2014 Global Temperatures

[skierinvermont]

I agree. 1. Any build up of OHC is not necessarily released. 2. The build up doesn't look all that big to me. 3. I'm not even sure the detection system has the accuracy or precision to say for sure that a build up has occurred at all. 

 

I also don't think CH4 or CO2 levels are very relevant. The earth already has a massive energy imbalance of .5W/m2. An extra few tenths ppm of CO2 and an extra few ppb of methane bumps up the imbalance from like .5W/m2 to like .51W/m2. 

 

The key factor is short term variability.. mostly ENSO. 

[The_Global_Warmer]

And AGW. We have seen ohc go up a lot in 2013.

It was very warm SSTS wise. Still is. UAH and giss were warm for ENSO state.

And there has been no sign at all of it being some fluke.

Cfs is at .115C for January so far. We already had a -.3 ONI last update then ENSO 3-4 dropped quick and it's still very warm globally.

It sounds like people expect this hiatus to never end. We have a lot of reasons to expect the opposite.

It's looking like January will finish around .65c on giss.

Global Ssta back up to .21C even though ENSO 3-4 has cooled a whole lot.

This is expected.

[AvantHiatus]

Physics and mathematics prove that we will inevitably move out of the hiatus era that has persisted since 1998. The key questions and unknown factors are currently when and how quickly?

 

In my opinion, our understanding of the ECS (Earth Climate Sensitivity) is not quite adequate to be forecasting into the next century. It is my understanding that Earth amplifies even the slightest variables. You could start out with 100 tg/year arctic methane release (this is like 30% of human methane emissions) and then exponentially increase down the road.

 

One has to consider water vapor feedbacks, especially when we start losing larger tracts of sea and land ice. Older studies were convinced there would be more cloud formation thus less warming. We now know about stratospheric water vapor and similar processes that lead to less clouds in a warmer world.

 

2014 is a key year, many are thinking 2020's and I think that is a bit conservative.

 

Here is a recent study that is related to what has been discussed here. It is my understanding that OHC buildup could possibly lead to one of these events in the future.

 

Climate Change Could Double Likelihood of Super El Ninos

 

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/climate-change-could-make-super-el-ninos-more-likely-16976

[nflwxman]

Physics and mathematics prove that we will inevitably move out of the hiatus era that has persisted since 1998. The key questions and unknown factors are currently when and how quickly?

 

In my opinion, our understanding of the ECS (Earth Climate Sensitivity) is not quite adequate to be forecasting into the next century. It is my understanding that Earth amplifies even the slightest variables. You could start out with 100 tg/year arctic methane release (this is like 30% of human methane emissions) and then exponentially increase down the road.

 

One has to consider water vapor feedbacks, especially when we start losing larger tracts of sea and land ice. Older studies were convinced there would be more cloud formation thus less warming. We now know about stratospheric water vapor and similar processes that lead to less clouds in a warmer world.

 

2014 is a key year, many are thinking 2020's and I think that is a bit conservative.

 

Here is a recent study that is related to what has been discussed here. It is my understanding that OHC buildup could possibly lead to one of these events in the future.

 

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/climate-change-could-make-super-el-ninos-more-likely-16976

I'm really having trouble grasping why people are calling it a "hiatus."  GISS has 0.08 C/decade increase (might be closer to 0.1 C/decade when SST adjustments are made).  I wish we could all just get past this because the idea of the "hiatus" is more media driven than reality, IMO.

[ORH_wxman]

I'm really having trouble grasping why people are calling it a "hiatus."  GISS has 0.08 C/decade increase (might be closer to 0.1 C/decade when SST adjustments are made).  I wish we could all just get past this because the idea of the "hiatus" is more media driven than reality, IMO.

 

 

You can change it to like 2001 and call it a 12-13 year hiatus if 1998 is annoying you personally. Regardless it still doesn't change that it is becoming a large discrepency in the climate models and it wasn't expected without the benefit of hindsight.

[bluewave]

Physics and mathematics prove that we will inevitably move out of the hiatus era that has persisted since 1998. The key questions and unknown factors are currently when and how quickly?

 

In my opinion, our understanding of the ECS (Earth Climate Sensitivity) is not quite adequate to be forecasting into the next century. It is my understanding that Earth amplifies even the slightest variables. You could start out with 100 tg/year arctic methane release (this is like 30% of human methane emissions) and then exponentially increase down the road.

