2014 Global Temperatures

[The_Global_Warmer]

a blend of UAH and GISS would be preferable.

 

 

NCDC and RSS have limited pole data.

[AvantHiatus]

Not good with the impending Nino.

 

This is why, We should hope Antarctica saves the day but science does not know what hope is.

 

[StudentOfClimatology]

If we get a mod-strong El Niño, we should break the temperature record by a huge margin, mainly because TSI is 1.3W/m^2 higher now than it was in 2009-10, and 1.0W/m^2 higher than in 1997-98. That alone outweighs any changes in anthropogenic+natural aerosol forcing since then. So we should warm very effectively..

We're approaching a radiative budget not seen since the Eemian interglacial, over 100,000 years ago.

[The_Global_Warmer]

If we get a mod-strong El Niño, we should break the temperature record by a huge margin, mainly because TSI is 1.3W/m^2 higher now than it was in 2009-10, and 1.0W/m^2 higher than in 1997-98. That alone outweighs any changes in anthropogenic+natural aerosol forcing.

If we don't break the record despite a mod-strong Niño, then there must be another contributive factor in the radiation budget that we cannot measure.

 

 

 

well it could also depend on when and how long the NINO lasts.  If we get into NINO ONI monthly territory by May and stay there through the year I think it will be broken on GISS.

 

 

[StudentOfClimatology]

well it could also depend on when and how long the NINO lasts. If we get into NINO ONI monthly territory by May and stay there through the year I think it will be broken on GISS.

Agreed, very possible. The next few years are going to be very interesting to watch. Still, a 1.3W/m^2 increase in radiative forcing since 2009 will be hard to deny.

Admittedly, I hope we see a big shift in temperatures, just to shut up the skeptics' and their obsession with the hiatus. I'm not rooting for global warming, but I think a big shift in temperatures may motivate people to accept it and actually do something..

[skierinvermont]

If we get a mod-strong El Niño, we should break the temperature record by a huge margin, mainly because TSI is 1.3W/m^2 higher now than it was in 2009-10, and 1.0W/m^2 higher than in 1997-98. That alone outweighs any changes in anthropogenic+natural aerosol forcing since then. So we should warm very effectively..

We're approaching a radiative budget not seen since the Eemian interglacial, over 100,000 years ago.

 

I think you may be forgetting that a 1W/m2 change in TSI is only a .18W/m2 forcing. 

 

Also, your estimates of the change in TSI look to be a bit high judging by that graph. I'd peg the change in TSI from 2008 to present at 1W/m2. From 2010 to present I'd put it even lower at .6W/m2. 

 

So we're talking about a .11W/m2 change in forcing from 2010 to present. That would be .04C of warming (on the one hand without feedbacks, but on the other hand that's ignoring the thermal inertia of the oceans). 

 

~.04C is easily overcome by any slight difference in ENSO.

 

Whether we break the global temperature record this year probably has more to do with the timing of El Nino than the strength. While stronger El Ninos generally begin to develop earlier, there's some variation in timing for a given strength. We'll need to enter Nino territory soon if we are to break the record this year. A late but strong would would likely break the record next year.

[skierinvermont]

 

Agreed, very possible. The next few years are going to be very interesting to watch. Still, a 1.3W/m^2 increase in radiative forcing since 2009 will be hard to deny.

Admittedly, I hope we see a big shift in temperatures, just to shut up the skeptics' and their obsession with the hiatus. I'm not rooting for global warming, but I think a big shift in temperatures may motivate people to accept it and actually do something..

 

 

I wasn't sure I had interpreted you right from your first post but as I mentioned above change in TSI does not equal change in RF.

 

The change in solar RF since 2010 is more like .11W/m2, not 1.3W/m2. 

 

This is because TSI is a measure direct sunshine. Half the earth faces away from the sun, and of the half that faces the sun, direct sunshine is received only by a single point of the earth that is facing the sun (at any given time there is only one point on earth where the sun is directly overhead). 

 

The formula for deriving the ratio of sunlight received to the surface area of the earth is to take the surface area of a circle with the radius of the earth divided by the surface area of the earth.

 

The formula for the SA of a circle is pi R ^2. The formula for the SA of a sphere is 4 pi R^2.

 

pi R^2 / 4pi R^2 = 1/4 

 

So we must first multiply the change in TSI by .25.

