2014 Global Temperatures

[StudentOfClimatology]

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.

I have a chicken rotating on a stake under a heat lamp...let's just say the flux below the heat lamp is analogous to 400K.

Does the outer portion of the chicken cook at 400K? Or does it cook at a significantly lesser temperature because only half of it receives energy from the lamp?

[Msalgado]

When you integrate the entire surface of the chicken - significantly less than 400K because its not always receiving that amount of energy from the lamp.  Assuming you are discounting effects the earth does not feel that the chicken does such as heat from the air around it or reflected radiation from a surface behind.  Pretty bad analogy in a situation where an analogy isn't needed, IMO.

[StudentOfClimatology]

When you integrate the entire surface of the chicken - significantly less than 400K because its not always receiving that amount of energy from the lamp. Assuming you are discounting effects the earth does not feel that the chicken does such as heat from the air around it or reflected radiation from a surface behind. Pretty bad analogy in a situation where an analogy isn't needed, IMO.

No. A large majority of the disequilibrium between the lamp and skin temperature is predominately a result of heat being conducted from the surface of the chicken into its cooler interior or the air around it.

I'm not saying the chicken itself is analogous to the Earth. The answer I was looking for is attained via calculating the emissivity of the chicken relative to its thermal capacity. The reason Earth's diurnal curve is so muted is the presence of GHGes, as well as the high capacity of the fluid ocean-atmosphere system.

My point is we're treating the Earth as if it has a high emissivity (~0.98), when in reality GHGes artificially lower the surface-to-TOA emissivity dramatically.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Yeah.  The snow cover is already atrocious.  I bet this busts to cold.  The incoming pattern is going to just pour heat into Russia.

 

 

 

 

 

[skierinvermont]

My point is we're treating the Earth as if it has a high emissivity (~0.98), when in reality GHGes artificially lower the surface-to-TOA emissivity dramatically.

 

Right but this is irrelevant when calculating RF.

 

It IS relevant when calculating how much warming takes place given an RF of x. For example, 3.7W/m2 of RF on earth causes 1.2C of surface warming, but it would cause a different amount of warming on a different planet with a different emissivity. 

[StudentOfClimatology]

Right but this is irrelevant when calculating RF.

It IS relevant when calculating how much warming takes place given an RF of x. For example, 3.7W/m2 of RF on earth causes 1.2C of surface warming, but it would cause a different amount of warming on a different planet with a different emissivity.

Thanks, agree with the first part. But it looks like you're using the Earth's surface emissivity instead of the emissivity as measured at the TOA? At E/0.98, doubling CO2 = +3.67W/m^2 to a warming of 1.17K, (before feedbacks which will amplify the effect to 4-5K, maybe higher, IMO).

When calculating the thermal response to a RF external to the system, I think using the emissivity @ the TOA gives a better idea of the final warming effect. It's not like the system will emit additional solar forcing as it would in the absence of GHGes. It'll only do so in the unabsorbed frequencies in the atmospheric window..some of the emitted energies will be intercepted by GHGes, and others (perhaps the majority) will leave the oceans via latent heat flux, and not initially radiate. Some will also end up in the sensible heat flux.

The 11yr response in Earth's temperature to TSI proves a high climate sensitivity, via these means that initially "amplify" a forcing relative to the graybody response. If climate sensitivity were low, the TSI cycle would not be visible in our temperature data.

[AvantHiatus]

Thanks, agree with the first part. But it looks like you're using the Earth's surface emissivity instead of the emissivity as measured at the TOA? At E/0.98, doubling CO2 = +3.67W/m^2 to a warming of 1.17K, (before feedbacks which will amplify the effect to 4-5K, maybe higher, IMO).

When calculating the thermal response to a RF external to the system, I think using the emissivity @ the TOA gives a better idea of the final warming effect. It's not like the system will emit additional solar forcing as it would in the absence of GHGes. It'll only do so in the unabsorbed frequencies in the atmospheric window..some of the emitted energies will be intercepted by GHGes, and others (perhaps the majority) will leave the oceans via latent heat flux, and not initially radiate. Some will also end up in the sensible heat flux.

The 11yr response in Earth's temperature to TSI proves a high climate sensitivity, via these means that initially "amplify" a forcing relative to the graybody response. If climate sensitivity were low, the TSI cycle would not be visible in our temperature data.

A key point to go along with your post. I agree regarding the high ECS.

 

 

 

A study led by Stefan Rahmstorf concluded "many vastly improved models have been developed by a number of climate research centers around the world. Current state-of-the-art climate models span a range of 2.6–4.1°C, most clustering around 3°C" (Rahmstorf 2008).  Several studies have put the lower bound of climate sensitivity at about 1.5°C,on the other hand, several others have found that a sensitivity higher than 4.5°C can't be ruled out.