 

One has to consider water vapor feedbacks, especially when we start losing larger tracts of sea and land ice. Older studies were convinced there would be more cloud formation thus less warming. We now know about stratospheric water vapor and similar processes that lead to less clouds in a warmer world.

 

2014 is a key year, many are thinking 2020's and I think that is a bit conservative.

 

Here is a recent study that is related to what has been discussed here. It is my understanding that OHC buildup could possibly lead to one of these events in the future.

 

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/climate-change-could-make-super-el-ninos-more-likely-16976

 

The flip side of that is stronger La Ninas also as the planet continues to warm.

 

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/disappearing-el-nino-throws-a-wrench-in-noaas-winter-outlook-15134

 

“This year’s winter outlook has proven to be quite challenging largely due to an indecisive El Niño,” Halpert said. The demise of El Niño stands out when looking at the historical record that stretches back 60 years. During that time there has never been a similar case in which water temperatures warmed so much during August, and yet El Niño conditions failed to take hold, Halpert said.

 

Monday, October 28, 2013: New research shows El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) phenomena have been more active and intense during the 30-year period between 1979-2009 than at any time during the past 600 years.

At the same time, this result suggests that the intensity and activity of El Niño and La Ninas appears to increase as global average temperatures increase.

The results of this new research, published in Climate of the Past, is a significant step towards understanding where current ENSO activity sits in the context of the past according to researchers from UNSW’s Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science, the University of Hawaii International Pacific Research Centre and the NOAA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory.

 “Our research suggests in a warming world we are likely to see more extreme El Niño and La Nina events, which over the past decade in Australia have been related to extreme flooding, persistent droughts and dangerous fire seasons,” said lead author Dr Shayne McGregor from UNSW

“Importantly, this study not only tells us how ENSO activity has behaved in the past in relation to global average temperature, it also opens the window for climate models to be able to estimate more accurately how this activity will change in the future."

The researchers used a newly defined method they had developed and measurements from lake sediment and old coral cores along with tree rings across a wide variety of locations to determine how ENSO events had changed across the Pacific over hundreds of years. From these proxies, the researchers were able to determine the state of the climate over a wide area at the same time, revealing changes in ENSO activity. 

As part of the research, the team brought together the different proxy reconstructions of past climate and, where the time periods of these proxies overlapped with current instrumental data, used these periods to determine how accurately they represented contemporary ENSO activity.

Once the effectiveness of the proxies was confirmed the researchers used this information to extrapolate the climate and activity of ENSO over the past 600 years.

They then further tested the robustness of this approach by comparing their real-world data with that produced by two multi-century-long climate model simulations.

“By applying these observations and finding which climate models reproduce past changes, we will have a better idea of which climate models are more likely to reproduce the ENSO response to climate change in the future," said co-author Prof Matt England from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science.

While the research shows how external warming factors have impacted ENSO cycles, one important question remains.

“We still don't know why. Understanding this relationship will be vital to help us get a clear idea of the future changes to global climate," said Dr McGregor.

Paper: Inferred changes in El Niño–Southern Oscillation variance over the past six centuries

[ORH_wxman]

And AGW. We have seen ohc go up a lot in 2013.

It was very warm SSTS wise. Still is. UAH and giss were warm for ENSO state.

And there has been no sign at all of it being some fluke.

Cfs is at .115C for January so far. We already had a -.3 ONI last update then ENSO 3-4 dropped quick and it's still very warm globally.

It sounds like people expect this hiatus to never end. We have a lot of reasons to expect the opposite.

It's looking like January will finish around .65c on giss.

Global Ssta back up to .21C even though ENSO 3-4 has cooled a whole lot.

This is expected.

 

 

 

OHC doesn't matter for surface temps. I'm still not sure why you are obsessed with it for 2014 temps. Unless you know something the rest of the community doesn't on when the ocean will decide to release its built up heat.

 

 

ENSO and solar are by far the two dominant variables in short term temperature forecasts. ENSO is likely going to warm some this year but it is too early to tell if it will be enough to be a large factor. We have had somewhat increased solar activity the past couple years which should be manifesting itself at the surface now with the typical lag...so it is reasonable to expect 2014 to be a touch warmer than 2013 IMHO. If we throw a hundreth or two on top for an underlying AGW trend, then you have a bit more of a difference from 2013.

[AvantHiatus]

I'm really having trouble grasping why people are calling it a "hiatus."  GISS has 0.08 C/decade increase (might be closer to 0.1 C/decade when SST adjustments are made).  I wish we could all just get past this because the idea of the "hiatus" is more media driven than reality, IMO.

