2014 Global Temperatures

[StudentOfClimatology]

I highly doubt this. The statistics speak for themselves on the SOND period.

We'll see who's right. I think you're making an error with your assumption that all else remains equal outside ENSO.

Surface datasets are warm due to the warm higher latitude SSTs, not ENSO. Those SSTs are not sustainable once the ITCZ/Hadley Cells collapse south as we head into Boreal winter.

[StudentOfClimatology]

However, peak global warmth and peak SSTs don't always happen at the same time.

True.

However, in this case, the surface datasets are running warm (relative to previous years in relation to the satellites) solely due to the toasty SSTs above 25N. Remember, there are no surface stations over the open oceans, so what do you suspect is used in place of that metric?

When those SSTs cool, what will substitute them? A weak El Niño likely won't get the job done in time..

[Jonger]

 

 

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.

 

 

For anyone not aware, that map was covered in approximately 1% of the current float count before 2003, maybe less. The sampling of the ocean was criminally understudied. 

 

[StudentOfClimatology]

Though I do think September will also run quite warm on the surface datasets. Maybe another 0.70 if it reaches max potential?

I don't think the warmth be able to hold on through October.

[tacoman25]

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.

 

 

 

Disagree. I mean, that may happen, but if you take a look at SSTA in early fall, they can fall very quickly (and often do). The warm layer at the top that comprises the SST can be swiftly mixed out by fall storms. 

[Jonger]

Disagree. I mean, that may happen, but if you take a look at SSTA in early fall, they can fall very quickly (and often do). The warm layer at the top that comprises the SST can be swiftly mixed out by fall storms. 

 

It would be cool to see a tightly wound up storm cut a path through the north pacific, it would leave a reverse contrail like negative anomaly in its path.

[The_Global_Warmer]

2012- SON: .70C+

2013-SON: .71C+

 

 

 

2014-September is currently a .192C+ on CFS = to a .74C+ on GISS with North American having huge widespread cold anomalies.

 

 

Those cold anomalies are going to be largely wiped out the rest of the month.  The NPAC/NEPAC will cool tremendously slower than NA will warm up.

 

The central Pacific and Sub-tropical Atalntic/mid lats is going to blow up as well ssta wise. 

 

The ring of vortex over the arctic is a classic NH torch pattern.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Saying SSTA are way warmer then 2012 at this time and close to .10C warmer than 2013.

 

 

 

How ENSO can't maintain the warmth even tho 2013 had a negative ONI thru the fall.  2012 had a couple very weak nino months.  Both averaged .70C+ over the next 90 days.

 

 

 

 

 

Antarctica has been torching with the -AAO, the Indian Ocean is warming.  The AAO is expected to stay negative.  This has been able to overcome two huge NH landmasses that have very cool to cold anomalies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Another big warming event taking place is the Indian Ocean Dipole.  It has been going on steadily the past week and the forecast calls for it to get stronger.  Have a kink for a day and a half at most them come on even stronger yet.

 

 

The Indian Ocean Dipole

Positive event:

• warmer sea surface temperatures in the western Indian Ocean relative to the east
• easterly wind anomalies across the Indian Ocean and less cloudiness to Australia's northwest
• less rainfall over southern Australia and the Top End.

Negative event:

• cooler sea surface temperatures in the western Indian Ocean relative to the east
• winds become more westerly, bringing increased cloudiness to Australia's northwest
• more rainfall in the Top End and southern Australia.

 

 

 

 

 

[StudentOfClimatology]

That's the thing, those high latitude SST anomalies are driving the warmth on the surface datasets because they're utilized to produce surface temps over the oceans. The tropics have also been above average on all three surface datasets. Those SST anomalies above 25N are already falling and will continue to do so...and when they do, the surface datasets will cool as well.

You'll need a significant warming of ENSO and the tropical SSTs to offset that cooling.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Disagree. I mean, that may happen, but if you take a look at SSTA in early fall, they can fall very quickly (and often do). The warm layer at the top that comprises the SST can be swiftly mixed out by fall storms. 

 

There is absolutely no chance the NEPAC cools as fast as North America is going to warm over the next two weeks.

 

There is a huge difference between ssts dropping 2C over two weeks and land temp anomalies changing 4-6C over a huge region.

 

 

 

 

[StudentOfClimatology]

Thats OHC, not SSTs.

As for your point, I don't know, man. No signs of any spike yet on the CFS data. So far the month has been cooling, after the initial spike:

[skierinvermont]

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 problem isn't really the timescale. It's that the forcing simply isn't big enough to detect. If solar forcing were 1 or 2W/m2 (instead of a tiny .1W/m2) over the 11-yr cycle, then there would be a very observable effect in declining OHC and declining surface temperature (although never reaching equilibrium at the peak or minimum of the solar cycle). 

