Global Average Temperature 2023

[bdgwx]

With the onset of El Nino and the possibility that 2023 could be a new record in some datasets I thought it might be nice to start a thread dedicated to the 2023 global average temperature.

As of this posting the Kalshi prediction market for a new record according to GISTEMP is trading at $0.31. 

https://kalshi.com/markets/gtemp/global-average-temperature-deviation

The Brown & Caldiera 2020 method is showing about a 50% probability of a new record for 2023 with a 76% chance of such for 2024.

https://www.weatherclimatehumansystems.org/global-temperature-forecast

My own machine learning model is saying there is about a 50% chance as well so this could be close.

 

[chubbs]

28 minutes ago, bdgwx said:

With the onset of El Nino and the possibility that 2023 could be a new record in some datasets I thought it might be nice to start a thread dedicated to the 2023.

As of this posting the Kalshi prediction market for a new record according to GISTEMP is trading at $0.31. 

https://kalshi.com/markets/gtemp/global-average-temperature-deviation

The Brown & Caldiera 2020 method is showing about a 50% probability of a new record for 2023 with a 76% chance of such for 2024.

https://www.weatherclimatehumansystems.org/global-temperature-forecast

My own machine learning model is saying there is about a 50% chance as well so this could be close.

 

I made an initial bet at Kalshi this week. Looks like a big enso swing this year and per chart below the satellite measured energy imbalance is at record levels.

 

[bdgwx]

On 6/8/2023 at 2:07 PM, chubbs said:

I made an initial bet at Kalshi this week. Looks like a big enso swing this year and per chart below the satellite measured energy imbalance is at record levels.

Yep. I just setup my account today. I'll probably engage next week. Obviously I think the market is undervalued.

I just updated my model with the latest data a few minutes ago. Below are my current expectations with 2σ confidence intervals. This averages out to 1.05 C. I'm estimating the uncertainty on the average at about ±0.09 C right now. That puts the probability of >= 1.03 at about 67%. My hunch tells me that is high. But past experience also tells me that hunches are terrible predictors so I don't know.

Interestingly I don't actually have my model setup to optimally predict GISTEMP right now. I have it setup in a non-autocorrelated mode because I use it primarily to help explain the long term trend and short term variability; not to actually make informed near term predictions. I'll see if I can get it better tuned for 6 month lead time predictions. I also need to get the GISTEMP source code running on my machine again. I was actually running it a few years ago when I participated in another prediction market. I can use it to drive down the current month prediction uncertainty if I can get the daily ERSST and GHCN-M files incorporated into it.

Note #1. The June uncertainty is still high because only 1 week of data is in. The uncertainty improves throughout the month.

Note #2. My model has been low biased the first 4 months of the year so far.

Note #3. I usually list the last few reported months as ±0.01-0.02 C because some observations are delayed by a few months getting into the repositories. Older months can change as well. It's just not as likely as the last few months.

Jan: 0.86 ± 0.00 C

Feb: 0.97 ± 0.01 C

Mar: 1.20 ± 0.01 C

Apr: 1.00 ± 0.02 C

May: 1.05 ± 0.18 C

Jun: 1.03 ± 0.22 C

Jul: 1.02 ± 0.23 C

Aug: 1.04 ± 0.24 C

Sep: 1.07 ± 0.26 C

Oct: 1.10 ± 0.26 C

Nov: 1.12 ± 0.26 C

Dec: 1.13 ± 0.26 C

2023 Average: 1.05 ± 0.09 with 67% chance of a new record (>= 1.03)

[Typhoon Tip]

I'm pretty sure "GIStemp" is right around 98.6 degrees - what am I missing?

[chubbs]

CFS re-analysis temps are toasty this month. Roughly 3-months after daily satellite SST spiked to record territory in March. Since March, daily SST have moved further into record territory. Will temperatures lag SST and stay elevated?

[TheClimateChanger]

This is why I always use to say I’m a climate skeptic. Skeptical that it wasn’t much worse than the mainstream view, not that it wasn’t happening. They say it’s warmed 1C since preindustrial, but in fact it’s warmed nearly 1C just since  the 1981-2010 average. This should be a smoking gun that they’ve been downplaying this, but I doubt that’s how many will report it.

