2014 Global Temperatures

[The_Global_Warmer]

I'm going to steal a line from my friend TGW, but I think it's nearly a lock that we have a year or two over 0.85C on GISS before 2024.

 

In fact ORH and I both made our decadal projections earlier this week.

 

I believe he went with 0.73 average between 2015-2024

I went with a 0.85 average between 2015-2024.  

 

I'm basing my prediction mostly on the sun staying on it's regular 11 year cycle and not absolutely flat-lining for a decade.

 

 

I will go with .85C+ as well.

 

2014 is going to finish around .66-.67C+ with a neutral ENSO year coming out of 17 straight months of negative ONI.

 

in fact 2014 so far this year is averaging -.228C ONI.

 

If we include a 1 or 2 month lag in ONI then that becomes -0.342C.

[The_Global_Warmer]

[skierinvermont]

Yes, PDO is directly correlated to ENSO. There's more to the PDO phase relationship than that, however.

 

During +PDO phases the correlation to ENSO tends more towards positive PDO values (so a +ENSO event produces greater +PDO values), and during -PDO phase the the tendency is more towards negative values (so a -ENSO event produces greater -PDO values, and +ENSO events don't produce as strong of +PDO values as they would during the +PDO phase).

 

Again, you have to look at pressure tendencies in the North Pacific. Higher pressure/blocking during -PDO phases, lower during +PDO phases, overall.

 

You can't prove the direction of causality by playing semantics with words.

 

Is a long-term +PDO state ('phase') simply a reflection of a long-term +ENSO state ('phase') or vice versa?

 

Chubbs post suggests the former. All you've done is switch the direction of causality by playing with words and not giving any reasoning. 

[The_Global_Warmer]

Like I showed earlier.  Mr. Tisdale thinks AGW is a hoax and tries to peddle off that all the warming is from ENSO cycles.

 

His straight up ENSO information is solid.  But it's pretty ridiculous that he is now peddling -PDO having a warming effect because he can't accept that he is wrong and AGW is real.

 

It's going to be sad to see people crap on their credibility because of the end of this "hiatus". 

 

 

He could just adopt the Spencer and Christy approach that AGW is real but believe in low warming from it.  Holding a hardline belief that it's not real will end badly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[StudentOfClimatology]

I love Bob Tisdale's graphs, but unfortunately he has no mechanism to support his theory that ENSO is responsible for global warming

[StudentOfClimatology]

What is "PDO forcing"? I've never even heard of such a thing, as far as the planetary energy budget is comcerned

[The_Global_Warmer]

I love Bob Tisdale's graphs, but unfortunately he has no mechanism to support his theory that ENSO is responsible for global warming

 

He stopped posting OHC graphics after the 1st Quarter of 2013 when quarterly 0-700M OHC has broken records every quarter but one since then.

[StudentOfClimatology]

A lot of these skeptics print out a bunch of clever correlations, but fail to provide a mechanism to corroborate them as a causative forcing. That's what bugs me the most.

I'd be more open to some of these arguments from the "other side" if they'd actually provide physical analysis that could be tested. The solar junkies are going to be tested over the next 10 years, and I suspect a slew of new excuses will be swirling about by 2020

[tacoman25]

You can't prove the direction of causality by playing semantics with words.

 

Is a long-term +PDO state ('phase') simply a reflection of a long-term +ENSO state ('phase') or vice versa?

 

Chubbs post suggests the former. All you've done is switch the direction of causality by playing with words and not giving any reasoning. 

 

 

Not playing semantics at all. I think you may have just misunderstood what I was saying.

 

I'll simplify.

 

-ENSO always favors -PDO

+ENSO always favors +PDO

 

However, depending on what phase is dominant, the PDO values tend to be enhanced towards that phases. 

 

Note that from 1946-75, Ninas often produced major -PDO numbers (like -1 to -2). From 1976-2006 during the +PDO phase, the -PDO numbers even during -ENSO were weaker, and +PDO during Ninos was stronger. And since 2007, we've seen more major -PDO numbers with -ENSO once again.

 

The reason for this is tied to the North Pacific Index. If you don't know what it is, feel free to look into it, but basically it measures sea level pressure over the same general area of the North Pacific that the PDO is calculated from. During -PDO phases, this area tends to see higher pressure, and during +PDO phases lower. Though once again influenced by ENSO, it clearly is not controlled just by ENSO.

 

[stadiumwave]

Like I showed earlier.  Mr. Tisdale thinks AGW is a hoax and tries to peddle off that all the warming is from ENSO cycles.

