2014 Global Temperatures

[chubbs]

Since El Nino conditions now appear more likely this year than the recent past it is interesting to speculate on the potential impact on global temperature. Wouldn't be surprised to see record monthly satellite/surface temperaures if an El Nino develops given current conditions which are already relatively warm. Could even shatter monthly records in a moderate/strong El Nino.

[AvantHiatus]

Speaking of shattering monthly records. March will come in top 5 warmest, weatherbell shows no signs of cooling. Monthly CFS is at 0.099C and rising.

[Jonger]

Speaking of shattering monthly records. March will come in top 5 warmest, weatherbell shows no signs of cooling. Monthly CFS is at 0.099C and rising.

Not exactly stunning news. At what point in the last 130 years has a month varied all that far from a trend? I would expect every March to be top 10 or warmer until something changes. Actually 5th isn't that impressive.

[GaWx]

 From an article linked below:

 

"Early predictions suggested that clouds might work to counteract rising temperatures: As oceans absorb more heat, they add more water vapor to the air. This, the thinking went, would create more sunlight-reflecting clouds, which would help cool the planet. In climate speak, this is known as a negative feedback. Research over the last two decades suggests, however, that the cloud feedback is more complicated and likely to result not in cooling but in added warming.

 

 But no one knows how much additional warming, if any, to expect. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which represents the collective knowledge of the world’s climate scientists, considers cloud feedbacks the top source of uncertainty in climate change prediction. This uncertainty is reflected in the reports that the panel releases every five to seven years. In its 2007 report, the panel estimated that if the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere were to double from its preindustrial level — a likely outcome by the end of this century — global average temperature would rise between 2 and 4.5 degrees Celsius. The panel’s latest report, officially published January 30, estimates a temperature rise of 1.5 to 4.5 degrees with carbon dioxide doubling. In other words, seven years later, the uncertainty has actually grown."

 

 

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/cloudy-forecast?mode=topic&context=60

 

-----------------------------

 Related to this:

 

"Earth's clouds got a little lower -- about one percent on average -- during the first decade of this century, finds a new NASA-funded university study based on NASA satellite data. The results have potential implications for future global climate."

 

"A consistent reduction in cloud height would allow Earth to cool to space more efficiently, reducing the surface temperature of the planet and potentially slowing the effects of global warming. This may represent a 'negative feedback' mechanism -- a change caused by global warming that works to counteract it. 'We don't know exactly what causes the cloud heights to lower,' says Davies"

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120222114358.htm

--------------------------------------------------------

 

Why the lower clouds? From an ag meteorologist at another forum:

 

"Global climate models use increasing H2O as an amplifier and positive feedback which is what triples the greenhouse gas effect of just CO2 alone. The real world suggests otherwise. It may provide a negative feedback.

Also, because of the atmospheric fertilization effect of CO2, plants around the globe are making massive gains, even in the deserts."
 

"This has been increasing evapotranspiration greatly, adding moisture and probably a huge part of why we've seen the increase in low clouds......also an increase in precipitation(not droughts)."

 

 

 Related to this:

 

 http://www.csiro.au/Portals/Media/Deserts-greening-from-rising-CO2.aspx

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 Bottom line for me: the atmosphere is way more complex than can be modeled. The negative feedback mechanism among other factors, is one of my biggest concerns about the possibility that AGW models are too warm. Another potential negative feedback issue: I've read some nonskeptics say that snow may actually increase due to AGW. Well, if that's true, wouldn't that increase albedo? If albedo is increased, wouldn't that be a negative feedback? Also, the Antarctic ice has increased apparently due to AGW per AGW alarmists. Well, if true, wouldn't that increase albedo down there?

 

 So, my feeling is that negative feedbacks may yet have a much larger modifying influence than what most AGW models are showing. In my mind, nothing is known regardless of what some AGW alarmists will insist. Consider me a healthy skeptic of the magnitude of expected warming, not an outright "denier" as they are called.

[AvantHiatus]

Not exactly stunning news. At what point in the last 130 years has a month varied all that far from a trend? I would expect every March to be top 10 or warmer until something changes. Actually 5th isn't that impressive.

Top 5th or lower...significant if you still believe that AGW is not real. The only way to confirm is to wait for GISS, RSS, etc. Last few Marches were pretty cold as well.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Historically on GISS March has had some big anomalies mostly from ENSO or both NH continents torching.

