2014 Global Temperatures

[blizzard1024]

I think the hint that there is something wrong with it is that it doesn't jibe with all the other datasets. Occam's razor and all that (it's either this single dataset is flawed, or pretty much all the other ones are). Why, physically, the discrepancy? I can't say. But I can say that if all the well-known, well-regarded, and independently calculated datasets show one thing, and the CFS consistently shows something else entirely, then I'm going to consider the CFS dataset as the outlier... I think any reasonable scientist would do the same.

 

 

That is fair enough...but still not scientifically satisfying.

[The_Global_Warmer]

I'd start with the fact that there is no Time of day bias correction with CFS. It is a reanalysis model that averages temperatures four times per day together each day 00z, 06z, 12z, 18z as output.

[Jonger]

I'd start with the fact that there is no Time of day bias correction with CFS. It is a reanalysis model that averages temperatures four times per day together each day 00z, 06z, 12z, 18z as output.

 

Why would be continue to correct for this in 2014?

[blizzard1024]

I'd start with the fact that there is no Time of day bias correction with CFS. It is a reanalysis model that averages temperatures four times per day together each day 00z, 06z, 12z, 18z as output.

 

The TOB bias does not apply to CFS data. It is a model that average temperatures 4 times a day. In fact that is probably a more "robust" average than the Tmax + TMin /  2 approach. It's probably why it diverges from the other datasets to some extent.  If you think about it, a daily temperature average really is a summation of temperatures for all times from midnight to midnight divided by the total increments of time as that time goes to zero...an integral. So the CFS is more mathematical close to a real average and could be one reason for the divergence. I am not sure about the satellite data. I assume they use a similar potentially even more rigorous averaging than the very simplistic Tmax + Tmin / 2 of the most widely accepted average global temperature.  It is also interesting that satellites also show less warming trend too. So in a sense, the most often quoted "average" global temperature really isn't an average at all by definition and as a result is subject to TOB which is a big issue.

[ORH_wxman]

The TOB bias does not apply to CFS data. It is a model that average temperatures 4 times a day. In fact that is probably a more "robust" average than the Tmax + TMin /  2 approach. It's probably why it diverges from the other datasets to some extent.  If you think about it, a daily temperature average really is a summation of temperatures for all times from midnight to midnight divided by the total increments of time as that time goes to zero...an integral. So the CFS is more mathematical close to a real average and could be one reason for the divergence. I am not sure about the satellite data. I assume they use a similar potentially even more rigorous averaging than the very simplistic Tmax + Tmin / 2 of the most widely accepted average global temperature.  It is also interesting that satellites also show less warming trend too. So in a sense, the most often quoted "average" global temperature really isn't an average at all by definition and as a result is subject to TOB which is a big issue.

 

 

The satellites are way closer to the sfc datasets than the CFS reanalysis is. The CFS actually shows quite a bit of warming from 1980-2005...but where it diverges the most is the steep cooling trend from 2005-present rather than more of a flat line or very slight cooling that the other datasets have.

 

 

I'm not sure the actual reason behind this....but I do know that the CFS is not peer reviewed as an operational global temperature dataset for uses of trends. It is merely meant for reanalyzing the weather at any given time. We've amanged to correct the CFS's difference in the short range in this forum in terms of predicting what GISS would say.

 

You should really start another thread for the CFS inquiries though as they are going beyond the scope of just 2014 global temps which is what this thread is supposed to be focusing on.

[chrisf97212]

A year ago I would have argued that solar variability could explain most of the warming over the 20th Century. However, it's become increasingly apparent that it is no longer a dominant factor. While it probably played an important role in the 1880-1910 cooling, and the early-20th century warming trend, it lost importance during the late-20th Century. This can be seen with the continued energy imbalance, continued rising sea levels, and continued ocean heat content gain even during low solar activity. There is no plausible explanation for this if solar variability were a dominant factor in late-20th Century climate change. That's why, according to Ogurtsov et al., that a factor had perturbed the climate system over the last 20 or so years that had not been previously active over the past 1000 years. The best explanation for that, is the rise in greenhouse gas emissions and other anthropogenic forcings.

 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-0459.2011.00002.x/abstract

 

I wouldn't totally discount solar activity.  There's an unpredicted hiatus that roughly coincides with the drop in solar activity.  I often hear that the models weren't wrong, they just didn't account for solar drop and aerosols.

[The_Global_Warmer]

I wouldn't totally discount solar activity.  There's an unpredicted hiatus that roughly coincides with the drop in solar activity.  I often hear that the models weren't wrong, they just didn't account for solar drop and aerosols.

 

He isn't. He is saying in spite of the unpredicted drop in solar the Earths heat uptake hasn't responded in a way that would show solar as the predominant climate driver.  The only feasible explanation is that GHG forcing and feedback's are currently the strongest climate driver.

 

It doesn't mean CAGW is on the way.  But it ensures warming isn't going to stop as long as GHGs continue to rise.

[Mallow]

The satellites are way closer to the sfc datasets than the CFS reanalysis is. The CFS actually shows quite a bit of warming from 1980-2005...but where it diverges the most is the steep cooling trend from 2005-present rather than more of a flat line or very slight cooling that the other datasets have.

