2014 Global Temperatures

[chubbs]

Like UAH, RSS dipped to 0.196 in Aug.

 

[ORH_wxman]

That is the point I've been making here pretty nonestop since 2011.  Wait until a true stretch of ENSO positive before crapping all over the long term multi-decadal models.  2009-2010 was ENSO positive for all of about 11 or 12 months and sandwiched by moderate/strong ninas.  I know people are getting sick of me harping about ENSO, but there is a lot of research that suggests the PDO's true effect on climate is dependent almost entirely with trade winds that impact ENSO magnitude and frequency on a decadal time scale.

 

While dynamical ENSO models are generally poor in the cross seasonal range, I find it interesting how the CFS and Euro are show a pretty consistent weak/moderate nino carrying into next summer.  That would be a telling test to see if we can have a 12+ month period of Nino or Nino like conditions.  We have not accomplished this feat in 10 years.

 

 

 

 

How long do we wait? If we have to use a long period of ENSO just to get the temperatures back into the 2 sigma range on the GCM projections, then that is already telling enough...then they'll just fall way out of range on the next cold round of ENSO. The biggest problem with the GCMs is that the warming accelerates, so the longer we wait for an El Nino to try and bail them out, the more it has to warm to get to that point. The models will get slaughtered during the next round of cold ENSO because of this...by then, they are warming much faster on their projections.

 

Models are suppose to theoretically simulate ENSO and random events such as volcanos as well as the solar cycles. So given this, there should have been enough members that go through a cold stretch of ENSO and/or low solar activity and give us a period of nearly flat temperatures without being outside of 2 sigma over 20 years. But they don't. Why don't they? That's an important question. There's a few potential answers:

 

1. They do a royally pathetic job at simulating the natural variation events listed above.

 

2. The aerosol component is wrong

 

3. GHG forcing in the GCMs is too robust

 

4. Maybe we really did have a 2 sigma event for natural variability and we will resume rapid warming at 0.3C per decade

 

 

This is where the literature is at with GCMs. We've had recent papers bring these questions to light. The best way to answer these is with more data...unfortauntely that means waiting. The other solution is ongoing, and that is to test more models with different parameters.

[nflwxman]

How long do we wait? If we have to use a long period of ENSO just to get the temperatures back into the 2 sigma range on the GCM projections, then that is already telling enough...then they'll just fall way out of range on the next cold round of ENSO. The biggest problem with the GCMs is that the warming accelerates, so the longer we wait for an El Nino to try and bail them out, the more it has to warm to get to that point. The models will get slaughtered during the next round of cold ENSO because of this...by then, they are warming much faster on their projections.

 

Models are suppose to theoretically simulate ENSO and random events such as volcanos as well as the solar cycles. So given this, there should have been enough members that go through a cold stretch of ENSO and/or low solar activity and give us a period of nearly flat temperatures without being outside of 2 sigma over 20 years. But they don't. Why don't they? That's an important question. There's a few potential answers:

 

1. They do a royally pathetic job at simulating the natural variation events listed above.

 

2. The aerosol component is wrong

 

3. GHG forcing in the GCMs is too robust

 

4. Maybe we really did have a 2 sigma event for natural variability and we will resume rapid warming at 0.3C per decade

 

 

This is where the literature is at with GCMs. We've had recent papers bring these questions to light. The best way to answer these is with more data...unfortauntely that means waiting. The other solution is ongoing, and that is to test more models with different parameters.

 

A sigma in 2011-2013 (for example) from a model run in 2007 is quite small (about 0.1), so it's not a huge feat to have observations fall outside a standard deviation in that short time period with the right natural cocktail of drivers and measurement biases.  If you start seeing a standard deviation low decadal temperatures in 10-20 years than I believe that the conversation about model climate sensitivity can be had.  That's not to say we should not be improving GCMs in the interim. To address some of your well put points above:

 

1) I agree with this on a decadal time scale.  I think models have proven in several instances on the hindcasts to not properly capture sub 10-15 year natural variability.  There are at least 3 instances in the past where measured temperature falls out of the 95% confidence range, presumably due to natural drivers.

 

2) Tough to say.  We really don't have a good handle on SO2 aerosol depth.  In fact, I was still under the impression that aerosols were growing presently, but I was corrected by a few fellow posters.  I have not seen a lot of literature on the topic (which means it's probably not abundant).

 

3)  This is possible.  As we all know most GCMs use an ECS of 3C.  This is kind of on the high end of a lot of the recent empirical studies.  It's difficult to calculate as we still have warming in the "pipeline."  Paleoclimate studies have an advantage over empirical in that way. We will know more about this in 10-20 years.

