2014 Global Temperatures

[The_Global_Warmer]

It's just the jet relaxing before a new 500mb pattern occurs.  It's too early to know what that will be as of yet.

 

 

 

That doesn't change the amount of heat in the upper oceans which is at record levels.

 

The Earth is taking in more heat than it can exhaust back or store in the oceans at this point.

[tacoman25]

Well, I'm ready to make that call qualitatively.  However, it will take years before the "statistically significant" end of the hiatus.  I still think that may not be until 2016-2017 or so.  

 

I like to use anologs to calculate global temperature for the rest of the year.  2006 appears to be a decent one as TSI was about the same as current and ENSO was generally on the same track.  2006 ended the last 4 months at 67 on GISS.  If you apply a warming rate of 0.015/yr that would give you about a 78.  I'd guess the next 4 months will end up averaging in the mid 70s on GISS due to a bit later start for the nino though.  Of course the nino could just not happen, in which case, 2006 would not be a great analog anymore.

 

That's very warm. You're definitely going out on a limb, and I'm afraid putting too much faith in the current NH SSTA-based surface warmth continuing.

[stadiumwave]

That doesn't change the amount of heat in the upper oceans which is at record levels.

 

The Earth is taking in more heat than it can exhaust back or store in the oceans at this point.

 

 

 

You cannot jump to conclusions that the SST's in the N. Pacific are due to GHG.  It may very well be the cause, but there are a lot of things going on in our climate that is uncharted territory for modern day climatology & meteorology: GHG forcing, lower TSI & solar activity than every person living on earth has experienced, aerosol forcing, lower Arctic Sea Ice & the unknowns of it's effects, & record shattering Antarctic Sea Ice that is blowing the roof off. SO, we need to be very careful having elemental, knee-jerk reactions & assumptions to every component of the climate at this point.  Like I said you may very well be right but I think it's too early.

[StudentOfClimatology]

The Earth is taking in more heat than it can exhaust back or store in the oceans at this point.

Actually, the warm SSTs have led to an OLR anomaly of +3.1W/m^2 since June on CERES, adjusted for orbital eccentricity (raw # is always ~ +10W/m^2 this time of year).

http://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/order_data.php

So technically we're emitting more than we're recieving, relative to the average seasonal flux derivations. The logical explanation for this is that reduced wind speeds and cloud cover under the broad Hadley Cells has reduced evaporative cooling (less conversion to latent heat), and that differential is now being added to the surface-radiation budget.

Furthermore, in the past when we've seen these OLR imbalances, the global temperature tended to respond 3-4 months down the road, suggesting a cooling beginning sometime in October.

[Jonger]

I'm not sure if this product exists, but... Is there a map showing OHC at 0-700 and 0-2000 by location? I would like to see how 0-700 and 0-2000 are taking up heat in a location by location map.

[stadiumwave]

Posted by DT on his Facebook page:

 

http://spam.com/category/climate-info/

 

UAH: The UAH results for the month of August in terms of where it stands historically were noticeably different than NASA’s findings. Specifically, the UAH lower troposphere global temperature anomaly for August 2014 was calculated at +0.20°C and there are seven hotter Augusts compared to this year in just the 35 years of data going back to 1979. (For more information on UAH data: http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/).

 

RSS: The RSS results for August global temperature anomalies are dramatically different than NASA’s findings. The RSS lower troposphere global temperature anomaly for August 2014 was calculated at +0.193°C and there are thirteen hotter Augusts in the 35 years of data going back to 1979. In fact, while still above normal compared to the base period 1981-2010, RSS data shows August 2014 to be the 7th coolest August since 1995. (For more information on RSS data: http://www.remss.com/missions/amsu/).

 

The whole article is well written & DT says about this guy:

 

"Its a good read... easy to follow... and 100% Non political and based on hard factual data / science"

 

Things that make you go "hmmm"

[nflwxman]

Posted by DT on his Facebook page:

http://spam.com/category/climate-info/

UAH: The UAH results for the month of August in terms of where it stands historically were noticeably different than NASA’s findings. Specifically, the UAH lower troposphere global temperature anomaly for August 2014 was calculated at +0.20°C and there are seven hotter Augusts compared to this year in just the 35 years of data going back to 1979. (For more information on UAH data: http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/).

