Our annual post related to the comparisons between long standing records and climate models.
As frequent readers will know, we maintain a page of comparisons between climate model projections and the relevant observational records, and since they are mostly for the global mean numbers, these get updated once the temperature products get updated for the prior full year. This has now been completed for 2022.
Version updates
We have included the updates to the NOAA NCEI surface temperature record to v5.1 (which is more coherent with GISTEMP v4 and HadCRUT5 than previous versions). The Cowtan and Way effort has been suspended, and so that is no longer being used. The NOAA STAR TMT record is in flux – the v4.1 has not been updated since early last year, and a new v5 is available that does a better job incorporating the data from the most recent instruments. Meanwhile, their v3 is still being maintained, thus we are now including all versions until it’s a little clearer. Also upcoming, Berkeley Earth is about to unveil a new product that utilizes machine learning and the reanalyses to get higher resolution estimates back to the 19th C, and we’ll discuss this in more detail when it come out.
CMIP3, CMIP5 and CMIP6
We haven’t changed anything about the CMIP ensemble data that we are using. CMIP6 data was introduced last year in a preliminary way, using both the full ensemble and a TCR-screened subset. This is related to the commentary we published last year (Hausfather et al, 2022), where we show that this screen is a reasonable match to the IPCC AR6 assessed projections that used emulators constrained by observations. However, it’s still too soon to be concluding very much from this comparison. The comparisons to the earlier iterations continue to demonstrate that the those ensembles were indeed skillful. The CMIP3 ensemble continues to astound!
Satellite comparisons
The weighted atmospheric temperatures that are retrieved from the MSU/SSU, and now AMSU, instruments are not standard CMIP diagnostics (though they should be!). Hence, for the comparisons to observations, someone has to go through the archive of 3D-temperature fields and calculate them (not complicated, but time and data intensive). This was done for CMIP3 and CMIP5 (by Ben Santer and colleagues, John Christy, and Amanda Maycock and colleagues), but has not been done yet (AFAIK) systematically for CMIP6.
As we have noted before, the observed TMT trends – particularly in the tropics are notably lower than most of the CMIP5 models. The new NOAA-STAR version 5 is now the product with the smallest trend, with a divergence from the other records starting in 1999. It will be interesting to see what the CMIP6 models show, and we have some hints, at least for the GISS suite of models. For those simulations, the MSU/SSU data is archived and available and was discussed recently in Casas et al (2023). The key conclusions were that the internal variability, and treatment of ozone and aerosol forcings make material differences to the comparisons and that these need to be considered part of the structural uncertainty in the models. For instance the trends in TMT across six different CMIP6 configurations (differing in forcing, ocean model and model top) are as a whole consistent with observations (more so with RSS than UAH), though the specification of the forcings does impact the comparison.
Hopefully, we will roll out some more comparisons based on CMIP6 over the coming months.
Summary
Overall, this continues to be a useful exercise, and as mentioned above, we’d be happy to add additional variables. All that is required is the archive of specific model diagnostic as a function of time (CMIP3/5 or 6) and a source for an updatable observational series that is commensurate. Unfortunately, we don’t have the time or resources to process data from the CMIP archives, so it needs to already be in a plottable form. In particular, if anyone has created an archive for the SSU channels from the CMIP5 or CMIP6 ensembles, let me know!
References
- Z. Hausfather, K. Marvel, G.A. Schmidt, J.W. Nielsen-Gammon, and M. Zelinka, "Climate simulations: recognize the ‘hot model’ problem", Nature, vol. 605, pp. 26-29, 2022. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-01192-2
- M.C. Casas, G.A. Schmidt, R.L. Miller, C. Orbe, K. Tsigaridis, L.S. Nazarenko, S.E. Bauer, and D.T. Shindell, "Understanding Model‐Observation Discrepancies in Satellite Retrievals of Atmospheric Temperature Using GISS ModelE", Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, vol. 128, 2022. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2022JD037523
Please can you show temperature graphs etc. in units of Celsius, hardly anyone in the world uses Fahrenheit. Thanks.
[Response: Celcius version: https://www.realclimate.org/images//cmp_cmip3_nice_degC.png – gavin]
GREAT RESPONSE!
Teaching science, I utilized a simple and easily. remembered way of converting from one scale to the other (noting that the temperature at minus 40 is the same for both)
Three steps, and the first and the third steps are same for either conversion.
Step 1) add 40 to the value to be converted
Step 3) subtract 40 from the number obtained in step 2.
For step 2) noting that a change of 1 degree Celius equals a change of 1.8 degree Fahrenheit.