 

Then we must multiply by the inverse of the albedo of the earth (.7). 

 

So a 1W/m2 change in TSI * .25 * .7 = .175W/m2 of RF. 1W/m2 change in TSI is .175W/m2 change in RF.

 

Like I said above, I also think you slightly overestimated the change in TSI.

[StudentOfClimatology]

I think you may be forgetting that a 1W/m2 change in TSI is only a .18W/m2 forcing.

Also, your estimates of the change in TSI look to be a bit high judging by that graph. I'd peg the change in TSI from 2008 to present at 1W/m2. From 2010 to present I'd put it even lower at .6W/m2.

So we're talking about a .11W/m2 change in forcing from 2010 to present. That would be .04C of warming (on the one hand without feedbacks, but on the other hand that's ignoring the thermal inertia of the oceans).

~.04C is easily overcome by any slight difference in ENSO.

Whether we break the global temperature record this year probably has more to do with the timing of El Nino than the strength. While stronger El Ninos generally begin to develop earlier, there's some variation in timing for a given strength. We'll need to enter Nino territory soon if we are to break the record this year. A late but strong would would likely break the record next year.

Just for the record, I don't think the Sun has played any role in global warming..need to get that out so people don't think I've gone over to the dark side.

In terms of direct forcing at the surface via the 11yr cycle, yes I agree. Not at and above the upper troposphere, where oxygen and ozone absorb the radiation efficiently. The warming at the tropopause translates to a warmer tropical lower-mid troposphere through conduction, reduced thermal gradient leading to reduced convection, and increased LW forcing to the surface due to O2/O3 collisions with CO2, NO2, and H2O.

http://depts.washington.edu/amath/old_website/research/articles/Tung/journals/Zhou_and_Tung_2013_solar.pdf

Using 54 yr of NCEP reanalysis global data from 1000 to 10 hPa, this study establishes the existence and the statistical significance of the zonal-mean temperature response to the 11-yr solar cycle throughout the tro- posphere and parts of the lower stratosphere. Two types of statistical analysis are used: the composite-mean difference projection method, which tests the existence of the solar cycle signal level by level, and the adaptive AR(p)-t test, which tells if a particular local feature is statistically significant at the 95% confidence level. A larger area of statistical significance than that in previous published work is obtained, due to the longer record and a better trend removal process. It reveals a spatial pattern consistent with a ‘‘bottom up’’ mechanism, involving evaporative feedback near the tropical ocean surface and tropical vertical convection, latent heating of the tropical upper troposphere, and poleward large-scale heat transport to the polar regions. It provides an alternative to the currently favored ‘‘top down’’ mechanism involving stratospheric ozone heating.

[StudentOfClimatology]

I wasn't sure I had interpreted you right from your first post but as I mentioned above change in TSI does not equal change in RF.

The change in solar RF since 2010 is more like .11W/m2, not 1.3W/m2.

This is because TSI is a measure direct sunshine. Half the earth faces away from the sun, and of the half that faces the sun, direct sunshine is received only by a single point of the earth that is facing the sun (at any given time there is only one point on earth where the sun is directly overhead).

The formula for deriving the ratio of sunlight received to the surface area of the earth is to take the surface area of a circle with the radius of the earth divided by the surface area of the earth.

The formula for the SA of a circle is pi R ^2. The formula for the SA of a sphere is 4 pi R^2.

pi R^2 / 4pi R^2 = 1/4

So we must first multiply the change in TSI by .25.

Then we must multiply by the inverse of the albedo of the earth (.7).

So a 1W/m2 change in TSI * .25 * .7 = .175W/m2 of RF. 1W/m2 change in TSI is .175W/m2 change in RF.

Like I said above, I also think you slightly overestimated the change in TSI.

Thanks.

A few questions lingering for me..

Are you removing the change in flux above 100hpa? Very little work is left for the surface when speaking of TSI since ~90% of the radiative forcing will be absorbed directly, above 100hpa. As for Earth's roundness, I'd say your math would be representative of a blackbody, rather than a high-capacity fluid body.

The warming of the upper troposphere is very important because the atmosphere is a fluid body that conducts well within itself.

The brunt CO2 forcing is realized in the upper troposphere, as well. That's where the IR can be adequately thermalized, then translates down adiabatically, manifesting as a significant warming at the surface.

