Temperature trends - Archive

Posted by: Mike Hauber

Temperature trends - Archive - 04/12/2009 07:46

Latest Uah is out, with a value of 0.5. A quick scan through previous values shows this is the hottest November in the last 30 years by 0.1 degrees.





Earlier this month I posted a crude statistical model which attempted to predict temperatures this summer based on a Co2 warming trend of 0.18 degrees/month, and a typical El Nino warming curve. The prediction for November was 0.41 degrees, and most of the warming due to the El Nino is expected between January and June next year.

Full set of predicted values is:

Nov....0.41
Dec....0.45
Jan....0.62
Feb....0.56
Mar....0.46
Apr....0.51
May....0.44
Jun....0.44
Posted by: AndrewMurrell

Re: Temperature trends - 04/12/2009 10:13

To me it looks like the graph shows at best a 0.3 degree rise in average temp in 30 years.
Hardly the doom and gloom associated with AGW. It would be interesting to see what the graph would look like if we had 100 years of Satellite measurements. I would assume that 0.3 degree change would be nothing but the norm. Afterall one of the hottest decades in the 20th Century was the 30's, well outside the real infulence of AGW.
Andrew
Posted by: Severely Tall

Re: Temperature trends - 04/12/2009 16:37

Clearly you have missed something Andrew, it starts subzero, hence is above what you have noticed (for a 30 year trend) We dont have 100 years of satellite measurements, nor will we at any stage, so once again all that can be done is speculate based on hearsay and secondary sources...without any evidence which prooves the 30's were 'one of the hottest decades' being even comparible on mean temperatures to the present period.
Posted by: AndrewMurrell

Re: Temperature trends - 04/12/2009 17:25

No don't think I missed anything. The year of 79 was exactly average, remember this is a years average temperature(half the year above and half below). 79-83 was Solar Minumum so that covers the slight drop in temp in 82-86, back to average till 95 then the effect of the El Nino warming which fell back and then a slight rise of 0.3 degree. Am I missing something??? Hearsay and speculation devestated the central states of the USA, remember the dust bowl.(probably not).
Posted by: Arnost

Re: Temperature trends - 04/12/2009 17:40

Andrew, yes you are missing something...

The years 81-82 were subject to "El Chichon cooling". The dip is not as apparent as the "Mt Pinatubo cooling" as it was masked by the Nino of the Century (up to that time)... Without El Chichon, the temps would have been at least up to the peak of those over the last 7 years or so.

Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 05/12/2009 07:20

Originally Posted By: AndrewMurrell
To me it looks like the graph shows at best a 0.3 degree rise in average temp in 30 years.
Hardly the doom and gloom associated with AGW.


A 0.1 degree/decade trend over 100 years is a further 1 degree temperature rise. However the rise could easily be higher because of these reasons:
- the temperature inrease is predicted to accelerate significantly over the next 100 years. The current rate of warming expected by models is roughly 0.2 degrees/decade, and it would have been lower for the start of the last 30 years.
- a linear regressions shows a warming rate between 1980 and 2009 of 0.126 deg/decade.
- Uah shows roughly 20% less warming than CRU, GISS or RSS since 1980. It shows about the same rate since 1992. In 1992 there was a significant change in satellite instrumentation, and a step change between Uah and RSS. So quite reasonable (but not necessarily certain) that Uah's lower warming trend is an error.

Then consider natural variations. If we could be confident that natural variations since 1980 have been warming or neutral we could try and use the recent trend to put an upper limit on future warming. In this period we have had one volcano early in the period contributing early cooling, so making the overall trend warmer. Another volcano near the middle, so having little effect on the overall trend. Also AMO would be in its peak warm phase sometime close to the end of this period.

In contrast PDO was warm for the first 20 years of this period, and has been just barely negative since 1999. Solar has been on a downward trend since 1980. And then there could be other factors we haven't year considered. I don't know which way natural variation would go for the 1980-2009 period, but I doubt anyone has a convincing reason that it must have contributed warming not cooling, so we can't guarantee that the recent warming is an upper limit on what we can expect in the future.

Originally Posted By: AndrewMurrell

It would be interesting to see what the graph would look like if we had 100 years of Satellite measurements. I would assume that 0.3 degree change would be nothing but the norm. Afterall one of the hottest decades in the 20th Century was the 30's, well outside the real infulence of AGW.
Andrew


Well GISS would be the best we've got for temps in the 30s, unless we want to rely on what an imaginary satellite sensor might have shown...

Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 05/12/2009 08:04

Funny how 2 graphs look so different in your last 2 posts Mike...One gets an entirely different view looking at it spread out from 1880 onwards, then narrowed down to from 1979 onwards. Just a comment on how one can get an opposite looking effect by changing the graph Z and Y axis length and depth.
Not having a go, just amazing what can be done with graphs to alter the perspective. From 1700 onwards or 1400 onwards would look very different also.
And using different systems of temp measurement would also look very different, when stretched or squashed or lengthened or narrowed or whatever.
One can also plot someting else together with it and change those dimensions to do whatever one likes also. Just interesting, that is all.
Posted by: SBT

Re: Temperature trends - 07/12/2009 00:08

.1C rise huh. Might have to get another fan in about 75 years or so but the again maybe not.
Posted by: BOM99

Re: Temperature trends - 07/12/2009 23:11

I still see one big problem with assuming anything about temp trends prior to last century that is that there are no reliable temperature observations anywhere in the world before 1900. That means that all asumptions about the climate prior to that point are in reality very sketchy and inaccurate. The fact remains that during the period of accurate measurments the temperature trend is up. Not only that the temperature trend in the period of most accurate measurments is very strongly UP. In fact the temp peak of 1998 was not the hottest and corectly 2005 was the hottest as shown by Mike's graph above due to missing data in 1998. This year will be the hottest in many places, Just take a look at the satelite data nearly all levels are at record highs now.

Anyway my point is that in reality we know very little about past climates except for the last major ice age so there is little substance in refering to the past. Its like me saying "oh my granddaa said he nearly melted out on the back porch when he was a kid" It just means nothing. Just the extremes of the hydrological cycle are screaming the increased heating. Rainfall is more and more erratic. When its dry its really hot and dry and when water is involved evaporation is strong and you get crazy floods like at Coffs this year while the inland just gets drier.
Posted by: marakai

Re: Temperature trends - 07/12/2009 23:23

G'day all.

I'm not poking or trying to stir things up, but not being very up to date on the latest technical variables on the way to measure the temperature I decided to go back to basic's and check out the actual temperature as recorded.

I did this because upon reading the latest temperature trends for Aus on Bom I noticed that they are given based on the thirty year trend and being what I am I decided to look a little more and checked on some history.

http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weath...e=40&p_month=13

http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weath...e=40&p_month=13

http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weath...e=40&p_month=13

http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weath...e=40&p_month=13

http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weath...e=40&p_month=13

http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weath...e=40&p_month=13


Have a look at them they are all above the current high temps and some by a long shot.

why does BOM only base the current temps over a thirty year period and then bleat about record temps (based only on a thirty year mean?) when it isnt so?
Posted by: aerology

Re: Temperature trends - 08/12/2009 00:24

There are a lot of things that make no sense, till you look at the old record books, there were pages for the daily hourly reading one month per page, pages for daily Highs, low and averages for each month with a monthly average for each in the last line, From these were drawn the monthly normals, and departures from normals.

Toward the end of the book, pages with columns for the recording, of these monthly values for each year, thirty lines on a page, thirty years in a book, when figuring the long term averages, they used to just pull out the older books, and jot down these figures from each book.

I have made copies of all of the old original records they have in this town "Concordia, Kansas USA" from early 1885 raw direct from the books. There are initials and amounts of side bets made per month, by the data collectors, as to who could guess the ave high's lows and the average temp the closest. It would be my guess that this was not just a local idea.

They would be much better off with using a 60 year average, as it would reflect at least one 55.8 year pattern of 3 Lunar declination swings of the 18.6 year Mn pattern and give some smoothing, rather than using 30 years that produces 1.6 parts of the 18.6 Mn that then weights some .6 part of the signal twice against one whole.

130.2 years would give 7 complete cycles, to give an even better idea of the consistency across time series and still almost/fit inside the limits of the total available, data collection window.

Old habits die hard, even across multiple generations, of retired workers.
Posted by: marakai

Re: Temperature trends - 08/12/2009 01:20

Even without the extended averages that you talk of Aerology my point is that the observed temps over the long range dismiss the supposed recent hotter than average when taken over long term observations.

I would like to know why they are based on a thirty year average rather than overall since recording began. After all these are what we see in the headlines in print and on telly.
Posted by: Ben Sandilands

Re: Temperature trends - 08/12/2009 06:45

There is no doubt in my mind of the influence of direct observation on the personal perception of temperature changes.

And this is regardless of the causes.

As the keeper of family archives, backed up by many conversations with relatives, and access to their photo albums, quite exceptional warming has occurred since the latter stages of the 19th century in Iowa and in New South Wales, in Otago, in Washington state, and even in what was in living memory 'alpine' parts of Papua.

In Iowa for example, the family photos and press clippings and other diary material do show or record dusty spells and warm spells too, like snow free ground in November early in the last century, when such an occurrence was abnormal rather than normal as it is today.

But to be fair, both situations may be 'normal', and the changes to atmospheric chemistry and the rise of fossil fuel consumption, purely coincidental at multiple points and totally unrelated to the changes in the records. If it makes people feel more comfortable to believe there is no relationship, so be it.

I find it difficult to reconcile however the deglaciation of temperate icefields across widely dispersed locations with claims that the world hasn't become 'warmer'.

I find it very hard to reconcile the disappearance of heavy snowy winters from the Blue Mountains and southern highlands and the Monaro in my lifetime, and in the records of previous generations, with a world that has not really become warmer.

I refer to times when snowy winter followed snowy winter, or what passed for a 'snowy' winter in Australian terms, but would have been seen as trivial in the contemporary northern world.

The critical element in climate and atmospheric research is to provide detail or 'granularity' to the natural variabilities and those that can be linked to the sudden and massive release of fossil carbon and synthetic halons never before present in the atmosphere.

That research is now trapped between two extremes in the popular debate, which seem to share only one thing in common, which is a conviction that the science is settled, and there is no further need to research anything which might upset their respective preconceptions.


Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 08/12/2009 08:11

Originally Posted By: marakai
G'day all.

I'm not poking or trying to stir things up, but not being very up to date on the latest technical variables on the way to measure the temperature I decided to go back to basic's and check out the actual temperature as recorded.

I did this because upon reading the latest temperature trends for Aus on Bom I noticed that they are given based on the thirty year trend and being what I am I decided to look a little more and checked on some history.

http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weath...e=40&p_month=13

http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weath...e=40&p_month=13

http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weath...e=40&p_month=13

http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weath...e=40&p_month=13

http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weath...e=40&p_month=13

http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weath...e=40&p_month=13


Have a look at them they are all above the current high temps and some by a long shot.

why does BOM only base the current temps over a thirty year period and then bleat about record temps (based only on a thirty year mean?) when it isnt so?



With so many stations available, it is not surprising there are a few with charts like that. I note they are for extreme values, which being a very small set of values is more suspectable to random fluctuations. In contrast, picking the first one of your links and checking the annual average temperature shows a definite upward trend.

Link: Sydney Observatory Hill

Anyone interested in creating their own charts start here: link

And using a 30 year aseline has no effect on which temperature is a record temperature. It has no effect on the trend. It only effects where the entire temperature series sits compared to the 'zero' line.

Edit:

Skeptical Science have an interesting article on proxy reconstructions. The post is focused on issues around the medieval warm period, which i am not overly interested in. But one thing I note is that there are many different proxies for temperature, not just tree rings, and most of these proxies show good agreement with the modern temperature record since 1900. A notable exception being a decline in temperatures showed by some (many?) tree ring proxies since 1960.

There is a lot more evidence for a warming trend throughout the 20th century beyond what the instrument record, as we are seeing many effects on the natural world consistent with such a temperature rise.
Posted by: Anemoi

Re: Temperature trends - 08/12/2009 13:56


Seems to me that it is blindingly obvious that the number of hot and very hot days imn Australia has increased over time, and the number of cold and very cold days has reduced as well.
Another metric that is available to everyone through the BOM

http://reg.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/extremes/timeseries.cgi

Cut it anyway you want, there has been a trend ongoing for decades of increased temperatures.
With numerous biological signals (flowering times, breeding times for animals etc) that further support a climatic shift to a hotter world.
The evidence for CO2 induced climate change seems pretty irrefutable on the basis of current scientific knowledge and recorded observations.
Posted by: BOM99

Re: Temperature trends - 08/12/2009 14:46

Originally Posted By: Anemoi
Seems to me that it is blindingly obvious that the number of hot and very hot days imn Australia has increased over time, and the number of cold and very cold days has reduced as well.


I could not agree with you more, could not be any more obvious than it is.
Posted by: Long Road Home

Re: Temperature trends - 08/12/2009 14:52

Yeah increased over the last 40 years, which is hardly a microscopic speck in the timeline of the earth.
Posted by: Arnost

Re: Temperature trends - 09/12/2009 01:53

Quote:
He who controls the present controls the past,
He who controls the past controls the future...

I think that the Met Office has updated the global temperature record.



The above is the new global land stations (CRUTEM3) plot from 1850. Looks like the mid 20th Century hump has all but disappeared. From the climategate emails, there is one that discusses decreasing the sea-surface hump in the 40's by 0.15C (linky). So I predict the Land and Sea temps will shortly be missing this hump as well - perfectly correlating with CO2 (sigh). linky
Posted by: Arnost

Re: Temperature trends - 09/12/2009 02:12



From NAS Understanding climatic change 1975

Just saying...
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 09/12/2009 02:22

Obviously after that graph and this darwin, etc gear nothing at all can be believed from past temperature records, as they are just about all doctored up and altered so much in favour of AGW that they all read like fiction novels. What a joke, it would be funny if it were not so serious!!!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/#more-13818
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 09/12/2009 08:22

Originally Posted By: Arnost


Just also saying thats a NH temeprature history. In comparison here is GISS with NH temperature history:


Similar shape. The full range of the old one is just over 1 degree. GISS over the same period ranges by maybe about 0.7, so GISS has reduced the variation.

Also consider that is roughly the data scientists had availabe when the conclusion that Co2 will cause warming was first seroiusly pushed. Obviouisly this conclusion was not based on extrapolating trends. Shortly after they launched some satellites to monitor temperature, and ever since temepratures have gone up exactly as they said they would.
Posted by: Arnost

Re: Temperature trends - 09/12/2009 09:10

Mike - a bit of consistency please...

You are happy to use the adjusted GISS temp graphs at any time, and then claim that the satelites show the same trend when you know that they have not been adjusted for the volcanic impact. That is just the attitutde that has got us into this acrimony. Politically expedient - not honest.
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 09/12/2009 11:08

Originally Posted By: Arnost

GISS temp...the satelites ...have not been adjusted for the volcanic impact.


Huh? Which volcanic impact? GISS hasn't been adjusted for volcanic impact? Or satellites not adjusted for volcanic impact? What difference would it make if they were adjusted for the impact?
Posted by: BOM99

Re: Temperature trends - 09/12/2009 13:55

Who on this forum would be willing to place a bet that the next decade 2010 to end 2019 will be cooler than this one?. I would very dearly love to see that happen.

Who that is still skeptical of a "human" induced warming trend would be reconsidering their position if the next decade was warmer?.
Posted by: Locke

Re: Temperature trends - 09/12/2009 14:28

That really depends upon whose taking the measurements Snowmi and how they're rporting them. Given recent events I'd be too concerned about the difficulty in obtaining unadulterated data.
Posted by: BOM99

Re: Temperature trends - 09/12/2009 14:31

Lets just say for Australia then. I am quite satisfied with the BOM data, it all agrees well with my own.
Posted by: Locke

Re: Temperature trends - 09/12/2009 14:53

Originally Posted By: snowmi
Lets just say for Australia then. I am quite satisfied with the BOM data, it all agrees well with my own.


Raw unadjusted data I don't have an issue with but this seems to be seldom sufficient to prove or disprove long term warming/cooling trends. My question would be just how much manipulation of the data is going to be required in the coming decade to show continued warming. And to what lengths are "climate scientists" prepared to "adjust" their models to get the result they want.

To be blunt, you may trust those who are reporting the data because it fits nicely into your little "global warming" box but I certainly don't.
Posted by: BOM99

Re: Temperature trends - 09/12/2009 16:04

Hey Locke, its not that hard to prove for yourself, just download the data from BOM for a few of the high quality climate stations like (Bathurst Ag Station is one) and add up the numbers yourself. There is no adjusting just as it is and as it happened. Add up this decade for a few stations spread around the country and then add it up for the next decade. You can keep a running tally to see how the decade travels. If you can get a lower set of numbers for next decade then I would be very pleased.
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: Temperature trends - 09/12/2009 16:23

For 1, I don't care if it gets 1/2 degree warmer, I'll grow more turf, and tomatoes. I don't ski because its to bloody cold but after seeing the last few years on the Alps of Nth East Vic continually having bumper snow seasons, I doubt it very much that it will happen. We have 100% full dams, so no water restrictions for the last 3 years, still green paddocks, Murray Cod and Crayfish fighting each other to jump on a hook in extremely healthy rivers. Personally, I can't see what all the fuss is about???
Posted by: mammatus mistress

Re: Temperature trends - 09/12/2009 16:41

Ever heard of the Murray-Darling rivers Simmo?
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: Temperature trends - 09/12/2009 16:46

Yes I have. Our two rivers flow straight into it???
Have a look at this picture at Swan Hill 1914. Its happened before.....

http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/Dry%20Murray%201914%20blog.JPG
Posted by: Locke

Re: Temperature trends - 09/12/2009 16:49

Snowmi, are you saying that none of the Australian stations will show cooling in the next decade compared to the period 2000-2010 based on raw data? If so then I'm happy to take your money.

But I really don't think thats what your saying. If we look at an overall average based on raw data, including all stations then I'd probably expect some warming as urban areas expand further.

Outside of this, if we are really entering a cool PDO phase and lower solar activity my money would probably be on a colder decade. It really depends though on how big an impact UHI plays and whether there is a reliable data set that can eliminate this impact.

I'm also not sure just how sound our ability is to accurately and reliably monitor large scale temperature trends.
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: Temperature trends - 09/12/2009 16:55

For your interest mm. The Murray system has survived worse heat and drought well and truly before and I'm sure it will survive any heat and drought thrown at it in the future

http://www.agta.asn.au/htm_files/conf06/presentations/kirk_l.pdf
Posted by: Severely Tall

Re: Temperature trends - 09/12/2009 18:26

Simmo...you need to tighten up your game...one minute your saying...Oh there is no global warming...the next..oh I dont care my tomatoes will grow better...which is it? The latter seems to suggest you agree there is a marked warming....you just dont care because it wont effect you..also known as NIMB (Not in my Backyard) syndrome, an aussie speciality.

Posted by: Keith

Re: Temperature trends - 09/12/2009 18:55

Originally Posted By: Locke

Outside of this, if we are really entering a cool PDO phase and lower solar activity my money would probably be on a colder decade. It really depends though on how big an impact UHI plays and whether there is a reliable data set that can eliminate this impact.

I'm also not sure just how sound our ability is to accurately and reliably monitor large scale temperature trends.



There's no doubt in my mind that cycles in temperature (and rainfall) will continue. My analysis of rain cycles suggests, at least for coastal NSW, a wetter cycle of years especially towards 2013-2016. The late Carl Smith arrived at a similar conclusion via a seperate 'helicopter' to me (I think it had to do with a long term SOI cycle related to solar activity). His results are somewhere way back in another thread (I think it was a global warming one now long discontinued).

Monitoring trends is largely a matter of statistics, which, as we all know, can be easily manipulated, and which therefore require great care on the part of researchers. Even in my own work it's sometimes been a vexed question as to how much of the cyclical signal is noise, and how much is the cycle.
Posted by: Cutofflow

Re: Temperature trends - 09/12/2009 18:56

On the river topic, from also having a fairly major river run straight through my property let it be known Australian creeks and river systems are flood/dry eco-systems meaning they are usually one or the other, only flowing consistantly for a short period of time if rainfall is consistant (Which its hasnt in the last 12 years). They are NOT European river systems where they run 24/7 every day of the year, which is the way we have been/still are reeking havoc on our waterways with 'environmental flows'.

Yes the murray and many of its tributarys went bone dry, yes they would have gone dry this decade if it wasnt for the lock/weir/dam systems, And yes IMO the period between 1850~1900 and 1930-1940s was hotter and drier than it is currently. It is difficult to analyse properly as Locke has proven without the raw data and lack of temperature data pre 1900s because the technology simply wasnt around then. Sadly we only have a small fraction of data during a very small cycle of the countrys temperature evolution.

http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weath...e=36&p_month=13

My local BOM WS, AFAIK unaffected from UHI
Posted by: BOM99

Re: Temperature trends - 09/12/2009 19:47

Locke, I am saying that if AGW is correct then more than 1/2 the stations in Australia will be warmer in 2010-2019 than they were in 2000-2009. I am still willing to reconsider my position depending on what happens in the next 10 years. But given 70's were warmer than 60's, 80's were warmer than 70's, 90's were warmer than 80's, 2000's were warmer than 90's. Would you be willing to bet that 2010-2019 will be the first decade in a long time to buck the trend?. Without AGW I would say yes the trend will be bucked, but I am just not sure atm and will be very pleasantly suprised if the trend is bucked.

Simmostruf, with your picture of 1914 you are failing to take into account that there was no Snowy Hydro Scheme so the comparison is irrelevant. If there was no scheme now the rivers would have been dry years ago.

Anyway no one has really answered my question yet that is what would you be thinking if the next dacade turned out to be warmer than this one.?

PS the heat island effect is in reality quite irrelevant and if you worry about it use the rural stations only. It actualy turns out that the temperature rises in rural areas have been greater than in the urban ones.
Posted by: Cutofflow

Re: Temperature trends - 09/12/2009 20:09

Originally Posted By: snowmi
Anyway no one has really answered my question yet that is what would you be thinking if the next dacade turned out to be warmer than this one.?


The same thought i have now. There have been hotter cycles before and there will hotter cycles than this in the future, no doubt about it.
Posted by: Keith

Re: Temperature trends - 09/12/2009 20:57

Whether we got a warmer period would depend more on the cyclical nature of climate and weather. To put this another way, man-made warming surely couldn't be so great that centuries of climatic cycles would somehow be disturbed.

I'd go along with Cutofflow's perspective at this stage.

Let's remember too that this isn't a GW thread (even though it's food for thought), just to give the moderators a bit of respite.
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: Temperature trends - 10/12/2009 07:31

Severly, I have never said there is no global warming, its been warming ever since the end of the last ice age... its just now levelled out and heading down, and thats against the ipcc's guess that temp's will continue to rise because of rising breath levels of us evil humans enjoying our lives to much. Well surprise, it ain't happening sunshine!!!
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 10/12/2009 07:50

Interesting to note that land temperatures have continued to climb this decade:

Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 10/12/2009 08:16

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/pi...-it/#more-13925
A 6th grader and Dad show the vast warming impact of urbanistation of temp readings. Rural records show no trend at all in 100 years
in this study...which puts learned scientists to shame!
Posted by: Keith

Re: Temperature trends - 10/12/2009 08:46

I like the comment in one of the responses to that video saying that the scientists at Copenhagen should be made to watch it (but turn down the background music!).

Instead of that stupid Hollywood climate disaster movie.
Posted by: BOM99

Re: Temperature trends - 10/12/2009 09:02

Originally Posted By: Bucketing Down(BD)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/pi...-it/#more-13925
A 6th grader and Dad show the vast warming impact of urbanistation of temp readings. Rural records show no trend at all in 100 years
in this study...which puts learned scientists to shame!


I am sorry to say this is not the case in Australia, on the contrary rural areas are warming more than urban ones here. The main reason is that most large urban areas in Australia are on the coast where the warming trend has been less than in continental areas. The warming trend over the last hundred years is far greater in Bathurst than Sydney, which is the big urban area?.
Posted by: Keith

Re: Temperature trends - 10/12/2009 09:17

It would be great to do a similar analysis for Australia (or parts/States etc). But there are a lot of missing data (despite the fact that the data period gives the impression of continuity, until you look at the plots), so it would be a very tedious exercise to extract only the relatively continuous data.
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 10/12/2009 09:28

Originally Posted By: Bucketing Down(BD)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/pi...-it/#more-13925
A 6th grader and Dad show the vast warming impact of urbanistation of temp readings. Rural records show no trend at all in 100 years
in this study...which puts learned scientists to shame!


