Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,535
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    Harmonie
    Newest Member
    Harmonie
    Joined

Global Average Temperature 2023


bdgwx
 Share

Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, TheClimateChanger said:

New paper from preeminent American climate scientist James Hansen suggests we breach 1.5C of globally averaged warming by next year. Thoughts?


http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2023/UhOh.14August2023.pdf

Strong words from Dr. Hansen...

Political leaders at the United Nations COP (Conference of the Parties) meetings give the impression that progress is being made and it is still feasible to limit global warming to as little as 1.5°C. That is pure, unadulterated, hogwash, as exposed by minimal understanding of Fig. 6 here and Fig. 27 in reference 6.

For the lurkers...he is speaking of the Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI) that we've been posting here frequently. And as several of us have been saying with the EEI this high 1.5 C of warming is already an inevitability.  Even at a modest sensitivity of 0.5 C per W/m2 and assuming the +1.44 W/m2 EEI over the last 36m isn't a transient spike then we cannot eliminate the possibility that an astonishing 0.7 C of warming is already in the cards even if there is no further increase in radiative forcing. 

It is getting harder and harder to resist the recent evidence that we've entered into a new era of accelerated warming.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, GaWx said:

What do you mean by "wet/dry season cycling" and how does that relate to increased CO2? Thank you in advance.

I borrowed the term from Swain. Believe it merely refers to the  cycling between wet and dry seasons. Per link below, climate change intensifies the water cycle.  Wet seasons can become wetter and dry seasons dryer.

https://www.int-res.com/articles/cr_oa/c047p123.pdf

Here's an article by a local meteorologist on climate change impacts on Hawaii's precipitation

https://theconversation.com/hawaiis-climate-future-dry-regions-get-drier-with-global-warming-increasing-fire-risk-while-wet-areas-get-wetter-211379

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, chubbs said:

I borrowed the term from Swain. Believe it merely refers to the  cycling between wet and dry seasons. Per link below, climate change intensifies the water cycle.  Wet seasons can become wetter and dry seasons dryer.

https://www.int-res.com/articles/cr_oa/c047p123.pdf

Here's an article by a local meteorologist on climate change impacts on Hawaii's precipitation

https://theconversation.com/hawaiis-climate-future-dry-regions-get-drier-with-global-warming-increasing-fire-risk-while-wet-areas-get-wetter-211379

Thanks. In Swain's article, he says:

"climate change–which is likely increasing the duration and severity of droughts on the lee sides of the islands and the intensity of wet-dry cycling of precipitation (which favors extra vegetation growth, and then rapid drying of that extra growth during high risk periods)."

Then you restated Swain's idea of wetter wet seasons and drier dry seasons.

 

 But then I read this from your last link about expected changes on Hawaii, itself, due to CC written by Kevin Hamilton:

"We found that in the wet windward areas of Hawaii, rainfall is projected to increase substantially. That includes increasingly frequent extreme downpours. On the other hand, rainfall is predicted to decrease substantially over much of the rain shadow regions."

-----------
 So, to recap, Swain is suggesting wetter wet seasons and drier dry seasons. But Hamilton is instead suggesting wetter windward areas and drier leeward areas.

 So, Swain implies CC causes Lahaina to have both wetter winters (causing increased vegetation) and drier summers (causing more fire danger due to more fuel available that dries out in summer).

 But Hamilton is implying CC causes both winter and summer to be drier at Lahaina. So, per Hamilton, there actually isn't the increased fuel at Lahaina due to wetter winters.

  So, Swain (wetter) and Hamilton (drier) are literally on opposite sides on how CC affects Lahaina winter rainfall.

 Any thoughts about this? Doesn't it concern you? Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GaWx said:

Thanks. In Swain's article, he says:

"climate change–which is likely increasing the duration and severity of droughts on the lee sides of the islands and the intensity of wet-dry cycling of precipitation (which favors extra vegetation growth, and then rapid drying of that extra growth during high risk periods)."