Changing from C to F, multiply by 1.8 Changing from F to C, divide by 1.8
Example, you know that the freezing temperature of water is 0 deg C or 32 deg F
Changing 0 deg C to F using this method
Step 1) 0 + 40 = 40
step 2) 40 x 1.8 = 72
Step 3 72 – 40 = 32 degrees F
converting F to C The freezing temp of water at standard pressure is 100 deg C or 212 F
Step 1) 212 + 40 – 252
Step 2) 252/1.8 = 140
Step 3) 140 – 40 = 100 Deg C.
BTW the US is an English unit island in a metric world. The change would come if money dictates it.
“hardly anyone in the world uses Fahrenheit.”
That’s because the USA is intellectually superior to the rest of the world. We have TWO temperature scales while most of the rest of the world can barely handle having one.
What is “Fahrenheit”?
But seriously, it would be very nice to have a °C or K version for the world outside the United States, the Liberia and the Cayman Islands (the only countries still using Fahrenheit).
[Response: Celcius version: https://www.realclimate.org/images//cmp_cmip3_nice_degC.png – gavin]
The USA is intellectually superior – we have TWO temperature scales while most of the rest of the world is stuck with only one!
The Fahrenheit scale was never intended to be a scientific scale to replace Celsius. He developed it because of how much better it relates to the way temperature affects us directly. In that regard it is far better than Celsius to describe weather to a human. What temperature is “pretty cold” and what temperature is “pretty hot”? Those are the two questions he answered to establish zero and 100.
So go outside on a 50F day and you’ll agree with him, it ain’t cold but it ain’t hot either. And that’s why we’re going to keep it in the USA for weather forecasting while teaching Celsius where it belongs – in physics, chemistry, etc.
Can someone explain why Casa Grande, AZ has a higher annual average temperature than Macon, GA despite being ~1000′ higher in altitude and being much drier? (Both are well inland and at about the same latitude BTW.)
Per this recent paper, the MSU series underestimate upper troposphere warming due to a lack of resolution.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-28222-x
Thanks, Gavin and all, these comparisons are extremely interesting to track as a layperson.
Can anyone explain in simple terms why UAH shows trends so very different from RSS? It’s rather striking just how much lower UAH is compared to the surface datasets.
AlanJ,
A straightforward comparison between between the warming trends found in UAH TLT v6.0 and in RSS TLT v4.0 , it shows the difference is mainly due to data-use over the period 1998-2005. Thus while the full record 1979-2022 gives a global trend difference (RSS-UAH) of +0.08ºC/decade, this is not a constant divergence but mostly contained within a short period 1998-2005. Over the period 1979-98 the difference is +0.03ºC/decade rising to +0.23ºC for the period 1999-2005 then dropping to +0.03ºC/decade 2005-22.
The NH & SH return similar results: –
NH +0.1ºC/decade comprising +0.08ºC/decade, +0.24ºC/decade & +0.04ºC/decade for the 3 periods,
SH +0.05ºC/decade comprising -0.03ºC/decade, +0.26ºC/decade and +0.3ºC/decade.
This situation apparently results from a choice of what data to use when a satellite instrument (NOAA-14 MSU) is showing signs of drift (or not). Spencer has attempted to explain why he is right and everybody else is wrong, most recently here but in doing so, doesn’t seem to have convinced the people that matter.
Thanks for this nice post, Gavin.
In terms of model-versus-data comparisons of MSU temperature trends, you noted that:
“This was done for CMIP3 and CMIP5 (by Ben Santer and colleagues, John Christy, and Amanda Maycock and colleagues), but has not been done yet (AFAIK) systematically for CMIP6”.
Some of this work has been done for CMIP6:
https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-20-0768.1
https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-21-0766.1
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2209431119
With kind regards,
Ben
[Response: Thanks! – gavin]
[Response: (fixed the links) ]
Only the last link took me to an actual paper–the others led to a DOI system page, which didn’t immediately seem helpful.
Thanks for the interesting post. Note simply that we can now go beyond a simple comparison or the method advocated by Hausfather et al. (2022) to constrain the projections against the observations while considering both model and observational uncertainties. The KCC method proposed by Ribes et al. (2021) has been used fo instance to constrain not only global (Ribes et al., 2021) and local (Qasmi et al., 2022) near-surface temperature projections, but also the simulated recent and future evolution of other variables (Douville et al., 2022a, Douville and Willett, 2023). Furthermore, selecting climate models according to simulated historical warming is not necessarily the best solution and other observations should also be used to constrain the projections (Douville et al. 2022b, Ribes et al. 2022).
