Friday, October 17, 2014

Record warmth in 2014?

Not according to the satellite measures; they are showing quite a cool year so far. But surface measures, apparently propelled by SST, have been consistently high since March, and a record for calendar 2014 looks possible.

In August 2010, I showed a plot of the progress of the cumulative monthly anomaly sums, which will reach the final sum that determines the year average. 2010 did turn out to be the hottest year in many indices. It was different in that the El Nino was late 2009/10, so late 2010 was cooling. At this stage 2014 seems to be warming.

So I started to repeat that 2010-style plot, which is below the jump. It didn't work as well; the variation doesn't much show. But it puts the thing calculated in context - a cumulative sum that, if it exceeds 2010 at year end, will set a record. I've shown the progress of 2005 (a previous record), 2010 and 2014, with a line showing the 2010 average rate. The plots are spaced with an arbitrary offset.

But, more effectively, there is then an active plot with the average 2010 trend subtracted. The variation is clearer. The key thing is not so much whether the current total is above the line, but how it is trending, which is a measure of current warmth.

So here is the first plot. The TempLS measures were described in this recent thread. The absolute slope is an artefact of the anomaly base - GISS is earliest.



And here is the active plot with the 2010 average subtracted. Use the buttons to click through.




NOAA and TempLS grid are already above the line and heading up. Top candidates for a record. HADCRUT looks likely too. GISS and TempLS mesh only need a reasonable continuation of current warmth to end up positive (record). The slope is positive only when a month exceeds the average for 2010, so it doesn't take much cooling to turn down. We'll see.




28 comments:

  1. PDO just made a rebound. Looks like it's game on.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think the relatively large latency of the ENSO oscillation this year (it seems to be peaking in the coming months) increases the chances of this 12-month calendar year ending up a record.

    Of course if you have to depend on the proper phasing of ENSO to get a new record, perhaps that says something about the meaning of only looking at records over 12-month periods that coincide with calendar years.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Carrick,
      I agree that calendar year records are not a sensible scientific year measure. Last time I apologized for allowing such triviality on this august blog. But the arithmetic is interesting.

      What's also interesting is that we seem to be in record territory without an official El Nino at all. If a big one does start up, then the phasing suggests more chatter about 2015 than 2014.

      Delete
    2. Nick, I know you are aware of the issues with calendar year records. I think there is a good chance we'll have a new calendar year record. On the other hand, there is an annual cycle partial entrainment of ENSO, so looking at annual cycles isn''t totally silly.

      There seems to be unusual warming in the Eastern Pacific off the coast of Mexico and the US, even if it's not part of an official El Niño. So the lack of an ENSO may be more of a question of definition than a statement the lack of activity in the Eastern Pacific.

      Delete
    3. I wouldn't listen to anything that Carrick says. I think he is a high school student.

      Delete
    4. I don't believe everything Carrick says. But I listen.

      Delete
    5. Watch out for these characters, such as Carrick, as they are mainly in it to punk everyone. Carrick was the main defender of Judith Curry's big faux paus when she claimed that cloud nucleation followed Bose-Einstein statistics.

      Delete
    6. Carrick a high school student?

      Delete
    7. If I were WHT, I wouldn't choose to relieve that experience. He is referring to the place where he didn't know the difference between bosons and fermions, and I corrected him. Pekka also corrected him, but WHT wouldn't listen. WHT's behavior speaks for itself so there's no reason to enumerate further his behavior.

      I also listen to Nick and I appreciate his insight, even when I don't agree with him.

      Delete
    8. Here's Pekka's comment, which I think nails it:

      What you write is totally wrong. Bosons are bosons and fermions are fermions. No more accounting of particles is needed for that.

      Neither Fermi-Dirac nor Bose-Einstein statistics applies to molecules that do not consist of identical particles, but a large majority of water molecules have the same isotopic constitution and are bosons. Therefore B-E statistics applies to them.

      The conditions where B-E statistics makes any difference for three-atomic molecules like H2O are, however, rare.


      He has some further good comments below. If I endorsed anybody's view on that thread, it was Pekka not Judith.

      Delete
    9. There goes the Cracker, deflecting away from the crimes against science that Curry committed by describing cloud nucleation dynamics as Bose-Einstein statistics.

