2014 Global Temperatures

[nflwxman]

OK but when nflwxman said that you predicted a drop off in September you said "I absolutely did not."

 

Now you acknowledge this is what you were thinking.

 

Again, you are contradicting yourself.

 

The prediction was technically wrong but your reasoning was probably sound. The NPAC did indeed cool and probably held down the surface anomalies a bit. At worst, you were a little too overly reliant on one variable.

 

Right. The NPAC is not the only region in the world that counts in anomalies.  The NPAC was absolutely at smashing record temperatures in July, but GISS came in the low 50s.  Remember, a cooling NPAC means a more transient jet stream, which could place ridging over more land bodies than it has been throughout the year.  Land having a lower specific heat means anomalies could potentially spike.  Hence why the AAO- caused a big jump in late September temperatures.  

 

Besides, as ORH mentioned- it's really hard to predict month to month temperature deltas.  The best you could do is rely on statistics and persistence forecasting from years and months prior, IMO.

 

I also feel October will come in cooler than September.  Mostly because it has been in the last 7 years.  If we go by statistics since 2008, November will likely once again be warm.  Obviously, no prediction is fool proof on a monthly basis.

[skierinvermont]

2. So what you're saying is that the literature doesn't conclusively prove how much cooling was due to aerosols. Some says very little. Which was my point - there is no conclusive statement to make about it, as you have.

 

 

No literature says the cooling was very little. The cooling effect of literally blocking out the sun is universally believed to have at least been moderately significant during the period. Your attempts to brush under the rug a very detectable literal dimming of the sun by aerosols are really quite bizzarre.

 

You've never really understood that without the increase in GHGs the climate would likely be much cooler than the LIA or 1880s. Aerosols have offset a significant fraction of GHG warming.

 

1. Was going by what you have said previously. Didn't know you've changed your view on that.

 

Clearly the jump in temperature in the late 70s is due to a switch to +ENSO+PDO state. That doesn't mean the continued rapid warming after that was related to the +ENSO+PDO.

[skierinvermont]

How far apart in time were those two quotes spaced? I eventually changed my tune on September when the AAO excursion was becoming obvious. If I posted them together, then it was an unforced error.

 

The two posts were 20 minutes apart. In one you say you think August was the peak (it wasn't). In the next you say you predict maybe up to .70C for September. That .70C is clearly referring to GISS.

 

Why would you randomly predict the warmest monthly anomaly in a decade if you were 20 minutes earlier predicting cooling?

 

 

I've also found numerous other posts where you are clearly making predictions based on GISS (probably because that is what everyone else here uses). I use GISS because I believe I believed it was superior to HadCRUT3 and so I am more used to accessing that data. I think HadCRUT4 is better than HadCRUT3 and comparable to GISS but it always takes me more time to find.

[StudentOfClimatology]

The two posts were 20 minutes apart. In one you say you think August was the peak (it wasn't). In the next you say you predict maybe up to .70C for September. That .70C is clearly referring to GISS.

Why would you randomly predict the warmest monthly anomaly in a decade if you were 20 minutes earlier predicting cooling?

I've also found numerous other posts where you are clearly making predictions based on GISS (probably because that is what everyone else here uses). I use GISS because I believe I believed it was superior to HadCRUT3 and so I am more used to accessing that data. I think HadCRUT4 is better than HadCRUT3 and comparable to GISS but it always takes me more time to find.

I'm not sure what the heck I was doing, but I don't use GISS (not a fan of ERSST3) so clearly I was referring to something else. It's all an enigma to me at this point, haha.

[skierinvermont]

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.

###

 

Again, these papers do not automatically supersede the papers that come before them. They simply add to the debate. And what I am saying is that I find these recent papers deficient. They rely on overly simplistic statistical methods. And the physical explanations are incomplete and do not make sense.

 

Moreover, they do nothing to disprove the very sound theoretical evidence that aerosols cause cooling.

