appreciate the link too :)

Wrt to February, one may wonder for how long Antarctica will hold back the warming?

Best, LMV

Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Steven on March 13, 2016, 09:01:18 PM
Does anyone know how the following days look like according to the forecasts? If you do, I would appreciate the link too :)

There are some graphs and maps on Karsten Haustein's website:

http://www.karstenhaustein.com/climate.php (http://www.karstenhaustein.com/climate.php)

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.karstenhaustein.com%2Freanalysis%2Fgfs0p5%2FGFS_anomaly_timeseries_global.png&hash=3c425483ef92e105021cea54b2ee3587)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Steven on March 13, 2016, 09:10:28 PM
It might be the case that the Guardian article is wrong

It is definitely wrong.  Here is an actual quote from the Australian study (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0149406) on which that Guardian article is based:

Quote
Following a business-as-usual scenario for the total global population (3.9% GDP, 0.61% energy efficiency savings) would result in Safely extractable reserves within the 2°C limit being depletion by ~2029 (Fig 3A light orange) [45]. This suggests that by 2030 the CO2 emissions from the global economy should minimally be in balance with the sustainable rate of global CO2 absorption [50,51] (i.e. ~ 48% of global anthropogenic CO2 emissions in 2010 [50,51], if the 2°C global warming ‘safe limit’ of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is not to be exceeded[4,52].

To stay within a 1.5°C global warming limit, safely extractable reserves are forecast to be consumed by 2020

What those scientists are basically saying, is that the IPCC carbon budget could be depleted by 2020/2030.  So the amount of carbon emitted by 2020/2030 could result eventually (several years or decades later) in global temperatures permanently above 1.5°C/2°C relative to pre-industrial.

While I appreciate the logic of your statements; if you base logic on false precepts then you come to false conclusions rather than absolute certainty (i.e. "It is definitely wrong.").  I believe that the IPCC carbon budget very clearly errs on the side of least drama; which means that I believe that you have no certainty that an increase of 2C will not occur by 2030.

The carbon budget may be too large.  But my point was that that Guardian article (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/10/dangerous-global-warming-will-happen-sooner-than-thought-study) is "definitely wrong" in the sense that the article misrepresents what that Australian study is saying.  The study says that the remaining carbon budget may be exhausted possibly within the next 15 years or so, but the Guardian journalist is completely ignoring the time lag between carbon emission and resulting global warming.

...you have no certainty that an increase of 2C will not occur by 2030

The ENSO-corrected, annual average global temperature for 2015 was about 1.0°C above baseline 1880-1899.  To reach 2°C by 2030, the warming between 2015 and 2030 would have to be about 4 times faster than the long-term warming trend of 0.17°C per decade since the 1970s.  That seems implausible to me.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 14, 2016, 12:13:34 AM

...you have no certainty that an increase of 2C will not occur by 2030

The ENSO-corrected, annual average global temperature for 2015 was about 1.0°C above baseline 1880-1899.  To reach 2°C by 2030, the warming between 2015 and 2030 would have to be about 4 times faster than the long-term warming trend of 0.17°C per decade since the 1970s.  That seems implausible to me.

Your statistical approach is evidently biased (due to the faux hiatus) with "False Hope" as demonstrated by the linked 2014 SciAm articles by Michael Mann (see attached images) where Mann demonstrates that for an ECS of 3.0C we will cross the 2C threshold by 2036; so if ECS is in the 3.5 to 4.0C range crossing the 2C threshold by 2030 is plausible (note Mann's red line is for ECS of 4.5C):

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-will-cross-the-climate-danger-threshold-by-2036/ (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-will-cross-the-climate-danger-threshold-by-2036/)

Also see:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mann-why-global-warming-will-cross-a-dangerous-threshold-in-2036/ (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mann-why-global-warming-will-cross-a-dangerous-threshold-in-2036/)

Extract: "Why Global Warming Will Cross a Dangerous Threshold in 2036
Emitting carbon dioxide at current rates will soon push Earth’s temperature up by 2 degrees Celsius. Here’s how to make the calculation yourself"

Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Steven on March 14, 2016, 12:33:12 AM
Your statistical approach is evidently biased (due to the faux hiatus) with "False Hope" as demonstrated by the linked 2014 SciAm articles by Michael Mann (see attached images) where Mann demonstrates that for an ECS of 3.0C we will cross the 2C threshold by 2036; so if ECS is in the 3.5 to 4.0C range crossing the 2C threshold by 2030 is plausible (note Mann's red line is for ECS of 4.5C):

