2015 Global Temperatures

[bluewave]

Lol, that dude is a nutjob. He thinks all sfc data is a conspiracy.

 

It probably doesn't help matters when the Drudgereport links directly to his posts and they are highlighted

boldly like a NOAA story would be.

 

https://www.facebook.com/mattdrudge/posts/116304831804235

[donsutherland1]

It probably doesn't help matters when the Drudgereport links directly to his posts and they are highlighted

boldly like a NOAA story would be.

 

https://www.facebook.com/mattdrudge/posts/116304831804235

And Drudge even refers to him as a "scientist." Perhaps Drudge calls him a climatologist, too?

[chubbs]

Weatherbell CFSv2 showing us ending the month around 0.15C.  This will likely mean July will be a cooler month relative to the rest of the year thus far.  As per most years, as ice melt begins to slow down towards September, we begin to heat up globally faster.  Look for anomalies to begin to skyrocket in August and September.  I suspect our first 1.0 C+ month on GISS will be later in 2015.

 

 

While a relatively cool month for this year, July is going to end up roughly 0.1 higher than last year on cfsv2. With the way this nino is shaping up, all the extreme monthly surface and satellite records will fall, possibly by 0.1C or more in some cases. Peak should be in Feb-Apr of next year.

[stadiumwave]

Interesting:

http://www.hindawi.com/journals/amete/2015/481834/

[AvantHiatus]

[chubbs]

A new paper is out comparing climate models and observations. Ed Hawkins is a co-author and has a blog on it - links to paper and blog below. Previous comparisons were not apple-to-apple because observations, based on SST, differ from model predictions which have used temperatures just above the ocean not SST. When a like-for-like comparison is made, and when model volcanic and solar forcings are updated, model agreement with observations improves.

 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL064888/abstract

 

http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2015/an-apples-to-apples-comparison-of-global-temperatures/#more-3657

 

 

Figure caption: Comparison of 84 RCP8.5 simulations against HadCRUT4 observations (black), using either air temperatures (red line and shading) or blended temperatures using the HadCRUT4 method (blue line and shading). The shaded regions represent the 90% range (i.e. from 5-95%) of the model simulations, with the corresponding lines representing the multi-model mean. The upper panel shows anomalies derived from the unmodified RCP8.5 results, the lower shows the results adjusted to include the effect of updated forcings from Schmidt et al. [2014]. Temperature anomalies are relative to 1961-1990.

[AvantHiatus]

The earlier discussion about ice melt suppressing global temperatures in the summer is probably a key focus area. Perhaps it contributed to global temperatures remaining suppressed under model expectations in recent decades; alongside other factors such as ocean heat uptake.

 

It's interesting that models did not pick up on the arctic fallout post-2007.

[stadiumwave]

A new paper is out comparing climate models and observations. Ed Hawkins is a co-author and has a blog on it - links to paper and blog below. Previous comparisons were not apple-to-apple because observations, based on SST, differ from model predictions which have used temperatures just above the ocean not SST. When a like-for-like comparison is made, and when model volcanic and solar forcings are updated, model agreement with observations improves.

 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL064888/abstract

 

http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2015/an-apples-to-apples-comparison-of-global-temperatures/#more-3657

 

cowtan_model_comparisons.png

 

Figure caption: Comparison of 84 RCP8.5 simulations against HadCRUT4 observations (black), using either air temperatures (red line and shading) or blended temperatures using the HadCRUT4 method (blue line and shading). The shaded regions represent the 90% range (i.e. from 5-95%) of the model simulations, with the corresponding lines representing the multi-model mean. The upper panel shows anomalies derived from the unmodified RCP8.5 results, the lower shows the results adjusted to include the effect of updated forcings from Schmidt et al. [2014]. Temperature anomalies are relative to 1961-1990.

All the scrambling to try to "save face" for the models reminds me a lot of Joe Bastardi backtracking after a blown forecast. The models have been bad, especially in the southern hemisphere. Why not just admit that?