0.1c/decade? At that rate we would have observed only 1 C in a century. It's so obvious that we are in a hiatus caused by the combined effects of a la nina/-PDO era and reduced solar forcings on-top of pollution sulfates.

 

Infact, I think the Earth's energy imbalance is now ridiculously large because of the last 10 or so years. It's something like 0.75 w/m2.

 

 

 

Measured Earth energy imbalance, +0.58 W/m² during 2005-2010, implies that the aerosol forcing is about -1.6 W/m², a greater negative forcing than employed in most IPCC models. We discuss multiple lines of evidence that most climate models employed in these earlier studies had moderately excessive ocean mixing, which could account for the fact that they achieved a good fit to observed global temperature change with a smaller aerosol forcing.

[bluewave]

OHC doesn't matter for surface temps. I'm still not sure why you are obsessed with it for 2014 temps. Unless you know something the rest of the community doesn't on when the ocean will decide to release its built up heat.

 

 

ENSO and solar are by far the two dominant variables in short term temperature forecasts. ENSO is likely going to warm some this year but it is too early to tell if it will be enough to be a large factor. We have had somewhat increased solar activity the past couple years which should be manifesting itself at the surface now with the typical lag...so it is reasonable to expect 2014 to be a touch warmer than 2013 IMHO. If we throw a hundreth or two on top for an underlying AGW trend, then you have a bit more of a difference from 2013.

 

Especially when the increasing segment is the deep ocean sequestering the heat.

 

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/website-archive/trenberth.papers-moved/Balmaseda_Trenberth_Kallen_grl_13.pdf

 

 

[Trenberth et al., 2002]. Meehl et al. [2011] have demonstrated in a model study how La Niña events and negative PDO events could cause a hiatus in warming of the top 300 m while sequestering heat at deeper layers

 

[nflwxman]

0.1c/decade? At that rate we would have observed only 1 C in a century. It's so obvious that we are in a hiatus caused by the combined effects of a la nina/-PDO era and reduced solar forcings on-top of pollution sulfates.

 

Infact, I think the Earth's energy imbalance is now ridiculously large because of the last 10 or so years. It's something like 0.75 w/m2.

It doesn't matter if it's 1 degree a century or 5.  "Hiatus" in this case is a misnomer on it's face in several ways.  I realize that reduced forcing (solar) and increased heat intake (PDO) has influenced that rate, but it clearly has not stopped warming despite that.  Hiatus is dangerous word in the media (less so in the scientific community) due to the fact people are generally ignorant on this topic.

[bluewave]

It doesn't matter if it's 1 degree a century or 5.  "Hiatus" in this case is a misnomer on it's face in several ways.  I realize that reduced forcing (solar) and increased heat intake (PDO) has influenced that rate, but it clearly has not stopped warming despite that.  Hiatus is dangerous word in the media (less so in the scientific community) due to the fact people are generally ignorant on this topic.

 

Most people outside the professional climate community could care less about global warming anyway. We could be rising

at a much faster rate and it wouldn't matter since our whole global economy is based on constant expansion of a

carbon based fuel economy. People in the climate community need to stop walking on eggshells and realize

that no matter what they say the leaders are going to do what's best for the short term bottom line. The current

global economy is taking the cheapest and dirties path right now with the expansion coal burning in East Asia,

India, and even Germany as they wind down their nuke plants and renewables can't bridge the gap.

[AvantHiatus]

Most people outside the professional climate community could care less about global warming anyway. We could be rising

at a much faster rate and it wouldn't matter since our whole global economy is based on constant expansion of a

carbon based fuel economy. People in the climate community need to stop walking on eggshells and realize

that no matter what they say the leaders are going to do what's best for the short term bottom line. The current

global economy is taking the cheapest and dirties path right now with the expansion coal burning in East Asia,

India, and even Germany as they wind down their nuke plants and renewables can't bridge the gap.

Burning the vast majority of carbon fuels in current reserves is an end-game path for industrial civilization. We have to speak out even if the most dangerous effects do not happen until the 22nd century.

[nflwxman]

Most people outside the professional climate community could care less about global warming anyway. We could be rising

at a much faster rate and it wouldn't matter since our whole global economy is based on constant expansion of a

carbon based fuel economy. People in the climate community need to stop walking on eggshells and realize

that no matter what they say the leaders are going to do what's best for the short term bottom line. The current

global economy is taking the cheapest and dirties path right now with the expansion coal burning in East Asia,

India, and even Germany as they wind down their nuke plants and renewables can't bridge the gap.

