2014 Global Temperatures

[Jonger]

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.

 

 

 

I might be crazy, but don't SSTA usually peak around July-Sept time frame? 

[The_Global_Warmer]

Peak weeks for NH SSTA:

 

2005: Last week of August/First week of September

2006: Last week of August

2007: Last week of August

2008: Last week of August

2009: Last week of August

2010: Last week of August

2011: Last week of August/First week of September

2012: Last week of August

2013: Last week of August

 

 

 

Currently we are updated thru the 1st/2nd week of July.

[frosty]

Despite C0² rising, global temps continue to stagnate and have done for over 17years now.

This continues to be a thorn in the carbon tax and carbon related AGW brigade.

A slumbering sun over the coming years is likely to highlight this even further.

[StudentOfClimatology]

Despite C0² rising, global temps continue to stagnate and have done for over 17years now.

This continues to be a thorn in the carbon tax and carbon related AGW brigade.

A slumbering sun over the coming years is likely to highlight this even further.

The physics of the situation suggest you're mistaken. Are you suggesting that the 1.8W/m^2 of additional radiative forcing has simply vanished into the ethers?

Where does that added energy go? The longer the "pause" continues, the larger the radiative imbalance gets. Eventually we'll probably see another step change in temps, like we saw in 1998

[Snow_Miser]

Where does that added energy go? The longer the "pause" continues, the larger the radiative imbalance gets. Eventually we'll probably see another step change in temps, like we saw in 1998

 

When one looks at the total heat content of the climate system through sea level rise, global warming continues unabated. That means that there is a continued energy imbalance, despite low solar activity.

[The_Global_Warmer]

When one looks at the total heat content of the climate system through sea level rise, global warming continues unabated. That means that there is a continued energy imbalance, despite low solar activity.

 

quite a bit of the SLR in the mid 2000s to now is from land ice loss which overlapped the slower OHC growth decently.

 

Recently OHC is expected to be contributing more into that pot.  We had an adjustment in 2012.  I think this year is going to see SLR deviate from the trend line more than we have seen before.

 

 

 

This is only updated thru mid Feb the last few updates saw big jumps in SLR.  We know from mid Feb thru parts of June equatorial OHC explodes.  This coincides with a change from nina to nino like conditions atmospheric wise.  SSTA going up to weekly records at times the last two months.  hadcrut recorded it's warmest May or June IIRC.

 

This also coincides with the NH land ice melt season.  I won't be surprised to see reaadings in the 75-80MM range on this graphic some point this year.

 

[Snow_Miser]

CFS so far this month is at +0.06 Degrees C. That means that as of now, we can expect an anomaly for GISS for July to be between +0.61 and +0.66 Degrees C. Of course this is subject to change, since a little over a third of the month still needs to be registered.. and there is some uncertainty "predicting" the GISS temperature anomaly via the CFS reanalysis, but right now, it's looking fairly likely for a July GISS anomaly above +0.60 Degrees C. 

[tacoman25]

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.

I already said I meant enso ssta.

[nflwxman]

I already said I meant enso ssta.

We'll see. The Euro and CFS still like a late fall 3.4 peak. At this point, who knows with ENSO forecasting...

[The_Global_Warmer]

Global ssta are noticeably on the climb again.  Especially over the SH.

 

But the North Pacific in spite of the failing wanna be nino is at record warmth.  While the region between the equator and 30N isn't deeper red it's still a huge area of above normal waters. 

 

We have already eclipsed last years peak anomalies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Isotherm]

The physics of the situation suggest you're mistaken. Are you suggesting that the 1.8W/m^2 of additional radiative forcing has simply vanished into the ethers?

Where does that added energy go? The longer the "pause" continues, the larger the radiative imbalance gets. Eventually we'll probably see another step change in temps, like we saw in 1998

 

 

Radiative forcing is only one portion of the entire climate system equation though. The real question is not whether Co2 will induce an additional radiative forcing, but will that radiative forcing actually translate into a measurable increase in surface temperatures, traceable to CO2? There are numerous radiative forcing mechanisms in our climate systems yet also many feedbacks, that must be taken into account for the total energy budget. However, even assuming that, a radiative imbalance of the Earth cannot be assumed to directly cause a significant increase in global temperature. Earth's climate system is not determined by only the total energy budget. Not as easy as "more incoming energy than outgoing, therefore, temperatures must skyrocket." If it were that simple, there wouldn't be thousands of peer-reviewed studies debating the mainstraim / IPCC ideas with regards to the percent of anthropogenic contribution to temperature rise.

