2014 Global Temperatures

[StudentOfClimatology]

Secondly what would this "hiatus" look like without the biggest decline in solar forcing in a century?

The last hiatus which you described as 46-76 happened when solar forcing was ramping up and continued to so so until the 1960s.

The start of it coincides with the end of World War 2. Where large portions of global industry would have been crippled. As well as the dawn of mass nuclear testing.

This one has taken place during the PDO bottoming out. Sub tropical and tropic region aerosol production sky rocketing and the sun going quite like it hasn't since the early 20th century.

But even with those things coming together over the same period. NH Spring and Summer snow cover has plummeted regardless of how much falls in winter. Land ice everywhere on Earth has seen a rapid acceleration of ice loss. Global ssts have crushed previous records only held during major nino events without a nino. NH sea ice has been crippled.

It seems to me the effects of GHG forcing continuing to grow faster and faster are accumulating.

If we are using 30 year periods for a hiatus. We have about 20 more years to go.

By 2030-2035 I'd bet GISS is putting out 1.0C+ on average or warmer

Secondly what would this "hiatus" look like without the biggest decline in solar forcing in a century?

The last hiatus which you described as 46-76 happened when solar forcing was ramping up and continued to so so until the 1960s.

The start of it coincides with the end of World War 2. Where large portions of global industry would have been crippled. As well as the dawn of mass nuclear testing.

This one has taken place during the PDO bottoming out. Sub tropical and tropic region aerosol production sky rocketing and the sun going quite like it hasn't since the early 20th century.

But even with those things coming together over the same period. NH Spring and Summer snow cover has plummeted regardless of how much falls in winter. Land ice everywhere on Earth has seen a rapid acceleration of ice loss. Global ssts have crushed previous records only held during major nino events without a nino. NH sea ice has been crippled.

It seems to me the effects of GHG forcing continuing to grow faster and faster are accumulating.

If we are using 30 year periods for a hiatus. We have about 20 more years to go.

By 2030-2035 I'd bet GISS is putting out 1.0C+ on average or warmer

I highly doubt the solar explanation. I posted on this issue earlier today. Also, reconstructions of TSI are inherently difficult and there is widespread disagreement as to how much TSI varies over time.

Because solar activity is higher now than it has been in over a decade, so that component is not relevant anymore. Plus, much of the latest literature has found that the upper-oceanic mixing layer must operate on a 30-50yr response-resolution, as this layer is both deeper than we initially thought, and is heavily influenced by surface wind speeds..it's only very recently that we've had adequate data in that arena. So the 11yr solar cycle probably can't do much.

Here's TSI over the "pause" period, vs NCDC. Doesn't look like the Sun had anything to do with it, at least as far as the 11yr cycle is concerned.

[ORH_wxman]

Secondly what would this "hiatus" look like without the biggest decline in solar forcing in a century?

 

The last hiatus which you described as 46-76 happened when solar forcing was ramping up and continued to so so until the 1960s. 

 

The start of it coincides with the end of World War 2.   Where large portions of global industry would have been crippled.  As well as the dawn of mass nuclear testing. 

 

 

This one has taken place during the PDO bottoming out. Sub tropical and tropic region aerosol production sky rocketing and the sun going quite like it hasn't since the early 20th century. 

 

But even with those things coming together over the same period.  NH Spring and Summer snow cover has plummeted regardless of how much falls in winter.  Land ice everywhere on Earth has seen a rapid acceleration of ice loss.  Global ssts have crushed previous records only held during major nino events without a nino.  NH sea ice has been crippled. 

 

 

It seems to me the effects of GHG forcing continuing to grow faster and faster are accumulating. 

 

If we are using 30 year periods for a hiatus.  We have about 20 more years to go. 

 

By 2030-2035 I'd bet GISS is putting out 1.0C+ on average or warmer

 

 

 

 

 

 

This doesn't have to be a vile blogosphere where alarmists and deniers are the only people commenting...people can actually talk about this stuff without having to completely deny anthropogenic warming or embellish it to unrealistic levels.

 

We should be breaking more and more warm records all the time...this doesn't say much about the magnitude of the warming though. If we warm at 0.1C per decade for the next 70 years, we'll be breaking global temp records fairly consistently, however, that type of warming would be far short of the expected warming.