– Ribes, A. et al., Sc. Adv., 7, eabc0671 (2021)
– Qasmi, S., & Ribes, A., Sc. Adv., 8, 41, https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abo6872 (2022)
– Douville, H. et al., Comm. Earth Env., 3, 237, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-022-00561-z (2022a)
– Douville H. and K. Willett (2023) A drier future revisited. Sc. Adv. (Revised)
– Ribes, A. et al. Earth System Discus. https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-2022-7 (2022).
– Douville, H., et al., PLOS Water, 1(12), e0000058, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pwat.0000058 (2022b).
@Hervé Douville says: –
” …to constrain the projections against the observations while considering both model and observational uncertainties….and other observations should also be used to constrain the projections ”
ms: — I have read your paper: “Water remains a blind spot in climate change policies” and agree on many points. Last week I combined a well-known, simple energy balance model (2009) with the observed CERES data 2000-2020. I think it shows us highly interesting research into the causes of climate development over the last 2 decades and also shows us which climate we should quantitatively be prepared for in the coming years.
https://02adf5ae1c.cbaul-cdnwnd.com/da475a79e4bc41c3b64b8d393a44d235/200000073-f38bff38c3/GEB_2000-2020finish.webp?ph=02adf5ae1c
Loeb & Trenberth’s GEB shows a well-known version from 2009.
I treat it as if it were the 2000 GEB and plot the 2000-2020 CERES
data (white digits) as 20-year trends.
This is how we see the development of the GEB from 2000 – 2020 … regardless of whether individual values of the climate model used deviate from reality.
Let’s have a look at the balance at the surface of the earth.
In 2020, compared to 2000, an additional +2.08 W/m² of radiation energy arrived here
( SW down surface +1.54 W/m² & LW down surface +0.54 W/m² ).
As a rule, the incoming SW & LW down-surface are balanced upwards in a ~4:1 ratio via
LW-Up-Surface(4) and latent + sensitive energy flows LH &SH(1).
In 2020, however, the further increase in energy of 2.08 W/m² was compensated almost exclusively by LW-Up-Surface.
Here the lack of water and/or the loss of evaporation on the surface becomes visible!
While 104.8 W/m² were still available for LH+SH in 2000, — in 2020 only
104.11 W/m² are available to balance. How is that possible?
The lack of water, evaporation and clouds on and above the land surface is
the trigger and main cause of the warming from 2000-2020 and
produces globally +0.69W/m² higher values for LW-Up-Surface by the
accumulated loss of ~ 5650 km³ = 0.86W/m² of latent evaporation during the last 20 years
, which the oceans obviously can no longer compensate for.
BALANCE SHEET ON THE SURFACE
incoming:
– ~ +0.94W/m² due to the reduced cloud albedo, aerosols,
– ~ +0.6W/m² due to decreasing albedo of the surface,
– ~ +0.54W/m² due to higher LW-down-surface = +2.08W/m².
imbalance:
– ~ -0.768W EEI remaining in oceans, land, cyrosphere and atmosphere = +1.31W/m².
outgoing:
For the measured LW-up-surface = 2.0W/m², — 0.69W/m² are still missing,
which can only have arisen through the loss of evaporation.
This is also confirmed by the trend 2000-2020 for the global evaporation rates (see below) of -0.86W/m² per 20 years and a naturally associated increase of +0.17W/m² for the sensible heat flux.
https://02adf5ae1c.cbaul-cdnwnd.com/da475a79e4bc41c3b64b8d393a44d235/200000075-9325093253/ERA_1.webp?ph=02adf5ae1c
Time-series Statistics
ALL: land & sea
Statistic Type
NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis I Evaporation Rate ————————– ERA5 Relative Humidity
Mean: 82.707 ———————————————————-74.7065
Standard Deviation: 0.700669 —————————————0.216812
Skewness: -1.50483 —————————————————–0.769041
Kurtosis: 2.86361 ———————————————————-0.333957
Slope*: -0.0432521 (W/m²) ——————————————–0.0217081 (%)
Slope is given in units of ‚per year‘ —>
– Evaporation Rate: -0,865 W/m² per 20y
– Relative Humidity: -0,434 % per 20y
The improved transmissivity of the atmosphere for LW & SW due to less clouds (29.9W/m² x 1.7% = 0.51W/m²) contradict the very popular theory that the observed increase of CO2 (~ +40ppm) over the 20 years period is mainly responsible for the observed global warming.
Sorry about the problem with the links in my earlier comment. This information should help:
Santer, B.D., S. Po-Chedley, C. Mears, J. Fyfe, N. Gillett, Q. Fu, J. Painter, S. Solomon, A.K. Steiner, F.J. Wentz, M.D. Zelinka, and C.-Z. Zou, 2021: Using climate model simulations to constrain observations. Journal of Climate, 34, 6281-6301.