Then you restated Swain's idea of wetter wet seasons and drier dry seasons.

 

 But then I read this from your last link about expected changes on Hawaii, itself, due to CC written by Kevin Hamilton:

"We found that in the wet windward areas of Hawaii, rainfall is projected to increase substantially. That includes increasingly frequent extreme downpours. On the other hand, rainfall is predicted to decrease substantially over much of the rain shadow regions."

-----------
 So, to recap, Swain is suggesting wetter wet seasons and drier dry seasons. But Hamilton is instead suggesting wetter windward areas and drier leeward areas.

 So, Swain implies CC causes Lahaina to have both wetter winters (causing increased vegetation) and drier summers (causing more fire danger due to more fuel available that dries out in summer).

 But Hamilton is implying CC causes both winter and summer to be drier at Lahaina. So, per Hamilton, there actually isn't the increased fuel at Lahaina due to wetter winters.

  So, Swain (wetter) and Hamilton (drier) are literally on opposite sides on how CC affects Lahaina winter rainfall.

 Any thoughts about this? Doesn't it concern you? Thanks.

Yes, they do not appear to be consistent. I would go with the local expert Hamilton. Swain may be wrong or I could have misinterpreted what he means by wet-dry cycling. It could be that the rain shadow areas are getting less frequent rain but when it does rain the rain is heavier. Increased precipitation intensity even in areas that receive less rain is mentioned in the abstract of the first reference I provided.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/16/2023 at 10:36 AM, bdgwx said:

Strong words from Dr. Hansen...

Political leaders at the United Nations COP (Conference of the Parties) meetings give the impression that progress is being made and it is still feasible to limit global warming to as little as 1.5°C. That is pure, unadulterated, hogwash, as exposed by minimal understanding of Fig. 6 here and Fig. 27 in reference 6.

For the lurkers...he is speaking of the Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI) that we've been posting here frequently. And as several of us have been saying with the EEI this high 1.5 C of warming is already an inevitability.  Even at a modest sensitivity of 0.5 C per W/m2 and assuming the +1.44 W/m2 EEI over the last 36m isn't a transient spike then we cannot eliminate the possibility that an astonishing 0.7 C of warming is already in the cards even if there is no further increase in radiative forcing. 

It is getting harder and harder to resist the recent evidence that we've entered into a new era of accelerated warming.

Plus ( no pun intended ...) the curve is not linear? 

you know that, but from what I sense, there is a kind of lingering air - if not assumption - of linearity to this thing, in a systemic change that is clearly become more logarithmic - or has been exposed to be so at this end of the curve compared to the progress of CC between 1980 and 2000...

It's as though saying one thing, but not truly in sync with it.  Even in the ambit of higher climate sciences and the ethical leaders ( as few as they are in this latter group), there's a lapse in projecting the upward parabolic trajectory.  All the impacts so far registered that are either in or have been through attribution science, were predicted to occur later than they materialized.  There are also new impacts that were not anticipated by the tech and purposes, altogether.  Such as the marine heat wave phenomenon. The impacts on the mid latitude circulation modes during winters...etc...

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

July SST 2023 minus 2022, this year's increase in global SST is mainly due to enso.   Note that warming is particularly strong in the 1,2 region and extensive in the eastern Pacific over a broad latitude range from Chile to Mexico, particularly in the S Hemi. The tropical and subtropical  E Pac has a large positive feedback to ocean warming due to reduced cloud cover and stability (see slide posted above). Timing of the SST rise this year also argues for enso being the heavy hitter in warming SST, that and the large forcing imbalance which built up under the long period of nina conditions.

 

enso2023.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Plus ( no pun intended ...) the curve is not linear? 

you know that, but from what I sense, there is a kind of lingering air - if not assumption - of linearity to this thing, in a systemic change that is clearly become more logarithmic - or has been exposed to be so at this end of the curve compared to the progress of CC between 1980 and 2000...

