2014 Global Temperatures

[ORH_wxman]

I guess it depends what you mean for a string of months between .7-.9 C.  Did you mean all the months of the years exclusively, or the average of the next 9 months?  

 

 

He said "a run of 0.70-0.90+ months the rest of the year"...which would mean all of them.

 

 

But even if he didn't mean that and meant the average of the 9 months, I'd still take those odds. We've had exactly two summer months on record over 0.70 on GISS...June 1998 and July 2011.

[skierinvermont]

I would give 50% odds April-Dec averages .7C+.. highly doubt .8C

[nflwxman]

I would give 50% odds April-Dec averages .7C+.. highly doubt .8C

I'd second that prediction.  PDO for the moment is positive, which is clear distinction to the short lived nino of 2009-2010.  TSI is also near it's cyclical maximum.  Very interested to see what unfolds the next 4 years or so with surface temps since OHC seems to have taken off recently.

 

That being said, the latest trimonthly ONI value is -0.7.  While that is bound to go upwards, it might take a few months to flow into the lower hemispheric temperatures.

[The_Global_Warmer]

It just means between. .70 and. .90C.

I shouldn't have implied I think it's a guarantee that it will be at least. .70C each month.

Just that I think is highly likely.

Until I see a currently unknown region of cooling I see no reason to back off that thought .

[ORH_wxman]

Keep the personal attack crap out of here.

[ORH_wxman]

It just means between. .70 and. .90C.

I shouldn't have implied I think it's a guarantee that it will be at least. .70C each month.

Just that I think is highly likely.

Until I see a currently unknown region of cooling I see no reason to back off that thought .

 

 

May through August has been the coolest stretch over the past 10 years globally. They make up 4 of the 6 coldest months over the past 10 years. I don't see any source of a big warm spike for those months this year either. ENSO has a lag and it won't take effect until this autumn.

 

We'll be comfortably under 0.70C during that stretch as a whole. We'll have to put up some large numbers in autumn to offset them enough to average over 0.70C...which I don't see happening, but I'll grant the possibility.

 

 

You'll have to be patient and wait until 2015 when the El Nino (however strong it gets) has its most influence. Then you'll get your big torch year.

[The_Global_Warmer]

I don't know Man this is coming on really strong.  and is very warm.  At least on CPC.  Which could be over doing it.

 

But 2-2.5C+ is already popping along the equator. 

 

Secondly the Southern Hemisphere has warmed intensely this week as well.  So has South of the Baffin Bay which is scoring.  But it's

a relatively small area at least.

 

OHC is up to 1.7C+ above the 1.525C+ last week.  I don't think it can go much higher I mean damn you know.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Weatherguy and SVT450 will update us with CFS whenever they get time.  We will have to see how long April stays in the .15C+ range. 

 

.15C+ is roughly .70C+ on GISS. 

 

 

Weatherguy told me April started weatherbell at .274C+ which for a month would be equivalent to .824C+

[The_Global_Warmer]

TAO Triton is not as warm in term of anomalies but is relatively close in actual temps.

 

 

So this will probably peak pretty high even if it's short lived.

 

We will see.

 

 

[AvantHiatus]

You should hope the easterly +OLR anomalies return as there is a huge reservoir of heat just under the surface. It's probably 2 km deep or more. This is what happens when you have 8+ years of unprecedented up-welling in a AGW climate.

 

Did you think you could just get away with a hiatus decade without consequences? The Earth has been warming for years as at an accelerating rate.

 

 

 

The exact changes happening to ENSO in the future is uncertain:^[53] Different models make different predictions.^[54][55] It may be that the observed phenomenon of more frequent and stronger El Niño events occurs only in the initial phase of the global warming, and then (e.g., after the lower layers of the ocean get warmer, as well), El Niño will become weaker than it was.^[56] It may also be that the stabilizing and destabilizing forces influencing the phenomenon will eventually compensate for each other.^[57] More research is needed to provide a better answer to that question. The ENSO is considered to be a potential tipping element in Earth's climate.^[58]

 

[ORH_wxman]

You should hope the easterly +OLR anomalies return as there is a huge reservoir of heat just under the surface. It's probably 2 km deep or more. This is what happens when you have 8+ years of unprecedented up-welling in a AGW climate.

