chubbs

Unusual late-season surface melt has dropped NSIDC area slightly below 2012. Looks like we are headed for a strong #2 on most metrics.

From Hanson's latest monthly temp report. Raising of the lower ECS bound consistent with the recent spike in global temperature, well above the 1970-2015 trend.

https://mailchi.mp/1342a49ee5d3/july-2020-global-temperature-update

Near-term forecast of global temperatures based on surface temperature patterns i.e. ENSO, PDO etc. Dots show how method has performed. Website will be updated monthly - site has links to a paper describing method.

https://www.weatherclimatehumansystems.org/global-temperature-forecast

GISS at record levels for April edging 2016. Keeps a record possible this year; depends on ENSO and spring/summer fall off.

Stations observing a record mean temperature for the month of March. Consistent with warm GOM. Severe/tropical dice have an extra snake eye.

This year staying within striking distance of 2016

8 hours ago, bdgwx said:

RSS was up in February, but not as much. ERA was only up by 0.02C. I keep wondering if UAH is contaminated by what happens in the stratosphere more so than RSS. If so that would partly explain UAH's 0.13C/decade trend which is far lower than what any other dataset shows.

Here is UAH6 - RSS. Almost a decade of cooling in UAH6 relative to RSS after the MSU to AMSU transition in 1998.  Recently introduction of satellites with limited diurnal drift has reduced the trend differences between RSS+UAH (see link above). 

8 hours ago, bdgwx said:

Maybe. I was watching aerosol optical depths closely after that eruption and while there was a lot tephra lofted into the troposphere it didn't appear as if much sulphate aerosols made it into the stratosphere. I think the Australia wildfire smoke is a better hypothesis at this point.

In regards to the troposphere...volcanoes typically cool this layer. I don't know of a case where warming resulted from an eruption. And I'm not understanding the link with smoke either. I thought smoke was more effective at blocking incoming shortwave radiation than it was at trapping outgoing longwave radiation.

 

Will need to see more evidence re; smoke/volcano. Spencer is missing the two obvious factors for UAH warmth: GHG and improved satellites with no diurnal drift. Evidence for the last point is the UAH trace - the period after the 2016 nino is much warmer relative to the super nino peak than the period after the 1998 nino. What happened in 1998? the MSU to AMSU transition. Scientists still don't know which satellite was right NOAA-14 or NOAA-15. UAH picked the colder satellite, of course, which looks like the wrong choice when compared against other series. Meanwhile per the article below, recent satellites have essentially no diurnal drift, with very stable performance for climate detection.

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/10/eaau0049.full

1 hour ago, bluewave said:

If the rate of warming since 1980 continues, then we are on track for +1.5 C of warming around 2035.

 

Unfortunately, we have been running above the trend-line used for the prediction the past 4 or 5 years.

Winter temps From Karsten Haustein's twitter.

9 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

 

That's my point. Greenland breaks an all-time record low and it is largely ignored by climate "scientists", MSM and makes only such wack job websites. The data is real, Greenland came very close to breaking the all-time record low for the northern hemisphere... 

 

 

Summit station is a research site, uninhabited, 10500', Jan avg temp is around -40C, short record (roughly 30 years, with gaps), apparently not an all-time site record (colder temp in March 2011 below), during an extreme strat polar vortex event when mid and upper troposphere was very cold.

With no background on technical aspects of the record in the article, looks more like an opportunity to cherry pick and whine about the media.

Meanwhile in Antarctica, the recent record wasn't an isolated event. Temperatures have been well above normal all summer (4th from top). Surface melting has been off the charts (2nd from top), causing below average surface mass balance (top) despite average snowfall ( link).

http://climato.be/cms/index.php?climato=the-2020-melt-season-over-antarctica-as-simulated-by-marv3-10

32 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

What about the lowest temperature ever recorded for Greenland which occurred January 2nd 2020 -86.8F?    https://electroverse.net/greenland-just-set-a-new-all-time-record-low-temperature/

 

Of course this stuff never makes the mainstream news. 

Thanks,  the article made me chuckle:

"Rarely, for the times we’re in (where historically low solar activity is weakening the jet stream, reverting it’s usual tight zonal flow to a wavy meridional one), the cold air has actually remained locked in the Arctic Circle, and the results have been punishing for the region.

Though skipping forward 7-or-so-days, another violent buckling of the jet stream looks due to arrive by mid-January, and should once-again funnel dangerously cold polar air masses to the lower-latitudes.

Watch out North America, as according to latest GFS runs, a pulse of brutal Arctic air will have engulfed practically all of Canada by Jan 09, and should have swept the Central & Western U.S. by Jan 17:

This could be big.

Prepare.

The cold times are returning, in line with historically low solar activity.

The jet stream is weakening, diverting brutal polar cold to the lower-latitudes:"

Decent shot at a record this  year

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/202001/supplemental/page-2

This years decadal forecast from UK MetOffice.

" The forecast remains towards the mid to upper end of the range simulated by CMIP5 models that have not been initialised with observations (green shading in Figure 3). "

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-range/decadal-fc/index

On 1/30/2020 at 7:09 PM, WestBabylonWeather said:

Is the earth expected to have the same climate always? Things will happen that will cause climate shifts

I read something today that the earth is 55 degrees warmer than it should be with its proximity to the sun and it’s the greenhouse gasses that make it habitable. So what I’m trying to say is this: are the greenhouse gasses supposed to stay at the same levels for the rest of earths existence? I don’t think thats possible. Shifts are going to happen.
 