It's as though saying one thing, but not truly in sync with it.  Even in the ambit of higher climate sciences and the ethical leaders ( as few as they are in this latter group), there's a lapse in projecting the upward parabolic trajectory.  All the impacts so far registered that are either in or have been through attribution science, were predicted to occur later than they materialized.  There are also new impacts that were not anticipated by the tech and purposes, altogether.  Such as the marine heat wave phenomenon. The impacts on the mid latitude circulation modes during winters...etc...

 

Do you mean exponential? In a logarithmic function, the increase in the dependent variable tails off over time (assuming time is your independent variable, as is the case here).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some context for the ongoing heat wave. Shared this in the Lakes & Ohio Valley forum, but feel it appropriate for here. Gives some insight into how the combination of heat and humidity are simply unprecedented over parts of the Plains states.  I feel too much emphasis is placed on the temperature readings, with insufficient consideration on the dewpoint. 1936 had many extreme temperatures, but, by all accounts, humidity appears to have been exceptionally low during much of the heat wave. The heat today is different with dewpoints increasingly reaching into the 80s, and wet bulb temperatures creeping eerily close to levels which pose an extreme danger to life. I think the NWS should consider a third tier of heat alerts - an extreme heat emergency - for these future extreme wet bulb temperature events, where people are advised to shelter in a climate-controlled place, at least during the afternoons.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wild. 19 of the 24 hourly heat index records at DFW (since 1953) have been set or tied during this year's relentless heat wave. The only other remaining years are 1966 (2), 1980 (2) and 2020 (1). Surprised the all-time record (well, since 1953) is only 117F at DFW. Really puts these 120F+ readings further north in perspective.

image.thumb.png.30be55aad587f415ea935f05b1a66df2.png

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, TheClimateChanger said:

Some context for the ongoing heat wave. Shared this in the Lakes & Ohio Valley forum, but feel it appropriate for here. Gives some insight into how the combination of heat and humidity are simply unprecedented over parts of the Plains states.  I feel too much emphasis is placed on the temperature readings, with insufficient consideration on the dewpoint. 1936 had many extreme temperatures, but, by all accounts, humidity appears to have been exceptionally low during much of the heat wave. The heat today is different with dewpoints increasingly reaching into the 80s, and wet bulb temperatures creeping eerily close to levels which pose an extreme danger to life. I think the NWS should consider a third tier of heat alerts - an extreme heat emergency - for these future extreme wet bulb temperature events, where people are advised to shelter in a climate-controlled place, at least during the afternoons.

 

Just 2023 doing 2023 things.

07F424B4-52D2-4427-93F7-67E24C51C373.png.51a67413df8f586cdaebde4156cffffb.png

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is my updated analysis.

Jan: 0.87 ± 0.01 C (3m lagged ENSO -0.99)

Feb: 0.98 ± 0.01 C (3m lagged ENSO -0.90)

Mar: 1.20 ± 0.01 C (3m lagged ENSO -0.86)

Apr: 1.00 ± 0.01 C (3m lagged ENSO -0.71)

May: 0.93 ± 0.01 C (3m lagged ENSO -0.46)

Jun: 1.08 ± 0.01 C (3m lagged ENSO -0.11)

Jul: 1.18 ± 0.02 C (3m lagged ENSO +0.14)

Aug: 1.18 ± 0.13 C (3m lagged ENSO +0.46)

Sep: 1.13 ± 0.21 C (3m lagged ENSO +0.84)

Oct: 1.15 ± 0.22 C (3m lagged ENSO +1.00)

Nov: 1.16 ± 0.23 C (predicted 3m lagged ENSO +1.25)

Dec: 1.15 ± 0.24 C (predicted 3m lagged ENSO +1.35)

2023 Average: 1.083 ± 0.05 

Probability of >= 1.02 is near 100% (new record)

Probability of >= 1.03 is 98%

Probability of <= 1.01 is near 0%

Probability of between 1.02 and 1.04 is 5%

Probability of between 1.05 and 1.07 is 31%

Probability of between 1.08 and 1.10 is 44%

Probability of >= 1.11 is 19% 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/22/2023 at 6:49 AM, TheClimateChanger said:

Do you mean exponential? In a logarithmic function, the increase in the dependent variable tails off over time (assuming time is your independent variable, as is the case here).