Santer, B.D., S. Po-Chedley, N. Feldl, J.C. Fyfe, Q. Fu, S. Solomon, M. England, K.B. Rodgers, M.F. Stuecker, C. Mears, C.-Z. Zou, C.J.W. Bonfils, G. Pallotta, M.D. Zelinka, N. Rosenbloom, and J. Edwards, 2022: Robust anthropogenic signal identified in the seasonal cycle of tropospheric temperature. Journal of Climate, 35, 6075-6100.
Po-Chedley, S., J.T. Fasullo, N. Siler, E.A. Barnes, Z.M. Labe, C.J.W. Bonfils, and B.D. Santer, 2022: Internal variability and forcing influence model-satellite differences in the rate of tropical tropospheric warming. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119, e2209431119.
Very insteresting post by Gavin Schmidt. An observation about current meteorology may be allowed here, since the climate is always just the average weather.
I think this is now often coming close to a demise of meteorology under global heating. Whenever I read the seasonal forecasts of meteorologists, it seems to me obvious, that they don’t take into account the rising effects of global heating.
They are always going on about ENSO, NAO, sudden stratospheric warming events etc. and don’t seem to notice, that their forecasts more and more often are pointing in the same directions, regardless of what these indexes are/what phase they seem to be in. Are maybe these (empirical) indexes and their uses not up to date in the heating climate?
Fx. there is a rather monotonous tendency towards more and more drought and intense/extreme heatwaves on all continents, especially in the western parts of the US and Eurasia, in all seasons, regardless of the phase of the ENSO etc. These meteorologists https://www.severe-weather.eu/long-range-2/spring-forecast-2023-la-nina-winter-pattern-extends-jet-stream-anomaly-united-states-canada-europe-fa/ fx. now again refer to the usual long-term forecasts, which mainly predict a very warm and dry spring in Europe and western Russia (now again), and a much colder over northeastern Canada/Greenland (now again), even as they at the same time predict a negative NAO phase, which should mean the exact opposite: warmer weather in eastern Canada and western Greenland, and colder or at least chillier in Europe. So why refer to the NAO at all? Btw. the NAO has been in the positive phase for the last month, and the weather colder in western Greenland and northeastern Canada. The predictions are for a rising NAO and even hotter and drier in Europe and colder in the northwestern Atlantic regions – just as the very monotonous tendency has been for the years since 2013. The rising tendency of the NAO has been going on since 1988, with 1996 and 2012 as the only exceptions, the tendency for extreme heat and drought in western Eurasia since 2009. But the long-term/seasonal weather predictions don’t seem to take this into account and reflect upon what the underlying causes for it could be.
Same thing with respect to the ENSO. All predictions are that we are now fast approaching a new El Niño from the coming spring to summer, after three consecutive years of La Niña, but this does not seem to change the weather patterns, neither in the western US, Canada and Latin America, nor in the western pacific regions (Australia etc.), which are for still more heatwaves and extreme drought.
A new sudden stratospheric warming event is also predicted for february to match, but no effects whatsoever of this is seen in the seasonal forecasts. Why not?
Nothing about these by now obviously waning of the (postulated) effects from the NAO and ENSO phases is ever mentioned by the long-term forecasting meteorologists. They also completely omit to mention that their predictions for december to january also this year were almost completely wrong… once again. Why this seeming ignorance? Do they just want to carry on with their traditional mathematic models undisturbed by the reality? Why does so little from climate science seem to reflect on the meteorology?
Calm down HrJohansen,
that all depends on where you live and your local meteorologists, their websites and their TV- stations.
I am very satisfied with Yr.no.
And see quite well that there are problems over there in the states.
We have both Rasmus Benestad and Stefran Rahmstorf here They do their very best at any time. Remember, they are numans, they are not Gods.
It is just like medical doctors. There also, ERRARE HVMANVM EST.
My very good advice to everyone is that if you do not like or do not believe in the meteorologist, then become an amateur meteoro09loogist and do your own weather and seasonal predictions and see if you can beat them. And be honest about the results.
Then you will find, like all responsible and serious weather prophets worlodwide, that the meteorologists are your very best allies and colleagues.
And you will even find large fameous dilettants in the trade, so called “Bønnhaser”, , that is fameous performers lacking due qualifications and inaugurations for the craft.
You will find yourself, for instance.
Karsten said:
Because they can’t predictively model the climate dipoles of ENSO and AMO with any degree of certainty. And you presumed correctly that applying traditional math won’t cut it.