Normal is only what we perceive as normal since record keeping began rather recently. 
 

if the earths .04% CO2 content causes a certain global temperature mean we can’t expect it to stay like that forever, it’s a scientific impossibility. the percentages of greenhouse gasses will always change and cause climate shifts. I think that’s the science aspect of it. What caused the mini ice age? 
 

that being said we need clean energy either way. I think nuclear is the answer if it was full proof  

 

I just think there’s so much more to climate change then saying humans are the cause. Part of the problem? Sure. The cause? Not entirely 
 

the conversation is far from over and the science is NOT settled. IMO

 

not a climate expert or scientist. Just my thoughts. 

You are right. The earth's climate varies.  When CO2 is high - hothouse; when CO2 is low - ice age. The change we are causing now is no big deal to the planet as a whole. It will shrug it off and keep on ticking. It may be problematic to us and other species though due to the speed at which it is occurring. When we came out of the last ice age the earth warmed at a rate of roughly 1C per 1000 years, currently we are warming at 1C per 50 years. During the last ice age - 2 million hunter gatherers were able to adapt - they could move as ecosystems changed. Different situation today.

13 hours ago, etudiant said:

A quick look at the record indicates that the 1974-75 fire season in Australia was by far the worst in terms of acreage, with over 100 million acres burned. No other year comes close.

The burn to date for this season is about 15 million acres, still a huge area, but again not in the same league.

Watch the video, Australia is a big country. Fires in unpopulated dryland is not the same as fire in forested SE with more towns, people. 

On 1/13/2020 at 12:28 PM, frankdp23 said:

This is a general question that just popped into my head when looking at my weather channel calendar.  The one fact on it for Jan 25th was stating that the global land/ocean surface temp in Jan 2019 tied 2007 for the 3rd warmed (going back to 1880).  How many global stations (I'm not sure what they are really called) were there in 1880 compared to now? Was there 1000 stations back then, and 10000 now?  Do they try to use the same number?  I'm guessing if they are using that stat, they aren't using sat temps?  Thanks for the input in advance. 

You don't have to go back very far to for record high global temperatures, December for example.

On 1/15/2020 at 8:24 AM, etudiant said:

Trying to translate this measurement into actual temperature impact, I estimate as follows.

The increased heat content since 1990 of 300 or so zettajoules (300x10**21 joules) is spread over perhaps the top one third of the oceanic volume of roughly 1.3 billion cubic kilometers.

That is roughly 400 million cubic kilometers. (400x10**6 cubic kilometers).  A cubic kilometer contains 10**9 cubic meters, each of which contains 10**6 cubic centimeters of water, so the relevant ocean volume is about 400 zettacubic centimeters (10**21 cubic centimeters) of water. Rounding, it means the added heat content is about a joule per cubic centimeter.

It takes about 4 joules to raise the temperature of 1 cubic centimeter of water 1 degree C, so the added heat increases the temperature by about a quarter of a degree C.

At first glance, that does not seem much, but it really highlights how massively important the oceans are to our survival. They buffer the imbalances hugely.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here are 0 to 700m ocean temperatures. Your estimate is pretty good. The top 100m have warmed twice as fast.

From Lijeng Cheng's twitter - 2019 ended on a high note.

1 hour ago, LibertyBell said:

What do you think of this new commercial being put out by the industry about greenhouse gas emissions being half of what they were a generation ago?

I oppose natural gas (it's really methane) because of fracking and pipelines, thankfully we have placed a moratorium on them here in NY and are going with wind, solar and hydro.

I'd rather have nuclear, but we also had a lot of problems with the Shoreham plant on Long Island, and the power company was eventually charged with racketeering.  The rates got extremely high when LILCO was trying to build that plant.  The Indian Point power plant was also shut down recently because of issues.  These plants shouldn't be near big cities or near fault lines, as Fukushima demonstrated.

 

 

Haven't seen the commercial. Natural gas is better than coal, but need to get to zero emissions eventually to halt warming.  Most of the improvement in long-term outlook is due to the big cost drops this decade for solar, wind and batteries. For me highest priority is introducing some kind of carbon pricing, which would improve economics of nuclear and all other improvement options.

The article below provides a good summary of how recent energy trends are impacting IPCC emission scenarios. While I am even more pessimistic about the science of climate than I was a decade ago, I have become much more optimistic about non-fossil energy technology and natural gas vs coal. Limited policy and luck has improved the "worst-case" considerably vs CMIP5 IPCC scenarios. Unfortunately though, we haven't made any progress on the "best" case due to inaction/denial. Recent experience shows that improved climate policy and support for renewable energy technology could have enormous long-term pay-back.

https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/3c-world

19 hours ago, bdgwx said:

And with reanalysis running warmer through the first half of December I think it's a near certainty that 2019 is going to clinch 2nd place in most datasets. 

Very strong warming the past 5-6 years. The warm departure from the trend-line has stayed more prominent than the cool departure during the hiatus.

Off the charts surface melting so far this summer in Antarctica aided by the September SSW with temperatures above normal since late September.

http://climato.be/cms/index.php?climato=the-2020-melt-season-over-antarctica-as-simulated-by-marv3-10

Strong ocean warming since the end of the hiatus. The 2016 super nino spike was completely erased by the following la nina. It's the non-super nino periods that have been killing us. Most recently we have warmed in the past year even though 3.4 temps have cooled.