2014 Global Temperatures

[AvantHiatus]

Hiatus cancel

 

 

A global warming hiatus, also sometimes referred to as a global warming pause^[3] or a global warming slowdown,^[4] is a period of a slower rate of increase of the global mean surface temperature (GMST), the globally average land and sea temperature at the bottom of the troposphere. This can occur during continued global warming of the Earth's climate system when overall energy uptake is balanced by increased subsurface–ocean heat uptake.^[1]

Compared to the long term warming trend, hiatus periods of fifteen years are common in the surface temperature record. The term is currently used to refer to the period since the exceptionally warm year of 1998. While evidence of continued multi-decadal warming is robust, there is considerable variability on annual to decadal scales, so shorter periods of ten or fifteen years can show weaker or stronger trends.^[1] Although the rate of increase in surface temperatures slowed during this period, increasing heat had been trapped in the oceans, at lower depths than previously.^[5]

For many years, those opposed to action on global warming have argued that a hiatus shows that global warming has stopped.^[3] Scientific research has continued into the extent to which it is due to natural variability, and mechanisms which have led to the recent hiatus.

 

 

Effects of oceans[edit]

A study published on August 3, 2014 reported that the rapid warming of the Atlantic Ocean has increased trade winds, thereby cooling temperatures in the Pacific Ocean. This, the study concluded, contributed to the pause because such winds trap heat in the deep ocean.^[19] Another study published later that month found evidence that a cycle of ocean currents in the Atlantic influences global temperatures by sinking large amounts of heat beneath the oceans, and suggested the hiatus might continue for ten more years because each phase of this cycle lasts for thirty years.^[20][4]

 

[The_Global_Warmer]

Weatherbell dailies are close to .40C+ now.

 

Monthly up to .126C+ now.

[Jonger]

All the cold air is over the landmass...

 

Continental landmass anomaly is almost -1.0C now.

[Jonger]

All we allowed to post weatherbell maps?

 

What makes weatherbell different than any other site? Did they specifically ask not to post their maps?

[nflwxman]

All we allowed to post weatherbell maps?

 

What maps weatherbell different than any other site? Did they specifically ask not to post their maps?

Everything posted is from their free site.  You can look yourself.

[The_Global_Warmer]

ORH said not to post them.

[tacoman25]

All the cold air is over the landmass...

 

Continental landmass anomaly is almost -1.0C now.

 

Indeed, the rather static pattern over the NH has not just allowed for record warm SSTA over the North Pacific, but quite the chilly last 11 months for the U.S.

 

 

[The_Global_Warmer]

And yet pertaining to the "global" temperature thread the Earth is torching.

 

[Jonger]

And yet pertaining to the "global" temperature thread the Earth is torching.

 

 

 

Is that 1960-1990?

[The_Global_Warmer]

Is that 1960-1990?

 

 

No, 1981-2010.

[tacoman25]

And yet pertaining to the "global" temperature thread the Earth is torching.

 

 

 

 

 

I was just demonstrating that the same stagnant patterns that have allowed the NH waters to warm so much have also led to impressively persistent cold anomalies over NA.

 

Carry on with torchiness.

[Jesse]

 

I was just demonstrating that the same stagnant patterns that have allowed the NH waters to warm so much have also led to impressively persistent cold anomalies over NA.

 

Carry on with torchiness.

 

You don't take runaway global warming seriously, Jared?

[GaWx]

From JB 8/24/14:

 

http://notrickszone.com/2014/08/24/a-single-meteorologist-explains-what-165-billion-in-government-funded-climate-science-couldnt/

 

Any opinions?

[nflwxman]

From JB 8/24/14:

http://notrickszone.com/2014/08/24/a-single-meteorologist-explains-what-165-billion-in-government-funded-climate-science-couldnt/

Any opinions?

That theory has so many holes in it, but I can start with one.

If the PDO is responsible for most of the warming, why haven't we cooled yet? We've been in the negative PDO regime for years.

I wouldn't take anything Bastardi says about global warming seriously. I don't know why he continues to tarnish his reputation with bad science and theory. He is going to look bad when both 2014 and 2015 come in as top 3 warmest years.

[AvantHiatus]

Even if it was true, obviously we have broken through that phase and CO2 forcings are now overpowering natural oscillations. Remember, the full forcing of CO2 is lagged by about 40 years, so I've read. In 1980, the atmospheric CO2 content was only 335 ppm.

 

One needs to consider CH4 as well. With JB, he likes to rehash the past to confuse people and for pattern recognition.

