2016 Global Temperatures

[HailMan06]

39 minutes ago, Snowlover123 said:

Warmest August on record by a lot, per GISS.

 

Wow 1.01C above 1951-1980 baseline. That's quite impressive.

[Snow_Miser]

1 hour ago, HailMan06 said:

Wow 1.01C above 1951-1980 baseline. That's quite impressive.

Actual raw numbers are +0.98, but that particular algorithm gives a +1.01 reading for some reason. 

Regardless, an impressive warm month with unimpressive ENSO conditions and low solar activity, even accounting for lag time. We haven't had a single month below +0.80 this year on GISS. 

[frontranger8]

1 hour ago, Snowlover123 said:

Actual raw numbers are +0.98, but that particular algorithm gives a +1.01 reading for some reason. 

Regardless, an impressive warm month with unimpressive ENSO conditions and low solar activity, even accounting for lag time. We haven't had a single month below +0.80 this year on GISS. 

Lag time is often around 6 months for surface sources. 6 months ago, we still had strong Nino conditions, and were just starting to come out of one of the strongest Ninos on record.

[Snow_Miser]

3 hours ago, frontranger8 said:

Lag time is often around 6 months for surface sources. 6 months ago, we still had strong Nino conditions, and were just starting to come out of one of the strongest Ninos on record.

6 months is a pretty good ballpark estimate for the lag associated with lower tropospheric satellite based measurements, but it's actually sooner than that for surface temperatures. Generally around a 3 month lag. 

http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2016/expectations-for-2016-global-temperatures/

[frontranger8]

1 hour ago, Snowlover123 said:

6 months is a pretty good ballpark estimate for the lag associated with lower tropospheric satellite based measurements, but it's actually sooner than that for surface temperatures. Generally around a 3 month lag. 

http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2016/expectations-for-2016-global-temperatures/

I've always heard the opposite, that LT temps are more sensitive to ENSO changes and reflect those changes faster. We've certainly seen that this year and last.

[skierinvermont]

1 hour ago, frontranger8 said:

I've always heard the opposite, that LT temps are more sensitive to ENSO changes and reflect those changes faster. We've certainly seen that this year and last.

 

You're getting it mixed up. LT temps respond more but with the 6 month lag. Surface temps respond less but with the 3 month lag. Any basic correlation test will show this..

[chubbs]

This chart from Chris Colose's twitter compares GISS over the current and 97/98 super nino cycles.  So far there aren't any major differences in the temperature progression. June 16 was cooler than expected vs june 98 but temperatures have since recovered. With a weaker La nina likely this winter vs 98/99, would expect a smaller fall and winter temperature drop this year.

[Jonger]

I'm sure we will increase our global baseline after the lag effect of el nino wears off, but I have to wonder how long it takes before 2016 gets passed up in the record books. The record is so much higher than anything previously seen. 5 years, 10 years?

[skierinvermont]

1 hour ago, Jonger said:

I'm sure we will increase our global baseline after the lag effect of el nino wears off, but I have to wonder how long it takes before 2016 gets passed up in the record books. The record is so much higher than anything previously seen. 5 years, 10 years?

 

So Jonger am I correct in inferring from this comment that your understanding of AGW has changed (or rather progressed)? 

 

I suppose disputing that humans have caused the majority of this very substantial warming trend is that much more absurd after with this new step up in temperatures.

 

To answer your question, I'd just throw out a guess of 10 years. Whenever the next strong Nino is would have a very high chance, especially 5+ years from now. By 12+ years from now a moderate Nino would likely do it.

[Sundog]

I don't have any scientific evidence for the following statement, I could be completely wrong and I hope I am, but I have this terrible feeling that we will get more and more extreme faster and faster where years like 2016 will be the new normal in the near future. I get nauseous just thinking about it. 

That's why I'm gung ho on geoengineering. There's no way we will realistically stop producing greenhouse gasses anytime soon so we might as well do something to offset their effects.

And to the people who say we shouldn't make everyone have to be unwilling guinea pigs of this grand cooling experiment, we already are. We are currently in the middle of the biggest science experiment humans have ever initiated. Just ask the people of the vanishing Pacific Islands if they signed up for the current experiment of artificial warming. 

[nflwxman]

5 hours ago, Sundog said:

I don't have any scientific evidence for the following statement, I could be completely wrong and I hope I am, but I have this terrible feeling that we will get more and more extreme faster and faster where years like 2016 will be the new normal in the near future. I get nauseous just thinking about it. 