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-will-cross-the-climate-danger-threshold-by-2036/ (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-will-cross-the-climate-danger-threshold-by-2036/)

Michael Mann is using Northern Hemisphere temperature, which rises faster than global mean temperature.  Moreover he is using Berkeley Earth data (which have greater long-term warming than other datasets), and he's using an older baseline than what other people are using.  See Michael Mann's inline response to a comment by "Icarus62" last year at RealClimate:

Quote from: M.Mann
We are looking only at NH mean temperature as indicated in article. NH mean warms more than globe (more land/less water). As we discuss in the technical details (linked at the bottom of this page), we have used the “Berkeley” NH mean temperature record from AD 1750-1849 to establish a true pre-industrial mean [...] Relative to that baseline, the NH mean has already warmed about 1.2C relative to *pre-industrial* temperatures. And the NH mean will warm faster than global mean over next several decades (again, more land/less water)
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/04/unforced-variations-april-2015/comment-page-7/#comment-629472 (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/04/unforced-variations-april-2015/comment-page-7/#comment-629472)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 14, 2016, 01:08:40 AM
Your statistical approach is evidently biased (due to the faux hiatus) with "False Hope" as demonstrated by the linked 2014 SciAm articles by Michael Mann (see attached images) where Mann demonstrates that for an ECS of 3.0C we will cross the 2C threshold by 2036; so if ECS is in the 3.5 to 4.0C range crossing the 2C threshold by 2030 is plausible (note Mann's red line is for ECS of 4.5C):

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-will-cross-the-climate-danger-threshold-by-2036/ (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-will-cross-the-climate-danger-threshold-by-2036/)

As 2030 is a little way into the future; do you believe that a 1.2C value at the end of 2016 is plausible?

Edit: As a footnote, the following linked reference cites the plausibility that ECS might be in the range of 4.5C, while the linked SkS image indicates that with an ECS of 4.5C, the 2C threshold would be reached before 2030 using any reasonable radiative forcing scenario:

Sherwood, S.C., Bony, S. and Dufresne, J.-L., (2014) "Spread in model climate sensitivity traced to atmospheric convective mixing", Nature; Volume: 505, pp 37–42, doi:10.1038/nature12829

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v505/n7481/full/nature12829.html (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v505/n7481/full/nature12829.html)

Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Michael Hauber on March 14, 2016, 05:31:00 AM
Increasing climate sensitivity from 3 to 4.5, and naively upscaling CMIP 5 model runs by 50% suggests that the current global temperature should be about 1.5 C above the 1950-80 baseline.  Even with a monster el nino and a massive temp spike that has quite surprised many (me included) we are still not that high.

I would be very surprised if temperatures do not drop in the next year or two back towards the long term trend.  The CMIP5 model projection for 2016 is 0.96 degrees above the 1950-80 baseline.  Tamino (https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/03/13/surprise-but-not-shock/#more-8275) suggests that GISS can vary by almost +/- 0.4 degree either side of his trend line.  The GISS measured 1.33 degrees is close to the upper range of what we would expect to see for trend + random noise, and certainly not obviously outside this range.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 14, 2016, 08:22:15 AM
Increasing climate sensitivity from 3 to 4.5, and naively upscaling CMIP 5 model runs by 50% suggests that the current global temperature should be about 1.5 C above the 1950-80 baseline.  Even with a monster el nino and a massive temp spike that has quite surprised many (me included) we are still not that high.

I would be very surprised if temperatures do not drop in the next year or two back towards the long term trend.  The CMIP5 model projection for 2016 is 0.96 degrees above the 1950-80 baseline.  Tamino (https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/03/13/surprise-but-not-shock/#more-8275) suggests that GISS can vary by almost +/- 0.4 degree either side of his trend line.  The GISS measured 1.33 degrees is close to the upper range of what we would expect to see for trend + random noise, and certainly not obviously outside this range.