 

Did you think you could just get away with a hiatus decade without consequences? The Earth has been warming for years as at an accelerating rate.

 

What does this even mean?

 

We'd have to warm something like 0.25C in the next couple years to get back in line with predictions. A strong El Nino would spike us up quite a bit for one year, but we'd probably dip right back down again in the following multi-year La Nina which is almost guaranteed after a potent El Nino.

[Jonger]

You should hope the easterly +OLR anomalies return as there is a huge reservoir of heat just under the surface. It's probably 2 km deep or more. This is what happens when you have 8+ years of unprecedented up-welling in a AGW climate.

 

Did you think you could just get away with a hiatus decade without consequences? The Earth has been warming for years as at an accelerating rate.

 

It has? This is the first I have heard.

 

2km deep!!

 

Say what???

[AvantHiatus]

What does this even mean?

 

We'd have to warm something like 0.25C in the next couple years to get back in line with predictions. A strong El Nino would spike us up quite a bit for one year, but we'd probably dip right back down again in the following multi-year La Nina which is almost guaranteed after a potent El Nino.

Trenberth's Missing Heat

 

All kidding aside, we should spike up to 0.90C this year or next year and then stabilize around 0.80C (GISS baseline). Climate has a tendency to move in waves and not a follow a steady progression upwards. 0.25C is not a large discrepancy when most GCM's don't apply aerosol forcings.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Trenberth's Missing Heat

All kidding aside, we should spike up to 0.90C this year or next year and then stabilize around 0.80C (GISS baseline). Climate has a tendency to move in waves and not a follow a steady progression upwards. 0.25C is not a large discrepancy when most GCM's don't apply aerosol forcings.

.80 to .90 would require 3-4 months at least of -1.0C or colder to get above .80C+ on the year.

That ain't happening.

But I think with The 3-4 ONI on pace for niño territory before April is out we will see it hard pressed to have any month below .60C+

[The_Global_Warmer]

Trenberth's Missing Heat

All kidding aside, we should spike up to 0.90C this year or next year and then stabilize around 0.80C (GISS baseline). Climate has a tendency to move in waves and not a follow a steady progression upwards. 0.25C is not a large discrepancy when most GCM's don't apply aerosol forcings.

.80 to .90 would require 3-4 months at least of -1.0C or colder to get above .80C+ on the year.

That ain't happening.

But I think with The 3-4 ONI on pace for niño territory before April is out we will see it hard pressed to have any month below .60C+

If the ONI is above 0.5C+ this year only a super cold NH PV way South crushing Eurasia and The United States.

[nflwxman]

Trenberth's Missing Heat

 

All kidding aside, we should spike up to 0.90C this year or next year and then stabilize around 0.80C (GISS baseline). Climate has a tendency to move in waves and not a follow a steady progression upwards. 0.25C is not a large discrepancy when most GCM's don't apply aerosol forcings.

I think this is one of my biggest problems with the denier/skeptic movement. Climate models are designed for decadal projections and NOT periods of time as short as 15 years.  It's clear natural variability can cause sloshing that can enhance or degrade the surface warming.  To say a climate model is failing based on empirical observation between 2008-2013 is just not correct way of looking at the issue.  The skeptics would enhance their standing in the scientific community to focus more on the recent paleoclimate studies on TCS that show 2 degree Celcius sensitivity.

[nflwxman]

Trenberth's Missing Heat

 

All kidding aside, we should spike up to 0.90C this year or next year and then stabilize around 0.80C (GISS baseline). Climate has a tendency to move in waves and not a follow a steady progression upwards. 0.25C is not a large discrepancy when most GCM's don't apply aerosol forcings.

I'm not sure that is a good prediction without any backup.  Are there any other previous El Nino events that cause that kind of "climate shift"?  

[ORH_wxman]

Trenberth's Missing Heat

 

All kidding aside, we should spike up to 0.90C this year or next year and then stabilize around 0.80C (GISS baseline). Climate has a tendency to move in waves and not a follow a steady progression upwards. 0.25C is not a large discrepancy when most GCM's don't apply aerosol forcings.