Projections based on any climate model should not be taken as gospel.

[ORH_wxman]

I will eat my hat if the RCP 8.5 scenarios actually verify. They don't pass the smell test.

 

Just off the end of the graph posted above, the temps would shoot upward nearly exponentially.

[chubbs]

I will eat my hat if the RCP 8.5 scenarios actually verify. They don't pass the smell test.

 

Just off the end of the graph posted above, the temps would shoot upward nearly exponentially.

 

 

Per Hanson's paper, the RCP 8.5 scenarios will be much too warm in the future if ice sheet melt continues to increase. When you consider: the lack of an apples-to-apples comparison, errors in volcano+sun, the relatively cool ENSO/PDO of the hiatus that models can't simulate, and the ice sheet melt that is already underway but is not accounted for; the model predictions are in the right ballpark.

[chubbs]

Cowtan's blog goes into a little more detail on the source of the differences between model and observation.

 

http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~kdc3/papers/robust2015/background.html

 

 

Figure 4: Global mean temperature calculated from an ensemble of climate models using the simplest method (red), or using the same method we use for the observations (blue), and some intermediate methods. (Note that all but the blue line are global coverage.)

 

 

[ORH_wxman]

Per Hanson's paper, the RCP 8.5 scenarios will be much too warm in the future if ice sheet melt continues to increase. When you consider: the lack of an apples-to-apples comparison, errors in volcano+sun, the relatively cool ENSO/PDO of the hiatus that models can't simulate, and the ice sheet melt that is already underway but is not accounted for; the model predictions are in the right ballpark.

 

 

Hansen's forecasts are even more out of the mainstream with the extreme cooling coinciding with ice sheet melt. If we believe Hansen's model, then we would see extreme SLR.

 

But if we go with more mainstream RCP 8.5 predictions, then we are expected to believe that we will see an additional 4-5C of warming by the end of the century.

 

 

 

 

 

So it's either extreme SLR or extreme temperature rise....or some combination.

 

This is of course assuming that the CMIP5 TCR is correct, which is an extremely dubious assumption. Therefore, it is hard to take those projections seriously.

[nflwxman]

I'm not sure we will ever be able to truly test the RCP 8.5 scenario since it would essentially require we took little to no steps to fight AGW over the next 30 years world wide.  I don't find that plausible.  In fact, I would think something in the RCP 4.5-6.5 range seems reasonable if ever major contributor keeps their pledges.

 

That being said, ORH, there have been many papers recently validating hindcasts of the CIMP5 suite using actually volcanic, solar, and ENSO data.  I know you are skeptical about ECS and TCR sensitivity being high, but you have to admit, there is a body of scientific evidence suggesting the models are not wildly off base in a decadal sense.  I only know a handful of studies (in reaction to the "hiatus") that suggest otherwise.

 

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v517/n7536/full/nature14117.html

 

Putting biases aside, if Hansen's theory even proves partially correct with rapid decline of ice sheets, one could argue that TCR is a fair bit lower than the CIMP5 suite, but ECS might be right on the money.  I think we will figure out the validity of Hansen's theory once we move through another 2 decades of AMO cycles.

 

Digging a bit deeper, if one looks at the new GISS data, the CIMP5 suite is actually doing fairly well with a running mean (scaled to 1900 temps)

 

[stadiumwave]

Per Hanson's paper, the RCP 8.5 scenarios will be much too warm in the future if ice sheet melt continues to increase. When you consider: the lack of an apples-to-apples comparison, errors in volcano+sun, the relatively cool ENSO/PDO of the hiatus that models can't simulate, and the ice sheet melt that is already underway but is not accounted for; the model predictions are in the right ballpark.

Lol...read what you just posted. In other words "the real earth" that the models cannot simulate. The model predictions are not "on the right ballpark".

