2013 Global Temperatures

[ORH_wxman]

I don't think predicting global temperature monthly anomalies before the month starts is particularly easy if you are trying to get it inside a 0.10C range.

[nzucker]

So far my predictions have been f****** dog *%#^.

That's what happens when you respectin' that sweet sweet lady a bit much. 

[The_Global_Warmer]

  Something we both agree on is your green bold in your sig.

 

:tomato:

 

That's what happens when you respectin' that sweet sweet lady a bit much. 

[The_Global_Warmer]

After an initial drop last week during the ENSO cooling.  Global sst's dropped a fair amount.  This past week they leveled out and bumped up  bit.

 

 

ENSO 1-2, and 3 has remained quite cool.  Those are pretty stout cool anomaly's.  The Indian Ocean has warmed considerably in the mean time.

 

 

I thought the positive OLR anomaly's represented more clear skies, promoting warmth?

 

 

 

[ORH_wxman]

The weatherbell maps stopped cooling finally going from -0.042C to -0.041C for the month...so pretty safe to assume about a -0.04C anomaly for May (well it was fairly safe before, but now its pretty much a lock).

 

This would put the weatherbell anomaly almost dead on with April, so we should expect a GISS anomly somewhere in the +0.45-+0.55C range. April was +0.50C on GISS FWIW.

[icebreaker5221]

After an initial drop last week during the ENSO cooling.  Global sst's dropped a fair amount.  This past week they leveled out and bumped up  bit.

 

ENSO 1-2, and 3 has remained quite cool.  Those are pretty stout cool anomaly's.  The Indian Ocean has warmed considerably in the mean time.

 

 

I thought the positive OLR anomaly's represented more clear skies, promoting warmth?

 

 

 

It can, but it can also go the other way around.

 

Upwelling winds -> cooler SSTs -> less convection along ITCZ, which is seen as a positive OLR anomaly

[GaWx]

 I'd like to see some opinions about the attached graph of global temp. anomalies that use a base of 1981-2010 and was generated based on the CFS2 by Dr. Ryan Maue. This suggests that there has been ~0.40 C of cooling since the last Nino. After a sharp drop in mid-2010, it has been oscillating around the zero anomaly. If the globe is supposedly still in a warming state, why does this show an oscillation centering on zero 1981-2010 anomaly for the last three years? Also, could the weak sun, which has been weak overall for the past five years, be playing a significant part in holding back warming against the warming force of AGW?

 

 Any comments, whether they be from the warming side, the nonwarming side, or neutral would be appreciated.

[Snow_Miser]

 I'd like to see some opinions about the attached graph of global temp. anomalies that use a base of 1981-2010 and was generated based on the CFS2 by Dr. Ryan Maue. This suggests that there has been ~0.40 C of cooling since the last Nino. After a sharp drop in mid-2010, it has been oscillating around the zero anomaly. If the globe is supposedly still in a warming state, why does this show an oscillation centering on zero 1981-2010 anomaly for the last three years? Also, could the weak sun, which has been weak overall for the past five years, be playing a significant part in holding back warming against the warming force of AGW?

 

 Any comments, whether they be from the warming side, the nonwarming side, or neutral would be appreciated.

 

4 years is a really small timeframe to draw meaningful conclusions from, but it's certainly possible that the -PDO/Quiet Sun may at least be partly responsible for the trend.

[ORH_wxman]

 I'd like to see some opinions about the attached graph of global temp. anomalies that use a base of 1981-2010 and was generated based on the CFS2 by Dr. Ryan Maue. This suggests that there has been ~0.40 C of cooling since the last Nino. After a sharp drop in mid-2010, it has been oscillating around the zero anomaly. If the globe is supposedly still in a warming state, why does this show an oscillation centering on zero 1981-2010 anomaly for the last three years? Also, could the weak sun, which has been weak overall for the past five years, be playing a significant part in holding back warming against the warming force of AGW?

 

 Any comments, whether they be from the warming side, the nonwarming side, or neutral would be appreciated.

 

 

The CFS anomalies are also biased cold verses the 1981-2010 anomalies when compared to other datasets. I think its by a tenth or two.

[skierinvermont]

Gawx, the CFS is not an accurate representation of global temperature. It is a model which shows less warming than has been observed. Iirc it shows almost no warming 1981 to 2010 when observations show the earth warmed rapidly. relying on it for trends is not accurate. There is a relationship between it and observed temperature but this relationship changes over time. Only by usin the recent relationship have will and I and others been able to use it to predict the observed anomalies before they are released.