RSS: The RSS results for August global temperature anomalies are dramatically different than NASA’s findings. The RSS lower troposphere global temperature anomaly for August 2014 was calculated at +0.193°C and there are thirteen hotter Augusts in the 35 years of data going back to 1979. In fact, while still above normal compared to the base period 1981-2010, RSS data shows August 2014 to be the 7th coolest August since 1995. (For more information on RSS data: http://www.remss.com/missions/amsu/).

The whole article is well written & DT says about this guy:

"Its a good read... easy to follow... and 100% Non political and based on hard factual data / science"

Things that make you go "hmmm"

So the Japanese meteorogical agency, NASA, Hadley center, and NCDC are all wrong because some dude says so? Because they all will likely show the warmest August.

That makes me say "hmm." Those same people should know sat data and surface data are quite different.

As ORH stated, does it really matter if it's the first or second warmest august? It's semantical and completely within the margin of error of all datasets.

[GaWx]

So the Japanese meteorogical agency, NASA, Hadley center, and NCDC are all wrong because some dude says so? Because they all will likely show the warmest August.

That makes me say "hmm." Those same people should know sat data and surface data are quite different.

As ORH stated, does it really matter if it's the first or second warmest august? It's semantical and completely within the margin of error of all datasets.

 

 But the two sat. based datasets show 8th/14th warmest Aug. and close to the 1998-2013 avg. Also, both 1998 & 2010 were way warmer for both sets. The NASA data is based on thermometer locations, which leave wide areas with no readings and thus require NASA to fill in with data from the nearest station. Also, the urban heat island (UHI) effect requires NASA to make adjustments for many stations. How accurate are these adjustments? I'm not saying satellite based data is anywhere close to perfect. I know clouds can cause difficulties, for example. Also, they are getting more volatile ocean skin data rather than SST's. So, I don't know how reliable it is. However, it at least has more data coverage and much less UHI as a % of the data. Also, the NOAA CFSR based graph showed cooling over the last few years, which I asked about here recently. When considering all of this, it really is enough for me to say hmmm. I wasn't aware of these two datasets being so much different til now though I learned about CFSR over the last couple of weeks. You don't at least wonder about this? Anyone else?

[The_Global_Warmer]

Actually, the warm SSTs have led to an OLR anomaly of +3.1W/m^2 since June on CERES, adjusted for orbital eccentricity (raw # is always ~ +10W/m^2 this time of year).

http://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/order_data.php

So technically we're emitting more than we're recieving, relative to the average seasonal flux derivations. The logical explanation for this is that reduced wind speeds and cloud cover under the broad Hadley Cells has reduced evaporative cooling (less conversion to latent heat), and that differential is now being added to the surface-radiation budget.

Furthermore, in the past when we've seen these OLR imbalances, the global temperature tended to respond 3-4 months down the road, suggesting a cooling beginning sometime in October.

 

I wasn't referring to a small specific period of time.

 

Just in general. 

 

 

You keep saying the fall is going to cool.

 

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.

 

August came in at .70C+ on GISS and .75C+ on NCDC.  September on CFS currently = a .73C+ on GISS. 

 

 

Why not throw out some numbers you think GISS will put up for OND?

 

2013 averaged a .74, .62, .73, .63 for OND good for a .680C+ average on GISS.

 

2014 so far on GISS is averaging a .6525C+ anomaly.  September will likely come in above .70C+.  Definitely not progressively cooler from August.

 

 

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..

 

 

The top plot is 2013 SSTA up to this point.  The middle plot is 2014 so far.  As of the second week of September ssta are running about .10C above the same time in 2013.

 

The bottom plot is all of 2013.  You can see how 2013 plummeted into October before rising back up in November then falling again in December to close out the year.

 

Last year the ONI hovered around -0.3C until falling further at the end of the year.  It was 0.0C last month and it's expected to slowly rise into at least the 0.3-0.7C+ range or higher as the year finishes out.

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

Again.  Everyone has different opinions on what max potential is.  But considering 2013 and 2005 both had Septembers reach .74C+ on GISS.

 

2005 had a slightly higher ONI over the summer leading into September but a 0.0C for Sept.  2013 had a -0.2/-0.3C in summer and in Sept.

 

 

Global monthly  sst anomaly for September:

 

 

2005: 0.255C+

2013: 0.285C+

2014: 0.432C+

 

So far 2014 is averaging way above the two other .70C+ years on GISS.  Looking at it now.  It appears 2014 will probably average around 0.400C+ for the month of September ssta wise.  It hasn't cooled off very much.

