Predict the 2014 Global temperature anomaly

[csnavywx]

0.68

0.33

 

 

-assumes ONI average of +0.4

[ORH_wxman]

0.64

0.30

[The_Global_Warmer]

0.64

0.30

 

0.68

0.33

 

 

-assumes ONI average of +0.4

 

 

0.64

0.30

 

 

.60

.25

 

 

giss: 0.64

uah: 0.27

 

 

GISS: .61C

UAH: .26C

 

 

GISS: +0.65°C

UAH: +0.32°C

 

 

.68

.34

 

 

 

Oh an my vote for 2014:

 

GISS: 0.65

UAH: 0.27

 

 

.63 and .25 a hair warmer than this year, Assumed the ONI averages 0.0.. a hair higher than this year.

 

edit 1/21.. how about .26 for UAH

 

 

GISS: +0.67

UAH: +0.31

 

 

 

So I am going with .67C on GISS and .29C on UAH.

 

 

Going for .71 on GISS

 

Looks good.  it's going to be really close. 

 

Most of us are going with the 3rd warmest on UAH.  In fact it look likes all of us are.  There is a huge gap between the 2nd warmest and 3rd warmest on UAH.

[skierinvermont]

It baffles my mind how consistently the predictions line up almost perfectly based on where posters fall on the AGW denier-realist-extremist spectrum. 

 

Predicting next year's temperature has almost nothing to do with AGW and the result has almost no meaningful bearing on the conclusions of climate science. Why would somebody that believes AGW is a hoax guess the lowest, somebody that believes it is exaggerated the next lowest, a 'mainstream science' poster guess in the middle and people that tend to argue for the worst case scenario guess the highest?

 

The only bearing AGW has on my guess is to add maybe .01C from the previous year or two after calibrating for ENSO changes. Contests like this just go to show the lack of objectivity in the human mind. Especially when people make the same error year after year after year.

[ORH_wxman]

It baffles my mind how consistently the predictions line up almost perfectly based on where posters fall on the AGW denier-realist-extremist spectrum. 

 

Predicting next year's temperature has almost nothing to do with AGW and the result has almost no meaningful bearing on the conclusions of climate science. Why would somebody that believes AGW is a hoax guess the lowest, somebody that believes it is exaggerated the next lowest, a 'mainstream science' poster guess in the middle and people that tend to argue for the worst case scenario guess the highest?

 

The only bearing AGW has on my guess is to add maybe .01C from the previous year or two after calibrating for ENSO changes. Contests like this just go to show the lack of objectivity in the human mind. Especially when people make the same error year after year after year.

 

 

It is not human nature to be objective. Lack of objectivity is one of the most "human" traits there is.

[AvantHiatus]

It baffles my mind how consistently the predictions line up almost perfectly based on where posters fall on the AGW denier-realist-extremist spectrum. 

 

Predicting next year's temperature has almost nothing to do with AGW and the result has almost no meaningful bearing on the conclusions of climate science. Why would somebody that believes AGW is a hoax guess the lowest, somebody that believes it is exaggerated the next lowest, a 'mainstream science' poster guess in the middle and people that tend to argue for the worst case scenario guess the highest?

 

The only bearing AGW has on my guess is to add maybe .01C from the previous year or two after calibrating for ENSO changes. Contests like this just go to show the lack of objectivity in the human mind. Especially when people make the same error year after year after year.

The most unrealistic thing you can do as a scientific thinker is to dismiss a poll that you believe is flawed by irrational human nature or rather just assuming a given idea without empirical evidence. This just makes it appear that once again, both cold and warm views are equally distorted and that the poll itself is a useless metric for predicting climate.

 

The reasoning for a near-record or record year without a moderate or strong el nino has been outlined in this thread and in the global temperature discussion. My reasoning personally was based on the historic Ocean Heat Content increase of 2013 and is not biased by my personal feelings on AGW.

 

Additionally, ECS has not fully responded to the current CO2 concentrations and this will need to be weight-adjusted as the atmospheric CO2 concentration increases.

 

I do not appreciate being labeled as an extremist or alarmist. All of my views are backed by scientific data and follow the idea The radiative forcing from a doubling of CO2 is 3.7 w/m2, once again climate change is the most serious issue of our time and is constantly derailed for various reasons.

 

On the other hand, nobody who voted really elaborated deeply on their reasoning. As a result, I can kind of understand why you reached such a conclusion. 