 

Actually all of them try to account for aerosols....and 0.25C is a big discrepency. We've posted enough literature in here showing it to not have to go over this yet again....maybe it will be worth revisiting in a year or two and see how this Nino affects things.

 

 

I am extremely skeptical of your claim that we will "stabilize" at +0.80C on GISS after the Nino. We'll be entering back into a solar min cycle sometime in the next 1-2 years and we are still in a general -PDO regime which will want to make La Nina a bit more likely moving forward.

[ORH_wxman]

I think this is one of my biggest problems with the denier/skeptic movement. Climate models are designed for decadal projections and NOT periods of time as short as 15 years.  It's clear natural variability can cause sloshing that can enhance or degrade the surface warming.  To say a climate model is failing based on empirical observation between 2008-2013 is just not correct way of looking at the issue.  The skeptics would enhance their standing in the scientific community to focus more on the recent paleoclimate studies on TCS that show 2 degree Celcius sensitivity.

 

 

Peer review on GCMs generally look at 20 year periods. Which is long enough to create confidence intervals that put GCM's accuracy into seriosu question. The most recent paper was analyzing them from 1993-2013.

[AvantHiatus]

.80 to .90 would require 3-4 months at least of -1.0C or colder to get above .80C+ on the year.

That ain't happening.

But I think with The 3-4 ONI on pace for niño territory before April is out we will see it hard pressed to have any month below .60C+

If the ONI is above 0.5C+ this year only a super cold NH PV way South crushing Eurasia and The United States.

Do you mean combined land and sea temperature or just land for GISS? In 2010 the land temp was 0.96C and the combined was 0.62C. My predictions are really dependent on extreme ocean warming and a strong el nino event. Of course land areas will easily become very warm, probably not until later this year as there is a lag between ENSO and surface temperatures.

 

[AvantHiatus]

Actually all of them try to account for aerosols....and 0.25C is a big discrepency. We've posted enough literature in here showing it to not have to go over this yet again....maybe it will be worth revisiting in a year or two and see how this Nino affects things.

 

 

I am extremely skeptical of your claim that we will "stabilize" at +0.80C on GISS after the Nino. We'll be entering back into a solar min cycle sometime in the next 1-2 years and we are still in a general -PDO regime which will want to make La Nina a bit more likely moving forward.

I keep reading articles and posts about how GCM's just use CO2 forcing and ignore albedo and aerosol feedbacks. Additionally, they do not apply other positive feedbacks, which is not even possible due to unknown variables and complexity. James Hansen has even voiced his concern over the validity of GCM's on decadal timescales and the non-linear aspects of global climate. I will try to find the interview on youtube.

[nflwxman]

Peer review on GCMs generally look at 20 year periods. Which is long enough to create confidence intervals that put GCM's accuracy into seriosu question. The most recent paper was analyzing them from 1993-2013.

And the vast majority of them suggest we are still within the 95% confidence interval (which by the way, has happened several times in the past). A P95 or even P99 value is bound to happen over time, otherwise the statistics would be useless.

[ORH_wxman]

I keep reading articles and posts about how GCM's just use CO2 forcing and ignore albedo and aerosol feedbacks. Additionally, they do not apply other positive feedbacks, which is not even possible due to unknown variables and complexity. James Hansen has even voiced his concern over the validity of GCM's on decadal timescales and the non-linear aspects of global climate. I will try to find the interview on youtube.

 

 

You should read up on GCMs in the IPCC report or some other literature...they explain how they work.

 

 

What you say makes no sense...if the only thing they used was CO2 and zero feedbacks, then they would get roughly 1.1C of warming per doubling of CO2. They warm us much more than that.

[AvantHiatus]

You should read up on GCMs in the IPCC report or some other literature...they explain how they work.

 

 

What you say makes no sense...if the only thing they used was CO2 and zero feedbacks, then they would get roughly 1.1C of warming per doubling of CO2. They warm us much more than that.

James Hansen > IPCC

 

[nflwxman]

James Hansen > IPCC

 

James Hansen was a main contributor to the IPCC.  

