2014 Global Temperatures

[The_Global_Warmer]

Here is the 26th. 

 

And weatherbell is at .113C through out to 00z Jan 27th. 

 

 Jan 2013 was 0.08C and GISS was. 63C.

 

[AvantHiatus]

While the lower 48 states freeze — every state in the contiguous U.S. is expected to see a low temperature at or below 32°F on Tuesday morning — this weather pattern also has a flipside, with unusually mild conditions affecting Alaska and the Western U.S. At 10 p.m. local time on Sunday, it was warmer in Homer, Alaska than anywhere in the contiguous U.S., except for Southern Florida and Southern California. The high temperature in Homer of 55°F broke their all-time monthly high temperature record, according to Weather Underground. 

 

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/polar-vortex-is-back-coldest-of-cold-en-route-to-us-17003

[The_Global_Warmer]

Weatherbell at the 18z update plummeted to 0C.

 

Thanks to the NA cold spell.

 

Thanks to insane blocking and arctic warmth my region has multiple snow events and icing events coming.  This is by far the snowiest winter of my life.

 

 

 

[csnavywx]

Unless you have a crystal ball (and human emissions actually do follow one of the emission pathways), how do you know that recent projections were too high?

 

Also, the inclusion of the PDO really should not have much effect on a 90 year projection. If the inclusion of the PDO makes a big difference in the end result, there's probably something wrong with the model. You still don't seem to fully understand that by causing a "hiatus" decade in surface warming, a -PDO enlarges the surface energy imbalance and only guarantees faster warming in future decades. 

 

Most CMIP5 models already include the PDO anyways. And I believe the AR4 models did too.

 

What was new in recent years was the tuning of the PDO to the present PDO state which allowed for better short-term prediction but should have little bearing on long-term projection.

 

 

I think you're hitting pretty close to the mark here. The issue is (and has been) the fact that no model can accurately predict internal variability. We do find that exercises where we force the models to use various indices (and their associated regions, like ENSO for example) to remain the same while the rest of the run is computed come up remarkably close to reality when run as a hindcast.

 

On the other hand, we still can't be sure:

 

http://scienceofdoom.com/2013/10/06/ghosts-of-climates-past-part-two-lorenz/

 

I think that link gives a great look at the subject. Of particular interest (besides the juicy Lorenz snippits -- read the entire thing, not just the highlighted portions!) is the graph from Hansen et al. in 1998:

 

 

The variation of the global-mean annual-mean surface air temperature during the 100-year control run is shown in Figure 1. The global mean temperature at the end of the run is very similar to that at the beginning, but there is substantial unforced variability on all time scales that can be examined, that is, up to decadal time scales. Note that an unforced change in global temperature of about 0.4°C (0.3°C, if the curve is smoothed with a 5-year running mean) occurred in one 20-year period (years 50-70). The standard deviation about the 100-year mean is 0.11°C. This unforced variability of global temperature in the model is only slightly smaller than the observed variability of global surface air temperature in the past century, as discussed in section 5. The conclusion that unforced (and unpredictable) climate variability may account for a large portion of climate change has been stressed by many researchers; for example, Lorenz [1968], Hasselmann [1976] and Robock [1978].

 

 

 

I would urge folks to re-read that entire page a couple of times before commenting on it.

 

 

This is inherently the reason so much effort is poured into increasing the sophistication and data sources for modeling. Luckily, we don't live in the 1960s anymore, and there's been another 15 years since Hansen published that. We can say with some certainty that the globe has warmed, but ultimately when it comes to unforced variability imposed upon the anthropogenic signal, we could just be chasing ghosts looking for "the smoking gun" when there really isn't one.

 

We've been able to pick out, for example, ENSO and the IPO/PDO as sources of variability, but beyond that, how much is due to an "almost-intransitive" climate (as Lorenz put it)?

[The_Global_Warmer]

Weather bell took a nose dive to -.1C and slightly below on the dailies.  Coinciding with the huge cold outbreak over the CONUS.

 

With the Russian cold out break lasting much longer and deeper.  It may not spike back up for a little while.

[AvantHiatus]

Weather bell took a nose dive to -.1C and slightly below on the dailies.  Coinciding with the huge cold outbreak over the CONUS.

 

With the Russian cold out break lasting much longer and deeper.  It may not spike back up for a little while.

Looks like we are on our way back to average cold, weatherbell stabilizing upwards again to around . 8C. January will probably come in very warm on most datasets.

[The_Global_Warmer]

I have been busy following local snow events.