A 6th grader said there is no warming trend in rural records? And trained climate scientists say there is.

I wonder who I should believe? I'll think about it and get back to you....
Posted by: Locke

Re: Temperature trends - 10/12/2009 12:42

Originally Posted By: Mike Hauber
Originally Posted By: Bucketing Down(BD)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/pi...-it/#more-13925
A 6th grader and Dad show the vast warming impact of urbanistation of temp readings. Rural records show no trend at all in 100 years
in this study...which puts learned scientists to shame!


A 6th grader said there is no warming trend in rural records? And trained climate scientists say there is.

I wonder who I should believe? I'll think about it and get back to you....


Thats all ok if you can actually trust the "trained climate scientist".

Unfortunately when it appears that what the scientist has been trained to do is manipulate the data fit only a particular outcome then I'm afraid I'm likely to place as much trust in the boy and his father.
Posted by: Keith

Re: Temperature trends - 10/12/2009 12:56

Mike, it would seem that Peter's work in the video is at least entitled to stand on its own merits. Instead of dismissing it out of hand simply because it wasn't done by a trained scientist, you'd be being fairer to show us why , as it seems, you think the analysis is flawed/wrong or whatever. After all, that's what you are always exhorting the rest of us here to do.

And what would you say if I were to go through and do a similar analysis and post a result? Would it be worth my while? Doesn't look like it!
Posted by: mammatus mistress

Re: Temperature trends - 10/12/2009 13:06

Why has there been no talk here about this recent decade being the warmest ever?
Posted by: petethemoskeet

Re: Temperature trends - 10/12/2009 13:10

Because the report was commissioned using the flawed data from HADCRU.
Posted by: mammatus mistress

Re: Temperature trends - 10/12/2009 13:13

The secretary-general of the WMO, Michel Jarraud, also observed that Australia has so far had its third warmest year on record.

"There were above-normal temperatures in most parts of the continents, and only in USA and Canada there were significant areas with cooler-than-average conditions," he said.

"But in large parts of Southern Asia, Central Africa, these regions are likely to have the warmest year on record."

Mr Jarraud says the year has also been notable for extreme weather events.

"China with the third warmest year in the last 50 years, heat waves in Italy, UK, France, Belgium, Germany, an extreme heat wave in India, and Australia the third warmest year on record with three exceptional heat waves," he said.

Those heatwaves hit south-eastern Australia in January, February and November and the sub-tropical east in August.

A climatologist at the Bureau of Meteorology's National Climate Centre, Blair Trewin, is not surprised that the WMO has highlighted those events and the deadly February bushfires.

"It's not often you see long-term stations ... break monthly temperature records by two, three, four degrees, and to have it happen three times in the same year in the same continent is pretty significant," he said.


So this means nothing to you ?
Posted by: BOM99

Re: Temperature trends - 10/12/2009 13:54

I have been trying to talk about it on the last page. I do not know why some people think its flawed data when you can easily reconstruct the exact same trends from the raw data yourself. (As for my location this was easily the hottest year ever.)
Posted by: petethemoskeet

Re: Temperature trends - 10/12/2009 14:16

You can't cherry pick certain events and data and put them all into one basket and then come up with a conclusion that suits your agenda.And if you read the report it says they did use the flawed data
Posted by: Locke

Re: Temperature trends - 10/12/2009 14:22

I've just gone through dozens of rural stations in Australia via GISS data and for as many stations as show warming there seem to be just as many that show no warming or even cooling.

Given the variability in result between stations that are separated by relatively small geographical distances and given the differences in measurement periods I fail to see how any one can get a reliable overall picture which isn't open to distortion and manipulation.

For example, if you have only measurements taken from 1962 at a station you may well see the impact of the most recent warm PDO phase. This record will show warming if it is influenced by the PDO where as if the data went back to 1940 it would not.

If you use all stations can you guarantee they are positioned in a way that won't have bias. On the other hand if you then cherry pick stations how can you confirm no bias on the part of the person picking the stations.

This gives me absolutely no confidence at all in any analysis coming from this data that purports to show either a global or even Australian trend.

Heck, from your responses Snowmi I was expecting to look at these stations and have a hard time finding stations that do not show warming. This is far from the case!!
Posted by: mammatus mistress

Re: Temperature trends - 10/12/2009 14:22

So do you refute the conclusion?
Posted by: petethemoskeet

Re: Temperature trends - 10/12/2009 14:35

In one word Yes
Posted by: Locke

Re: Temperature trends - 10/12/2009 14:38

I have a very low degree of confidence in the conclusion given what I've seen of the raw data.
Posted by: Keith

Re: Temperature trends - 10/12/2009 17:18

These are some plots of data I selected from the GISS site.

As this is a thread related to trends I'm not going to put a view on man-made warming (though I acknowledge that to some people more than others it's an issue), but rather I simply want to show the existence of climate change (temperatures) in the original sense of the term.

The first chart shows the average annual temperature at Walgett, in the NSW northwest (red line). Years in which there were missing data have been omitted, so the year scale has adjusted itself. It also shows cycles in these data (blue line) based on spectral analysis:



The next chart shows a spectral analysis of the same data, with strong peaks at around 6 and 20 year intervals.



The linear regression trendline for the average series (not shown) gives a trend of +0.0009° per annum, or 0.09° per hundred years. Although I don't agree with the use of linear trend lines where the data are clearly cyclical, this at least demonstrates a trend in simpler terms.

Notice from the first chart:

1.The regular recurrence of small amplitude cycles every few years
2.The regular recurrence of a low point/cycle at less frequent intervals
3.The occurrence of a third high point/cycle at even longer intervals (around 40 years or so).

As the spectral analysis indicated 2 main significant cycles, it doesn't show this third cycle. However the other two (in the first chart) seem to me to represent the two peaks shown in the second chart. The 6-year cycle crops up 5 times between the 40 year ones.

In terms of what the town might expect in the future, it seems that as a high peak (the third cycle referred to above) has just passed, there should be a resumption of the 6-year cycle repeating itself well into this century, with another very high peak around say 2030 to 2040.
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 11/12/2009 07:10

After viewing many Australian sites on the GISS records (and not knowing what is adjusted or not) I cannot see how anyone in a sane mind can make any sense out of it at all!.......
The records are in the main disjointed with gaps and short periods shown, the trends are different for adjoining stations, about 1/3rd of the sites go up, 1/3rd go down and 1/3 show random ups and downs with no clear trend at all.
In the very main the only sites showing any real significant trends up are the large city urban warming BOM sites, and some of their nearby BOM airport stations do not show this upward trend at all(even though their are tarmac heat issues there as well).......
Leaving one to believe strongly in urban warming distortions, And I note also that these sites are the only ones that have been updated to 2009.
IMO the surface record should be scrapped after viewing this mess, how anyone can make adjustments and fill in gaps and fit that all together and say anything meaningful at all about long term temperature trends is beyond me! "An unbelievable mess!"(Paraphrased.......As the leaked email scandal programmer stated in his notes on Australian stations!)
Posted by: Keith

Re: Temperature trends - 11/12/2009 07:56

If one looks at the plots for Sydney, whereas the original raw data show a warming trend from 1950, the adjusted series (for inhomogeneities) show, over the duration of the series, no increase at all,though rises occur over shorter terms.

Which series should be used for analysis? Each would give completely different outcomes.

How confident should we be of the adjusted data (other than that the methods used were contrived by scientists)?

I think I'd prefer to operate with data not fiddled with by anybody.
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 11/12/2009 08:23

Back to the 6th grader who some would prefer to believe over trained climate scientists. His anyalysis covers 28 rural stations showing no increase, and 28 urban stations showing an increase. The analysis is restricted to the USA.

This is a common theme for all the recent spate of analysis claiming to find flaws in out temperature history - pick a very small number of stations and show a result. With thousands of stations in our temperature record this data is a cherry picker's goldmine. It does not even need to be done deliberately - consider if dozens or hundreds of people get curious and decide to locate a few stations at random and check the trends. Most of these will see that most of the stations have a genuine warming trend, conclude that the world really is warming and go on their business. I have done so myself. Others will happen to pick stations out of the set that is not warming, and conclude that something must be wrong and write up their analysis.

In comparison consider an analysis done based on the data collected by Anthony Watts surface stations project. This analysis compares the 70 stations rated CRN 1 or 2 to the rest of the stations, and finds an identical trend.



From Skeptical Science (link)

So who are you going to believe? The 6th grader or the trained climate scientists?
Posted by: Keith

Re: Temperature trends - 11/12/2009 08:38

Mike, this isn't a thread about global warming. I would have thought you'd rather comment on the trend issues raised in earlier posts instead of bringing GW into it.

If GW (in the sense of its attribution to man, which seems to be the only reason it's ever raised) is so critical to trend analysis then perhaps the moderators might consider changing the thread name. I think we need a break from the GW debate.
Posted by: Locke

Re: Temperature trends - 11/12/2009 10:49

For mine, the older data just isnt solid enough to make reasonable conclusions regarding whether the temperatures of the past 30-50 years represent an average increase or decrease over longer term trends.

The data over the past 30-50 years appears to be a little more solid but then shorter term climate cycles come into play in analysing the trends and the drivers.

I guess the question for me then is whether this thread is about measuring temperature trends only or is it also interested in trying to identify the drivers behind the trend and then predict where we are headed in the future.

Posted by: Keith

Re: Temperature trends - 11/12/2009 11:37

It could cover all sorts of things but the thing that annoys me is the prior assumption on the part of some GW proponents that GW is the main, if not the only driver, and that it therefore qualifies to pop up everywhere and go unchallenged simply because a group of scientists said it should.

For example, if one looks at the graphs I posted, how on earth is it possible for man's contributions to disrupt an obvious natural pattern (noting that these cycles were occurring long before CO2 became a factor)?

Anyway each to their own I guess. It's getting impossible to discuss such a thing nowadays.
Posted by: mobihci

Re: Temperature trends - 11/12/2009 12:36

Originally Posted By: Locke
For mine, the older data just isnt solid enough to make reasonable conclusions regarding whether the temperatures of the past 30-50 years represent an average increase or decrease over longer term trends.

The data over the past 30-50 years appears to be a little more solid but then shorter term climate cycles come into play in analysing the trends and the drivers.

I guess the question for me then is whether this thread is about measuring temperature trends only or is it also interested in trying to identify the drivers behind the trend and then predict where we are headed in the future.



i tend to agree with this that really the older data will most likely be adjusted in some way to cater for time of day, thermometer type etc and the reliability of all data, including the current is not 2 decimal places, it can not even be claimed to be accurate to one. add to that the problem of longer term cycles and the temperature record is a very flimsy piece of evidence for ANY case. cooling or warming. it just should not be used as evidence or proof of anything.

when calculating averages or any form of multiplication or division of numbers, you need one more level of accuracy to be able to hold the lesser level of accuracy. ie if you have a reading of 22.5 deg c with an accuracy of + or - 0.2 deg c and then another reading of 24.5 +- 0.2 deg c and you want an average. it would be fair to look at that and say well it will be in the middle = 23.5 +- 0.4 deg c. you can see that the inaccuracy gets multiplied by 2 because the inaccuracy/uncretainty has doubled in range. now lets say that the level of accuracy is 0.5 deg c or 0.6 deg c, well then things change because the place error becomes a full number 24.5+-0.6 22+-0.6 = what? you cant say with ceratinty even whether it is 22 or 24 deg. so to deal with decimal places or inaccuracies such as this, they must have a place higher level of accuracy than the result. ie if you are to say the average is 23.5 deg c, then you need at least two figures with one more place ie 22.55 +-0.05 & 24.55 +-0.05. does this level of accuracy exist? i doubt it and even if it was shown i would not trust it, yet still we are expected to accept 0.6 deg warming as a result.

i raised the question of alice springs a while ago. this is the record-

early-



after station close-



this is blairs answer-

"There's two separate issues here. The site move from the PO to the airport can be and has been corrected for (the long overlap helps here). The instrument shelter problem is separate - before about 1910 a lot of instruments were in places like under tin verandahs, on walls or even indoors. This is very difficult to correct for, given that there's generally not much documentation about the former instrument position (and Alice Springs is especially difficult because of the lack of neighbouring stations)."

from -

http://forum.weatherzone.com.au/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=44740&page=515

all that this means to me is that we just simply do not have enough reliable data to claim any trend, and even if we did we should not act on or use trends less than a degree.
Posted by: Keith

Re: Temperature trends - 11/12/2009 13:35

The average is a bad measure anyway in that it scarcely ever reflects an actual observation. Better is the median.

I think some sort of reasonable estimate is possible if we (a) start with raw data and (b) ensure that it's continuous.

As for inconsistencies due to changing instruments and the like, a simple resolution to that would be to run a standard t-test on the data from each instrument with the null hypothesis that the data come from identical distributions. If the data do not follow the normal distribution that is required for this particular test, they could be transformed to normality using logarithms or a power or something like that. Alternatively, a Spearman rank test for non-normal data could be applied. All tests have their drawbacks of course, but if in the end we have to reject our null hypothesis (that the data from each instrument come from identical distributions), then I think that for the purpose of prediction we would use the data for which the instrumentation was more reliable. There should also be at least 30 years of continuous data.

What do people think of this approach? It has weaknesses, but is the principle sound?
Posted by: mobihci

Re: Temperature trends - 11/12/2009 16:00

the surrounding stations would be fine to get rid of the extremes for a median, but like with alice springs for a lot of that record there is nothing within 300kms which means it must stand on its own. you could just lop off the top 10 to 20% and the bottom 10 to 20%, but it is rather crude.

the crossover period between mid 40s and 50s is all that can be used to work out the differences in the siting. that seems to vary between 0 deg and at least 1.5 deg difference over those years, so ther must be some real messy way they actually pin the two together. you can see from the data that it will not be accurate and should never be claimed to be.

there are newer sites, but i would think that satellites should be the only information robust enough to attempt to get results with a decimal place.
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 11/12/2009 16:53


not sure if this is Brissy Australia or USA
Posted by: Keith

Re: Temperature trends - 11/12/2009 16:57

That would be where the inhomogeneity adjustments are made. I don't know the fine workings of that but there are advanced statistical techniques used.

So we are dealing with multiple issues: distance between stations, requiring the use of a 'nearest neighbour' or similar technique, different instrumentation and exposure conditions, changes in siting, and changes in siting conditions. And that's probably not an exhaustive list.

The BOM does have a list of high quality stations here.

The warming trend shown on the graphs there relate to the 1961-1990 average, which is the standard '30 year normal' used all over the world for comparative purposes.

My difficulty with this is that the data come from only 130 stations, but then what does one do..take stations that have interrupted data with the gaps plugged by statistical inference, or a relatively small set of stations with continuous data recorded under standard high quality criteria (for screens, exposure, etc)?. Obviously this latter dataset would be much more reliable in itself.

Now in the video, Peter used 28 urban and 28 rural stations in the US. There's a common factor here; both the BOM graphs and the video study rely on a relatively low number of stations. That to me makes his selection process just as valid as any professional analysis. He used only the data that had no gaps. Would his results be any different if he had studied 130 rural stations? If, as has been suggested, he could be criticised for using only US data, what could he (or anyone) do with other world wide data that had gaps etc, such as Australia's? It's essential to do 'cherry picking' of sorts simply to get data that are reliable enough. This has nothing to do with preconceptions, as some like to think. And I doubt anyone would want to systematically go through every single US station and decide to remove from analysis only the ones that fitted one's preconceptions about warming. For one to maintain the allegation of 'cherry-picking' on the part of skeptics, that is what would have to be done. Otherwise, how could one possibly know which was which?

Maybe what has to be done as far as Australia's GISS data is concerned, is to study the 130 BOM stations only this time take a longer average, over a period during which all the stations were operational. It would be interesting to see what happens. But the bottom line is that we do not have enough continual data from all over the world, to be making dogmatic statements about warming. We can only look at individual long-running station data and draw a conclusion about that station only.
Posted by: Keith

Re: Temperature trends - 11/12/2009 17:00

Oh dear, BD..

Seesaw Margery Daw
Penny wink shall have a new master
She shall earn but a penny a day
Because she can't work any faster..
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 11/12/2009 19:28

I see no list of what BOM sites are used Keith and if they have been adjusted and how many urban sites and non-urban are used.
I would like to know which ones are used and if they have the original data?
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 11/12/2009 19:36

And long ago post, Mike I would believe whoever plots the data correctly whoever that is.
Australian data seems to mirror those USA results re urban and country, from what I looked at for many or most sites.
Seeing as many "scientists' alter and adjust and amend data, I would believe Satellite data only...although, even there one
could manipulate the data also...one would hope not though...It is getting harder and harder to believe
any data on temps actually.
Give me the original data and I can then make up my own mind, don't give me GISS
or any other series that has been adjusted, as no one knows in reality if their adjustments are correct or
biased sub-conciously. Reminds me of the independent study done when folk knew what samples were belonged to what
and all came to a certain "definite" conclusion, then they tested the samples again not knowing which was which and came up
with a completely different conclusion!
Posted by: Keith

Re: Temperature trends - 11/12/2009 20:46

I found a list of sites here. There's more information here. There are links to daily and annual temperature data. A quick look suggests these aren't quite the same as the 130, probably because some might only be rainfall stations, and others only temperatures.

From the PDF information brief accompanying the daily data, 99 of the stations listed are non-urban. Adjustments have been made to facilitate the examination of extremes, so this might not be the best dataset to use for general purposes. Anomalies are expressed with reference to the 1961-1990 normal however it's easy enough to calculate a mean for a different (longer) time frame. Indeed, decadal means might be worthy of comparison (but a lot more work!).

Also, there appears to be some limit as to the time period due to digitisation issues (gosh..if I were dyslexic I'd read that as 'degustation!).

The data files (.tar format) will require a software package to unpack them..I don't think .tar is supported by Windows. I use a program called 7-Zip, a freeware package available from this link.

By the way, I assume that the 'raw' data described as such in the GISS data URL is exactly that..unmodified. If it isn't it ought to be!
Posted by: mobihci

Re: Temperature trends - 12/12/2009 02:44

alice springs airport is one of those sites listed.

it seem to me that huge drop in mean with the pre 1910 equipment over its time would indicate that the 'average' which was established later by the so called hq site at the airport between mid 40s and 60s where it is rather flat would mean that the pre 1910 temps were above the 'average' not under it. in any case, the early data should not be ignored when it is being relied on so heavily for later trends. you either have to integrate them properly or at least attempt to and then use the whole series as a base or you must ignore both and put them in the not enough data category.

i have never understood how 30 years could be considered a base period for any calculation when you have cycle frequencies outside its range. in fact you need twice the highest frequency ie the nyqist rate-

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/NyquistFrequency.html

which means if it is possible for an ocean cycle to go longer than 15 years, then you will not have a true understanding of trends using 30 years as a base. perhaps the 30 years has just been established when the climate was considered extended weather and the pdo etc were vague theory. i think it is time to revisit this and the whole understanding of the climate system instead of this bunkering down and setting everything in stone.
Posted by: marakai

Re: Temperature trends - 12/12/2009 02:46

As posted before do GISS not use GHCN as their starting point for data?
Posted by: mobihci

Re: Temperature trends - 12/12/2009 03:24

i had a look for all the long term stations around brisbane. ones that have both early (pre war) data and fairly current data. this is the list up to 120kms from brisbane-













i cant find any more that have data in both 20s-40s and 70s-current with enough data to mean anything.
Posted by: Keith

Re: Temperature trends - 12/12/2009 06:04

Originally Posted By: marakai
As posted before do GISS not use GHCN as their starting point for data?

Yes, they do. I read that somewhere on the GISS site.
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 12/12/2009 08:06

Thanks for the info Keith a few post earlier.
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 12/12/2009 22:18

Expanding snow cover
December 11, 10:06 AMCincinnati Weather ExaminerRich Apuzzo

"About 2/3 of the nation and 1/2 of North America have snow cover according to the latest satellite analysis from NOAA. Just as impressive is Russia being 90% covered with snow extending into China and west to our friends in Copenhagen attending the one-world government meetings there. Did you hear, there is now talk of shifting the focus to Nitrogen? The fear-mongering never ends...

On the plus side, the arctic ice that Al Gore was so worried about has returned to levels as great as any we have seen since satellites started measuring it in 1979, and we never lost the 40% that he claimed, and that is explained here. http://icecap.us/index.php

Back to the snow cover. While it is covering huge tracts of land, it's not unusual to have that much snow on the ground, although the recent blizzard did set records for cold after snowfalls of 10-20 inches and snow drifts up to 15 feet! The snow may not be terribly unusual, but it is when you consider that we're suposedly seeing global warming (which we're not, and never were) and considering the El Nino going on in the Pacific Ocean. Normally, El Nino patterns lead to milder air across the United States, but this month has been colder in just about every part of the country, except Florida.

A new arctic blast is already developing over western Canada and you can see some of that bitter cold there now. Look at the bitter cold in Russia! http://www.weatherforyou.com/cgi-bin/hw3...as&hwvMapUnits= Depending on when you read this story, the maps will change, but check them through the day and note the readings of 30 to 50 below zero...and remember that we're only in the first month of winter 2009-2010.

The bigger player this year is likely the amazingly weak sun. We just completed a 14-day period without sunpots followed by this weak one today. More amazing is that we should have hit the sunspot minimum in late 2006 or early 2007, yet the solar decline continues.

The new and expanded snowcover across the continent will feed developing storms and make it easier for new arctic air masses to form and move south into the United States, so don't look for a change in the cold pattern anytime soon..."
http://www.examiner.com/x-3854-Cincinnati-Weather-Examiner~y2009m12d11-Expanding-snow-cover?cid=examiner-email
Posted by: Long Road Home

Re: Temperature trends - 12/12/2009 22:30

And following on from that article...

(Ive been following their temp anomalies and theyve been like this for about 2 weeks now.. seems to be getting colder every year)

Posted by: marakai

Re: Temperature trends - 13/12/2009 02:25

Lets face it the numbers have been fudged to suit the agenda..
Posted by: Ben Sandilands

Re: Temperature trends - 16/12/2009 16:47

Two things I don't think should be fudged are the arctic and antarctic sea ice levels which are closing on the lower traces set in 2007 in both hemispheres even in opposite seasons.
sea ice coverage

We see the southern ice falling below the record anomaly of the previous season and the northern ice reaching parity with the record low of 2007 for this time of year.

Why misquote them?

Another concern is the remorseless rise in carbon dioxide concentrations in recent decades irrespective of which way the shorter temperate trend lines can be drawn. You could almost conclude that something was pumping it into the atmosphere faster than it could be removed.

What could that be?
Posted by: ROM

Re: Temperature trends - 16/12/2009 17:35

A long but eye opening [ complete] post on how much and how often the very basic and original global temperature data is adjusted and the huge increase in the error bars that result from all these adjustments as the temperature data is processed down through a multitude of agencies before being fed to the public as the supposed global temperatures.

From comments section on Jeff Id's Air Vent blog article ;Things that make you go HMM …

Green R&D Mgr said;

December 15, 2009 at 11:55 pm
Steven,

Your post proves a point, but perhaps not the one you wanted to make.

The initial mistake I made was to assume GHCN was adjusting raw data, but at least in the US, it has already been adjusted a number of times by NCDC for the USHCN. Each step introducing more possible smaller error while removing gross discontinuities. It has been an eye opening journey to see how many times the data is adjusted by various algorithms. I’m sure I still don’t have it all completely right, but this is what I have seen so far at least for US data.You may want to check that the raw is actually raw.

My observation is that the accumulation of these uncertainties appears to exceed the range of detected warming signal that is claimed.

Every time someone adjustments the data they also increase the band of uncertainty. This uncertainty builds upon the uncertainty already in the raw data prior to hand off to GHCN. Many of the adjustments appear to have legitimate reasons of trying to remove large discontinuities or false overall trends. However, every time they modify the data with an algorithm that reduces the volatility, they add some uncertainty even while these other problems are fixed.

In the US, the data is first gathered daily from the station.
The data is collected and reported in 1 degree F increments.

DSI-3200 Page 4:
“The accuracy of the maximum-minimum temperature system (MMTS) is +/- 0.5
degrees C, and the temperature is displayed to the nearest 0.1 degree F. The observer records the values to the nearest whole degree F. A Cooperative Program Manager calibrates the MMTS sensor annually against a specially maintained reference instrument.”
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/documentlibrary/tddoc/td3200.pdf

So before any adjustments are made, the data has an error range of +/- 1F or .5C !

Then it is adjusted least 3 times before it is handed to GISS
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/

Time of Observation Bias Adjustments (Adjustment #1) (Error range unknown)
“Next, monthly temperature values were adjusted for the time-of-observation bias (Karl, et al. 1986; Vose et al., 2003).