First (In addition to Sherwood (2014)], the linked Thompson (2015) reference indicates that ECS has a 95%CL range of from 3C to 6.3C, with a best estimate of 4C:

Climate sensitivity by Roy Thompson published by Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, DOI: 10.1017/S1755691015000213

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=10061758&fileId=S1755691015000213 (http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=10061758&fileId=S1755691015000213)

Second, the following linked article reminds us that we are now in a positive PDO phase, and we are likely to have faster than typical increases in GMST through 2030

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/earth-experiences-global-warming-spurt-19877 (http://www.climatecentral.org/news/earth-experiences-global-warming-spurt-19877)

Extract: "The effects of the PDO on global warming can be likened to a staircase, with warming leveling off for periods, typically of more than a decade, and then bursting upward.
“It seems to me quite likely that we have taken the next step up to a new level,” said Kevin Trenberth, a scientist with the National Center for Atmospheric Research.
The 2014 flip from the cool PDO phase to the warm phase, which vaguely resembles a long and drawn out El Niño event, contributed to record-breaking surface temperatures across the planet in 2014.
The record warmth set in 2014 was surpassed again in 2015, when global temperatures surged to 1°C (1.8°F) above pre-industrial averages, worsening flooding, heatwaves and storms.

“Last time we went from a negative to a positive was in the mid-‘70s,” said Gerald Meehl, a National Center for Atmospheric Research scientist. “Then we had larger rates of global warming from the ‘70s to the late ‘90s, compared to the previous 30 years.”
“It’s not just an upward sloping line,” Meehl said. “Sometimes it’s steeper, sometimes it’s slower.”"
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: BornFromTheVoid on March 14, 2016, 12:43:07 PM
At +1.35C above the 51-80 average, the GISS temperature for February was warmest on record by +0.47C.

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F3bBABXs.png&hash=df27785868977d7d52d549de69a6f405)

The 12 month rolling average is now at +0.93C

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FKdFk49K.png&hash=7285fa5355f8d2839ab843f0a3df0686)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 14, 2016, 04:11:43 PM
Joe Romm makes several good points about the current peak in GISS temperatures (see the linked article).  The first images both shows and discusses the fact that the GISS Temp has peaked for each the previous five months, while the second image (from Hotwhopper) shows that while the 1997-98 El Nino had a sharp peak in February 1998 (pointed out by Nick Stokes); the 2015-16 El Nino has a broad left shoulder going up, which raises the question of whether it might also have a broad right shoulder going down.

Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Steven on March 14, 2016, 09:23:24 PM
As 2030 is a little way into the future; do you believe that a 1.2C value at the end of 2016 is plausible?

Currently it seems likely that 2016 will be more than 0.1°C warmer than 2015, in terms of annual average global temperature.  For the GISS dataset that would imply a 2016 annual average of about 1.2°C (or slightly more) above the late 19th century 1880-1899 average.

The corresponding value for Michael Mann's graph upthread could be as high as 1.4°C or 1.5°C or so, but as mentioned, Mann is using only Northern Hemisphere data.

Anyway, I am more interested in ENSO-corrected temperature.  For 2015, the El Nino contribution to the annual mean global temperature was probably somewhere between 0.05°C and 0.1°C, depending on what methodology is used.  For 2016, the El Nino contribution could be about 0.2°C or so.  Tamino's graph below suggests that an ENSO-contribution of that magnitude happened in the previous Super El Nino years 1998 and 1983:

(https://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/mei_1yr.jpeg)
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/01/27/el-nino-and-the-2015-record-breaking-heat/
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 14, 2016, 11:07:36 PM
Anyway, I am more interested in ENSO-corrected temperature.  For 2015, the El Nino contribution to the annual mean global temperature was probably somewhere between 0.05°C and 0.1°C, depending on what methodology is used.  For 2016, the El Nino contribution could be about 0.2°C or so.  Tamino's graph below suggests that an ENSO-contribution of that magnitude happened in the previous Super El Nino years 1998 and 1983:

For what little it is worth, you may wish to consider developing corrections/adjustments not only for ENSO events, but also for PDO/IPO events (or possibly other multi-decadal cycles).
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Michael Hauber on March 14, 2016, 11:43:08 PM

First (In addition to Sherwood (2014)], the linked Thompson (2015) reference indicates that ECS has a 95%CL range of from 3C to 6.3C, with a best estimate of 4C:

Climate sensitivity by Roy Thompson published by Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, DOI: 10.1017/S1755691015000213

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=10061758&fileId=S1755691015000213 (http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=10061758&fileId=S1755691015000213)

Have you read that paper?  It is very silly.