 

 

Record season here.

 

 

UAH came in balmy for Jan. 

[The_Global_Warmer]

Yep.  It dropped close to -.25C on the dailies.  Literally the coldest since about a year ago.

 

But not quite as cold as last year. 

 

 

It's quite amazing how similar it is and ESNO is pretty similar as well.

 

 

However even a that on weatherbell is only +.30C on GISS.  And only for a few days or week before it goes back to .50C+.

 

 

So it's really not cold and it's only impact will be if "cool" spells like this will prevent a new record this year overall.

 

[ORH_wxman]

Yep.  It dropped close to -.25C on the dailies.  Literally the coldest since about a year ago.

 

But not quite as cold as last year. 

 

 

It's quite amazing how similar it is and ESNO is pretty similar as well.

 

 

However even a that on weatherbell is only +.30C on GISS.  And only for a few days or week before it goes back to .50C+.

 

 

So it's really not cold and it's only impact will be if "cool" spells like this will prevent a new record this year overall.

 

 

 

 

We aren't getting a new record this year. We didn't get an El Nino this winter.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Things are a carbon copy of last year almost so far.  Except slightly warmer.

[AvantHiatus]

El Niño may make 2014 the hottest year on record

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25028-el-nino-may-make-2014-the-hottest-year-on-record.html

 

 

The team also found that, once these atmospheric links reached a critical strength, around 75 per cent of the time an El Niño developed within a year (PNAS, doi.org/rdn). "There is certainly a correlation between the cooperative mode in the atmosphere that we measure and the onset of an El Niño event," says Bunde. Nobody knows why.

Now they say the threshold was crossed in September 2013. "Therefore, the probability is 0.76 that El Niño will occur in 2014," says Bunde. In other words, there is a 76 per cent chance of an El Niño this year.

 

[Jonger]

El Niño may make 2014 the hottest year on record

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25028-el-nino-may-make-2014-the-hottest-year-on-record.html

 

 

"An increasing number of climate models are now predicting El Niño this year too. It is unclear whether it will be an extreme El Niño like the 1998 event, which is thought to have killed tens of thousands. But Cai thinks an extreme El Niño is unlikely because longer-term variability in the Pacific's weather is suppressing it."

 

Modern air conditioning saves more elderly in 2014 than a general heatwave would kill in 1850.

 

BTW, I really would like to know where these tens of thousands of people they claim died from the 1998 el nino? Or do they classify all heat-wave deaths today as AGW related?

 

I know this wasn't the point of your post, but since you linked it, I'm examining the link.

[AvantHiatus]

"An increasing number of climate models are now predicting El Niño this year too. It is unclear whether it will be an extreme El Niño like the 1998 event, which is thought to have killed tens of thousands. But Cai thinks an extreme El Niño is unlikely because longer-term variability in the Pacific's weather is suppressing it."

 

Modern air conditioning saves more elderly in 2014 than a general heatwave would kill in 1850.

 

BTW, I really would like to know where these tens of thousands of people they claim died from the 1998 el nino? Or do they classify all heat-wave deaths today as AGW related?

 

I know this wasn't the point of your post, but since you linked it, I'm examining the link.

Right, I noticed that as well. I guess it would be indirect deaths but that is very hard to measure. They should of never mentioned this because it reduces their credibility and distracts from the primary subject of the article.

 

According to recent studies, 1998 was not even that warm and the 2002 European Heatwave and 2012 US Heatwave was supposedly more impactful than anything that occurred that year. I think most of the deaths during the 1998 event were in poorer countries and were related to flooding issues.

 

http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/reconstructed-data-ranks-2013-hotter-than-1998-el-nino-year.html

[ORH_wxman]

"An increasing number of climate models are now predicting El Niño this year too. It is unclear whether it will be an extreme El Niño like the 1998 event, which is thought to have killed tens of thousands. But Cai thinks an extreme El Niño is unlikely because longer-term variability in the Pacific's weather is suppressing it."

 

Modern air conditioning saves more elderly in 2014 than a general heatwave would kill in 1850.

 

BTW, I really would like to know where these tens of thousands of people they claim died from the 1998 el nino? Or do they classify all heat-wave deaths today as AGW related?

 

I know this wasn't the point of your post, but since you linked it, I'm examining the link.

 

 

Attributing death to a Strong El Nino is not attributing it to AGW...El Nino is a natural phenomenon.

[Jonger]

Attributing death to a Strong El Nino is not attributing it to AGW...El Nino is a natural phenomenon.

