2014 Global Temperatures

[WeatherRusty]

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.

 

It's what you get from a radiative forcing at 3.7W/m^2 on a grey body with an albedo of 0.30. This is the Planck value which relates temperature directly to energy. You are correct it's not the value to expect in the real world which involves feedback mechanisms. The equilibrium climate sensitivity, which is what you refer to is estimated between 1.5C and 4.5C.

[The_Global_Warmer]

ASMU channel 6 temps for this date top 4 warmest.

 

2002: 237.573

2004: 237.358

2009: 237.408

2014: 237.338

 

 

ENSO ONI for those years from July-Oct:

 

2002: 0.8C, 0.8C, 0.9C, 1.2C

2004: 0.5C, 0.7C, 0.8C, 0.7C

2010: 0.5C, 0.6C, 0.8C, 1.1C

2014: 0.1C, 0.0C, 0.0C

 

 

 

 

 

 

The thick black lines are at 40S and 40N.  The thin black line is along the equator. 

 

The maroon lines help divide up the large ocean basins.  The North Pacific has cooled.  Not completely.  But no where near the dominant huge anomalies we had. However we can see large areas of above normal ssts over the large area ocean basins. 

 

The North Pacific sector has a huge area of above normal anomalies bisecting the 25N line or so. Half of this blob is in the sub tropics.  Much much larger than the far NPAC. 

 

The Atlantic at the same latitude is now filled with positive anomalies.

 

The Indian ocean at the same latitude in the South also has a large blob of very warm ssta.

 

The SPAC also now has a large area of warm ssta over the Western 2/3rds. 

 

Not to forget the equatorial Indian, Pacific, and NATL side.

 

We are going on a ride we have never been on before.

 

 

[StudentOfClimatology]

It's what you get from a radiative forcing at 3.7W/m^2 on a grey body with an albedo of 0.30. This is the Planck value which relates temperature directly to energy. You are correct it's not the value to expect in the real world which involves feedback mechanisms. The equilibrium climate sensitivity, which is what you refer to is estimated between 1.5C and 4.5C.

What emissivity are you using? I assume 1.0 or something close to it?

[GaWx]

Per the 12Z Euro ensemble mean, the already well above normal Eurasian snowcover will expand even further through the rest of October and be accompanied by widespread below normal temperatures north of 50N in Asia as well as in E Europe. Anyone have any idea whether this would have a nontrivial cooling impact on global temperatures?

[The_Global_Warmer]

Per the 12Z Euro ensemble mean, the already well above normal Eurasian snowcover will expand even further through the rest of October and be accompanied by widespread below normal temperatures north of 50N in Asia as well as in E Europe. Anyone have any idea whether this would have a nontrivial cooling impact on global temperatures?

 

 

It will have to be compared to historical anomalies for that region for the same time period.

 

But in terms of the Earths entire energy budget the effect is trivial.

 

But it could be the difference between a record warm October and a near record one.

 

The effect in much stronger in winter when solar insolation is much weaker and the snow covers a much larger area.

 

Right snow snow extent is still 1/5th of what it will max out as.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Based on your top snow cover years GAWX:

 

1976:

 

 

2009:

 

2

 

2012:

 

 

2014 so far.

 

 

 

 

On a side note.  AMSU channel 6 temps are now the 2nd warmest on record for this date.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Trend towards major late October Global torch continues....

 

The next two days are the coolest since early October. Then Tuesday is a day of moderation globally before all hell breaks loose on Wednesday.

 

Even with the strong area of very anomalous cold anomalies over Eurasia.  Thanks to a pattern change over Antarctica the Southern Hemisphere warms up substantially.

 

So even with the large Eurasian land based major cold anomalies the current forecast(Which has shown to have a cool bias in the medium range) breaks out daily peaks(starting Wednesday) of:

 

Typical CFS equivalents to those are 0.25 to 0.35C+ on the dailies.  However if the pattern evolves as it is currently forecast I wouldn't be surprised if we end up with multiple days in a row of 0.80C with 0.40C+ on the CFS dailies.

0.70C

0.68C

0.72C

0.76C

0.73C

 

 

 

 

 

 

[WeatherRusty]

What emissivity are you using? I assume 1.0 or something close to it?

 

Yes, the Planck response is a derivative of a black body or perfect radiator. Of course the effective black body temperature of the Earth is 255K, whereas the surface is at 288K. The difference being the atmospheric greenhouse effect. The surface radiates 390W/m^2 while the layer of emissivity 240W/m^2. This gives a bulk emissivity of ~0.6.