[Snow_Miser]

Gawx, the CFS is not an accurate representation of global temperature. It is a model which shows less warming than has been observed. Iirc it shows almost no warming 1981 to 2010 when observations show the earth warmed rapidly. relying on it for trends is not accurate. There is a relationship between it and observed temperature but this relationship changes over time. Only by usin the recent relationship have will and I and others been able to use it to predict the observed anomalies before they are released.

 

Will has shown that it is a good predictor of Global Temperature, when applying the correct adjustments. It has a cool bias by 0.1-0.2 Degrees C on the same baseline, but it's not a bad predictor of Global Temperatures.

[ORH_wxman]

Will has shown that it is a good predictor of Global Temperature, when applying the correct adjustments. It has a cool bias by 0.1-0.2 Degrees C on the same baseline, but it's not a bad predictor of Global Temperatures.

 

 

He said it wasn't an accurate "representation" which is true.

 

We can use it to predict the temp anomaly, but it doesn't mean its good for representing global temps. I think the spacial anomalies are decent.

[skierinvermont]

The point is you should not use it for trends.

[ORH_wxman]

UAH for May: +0.07C

[Snow_Miser]

UAH for May: +0.07C

 

Roughly consistent with the CFS values being the same from last month.

 

Came in as the 14th warmest May. Relatively cool compared to the last 15 years, and consistent with the current hiatus period.

[Snow_Miser]

Whenever someone posts the Skeptical Science Escalator chart again, show them this chart:

 

 

This chart shows that the length of this hiatus has not been seen since the early 1970s.

[ORH_wxman]

 

Roughly consistent with the CFS values being the same from last month.

 

Came in as the 14th warmest May. Relatively cool compared to the last 15 years, and consistent with the current hiatus period.

 

I wouldn't expect UAH to always be consistent with weatherbell maps since they aren't measuring the same thing.

[ben4vols]

Whenever someone posts the Skeptical Science Escalator chart again, show them this chart:

 

 

This chart shows that the length of this hiatus has not been seen since the early 1970s.

 

I'll give a link to the blog post where that graph is found.  It was really well done.  Bob really did a masterful job and obviously put a lot of time and effort into it. 

 

LINK TO FULL ARTICLE

[Jonger]

Whenever someone posts the Skeptical Science Escalator chart again, show them this chart:

 

 

This chart shows that the length of this hiatus has not been seen since the early 1970s.

 

John Cooks entire "escalator joke" is one big stair to begin with. He picked 1970-2012. 

[Snow_Miser]

John Cooks entire "escalator joke" is one big stair to begin with. He picked 1970-2012. 

 

Agree. It's pretty remarkable that we haven't seen a hiatus period like this in 40+ years. So this is unusual to say the least.

[Snow_Miser]

 

 

I wouldn't expect UAH to always be consistent with weatherbell maps since they aren't measuring the same thing.

 

I wonder if there is any degree of correlation between UAH temperature anomalies and the CFS Temperatures? The CFS temperature anomaly was not a bad predictor for the UAH Temperature for May at least.

[Snow_Miser]

I'll give a link to the blog post where that graph is found.  It was really well done.  Bob really did a masterful job and obviously put a lot of time and effort into it. 

 

LINK TO FULL ARTICLE

 

Agree. It is a fantastic article.

[bluewave]

Agree. It's pretty remarkable that we haven't seen a hiatus period like this in 40+ years. So this is unusual to say the least.

 

Pretty much par for the course when the PDO turns negative. 

 

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Staff/Fasullo/my_pubs/Meehl2011etalNCC.pdf

 

 

There have been decades, such as 2000–2009, when the observed globally averaged surface-temperature time series  shows little positive or even slightly negative trend1 (a hiatus period). However, the observed energy imbalance at the  top-of-atmosphere for this recent decade indicates that a  net energy flux into the climate system of about 1 W m−2  (refs 2,3) should be producing warming somewhere in the  system4,5 . Here we analyse twenty-first-century climate-model  simulations that maintain a consistent radiative imbalance at

the top-of-atmosphere of about 1 W m−2 as observed for the past decade. Eight decades with a slightly negative global mean  surface-temperature trend show that the ocean above 300 m  takes up significantly less heat whereas the ocean below 300 m takes up significantly more compared with non-hiatus decades.  The model provides a plausible depiction of processes in the climate system causing the hiatus periods, and indicates that a  hiatus period is a relatively common climate phenomenon and

may be linked to La Niña-like conditions.

[ORH_wxman]

I wonder if there is any degree of correlation between UAH temperature anomalies and the CFS Temperatures? The CFS temperature anomaly was not a bad predictor for the UAH Temperature for May at least.

 

 

Its not bad...but there are months where its totally out of synch. March 2011 is one. June of last year. Those months where UAH/RSS end up a lot different than the surface datasets.

 

For the year as a whole, it will probably correlate well.