[skierinvermont]

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.

 

What magical mechanism has no effect on any detectable physical variable anywhere on the planet and then suddenly 'initiates' far into the future?

[StudentOfClimatology]

The problem isn't really the timescale. It's that the forcing simply isn't big enough to detect. If solar forcing were 1 or 2W/m2 (instead of a tiny .1W/m2) over the 11-yr cycle, then there would be a very observable effect in declining OHC and declining surface temperature (although never reaching equilibrium at the peak or minimum of the solar cycle).

Bingo, which is why I don't understand why the Sun is invoked so heavily here. Especially in the near term when there'll be even less statistically detectable thermal response.

[nflwxman]

I don't know, man. No signs of any spike yet on the CFS data.

So far the month has been cooling, after the initial spike:

CFS is usually delayed a bit, it should warm in the next few days.

The high latitude SSTs drove the summer anomalies in 2013. SSTs dropped in the fall yet the SON period was .71. What happened there?

I think it would be prudent to use persistence and statistics when forecasting climate anomalies and not to microanalyze every Hadley cell fluctuation and oceanic index. There are few things that dramatically impact half a years temperatures, ENSO, solar, aerosols, and GHGs. Of course there are years that are exceptions, but I'm not sure why are you so persistent to claim that this will be different than the past 2 years.

[StudentOfClimatology]

CFS is usually delayed a bit, it should warm in the next few days.

The high latitude SSTs drove the summer anomalies in 2013. SSTs dropped in the fall yet the SON period was .71. What happened there?

I think it would be prudent to use persistence and statistics when forecasting climate anomalies and not to microanalyze every Hadley cell fluctuation and oceanic index. There are few things that dramatically impact half a years temperatures, ENSO, solar, aerosols, and GHGs. Of course there are years that are exceptions, but I'm not sure why are you so persistent to claim that this will be different than the past 2 years.

GHG forcing is largely the same now as it was in 2013...or 2012, for that matter.

To answer your question, the tropics (specifically the Indian Ocean/W-PAC) warmed through the Autumn in 2013. Not surprising given we had negative anomalies to begin across the equatorial Pacific. That W-PAC warm pool is currently in the process of collapsing due to the El Niño circulation, so all warming from here on out will be determined by ENSO.

Here we can discern the causative mechanism, and see the divergence between the satellite data and the surface data. We know exactly why the surface data is so warm despite the lack of an official niño at this time.

[nflwxman]

To answer your question, the tropics (specifically the Indian Ocean/W-PAC) warmed through the Autumn. Not surprising given we had negative anomalies to begin across the equatorial Pacific. That W-PAC warm pool is in the process if collapsing due to the El Niño circulation, so all warming from here on out will be determined by ENSO.

Here we can discern the causative mechanism, and see the divergence between the satellite data and the surface data. We know exactly why the surface data is so warm despite the lack of an official niño at this time.

If you are right, you are due some serious kudos.  I'll be the first to pat you on the back.  However, I fear that you are overanalyzing the situation to the point where you are missing the forest for the trees.  At least we can see who is correct in a few short months.  I think TGW laid out a very nice data laden case above why a global temperature record is likely.

[The_Global_Warmer]

What?  It doesn't matter if it's OHC.  There is a sizable pool of warm water in the sub-surface of the N/NE Pac.

 

 

So far you have said it can't maintain the warmth and have backed it with nothing when 2012 and 2013 did it with much less to work with.

 

I laid out great arguments.

 

 

 

Here is an animation of the current forecast for the Indian Ocean winds.  NW Australia is in the Far SE corner of the graphic.  Winds blowing East to west from the NW Australia region towards Africa cause the Indian Ocean to warm.  This has gone on now for about a week.

 

It's clear there is straight up long fetch Easterlies that are very consistent.  This is to be expected there is a big correlation between El Nino and the warm phase of the Indian ocean dipole.

 

So we are trading warm ssta from the small upper latitudes with the tropical belt from the Indian Ocean to the East Pacific.

 

 

 

 

 

 

in scientific terms, the IOD is a coupled ocean and atmosphere phenomenon, similar to ENSO but in the equatorial Indian Ocean. It is thought that the IOD has a link with ENSO events through an extension of the Walker Circulation to the west and associated Indonesian throughflow (the flow of warm tropical ocean water from the Pacific into the Indian Ocean). Hence, positive IOD events are often associated with El Niño and negative events with La Niña. When the IOD and ENSO are in phase the impacts of El Niño and La Niña events are often most extreme over Australia, while when they are out of phase the impacts of El Niño and La Niña events can be diminished.