 

You haven't addressed any of my specific criticisms so there is not much more that I can respond to. I encourage you to re-read my specific criticisms in my previous post which I will repost here for you. I cannot summarize them any better than I already have. I would also be interested in other peoples feedback, such as Will if you catch this.

[skierinvermont]

These are the posts I am referring to. I would appreciate feedback from others like ORH and DonS after serious consideration. I believe nflwxman and I are on the same page regarding this already. It is something that I have tried to articulate for years. 

 

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. 

 

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. 

[skierinvermont]

For example, this paper below appears to automatically attribute the two hiatus periods basically entirely to the -PDO because they happened to occur at the same time. How can this possibly be considered theoretically sound? Two coincidences are not even close to causative proof. And the two hiatus periods are not even the same. The first hiatus period '1940-1975' began with rapid cooling 1940-1950 (due to the initial switch from +ENSO to -ENSO). The second hiatus period '2001-present' began with simply a hiatus (actually trends beginning in 2001 are now positive and growing more positive by the month). The first hiatus period was followed by a flatline in temperature (due to aerosol cancellation of GHG forcing that had little to do with the PDO). The second hiatus will be followed by resumed warming (due to much greater GHG forcing than aerosol forcing).

 

Again, the evidence isn't nearly strong enough to conclude the lack of warming 1940-1975 was due to the -PDO. Just because cooling occurred at the initial switch doesn't mean the entire period was caused by the PDO.

 

 

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.washingto...atlantic-ocean/

[chubbs]

Right. The NPAC is not the only region in the world that counts in anomalies.  The NPAC was absolutely at smashing record temperatures in July, but GISS came in the low 50s.  Remember, a cooling NPAC means a more transient jet stream, which could place ridging over more land bodies than it has been throughout the year.  Land having a lower specific heat means anomalies could potentially spike.  Hence why the AAO- caused a big jump in late September temperatures.  

 

Besides, as ORH mentioned- it's really hard to predict month to month temperature deltas.  The best you could do is rely on statistics and persistence forecasting from years and months prior, IMO.

 

I also feel October will come in cooler than September.  Mostly because it has been in the last 7 years.  If we go by statistics since 2008, November will likely once again be warm.  Obviously, no prediction is fool proof on a monthly basis.

Yeah  regional temperature anomalies will always jump around from month to month. In addition to statistics, the 12-month running average is a good trend following metric for global surface temperature generally rising and falling with ENSO cycles. Currently we are in an uptrend which started at the end of the last Nina.  The bias is to the upside until the next ENSO-related peak is reached. 

[ORH_wxman]

One of the papers I posted further back (I'll have to go and find which one because there's so many newer papers now) showed how the mid-20th century hiatus was mostly fueld by the -IPO in the first 15 years or so but then was extended to 30 years with the help of the fall of the AMO (went from positive to sharply negative between the late 1950s and mid 1970s) in addition to increased aerosols.

 

There was also discussion in some papers about the sharp northern hemisphere temperature drop in SSTs from the mid/late 1960s to the early 1970s which certainly helped prolonged the hiatus in the mid-20th century. Booth et al 2012 claimed that most of the northern hemisphere variability in SSTs during the 20th century (esp the Atlantic/AMO) could be explained by aerosols. However, this paper was rebutted a year later by Zhang et al 2013...and has since been dismissed by other papers.

 

This doesn't mean aerosols didn't cause cooling...the paper above actually said aerosols were a signficant part of the mid-century hiatus. Just that they were secondary to the IPO and AMO. I've also read about some residual Southern Ocean heat storage in their models, but since observations here are somewhat sparse (esp before ARGO), it's hard to find much.

 

When we are talking about hundreths of W/M^2, you have to be pretty precise, and the error bars in aerosol forcing are huge, and even the deep ocean heat storage have errors large enough to change the argument in one direction or the other.