The TOB-adjustment software uses an empirical model to estimate and adjust the monthly temperature values so that they more closely resemble values based on the local midnight summary period.”

Homogeneity Testing and Adjustment Procedures (Adjustment #2) (Error range may be shown by NCDC, see below)
“Following the TOB adjustments, the homogeneity of the TOB-adjusted temperature series is assessed. In previous releases of the U.S. HCN monthly dataset, homogeneity adjustments were performed using the procedure described in Karl and Williams (1987).
Unfortunately, station histories are often incomplete so artificial discontinuities in a data series may occur on dates with no associated record in the metadata archive. Undocumented station changes obviously limit the effectiveness of SHAP. To remedy the problem of incomplete station histories, the version 2 homogenization algorithm addresses both documented and undocumented discontinuities.”
Estimation of Missing Values (Adjustment #3) (Error range unknown)
“Following the homogenization process, estimates for missing data are calculated using a weighted average of values from highly correlated neighboring values. The weights are determined using a procedure similar to the SHAP routine. This program, called FILNET, uses the results from the TOB and homogenization algorithms to obtain a more accurate estimate of the climatological relationship between stations. The FILNET program also estimates data across intervals in a station record where discontinuities occur in a short time interval, which prevents the reliable estimation of appropriate adjustments.
Urbanization Effects (NCDC says this is covered by their Homogenization algorithms)
In the original HCN, the regression-based approach of Karl et al. (1988) was employed to account for urban heat islands. In contrast, no specific urban correction is applied in HCN version 2 because the change-point detection algorithm effectively accounts for any “local” trend at any individual station. In other words, the impact of urbanization and other changes in land use is likely small in HCN version 2.”

Now after starting out with an observation error range of +/- 1F (.5C). Every one of these prior adjustments adds uncertainty to the data.

For example:

1. Raw Data point is 15C +/- .5C That means the range is 14.5C to 15.5C
2. The first adjustment add +/- .25. Now the range is 14.25C to 15.75C
3. Second adjustment +/- .25 Now the range is 14C to 16C
4. Third adjustment is +/- .505 Now the range is 13.5C to 16.5C!

I chose these numbers for 2,3 & 4 as examples, I do not yet know the real numbers. However I chose their net value because the NCDC gives an example in the document that describes their process. Their chart for Reno shows error bars that look to be around 1.8C to 2C range error introduced by their adjustments. This is additive to the +/- .5 C built in to the raw measurement as there is no indication it includes the raw error range. It could actually be worse as it is unclear if the TOB & Missing data interpolation is part of their uncertainty calculation.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/

Only after these adjustments are doen GISS get the data for merge into the GHCN.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources/gistemp.html

Then, incredibly, they make more adjustments!

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources/gistemp.html
First they remove the Adjustment #3 data from above. So in a sense they remove one source of error. (Adjustment #4)
“The reports were converted from F to C and reformatted; data marked as being filled in using interpolation methods were removed.”

If they only remove part of Adjustment #3, then more uncertainty is introduced.

This indicates GISS is using the NCDC/USHCN data that has been through Adjustment #3 and they take it mostly back to Adjustment #2.

Then, they homogenize the data again! (Adjustment #5)

“The goal of the homogeneization effort is to avoid any impact (warming
or cooling) of the changing environment that some stations experienced
by changing the long term trend of any non-rural station to match the
long term trend of their rural neighbors, while retaining the short term
monthly and annual variations. If no such neighbors exist, the station is
completely dropped, if the rural records are shorter, part of the
non-rural record is dropped.”

The specific stated goal of this adjustment is to take into account Urban Heat Island effect. Yet, NCDC says they already adjusted for this when they homongenized the data! Now the data is twice baked for UHI. (Which I thought the IPCC and Jones, Wang (1990) said was negligible)

A bit concerning is the video data analysis show UHI is still in the data by sampling city/urban pairs around the country. Hmm… are we smarter than a 6th grader..:-) (I need the URL, but it is well known and easily reproduced independently)

Roman M has done an excellent job in his blog showing these GISS adjustments are driving a bias into the data.
http://statpad.wordpress.com/2009/12/12/ghcn-and-adjustment-trends/

I have sampled numerous individual stations in CA and seen the same bias being introduced by this this process. I described the process for doing this in comments over at WUWT. Others using that method have found the same results in NY, Grand Canyon, Calgary, etc. http://wattsupwiththat.com/ (I need to find the exact links, sorry)

So there are two building concerns about this final step. First, it appears duplicative to (at least in the US) what has already been done. Second it appears to be reshaping the curves to fit the story. No one has any indication if this is just a bad algorithm or deliberate.

Don’t forget, this also introduces uncertainty. NCDC estimated their homogenization introduced up to +/- .9C if I read their example chart correctly.

So right now it appears the inherent cumulative range of error far exceeds the claimed warming signal that has supposedly detected.

This chart shows GISS claiming a warming signal of .6 C detected.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/

Remember, even the raw data was +/- .5 C from the moment it was written down per the NCDC.

The most incredibly generous reading of the Reno example for NCDC (assuming it includes the raw error rate, TOB, Missing Value Estimates included) shows an error band of at best +/- .9 C.

Then there is whatever uncertainty is added by the GISS process that also appears to bend the curve.

I don’t claim to know all the right numbers for the total uncertainty being introduced into the data. However, this error budget must be fully disclosed and understood. It certainly appears that the signal is less than the noise introduced by the original measurement and the up to 5 adjustments. Exactly by how much is critical to prove the point that a warming signal has in fact been detected.

I don’t know what process the raw European data goes through. Until someone describes the path from observation to the end, it is hard to say.
Your post show early 20th century adjustments of +/- 1C. Given my earlier mistake on GISS “raw” that turned out to already have been modified by NCDC, you may want to investigate if your data may be in the same position. Assuming a similar raw observation error of +/- .5C, the cumulative error range is already +/- 1.5C. It is really hard to claim a 1C signal detection in that environment.

Given this is an open review process, I’m sure others will find mistakes in this post, let me know and I will investigate and correct as required.
Posted by: Vlasta

Re: Temperature trends - 16/12/2009 23:53

LOL
The "global warming' is already under 10 feet by me . And more I read and hear about it is getting deeper. As was mentioned in the other thread Copenhagen is not about warming or cooling . Is about over population and problems with it . If we know ( on WZ)there is so many problems with past temps . Then there is no way , that those scientists who created loony graphs wouldnt know what they are doing. That is coz a highest government order to them to make it look like the Earth is warming to scare the population and accept a tax on it . And I go as far with a claim , that there is no warming at all

I like famous , never forgetable lines from great films . Dumb and dumber .... That town is that way , lol . That suits , what they are telling us
Posted by: davidg

Re: Temperature trends - 17/12/2009 07:40

Originally Posted By: Ben Sandilands
Two things I don't think should be fudged are the arctic and antarctic sea ice levels which are closing on the lower traces set in 2007 in both hemispheres even in opposite seasons.
sea ice coverage

We see the southern ice falling below the record anomaly of the previous season and the northern ice reaching parity with the record low of 2007 for this time of year.

Why misquote them?

Another concern is the remorseless rise in carbon dioxide concentrations in recent decades irrespective of which way the shorter temperate trend lines can be drawn. You could almost conclude that something was pumping it into the atmosphere faster than it could be removed.

What could that be?



I wont go on too much about sea ice as there is a seperate thread for that, but antarctic sea ice is still well above average, and the 2007 trace for the northern hemisphere by this time of year was no longer at record low levels. In fact by the time it reached its maximum sea ice extent for the season it was almost average due to the accelerated freeze following the massive summer melt.

Its still well below average atm but it seems each year it recovers a little more than the previous year.
Posted by: Cimexus

Re: Temperature trends - 17/12/2009 14:07

Originally Posted By: Ben Sandilands

Another concern is the remorseless rise in carbon dioxide concentrations in recent decades irrespective of which way the shorter temperate trend lines can be drawn. You could almost conclude that something was pumping it into the atmosphere faster than it could be removed.

What could that be?


This is why I don't understand why climate 'skeptics' seem to be against taking action to reduce carbon emissions. Whether you do or don't believe that the world is warming, whether you do or don't believe that the warming is primarily anthropogenic ... it doesn't matter!

Because, one thing that can't be argued against is that CO2 levels (as well as levels of methane and other greenhouse gases) are increasing year upon year, and for CO2 at least, are in higher concentrations now than they have been for close to 1 million years. And increasing at a rate that on a climatic/geological timescale, might as well be almost instantaneous.

CO2 concentrations have been higher in earth's history, to be sure. But not during human existance. And even rapid past climate/atmospheric shifts have occurred over thousands of years, not decades or centuries. The fact that the level of these gases in our atmosphere is increasing at an unsustainable rate should be enough evidence to take action. Warming, cooling or whatever may or may not be a side effect ... but that is kinda irrelevant IMO.
Posted by: ROM

Re: Temperature trends - 17/12/2009 15:42

That past climate shifts have taken thousands of years to occur is one of the great fallacies that most people seem to believe.
Here is a one article of a number of very rapid climate shifts, some possibly on no more than a continental scale although no climate shift of this size can possibly occur without severe climate effects elsewhere.
The global covering Younger Dryas climate shift took place possibly in less than a decade and after 1300 years of extremely cold global temperatures temperatures recovered in less than 5 years.
And these climate shifts had absolutely nothing to do with any green house gases such as CO2.
These short term climate shifts appear to be a completely natural and irregular re-occurring feature of the global climate since the last great Ice Age.
There has not yet been any satisfactory explanations put forward as to the possibly multiple causes of these abrupt climate shifts.
Their causes and the mechanisms involved to trigger such abrupt climate shifts is still a mystery let alone being forecastable within the present state of knowledge.

And; http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=282&cid=9986

Another paper from a USGRCP seminar is below.;

Quote:

Abrupt Climate Changes Revisited: How Serious and How Likely?

INTRODUCTION:

Dr. Herman Zimmerman
Director of the Paleoclimate Program, National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA

SPEAKERS:

Dr. Richard B. Alley
Professor, Earth System Science Center and Department of Geosciences, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA

Dr. Peter B. deMenocal
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, Palisades, NY

Overview

Widespread climate changes in the distant past were larger and more rapid than those experienced during more recent historical times. For example, the cooling of the climate leading into the last "ice age," the peak of which occurred roughly 21,000 years ago, and the subsequent climate transition to a warmer, more modern world were punctuated by abrupt climate changes that were one-third to one-half as large as the change from an "ice age" to a warm climate [i.e., the roughly 11-13ºF (6-7ºC) transition from an "ice-age" to a warm climate, globally]. Paleoclimate records further indicate that during these abrupt shifts many aspects of the climate in many regions changed precipitously in the time span of a few years to as little as a single year.

Moreover, the current warm period since the peak of the last ice age (21,000 years ago) was previously thought to be very stable with none of the large climate shifts that so characterized "ice ages." Contrary to this once widely held notion, new evidence from deep-sea sediments and ice cores shows that this warm period was interrupted by a series of abrupt cooling events, each lasting several hundred years. One of the most prominent of these events occurred roughly 12,800 years ago, after Greenland had warmed to near-present conditions. Another smaller but significant abrupt cooling event occurred roughly 8,200 years ago when temperatures in Greenland were slightly above present-day temperatures. These and other recent, abrupt cooling events have been detected from Scandinavia to Africa, some of which occurred within a human lifetime. One such notable event 4,200 years ago (2200 BC) is shown to be synchronous with the collapse of the world's first human empire in Mesopotamia.

Thus, the paleoclimate record suggests that the climate system can respond to various climate forcings in a non-linear manner. In fact, these results document significant and consequential climate shifts during the time of human civilization, and highlight the characteristically abrupt aspects of climate change and their potential consequences. This raises the possibility that if humans alter the Earth's atmosphere rapidly enough, resulting in a global warming, an abrupt climate shift might be induced, with significant social and ecological consequences.


Abrupt Climate Changes and the "Younger Dryas" Event


Approximately 12,800 years ago, as the climate was warming following the Earth's last glacial maximum ("ice age"), an abrupt transition to cold conditions occurred, during which the surface temperature of the Northern Hemisphere dropped precipitously [nearly 27ºF (15ºC) in Greenland, for example] in a series of abrupt, decadal-scale jumps, some of which involved temperature changes on the order of 5ºF (3ºC). This abrupt climate cooling is known as the "Younger Dryas" event. Once the abrupt transition to a colder climate had occurred, the Northern Hemisphere, especially Europe and Greenland, experienced considerably colder conditions lasting about 1,300 years. Other parts of the world were affected as well. The termination of this cold event around 11,500 years ago occurred as an even more abrupt warming, most of which took place in a single 5-year period. The entire transition to a warmer, more modern climate took no more than 40 years. During this transition, snow accumulation in Greenland doubled in a single 3-year period, with 90% of that increase occurring in a single year. This abrupt transition to a warmer world led to a three-fold drop in wind-blown sea salt, a seven-fold drop in wind-blown dust, and a climate warming of 9-18ºF (5-10ºC) in Greenland, all in less than a decade.
Posted by: Arnost

Re: Temperature trends - 17/12/2009 17:22

There are suggestions that the Younger Dryas cooling was VERY fast - like months not years...

New Scientist
Posted by: Severely Tall

Re: Temperature trends - 17/12/2009 21:48

But lets just take a second to think about who claims alot of this geological evidence is reliable...the same people who cannot explain nearly every mass extinction event in history....who rely on time scales which are inaccurate to a massive degree...and cant even tell us about the earths core, especially anything sub-plate level. Temperature proxies are extremely inaccurate and are due as much if not more scepticism as temperature records...ice cores and other long term records are subject to signficant innaccuracies associated with discontinuites and non-linear time records due to melt-through.

All science has its flaws...just be careful what you consider to be gospel...especially with talking in any sort of confidence about the geological record.
Posted by: ROM

Re: Temperature trends - 17/12/2009 23:41

Geologists are a damn sight more honest and conservative than most climate researchers.
If a geologists attempts to twist the facts in the slightest he will be on the street quick smart and virtually unemployable as it is on the geologists say so and his / her knowledge of geology that mining and resource companies will spend hundreds of millions of their investor's dollars.
And if that geologists tries to be a smart arse and prove how good he is by dressing up the facts a little and the company blows a few hundred million on a dry hole and the hard questions are then asked of the geologist, that keeps any geologist on the straight and narrow.
And dry holes happen all the time in mining and oil well drilling despite some of the best and most gifted geologists in the world, the ones with an unexplained innate gift for finding ore bodies or oil or gas, working on the projects.

Geologists collectively are amongst the most skeptical of all professions about global warming.
They see and analyse the changes in the epochs of the global climate on an everyday basis locked up in the very rocks which they study and which rocks are changed, altered, modified and formed by the earth's ever changing climate.
The changes wrought by the Earth's climate on the earth itself is the very heart of geology.

And you are talking about the actual climate happenings of the ages past where there are fixed identifiable examples of the global climate which are there to be actually interpreted not some airy fairy model that tries to predict climate a hundred years ahead and now known to be using grossly corrupted and altered data as the main inputs.
Furthermore there is written recorded history in both Europe and particularly China with it's 3000 years plus of civilisation, sparse perhaps but recorded nonetheless, of these warm and cold periods in the global climate to back up the recent geological type records.

How different that is to predicting the future even only a hundred years ahead based only on some very dodgy climate models using the supposed warming effects of a very minor atmospheric gas which in turn relies on large still relatively unknown feedbacks for it's supposed effect to try to predict the future of the global climate.
Models that in a few short years are already way off in their predictions and which it is even admitted by their creators that there is a hell of a lot of stuff that affects climate but is not included in the model because the modelers find it too hard to put in.
They can't even model the effects of clouds or even hurricanes on the global climate as a hurricane is small enough to fit inside of the 100 or 500 km global grids that they use and as such can't be modeled for the effects on the climate.

Which would you prefer to spend your money on and put your trust in, a geologists who has a good chance of finding a valuable resource within 10 years or a climate modeler and his model who might give you a big clue on where to put your money in a possibly lucrative weather / climate related venture that may eventuate in a decade's time?
Anyway Al Gore and all the big bankers have beaten you to that one!
Posted by: Dr Odious

Re: Temperature trends - 18/12/2009 12:36

>>Geologists are a damn sight more honest and conservative than most climate researchers.>>

I think its hilarious that climate sceptics/deniers can feel that its OK to write this sort of thing in blogs etc while decrying the content in personal (hacked) emails of a few climate scientists. Is it too much to ask for a least a minimal effort to be impartial?

On the topic of rates of temperature change, its a different world to that of the Younger Dryas and other such periods. Today species live in highly modified fragmented landscapes with (in many cases) much lower populations. Their ability to adapt by moving ain't what it used to be. Once again the devil is in the (often overlooked) details.
Posted by: SBT

Re: Temperature trends - 18/12/2009 14:45

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm here is a list of all the things so far attributed to Global Warming.

Make of it what you will.
Posted by: Dr Odious

Re: Temperature trends - 18/12/2009 15:37

I make of it that many poeple out there don't have a good understanding of the impacts of climate change, or exaggerate them. This does not invalidate AGW theory.
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: Temperature trends - 18/12/2009 21:38

Dr O, I have great understanding of the impacts of CC. Humans cause it all so now it is time to cull the great threat? Allow the Government in their infinite wisdom to select those that create the least positive influence on the planet to be culled, save all those that use more, and execute those that are more reliant on the planet because they are killing us all, the poor. Wake up to yourself!!
Posted by: Severely Tall

Re: Temperature trends - 18/12/2009 22:45

Simmosturf...thats a shame you think that way...that just because you dont agree with the evidence that we are the paranoid ones? Tell me...who are the ones suggesting GCMs and hence computing is not reliable in any way shape or form...despite evidence to the contrary.

He's not suggesting that...hes suggesting population control via control of birth rates...similar to the birth rate controls which have been semi-effective in China. In the end the over-population of this planet will sort itself out...starvation, and mass-death will result...particularly during droughts. Its not the government culling people...its trying to ensure sufficient resources exist to support populations. What you describe is a paranoid conspiracy theory. I smell a 9/11 conspiracy aspect to the posts coming out here.
Posted by: Vlasta

Re: Temperature trends - 19/12/2009 00:09

Ok here is the impact of one child policy

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/11/AR2009121104378.html

Its all catch 22
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: Temperature trends - 19/12/2009 06:34

What evidence?? I see heaps of proof that this is all cyclical, its all happened before and will happen again. The evidence your talking about ST is political and media spun drivel. Just watch the news for 5 min and you can almost see the presenter writing their own lines to dramatise even a small bushfire or storm event or even a cold story that is all caused by Global Warming!!!! What a load of bullshite
Posted by: Severely Tall

Re: Temperature trends - 19/12/2009 14:37

SS. See Arnost's discussion on proof...or the lack thereof in science. There is no incontrivertable evidence to what you suggest.

Simmo...I only wish I could introduce you to the people on the ground...then you might understand what you are actually talking about...the evidence is there...certain people need to stop denying just because they are too technologically inept to believe a computer simulations (which is ironic given they make posts on here...and based on thousands of simulations...together with records)...the cyclical proof is circumstancial...based on limited and dodgy statistical methods...as I have pointed out to almost despair. Once again you miscontrue the science with the misinformed media (who need to be regulated to not sensationalise), against climate scientists (who emphatically and repeditively acknowledge that individual events are not attributable to climate change...just look at every interview by David Karoly)...stop trying to apply a discrediting brush to slander science...attack the idea not the scientists. Its another ironic thought that you talk about political and media spun drivel when every post you make trys to make use of the same drivel to your own designs. If I hadn't seen the actual figures...and wasnt able to play with the data myself I might also question it...if there is a fault to the scientists its attempting to disseminate results to the public via the unreliable and incompetent media.

The temperature trend is positive...even your own sites agree that it is what may seem a relatively small rate of change will have a big impact in half a century...certain parties have vested interests to deny the evidence of any warming (which some claim to be natural) at every opportunity...whether because they fall into a certain age bracket that is mistrusting of technology...or their own interests suit this purpose. Attribution studies suggest that in some part at least we contribute to global warming...hence the argument shouldnt be the blame game...but an action...which the ETS is not a good approach in an Australian context.

So before you continue on your media using bash...how about we get back to actual scientific verifiable evidence.
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 19/12/2009 15:10

Show us the proof that positive feedbacks outweigh negative feedbacks and thereby hugely increase global temps, as CO2 will not do it on its own...everyone knows how much CO2 will heat the globe up from now on it's own...very little. Face the facts ST you have no proof at all, just theoretical unproven heresay!
The vast majority of folk that do not believe the computer simulations,are sane researching common sense people (generally caring environmentaly friendly nice folk) who can see that the science far from proven and can see so many other influences (solar, magnetic, albedo, cloud cover, volcanoes, ocean currents, ocean atmosphere interchanges, land use changes, etc,etc) that affect global temps....Very few have any agenda but to find the real science about climate change, and not have it thrown at them as sensationalist interviews and climate chanmge funded studies and end of the world headlines...many of these have large funded agendas to follow it seems to me.
Posted by: Severely Tall

Re: Temperature trends - 19/12/2009 16:43

And yet we have yet to see any evidence suggest lunar evidence...id go as far to say you have no reliable evidence and are just speculating.

The utterly unrealistic material located on your own 'statistical model' http://www.holtonweather.com/global.htm what that proves is that poorly designed models produce poor and unrealistic results.

For instance the lack of references here: "Apart from the above opinion on the effects of CO2 on Global Mean Temperature, I strongly believe (and much available science literature will back me up on this), that most, if not all, IPCC used Global Mean Temperature Forecating Models, do not allow sufficiently in their formulation for any Solar-Magnetic and AMO/PDO Ocean changes...And it is these latter mentioned 3 climatic variables, which are in my opinion (and the opinion of many others), the 3 strongest climatic influences on Mean Global Temperature trends." Where is the available literature? I agree that long term ocean changes we need to simulate better...but I (and clearly other members of the scientific community...see below) dont believe the relation to sunspots and solar-magnetics is well founded, for instance:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11650

In fact consider how unrealistic your own prediction looks:
http://i519.photobucket.com/albums/u359/ianholton/GLOBALSLTEMPS2009PTLJC.jpg
The model clearly cannot handle interannual-variation, is overly smoothed and from the apparent outputs is unrealistically simple in its prediction of climate impacts, ignoring smaller scale and feedback cycles.

You are suggesting a massive deviation from the trends identified in the recent past, and from every operational climate model...I wonder. I suspect you will probably claim to be too busy...but thats ok...the world will keep on spinning...and the evidence will continue to stack up.

Oh...and if you suggest its all theoretical...try attribution studies:
http://reg.bom.gov.au/amm/docs/2006/nicholls_hres.pdf

Or how about the number of papers talking about feedbacks..just to sample a few.
http://climatechange.pbworks.com/f/Posit...er+Cox+2005.pdf
http://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&l...2otqZAmM0Gve0ZY
http://www.knmi.nl/~hurkvd/docs/Friedlingstein.pdf
http://www.atmos.umd.edu/theses_archive/2005/haifee/haifee.pdf
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/2006Q2/211/articles_required/Lorius90_ice-core.pdf
http://www.uvm.edu/~bbeckage/Teaching/GlobalChangeEcology/AssignedPapers/Kump.ModelUncertainty.Nature.2002.pdf

As I have spent significant time addressing. Volcanics cannot be attributed to be the cause, land use changes are part of the AGW argument (obviously...if we are changing the use of land...take for instance the effect of the mining on Naru (which has changed the convective environment markedly)). The other effects are implemented as much as possible in models...and much work is being dedicated towards adding these effects in....between assessment reports scientists do not just sit around between these reports...which have evolved over time. Scientific funding is hard to come by...the results of the climate work are not predetermined...the goal of the funding is to determine what the causes are...and what the end results of these causes are on our climate...it doesnt actually matter for the scientists...we get funded either the result...and it doesnt promote further funding...for instance if the evidence was for cooling this would be our advisement. Just have a look at grant proposals before you make such assertions.

Maybe you need to come and have a public debate or presentation at a University so we can hear about your interpretation instead of this debate....and so you can ask questions you wish of someone eminent in the other side?

Does weatherzone need a public debate?





Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 19/12/2009 19:09

I don't claim my models are wonderful, they are just my attempt...take them or leave them.

I did not even bring them up, that is just your diversion from anwering the questions I posed ST.

There have been plenty of posts on both sides. Show me your real evidence on the overwhelming positive feedbacks and model performance of late.

The IPCC computer predictions are dropping way way behind the reality of what is happening. It is the reality that will prove the point in the end,
not heresay!

Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 05/02/2010 09:31

Uah value is out for January, at 0.72 degrees. This is warmer than the previous warmest ever January of 0.594 degrees in 2007. Still short of the warmest ever month of April 1998 at 0.77.

My rough model which assumes a 0.18 deg/decade warming trend, and average ENSO response predicted a temperature of 0.62.

An interesting aspect of the extreme temperature response to the 1998 El Nino was that the temperature rose further after January. The normal pattern for most of the El Nino's I've looked at has been to rise rapdily late in the year to peak in January, and then fall after that.

Still no sign of any significant cooling due to Solar Minimum and PDO as predicted in this forum two years ago. My guess is that this El Nino is having a stonger than average warming effect to counteract the slight cooling that is being caused by the sun.

Posted by: ColdFront

Re: Temperature trends - 05/02/2010 23:17

I like the part where Geologists and credibility are mentioned in the same sentence. Given who they typically represent I can't believe that has been posted with any real belief that it is true. They are employed by the very people dragging up anything and everything to protect their profits.

I am on the fence on global warming to be honest but please, the very suggestion that geologists are more credible than climate scientists is really delving into the cooky jar for a desperation cracker.



Posted by: marakai

Re: Temperature trends - 06/02/2010 02:22

Originally Posted By: Severely Tall
But lets just take a second to think about who claims alot of this geological evidence is reliable...the same people who cannot explain nearly every mass extinction event in history....who rely on time scales which are inaccurate to a massive degree...and cant even tell us about the earths core, especially anything sub-plate level. Temperature proxies are extremely inaccurate and are due as much if not more scepticism as temperature records...ice cores and other long term records are subject to signficant innaccuracies associated with discontinuites and non-linear time records due to melt-through.

All science has its flaws...just be careful what you consider to be gospel...especially with talking in any sort of confidence about the geological record.



And these are the very same proxies that the Alarmanista base there Models upon and then preach the Gospel according to Gore to us as proof of Armageddon.
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 08/03/2010 10:57

Another very warm month. Uah was 0.74 according to the outdated calculation method. This compares with the value I predicted of 0.56 based on a simple model taking into acount Co2 warming and typical ENSO response only (see page 1 this thread).

Update of predicted values vs actual values:

month/predicted/actual
Dec/0.45/0.28
Jan/0.62/0.72
Feb/0.56/0.74

Typically temperature peaks in January of an El Nino and then falls, This El Nino has bucked this trend for at least one month. If the rest of the year matches the values from my statistical model then 2010 in Uah will be almost exactly equal to 1998 in temperature, and the trend from 2002 to end of 2010 will become a warming trend.

Future 'predicted' values:

Mar: 0.46
Apr: 0.51
May: 0.44
Jun: 0.44
Jul: 0.47
Aug: 0.49
Sep: 0.48
Oct: 0.48
Nov: 0.39
Dec: 0.41

If the next phase of ENSO is cool, the values late in the year will probably be a bit high.

Uah calculations have been updated to remove a spurious seasonal cycle. This does not change the trend, but changes the seasonal variation. According to the new version Feb was 0.61.

Posted by: Vlasta

Re: Temperature trends - 09/03/2010 01:29

And you forgot Mike to mention , that this NH winter was the warmest on record .
As silly as it might sound it was cold only in midle latitudes. In fact without checking it , the whole globe might have had warmest 3 month period.
Posted by: Locke

Re: Temperature trends - 09/03/2010 11:54

And so with 30 years of Satellite data matched to 30 years of warm PDO with an el-nino to top it off, you expected a different result?

It doesnt surprise me that having an el-nino just as were entering the cool phase of the PDO is giving us these results. In terms of the "PDO cycle" were at the top of the hill temperature wise and an el-nino at this time was always going to show very warm temps measured against the past 30 years. I'm acutally a little surprised we didnt top the 98 result but is this perhaps an indication that we are moving into a cool PDO phase?

Lets see what 30 years of cool PDO does to the satellite measurements.
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 09/03/2010 12:35

PDO has been in a cooling trend for the entire satellite record. It has averaged below zero for over a decade now (since mid 1998).

If a cool PDO causes cooling, then why haven't we seen some cooling already?
Posted by: Arnost

Re: Temperature trends - 09/03/2010 14:00

Quote:
PDO has been in a cooling trend for the entire satellite record.


Maybe semantically precise, but that's one cherry-pick of a statement!



Quote:
If a cool PDO causes cooling, then why haven't we seen some cooling already?


And if you put it that way (i.e semantically precisely) - we have been in a positive PDO regime (only one month negative since July of last year) and so that's why we have this sudden warming... case closed.
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 09/03/2010 15:15

A cherry pick is when you choose a starting point of an analysis to suit your argument. I didn't choose the starting point, Locke did.

And a statement is a cherry pick when choosing a slightly different start date for the analysis results in a different outcome. Would you care to point out the differing start date for an analysis that proves that the PDO has not been in a cooling trend for the length of the satellite record? Is there any possible way to characterise the PDO trend since the satellite record started as a warming trend?

And on the PDO being positive since July, we both know that the PDO is a multidecadal oscillation and that movements on the scale of a few months in this index mean nothing.

So why has the PDO not yet caused any cooling?
Posted by: Locke

Re: Temperature trends - 09/03/2010 15:38

Nope. The starting point was determined by the length of the satellite records.

Sometimes Mike, I cant decide whether your posts are deliberate distortions or mistruths.

Let me put it another way. The PDO phase being in the positive for most of the period of satellite measurements would have been expected to be causing warming. Even if it gradually became less positive as the period progressed it would still have had a warming effect.

Arnost or one of the other more knowlegable posters can correct me if I'm wrong but this is my understanding.

So my logical conclusion is that having a major climate phase that is putting upwards pressure on temperature for nearly the entire 30 year period of satellite measurements should produce its warmest temps at the end of that 30 year period.
Posted by: Arnost

Re: Temperature trends - 09/03/2010 16:16

Quote:
So why has the PDO not yet caused any cooling?


Over the satellite record (since Jan 1980) the PDO has been positive for 122 months out of 361, i.e. about 33% of the time - a few months here and a few months there.

We both know that the PDO is a multidecadal oscillation and that movements on the scale of a few months in this index mean nothing.cool

And that's why I don't expect much cooling over this period. poke

Quote:
And yes Locke... I would pretty much well agree with the following:
The PDO phase being in the positive for most of the period of satellite measurements would have been expected to be causing warming. Even if it gradually became less positive as the period progressed it would still have had a warming effect.
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 09/03/2010 16:26

There are two theories on how PDO affects temperatures. First possibility is either that a warm PDO translated directly into warm temperatures, and a less warm PDO means less warm temperatures. Transitioning from warm to less warm PDO would mean a cooling trend. This theory is easy to justify as PDO is linked to ENSO and warm ENSO is very obviously correlated with warm temperatures. If this theory is true then PDO has obviously caused a cooling influence throughout the length of the satellite record as it is obviously in a cooling trend.

The second theory, and the one you are appealing to is that a warm PDO means warminging temperatures. A less warm PDO would still mean warming temperatures, but at a slower rate. So a transition to a less warm PDO would still mean a warming trend, but at a lesser rate. I know of no attempt to explain how this could happen, and why the first theory isn't the case. Can anyone actually put a number to the warming rate expected in a warm PDO, or the cooling rate expected in a cool PDO?

And if the second theory is the case, the PDO has had a negative average since 1998. We should have had something like 12 years of cooling due to PDO. We should have also had cooling due to solar minimum. Yet my crude statistical model which assumes an average El Nino warming impact, and a warming rate for CO2 at 0.18/decade, has predicted less warmth last two months than we got.

And in contrast many who promote the PDO idea have been predicting imminent cooling from PDO particularly during the cool year of 2008. Carl Smith in this forum did so in January 2008, and was specific about what temperatures he expected for 2008. He was wrong. BD did so as well but has not been specific about timeframes. I think he mentioned 2012. Which is now 2 years away and we are seeing record warmth.
Posted by: Arnost

Re: Temperature trends - 09/03/2010 17:11

Mike,

To be perfectly honest I don't think the state of the PDO means anything... I'm more or less convinced that the PDO is simply a manifestation of ENSO. I think I've posted this up before but it does not hurt to do it again:
Newman et al 2003 - “ENSO-Forced Variability of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation”.

So I don't fit (really) into any of the above theories.

But I don't see any way that you can say
Quote:
If this theory is true then PDO has obviously caused a cooling influence throughout the length of the satellite record as it is obviously in a cooling trend.


If (for argument's sake) we accept your first theory as valid - then we need to figure out equilibrium states. By saying that reducing a warming influence will cause a cooling you are also suggesting that by turning down the heat under a kettle on the stove from full to only 50% will cause the water to cool... Hmmm.

Quote:
The PDO has had a negative average since 1998. We should have had something like 12 years of cooling due to PDO.


I'm simple... I look at what are the facts: The period from the beginning of the satelite period to end 1998 was 80% PDO positive - and temperatures increased. The period from end 1998 to current was about 55% PDO negative - and temperatures flat lined (and maybe even decreased) wink.


PS I just realised that in my previous post I said "Over the satellite record (since Jan 1980) the PDO has been positive for 122 months out of 361, i.e. about 33% of the time " I of course meant negative - Sorry.
Posted by: Chris Stumer

Re: Temperature trends - 09/03/2010 17:42

the effects of the cool PDO wouldn't happen straight away, it will probably take a while for it to kick in.
Posted by: Vlasta

Re: Temperature trends - 10/03/2010 23:43

Originally Posted By: Locke
And so with 30 years of Satellite data matched to 30 years of warm PDO with an el-nino to top it off, you expected a different result?

It doesnt surprise me that having an el-nino just as were entering the cool phase of the PDO is giving us these results. In terms of the "PDO cycle" were at the top of the hill temperature wise and an el-nino at this time was always going to show very warm temps measured against the past 30 years. I'm acutally a little surprised we didnt top the 98 result but is this perhaps an indication that we are moving into a cool PDO phase?

Lets see what 30 years of cool PDO does to the satellite measurements.


No I didnt expect a diffrent result . I tho it was Mick's duty to remaind us .
I watch it every month and compare it with past nino's 97-98 and 06-07 and its spot on . So is Mick's pocket calculator model till AUG , by then we should be in at least neutral nino 3.4 and temps lower
IMO all those oscilations are like moons and suns tides , they cancel each other and in short term means nothing. But when the conditions are right they will pull together and cool the temps . Now put in arctic oscilation , which is very important in many ways , which dropped to lowest level ever this NH winter. That happend for a reason ( unknown to me) and obviously no immediate effect . Was it a start of the tipping point ? ( I love to use the word tipping lol)

Now comes the hardest thing , when we will see satelite temps return to "normal" ? Well I dont have a pocket calculator nor state of art model . I have only crystal ball.
Any drop in temps at the end of this year probably wont save it from being close to warmest year
Here is my shot , starting DEC on we should see anomalies within +0.1 or even 0.

Here is AO last NH winter , plus 2 weeks forecast

http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/ao_index_mrf.shtml
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 11/03/2010 10:30

After 2006/2007 el nino uah temps dropped down to 0.114 in December as the 07/08 la nina developed. If we have a repeat of that this year, and with a global warming trend on top of that at 0.18/decade we would expect December to be around 0.17.

At this stage I think a much milder ENSO cooling phase than 07/08 is coming, and a temp of about 0.2 to 0.3 is my best guess, but I wouldn't rule out a December as low as 0. A rebound towards another El Nino could see December back up to around 0.4 or higher.
Posted by: Andy Double U

Re: Temperature trends - 11/03/2010 12:00

Mike, do you see El Nino events as a heat discharge or recharge event?

In the context of measuring overall heat content of the ocean.
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 11/03/2010 13:32

I see El Nino events as discharging ocean heat. El Nino puts more heat close to the surface of the ocean, which means more heat radiated to space, meaning loss of ocean heat content. La Nina hides the heat under the western warm pool meaning less heat radiated to space, meaning gain in ocean heat content. Under this model, it is not surprising that persistent warm ENSO from 2002-2006 resulted in a loss of overall heat content, preparing the way for significant cooling during the 08-10 cool ENSO period. This cool period then stored a lot of heat, allowing for a fairly significant increase in temperature with the current El Nino.

Ocean heat content data for the tropics according to TAO (link) seems to somewhat reflect this theory. However global ocean heat content according to ARGO does not seem to reflect this theory, with no sign of significant build up of ocean heat content in the last 2 years. Also sea level rise has not increased much in the last two years. Thermal expansion of the ocean currently dominates sea level rise, so unless there has been a drastic reduction in sea level rise from land ice melt, the last two years have not seen any increase in ocean heat content as expected from this theory.

I assume that changes in clouds/water vapour or something act to partially or totally ofset what would otherwise be the tendancy of an El Nino to lose heat by increased radiation, and that the build up/discharge of ocean heat content in the tropics is at least partially balanced by opposite changes outside the tropics.
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 17/05/2010 12:56

Looks like we will see a cool ENSO episode later this year. I have picked previous years that transitioned from warm to cool as 2007, 2005, 1998, 1995 and 1988. Assuming a 0.18 degree warming trend per decade, I then get a forecast (or hindcast for the last four months) for UAH global temperatures of:

Jan 0.52 (act 0.65)
Feb 0.42 (act 0.60)
Mar 0.41 (act 0.65)
Apr 0.49 (act 0.50)
May 0.41
Jun 0.39
Jul 0.41
Aug 0.42
Sep 0.47
Oct 0.41
Nov 0.31
Dec 0.20

And for 2011:
Jan 0.10
Feb 0.19
Mar 0.17

It is interesting that in most cases temperature rise slightly around our spring time before most of the cooling between November to January.
Posted by: Arnost

Re: Temperature trends - 18/05/2010 00:48

Nice to see you hanging around Mike! Good on you in making predictions.

Is this a challenge?
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 21/05/2010 12:03

The point is that we are about to enter a period of global cooling as ENSO goes into a cool mode. I expect that certain people will be claiming that this is proof that global warming has ended. I am pointing out that with even with continued warming due to Co2, a cool ENSO period will temporarily cool global temperatures and that a reasonable amount of cooling would have nothing to do with an end to global warming. Unless temperatures fall to below the level of the last cool ENSO period there will be no evidence of any cooling trend lasting longer than one ENSO cycle...

At the bottom of this last cooling period in Jan 08 some were confidently predicting further cooling from that point due to solar minimum and cool PDO, but instead we warmed to new record temperatures on the back of the recent El Nino.
Posted by: davidg

Re: Temperature trends - 21/05/2010 13:30

If 2008 is anything to go by, we should see quite a definate drop in Global temps in the next 6-12months. If coupled with a -ve PDO and -ve IOD i think significant cooling over the next 2-3 years will be likely. This next cool period will be pivotal i think as it will expose the AGW signal strength(or lack thereof)IMO.

It will be interesting to see how a drop in global temps is received by both parties. My forecast is more of the usual. Anti-AGW's stating it as proof that GW is bunk, and AGW supporters continuing the the same tired scare tactics. Somewhere in between is the truth.

Of interest to me is the disparity between the surface based temp plots (GISS, NCDC and Hadcrut) and the sat based (UAH, RSS). The sat based temp trends show a much more pronounced ENSO signal than the surface based ones. Is this because the sat based temp measurements can more accurately measure the SST's without having to extrapolate over vast areas of ocean that can produce large variations in SST's?
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 21/05/2010 13:45

Of interest:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/05/global-average-sea-surface-temperatures-poised-for-a-plunge/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/20/giss-arctic-trends-disagree-with-satellite-data/#more-19740

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/05/19/global-cooling-scientists-warming/

Still a way to go before cooling delay kicks in yet Mike, takes quite a few years to fully go through the ocean, ocean areas dipole/nino systems, earth converyor belt, to cloud, weather & atmosphere, land, etc. I would not count my chickens too early mate!
Posted by: Long Road Home

Re: Temperature trends - 21/05/2010 14:02

love the image FOX used in their article. Might just watch that movie again to remind myself what we're in for poke

On a more serious note, ive noticed more and more people nowadays are blaming 2012 on natural disasters (ie. the iceland volcano) than they are global warming which already says a lot.
Posted by: _Johnno_

Re: Temperature trends - 21/05/2010 15:09

Hi guys, just wondering if you can help me with some information... I have been looking at the BOM anomalies maps so far for May quite closely and I would of thought that temps overall for Australia for May compare to the average have been average or even slightly below average anyway I have been told today by someone that works at the BOM that the Minimum anomaly has been running about average but the Maximum has been running +0.7c above normal for May so far.. Surely that cannot be right?? Anyone have an idea or even a rough idea of what were running at the moment?

This map surely doesn't demonstrate that the Max is running above normal for May!

http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/awap/temp/inde...d=week&area=nat


This is the Maximum anomaly between 11th to May 18th I know its only a week but the week before that wasn't all that much different 75% of Australia had a cooler than normal week for May last week in daytime temps department so surely we cannot be running at +0.7C above normal for May in the daytime temps so far?
Posted by: _Johnno_

Re: Temperature trends - 21/05/2010 15:29

Heres the Max anomaly for the 20th of May

http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/awap/temp/inde...=daily&area=nat

The 19th of May was similar with cooler than normal daytime temps through alot of Northern & Central Australia, South Australia & most of Eastern Australia so I have no idea how were running at +0.7c above normal or how the Eastern tropics are running warm
Posted by: Long Road Home

Re: Temperature trends - 21/05/2010 15:35

^ not sure why your only looking at the last week and ignoring the first 2 weeks

Quote:
the week before that wasn't all that much different 75% of Australia had a cooler than normal week for May last week in daytime temps department so surely we cannot be running at +0.7C above normal for May in the daytime temps so far?


the period from late april to the 11th was actually well above avg for the W and E so yes it can be right.
Posted by: _Johnno_

Re: Temperature trends - 21/05/2010 15:49

I looked at the period between 4th of May to 11th of May and didn't look warm to me Boris but haven't had a look at the late April April 27th to May 3rd period figures cos most of that covers April. If you got the map so far to show how warm it is so far in May or the week before last week your most welcomed to put it up cos I can't get a hold of it now.
Posted by: Long Road Home

Re: Temperature trends - 21/05/2010 15:52

The warming easily offsets the cooling so +0.5 or thereabouts sounds fairly reasonable





Posted by: _Johnno_

Re: Temperature trends - 21/05/2010 16:06

Ok thanks for that, looks like I may of been imanging it.
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 21/05/2010 19:37

Originally Posted By: davidg

Of interest to me is the disparity between the surface based temp plots (GISS, NCDC and Hadcrut) and the sat based (UAH, RSS). The sat based temp trends show a much more pronounced ENSO signal than the surface based ones. Is this because the sat based temp measurements can more accurately measure the SST's without having to extrapolate over vast areas of ocean that can produce large variations in SST's?


As far as I know the modern GISS SST temps are based on a satellite product. UAH and RSS don't measure the surface directly but a slice of the lower atmosphere, and this slice seems to react stronger to ENSO than the surface temp measurements.
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 21/05/2010 19:46



This article claims that because GISS and satellite temperatures are different for the Arctic that GISS must be wrong a it extrapolates over large distances. No consideration is given to the fact that the satellite temps may be wrong or probably a bit of both. Or that the satellite measurement also have a large hole at the pole. The data linked to in the article has different bands in GISS and RSS for Arctic so probably not comparing like with like anyway.

Originally Posted By: Bucketing Down(BD)

Still a way to go before cooling delay kicks in yet Mike, takes quite a few years to fully go through the ocean, ocean areas dipole/nino systems, earth converyor belt, to cloud, weather & atmosphere, land, etc. I would not count my chickens too early mate!


Hansen has been earning the right to count his chickens for nearly 30 years. How much longer does the warming have to go after his predictions in the early 80s before you admit he was right?
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 21/05/2010 19:59

Many criticisms have been levelled at GISS claiming that adjustments have been made to inflate the temperature trend. Lately it has been fashionable for various bloggers to create their own temperature measurement from the same raw GHCN data GISS uses.

The Blackboard has a discussion of the latest such reconstruction, and includes a chart showing the various reconstructions made to date.



Of note is the fact that all of these reconstructions show higher warming trend than GISS shows. The net effect of all the adjustments that GISS makes in calculating global temperature is to reduce the warming trend not inflate it.

Or for land temperatures at least, the reconstructions so far beng land only.
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 22/05/2010 07:33

http://climateinsiders.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/gissvshadcrut1.jpg?w=510&h=227&h=227
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 22/05/2010 07:35


Arctic temps
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/20/giss-arctic-trends-disagree-with-satellite-data/#more-19740
Posted by: Blizzard

Re: Temperature trends - 22/05/2010 07:55

Originally Posted By: davidg
...

It will be interesting to see how a drop in global temps is received by both parties. My forecast is more of the usual. Anti-AGW's stating it as proof that GW is bunk, and AGW supporters continuing the the same tired scare tactics. Somewhere in between is the truth...



Well said David. That is how the vast majority of us would see things, IMO. I think most folk are just trying to observe what is actually happening. Isn't good science about seeing things for what they are? If that is our motivation, it matters little whether we are right or wrong or somewhere in the middle. Trying to gain clarity is the motivation, not prove our theories.
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 22/05/2010 18:56

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/21/visualizing-arctic-coverage/#more-19789
More on GISS-HardCrut Artic Temperature Divergences
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 08/06/2010 15:25

The May figure for Uah temperature is out, and it was 0.534 deg, which is slightly warmer than the prediction of my basic statistical model of 0.5. On checking my last post with the predictions, I've realised I posted the wrong figures, which were for a lower warming rate. The figures for a warming rate of 0.18 deg/decade are:

Jan 0.61
Feb 0.52
Mar 0.52
Arp 0.61
May 0.50
Jun 0.49
Jul 0.53
Aug 0.52
Sep 0.55
Oct 0.45
Nov 0.36
Dec 0.29
(2011)
Jan 0.22
Feb 0.30
Mar 0.30
Posted by: ROM

Re: Temperature trends - 10/06/2010 20:09

WUWT "Climate change: have we reached the irreversible stage?"

From comments re M. H. [REPLY - The 1221 USHCN stations' raw data shows an (ungridded) average of +0.14C/century as of 2006. The "Adjusted" version clocks in at +0.59. Just so you know. ~ Evan]
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 10/06/2010 20:39

Many independant bloggers have calculated trends similar to those calculated by GISS etc. I am sure that a calculation showing an ungrided average of 0.14/century is just plain wrong. But of course one of your high priests of climate denialism said it so why would you question it? Oh and are you offended by my tone? You've made many accusations of AGW being a cult, so your only getting back what you dish out....

One possible source of such an error is lumping together anomalies from different time periods. For example assume the world is warming at 1 degree/century, and that we can measure temperature perfectly. One station measures temperatures between 1900 and 1950. This station warms from an anomaly of -0.25 to +0.25. Then another stations measures temperature between 1950 and 2000. This station warms from an anomaly of -0.25 to 0.25. Combine the two stations together and average the anomalies and you suddenly get a zero trend.
Posted by: ROM

Re: Temperature trends - 10/06/2010 21:03

This time from the actual news site ABS CBN
Climate change: have we reached the irreversible stage?
The transcript of frustration and anger expressed by the late [ 2008 ] George Carlin, an American comedian, in the "comments" section here was probably well ahead of the times but it increasingly reflects the attitudes of a lot of people in present times.

And just maybe there is a whole lot of truth in what George Carlin has said here.

The language is rough and the revulsion about so much that we are being fed is palpable so you are warned.
If you don't like it don't read it!

And Mike, I did smile! Quite a lot!
Posted by: BOM99

Re: Temperature trends - 21/06/2010 15:46

One thing amazes me that no matter how many levels of the atmosphere I look at or how many years I compare. The current satellite temperature data is the warmest on record this year and probably will be next year and the year after etc. Seems to be on a one way trip upwards and upwards. If this is not AGW then what is.

http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: Temperature trends - 21/06/2010 21:40

That link won't open due to the error(s)
Posted by: BOM99

Re: Temperature trends - 22/06/2010 07:15

Not sure what happened to the address when I copied it, but here it is again.

http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/

I have to wonder if some calibration problem could be at play with the data since the increases seem too quick and too consistent. Also too bad you cannot go further back than 10 years to get a bette idea of change.
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 22/06/2010 07:15

Try this link

A trap for the unwary - there appears to be a warming bias in most of the channels other than channel 5 (and sst which is new?).

Also predictions and longer term trends for the highest level of the stratosphere are for cooling, but 8 years is too short to observe the trend.