 

True, they didn't mention that. I wonder if they are just mentioning this in passing or do they have proof to back up an increase in weather caused deaths. The statement was foolish to put in an article.

[TerryM]

in So. Nevada 1998 was subjected to widespread flash flooding. After the July storm I located a double set of mammoth tracks that had been uncovered. Unfortunately the September storm washed away that layer of strata. Fortunately our group was able locate some of the fractured prints.

Terry

[skierinvermont]

According to the WHO the % of the world population exposed to natural disaster is about twice as high in El Nino years. That's 160 million people more in El Nino years than non-Nino years. Even assuming a very low death rate in natural disasters, El Nino events easily kill 10,000+ people each event. 

 

http://www.who.int/globalchange/publications/en/elnino.pdf

 

It was not a 'foolish' statement to make. It's a well known statistical fact. 

 

Interestingly, El Nino may have a positive impact in the U.S. The increased risk of flooding and landslides in the southwest is easily outweighed by the warmer winter temperatures in the north and greater water availability in the southwest. Also decreased hurricane risk IIRC. But the risk of drought in much of the world goes through the roof.

[TerryM]

Skier

Thanks for the link. I really had no idea of the global impact of a strong El Nino. The stronger, more frequent occurrences postulated going forward may mitigate some of the SW drought, but globally there's a high price to pay.

Terry

[The_Global_Warmer]

Giss came in .70C+ for January.  4th Warmest on record.

 

However so far February on Weatherbell has been -.137C

 

Essentially as cool as we have been since last year at this time.

 

But that translates to a 40-45 on GISS.  I am predicting a 48 on Giss at this point for Feb.

 

 

ENSO has plummeted by the rest of the Earth is very warm ssta wise.  So it keeps it around .20C+ instead of .30C+ or .10C+ if Enso was even colder.  This will probably go temp nina for a couple months.  May not be long enough for official.

 

 

 

 

[bluewave]

I would like to see the statistical models come on board if we are indeed moving toward

at least a weak El Nino later in 2014 since the dynamical models have had such a

strong warm bias.

 

 

[Msalgado]

Those models are all pretty meaningless at this point in the year.

[bluewave]

Those models are all pretty meaningless at this point in the year.

 

The dynamical models have been predicting too much warming at most points of the year recently

including after the spring when they have had better skill in the past.

 

 

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/disappearing-el-nino-throws-a-wrench-in-noaas-winter-outlook-15134

 

 

During the summer and early fall it appeared that an El Niño event, which is characterized by warmer-than-average water temperatures in the tropical Pacific Ocean, was developing. Such events can have significant impacts on North American winters, because they tend to favor particular weather patterns, and are known to help reconfigure the jet stream, which is a high altitude river of air that helps steer storm systems and establish boundaries between air masses.

In recent weeks, though, water temperatures have cooled in the tropical Pacific, and there are fewer signs of El Niño, Halpert said. The winter weather outlook incorporates the possibility that El Niño will stage a comeback, but it’s apparent collapse threw a wrench in the forecasting process.

“This year’s winter outlook has proven to be quite challenging largely due to an indecisive El Niño,” Halpert said. The demise of El Niño stands out when looking at the historical record that stretches back 60 years. During that time there has never been a similar case in which water temperatures warmed so much during August, and yet El Niño conditions failed to take hold, Halpert said.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[donsutherland1]

The dynamical models have been predicting too much warming at most points of the year recently

including after the spring when they have had better skill in the past.

 

 

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/disappearing-el-nino-throws-a-wrench-in-noaas-winter-outlook-15134

 

 

During the summer and early fall it appeared that an El Niño event, which is characterized by warmer-than-average water temperatures in the tropical Pacific Ocean, was developing. Such events can have significant impacts on North American winters, because they tend to favor particular weather patterns, and are known to help reconfigure the jet stream, which is a high altitude river of air that helps steer storm systems and establish boundaries between air masses.

In recent weeks, though, water temperatures have cooled in the tropical Pacific, and there are fewer signs of El Niño, Halpert said. The winter weather outlook incorporates the possibility that El Niño will stage a comeback, but it’s apparent collapse threw a wrench in the forecasting process.

“This year’s winter outlook has proven to be quite challenging largely due to an indecisive El Niño,” Halpert said. The demise of El Niño stands out when looking at the historical record that stretches back 60 years. During that time there has never been a similar case in which water temperatures warmed so much during August, and yet El Niño conditions failed to take hold, Halpert said.