Yet, I guarantee that within a few years time that a machine learning experiment will “discover” the cross-correlation between long-period tides and the sloshing of the thermocline leading to ENSO and AMO cycles. How do I know that? Because I have found it myself, applying a simplifying solution to Laplace tidal equations, see Mathematical Geoenergy (Wiley/AGU, 2018). So considering that the way that ML techniques such as neural nets work is that they exhaustively explore the nonlinear space of relationships of which solutions of LTE fluid dynamics occupy, it’s just a matter of time before they get there too.
PP. Your idea about tides being behind ENSO does look quite interesting, but I thought that ENSO was primarily a result of a reversal in wind patterns. How would tidal forces influence wind patterns? And what would cause the wind patterns to reverse periodically?
Nigel J
It’s not due to wind, but a leading indicator of the wind. The causality chain is pretty clear now that subsurface waves can be measured accurately. Lin & Qian from Ohio State reported this in 2019: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1038/s41598-019-49678-w.pdf
Summarizing, the tidally forced upwelling of the thermocline modifies the surface temperature and thus changes the overlying atmospheric pressure (think ideal gas law). As the upwelling is nonuniform across the Pacific, the gradient of pressure *causes* the wind. Good example of correlation not equal to causation. Lin & Qian essentially demonstrated that the subsurface thermocline waves initiated before the wind had a chance to build up. Very similar to a temperature vs CO2 causality chain — intimately tied together but the causality direction can usually be figured out.
One thing that Lin & Qian couldn’t figure out in their paper (which was essentially concurrent with mine) is the period of the ENSO cycle. I’ve since communicated with Lin about the nonlinear solution approach. He has a recent review paper on the AMO, and the approach works on that oceanic cycle as well.
This is all published over 4 years ago now, and only a few NASA JPL scientists have toyed with it. I wouldn’t mind if someone wants to try to debunk a parsimonious tidal model.
Hr P.P @ Whut has certain ideas about this. He has mentioned it before.
I am only waiting to see it work.
But I doubt it because I have withnessed hopes, plans , and phantasies at the University in the white noise of geiger counting, that should be done frurther by statistics of course,,……
All this denies or doubts the very reality of CHAOS and randomness and cannot let it be what it is..
To find order in it where there was no known order before, is OK for me. But there must be limits to purism also and to the cleaning up of dirts……
Dirts and CHAOS may have its own role and entity.
Maybe humanity and scientific plans and speculation has to let wilderness also to grow, or to exist at least, and rather take advantage of it as it is?.
CHAOS / CHOSMOS , predictability / unpredictability, that was a great discussion between 2 very learnt Jews, Einstein and Niels Bohr, 2 roosters in the same basket as they met..
Einstein did not like Bohrs unpredictability at all and said angrily: “God does not play with daise…”
To which Bohr replied calmfully: “Albert, never teach God what to do!”
There we are. It is a biggest discussion of early 20ieth century philosophy and chosmology.
And the fall and ruin of naive 19th century classical determinism.
Bohrs and Schrödingers indeterminism was even taken as the Theodice, the proof of Gods existance against 19th century strict deterministic ateism, that relates furter to the reality or not of free will.
“Ordnung muss sein..!” we do not quite like it. There must be some rubbish and dis- obedience also
What does that mean? Waiting around 20 to 3o years or more before we get sufficient statistics to substantiate a predictive model?
Regarding the recent earthquake in Turkey, many on social media are lauding a Dutch seismologist Frank Hoogerbeets who accurately predicted the event just a few days ago, apparently partly based on a full-moon syzygy. But all the professional geoscientists are in unison that the prediction was not statistically significant.
Cross-validating models against historical data is really the only way to go if we want to isolate models that show any promise. If we have to wait decades to check every model for statistical significance, we can expect only slow progress.
Paul Pukite, Thanks for your comments on ENSO and tides, and the research link. I confess your explanation looks pretty convincing. Will read the full research paper when I get time.
P Pukite: “ the tidally forced upwelling of the thermocline modifies the surface temperature and thus changes the overlying atmospheric pressure”
if it the upwellings are driven by tides, not by the wind:
– why would the tidally forced upwelling be so much stronger in the East equatorial Pacific compared the West equatorial Pacific?
– why would the tidally forced upwelling be so much stronger at the North part of the S.America coast (off Peru) than at South part of the S. America coast (of Chile) coast)?
– what happens to the tides for them to cause an El Nino?
– why the irregularity of El Ninos – if the tides that supposedly causing it are themselves driven by Moon and Sun with the astronomic regularity ? I.e. – shouldn’t we be able to predict El Nino with the same certainty we can predict the timing of the future high tides in a given location?
Paul Pukite 7 Feb: “Very similar to a temperature vs CO2 causality chain — intimately tied together but the causality direction can usually be figured out.”