      Delete
    10. "j fergusonOctober 20, 2014 at 11:37 AM

      Carrick a high school student?"

      Yes, I think he is. Read up on psychological projection.

      Delete
    11. Why did this issue come up again? Doesn't it provide very strong evidence against judgmental wisdom of the person, who brought it up? Could we stop arguing on, who gives the impression of a high school student and why?

      Delete
    12. I agree with Pekka. Carrick is a knowledgeable senior scientist, and well worth listening to. I also make a point of listening to WHT. I haven't followed the Bose issue, but I doubt if it defines anyone.

      Delete
    13. The question of the BE statistics is a pretty interesting issue on its own. Worth reading the comments on Judith's blog for that. Mine were pretty limited to just the question of spin-statistics, and yes particles with I=0 and I=1 are clearly bosons. For me to endorse Pekka's arguments (which I did and strongly), obviously dis-endorses the validity of the expressions written down by Khvorostyanov and Curry, since Pekka stated why the boson nature of water molecules are unlikely to be relevant, and more importantly, correctly stated why.

      I don't always seek out WHT's comments, especially on Judith's blog, where this judgment issue that Pekka commented on is often in play. But Pekka is another one I always read. Not only does he have sound judgement on the science but shows grace in his comments that are often lacking by other people, setting standards of behavior that many other people would be well served to try to live up to.

      Let's move on shall we? WHT can declare victory for instinctively getting the right answer, even though some of the premises of his argument were wrong.
      , but he made a basic error in confating bosons with

      Delete
    14. I don't think Carrick is a knowledgeable senior scientist. I believe he is just some schmuck high-school student based on the clear lack of technical expertise shown.

      Delete
    15. Sorry. This should have read "correctly stated why [BE statistics probably wouldn't apply]".

      Delete
    16. WHT, Nick has my email and can confirm my academic status.

      I'm not sure why you keep bringing this up… Nick has asked for it to stop, and it's clearly not bothering me.

      Delete
    17. Cracker knows what this is about but is apparently too embarrassed to admit it.

      Delete
    18. Your lack of social development?

      Delete
    19. Since my instinct is always right, I predict Cracker will end up on the wrong side of history.

      Delete
  3. Carrick - have you ever looked at the PDO and the warmest years? This is the end of January, the month that had the highest ONI in 2010, which as Nick points out, was a warmest year which saw the anomaly collapsing for much of the year:

    http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2010/anomnight.1.28.2010.gif

    2005

    http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2005/anomnight.1.29.2005.gif

    End of September, 2014:

    http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2014/anomnight.9.29.2014.gif

    So even though much of 2014 was quasi La Nina, La Nina lite, the surface air temperature has been mostly very high.

    ReplyDelete
  4. In other words, in the 1990's and the 2000's, ENSO has driven warmest years. What I have been saying at Climate Etc is the PDO is entering a positive phase, and now it will drive warmest years. Everybody else keeps talking about the PDO having transitioned to a cool phase. Imo, its cool phase just bottomed out in the early 2000's.

    1998:

    http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/1998/anomnight.1.31.1998.gif

    PDO anomalously cool.

    ReplyDelete
  5. JCH, I think the belief is that PDO max/mins are on a 60-year cycle. If so, we'd expect the next absolute minimum of smoothed PDO to be around 2020.

    The other thing to keep in mind is there is a bit of a delay (at least a couple of months) between SST and maximum response of atmospheric temperature.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Every recent record I have looked at has a cool PDO. The PDO has been a drag on warming since around 1985. If 2014 is a record year, it will be because it is the first one in a long time that has been driven by the PDO. Even the AMO is back in on it this year. It is the change in direction of the PDO index that determines if it is aiding warming or masking it. The cycle bottomed around 1920, and it was below the zero line for a very brief time. So this is not unheard of.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I see the new NOAA CPC ENSO weekly update page issued today says:
    "ENSO-neutral conditions continue.*
    Positive equatorial sea surface temperature (SST) anomalies continue across most of the Pacific Ocean.
    El Niño is favored to begin in the next 1-2 months and last into the Northern Hemisphere spring 2015.*"

    ReplyDelete
  8. I would take ENSO neutral all the way through 2015. Two record years in a row with ONI seldom above ZERO. Can't imagine a better firing squad for the pause.

    ReplyDelete