They do a correlation model with the four factors GHG, aerosol, ENSO and volcano.  There is no allowance for time lags due to thermal inertia, so what they are really trying to calculate is transient sensitivity and not equilibrium sensitivity.  The only possible way they can get such a high GHG sensitivity is by allowing aerosol forcing to have an even higher sensitivity.  Consider that their model would calculate a warming due to GHG of about 3 degrees has already occurred.  Their model would also imply an equilbrium sensitivity much higher than 4 degrees (assuming that equilibrium sensitivity is higher than transit).

Second, the following linked article reminds us that we are now in a positive PDO phase, and we are likely to have faster than typical increases in GMST through 2030

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/earth-experiences-global-warming-spurt-19877 (http://www.climatecentral.org/news/earth-experiences-global-warming-spurt-19877)

Tamino finds that there is no statistically significant change in trend between 1970 and now, despite the fact that we had a positive phase from 1976 to 1998 (or 2007) and a negative phase after that.  From my analysis of shorter term trend variations the effect seems to be almost entirely based on changing the frequency of warm el nino years vs cool La Nina years.  We are in a very warm el nino year, and there will be further warming due to +ve PDO.  The next warm el nino year will not jump any further ahead of the current year than it would in a -ve PDO.  But what we will see if the +ve PDO continues is less cool La Nina years in the next decade, meaning that a trend from say 2000 to 2025 will be steeper than it would be if it was held back by a larger number of cool La Nina years during a -ve PDO.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 15, 2016, 02:17:38 AM

First (In addition to Sherwood (2014)], the linked Thompson (2015) reference indicates that ECS has a 95%CL range of from 3C to 6.3C, with a best estimate of 4C:

Climate sensitivity by Roy Thompson published by Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, DOI: 10.1017/S1755691015000213

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=10061758&fileId=S1755691015000213 (http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=10061758&fileId=S1755691015000213)

Have you read that paper?  It is very silly.

They do a correlation model with the four factors GHG, aerosol, ENSO and volcano.  There is no allowance for time lags due to thermal inertia, so what they are really trying to calculate is transient sensitivity and not equilibrium sensitivity.  The only possible way they can get such a high GHG sensitivity is by allowing aerosol forcing to have an even higher sensitivity.  Consider that their model would calculate a warming due to GHG of about 3 degrees has already occurred.  Their model would also imply an equilbrium sensitivity much higher than 4 degrees (assuming that equilibrium sensitivity is higher than transit).

Second, the following linked article reminds us that we are now in a positive PDO phase, and we are likely to have faster than typical increases in GMST through 2030

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/earth-experiences-global-warming-spurt-19877 (http://www.climatecentral.org/news/earth-experiences-global-warming-spurt-19877)

Tamino finds that there is no statistically significant change in trend between 1970 and now, despite the fact that we had a positive phase from 1976 to 1998 (or 2007) and a negative phase after that.  From my analysis of shorter term trend variations the effect seems to be almost entirely based on changing the frequency of warm el nino years vs cool La Nina years.  We are in a very warm el nino year, and there will be further warming due to +ve PDO.  The next warm el nino year will not jump any further ahead of the current year than it would in a -ve PDO.  But what we will see if the +ve PDO continues is less cool La Nina years in the next decade, meaning that a trend from say 2000 to 2025 will be steeper than it would be if it was held back by a larger number of cool La Nina years during a -ve PDO.

It is my understanding that the Thompson (2015) reference was kept relatively simple so that it would be suitable for presentation at the CoP21 in Paris.  Nevertheless, its conclusions essentially match the more sophisticated paper by Tian (2015) that indicates that the double-ITCZ bias constrains ECS to its high end (around 4.0C):

Tian, B. (2015), "Spread of model climate sensitivity linked to double-Intertropical Convergence Zone bias", Geophys. Res. Lett., 42, doi:10.1002/2015GL064119.

