Global Average Temperature 2023

[donsutherland1]

10 minutes ago, bdgwx said:

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

And still the world remains largely on autopilot with fossil fuel production expanding even as renewables expand. The former needs to be phased out, and increasingly rapidly, to offset the consequences of delay and hold the global temperature increase to 1.5°C above the pre-industrial level.

[bdgwx]

There is a lot of a information coming out today. Sorry for the rapid posting. Anyway, the April CERES Earth Energy Imbalance came in at +1.81 W/m2. 

I realize the CERES EEI calculations have high uncertainty, but if the EEI truly is this high then there is more than enough warming in the pipeline to go well beyond 1.5 C. 

 

[bdgwx]

Nick Stokes just processed the June GHCN-M and ERSST files. I estimate the GISTEMP value for June at 1.09 ± 0.06 C.

[Typhoon Tip]

This is kinda cute ... the hottest actual day in history -

https://phys.org/news/2023-07-monday-world-hottest-day.html

[GaWx]

1 hour ago, Typhoon Tip said:

This is kinda cute ... the hottest actual day in history -

https://phys.org/news/2023-07-monday-world-hottest-day.html

And per this same source 7/4/23 just came in at an astounding +17.18C vs the previous record breaker of +17.01C on 7/3/23! The world temperature has risen a whopping 0.43C over just a three day period as it was +16.75C on 7/1/23! The world anomaly has risen 0.42C during the same period assuming this source is accurate:

https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/t2_daily/

 Does anyone know how accurate this source is and whether or not it has a known bias?

 "This page provides time series and map visualizations of daily mean 2-meter air temperature from the NCEP Climate Forecast System (CFS) version 2 (April 2011 – present) and CFS Reanalysis (January 1979 – March 2011). CFS/CFSR is a numerical climate/weather modeling framework that ingests surface, radiosonde, and satellite observations to estimate the state of the atmosphere at hourly time resolution onward from 1 January 1979. The horizontal gridcell resolution is 0.5°x0.5° (~ 55km at 45°N). Temperature anomalies are in reference to 1979–2000 climatology for each specific day of the year."

[HailMan06]

Made it onto the home page of CNBC.

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/07/05/climate-crisis-world-registers-hottest-day-since-records-began.html

[GaWx]

3 hours ago, GaWx said:

And per this same source 7/4/23 just came in at an astounding +17.18C vs the previous record breaker of +17.01C on 7/3/23! The world temperature has risen a whopping 0.43C over just a three day period as it was +16.75C on 7/1/23! The world anomaly has risen 0.42C during the same period assuming this source is accurate:

https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/t2_daily/

 Does anyone know how accurate this source is and whether or not it has a known bias?

 "This page provides time series and map visualizations of daily mean 2-meter air temperature from the NCEP Climate Forecast System (CFS) version 2 (April 2011 – present) and CFS Reanalysis (January 1979 – March 2011). CFS/CFSR is a numerical climate/weather modeling framework that ingests surface, radiosonde, and satellite observations to estimate the state of the atmosphere at hourly time resolution onward from 1 January 1979. The horizontal gridcell resolution is 0.5°x0.5° (~ 55km at 45°N). Temperature anomalies are in reference to 1979–2000 climatology for each specific day of the year."

 Here's a pro met's Tweet addressing this source that I just was pointed to by an AmericanWx member met. posting at another board. He suggests caution in using it as an accurate source for climate analysis and instead using ERA5 from Copernicus ECMWF as the most trusted source. He says this is based on a 2009 version of the GFS:

 Any opinions about using ERA5 from Copernicus ECMWF instead of this University of Maine source? How is the global temperature looking on ERA5 compared to this?

[Typhoon Tip]

Yeah this is a developing story - ... instrumentation/validation ongoing or not.