[chubbs]

RSS September value below - continues to run cooler than the other series

 

2014 9 0.2065

[Jonger]

The CFS has every continent except Australia below normal right now....

 

 

[nflwxman]

Yeah  regional temperature anomalies will always jump around from month to month. In addition to statistics, the 12-month running average is a good trend following metric for global surface temperature generally rising and falling with ENSO cycles. Currently we are in an uptrend which started at the end of the last Nina.  The bias is to the upside until the next ENSO-related peak is reached. 

 

Yeah, I would agree except Nino has been very inconsistent over the past 6 months.  It's been oscillating between 0-0.5 for a while.  Using the 12 month mean should help smooth that out, but if we don't see a Nino form soon, the winter will likely cool versus the fall as the past has shown.

[AvantHiatus]

The CFS has every continent except Australia below normal right now....

Noice mate

 

Dat land-ocean contrast pliocene-esque pattern...

[chubbs]

Yeah, I would agree except Nino has been very inconsistent over the past 6 months.  It's been oscillating between 0-0.5 for a while.  Using the 12 month mean should help smooth that out, but if we don't see a Nino form soon, the winter will likely cool versus the fall as the past has shown.

 

To clarify expect seasonal patterns to continue. Just need this year to be warmer than last year to keep 12-month moving average on upward path. Expect this year to be warmer than last year on average through spring and perhaps longer depending on ENSO.

[skierinvermont]

Pointing out sharp drops right when you go from +ENSO to -ENSO or from +AMO to -AMO doesn't mean you can attribute the lackluster warming 1950-1965 to the AMO or PDO. Yes there are stepdowns when the AMO and PDO flip so some attribution is obvious. But it tells you nothing about what the background trend in forcing was 1940-1975. Nor can you assume that 100% of the step down 1940-1950 or 1965-1975 was due to the PDO and AMO drops. Again, these periods are also effected by the background state. If the background state is warming, then the drops would be more moderate. If the background state is no net forcing, then the drops are bigger.

 

 

 

Personally I would estimate the aerosol contribution to the hiatus 1940-1975 at 40-80% and the contribution of the -AMO and -PDO at 20-60%.

 

Even if we assume the higher end of AMO and PDO contribution to past hiatus, then we would still see pretty significant warming over the coming decade now that the PDO is already negative and has been negative for a while.

 

During the past hiatus 1940-1975 there was actually pretty significant warming 1950-1975 which begins 5 years into the -PDO. A huge chunk of the hiatus is due to the step down in temperature 1940-1950.

 

So if there was significant warming 1950-1975, despite aerosol forcing and much weaker GHG forcing than at present, what is with all of these ridiculous hiatus decade predictions? The people expecting the hiatus (which is more like very slow surface warming than a true hiatus) to continue are going to look really bad in 10 years.

 

There was also even faster warming 1950-1964 before the AMO step down. If there was warming of about .08C/decade in the 15 years beginning 5 years after the PDO went negative, despite aerosol forcing and weak GHG forcing, we should easily expect .2C/decade in the next 15 years without much aerosol forcing and with strong GHG forcing.

 

 

Today is pretty much like 1950, except without negative aerosol forcing and with stronger GHG forcing. If in the 15 years after 1950 temperatures warmed .08C/decade, we should be expecting at least twice that rate over the next 15 years.

[tacoman25]

For the record, I think October will probably be colder at the surface because of cooling NPAC SSTs.

 

What some of us have been saying for several weeks. Welcome to the club. 

[tacoman25]

No literature says the cooling was very little. The cooling effect of literally blocking out the sun is universally believed to have at least been moderately significant during the period. Your attempts to brush under the rug a very detectable literal dimming of the sun by aerosols are really quite bizzarre.

 

You've never really understood that without the increase in GHGs the climate would likely be much cooler than the LIA or 1880s. Aerosols have offset a significant fraction of GHG warming.

 

Clearly the jump in temperature in the late 70s is due to a switch to +ENSO+PDO state. That doesn't mean the continued rapid warming after that was related to the +ENSO+PDO.