Regarding the PDO, yes it does decrease the frequency of La Nina events; and the likelihood of a La Nina event occurring later this year has been decreasing steadily this entire year (see the 2015-16 El Nino thread); which might well leave 2016 much warmer than your, or Tamino's, linear trend-lines indicate.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 15, 2016, 02:24:26 AM
The Washington Post offers the linked article about the Feb 2016 GMST spike, and the offer the attached image of NASA surface temp anoms (referenced to a 1951-1980 baseline), sub-divided between Meteorological Stations and Land-Ocean Temperature Index data through Feb 2016:

Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Michael Hauber on March 16, 2016, 12:26:49 AM
Nevertheless, its conclusions essentially match the more sophisticated paper by Tian (2015) that indicates that the double-ITCZ bias constrains ECS to its high end (around 4.0C):

Tian, B. (2015), "Spread of model climate sensitivity linked to double-Intertropical Convergence Zone bias", Geophys. Res. Lett., 42, doi:10.1002/2015GL064119.

The operative word from that study is that the sensitivity might be in the high end.  Models that represent various cloud and tropical processes seem to have a higher sensitivity.  But models that represent historical global temperatures have a moderate sensitivity.

And what if sensitivity is at the high end?  Out of CMIP5 the second highest climate sensitivity is HADGEM2-ES with a sensitivity of 4.59.  The temperature projection (http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/icmip5_tas_Amon_HadGEM2-ES_rcp85_0-360E_-90-90N_n_su_mean_mean1_anom_30_19511980a.txt) for this model suggests a 2016 temp of 1.11 above baseline, compared to 0. 96 for all models, and for 2100 under scenario 8.5 a temp of 5.47, compared to 4.56 for all models.

The projected warming for high sensitivity models is not nearly as high as you get by scaling the projection according to sensitivity (e.g. 4.5 high sensitivity/3 avg sensitivity * 4.5 temp in 2100 = 6.8 temp in 2100).  The models can only warm things up over decades to century or two time frames just a little bit faster than the model average, otherwise the gap between model and observed temperature history becomes very large.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 16, 2016, 09:52:08 AM
Nevertheless, its conclusions essentially match the more sophisticated paper by Tian (2015) that indicates that the double-ITCZ bias constrains ECS to its high end (around 4.0C):

Tian, B. (2015), "Spread of model climate sensitivity linked to double-Intertropical Convergence Zone bias", Geophys. Res. Lett., 42, doi:10.1002/2015GL064119.

The operative word from that study is that the sensitivity might be in the high end.  Models that represent various cloud and tropical processes seem to have a higher sensitivity.  But models that represent historical global temperatures have a moderate sensitivity.

And what if sensitivity is at the high end?  Out of CMIP5 the second highest climate sensitivity is HADGEM2-ES with a sensitivity of 4.59.  The temperature projection (http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/icmip5_tas_Amon_HadGEM2-ES_rcp85_0-360E_-90-90N_n_su_mean_mean1_anom_30_19511980a.txt) for this model suggests a 2016 temp of 1.11 above baseline, compared to 0. 96 for all models, and for 2100 under scenario 8.5 a temp of 5.47, compared to 4.56 for all models.

The projected warming for high sensitivity models is not nearly as high as you get by scaling the projection according to sensitivity (e.g. 4.5 high sensitivity/3 avg sensitivity * 4.5 temp in 2100 = 6.8 temp in 2100).  The models can only warm things up over decades to century or two time frames just a little bit faster than the model average, otherwise the gap between model and observed temperature history becomes very large.

MH,

I have to begin by stating that I admire your (& Steven's) command of this topic; and I freely admit that there are ranges on all of the pertinent values in this discussion; including that the Tian (2015) only states that “... ECS might be in the higher end of its range (~4.0oC) ...”.

That said, we started this line of discussion when I stated that exceeding the 2C limit was plausible by 2030, and in this line the linked Kevin Anderson article notes that to avoid the 2C limit our remaining CO2 budget might be about 450 Gt; however, this ignores the risks that climate sensitivity may well be higher than assumed by AR5:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Anderson.html (http://www.skepticalscience.com/Anderson.html)

Extract: "Therefore, instead of a 1000 Gt CO2 budget, we might only have 450 Gt available for fossil-fuel energy emissions.”

I note that we are currently emitting more than 53Gt of CO2-e a year (see attached image), so Anderson is indicating that we might only have 8.5 more years (pulse an effective lag time of say 5.5 to 7.5 years for the emission period from 2016 to 2030) until 2030 to 2032 when we exceed the 2C limit (assuming an AR5 climate sensitivity, and assuming a GWP100 for methane of 34, while GWP20 for methane is 105). Furthermore, I note that about 1.75 years ago we were at about 0.85C above pre-industrial levels and now we are above 1.1C, and Steven thinks that we could reach 1.2C above pre-industrial by the end of this year.