 

every doubling of CO2 reduces the outgoing radiation (or equivalently, the planetary emissivity) by roughly 4 W/m²

 

dT_s = -(288/4)(-4/240) = 1.2 K

[Msalgado]

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

 

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

 

How complex is the mean lapse rate?  In other words, if you average the lapse rate over the globe and over the year how complex is it?

[StudentOfClimatology]

Yes, the Planck response is a derivative of a black body or perfect radiator. Of course the effective black body temperature of the Earth is 255K, whereas the surface is at 288K. The difference being the atmospheric greenhouse effect. The surface radiates 390W/m^2 while the layer of emissivity 240W/m^2. This gives a bulk emissivity of ~0.6.

every doubling of CO2 reduces the outgoing radiation (or equivalently, the planetary emissivity) by roughly 4 W/m²

dT_s = -(288/4)(-4/240) = 1.2 K

Agreed on the radiative transfer physics. I'm not a big fan of the graybody-Earth concept though because it's structurally derived, rather than constructive. I know from experience that liquid water is a b*tch to model..you lose that 0.97 emissivity to evaporation/latent heat conversion before you add a single GHG molecule into the column.

[WeatherRusty]

Agreed on the radiative transfer physics. I'm not a big fan of the graybody-Earth concept though because it's structurally derived, rather than constructive. I know from experience that liquid water is a b*tch to model..you lose that 0.97 emissivity to evaporation/latent heat conversion before you add a single GHG molecule into the column.

 

But in this case, the grey body concept relates to the albedo of the Earth and nothing more in establishing the effective radiation temperature (255K) from Stefan-Boltzmann.

 

1368 / 4 = 342    342(0.70)=240 watts per square meter = 255K  where 0.70 accounts for albedo

 

Also, concerning water, the layer of emissivity (255K) is high above in the atmosphere where most water vapor and clouds exist....up around 16,000 feet in the global average and radiative forcing is given for the tropopause.

[StudentOfClimatology]

But in this case, the grey body concept relates to the albedo of the Earth and nothing more in establishing the effective radiation temperature (255K) from Stefan-Boltzmann.

1368 / 4 = 342 342(0.70)=240 watts per square meter = 255K where 0.70 accounts for albedo

Okay. I thought you were suggesting the S-B emission temperature would be realized in sfc temps in the absence of GHGes alone. I know a few who like to stick to that 0.97 emissivity figure in constructive formulation and end up needing to double the number of parameterizations as a result.

[WeatherRusty]

Okay. I thought you were suggesting the S-B emission temperature would be realized in sfc temps in the absence of GHGes alone. I know a few who like to stick to that 0.97 emissivity figure in constructive formulation and end up needing to double the number of parameterizations as a result.

 

Why do they over complicate things in an unrealistic manner? If we strip away the atmosphere and oceans we are left with essentially the Moon, with an albedo of 0.11 and an effective radiation temp at 271K. In what theoretical case would the Earth have an emissivity of 0.97?  An emissivity of 1 assumes a perfect black body.

[The_Global_Warmer]

The march towards glorious record breaking continues.  CFS is currently at 0.166C+ for the month with a little over 1/3rd to go.

 

Where will you be when the hiatus ends on that December 31st day?

 

 

 

 

The troipical Atlantic has blown up now.  The NPAC has leveled off.  But the Southern Hemisphere is warming up. There is a HUGE area of warm anomalies along the sub-tropical NPAC.

 

And ENSO continues to slowly develop into a weak nino.

 

 

 

Climate reanalyer daily peak temps starting with today:

 

 

0.64C

0.63C

0.71C

0.69C

0.72C

0.77C

0.75C

0.67C

 

 

 

 

So inspite of record snow cover extent and explosive FYI growth in the arctic.

 

Overall the Earth is running at record warmth predominantly.

[GaWx]

Friv,

 However, despite this, the land areas alone seem to be more balanced overall per eyeballing thanks in large part to the extensive and solid cold in Russia/E. Europe in general. Ahhhh, the glory of extensive and way above normal snowcover!

[nflwxman]

PDO is certainly looking more positive these days.  Some have speculated we are in the midst of a phase change, it's obviously too soon to make that determination since it's highly linked to ENSO,  but it could be something to watch the next year or so.

[ORH_wxman]

PDO is certainly looking more positive these days.  Some have speculated we are in the midst of a phase change, it's obviously too soon to make that determination since it's highly linked to ENSO,  but it could be something to watch the next year or so.

 

It's possible we spend a few years in +PDO even if we are in a general negative regime...not every PDO regime is as cut and dried like the -PDO from the 1940s-1970s and the positive PDO from the 1970s-2000s.