Yup, expo ... And from that, I'm still seeing "predictions" of where we are going that appear to lean linear.  Not sure that is empirically supported - 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, bdgwx said:

UAH TLT came in at +0.69 C. It is the warmest August in their dataset by a long shot.

cIqJ6VF.jpg

UAH needs to average 0.55 for the rest of the year to break 2016's record. Doable considering higher values in the past 2 months, and the strengthening nino. Would expect uah to peak early in 2024.  UAH temperatures are recovering to record levels much faster after the 2016 compared to the 1998 nino peak. Either warming is accelerating or UAH has changed or both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bdgwx said:

UAH TLT came in at +0.69 C. It is the warmest August in their dataset by a long shot.

cIqJ6VF.jpg

Wow! Looks like it's only 0.01C below the anomaly for February 2016, for second highest of any month. Given the global temperature peaks during northern hemisphere summer, I would assume it's safe to say either July or August of this year was easily the highest absolute temperature of any month in the satellite record.

Also worth noting that El Nino temperature peaks invariably occur in the first half of the year following the inception of the El Nino event, so we almost certainly will see these values continue to go up. Dr. Spencer may need to raise the y-axis if this keeps up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, chubbs said:

UAH needs to average 0.55 for the rest of the year to break 2016's record. Doable considering higher values in the past 2 months, and the strengthening nino. Would expect uah to peak early in 2024.  UAH temperatures are recovering to record levels much faster after the 2016 compared to the 1998 nino peak. Either warming is accelerating or UAH has changed or both.

I had said earlier that I think it is unlikely that a new annual record in the UAH dataset would occur this year. I might have to eat my words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TheClimateChanger said:

Wow! Looks like it's only 0.01C below the anomaly for February 2016, for second highest of any month. Given the global temperature peaks during northern hemisphere summer, I would assume it's safe to say either July or August of this year was easily the highest absolute temperature of any month in the satellite record.

Also worth noting that El Nino temperature peaks invariably occur in the first half of the year following the inception of the El Nino event, so we almost certainly will see these values continue to go up. Dr. Spencer may need to raise the y-axis if this keeps up.

The 3-digit file says 2016/02 is 0.705 which rounds up to 0.71, but that has updated yet so it may round down to 0.70 C now.

Anyway, yeah, my model says the ENSO contribution is 0.14 * ONI lagged 4 months. 2016/02 had a contribution of 0.14 * 2.4 = 0.34 C while 2023/08 only had a contribution of 0.14 * 0.2 = 0.03 C. I think it is a good bet that the previous record will be broken even with a less intense El Nino.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bdgwx said:

The 3-digit file says 2016/02 is 0.705 which rounds up to 0.71, but that has updated yet so may be it now rounds down to 0.70 C.

Anyway, yeah, my model says the ENSO contribution is 0.14 * ONI lagged 4 months. 2016/02 had a contribution of 0.14 * 2.4 = 0.34 C while 2023/08 only had a contribution of 0.14 * 0.2 = 0.03 C. I think it is a good bet that the previous record will be broken even with a less intense El Nino.

Another way of looking at it. 2015 is the enso analog to this year but 2015 had somewhat higher oni. UAH averaged 0.14 in 2015. This year is averaging 0.31, but should end up near or above the 0.39 record; which mplies strong warming over the past 8 years.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nick Stokes just updated his dataset for August. It came in at 1.12 C. A blend of this, JRA, and ERA implies that GISTEMP will come in at 1.24 ± 0.06 C.  Here is my updated analysis.