[StudentOfClimatology]

From JB 8/24/14:

http://notrickszone.com/2014/08/24/a-single-meteorologist-explains-what-165-billion-in-government-funded-climate-science-couldnt/

Any opinions?

No offense, but that's pseudoscience at best. Just pure crap. How can the PDO explain the continuous surge in OHC? The system has clearly accumulated energy..denying this is essentially scientific malpractice

I could see a shift in the global circulations that drive the PDO inadvertently forcing slight variations in the distribution of cloud cover and poleward heat transport, but that wouldn't enough to account for the warming unless we're missing something huge. Even then, the PDO would simply be an after-effect, not a forcing

[GaWx]

That theory has so many holes in it, but I can start with one.

If the PDO is responsible for most of the warming, why haven't we cooled yet? We've been in the negative PDO regime for years.

I wouldn't take anything Bastardi says about global warming seriously. I don't know why he continues to tarnish his reputation with bad science and theory. He is going to look bad when both 2014 and 2015 come in as top 3 warmest years.

 

 Well, we may have cooled based on the attached graph. I think part of the confusion is that he's using this NCEP two meter global temperature graph, which doesn't suggest 2014 to be warm through June vs. the prior ten years. So, if he uses this, he may not have to acknowledge that 2014 and 2015 are within the top 3 warmest years. Is this graph any less accurate than other graphs? If so, based on what? I'm confused..help!!

 

[Harry]

That theory has so many holes in it, but I can start with one.

If the PDO is responsible for most of the warming, why haven't we cooled yet? We've been in the negative PDO regime for years.

I wouldn't take anything Bastardi says about global warming seriously. I don't know why he continues to tarnish his reputation with bad science and theory. He is going to look bad when both 2014 and 2015 come in as top 3 warmest years.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Might be better to have this discussion when the North Pacific looks like this for a few years atleast..

 

 

[Msalgado]

 Well, we may have cooled based on the attached graph. I think part of the confusion is that he's using this NCEP two meter global temperature graph, which doesn't suggest 2014 to be warm through June vs. the prior ten years. So, if he uses this, he may not have to acknowledge that 2014 and 2015 are within the top 3 warmest years. Is this graph any less accurate than other graphs? If so, based on what? I'm confused..help!!

 

Bastardi2meterGlobal.png

 

Well, a true skeptic might wonder why he's using that dataset and ignoring the datasets that actually show the temperature record.  Why do you think he's doing that and why do you think he's picked this dataset instead?  Is this dataset supposed to show a running global temperature?  What do you think?

[GaWx]

Well, a true skeptic might wonder why he's using that dataset and ignoring the datasets that actually show the temperature record.  Why do you think he's doing that and why do you think he's picked this dataset instead?  Is this dataset supposed to show a running global temperature?  What do you think?

 

 This dataset is supposed to show a running global land-sea temperature anomaly based on a 1981-2010 base. I am skeptical of JB's objectivity in general and have noted that in posts at times. However, at the same time, I do have to wonder if this NCEP land-sea graph is one of the more accurate ones. I don't know about the ocean cycles but I do wonder about the much weaker sun over the last 6-7 years vs. the prior 60 years overall. I'm trying to keep an open mind as nothing is set in stone.

[Msalgado]

I've been reading up on the CFS reanalysis data as its come up a couple of times here recently.  The purpose of this dataset seems to be to provide initial conditions for historical forecasts made with various weather models to test them.  The data isn't at that great of a resolution and isn't meant to be used as a climate dataset from what I can tell.  While certain atmospheric parameters may be captured reasonably well, it certainly does not appear that surface temperature is one of them as the departure from actual observational datasets is quite obvious.

 

 

http://rda.ucar.edu/#!pub/cfsr.html

 

JB is using this because he's cherry picked it as something that shows what he wants it to show.  No other dataset shows cooling.  The dataset JB has chosen is not one meant to be used in the way he's using it.  Any scientist looking at what he's doing knows how wrong it is, but the people who listen to him will eat it up I guess.  

[GaWx]

I've been reading up on the CFS reanalysis data as its come up a couple of times here recently.  The purpose of this dataset seems to be to provide initial conditions for historical forecasts made with various weather models to test them.  The data isn't at that great of a resolution and isn't meant to be used as a climate dataset from what I can tell.  While certain atmospheric parameters may be captured reasonably well, it certainly does not appear that surface temperature is one of them as the departure from actual observational datasets is quite obvious.