 

[StudentOfClimatology]

What? It doesn't matter if it's OHC. There is a sizable pool of warm water in the sub-surface of the N/NE Pac.

So far you have said it can't maintain the warmth and have backed it with nothing when 2012 and 2013 did it with much less to work with.

Uh, the subsurface is always much colder than the SSTs...by a lot. Anomalies are relative to the average of that specific domain.

As long as those waters are mixed up to the surface, SSTs will cool. The storminess over the N-PAC will be utilizing a good portion of that heat.

[StudentOfClimatology]

If you are right, you are due some serious kudos. I'll be the first to pat you on the back. However, I fear that you are overanalyzing the situation to the point where you are missing the forest for the trees. At least we can see who is correct in a few short months. I think TGW laid out a very nice data laden case above why a global temperature record is likely.

I guess we'll see where mother nature decides to take this. Good luck.

[forkyfork]

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.

 

why is the map different from the text?

 

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=3&type=anoms&mean_gen=08&year1=2014&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=1200&pol=rob

 

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

[ORH_wxman]

why is the map different from the text?

 

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=3&type=anoms&mean_gen=08&year1=2014&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=1200&pol=rob

 

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

 

Good question...I'm not sure. I mean, they're really close, so it probably doesn't matter in the larger scheme. The only two reasons I could think is that the map is calculated slightly differently or the map is updated more frequently than the text. The text is only updated once per month, even though GHCN data is updated a lot more frequently. As the month wears onward, more GHCN data trickles in from August and gets inputed into the system which could change the value.

 

 

edit: one way to check might be to see if the map value changes throughout the month at all

[skierinvermont]

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 5-yr trend in OHC is statistically significantly well above zero. We can say with very high confidence that the earth has been gaining heat energy over the last 5 years. Probably at a rate close to .5W/m2 or a bit higher. OHC data isn't precise enough to pin-point it exactly, but it is good enough to give high confidence that it is pretty close to .5W/m2.

 

This is completely inconsistent with the theory that reduced solar activity would have a significant negative climate forcing. The earth is continuing to warm, and will continue to warm unless a new negative forcing is introduced. 

[skierinvermont]

For anyone not aware, that map was covered in approximately 1% of the current float count before 2003, maybe less. The sampling of the ocean was criminally understudied. 

 

 

 

 

The sampling was more than sufficient to make reliable estimates of global OHC change prior to 2003. Just as global temperature can accurately and precisely be measured by 60 randomly distributed thermometers globally, you don't need to measure every square inch of the ocean to get sufficient sampling of OHC. 

 

In addition, we know from rising sea levels that OHC must have been rising rapidly before 2003.

[skierinvermont]

I think you may be talking about regional correlations. But a -PDO/ La Nina era favors global hiatus periods

like we had from 46-76 and from 98 until the present.

 

I don't think the statistical evidence is strong enough to support that claim. The literature makes clear that hiatus periods do occur but it does not and cannot attribute a mechanism through statistics alone (without much more data than is available). The automatic attribution of hiatus periods to the -PDO is not scientifically supportable. The lack of warming 46-76 is likely mostly attributable to aerosols.

 

The cooling from say 1944 to 1950, could reasonably be attributable to the switch from +PDO to -PDO. But the stable temperatures thereafter is likely better attributed to rising aerosol concentrations against a slow GHG forcing. 

 

 

Logically, after the initial 5 or 10 year switch from +PDO to -PDO, why would global temperature not resume its rise? Forcing is continuing to rise. Unless the PDO absorbs energy into the oceans at an ever-increasing and unsustainable rate, GHG forcing will overwhelm it.

 

 

Let's say that in the 90s (minus Pinatubo), in the +PDO, the earth was in a +.5W/m2 energy imbalance. The oceans were absorbing energy at .5W/m2. GHG forcing increased by .05W/m2 per year, but surface temperature also rose enough to offset this each such that the earth's energy imbalance remained at .5W/m2. 

 

Now all of a sudden the earth flips to a -PDO, and the oceans absorb at 1W/m2 meaning they are absorbing heat at .5W/m2 greater than the earth's total energy imbalance. Where does the extra heat come from? The atmosphere. Atmospheric temperatures cool reducing OLR at .0125W/m2 per year. However, GHG forcing continues increasing at .05W/m2 per year. After 8 years the earth's energy imbalance has now increased to 1W/m2. Now the earth's total energy imbalance = the rate the oceans are absorbing heat. After another 10 years of GHG forcing the earth's energy imbalance would be 1.5W/m2 if surface temperature did not warm, which would be much greater than the rate oceans are absorbing it which is still 1W/m2 (and lead to rapid accumulation of heat in the atmosphere). Thus surface temperature would probably resume rising at the rate it was prior to the switch to a -PDO. If the -PDO weakens or flips back to a +PDO, then global temperature would rise even faster. 