Also, while the linked (open access) reference has many appropriate qualifying statements and disclaimers, it notes that the AR5 paleo estimates of ECS were linear approximations that change when non-linear issues are considered.  In particular they find for the specific ECS, S[CO2,LI], during the Pleistocence (ie the most recent 2 million years) that:

"During Pleistocene intermediate glaciated climates and interglacial periods, S[CO2,LI] is on average ~ 45 % larger than during Pleistocene full glacial conditions."

Therefore, researchers such as James Hansen who relied on paleo findings that during recent full glacial periods ECS was about 3.0C, did not know that during interglacial periods this value would be 45% larger, or 4.35C.

Köhler, P., de Boer, B., von der Heydt, A. S., Stap, L. B., and van de Wal, R. S. W. (2015), "On the state dependency of the equilibrium climate sensitivity during the last 5 million years", Clim. Past, 11, 1801-1823, doi:10.5194/cp-11-1801-2015.

http://www.clim-past.net/11/1801/2015/cp-11-1801-2015.html (http://www.clim-past.net/11/1801/2015/cp-11-1801-2015.html)
http://www.clim-past.net/11/1801/2015/cp-11-1801-2015.pdf (http://www.clim-past.net/11/1801/2015/cp-11-1801-2015.pdf)

Furthermore, the linked Knutti & Rogenstein (2015) open access reference addresses the limits of linear climate models (w.r.t. accessing climate sensitivity) and states: "But all comprehensive climate models indicate sensitivities above 2°C, and those that simulate the present-day climate best even point to a best estimate of ECS in the range of 3–4.5°C."

Reto Knutti, Maria A. A. Rugenstein (2015), "Feedbacks, climate sensitivity and the limits of linear models", Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, DOI: 10.1098/rsta.2015.0146

http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/373/2054/20150146 (http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/373/2054/20150146)

Also, the linked Bloch-Johnson, Pierrehumbert & Abbot (2015) reference assumes different degrees of nonlinearity for climate feedback mechanisms and concludes that such nonlinearity for positive feedback represents a Black Swan risk that linear climate models cannot recognize:

Jonah Bloch-Johnson, Raymond T. Pierrehumbert & Dorian S. Abbot (24 June 2015), "Feedback temperature dependence determines the risk of high warming", Geophysical Research Letters, DOI: 10.1002/2015GL064240

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL064240/full (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL064240/full)

Finally, w.r.t. Black Swan risks I note that there are numerous factors that could have recently masked the impacts of relatively high ECS values including: (a) more negative anthropogenic & natural aerosol forcing & feedbacks than previously assumed, (b) poor understanding of Earth System states (like the PDO phase, etc), (c) the recent [but temporary] surge in plant growth related to our high CO2 concentrations. and (d) certain nonlinear positive feedbacks may be now accelerating due to global warming.

Best,
ASLR
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 16, 2016, 04:31:40 PM
To those keeping track of my various posts, my last post Reply #863 may seem Pollyannaish (i.e. ESLD) for reasons including:
(a) I assumed a CO₂-e value of 53 Gt over the period from 2016 to 2030; which assumes that the Paris Pact (CoP21) is 100% effective, and uses only the 50% CL level for emissions (while a 95%CL for RCP 8.5 may be more appropriate for risk evaluation); while the linked Washington Post article (and the two cited studies) seriously question whether the Paris Pact emission targets can be achieved; and
(b) I did not emphasize that an El Nino skewed (due to warming) ENSO cycle can result in non-linear acceleration of numerous positive feedback mechanisms including: accelerated carbon emissions from tropical rainforests during droughts (El Nino periods); accelerated methane emissions from tropical rainforests during flood periods (La Nina periods); Arctic Amplification (due to accelerated telecommunication of heat & water vapor to the Arctic); and increase tropical and boreal forest fires.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/03/15/temperatures-are-spiking-can-we-keep-global-warming-in-the-safe-range/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/03/15/temperatures-are-spiking-can-we-keep-global-warming-in-the-safe-range/)

Extract: "…. two pieces of new research have questioned whether, from an energy standpoint, keeping long term warming below 2 degrees C is even likely to be possible."