 

I've never attempted to brush aerosols under the rug. Just continually pointed out that global temperature trends have a higher overall correlation with oceanic phases.

[skierinvermont]

I've never attempted to brush aerosols under the rug. Just continually pointed out that global temperature trends have a higher overall correlation with oceanic phases.

 

The fact that temperatures decreased during one negative phase of the PDO is not a correlation. It is 1 single coincidence which may or may not have causation.

 

The fact that more La Ninas occur during these periods provides good reason for some causation, at least when the itinitial switch occurs to a -PDO. But there is simply no way to attribute anything more than an initial cooling without a much more in depth understanding of the oceanic processes and thermal budgets.

[skierinvermont]

What some of us have been saying for several weeks. Welcome to the club. 

 

I haven't had internet access for a month. Biking across Europe. I've checked in a couple times and noticed SOCs comments and I generally have agreed but I think maybe overly reliant on that one factor.

[StudentOfClimatology]

I haven't had internet access for a month. Biking across Europe. I've checked in a couple times and noticed SOCs comments and I generally have agreed but I think maybe overly reliant on that one factor.

Wow, good luck with that!

[AvantHiatus]

Courtesy of TGW

 

CFS dailies are back up to 0.30C+. 

 

Forecast shows 0.30C to 0.40C+ the next few days.

 

Then slowly dropping back down to around 0.10C+ next week before abruptly rebounding back above 0.20C+ around the 14th-15th.

 

AMSU channel 6 temps are slightly below 2009 and 2012.

 

http://ghrc.nsstc.na...S_ch06.r003.txt

 

Tropics have warmed up a lot globally. 

 

[Isotherm]

The fact that temperatures decreased during one negative phase of the PDO is not a correlation. It is 1 single coincidence which may or may not have causation.

 

 

 

Writing off the PDO as "1 single coincidence" grossly underestimates its modulation of climate over the past century. It's apparent that it played(s) a significant role in internal climate variability.

 

You're asserting that the following are coincidences:

 

1. PDO values reached a relative peak around 1940, at which time global temperatures also reached a relative climax.

 

2.  Global temperatures were colder than normal from the mid 1940s through the late 1970s, during which time, PDO values were generally predominately negative.

 

3. The PDO transition to positive values circa 1980 coincides very well with the onset of warming temperatures.

 

4.  Both the 1920-40 and 1980-2010 time frames featured increasing global temperatures: this coincides with generally +PDO conditions.

 

5. The 1945-1979 period featured a leveling / slight decline in global temperatures, during which the PDO was mostly negative.

 

 

It's clear that there's been a background warming from the late 19th century - present, superimposed on the PDO's modulation of climate (among other factors). While one may argue, "It's the La Ninas, not the PDO", the fact is, a higher frequency of -ENSO events are part and parcel of the decadal negative PDO regime. ENSO is strongly positively correlated with PDO values.

 

 

 

 

[StudentOfClimatology]

Courtesy of TGW

CFS dailies are back up to 0.30C+.

Forecast shows 0.30C to 0.40C+ the next few days.

Then slowly dropping back down to around 0.10C+ next week before abruptly rebounding back above 0.20C+ around the 14th-15th.

AMSU channel 6 temps are slightly below 2009 and 2012.

http://ghrc.nsstc.na...S_ch06.r003.txt

Tropics have warmed up a lot globally.

According to the climate-analyst site, looks like we peak on Friday then drop back to where we were a few days ago with the +AAO and MJO moving into phase 1-2 (tends to be a colder phase, globally).

Starting to look like October may run much cooler than recent months.

[nflwxman]

According to the climate-analyst site, looks like we peak on Friday then drop back to where we were a few days ago w/ the +AAO and MJO moving into phase 1-2 (tends to be a colder phase, globally).

Starting to look like October may run much cooler than recent months.