 

So in that regard I can't see how you can say if it reaches max potential. 

 

 

Like NFLwxman said big kudos to you if you are right about there being a cool down to where GISS doesn't get the record.

 

I just simply don't see how the Earth is going to cool like you think it is.

[The_Global_Warmer]

 But the two sat. based datasets show 8th/14th warmest Aug. and close to the 1998-2013 avg. Also, both 1998 & 2010 were way warmer for both sets. The NASA data is based on thermometer locations, which leave wide areas with no readings and thus require NASA to fill in with data from the nearest station. Also, the urban heat island (UHI) effect requires NASA to make adjustments for many stations. How accurate are these adjustments? I'm not saying satellite based data is anywhere close to perfect. I know clouds can cause difficulties, for example. Also, they are getting more volatile ocean skin data rather than SST's. So, I don't know how reliable it is. However, it at least has more data coverage and much less UHI as a % of the data. Also, the NOAA CFSR based graph showed cooling over the last few years, which I asked about here recently. When considering all of this, it really is enough for me to say hmmm. I wasn't aware of these two datasets being so much different til now though I learned about CFSR over the last couple of weeks. You don't at least wonder about this? Anyone else?

 

There is a separate thread for CFS discussion.

 

Would you be "wondering" about the CFS data if it showed a larger warming trend?

 

http://www.americanwx.com/bb/index.php/topic/44087-cfs-dataset-why-is-it-not-a-robust-long-term-dataset/

[GaWx]

There is a separate thread for CFS discussion.

Would you be "wondering" about the CFS data if it showed a larger warming trend?

http://www.americanwx.com/bb/index.php/topic/44087-cfs-dataset-why-is-it-not-a-robust-long-term-dataset/

Honestly, I wouldn't. But what about uah & RSS? They look similar to CFSR since 2010. When I originally asked about CFSR recently, it was downplayed and I decided not to pursue it further at least for the short term. However, I suddenly see that it has the company of two sat. based data sets. What the heck is going on here? Shouldn't Q's be asked?

[The_Global_Warmer]

CFS is a a non adjusted model.  Even if it's in reanalysis it still has massive sampling, time of day bias, and model bias.

 

Also UAH doesn't look like CFS.  Regardless of them measuring different things.

 

2010 is also when CFS shows a huge erroneous drop.  You know you can't cherry pick after that drop.

 

 

 

 

 

[tacoman25]

So the Japanese meteorogical agency, NASA, Hadley center, and NCDC are all wrong because some dude says so? Because they all will likely show the warmest August.

That makes me say "hmm." Those same people should know sat data and surface data are quite different.

As ORH stated, does it really matter if it's the first or second warmest august? It's semantical and completely within the margin of error of all datasets.

 

Just keep in mind, there was a time when both surface and LT data sets agreed on record warm years. Why has that changed? It's an intriguing question.

[The_Global_Warmer]

2005 was .66C on GISS and  .65C on NCDC, and  .29C on UAH.

 

When compared to each data sets record years difference wise: Giss: .01C, NCDC: .01C, UAH: .17C.

 

 

 

 

 

2013 was .61 on GISS, .63 in NCDC, and .23C on UAH.

 

Difference:  Giss: .06C, NCDC: .03C, UAH: .19C.

 

2008 was .49C on GISS, .52C on NCDC, -.01C on UAH.

 

Difference: GISS: .18C, NCDC: .14C, UAH: .43C.

 

 

 

 

 

 

2005 is a record year on GISS and NCDC but not even close on UAH.

 

2008 was way colder on UAH versus it's warmest year compared to the surface data sets.  A much larger difference then 2014 currently is.

 

Clearly the tropics play a large role in the lower troposphere at large.

[stadiumwave]

I think it's just time to rely on satellite data only.  There's too much room for era & too many other factors come into play that can be misleading with the land data: urban effect, tons of missing data, etc. etc. 

 

But the point is satellite data is not even coming close to showing a record August or even remotely close to showing a record warm year. So, why make bogus announcements that are clearly not painting the whole picture & mislead the public.  It's clearly headline attention. 

 

That was the same point that I made with Gavin's curious adjustment taking August 2011 from 0.70 to 0.69 & raising August 2014 raw data from 0.68 to 0.70 making August the hotter.  There's no way that was just pure honest, objective adjusting.  And the disagreement between satellite data & what surface data is conveniently showing is just bogus...no matter who it comes from: Japanese, NASA or anyone else.