[StudentOfClimatology]

So if the Hadley cell thing returns to whatever is normal we should expect more Nino's and the arctic to be roasted more?

The Hadley Cells have been migrating poleward and expanding since the late 1970s. There was an abrupt shift noted in the steamfunction/sigma charts from 1976-1978, and another one from 1997-1999. Go to the ESRL site and you can look at this in detail.

The current event, which began in 2012, is opposite in some respects, in that the weakening of the Cells and pseudo-reversal of the relevant downstream ferrel branches is more noteworthy than the migration.

The commonality here is that every event preceded a climate shift of some sort

[The_Global_Warmer]

The Hadley Cells have been migrating poleward and expanding since the late 1970s. There was an abrupt shift noted in the steamfunction/sigma charts from 1976-1978, and another one from 1997-1999. Go to the ESRL site and you can look at this in detail.

The current event, which began in 2012, is opposite in some respects, in that the weakening of the Cells and pseudo-reversal of the relevant downstream ferrel branches is more noteworthy than the migration.

The commonality here is that every event preceded a climate shift of some sort

 

 

Thanks. So cooling commenced after the late 90s one and warming after the late 70s one.

 

What about before that? 

[StudentOfClimatology]

Thanks. So cooling commenced after the late 90s one and warming after the late 70s one.

What about before that?

Data back then isn't good enough, sadly...mostly due to wartime funding shortages. I suspect I could find at least some data if I tried hard enough.

Thing is the 1997-99 event occurred with a rapid global warming. So they all involved warming in some form

[The_Global_Warmer]

This doesn't have to be a vile blogosphere where alarmists and deniers are the only people commenting...people can actually talk about this stuff without having to completely deny anthropogenic warming or embellish it to unrealistic levels.

 

We should be breaking more and more warm records all the time...this doesn't say much about the magnitude of the warming though. If we warm at 0.1C per decade for the next 70 years, we'll be breaking global temp records fairly consistently, however, that type of warming would be far short of the expected warming.

 

 

I wasn't trying to be combative. 

 

I just think different periods of change when the GHG forcing is consistently growing stronger and stronger won't yield the same results.

 

 

We have had at least three major influences work in concert together to have a major influence on the Earths energy balance.

 

Two of them are pretty tapped out in aerosols and the sun. 

 

If India and China are serious about lowering their aerosol emissions dramatically like they seem to be on their way to accomplishing.

 

Then we are going to see how big of a deal having two major countries dump the majority of the Human induced aerosols over the NH sub-tropics and tropics compared to them being mostly between 35-65N when the United States, Canada, Europe, Japan and Russia were the largest contributors.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Data back then isn't good enough, sadly...mostly due to wartime funding shortages. I suspect I could find at least some data if I tried hard enough.

Thing is the 1997-99 event occurred with a rapid global warming. So they all involved warming in some form

 

 

But that rapid warming didn't really emerge until 2001/02 when ENSO/PDO returned to mostly a positive state.  The sun was still much stronger than now.  The only major negative atmospheric forcing was the massive influx of aerosols during the late 1990s onward from India and China.

 

I find the overall inconsistent or non existent data on the influence of tropical and sub tropical man made aerosol impact frustrating. 

 

I have read some papers out of China talking about some big time solar forcing drops over large areas of that region from it.

 

 

On a side note August came in at 0.20C for UAH.

 

 

 

The global, hemispheric, and tropical LT anomalies from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 20 months are:

YR MON GLOBAL NH SH TROPICS

2013 1 +0.497 +0.517 +0.478 +0.386

2013 2 +0.203 +0.372 +0.033 +0.195

2013 3 +0.200 +0.333 +0.067 +0.243

2013 4 +0.114 +0.128 +0.101 +0.165

2013 5 +0.082 +0.180 -0.015 +0.112

2013 6 +0.295 +0.335 +0.255 +0.220

2013 7 +0.173 +0.134 +0.211 +0.074

2013 8 +0.158 +0.111 +0.206 +0.009

2013 9 +0.365 +0.339 +0.390 +0.190

2013 10 +0.290 +0.331 +0.249 +0.031

2013 11 +0.193 +0.160 +0.226 +0.020

2013 12 +0.266 +0.272 +0.260 +0.057

2014 1 +0.291 +0.387 +0.194 -0.029

2014 2 +0.170 +0.320 +0.020 -0.103

2014 3 +0.170 +0.338 +0.002 -0.001

2014 4 +0.190 +0.358 +0.022 +0.092

2014 5 +0.326 +0.325 +0.328 +0.175

2014 6 +0.305 +0.315 +0.295 +0.510

2014 7 +0.304 +0.289 +0.319 +0.451

2014 8 +0.199 +0.244 +0.154 +0.060

It should be remembered that during ENSO, there is a 1-2 month lag between SST change and tropospheric temperature changes, so what the SST anomaly is doing lately gives you a rough idea of how the tropospheric temperature anomaly will be changing in a couple of months.

 

[The_Global_Warmer]

Going by how Dr. Spencer defines tropical.  Between 20S-20N.  Here are the ssta for that region back to 2013.

 

 

Pretty huge correlation. 

 

 

Maybe we can predict UAH a bit better figuring out how to weigh each sector and potential impacts on the LT.

 

 

Here is 20-90N.

 

This is essentially the reason the SON period has started to warm so fast.

 

 

Here is 20S to 90S.  The correlation is again very strong in the data from Roy.

 

 

[bluewave]

A recent study really downplays Asian aerosols impact on the hiatus.

 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL060349/abstract?campaign=agupersonalchoice

 

Abstract

Increases in Asian aerosol emissions have been suggested as one possible reason for the hiatus in global temperature increase during the past 15 years. We study the effect of sulphur and black carbon (BC) emission changes between 1996 and 2010 on the global energy balance. We find that the increased Asian emissions have had very little regional or global effects, while the emission reductions in Europe and the U.S. have caused a positive radiative forcing. In our simulations, the global-mean aerosol direct radiative effect changes by 0.06 W/m² during 1996 to 2010, while the effective radiative forcing (ERF) is 0.42 W/m². The rather large ERF arises mainly from changes in cloudiness, especially in Europe. In Asia, the BC warming due to sunlight absorption has largely offset the cooling caused by sulphate aerosols. Asian BC concentrations have increased by a nearly constant fraction at all altitudes, and thus, they warm the atmosphere also in cloudy conditions.

[The_Global_Warmer]

 

A recent study really downplays Asian aerosols impact on the hiatus.

 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL060349/abstract?campaign=agupersonalchoice

 

Abstract

Increases in Asian aerosol emissions have been suggested as one possible reason for the hiatus in global temperature increase during the past 15 years. We study the effect of sulphur and black carbon (BC) emission changes between 1996 and 2010 on the global energy balance. We find that the increased Asian emissions have had very little regional or global effects, while the emission reductions in Europe and the U.S. have caused a positive radiative forcing. In our simulations, the global-mean aerosol direct radiative effect changes by 0.06 W/m² during 1996 to 2010, while the effective radiative forcing (ERF) is 0.42 W/m². The rather large ERF arises mainly from changes in cloudiness, especially in Europe. In Asia, the BC warming due to sunlight absorption has largely offset the cooling caused by sulphate aerosols. Asian BC concentrations have increased by a nearly constant fraction at all altitudes, and thus, they warm the atmosphere also in cloudy conditions.

 

 

Is this based on direct satellite observation?

[nflwxman]

A recent study really downplays Asian aerosols impact on the hiatus.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL060349/abstract?campaign=agupersonalchoice

Abstract

Increases in Asian aerosol emissions have been suggested as one possible reason for the hiatus in global temperature increase during the past 15 years. We study the effect of sulphur and black carbon (BC) emission changes between 1996 and 2010 on the global energy balance. We find that the increased Asian emissions have had very little regional or global effects, while the emission reductions in Europe and the U.S. have caused a positive radiative forcing. In our simulations, the global-mean aerosol direct radiative effect changes by 0.06 W/m² during 1996 to 2010, while the effective radiative forcing (ERF) is 0.42 W/m². The rather large ERF arises mainly from changes in cloudiness, especially in Europe. In Asia, the BC warming due to sunlight absorption has largely offset the cooling caused by sulphate aerosols. Asian BC concentrations have increased by a nearly constant fraction at all altitudes, and thus, they warm the atmosphere also in cloudy conditions.