 

If you go back further, some of the regimes are choppier looking...like the -PDO in the early 1900s. Sometimes, people expect the oscillations to be perfect matches every 30 years, but they don't work like that. Some are stronger and some are slightly longer/shorter than others. Perhaps the current negative regime is more like the softer -PDO of the early 1900s...we'll have to wait and see though..obviously these things can change quickly.

[StudentOfClimatology]

Why do they over complicate things in an unrealistic manner? If we strip away the atmosphere and oceans we are left with essentially the Moon, with an albedo of 0.11 and an effective radiation temp at 271K. In what theoretical case would the Earth have an emissivity of 0.97? An emissivity of 1 assumes a perfect black body.

Well that's the thing, I mostly do paleoclimate work so we were initially trying to solve the faint sun paradox and made a lot of progress incorporating the physics of liquid water, (evaporation, latent heating, sensible heating, heating via surface pressure of atmosphere, etc). Can't release details of the project yet, but we're hoping to have it finished and published sometime in early 2015.

[StudentOfClimatology]

Friv,

However, despite this, the land areas alone seem to be more balanced overall per eyeballing thanks in large part to the extensive and solid cold in Russia/E. Europe in general. Ahhhh, the glory of extensive and way above normal snowcover!

Most of the progged warmth is in the Antarctic, though the MJO is also helping (E-PAC forcing/weak Walker Cell is recipe for a torch).

The CERES anomaly has also decreased a bit, suggesting stronger Niño forcing, but it's still highly positive and probably related to the intraseasonal state of the MJO.

[nflwxman]

It's possible we spend a few years in +PDO even if we are in a general negative regime...not every PDO regime is as cut and dried like the -PDO from the 1940s-1970s and the positive PDO from the 1970s-2000s.

 

If you go back further, some of the regimes are choppier looking...like the -PDO in the early 1900s. Sometimes, people expect the oscillations to be perfect matches every 30 years, but they don't work like that. Some are stronger and some are slightly longer/shorter than others. Perhaps the current negative regime is more like the softer -PDO of the early 1900s...we'll have to wait and see though..obviously these things can change quickly.

Yeah. What is a bit interesting was the drastic jump early this year.  However, the 12 month average is just around neutral. The next 5 years will be fairly telling on that front.  

 

Another point is that it's certainly trended down since the sat era began.  Are there any papers suggesting that is related to AGW?

 

[ORH_wxman]

Yeah. What is a bit interesting was the drastic jump early this year.  However, the 12 month average is just around neutral. The next 5 years will be fairly telling on that front.  

 

Another point is that it's certainly trended down since the sat era began.  Are there any papers suggesting that is related to AGW?

 

 

 

 

That's interesting...I'm not sure it's a long enough time period to make an attribution...esp since the last -PDO was deeper than the current one (thus far anyway)...I hadn't seen any papers on it.

 

I'm guessing the PDO will be very positive this winter. The +PDO configuration looks to have strengthened in the past month or 6 weeks. The developing El Nino should only help to reinforce this. So we'll have to wait until the next La Nina to see how deep it falls again and if it sort of stays there like pre-2014 or if it creeps back up. OR if we get a neutral ENSO next year, we could see where it ends up.

[chrisf97212]

Yeah. What is a bit interesting was the drastic jump early this year.  However, the 12 month average is just around neutral. The next 5 years will be fairly telling on that front.  

 

Another point is that it's certainly trended down since the sat era began.  Are there any papers suggesting that is related to AGW?

 

 

The spike in the PDO last fall correlates with the record high block in the NPAC at the same time.  The block was aided by typhoons recurving into the mid latitudes.

[chrisf97212]

Yeah. What is a bit interesting was the drastic jump early this year.  However, the 12 month average is just around neutral. The next 5 years will be fairly telling on that front.  

 

Another point is that it's certainly trended down since the sat era began.  Are there any papers suggesting that is related to AGW?

 

 

It would be interesting to see the solar cycle added to this graph.

[Jonger]

The march towards glorious record breaking continues.  CFS is currently at 0.166C+ for the month with a little over 1/3rd to go.

 

Where will you be when the hiatus ends on that December 31st day?

 

 

 

 

 

The troipical Atlantic has blown up now.  The NPAC has leveled off.  But the Southern Hemisphere is warming up. There is a HUGE area of warm anomalies along the sub-tropical NPAC.

 

And ENSO continues to slowly develop into a weak nino.

 

 

So inspite of record snow cover extent and explosive FYI growth in the arctic.

 

Overall the Earth is running at record warmth predominantly.

 

If the earth ends up being .01C warmer than the all time high... That's still a hiatus. The hiatus refers to a drastic slowdown of the earths warming.... Nobody is saying it stopped warming, it's just not warming at the rate that established the alarmist narrative back in the mid 1990's. The earth bounces between 0.6 to 0.8C... and has for 17 years. If it bounced between 0.7 and 0.9C 17 more years from now, that's still a hiatus.

