2016 Global Temperatures

[chubbs]

On 10/25/2016 at 5:09 PM, ORH_wxman said:

 

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.

Only RCP8.5 has a temperature rise that looks "exponential" but that is driven by an "exponential" rise in forcing  Overall the models are linear in response to changes in forcing.

[Claire]

The Global warming is one of the reasons that the climate and the global temperature is changing every year. The hot temperature in the areas are becoming more intense. Global warming is raising sea levels due to thermal expansion and melting the glaciers and ice sheets, and it is also warming the ocean surfaces which is leading to increased temperature stratification. But there are some people that  do not agree that the global warming can cause climate changes. But we cannot ignore the fact that the climate is changing all around the world.

 

[chubbs]

Coming off a 2014 peak we are currently in the declining phase of a weak solar cycle. Solar irradiance has dropped almost 0.1 W/m2 since the 2014 peak which equates to roughly 0.05C of cooling.  (based on a TCR of 1.8C for doubled CO2 - 3.7 W/m2)

 

[qr7121]

13 hours ago, chubbs said:

Coming off a 2014 peak we are currently in the declining phase of a weak solar cycle. Solar irradiance has dropped almost 0.1 W/m2 since the 2014 peak which equates to roughly 0.05C of cooling.  (based on a TCR of 1.8C for doubled CO2 - 3.7 W/m2)

 

completely overwhelmed by the +6PPM increase in CO2 since 2014... solar is really a joke compared to GHG forcing

 

[chubbs]

Yes in the long-term GHG dominate. However, recently GHG have been increasing forcing by roughly 0.03 to 0.04 W/m2 per year so the roughly 0.1 W/m2 drop in solar forcing in the past 2 years has largely cancelled the impact of added GHG over this period. The big driver of the current temperature spike was the forcing imbalance that had already built up from previous increases in GHG -  roughly 0.8 W/m2 or 25 years of GHG increase. Note that solar forcing will begin to flatten out as it progresses towards the cycle minimum around 2020 so it will have a increasingly smaller cooling impact in the remainder of this cycle.

[nflwxman]

ONI (ENSO) appears to have been below 0 (trending towards La Nina) since the mid spring, and we are still at record global temperatures.  While the strength of the previous El Nino is still permeating the atmosphere, as evidence by decreasing OHC, it's very concerning that we remain this high on the global temperature ladder.

 

While it's early, November has started off record warm.  

[Snow_Miser]

59 minutes ago, nflwxman said:

ONI (ENSO) appears to have been below 0 (trending towards La Nina) since the mid spring, and we are still at record global temperatures.  While the strength of the previous El Nino is still permeating the atmosphere, as evidence by decreasing OHC, it's very concerning that we remain this high on the global temperature ladder.

 

While it's early, November has started off record warm.  

November 2015 finished at +0.46 on the WeatherBell CFSv2. So far, November 2016 is +0.61. Early, like you said, but we may be quite a bit higher anomaly wise than October if this keeps up.

[chubbs]

Here is another plot of solar irradiation which shows recent trends more clearly than the one posted above (from a recent post at Real Climate). The current solar cycle has been much weaker than the previous 3 cycles with peak intensity near the average intensity of the previous cycles. The current cycle peaked in late 2014 and is now at levels similar to the pre-2000 minima.  The chart posted above on 11/2 shows that peak-to-trough solar forcing changes by roughly 0.25 W/m2. The forcing increase off the bottom in this cycle is roughly half as large as the previous 3 cycles so the forcing change relative to previous cycles is roughly 0.12 W/m2. Using a transient climate response (TCR) of 1.8C per CO2 doubling, this equates to roughly 0.06C of solar-related cooling since the early 2000s. Note that any error in the solar forcing estimate would carry over proportionally to the temperature estimate.

[Snow_Miser]

November 2016 saw a +0.43 global temperature anomaly on the WeatherBell CFSv2, which is the highest anomaly since April. It is just shy of the November 2015 record of +0.46. 

December is starting off extremely warm relative to average on the CFSv2, given ENSO conditions.

