Global Average Temperature 2024

[Typhoon Tip]

On 12/6/2024 at 8:48 AM, bluewave said:

It really makes you wonder whether study back in 2020 was onto something.

https://e360.yale.edu/features/why-clouds-are-the-key-to-new-troubling-projections-on-warming

Others soon followed. Last month, American and British researchers, led by Zelinka, reported that 10 of 27 models they had surveyed now reckoned warming from doubling CO2 could exceed 4.5 degrees C, with some showing results up to 5.6 degrees. The average warming projected by the suite of models was 3.9 degrees C (7 degrees F), a 30-percent increase on the old IPCC consensus.

French scientists at the National Center for Scientific Research concluded that the new models predicted that rapid economic growth driven by fossil fuels would deliver temperature rises averaging 6 to 7 degrees C (10.8 to 12.6 degrees F) by the end of the century. They warned that keeping warming below 2 degrees C was all but impossible.

ALSO ON YALE E360

Can artificial intelligence help build better, smarter climate models? Read more.

Zelinka said the new estimates of higher climate sensitivity were primarily due to changes made to how the models handled cloud dynamics. The models found that in a warmer world clouds would contain less water than previously thought.

 

not to be condescending to anyone ( really... ) but curves that curve up?  mmm.  i don't feel that specific correcting behavior has raised enough eyebrows, how those curves associated to the warming world have all been going up more like boners.   i get the sense that climate models have been by and large more linear in their deep vision rise-rates of global temperature. when present observation manifold continues to suggest far more synergistic system responses than a mere linear plodding rise, it's all been wrong on the dire side of error.  

it really should have sparked more concern than it has. i've always thought that. 

you know .. as an afterthought - this is a growing frustration.   the world is hesitant to accept that the ways-and-means that's delivered the world into its modern din is really the where sin is.  because obviously that impugns all progresses. - but i'll also add, it's an affront ... an affront to the spirit of the multi-generational ingrained cultural values; to suggest it should have less value? 

this seems to be a common failing of humanity, the "because my grandfathers and their grandfathers" logic.  therefore,  "it can't be wrong"  

the frustration isn't just that wall of impenetrability - it's that now we have to convince the minds on the other side of that wall that it is not only true, but is truer than we thought and happening much sooner.  perhaps existentially threatening. 

  ...that, and the fact that GW is by and large invisible to the actual corporeal senses...  the vast majority of populations are not really equipped to think outside the box of what their five senses tell them about the universe within which they exist  ( getting into a deeper philosophy ...that's the fault of evolution!  ) ... but, think about this:  tell a person at the water cooler about cc this and that, and they'll politely acknowledge and raise that eye brow, return back to their desk, within moments?  re-engaged with whatever it was they were doing and that's that.   however,  punch that person in the face with a cc fist, that becomes a priority,   right quick!  

consequence has to be obvious to human beings.  in fact, the fascinating conjecture follows, doth human innovation outpace the evolutionary placement of a consequential sense?   i've mused recently, 'the greatest natural disaster to have ever struck this planet may in fact turn out to be the arrival of human innovation'

integrating that limiting capacity for out-of-box analytical cause-and-effect and consequence, into a global population, one that is heavily biased/burdened by said progresses and culture to begin with, this particular form/type of insidiously existential threat is cloaked by a particularly dense form of plausible deniability.

 

[TheClimateChanger]

2 hours ago, bluewave said:

It really makes you wonder whether study back in 2020 was onto something.

https://e360.yale.edu/features/why-clouds-are-the-key-to-new-troubling-projections-on-warming

Others soon followed. Last month, American and British researchers, led by Zelinka, reported that 10 of 27 models they had surveyed now reckoned warming from doubling CO2 could exceed 4.5 degrees C, with some showing results up to 5.6 degrees. The average warming projected by the suite of models was 3.9 degrees C (7 degrees F), a 30-percent increase on the old IPCC consensus.

French scientists at the National Center for Scientific Research concluded that the new models predicted that rapid economic growth driven by fossil fuels would deliver temperature rises averaging 6 to 7 degrees C (10.8 to 12.6 degrees F) by the end of the century. They warned that keeping warming below 2 degrees C was all but impossible.

ALSO ON YALE E360

Can artificial intelligence help build better, smarter climate models? Read more.

Zelinka said the new estimates of higher climate sensitivity were primarily due to changes made to how the models handled cloud dynamics. The models found that in a warmer world clouds would contain less water than previously thought.

 

Not to toot my own horn, but certainly some of us were noting this possibility 10+ years ago.

[donsutherland1]

2 hours ago, bluewave said:

It really makes you wonder whether study back in 2020 was onto something.

https://e360.yale.edu/features/why-clouds-are-the-key-to-new-troubling-projections-on-warming

Others soon followed. Last month, American and British researchers, led by Zelinka, reported that 10 of 27 models they had surveyed now reckoned warming from doubling CO2 could exceed 4.5 degrees C, with some showing results up to 5.6 degrees. The average warming projected by the suite of models was 3.9 degrees C (7 degrees F), a 30-percent increase on the old IPCC consensus.

French scientists at the National Center for Scientific Research concluded that the new models predicted that rapid economic growth driven by fossil fuels would deliver temperature rises averaging 6 to 7 degrees C (10.8 to 12.6 degrees F) by the end of the century. They warned that keeping warming below 2 degrees C was all but impossible.

ALSO ON YALE E360

Can artificial intelligence help build better, smarter climate models? Read more.

Zelinka said the new estimates of higher climate sensitivity were primarily due to changes made to how the models handled cloud dynamics. The models found that in a warmer world clouds would contain less water than previously thought.