 

 

However below is the yearly OHC breakdown.  2013 before the recent update was already 1.5 [10^22 J] above 2012.  With this recent update coming in around 13.8 [10^22 J].  This will bring 2013 up to 12.8.  Almost 2.0 above 2012. 

 

Does this guarantee a new yearly record?  Absolutely not.  Does it make it that much easier and guaranteed continued warming in spite of ENSO to some degree?  Yes.

 

There is clearly something changing over the last 12 months that is causing the Earth to up-take a lot of heat in oceans.  While SSTA stay very warm for ENSO conditions.  

[blizzard1024]

Wow. The CFS is tanking down.... global anomaly is now to almost - .3C. GISS usually runs about .6C warmer because they use the 1951-80 normals so that would imply only +.3C.

 

[skierinvermont]

 

The reasoning for a near-record or record year without a moderate or strong el nino has been outlined in this thread and in the global temperature discussion. My reasoning personally was based on the historic Ocean Heat Content increase of 2013 and is not biased by my personal feelings on AGW.

 

 

I've never seen any evidence of a correlation between short-term blips in OHC and lagged temperature. In fact, a cursory glance at the data and I don't see one. For example, the major record in 1998 was preceded by a pretty good blip down in OHC during late 1996 and 1997. Using a similar method one would have guessed 1998 would be a cold year due to the preceding decline in OHC.

 

Plus I would guess that short-term blips in OHC are often due to sampling and/or measurement error. 

 

I major multi-year rise like 2001-2005 would be significant. But of course we also saw temperatures rise during that period without a lag to OHC. In fact, OHC would appear to have lagged the change in surface temperature (which was probably due to the radiative forcing increase due to the strong solar cycle peaking in that period). 

 

Using OHC seems more like a hunch and an excuse to guess high that is more easily accepted due to subjective bias. Which is an example of why so many of the guesses obviously correlated with the posters bias on the issue. 

[AvantHiatus]

I've never seen any evidence of a correlation between short-term blips in OHC and lagged temperature. In fact, a cursory glance at the data and I don't see one. For example, the major record in 1998 was preceded by a pretty good blip down in OHC during late 1996 and 1997. Using a similar method one would have guessed 1998 would be a cold year due to the preceding decline in OHC.

 

Plus I would guess that short-term blips in OHC are often due to sampling and/or measurement error. 

 

I major multi-year rise like 2001-2005 would be significant. But of course we also saw temperatures rise during that period without a lag to OHC. In fact, OHC would appear to have lagged the change in surface temperature (which was probably due to the radiative forcing increase due to the strong solar cycle peaking in that period). 

 

Using OHC seems more like a hunch and an excuse to guess high that is more easily accepted due to subjective bias. Which is an example of why so many of the guesses obviously correlated with the posters bias on the issue. 

Well common sense would point you in the general direction of a deep connection between the ocean and atmosphere. We know how important regional and global SST patterns are. Look no farther than the Thermohaline Circulation and the 1998 el nino event. The only thing that gives me pause is the effect of warming SST's that are significantly far away from the equator.

 

Any substantial positive anomaly would not be particularly impressive and impactful outside of the deep tropics unless are occuring in the arctic regions.

 

The oceans are still acting as a heat-sink for the most part and will probably never reach equilibrium with atmospheric forcing since CO2 emissions are increasing or stable most years. However, the rate of heat accumulation in the oceans may accelerate if the climate sensitivity is as large as some think.

 

Please excuse me for not differentiating between sea surface temperatures and ocean heat content. There is not much research in this field but it would be sound to assume that higher OHC equals greater probability of a substantial warming event.

[skierinvermont]

 

Please excuse me for not differentiating between sea surface temperatures and ocean heat content. There is not much research in this field but it would be sound to assume that higher OHC equals greater probability of a substantial warming event.

 

Only if the short term OHC variations are real rather than sampling/measurement error. And only if the OHC increase occurs before the temperature increase instead of simultaneous with it, which I doubt.

 

Physically it makes more sense that OHC and temperature would rise simultaneously in response to a short term forcing. 

 

As I said before, there's no evidence that surface T is higher following short term blips in OHC. I can think of no reason why that relationship would suddenly change.

[nzucker]

The year started off warm but has tanked...running about -0.15 on Weatherbell (or .45 on GISS):

[The_Global_Warmer]

ENSO has been spectacular in keeping global ssta from running at record levels. 

 

How long can we stay in negative neutral to NINA conditions?  What is the historical precedent for this?