 

This isn't some official designation anyhow, its just how the current situation is discussed on the internet.

[nflwxman]

If the earth ends up being .01C warmer than the all time high... That's still a hiatus. The hiatus refers to a drastic slowdown of the earths warming.... Nobody is saying it stopped warming, it's just not warming at the rate that established the alarmist narrative back in the mid 1990's. The earth bounces between 0.6 to 0.8C... and has for 17 years. If it bounced between 0.7 and 0.9C 17 more years from now, that's still a hiatus.

 

This isn't some official designation anyhow, its just how the current situation is discussed on the internet.

 

The problem with that terminology is that it is entirely subjective.  Who determines what the "normal rate" of warming should be? Is 1990-1998 determined the normal rate of warming?  If we are warming at 0.13C/decade, is that decade in a hiatus?  It should probably be determined in terms of statistical significance.  At this point it's still within the MOE since 2001-ish.

 

Framing in the scientific community matters in the public domain, sadly.  The term "hiatus" has led to some very poor and misleading reporting on climate change.

[nflwxman]

NOAA confirms September's record warmth.

 

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/9

 

 

"The past 12 months—October 2013–September 2014—was the warmest 12-month period among all months since records began in 1880, at 0.69°C (1.24°F) above the 20th century average. This breaks the previous record of +0.68°C (+1.22°F) set for the periods September 1998–August 1998, August 2009–July 2010; and September 2013–August 2014."

[ORH_wxman]

If the earth ends up being .01C warmer than the all time high... That's still a hiatus. The hiatus refers to a drastic slowdown of the earths warming.... Nobody is saying it stopped warming, it's just not warming at the rate that established the alarmist narrative back in the mid 1990's. The earth bounces between 0.6 to 0.8C... and has for 17 years. If it bounced between 0.7 and 0.9C 17 more years from now, that's still a hiatus.

 

This isn't some official designation anyhow, its just how the current situation is discussed on the internet.

 

 

The problem with that terminology is that it is entirely subjective.  Who determines what the "normal rate" of warming should be? Is 1990-1998 determined the normal rate of warming?  If we are warming at 0.13C/decade, is that decade in a hiatus?  It should probably be determined in terms of statistical significance.  At this point it's still within the MOE since 2001-ish.

 

Framing in the scientific community matters in the public domain, sadly.  The term "hiatus" has led to some very poor and misleading reporting on climate change.

 

 

I think we need periods over a decade to qualify as a "hiatus"..but the term isn't scientific in terms of a hard definition.

 

 

For the current hiatus to "end", we'll probably need 2 or 3 years at near or above record levels. 2010 didn't end the hiatus and neither will 2014 unless it continues for a couple more years. This is speaking for statistically significant warming.

 

However, the current back to back warm months on GISS (along with the general warmth of 2014 before that) has erased the negative slope on GISS from the end of 2001...now putting it at 0.01C per decade. So you could say that from a purely slope standpoint on GISS and ignoring error bars, the hiatus ended in September 2014. That is assuming of course that we don't get some colder months over the next year to offset that and bring the slope back negative again. I doubt that we can achieve that though considering 2015 will be coming off a weak El Nino and should be quite warm at least for the first 9-10 months.

 

 

Hadcrut and NCDC will take longer to erase the negative slope.

[Jonger]

The problem with that terminology is that it is entirely subjective.  Who determines what the "normal rate" of warming should be? Is 1990-1998 determined the normal rate of warming?  If we are warming at 0.13C/decade, is that decade in a hiatus?  It should probably be determined in terms of statistical significance.  At this point it's still within the MOE since 2001-ish.

 

Framing in the scientific community matters in the public domain, sadly.  The term "hiatus" has led to some very poor and misleading reporting on climate change.

 

When discussing this topic with people unfamiliar with AGW, I'm careful not to dismiss the warming.... I just mention that it's warming slower than we thought, but we don't know if that is going to speed up or not.  

[chrisf97212]

When discussing this topic with people unfamiliar with AGW, I'm careful not to dismiss the warming.... I just mention that it's warming slower than we thought, but we don't know if that is going to speed up or not.  

 

When discussing this topic with people unfamiliar with AGW, at the top of my list would be a model that accurately predicts the amount of future warming.

[nflwxman]

When discussing this topic with people unfamiliar with AGW, I'm careful not to dismiss the warming.... I just mention that it's warming slower than we thought, but we don't know if that is going to speed up or not.  

Seems like a reasonable approach.  I'd argue we know it's going to speed up, but that's just a difference of opinion.