That's why I'm gung ho on geoengineering. There's no way we will realistically stop producing greenhouse gasses anytime soon so we might as well do something to offset their effects.

And to the people who say we shouldn't make everyone have to be unwilling guinea pigs of this grand cooling experiment, we already are. We are currently in the middle of the biggest science experiment humans have ever initiated. Just ask the people of the vanishing Pacific Islands if they signed up for the current experiment of artificial warming. 

Yeah, i'm with you on this one.  My fear is that these "step-ups" will continue to become steeper as time goes on.  Having the global temperature increase 0.2 degrees in 3-5 years is bad enough, but imagine double that if some positive feedbacks kick in as some fear.  I'm all for geoengineering...assuming we start the process very slowly and methodically. 

 

 

[csnavywx]

Well, we're piling on 3-4 ppm of CO2e every year now with no compensation from aerosols (this year's reading will probably be at or above +4) and in all likelihood a slow decrease in aerosol forcing, so I would expect a more rapid response just from the net forcing we're getting now (as opposed to say ... 10 years ago). Also, the strengthening trade wind trend was basically halted with this ENSO cycle, ensuring more heat stays near the surface. The only thing throwing on the brakes right now is the Southern Ocean and (sometimes) Antarctica.

[bluewave]

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v9/n9/pdf/ngeo2770.pdf

Global mean surface temperature change over the past 120 years resembles a rising staircase^1, 2: the overall warming trend was interrupted by the mid-twentieth-century big hiatus and the warming slowdown^{2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8} since about 1998. The Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation^9, 10 has been implicated in modulations of global mean surface temperatures^6, 11, but which part of the mode drives the variability in warming rates is unclear. Here we present a successful simulation of the global warming staircase since 1900 with a global ocean–atmosphere coupled model where tropical Pacific sea surface temperatures are forced to follow the observed evolution. Without prescribed tropical Pacific variability, the same model, on average, produces a continual warming trend that accelerates after the 1960s. We identify four events where the tropical Pacific decadal cooling markedly slowed down the warming trend. Matching the observed spatial and seasonal fingerprints we identify the tropical Pacific as a key pacemaker of the warming staircase, with radiative forcing driving the overall warming trend. Specifically, tropical Pacific variability amplifies the first warming epoch of the 1910s–1940s and determines the timing when the big hiatus starts and ends. Our method of removing internal variability from the observed record can be used for real-time monitoring of anthropogenic warming

 

[Jonger]

19 hours ago, skierinvermont said:

 

So Jonger am I correct in inferring from this comment that your understanding of AGW has changed (or rather progressed)? 

 

I suppose disputing that humans have caused the majority of this very substantial warming trend is that much more absurd after with this new step up in temperatures.

 

To answer your question, I'd just throw out a guess of 10 years. Whenever the next strong Nino is would have a very high chance, especially 5+ years from now. By 12+ years from now a moderate Nino would likely do it.

I'm more on board now, but with still levels of uncertainty. A few holdups. Temps rose almost the same levels from 1900 to 1950 as they did from 1980 to 2016 with small levels of co2. There is an obvious natural background warming that is taking place underneath the anthropogenic forcings. With that said, it's too risky not eliminating all athropogenic forcings. 

I'm also a techie.... alternative energy sources and what to do with the pipeline warming is interesting to me. Considering I post here, I obviously have an interest in the topic. I still hope for less warming and want the icepack to last as long as possible. No matter the interest, rooting for arctic ice demise and more warming is still stupid.

Knowing what I know about energy storage and feasibility of going fully carbon neutral in 2016, I believe we should be putting quite a bit of effort into sequestering existing co2, while making fossil fuels economically obsolete. Tesla is doing a great job helping this along from a private company aspect.

My winter hobby of snowmobiling is probably not helping the planet, but the 200 gallons of fuel being burned each season is being canceled out by the Prius we own and drive 365 days a year. That's my own rationalization.

We have a standing order for a $100,000 solar array for my business. No industry benefits by solar more than one that runs freezer equipment. Over cool during the day when you have sun and you don't have to cool as much at night.

[skierinvermont]

2 hours ago, Jonger said:

I'm more on board now, but with still levels of uncertainty. A few holdups. Temps rose almost the same levels from 1900 to 1950 as they did from 1980 to 2016 with small levels of co2. There is an obvious natural background warming that is taking place underneath the anthropogenic forcings. With that said, it's too risky not eliminating all athropogenic forcings. 

