I am not so convinced. The land sink has a lot of variability, mainly due to El Nino, and an El Nino overlapped 2023. So we expect a lower land sink in 2023.
(My estimate assumes the ocean sink was average).
1/
Was 2023 an El Nino year? That is not so obvious...
How does one average the monthly sea surface data to an annual value El Nino index? How does one account for the lag between El Nino and the change in atmospheric CO2 growth?
There is no unique answer to this.
2/
This figure shows the monthly El Nino index annualised with different time lags. 2023 is an El Nino or La Nina, depending on how you average!
@richardabetts & @chrisd_jones use a 9 month lag in their work (which means 2023 was a La Nina)!
The bars (land sink) coloured by the El Nino index with different lags (3 and 9 months) mean that 2023 is either surprising (weak sink in a La Nina year) or rather mundane (weak sink in a El Nino year).
More disturbing is that the decade trend is slowing...
4/
The ocean sink is less sensitive to El Nino & La Nina, but is also weakening in the last decade. A big concern!
5/
For completeness, here are the figures for the atmospheric growth. The growth rate has slowed down, but whether that is true despite El Nino is a more difficult question.
Sorry for the complex figures, but they have a lot of information!
6/
Normalising the atmospheric, ocean, and land sinks by emissions, shows that 2023 has a weak land sink, but well within the variability range over the last decades.
7/
I am not quite convinced that 2023 has had a collapse in the land sink, out of what could have been expected.
@ciais_philippe, @PFriedling, et al. You think 2023 is a collapse?
A final note. If you only consider Mauna Loa, a single site, then the atmospheric growth is more unusual, compared to if you consider the global average. The global average is more meaningful, IMHO.
I am still pondering over 2023 & El Nino. Is 2023 an (unusual) outlier or not?
Looking at anomaly in 2023 relative to the trendline (loess 50 year window), without (left) & with (right) annualised ENSO lags, then 2023 is rather mundane.
1/
When looking at the temperature change relative to the previous year, without (left) & with (right) annualised ENSO lags, then 2023 is more unusual depending on the lag.
If 2023 is unusual, then it could be equally explained by 2022 being low (rather than 2023 being high).
2/
There are numerous ways to consider ENSO. I have used annualised indexes, & various lags can be included. It is also possible to take sub-annual indexes (eg, several months), & again, various lags.
What is statistically best? I presume there is a paper on this.
I started to take an interest in the 2023 temperature increase...
The first plot I did, to my surprise, seems to suggest that 2023 is not unusual at all (given El Nino).
Why?
1/
It all depends on how you slice the data. The previous figure was the anomaly relative to a trend (loess with 50 year window).
If I plot the change from the previous year (delta T), then 2023 is more unusual. Though, still, is it 2023 that is unusual, or 2022, or 2016, or?
2/
The loess trend changes shape with the data, making the 2023 anomaly smaller. It is also possible to use a linear trend, making the 2023 anomaly larger.
Comparing the anomaly to a linear trend will make 2023 more important (than if loess is used).
Record high emissions means record high radiative forcing.
We have you covered, we also include aerosols (SO2, etc) & have done so for decades. Also shipping!
Short-lived aerosols are important, but should not distract from the drivers of change: greenhouse gas emissions!
2/
Most of the energy put into the system ends in the ocean (90%), so the Ocean Heat Content (OHC) has been increasing along with emissions and radiative forcing.
This also means the Earth Energy Imbalance is also increasing.
This question is ambiguous: "How high above pre-industrial levels do you think average global temperature will rise between now and 2100?"
* ...pre-industrial... between "now and 2100"?
* Where we are currently heading or where we could head? This is largely a policy question?
3/