2014 Global Temperatures

[StudentOfClimatology]

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

We haven't seen this occur yet in the SH, at least to the extent it has in the NH. The reason(s) behind it are still very uncertain.

Generally, the Hadley Cells should expand as the climate warms, but this is a much larger shift than any climate models foresaw.

[chubbs]

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).

 

Well put. Its counterintuitive but the globe warms fastest during La Nina.

 

http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2014/earths-energy-imbalance/

[chubbs]

We haven't seen this occur yet in the SH, at least to the extent it has in the NH. The reason(s) behind it are still very uncertain.

Generally, the Hadley Cells should expand as the climate warms, but this is a much larger shift than any climate models foresaw.

 

 I don't know if there is any skill here but the CFS is predicting significant warming in the southern hemisphere oceans this winter.

[StudentOfClimatology]

I don't know if there is any skill here but the CFS is predicting significant warming in the southern hemisphere oceans this winter.

Interesting.

I don't have the guts or knowledge to predict something like that. I know the CFS was blowtorching the SH SSTs last year too, so it could be model bias.

[ORH_wxman]

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.

 

 

 

 

I'll disagree to an extent...aerosols were tried as a main contributor to the N hemisphere SST variability (including the AMO) but they haven't passed with much muster in the literature. I posted the papers (see this one in particular http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JAS-D-12-0331.1)...people) and people can read them and if they disagree, they can post some good rebuttal papers. I haven't seen any though. Maybe that will change.

 

There's no doubt that aerosols had some cooling effect...but they don't explain the big drops in the N Hemisphere SSTs that helped sustain the hiatus from 1945-1975 while the S hemisphere was warming...just like you cannot explain the large warming of the N hemisphere and high latitude waters from 1910-1940 due to AGW that early in the period. There was a recent paper too (someone posted it in here) that rebuffed the idea that aerosols were a major factor in the post-2000 hiatus as well.

 

There's obviously still some reconciling on the internal processes and what feedbacks are associated with them. We have some good data, but not all of it is good enough to come to obvious conclusions...which is why the scientific community is not agreeing very well on the temp hiatus and what it means.

[The_Global_Warmer]

 I don't know if there is any skill here but the CFS is predicting significant warming in the southern hemisphere oceans this winter.

 

SH SSTA between -20 and -60S reached record level for only a week earlier this yea.  But spent more time up near there than any other year except 2002.

 

 

 

[FPizz]

Ncep showed august as the 9th warmest no?

[The_Global_Warmer]

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.

 

 

 

It's nice to see the puzzle is coming together better.

[nflwxman]

No, Ncdc is not out yet.

[donsutherland1]

Ncep showed august as the 9th warmest no?

The NCDC figure will be released on 9/18 11 am.

[FPizz]

The NCDC figure will be released on 9/18 11 am.

thank you!

[tacoman25]

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.

 

Well, most of the CONUS is certainly due for a big torch!

 

[tacoman25]

I'll disagree to an extent...aerosols were tried as a main contributor to the N hemisphere SST variability (including the AMO) but they haven't passed with much muster in the literature. I posted the papers (see this one in particular http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JAS-D-12-0331.1)...people) and people can read them and if they disagree, they can post some good rebuttal papers. I haven't seen any though. Maybe that will change.

 

There's no doubt that aerosols had some cooling effect...but they don't explain the big drops in the N Hemisphere SSTs that helped sustain the hiatus from 1945-1975 while the S hemisphere was warming...just like you cannot explain the large warming of the N hemisphere and high latitude waters from 1910-1940 due to AGW that early in the period. There was a recent paper too (someone posted it in here) that rebuffed the idea that aerosols were a major factor in the post-2000 hiatus as well.

 

There's obviously still some reconciling on the internal processes and what feedbacks are associated with them. We have some good data, but not all of it is good enough to come to obvious conclusions...which is why the scientific community is not agreeing very well on the temp hiatus and what it means.

 

Yes, thank you. Skiier acting like aerosols explain all of the variation in temperature trends the past 50 years (aside from AGW) is ridiculous.

 

I still don't understand why some people are so stuck in the mindset that any type of climate variation is due to man-made causes. 