 

 

I'm not sure the actual reason behind this....but I do know that the CFS is not peer reviewed as an operational global temperature dataset for uses of trends. It is merely meant for reanalyzing the weather at any given time. We've amanged to correct the CFS's difference in the short range in this forum in terms of predicting what GISS would say.

 

You should really start another thread for the CFS inquiries though as they are going beyond the scope of just 2014 global temps which is what this thread is supposed to be focusing on.

 

Thanks, Will, well put.

[The_Global_Warmer]

CFS has warmed back up to .1 to .2C on the dailies.  The monthly is up to 0.56C+.  Given the AAO about to plunge a big warmup should come to Antarctica.  We typically see a strong signal on CFS data when this happens to warmer global temps.  Combined with recent SSTS.  I think July will slowly warm.

 

AMSU channel 6 has been virtually tied with 2010 for warmest on record.  So I'd presume the sats will have a top 3 warmest July.

 

[tacoman25]

AMSU channel 6 has been virtually tied with 2010 for warmest on record.  So I'd presume the sats will have a top 3 warmest July.

 

 

We're halfway through the month. Just sayin.

[The_Global_Warmer]

NH ssta have already broken 2013's record.

 

Driven by record ssta in the NPAC as well.

 

 

[StudentOfClimatology]

CFS has warmed back up to .1 to .2C on the dailies. The monthly is up to 0.56C+. Given the AAO about to plunge a big warmup should come to Antarctica. We typically see a strong signal on CFS data when this happens to warmer global temps. Combined with recent SSTS. I think July will slowly warm.

AMSU channel 6 has been virtually tied with 2010 for warmest on record. So I'd presume the sats will have a top 3 warmest July.

It's important not to obsess over every little blip in the data. Re: AMSU, we're not at 2010 levels, save a few short blips. Makes sense too, due to the big El Niño in 2009-10:

Here's the CFS, no real change overall since Oct/Nov 2013 as the Niño thus far has failed to materialize:

[The_Global_Warmer]

Since November of 2013.

 

GISSTEMP is averaging 65.23C+.  The yearly record is .66C in 2010 and 2005 attm.

 

So no change = record warmth.

 

2014 threw the first 6 months is running at .65C slightly below a full years record.

 

In 2012 and 2013 the SON period averaged .69C+.  While July of last year and 2012 were only around .50 and .52C.

 

As it stands right now Weatherbell would predict a GISS July of .62-.63C+.  Which would be in the top 5 warmest July's on record.  Given the impending -AAO we are likely to see a spike again in global temps.

 

 

It is going to take a much cooler SOND period this year versus recent years to not break the GISS record.

[tacoman25]

Since November of 2013.

 

GISSTEMP is averaging 65.23C+.  The yearly record is .66C in 2010 and 2005 attm.

 

So no change = record warmth.

 

2014 threw the first 6 months is running at .65C slightly below a full years record.

 

In 2012 and 2013 the SON period averaged .69C+.  While July of last year and 2012 were only around .50 and .52C.

 

As it stands right now Weatherbell would predict a GISS July of .62-.63C+.  Which would be in the top 5 warmest July's on record.  Given the impending -AAO we are likely to see a spike again in global temps.

 

 

It is going to take a much cooler SOND period this year versus recent years to not break the GISS record.

 

GISS is one data source, and on the warmest end of the spectrum.

[nflwxman]

It's important not to obsess over every little blip in the data. Re: AMSU, we're not at 2010 levels, save a few short blips. Makes sense too, due to the big El Niño in 2009-10:

Here's the CFS, no real change overall since Oct/Nov 2013 as the Niño thus far has failed to materialize:

Yeah I don't think it's obssessing per say when we are on pace for a record warm year without the help of a true niño. Not sure what you are getting at.

[nflwxman]

GISS is one data source, and on the warmest end of the spectrum.

HadCrut and Noaa are right there too. Not sure why all the downplaying here.

[StudentOfClimatology]

Yeah I don't think it's obssessing per say when we are on pace for a record warm year without the help of a true niño. Not sure what you are getting at.

The record hinged on the development of a heavy Niño. Without one, we lose the anomalous tropical circulation + convective scheme that accelerates systematic heat release into the NH winter, where the wave train will be growing as the inter-tropical convergence zone moves southward.

The current Niño attempt was/is still a large systematic heat release from the WPAC. It won't continue unless we see a more favorable circulation develop in the tropics, leading to more KW action (Niño).

The only dataset that looks to have a realistic shot now is GISS. Maybe NCDC can pull it off, but the statistics incorporating weaker Niños suggest we fail to attain the record. The HADCRUT, UAH, and RSS are unlikely to accomplish it.

The SH is largely dominated by the AAO, so there's less seasonal volatility in their anomalies

[tacoman25]

HadCrut and Noaa are right there too. Not sure why all the downplaying here.

 

Downplaying? I gave facts: GISS is one source, and it is the warmest. NCDC and especially HadCRUT are not likely to set a record, and UAH and RSS almost certainly won't.

 

Would you feel better if everyone acted like GISS is the be all, end all?