Phys.org has been reposting para science (among a broad spectrum of others) on climate change for years.  They don't 'change' the report content.  And they also link to the source.  So it is what it is...

https://phys.org/news/2023-07-monday-global-hottest-day-tuesday.html

For those reliant on invalidating ... bear in mind, if the curve is ascending, at some point in time, a given moment has to be the warmest ever.  Otherwise...the slope of the curve is descending -  ... If Monday or yesterday was not "caught in the act" ... tomorrow or the next day probably would have been.

[bdgwx]

3 hours ago, GaWx said:

Here's a pro met's Tweet addressing this source that I just was pointed to by an AmericanWx member met. posting at another board. He suggests caution in using it as an accurate source for climate analysis and instead using ERA5 from Copernicus ECMWF as the most trusted source. He says this is based on a 2009 version of the GFS:

Any opinions about using ERA5 from Copernicus ECMWF instead of this University of Maine source? How is the global temperature looking on ERA5 compared to this?

I was actually getting ready to respond to your question from this morning. I don't use CFSR for my own modeling because it's skill is subpar. Of the reanalysis datasets I generally use ERA5 and/or JRA55. That doesn't mean CFSR should be dismissed though. It's correlation with ERA and JRA is still very high.

I use ERA5 a lot. In fact, it is one of my go-to sources for getting an early lead on what GISTEMP is going to report since it correlates at R^2 = 0.89. Note that Copernicus confirmed the new record via ERA5. And it's likely July 4th eclipsed that as well. ERA5 has a 2 day lag so we don't know for sure yet.

 

[GaWx]

52 minutes ago, bdgwx said:

I was actually getting ready to respond to your question from this morning. I don't use CFSR for my own modeling because it's skill is subpar. Of the reanalysis datasets I generally use ERA5 and/or JRA55. That doesn't mean CFSR should be dismissed though. It's correlation with ERA and JRA is still very high.

I use ERA5 a lot. In fact, it is one of my go-to sources for getting an early lead on what GISTEMP is going to report since it correlates at R^2 = 0.89. Note that Copernicus confirmed the new record via ERA5. And it's likely July 4th eclipsed that as well. ERA5 has a 2 day lag so we don't know for sure yet.

 

 Thank you. Just comparing the CFSR and ERA5 curves shows the very strong correlation between the two. The main difference appears to be that ERA5 has often been ~0.1C cooler, including the last few days. So, CFSR may be warm biased though only slightly (0.1C) assuming ERA5 isn't cool biased. Otherwise, it appears that the daily change of CFSR for a particular date can probably be used as a pretty good proxy for the change that ERA5 later shows for the same date. Thus I agree with your feeling that the daily CFSR still has value since it comes out earlier and thus can be used to predict ERA5 daily moves.

[bdgwx]

6 minutes ago, GaWx said:

 Thank you. Just comparing the CFSR and ERA5 curves shows the very strong correlation between the two. The main difference appears to be that ERA5 has often been ~0.1C cooler, including the last few days. So, CFSR may be warm biased though only slightly (0.1C) assuming ERA5 isn't cool biased. Otherwise, it appears that the daily change of CFSR for a particular date can probably be used as a pretty good proxy for the change that ERA5 later shows for the same date. Thus I agree with your feeling that the daily CFSR still has value since it comes out earlier and thus can be used to predict ERA5 daily moves.

Exactly. It's like how we use CDAS to track ENSO. It's not the best metric. But it's close enough to give us a pretty good idea of what ERSST is going to show. And since CDAS is near real-time it is still incredibly useful.

[MDScienceTeacher]

On 6/11/2023 at 3:37 PM, bdgwx said:

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%.

 

What does 1.10 ± 0.16 C mean? Is this the Average Global Temp anomaly for the month of June?

[GaWx]

The latest update of CFSR fwiw (for July 5th) shows no change since July 4th with it still at 17.18C. We'll see whether or not this dataset is topping.

https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/t2_daily/

[bdgwx]

What does 1.10 ± 0.16 C mean? Is this the Average Global Temp anomaly for the month of June?

Yes for GISTEMP on the 1951-1980 baseline. With more data that has been refined to 1.09 ± 0.06 C.