A 2008 study led by James Hansen found that climate sensitivity to "fast feedbackprocesses" is 3°C, but when accounting for longer-term feedbacks (such as ice sheet disintegration, vegetation migration, and greenhouse gas release from soils, tundra or ocean), if atmospheric CO2 remains at the doubled level, the sensitivity increases to 6°C based on paleoclimatic (historical climate) data.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity-advanced.htm

[AvantHiatus]

Torchville! 0.30c on weatherbell cfs as of 0z March 17th. The cold air is taking a vacation in New Jersey.

[StudentOfClimatology]

The global temp swings have been pretty crazy lately. It's almost like you can "feel" a big shift coming...I think Mother Nature is telling us something.

- Historic stuff going on in the pacific in terms KW/WC activity and the westward shifting Walker Cell (upcoming Nino).

- Historic European storminess and mildness..storms so strong historic rock formations all over coastal Europe were damaged or destroyed..http://m.bbc.com/news/uk-25639777

- Brutal cold in the US, one of the snowiest winters ever in the NE US despite the lack of NAO blocking

- Strongest EPO ridge in modern history, in terms of persistence since the summer months.

The anomalies have been crazy.

[AvantHiatus]

I was afraid to mention this here out of concern for criticism but there are others who share my view in the scientific community and blogosphere. All indications point to 2014 as being an important year for global climate and it's possible that we could observe a minor abrupt climate shift or a cascading series of events leading up to a major shift.

 

We will need to observe how the ENSO reacts to the various kelvin waves and also how the arctic ice behaves during the summer.

 

Weatherbell increased to 0.40 C, the warmest it has been since last year's record warm November.

[The_Global_Warmer]

whats the monthly now on CFS?

 

We can't see them now if you don't have Weatherbell paid.

 

 

This is no surprise to us weatherguy we have talked about this for a week or so now.

 

 

ENSO has warmed but it's still negative.  It's going to be wild when it goes warm and coincides with the warm NH Summer and Fall.

[The_Global_Warmer]

OHC is now over 1.0C+.  More than double the peak warming last year.

 

 

[AvantHiatus]

whats the monthly now on CFS?

 

We can't see them now if you don't have Weatherbell paid.

 

 

This is no surprise to us weatherguy we have talked about this for a week or so now.

 

 

ENSO has warmed but it's still negative.  It's going to be wild when it goes warm and coincides with the warm NH Summer and Fall.

March monthlies are now around 0.025c, with about 40% of the month remaining. Has anyone really discussed the possibility? I think people have been downplaying this latest ENSO phase and its relation to global temperatures.

 

There is a reason why no one voted for a record year except for a couple posters. That OHC chart is impressive.

[StudentOfClimatology]

OHC is now over 1.0C+.  More than double the peak warming last year.

 

 

Starting to look like a breed of 2009 and 1997 as far as the orientation of the warm pool goes, only we're months ahead of where we were during both of those cases..in fact the the coupling between perhaps the strongest KW in modern history, and the various atmospheric parameters (Walker cell migration, MJO, and the QBO transition to negative which will cool the equatorial stratosphere) is unprecedented since our observations of this stuff began.

I think this entails something significant...exactly what..I'm not sure. Hopefully this isn't another abrupt climate shift reminiscent of the early Holocene..that would not be good for humanity..

[The_Global_Warmer]

wouldn't the heat dump from this only be temporary?

[AvantHiatus]

Starting to look like a breed of 2009 and 1997 as far as the orientation of the warm pool goes, only we're months ahead of where we were during both of those cases..in fact the the coupling between perhaps the strongest KW in modern history, and the various atmospheric parameters (Walker cell migration, MJO, and the QBO transition to negative which will cool the equatorial stratosphere) is unprecedented since our observations of this stuff began.

I think this entails something significant...exactly what..I'm not sure. Hopefully this isn't another abrupt climate shift reminiscent of the early Holocene..that would not be good for humanity..