[stadiumwave]

I'll disagree to an extent...aerosols were tried as a main contributor to the N hemisphere SST variability (including the AMO) but they haven't passed with much muster in the literature. I posted the papers (see this one in particular http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JAS-D-12-0331.1)...people) and people can read them and if they disagree, they can post some good rebuttal papers. I haven't seen any though. Maybe that will change.

 

There's no doubt that aerosols had some cooling effect...but they don't explain the big drops in the N Hemisphere SSTs that helped sustain the hiatus from 1945-1975 while the S hemisphere was warming...just like you cannot explain the large warming of the N hemisphere and high latitude waters from 1910-1940 due to AGW that early in the period. There was a recent paper too (someone posted it in here) that rebuffed the idea that aerosols were a major factor in the post-2000 hiatus as well.

 

There's obviously still some reconciling on the internal processes and what feedbacks are associated with them. We have some good data, but not all of it is good enough to come to obvious conclusions...which is why the scientific community is not agreeing very well on the temp hiatus and what it means.

 

 

Thank you for a sensible post to some of the madness I'm reading.  You guys trying to downplay PDO influence seem like...deniers.  Honestly...do you really believe that?

[stadiumwave]

Yes, thank you. Skiier acting like aerosols explain all of the variation in temperature trends the past 50 years (aside from AGW) is ridiculous.

 

I still don't understand why some people are so stuck in the mindset that any type of climate variation is due to man-made causes. 

 

 

Didn't you know that climate has been flatline stable for many years until humans got involved?

[nflwxman]

Yes, thank you. Skiier acting like aerosols explain all of the variation in temperature trends the past 50 years (aside from AGW) is ridiculous.

I still don't understand why some people are so stuck in the mindset that any type of climate variation is due to man-made causes.

That's a big strawman you are building there. Need some help?

Skier or no one else ever said the PDO does not change global temperature with modulation of ENSO. In the absense of AGW, it would cool the earth a few tenths of a degree over a

decade as it did in the late 40s. Funny thing about that is- it's not happening now. Wonder why?

Y'all also realize -ENSO means the energy imbalance becomes higher right?

[tacoman25]

That's a big strawman you are building there. Need some help?

Skier or no one else ever said the PDO does not change global temperature with modulation of ENSO. In the absense of AGW, it would cool the earth a few tenths of a degree over a

decade as it did in the late 40s. Funny thing about that is- it's not happening now. Wonder why?

Y'all also realize -ENSO means the energy imbalance becomes higher right?

 

It's not a straw man. Skiier has made it clear he believes the lack of warming during the 1946-75 -PDO phase was mostly due to aerosols, and that the sudden switch to rapid warming in the late 1970s was not due to the switch to +PDO, but less aerosols. He believes this because he claims there is no known mechanism whereby the PDO phases could actually modulate temperature trends over several decades.

 

However, he and others have failed to answer several of the points Will has repeatedly brought up in regards to this, and how "the literature" does not conclusively prove anything in regards to aerosol influence on temperature trends.

 

Yes, of course -ENSO causes more warmth to be transferred to the oceans and less to the surface. That's beside the point. The global temperature trends being referenced in terms of "hiatuses" are from the surface/LT data sets like GISS and UAH, not OHC.

 

In addition, there is a general tendency to focus on man-made causes in climate change. Obviously because of AGW, but beyond that, it is very common to see people trying to attribute every little climate trend to some man-made effect - even though we know climate has been in a constant state of flux, with all sorts of changing regional and global trends, for long before humans were influencing things.

[skierinvermont]

Yes, thank you. Skiier acting like aerosols explain all of the variation in temperature trends the past 50 years (aside from AGW) is ridiculous.

 

 

Didn't say that.

[skierinvermont]

It's not a straw man. Skiier has made it clear he believes the lack of warming during the 1946-75 -PDO phase was mostly due to aerosols, and that the sudden switch to rapid warming in the late 1970s was not due to the switch to +PDO, but less aerosols. He believes this because he claims there is no known mechanism whereby the PDO phases could actually modulate temperature trends over several decades.