Sent from my Pixel 5a using Tapatalk

[chubbs]

As expected, ERA also ticked higher on the 4'th

[chubbs]

Another "warmest day ever" yesterday on CFS. Could be the peak, per Hausteins site, but the fall doesn't look to severe. More significant than the "warmest day ever" is the prolonged period of daily records since early June and the margin over previous years. A sign that this nino could send global temps well beyond 2016.

[Typhoon Tip]

8 hours ago, chubbs said:

Another "warmest day ever" yesterday on CFS. Could be the peak, per Hausteins site, but the fall doesn't look to severe. More significant than the "warmest day ever" is the prolonged period of daily records since early June and the margin over previous years. A sign that this nino could send global temps well beyond 2016.

Perhaps -

You know? there's a real-time, existential aspect about this presently that I find really interesting.  We are at the top edge, perhaps witnessing global warming in the moment.

Normally,the state of a planetary day is one beneath that edge at any given time. We are reading about when x-y-z record occurred in the past ... how then the global mean rose(fell).

Perhaps this is perfect timing, emerging a synergistic feedback from two forces that are causing a short term ( we hope) acceleration at an entire planetary scale.  I mean, we're not talking about quadrature, this is whole world in the midst of a gaudy spark ... truly instantaneous in geological time scales. 

I've often mused in here in the past, and elsewhere ... the biggest problem with humanity's acceptance ( though that's changing, finally - still not fast enough) was always the abstracted nature of climate change.  It simply doesn't directly appeal to the physical senses. If you tell a person to move off the train track because you happen to know a train is coming around the bend very soon, the person doesn't react to move off the track. No. They first hesitate to observe the approaching locomotive - then, they might move depending upon the result of confirmation. However, obviously if they are warned to move off the track while the train is clearly visible and is audibly unmistakable, they don't wait to gather in their senses in the matter they move f- off with certain haste.  Humanity is like that with climate change.  We're in this ominous period of looking around and listening, trying observe a phenomenon that only until quite recently ... was utterly unknowable beyond climate statisticians and advanced predictive modeling ..etc.

This whole 'denial' - more like apprehension to belief - phenomenon is perhaps more a biological/evolutionary issue than it really is about denying. Denying is/was always temporary, ... while "slow response to threat mechanics in large groups" plays out, and is just a manifestation of a very intriguing hypothesis *(to me)

The advent in human evolution for ingenuity and "math," outpaced the human evolution for how it is our biology samples reality.

[A-L-E-K]

classic tip

[Stormchaserchuck1]

I don't know about that.. maybe people are biased to their personal experiences. Everything about the society seems to "even out". 

[chubbs]

A couple of recent estimates of impact of marine sulfur rules which took effect in 2020. Bottom line - not significant on a global-scale, roughly 1 year at current global warming rate of roughly 0.2C per decade. More significant though on a regional basis. Not the main cause of the recent spate of daily records,

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-low-sulphur-shipping-rules-are-affecting-global-warming/

[bdgwx]

Berkeley Earth is now saying there is an 81% chance that 2023 will be the warmest in their dataset.

https://berkeleyearth.org/june-2023-temperature-update/

 

[chubbs]

18 hours ago, bdgwx said:

Berkeley Earth is now saying there is an 81% chance that 2023 will be the warmest in their dataset.

https://berkeleyearth.org/june-2023-temperature-update/

GISS June will be 1.11 if it braks

 

June GISS will be 1.11 if it breaks last years record by the same amount as Berkeley Earth.

 

[bdgwx]

GISS published the June update for GISTEMP. It came in at 1.07 C.

Here are the changes on this update cycle.

Jan: 0.87 => 0.86

Feb: 0.98 => 0.97

Mar: 1.21 => 1.20

Apr: 1.00 => 1.00

May: 0.94 => 0.93

Here is my updated analysis.