 

4) I believe this is a real possibility.  I think we will see a 0.25 C/decade warming over the next 10 years.

 

In conclusion, I think we just disagree on when climate models should be considered "busted."  It's hard to ignore the long term success of the hindcasts, thus I'd like to wait 10-20 years.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Given what we have seen in the past warming .2 to .3C over the next 7-10 years wouldn't be very surprising.

 

The slow down the last decade doesn't mean things won't even themselves out or even accelerate above the rate of prediction for a while.

[ORH_wxman]

A sigma in 2011-2013 (for example) from a model run in 2007 is quite small (about 0.1), so it's not a huge feat to have observations fall outside a standard deviation in that short time period with the right natural cocktail of drivers and measurement biases.  If you start seeing a standard deviation low decadal temperatures in 10-20 years than I believe that the conversation about model climate sensitivity can be had.  That's not to say we should not be improving GCMs in the interim. To address some of your well put points above:

 

 

Agreed...but I was talking about 20 years. That's what the literature focuses on.

 

The models are getting the portion of their forecast wrong that is theoretically supposed to be the easiest to get right...the period with the highest GHG forcing in the record.

 

But I suppose we'll see what happens. I'll take the under on 0.25C of warming by 2024. That one is testable at least.

[Jonger]

Given what we have seen in the past warming .2 to .3C over the next 7-10 years wouldn't be very surprising.

 

The slow down the last decade doesn't mean things won't even themselves out or even accelerate above the rate of prediction for a while.

 What if this is evened out? Maybe the rate of warming from 1970-2000 was the anomaly. 

[nflwxman]

 What if this is evened out? Maybe the rate of warming from 1970-2000 was the anomaly. 

Well than a lot of scientists would be in some serious trouble.  I'd say that's very wishful thinking though.

[Jonger]

Well than a lot of scientists would be in some serious trouble.  I'd say that's very wishful thinking though.

 

I'm not saying global temps aren't rising, they are... I just meant that the rate might be slower overall than 1970-2000.

[tacoman25]

 

My apologies if I misunderstood you.  We can disagree and stay civil.

 

Surface temperatures have their own problems.  Measurement coverage in particular.  No doubt about that.  Have you read much about the hybrid satellite/surface method in Cowtan and Way?  I hope the big 3 (Hadley, NASA, and JMA) move towards something like that in the future.  The important thing is, in the multi-decadal sense, that all the trends match up; and they generally do.

 

No, I haven't read about that, will have to look into it.

 

Yeah, the overall trends match up in general, but since all the talk is about records - it does sort of matter when there are significant yearly differences. Interesting to look into why those exist.

[tacoman25]

Hey...what's HadCRU running at this summer? I ask because people have said the reason GISS has been running warmer the past 8 years or so is because HadCRU doesn't include near as much of the Arctic. But this summer, the Arctic has been cooler - yet GISS has been running near record levels.

[chubbs]

Hey...what's HadCRU running at this summer? I ask because people have said the reason GISS has been running warmer the past 8 years or so is because HadCRU doesn't include near as much of the Arctic. But this summer, the Arctic has been cooler - yet GISS has been running near record levels.

Hadcrut has averaged 0.54 this year vs 0.55 record. Slightly ahead of giss relative to its record..

[Isotherm]

While we're on the subject of global temperature datasets - Why does GISS still extend land surface temperature data out over the open oceans of the Arctic?  Does anyone have a valid reason as to why SST data is not utilized during the periods when much of the Arctic is ice-free?

 

The adjustment of extending land surface data across open polar ocean resulted in a slight upward tick to the overall rate of the warming trend over the 1980-2011 period. We talk about errors in various global temperature datasets, but this seems like a practice that can be potentially avoided.

 

 

 

[A-L-E-K]

what a torch

[Jonger]

While we're on the subject of global temperature datasets - Why does GISS still extend land surface temperature data out over the open oceans of the Arctic?  Does anyone have a valid reason as to why SST data is not utilized during the periods when much of the Arctic is ice-free?

 

The adjustment of extending land surface data across open polar ocean resulted in a slight upward tick to the overall rate of the warming trend over the 1980-2011 period. We talk about errors in various global temperature datasets, but this seems like a practice that can be potentially avoided.

 

 

 

 

That chart really shows temps evening out.

[Sundog]

That chart really shows temps evening out.

If you look at just 1980 through 1994 you could say the same thing. There are going to be ups and downs but the trend is up. You're only looking at 2002 through 2012 and saying it's flattening. The problem is all evidence points to this flattening being temporary.