[Snow_Miser]

Radiative forcing is only one portion of the entire climate system equation though. The real question is not whether Co2 will induce an additional radiative forcing, but will that radiative forcing actually translate into a measurable increase in surface temperatures, traceable to CO2? 

 

We know that without feedbacks, Carbon Dioxide causes about a 3.7 w/m^2 forcing per doubling, and that leads to about a 1.1 Degree C warming, since Earth radiates at a rate of 3.3 w/m^2/Degree C increase without any feedbacks. However there is a good amount of evidence that net feedbacks are weakly to strongly positive.. somewhere along the 1.5-4.5 K range. The question is where the exact ECS lies. Many papers recently have been coming in with a sensitivity between 1.5-2.5 K, but those sensitivities might be sensitive to the recent decadal slowdown in surface temperature increase. Other papers are in the 1.5-2.5 K range by constraining paleoclimate sensitivity. Paleoclimate is a good way we can constrain ECS to 1.5-4.5 K, since we have a good idea as to what caused past deglaciation cycles. 

[tacoman25]

We know that without feedbacks, Carbon Dioxide causes about a 3.7 w/m^2 forcing per doubling, and that leads to about a 1.1 Degree C warming, since Earth radiates at a rate of 3.3 w/m^2/Degree C increase without any feedbacks. However there is a good amount of evidence that net feedbacks are weakly to strongly positive.. somewhere along the 1.5-4.5 K range. The question is where the exact ECS lies. Many papers recently have been coming in with a sensitivity between 1.5-2.5 K, but those sensitivities might be sensitive to the recent decadal slowdown in surface temperature increase. Other papers are in the 1.5-2.5 K range by constraining paleoclimate sensitivity. Paleoclimate is a good way we can constrain ECS to 1.5-4.5 K, since we have a good idea as to what caused past deglaciation cycles. 

 

I don't know if it is "good" evidence. It's certainly not observable. We've seen CO2 increasing for over 100 years now, with very little observed positive feedbacks. Other than that, you're basically talking theoreticals...still.

[ORH_wxman]

The TCR studies are becoming more popular versus ECS now that more climate scientists have admitted that ECS may not be on timescales as short as they thought.

 

TCR estimates are also more relevant to policy construction since it is dealing with the next 60-70 years.

[Snow_Miser]

I don't know if it is "good" evidence. It's certainly not observable. We've seen CO2 increasing for over 100 years now, with very little observed positive feedbacks. Other than that, you're basically talking theoreticals...still.

 

 

 

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v491/n7426/full/nature11574.html

 

There is plenty observational evidence from past climate change for net positive feedback. 

[tacoman25]

There is plenty observational evidence from past climate change for net positive feedback. 

 

Sorry, but I don't put reconstructed paleo on par with actual observations.

[AvantHiatus]

Sorry, but I don't put reconstructed paleo on par with actual observations.

This is the only way to know, as James Hansen would say, to understand the effects on a timescale that people care about. Granted 15 years may seem like decent TCR, it's still relatively too short to draw conclusions, barring further interactions with natural oscillations.

 

The unprecedented rate of additional CO2 forcing should give one pause

[chubbs]

I don't know if it is "good" evidence. It's certainly not observable. We've seen CO2 increasing for over 100 years now, with very little observed positive feedbacks. Other than that, you're basically talking theoreticals...still.

 

Based on? CO2 has increased 32% in past 100 years while surface temperature has increased 0.8 to 1.0C. Of course this is simplistic because there are other GHG, aerosals and a host of natural factors. Still data is consistent  with positive feedback.

 

              Hadcrut  GISS   CO2

     1913   -0.44    -0.39    300

     2013    0.49      0.61    396

     Delta    0.93     1.00     32%

[Snow_Miser]

Sorry, but I don't put reconstructed paleo on par with actual observations.

 

Paleoclimate data is an observed reconstruction of temperatures. It is far from theoreticals. Say what you want about it, but there is useful information that can be determined from paleoclimate data such as climate sensitivity. Net positive feedback isn't just supported from paleoclimate data. We also observe a distinct radiative signature in the upper troposphere, consistent with a strong positive water vapor feedback. 

 

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/310/5749/841.abstract

 

[Snow_Miser]

Based on? CO2 has increased 32% in past 100 years while surface temperature has increased 0.8 to 1.0C. Of course this is simplistic because there are other GHG, aerosals and a host of natural factors. Still data is consistent  with positive feedback.