 

I'm clearly not a denier of AGW but I'm just sick & tired of the dishonest fudging of data & facts from both sides of those who exaggerate AGW & from those who downplay AGW.

[chubbs]

Easier to see trends in wind data by taking a running 12-month average. Multi-year cycles of above and below average winds are apparent driven by trade wind variability. Global winds have weakened in the past year or two and conditions are now similar to the 1990s.  Expect surface T to warm as long as the low wind speed regime persists.

 

ftp://ftp.remss.com/wind/monthly_1deg/

 

[GaWx]

CFS is a a non adjusted model.  Even if it's in reanalysis it still has massive sampling, time of day bias, and model bias.

 

Also UAH doesn't look like CFS.  Regardless of them measuring different things.

 

2010 is also when CFS shows a huge erroneous drop.  You know you can't cherry pick after 2010.

1) Why do RSS & UAH have much lower 2014 than both 1998 & 2010?

2) Are they both credible data sets?

3) What is your opinion about satellite based vs station based?

[chubbs]

I think it's just time to rely on satellite data only.  There's too much room for era & too many other factors come into play that can be misleading with the land data: urban effect, tons of missing data, etc. etc. 

 

But the point is satellite data is not even coming close to showing a record August or even remotely close to showing a record warm year. So, why make bogus announcements that are clearly not painting the whole picture & mislead the public.  It's clearly headline attention. 

 

That was the same point that I made with Gavin's curious adjustment taking August 2011 from 0.70 to 0.69 & raising August 2014 raw data from 0.68 to 0.70 making August the hotter.  There's no way that was just pure honest, objective adjusting.  And the disagreement between satellite data & what surface data is conveniently showing is just bogus...no matter who it comes from: Japanese, NASA or anyone else.

 

I'm clearly not a denier of AGW but I'm just sick & tired of the dishonest fudging of data & facts from both sides of those who exaggerate AGW & from those who downplay AGW.

Lets not get into a satellite/surface pissing war. Makes no sense to over analyze a month or two of data. They both have value. In this case the surface is currently warming faster than the atmosphere, In time they will come into alignment.

[chubbs]

1) Why do RSS & UAH have much lower 2014 than both 1998 & 2010?

2) Are they both credible data sets?

3) What is your opinion about satellite based vs station based?

The satellites are more sensitive to the tropics in general and ENSO in particular because of the role of tropical convection in warming the atmosphere. Satellites also lag the surface by several months during ENSO warming cycles. Differences between satellite and surface are not that surprising for this point in the ENSO cycle. 

[nflwxman]

I think it's just time to rely on satellite data only. There's too much room for era & too many other factors come into play that can be misleading with the land data: urban effect, tons of missing data, etc. etc.

But the point is satellite data is not even coming close to showing a record August or even remotely close to showing a record warm year. So, why make bogus announcements that are clearly not painting the whole picture & mislead the public. It's clearly headline attention.

That was the same point that I made with Gavin's curious adjustment taking August 2011 from 0.70 to 0.69 & raising August 2014 raw data from 0.68 to 0.70 making August the hotter. There's no way that was just pure honest, objective adjusting. And the disagreement between satellite data & what surface data is conveniently showing is just bogus...no matter who it comes from: Japanese, NASA or anyone else.

I'm clearly not a denier of AGW but I'm just sick & tired of the dishonest fudging of data & facts from both sides of those who exaggerate AGW & from those who downplay AGW.

Sorry, but this is bordering on some tin foil hat material. There is really no reason to suspect wrong doing on any dataset as they are all very close in the long run and are clearly scrutinized.

You also may not be familiar with the many issues that remote sensing has. It's a proxy measurement and not a direct one. Relying on one dataset period is not advisable.

As has been explained many times here, there is often a lag between surface and tropospheric datasets in certain ocean heating events. It's very likely that UAH and RSS will post higher anomalies over the next 2-3 months.

[bluewave]

The big story about this August global record on NCDC is that it took 16 years to pass the record set in 1998.

New August records were set quite frequently during the +PDO era in the 80's and 90's.

[chubbs]

Honestly, I wouldn't. But what about uah & RSS? They look similar to CFSR since 2010. When I originally asked about CFSR recently, it was downplayed and I decided not to pursue it further at least for the short term. However, I suddenly see that it has the company of two sat. based data sets. What the heck is going on here? Shouldn't Q's be asked?