[bdgwx]

The current data is interesting to say the least. I've been tracking both the record setting daily SST and daily 2mT. I'm not sure what to think of this. These are such extreme anomalies that they are statistically unlikely to persist even in a warming world so it makes me think they are transient and there will be a reversion to the trend soon. 

I have my model updated to better predict near term GISTEMP values. My May GISTEMP expectation is still 1.05 C, but with a much reduced uncertainty of ±0.08 C. And even though the May update isn't even published yet I'm already starting to see a big jump up in the June expectation given the current data. I'm going to go with 1.10 ± 0.16 C for June. And that could be low if temperatures don't come down from the first 1/3 of the month. I'm not going to post the monthly breakdown until the May GISTEMP and June IRI ENSO forecast are published, but a sneak peak of the final 2023 expectation does get bumped up to 1.07 ± 0.09 which puts the odds of a new record at 78%.

 

[bdgwx]

6 hours ago, TheClimateChanger said:

This is why I always use to say I’m a climate skeptic. Skeptical that it wasn’t much worse than the mainstream view, not that it wasn’t happening. They say it’s warmed 1C since preindustrial, but in fact it’s warmed nearly 1C just since  the 1981-2010 average. This should be a smoking gun that they’ve been downplaying this, but I doubt that’s how many will report it.

I hear what you saying. I take more of conservative position myself, but I will say that Hansen et al. 2022 indict the scientific community and especially the IPCC of "gradualism" so you've got support from others regarding your position. And we're talking about big names like Hansen, Schuckmann, Loeb, etc. who made this indictment.

[Typhoon Tip]

On 6/11/2023 at 4:06 PM, bdgwx said:

I hear what you saying. I take more of conservative position myself, but I will say that Hansen et al. 2022 indict the scientific community and especially the IPCC of "gradualism" so you've got support from others regarding your position. And we're talking about big names like Hansen, Schuckmann, Loeb, etc. who made this indictment.

The original climate change warnings that only smoldered in the 1980s and 1990s were the result of more primitive tools, those that projected a  linear rise.  The evidences for faster accelerating along the various predicted climate-change-impacts … of the growing oh-my-god-manifold has really just begun recent to the ~ 10 to 15 years.  

Imho, that's causing some lag in the response pattern of behavior. Human civility is (obviously) vast compared to a single individual, thus the adaptation to change rate will be slower.  Groups being faster than the throng... and the throng much faster than the society.  Etc.

Also, you know ... there's always been a kind of necessary "wait and see" aspect with the climate change response - not the same thing as denial, a different sociological/psychological response, though related.

My take on humanity ( and I say 'humanity,' because it is the human response to uncertainty - ) now that I am middle age and have suffered the vicissitudes of this crazy circus for awhile ...is that when presented with a dire warnings of rates of change, those that are not fixed, thus, lack a predictable end game  - there's a kind of scatter plot of reaction types that will happen - invitation to the speculation game.  The journey thus far has fed both the healthy skepticism, AND, denial sides of the aisle.  

But it is also compounded when the science ambit that is reporting the change can only admit that their theoretical work, as far as what it will mean for a future, isn't known to a very good precision. 

For "denialism" it doesn't take a PHD in sociology to see how that motivates suspicion.  For the other, it looks like agenda either way.

I have opined around this social media and elsewhere ... you know what the real problem with Global Climate Change is?  It's that it doesn't have very obvious 'corporeal advocates.'  What I mean by that, it doesn't directly appeal to any of the natural senses. One does not readily see, hear, smell, touch or taste it.  At least spanning the onset decades, it never had. Only until more recently, the phenomenon itself is just beginning to be felt, or in scenery, what is heard or smelled.  Taste?  Ha, that may not happen until we're eating Soylent Green. 

That's changing now.  The sight of yellowing skies, the feel of synergistic heat waves, the smell of conflagration and just knowing its acrid origin is actually many, many thousands of KM away.  To name a few, those are now beginning to appeal to the actual senses - those natural 'USB ports' that connect us with the cosmos and reality, 'downloading' what is actually real. And as biological evolution provided, were always the traditional means (and instinctive means) by which organisms of this world trigger reaction.

By the larger circumstance of proximity and other protections still provided by the ethereal Industrial bubble, not enough of the human space is yet "plugged in".