Thanks for the paper, but it seems a bit counterintuitive when you look at Asian coal fired plant growth over the past 15 years. That alone with the empirical smog observations over the area. Perhaps they are onto something, but need much more data.

[csnavywx]

Actually, since about 2006, scrubbers have been increasingly installed. This should have caused the SO2-driven component to fall and allowed the BC component to continue to rise, creating a net positive forcing since about then. More time is needed to see if this is in fact the case.

 

Also, I believe BC-driven radiative forcing has a large range of uncertainty, lending some uncertainty to the results.

[Jonger]

Thanks for the paper, but it seems a bit counterintuitive when you look at Asian coal fired plant growth over the past 15 years. That alone with the empirical smog observations over the area. Perhaps they are onto something, but need much more data.

 

Much of the western hemisphere has cut sulfur emissions dramatically. 

 

This is why diesel fuel is always more expensive than gasoline, starting in 2007 the US mandated 15 ppm sulfur content. Previously sulfur PPM was closer to 500.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-low-sulfur_diesel

 

 

This is why you can see much further in the Smoky Mountains than the previous 50+ years of record keeping.

[chrisf97212]

I remember in 2013 how I was sitting with my mouth gaping at how broad the Hadley Cells were on the sigma charts. I thought that was a once in a lifetime event...but 2014 has been even crazier. The descending branches have surpassed 60N at times. That's just ridiculous.

I hope this is just temporary, otherwise I really don't like the looks of this. We may not be able to recover by winter, which would make snow weenies unhappy during November and December.

 

Do you have a link for this?  I'd like to follow going forward.

[chrisf97212]

So if the Hadley cell thing returns to whatever is normal we should expect more Nino's and the arctic to be roasted more?

 

If I understand this correctly, it would reduce the mid-latitude SST's but not necessarily more Ninos.

[nflwxman]

Actually, since about 2006, scrubbers have been increasingly installed. This should have caused the SO2-driven component to fall and allowed the BC component to continue to rise, creating a net positive forcing since about then. More time is needed to see if this is in fact the case.

Also, I believe BC-driven radiative forcing has a large range of uncertainty, lending some uncertainty to the results.

Ah I was relying on outdated information then. Thanks for the clarification.

[Isotherm]

UAH August at +0.20c, tied for 7th with 1995 and 2006.

 

1998, 2001, 2007,2010, 2011, 2012, were the top 6.

[nflwxman]

UAH August at +0.20c, tied for 7th with 1995 and 2006.

 

1998, 2001, 2007,2010, 2011, 2012, were the top 6.

The global, hemispheric, and tropical LT anomalies from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 20 months are:

YR MON GLOBAL NH SH TROPICS

2013 1 +0.497 +0.517 +0.478 +0.386

2013 2 +0.203 +0.372 +0.033 +0.195

2013 3 +0.200 +0.333 +0.067 +0.243

2013 4 +0.114 +0.128 +0.101 +0.165

2013 5 +0.082 +0.180 -0.015 +0.112

2013 6 +0.295 +0.335 +0.255 +0.220

2013 7 +0.173 +0.134 +0.211 +0.074

2013 8 +0.158 +0.111 +0.206 +0.009

2013 9 +0.365 +0.339 +0.390 +0.190

2013 10 +0.290 +0.331 +0.249 +0.031

2013 11 +0.193 +0.160 +0.226 +0.020

2013 12 +0.266 +0.272 +0.260 +0.057

2014 1 +0.291 +0.387 +0.194 -0.029

2014 2 +0.170 +0.320 +0.020 -0.103

2014 3 +0.170 +0.338 +0.002 -0.001

2014 4 +0.190 +0.358 +0.022 +0.092

2014 5 +0.326 +0.325 +0.328 +0.175

2014 6 +0.305 +0.315 +0.295 +0.510

2014 7 +0.304 +0.289 +0.319 +0.451

2014 8 +0.199 +0.244 +0.154 +0.060

 

It should be remembered that during ENSO, there is a 1-2 month lag between SST change and tropospheric temperature changes, so what the SST anomaly is doing lately gives you a rough idea of how the tropospheric temperature anomaly will be changing in a couple of months.