Uah shows the same trend as GISS since 1992 (when an instrument change occurred). Uah has had a history of corrections that have been larger than the corrections made to GISS. Yet those who call themselves skpetics love Uah and loathe GISS, presumably because GISS is maitained by a vocal AGW proponent, and UAH by a 'skeptic'
Posted by: BOM99

Re: Temperature trends - 22/06/2010 07:29

I can only still see warming even at 150mb although not as much warming.
Interesting about the sea surface channel.
But yes, have to wonder about calibration issues.
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 23/06/2010 09:01

Rather odd to see the excitement in the plunge of the nino, and extra cloud reflectivity as observed by Roy Spencer. In his article he includes this chart:



This shows that global SSTs are falling much slower than the nino SST, despite all the extra radiation being reflected by clouds. Its almost as if something else is acting to keep the planet warm despite the cooling of the La Nina and the clouds.

Of course this something else is not CO2 as it is a fairly short term phenomena, and I'm sure temperatures will soon fall to where they should be with Co2 warmign and a La Nina cooling, the same as happened in late 2005.

Your best evidence against Co2 warming is going to be more cooling when known cooling influences are weak. Not less cooling when known cooling influences are strong.
Posted by: ROM

Re: Temperature trends - 30/06/2010 16:17

Major Cooling on the Way Worldwide

A video from [ 4.50 mins ] from Joe Bastardi at the Accuweather commercial weather forecasting company,

Bastardi has a good reputation and Accuweather of which Bastardi is a major owner, is one of the big commercial weather forecasters in the USA.
You don't stay in the weather forecasting business for long if you consistently get your forecasts wrong unless of course you are a tax payer financed forecaster.

Bastardi's forecast outlined in the video is on the very good chance of considerable near term global cooling from the early part of 2011.
It will be interesting to watch and to see if he is correct.

If Bastardi and an increasing number of solar forecasters are correct, the implications of the possible onset of some seriously low global temperatures over the next few years with a longer term outlook of cool global temps for the next 30 or so years due to low solar activity as some solar physicists are now suggesting and the apparent confluence of a number of ocean cycles also trending towards their low temperature phases, really starts to raise some serious alarm bells for global agriculture and even reliable energy availability.
For a possible effect on global food production, David Archibald's site and his article on the changes to North American crop growing areas if a cooling global temperature trend sets in over the next few years is an interesting read.
Posted by: KevD

Re: Temperature trends - 01/07/2010 10:24

Great links ROM - and great info from Joe Bastardi...added him to my favourites. BTW I see the guy from Wattsup is speaking in Coffs Harbour today / tomorrow - was amazed to spot that in the paper. Guess he is on an Aus tour?
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: Temperature trends - 01/07/2010 10:56

Anthony Watts tour

We have just a few more opportunities for you to hear Anthony Watts and David Archibald speaking about the unreliable surface temperature record and the Sunspot cycle evidence showing a global cooling event is coming in the next decade. If you are near Narrogin, Perth, Canberra. Wagga Wagga or Coffs Harbour see www.climatesceptics.com.au for details. I have been to four meetings - Its great to meet so many concerned and informed people.
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 01/07/2010 17:51

I remember the predictions of imminent cooling in 2008. Will these predictions be any better?

Of course it will cool somewhat for a La Nina. If it cools less than the 2008 La Nina, and similar to what I previously posted then that is fairly conclusive that no global cooling is happening and warming is probably continuing at the ame trend as the last 30 years.

If it gets down to a repeat of 2008, then that is inconclusive. The expcted global warming from 2008 to 2011 is about 0.06 degrees, so that could easily be lost in the noise if this La Nina causes slightly stronger cooling than 2008, or if the solar minimum is having a continued mild cooling effect.

If the temperature gets down to more around 1993 values as Jo suggests is possible, then you are talking a substantial cooling that requires an explanation beyond just anoter La Nina.
Posted by: apocalypse

Re: Temperature trends - 01/07/2010 18:14

Wow! Thanks for that info Simmosurf. Had a look at the website and they are here today. Starts in 50 minutes. Am off now.
Posted by: ROM

Re: Temperature trends - 01/07/2010 19:01

Thanks BN.
And Mike, we will just have to wait and watch to see what happens.

One thing is clear as a lot of previously very fixated people on both sides of the climate debate are realising, the weather and climate just refuse to follow any manmade rules or co-operate with any loudly proclaimed forecasts on the future weather and climate outcomes no matter where or who those forecasts come from.
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: Temperature trends - 01/07/2010 19:22

Let us know how it went mate. My missus in Wagga tonight, I should send her along. Yeh right
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 02/07/2010 10:29

Latest Uah is out at 0.44, which is a big lower than my predicted value of 0.491. Comparison of my model vs Uah currently stands as:

Jan, model 0.61, actual 0.64
Feb, model 0.52, actual 0.59
Mar model 0.52, actual 0.65
Apr model 0.61, actual 0.55
May model 0.50, actual 0.59
June model 0.49, actual 0.44

The model then predicts a slight rise in the next few months before steeper declines at the end of the year:

Jul 0.53
Aug 0.52
Sep 0.55
Oct 0.45
Nov 0.36
Dec 0.29
Jan 0.22
Posted by: Locke

Re: Temperature trends - 02/07/2010 10:47

Looking at current SST anomalies in the west pacific, its looking like the coming La-nina event will be significantly stronger than the 2008 event. Your seeing anomalies of up to -5C now if I'm reading the charts correctly.

It has been a long time since we've had a strong La-nina. Its impact, if it occurs, on global land and sea surface temps will be very interesting to monitor. I also note that there are some very cool SST anomalies off the US Easy Coast at the moment but SST's in most other areas of the Atlantic are still well above average.
Posted by: apocalypse

Re: Temperature trends - 02/07/2010 10:56

The presentation on climate science last night was very interesting. There would have been around 50 of us there, some with open minds and ready to listen to their points of view, and some who had already decided on their views.

The guest speakers were Anthony Watts, David Archibald and Tim Curtin. Tim focused on the effects of CO2 on agriculture and how the biosphere has increased primarily due to it. David spoke about the solar cycles, and how he predicted solar cycle 24 to be like the Dalton Minimum, due to length vs solar maximum. He also showed a graph in which he could predict the temperature drop over a given area and given time due to the difference in two succeeding solar lengths.

I found Anthony's presentation to be the most interesting. He has documented USHCN weather stations in the USA and their particular sitings, for example, next to air conditioners, jet exhausts, sewerage treatment, cement, asphalt, etc. What are we measuring, the climate, or growth of cities? Stations that have been in the same position for years are being built around or moved for convenience by expanding airports, universities and cities.
He then spoke about the homogenization of the NASA GISS data and the resulting increase in the warming trend, and about the C02 saturation limit, where by adding more to the atmosphere it increases the temperature logarithmically not linearly.
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 02/07/2010 12:48

Originally Posted By: apocalypse
I found Anthony's presentation to be the most interesting. He has documented USHCN weather stations in the USA and their particular sitings, for example, next to air conditioners, jet exhausts, sewerage treatment, cement, asphalt, etc. What are we measuring, the climate, or growth of cities? Stations that have been in the same position for years are being built around or moved for convenience by expanding airports, universities and cities.


Which is why in this thread I discuss temperatures measured by satellites, and not thermometer, to try and avoid as much as possible arguments about such issues. Satellites show a similar warming trend to ground based thermometers.

Originally Posted By: apocalypse

He then spoke about the homogenization of the NASA GISS data and the resulting increase in the warming trend, .

A couple pages ago I posted a large chart which shows multiple trends calculated by various people without the homogenization (adjustment) of raw data. These trends are barely distinguishable from the trend calculated by GISS.

For latest on this replication topic see: link

Originally Posted By: apocalypse
and about the C02 saturation limit, where by adding more to the atmosphere it increases the temperature logarithmically not linearly.

Which scientists have known about and taken into account in their predictions for decades.
Posted by: Locke

Re: Temperature trends - 02/07/2010 14:03

The problem as I see it is that although scientists may have recognised the CO2 saturation limit whose to say that havent instead changed the feedback values in their models in response to inaccurate temperature measurements?

I.e. Well my model says x value of CO2 with y feedback value should give me a z temperature result. Oops my inaccurate temp readings are coming out a lot higher so I'd better adjust the feedback value in my model because I know the CO2 value is correct.

Unless you can have 100% confidence in your temperature measurements I see problems.
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 05/07/2010 18:27

Average temperature for Australia during June was 0.25. (link)

Only just barely above average. The coldest Australian June since 2008.
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 05/07/2010 19:47

The last 9 days cold spell which is continuing Perisher valley in Alps is 4C below mean minimum, and 1C below mean maximum.
Last year 2009 for the same period Perisher was 2C above mean min and 0.7C below mean maximum.

Adelaide is 3.5C Below mean min and 1.5C below mean maximum.
Adelaide 2010 mean max for last 9 days 14.0C max 4.4C, but
Adelaide 2009 mean maz for same period 16.6c max 10.0C!

And many cold records have been set this winter in many states of Australia on various days.

Even average temps show a cooling trend on past 10 years values in general.
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 04/08/2010 15:47

And despite the claims that we are having a cool winter, the average temperature for Australia in July was 0.78 above average. The warmth was mostly in the north of Australia with an anomaly of 1.37, and South was pretty much average at 0.13.

For global temperatures, the July Uah value is in at 0.49 compared to my predicted value of 0.53. Temperatures this year started at a higher value than in 2007, and have cooled slower than during 2007. I think there is a good chance that the minimum in January 2011 will be higher than the minimum in 2008.

Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 04/08/2010 21:09



The min temps are the main factors cooler than mean down south, and warmer than normal up north due to persistent nw cloudbands keeping the heat in at night.


The max temps follow same trends but more near normal which is way below what we have had for many years.
IE a return to normal temps down southern Australia in the main. North a bit warmer due to persistent easterly low level moisture and NW Cloudbands aloft.

Nothing there to say AGW is doing anything at all. It is much colder than past 10 years down here because we have returned to more normal temps and are not above the mean as previous years. More like S Hemp is commencing the cooling cycle as solar runs down in pace from a thousand year high.
Posted by: BOM99

Re: Temperature trends - 04/08/2010 22:26

What those maps show me is;
1. Poor southern winter rainfall causing lower min temps in the South.
2. Continental winter cooling due to low cloud because cold fronts were too weak allowing tropical moisture to move into the continent causing low cloud to hang around.
3. All the perimters of the continent have above average temps due to high SST's surounding Australia.
4. Unusual warmth where the sun was strong in winter.
Every one of these points implies AGW to me.
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 05/08/2010 07:00

Average max temps for Australia in July were 0.24, still above average. The same cloudy conditions that kept minimum temps up must have kept these down?

But I suppose if you look at day time temps and ignore night time temps, and look at South Australia and ignore North Australia, and ignore the rest of the world. Then yes, no evidence that AGW is doing anything at all...
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 05/08/2010 08:45

We will ignore also the fact that AGW computer predictions are just not happening as predicted, and ignore that winter in back to pretty well normal in southern Australia this year, our rainfall is above normal for winter now ,with 54mm in first 5 days of August, a margin over half way up to the 90mm mean already in the first 5 days. It feels cold, though it is only sligthly below mean, we are just not used to it returning to more normal temps. Folk everywhere are complaining of the cold, but we will ignore all this. South America has had many deaths of folk and aninmals due to the cold this year. Antarctic ice is increasing, but we will ignore all this. Solar activity is falling from a thousand year high but we will ignore this to and live in our safe cosy AGW computer theory.
Posted by: Vlasta

Re: Temperature trends - 05/08/2010 09:29

As I said once before . You can have 2 persons with equal knowledge looking at one graph or data and come up completly diffrent conclusion
My conclusion is , + 0.24 means July was cooler than the 1980's . Does it make sense ? Of course it does . Any thermometer can have only one bias , that is warming one . Due to UHI that is expected . Experts pointing out , we have more record highs than lows . That is also expected due to UHI . In fact that we do have 50 years record low should be alarming , simply becouse if there was no UHI the temps would be even lower .
Iam not having a go on anyone here , I respect every opinion even if its wrong , as I cant guarantee Iam right 100% , insted I have a go at the the world warmistas experts who were claiming 2010 will be wermest ever . He he the chances of that happening are zero zilch nil , try better next time .

Mike , what is jour model telling now ?
Preety sure it wont be much off my crystal ball.
Starting Aug 0.4 gradually peaking Jan at 0.05 . Whole year 2011 within 0.2-0.3
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 05/08/2010 09:36

Let's have a good look at Australian temps in July mid winter a very good place to pick up any longer term trends
Here below is Northern Australia, which is trending like a wetter cloudier 1973 to 1975 July ie warmer because of more moisture
and higher mins and more easterly flow.
Then here below again, are Southern Australia, SA and VIC July temps.......
see the in general peak temps of the last 20 years peak at around 2000 to 2002 and then start to fall on all 3 charts,
especially clear on the Southern Australian one which is closely following Solar rise and now fall. Looks very clear to me anyway!
Note July 2010 temps also please.




Cheers
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 05/08/2010 09:48

So those trend lines were calculated mathematically?

Or just drawn where you want them to be?

Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 05/08/2010 09:54

Originally Posted By: Vlasta

Starting Aug 0.4 gradually peaking Jan at 0.05 . Whole year 2011 within 0.2-0.3


A value of 0.2-0.3 for Uah next year is just about right. 0.4 degree warming due to Co2, and 0.1-0.2 degree cooling due to a significant La Nina. My model actually says 0.28 for 2011 average, but that is based on average cool ENSO conditions, and at the moment it looks like being a strong La Nina so probably more cooling.
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 05/08/2010 09:56

Use the correct chart and compare apples with apples not apples with oranges please Mike...ie the Southern Australian July 2010 version.
And use a shorter mean also please. I have not done it but I can see with my eyes better than a machine can imo, and my eyes don't lie!
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 05/08/2010 10:06

Looks clear enough to me Mike. I don't need convincing!

Incidently the black mean 4 year line comes down at the end but my biro line ran over the top of it!
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 05/08/2010 10:10

Ok. I agree. We have global cooling in South Australia in July for the last 8 years.

The warming data for the rest of the world has been faked by UHI.
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 05/08/2010 10:15

That is not the point, the global trend has flattened out also and is in the main starting a slow fall as it reacts to the solar downturn.
It is not rising as predicted by the global AGW models, and they are likely to be becoming more and more out withn their predictions as the solar downturn
continues from the drop off from the 1000year high. We shall see in the next few years or so anyway.
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 05/08/2010 10:35



Your eyes see a slow fall in that??
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 05/08/2010 11:02

Glad you posted that Mike. It makes it all look very clear to me.
That is is another el nino warming spike at 2009-early 2010, like 1997-1998 and actual trend taking out that anomoly is exactly as July Southern Australian.
Take the 2 warming spikes out of El Nino and the trends are very clear, as solar trends with a lag. I can see it very clearly, can you see through AGW eyes?
Take the trace through to next year and beyond and all will be revealed to all folk! we wait patiently!
(You have even circled the 1997-1998 El Nino peak as it should be discounted which it should. So why don't you discount the 2009-2010 peak?)
Posted by: BOM99

Re: Temperature trends - 05/08/2010 13:42

I am still a bit puzzled as to which part of the world was responsible for the high temperature peak in 1998, since it was not a strong peak in Australia. Does anyone have any suspects?.
Posted by: Vlasta

Re: Temperature trends - 05/08/2010 14:41

Here you go snowmi . Month by month all regions satelite temps since 1979

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt
Posted by: BOM99

Re: Temperature trends - 05/08/2010 15:45

Thanks for that Vlasta, I would have liked to find a bit more detail as to which parts of which countries stand out as being unusually warm and when. However from that broad data, I get the indication that is was mainly a mild NH winter that caused a large part of the anomaly.

This has to be considered carefully since the NH is largely land and a lot of cold is often quite shallow and near the surface. A warm winter in the NH may also imply a bit more cloud and wind in much of the winter than normal, but not necessarily a warm atmosphere. I think a large variation in temps can occur in a NH winter simply due to inversions. Its like those minimums in the Snowy mountains that can vary between -5 and -20 in virtually the same temperature atmosphere above you once you get 100m above the surface. These shallow temps can stay near the surface longer and over wider areas in the NH and also keep max temps low as the inversions cannot break due to low sun.

I would prefer to see the trend in temps between 850mb and 500mb as this is what directly affects the surface weather in the end and is the result of surface heating. 1998 also does not stand out on the satellite readings like it did in the surface readings which agrees well with the reasoning about the winter inversion bias from the NH.
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 06/08/2010 09:55

Originally Posted By: Bucketing Down(BD)
Glad you posted that Mike. It makes it all look very clear to me.
That is is another el nino warming spike at 2009-early 2010, like 1997-1998 and actual trend taking out that anomoly is exactly as July Southern Australian.
Take the 2 warming spikes out of El Nino and the trends are very clear, as solar trends with a lag. I can see it very clearly, can you see through AGW eyes?
Take the trace through to next year and beyond and all will be revealed to all folk! we wait patiently!
(You have even circled the 1997-1998 El Nino peak as it should be discounted which it should. So why don't you discount the 2009-2010 peak?)


In other words, the trend up from warm El Nino in 2002 to even warmer El Nino in 2010 means nothing, as it ends on an El Nino and was therefore caused by ENSO. The trend down from warm El Nino in 2002 to cool La Nina in 2008 means global cooling is real and was not caused by ENSO.

A reminder that previously I had predicted roughly the increase in temperatures that should be expected from this El Nino based on the assumption that ENSO and Co2 warming were the only two factors affecting climate. After I made this prediction, we then observed temperatures that were a little warmer than predicted.
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 06/08/2010 10:04

Originally Posted By: snowmi
I am still a bit puzzled as to which part of the world was responsible for the high temperature peak in 1998, since it was not a strong peak in Australia. Does anyone have any suspects?.


GISS maps can be useful to see which areas were warm at a particular time. My interpretation is that 1998 was so warm due to the warmth being quite widespread.

(link)
Posted by: BOM99

Re: Temperature trends - 06/08/2010 10:32

Thanks for that link Mike, that does help analyse the data better. And as I expected it was the Northern winter in early 1998 that had the greatest impact on the overall mean for that year. All the regions that are normally quite cold due to inversions had the highest anomalies, that is exactly where the most ground can be made in the final numbers. True that as well many other areas also had plus anomalies simultaneously.
Posted by: Vlasta

Re: Temperature trends - 06/08/2010 11:50

Originally Posted By: Mike Hauber
Ok. I agree. We have global cooling in South Australia in July for the last 8 years.

The warming data for the rest of the world has been faked by UHI.

Lol I didnt say , world temps are faked by UHI
I meant that BOM doesnt adjust for UHI . GISS takes only fraction of BOM's stations , those who are not under UHI and also exludes those which dont show any warming .
World temps cant be influenced by UHI , simply they are only 0.01% of the whole Earths surface . Unfortunately 30% stations are within UHI .
We will see what GISS will show for Australia in a week or so ( July)

If Hansen doesnt want to lose my last 1% respect I have for him , he better show that July was a bit cooler than BOM's +0.25
Posted by: BOM99

Re: Temperature trends - 06/08/2010 14:10

Vlasta, you do realize that if you excluded the UHI stations in Australia that the figure would actually be higher. This was discussed some time ago in other threads, but the country stations are actually warming more. For example my anomaly for July was +1.1 and you find that most tablelands stations are the ones that had higher anomalies.

For example if you look at the Feb 7 - 2009 readings in Victoria they tend to suggest that the max temp in Melbourne was actually slightly lower (maybe 0.25-0.5deg) than it would have been without the city influence.
Posted by: Vlasta

Re: Temperature trends - 06/08/2010 17:13

I agree to this . Future UHI increases in the major cities (official station) is likely to be less than rural stations ones .
Back to July 0.25 anomaly . For the reasons above I stand by my claim that it is inflated against the 1980's .
Posted by: ROM

Re: Temperature trends - 08/08/2010 10:58

Jeff Id's "the Air Vent" blog has an article on the difference in temperature trends as forecast by models and the actual measured temperature trends.
Quote:
"Models are running 2 to 4 times higher in trend than the measured data over the same interval".

The graphs tell the story and an ironic heading; Time to Fix the thermometers
Posted by: Locke

Re: Temperature trends - 08/08/2010 15:04

Originally Posted By: snowmi
Vlasta, you do realize that if you excluded the UHI stations in Australia that the figure would actually be higher. This was discussed some time ago in other threads, but the country stations are actually warming more. For example my anomaly for July was +1.1 and you find that most tablelands stations are the ones that had higher anomalies.

For example if you look at the Feb 7 - 2009 readings in Victoria they tend to suggest that the max temp in Melbourne was actually slightly lower (maybe 0.25-0.5deg) than it would have been without the city influence.




Wheres as most urban sites have been correctly classified for lengthy periods and have UHI's which have somewhat stabilized, many of these rural sites are transitioning into urban sites and would be likely to be seeing the greatest anomalies.

Furthermore, they are either not being reclassified when they do or being reclassified after the bluk of the UHI impact has taken place. I suspect it is these sites that give a higher anomaly to rural sites overall.
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 09/08/2010 07:02

Originally Posted By: ROM
Jeff Id's "the Air Vent" blog has an article on the difference in temperature trends as forecast by models and the actual measured temperature trends.
Quote:
"Models are running 2 to 4 times higher in trend than the measured data over the same interval".

The graphs tell the story and an ironic heading; Time to Fix the thermometers


This is the tropospheric hotspot. So it is a measurement of mid level atmosphere, not the surface, and measurement of the tropcis, not the globe.

The tropospheric hotspot probably deserves its own topic so I'll create one.
Posted by: BOM99

Re: Temperature trends - 11/08/2010 10:52

To me the mid-level atmospheric temperatures between 850mb and 500mb are the most important as they drive the real weather at the surface. These temps will ultimately determine heatwaves and snowfalls. These are the current figures at 600mb, still well above normal, will be interesting to see if this La Nina can drop these temops.

08-08-10 600mb temperatures
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps

On other temperature trends Moscow for the first 10 days of August is still running at +10deg mean anomaly which is phenomenal. Fires and smoke still spreading over millions of square km. I fully expect to see a very significant rise in official CO2 concentrations over the next 12 month.
Posted by: CoastalStorm22

Re: Temperature trends - 11/08/2010 11:28

Originally Posted By: snowmi
Fires and smoke still spreading over millions of square km. I fully expect to see a very significant rise in official CO2 concentrations over the next 12 month.


So what do you think that will mean for us Snowmi?

Also, that second link doesn't seem to work for me?
Posted by: ROM

Re: Temperature trends - 11/08/2010 12:06

Apparently the extraordinary, sustained and intensely cold temperatures in most of South America, a very much larger area than the hot spot in Russia and unreported by our MSM, just don't count in this extraordinary warmista alarmist outlook.
And California amongst other areas just for another example has way below normal temps to the extent that fruit is not ripening?
Or don't any of those cool to cold temperatures in other regions of the world actually count?
Only the very unusual high temperatures in one part, repeat, one part of Russia are important in this quite typical and highly selective warmista alarmist outlook?

And the rise in [ global? ] CO2 is going to be so large that it swamps the seasonal fluctuations [ 7 or 8 parts per million! ] measured at the Mauna Loa Observatory

Please! crazy
Posted by: BOM99

Re: Temperature trends - 11/08/2010 12:29

CoastalStrom22, not sure what this will mean exactly, but more CO2 does seem to be causing greater increases in temps over land masses as they heat up. I would guess that we should see 50deg reached in the Pilbra within the next couple of years, that will mean that the next time there is a savage NW wind into Melbourne it might get to 49deg instead of 48.

I also had problems with that second link on some XP computers, but never had a problem at home on Vista, I am not sure what the issue is, some internet Java thing probably, not sure.

ROM, those cool temps have been short term one off events while the heatwave in Russia has started 6 weeks ago now, so I think the + anomalies there still outweigh the - anomalies elsewhere. Most of the NH this summer has been treading close to or exceeding mean temps and record temps. I eagerly await a cooling of temps and hope it happens eventualy, since I do not want to get fried in this country.