 

Meltwater pulse 1A was an instance in the sea level rise of about 20 m in less than 500 years,^[1] perhaps just 200 years.^[2] The meltwater event occurred in a period of rapid climate change when the Holocene glacial retreat was going on during the end of the last ice age. Several researchers have narrowed the period of the pulse to between 13,000 and 14,600 years ago.^[3]

The sea level is estimated to have risen at a rate of 37 to 65mm/yr - the pulse was much larger than current sea level rise of between 2^[4] and 3mm/yr.^[5]

The pulse is framed historically between the Bølling-Allerød (B-A) interstadial and the Antarctic Cold Reversal/Older Dryas events.^[6] Intensive research points more toward a 200 year period about coincident with the later.^[2] Whether the pulse originated in the North or South, the event probably relates to the North Atlantic Deep Water thermohaline circulation which transports heat between the North Atlantic and the South Pacific.^[6] At different times research supported the pulse originating in the north or south but it is certain there was some component from both,^[6] and perhaps the majority coming from the north.^[7]

Recent modelling suggests that the collapse of the ice-sheet saddle between Canada and Greenland can explain the meltwater pulse.^[8]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meltwater_pulse_1A

[StudentOfClimatology]

wouldn't the heat dump from this only be temporary?

Yes, but could the upcoming ENSO event, if realized, signal a major shift in global circulation? Since we couldn't directly observe/measure the rapid climate swings of the early Holocene (civilization was just beginning), we don't know exactly how those shifts evolved. However, we know those swings involved large shifts in global circulation..could the upcoming ENSO event, in tandem with ever-increasing anthropogenic forcing, signal such a shift?

Humans are perturbing the climate system significantly, at a very dangerous time in our orbital cycle. Obliquity is cycling down, and we're at precessional aphelion. Without human forcing, we would be entering an ice age right now, as the equator-to-pole gradient forced by the downturn in obliquity is sharpening. However, humans have added a whopping 1.8W/m^2 in globally distributed radiative forcing, in only 60 years. If the past has anything to say about it...the climate system will throw a tantrum over this..the question is when?

Skeptics dismiss this idea as alarmist, but ignore the past in doing so. If large shifts in climate have occurred with smaller forcings in the past, what will happen now that we're throwing a much larger wrench in the system?

I'll pull up some nice peer reviewed work later.

[Msalgado]

Starting to look like a breed of 2009 and 1997 as far as the orientation of the warm pool goes, only we're months ahead of where we were during both of those cases..in fact the the coupling between perhaps the strongest KW in modern history, and the various atmospheric parameters (Walker cell migration, MJO, and the QBO transition to negative which will cool the equatorial stratosphere) is unprecedented since our observations of this stuff began.

I think this entails something significant...exactly what..I'm not sure. Hopefully this isn't another abrupt climate shift reminiscent of the early Holocene..that would not be good for humanity..

 

Dude, its a developing El Nino.  Thats it.  Lets at least see if the El Nino forms before we go off talking about abrupt climate shifts.  

[StudentOfClimatology]

Dude, its a developing El Nino. Thats it. Lets at least see if the El Nino forms before we go off talking about abrupt climate shifts.

That may very well be, and is the null hypothesis, of course. I'm trying to promote discussion here on a wide range of possible outcomes.

m.sciencemag.org/content/297/5579/222.short

Super ENSO and Global Climate Oscillations at Millennial Time Scales

The late Pleistocene history of seawater temperature and salinity variability in the western tropical Pacific warm pool is reconstructed from oxygen isotope (δ18O) and magnesium/calcium composition of planktonic foraminifera. Differentiating the calcite δ18O record into components of temperature and local water δ18O reveals a dominant salinity signal that varied in accord with Dansgaard/Oeschger cycles over Greenland.

http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Eric_Steig/publication/200033586_Mid-Holocene_Climate_Change/file/9fcfd5064532da3c32.pdf

[SVT450R]

whats the monthly now on CFS?

 

We can't see them now if you don't have Weatherbell paid.

 

 

This is no surprise to us weatherguy we have talked about this for a week or so now.

 

 

ENSO has warmed but it's still negative.  It's going to be wild when it goes warm and coincides with the warm NH Summer and Fall.

Dailies around .35c slightly down from .40c peack month is a .033c.

[AvantHiatus]

Dailies around .35c slightly down from .40c peack month is a .033c.

Sure, at any rate....

 

At some point the bottom will give out and things will start lining up with IPCC. I suspect the aerosol forcing and the substantial string of la ninas have stagnated global temperature rise and prevented abrupt shifts.

 

There is simply too much CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere to enable the holocene era to persist for much longer. Additionally, a 97/98 type el nino event has never occured when the ice has been in such bad shape.

 

We need to be weary of various tipping points and take a deep paleoclimate historical perspective instead of assuming that things will just continue in a status quo manner, simply because either the alternative outcomes are too extreme and destructive or because of the peer-reviewed tyranny of old literature that prevents new progress.

[ORH_wxman]

Sure, at any rate....

 

At some point the bottom will give out and things will start lining up with IPCC. I suspect the aerosol forcing and the substantial string of la ninas have stagnated global temperature rise and prevented abrupt shifts.