 

However, he and others have failed to answer several of the points Will has repeatedly brought up in regards to this, and how "the literature" does not conclusively prove anything in regards to aerosol influence on temperature trends.

 

Yes, of course -ENSO causes more warmth to be transferred to the oceans and less to the surface. That's beside the point. The global temperature trends being referenced in terms of "hiatuses" are from the surface/LT data sets like GISS and UAH, not OHC.

 

In addition, there is a general tendency to focus on man-made causes in climate change. Obviously because of AGW, but beyond that, it is very common to see people trying to attribute every little climate trend to some man-made effect - even though we know climate has been in a constant state of flux, with all sorts of changing regional and global trends, for long before humans were influencing things.

 

Two glaring factual errors here.

 

1. I didn't that the rapid warming in the late 70s was not due to the +PDO+ENSO switch. Most of that warming likely was due to the +PDO+ENSO switch.

I did say that most of the lack of cooling 1946-1976 was due to aerosols and slow GHG forcing. 

 

And I don't think pointing out pressure averages in the pacific proves the direction of causality between PDO - ENSO - IOD any more than your first attempt did. Most believable to me is that it is some positive reinforcement from all 3 variables. It's as much of a +ENSO 'phase' as it is a +PDO 'phase.'

 

2. Your statement: ""The literature" (why is this even in quotation marks?) does not conclusively prove anything in regards to aerosol influence on temperature trends."

 

is blatantly false.

 

The literature conclusively shows that aerosols rose rapidly 1946-1976 and that this had a cooling effect upon the globe. The only debate is to exactly how much. There are papers on both sides of exactly how much.

[skierinvermont]

My main point has not been that -PDO-ENSO 'phase' does not have an effect on global temperature, but that this effect is concentrated around the time of the switch. After the initial switch, warming should resume.

 

Thus my expectation that 2015-2024 will average .80C on GISS. 

[bluewave]

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. 

 

The recent papers support the PDO/ENSO idea and reject aerosols. A newer paper addresses the role of the

Atlantic in hiatus periods.  It could just be an interplay between the Atlantic and Pacific and these

authors of the Atlantic paper chose to focus more on the contribution of the Atlantic.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100922132002.htm

 

The hiatus of global warming in the Northern Hemisphere during the mid-20th century may have been due to an abrupt cooling event centered over the North Atlantic around 1970, rather than the cooling effects of tropospheric pollution.

 

http://web.science.unsw.edu.au/~matthew/nclimate2106-incl-SI.pdf

 

One notable aspect of the two most recent extended hiatus periods (1940–1975 and 2001–present), in contrast to periods of global SAT warming (1910–1940 and 1976–2000), is that they correspond closely to periods when the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation18–20 (IPO) has been in a negative phase (Fig. 1a). The IPO manifests as a low-frequency El Niño-like pattern of climate variability, with a warm tropical Pacific and weakened trade winds during its positive phase, and a cool tropical Pacific and strengthened winds during its negative phase. Recent analyses of climate model simulations suggest that hiatus decades are linked to negative phases of the IPO (refs 2,3,11). Here we examine the most recent hiatus in this context, particularly in relation to altered ocean dynamics and enhanced ocean heat uptake, and assess implications for the coming decades.

 

http://www.washington.edu/news/2014/08/21/cause-of-global-warming-hiatus-found-deep-in-the-atlantic-ocean/

 

 

The authors dug up historical data to show that the cooling in the three decades between 1945 to 1975 – which caused people to worry about the start of an Ice Age – was during a cooling phase. (It was thought to have been caused by air pollution.) Earlier records in Central England show the 40- to 70-year cycle goes back centuries, and other records show it has existed for millennia.

Changes in Atlantic Ocean circulation historically meant roughly 30 warmer years followed by 30 cooler years. Now that it is happening on top of global warming, however, the trend looks more like a staircase.

This explanation implies that the current slowdown in global warming could last for another decade, or longer, and then rapid warming will return. But Tung emphasizes it’s hard to predict what will happen next.

A pool of freshwater from melting ice now sitting in the Arctic Ocean, for example, could overflow into the North Atlantic to upset the cycle.