 

March of 2002 had a .90C+ because of warm tropics but almost all of Eurasia, arctic, and Antarctica torched together.

 

March of 2005 had a .68C+ as El Nino(previous 3 month trimonthly averaged out to (0.6C+) was coming to an end.

 

March of 2007 had a .69C+ as again El Nino was coming to and end.

 

March of 2008 during a hardcore nina actually pulled out a .70C+ because litterally all of Eurasia had an epic torch.

 

March of 2010 had a .88C+ in the midst of a strong winding down to moderate Nino.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Top 5th or lower...significant if you still believe that AGW is not real. The only way to confirm is to wait for GISS, RSS, etc.

 

what did the 00z Daily come in at?  Yesterday SVT said at .20C IIRC.

 

I think it will probably meander around .10C to .15C for the next few days.

 

 

Russia has cooled off quite a bit and Antarctica still has a pretty stout AAO+ going.

 

SSTA are up to .25C+ but this time of year land temps play a huge role in global temps and can cause some major variations.

 

 

 

 

The projected Arctic anomalies have leveled out around 3.0-3.2C+ the last day or so of GFS runs down from the consistent 4.0C+ we had for a few days there

 

[AvantHiatus]

what did the 00z Daily come in at?  Yesterday SVT said at .20C IIRC.

Looks to be around 0.18C, the dailies have definitely dropped off. 0z yesterday was at 0.13C. Appears things have leveled off tho and the trend is less apparent.

[The_Global_Warmer]

We will have to see how this goes on as the Spring gets going.

 

This is yesterday this year top compared to last year same date bottom.

 

[The_Global_Warmer]

Looks to be around 0.18C, the dailies have definitely dropped off. 0z yesterday was at 0.13C. Appears things have leveled off tho and the trend is less apparent.

 

 

Yeah it will probably stay around .10C or so the rest of the month.

 

Considering how cold the month started in the first 7-10 days it has totally reversed.

[LakeEffectKing]

 

Speaking of shattering monthly records. March will come in top 5 warmest, weatherbell shows no signs of cooling. Monthly CFS is at 0.099C and rising.

How does a "top 5" = "shattering records"??? Embellishment?

[AvantHiatus]

 

How does a "top 5" = "shattering records"??? Embellishment?

Indeed, a bit exaggerated. However, the warmth is impressive considering that we are not under el nino conditions. The last really warm March was 2010. Past few years, the snow albedo feedback was winning out for the most part.

[skierinvermont]

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 Bottom line for me: the atmosphere is way more complex than can be modeled. The negative feedback mechanism among other factors, is one of my biggest concerns about the possibility that AGW models are too warm. Another potential negative feedback issue: I've read some nonskeptics say that snow may actually increase due to AGW. Well, if that's true, wouldn't that increase albedo? If albedo is increased, wouldn't that be a negative feedback? Also, the Antarctic ice has increased apparently due to AGW per AGW alarmists. Well, if true, wouldn't that increase albedo down there?

 

 So, my feeling is that negative feedbacks may yet have a much larger modifying influence than what most AGW models are showing. In my mind, nothing is known regardless of what some AGW alarmists will insist. Consider me a healthy skeptic of the magnitude of expected warming, not an outright "denier" as they are called.

 

Forgive me GaWx, but you seem to be using the stated best estimate of uncertainty from scientific research and then jumping to the conclusion that uncertainty is even larger than that. The very large range of uncertainty (1.5-4.5C) is intended to encompass all of the feedback uncertainties you are mentioning (and many others). Furthermore, it is not primarily a question of modeling. Modeling can help us to constrain uncertainty, but the primary constraint on climate sensitivity is

 

1) how the climate has responded to past changes in forcing in the past a) million years during the holocene (10,000 years) and c) to more recent climate perturbations such as volcanoes

 

2) the 1.2C radiative response plus the large positive water vapor feedback

 

Also, a couple of more detail oriented corrections.

 

1) Global snow cover has decreased in most months (very strongly in the summer) and will likely decrease in all months as the earth warms. There has been some scientific discussion of an increase in blocking and extreme mid-latitude storms but this is far from certain and is not the same thing as a global increase in snowcover. Basically what is being debated is if some mid-latitude places like NYC might see an increase in 18"+ events from once ever 4 years to once every 3 years (hypothetically). Such an increase wouldn't cause an increase in snowcover globally especially when accompanied by an increase in temperature and a possible decrease in small-moderate events. The media has tended to poorly explain and/or exaggerate claims of an increase in snowfall.