[bluewave]

Looks like the PMM staying positive instead of declining like it did following the last 2 super El Ninos may be contributing to the lingering warmth.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/enso/your-eight-minute-speed-date-pacific-meridional-mode

The following 2015-16 El Niño event was unique among strong El Niños in that the PMM was exceptionally strong and positive (i.e. warm anomalies in the subtropics) prior to the event and has persisted more or less throughout and following the event. During the previous two extreme El Niño events (1982-83 and 1997-98), the meridional mode flipped into a strong negative phase as the event reached peak intensity (see time series above). This was especially true of the 1997-1998 El Niño, which was followed by persistent cold conditions and extreme negative PMM values for a few years afterwards.

But, mysteriously, the PMM has not really shifted into a negative phase after the 2015-16 El Niño, and in fact has been moderate to strongly positive over the last few months. While we can’t perfectly quantify the PMM’s role in the evolution of the 2015-16 El Niño, its extreme positive values are consistent with the subsequent strong El Niño. Their persistence through the peak of the event, however, is not.

What’s next for us?

What does this positive PMM mean for the currently borderline, weak La Niña? It’s tough to know. While research shows a relationship between the PMM and ENSO, there’s a lot of competitors for ENSO’s attention in the Pacific, and the 2015-16 ENSO event has been a strange one for a lot of reasons, the ongoing positive PMM values included. Positive PMM values tend to precede El Niño events, so the current PMM conditions would be consistent with a weakening La Niña forecast. BUT, I’ll caution that there is a lot of other competitors for ENSO’s attention in the Pacific, so at this point it’s tough to attribute such a forecast to the PMM.

[chubbs]

RSS TTT v4 0.74 in November easily breaking last years Nov record of 0.54. UAH6 also broke its Nov record by a good margin..

 

 

[nzucker]

SSTs seem to be dropping quite a bit with significant cooling in ENSO Region 3.4 leading cooling in other areas such as the North Pacific, Indian Ocean, and most dramatically the South Atlantic. Should see some reflection of this in the surface or satellite data soon.

[chubbs]

This chart was posted recently at WUWT from an AGU poster by Willis Escenbach. Water vapor over the ocean has increased with the ENSO/PDO flip in the past couple of years.

[Snow_Miser]

GISS for November: +0.95. Second highest November global temperature anomaly on record, only behind 2015.

[nzucker]

2 hours ago, Snow_Miser said:

GISS for November: +0.95. Second highest November global temperature anomaly on record, only behind 2015.

What was the anomaly in 2015?

[Snow_Miser]

4 hours ago, nzucker said:

What was the anomaly in 2015?

+1.02.

[chubbs]

Here is a comparison of GISS  2015/16 vs 1997/8 from the Mohyu blog. While there are some month-to-month differences the overall enso rise and fall are similar. The past 12 months are running 0.38C warmer than 12/97 to 11/98.

[blizzard1024]

On 12/15/2016 at 8:35 AM, chubbs said:

This chart was posted recently at WUWT from an AGU poster by Willis Escenbach. Water vapor over the ocean has increased with the ENSO/PDO flip in the past couple of years.

Total Precipitable Water is not the main driver for the water vapor feedback. Its the water vapor and clouds at high levels of the troposphere that matter. This data correlates well to more surface evaporation from warmer ocean temperatures. the 64 million dollar question is how much extra water vapor is accumulating in the upper troposphere. I wish there was some reliable long term data on this. That would solve a lot of the debate on how sensitive the climate is to CO2. Right now its based on models and proxies of the past which has too much uncertainty to make drastic changes to our energy infrastructure.  The political will of our nation just won't accept this unless there is more proof of an amplification of the minute warming from increased CO2. I would love to see this come true. Maybe GOE-R will be able to shed light on this? Except it will be a few years until we can get enough data to make any conclusions. 