The most honest assessment & discussion Ive seen yet is the paper "Overestimated Global Warming Of The Past 20 Years" by the climate modelers: Fyfe, Gillett, Zwiers. They are Canadian climate modelers & contributers yo the IPCC AR-4:

http://judithcurry.com/2013/08/28/overestimated-global-warming-over-the-past-20-years/

[nflwxman]

Lol...read what you just posted. In other words "the real earth" that the models cannot simulate. The model predictions are not "on the right ballpark".

The most honest assessment & discussion Ive seen yet is the paper "Overestimated Global Warming Of The Past 20 Years" by the climate modelers: Fyfe, Gillett, Zwiers. They are Canadian climate modelers & contributers yo the IPCC AR-4:

http://judithcurry.com/2013/08/28/overestimated-global-warming-over-the-past-20-years/

 

That's one of the very few papers that argue that, Stadiumwave.  Not only that, the Fyfe paper uses older temperature datasets and only examines 20 years.  Also, wIthout much regard to the internal variability issue.  I don't dismiss the paper entirely, as we can learn quite a bit from every peer reviewed journal.

 

Look at the graphic I posted above of the CIMP5 ensemble mean versus GISS.  Skeptics will always try to use unsmoothed data, which is disingenuous.  What I've provided about is a running 10 year mean (even that might be too short of a time to validate).

[ORH_wxman]

I'm not sure we will ever be able to truly test the RCP 8.5 scenario since it would essentially require we took little to no steps to fight AGW over the next 30 years world wide.  I don't find that plausible.  In fact, I would think something in the RCP 4.5-6.5 range seems reasonable if ever major contributor keeps their pledges.

 

That being said, ORH, there have been many papers recently validating hindcasts of the CIMP5 suite using actually volcanic, solar, and ENSO data.  I know you are skeptical about ECS and TCR sensitivity being high, but you have to admit, there is a body of scientific evidence suggesting the models are not wildly off base in a decadal sense.  I only know a handful of studies (in reaction to the "hiatus") that suggest otherwise.

 

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v517/n7536/full/nature14117.html

 

Putting biases aside, if Hansen's theory even proves partially correct with rapid decline of ice sheets, one could argue that TCR is a fair bit lower than the CIMP5 suite, but ECS might be right on the money.  I think we will figure out the validity of Hansen's theory once we move through another 2 decades of AMO cycles.

 

Digging a bit deeper, if one looks at the new GISS data, the CIMP5 suite is actually doing fairly well with a running mean (scaled to 1900 temps)

 

 

 

 

Many of the same studies that show there has been a lot of natural variability in aiding with the slowdown in warming are also validating that much of the 1975-2000 warming was aided by natural variability as well. (upwards of 30-40% according to several papers)

 

In a sense, you are robbing Peter to pay Paul in trying to reconcile the trend...so your overall trends are still consistent with a lower TCR than GCMs indicate.

 

 

In addition, one of the more prominent studies done by Meehl et al showed that a subset of CMIP5 models could reproduce the hiatus when given correct initialization near the start point of the hiatus. (a common argument...give the models better data, and they reproduce the hiatus) That group of CMIP5 models also happened to have a lower TCR than the group as a whole. The range of CMIP5 model TCR is 1.1-2.6 with a mean between 1.8-1.9C. Not being able to reconcile that top range of TCRs is a big deal as it would bring the mean down considerably.

 

 

As for the RCP 8.5 scenario...it already goes very warm in the next 2 decades..noticeably diverging from RCP4.5 by 2030, so we should be able to validate them or invalidate them by then. Emissions won't be cut enough to stop us from being quite close. Beyond that, we would likely have lower emissions...if nothing more than alternative energy will be more viable by that point.

[nflwxman]

Many of the same studies that show there has been a lot of natural variability in aiding with the slowdown in warming are also validating that much of the 1975-2000 warming was aided by natural variability as well. (upwards of 30-40% according to several papers)

 

In a sense, you are robbing Peter to pay Paul in trying to reconcile the trend...so your overall trends are still consistent with a lower TCR than GCMs indicate.