Jan: 0.86 ± 0.01 C (3m lagged ENSO -0.99)

Feb: 0.97 ± 0.01 C (3m lagged ENSO -0.90)

Mar: 1.20 ± 0.01 C (3m lagged ENSO -0.86)

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

May: 0.93 ± 0.01 C (3m lagged ENSO -0.46)

Jun: 1.07 ± 0.02 C (3m lagged ENSO -0.11)

Jul: 1.11 ± 0.16 C (3m lagged ENSO +0.14)

Aug: 1.05 ± 0.22 C (3m lagged ENSO +0.46)

Sep: 1.09 ± 0.23 C (3m lagged ENSO +0.86)

Oct: 1.15 ± 0.24 C (predicted 3m lagged ENSO +1.03)

Nov: 1.17 ± 0.25 C (predicted 3m lagged ENSO +1.17)

Dec: 1.17 ± 0.26 C (predicted 3m lagged ENSO +1.26)

Jan - Jun average: 1.01 C

Jul - Dec predicted average: 1.12 C

2023 Average: 1.062 ± 0.07 with 80% chance of >= 1.03 (new record) and 60% chance >= 1.05.

[chubbs]

1 hour ago, bdgwx said:

GISS published the June update for GISTEMP. It came in at 1.07 C.

Here are the changes on this update cycle.

Jan: 0.87 => 0.86

Feb: 0.98 => 0.97

Mar: 1.21 => 1.20

Apr: 1.00 => 1.00

May: 0.94 => 0.93

Here is my updated analysis.

Jan: 0.86 ± 0.01 C (3m lagged ENSO -0.99)

Feb: 0.97 ± 0.01 C (3m lagged ENSO -0.90)

Mar: 1.20 ± 0.01 C (3m lagged ENSO -0.86)

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

May: 0.93 ± 0.01 C (3m lagged ENSO -0.46)

Jun: 1.07 ± 0.02 C (3m lagged ENSO -0.11)

Jul: 1.11 ± 0.16 C (3m lagged ENSO +0.14)

Aug: 1.05 ± 0.22 C (3m lagged ENSO +0.46)

Sep: 1.09 ± 0.23 C (3m lagged ENSO +0.86)

Oct: 1.15 ± 0.24 C (predicted 3m lagged ENSO +1.03)

Nov: 1.17 ± 0.25 C (predicted 3m lagged ENSO +1.17)

Dec: 1.17 ± 0.26 C (predicted 3m lagged ENSO +1.26)

Jan - Jun average: 1.01 C

Jul - Dec predicted average: 1.12 C

2023 Average: 1.062 ± 0.07 with 80% chance of >= 1.03 (new record) and 60% chance >= 1.05.

Looks like GISS lowered some of the monthly values in 2016 and 2020, now 1.01 is the record instead of 1.02. Since Kalshi defines a record as 1.03, possible to break the record and not get paid.

[bdgwx]

1 hour ago, chubbs said:

Looks like GISS lowered some of the monthly values in 2016 and 2020, now 1.01 is the record instead of 1.02. Since Kalshi defines a record as 1.03, possible to break the record and not get paid.

Yeah. That is interesting. My guess is that there was a larger than usual data upload into GHCN and ERSST this month. I know there are ongoing record digitization efforts so it's possible some newly digitized records got uploaded.

I had to deal with this situation in 2020 as well. The 2016 value was hovering very near a 0.005 value causing near monthly rounding changes. That market was based on 2020 being higher than 2016 when rounded to 2 decimal places. So I had to track both 2016 and 2020 values down to 3 decimal places which required running a modified version of GISTEMP on my own machine. Fortunately like you say Kalshi is strictly defined as >= 1.03 regardless of what 2016 and 2020 are doing. 

One strategy I was thinking of was to cash out my position on the >= 1.03 contract and take my gains and instead try to play the new 1.05 - 1.07 contract. The 1.05 - 1.07 contract is undervalued according to my analysis. The problem is that there isn't a lot of market depth on that contract. A mere $99 will take it from $0.20 to $0.69 instantly. I show a fair value around $0.60. So that play isn't going to work right now. And I only show maybe another $0.10 gain on the >= 1.03 contract before it reaches fair value. I think the opportunities via Kalshi are limited right now.