 

The AAO is about to temporarily plummet so the Earth will warm with Antarctica warming up but it's expected to go back positive so it will prevent a SH scorch.

 

NA is about to warm dramatically as well.  Pending on how Eurasia does the NH will warm in response a lot.  it's purely anecdotal from me but the Earths ability to really cool off has been hampered even in the short term.  Getting to .3C+ on GISS for a couple days is pretty sad.

 

Are we going to go full nina for a while before a Summer warm up?

 

 

 

[The_Global_Warmer]

The year started off warm but has tanked...running about -0.15 on Weatherbell (or .45 on GISS):

 

 

 

If that is what tanking looks like the bar for cold has changed.

[ineedsnow]

I have a feeling this year isnt going to even come close to last year

[skierinvermont]

I have a feeling this year isnt going to even come close to last year

 

Odds of +ENSO have been increasing so not sure what makes you say that

[The_Global_Warmer]

February will be cool.  March is starting cool as well.  This will make a new GISS record more and more unlikely.

 

We will have to see how this plays out.

 

 

Not beng close to last year would be extremely unlikely without a volcanic eruption.  Feb was cool last year as well.

 

January was warmer this year on GISS.  It's pretty even so far.  And last year never had an ONI above -0.2  I guarentee it goes above 0.0 this year.

 

[donsutherland1]

Through August:

 

GISS Anomaly: +0.65°C

UAH Anomaly: +0.25°C

 

The picks (Name-GISS-UAH):

Chubbs: +0.64°C; +0.27°C

Csnavywx: +0.68°C; +0.33°C

Donsutherland1: +0.65°C; +0.32°C

Forkyfork: +0.68°C; +0.34°C

Mallow: +0.67°C; +0.31°C

Nflwxman: +0.65°C; +0.27°C

Nzucker: +0.61°C; +0.26°C

ORH_Wxman: +0.64°C; +0.30°C

Skierinvermont: +0.63°C; +0.25°C

SVT450R: +0.60°C; +0.25°C

The_Global_Warmer: +0.67°C; +0.29°C

Weatherguy: +0.71°C; No pick

 

Average: +0.65°C; +0.29°C

[Jonger]

Looking good for Forky & Navy.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Looking good for Forky & Navy.

 

 

I dunno if UAH can warm that much from where it is now.

 

Last year was pretty warm tho without tropical support that this year will have.

 

2013 9 +0.365 +0.339 +0.390 +0.190

2013 10 +0.290 +0.331 +0.249 +0.031

2013 11 +0.193 +0.160 +0.226 +0.020

2013 12 +0.266 +0.272 +0.260 +0.057

[donsutherland1]

Looking good for Forky & Navy.

I give everyone credit for putting out forecasts. My assumption concerning UAH was that the lower tropospheric data would show better correspondence with ENSO warming. Upon further review of data this summer, I now suspect that lower tropospheric temperature changes lag, not lead, surface temperature changes relative from ENSO. This isn't definitive yet, as I need to look through even more data, but there are enough cases to suggest that the hypothesis that the atmosphere leads not lags surface changes is not conclusive. Hopefully, I'll have a better UAH idea for 2015.

[StudentOfClimatology]

I think, based on the OLR data from CERES, that the SSTs above 25N are the culprit for observed surface warming rather than ENSO. With ENSO, the warm tropical SSTs increase evaporation potential...upon evaporation that latent heat is carried high into the tropical troposohere where it is subsequently released upon condensation and pumped around the globe via the Hadley Cells, with the greatest effects in the mid/upper troposphere.

You don't have the same dynamics at work in the higher latitudes. The unusual nature of the Hadley Cells this summer (broad, weak) has lead to very stable conditions over the higher latitudes this summer, with little in the way of wind/convection/mixing. This has reduced SST evaporation by close to 4W/m^2, based on the satellite data..so instead of that heat being converted into latent form upon evaporation snd released in the mid-troposohere, it has served more as a surface conductor and has lead to a warming in the surface datasets which incorporate SSTs.

[PhillipS]

Just a bump so we can see how we did.

[csnavywx]

ONI was definitely lower than I expected, I was shooting for a moderate Nino starting in fall. I'm going to miss the UAH temp by a fair bit.

 

Global SSTA were higher than I expected, however, making GISS still hit the mark.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Looks like I might get both GISS and UAH dead on.

 

Pretty lucky.

[chubbs]

Warming this year was a little larger than I expected. Currently through November, GISS is 0.03 above and UAH is right at my prediction but expect UAH to tick up when December comes in.