 

Reduced aerosols appear to have a modest impact given recent studies. But one can't rule out dynamic ECS where ECS increases at some point at higher levels of atmospheric CO2 largely due to cloud-related feedbacks.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aax1874

I suspect that at least some of the early cloud-related changes that seem to be occurring i.e., reduced lower level clouds/increased higher level clouds and the shift of such clouds northward, may actually be due to what the authors of the 2019 paper found when researching the Early Eocene warming. Aerosol reduction contributes, but more may be involved.

It's easy to attribute the changes to reduced aerosols (easily identifiable "smoking gun"). It would be more worrisome if the changes are resulting largely as a consequence from the extent of humanity's carbon pollution. The former would fit within what's currently understood about the climate. The latter would raise serious questions about the limits of current understanding of climate dynamics and the potential for a change in those dynamics at some threshold of atmospheric CO2.

[Typhoon Tip]

2 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

Reduced aerosols appear to have a modest impact given recent studies. But one can't rule out dynamic ECS where ECS increases at some point at higher levels of atmospheric CO2 largely due to cloud-related feedbacks.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aax1874

I suspect that at least some of the early cloud-related changes that seem to be occurring i.e., reduced lower level clouds/increased higher level clouds and the shift of such clouds northward, may actually be due to what the authors of the 2019 paper found when researching the Early Eocene warming. Aerosol reduction contributes, but more may be involved.

It's easy to attribute the changes to reduced aerosols (easily identifiable "smoking gun"). It would be more worrisome if the changes are resulting largely as a consequence from the extent of humanity's carbon pollution. The former would fit within what's currently understood about the climate. The latter would raise serious questions about the limits of current understanding of climate dynamics and the potential for a change in those dynamics at some threshold of atmospheric CO2.

the answer is yes

[csnavywx]

The fact that we're just going to gap straight up almost as much as we did last year (off of '16) is crazy.

CERES imbalance has finally been reacting since spring and coming down off the dizzying heights of '23 though, so we *should* see some consolidation or retracement on the chart over the next few years. One would hope anyways. If the imbalance starts working its way back up without much temp retracement though, that's going to be a world of hurt.

[chubbs]

Wondering if the break-up of sub-tropical stratocumulus decks with warming as described in the 2019 paper below contributed to the albedo reduction. Note that the 1200ppm CO2 threshold cited by the paper would vary depending on local conditions. Some areas may be close to the threshold today.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0310-1

[Typhoon Tip]

this is fascinating ...https://phys.org/news/2024-12-ai-earth-peak-hottest-years.html

[donsutherland1]

On 12/8/2024 at 3:54 AM, chubbs said:

Wondering if the break-up of sub-tropical stratocumulus decks with warming as described in the 2019 paper below contributed to the albedo reduction. Note that the 1200ppm CO2 threshold cited by the paper would vary depending on local conditions. Some areas may be close to the threshold today.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0310-1

I suspect that the recent evidence of declining albedo on account of cloud-related changes has essentially put the debate to rest about the impact of clouds. Cloud-related changes will have a positive feedback (amplify warming). The earlier hypothesis that clouds could offset some of the warming is being proved incorrect by the most recent evidence.

[donsutherland1]

4 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

this is fascinating ...https://phys.org/news/2024-12-ai-earth-peak-hottest-years.html

For those who are interested, the underlying paper is here: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2024GL111832

[donsutherland1]

I agree with the AI-driven paper posted by @Typhoon Tip

It is becoming increasingly evident that the rate of warming is increasing albeit not sharply. Earlier thinking that the warming was continuing to follow a general linear trajectory and that readings would quickly fall back once the strong 2023-24 El Niño event ended, is not supported by the recent evidence.

The UN Global Emissions Gap report estimated that the world remains on track for 2.6°C-3.1°C warming by 2100. That report did not consider a potential increase in climate sensitivity, which would result in an increase in the rate of warming at higher levels of CO2.

Emerging evidence suggests that the theoretical foundations of a dynamic Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity for a doubling of CO2 have grown stronger. Dynamic ECS is probably more likely than a fixed figure. Paleoclimate data from the Eocene found a higher ECS. The authors suggested that cloud-related feedbacks were largely responsible. Recent data shows cloud-related changes consistent with the earlier research now starting to take place. Those feedbacks provide insight into the dramatic jump in the global mean surface temperature during 2023 and persistently high temperature during 2024 despite a strong El Niño's giving way to neutral-cool ENSO conditions. The so-called "hot model" problem for the newer generation of climate models (CMIP6) was probably a reflection of those models' better assessment of cloud-related dynamics vs. earlier modeling than any flaw in the models. In any case, clouds are a positive feedback that amplifies warming.

Further, if the rate of warming is increasing, one would expect to see linear estimates begin to break down. Below is a regression equation based on mean 30-year temperature anomalies and the highest 30-year anomaly during each period from 1980-2023, along with 99.9% confidence intervals. The 2024 global mean surface temperature anomaly will exceed the 99.9% confidence interval by an estimated 0.02°C (1.28°C vs. a 99.9% confidence limit of 1.26°C). This outcome is consistent with an increase in the rate of warming.

In sum:

• The rate of warming has increased in recent years
• Cloud-related changes will likely amplify warming (not reduce it as some earlier hypotheses had speculated)
• Cloud-related changes will increase climate sensitivity
• The AI-based paper's conclusion appears to be consistent with the real world data
• The UN Gap Emission's range of 2.6°C-3.1°C warming by 2100 could modestly understate the degree of warming likely, especially in light of the failed COP 29 conference that failed even to mention fossil fuels

[chubbs]

GISS was 1.31 in November. In the past decade the strongest warming has occurred in the northern mid-latitudes where reduction in aerosols has the biggest effect. A larger aerosol effect implies a larger  historical warming from ghg to compensate for increased aerosol masking.