 

His straight up ENSO information is solid.  But it's pretty ridiculous that he is now peddling -PDO having a warming effect because he can't accept that he is wrong and AGW is real.

 

It's going to be sad to see people crap on their credibility because of the end of this "hiatus". 

 

 

He could just adopt the Spencer and Christy approach that AGW is real but believe in low warming from it.  Holding a hardline belief that it's not real will end badly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I just cannot understand why Tisdale is doing that.  Most skeptics believe in AGW, the issue is just mostly with attribution.  I at least agree with Dr. Roy Spencer when he says:

 

"I’m far from a political moderate, but I’ve been tagged as a “lukewarmer” in the climate wars. That’s because, at least from a theoretical perspective, it’s hard (but not impossible) for me to imagine that increasing CO2 won’t cause some level of warming.

 

I would remind folks that the NASA AIRS instrument on the Aqua satellite has actually measured the small decrease in IR emission in the infrared bands affected by CO2 absorption, which they use to “retrieve” CO2 concentration from the data. Less energy leaving the climate system means warming under almost any scenario you can think of. Conservation of energy, folks. It’s the law.

 

But I’ve been troubled for quite a while by those “skeptics” (you know who you are) who are forecasting cooling in our future. Not that it couldn’t happen, but are you ready to be “debunked” when we see continued slow warming?

 

The debate will then be about how the skeptics who predicted cooling were wrong. Warming continues. The IPCC was right. There is obvious danger in that becoming the narrative.

 

Some of us have been trying to explain that there is a big difference between weak (or even modest) warming, and catastrophic warming. The former is probably beneficial, especially when you factor in the benefits of more CO2 on photosynthesis..."

 

 

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/10/the-danger-of-hanging-your-hat-on-no-future-warming/

[The_Global_Warmer]

A lot of these skeptics print out a bunch of clever correlations, but fail to provide a mechanism to corroborate them as a causative forcing. That's what bugs me the most.

I'd be more open to some of these arguments from the "other side" if they'd actually provide physical analysis that could be tested. The solar junkies are going to be tested over the next 10 years, and I suspect a slew of new excuses will be swirling about by 2020

 

 

Solar junkies have already lost big time but won't accept it.  Some have like snowlover123.

 

There might be some longer term cooling form the solar change.

 

But there will be a more real time response.

 

But we haven't had any cooling and the solar effect isn't being masked by the PDO.  The fact that we have had the PDO tank to near it's record lowest levels during the biggest solar tank in a century and no cooling IMO throws a dagger threw the the heart of the the solar argument. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[The_Global_Warmer]

I just cannot understand why Tisdale is doing that.  Most skeptics believe in AGW, the issue is just mostly with attribution.  I at least agree with Dr. Roy Spencer when he says:

 

 

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/10/the-danger-of-hanging-your-hat-on-no-future-warming/

 

 

I guess that makes Tisdale a denier. 

 

I always assumed he was a skeptic.

 

What is really strange about his position is when he has been asked to give a reason on how ENSO can be warming the Earth but where is the cooling?  Obviously ENSO can only move heat around between the oceans and atmosphere.

 

He goes off about how he has answered that.

 

But I swear when I have read it I get lost like he is talking in circles.

[StudentOfClimatology]

Solar junkies have already lost big time but won't accept it. Some have like snowlover123.

There might be some longer term cooling form the solar change.

But there will be a more real time response.

But we haven't had any cooling and the solar effect isn't being masked by the PDO. The fact that we have had the PDO tank to near it's record lowest levels during the biggest solar tank in a century and no cooling IMO throws a dagger threw the the heart of the the solar argument.

Problem is even if solar could somehow affect climate, it would operate on a resolution of 30-50yrs, based on our latest estimation(s) regarding the depth of the oceanic mixing layer.

You're talking about an interface with an enormous specific thermal capacity...just incredibly vast. It's physically impossible to achieve any statistically detectable response to the brief ups/downs of the TSI cycle. Heat transport through the primary mixing layer in one day is over 50x greater than the total "forcing" differential from the Sun between minimum and maximum.

If there's any effect from the Sun, it must be very long term, and it would require that the TSI-base vary from century-to-century, which is still unproven to begin with.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Global SSTA dropped this week from .452C+ to .421C+

 

Both Hemispheres dropped slightly contributing to the drop.

 

Never the less this is now the 6th consecutive week with the global ssta above 0.40C.  It has only reached .40C one other week during the peak of the 1997/98 Super Nino when the monthly ONI was 2.4C+.

