2014 Global Temperatures

[StudentOfClimatology]

Looks like 80-85% of the drop on HADCRUT occurred over the NH oceans. Anyone have any guesses as to why?

[Jonger]

There are negative anomalies in places that typically have snow...

[Jonger]

Looks like 80-85% of the drop on HADCRUT occurred over the NH oceans. Anyone have any guesses as to why?

 

A train of storms churned the surface of the water up? Sure looks that way.

[chubbs]

Whats hadley on the year now compared to it's record?

 

It's cooler than GISS becuase the warm September poles.

HADCRUT4 is 0.556 through August vs 0.556 record and should move ahead of record when September comes in. HADSST is 0.477 through September vs 0.418 record.

[The_Global_Warmer]

There are negative anomalies in places that typically have snow...

 

And there is a lot of above normal snow extent. 

 

That is like 2-3 million square miles at least anomalous wise in Eurasia.  Might be more like 4 million km2.

 

 

It doesn't even matter if it's anomalous or not.  The way the pattern is set up the snow albedo feedback  is causing some big negative anomalies over a large area.

 

That isn't disputable.

 

 

 

A train of storms churned the surface of the water up? Sure looks that way.

 

So we traded huge anomalies over the NPAC for warming over the tropics and sub tropics which covers far more space and will warm the lower troposphere up much faster and more than the NPAC did or could.

 

 

The Indian Ocean continues to explode in warmth. 

 

ENSO is also warming up quickly. 

 

As well as the SH oceans at large.

 

 

 

ENSO is going to continue to warm up as well. 

 

ENSO 1-2 and 3 if this forecast keeps trending this way.  We will see ENSO 1, 2, and half of 3 probably lock in some 1-2C+ anomalies.

 

SO we traded a global torch for more global torching.

 

 

 

[The_Global_Warmer]

HADCRUT4 is 0.556 through August vs 0.556 record and should move ahead of record when September comes in. HADSST is 0.477 through September vs 0.418 record.

 

Damn.  Hadsst is going to easily crush it's record.

 

I'd say October will be record or right at record for hadley with the warmth being driven by the tropics versus the poles like September had.

 

 

September on GISS.  We can see below.

 

[StudentOfClimatology]

And there is a lot of above normal snow extent.

That is like 2-3 million square miles at least anomalous wise in Eurasia. Might be more like 4 million km2.

It doesn't even matter if it's anomalous or not. The way the pattern is set up the snow albedo feedback is causing some big negative anomalies over a large area.

That isn't disputable.

So we traded huge anomalies over the NPAC for warming over the tropics and sub tropics which covers far more space and will warm the lower troposphere up much faster and more than the NPAC did or could.

The Indian Ocean continues to explode in warmth.

ENSO is also warming up quickly.

As well as the SH oceans at large.

ENSO is going to continue to warm up as well.

ENSO 1-2 and 3 if this forecast keeps trending this way. We will see ENSO 1, 2, and half of 3 probably lock in some 1-2C+ anomalies.

SO we traded a global torch for more global torching.

Global SSTs have come down substantially since mid September. The slight warming in the IO/W-PAC is a direct result of the MJO-induced subsidence and has not been enough to counteract the high latitude cooling.

There has been no "explosion" of warmth anywhere.

[The_Global_Warmer]

CFS is going to be pushing 0.35C+ on today's update.  Pretty impressive.  The models have been playing catchup for days now with this current big time global warmth. 

 

Not sure what exactly the reason is for the models or at least the GFS to have handled this period so poorly but it has been very bad.

 

So tomorrow about 0.35C+ on the dailies and then Saturday at least a 0.25C+ might get close to 0.30C+.

 

As it stands right now Sunday will be quite a bit cooler.  But still around a 0.15 to 0.20C+ day. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Right now Monday is sightly cooler than Sunday around a 0.15C+ daily.  The common theme here is how warm the tropics are.  This is the warmest that I can remember them being on these anomaly pages this year.

 

 

 

 

Right now Monday is the coolest day next week with the current forecast.Once again the models are showing warming in the medium range.  Just going verbatim if this forecast holds true by October 24th CFS should be around a 0.180C+.  Or a GISS equivalent of 0.73C+.

 

 

 

Current forecast from the GFS:
Tuesday daily peak: 0.60C

Wednesday daily peak: 0.63C

Thursday dailyl peak: 0.64C

Friday daily peak: 0.66C

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[The_Global_Warmer]

It looks like warming will be returning to the NPAC later next week if this comes to fruition.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ENSO 3-4 continues to warm up.  Albeit slowly. 

 

[chubbs]

Global SSTs have come down substantially since mid September. The slight warming in the IO/W-PAC is a direct result of the MJO-induced subsidence and has not been enough to counteract the high latitude cooling.

There has been no "explosion" of warmth anywhere.