 

 

http://rda.ucar.edu/#!pub/cfsr.html

 

JB is using this because he's cherry picked it as something that shows what he wants it to show.  No other dataset shows cooling.  The dataset JB has chosen is not one meant to be used in the way he's using it.  Any scientist looking at what he's doing knows how wrong it is, but the people who listen to him will eat it up I guess.  

 

 I'm confident that you're correct in saying JB cherry-picked in choosing this graph since it shows what he wants it to show. On that we agree. What I can't yet dismiss is the possibility that this graph is one of the more accurate ones regarding surface temperatures covering the last ten years despite it standing out. I mean the CFSR isn't junk/garbage. I did read the link to the CFSR. Nothing in there told me I should just dismiss it for accuracy of global surface temp.'s unless Weatherbell has distorted the graph somehow?? I'm not saying they have though. But do we know for sure they haven't at least unintentionally? I'd like to see a graph without Weatherbell's name on it.

[The_Global_Warmer]

The people who can't handle the reality of GHG induced climate change will eat it up.

 

When 2011 and 2012 smashed thru the sea ice records the same crap was done.

 

 

This sums up the character of Joe Bastardi.

 

 

[The_Global_Warmer]

There is a separate thread for this discussion.

 

http://www.americanwx.com/bb/index.php/topic/44087-cfs-dataset-why-is-it-not-a-robust-long-term-dataset/

 

This reminds me of folks using local Alaska ice charts and Steve Goodard using NIC charts out of context in 2012 when real life events were shattering his beliefs.

[Msalgado]

 I'm confident that you're correct in saying JB cherry-picked in choosing this graph since it shows what he wants it to show. On that we agree. What I can't yet dismiss is the possibility that this graph is one of the more accurate ones regarding surface temperatures covering the last ten years despite it standing out. I mean the CFSR isn't junk/garbage. I did read the link to the CFSR. Nothing in there told me I should just dismiss it for accuracy of global surface temp.'s unless Weatherbell has distorted the graph somehow?? I'm not saying they have though. But do we know for sure they haven't at least unintentionally? I'd like to see a graph without Weatherbell's name on it.

 

I don't think WB is changing the data.  The fact remains this is not an observational dataset.  I'm going to trust multiple observational datasets over model output based on observational data.  

[The_Global_Warmer]

Everyone please give the Indian ocean a warm welcome to the Torch party!!

 

Two questions?

 

1.  Will next weeks SSTA update be another record high?

 

 

2.  Over/Under:  Next week's global ssta at .475C?

 

3.  Over/Under:  Next week's global ssta at .500C?

 

4. Will the NH set another weekly record next week?

[Isotherm]

No offense, but that's pseudoscience at best. Just pure crap. How can the PDO explain the continuous surge in OHC? The system has clearly accumulated energy..denying this is essentially scientific malpractice

I could see a shift in the global circulations that drive the PDO inadvertently forcing slight variations in the distribution of cloud cover and poleward heat transport, but that wouldn't enough to account for the warming unless we're missing something huge. Even then, the PDO would simply be an after-effect, not a forcing

 

 

There's significant disagreement in the literature concerning the magnitude of OHC increase. A recent 2014 study indicates a 0.2 +/- 0.1 increase in OHC in the 1992-2011 period. Additionally, there is solid evidence that the deep oceans from 2000m down to 4000m --> bottom have cooled over the past two decades. What would be the cause of this? The top 100m of the oceans have slightly cooled according to this study. Most climate modeling suggested the top layer of the oceans would store heat first, but this does not seem to be occurring, at least yet.

[nflwxman]

I don't think WB is changing the data.  The fact remains this is not an observational dataset.  I'm going to trust multiple observational datasets over model output based on observational data.  

Yeah, but any dataset (like the CFSv2) that shows a strong la nina year of 2008 as warmer than a strong El Nino year of 2010 is probably not one worth using for climate trends.

[The_Global_Warmer]

OHC updated for the AMJ

 

It is the highest on record for the April-June period beating out 2013s record.

 

 

 

[Isotherm]

 I'm confident that you're correct in saying JB cherry-picked in choosing this graph since it shows what he wants it to show.

 

 

 

I don't think he cherry-picked it. He's probably just ignorant of the fact that it cannot/should not be utilized as an accurate and reliable temperature database. Cherry-picking to me involves full knowledge that what you're doing is wrong, and thus purposely choosing to show false information to promulgate a certain agenda.

 

There are people on all sides of the climate debate cherry-picking. Let's be honest. Is JB cherry picking in this case? Maybe, but I think the real reason is ignorance.