I'm also a techie.... alternative energy sources and what to do with the pipeline warming is interesting to me. Considering I post here, I obviously have an interest in the topic. I still hope for less warming and want the icepack to last as long as possible. No matter the interest, rooting for arctic ice demise and more warming is still stupid.

Knowing what I know about energy storage and feasibility of going fully carbon neutral in 2016, I believe we should be putting quite a bit of effort into sequestering existing co2, while making fossil fuels economically obsolete. Tesla is doing a great job helping this along from a private company aspect.

My winter hobby of snowmobiling is probably not helping the planet, but the 200 gallons of fuel being burned each season is being canceled out by the Prius we own and drive 365 days a year. That's my own rationalization.

We have a standing order for a $100,000 solar array for my business. No industry benefits by solar more than one that runs freezer equipment. Over cool during the day when you have sun and you don't have to cool as much at night.

 

That's pretty cool about solar and the freezer business. 

The natural warming 1900-1950 was pretty dramatic. Some of it has to do with coming out of an unusual cold period related to volcanic activity. The increase in solar from way below normal to way above normal also contributed. 

Since then those same factors have reversed (much lower solar) and human aerosol pollution is having a substantial cooling effect. 

I think anybody that understands we are very likely to continue warming (as implied by your earlier comment) is at least in the realm of reality. And within that there is some room for debate.

 

 I'd like to get a prius or something similar but it's difficult with my lifestyle (living out of my car sometimes).

[chubbs]

22 hours ago, bluewave said:

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v9/n9/pdf/ngeo2770.pdf

Global mean surface temperature change over the past 120 years resembles a rising staircase^1, 2: the overall warming trend was interrupted by the mid-twentieth-century big hiatus and the warming slowdown^{2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8} since about 1998. The Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation^9, 10 has been implicated in modulations of global mean surface temperatures^6, 11, but which part of the mode drives the variability in warming rates is unclear. Here we present a successful simulation of the global warming staircase since 1900 with a global ocean–atmosphere coupled model where tropical Pacific sea surface temperatures are forced to follow the observed evolution. Without prescribed tropical Pacific variability, the same model, on average, produces a continual warming trend that accelerates after the 1960s. We identify four events where the tropical Pacific decadal cooling markedly slowed down the warming trend. Matching the observed spatial and seasonal fingerprints we identify the tropical Pacific as a key pacemaker of the warming staircase, with radiative forcing driving the overall warming trend. Specifically, tropical Pacific variability amplifies the first warming epoch of the 1910s–1940s and determines the timing when the big hiatus starts and ends. Our method of removing internal variability from the observed record can be used for real-time monitoring of anthropogenic warming

 

Current pdo spike is similar in magnitude to those in the 1980s and a reversal of the previous decade. A big riser on the staircase shouldn't be surprising.

[lookingnorth]

On 9/13/2016 at 0:09 PM, Jonger said:

I'm sure we will increase our global baseline after the lag effect of el nino wears off, but I have to wonder how long it takes before 2016 gets passed up in the record books. The record is so much higher than anything previously seen. 5 years, 10 years?

IIRC 2005 was the first year to beat 1998's temperature record. So 5 to 10 years seems reasonable to me.

[Snow_Miser]

WeatherBell CFSv2 now up to +0.36 for September. Which translates to an anomaly of +0.91 to +1.06 on GISS using the standard conversion of adding 0.55 to 0.70 to CFSv2 values. Still time for this to change of course, but the CFSv2 would indicate that September sets a new record on GISS. Current record is +0.90 in 2014. 

The seasonal albedo feedback should also be kicking in relatively soon as well. If it doesn't reflect in this month's anomaly, then I would think it would definitely be beginning next month.

[Rjay]

The planet has been pretty warm...

 

https://weather.com/news/climate/news/august-2016-global-temperature-record

[doyltsnazzy]

latest global analysis here https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201607

[chubbs]

Hard to discount climate models after the recent temperature surge. 2016 temperatures are predicted to be normal in 10 years.

[ORH_wxman]

It's actually pretty easy to still discount them as too warm. It took a super Nino of this magnitude just to get us any values back above the mean also likely aided by some positive internal variability in the N PAC. We will fall behind again as it wears off and you lose the typical 1-2 tenth spike. We basically need to average at least as warm as the peak of this latest burst in 6-7 years to be at the mean. I would remain skeptical of a 0.7c increase by 2040. 