 

              Hadcrut  GISS   CO2

     1913   -0.44    -0.39    300

     2013    0.49      0.61    396

     Delta    0.93     1.00     32%

 

It's also simplistic in the sense that it assumes that temperature equilibrium to a forcing is instantaneous. There could still be additional warming yet to be realized from that increased 32%. 

[tacoman25]

Based on? CO2 has increased 32% in past 100 years while surface temperature has increased 0.8 to 1.0C. Of course this is simplistic because there are other GHG, aerosals and a host of natural factors. Still data is consistent  with positive feedback.

 

              Hadcrut  GISS   CO2

     1913   -0.44    -0.39    300

     2013    0.49      0.61    396

     Delta    0.93     1.00     32%

 

Actually, the rate of warming observed so far (assuming it is 100% from CO2, which you admit it probably isn't) is more consistent with straight radiative forcing, than positive feedbacks kicking in.

 

Remember, in looking at that 1913 to 2013 period, there was nearly as much warming from 1910-1940 as there was from 1980-2010. Considering that CO2 increased markedly in the second half of the 20th century, if positive feedbacks were playing much of a role, don't you think the warming in more recent decades would be accelerating?

[The_Global_Warmer]

The warming in the 2nd half of the 20th century is much higher even with cherry picking from the volcanic induced cool down during the early 20th century. 

 

4? La Soufrière^[1] 1902 1,680   4 Mount Pelée^[2] 1902 33,000 Deadliest eruption of the 20th century. 6? Santa María^[3] 1902 6,000   4 Grímsvötn^[4] 1903     4 Mount Lolobau^[5] 1904     5 Ksudach^[6] 1907     4 Mount Lolobau^[7] 1911     6 Novarupta^[8] 1912   Largest eruption of the 20th century. 5 Colima^[9] 1913    

 

 

[ORH_wxman]

Actually, the rate of warming observed so far (assuming it is 100% from CO2, which you admit it probably isn't) is more consistent with straight radiative forcing, than positive feedbacks kicking in.

 

Remember, in looking at that 1913 to 2013 period, there was nearly as much warming from 1910-1940 as there was from 1980-2010. Considering that CO2 increased markedly in the second half of the 20th century, if positive feedbacks were playing much of a role, don't you think the warming in more recent decades would be accelerating?

 

 

This is the crux of the papers more recently that argue for lower TCR and perhaps ECS. The slower temp rise recently (or fairly comparable if you compare larger timeframes like you did 1910-1940 and 1980-2010) occurs at a time when it is the least likely to occur because CO2 forcing is much higher than it was back then.

 

It is also generally supported by the literature that a significant portion of the 1910-1940 warming was not anthropogenic. This also lowers TCR/ESC estimates based on observational records. Additionally, if you add in that according to multiple papers, as much as 30-50% of the 1976-2005 warming was aided by ENSO processes, then that would argue against "accelerating warming" even more. Thus, providing still more support for a lower TCR.

[StudentOfClimatology]

The HADSST3 data shows the two warmings fairly well. I'm curious about what may have been the culprit behind the 1910-1945 warming:

[The_Global_Warmer]

This is the crux of the papers more recently that argue for lower TCR and perhaps ECS. The slower temp rise recently (or fairly comparable if you compare larger timeframes like you did 1910-1940 and 1980-2010) occurs at a time when it is the least likely to occur because CO2 forcing is much higher than it was back then.

 

It is also generally supported by the literature that a significant portion of the 1910-1940 warming was not anthropogenic. This also lowers TCR/ESC estimates based on observational records. Additionally, if you add in that according to multiple papers, as much as 30-50% of the 1976-2005 warming was aided by ENSO processes, then that would argue against "accelerating warming" even more. Thus, providing still more support for a lower TCR.

 

 

Assuming warming is slower.  What does it matter?  Eventually the cryosphere will destabilize and GIS will melt out completely without GHG levels returning to pre-industrial levels.  Humans are dead set on burning thru every last bit of coal, oil, tar sands oil, anything we get out of the arctic. 

 

The temps rising 1-2C by the early 22nd century will still destabilize the cryosphere, still cause GIS to have accelerated melt, still cause all land ice to eventually melt away.

 

How can anyone argue inaction as if 1-2C of global warming versus 2-4C is some saving grace.  It's a position I quite frankly can't understand.

[ORH_wxman]

The HADSST3 data shows the two warmings fairly well. I'm curious about what may have been the culprit behind the 1910-1945 warming:

 

 

 

It's kind of cloudy topic on that period...but the best I have gathered from the literature is that it was probably a combination of CO2 forcing (there was still some, just not as much as later), low volcanic activity, increasing solar activity, and ocean oscillations (more positive ENSO and a transition from negative to positive AMO)...some papers place different levels of attribution on each factor, but it seems to be a combo of them.