I would guess that the next peak reading in 10 month will be at least 396-397ppm which means its certain now that we will exceed 400ppm in 2012.
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: Temperature trends - 11/08/2010 12:41

Here's to hoping the it gets that high.... Will grow some magnificent lawns this year. Less fertiliser application, less water usage, but more mowing and de-thatching. Can't wait for the vegie patch this year too. Yummo
Posted by: BOM99

Re: Temperature trends - 11/08/2010 12:57

Simmostruf, I love my garden too, I cannot wait to see my 200 trees that I planted take off again this spring. With the ground now well and truly soaked they will go like rockets. A moderate concentration of CO2 is good, however tests have shown that when the level is too high trees tend to grow at the wrong rates for their genetic make-up and could develop weak branches. So as much as I want my garden to grow into a jungle fast, I want it to be a quality strong jungle, not one that could have flaws or be burnt in a fire more easily. Keep also in mind that too much CO2 can make plants less nutritious for us as they no longer rely on as many complex compounds for growth. Modern plants are not like the ones that lived 500 million years ago.
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: Temperature trends - 11/08/2010 13:30

I doubt that CO2 concentrations will ever get to the extent that the so called global warming alarmists say it will. As temps drop, so does CO2...
http://ezinearticles.com/?Positive-Effects-of-Carbon-Dioxide-for-Plant-Growth&id=1607

Positive Effects of Carbon Dioxide for Plant Growth

Many articles have been written about the negative effects of carbon dioxide. Sick Building Syndrome, loss of concentration due to high levels of carbon dioxide, asphyxiation in breweries or wine cellars, all these things spring to mind when we hear the magic phrase carbon dioxide. Yet, perhaps today when Venus passes across the face of the Sun, we should remember that our original atmosphere consisted of nitrogen and carbon dioxide. Free oxygen is something that is not really chemically possible. Yet we have it as a result of plant life busily photosynthesising and converting carbon dioxide into oxygen during daylight hours. This is the original use of solar energy!
Plants require carbon dioxide to grow and why not help them by increasing the level of carbon dioxide? Normally, this is something that is undesirable, since carbon dioxide is the original greenhouse gas, as our neighbouring planet Venus can testify. But in a controlled, genuine greenhouse environment, there is no real reason why the level of carbon dioxide should not be enhanced in some way.
Indeed, tests have shown that increasing the level of carbon dioxide in a greenhouse to 550 ppm will accelerate plant growth by 30 - 40 %. The natural level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is around 450 ppm, having increased from about 250 ppm in the last ice-age, so this slight increase may not appear significant at first sight. The point of the matter is that the level of carbon dioxide in the average greenhouse with the ventilation system closed will drop sharply due to uptake by the plants and will lie around 150 - 200 ppm if nothing is done about it. In summer the ventilation system will be open and the fresh air circulation will augment the level to a useful degree. But what about those long, cold, dark northern winters? Most commercial greenhouses will have lighting and heating systems to encourage plant growth, but you still cannot open the ventilation and allow the cold outside air into your heated greenhouse without losing all the early crops. The only real solution is to augment the natural level of carbon dioxide in some way. Where it is used, the general rule of thumb is to augment by about 1000 ppm when the sun is shining (or all the lights are on!) and keep the level around 400 ppm during times of darkness. This will require monitoring, since there are so many variable factors involved and a simple control unit using an infrared sensor will be able to keep the concentration of gas constant at all times.
Rate of consumption varies with crop, light intensity, temperature, stage of crop development and nutrient level. An average consumption level is estimated to be between 0.12 - 0.24 kg/hr/100 m2 of greenhouse floor area. The higher rate reflects the typical usage for sunny days and a fully-grown crop. This equates to roughly 150 litres of carbon dioxide per hour.
Posted by: ROM

Re: Temperature trends - 11/08/2010 14:05

The claims that enhanced levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, and remember that in the scenario that snowmi is discussing means increases in atmospheric CO2 levels of perhaps 10 or 20 PPM or lets go right out on a limb and allow for 50 PPM, the sort of atmospheric increase in CO2 that have taken a hundred years to achieve in the past, will lead to such increased growth rates that due to the genetic makeup of trees it will lead to weakness in the tree structure just simply is not borne out by any research.

CO2 Science has an immense amount of data on CO2 and the outcomes of any increases in atmospheric CO2 and the effects and any problems arising from higher atmospheric levels of CO2.

[ there is that much info on this site that it takes a while to navigate around to find info! ]

Select "Subject Index" > "T" [ for Trees ] > Biomass > "Initial Response of a Forest Ecosystem to Elevated CO2"

Note that the above study was on open aired forests using the FACE system of CO2 enrichment, a system being used here at Horsham and in China and other parts of the world on crops and which is used in most other open air CO2 experiments to achieve enriched CO2 levels of, in the experiment above, of 350 and 560 PPM above the background atmospheric CO2 levels of about 390 PPM.
Nowhere in "CO2 Science" is there any suggestion that increases of some 10 or 20 PPM of CO2 lead to any genetic faults or induced weaknesses in trees or plants being seen.

[ "DATA" will take you to tables showing the responses of numerous species to experimentally based growth results from experiments elevating levels of CO2 to some 300, 600 and 900 PPM over and above the background CO2 levels.]


And it is a little known fact that very high yield potential corn crops which grow inches per day when the heat, water availability and humidity are right, will actually slow down dramatically late in the day in their growth rates when the there is little or no air movement on very calm, hot, humid days.
Research on this unusual corn growth problem found the surprising fact was that the corn had reduced and had lowered the atmospheric CO2 levels just above the corn crop to such low levels that there was no longer a high enough level of CO2 to sustain growth.

Days with some wind and therefore some turbulent mixing of the atmosphere just above the corn ensured enough CO2 to keep the corn growing at it's phenomenal rates.
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 11/08/2010 15:50

Myth:

Originally Posted By: ROM
Apparently the extraordinary, sustained and intensely cold temperatures in most of South America, a very much larger area than the hot spot in Russia and unreported by our MSM, just don't count in this extraordinary warmista alarmist outlook.
And California amongst other areas just for another example has way below normal temps to the extent that
Or don't any of those cool to cold temperatures in other regions of the world actually count?
Only the very unusual high temperatures in one part, repeat, one part of Russia are important in this quite typical and highly selective warmista alarmist outlook?


Reality:

Posted by: ROM

Re: Temperature trends - 11/08/2010 16:10

Reality is using a globe, not a flat mercator type projection which vastly expands and distorts the polar areas and then attempting to pass it of as reality!.
Posted by: BOM99

Re: Temperature trends - 11/08/2010 16:27

Thanks for the links about the CO2 and plants ROM and Simmonsturf. I know there was some information about the plant compounds in another thread somewhere. Plants need more complex compounds that give us better nutrition in a lower CO2 environment, while in high CO2 they can produce more bulk but not as nutritious in quality. Similar with the trees, loose a bit of the strength in the wood. Its like the alpine plants that are extremley tough and hard but take longer to grow compared to jungle plants that are softer but more of them.

You need to realise with the cold temps in South America that a lot of that is in low thin levels of the atmosphere while the heat in summer extends well into the 500mb level and beyond. Its still 2000km from western Russia near Moscow to Ekaterinburg and the whole area has scattered fires through it from 44N to 63N that alone is 4 million square km, which is not much more than the area on the map.
Posted by: ROM

Re: Temperature trends - 11/08/2010 17:09

Not sure at all about plants losing quality in a higher CO2 environment, snowmi.
We went into a lot of this as well as other influences in some detail in the organics thread in the Ag forum section some time ago.

There is so much variation between individual plants in protein, fibre and etc that attempting to pin down and definitely identify in the short term the very minor differences due to higher growth rates from minor atmospheric CO2 increases is drawing quite a long bow.
The claims of about 20% of the increase in the yields of mankind's basic food crops, not a 20% increase but 20% OF the increase over the last couple of decades is due to the increases in atmospheric CO2 is a modeled claim and can't really be sorted out from the better farmer technology, better plant breeding, better chemical weed control and perhaps better weather conditions in the world food production areas.
And the amazing run that the American's, the largest grain producers in the world, have had weather wise since their last great drought in 1988 and etc might have distorted the world's long term grain and food production figures.

Far, far more important to plant quality is the amount of the essential chemical components in the soil that might be available to the plant which is why we use phosphoric acid derived fertilizers in Australia as our soils are very deficient in phosphorus, why we use Zinc and other essential trace elements for the same reasons and why we use nitrogenous fertilizers as plants, particularly the grasses like wheat, barley and etc. just run out of the all important nitrogen during their growth period.

With increased growth from enhanced CO2, a case could also be made that with a better growth and therefore with a better and larger root structures under the CO2 growth enhanced plants, the plant can scavenge much better for these essential growth minerals and have a higher quality seed and greater and better biomass [ hay ] at the end than a plant raised in a lower CO2 environment.

All of this is highly hypothetical as the changes in atmospheric CO2 levels are so small and take so long to increase that the normal plant breeding strategies and adaptive capabilities of the trees, the natural grasses and all other natural non bred plants probably adapt in just a few decades to the very small change in conditions.
And that makes all attempts to measure such small and long term changes in the natural growth environment very moot indeed.
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: Temperature trends - 11/08/2010 17:28

I am in the process of growing a tropical look garden in a temperate environment which has proved to be somewhat of a challenge. We have 145 palm trees of differing varieties on our 1/4 acre block and other tropical looking plants. I have found that once the young plants have adapted to the freezing frosts and extremely dry summer air, that they thrive, and in fact, the last couple of years have been the best growth I have seen. The garden is now 11 yo and I have begun to under plant with true tropicals such as Hawaiian Hibiscus and Frangipani beneath the canopy of the palms. It just goes to show that any plant will thrive in any climate with time to adapt and frost is the real killer, not the heat.
Posted by: majorowe

Re: Temperature trends - 11/08/2010 20:46

Something different - the date of the start of the grape harvest in the Bourgogne region of France since 1370 (in pink represented as the number of days past [or before in rare cases] the 1st of September), with temperature anomolies in blue (not sure how these are determined). 2003 was a very harsh summer in France.



The same sort of data but for the Argenteuil region (since 1750 averaged over 10 years, absolute date of the harvest start given)



There are obviously many agricultural variables that fluctuate apart from the seasonal meteorological conditions.
Posted by: ROM

Re: Temperature trends - 11/08/2010 21:38

Why this sort of thing turns up just when one is thinking about it I will never figure out!

Simmo, something for you which backs your garden experience right up.

From Science Daily; Common Orchid Gives Scientists Hope in Face of Climate Change

The climate is always changing, always has and always will and plants and animals and insects just get on with it so why the surprise here?
It's only a tiny self selected portion of mankind who don't think they can handle change in the present global climate and want to fix the Earth's climate for all time into a stagnating, ultimately self destructive time warp where nature, with no challenges to reinvent and reinvigorate itself just slowly atrophies away
Posted by: majorowe

Re: Temperature trends - 17/08/2010 00:48

^ Nature has plenty more to worry about than just a fixed climate.

Back onto temperature trends, here is the July climate report from NCDC (NOAA):

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100813_globalstats.html
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100813_globalstats_sup.html
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 23/08/2010 21:29

It is set to be the coldest Adelaide August in 40years by the look!
And I suspect most of SE Australia as well.
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 24/08/2010 08:00

http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/near-decade-high-snow-dump-on-mount-hotham/14869
and lots more to come this week by the look!
Posted by: Surly Bond

Re: Temperature trends - 24/08/2010 10:40

Originally Posted By: Bucketing Down(BD)
It is set to be the coldest Adelaide August in 40years by the look!
And I suspect most of SE Australia as well.


Normal August average likely at Manilla, BD. The big change here is a sharply reduced daily temperature range: down to 12 degrees from an average of 16.
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 24/08/2010 11:15

Fair enough SB, but I was referring to southern half of NSW-VIC and southern half of SA...as the SE Australian area in question.
Posted by: Surly Bond

Re: Temperature trends - 24/08/2010 15:10

BD, I now realise that we may be at cross-purposes.
Did you mean coldest daily maxima or coldest daily means? I am getting very low daily maxima too, but very high daily minima, resulting in normal daily means and very narrow daily temperature ranges.
Narrower daily temperature ranges, along with much increased cloudiness are the big changes at my place.
I suspect that this may also be true elsewhere, but nobody is saying so (yet).
Posted by: BOM99

Re: Temperature trends - 24/08/2010 15:32

atm here +1.5deg warmer than August 2008 and only slightly below average for a normal August, may come down another few 1/10 at best.
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 24/08/2010 17:59

No Snowmi, low maxs and low mins
Mins anomolies as below
date-MIN temp adelaide renmark bendigo albury
1/08/2010 0 3 3 0
2/08/2010 -2 -2 2 2
3/08/2010 -1 -3 -1 0
4/08/2010 0 0 3 -2
5/08/2010 -5 -4 -5 -2
6/08/2010 -1 -8 -3 -3
7/08/2010 -1 -2 -5 -4
8/08/2010 -1 -2 -5 -5
9/08/2010 -1 -3 1 3
10/08/2010 -1 -1 0 -1
11/08/2010 3 2 1 4
12/08/2010 1 0 3 1
13/08/2010 -1 -1 3 -2
14/08/2010 -1 -1 0 0
15/08/2010 3 3 4 4
16/08/2010 2 -1 1 3
17/08/2010 -3 -8 -7 -5
18/08/2010 2 2 1 -2
19/08/2010 2 3 2 1
20/08/2010 -1 -2 -2 1
21/08/2010 0 -2 -2 3
22/08/2010 -4 -7 -6 -1
23/08/2010 1 3 -3 1
Maxs anomolies
date-MAX temp adelaide renmark bendigo albury
1/08/2010 -4 -5 -2 -5
2/08/2010 -2 -3 1 0
3/08/2010 -4 -4 -1 1
4/08/2010 -4 -4 -3 1
5/08/2010 -3 -5 -2 -3
6/08/2010 -4 -5 -1 -2
7/08/2010 -3 -3 -1 -2
8/08/2010 -3 -2 -4 -2
9/08/2010 -2 0 0 1
10/08/2010 -1 -3 -2 1
11/08/2010 -2 -3 -4 -4
12/08/2010 -3 -2 1 0
13/08/2010 1 2 1 0
14/08/2010 0 -1 -2 -2
15/08/2010 -3 -3 1 -3
16/08/2010 -2 -3 -3 -3
17/08/2010 0 -2 -2 -3
18/08/2010 3 4 -4 -3
19/08/2010 -3 -2 -1 0
20/08/2010 -2 -3 -2 -3
21/08/2010 -1 -1 -1 -2
22/08/2010 -2 0 1 1
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 25/08/2010 12:49

http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/winters-last-lashing/14876
http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/adelaides-coldest-winter-in-13-years/14877
Posted by: ROM

Re: Temperature trends - 28/08/2010 11:41

Bob Tisdale [ Climate Observations blog ] has a guest post up on WUWT entitled ;

Tisdale on comparing global climate data with SST

The Global Coverage of NCDC Merged Land + Sea Surface Temperature Data.

One of the items I found interesting was this comment from Bob Tisdale.
Quote:
"The linear trends of both Pacific Ocean SST subsets are about 0.04 deg C/decade, so that’s about 0.52 deg C." [ from 1880 to mid 2010 ]


As another poster commented;
Quote:
"This would mean that by 2100, CO2 contribution to temp rise would be around 0.44C and the total increase from all causes (linear with no serious downturns like the 30 year cooling we are in, to be generous) would be around +0.88C (say 1C) for the period 1880-2100. Anyone got a problem with that?"


So the linear trends from 1880 to mid 2010 are indicating a less than one degree rise in global temps [ .88C ] over a 210 year time span to 2100 and that is assuming that there is no period where global temps rises may actually level out or even cool which they are doing at the present.

A Catastrophic global temperature rise ??????
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 28/08/2010 20:46

How does a linear trend from 1880 to 2010 in the Pacific of 0.04 deg/decade indicate that global temps will rise by 0.88 degree over a 210 year time span?
Posted by: ROM

Re: Temperature trends - 28/08/2010 22:22

I guess some people just have a need to find the most complicated answers in place of an overall concept that others seem to understand without any difficulty.
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 29/08/2010 12:25

The Pacific Ocean is the largest body of water, so the slowest to warm. The rest of the globe is warming up much faster than the Pacific. The rate of warming is changing and expected to get faster next century. Is that such a complicated answer?
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: Temperature trends - 29/08/2010 14:07

Evidence pls mike!!!
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 31/08/2010 10:19

http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/fog-wraps-up-canberras-coldest-winter-in-10-years/14914
Posted by: BOM99

Re: Temperature trends - 31/08/2010 12:49

If you take a look at the alpine stations 2008 was still colder in all of them for the winter and for August. The smallest margin by which 2008 was colder seems to be at Mount Ginini, but there is also some missing data there.
For me winter will still be noticably above the LTA for temps and only slightly below for August and of course also warmer than 2008, but as well as warmer than 2007.
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 31/08/2010 14:26

http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/melbournes-coldest-and-wettest-winter-in-more-than-a-decade/14918
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 31/08/2010 14:34

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/temp_maps.cgi?variable=maxanom&area=nat&period=month&time=latest
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/temp_maps.cgi?variable=minanom&area=nat&period=month&time=latest
both show most of australia below normal temps for August 2010
Posted by: BOM99

Re: Temperature trends - 31/08/2010 14:42

But keep in mind that both July and August were colder in 2008.

Jul 2010 = 14.6 7.3 (10.9)
Aug 2010 = 14.7 7.6 (11.1)

Jul 2008 = 14.2 6.8 (10.5)
Aug 2008 = 14.7 7.3 (11.0)

(The difference is larger in the Apline stations ie 2008 colder)
Posted by: BOM99

Re: Temperature trends - 31/08/2010 15:06

Some more perspective on this winter for Canberra showing Jul/Aug 2008 a whole degree colder than 2010

Tuggeranong
Jul 2010 (-0.3) (12.8) (mean=6.2)
Aug 2010 (1.8) (12.3) (mean=7.0)

Jul 2008 (-0.9) (11.6) (mean=5.3)
Aug 2008 (-1.0) (13.0) (mean=6.0)
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 31/08/2010 19:23

http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/sydney-fails-to-shine-in-coldest-winter-in-13-years/14919
Posted by: Blizzard

Re: Temperature trends - 01/09/2010 07:12

It was a cooler winter than most in the last decade but look at this line in the middle of the story.

"...This winter was still warmer than the long-term average...."

That goes to show just how mild winters have been for a long time now. Even a cooler winter in the minds of many Sydney folk was still warmer than the average. That is because we have had a lot less, strong cold air intrusion from the south, in part. Its the big, cold air events that are missing, they are the ones that bring the averages down with colder mins and lower day time maximums.
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 01/09/2010 07:26

Yes, but we have been above average for many years, and now we are starting on the downturn recovery due to solar slowdown imo, that is the point to grasp imo, the temps and rainfalls are reverting back to the good old days again imo. The obs bode well anyway, we shall see as we move on with time. I am excited about some good old fashioned weather, temps and rain, and so are my clients from what I hear all the time this year, they are over the moon!
Cheers
Posted by: Blizzard

Re: Temperature trends - 01/09/2010 07:48

Yeah, I take your point BD, I was about to edit and put that in my post but my wife needed the computer for a tick. Point taken. Look forward to the changes you talk about. There certainly has been a change to some extent this year.
Posted by: BOM99

Re: Temperature trends - 01/09/2010 08:23

Some comments about this winter as far as the higher parts of the CT's are concerned.

The winter as a whole came in on par with 2008 but only because of the difference in June temps caused by inversions in 2010 compared to warm June weather in 2008, rest of winter was colder in 2008, but this winter was much wetter.
Going by models over the next week and a half, if you took winter as being 92 days (10/06 to 10/09) then 2008 winter would easily be colder than 2010 here and in most areas of the SE. July/August were clearly warmer in 2010 than 2008 anywhere in the SE Australia.

Also this winter has had the highest low max temp for a winter since 2006 and probably the second highest ever low max temp for a winter on record at a very mild 3.0 deg. Most winters here the coldest day has a max temp of about +1 or zero, lowest I have recorded being -2.0 in 1990. Again this high value is indicative of the lack of snow on the CT's this winter.
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 01/09/2010 15:19

Official Australia wide reading for the temperature is in, at 0.2 degrees below average. The coldest August in all of 2 years.
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 02/09/2010 07:25

OM Mike, but a widespread all australian figure does not nearly reflect what has happened down south Mike.
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 03/09/2010 10:02

Uah value for August is out, 0.51. This compares to my predicted value of where we should be with a Co2 warming trend at this stage of a transition from El Nino to La Nina of 0.52.

My predictions have been based on a set of cool events which includes both strong La Ninas such as 07/08, and also cool neutral ENSO years such as 05/06. As it looks quite likely that we will have a quite strong La Nina, I think its time to revise my prediction taking this into account. Previous strong La Ninas are 88/89, 98/99 and 07/08. However 98/99 was unusually warm and global temps continued to be unusually warm until about mid 99. So I have decided to base my prediction for the rest of the year on only two years - 07/08, and 88/89. The predicted values on this model then are:

June 0.40 (act 0.59)
July 0.41 (actual 0.44)
August 0.44 (actual 0.51)
September 0.48
October 0.31
November 0.24
December 0.19
January 0.04
February 0.12
March 0.12
April 0.19
May 0.11
June 0.18

An interesting observation is that if I put a warming rate of 0.15 deg/decade into my model, the temp curves for 88/89 and 07/08 are nearly identical. My model currently uses a 0.18 deg/decade warming rate which makes 07/08 a little cooler than the model would expect based on 88/89.

In the past I had tended to think that 07/08 was a little cooler than could be explained purely as ENSO + Co2 warming trend, based on the fact that it was fairly close to the same temperature as 98/98 instead of about 0.18 degrees warmer. However I am now thinking the temperature response may have been about right for a strong La Nina, and the 98/99 cooling was much less than it would otherwise have been due to an after-effect of the 98 El Nino.
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 03/09/2010 10:08


Still suffering from el nino effect giving false reading high, (Tidsdale, as El Nino warmth moves away from Tropics to NH areas)about to temp plunge in next few months as La Nina cuts in and we return to correct temp slow down trace imo anyway.
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 03/09/2010 10:16

Warm temps during an El Nino are false, and cool temps in La Nina are correct?
Posted by: ROM

Re: Temperature trends - 03/09/2010 12:03

From "the Air Vent" blog; In Search of Cooling Trends

This is an unfinished study but it does have some interesting implications as it is just one of an increasing number of examples that shoot down the AGW warmista claims to a constantly increasing global warming due to increasing atmospheric CO2 levels.

When looking for [ global ] stations that show a long term cooling trend it transpired that those stations show a long term sine wave effect in their temperature signals.

Will be fun to see Mike do his usual statistical contortions to explain this one away again.
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 03/09/2010 12:37

I'd like to see the contortions of someone trying to explain why a few stations showing a sine wave has anything to do with Co2, or has any effect on whether the long term trend in global temperature is upwards.

And as I continually state in this forum, no one claims 'contantly increasing global warming' and all climate scientists know that there are significant natural variations in temperature.

It is continuing dishonesty on your part to claim otherwise.
Posted by: ROM

Re: Temperature trends - 03/09/2010 13:02

Somewhere a long time ago, a well known scientist of the time made a very quotable comment.

Science, he said, advances death by death.

And that I think is just where the global warming / climate change science is heading.
The belief in global warming / climate change, regardless of any totally verifiable science to the contrary, will never die until the last of the believers finally lays dead and cold.
Posted by: ROM

Re: Temperature trends - 03/09/2010 13:17

Mann's Hockey Stick showed a steep continuous rise in global temps both in the recent past and in his forecast trends and no down trends in that stick.
And Mann was one of the self styled "Team" who were the prime drivers and dictatorial gate keepers of all the unverified climate science that went into that now increasingly discredited IPCC's Third Annual Report.

Dishonest?? Who??
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 03/09/2010 13:21

The general trends taking out the el ninos are to peak about 2000-2005 and to fall thereafter. IE peak heating was around 2000 to 2005 as we are now in solar with lag slow downrun imo. Australian temps are following a similar path, but have started on the downrun already as SH responds quicker than NH after an El Nino.
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 03/09/2010 14:15

Originally Posted By: ROM
Mann's Hockey Stick showed a steep continuous rise in global temps both in the recent past and in his forecast trends and no down trends in that stick.
And Mann was one of the self styled "Team" who were the prime drivers and dictatorial gate keepers of all the unverified climate science that went into that now increasingly discredited IPCC's Third Annual Report.

Dishonest?? Who??




Mann's temperature goes both up and down, most recent down was between 1950ish and 1980ish, which is the same time as the down in the 'sine waves' your previous post referred to.

And Mann never made a forecast trend.
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 03/09/2010 14:24

Originally Posted By: Bucketing Down(BD)
The general trends taking out the el ninos are to peak about 2000-2005 and to fall thereafter. IE peak heating was around 2000 to 2005 as we are now in solar with lag slow downrun imo. Australian temps are following a similar path, but have started on the downrun already as SH responds quicker than NH after an El Nino.