Your most recent map has a warm +PDO look with cool waters near Japan and warm water in the eastern and tropical Pacific.

[nflwxman]

Global SSTs have come down substantially since mid September. The slight warming in the IO/W-PAC is a direct result of the MJO-induced subsidence and has not been enough to counteract the high latitude cooling.

There has been no "explosion" of warmth anywhere.

 

 

And despite the NPAC cooling, we remain quite warm, as expected.  Any guesses why? 

[nflwxman]

According to the GFS model, we should see some strong regional cooling from snowcover anomalies until Tuesday-Wednesday.  Thus, I would not surprised to see the CFSv2 respond with a pretty hefty drop over the next 4-5 days or so.  It should rebound a bit later next week.  I would imagine we will see at least a .13-.18+ on the CFSv2 by the end of month, barring something unusual. 

[The_Global_Warmer]

Global ssts have cooled off some.  But not substantially.  The 30S-30N belt is so much larger than the Central/North NPAC.

 

The Indian Ocean is much much warmer.  And it's all between 20N and 40S.  ENSO is much warmer.

 

This will continue.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[StudentOfClimatology]

And despite the NPAC cooling, we remain quite warm, as expected. Any guesses why?

Yes. The progression into E-PAC dominated tropical forcing. Gives you the weak Walker Cell, W-PAC/IO warming under subsidence, and a warmer globe..1997-98 was driven by an extreme version of this sort of circulation.

[nflwxman]

Yes. The progression into E-PAC dominated tropical forcing. Gives you the weak Walker Cell, W-PAC/IO warming under subsidence, and a warmer globe. This

Gotcha.  Do you believe this will continue?

[StudentOfClimatology]

Gotcha. Do you believe this will continue?

Yes, for a few more weeks. ECMWF weeklies and the CFS both missed it (MJO a is hard to predict) so I didn't see it coming all that well..that's on me. Remember the spike in the satellite temps back in January of 2013? Winter season dynamics are different but the forcing was similar and led to a crazy surge in latent heat release and a Walker cell collapse.

[nflwxman]

Yes, for a few more weeks. ECMWF weeklies and the CFS both missed it (MJO a is hard to predict) so I didn't see it coming all that well..that's on me. Remember the spike in the satellite temps back in January of 2013? Winter season dynamics are different but the forcing was similar and led to a crazy surge in latent heat release and a Walker cell collapse.

 

Yes, I remember Roy Spencer mentioning convective overturning as the main reasoning for the Jan 2013 tropospheric temp spike.  However, isn't this a separate issue being this is on the surface?

[StudentOfClimatology]

Yes, I remember Roy Spencer mentioning convective overturning as the main reasoning for the Jan 2013 tropospheric temp spike. However, isn't this a separate issue being this is on the surface?

Was somewhat different because the Walker Cell was initially strong but battling with the MJO. Divergence aloft was much stronger in the W-PAC and when the cell did collapse, the surface datasets responded with a continuous warming in January and February.

[GaWx]

Dr. Gray:

"Most weather-climate observations of recent decades are not following the predictions of nearly all the 30 or so global numerical climate models and the continuous alarmist global warming pronouncements of nearly all U.S. and foreign governments, and nearly all the world's media outlets. The general public, without the technical background to judge the scientific reliability of these many and continuous warming pronouncements, have been brainwashed. I am sure the coming decades of observations will add more verification for the discrediting of this catastrophic warming hypothesis.

 I attribute the climate alterations of the past few centuries and decades to be primarily a response to the globe's deep ocean current changes of which salinity variation is the primary driver and for which CO2 increases play no role."

 

http://www.coloradoan.com/story/opinion/contributors/2014/10/17/soapbox-co-increase-nemesis-portrayed/17382189/

 

Opinions?

[ORH_wxman]

Dr. Gray:

"Most weather-climate observations of recent decades are not following the predictions of nearly all the 30 or so global numerical climate models and the continuous alarmist global warming pronouncements of nearly all U.S. and foreign governments, and nearly all the world's media outlets. The general public, without the technical background to judge the scientific reliability of these many and continuous warming pronouncements, have been brainwashed. I am sure the coming decades of observations will add more verification for the discrediting of this catastrophic warming hypothesis.

 I attribute the climate alterations of the past few centuries and decades to be primarily a response to the globe's deep ocean current changes of which salinity variation is the primary driver and for which CO2 increases play no role."

 

http://www.coloradoan.com/story/opinion/contributors/2014/10/17/soapbox-co-increase-nemesis-portrayed/17382189/

 

Opinions?

 

 

I disagree with a lot of what he says. Ocean currents play a role, but it is not the primary role over the long haul since the early to mid 20th century.

 

I do agree with this part though:

 

" I am sure the coming decades of observations will add more verification for the discrediting of this catastrophic warming hypothesis."

 

I am assuming that "catastrophic warming" means the higher end scenarios such as warming over 3C by 2100.