[chubbs]

8 hours ago, ORH_wxman said:

It's actually pretty easy to still discount them as too warm. It took a super Nino of this magnitude just to get us any values back above the mean also likely aided by some positive internal variability in the N PAC. We will fall behind again as it wears off and you lose the typical 1-2 tenth spike. We basically need to average at least as warm as the peak of this latest burst in 6-7 years to be at the mean. I would remain skeptical of a 0.7c increase by 2040. 

We will have to wait for the scientific studies to reconcile model predictions with observations during  the recent surge. Model errors in the past have mainly been due to: short-term enso-related natural variability that the models can not simulate, and errors in the forcing estimates. For instance currently the sun is weaker than anticipated. The biggest uncertainty in the 2040 temperature projections is the forcing estimates which depend on natural factors and human emissions activity.  The RCP4.5 scenario assumes that ghg emissions increase through 2040, while aerosol emissions decrease boosting forcing at a relatively rapid rate.

[chubbs]

Recent Tamino chart showing GISS with main sources of natural variability accounted for.

 

[bluewave]

Proxy-based Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstruction for the mid-to-late Holocene (Pei et al. 2016)http://rd.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00704-016-1932-5

Abstract: The observed late twentieth century warming must be assessed in relation to natural long-term variations of the climatic system. Here, we present a Northern Hemisphere (NH) temperature reconstruction for the mid-to-late Holocene of the past 6000 years, based on a synthesis of existing paleo-temperature proxies that are capable of revealing centennial-scale variability. This includes 56 published temperature records across the NH land areas, with a sampling resolution ranging from 1 to 100 years and a time span of at least 1000 years. The composite plus scale (CPS) method is adopted with spatial weighting to develop the NH temperature reconstruction. Our reconstruction reveals abrupt cold epochs that match well the Bond events during the past 6000 years. The study further reveals two prominent cycles in NH temperature: 1700–2000-year cycle during the mid-to-late Holocene and 1200–1500-year cycle during the past 3500 years. Our reconstruction indicates that the late twentieth century NH temperature and its rate of warming are both unprecedentedly high over the past 5000 years. By comparing our reconstruction with the projected temperature increase scenarios, we find that temperature by the end of the twenty-first century would likely exceed any peaks during the mid-to-late Holocene.

[lookingnorth]

I'm not sure if U.S. temperatures can also be posted here, but it seems like 2016 is now the second warmest year to date. September 2016 was the ninth warmest on record.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/

[csnavywx]

GISS was +0.91 for Sept. Virtual tie with 2014 (0.90) for warmest on record.

[chubbs]

Time series of tropical Pacific SST anomalies as of October 11. Cooling in this nino-->nina transition is lagging 98 and 10.

[Msalgado]

On 10/14/2016 at 6:33 AM, ORH_wxman said:

It's actually pretty easy to still discount them as too warm. It took a super Nino of this magnitude just to get us any values back above the mean also likely aided by some positive internal variability in the N PAC. We will fall behind again as it wears off and you lose the typical 1-2 tenth spike. We basically need to average at least as warm as the peak of this latest burst in 6-7 years to be at the mean. I would remain skeptical of a 0.7c increase by 2040. 

We may fall behind, but it will be continuously easier to jump as head as CO2 forcing increases and feedbacks do the same.  Sure, it took a super nino to push us ahead, after a string of storng La Ninas made us fall behind the curve to begin with.  So I'm not sure how you reconcile your argument that it took strong variability to bring us above the mean if you're discounting the strong variability that made us fall behind the mean to begin with.  

[ORH_wxman]

15 minutes ago, Msalgado said:

We may fall behind, but it will be continuously easier to jump as head as CO2 forcing increases and feedbacks do the same.  Sure, it took a super nino to push us ahead, after a string of storng La Ninas made us fall behind the curve to begin with.  So I'm not sure how you reconcile your argument that it took strong variability to bring us above the mean if you're discounting the strong variability that made us fall behind the mean to begin with.  

 

We had 2 strong La Ninas between 2000 and the present and both were well below the magnitude of this past Nino. Not exactly a early to mid 1970s redux.

 

Also in order to get ahead, you have to keep warming faster and faster...the models warm us exponentially. If you are confident we will warm exponentially, then your argument is great. I'm not confident we do, mostly because we haven't been doing it. We get these jumps during stronger El Ninos but then stagnate for a time.

 

Good news is that it won't take long to see whether the models are too warm or not. At least the CMIP5 suite...I'm sure they'll come out with another suite at some point soon with some sort of hindcast that makes it look perfect, just like they did with CMIP3 and CMIP5.