 

the most recent ONI update came in at 0.0C.

 

 

 

 

 

Yes.  That shows 3-5C over a huge area of the Eastern Equatorial Pacific.  What is important to remember even though we all know this.  Is the tropical ocean regions are so much larger than the mid and upper lats. 

 

Graphics like this don't do it justice.

 

 

Using the same scale this is how the record week of .452C+ looked.

 

Doesn't look like much.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Changing the scale down to .25C to emphasize above versus below normal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here is the coldest week over the last decade back in late 2007.

 

In fact the last time the weekly global sst anomaly was below 0C was February of 2008.

 

The last time it was below .15C+ was Spring of 2012.

 

 

[skierinvermont]

Problem is even if solar could somehow affect climate, it would operate on a resolution of 30-50yrs, based on our latest estimation(s) regarding the depth of the oceanic mixing layer.

You're talking about an interface with an enormous specific thermal capacity...just incredibly vast. It's physically impossible to achieve any statistically detectable response to the brief ups/downs of the TSI cycle. Heat transport through the primary mixing layer in one day is over 50x greater than the total "forcing" differential from the Sun between minimum and maximum.

If there's any effect from the Sun, it must be very long term, and it would require that the TSI-base vary from century-to-century, which is still unproven to begin with.

 

Just because the mixing layer is deep doesn't mean you have to wait 30-50 years to detect the effect. A change in solar forcing should be nearly immediately detectable in the climate system. While surface temperature might take 30-50 years to fully respond, if the forcing were strong both OHC and surface temperatures should begin to decline. A decline in OHC should be evident after 5 years at most. Instead, OHC is continuing to increase rapidly which indicates a positive energy imbalance. The very unusual most recent soar cycle has had almost no effect on climate forcing. 

[ORH_wxman]

GISS out for August at 0.70...this edges out 2011 for warmest August on record. YTD is 0.65...Sept looks like a great bet to come in over 0.70 since it is at 0.19 right now on weatherbell, though the dailies have dropped down to below 0.05...we'll see how long that lasts.

 

They revised 2010 upwards to 0.67 though, so a little bit of extra work needed to break the record. You would still have to consider 2014 a favorite at this point. The one wildcard might be December...we've seen some colder Decembers at times probably related to big snow cover expansion in the NH.

[nflwxman]

GISS out for August at 0.70...this edges out 2011 for warmest August on record. YTD is 0.65...Sept looks like a great bet to come in over 0.70 since it is at 0.19 right now on weatherbell, though the dailies have dropped down to below 0.05...we'll see how long that lasts.

 

They revised 2010 upwards to 0.67 though, so a little bit of extra work needed to break the record. You would still have to consider 2014 a favorite at this point. The one wildcard might be December...we've seen some colder Decembers at times probably related to big snow cover expansion in the NH.

 

And ENSO tends to rear it's head more in the surface data in December than the months prior.  GISS seems to be running the coolest relative to it's averages this year in the surface dataset class.

[ORH_wxman]

And ENSO tends to rear it's head more in the surface data in December than the months prior.  GISS seems to be running the coolest relative to it's averages this year in the surface dataset class.

 

 

2006 really responded to the El Nino in December...2009 was kind of mild in Dec but not nearly like 2006, '09 had a very warm November though....2004 and 2002 did not really respond. They both torched in November but then cooled considerably in Dec. It seems to be a difficult month to predict. November in recent years has been very warm with the exception of 2011 and 2007...so I think its a good bet we put up a big number in that month.

[StudentOfClimatology]

Just because the mixing layer is deep doesn't mean you have to wait 30-50 years to detect the effect. A change in solar forcing should be nearly immediately detectable in the climate system. While surface temperature might take 30-50 years to fully respond, if the forcing were strong both OHC and surface temperatures should begin to decline. A decline in OHC should be evident after 5 years at most. Instead, OHC is continuing to increase rapidly which indicates a positive energy imbalance. The very unusual most recent soar cycle has had almost no effect on climate forcing.

I didn't say the hypothetical thermal response would take 30-50yrs to initiate...of course you'd see an immediate "response" assuming solar is a factor in climate....but taking into account the quantity of thermal transport within the upper oceanic mixing layer, you're very unlikely to get any statistically significant response to solar on even a 10yr resolution. The full solar harmonic takes 10-12yrs to fully cycle back to its medium..so you'd be looking for 5-6yr response incrimentals.

If the oceans were completely static, rather than fluid, you'd see a much faster response at the ocean skin. But that is obviously not the case.