[skierinvermont]

Trenberths diagrams show that 30% of the sunlight reaching earth is never absorbed at all and is reflected straight to space. 

 

Another check on my math is that Trenberth's diagrams show 341W/m2 of sunlight reach the upper atmosphere of earth on average over a year. This is exactly 1/4 of the 1361W/m2 of TSI detected by satellites which directly face the sun at all times. 

 

And then 30% of this 341W/m2 passes in and out of the atmosphere without ever reacting with anything (You seem to suggest 90% absorption but the figure is only 70%). That leaves 240W/m2. 

 

Of the 1361W/m2 of sunlight directed at earth, the earth (atmosphere+surface) absorbs sunlight at a rate of only 240W/m2. (17.5% of the total). 

 

This also can be viewed in Trenberth's energy diagram.. I've just given the math for why this is the case.

 

Thus a 1W/m2 increase in TSI, will only increase the rate of sunlight being absorbed by the earth system by .175W/m2.

 

This also matches estimates of the direct change in solar forcing over the course of the 11-yr cycle which provides one more check on the math.

[The_Global_Warmer]

So what is the latest. The cold pool over the EPAC is quickly shrinking.  Warming has been taking place at the surface near South America.

 

 

 

 

The warm sub surface pool not only keeps moving further East and closer to the surface it keeps expanding in scope and strength.

 

TAO/TRITON shows the same thing.

 

 

The cool spell thanks to a trifecta of a +AAO, PVs over mid latitude land in NH and the ENSO cooling has ended.

 

The AAO is still very positive and Antarctica is below normal but without the PV bringing very cold to NH land mid lats cool is not sustainable.

 

WIth the majority of cold retreating to ice locked or open ocean areas the CONUS and most of Eurasia warm up tremendously.  Global temps will likely go up a lot in response.

 

 

Snow cover is in terrible shape over much of Western Eurasia.  The continued warmth there will likely bring some extremely early regions into bare ground way before normal = way higher albedo and local horse torching.

[StudentOfClimatology]

Trenberths diagrams show that 30% of the sunlight reaching earth is never absorbed at all and is reflected straight to space.

Another check on my math is that Trenberth's diagrams show 341W/m2 of sunlight reach the upper atmosphere of earth on average over a year. This is exactly 1/4 of the 1361W/m2 of TSI detected by satellites which directly face the sun at all times.

And then 30% of this 341W/m2 passes in and out of the atmosphere without ever reacting with anything (You seem to suggest 90% absorption but the figure is only 70%). That leaves 240W/m2.

Of the 1361W/m2 of sunlight directed at earth, the earth (atmosphere+surface) absorbs sunlight at a rate of only 240W/m2. (17.5% of the total).

This also can be viewed in Trenberth's energy diagram.. I've just given the math for why this is the case.

Thus a 1W/m2 increase in TSI, will only increase the rate of sunlight being absorbed by the earth system by .175W/m2.

This also matches estimates of the direct change in solar forcing over the course of the 11-yr cycle which provides one more check on the math.

Apologies, I've been in total scatterbrain mode studying for my big exam on Wednesday.

I meant to write UV (ultra-violet) instead of TSI which encompasses all solar emissions, including the visible spectrum which is scarcely absorbed in the atmosphere...this is focused on in the Zhou/Tun paper. Here, ~ 90% of atmospheric absorption of UV occurs above 100hpa, and as is noted by Zhou/Tun et al, that's is the most important aspect, rather that the change in flux at the surface.

http://depts.washington.edu/amath/old_website/research/articles/Tung/journals/Zhou_and_Tung_2013_solar.pdf

As for Trenberth's diagram, yes when factoring in the curves of the Earth and the fact that it is only half-insolated, an average of 341W/m^2 reaches the TOA. However I sometimes prefer to calculate initial forcings based solely on the numbers attained on the insolated portion of the Earth, because in reality there is no solar forcing on the dark portion.

[ORH_wxman]

So what is the latest. The cold pool over the EPAC is quickly shrinking.  Warming has been taking place at the surface near South America.

 

 

 

 

 

The warm sub surface pool not only keeps moving further East and closer to the surface it keeps expanding in scope and strength.

 

TAO/TRITON shows the same thing.

 

 

The cool spell thanks to a trifecta of a +AAO, PVs over mid latitude land in NH and the ENSO cooling has ended.