The global image for August should be available in the next day or so here

[nflwxman]

UAH August at +0.20c, tied for 7th with 1995 and 2006.

 

1998, 2001, 2007,2010, 2011, 2012, were the top 6.

Amazing how much the tropics cooled from the month prior. 

[tacoman25]

Just thinking out loud here...

 

Some like to argue that the surface data sets are better than the LT data sets because they measure what is actually going on at the surface. 

 

However, it also should be noted that 75% of the earth is water, and therefore the SSTA data the surface data sets use plays an influential role in determining global anomalies. However, SSTA is really measuring something different than the land data - water temperature vs. air temperature.

 

So in that respect, the LT satellite data is more consistent, as it is always measuring the same thing. The LT data is always heavily influenced by ENSO, and not so much by SSTA in one hemisphere (which makes sense if you consider how ENSO temps have a much broader LT effect from the tropics out on the globe). Which explains why August was so much cooler for the satellite sources compared to surface sources.

 

Thoughts?

[Jesse]

UAH August at +0.20c, tied for 7th with 1995 and 2006.

 

1998, 2001, 2007,2010, 2011, 2012, were the top 6.

 

Didn't see that coming.

 

Based on comments on this thread I fully expected a new record.

[PhillipS]

Just keep in mind that the UAH and RSS data are proxy measurements, not direct measurements like the surface data.  The radiometers on the satellites are measuring the microwaves emitted by O2 molecules and processing that data through the physics-based model of how the microwave emission correlates to O2 temperatures.  And the data are also processed through the additional models for sensor performance, orbital dynamics, and spacecraft dynamics.  Corrections and revisions to these four models are the reasons for the multiple adjustments to the satellite data.

[tacoman25]

Just keep in mind that the UAH and RSS data are proxy measurements, not direct measurements like the surface data.  The radiometers on the satellites are measuring the microwaves emitted by O2 molecules and processing that data through the physics-based model of how the microwave emission correlates to O2 temperatures.  And the data are also processed through the additional models for sensor performance, orbital dynamics, and spacecraft dynamics.  Corrections and revisions to these four models are the reasons for the multiple adjustments to the satellite data.

 

And just remember that surface data sources use data that only covers a certain percentage of the earth, and then extrapolate to fill in large areas with little or no data. Also keep in mind that this data can be subject to errors, and adjustments and revisions are frequently made to the raw data. 

 

In addition, there are some pretty big discrepancies in SSTA data (different sources showing different anomalies) that we don't really have a good explanation for at this time.

 

None of this invalidates the surface data, just as nothing that you listed invalidates the LT data.

[Snow_Miser]

Didn't see that coming.

Based on comments on this thread I fully expected a new record.

We will probably see a new record at the surface if the CFS correlation holds for this month. UAH measures the LT. Two different things.

[tacoman25]

We will probably see a new record at the surface if the CFS correlation holds for this month. UAH measures the LT. Two different things.

 

This year has seen a bigger difference than most years between the two, though. I believe due to the surface data sets being much more influenced by NH SSTAs.

[ORH_wxman]

And just remember that surface data sources use data that only covers a certain percentage of the earth, and then extrapolate to fill in large areas with little or no data. Also keep in mind that this data can be subject to errors, and adjustments and revisions are frequently made to the raw data. 

 

In addition, there are some pretty big discrepancies in SSTA data (different sources showing different anomalies) that we don't really have a good explanation for at this time.

 

None of this invalidates the surface data, just as nothing that you listed invalidates the LT data.

 

 

Yes, surface datasets go through a ton of adjustments and revisions...something that should be kept in mind when people point out any revisions made to satellite data.

 

GISS switched their entire SST dataset in January 2013 (with no explanation too) which lowered the anomalies for 2011 and 2012 by several hundreths and raised many anomalies in the 1980s/1990s...and since that time of the switch, I have noticed that GISS's initial readings have been consistently revised downward months later. If UAH did that, I bet some here would throw a tantrum. The two datasets measure different things as well which has been pointed out several times.

[nflwxman]

Yes, surface datasets go through a ton of adjustments and revisions...something that should be kept in mind when people point out any revisions made to satellite data.