[GaWx]

I disagree with a lot of what he says. Ocean currents play a role, but it is not the primary role over the long haul since the early to mid 20th century.

 

I do agree with this part though:

 

" I am sure the coming decades of observations will add more verification for the discrediting of this catastrophic warming hypothesis."

 

I am assuming that "catastrophic warming" means the higher end scenarios such as warming over 3C by 2100.

 

 But do you agree that the models have been too warm overall? I think you've said that here. They were predicting warmer surface temperatures than have verified.

[ORH_wxman]

 But do you agree that the models have been too warm overall? I think you've said that here. They were predicting warmer surface temperatures than have verified.

 

 

Yes that has been well documented in here...and in the literature. I've posted papers before, but here's a couple good ones to start with that talk about the model problems:

 

http://www.stat.washington.edu/peter/statclim/fyfeetal.pdf

 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50562/abstract

 

(here's a clunky version of the 2nd paper if you can't access geophysical research letters...but it doesnt have the images: https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/kswanson/www/publications/GRL_selection.pdf )

[WeatherRusty]

 But do you agree that the models have been too warm overall? I think you've said that here. They were predicting warmer surface temperatures than have verified.

 

From a purely physical basis (no modeling) we expect just under 1.2C of warming per doubling of CO2 at a minimum. These models will range all over the place with a consensus value range somewhere between 1.5C and 4.5C for what is termed equalibrium climate sensitivity, depending largely on assumptions of parameterization. It is not known how fast CO2 will rise in the future, or what the Sun will do, or what ENSO will do etc. Most of the models until recently have produced linear projections, lacking the natural variability of the real climate system.

 

The global is about 0.1C below those linear projections at this time, but just bearly within the margin for error. The IPCC has called for an average global surface increase of about 0.2C per decade. At times that rate will not be realized while at others it will be exceeded. One thing is for sure however, the Planck temperature response is tightly confinded to near 1.2C per doubling of CO2 even if it takes 200 years or more for that equalibrium to ocure in the real world. That is relative to the pre-industrial CO2 consentration at 280ppm, now at 400ppm and headed for a full doubling mid to late century.

[Jonger]

From a purely physical basis (no modeling) we expect just under 1.2C of warming per doubling of CO2 at a minimum. These models will range all over the place with a consensus value range somewhere between 1.5C and 4.5C for what is termed equalibrium climate sensitivity, depending largely on assumptions of parameterization. It is not known how fast CO2 will rise in the future, or what the Sun will do, or what ENSO will do etc. Most of the models until recently have produced linear projections, lacking the natural variability of the real climate system.

 

The global is about 0.1C below those linear projections at this time, but just bearly within the margin for error. The IPCC has called for an average global surface increase of about 0.2C per decade. At times that rate will not be realized while at others it will be exceeded. One thing is for sure however, the Planck temperature response is tightly confinded to near 1.2C per doubling of CO2 even if it takes 200 years or more for that equalibrium to ocure in the real world. That is relative to the pre-industrial CO2 consentration at 280ppm, now at 400ppm and headed for a full doubling mid to late century.

 

Can you show me the graphs that brought you this conclusion, this is quite generous compared to what I have seen.

 

Do you mean 0.1C below the lowest range of projections, because that would seem accurate.

[The_Global_Warmer]

We are really warm still.  But cooling off.  We will see cooling over the next few days with the coolest days on Monday and Tuesday's updates before a vigorous warm up takes shape.

 

 

That starts popping off on Wednesday.

 

CFS had made it up to 0.171C+ for the month so far.  The GFS is showing the kind of warmth that would easily seal another 0.70C+ month on GISS.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[LithiaWx]

What happened to the cold snowcover effect? It disappeared.

[Isotherm]

From a purely physical basis (no modeling) we expect just under 1.2C of warming per doubling of CO2 at a minimum.

 

 

 

That value wasn't determined in Earth's atmosphere; however, which makes the number hold little value in terms of the real impact in a dynamic, non-linear, feedback prone climate system.

[Jonger]

That value wasn't determined in Earth's atmosphere; however, which makes the number hold little value in terms of the real impact in a dynamic, non-linear, feedback prone climate system.

 

The 1.2C number is declared to be a rock solid, indisputable fact.....

 

Looking at the complexity of the earth, that seems beyond ludicrous. 

[StudentOfClimatology]

We are really warm still. But cooling off. We will see cooling over the next few days with the coolest days on Monday and Tuesday's updates before a vigorous warm up takes shape.

That's 100% dependent on whether or not the GFS is handling the AAO correctly, since essentially all of the warming is forecasted in the Antarctic domain.

[WeatherRusty]

Can you show me the graphs that brought you this conclusion, this is quite generous compared to what I have seen.

 

Do you mean 0.1C below the lowest range of projections, because that would seem accurate.

 

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig1-4.jpg