[ORH_wxman]

And the vast majority of them suggest we are still within the 95% confidence interval (which by the way, has happened several times in the past). A P95 or even P99 value is bound to happen over time, otherwise the statistics would be useless.

 

 

Perhaps you need to reread some of the literature...most of them are not in the 95% confidence interval right now.

 

http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Climate%20change/Climate%20model%20results/over%20estimate.pdf

 

Regardless of how you slice it and whether you want to get into a semantical argument of how many of the GCMs are still barely within the 95% confidence interval or not, they having trouble and unless we spike up very quickly between now and 2020, then they will look even worse. They accelerate the warming, not slowly warm us. We could resume a roughly 0.1C per decade warming between now and 2030 and we'd be way outside the 95% confidence interval by then.

 

 

Scientifically, we'd come to a few possible conclusions based on the way GCMs have handled this:

 

1. They are too sensitive to GHG warming/feedbacks

2. The observations are wrong (unlikely, they all agree pretty closely)

3. They are not accounting for natural variation as much as they should

4. Aerosols are having a stronger effect than models account for

5. Some combo of these factors

 

Any one of these factors with the exception of #2 (which is unlikely as it is) would mean the GCMs need to be augmented...they are poor as currently performing.

 

 

It doesn't mean they are completely useless...they simulate some stuff well. But surface temperature isn't one of them.

[nflwxman]

Perhaps you need to reread some of the literature...most of them are not in the 95% confidence interval right now.

 

http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Climate%20change/Climate%20model%20results/over%20estimate.pdf

 

Regardless of how you slice it and whether you want to get into a semantical argument of how many of the GCMs are still barely within the 95% confidence interval or not, they having trouble and unless we spike up very quickly between now and 2020, then they will look even worse. They accelerate the warming, not slowly warm us. We could resume a roughly 0.1C per decade warming between now and 2030 and we'd be way outside the 95% confidence interval by then.

 

 

Scientifically, we'd come to a few possible conclusions based on the way GCMs have handled this:

 

1. They are too sensitive to GHG warming/feedbacks

2. The observations are wrong (unlikely, they all agree pretty closely)

3. They are not accounting for natural variation as much as they should

4. Aerosols are having a stronger effect than models account for

5. Some combo of these factors

 

Any one of these factors with the exception of #2 (which is unlikely as it is) would mean the GCMs need to be augmented...they are poor as currently performing.

 

 

It doesn't mean they are completely useless...they simulate some stuff well. But surface temperature isn't one of them.

The paper you sent me has the temperature right in the 95% confidence interval with the ensemble mean assuming the use of HadCrut4. Not to mention, the paper even defines a 0.06 C/decade trend measurement uncertainty.  HadCrut4 has poor arctic coverage, so using the GISS dataset instead, that surface temperature is closer to the ~75-80% confidence interval of CIMP5 Ensemble Mean (see what I did there?). It's not really a service to statistics to use such short periods of time for this reason alone.  My point is not refute the statistical methods of the study you posted, but to refute the drastic (IMO) conclusion that it claims.  

 

I do agree if there is not a rapid uptick in temperature by 2020 or so, that the models will look bad with 20-30 years of under prediction. Perhaps we could make that conclusion even sooner if the ocean continues to be a more effective heat sink than previously thought. 

[The_Global_Warmer]

Do you mean combined land and sea temperature or just land for GISS? In 2010 the land temp was 0.96C and the combined was 0.62C. My predictions are really dependent on extreme ocean warming and a strong el nino event. Of course land areas will easily become very warm, probably not until later this year as there is a lag between ENSO and surface temperatures.

 

 

 

 

Yeah combined.

 

Weatherbell as you sent me has started at so far with ENSO going warm quickly. 

 

 

 

0.15C (Daily)

0.204C (Monthly)

 

 

It's obvious with subsurface data and multiple ssta data sets that the heat is quickly reaching the surface.  And a 2.0C+ high end band is already blowing up and it has the potential to blow the doors off the SSTA in that region. 

 

We have reached the point where winds/atmospheric patterns don't have to be perfect or even favorable for at least a 4-6 month moderate nino probably easily peaking at strong at 1.5C+ for a time.