 

nino34Mon.gif

 

nino34Monb.gif

 

3464_plumes.gif

IMO, the big hint that there would not be an El Niño were the very cool anomalies in Region 1+2.  Prior to July 2013, there had been 17 cases for which the July ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly was -1 or below. None of those cases had seen a winter El Niño develop. Winter 2013-14 was consistent with that earlier experience.

[bluewave]

IMO, the big hint that there would not be an El Niño were the very cool anomalies in Region 1+2.  Prior to July 2013, there had been 17 cases for which the July ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly was -1 or below. None of those cases had seen a winter El Niño develop. Winter 2013-14 was consistent with that earlier experience.

 

Perhaps, the models are struggling with the strength of the trade winds due to their unprecedented strength.

 

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2106.html

 

Here we show that a pronounced strengthening in Pacific trade winds over the past two decades—unprecedented in observations/reanalysis data 

[StudentOfClimatology]

Perhaps, the models are struggling with the strength of the trade winds due to their unprecedented strength.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2106.html

Here we show that a pronounced strengthening in Pacific trade winds over the past two decades—unprecedented in observations/reanalysis data

This theory best explains the temporary hiatus in surface warming, IMO, and may indicate that humans are perturbing the global circulations to a dangerous degree. If climate change of the past has anything to say about this, we may be approaching an inertial tipping point, and witness a very rapid temperature rise in the coming years.

Studying in paleoclimate has revealed a lot to me. What really intrigues me is the fact that the climate system does not seem to respond gradually to a forcing, rather it "jumps" between modes of operation. It figures that the system may initially build up negative inertia to a given forcing, given spatiotemporal competition, until the barrier is "broken" and we rapidly swing into a new mode of operation.

This could be what is occurring now. A very scary scenario..I urge everyone to read this: http://m.pnas.org/content/105/38/14308.short

Slowing down as an early warning signal for abrupt climate change

Authors

Vasilis Dakos*,

Marten Scheffer*,†,

Egbert H. van Nes*,

Victor Brovkin‡,§,

Vladimir Petoukhov‡ and

Hermann Held‡

*Department of Aquatic Ecology and Water Quality Management, Wageningen University, P.O. Box 47, 6700 AA, Wageningen, The Netherlands; and

‡Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, P.O. Box 601203, D-14412 Potsdam, Germany

Edited by Stephen R. Carpenter, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, and approved July 16, 2008 (received for review March 11, 2008)

In the Earth's history, periods of relatively stable climate have often been interrupted by sharp transitions to a contrasting state. One explanation for such events of abrupt change is that they happened when the earth system reached a critical tipping point. However, this remains hard to prove for events in the remote past, and it is even more difficult to predict if and when we might reach a tipping point for abrupt climate change in the future. Here, we analyze eight ancient abrupt climate shifts and show that they were all preceded by a characteristic slowing down of the fluctuations starting well before the actual shift. Such slowing down, measured as increased autocorrelation, can be mathematically shown to be a hallmark of tipping points. Therefore, our results imply independent empirical evidence for the idea that past abrupt shifts were associated with the passing of critical thresholds. Because the mechanism causing slowing down is fundamentally inherent to tipping points, it follows that our way to detect slowing down might be used as a universal early warning signal for upcoming catastrophic change. Because tipping points in ecosystems and other complex systems are notoriously hard to predict in other ways, this is a promising perspective.

I fear we are very close to such a response, looking at the rapid changes in the global circulations since the late 1990s. The Hadley Cells have migrated continuously poleward, and were so broad last summer that the trade winds were actually ramming up against the east coast of the US. Totally unprecedented in the modern era.

Skeptics constantly peddle this "hiatus" as evidence that climate sensitivity is low, but in fact are proving just the opposite, because only a high-inertia system can avoid a quick, linear response to a forcing, and the increasing gap between CO2 forcing and the global temperature indicates a system falling farther out of equilibrium every day.

We can only fall so far out of equilibrium before the rubber band snaps. Paleoclimatological evidence suggests this is exactly what happens before rapid climate change ensues..yet skeptics and even some legitimate scientists cannot connect the dots. We're running out of time to actually do something to save the lives of those most vulnerable to a climate shift. I wish more scientists would highlight the abrupt climate swings of the past, that occurred with just a fraction of the radiative imbalance we have today. It just might light a fire under our a**es. Imagine another warming like that at the end of the Younger Dryas..we'd be talking a 2-4C warming in 5-10 years. We'd be toast, semi-literally.