 

GISS switched their entire SST dataset in January 2013 (with no explanation too) which lowered the anomalies for 2011 and 2012 by several hundreths...and since that time of the switch, I have noticed that GISS's initial readings have been consistently revised downward months later. If UAH did that, I bet some here would throw a tantrum. The two datasets measure different things as well which has been pointed out several times.

That's pretty speculative.  I'm not sure there would be a tantrum here.  I'd argue direct measurements in the place humans inhabit will always be the way to go, but the reason why tacoman brings this up is because all the surface datasets are running quite warm.  As many have pointed out, UAH/RSS are measuring different entities than the surface.  It can take months for ocean heat to make it's fingerprints known in lower troposphere relative to the surface (at Dr. Spencer pointed out above).  UAH will become warm later this year.

 

Since UAH and RSS are proxy measurements that use a single piece of scanning remote sensing equipment, it's fair to be critical of the dataset.  If their is orbital drift on the device, it can impact a trend pretty starkly.  Contrast that to our global network of thermometers, even if you have several hundred in error, it barely makes a dent in a long term trend.  Repetition in that way helps give many in the scientific community confidence even if the spatial coverage is lacking.

 

Regadless, this is why we have many datasets. Just because one doesn't match the other does not mean that one is in error as tacoman is suggesting.

[ORH_wxman]

That's pretty speculative.  I'm not sure there would be a tantrum here.  I'd argue direct measurements in the place humans inhabit will always be the way to go, but the reason why tacoman brings this up is because all the surface datasets are running quite warm.  As many have pointed out, UAH/RSS are measuring different entities than the surface.  It can take months for ocean heat to make it's fingerprints known in lower troposphere relative to the surface (at Dr. Spencer pointed out above).  UAH will become warm later this year.

 

Since UAH and RSS are proxy measurements that use a single piece of scanning remote sensing equipment, it's fair to be critical of the dataset.  If their is orbital drift on the device, it can impact a trend pretty starkly.  Contrast that to our global network of thermometers, even if you have several hundred in error, it barely makes a dent in a long term trend.  Repetition in that way helps give many in the scientific community confidence even if the spatial coverage is lacking.

 

Regadless, this is why we have many datasets. Just because one doesn't match the other does not mean that one is in error as tacoman is suggesting.

 

 

I am...when UAH had to revise some of their previous numbers down because of the Aqua satellite going haywire (especially channel 5), there were several complaints on here...basically accusing Roy Spencer and Christy of "doctoring" the data to make it look cooler. The funny part is nobody accused them of bias when they both think that RSS is running too cool.

 

 

Regardless, whether people complain or not, the data is what it is and both satellites and sfc are pretty close on their longterm trends. Though they are inversed with their slight differences on what we would expect based on theory.

[Jesse]

I am...when UAH had to revise some of their previous numbers down because of the Aqua satellite going haywire (especially channel 5), there were several complaints on here...basically accusing Roy Spencer and Christy of "doctoring" the data to make it look cooler. The funny part is nobody accused them of bias when they both think that RSS is running too cool.

 

 

Regardless, whether people complain or not, the data is what it is and both satellites and sfc are pretty close on their longterm trends. Though they are inversed with their slight differences on what we would expect based on theory.

 

Thanks for all of the info.

 

In your opinion, which data set is the most accurate, regarding global temperatures? I realize this might be a tough question.

 

It seems to me that at very least the satellite data is not extrapolated across vast areas, and is immune from surface issues like UHI as well. This would give satellite the bump.

[StudentOfClimatology]

Thanks for all of the info.

In your opinion, which data set is the most accurate, regarding global temperatures? I realize this might be a tough question.

It seems to me that at very least the satellite data is not extrapolated across vast areas, and is immune from surface issues like UHI as well. This would give satellite the bump.

UAH accuses RSS of overcorrecting for orbital drift, while RSS also accuses UAH of various faulty equations and assumptions on sensor degradation. I spoke with some folks from RSS back in 2013 and they were adamant that UAH is wrong. Though Dr. Spencer has said the same thing in the past about RSS, so who knows

My guess is the truth lies somewhere in between. Dr. Spencer & Christy are working on version 6 of UAH, which they say will cool the post-1998 data closer to RSS, though

If I get the chance, I'll ask them if they have an ETA