[TheClimateChanger]

I've seen a little chatter on Twitter that the recent warming may be related in part to a reduction in sulfur emissions from shipping and/or water vapor from the 2022 Hunga Tonga eruption. I don't buy either of these theories - First, aerosol optical depth across the northern Atlantic has been much higher than typical due to the intense plumes of smoke from the Canadian wildfires. Moreover, wildfire smoke has a greater cooler potential by mass than sulfate aerosols emitted by shipping, and can be lofted into the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere by pyrocumulonimbus and even downstream convection. The North Atlantic heat wave is happening IN SPITE OF very high levels of climate-cooling aerosols, not DUE TO low levels of aerosols.

As for the volcano theory, this theory is basically akin to a "volcanic summer" - i.e., a brief, but rapid, warming due to stratospheric water vapor. Doing some research, I could find zero evidence that this phenomenon has ever been observed prior to 2022. There can be warming from volcanoes, but it's usually due to a series of volcanoes or a few intense eruptions emitting large amounts of greenhouse gases and follows an intense volcanic winter. Obviously, Hunga Tonga is not the first explosive undersea volcano - nearly 70% of earth's surface is covered by water, so there's likely been a lot more of those type of eruptions than explosive terrestrial eruptions. Despite this, there is zero evidence of a volcanic summer ever occurring, which would be easy to detect. They've detected numerous volcanic winters. Any impact from Hunga Tonga is likely minimal, and if anything more likely to have resulted in some cooling of the climate system.

In my opinion, the warming is more likely the result of continued, record-breaking, emissions of greenhouse gases, rapidly developing El Nino conditions, and perhaps positive feedback loops being triggered, with the two mechanisms proposed above a very small part of any observed warming.

[bdgwx]

I'm skeptical of the Hunga Tonga effect myself. I've been tracking stratospheric temperature anomalies since the eruption and while there were very noticeable effects for about 8 months I can no longer see much of an effect. That's not to say that I don't think it will cause some warming, but I think it will be low enough that it will be indistinguishable from the noise. 

I do think there is merit to the marine aerosol reduction though. Even a tenth of watt change in the Earth energy imbalance (EEI) would be significant. Many of the marine emission rules went into effect in 2020 so it quite possible that at least some of the record setting temperatures can be traced back to the high EEI. If you look at @chubbs post above you'll see the CERES EEI is now +1.5 W/m2. CERES EEI calculations are known to have high uncertainty [Loeb et al. 2021], but +1.5 W/m2 is still high enough to raise eyebrows.

There's no doubt that the main contribution of the higher 2023 temperatures is GHGs though. I think what is catching some off guard (like myself) is that the temperatures are higher than our expectations given that the 4 month lagged ONI corresponding to May was -0.7...well into La Nina territory. In other words, we're still under the La Nina influence albeit transitioning out now. Is it transient variation or is the warming really accelerating?

One other significant contributing factor to the North Atlantic SSTs are believed to be high due to very low Saharan dust levels.

 

[chubbs]

On 6/12/2023 at 12:22 PM, bdgwx said:

I'm skeptical of the Hunga Tonga effect myself. I've been tracking stratospheric temperature anomalies since the eruption and while there were very noticeable effects for about 8 months I can no longer see much of an effect. That's not to say that I don't think it will cause some warming, but I think it will be low enough that it will be indistinguishable from the noise. 

I do think there is merit to the marine aerosol reduction though. Even a tenth of watt change in the Earth energy imbalance (EEI) would be significant. Many of the marine emission rules went into effect in 2020 so it quite possible that at least some of the record setting temperatures can be traced back to the high EEI. If you look at @chubbs post above you'll see the CERES EEI is now +1.5 W/m2. CERES EEI calculations are known to have high uncertainty [Loeb et al. 2021], but +1.5 W/m2 is still high enough to raise eyebrows.

There's no doubt that the main contribution of the higher 2023 temperatures is GHGs though. I think what is catching some off guard (like myself) is that the temperatures are higher than our expectations given that the 4 month lagged ONI corresponding to May was -0.7...well into La Nina territory. In other words, we're still under the La Nina influence albeit transitioning out now. Is it transient variation or is the warming really accelerating?

One other significant contributing factor to the North Atlantic SSTs are believed to be high due to very low Saharan dust levels.