I am not sure what you mean by “the causality direction” – if X causes Y – then this is not a very good analogy – there is no point of pondering the causality direction for AGW, so I’d presume you mean temperature and CO2 in the past, say, during glacial/interglacial cycles,
where T and CO2 were indeed intimately tied. But it was a classical positive feedback higher T increases CO2 which increases T which increases CO2 etc. Obviously a feedback is not a good analogy (“Very similar to”) to your case, unless you want to say that stronger winds somehow would increase …the tidal forces???
Piotr asks:
In the inertial frame of the rotating Earth, there’s a mean slope associated with the thermocline whereby it’s shallower to the east. Since it’s shallower there, slight fluctuations will more easily bring cold water closer to the surface.
I don’t think of the tides but of tidal forces. Tidal forces are strong enough to cause the Earth’s rotation to speed up and to slow down periodically, as measured precisely through length-of-day (LOD) observations. As the earth speeds up and slows down according to the lunar fortnightly cycle, the water volume in the ocean wants to keep moving as it isn’t pinned down, so that’s why it sloshes back and forth (try carrying a bowl of soup at an unsteady pace). This is especially evident along the thermocline where the slight density difference generates a reduced effective gravity environment that enables massive subsurface waves to form. Because of the seasonal cycle, there will be 2 dates in the calendar year when the density differences are slightest (6 months apart, known as overturning events in limnology) and when this is synched against the lunar period of 13.66 days torquing the earth, a mean sloshing cycle of 3.8 years will form.
I’ve calibrated a semi-annual impulse against the tidal factors required to reproduce the LOD and one can see how the cycles frequently line up. https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/2855758/219879604-d1a19db3-3b78-486d-86e6-6a8943149810.png
It’s not perfectly synched but the fluid dynamics are non-linear, which is why I’ll again cite chapter 12 of Mathematical Geoenergy that solves Laplace’s tidal equations along the equatorial waveguide. That provides an analytical formulation in which one can attempt to make predictions.
With something like major earthquake prediction waiting for 95% certainty may be to wait too long. That said, not sure what could have been done regardless other than evacuate the whole region.
Latest review article on earthquake prediction
“A review of tidal triggering of global earthquakes” https://www.researchgate.net/publication/362666022_A_review_of_tidal_triggering_of_global_earthquakes#fullTextFileContent published in Geodesy and Geodynamics (July 2022)
Thank you!
I have two questions:
The TMT trend histograms at the bottom of the page seem like a very visually informative way to present those trends. Wouldn’t it be useful to present the trends of surface measurements compared to models in the same way? Isn’t that of interest?
Secondly, as the years roll on, the satellite TMT trends continually appear to be on a lower slope trajectory than CMIP5. But more importantly, the satellite trends also appear to be possibly be on a lower slope that the surface temp observations. Is that true? and if it is true what explains that?
It strikes me that mid troposphere temperature change is smaller than at surface level. So on average, the lapse rate actually decreases? Could this be biased by the strong Arctic (winter) warming?
The lapse rate is the rate of temperature decrease with elevation. So, as the surface warms more rapidly than the mid troposphere, the lapse rate is increasing on the average, not decreasing.
In the Arctic, there is typically an inversion in the winter. This means that warmer air is found aloft than near the ground, especially over land areas. (The ocean can act as a ground-level heat source.) As the surface warms, the inversion weakens, unless additional warmer air is brought in aloft from lower latitudes.
“The lapse rate is the rate of temperature decrease with elevation. So, as the surface warms more rapidly than the mid troposphere, the lapse rate is increasing on the average, not decreasing.”
Right, sorry I messed up. What I actually wanted to say is this: all the models expect a (negative) lapse rate feedback, because an increase in WV. Regardless on how you see it, be it more latent heat, or simply a “wetter” lapse rate, the mid troposphere should warm more than the surface. This would be specifically true for the tropics, getting us to the tropical “hot spot”.
What I just realized and what confuses me, is that both RSS and UAH suggest less warming at mid troposphere levels than at the surface. Also it seems not so clear what exactly is defined here as “mid troposphere”.
The Artcic on the other side would be the exception, where the surface even in theory should warm more than the mid troposphere. Since the warming there is very strong, this could play into it.
In case any climatologist is interested, GPS-based radio occultation profiles of the atmosphere are being made available for research and education by the Unidata Program Center of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research. The mailing-list announcement is archived here.
An intercomparison paper with the MSU might be interesting (if it hasn’t already happened).
As I wrote: “A new sudden stratospheric warming event is also predicted for february to match, but no effects whatsoever of this is seen in the seasonal forecasts.