 

The AAO is still very positive and Antarctica is below normal but without the PV bringing very cold to NH land mid lats cool is not sustainable.

 

WIth the majority of cold retreating to ice locked or open ocean areas the CONUS and most of Eurasia warm up tremendously.  Global temps will likely go up a lot in response.

 

 

Snow cover is in terrible shape over much of Western Eurasia.  The continued warmth there will likely bring some extremely early regions into bare ground way before normal = way higher albedo and local horse torching.

 

 

If we continue to see some strong WWBs, then El Nino conditions should commence around May/June....however, we could easily see the WWBs abate somewhat and if that occurs, then you will see an outcome similar to what has happened the last couple years...subsurface warming cools as it approaches the surface and we end up with a neutral or a very weak El Nino.

 

 

We won't know as much until later this spring.

[The_Global_Warmer]

If we continue to see some strong WWBs, then El Nino conditions should commence around May/June....however, we could easily see the WWBs abate somewhat and if that occurs, then you will see an outcome similar to what has happened the last couple years...subsurface warming cools as it approaches the surface and we end up with a neutral or a very weak El Nino.

We won't know as much until later this spring.

Didn't 2011 have a huge push like this that ended up backing off before niño commenced?

[skierinvermont]

Apologies, I've been in total scatterbrain mode studying for my big exam on Wednesday.

I meant to write UV (ultra-violet) instead of TSI which encompasses all solar emissions, including the visible spectrum which is scarcely absorbed in the atmosphere...this is focused on in the Zhou/Tun paper. Here, ~ 90% of atmospheric absorption of UV occurs above 100hpa, and as is noted by Zhou/Tun et al, that's is the most important aspect, rather that the change in flux at the surface.

http://depts.washington.edu/amath/old_website/research/articles/Tung/journals/Zhou_and_Tung_2013_solar.pdf

As for Trenberth's diagram, yes when factoring in the curves of the Earth and the fact that it is only half-insolated, an average of 341W/m^2 reaches the TOA. However I sometimes prefer to calculate initial forcings based solely on the numbers attained on the insolated portion of the Earth, because in reality there is no solar forcing on the dark portion.

If you do that you'll overestimate the effect. The forcing is only present for half the day (and in almost all locations and all times, not at peak strength because of the curvature). If you say there is a 1W/m2 forcing when in reality, averaged over the course of the day for all locations, it is actually only .175W/m2, you will be seriously overestimating the change in RF and thus change in temperature.

 

1W/m2 is the change in insolation at noon at the equator. .175W/m2 is the globally averaged RF value. 

[StudentOfClimatology]

If you do that you'll overestimate the effect. The forcing is only present for half the day (and in almost all locations and all times, not at peak strength because of the curvature). If you say there is a 1W/m2 forcing when in reality, averaged over the course of the day for all locations, it is actually only .175W/m2, you will be seriously overestimating the change in RF and thus change in temperature.

1W/m2 is the change in insolation at noon at the equator. .175W/m2 is the globally averaged RF value.

Thanks. I factor in the curvature of the Earth, but given the fact that the surface-to-TOA emissivity is less than 1.0 (given the greenhouse effect and thermal capacity), I factor that in when accounting for the dark side of the planet..we retain a lot of energy overnight, and only 20-25% of our budget is in the form of radiation at a given time..the rest is in latent heat flux and sensible heat flux.

I can do the math after my exam Wesnesday. I feel like a wad of rotting meat right now.

[skierinvermont]

Thanks. I factor in the curvature of the Earth, but given the fact that the surface-to-TOA emissivity is less than 1.0 (given the greenhouse effect and thermal capacity), I factor that in when accounting for the dark side of the planet..we retain a lot of energy overnight, and only 20-25% of our budget is in the form of radiation at a given time..the rest is in latent heat flux and sensible heat flux.

I can do the math after my exam Wesnesday. I feel like a wad of rotting meat right now.

 

None of that matters. .175W/m2 is the RF value from 1W/m2 of TSI. You can read this in lots of peer-reviewed papers. I was deriving this value for fun.

 

Of course heat from this RF is "retained" at night. This is true for all RF. Surface temperatures (at night and day) will eventually warm enough to re-emit the .175W/m2 of extra energy.

 

When the sun increases its output by 1W/m2, the earth system receives an extra .175W/m2 of power.