[FloridaJohn]

2 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

Total Precipitable Water is not the main driver for the water vapor feedback. Its the water vapor and clouds at high levels of the troposphere that matter. This data correlates well to more surface evaporation from warmer ocean temperatures. the 64 million dollar question is how much extra water vapor is accumulating in the upper troposphere. I wish there was some reliable long term data on this. That would solve a lot of the debate on how sensitive the climate is to CO2. Right now its based on models and proxies of the past which has too much uncertainty to make drastic changes to our energy infrastructure.  The political will of our nation just won't accept this unless there is more proof of an amplification of the minute warming from increased CO2. I would love to see this come true. Maybe GOE-R will be able to shed light on this? Except it will be a few years until we can get enough data to make any conclusions. 

 

There will never be enough data to satisfy those who don't believe the data we already have. 

[blizzard1024]

5 hours ago, FloridaJohn said:

 

There will never be enough data to satisfy those who don't believe the data we already have. 

I disagree. Right now there is little evidence that CO2 is what is leading to the current slow warming. The only evidence
is from modeling studies of which parameterize clouds and convection, two extremely important factors in the global
energy balance. The present slow warming trend can not be put into proper context because we don't have anything more
than proxy data for the last several thousand years which has a high degree of error.  The fact that the Little Ice age
ended in the 1800s makes it very hard to determine how much is natural vs CO2 induced. Until we can get a high
degree of confidence in the water vapor feedback from observed satellite data we just don't know enough. The atmosphere
is way too complex to make such bold statements that "the science is settled" in support of drastic warming . The science is settled only
that CO2 leads to around 1C of warming from doubling. That's all. If feedbacks are negative it will be even less. These are
the facts about the whole climate change debate. How much??  

 

 

 

 

 

[chubbs]

10 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

Total Precipitable Water is not the main driver for the water vapor feedback. Its the water vapor and clouds at high levels of the troposphere that matter. This data correlates well to more surface evaporation from warmer ocean temperatures. the 64 million dollar question is how much extra water vapor is accumulating in the upper troposphere. I wish there was some reliable long term data on this. That would solve a lot of the debate on how sensitive the climate is to CO2. Right now its based on models and proxies of the past which has too much uncertainty to make drastic changes to our energy infrastructure.  The political will of our nation just won't accept this unless there is more proof of an amplification of the minute warming from increased CO2. I would love to see this come true. Maybe GOE-R will be able to shed light on this? Except it will be a few years until we can get enough data to make any conclusions. 

Here is another chart from Escenbach's poster and a link to the poster below. There is a very close correlation between TPW and IR absorption by the atmosphere.  If the upper atmosphere warms - it can and will hold more water vapor. Plus there is a contribution from a moister lower atmosphere outside of the tropics. Finally, there will not be drastic changes to our energy infrastructure; just a slow turnover plus fuel switching and efficiency gains. Of course the longer we wait, the more drastic the changes will need to be to avoid significant impacts.

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/agu16-poster-final.pdf

[blizzard1024]

21 hours ago, chubbs said:

Here is another chart from Escenbach's poster and a link to the poster below. There is a very close correlation between TPW and IR absorption by the atmosphere.  If the upper atmosphere warms - it can and will hold more water vapor. Plus there is a contribution from a moister lower atmosphere outside of the tropics. Finally, there will not be drastic changes to our energy infrastructure; just a slow turnover plus fuel switching and efficiency gains. Of course the longer we wait, the more drastic the changes will need to be to avoid significant impacts.

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/agu16-poster-final.pdf

 

Again, I respectively disagree here. If you increase water vapor in the mixed layer of the atmosphere (up to around 850-800 mb or so), it will indeed absorb more upwelling IR radiation, but it will lead to net cooling in the middle and upper troposphere. You need more water vapor in the upper troposphere for the water vapor feedback to be positive  and lead to increased downwelling of IR. If the upper troposphere warms it certainly can hold more water vapor, however that depends on convection and other atmospheric and cloud physical processes. Just because its warmer does not mean the specific humidity will increase, especially well above the lower atmosphere. This is the big question in the whole climate change "debate". It will determine how much warming we see or don't see... 

 

[Msalgado]

We've gone over this before, but now you're "disagreeing" with data.  That is CERES data which is based on GOES and MODIS observations.  In other words, the relationship there shows a clear feedback as the inreasing TPW results in less outgoing IR measured outside of the atmosphere. 