I don't disagree in theory.  You do have to admit, the "hiatus" terminology has been somewhat damaging to the reputation of climate science in the public domain.  Ultimately it will be pure economics that stops the rise in CO2, but i'm not sure that misinformation helps the situation.

 

I work in the wind energy industry, and I have to dispel the fallacy of "global warming ended" pretty consistently at public meetings.

[ORH_wxman]

1998 is a silly starting point for "hiatus" since firstly, the temp trend is still positive from that point (except RSS) and two, it starts at a strong El Nino.

 

 

2001 is the real starting point...no matter what dataset is used (NCDC not able to be listed here, but it would also agree), you get a flat line

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The term "hiatus" is more popular in media than it should be only because the certainty of global warming projections were overstated a decade ago....which has been a common theme in climate science. Overstating confidence is never a good thing for science in general. Then when certain observations start forming holes that confidence, the pendulum swings the other way and people will overstate the errors and lack of confidence.

[AvantHiatus]

In retrospect, using 1998 as the start date was somewhat mistaken. It makes sense and is not unexpected that temperatures would drop after a super el nino, as occured in 1998-1999.

 

My key points right now are more or less implying that the 0.10c/decade rate will increase substantially in coming years. "Hiatus" was not meant to imply warming has stopped rather the rate had fallen below expected increases.

 

However, according to several studies current temperatures are still within range of climate model predictions. So all in all very interesting developements and this "AGW pause" may have been over-hyped by the media and common person.

 

[The_Global_Warmer]

OHC doesn't matter for surface temps. I'm still not sure why you are obsessed with it for 2014 temps. Unless you know something the rest of the community doesn't on when the ocean will decide to release its built up heat.

 

 

ENSO and solar are by far the two dominant variables in short term temperature forecasts. ENSO is likely going to warm some this year but it is too early to tell if it will be enough to be a large factor. We have had somewhat increased solar activity the past couple years which should be manifesting itself at the surface now with the typical lag...so it is reasonable to expect 2014 to be a touch warmer than 2013 IMHO. If we throw a hundreth or two on top for an underlying AGW trend, then you have a bit more of a difference from 2013.

 

I see an 8-16 month lag between OHC and surface temps. We will see if it works.

 

How come you won't vote in the temp thread?

[The_Global_Warmer]

Weatherbell dropped on the dailies down to .12C probably gong to drop a lot with the arctic plunge over the CONUS.

 

It is up to .124C on the monthlies.

 

 

I think CFS could go below 0C on the dailies for a few days.  But I don't expect it to be long lived.  There is a lot of warming over the Tropics and SH.

 

 

[AvantHiatus]

Surprised at recent changes in the past few days. Large tracts of the Southern Hemisphere and ENSO ocean regions warmed by 0.5 C or so. At least according to that source. Last week Nino 3.4 was almost completely below normal.

[StudentOfClimatology]

In retrospect, using 1998 as the start date was somewhat mistaken. It makes sense and is not unexpected that temperatures would drop after a super el nino, as occured in 1998-1999.

My key points right now are more or less implying that the 0.10c/decade rate will increase substantially in coming years. "Hiatus" was not meant to imply warming has stopped rather the rate had fallen below expected increases.

I don't like ORH's starting point of 2001 because it is too short...we'd need to see the hiatus last at least 20-25 years before making extraordinary claims. Relatively minor changes in atmospheric circulation can have a significant short term impact on global temps, while the system continues to accumulate heat below the equilibrium threshold.

If the current pause in atmospheric warming lasts another 10 years, then we have some problems. But as of right now, there is nothing to suggest that predictions will fail..

[Jonger]

In retrospect, using 1998 as the start date was somewhat mistaken. It makes sense and is not unexpected that temperatures would drop after a super el nino, as occured in 1998-1999.

 

My key points right now are more or less implying that the 0.10c/decade rate will increase substantially in coming years. "Hiatus" was not meant to imply warming has stopped rather the rate had fallen below expected increases.

 

However, according to several studies current temperatures are still within range of climate model predictions. So all in all very interesting developements and this "AGW pause" may have been over-hyped by the media and common person.

 

 

You have nothing to base this upon besides hope... It could just as well creep upward or flat line for another decade or so. Keep in mind, the longer the hiatus, the worse the models look... CO2 has increased drastically in the time that the land surface stopped warming, so it should be harder and harder to maintain a flat-line according to your explanation of AGW.