[The_Global_Warmer]

The SOND period has warmed substantially without NINOs thanks to continued warming over the NH.

 

I doubt this year is going to be any different.

 

NCDC is likely to break it's own record as well.

 

UAH is likely to be 3rd or 4th warmest on it's dataset.

[StudentOfClimatology]

I'd give NCDC a 50/50 chance at this point. I want to see how August/September run though. If they both turn out near the top, that's suggest a record is possible.

[The_Global_Warmer]

The NCDC record is 2010 with .66C+. 2005 is second at .65C+.

So far on the year 2014 thru May is .66C+.

I would expect June to be about .66C to .70C+.

Higher than GISS for sure because of limited pole coverage.

If we go into fall with a weak to moderate niño I think both giss, ncdc, and potentially Hadcrut will break records because SSTS are so warm.

If sone how the tropics go ENSO negative it would be a lot tougher.

UAH years 1 and 2 are 2010 and 1998. And are out of reach now. 3rd and 4th is 2005 and 2013.

I would currently go with a 90% chance to beat 2013 and 45% to beat 2005.

Barring a Nina I think 2015 will challenge UAHs record or at least blow by 2005.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Yeah I don't think it's obssessing per say when we are on pace for a record warm year without the help of a true niño. Not sure what you are getting at.

IIRC orh told me there is a 2-4 month Ssta lag with UAH and LT temps.

So we are still well behind any peak LT warming on the sat data.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Regardless if pulling a record out of 2014 on any data set there is a clear warming trend again.

If 2014 doesn't end up qualifying for Nino status. It will be the warmest ENSO neutral year on any data set.

[nflwxman]

Downplaying? I gave facts: GISS is one source, and it is the warmest. NCDC and especially HadCRUT are not likely to set a record, and UAH and RSS almost certainly won't.

 

Would you feel better if everyone acted like GISS is the be all, end all?

You are aware that NCDC, NOAA, and HadCrut4 all came within 1/100 of a degree Celsius above the 1981-2010 baseline last year (2013)?  The surface data sets all are fairly close when the poles are not drastically above average (as in 2012).  

 

http://www2.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/publications/bulletin-of-the-american-meteorological-society-bams/bams-state-of-the-climate-2013/?utm_source=pr&utm_medium=pcon&&utm_campaign=stateofclimate2013

 

The 2013 "State of the Climate Report" outlines this fairly well.

 

To outline at present (through May 2014):

 

GISS is <0.01 degrees C  below it's annual record.

 

NCDC is <0.01 degrees C above it's annual record.

 

HadCrut4 is <0.03 degrees C below it's annual record.

 

 

According to the GISS data set, the June-December period has warmed 3.4x FASTER than the January-May period since 1999.  With a bubbling nino and the above statistic, there is certainly a greater than 50% chance that all 3 break the record this year.

 

So i'll ask again- what's with all the downplaying?

[tacoman25]

I don't think it's wise to expect the surface data sets to be warmer the rest of the year. I think a lot of that trend since 1999 is related to the numerous Ninas since then. Jan-Apr many years has seen the lingering cooling effect from -enso, but then sstas warm in the summer, which has led to warmer anomalies Jul-Nov.

This year, it appears we saw ssta peak in the spring. Much different than most years since 1999.

[nflwxman]

I don't think it's wise to expect the surface data sets to be warmer the rest of the year. I think a lot of that trend since 1999 is related to the numerous Ninas since then. Jan-Apr many years has seen the lingering cooling effect from -enso, but then sstas warm in the summer, which has led to warmer anomalies Jul-Nov.

This year, it appears we saw ssta peak in the spring. Much different than most years since 1999.

I'm not sure how you can claim that ssta peak this year.  Based on what?  I'd be willing to bet we get our ssta peak later this year.  The northern hemisphere's waters are warming quickly without the help of ENSO.  Look at 2009-2010, the peak happened as the nino took off in late fall.  

 

I think the evidence and statistics support a warmer 2nd half of the year than the first. Caveats included.

 

[tacoman25]

ENSO ssta have the largest impact on global temps. That's what I was referring to.

[StudentOfClimatology]

Assuming this warming will continue past September will require an El Niño of some sort. This year's relative SSTA warmth is so far 100% a result of the North Pacific, which is very warm as a result of the anomalous ridging there since 2013. If we go into a +EPO or we see Aleutian troughing, that warmth will no longer be a factor. We need something more.

The fairly common SSTA peaks in June-September since 2003 (except 2004/2007/2010) are a result of increased arctic ice melt and broadening Hadley cells

[The_Global_Warmer]

Thinking SSTA have peaked already is very wishful thinking and nothing more.

 

the arctic is now starting to contribute as as well as the NATL.

 

 

[StudentOfClimatology]

Statistically, it is generally the case for SSTs to speak in the June-September period (barring a big ENSO) due to the recent enhancement of Arctic ice melt and broad summer season Hadley cells due to global warming reduced the thermal gradient above 25-30N. In the NH, it has been the case in all but 3 years since 2001, and those 3 years all featured a heavy ENSO

So, why should 2014 be any different?