Richard G. Newell, Yifei Qian, Daniel Raimi (March 2016), "Global Energy Outlook 2015", National Bureau of Economic Research, NBER Working Paper No. 22075

http://nber.org/papers/w22075 (http://nber.org/papers/w22075)

Abstract: "This paper assesses trends in the global energy sector through 2040 by harmonizing multiple projections issued by private, government, and inter-governmental organizations based on methods from “Global Energy Outlooks Comparison: Methods and Challenges” (Newell and Qian 2015). These projections agree that global energy consumption growth in the coming 25 years is likely to be substantial, with the global demand center shifting from Europe and North America to Asia, led by China and India. Most projections show energy demand growing as much or more in absolute terms to 2040 than previous multi-decade periods, although the rate of growth will be slower in percentage terms. Total consumption of fossil fuels grows under most projections, with natural gas gaining market share relative to coal and oil. The North American unconventional gas surge has expanded to tight oil more rapidly than anticipated, with implications for global oil markets that are still unfolding. Renewable electricity sources are also set to expand rapidly, while the prospects for nuclear power are more regionally varied. Global carbon dioxide emissions continue to rise under most projections and, unless additional climate policies are adopted, are more consistent with an expected rise in average global temperature of close to 3°C or more, than international goals of 2°C or less."

Glenn A. Jones & Kevin J. Warner (June 2016), "The 21st century population-energy-climate nexus
Energy Policy, Volume 93, Pages 206–212, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2016.02.044

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421516300830 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421516300830)

Abstract: "World population is projected to reach 10.9 billion by 2100, yet nearly one-fifth of the world's current 7.2 billion live without access to electricity. Though universal energy access is desirable, a significant reduction in fossil fuel usage is required before mid-century if global warming is to be limited to <2 °C. Here we quantify the changes in the global energy mix necessary to address population and climate change under two energy-use scenarios, finding that renewable energy production (9% in 2014) must comprise 87–94% of global energy consumption by 2100. Our study suggests >50% renewable energy needs to occur by 2028 in a <2 °C warming scenario, but not until 2054 in an unconstrained energy use scenario. Given the required rate and magnitude of this transition to renewable energy, it is unlikely that the <2 °C goal can be met. Focus should be placed on expanding renewable energy as quickly as possible in order to limit warming to 2.5–3 °C."
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 16, 2016, 04:45:01 PM
The linked SkS article not only discusses their 2C Track plot (previously in Reply #837) but goes on to speculate on the rest of 2016 by offering the attached extrapolated image and the following extract.  I must reiterate that the 2015-16 El Nino has been more uniform (less peaky) than the 1997-98 El Nino; and that a La Nina occurred in late 1998, which is looking less and less likely to occur in late 2016; so the attached SkS plot probably errs on the side of least drama (ESLD):

https://www.skepticalscience.com/2c-2016-02.html (https://www.skepticalscience.com/2c-2016-02.html)

Extract: "Of course, everyone likely knows by now that the big news of late has been the v4 update to the RSS satellite data set, which raised the trend in their data by about 60%. Currently I've been working with the lower troposphere data (TLT) and the RSS update so far is only for the TMT and TTT data. I haven't heard otherwise, but I'm assuming an update for TLT will also be coming.
Given that February was such a huge jump relative to January in the GISS data and the surface station data seems to lead the satellite data in response to El Ninos, I think we're likely in for at least a few more very interesting months. This phase of the temperature trend is probably going to continue on at least through the NH summer and into the NH fall.
Buckle your seat belts. This is where the ride starts getting interesting."
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 17, 2016, 04:24:10 PM
The link leads to a guest post by Tamino at SkS and summarizes a wide range of graphs showing fluctuations superimposed on upward trends for GMST, SLR, ASIE, CO2 concentrations, etc.  While it is a nice summary his conclusions indicate how good people & scientists spend so much effort defending against crack-pot denialist theories that they do not spend enough effort on projection nonlinear accelerations in those upward trend lines.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/gw-basics-what-has-changed.html (https://www.skepticalscience.com/gw-basics-what-has-changed.html)
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: BornFromTheVoid on March 17, 2016, 04:30:45 PM
May record smashed on the latest SOTC report.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/summary-info/global/201602 (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/summary-info/global/201602)

Global highlights: February 2016

• The February average temperature across global land and ocean surfaces was 2.18°F (1.21°C) above the 20th century average. This was not only the highest for February in the 1880–2016 record (surpassing the previous record set in 2015 by 0.59°F / 0.33°C), but it surpassed the all-time monthly record set just two months ago in December 2015 by 0.16°F (0.09°C). February 2016 also marks the 10th consecutive month a monthly global temperature record has been broken.