“We are not talking about a normal situation because there are so many other things happening due to climate change,” Tung said.

The research was funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation and the National Natural Science Foundation of China.

###

[Isotherm]

The PDO certainly has had an impact on global temperature variations over the past 100 years in conjunction with other variables. The PDO aided in the temperature hiatus of the mid 20th century, within an overall backdrop of increasing radiative forcing, largely via solar activity, and GHGs. The PDO acted as a "heat sink" during the time frame of increasing forcing, and once the PDO shifted to its warm phase, to no surprise, we saw a rapid spike in temperatures due to the aforementioned mechanisms in concert w/ the PDO.

 

This is the HADCRUT temperature record versus the PDO.

[GaWx]

"Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry warns of decades of possible global cooling: Suggests the ‘current cool phase will continue until the 2030s’"

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/09/16/climatologist-dr-judith-curry-warns-of-decades-of-global-cooling-the-current-cool-phase-will-continue-until-the-2030s/

[HailMan06]

"Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry warns of decades of possible global cooling: Suggests the ‘current cool phase will continue until the 2030s’"

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/09/16/climatologist-dr-judith-curry-warns-of-decades-of-global-cooling-the-current-cool-phase-will-continue-until-the-2030s/

You are aware that Climate Depot is a denier site, right? I see there are some big claims Judith Curry made but does not really delve into how cooling will occur. As the saying goes extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

 

Here's some info on the think tank sponsoring her speech:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C._Marshall_Institute

 

 

The George C. Marshall Institute (GMI) is an American politically conservative think tank established in 1984 in Washington, D.C. with a focus on scientific issues and public policy. In the 1980s, the Institute was engaged primarily in lobbying in support of the Strategic Defense Initiative.^[1] Since the late 1980s, the Institute has put forward environmental skepticism views, and in particular has disputed mainstream scientific opinion on climate change, although it continues to be active on defense policy. The organization is named after World War II military leader and statesman George C. Marshall.

Naomi Oreskes states that the institute has, in order to resist and delay regulation, lobbied politically to create a false public perception of scientific uncertainty over the negative effects of second-hand smoke, the carcinogenic nature of tobacco smoking, the existence of acid rain, and on the evidence between CFCs and ozone depletion.^[2]

 

Exxon-Mobil was a funder of the GMI until it pulled funding from it and several similar organizations in 2008.^[24] From 1998-2008, the institute received a total of $715,000 in funding from Exxon-Mobil.

[ORH_wxman]

"Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry warns of decades of possible global cooling: Suggests the ‘current cool phase will continue until the 2030s’"

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/09/16/climatologist-dr-judith-curry-warns-of-decades-of-global-cooling-the-current-cool-phase-will-continue-until-the-2030s/

 

 

The cool phase of ocean cycles could certainly last until the 2030s...but I do not think there is very good evidence that we will actually cool between now and 2030. That would require some sort of particularly strong feedback via clouds either from solar or the ocean variability cloud-feedbacks. There isn't much, if any, compelling evidence for either on a large enough scale to offset the underlying AGW component....even if you believe that component is fairly modest (say 0.10C per decade)...much less something higher than that. We should cool pretty rapidly by 2020 if solar is that big of an issue since we theoretically should be entering another minimum (perhaps prolonged) in 2017-2018 after a weak maximum. If a weak maximum into another min doesn't do it, then the theory for a stronger feedback from that can pretty much be put to bed...its already pretty uncompelling.

 

There might be a boost from the AMO towards the 2020s as it descends...but this remains to be seen how much of an impact it has.

[nflwxman]

"Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry warns of decades of possible global cooling: Suggests the ‘current cool phase will continue until the 2030s’"

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/09/16/climatologist-dr-judith-curry-warns-of-decades-of-global-cooling-the-current-cool-phase-will-continue-until-the-2030s/

She's just wrong.  You don't need to be a statistician to see global temperature correlation to the PDO is weak in a multidecadal sense.  In fact, solar irradiance is a much better explanation for long term (10+ year trends) prior to 1950 when AGW became strong enough to overwhelm most natural factors over a multi-decadal time frame.  All this PDO talk will probably stop in the next few years.  At the end of the day, this is a lot of scrambling in the climatological and skeptic community to explain a completely reasonable flatline of global temperatures between 2008-2013.