 

There is simply too much CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere to enable the holocene era to persist for much longer. Additionally, a 97/98 type el nino event has never occured when the ice has been in such bad shape.

 

We need to be weary of various tipping points and take a deep paleoclimate historical perspective instead of assuming that things will just continue in a status quo manner, simply because either the alternative outcomes are too extreme and destructive or because of the peer-reviewed tyranny of old literature that prevents new progress.

 

 

Old peer review literature "preventing progress"?

 

That's a new one. So lets skip the scientific method and just start assuming outlandish tipping points.

 

 

Ya'll should probably create your own thread on this since this one is for 2014 global temperatures and not theories on a massive climate shift occurring because we have a developing El Nino.

[SVT450R]

Sure, at any rate....

 

At some point the bottom will give out and things will start lining up with IPCC. I suspect the aerosol forcing and the substantial string of la ninas have stagnated global temperature rise and prevented abrupt shifts.

 

There is simply too much CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere to enable the holocene era to persist for much longer. Additionally, a 97/98 type el nino event has never occured when the ice has been in such bad shape.

 

We need to be weary of various tipping points and take a deep paleoclimate historical perspective instead of assuming that things will just continue in a status quo manner, simply because either the alternative outcomes are too extreme and destructive or because of the peer-reviewed tyranny of old literature that prevents new progress.

The globe is at it's warmest time in observational records with what looks to be a El nino emerging finally in which we could see chances of global temp records broken shouldn't be no big surprise.  If this occurs how exactly does it show of a possible big climate shift is occurring.

[skierinvermont]

Dude, its a developing El Nino.  Thats it.  Lets at least see if the El Nino forms before we go off talking about abrupt climate shifts.  

 

The 97-98 El Nino did cause a semi permanent climate shift...the near surface ocean heat accumulation in that event never really dissipated.

 

Global SSTs in the strong La Ninas that followed 97-98 in 99-01 were still warmer than any year prior to the 97-98 El Nino, including the 94-95 moderate El Nino. 

 

That's pretty incredible about it. Strong La Ninas following 97-98 were still warmer than moderate El Ninos 5 years earlier. Neutral and weak Nino conditions brought temperatures drastically warmer than prior to 97-98.

[ORH_wxman]

The 97-98 El Nino did cause a semi permanent climate shift...the near surface ocean heat accumulation in that event never really dissipated.

 

 

It happened in the two year El Ninos of 1976-1978 and 1986-1988 as well, but these are not the type of shifts he is referring to if you look at the stuff he links. He is talking about much larger climatic shifts.

[The_Global_Warmer]

It's not looking good.

 

 

 

 

[Msalgado]

The 97-98 El Nino did cause a semi permanent climate shift...the near surface ocean heat accumulation in that event never really dissipated.

 

Global SSTs in the strong La Ninas that followed 97-98 in 99-01 were still warmer than any year prior to the 97-98 El Nino, including the 94-95 moderate El Nino. 

 

That's pretty incredible about it. Strong La Ninas following 97-98 were still warmer than moderate El Ninos 5 years earlier. Neutral and weak Nino conditions brought temperatures drastically warmer than prior to 97-98.

I don't know about using the word cause there.  Its quite probable that increased heat content is simply a representation of the accumulated energy due to AGW in general.  I would imagine you could say this about many ENSO events in the latter half of the 20th century to varying degrees as the warming trend in Ninas has been pretty steady before and after 1998.  With a continuing energy imbalance we shouldn't expect heat to dissipate with or without large magnitude ENSO events.

[The_Global_Warmer]

It's like global OHC will see a substansial jump this year on top of what we saw in 2013 from this.

[Jesse]

I think this thread is jumping the shark.

[skierinvermont]

I don't know about using the word cause there.  Its quite probable that increased heat content is simply a representation of the accumulated energy due to AGW in general.  I would imagine you could say this about many ENSO events in the latter half of the 20th century to varying degrees as the warming trend in Ninas has been pretty steady before and after 1998.  With a continuing energy imbalance we shouldn't expect heat to dissipate with or without large magnitude ENSO events.

 

It is probably caused IMO. It was about 10 years of AGW upper ocean warming in 2 years. 

 

It would have taken close to a decade for the heat to dissipate from the upper ocean whether the earth was in an imbalance in not. In fact, the positive energy imbalance meant that we returned to equilibrium faster because on the one hand the heat was dissipating naturally and on the other, AGW was increasing RF, and eventually the two met in the middle. It would have taken even longer to cool back down to a pre-1998 state.