 

Global temperature will increase only enough to offset this .175W/m2. This comes out to .06C. 

 

Once the earth warms .06C it will fully re-radiate the extra .175W/m2. Some of this warming will be at night. It might warm .07C in the day and .05C at night globally, but it will average to .06C and an extra .175W/m2 of IR radiation. 

[The_Global_Warmer]

Weather-bell has jumped to .23C+ on the dailies.  The monthly temps have gone from -.132C to -.072C in 36 hours.  I think March will finish around .05C+ on weatherbell. 

 

Global SSTA are back up to about .21C+ which is slightly cooler than last year around this time.  Unlike last year this year is progged to feature a pretty massive AO+ going thru March.  Eurasia is expected to brutally torch.

 

 

 

Some of these forecasts for Eurasia next week are absurd.  If this keeps going as is.  I think Eurasia is going to smash snow cover records going into late March.

 

 

 

Daily Departure - March 11, 2014 (Day 70)

 

 

[Chinook]

This is why, We should hope Antarctica saves the day but science does not know what hope is.

 

I was just looking at the NCEP reanalysis for some month/seasonal temperature departures. I noticed that Antarctica had some huge warm temperatures in the September-November period (maybe longer). Is this real, or some bad info on the NCEP  reanalysis? I normally don't look at Antarctica on the NCEP, so I don't know what sorts of temp departures have been down there in other months/years.

[SVT450R]

I was just looking at the NCEP reanalysis for some month/seasonal temperature departures. I noticed that Antarctica had some huge warm temperatures in the September-November period (maybe longer). Is this real, or some bad info on the NCEP  reanalysis? I normally don't look at Antarctica on the NCEP, so I don't know what sorts of temp departures have been down there in other months/years.

They are correct September and November were warm month's in Antarctica.  The graphic he posted tho is for the Arctic within 80N.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Giss temp came in at .45C+ for the month. 

 

Cooler than the .52C+ for last Feb. 

 

 

So far GISS is averaging .57.5C+ for the year.  This is dead even with last year at this time.

 

 

Weatherbell dailies have been warmer but not scorching.  Finished today at .22C+ and the month so far is at -0.45C.

 

We should see weatherbell continue to be warm with the Eurasian torch still to come.

 

Apparently another push is underway of the warm waters.  It won't be long now before we see this reflected in the SSTA over ENSO.

 

 

This is at least going to make this year far more interesting.

 

[ORH_wxman]

GISS also made retroactive revisions...it ties 2005 with 2010 for the warmest year on record rather than 2010 being alone. They actually do this all the time, but this is the first one in a while that affected the overall #1 ranked spot.

[Msalgado]

It will be interesting to see if we even need to reach an official El Nino for us to break the record for the hottest year.  If last year was 4th with borderline La Nina conditions, what will a slightly positive but still neutral set of conditions yield?  

[AvantHiatus]

401 PPM CO2 according to the latest keeling curve. Somewhat surprising considering the annual peak occurs in May.

 

[ORH_wxman]

It will be interesting to see if we even need to reach an official El Nino for us to break the record for the hottest year.  If last year was 4th with borderline La Nina conditions, what will a slightly positive but still neutral set of conditions yield?  

 

 

Last year was 6th actually (according to GISS...hadcrut4 was 8th)...but I think a weak El Nino could break the record. I don't think a neutral year will.

 

 

 

edit: I just see that you must be referring to UAH which ranked 4th. RSS was 10th.

[The_Global_Warmer]

they finally got the OHC chart straightened out.  This below was written in the main forum.  So if this TC gets going then we are probably going to see surface warming come on strong over the next 30-40 days.

 

Another WWB -- albeit not as strong as the previous two, but farther east -- is expected to get going in a few days, probably in relation to the counter-clockwise flow around what the GFS is indicating will be Tropical Storm Peipah.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[AvantHiatus]

With Antarctica warming up, global temps should skyrocket. March temperatures may sneak up on most, perhaps coming as warm as 0.70C on GISS. 

[Jonger]

Did weatherbell lift free access to CFS maps?

[The_Global_Warmer]

Don't forget Mother Russia is going into the frying pan as well.

[AvantHiatus]

Don't forget Mother Russia is going into the frying pan as well.

They are already torching so hard, the snow cover will be raked hard throughout this month. Not looking good, hysteresis point is right around the corner.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hysteresis