Global Surface Air Temperatures

[Sigmetnow]

OK, umm...  wow. 

[Lord M Vader]

February 26 was +1,084C above the 1994-2013 normal, absolutely mind-boggling!!!

[James Lovejoy]

With data in from Nick Stokes through February 26th, and with 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.

[Lord M Vader]

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.

[James Lovejoy]

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.   

[oren]

I am afraid nothing is going to be enough for that.

[Lord M Vader]

And the heat goes on... A new daily record anomaly at +1,137^oC above the 1994-2013 normal was set at February 27. The February anomaly according to Nick Stokes is now a mind-boggling +1,41^oC. Will be very exciting and tragic at the same time to see how big anomalies NASA, NOAA and JMA will report. Any guesses?

[BornFromTheVoid]

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.

[DrTskoul]

New RSS dataset : https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/03/02/new-dataset-from-rss-end-of-the-satellite-pause/

[AbruptSLR]

And the heat goes on... A new daily record anomaly at +1,137^oC above the 1994-2013 normal was set at February 27. The February anomaly according to Nick Stokes is now a mind-boggling +1,41^oC. 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

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.)"

[LRC1962]

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.

[AbruptSLR]

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.

[Laurent]

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

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.”

[Buddy]

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

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

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.

[AbruptSLR]

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

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/

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."

[wili]

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/

[Buddy]

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

[Sigmetnow]

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.

[AbruptSLR]

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).

[Lord M Vader]

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.

[Sigmetnow]

"Wow! Great banner drop at the start of the Exxon-sponsored Iditarod slushfest! #exxonknew. Way to go @AKRisingTide!"
-Bill McKibben
https://twitter.com/billmckibben/status/706471240412893184

[deep octopus]

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

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.

[Buddy]

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)....

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.

[Shared Humanity]

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.

[Laurent]

Northern hemisphere temperature breaches a terrifying milestone
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2079775-northern-hemisphere-temperature-breaches-a-terrifying-milestone/

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.

This article first appeared on Slate

[Buddy]

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.

[Lord M Vader]

Seems like the exceptionally high temperatures is decrasing now. Todays value from Nick Stokes was "just" +0,877^oC 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

[James Lovejoy]

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 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.

[Sigmetnow]

It’s Official: This Was America’s Warmest Winter on Record

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

[Lord M Vader]

It is official now. GISS just came in with an anomaly of +1,35^oC above the 1951-1980 average. Translated to pre-industrial yields a number of a staggering +1,63^oC above the 1881-1900 average.

[AbruptSLR]

It is official now. GISS just came in with an anomaly of +1,35^oC above the 1951-1980 average. Translated to pre-industrial yields a number of a staggering +1,63^oC 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

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."

[Jim Hunt]

It is official now. GISS just came in with an anomaly of +1,35^oC above the 1951-1980 average. Translated to pre-industrial yields a number of a staggering +1,63^oC above the 1881-1900 average.

Richard Betts one week ago:

Some places warm faster than others!

[Steven]

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

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:

https://twitter.com/GarethSJones1/status/707867971444723713

[AbruptSLR]

That Guardian article is wrong. 

See the discussion at this link:

https://twitter.com/GarethSJones1/status/707867971444723713

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

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

[Steven]

It might be the case that the Guardian article is wrong

It is definitely wrong.  Here is an actual quote from the Australian study on which that Guardian article is based:

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.

[AbruptSLR]

It might be the case that the Guardian article is wrong

It is definitely wrong.  Here is an actual quote from the Australian study on which that Guardian article is based:

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.

[AbruptSLR]

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

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."

See also:
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.”

[AbruptSLR]

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/

[Theta]

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.

27:17 - 8 to 16C by 2024 or 2034:

[GeoffBeacon]

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” 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.

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 has on it's front page:

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 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. 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.

[Jim Hunt]

This led me to write “Is Green Growth a Fantasy” which simplifies the Kaya Identity

[sarc]

Surely you mean the "Bill Gates Identity" Geoff?

[/sarc]

[AbruptSLR]

ALSR

Thanks for #840

...

QUESTION 2

I have read an excellent article in the Atlantic magazine 1491. 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
https://eorder.sheridan.com/3_0/app/orders/4609/article.php#171

[AbruptSLR]

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

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."

[Lord M Vader]

For March 1-11 we've had an anomaly of +0,919^oC. There should be a decent chance that March will end up at +1,5^oC 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

[Steven]

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

[Steven]

It might be the case that the Guardian article is wrong

It is definitely wrong.  Here is an actual quote from the Australian study on which that Guardian article is based:

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 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.

[AbruptSLR]

...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/

Also see:

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"

[Steven]

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/

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:

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

[AbruptSLR]

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/

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

[Michael Hauber]

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 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.