[nflwxman]

Well put skier.  I think your articulation of this point is far better than what I've had in the past.  

 

 

If you think of the PDO as a change in baseline, it makes more sense.  The baseline at this point is that the ocean is absorbing more energy than in 2005, which increases the overall energy imbalance.  That "climate shift" will be overwhelmed with increasing Greenhouse Gases and the increasing energy imbalance.  You can already see the OHC data between 0-700m has begun to respond and "recover" from the PDO crash in the last 3 years.  As many have pointed out, there is a bit of a lag in the 0-700m data versus surface temperatures, but it's no surprise we are running warm this year for ENSO neutral. 

 

Assuming we have bottomed out on the PDO index (which may or may not be case), if anything we would warm faster than "average" the next decade with an increasing PDO/ENSO mixed with the higher imbalance.  Hence my 0.25C higher average global temperature between 2015-2024 versus the previous decade.

 

I think there has been a poor reflexive reaction to this in the scientific and skeptic community.  Many have essentially ignored all the sound science done on forcing and aerosol concentration throughout the 20th century in favor for attribution to the mysterious PDO. This is just a speed bump in the greater context of surface warming.

 

[skierinvermont]

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.

 

The period 2005-2014 will likely average something like .60 I think (eyeballing from a graph).

 

I'll go with a resumption of the normal warming rate of .2C/decade.

 

So that means .80C for 2015-2024. 

[skierinvermont]

Well put skier.  I think your articulation of this point is far better than what I've had in the past.  

 

 

If you think of the PDO as a change in baseline, it makes more sense.  The baseline at this point is that the ocean is absorbing more energy than in 2005, which increases the overall energy imbalance.  That "climate shift" will be overwhelmed with increasing Greenhouse Gases and the increasing energy imbalance.  You can already see the OHC data between 0-700m has begun to respond and "recover" from the PDO crash in the last 3 years.  As many have pointed out, there is a bit of a lag in the 0-700m data versus surface temperatures, but it's no surprise we are running warm this year for ENSO neutral. 

 

Assuming we have bottomed out on the PDO index (which may or may not be case), if anything we would warm faster than "average" the next decade with an increasing PDO/ENSO mixed with the higher imbalance.  Hence my 0.25C higher average global temperature between 2015-2024 versus the previous decade.

 

 

 

The funny thing is, the -PDO should have caused OHC to rise even faster, if it does indeed cause increased vertical mixing of the oceans and trade winds. If you look at 0-2000m OHC this is indeed the case. OHC rose rapidly 2007-present. 

 

The oceans will likely not continue to accumulate heat that rapidly without further surface temperature increase (or even stronger -PDO / trade winds).

[nflwxman]

The funny thing is, the -PDO should have caused OHC to rise even faster, if it does indeed cause increased vertical mixing of the oceans and trade winds. 

 

So not all the pieces of the puzzle fit together perfectly. 

 

If you include deep-ocean OHC, the puzzle fits a little better.

 

Yeah, I was under the impression that the total 0-2000m column was warming quicker in the last 10 years than the previous decade.  Pretty much confirming ENSO redistribution of heat to the deeper ocean.  I can look at the numbers later, but it certainly looks like it's been rising more since 2008.

 

[chubbs]

We'll see who's right. I think you're making an error with your assumption that all else remains equal outside ENSO.

Surface datasets are warm due to the warm higher latitude SSTs, not ENSO. Those SSTs are not sustainable once the ITCZ/Hadley Cells collapse south as we head into Boreal winter.

If Hadley cell expansion is the mechanism would expect higher latitude warm SST anomalies to shift from N to S hemisphere.

[AvantHiatus]

If Hadley cell expansion is the mechanism would expect higher latitude warm SST anomalies to shift from N to S hemisphere.

Nothing is ever the result of a singular process. Could be a combination of cloud feedbacks, methane, blocking. Tho, these factors are interconnected within themselves.

 

The vast majority of elevated SSTA did arise during peak insolation, so this gives credence to SOCs theory. However, I would like to see how the winter progresses before drawing solid conclusions.

 

My prediction is that the NPAC and other regions will remain anomalously warm and some place in the conus will massively torch records wherever the ridge decides to setup.