 

 

In addition, one of the more prominent studies done by Meehl et al showed that a subset of CMIP5 models could reproduce the hiatus when given correct initialization near the start point of the hiatus. (a common argument...give the models better data, and they reproduce the hiatus) That group of CMIP5 models also happened to have a lower TCR than the group as a whole. The range of CMIP5 model TCR is 1.1-2.6 with a mean between 1.8-1.9C. Not being able to reconcile that top range of TCRs is a big deal as it would bring the mean down considerably.

 

 

As for the RCP 8.5 scenario...it already goes very warm in the next 2 decades..noticeably diverging from RCP4.5 by 2030, so we should be able to validate them or invalidate them by then. Emissions won't be cut enough to stop us from being quite close. Beyond that, we would likely have lower emissions...if nothing more than alternative energy will be more viable by that point.

 

I don't disagree with this.  Ice sheet disintegration has been somewhat quicker than models predicted, and could take a fair chunk of the TCR out of play.  We obviously need more data, but noone should suggest that the CIMP5 models will fully be accurate down the line.  I just don't believe they are crazy off base as skeptics would suggest.  Even if the TCR is 0.25C less than the suite suggests, it won't make a huge difference in consequences, especially if that extra energy is going to melting ice sheets and not getting buried in the deep ocean.

 

This oncoming +PDO/+ENSO cycle will surprise many people, just as the -PDO/-ENSO cycle did before it.  It's funny, because looking in the early-mid 20th century temperature record; noone should be surprised by this.

[ORH_wxman]

I don't disagree with this.  I think ice sheet disintegration has been somewhat quicker than models predicted, and could take a fair chunk of the TCR out of play.  We obviously need more data, but noone should suggest that the CIMP5 models will fully be accurate down the line.  I just don't believe they are crazy off base as skeptics would suggest.  Even if the TCR is 0.25C less than the suite suggests, it won't make a huge difference in consequences, especially if that extra energy is going to melting ice sheets and not getting buried in the deep ocean.

 

This oncoming +PDO/+ENSO cycle will surprise many people, just as the -PDO/-ENSO cycle did before it.  It's funny, because looking in the early-mid 20th century temperature record; noone should be surprised by this.

 

 

I don't think we know if there's an oncoming +ENSO/PDO cycle that is imminent...or how strong it will be. The mid-20th century -PDO was extremely deep. Much deeper than the early 20th century -PDO cycle that ended sometime in the early 1920s...then the +PDO cycle that started in 1976 was stronger for a longer period than the one from the 1920s to late 1940s.

 

If the recent -PDO cycle is truly over, then it will have been the shortest one we've seen since at least the 19th century.

 

 

So I'm not sure how useful the analogs are. I used to think they were very good, but as I learned more about the PDO, it became apparent that the cycles are not of equal strength or duration.

[nflwxman]

True.  One could say there has been a remarkable shift in the tradewind pattern recently worldwide.  Whether that amounts to a +PDO regime shift still needs to be seen.

[AvantHiatus]

True.  One could say there has been a remarkable shift in the tradewind pattern recently worldwide.  Whether that amounts to a +PDO regime shift still needs to be seen.

The Earth was simply unable to sustain the heat sequestration mode due to AMOC and SMOC slowing and a lowering temperature gradient worldwide. 

 

We are releasing GHG gases too quickly, there is no analog for the Anthropocene.

[Jonger]

Weatherbell CFSv2 showing us ending the month around 0.15C.  This will likely mean July will be a cooler month relative to the rest of the year thus far.  As per most years, as ice melt begins to slow down towards September, we begin to heat up globally faster.  Look for anomalies to begin to skyrocket in August and September.  I suspect our first 1.0 C+ month on GISS will be later in 2015.

 

 

October-November have had the highest anomalies I think.

 

The GISS record is pretty much a lock, we all know that.

 

Now, what are UHA and RSS showing? probably top 3.