My initial impression of the Kalshi is meh. I don't think it has been correctly valuing the contracts. It seems to be very reactionary leading me to believe that there are very few participants using predictive tools. The other markets I've tracked in the past had more participants and more educated/sophisticated participants at that resulting in the market being a leading indicator instead of a lagging indicator like what Kalshi is. So be it I guess. It's easier to get an edge this way.

 

[GaWx]

@bdgwx @chubbs and others,

 Did any of you see what the ERA5/Copernicus peaked at in early July? I'd like to compare it to the CFSR peak. I'd be shocked if it weren't slightly cooler as ERA5 generally runs slightly cooler than CFSR (~~0.1 C cooler recently).

[bdgwx]

1 hour ago, GaWx said:

@bdgwx @chubbs and others,

 Did any of you see what the ERA5/Copernicus peaked at in early July? I'd like to compare it to the CFSR peak. I'd be shocked if it weren't slightly cooler as ERA5 generally runs slightly cooler than CFSR (~~0.1 C cooler recently).

I don't have an exact value since I don't typically download daily ERA5 data (it's a lot of work). But here is the twitter post.

 

[bdgwx]

It might be important to note that my predictions are based on GISTEMP lagging ENSO by 3 months. I know other analysis say it is 4-5 months and that is what I get for the satellite datasets, but my modeling hones in on 3 months for the surface datasets. I'm also using an equal weighting of the statistical and dynamic model averages from the IRI ensemble. That is [statistical_average] + [dynamic_average] / 2. I debated on whether to use the "Average, all Models" line in the table and decided against it since it weights the dynamic models more heavily because there are more of them. Based on what I've seen dynamic models are superior Jan-May (through the spring predictability barrier), but then statistical models have similar skill from June onward. For that reason I wanted to equally weight them. That may end up causing my global average temperatures to be conservative since statistical models basically say this ENSO cycle has peaked which seems unlikely.

One last thing...Hansen's monthly email came through today. He does not mince words. He says the warming rate has likely accelerated due to the extremely high Earth energy imbalance. If that is the case then that may contribute to me underestimating the global average temperature increase as well.

[GaWx]

1 hour ago, bdgwx said:

I don't have an exact value since I don't typically download daily ERA5 data (it's a lot of work). But here is the twitter post.

 

 Thank you. Based on this graph, I'm estimating that ERA5 peaked at 17.08-17.09C, which is close to what I expected based on the CFSR peak of 17.23C (July 6th) since ERA5 is often 0.1 to 0.15 cooler than CFSR.

[csnavywx]

6 hours ago, bdgwx said:

It might be important to note that my predictions are based on GISTEMP lagging ENSO by 3 months. I know other analysis say it is 4-5 months and that is what I get for the satellite datasets, but my modeling hones in on 3 months for the surface datasets. I'm also using an equal weighting of the statistical and dynamic model averages from the IRI ensemble. That is [statistical_average] + [dynamic_average] / 2. I debated on whether to use the "Average, all Models" line in the table and decided against it since it weights the dynamic models more heavily because there are more of them. Based on what I've seen dynamic models are superior Jan-May (through the spring predictability barrier), but then statistical models have similar skill from June onward. For that reason I wanted to equally weight them. That may end up causing my global average temperatures to be conservative since statistical models basically say this ENSO cycle has peaked which seems unlikely.

One last thing...Hansen's monthly email came through today. He does not mince words. He says the warming rate has likely accelerated due to the extremely high Earth energy imbalance. If that is the case then that may contribute to me underestimating the global average temperature increase as well.

Good thing is that we're going to be able to test this prediction pretty soon. Agree that this year was like a coiled spring from a global temp standpoint. Key will be to see where that spring manages to jump to.