You want to ignore the heating in 2010 because it was during an El Nino, but you are quick to refer to the warm years from 2002 to 2005 as the start of a cooling trend even though these years were also El Ninos. According to you then El Ninos only count when they are at the start of a cooling trend and should be excluded if at the end of a warming trend?

To be fair you should start in an El Nino year such as 2002 and end in El Nino year such as 2010 - upward trend.

Or start in a La Nina year such as 1999 and end in a La Nina year such as 199 - upward trend again.
Posted by: ROM

Re: Temperature trends - 06/09/2010 15:57

Every time there's a very hot period we are left in no doubt that it is due to global warming.
Strange as there doesn't seem to be too much happening in the global warming line during the last 35 years or more!

Are Heat Records Due To CO2? Ooops, No New Hot Record Temps In Last 30+ Years

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0133f3c7b1f8970b-pi

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/WORLD_RECORDS_TABLE.jpg
Posted by: Mark Hardy

Re: Temperature trends - 06/09/2010 16:42

ROM. One reason many of those records have not been broken despite occurring prior to when global warming is generally accepted to have commenced is that many of them are considered highly dubious by today's standards. The Cloncurry record no longer stands as an Australian record; the Africa record is extremely dubious and the Death Valley record was not taken with equipment that can be compared with today's accepted standards. I defer to any experts in this particular field for a more general comment, but it is my understanding that many records set prior to 1940 are difficult to compare against today's standards.

I also wonder if one can really link the recency of extreme events with global warming when global warming is really all about broadscale gradual warming and not one off events. For example, I would never link Melbourne's amazing temperature set on Feb 4 2009 with global warming even though it blew away the previous record for Feb by an amazing 3 degrees. It was just a freak event - as are most records.
Posted by: ROM

Re: Temperature trends - 06/09/2010 17:33

Thanks Mark,
I understand about the questions that have been raised about past temperature records and the reasons why those records are doubted and questioned.

But as is now known a lot of modern data, including Australian station data, has been filtered and possibly altered and corrupted to fit a particular agenda.
There are some very serious questions about some of the modern era's Australian station data and the changes that have been made in a large number of station's data, Darwin as an example being one of those and just one of a number that have been looked at where large changes have apparently been made to the data without any explanation or a description of the changes and why.

So the present generation of BOM guys and gals might like to believe that their data is above reproach but future generations of researchers may, just like the present generation of Met and climate researchers are doing to the past records, find a great deal amiss in the present records.
And as from the Climate Gate e-mails where a senior Met person agreed to withhold information from any persons seeking to examine the Bureau's data in support of the CRU Team's attempts to stifle any and all questioning or independent analysis of it's data, then are the modern records any more trustworthy in the longer term than were those past records?

The BOM guys and girls have a very big job in front of them to explain away the data discrepancies found in the BOM's station data and CSIRO's climate research data that is being uncovered by interested and independent and statistically qualified persons.

The past records may have serious quality issues due to the uneven and some serious non standardisation of the recorded information and data.
The modern data has seemingly been mixmastered to an infinite degree to derive the "correct" analysis seemingly to fit an agenda.

You might say the modern data is more trustworthy but is it?
Future researchers might also very strongly disagree about the accuracy and truthfulness of the modern data.
The unanswered UHI question is one such parameter that leads to some doubt over the accuracy of a lot of the current station data.

Climate Gate and the onflowing examination of the Met and Climate research profession has and is costing these professions an enormous amount of prestige and an unfortunate and serious loss of standing in the eyes of those of the public who closely follow the ongoing saga of the claimed catastrophic climate change advocacy.

And caught in all of this are those weather and climate research professionals who have always kept their personal inclinations and beliefs apart from their pursuit of the science based reality.
Posted by: Arnost

Re: Temperature trends - 06/09/2010 18:14

Quote:
But as is now known a lot of modern data, including Australian station data, has been filtered and possibly altered and corrupted to fit a particular agenda.


I think that is a bit extreme... as Mark says, the "older" data may be a bit suspect, and so it is only fair to attempt to correct it - and I consider the work that (for example) Blair has done and is doing to clean this up beyond reproach.

Saying that, there then has to be an issue where you are left with trend calculations that are suspect and challengeable (i.e. which way is the past wrong?). You also have other issues that complicate things - UHI, Airports, location changes and instrument changes for example. And each an interesting topic to discuss... but all conspiring to confound the record that then allows analysis such as this to be made:

http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/

Now - I have not replicated most of the stuff in the above... and I suspect that there are flaws, but you have to go along with ROM and at least consider the ex cathedra "Australia is Warming" thesis at least suspect as some of the above does check out. (And I say suspect in that contrary to the expectation that the errors will be evenly spread, they all tend to exacerbate the warming trend).

Quote:
“…getting seriously fed up with the state of the Australian data.”


(Harry the mystery programmer, in the HARRY_READ_ME file released with the Climategate files.) smile
Posted by: Seina

Re: Temperature trends - 06/09/2010 21:45

Originally Posted By: ROM
The BOM guys and girls have a very big job in front of them to explain away the data discrepancies found in the BOM's station data and CSIRO's climate research data that is being uncovered by interested and independent and statistically qualified persons.

Having been shown the extent of variations and alterations to climate data first hand, I agree that some data over extended periods of time can present as being markedly different from the same data gathered using different instrumentation and data-quality adjustments. Jumps and skews or anomalies in records can occur, however these are due to circumstances interrupting, and thus corrupting, the data-gathering and quality-control processes. A clear example of this can be seen in the Adelaide West Terrace-Kent Town Temperature records, for which an evaluation of whether watering of lawns or gardens and changing building localities, including construction works, had any discernible influences on the temperature records was found to be inconclusive. This was because the observing environment was changing as the relocations were taking place and prior to it, thus rendering adjustments between locations suspect.

Climate and weather observations require little disturbance as possible, and clearly in some situations this has not happened. Either that or observations needs to be taken consistently with the same calibration techniques and environmental conditions.

I agree that it is a major undertaking to correct records to within reasonable values, however I think it is worth doing the research smile and making a start.

I also agree with Mark. There is a lot of data, prior to 1940, which needs a serious overhaul; some statistical analyses subsequent to 1940 are reasonable, however prior to that they can tend to be suspect.
Posted by: Ben Sandilands

Re: Temperature trends - 07/09/2010 17:23

ROM,

In the past 35 years in which it is claimed nothing much has happened in global warming the world has experienced the hoaxing of massive glacial wastage and retreat (which is all a conspiracy using faked images of previous extends of the ice caps) and the drastic shortening of the duration of heavy snowpack cover over much of North America is clearly also a conspiracy involving meteorologists and scientists over several generations. These fabrications are being handed down from father to son.

Similarly the evidence from the Blue Mountains, Tasmania, the Alps and so forth is all concoted.

Let's be serious. In the last 35 years the evidence for warming on a global scale is especially noticeable where the margins of ice are involved. There is also a pattern here. When the world cools the ice advances, and when it warms, it retreats.
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: Temperature trends - 07/09/2010 17:26

So tell me Ben, the ideal temp of the planet is??? And how do we keep it there with no variation, and on top of this, who should be in control of the thermostat???
Posted by: Ben Sandilands

Re: Temperature trends - 07/09/2010 17:34

Simmosturf,

You're try to change the topic, which is temperature trends.

But since you raise the issue of no variation, there is only one statistic that is showing no variation in over the short to medium term, and that is the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide.

Could it be that the release of fossil carbon does, really and truly, accumulate in the atmosphere? Because if it doesn't, then the laws of chemistry and combustion must include a quite massive and unexplained exception when it comes to the burning of coal, oil and gas.
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: Temperature trends - 07/09/2010 17:57

I've posted plenty of information from real scientists with evidence of CO2 not driving temps . I am very aware of the global temperature rise and fall but you can't handle the fact that it is all natural. just like the floods we are having, its all happened before matey.
Posted by: Ben Sandilands

Re: Temperature trends - 07/09/2010 18:23

Simmosturf,

You insult those who disagrees with you. And then you bring in flooding. Is it possible for you to focus on the topic under discussion?

If you are 'very well aware' of global temperature rise and fall, why are you silent on the rise and rise of atmospheric carbon levels?

It's not going away.
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: Temperature trends - 07/09/2010 18:33

You still haven't answered my original question Ben "So tell me Ben, the ideal temp of the planet is??? And how do we keep it there with no variation, and on top of this, who should be in control of the thermostat???" So it isn't I changing the subject. Answer the question!
Posted by: KevD

Re: Temperature trends - 07/09/2010 18:37

OK, great conversation but please keep personal attacks / comments out of it please. Edited a couple of posts above to reflect that.

Cheers

Kev
Posted by: davidg

Re: Temperature trends - 07/09/2010 19:05

Originally Posted By: Simmosturf
You still haven't answered my original question Ben "So tell me Ben, the ideal temp of the planet is??? And how do we keep it there with no variation, and on top of this, who should be in control of the thermostat???" So it isn't I changing the subject. Answer the question!


Simmosturf. I dont think Ben claims to know all, but then again he does seems quite well informed. In answer to your questions, here it is as far as i see it. I dont have strong opinions either way but am willing to accept either outcome.

1. There is no ideal temperature for the planet. However emitting large volumes of pollutants (including C02) that have a known warming effect (the effect of which on the climate is unknown IMO), it seems to make sense that we should attempt to curb this output. I don't think you can categorically state that, and i quote "...its all natural" and "its all happened before matey" as much as you can state that the recent rise in global temps are entirely a result of global C02 outputs. Surely you can bear witness to the logic in that statement. Your previous posts suggest that you haven't considered this thought.

2. By reducing carbon and other greenhouse gas pollution we can then eliminate the threat of potential for any human induced warming that may have a detrimental effect on the natural environment, especially when coupled with the large scale clear felling that still continues almost unabated in many areas of the world. Many people firmly agree that this has a detrimental effect on the local environment yet seem equally as quick to dismiss anything that would remotely suggest recent warming events are at least attributable to some degree to C02 emissions.
If, as you so authoratively state, it's all natural cycles, then perhaps we have simply eliminated another pollutant and learnt a lot more about alternate power sources that we might not otherwise have done.

3. Not sure about your question RE "the thermostat" as ultimately the subject cannot be simplified to that level.

Ultimately I still have not seen strong evidence to suggest that either side of the coin can lay claim to "control" over global temperature. I think the big disappointment is the lack or research into the suns effect over global temps and weather patterns. Thanks to the IPCC the suns effect is now considered negligible however this is an opinion that I think is beginning to change within the scientific community. I don't know if we will ever have the full picture but one thing's for sure there's a hell of a lot more to learn.
Posted by: Ben Sandilands

Re: Temperature trends - 07/09/2010 19:22

I agree on the solar research imperative. However the major spending on space based solar research is by NASA in conjunction with the GISS. The most ambitious and costly of these programs was recently discussed in more detail on the NASA site concerning a satellite which will actually approach within nine solar radii of the visible surface of the sun, and deep inside its outer atmosphere.

I don't think the link between the sun and the weather has been neglected, although I would agree it has been poorly reported. The investment in solar observing platforms, terrestrial and from space, has been very high, but there may be legitimate concern about the amount of work done investigating historical records of solar activity (through the sunspot proxy) and climate.

I think it was ROM who recently drew attention to a possible link between solar activity and seismic activity. This is being mentioned increasingly in space literature, in part because some physicists have argued that the solar and planetary magnetospheres, like those of the earth and Jupiter and Saturn, are in fact coherent or dependant, rather than independent.
Posted by: davidg

Re: Temperature trends - 07/09/2010 20:10

It is true that NASA and GISS do invest a large amount in solar research however the point you make about understanding the historical effects of the sun through proxies etc has been minimal hits the nail on the head (just didnt flesh it out as much). Especially when compared to the amount invested in research with regards to C02 and its historical impact. This has led me to beleive that the suns effects have been somewhat pushed aside within the debate. I think a mojor portion of solar research is more on the terrestrial side rather than its impact on climate etc. Anyway not to harp on because there are already threads relavent to that topic but there be my 2c worth.
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 07/09/2010 20:33

Originally Posted By: Simmosturf
You still haven't answered my original question Ben "So tell me Ben, the ideal temp of the planet is??? And how do we keep it there with no variation, and on top of this, who should be in control of the thermostat???" So it isn't I changing the subject. Answer the question!


I don't know what the ideal temperature of the planet is. Does that change anything in regards to whether we are warming or not? Or whether Co2 caused it or not? Do you know what the ideal temperature of the planet is?
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: Temperature trends - 07/09/2010 20:39

yep . A warm one
Posted by: Locke

Re: Temperature trends - 08/09/2010 12:17

If we dropped CO2 and global temps back to what they were in the 1800's, I would imagine a lot of people would starve to death due to significantly reduced crop yields.

But not to worry, I'm surer the poorer people would be the first to go.
Posted by: Flooding rains

Re: Temperature trends - 08/09/2010 13:36

A warm planet is certainly more beneficial than a cool one. The earth has been way warmer than this in the past. I have little doubt the planet is warming, I have massive doubt it is because of humans.
Posted by: Ben Sandilands

Re: Temperature trends - 08/09/2010 14:36

Let's consider the logic. If the release of fossil carbon isn't the cause of heat retention in the lower atmosphere there has to be another source for the rising levels of carbon, since the industrial output is assigned a value of zero impact.

We also have to explain why that concentration of carbon bears a close relationship with drastic changes in land use (deaforestation for coke production for preindustrial smelting and cement making and rises that can be plausibly linked to increased fossil fuel consumption as industrial economies grow and expand.)

I agree that it is of critical importance that natural cyclical and solar variations need to be counted or quantified as well.

Unfortunately a non cyclical rise in atmospheric carbon overburden tells us that whatever the other cycles are doing, they aren't stopping the problem getting worse. The last double deep solar minimum, the 1900-1913 period, occurred when carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere had just crossed the 300 ppm line, while the 1996-2009 extended solar cycle has seen the CO2 concentration rise toward 388 ppm. This may explain why we don't see a strong feedback from this most recent deep solar minimum, although it must be noted, the current progression to a solar maximum doesn't seem quite as robust as was the case subsequent to 1913. (But it's also a bit too early to be emphatic about this.)

It seems reasonable to me to study the solar and other natural inputs and the large scale release of fossil carbon as two sets of factors, the latter of which has never occurred before in concert with (or against) the former.

The scientific effort to quantify these two different sets of factors, and then determine to what extent they pull toward or push away from each other in making the climate we observe doesn't lend itself to 10 second sound grabs, and needs to be conducted away from the tensions of politicised argument.

The long term climate history of the planet is of compelling interest, yet we are now dealing with a new set of factors that humans have brought into play that never existed before. To the extent that we are causing problems for ourselves, we need to sort that out and remedy it.
Posted by: Flooding rains

Re: Temperature trends - 08/09/2010 14:58

Originally Posted By: Flooding rains
A warm planet is certainly more beneficial than a cool one. The earth has been way warmer than this in the past. I have little doubt the planet is warming, I have massive doubt it is because of humans.


Should have said, I have massive doubts its 'all' because of humans.
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: Temperature trends - 08/09/2010 16:16

Here's some more evidence for you to ignore Ben!

The 800 year lag – graphed

Carbon follows temperature in the Vostok Ice Cores

In the 1990’s the classic Vostok ice core graph showed temperature and carbon in lock step moving at the same time. It made sense to worry that carbon dioxide did influence temperature. But by 2003 new data came in and it was clear that carbon lagged behind temperature. The link was back to front. Temperatures appear to control carbon, and while it’s possible that carbon also influences temperature these ice cores don’t show much evidence of that. After temperatures rise, on average it takes 800 years before carbon starts to move. The extraordinary thing is that the lag is well accepted by climatologists, yet virtually unknown outside these circles. The fact that temperature leads is not controversial. It’s relevance is debated.

http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/ice-core-graph/
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 08/09/2010 16:35

Can anyone explain to me how one can possibly go from this raw data 1000 hpa global temp plot 70S to 70N to the underneath "adjusted" same chart!!!!!
of the same input data....and if that is how it's done with smoke and mirrors, how do we then measure it all to .1C. The mind just boggles!!!
What a huge mess we are making of measuring anything at all!!! Who can believe any measure after this craziness!!! Or is there a logical explanation...
please tell me there is!...but I fear not, unfortunately!

Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 08/09/2010 18:30

Originally Posted By: Simmosturf
Here's some more evidence for you to ignore Ben!

The 800 year lag – graphed

Carbon follows temperature in the Vostok Ice Cores

In the 1990’s the classic Vostok ice core graph showed temperature and carbon in lock step moving at the same time. It made sense to worry that carbon dioxide did influence temperature. But by 2003 new data came in and it was clear that carbon lagged behind temperature. The link was back to front. Temperatures appear to control carbon, and while it’s possible that carbon also influences temperature these ice cores don’t show much evidence of that. After temperatures rise, on average it takes 800 years before carbon starts to move. The extraordinary thing is that the lag is well accepted by climatologists, yet virtually unknown outside these circles. The fact that temperature leads is not controversial. It’s relevance is debated.

http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/ice-core-graph/


Climate scientists had predicted that Co2 would lag temperature change many years before this was discovered. The new data in 2003 showing this time lag confirmed climate scientists understanding of how Co2 and Milkanovitch cycles work together to cause ice ages. (skeptical science article)
Posted by: Ben Sandilands

Re: Temperature trends - 08/09/2010 18:38

Simmosturf,

You did read the qualifications she makes on the middle of the screen? You are quoting a cooking show host and freelance journalist who is blogging about what she thinks the Vostok ice cores tell us, except, as she says, the figures might be wrong.

I am more than happy to read anything, however she puts up extrapolations and then says they mightn't actually be totally accurate. Much as I empathise with my freelance colleagues, none of us have anything to contribute to the debate as reporters, other than asking questions and reporting developments. I had to be dragged kicking and screaming, metaphorically speaking, to the conclusion that the scientific community is broadly correct about the issues of excess carbon in the atmosphere. I wish it wasn't so. But it is. Despite the scoundrels, and opportunists on both sides, the stories beyond the culture wars as I see them are now about what science can do, or is doing, to address the issues. My own focus has been on alternative energy technology as a means of ending the liberation of fossil sourced carbon, and most likely, reducing the burden of carbon in the atmosphere to levels which will then return to being determined by the natural carbon exchange cycles rather than primitive 20th century industrial processes.

BD's post just after yours raises in my view some questions I'd very much to see answered or explained.
Posted by: BOM99

Re: Temperature trends - 08/09/2010 18:43

Simmostruf, I have also know about the lag of CO2 after temperature change since the 80's, my reasoning was always that increase in temperatures influence life and make it prolific and that is what raises the CO2 latter. However I have had to modify my reasoning because the current rise in CO2 is a forced one. It is possible that even historically there was a feedback of a slight increase in temps causing more life then more CO2 and then slightly warmer temps again as a feedback. However historically these have been very slow changes over many centuries/millennia. Unfortunately there is no historic equivalent of this much rise in CO2 over a short period as has happened now, so we just cannot really be sure just how much effect this will have. It could be anything from a lot to a little, neither can yet be ruled out.

BD, those graphs are for computers to interpret and add up the numbers, often statistics can be difficult for us to interpret when large volumes of data are involved. Its like if you toss a coin a million times the chances of the ratio between heads and tails being anything outside 49-51% are astronomically small. If they are then its a very significant difference that must have a reason behind it.
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 08/09/2010 18:47

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2,Temperaturesandiceages-f.pdf
A different interpretation and answer to "warming up faster than we thought" Mr Hansen.
http://biocab.org/carbon_dioxide_geological_timescale.html
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 08/09/2010 19:01

Sorry no explanation there Snowmi. Just change the whole temps by many degrees to suit yourself & ideas then calculate them to 0.1C accuracy.
Does not make any sense at all!!! The only sense is that they have been changed to suit a viewpoint from what I can see and the accuracy can only be measured in degrees at very best from the data. Just illustates how much nonsense gets around to me anyway. Sorry looks extremely doggie to me!!!
Posted by: majorowe

Re: Temperature trends - 08/09/2010 19:25

BD,

Your figures above are not generated from the same dataset.

The first is created using data from saved analyses produced by the NCEP operational model and used as initial conditions for their forecasts, the second from the NCEP Reanalysis 1 project model used to to try and recreate atmospheric conditions from 1948 onwards. These two models are (almost) certainly different - the operational model has no doubt undergone updates over time, the reanalysis model can be considered static (although a newer model and datasets exists - the NCEP reanalysis 2). The reanalysis model may benefit from late arriving observations whereas the operational model takes the observations available at the time it is run.

It is not clear how the anomolies are calculated, though I would imagine that the operational analyses are compared with former operational analyses, and ditto for the reanalyses ie. no mixing and matching between models.

No one claims that the analyses are accurate to 0.1°C, one only hopes that the errors are normally distributed and cancel out over time.

Make of this what you will.
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 08/09/2010 19:36

OK thanks Major, I salute you!
I still find it hard to reconcile how one can measure to 0.1C with any of the data.
And I have seen other data sets on the same site for other variables where the operational model and re-ananlysis
are very similar. It only seems to be temp that really varies that much. Why I still don't know.
And still the huge variation from operational to re-analysis poses further questions of accuracy to me anyway.
Posted by: majorowe

Re: Temperature trends - 08/09/2010 20:07

Originally Posted By: Bucketing Down(BD)
OK thanks Major, I salute you!
I still find it hard to reconcile how one can measure to 0.1C with any of the data.
And I have seen other data sets on the same site for other variables where the operational model and re-ananlysis
are very similar. It only seems to be temp that really varies that much. Why I still don't know.
And still the huge variation from operational to re-analysis poses further questions of accuracy to me anyway.


Now that you mention it I don't think the variables are strictly the same either - air temperature and mean daily temperature. From what I gather they are both supposed to be daily means but this description is vague. You would either need to read the doc or ask them. I agree, the it is not great presentation.

If you ever enter into a jelly bean guessing competition, try to calculate the mean of the prior competitors' guesses (the more numerous the better) and put in some entries around that figure. You should do well.
Posted by: Ben Sandilands

Re: Temperature trends - 09/09/2010 09:16

One thing I have noticed is that BoM or whomever is responsible for the temperature readings posted by the AAD from Dome A consistently misrepresents the 24 hour minimum readings on the Dome A web page maintained by the Antarctic Division.

This morning for example the AAD says the 24 hour minimum was -70.3 C when the accompanying graphs show that it was -78C, the same reading coming from Vostok.

We have a choice here in that the AAD or whoever is responsible for correctly informing the public about the 'coldest place on earth' is either incompetent or is deliberately posting the wrong headline information. It has happened quite a lot this winter and last winter.

Either way, whomever is responsible for that information should be moved to less demanding duties.
Posted by: Ben Sandilands

Re: Temperature trends - 10/09/2010 08:13

It was -80 C at the Dome A weather station overnight, a record low for a September reading. Having apparently deliberately filtered out references to the lowest 24 hour temps at the station over this last winter, and in previous ones, the AAD person responsible for the web site today has removed any reference to the lowest temperature recorded in a 24 hour period.

Is the person responsible for this incompetent, or trying to keep inconveniently cold readings away from notice? Why has this behaviour persisted for such a long time?
Posted by: BOM99

Re: Temperature trends - 10/09/2010 10:26

I would not trust anyone down there to be sane enough in those temperatures, you would have to be full of Vodka just to not freeze.
The lowest temp in those parts is -88C so who knows how significant anything there really is anyway. It would need to be completely computerised to be reliable.

As for back in OZ I would be so happy to see the annual mean temp to sit on the LTA for say 3 years since then I could reconsider the future of the climate again. In 2007/08 there were a few occasions when it was back there but those were the bottom of the dips rather than the normal. Would be great to see the mean temp return to that level over the next 12-24 month with the La Nina, will have to waite and see.
Posted by: Ben Sandilands

Re: Temperature trends - 10/09/2010 12:46

Agree. Vostok is manned but Dome A is an automatic station. Ever since Dome A came on line it has been giving warmer readings than the somewhat lower Vostok station in around 80% of daily comparisons, which is not what was anticipated.

While the history of weather reports from a wide network of stations is comparatively short on Antarctica, the last two winters have begun to throw up wild variations from being excessively 'warm' in comparative terms, to some very cold isolated events like this one.
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 06/10/2010 19:54

September's Uah temperature was 0.6. This compares with my predicted value (based on my older method) of 0.55. The topic of psychology is popular at the moment, and I find it quite interesting that my prediction was the warmest prediction at the monthly Rank Exploits Uah guessing competition, and that it was still not warm enough. Despite the fact that this site is a 'luke warmer' site where the host believes that warming is real, but slower than predicted, and members from both sides of the debate seem to regularly post and make predictions. This follows August and July where my prediction was in the warmest 2 or 3, and was also in the top 2 or 3 closest.