[ORH_wxman]

Assuming warming is slower.  What does it matter?  Eventually the cryosphere will destabilize and GIS will melt out completely without GHG levels returning to pre-industrial levels.  Humans are dead set on burning thru every last bit of coal, oil, tar sands oil, anything we get out of the arctic. 

 

The temps rising 1-2C by the early 22nd century will still destabilize the cryosphere, still cause GIS to have accelerated melt, still cause all land ice to eventually melt away.

 

How can anyone argue inaction as if 1-2C of global warming versus 2-4C is some saving grace.  It's a position I quite frankly can't understand.

 

 

Seriously?

 

The speed of the warming maters a ton. We adapt much better to a slower rate of warming vs a massive change in global temps. Past paleoclimate history suggests that we didn't respond well to fast temperature changes such as the Younger Dryas or even further back when Toba erupted (a supervolcano).

 

Slower warming means more time for adaptation and potential technological solutions. It's a much prettier picture than the faster warming alternative.

 

 

If we are talking on scales of eventualities...then why are we not concerned about the next ice age? That will kill so many more people than sea level gradually rising a few feet. We should preparing to stop the absolute terrifying power of an advancing glacial ice sheet....even if its way past when we die. Right?

[The_Global_Warmer]

Seriously?

 

The speed of the warming maters a ton. We adapt much better to a slower rate of warming vs a massive change in global temps. Past paleoclimate history suggests that we didn't respond well to fast temperature changes such as the Younger Dryas or even further back when Toba erupted (a supervolcano).

 

Slower warming means more time for adaptation and potential technological solutions. It's a much prettier picture than the faster warming alternative.

 

 

If we are talking on scales of eventualities...then why are we not concerned about the next ice age? That will kill so many more people than sea level gradually rising a few feet. We should preparing to stop the absolute terrifying power of an advancing glacial ice sheet....even if its way past when we die. Right?

 

 

So you are comparing humans wrecking the Earth thru Mans own manipulation to uncontrollable forces of nature? Is that how you rationalize it?

 

This is 100% on us.  I am sorry you can't come to grips with that. 

 

Who has to adapt? Do you?  Obviously not.  So as long as other humans have to adapt and you get to keep your kush life it's all good? 

 

Are you going to tell me a nuclear blast is no different then an asteroid destroying a city if the outcomes are similar?

 

This is 100 percent on human beings.  Comparing it to natural disasters is total bull **** and a nice cop out.

[StudentOfClimatology]

It's kind of cloudy topic on that period...but the best I have gathered from the literature is that it was probably a combination of CO2 forcing (there was still some, just not as much as later), low volcanic activity, increasing solar activity, and ocean oscillations (more positive ENSO and a transition from negative to positive AMO)...some papers place different levels of attribution on each factor, but it seems to be a combo of them.

I could be wrong, but I suspect we're missing a larger, more singular forcing or feedback...I'm just not sure what it is. I think we can rule out solar too, as it wasn't until the 40s/50s when the Sun got active..and by that time the temperature was cooling again. Even if all the stars aligned to produce the 1910-1945 warming (statistically unlikely), current simulations still tend to under-sell it.

Given the GISP2 cores reveal a slew of rapid warmings/coolings on a periodic basis, to me it suggests strong positive feedbacks are at work on an overlapping scale, and are probably internal in nature.

[ORH_wxman]

So you are comparing humans wrecking the Earth thru Mans own manipulation to uncontrollable forces of nature? Is that how you rationalize it?

 

This is 100% on us.  I am sorry you can't come to grips with that. 

 

Who has to adapt? Do you?  Obviously not.  So as long as other humans have to adapt and you get to keep your kush life it's all good? 

 

Are you going to tell me a nuclear blast is no different then an asteroid destroying a city if the outcomes are similar?

 

This is 100 percent on human beings.  Comparing it to natural disasters is total bull **** and a nice cop out.

 

 

You are now going onto a whole new tangent. Nothing is beng "Rationalized". You asked if it "mattered" whether we warm slowly or not and basically said it didn't matter what the rate of warming was.

 

I said it did matter because we can adapt much better to a slower warming rate.

 

 

Talking about how much we should blame ourselves and feel terrible is completely irrelevant to the topic of TCR or how well we adapt. Go start a thread in the politics forum if you want to do that.