 

Global snowcover overall has been declining.

 

2) Also, the increase in Antarctic sea ice since 1979 is miniscule compared to the decrease in the arctic. Calling it an increase is almost misleading as it is so small. Also, there is good evidence that Antarctic sea ice declined rapidly prior to 1979 when temperatures were warming rapidly (prior to the reversal of the AAO).

 

3) It's also important to recognize that albedo loss is not actually a significant source of positive feedback in the models. Albedo will definitely decrease and already has. Regionally and temporally this can be very important but globally it is not nor is it projected to be. Even if snow and ice didn't decrease at all (which they will) it would make very little difference in the models globally. There's so little snow and ice cover during summer (when the sun is actually shining) on our planet that it is a much smaller feedback than it was during ice ages. 

 

Nobody is insisting climate sensitivity is 'known.' Your own quoted portions show that quite plainly very large uncertainty is objectively identified and recognized.

 

A climate sensitivity less than 1.5C is extremely unlikely. If sensitivity were that low, it would have required a massive 15W/m2 of external radiative forcing to cause the 6C of warming that took place globally when the last ice age ended. 15W/m2 of radiative forcing is massive and there is no plausible source of such a massive forcing. 

[ORH_wxman]

 

1) Global snow cover has decreased in most months (very strongly in the summer) and will likely decrease in all months as the earth warms. There has been some scientific discussion of an increase in blocking and extreme mid-latitude storms but this is far from certain and is not the same thing as a global increase in snowcover. Basically what is being debated is if some mid-latitude places like NYC might see an increase in 18"+ events from once ever 4 years to once every 3 years (hypothetically). Such an increase wouldn't cause an increase in snowcover globally especially when accompanied by an increase in temperature and a possible decrease in small-moderate events. The media has tended to poorly explain and/or exaggerate claims of an increase in snowfall.

 

 

The increase in 18" snowfalls is speculative because it has actually happened recently...but probaly won't continue. Though some think it might because of a "wavey jet stream".

 

 

But the increase in snow cover has also happened in winter in the NH. Snow cover has a positive trend in every month October-February. This is likely also temporary...but it has actually happened too like the increase in 18" snowstorms in NYC causing speculation. One of Cohen's most recent papers was on this. Snow is covering areas further south in winter than it used to perhaps due to the AO.

[ORH_wxman]

Indeed, a bit exaggerated. However, the warmth is impressive considering that we are not under el nino conditions. The last really warm March was 2010. Past few years, the snow albedo feedback was winning out for the most part.

 

 

The all time March record was in a neutral ENSO in 2002.

[AvantHiatus]

The all time March record was in a neutral ENSO in 2002.

Coming out of a warm ENSO February, weird year according to records, SOI was 1.8 in February and -0.4 in March. I don't think March 2002 should be used in this case as a comparison.

 

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/indices/soi

[ORH_wxman]

Coming out of a warm ENSO February, weird year according to records, SOI was 1.8 in February and -0.4 in March. I don't think March 2002 should be used in this case as a comparison.

 

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/indices/soi

 

 

February 2002 ENSO was +0.1. Dec and Jan that winter were slightly negative.

 

 

I'm just pointing out that trying to draw conclusions from a monthly value is pretty tough. The hottest March on record was coming off a dead neutral period of ENSO.

[The_Global_Warmer]

March of 2002 was so warm because the teleconnectors set up the ridging to be over large land masses.

 

The AAO was almost -2.0 for the month.

 

The AO was near 1.0

 

The NAO was .70

 

The EPO was -.40

 

The AAO made up a huge difference.  As well as enso being more favorable for a bit more warmth.

 

 

It looks like weather-bell will finish about a .10C or so.  Which comes to a .65 or so on GISS. 

 

Looking at the global gfs out put I wouldn't be surprised if we see another spike between .2 and .3C on the weatherbell dailies in two days till the end of the month.

 

 

 

[The_Global_Warmer]

Pending on if the models are right as we head towards early April they are showing a consolidating of the PV anomalies a bit.

 

When you combine arctic amplification with the cold

 

 

This is way out there and may just be generic climo or something.  But if the PV consolidates like that.  We will definitely see Northern Hemispheric temps run very warm.

 

 

 

This would be opposite of last April that started out very cool.

 

 

 

[The_Global_Warmer]

The conus is still running above normal.  Had some substantial gains the last two days.