• The February globally-averaged land surface temperature was 4.16°F (2.31°C) above the 20thcentury average. This was the highest for February in the 1880–2016 record, surpassing the previous records set in 1998 and 2015 by 1.13°F (0.63°C) and surpassing the all-time single-month record set in March 2008 by 0.77°F (0.43°C).

• The February globally-averaged sea surface temperature was 1.46°F (0.81°C) above the 20thcentury average. This was the highest for February in the 1880–2016 record, surpassing the previous record set in 2010 by 0.36°F (0.20°C) , and was the sixth highest departure from average among all 1,646 months in the record. The nine highest monthly global ocean temperature departures have all occurred in the past nine months (since July 2015).

• The February temperature for the lower troposphere (roughly the lowest 5 miles of the atmosphere) was the highest in the 1979–2016 record, at 1.62°F (0.90°C) above the 1981–2010 average, as analyzed by the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) using version 5.6. It was also highest on record, at 1.57°F (0.87°C) above the 1981–2010 average, as analyzed by Remote Sensing Systems (RSS). The February 2016 departures from average are also the highest for any month in the 38-year period of record, surpassing the previous record set in April 1998 by 0.43°F (0.24°C) for UAH and by 0.23°F (0.13°C) for RSS.

• The February temperature for the mid-troposphere (roughly 2 miles to 6 miles above the surface) was the highest for this month in the 1979–2016 record, at 1.31°F (0.73°C) above the 1981–2010 average, as analyzed by UAH. It was also highest on record, at 1.33°F (0.74°C) above the 1981–2010 average, as analyzed by RSS. After removing the influence of temperatures above 6 miles in altitude, the University of Washington, using data analyzed by the UAH and RSS, calculated temperature departures from the 1981–2010 average to be 1.60°F (0.89°C) and 1.57°F (0.87°C), respectively, both highest in the record. The February 2016 departures from average are also the highest for any month in the 38-year period of record, surpassing the previous record set in April 1998 by 0.13°F (0.07°C) for UAH and by 0.09°F (0.05°C) for RSS.

• The average Arctic sea ice extent for February was 450,000 square miles (7.54 percent) below the 1981–2010 average. This was the smallest February extent since records began in 1979 and 77,000 square miles smaller than the previous record of 2005. February 2016 also marked the second consecutive month of record low Arctic sea ice extent, according to analysis by the National Snow and Ice Data Center based on data from NOAA and NASA.

• Antarctic sea ice during February was 110,000 square miles (9.54 percent) below the 1981–2010 average. This was the sixth smallest Antarctic sea ice extent for February in the 38-year period of record and the smallest since 2011.

• According to data from NOAA analyzed by the Rutgers Global Snow Lab, the Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent during February was 800,000 square miles below the 1981–2010 average. This was the third smallest February Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent in the 50-year period of record and smallest since 2002. The North American snow cover extent was the 13th smallest on record while the Eurasian snow cover extent was fourth smallest.
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 17, 2016, 04:52:51 PM
In the linked article Scribbler provides evidence for the position (that I support, see images) that the climate experience in February 2016 is: "…. a foretaste of what could very easily happen on a 5-15 year timescale in the annual measure if fossil fuel burning and related carbon emissions do not radically ramp downward."

http://robertscribbler.com/2016/03/16/one-month-above-1-5-c-nasa-data-shows-february-crossed-critical-threshold/ (http://robertscribbler.com/2016/03/16/one-month-above-1-5-c-nasa-data-shows-february-crossed-critical-threshold/)

Extract: "… we’ve just experienced a month that was more than 1.5 C hotter than 1880s averages. It’s not a yearly average in this dangerous range — but likely the peak reading from a very intense El Nino combining with the growing base forcing of human climate change. That said, it’s a foretaste of what could very easily happen on a 5-15 year timescale in the annual measure if fossil fuel burning and related carbon emissions do not radically ramp downward."
Title: Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
Post by: Theta on March 17, 2016, 06:14:37 PM
In the linked article Scribbler provides evidence for the position (that I support, see images) that the climate experience in February 2016 is: "…. a foretaste