Those trying to argue for short term solar forcing are practicing voodoo science.

[The_Global_Warmer]

I think CFS is going to go up steadily in about 3-4 days and probably peak in the .4C+ range on the dailies sometime between the 21st and end of the month.

 

I think the monthly will finish around 0.22 to 0.24C+ on CFS for September.

 

 

But I think GISS will come in around .80 to .84C+ for September.

 

Here is my reasoning.

 

I have noticed something about the CFS conversion with GISS.

 

GISS uses a 1951-2010 baseline while CFS is on the 1981-2010 baseline.  So not all areas of the Earth are created equal when it comes to converting CFS output to GISS.  Mainly the poles have warmed up substantially during the 1981-2010 time-frame versus 1951-1980.

 

Far more then the rest of the Earth and this skews the projection.

 

Why is this?  Because Antarctica and the arctic to a lesser degree.

 

September is going to end up around .40C+. 

 

Also as we go along ENSO is warming up just like it did in May but other parts of the ocean are even warmer anomaly wise now.

 

 

Right now on CFS thru the 1st half of the month.  In spite of 2/3rds of Russia below normal.  And 3/4th of NA below normal with a big chunk of that way below normal. 

 

CFS is still running at 0.194C+ for the month so far.

 

As ORH said the dailies have dropped down under .10C+.

 

The global ssta anomalies and the Antarctica torching hard with a bit of help from the arctic.

 

A .194C+ converts to a .744C+ on GISS.

 

 

 

 

I know it's not GISS but it's the closest anomaly comparison I can use to substitute for GISS.

 

Anyways the top graphic is being compared with the 1951-1980 climo.

 

The bottom with the 1981-2010 climo.

 

Almost everywhere is is warmer anomalies using the older climo of course.

 

But not everywhere is weighted the same.

 

The two places that stand out the most are the arctic and the antarctic. 

 

The antarctic shows some huge differences. 

 

As we can see on weatherbell above Antarctica is torching thanks to the boss -AAO. This is also aiding the Indian Ocean into warming up as well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

And then there is this.  That huge NA cold anomaly is going to be eaten away the rest of the month.  Whether or not is turns it all the way around doesn't matter.  What matters is that the land warmth over most of the deepest cold area will warm that anomaly up must faster than that vortex over NPAC.

 

Like by the end of the month the NPAC temp anomaly will still be positive easily.  Not much lower than now. 

 

The NA cold anomaly will be pretty much wiped out or close. 

 

The arctic region is going to be relatively cool compared to many recent years during this time period for sure.  But it will still be above normal by an large over the 60-90N region.  And by about 2C+ for the GISS baseline.

 

 

 

 

So with that said I am currently predicting a .80 to .84C+ on GISS for September.

 

The September GISS record is .74C both in 2005 and 2013.

 

I expect that to be crushed.  If my prediction comes true GISS will be roughly .671C+ after September.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[The_Global_Warmer]

Nothing crazy.  But a little burst around 140-160E.  Which is just North and to the East of Indonesia.  With pretty much neutral winds until you reach 135W where the Westerlies pick up again and have been persistent byt relatively weak there for the last week.  They slack off but stay neutral or slightly Westerly the next 7 days.

 

 

Back over on the West side currently in the Eastern half of the Indian ocean Easterlies have been helping warm up the Indian Ocean pretty quickly.

 

In a few days Easterlies pick up in the West Central Pacific from North of Australia to West of the dateline.  But where enso is concerned for us.  These winds are only expected to last for a few days.  Before it reverses and Westerlies take over.

 

Looking at the model output.  It looks like a pretty potent Westerly wind burst might come together as we end September.

 

 

 

 

 

[Isotherm]

Solar junkies have already lost big time but won't accept it.  Some have like snowlover123.

 

There might be some longer term cooling form the solar change.

 

But there will be a more real time response.

 

But we haven't had any cooling and the solar effect isn't being masked by the PDO.  The fact that we have had the PDO tank to near it's record lowest levels during the biggest solar tank in a century and no cooling IMO throws a dagger threw the the heart of the the solar argument. 

 

 

 

Actually the "solar argument" as you described, is far from disproven at this point. The mechanisms by which a decreased solar constant would initiate global temperature response would not have begun this soon following a solar minimum.