[GaWx]

You are aware that Climate Depot is a denier site, right? Also I see there are some big claims Judith Curry made but does not delve into how cooling will occur. As the saying goes extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Here's some info on the think tank sponsoring her speech:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C._Marshall_Institute

I'm not really familiar with them. What do you mean by "denier"? Does the website push the idea that many AGW related predictions are overblown (skeptical ), that AGW is virtually nonexistent (that 's straight denier to me), or are they just being open-minded in general about what will happen since nobody really knows the extent of the impact of AGW as well as natural factors/cycles and positive/negative feedback? If you're talking about openmindedness, then I'm right there with them since nobody and no model really knows the answer due to the complexities involved. I am still very much openminded about the sun's potential significant influence and expect to remain that way for several more years.

Edit: Also, what's going on in the Southern Hemisphere is particularly puzzling to me.

[ORH_wxman]

I'm not really familiar with them. What do you mean by "denier"? Does the website push the idea that many AGW related predictions are overblown, that AGW is virtually nonexistent, or are they just being open-minded/skeptical in general about what will happen since nobody really knows the extent of the impact of AGW as well as natural factors/cycles? If you're talking about openmindedness, then I'm right there with them since nobody and no model really knows the answer due to the complexities involved.

 

 

I haven't really been on that site...but it depends on who you talk to what constitutes a denier....I've been called a denier in this forum multiple times...but usually I just ask what I am denying and its crickets. Most here are not that ignorant though. Most refer to deniers as those who push the idea that AGW is either a hoax, or so small that it has almost no effect.

 

However, some of the more ignorant posters refer to deniers as anyone who doesn't beleive the more extreme or higher end warming scenarios...despite any scientific literature that says otherwise.

 

 

In the end, the best way to discuss science in here is to discredit (or support) the science with actual literature or hard evidence...rather than attack the site that posted it. You could go in circles doing that...people post stuff in here from alarmist sites too like climateprogress, etc.

[HailMan06]

I'm not really familiar with them. What do you mean by "denier"? Does the website push the idea that many AGW related predictions are overblown (skeptical ), that AGW is virtually nonexistent (that 's straight denier to me), or are they just being open-minded in general about what will happen since nobody really knows the extent of the impact of AGW as well as natural factors/cycles and positive/negative feedback? If you're talking about openmindedness, then I'm right there with them since nobody and no model really knows the answer due to the complexities involved. I am still very much openminded about the sun's potential significant influence and expect to remain that way for several more years.

Edit: Also, what's going on in the Southern Hemisphere is particularly puzzling to me.

Climate Depot's posts pretty much only link to articles that predict imminent global cooling. Most of them either do not support their claims with facts or post data that cannot be confirmed in the real world.

[GaWx]

The cool phase of ocean cycles could certainly last until the 2030s...but I do not think there is very good evidence that we will actually cool between now and 2030. That would require some sort of particularly strong feedback via clouds either from solar or the ocean variability cloud-feedbacks. There isn't much, if any, compelling evidence for either on a large enough scale to offset the underlying AGW component....even if you believe that component is fairly modest (say 0.10C per decade)...much less something higher than that. We should cool pretty rapidly by 2020 if solar is that big of an issue since we theoretically should be entering another minimum (perhaps prolonged) in 2017-2018 after a weak maximum. If a weak maximum into another min doesn't do it, then the theory for a stronger feedback from that can pretty much be put to bed...its already pretty uncompelling.

There might be a boost from the AMO towards the 2020s as it descends...but this remains to be seen how much of an impact it has.

Regarding the sun, I agree that we're getting closer to put up or shut up time. I do expect this next min to be even weaker. Also, I could see the next max being weaker assuming we get the weaker minimum in ~2018-2022 though that is more unpredictable at this stage. I also wonder if the weaker sun is already manifesting itself in the Southern Hemisphere. Regardless, I feel we need to start seeing more concrete evidence in the northern hem within a few years regarding the sun.