[StudentOfClimatology]

If you look at just 1980 through 1994 you could say the same thing. There are going to be ups and downs but the trend is up. You're only looking at 2002 through 2012 and saying it's flattening. The problem is all evidence points to this flattening being temporary.

It's definitely temporary. Question is when does it end? Is it ending now?

Looks up in the air to me on that topic..

[The_Global_Warmer]

While we're on the subject of global temperature datasets - Why does GISS still extend land surface temperature data out over the open oceans of the Arctic?  Does anyone have a valid reason as to why SST data is not utilized during the periods when much of the Arctic is ice-free?

 

The adjustment of extending land surface data across open polar ocean resulted in a slight upward tick to the overall rate of the warming trend over the 1980-2011 period. We talk about errors in various global temperature datasets, but this seems like a practice that can be potentially avoided.

 

 

 

 

Wouldn't ssts typically be quite warm?

 

The buoy network in the arctic basin many times shows GISS under does the arctic temp anomalies especially in winter.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Over the course of the entire year.  NCDC and Hadley will end up having still being cooler by not incorporating the arctic.  On the year so far the arctic has been very warm.

 

 

 

As well as Antarctica overall.  These are compared to GISS baseline. 

 

[AvantHiatus]

Hence my earlier post about how things don't add up, it seems to just be caused by cloudiness and snow. In the summer, these will show up as more severe departures. In the winter, it's more or less the norm and fairly dry up there.

[WinterWxLuvr]

If you look at just 1980 through 1994 you could say the same thing. There are going to be ups and downs but the trend is up. You're only looking at 2002 through 2012 and saying it's flattening. The problem is all evidence points to this flattening being temporary.

I don't see how anybody could look at 1980-1994 and see a flat line.

 

I don't see how anybody could look at 2000-2014 and not see a flat line, even a slight falling line.

 

I also don't see how anybody thinks that 15 yrs, or 30 years for that matter is a large enough sample to judge the climate trends of the entire planet by.  So.........carry on.

[Jonger]

It's definitely temporary. Question is when does it end? Is it ending now?

Looks up in the air to me on that topic..

 

 

The rate or trajectory of the warming has changed, it hasn't stopped... But its not as aggressive as it was from 1970-1995.

 

If it was.... we would be putting up global anomalies of 1.25C or so.

[nflwxman]

The rate or trajectory of the warming has changed, it hasn't stopped... But its not as aggressive as it was from 1970-1995.

 

If it was.... we would be putting up global anomalies of 1.25C or so.

That's not even close to correct.  I used the fastest warming 20 year trend prior to 1998 for a linear regression to predict the global temperature to be in 2014.  The answer is 0.679C..  Guess what the global temperature in 2014 is likely going to be.  Yep...

 

Results of predictive Linear Trend for 2014 Global Temperature:

 

Using 1979-1998 (.15C/decade Trend): 0.679

 

Lets even go with a shorter and steeper trend:

 

Using 1985-1998 (.23 C/decade Trend): 0.83

 

 

Also a tamino post on that same topic.  He is a stats wizard.

 

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/01/30/global-temperature-the-post-1998-surprise/#more-6942

[ORH_wxman]

That's not even close to correct.  I used to fastest warming 20 year trend prior to 1998 to guess what a linear regression would predict the global temperature to be in 2014.  The answer is 0.679C and certainly nothing shows anything over 1 degree C.  Guess what the global temperature in 2014 is likely going to be.  Yep...

 

Results of predictive Linear Trend for 2014 Global Temperature:

 

Using 1979-1998 (.15C/decade Trend): 0.679

 

Lets even go with a shorter and steeper trend:

 

Using 1985-1998 (.23 C/decade Trend): 0.83

 

 

Also a tamino post on that same topic.  He is a stats wizard.

 

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/01/30/global-temperature-the-post-1998-surprise/#more-6942

 

 

All Tamino's post proves is that if scientists and amateurs didn't overreact to the 1998 warming, then things would look fairly normal. His post shows that we would be on track using a linear regression from 1979-1997 extended outward. Which makes sense because 1979-1997 is a fairly modest warming rate around 0.12C per year according to GISS or Hadcrut. Then 1998 happened...and some subsequent warm years from 2002-2005 after the Nina dip in 1999/2000.

 

The reason GCMs and some predictions aren't doing well is that because the rate of warming accelerated later in that period as your numbers show from 1985-1998, and the assumption was that this was the new normal. Warming would rapidly accelerate with the ever-increasing GHGs. So much of 1998's impact on the temperature trends seemed to be attributed to AGW rather than ENSO. Obviously we know now it isn't that simple. But a sharp rise followed by a flat line is basically a noisy way of continuing the steadier, but slower warming trend prior to 1998.