[donsutherland1]

August GISS:

 

Monthly anomaly: +0.70°C (Ranked 1st; Old mark: 2011: +0.69°C)

 

Summer anomaly: +0.617°C (Ranked 5th)

 

Year-to-Date anomaly: +0.653° (Ranked 4th)

 

To reach or exceed the record annual anomaly, the GISS anomaly must average +0.693°C during the September-December timeframe.

[chrisf97212]

You can't prove the direction of causality by playing semantics with words.

 

Is a long-term +PDO state ('phase') simply a reflection of a long-term +ENSO state ('phase') or vice versa?

 

Chubbs post suggests the former. All you've done is switch the direction of causality by playing with words and not giving any reasoning. 

 

Good question.  This current +PDO blip started with the monster Pacific block last fall.  That block was greatly aided by the monster Pacific typhoons that recurved over the Pacific.

[chrisf97212]

Problem is even if solar could somehow affect climate, it would operate on a resolution of 30-50yrs, based on our latest estimation(s) regarding the depth of the oceanic mixing layer.

You're talking about an interface with an enormous specific thermal capacity...just incredibly vast. It's physically impossible to achieve any statistically detectable response to the brief ups/downs of the TSI cycle. Heat transport through the primary mixing layer in one day is over 50x greater than the total "forcing" differential from the Sun between minimum and maximum.

If there's any effect from the Sun, it must be very long term, and it would require that the TSI-base vary from century-to-century, which is still unproven to begin with.

 

To be fair, solar proponents use other mechanisms beside simple TSI.  I'm no expert but I know they mention the effects on the upper atmosphere, ie ozone destruction, as well as cloud cover.

[chrisf97212]

Just because the mixing layer is deep doesn't mean you have to wait 30-50 years to detect the effect. A change in solar forcing should be nearly immediately detectable in the climate system. While surface temperature might take 30-50 years to fully respond, if the forcing were strong both OHC and surface temperatures should begin to decline. A decline in OHC should be evident after 5 years at most. Instead, OHC is continuing to increase rapidly which indicates a positive energy imbalance. The very unusual most recent soar cycle has had almost no effect on climate forcing. 

 

I was under the impression that the OHC measurements are far from perfect.  Further, there are so many variables I'm uncomfortable saying solar variation has had no effect.  I'm more concerned that it has had an effect, and when solar activity returns to "normal", temps jump dramatically.  Wouldn't OLR be another way to measure to measure the energy budget?

[The_Global_Warmer]

I was under the impression that the OHC measurements are far from perfect.  Further, there are so many variables I'm uncomfortable saying solar variation has had no effect.  I'm more concerned that it has had an effect, and when solar activity returns to "normal", temps jump dramatically.  Wouldn't OLR be another way to measure to measure the energy budget?

 

That is kinda what he is saying.  He is saying it has no "noticeable" effect on climate forcing because if GHG forcing wasn't constantly rising there would have been a very noticeable effect from the solar forcing dropping.

 

 

OHC when the massive solar drop took place did essentially flat line for a little while.

 

Over the last few years OHC has started to rise again.  The Pacific has seen a jump, the Southern Ocean keeps rising, the Atlantic has stabilized a bit.  But the Indian ocean has continued to steadily rise.

 

 

 

 

Part of that is the work of the PDO and now we know the sub-surface current around Antarctica has seen a huge rise in OHC between 500-1500M. 

 

So while OHC closer to the surface probably slowed it's intake a bit with the big solar min.  Some of that slow down was simply heat being carried further down into the oceans.

 

 

 

 

 

OHC tracking is pretty reliable.  The ocean is pretty uniform.  These are just argo floats they pull data from even more then is on this graphic.  So it's pretty well sampled.

 

[The_Global_Warmer]

If the Euro is on to something the North Central Pacific is going to explode in heat.  Both models will steadily erase the North American cold anomalies. 

 

 

With the vortexs staying in the arctic rim and a vortex over the NPAC or NEPAC this is a classic very warm pattern for the Northern Hemisphere with the land getting a lot of the warmth. 

 

With those very warm oceans the land will warm way faster then the oceans cool. 

 

gonna be exciting to see how big September will come in.

 

 

[StudentOfClimatology]

I think August was probably the peak, with the Autumn months coming in progressively cooler overall as the NH SSTs gradually cool, especially once we get into October/November/December.

[nflwxman]

I think August was probably be the peak, with the Autumn months coming in progressively cooler overall as the NH SSTs gradually cool, especially once we get into October/November/December.

I highly doubt this.  The statistics speak for themselves on the SOND period. Unless you just meant SSTs, which I agree we have probably peaked.  However, peak global warmth and peak SSTs don't always happen at the same time.