 

Agree with this. GHG are the problem.  The oceans and aerosols are holding temperatures in check, but you can't count on either for the long term. Need to be careful about over-interpreting month-to-month temperature swings. The marine sulfur rules had a very short-term impact. The aerosols disappeared in a week or two in early 2020. El nino is going to have a much larger impact on this years temperatures than marine sulfur. As you say though some of this years early warmth is probably due to other causes. In any case, temperature records in years that transitioned to el nino are not that unusual: 86, 97, 02, 09 and 14 all set records.

[bdgwx]

The May GISTEMP value came in at 0.94 C. This was a massive deviation and miss from my 1.05 ± 0.08 C expectation. A miss of that magnitude does not happen very often. And because May came in so much lower than my expectation my current June expectation drops to 1.06 ± 0.15 C. However, the Jan, Feb, and Mar values all came in 0.01 C higher so instead of dropping 0.11 from the yearly sum we only dropped 0.08 so the impact on the yearly average isn't as much as one might naively think. My current expectation for the full year average is now 1.05 ± 0.09 resulting in a probability of a new record (>= 1.03 C) of 67%. 

I should note that Nick Stokes' TempLS dataset has a very high correlation with GISTEMP (R^2 = 0.97) and gets released several days prior to GISTEMP. His dataset was suggesting the May anomaly would come in at 0.96 ± 0.06 C. As of the time of my 1.05 ± 0.08 C expectation I was not exploiting Nick's data. I will do so going forward.

[chubbs]

 

[bdgwx]

ERA has a pretty high correlation with the traditional datasets. It correlates with GISTEMP at R^2 = 0.89.

It's the same as JRA. The previous record via JRA was +0.34 (1991-2020 baseline) in 2019. So far the 2023 June value is +0.61. JRA correlation with GISTEMP is R^2 = 0.89

https://climatlas.com/temperature/jra55_temperature.php

Similarly with the GFS as well. The previous record via GFS was +0.55 (1981-2010 baseline) in 2019. So far in 2023 June value is 0.68. GFS correlation with GISTEMP is R^2 = 0.78

http://www.karstenhaustein.com/climate.php

 

 

[chubbs]

Per this chart, Honga Tonga had a net cooling effect but it is fading rapidly. The cooling effect was a bigger peturbation than marine SOx at its peak.

https://github.com/ClimateIndicator/forcing-timeseries/tree/main/plots

 

[chubbs]

This chart, based on ERA5, provides a clearer day-by-day comparison of 2023 vs the previous record holders. Flip to nino occurred early enough in year to allow a record. We'll see if recent warming is maintained or there is a fall back to temps closer to 2016 and 2020.

https://climate.copernicus.eu/tracking-breaches-150c-global-warming-threshold?utm_source=tw&utm_medium=socialmedia&utm_campaign=globalwarminglimit-june23

 

[bdgwx]

On 6/15/2023 at 4:52 AM, chubbs said:

Per this chart, Honga Tonga had a net cooling effect but it is fading rapidly. The cooling effect was a bigger peturbation than marine SOx at its peak.

https://github.com/ClimateIndicator/forcing-timeseries/tree/main/plots

This is great. I've been looking for an updated volcanic aerosol dataset for awhile now.  I had no idea this existed. They even have it in an easy csv file format and it goes through 2022.

Anyway, it looks like H2O adds about 0.1 W/m2 to the imbalance. Like you said the AOD portion is fading rapidly though so if the H2O portion is long term like scientists are expecting then we should expect a net positive, albeit small, effect from Hunga Tonga soon.

Somewhat interesting...my machine learning model said a 5 month lag with GISTEMP for this volcanic aerosol dataset was optimal. My model was showing a -0.05 C adder to start the year and wanes to -0.02 C by the end after I extrapolate out the AOD decay based on what happened with Pinatubo.

[bdgwx]

Here is my latest expectation for GISTEMP which includes the June IRI ENSO ensemble forecast.