Jan: 0.87 ± 0.01 C (3m lagged ENSO -0.99)

Feb: 0.98 ± 0.01 C (3m lagged ENSO -0.90)

Mar: 1.20 ± 0.01 C (3m lagged ENSO -0.86)

Apr: 1.00 ± 0.01 C (3m lagged ENSO -0.71)

May: 0.93 ± 0.01 C (3m lagged ENSO -0.46)

Jun: 1.08 ± 0.01 C (3m lagged ENSO -0.11)

Jul: 1.18 ± 0.02 C (3m lagged ENSO +0.14)

Aug: 1.24 ± 0.06 C (3m lagged ENSO +0.46)

Sep: 1.18 ± 0.21 C (3m lagged ENSO +0.84)

Oct: 1.18 ± 0.22 C (3m lagged ENSO +1.02)

Nov: 1.19 ± 0.23 C (3m lagged ENSO +1.30)

Dec: 1.18 ± 0.24 C (predicted 3m lagged ENSO +1.35)

2023 Average: 1.099 ± 0.05 

Probability of >= 1.02 is near 100% (new record)

Probability of >= 1.03 is 99%

Probability of <= 1.01 is near 0%

Probability of between 1.02 and 1.04 is 2%

Probability of between 1.05 and 1.07 is 15%

Probability of between 1.08 and 1.10 is 43%

Probability of >= 1.11 is 40% 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those checking the Kalshi global heat market bands my model is saying there are roughly equal chances of either GISTEMP coming at 1.08 to 1.10 vs 1.11 or above. It looks like the market made a big adjustment toward this conclusion today though it is still underweighting them and overweighting the 1.05 to 1.07 band just slightly. It does appear that the Kalshi market is starting to behave a bit more like sophisticated modelers are arbitrating the prices now so opportunities may be getting limited and harder to find.

I will say that I still think my model may be underestimating the GISTEMP annual mean. The issue is that I have trained the model on historical data and I don't currently have a parameter being ingested that could act as a good proxy for a potential acceleration in the warming rate. And seeing as global SSTs are still running well above the previous record that reinforces my suspicion. I'll see if I can get the CERES EEI ingested and see what that does to the model, but the technical complication is that CERES data only goes back to the early 2000's and the model is trained starting in 1979. I have some ideas on how to deal with that though.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And here is the evolution of my predictions for the annual mean GISTEMP value as posted in this thread.

06/08: 1.05 ± 0.09

06/16: 1.06 ± 0.08

07/13: 1.062 ± 0.07

07/19: 1.060 ± 0.07

08/14: 1.075 ± 0.06 

08/25: 1.083 ± 0.05 

09/05: 1.099 ± 0.05 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At Burlington, the past 13 years (2010-2022) have averaged almost 4 degrees warmer than the 1961-1990 mean. The coldest year of the past 13 is nearly 2 degrees warmer than the 1961-1990 average. Once 2023 (currently 2nd warmest on record) gets added into the mix, these numbers will go even higher!

The 1961-1990 averages were what was considered normal as recently as 2000 and 2001. The last 13, going on 14, years are now warmer than the late 20th century (1961-1990) climate of Albany, New York (mean: 47.5), and approaching that of Scranton, Pennsylvania (mean: 49.1). In just two decades, the climate of Burlington, Vermont has teleported hundreds of miles south and is now on par with a late 20th century climate of southern New York and northeast Pennsylvania. And I'm not playing games by comparing it with mountains at a lower latitude. I'm strictly using low elevation sites for a fair comparison.

I mean this is just incredible... the coldest June, August, September, and October of the past 13 years is warmer than the mean from 1961-1990. The coldest July of the past 13 years is just 0.2 degrees below the 1961-1990 mean, while the coldest December is only 0.6F cooler than the 1961-1990 mean. 

The lying press won't report this. You won't hear the news reporting that temperatures in lower elevations of Vermont are now comparable to what was considered normal in Pennsylvania just a couple decades ago. This is what a climate emergency looks like.

Burlington, Vermont (1961-1990)

image.png.ee705e9cb9a2563cb14b97b7f3d25aa1.png

Burlington, Vermont (2010-2022)

image.png.a9170bc29ea3d8f47172a1f01b73697e.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...