[nflwxman]

All Tamino's post proves is that if scientists and amateurs didn't overreact to the 1998 warming, then things would look fairly normal. His post shows that we would be on track using a linear regression from 1979-1997 extended outward. Which makes sense because 1979-1997 is a fairly modest warming rate around 0.12C per year according to GISS or Hadcrut. Then 1998 happened...and some subsequent warm years from 2002-2005 after the Nina dip in 1999/2000.

 

The reason GCMs and some predictions aren't doing well is that because the rate of warming accelerated later in that period as your numbers show from 1985-1998, and the assumption was that this was the new normal. Warming would rapidly accelerate with the ever-increasing GHGs. So much of 1998's impact on the temperature trends seemed to be attributed to AGW rather than ENSO. Obviously we know now it isn't that simple. But a sharp rise followed by a flat line is basically a noisy way of continuing the steadier, but slower warming trend prior to 1998.

 

Agreed that whoever overreacted to 1998 was certainly in error.  Future temperature should be poised to accelerate after ENSO balances out a bit over the next few years  (I expect 2015-2024 to be about 0.25C warmer than 2005-2014).  I actually included 1998 in my analysis above which pulled the trend up to 0.15.

 

I think a lot of statistical analysis has proven the AGW signal is pretty steady at something like 0.16/decade in the past 30 years.  If it doesn't accelerate in the next 10 years, we will have to reevaluate TCR versus ECS and the overall forcing picture, per our conversation yesterday.

[Jonger]

Agreed that whoever overreacted to 1998 was certainly in error.  Future temperature should be poised to accelerate after ENSO balances out a bit over the next few years  (I expect 2015-2024 to be about 0.25C warmer than 2005-2014).  I actually included 1998 in my analysis above which pulled the trend up to 0.15.

 

I think a lot of statistical analysis has proven the AGW signal is pretty steady at something like 0.16/decade in the past 30 years.  If it doesn't accelerate in the next 10 years, we will have to reevaluate TCR versus ECS and the overall forcing picture, per our conversation yesterday.

 

I think its time to evaluate now.... We could always use the line of reasoning that "Predictions are doing well, it will catch up sooner or later".

 

This is uncharted territory. 

[ORH_wxman]

I think its time to evaluate now.... We could always use the line of reasoning that "Predictions are doing well, it will catch up sooner or later".

 

This is uncharted territory. 

 

 

Well he is expecting us to be warmer by an average of 0.25C in 10 years...if that happens, then the models won't look quite as bad. They'll still be a bit high, but not 2 sigma.

 

I'm expecting warming of about half of what he expects though, so I do not share the same sentiment in that regard.

[tacoman25]

Well he is expecting us to be warmer by an average of 0.25C in 10 years...if that happens, then the models won't look quite as bad. They'll still be a bit high, but not 2 sigma.

 

I'm expecting warming of about half of what he expects though, so I do not share the same sentiment in that regard.

 

Per the GCM projections of the late 1980s - late 1990s, aren't we already supposed to be warming at .25C/decade by now?

[ORH_wxman]

Per the GCM projections of the late 1980s - late 1990s, aren't we already supposed to be warming at .25C/decade by now?

 

 

Actually the AR4 GCMs had us warming between 0.5 and 0.75C between 2000 and 2030 depending on emissions scenario. So you don't even have to go back to 1990 FAR. The CMIP5 models in AR5 are just as bad...the RCP 4.5 scenario which most consider as representative as our current emissions scenario has us warming 0.7C by 2025 but the baseline is the 1986-2005 mean temp...which is roughly 0.2C lower than current. So we have to warm 0.5C in 11 years for it to reach the mean. 2 sigma on the low end looks to be about 0.35C...so we'll need to warm 0.15C or better by 2025 to stay within 2 sigma of the 4.5 scenario on CMIP5.

[JBG]

It's definitely temporary. Question is when does it end? Is it ending now?

Looks up in the air to me on that topic..

How do we know that we don't get a sawtooth pattern down for the next 30 years the way we got a sawtooth up pattern?

[Isotherm]

How do we know that we don't get a sawtooth pattern down for the next 30 years the way we got a sawtooth up pattern?

 

 

We don't.

 

Those who say there's a 0% chance of it happening are frankly being dishonest. To give anything a 100% or 0% chance of occurring at such far lead times is suggestive of possessing a complete understanding of the intricate complexities of Earth's climate - and last time I checked - no one has that right now, and probably never will.