[Snow_Miser]

Pretty much par for the course when the PDO turns negative. 

 

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Staff/Fasullo/my_pubs/Meehl2011etalNCC.pdf

 

 

There have been decades, such as 2000–2009, when the 2 observed globally averaged surface-temperature time series 3 shows little positive or even slightly negative trend1 (a hiatus 4 period). However, the observed energy imbalance at the 5 top-of-atmosphere for this recent decade indicates that a 6 net energy flux into the climate system of about 1 W m−2 7 (refs 2,3) should be producing warming somewhere in the 8 system4,5 . Here we analyse twenty-first-century climate-model 9 simulations that maintain a consistent radiative imbalance at

10 the top-of-atmosphere of about 1 W m−2 as observed for the 11 past decade. Eight decades with a slightly negative global mean 12 surface-temperature trend show that the ocean above 300 m 13 takes up significantly less heat whereas the ocean below 300 m 14 takes up significantly more compared with non-hiatus decades. 15 The model provides a plausible depiction of processes in the 16 climate system causing the hiatus periods, and indicates that a 17 hiatus period is a relatively common climate phenomenon and

18 may be linked to La Niña-like conditions.

 

Yep. So we can probably expect this to continue for at least 10-20 years based off of just the PDO alone.

[bluewave]

Yep. So we can probably expect this to continue for at least 10-20 years based off of just the PDO alone.

 

The temps will really take off again especially during the +PDO phases over the next century.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110918144941.htm

 

To track where the heat was going, Meehl and colleagues used a powerful software tool known as the Community Climate System Model, which was developed by scientists at NCAR and the Department of Energy with colleagues at other organizations. Using the model's ability to portray complex interactions between the atmosphere, land, oceans, and sea ice, they performed five simulations of global temperatures.

The simulations, which were based on projections of future greenhouse gas emissions from human activities, indicated that temperatures would rise by several degrees during this century. But each simulation also showed periods in which temperatures would stabilize for about a decade before climbing again. For example, one simulation showed the global average rising by about 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit (1.4 degrees Celsius) between 2000 and 2100, but with two decade-long hiatus periods during the century.

[Snow_Miser]

The temps will really take off again during the +PDO phases over the next century for an estimated 1.4 C rise.

 

To track where the heat was going, Meehl and colleagues used a powerful software tool known as the Community Climate System Model, which was developed by scientists at NCAR and the Department of Energy with colleagues at other organizations. Using the model's ability to portray complex interactions between the atmosphere, land, oceans, and sea ice, they performed five simulations of global temperatures.

The simulations, which were based on projections of future greenhouse gas emissions from human activities, indicated that temperatures would rise by several degrees during this century. But each simulation also showed periods in which temperatures would stabilize for about a decade before climbing again. For example, one simulation showed the global average rising by about 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit (1.4 degrees Celsius) between 2000 and 2100, but with two decade-long hiatus periods during the century.

 

Despite increasing anthropogenic forcing over the late-20th Century, the early-20th Century PDO-induced accelerated warming had a very similar rate of temperature increase to the late-20th Century PDO-induced accelerated warming. I think that ~2 Degrees C above Preindustrial times by 2100 is too high IMO.

[bluewave]

Despite increasing anthropogenic forcing over the late-20th Century, the early-20th Century PDO-induced accelerated warming had a very similar rate of temperature increase to the late-20th Century PDO-induced accelerated warming. I think that ~2 Degrees C above Preindustrial times by 2100 is too high IMO.

 

But you can see how during this -PDO the global temperatures are not experiencing a drop like we saw after 1945.

This time around the OHC is increasing much faster along with the CO2 levels so it's not too much of a stretch

to think that the next 100 years will see a greater temperature rise than the last century.

 

 

[The_Global_Warmer]

It looks Antarctica was really cool as well as Eastern/Southern Africa. 

 

And obviously parts of North America. 

 

I'd like to see if any month on UAH ever was this cool with global ssts as high as the are.

 

With a neutral ENSO of course.

 

Pretty impressive. 

[Jonger]

Despite increasing anthropogenic forcing over the late-20th Century, the early-20th Century PDO-induced accelerated warming had a very similar rate of temperature increase to the late-20th Century PDO-induced accelerated warming. I think that ~2 Degrees C above Preindustrial times by 2100 is too high IMO.

 

But you can see how during this -PDO the global temperatures are not experiencing a drop like we saw after 1945.

This time around the OHC is increasing much faster along with the CO2 levels so it's not too much of a stretch

to think that the next 100 years will see a greater temperature rise than the last century.

 

 

Just for curiosity, if the arctic ocean is removed from this global land and sea surface chart, what does the anomaly look like. I'm guessing arctic amplification is responsible for most of that warming.