 

And that is if conditions go below average.

 

If they stay above average in continuing to develop a nino or go to very very favorable then a super nino would take place at least a little while.

 

From what I understand these big warm ssta popping up should help propagate convection far enuf East to keep some pressure on forcing the warmth East and eventually to the surface.

 

But yeah ENSO 3 is about to explode upwards as well as a huge jump by 3-4.

 

 

This is also with a strongly and consistently +AAO since the last 1/3rd of March and now holding steady positive likely thru the first 1/3rd of April with a chance for a neutral or negative flip but probably staying positive for a while longer.

 

The AO was very high then dropped and we have seen some very cool to cold air in NA get further South.  The AO shooting up should help see to prevent that quite a bit with Western Canada looking to really get warm over the  medium range.

 

 

[ORH_wxman]

The paper you sent me has the temperature right in the 95% confidence interval with the ensemble mean assuming the use of HadCrut4. Not to mention, the paper even defines a 0.06 C/decade trend measurement uncertainty.  HadCrut4 has poor arctic coverage, so using the GISS dataset instead, that surface temperature is closer to the ~75-80% confidence interval of CIMP5 Ensemble Mean (see what I did there?). It's not really a service to statistics to use such short periods of time for this reason alone.  My point is not refute the statistical methods of the study you posted, but to refute the drastic (IMO) conclusion that it claims.  

 

I do agree if there is not a rapid uptick in temperature by 2020 or so, that the models will look bad with 20-30 years of under prediction. Perhaps we could make that conclusion even sooner if the ocean continues to be a more effective heat sink than previously thought. 

 

 

And then if we used NCDC data and/or satellite data, they'd go back to looking just as bad (or worse) than the hadcrut4 analysis....this argument is mostly semantical and doesn't change the main conclusion of the paper. It might change your numbers slightly, but as far as I am concerned, that is a nitpick.

 

 

"Trying" to keep the GCMs inside certain confidence intervals to claim their validity seems to distract from more scientifically useful endeavers such as figuring out what they are doing wrong and how we can improve them.

[nflwxman]

And then if we used NCDC data and/or satellite data, they'd go back to looking just as bad (or worse) than the hadcrut4 analysis....this argument is mostly semantical and doesn't change the main conclusion of the paper. It might change your numbers slightly, but as far as I am concerned, that is a nitpick.

 

 

"Trying" to keep the GCMs inside certain confidence intervals to claim their validity seems to distract from more scientifically useful endeavers such as figuring out what they are doing wrong and how we can improve them.

I don't disagree with your point about improving GCMs, but would like you to understand why saying "CLIMATE MODELS FAIL LOL" is a really poor statistical argument using small timescales.  Not saying you are making that argument personally, btw. 

 

On a side note, have you seen any papers on how the GCMs do when the global temperature record is adjusted for ENSO, TSI, and Volcanic activity?

[AvantHiatus]

And then if we used NCDC data and/or satellite data, they'd go back to looking just as bad (or worse) than the hadcrut4 analysis....this argument is mostly semantical and doesn't change the main conclusion of the paper. It might change your numbers slightly, but as far as I am concerned, that is a nitpick.

 

 

"Trying" to keep the GCMs inside certain confidence intervals to claim their validity seems to distract from more scientifically useful endeavers such as figuring out what they are doing wrong and how we can improve them.

In the end, arguing over how fast the temperature rises is a mute point since a doubling of CO2 has been scientifically proven to produce at least a temperature rise of 3.0C (+- 1.0C) (Up from 2.0 C a couple years ago). Uncertainties are larger towards the upper range based on paleoclimate.

 

We need to actively reforest the planet and oceans or pull carbon from the atmosphere, it's really that simple. Claiming that AGW is less than advertised is a foolish mistake. Action is required as the damage keeps accumulating every second we waste on debates. We can deal with the problem now or wait, either way change is required at some point if we want to sustain civilization in its current form. Claiming that GHG Models should be "downgraded"  or "rebuilt" because they are too warm as of some specific date is an issue of seeing the trees before the forest.