Nothing of this obvious lack of the postulated influences from the NAO and ENSO phase is ever mentioned by the long-term forecasting meteorologists. They also completely omit to mention that their predictions for december to january also this year were almost completely wrong… Why this ignorance? They don’t want to be seen as scientists, they just want to carry on with their mathematic models undisturbed by the reality?”
Some at least do. You can read a fresh example here: https://www.severe-weather.eu/global-weather/sudden-stratospheric-warming-polar-vortex-collapse-effect-forecast-february-march-united-states-europe-fa/
The writer does not even make the slightest attempt to recognize nor explain why the regional weather patterns are almost completely the same as before this SSW event. There is as almost ever year some leftovers of cooler air masses in southwestern Greenland and northeastern Canada, while Europe and most of Asia, especially in the northern, central and eastern parts are dominated by unusually warm air masses, together with most of the globe. The postulated effects of this SSW event are nowhere to be seen, not even in the figures and maps of modelled surface temperatures in the remaining weeks of february and in match. But he goes on and on about snow and cold weather in the northeastern US, just as he did in last year’s winter, when there was a strong polar vortex and no SSW, ie. exactly the opposite of what is happening now.
It’s very strange to read, and he is no exception. One leading norwegian meteorologist in november 2022 said correctly that october in Europe was extremely warm, even compared to the warming trends in the last ten years, but then in complete opposition to this concluded that this was “a typical october” and “typical autumn weather”. One wonders how this kind of “meteorology” define the word “typical” statistically… – of course it doesn’t. This is just the ideological media propaganda required from the upper levels of power in a country in which most of the economics depend heavily on oil and gas production. It has nothing to do whith science.
Sorry for the misspellings twice in my post above (8. feb.), I wrote “match”, it should of course be “march” (the month).
Still no sign whatsoever of the predicted sudden stratospheric warming event. No near-surface cooling to see anywhere, except for the regions underneath the core of the stratospheric polar vortex, which now https://www.severe-weather.eu/wp-content/gallery/andrej-news/weather-forecast-north-hemisphere-pressure-anomaly-atmospheric-vertical-profile-analysis-gfs.png just as for almost every year since 2014 has always been southwestern Greenland and northeastern Canada, no matter if we had La Niña or El Niño in the Pacific, positive or negative NAO etc. Global heating, or at least it’s consequences, seems to be accelerating, especially in Europe, and overriding whatever couplings there were in the system before.
No sign of any near-surface cooling in the mid-latitudes neither in this winter nor in the preceding ones since 2014. Even if the polar jetstream is – as now always also in the winters above the eastern Atlantic to the west of Europe – curving to the extreme, which the writer here https://www.severe-weather.eu/global-weather/sudden-stratospheric-warming-polar-vortex-collapse-effect-forecast-february-march-united-states-europe-fa/ calls “breaking Rossby waves”, according to him a phenomenon, which “deflects the energy to higher levels in the atmosphere” (I must admit that I don’t understand how).
On the contrary, the polar vortex seems to be strengthening, maybe contributing extra to the same extremely warm weather in all of Europe as every year since 2014, but most of it seems to be coming regardless. Meteorologically, spring heat and drought has already begun in most of Europe since the end of january, at least one whole month before normal. I fear this is already the beginning of another spring, summer and autumn with extreme heatwaves and drought, as in 2018, 2021 and 2022. Last summer in Europe brought regular extreme heatwaves with temperatures in south England, France, parts of Germany and Central Europe and the Mediterranean for several periods exceeding forty deg. Celsius, and very severe drought conditions.
I remember that Michael Mann had some very interesting theories about this kind of events back in 2018 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aat3272 and 2019, when there were especially severe heatwaves and drought in the western US, as in Australia in the southern summer 2019-20 https://michaelmann.net/content/australia-your-country-burning-%E2%80%93-dangerous-climate-change-here-you-now-jan-1-2020-0 , see also https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212094721000190 . I think my observations concerning the futile character of the meteorological speculations about the effects of SSW events etc. have at least some support in what Mann and co-workers wrote fx. here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-13823-w and here https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00376-022-1461-3 – mark the title: “Another Record: Ocean Warming Continues through 2021 despite La Niña Conditions”.
I hope to be corrected if I am misunderstanding here.
@Karsten V. Johansen says: – “Another Record: Ocean Warming Continues through 2021 despite La Niña Conditions”.
I hope to be corrected if I am misunderstanding here.”
ms: — Strong El Nino years ( 1998, 2010, 2016…) mitigate the increase in global warming & EEI and are therefore far more beneficial to humanity, nature and the galloping Earth climate in the long term.