[skierinvermont]

The argument against a major jump occurring in the near future is that the earth's energy imbalance is probably 'only' around .6W/m2. If we're only .6W/m2 out of a radiative imbalance, then even including some whopping positive feedbacks, modest warming could close that imbalance. 

 

On the other hand, it's possible the imbalance is a little bigger than that. We can't really measure the imbalance accurately in real time at this point. But over the last 10 years it's been about .6W/m2. 

[The_Global_Warmer]

Global ssta have slightly risen in-spite of major enso cooling.  They are at .23C+ now.

 

However February is -.136C on the month so far.  Dallies have risen to about -.065C.  So that will come up.  I think we will go to positive territory as the CONUS/Western Eurasia warm a lot.

 

But Feb will be much cooler than January.

 

 

 

 

 

[nzucker]

ENSO cooling has been drastic...Strong Nina coming?

 

Global ssta have slightly risen in-spite of major enso cooling.  They are at .23C+ now.

 

However February is -.136C on the month so far.  Dallies have risen to about -.065C.  So that will come up.  I think we will go to positive territory as the CONUS/Western Eurasia warm a lot.

 

But Feb will be much cooler than January.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[The_Global_Warmer]

The ENSO cooling at the surface has been substantial. 

 

However sub-surface shows something else is going on.

 

Both Triton and CPC are showing some pretty big OHC anomalies showing up and sliding East.

 

I am not an ENSO guy.  But that seems like a big surge of warmth brewing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[StudentOfClimatology]

The argument against a major jump occurring in the near future is that the earth's energy imbalance is probably 'only' around .6W/m2. If we're only .6W/m2 out of a radiative imbalance, then even including some whopping positive feedbacks, modest warming could close that imbalance.

On the other hand, it's possible the imbalance is a little bigger than that. We can't really measure the imbalance accurately in real time at this point. But over the last 10 years it's been about .6W/m2.

I hope you'll tolerate my rant below.

I'm don't believe that will prevent a rapid warming in the near future, even assuming the imbalance is in fact a minuscule 0.6W/m^2. I agree we'll have a much better idea of the actual imbalance when the RAVAN cubesat project is launched in 2015. Basically it'll resemble ARGO in the sense that we'll have hundreds of small "breadbox" satellites orbiting the Earth, giving us 24/7 coverage. There are rumors that the data will be operational and plotted monthly, much like the current satellite measurements of global temperatures. I'm very excited about that prospect.

As of right now, the radiative imbalance is approximately 70-75% interpolation. We have satellite measurements available today that clearly reveal spectral dampening in the wave-frequencies tied to CO2, so we know for a fact that the increase in CO2 is affecting the energy budget, and is not saturated at the amplitude boundaries, as some deniers claim. But in terms of determining the full radiative imbalance, we run into problems. For example, the *raw* CERES data is observing a huge underlying imbalance of over 5W/m^2, which is very suspect. An imbalance of that magnitude is very difficult to attain even on a year-to-year scale, where large shifts in the global OLR anomaly occur as a consequence of ENSO.

Plus, total insolation reaching Earth varies by a whopping 50W/m^2 over a year as a consequence of our elliptical orbit, with the largest flux differential occurring over the Southern Hemisphere. This poses another challenge, as the Southern Hemisphere has both a lower albedo (favoring increased radiative absorption) and a higher thermal capacity (favoring a dampened seasonal response). So it turns out that as a result of these topographical anomalies, the seasonal global temperature cycle actually opposes the insolation cycle up to the tropopause.

So calculating the global budget requires we know how to adjust for orbital and albedo related perturbations. In other words, extremely complicated, as the "imbalance" technically varies from extremely positive to extremely negative over the course of several months. So if that high amplitude swing reaches a certain threshold as a consequence of our emissions, it could push us past an existing threshold. The claim that our imbalance is steady at a given value is very deceptive.

As for the raw CERES imbalance, unless we've witnessed an increase in O^3, NO^2, and/or H^2O near or above the tropopause, the CERES imbalance is probably flawed. And, given the cooling that has been observed above 200hpa, there is not much support for the large CERES imbalance. That said, it probably doesn't take an imbalance that large to cross a tipping point. The rapid swings in climate over the past 15,000yrs probably did not result from a gargantuan imbalance. Rather, all it probably took was the thermal budget reaching a certain level relative to the insolation cycle..the imbalance could have been 0.1W/m^2 for all we know when we reached that critical threshold.

So, right now we're essentially relying on SSTs and the incoming radiation at the top-of-atmosphere to provide a baseline in determining the radiative imbalance. This is not getting the job done, IMO.