Your definition of "much" colder is interesting. I would not be surprised to see October above 65 on GISS.

[WEATHER53]

Where to we go to discuss the importation of Ebola into the United States? Global warming concerns will not matter if we continue  this casual, politically correct approach to this plague.

[StudentOfClimatology]

Your definition of "much" colder is interesting. I would not be surprised to see October above 65 on GISS.

Speaking relative to August/September here. October should come in ~0.15C cooler, judging by the latest prognostications..thinking about 0.6C on GISS.

We haven't seen enough ENSO warming (yet) to counteract the cooling SSTs above 30N. So as those SST anomalies continue to get eaten away, we'll probably observe an overall decline in temperatures on the surface datasets, in my opinion.

[skierinvermont]

Writing off the PDO as "1 single coincidence" grossly underestimates its modulation of climate over the past century. It's apparent that it played(s) a significant role in internal climate variability.

 

You're asserting that the following are coincidences:

 

1. PDO values reached a relative peak around 1940, at which time global temperatures also reached a relative climax.

 

2.  Global temperatures were colder than normal from the mid 1940s through the late 1970s, during which time, PDO values were generally predominately negative.

 

3. The PDO transition to positive values circa 1980 coincides very well with the onset of warming temperatures.

 

4.  Both the 1920-40 and 1980-2010 time frames featured increasing global temperatures: this coincides with generally +PDO conditions.

 

5. The 1945-1979 period featured a leveling / slight decline in global temperatures, during which the PDO was mostly negative.

 

 

It's clear that there's been a background warming from the late 19th century - present, superimposed on the PDO's modulation of climate (among other factors). While one may argue, "It's the La Ninas, not the PDO", the fact is, a higher frequency of -ENSO events are part and parcel of the decadal negative PDO regime. ENSO is strongly positively correlated with PDO values.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You've just broken one single coincidence up into a bunch of more specific coincidences. And once one acknowledges a short term cooling effect in the late 1940s and a short term warming effect in the late 1970s due to the switch to -PDO and +PDO respectively, then there is literally nothing else that can be said based off correlation alone. You can't possibly conclude that just because the PDO was negative 1945-1976 that this is responsible for the lack of warming over that period. Just because two things happen to be simultaneous in history doesn't mean one caused the other. It's not even a correlation. A correlation requires the two things ocurring over and over and over again at the same time.

 

There is absolutely no way based purely off lookng at graphs that one can disprove the following scenario:

 

1. The earth cooled rapidly 1940-1950 because of the switch to -PDO-ENSO. This cooling was more noticeable because the background state was no warming due to a strong increase in aerosols and 'global dimming.'

 

2. The earth warmed slowly 1950-1965 because the background state was no net warming.

 

3. The earth cooled rapidly 1965-1975 because of the switch to -AMO and some more La Ninas. The cooling was more pronounced because the background state was no net warming.

 

 

You can't possibly disprove the above scenario where there was no net human forcing over the 1940-1975 period. No net human forcing is consistent with the empirical data and it is supported by theoretical forcing estimates.

 

Thus the slight cooling over the period is a result of the combination of no net human forcing and a natural cooling component. Had human forcing been positive, it would have overwhelmed the natural component.

[AvantHiatus]

Wow that was profound

The continental configurations and milankovitch cycles don't really support a greenhouse Earth. This is a big warning sign that humans are the primary drivers of AGW.

[tacoman25]

Your definition of "much" colder is interesting. I would not be surprised to see October above 65 on GISS.

 

That's quite the step back from your previous thoughts of 75+.

[The_Global_Warmer]

CFS has shot back up near 0.40C+ on the dailies.  Up to 0.134C+ on the monthly.

 

Looks like another 0.30-0.40C+ day tomorrow. Then a slow drop back to around 0.10-0.15C by the 15th.

 

The monthly will likely be around 0.175C+ around the 15th.  Which equals a 0.73C+ on GISS.