 

while Eurasia is well below normal now.  But should see loses slow.

 

However that won't last with a substantial warm air regime pounding West Central/Central Russia in a couple days going into April.

 

Maybe we will get some snow over East Siberia and Western Russia with that back door cold to help off set things for the time being.

 

The CONUS snow cover will be obliterated for the most part over the next few days.  Then Western Canada get's the torch.  But central and SE Canada look pretty protected.

 

At the moment I don't expect to see a free fall or anything.  But I totally expect this year to be top 5 lowest snow cover anomalies again for April.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[skierinvermont]

The increase in 18" snowfalls is speculative because it has actually happened recently...but probaly won't continue. Though some think it might because of a "wavey jet stream".

 

 

But the increase in snow cover has also happened in winter in the NH. Snow cover has a positive trend in every month October-February. This is likely also temporary...but it has actually happened too like the increase in 18" snowstorms in NYC causing speculation. One of Cohen's most recent papers was on this. Snow is covering areas further south in winter than it used to perhaps due to the AO.

 

I think you might be looking at a shorter timespan. On the 67-present rutgers most of those months are flat or down, except for December which has a clear uptrend. Either way, I think we both agree that this is probably a temporary phenomenon in a warming world even with a 'wavy' jetstream. 

 

Either way its pretty irrelevant since albedo change is not a major global forcing in the models despite the fact that we have and will continue to experience major declines in snow and ice during the important summer months for albedo. It's just not significant enough on a global scale. 

[The_Global_Warmer]

CPC updated this morning.  The numbers continue to be staggering.

 

 

 

 

 

[Randy4Confluence]

Are these numbers real or contrived by tge global warming weenies who have an agenda?

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

[ORH_wxman]

Are these numbers real or contrived by tge global warming weenies who have an agenda?

Sent from my VS980 4G

 

 

The OHC numbers are from a reanalysis dataset. They are usually decent, though I do not entirely trust the CPC version because they have had large errors in recent years.

 

The OHC is definitely increasing as all datasets show big subsurface warmth....but the magnitude could be overstated by the CPC dataset.

 

 

Regardless, an El Nino is likely this coming autumn/winter. The magnitude of that is still to be determined.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Obama has given Noaa, the cpc, NCDC, and NASA strict orders to falsify buoy, ships, moorings, model, and satellite data to show major subsurface warming in the ENSO region to cover for the falsifying of the NASA and NCDC temp sets this year so Obama can push the Pro Global warming weenie agenda.

[AvantHiatus]

Are these numbers real or contrived by tge global warming weenies who have an agenda?

Sent from my VS980 4G

You can't be serious..ORH why would you even respond to this post...? AGW is not a game that you can win by choosing whatever side you want and cherrypicking what evidence you believe is real.

[Msalgado]

Obama has given Noaa, the cpc, NCDC, and NASA strict orders to falsify buoy, ships, moorings, model, and satellite data to show major subsurface warming in the ENSO region to cover for the falsifying of the NASA and NCDC temp sets this year so Obama can push the Pro Global warming weenie agenda.

 

Thanks, Obama.

[ORH_wxman]

You can't be serious..ORH why would you even respond to this post...? AGW is not a game that you can win by choosing whatever side you want and cherrypicking what evidence you believe is real.

 

 

People post misleading information on here all the time. Datasource is important. We have multiple sources of data...some people like to only post the dataset that has the most extreme trend or lackthereof.

 

I don't see the question as completely illegitimate.

[AvantHiatus]

People post misleading information on here all the time. Datasource is important. We have multiple sources of data...some people like to only post the dataset that has the most extreme trend or lackthereof.

 

I don't see the question as completely illegitimate.

I've always used CPC data for analyzing ENSO. I'm sure other sources are above +1.0C, feel free to share. To be honest I don't know where to obtain this alternative data and would like to reach a more holistic conclusion.

[ORH_wxman]

I've always used CPC data for analyzing ENSO. I'm sure other sources are above +1.0C, feel free to share. To be honest I don't know where to obtain this alternative data and would like to reach a more holistic conclusion.

 

 

CPC data is fine...we are only analyzing subsurface with it which has an inherent margin of error larger than other variables. You can use the TAO/Triton dataset which I had found to be more reliable in the past two years when CPC was over estimating the OHC.

 

Whether the subsurface pool is +6 or +4 is fairly irrelevant at this point in the game anyway.