[AvantHiatus]

[stadiumwave]

That's one of the very few papers that argue that, Stadiumwave. Not only that, the Fyfe paper uses older temperature datasets and only examines 20 years. Also, wIthout much regard to the internal variability issue. I don't dismiss the paper entirely, as we can learn quite a bit from every peer reviewed journal.

Look at the graphic I posted above of the CIMP5 ensemble mean versus GISS. Skeptics will always try to use unsmoothed data, which is disingenuous. What I've provided about is a running 10 year mean (even that might be too short of a time to validate).

Like I said...it's one the most honest in my opinion. It's not a "save face" paper & it's about the field they make a living in "climate modelling".

I feel like many of the things I've read the last year is a "we are were really right all along & climate isn't bigger than us"...too which I say: Come on Joe, just admit were not there yet.

[Snow_Miser]

Weatherbell CFS will finish at +0.16 for the month. Not too much of a cooldown from June. That means assuming the new relationship between the CFS and GISS still holds this month, a record warm July is very likely on GISS.

[stadiumwave]

UAH V.6 July Update:

 

+0.18C which is down from June +0.33C

 

 

 

YR MO GLOBE NH SH TROPICS
2015 1 +0.28 +0.40 +0.16 +0.13
2015 2 +0.18 +0.30 +0.05 -0.06
2015 3 +0.17 +0.26 +0.07 +0.05
2015 4 +0.09 +0.18 -0.01 +0.10
2015 5 +0.29 +0.36 +0.21 +0.28
2015 6 +0.33 +0.41 +0.25 +0.46
2015 7 +0.18 +0.33 +0.03 +0.48

 

 

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/08/uah-v6-0-global-temperature-update-for-july-2015-0-18-c/

[HailMan06]

UAH V.6 July Update:

+0.18C which is down from June +0.33C

YR MO GLOBE NH SH TROPICS

2015 1 +0.28 +0.40 +0.16 +0.13

2015 2 +0.18 +0.30 +0.05 -0.06

2015 3 +0.17 +0.26 +0.07 +0.05

2015 4 +0.09 +0.18 -0.01 +0.10

2015 5 +0.29 +0.36 +0.21 +0.28

2015 6 +0.33 +0.41 +0.25 +0.46

2015 7 +0.18 +0.33 +0.03 +0.48

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/08/uah-v6-0-global-temperature-update-for-july-2015-0-18-c/

Hmm. I know that there's a lag in response to El Niño but UAH at this stage should have started seeing something, especially with an ongoing strong Niño. We'll see how UAH turns out by the end of the year into 2016.

Edit: I see the tropics have responded, but surprising there's no response in the global average.

[donsutherland1]

Hmm. I know that there's a lag in response to El Niño but UAH at this stage should have started seeing something, especially with an ongoing strong Niño. We'll see how UAH turns out by the end of the year into 2016.

Edit: I see the tropics have responded, but surprising there's no response in the global average.

IMO, one has to be very cautious when using UAH v.6.0. There is a defined linear trend in which the data on V.6.0 is growing steadily colder relative to V.5.6--and with a high coefficient of correlation. Version 6.0, which is a beta version, still has not been subjected to peer review.

 

Let's see what Version 5.6 shows and then, more importantly, the major surface data sets.

[stadiumwave]

IMO, one has to be very cautious when using UAH v.6.0. There is a defined linear trend in which the data on V.6.0 is growing steadily colder relative to V.5.6--and with a high coefficient of correlation. Version 6.0, which is a beta version, still has not been subjected to peer review.

 

Let's see what Version 5.6 shows and then, more importantly, the major surface data sets.

 

Agree! v5.6 then also RSS will be important to compare.

[donsutherland1]

UAH v. 5.6: +0.24°C in July (vs. +0.35°C in June)

[StudentOfClimatology]

Looks like RSS came in at 0.28C. The overall warming since 2012-13 is become more apparent, too.