[AvantHiatus]

You have nothing to base this upon besides hope... It could just as well creep upward or flat line for another decade or so. Keep in mind, the longer the hiatus, the worse the models look... CO2 has increased drastically in the time that the land surface stopped warming, so it should be harder and harder to maintain a flat-line according to your explanation of AGW.

I have already outlined my reasons above, no need to explain myself again. There is no hope involved just obvious logical reasoning and trends. You really think that temps will keep flat-lining when we keep torching on a 0.75 w/m2 energy imbalance? The ocean will eventually just give in before we have reached the next +PDO.

[nflwxman]

1998 is a silly starting point for "hiatus" since firstly, the temp trend is still positive from that point (except RSS) and two, it starts at a strong El Nino.

 

 

2001 is the real starting point...no matter what dataset is used (NCDC not able to be listed here, but it would also agree), you get a flat line

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The term "hiatus" is more popular in media than it should be only because the certainty of global warming projections were overstated a decade ago....which has been a common theme in climate science. Overstating confidence is never a good thing for science in general. Then when certain observations start forming holes that confidence, the pendulum swings the other way and people will overstate the errors and lack of confidence.

Well, thats the issue exactly.  Uncertainty levels and confidence intervals are stated front and center in most peer reviewed science articles.  At this point, we are still in the confidence interval for such a short period of time.  However, the media and the public in general never pay attention to uncertainties (like in weather forecasting for example) simply because they want to be spoon-fed numbers.

 

I think my diatribe here is less about posters on this board and more about the lack of scientific awareness of the general public, which leaves them easily manipulated.  

[The_Global_Warmer]

Surprised at recent changes in the past few days. Large tracts of the Southern Hemisphere and ENSO ocean regions warmed by 0.5 C or so. At least according to that source. Last week Nino 3.4 was almost completely below normal.

 

I know.  I am glad I am not the only one who noticed.  Let me see if I saved one and can throw up a before and after.

 

 

This is the 17th and 20th. The NPAC is cooling but that is a much smaller region that the huge regiojns of warmth.  We will probably sky rocket well above .25C+ on the next update.  Maybe near .30C.  This is the time of year SSTA start there rise. 

 

CFS went back up to .15C on the dailies at the 12z update.  That is .125C on the month.  Which is a .68(.62-.72) equivalent so far. 

 

 

Look at that Indian Ocean warming too.  that is big time ocean there.  Right on the equatorial region. 

 

We are probably going to be hard pressed to get a month under .60C on GISS in the foreseable future without a major -AO.

[The_Global_Warmer]

You have nothing to base this upon besides hope... It could just as well creep upward or flat line for another decade or so. Keep in mind, the longer the hiatus, the worse the models look... CO2 has increased drastically in the time that the land surface stopped warming, so it should be harder and harder to maintain a flat-line according to your explanation of AGW.

 

 

It's not about hope.  GHG forcing/ocean heat uptake/eventual heat release/albedo changes.  You name it.  It's going to overwhelm the system. And we will see the surface temps respond.

 

 

Yearly OHC 0-700M since 1980.  We have had OHC be pretty slow to rise since 2003/04.  Then in 2005 we pretty much peaked temp wise before solar tanked, the pdo flipped hardcore negative and has stayed there.  And the run of mostly NINA or neg nuetral began.

 

After bottoming out in 2007 OHC has slowly risen and took a major jump in 2013.  Without OHC dropping which it's not going to.  Temps and SSTA will adjust upwards in time with the rise in OHC. 

 

There appears to be about a 8-16 months lag.  It's hard to determine because of weather patterns and their influence on heat uptake.  Never the less we know 0-2000M OHC is sky rocketing.  Which means the heat is not being transfered from 700M up to down.  It's coming in from the surface because 0-700M also jumped a lot this year. 

 

1980 1.090750

1981 0.1222500

1982 -2.305750

1983 -2.763000

1984 -0.4595001

1985 0.1094999

1986 -1.037500

1987 -0.8930001

1988 1.088250

1989 0.9030000

1990 0.1772499

1991 2.645750

1992 0.5714999

1993 0.6837500

1994 1.509750

1995 2.264000

1996 4.544000

1997 3.245000

1998 4.303500

1999 5.943000

2000 5.856500

2001 4.117000

2002 6.788750

2003 9.951750

2004 10.24050

2005 8.411750

2006 10.43025

2007 9.478500

2008 10.05225

2009 10.12600

2010 10.36725

2011 10.86900

2012 10.94075

2013 12.80075

 

 

 

We obviously can't say when and how much the surface will warm without it being pure speculation.  But we know the ssta continue to warm vs the ENSO state.