Jan: 0.87 ± 0.01 C (3m lagged ENSO -0.99)

Feb: 0.98 ± 0.01 C (3m lagged ENSO -0.90)

Mar: 1.21 ± 0.01 C (3m lagged ENSO -0.86)

Apr: 1.00 ± 0.01 C (3m lagged ENSO -0.71)

May: 0.94 ± 0.02 C (3m lagged ENSO -0.46)

Jun: 1.05 ± 0.12 C (3m lagged ENSO -0.11)

Jul: 1.03 ± 0.22 C (3m lagged ENSO +0.13)

Aug: 1.06 ± 0.23 C (3m lagged ENSO +0.39)

Sep: 1.10 ± 0.24 C

Oct: 1.13 ± 0.25 C

Nov: 1.16 ± 0.26 C

Dec: 1.17 ± 0.26 C

2023 Average: 1.06 ± 0.08 with 75% chance of a new record (>= 1.03)

[bdgwx]

Berkeley Earth says there is a 54% chance of new record in their dataset. 

 

[bdgwx]

Brown & Caldeira are now saying there is a 57% chance of new GISTEMP record. 

 

[chubbs]

2 hours ago, bdgwx said:

Brown & Caldeira are now saying there is a 57% chance of new GISTEMP record. 

 

Think the odds will only increase as the year progresses. We started in an enso hole this year after 3 years of nina, but the transition to nino has been rapid. June is on track to be the warmest ever(note - SST below, global re-analysis temps for June also in record territory). Expect most of the remaining months this year to also break records.

 

 

 

[bdgwx]

On 6/26/2023 at 10:55 AM, chubbs said:

Think the odds will only increase as the year progresses.

I cannot disagree. If I have understood the Brown & Caldeira method correctly they only make predictions based on the current state of the climate system. In other words they do not take into account the expectation of future ENSO (or other highly correlated climatic element) states. This may explain why I get higher odds of a new record. My model is simpler (more like a multiple regression that minimizes RMSE), but incorporates the future expectation of ENSO and to a lesser extent total solar irradiance (which I do find to be at least minimally correlated with global temperatures). Both of which can be predicted 6 months in advance with reasonable skill. And yes, your point about global SST is well taken. My expectation is that the atmosphere will catch up to the higher SSTs in the next couple of months.  It may be interesting to note that my model does not use SST has an input right now. In that regard one might argue that even I may be underestimating the warming potential in the later half of the year, but I'm going to remain more guarded on that matter as I also think a reversion to the trend may also be on the horizon. Afterall highly deviant increases/decreases tend to reverse some eventually. BTW...my current June expectation for GISTEMP is 1.07 ± 0.10 C. To put that into perspective even taking the ~2.5% chance that it comes in -0.10 C below the expectation at 0.97 C it will still easily surpass the previous record of 0.92 C set all the back in 2022. That should raise some eyebrows.

[TheClimateChanger]

Will the Canadian firestorms produce a hemispheric cooling effect? This is just crazy at this point.

 

[chubbs]

On 6/26/2023 at 2:54 PM, TheClimateChanger said:

Will the Canadian firestorms produce a hemispheric cooling effect? This is just crazy at this point.

 

Not sure what the effect is. It isn't preventing daily re-analysis records. Any cooling effect from the Canadian fires should peak in northern hemi summer and end by late fall.

[chubbs]

Very warm (and stable recently) forecast by gfs for first week of July. Pushing daily reanalysis temperatures further into record-breaking territory. Could break the 17C barrier on the chart posted above.

[bdgwx]

10 hours ago, chubbs said:

Very warm (and stable recently) forecast by gfs for first week of July. Pushing daily reanalysis temperatures further into record-breaking territory. Could break the 17C barrier on the chart posted above.

I was actually getting ready to post the GFS forecast as well. You scooped me.

Anyway, yeah, July is already forecasted to start off quite warm. I noticed that there was a small blip down in the global SST last week. I wonder if that means excess heat is transferring from the ocean into the atmosphere now.

As of this moment my June expectation is a tick up to 1.08 ± 0.10. Once the June data starts rolling in I can get that uncertainty envelop down to ± 0.06 prior to the GISTEMP update. By all indications June 2023 is going to be the warmest June on record.

[chubbs]

[bdgwx]

For the first time in recorded history the global average temperature breached 17 C; at least according to CFSR anyway.

[bdgwx]

Copernicus won't publish the official numbers from ERA5 for another couple days. However, based on Hausfather's twitter post we might expect GISTEMP to publish around 1.10 C for June. ERA5 correlates with GISTEMP at R^2 = 0.89. Note that the previous record was 0.92 C in 2022. It is all but guaranteed at this point that June 2023 will be a new record in the GISTEMP dataset as well.