Have a look to EEI:
https://www.mdpi.com/atmosphere/atmosphere-12-01297/article_deploy/html/images/atmosphere-12-01297-g004-550.jpg
SOI, SST & OLR:
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/enso/soi
RH:
https://climate.metoffice.cloud/humidity.html
– While La Nina years can be ~0.5°C cooler than El Nino years because they channel large amounts of energy into the ocean depths in the western Pacific, causing lower SST, lower relative RH & less clouds. Records of OHC are just normal during long La Ninas.
– El Nino years are characterized by better releasing the stored energy in the Pacific through the higher SST, more convection, higher RH, LW-up-surface, cloud cover and evaporation.
Since the Pacific, with 155 million km², is larger than all land areas combined, an El Nino usually transports significantly more water vapor into the atmosphere that form clouds in the Central Pacific.
However, according to the prevailing opinion of the climate community present here, this increases the GHE – and the knowledge that global warming is slowed down with higher GHE through water vapor –
is probably not suitable for the climate experts present .
Most people here will probably not wake up before they realize that the earth is a water-cooled planet and that the real climate above all – needs a lot of water & evaporation on the (land) surface to fight global warming and to break the trend of the upcoming dry & clear sky conditions and desertification
However, these findings also fundamentally relativize the importance of the individual climate gases H2O, CO2, CH4,… the doubling of the CO2 concentrations, for example, has a much smaller influence on the EEI and earth’s climate than many “climate experts” here assume.
The temperature differences between El Nino & La Nina of ~ 0.5°C can also be observed in the atmosphere between the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere.
Many climate scientists confuse the loss of evaporation with higher GHG concentrations. They argue that a cooling lower stratosphere and rising temperatures near surface in the lower troposphere are caused by higher concentrations of CO2 — far from it… it’s the globally falling relative humidity, evaporation and cloud albedo, that is to blame.
A simple Global Energy Budget – model combined with observed CERES trend data 2000 –> 2020 show that it is the clear sky conditions ( loss of 1,7% cloud albedo / 20y ) driven by decreasing evaporation rates at the surface.
https://02adf5ae1c.cbaul-cdnwnd.com/da475a79e4bc41c3b64b8d393a44d235/200000073-f38bff38c3/GEB_2000-2020finish.webp?ph=02adf5ae1c
Ditto high arctic temperature predominantly in the winter serving as a negative feedback, releasing a lot of heat in the dark. https://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n_anomaly.uk.php
“Still no sign whatsoever of the predicted sudden stratospheric warming event.”
https://climatecrocks.com/2023/02/22/sudden-stratospheric-warming-triggers-severe-arctic-outbreak/
So, is it happening or is it not happening now?
It happened a few days ago.
Other articles which I find interesting concerning the theme of global heating is influencing the development of northern hemisphere winters:
Solar modulation of the Northern Hemisphere winter trends and its implications with increasing CO2″ Kunihiko Kodera et al. GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 35, L03704, doi:10.1029/2007GL031958, 2008 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2007GL031958
Shindell, D. T., R. L. Miller, G. A. Schmidt, and L. Pandolfo, 1999: Simulation of recent northern winter climate trends by greenhouse-gas forcing. Nature, 399
https://www.atmosp.physics.utoronto.ca/~dbj/PHY392/shindell_etal1999.pdf
“Simulation of Late-Twenty-First-Century Changes in Wintertime Atmospheric
Circulation over Europe Due to Anthropogenic Causes”
LAURENT TERRAY AND MARIE-ESTELLE DEMORY 2004
https://cerfacs.fr/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/GLOBC-Article-Simulation.Terray_et_al_JCLIM_2004.pdf
In the last four decades the tendency overall is for the remaining polar cold to be concentrated in a region around southwestern Greenland and northeastern Canada, forcing the polar vortex to minimize over this region, which then means more autumn to summerlike conditions with heat and drought over most of the the rest of the Northern Hemisphere even in mid-winter, and especially in Europe. The socalled SSWs seem to me to be sorrounded by very foggy “theory” to say the least. Some “explanations”, fx here: https://www.severe-weather.eu/global-weather/sudden-stratospheric-warming-polar-vortex-collapse-effect-forecast-february-march-united-states-europe-fa/ say that (some?) Rossby-waves transport heat into the stratosphere, but how they do this and why is never explained. Other explanations seem to resemble almost the exact opposite: that this heat transport into the stratosphere creates big Rossby-waves instead of causing them. The hen or the egg again? Even no explanations whatsoever concerning why some SSWs create (?) chilly episodes in some parts of the mid-latitudes, while others don’t.
Can someone explain why Casa Grande, AZ has a higher annual average temperature than Macon, GA despite being ~1000′ higher in altitude and being much drier? (Both are well inland and at about the same latitude BTW.)
(This post appears in the wrong place above – I don’t know why it went there and the reply I made there disappeared?)