 

 

Global weekly ssta going back to the week of Dec 28th-Jan 3rd 2013 updated to the most recent update. 

 

 

ENSO anomalies.  There is a clear warming trend taking place globally.  As someone posted earlier UAH 60 month temps are at record highs because we aren't getting "cool".  We don't have to blow out records to be warming. 

 

 

 

We had a tremendous warming period.  And then a drop at the end of the 1940s and another warming period that was almost double the first one.  Then no drop.  You can call it a hiatus or whatever you want.  We can probably attribute it to the combo of a -PDO and the sun.  Maybe aerosols.  Either way we didn't cool off.  In a major NINA year we saw temps drop in 2008. The next NINA had no where near the impact.(not as strong).  Now we are entering year 4 of almost exclusive NINA/Neg neutral conditions and yet temps creeped up. So did OHC. 

 

Now OHC has went up vigorously.  Some of us think another big step up the ladder is iminent. 

 

 

[The_Global_Warmer]

I found one back to Jan 13th.  We are definitely in the middle of a substansial SSTA climb.  Pretty impressive considering the overall temps for January have been running very warm.

 

[ORH_wxman]

I don't like ORH's starting point of 2001 because it is too short...we'd need to see the hiatus last at least 20-25 years before making extraordinary claims. Relatively minor changes in atmospheric circulation can have a significant short term impact on global temps, while the system continues to accumulate heat below the equilibrium threshold.

If the current pause in atmospheric warming lasts another 10 years, then we have some problems. But as of right now, there is nothing to suggest that predictions will fail..

 

 

Disagree completely. There's already peer review evidence that the models suggesting more rapid rises in the TCR are way outside the their confidence intervals for even a 15-20 hindcast from the mid 1990s.

 

That doesn't mean it's a lock that those models will fail in their projections later this century, but I think it is incorrect to state "there is nothing to suggest that predictions will fail". There is already building evidence that the TCR is below the IPCC GCMs. If there was nothing wrong with the GCMs projections, we wouldn't be seeing recent peer reviewed papers on them failing and even the IPCC wouldn't support a TCR that is below their models (like they do in the final draft of AR5) .

[ORH_wxman]

I see an 8-16 month lag between OHC and surface temps. We will see if it works.

 

How come you won't vote in the temp thread?

 

 

The deadline is January 25th...how do you know I won't vote? lol

[AvantHiatus]

I found one back to Jan 13th.  We are definitely in the middle of a substansial SSTA climb.  Pretty impressive considering the overall temps for January have been running very warm.

 

 

What is up with the random pools of 3+ C anomalies. Though it's harder to see these localized pools when SSTA is average together worldwide. Must be some massive high pressure systems or something.

 

Seeing it outside of the arctic is even more impressive, considering arctic amplification and how vulnerable it is to torch up there.

[The_Global_Warmer]

The deadline is January 25th...how do you know I won't vote? lol

 

History? Stubborness?  Mystery? 

 

But really I know you know that it's almost certainly going to be somewhere around .60 to .70C or so on GISS. 

 

 

I will say I think this year could throw us a wild card.  Enso will play a big role in that. 

 

When we look at last year we can see the bolded averaged out to be .567C.

 

The last four months averaged out to be .683C. 

 

2013 63 52 60 48 57 61 53 61 74 61 78 60

 

 

Here is OHC 0-100M comparison for OND 2012 vs 2013.  It's hard to tell but there is some noticible differences in the warmth building up.  One region holding a lot of extra heat is the NATL way up there ENE of GIS.

 

Also NPAC with all the ridging. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think this may be more appropriate.  This is also a three month average so it's hard to know where it stands at the end of 2013. 

 

I wish we had actually chart data at these depths but from the naked eye outside the enso regions there is quite an increase in heat. 

 

Especially the NPAC which has obviously been warm.  But that top 30 meters can be scoured out pretty quickly. 

 

I am writing this in big and bold so you see it.  But could you possible run some OHC 0-700M time series against GISS and UAH?  Especially since argo?

 

 

[The_Global_Warmer]

What is up with the random pools of 3+ C anomalies. Though it's harder to see these localized pools when SSTA is average together worldwide. Must be some massive high pressure systems or something.

 

Seeing it outside of the arctic is even more impressive, considering arctic amplification and how vulnerable it is to torch up there.

 

 

There is.  It looks like the Tropical/mid lat NATL will really warm up this week.  The SATL and South Central Indian ocean looks like it will get a lot of sun.