 

You can disagree all you want, but that doesn't make the data wrong.  It just shows you're not listening to the data.

[chubbs]

On 12/19/2016 at 6:12 PM, blizzard1024 said:

 

Again, I respectively disagree here. If you increase water vapor in the mixed layer of the atmosphere (up to around 850-800 mb or so), it will indeed absorb more upwelling IR radiation, but it will lead to net cooling in the middle and upper troposphere. You need more water vapor in the upper troposphere for the water vapor feedback to be positive  and lead to increased downwelling of IR. If the upper troposphere warms it certainly can hold more water vapor, however that depends on convection and other atmospheric and cloud physical processes. Just because its warmer does not mean the specific humidity will increase, especially well above the lower atmosphere. This is the big question in the whole climate change "debate". It will determine how much warming we see or don't see... 

 

Four years of AIRS data for the tropics showing the change in relative humidity and water vapor with height in the atmosphere as the surface temperature increases. Relative humidity  is roughly constant while water vapor increases with increasing surface temperature throughout the troposphere.

 

 

[chubbs]

1 minute ago, chubbs said:

Four years of AIRS data for the tropics showing the change in relative humidity and water vapor with height in the atmosphere as the surface temperature increases. Relative humidity  is roughly constant while water vapor increases with increasing surface temperature throughout the troposphere.

 

[chubbs]

UK met office going for a relatively warm 2017, just below 2015 but well above prior years. 

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/2016/global-forecast-2017

[donsutherland1]

12 hours ago, chubbs said:

UK met office going for a relatively warm 2017, just below 2015 but well above prior years. 

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/2016/global-forecast-2017

Following weak La Niña conditions and a year ahead with a predominantly neutral ENSO, that's very impressive warmth (if it verifies). Overall, the long-term rise in global temperatures is continuing as expected by the body of climate science research.

[blizzard1024]

 

 

Below is the Atmospheric specific humidity at 300 mb, 600 mb and 1000 mb suggesting moistening in the lower levels, slight rise at 600 mb and falling water vapor

at 300 mb. This suggests a negative feedback. 

 

Another dataset that is based on satellite suggests near steady total water vapor for the ICCSP cloud project. This data ends in 2009, but the Earth warmed during this time. 

So this data suggests a neutral feedback. 

 

\

The AIRS data may correlate well in the short term as does the reanalysis data showing a warmer and moister upper troposphere early 2016. 

But the long term data suggest at least a neutral or negative water vapor feedback where it matters, the upper troposphere. This is different than

the short term climatic variations. I didn't even include the Paltdrige et al 2009 study... 

 

[BillT]

my understanding of climate is the "climate" is the average of the weather statistics from the previous 30 years for a given area.....which means the climate is NOT some force, it has NO power, and exerts NO control over any weather event.......as with any statistical average when the numbers being used constantly change then obviously the "average"(climate) also constantly changes.......also i never see a margin of error given when claiming some single temperature as the global temperature, my opinion is we do NOT have the ability to measure the global temperature with the precision being claimed(hundredths of a degree).

[FloridaJohn]

18 hours ago, chubbs said:

UK met office going for a relatively warm 2017, just below 2015 but well above prior years. 

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/2016/global-forecast-2017

 

2 hours ago, BillT said:

my understanding of climate is the "climate" is the average of the weather statistics from the previous 30 years for a given area.....which means the climate is NOT some force, it has NO power, and exerts NO control over any weather event.......as with any statistical average when the numbers being used constantly change then obviously the "average"(climate) also constantly changes.......also i never see a margin of error given when claiming some single temperature as the global temperature, my opinion is we do NOT have the ability to measure the global temperature with the precision being claimed(hundredths of a degree).

Take a look at the graph posted earlier (also quoted above yours in this post). See that black line down the middle? That is the "average" temperature. See that grey shading around the central black line? That is the margin or error. So now you have seen a margin of error given when claiming some single temperature as the global temperature. The margin of error is quite often given in these data sets, so it is surprising you have never seen it before. I guess now you have, so one less thing to worry about, I suppose!