We've been over this before. Here is CFS compared to a euro-based re-analysis. CFS has big problems in 2010/11. CFS was replaced by CFS2 in 2011. In stitching them together WxBell has produced a flawed and misleading dataset. 

 

[GaWx]

The big story about this August global record on NCDC is that it took 16 years to pass the record set in 1998.

In a fairness keeping in mind that you can see I like to ask Q's, it looks like to me that a lot of it may be that 1998 got way ahead of the prior slower warming trend and that the following period was sort of a correction/readjustment. Regardless, will UAH and RSS get close to records for a certain month by, say, early 2015 once Niño is firmly taken into account? We'll see. If so, I won't be harping on them. If not, I'll keep wondering. I've now got two new data sets to follow.

[chubbs]

The big story about this August global record on NCDC is that it took 16 years to pass the record set in 1998.

New August records were set quite frequently during the +PDO era in the 80's and 90's.

 Surprising that we can even break temperature records in the middle of -PDO cycle. Certainly didn't do that in the previous cycle.

[stadiumwave]

Lets not get into a satellite/surface pissing war. Makes no sense to over analyze a month or two of data. They both have value. In this case the surface is currently warming faster than the atmosphere, In time they will come into alignment.

 

 

I agree that they both have value as long as those handling data are totally objective.  I'm sorry...I just do not trust the way things are handled with the stations right now.  I wish this were not the case but Gavin is the prime example.  Adjustments that always end up promoting new records etc...etc...  I just don't buy it.  But I agree that all datasets are needed as long as objectivity & toeing the line are a high priority by everyone.

[Isotherm]

 Surprising that we can even break temperature records in the middle of -PDO cycle. Certainly didn't do that in the previous cycle.

 

 

We're 5-7 years into the new -PDO regime. We've got a long way to go to be considered "middle" - probably another 5-10 years, given each warm / cool regime persists about 25-30 years approximately.

[Jonger]

I think it's just time to rely on satellite data only.  There's too much room for era & too many other factors come into play that can be misleading with the land data: urban effect, tons of missing data, etc. etc. 

 

But the point is satellite data is not even coming close to showing a record August or even remotely close to showing a record warm year. So, why make bogus announcements that are clearly not painting the whole picture & mislead the public.  It's clearly headline attention. 

 

That was the same point that I made with Gavin's curious adjustment taking August 2011 from 0.70 to 0.69 & raising August 2014 raw data from 0.68 to 0.70 making August the hotter.  There's no way that was just pure honest, objective adjusting.  And the disagreement between satellite data & what surface data is conveniently showing is just bogus...no matter who it comes from: Japanese, NASA or anyone else.

 

I'm clearly not a denier of AGW but I'm just sick & tired of the dishonest fudging of data & facts from both sides of those who exaggerate AGW & from those who downplay AGW.

 

I wish the majority of focus was on improving satellite as the go-to method from here on out. ARGO obviously exposed a cold bias in pre-2003 data, add in UHI and we have a pretty messy data set.

[Msalgado]

UHI is pretty damn negligible and has been shown as such many, many, many times.  

[Msalgado]

Choose whatever dataset(s) you feel comfortable with.  However, know that cherry picking datasets that have not been scientifically proven to be useful for certain applications, dismissing proven datasets out of hand, and comparing apples to oranges will show extreme bias and/or ignorance.  In my opinion, anyway.

 

So, sure, go with CFS if you want.  Go with just satellites if you want.  Pick whichever one shows what you want to be shown.  Or, be objective and taken them all for what they are and understand that they all have applications and strongpoints and weak points.  However, they all show pretty much the same thing which is a warming world.  When all taken in context of each other, its pretty damn clear what is going on.

[Msalgado]

On the subject of the remaining part of the year, it is logical to conclude that the SST's will cool and thus there will be cooling because of that.  However, it remains that the latter portion of the calendar year has warmed faster than the rest of the year and there is some history there to suggest that this will continue to warm.  

I don't believe El Nino needs to actively warm the atmosphere, either.  The warm anomaly seres to close a pipeline for heat into the ocean, and simply doing that will lead to more warmth in the atmosphere.  

 

The bottom line is that I doubt we have much skill in figuring out what the anomaly will be in coming months down to the point of hundredths of a degree anyway.  There are reasons to guess in either direction so we'll see.