Despite the fact that I have posted a few times on that site that the cooling for a La Nina does not normally start until October, it seems that the hype of the coming La Nina has everyone fooled.

Last month I posted an adjusted prediction based only on the 2 coolest La Nina's. This method had predicted 0.49 for September. This month I've decided to add 1998/1999 to my model. I had excluded it as I thought that year was warmer than normal well into the first half of 1999. But 2006/07 was also cooler than what I consider normal, so I decided they should both be in. This gives a new prediction of:

Oct 0.43
Nov 0.30
Dec 0.31
Jan 0.16
Feb 0.25
Mar 0.14

Will 2011 be warmer or cooler than 2008? I think for the first few months its too early to say. The warming between 2011 and 2008 due to Co2 is about 0.05 degrees, and the difference in response between two different ENSO episodes can easily be 0.2 degrees or more. My analysis does suggest that 07/08 was unusually cool for even a strong La Nina, so it should be difficult to repeat this effort. Temperatures through 2010 have generally been much warmer than at the same date of 2007, however the cooling rate is faster, and the development of this La Nina has been much stronger early on than in 2007. My best guess is that temperatures are still high enough that even a rapid drop will still result in temps a little warmer than early 2008, but cannot confidently rule out a drop to temperatures lower than early 2008.
Posted by: BOM99

Re: Temperature trends - 06/10/2010 20:44

Mike, do you think there is any chance that this spring/summer and then next year may unfold like 1999-2000?. I am currently still sitting at +0.9deg to the mean, I had hoped to see some further drops, but so far October is already approaching the average here so its going to be a struggle to make some headway this month anyway.
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: Temperature trends - 06/10/2010 20:45

"Will 2011 be warmer or cooler than 2008? I think for the first few months its too early to say. The warming between 2011 and 2008 due to Co2 is about 0.05 degrees" Evidence of this statement please, not guesses thanks.
Posted by: Vlasta

Re: Temperature trends - 06/10/2010 23:21

Thats a tad warmer than I would say .
I can answer your question Simmo , that o.05 warming is Mike's beliefs . That stands as well for any other modeler as he or she sees it .

Mike can you post the UAH competition ?
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 07/10/2010 18:48

Originally Posted By: snowmi
Mike, do you think there is any chance that this spring/summer and then next year may unfold like 1999-2000?. I am currently still sitting at +0.9deg to the mean, I had hoped to see some further drops, but so far October is already approaching the average here so its going to be a struggle to make some headway this month anyway.


Do you mean globally or locally? Globally the start of 2011 should see a similar fall to the start of 1999, but probably less due to the fact that 1998 was so extremely warm so had a long to fall when it went back cool. Locally I haven't looked at in great deal, but have noticed that the correlation between ENSO and temperatures seems nowhere near as obvious or consistent as it is with global tempratures, or with Australian rainfall patterns. BOM have issued a temperature outlook which looks quite warm to me for October to December. (Outlook link) This outlook is against 1950-2000 averages, and the interesting question is whether the outlook takes into account the general warming trend in some way. Having noticed that past outlooks have generally not had any noticeable warm bias - that I have noticed from somewhat limited attention to these outlooks, I suspect that the outlook may reflect an expecation of warmer than normal conditions even when compared to the last decade.

The recent cool weather in South Australia has been fairly remarkable, with about a 2 degree drop from Sep 09 to Sep 10 (link) . I don't think this drop is related to the La Nina, as temps in 2007, 98 and 99 were reasonably warm. It seems to relate to a anomlous pattern of high pressure near West Australia, and low pressure in the Tasman sea which has pushed more cold southerlies than normal into South Australia. This pattern now seems over (for now?) and so temperatures will probably be closer to the warm values we have been consistently seeing this decade.
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 07/10/2010 18:50

Originally Posted By: Vlasta
Thats a tad warmer than I would say .
I can answer your question Simmo , that o.05 warming is Mike's beliefs . That stands as well for any other modeler as he or she sees it .

Mike can you post the UAH competition ?



The Uah guessing competition is held at the Rank Exploits blog (link). It is usually posted sometime early each month, with a closing date for guesses in the middle of the month.
Posted by: melinda barotziu

Re: Temperature trends - 11/10/2010 16:41

I just registered on weatherzone forum and I found here a lot of useful information. In the next years the climate will change radically and we will feel that on our skin.
Regards.
Posted by: Seina

Re: Temperature trends - 11/10/2010 21:31

I am just a little bit more uncertain about projected temperature trends to 2100 (the more concerning AGW trend) given the history of mean monthly maximum temperatures for Adelaide to date. I am also getting a much greater appreciation of what climate variations are possible beyond what we might expect. The climate is well and truly capable of changing gradually over a long period of time, and then something unexpected happens which throws all theories on what might happen next out the window. It is definitely worth being cautious when interpreting climate data.
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: Temperature trends - 15/10/2010 07:09

Dense environments, concrete, roads warming big cities experts say

AUSTRALIA'S biggest cities are warming faster because of their dense environments, the Bureau of Meteorology has found.

Its report to the Australian Climate Forum in Hobart shows Sydney and Melbourne warmed quicker than smaller cities in the same states.

"Temperatures in the past century have risen at a faster rate in Melbourne and Sydney than in Newcastle and Ballarat by about 0.5C," the bureau reported.

Ms Campbell said the increase was likely a result of urbanisation.

"The major thing that has changed is an increase in the built environment in the two cities - the density of buildings and roads in the two cites," she said.

"What can be gained from this is that urban environments do have an impact on maximum temperatures, because we've known for a while that it can affect minimum temperatures."

http://www.news.com.au/features/environm...0-1225938975540
Posted by: roves

Re: Temperature trends - 15/10/2010 09:48

Geez it takes a long time for it to sink in for some people hey Simmo, more attention should have been shown to this subject years ago.
Posted by: Vlasta

Re: Temperature trends - 16/10/2010 08:14

Thanks Mike , I will submit my crystal ball for october on Lucia site .
Firstly it had to be recharged , refreshed and quality checked .
It wasnt easy and still cant understand , your 0.55 for september , and I do it the same way as most people do it .
So sincere congratulation for your win .

As I know , that things happen for a reason . I can explain the SEP 0.6 only like this .
While nino 3.4 already reached its projected minima , oceans 60N-60S as seen on R Spencer site are 0.1-015 behind the end of 2007 .
Then logicly your 0.43 for OCT is a very good number and the longer temps wont crash , the worst it will be in the end .
I still have 2 days for observations ( Frankly we should bet with deadline for OCT at the start of OCT ) but it will be lower than 0.43
Posted by: ROM

Re: Temperature trends - 18/10/2010 21:19

If POAMA's temperature forecasts come off for the next 3 months NDJ [ as far out as they go ] then there will be a lot of questions and " where has all the global warming gone?" just like the increasing volume of questions along the same lines asked during the last very cold NH winter.

POAMA maximum temps anomalies forecasts for the next 3 months
POAMA minimum temps anomalies forecasts for the next 3 months
Posted by: Arnost

Re: Temperature trends - 18/10/2010 22:37

Expecting if to be very cloudy and hence lowering max temps?
Posted by: __PG__

Re: Temperature trends - 20/10/2010 12:33

Here is a plot of recent global tropospheric temperature measured by two satellite datasets (January 1997 to September 2010).

UAH - University of Alabama at Hunstville maintained by the pre-eminent global warming skeptic, Roy Spencer.
RSS - Remote Sensing Systems.

The surface data is generated by the NCDC at NOAA (which according the Anthony Watts and Joe D'Aleo are conducting a global conspiracy to introduce an artificial warming trend by removing station data from higher latitudes).



The trendline over the past 13 years has been computed and all datasets plotted from a common reference temperature.

Note that the largest warming trend is coming from Roy Spencer's UAH dataset.

You can download and plot this data yourself from the following locations

NOAA-NCDC Monthly Global anomalies

RSS Monthly Global anomalies (lower troposphere)

UAH Monthly Global anomalies v5.3 (lower troposphere)

Here is a plot of the complete UAH and NCDC datasets (yearly globally averaged anomalies).

Posted by: Locke

Re: Temperature trends - 20/10/2010 12:59

All very good PG but Anthony and Joe are looking at changes in surface station measurements over a much greater timeframe. I don't think you'll find them questioning the UAH data.

They are examining the quality of measurements taken at those stations over the course of decades and their susceptability to the influence of urbanisation.

What you've posted above is completely irrelevent to those studies but about what I'd expect from you PG. I also noticed that you had to drop in the much cooler conditions in 1997 in order to get your upward trend. What does it look like if you take it from 1998?

I will refrain from personal attacks against you PG but if your trying to make some sort of point here you need to try a little harder.
Posted by: Seina

Re: Temperature trends - 20/10/2010 15:38

It's quite ironic really, talking about observations which need adjusting, because most adjustments which need to be made are in the observations.
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 20/10/2010 16:39

Take out volcanic and El Nino spikes and it looks clear that temps peaked around 2002 and have fallen since...running well along with solar-ocean-atmospheric temp lag expectations.
Posted by: __PG__

Re: Temperature trends - 20/10/2010 16:45

Originally Posted By: Locke

They are examining the quality of measurements taken at those stations over the course of decades and their susceptability to the influence of urbanisation.

No, that's a different issue regarding the USHCN (i.e. high quality temperature data for the Continental United States (CONUS). What I'm referring to is a different issue. They've made specific claims and accusations that

Originally Posted By: Watts and D'Aleo

Around 1990, NOAA began weeding out more than three-quarters of the climate measuring stations around the world. They may have been working under the auspices of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). It can be shown that they systematically and purposefully, country by country, removed higher-latitude, higher-altitude and rural locations, all of which had a tendency to be cooler.

The thermometers were marched towards the tropics, the sea, and airports near bigger cities. These data were then used to determine the global average temperature and to initialize climate models. Interestingly, the very same stations that have been deleted from the world climate network were retained for computing the average-temperature base periods, further increasing the bias towards overstatement of warming by NOAA.


They published these claims here. It was published by the Science and Public Policy Institute, whose chief policy advisor is Christopher Monckton, and additional science advisers include Bill Kininmonth and Bob Carter (as well as Joe D'Aleo).

The question you have to ask is
a) Where is the evidence of this bias towards overstatement of warming in the published data?
b) Is their conspiracy scientifically plausible? Would eliminating stations at higher latitudes and higher-altitudes introduce a warming trend? Is this a coherent scientific argument?

Finally, I will respond to your requests for additional analysis, first from January 1998 - September 2010



Then, let's see if Anthony Watts and Joe D'Aleo are correct. Is there any evidence of a warming bias in the published NOAA global analysis compared to the satellite data since 1990?



The data says since 1990, the NCDC has the lowest warming increase of all three datasets.

And before anyone says 'cherry picker!' - let's examine the entire satellite record from 1979 onwards.



Across the 30 year record, the UAH is the coolest, with the RSS and NCDC records having an almost identical trend.

So what do you think? Are Watts and D'Aleo correct? Is NOAA engaging in a conspiracy (aided by the WMO) to systematically introduce an artificial warming trend?
Posted by: Locke

Re: Temperature trends - 20/10/2010 17:36

Again I'm sorry but I can only conclude you are being deliberately deceptive. You must know the focus has never been purely on what has happened over the satellite era but rather how those 30 years compares against the earlier part of the twentieth century. In this context the removal of stations since 1990 has a huge relevence but more so when looking at how it has affected the trendline over the PAST CENTURY.

Post me where it says Anthony or Joe are claiming it has distorted the 1979 to 2010 record (or past 30 years if your going to be pedantic). They have always argued that the removal of stations and the quality of station measurements has artificially raised the longer term trend to show the past 30 years saw a greater degree of warming than the earlier part of the century.

The argument is not that it has been warming in the past 30 years. Even sceptics will grant there has a warming trend over the entire satellite era which is not surprising given the positive PDO. And, there are certainly signs that despite the el-nino earlier in the year, temps in the past decade have plateued if not started to decline. If the current La-Nina is as strong as predicted, by the time global temps have responded to the drop in SST's (there is a lag) I suspect the trend since 1998 will be either flat or downwards.

This "unprecedented warming trend" of the past 30 years as measured against the earlier part of the twentieth century has been achieved by the systematic removal of cooler stations that are still present in the pre-satellite temp records and distorted further by the progressive urbanisation of previously rural areas and the failure to correctly classify stations as rural, semi urban or urban.

Your charts do not refer to this at all and trying to argue that Antony and Joe are saying the removal of stations has affected the trend of the past 30 years is simply an attempt to divert attention away from the real argument as to how the past 30 years really stacks up against the years preceding 1979.
Posted by: ROM

Re: Temperature trends - 20/10/2010 19:26

There is another factor or as a couple of commenters have put it, another "stink" associated with the surface station data in the GHCN.

Around 80% plus of all the GHCN stations since about the mid 1990's when there was a huge reduction in the GHCN stations numbers from around 5000 reporting stations to about 1100 GHCN stations reporting now are now located at airports around the world and often located in close proximity to black sealed runways and taxiways.
The very considerable heat radiation from these sealed surface heat sources [ personal experience backs this right up ] has not been researched nor accounted for in any of the GHCN station data and could be of considerable influence in raising the reported temperatures at those airport stations by quite a percentage.
Data analysis comparing the few surviving true long term genuine rural stations in the GHCN to the airport based stations indicates a consistent and considerable increase in measured temperatures in the airport based stations over the purely rural based stations.
This above point has been discussed at length in various climate blogs but no attempt has apparently been made by the GHCN to characterise and measure the effects of the close proximity of the stations to the heat radiating runways and taxiways and the potential effects of jet exhausts on the GHCN stations at some airports.

Another characteristic of airport based Global Historical Climate Network [ GHCN ] stations seems to have completely slipped under the radar for everyone until E.M.Smith, The Chiefio, brought the problem up and it could be a real "stinker " for the ground based GHCN stations located on airports and that as above, is most of them.

When reporting temperatures derived from airport based stations it is normal to always UPGRADE the measured temperature to the next nearest round figure ; say .ie; 32.2 C to 33 C.
This fits in with the normal aviation based met observations as pilots have to know the current and maximum temperatures as aircraft take off performance deteriorates as the temperatures get higher.
The hotter the temperature, the longer the take off run, something that I can testify too as being towed in a glider behind a low powered tug on a hot day can get interesting and the end fence gets a lot higher and larger and closer if we are operating off our short runway.
That sort of thing generally gets a pilot's undivided attention or in this case, both the tug and glider pilot's undivided attention.

So jacking the measured airport station temperature up to the next whole figure provides another small comfort zone in calculating aircraft take off distance in that the pilot calculates the extra length required for take off at the higher temperature thereby giving him an extra small margin if the temperature is actually a little lower than the MET provided upgraded temperature.

The kicker is that this upgraded airport station temperature, not the actual and possibly lower real temperature is the one that is fed into the GHCN data and this effectively raises the claimed temperatures of all those GHCN airport based station's temperatures by a 1/2 C, a big jump when the rise in global temperatures since about 1850 is around .87 C total or a trend rise of about .6 C per century.

From; The Chiefio's blog, a long discourse and a lot of data and graphs on this potential and serious problem for the accuracy of the GHCN data.
Quote:
In Conclusion
OK, this “Airports Round Up” problem looks to be global, and with the constantly increasing percentage of “major airports” in the recent part of the record pretty much guarantees a consistent “rise” of a grid box temperature by about 1/2 C just from the rounding between about 1990 and now (along with the grid / box anomaly system that compares one station now to different stations in the past). As the non-airports were dropped from the record and the airports assumed an ever larger part of the record, and as the use of the “round up Full Degree C” method comes to dominate aviation stations at major METAR reporting airports, we “find” additional “Global Warming of 1/2 C even without the Airport Heat Island, Urban Heat Island, and all the rest.

In my opinion, this one error pretty much invalidates any claims of AGW based on any temperature series that uses the GHCN (and thus through it the METAR reported temperatures that have been rounded up). Since that’s all the temperature series in common use, we pretty much don’t know what’s been happening to the temperature of the planet.

I think it is still needed to work through this at a very low level and follow particular non-ASOS temperature records in parallel with the ASOS type reports and show that the actual impact makes it into GHCN. But at this point I can see no way these stations could not impart a warming bias of 1/2 C from the rounding up.

To put it bluntly, the GHCN data at present is very definitely not a viable resource to find the real and actual global temperature if there is such an animal, something which a lot of the more skeptical climate scientists who do not have access to the immense amounts of tax payers funds being poured down the GHCN, GISS and CRU sink holes, seriously doubt.
And it is another reason why an increasing number of climate scientists such as Roger Pielke Sr are advocating Ocean Heat Content as the real measure of the global temperatures at least until something better comes along.
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 20/10/2010 20:02

As I said PG, take the El Nino 1998-2009/10 spikes out of all your traces and the peak of temp is shown at around 2002 and I would expect that we are going to return to a fall in temp again soon as this current El Nino spike finally clears the mid high latitudes shortly...all due to the solar downturn and ocean current cycles with lag.
PS Linear trends are useless when used on cyclic data!
Posted by: ROM

Re: Temperature trends - 20/10/2010 21:28

Unlike GHCN. GIS CRU and New Zealand's NIWA that was shown in the NZ courts to have deliberately manipulated NZ temperatures upwards by a large percentage using an algorithm from a disgraced climate scientist, an algorithm for which the calculations had been lost decades ago, the Swedish Met station data is apparently regarded as uncorrupted and still available in all it's raw form for all of the last century.
A very short paper.

One Hundred Years of Temperature

The conclusion is quite clear: There has been no measurable temp increase during the last century here in Sweden.
Posted by: Keith

Re: Temperature trends - 20/10/2010 23:29

Originally Posted By: Bucketing Down(BD)
As I said PG, take the El Nino 1998-2009/10 spikes out of all your traces and the peak of temp is shown at around 2002 and I would expect that we are going to return to a fall in temp again soon as this current El Nino spike finally clears the mid high latitudes shortly...all due to the solar downturn and ocean current cycles with lag.
PS Linear trends are useless when used on cyclic data!


Try removing all the data that are more than 3 standard deviations from the mean. I think first differences might be revealing too...should stationarise the data and remove the trend altogether?
Posted by: Arnost

Re: Temperature trends - 21/10/2010 00:13

Quote:
GHCN stations reporting now are now located at airports around the world and often located in close proximity to black sealed runways and taxiways.


It is something that plays at the back of my mind a lot.

The fact that we have gone from the old liquid in tube thermometers to the resistance thermometers now in ASOS and AWOS stations typically at reporting airports is something that periodically I spend a frustrating evening looking at. The thermistors/PRTs are fast - typically response times is in the order of a second or less. Which is much much faster than the old mercury/alcohol thermometers.

And this is where I think the danger lies... at an airport as you say ROM, there is a lot of blacktop, or concrete that will absorb and re-radiate heat. Where a wind briefly quarters and wafts the heated air from over the tarmac in the direction of the sensor, (let alone a jetwash) this will be immediately recorded as a higher temp – and who is to say that that temp will be the max for the day…?

Quote:
but no attempt has apparently been made by the GHCN to characterise and measure the effects of the close proximity of the stations to the heat radiating runways and taxiways and the potential effects of jet exhausts on the GHCN stations at some airports


The problem of course is that this is not seen to be an issue – well actually it is: but in the opposite direction. The “seminal” reference on this is the Quayle et al 1991 paper, where it is posited that:
Quote:
Analyses of data from 424 (of the 3300) MMTS stations and 675 CRS stations show that a mean daily minimum temperature change of roughly +0.3°C, a mean daily maximum temperature change of −0.4°C, and a change in average temperature of −0.1°C were introduced as a result of the new instrumentation.


And hence – to account for this negative bias, temperatures are adjusted upwards. Such as the red line here from USHCN for example:


BUT!
There is [surprise, surprise] material that contradicts the Quayle et al findings. Some of the stuff that confirms the max bias of the resistance thermometers is for example:
http://www.cmos.ca/Ao/articles/v400304.pdf
Quote:
Similar electronic temperature sensors were used by both the observer and AWOS, which resulted in a rather small instrumental bias: AWOS reported temperatures that were warmer by up to 0.2°C


http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/www/IMOP/publications/IOM-94-TECO2006/P3(07)_Xiong_China.pdf
Quote:
The daily, monthly and annual mean air temperatures recorded by new automatic surface observation system will be about 0.2℃ higher than that recorded by traditional manual observation.



And then there is the fact that the ASOS is favoured to be used for climate records and that the AWOS is not considered very reliable – yet the ASOS runs warmer than the AWOS:
http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/wrh/01TAs/0106/index.html
Quote:
The average temperature from the ASOS is nearly one degree higher than the average temperature of the AWOS for the first half of 2000


http://www.weather.gov/view/validProds.php?prod=PNS&node=KLOT
Quote:
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE CHICAGO IL
432 PM CST FRI JAN 16 2009

…REGARDING ROCHELLE`S LOW TEMPERATURE THIS MORNING…
THE AUTOMATED WEATHER OBSERVING SYSTEM (AWOS) AT THE ROCHELLE
AIRPORT RECORDED A TEMPERATURE OF -36F AT 745 AM THIS MORNING.
WHILE THE THERMOMETER ON THE AWOS WAS RE-CALIBRATED YESTERDAY
AND MAY INDEED BE ACCURATE…AWOS OBSERVATIONS ARE NOT QUALITY
CONTROLLED OR CALIBRATED BY THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE AND
ARE ALSO NOT DESIGNED FOR CLIMATE PURPOSES.
THEREFORE…THE STATE CLIMATOLOGIST DOES NOT CONSIDER THIS
TEMPERATURE AN OFFICIAL MEASUREMENT

LOL smile

And the causes are interesting to drill through. The sensor is not the only thing that may influence the difference: The data logger may not be accurate or calibrated right and even the length of the cable to the base station may have influence.
http://waweatherscience.com/uploads/lin_hubbard.pdf

I think that one day, a lot of this sort of stuff (and very likely some other stuff) will be identified and in hindsight we will look a bit silly.
Posted by: __PG__

Re: Temperature trends - 22/10/2010 16:00

Originally Posted By: Locke

This "unprecedented warming trend" of the past 30 years as measured against the earlier part of the twentieth century has been achieved by the systematic removal of cooler stations that are still present in the pre-satellite temp records and distorted further by the progressive urbanisation of previously rural areas and the failure to correctly classify stations as rural, semi urban or urban.

Ok, just to be clear about this. You agree with Watts and D'Aleo that the removal of certain stations from the NOAA global climate network has been a systematic attempt to introduce a warming bias over the past two decades?
Posted by: Arnost

Re: Temperature trends - 22/10/2010 18:08

Quote:
Ok, just to be clear about this.


Oh __PG__,

Look, if you want to engage in a discussion as to the specific why's wherefore's and what's of individuals position on historical temps... This is a great place for it. You are more likely to get an argument based on facts, with referneces to data etc etc. And if anyone strays into personal attacks - trust me - the mods jump on this quick.

If you start out like the above trying to pin a Wing Nut CONSPIRACY tag on someone. YOU are going to get pulled up... OK?

Let's get this straight. There is nothing that anyone has said that suggests there is a conspiracy where there has been a systematic attempt to introduce a warming bias over the past two decades

Locke (and Watts and D'Aleo) are simply reporting facts.



The data shows that in the 90's there was a massive drop in reporting stations - at one stage there were over 8000 stations reporting simultaneously. But since 1992 there have only been an average of 2000 stations recorded in the primary global database. And they are mostly AWS / ASOS / AWOS data from airports.

And at the same time there was a spike / step change in global temps.

I deal with data every day - and inexplicable spikes and step-changes ring alarm bells. They need explaining. Yet the climate community sees nothing wrong.

So why do you think that the "nothing wrong" thesis is an open and shut case with no room for doubt? [And here's one back at you - what is the psychology behind painting anyone who expresses some form of doubt on this as pushing a conspiracy and linking them to truthers etc like you did in the other thread?]




You can go here and get the raw station data:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/ghcn-gridded-temp.html

If you need help with code to get it and parse it:
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/01/25/ghcn-another-way/





Posted by: mobihci

Re: Temperature trends - 22/10/2010 19:06

the thing that stands out for me regarding adjustment changes over time is the computerisation of records/recording. we have become very reliant on electronic data gathering and recording in all fields. we also rely on computer models that have no skill because it is a computer that produces the end data, but the truth is if a computer ever outputs a random result for ANYTHING, then the computer is faulty. while the reality is that the problems with the data are obvious, those that have spent time developing the adjustment/program to alter the data do not see a problem, they only see their creation as if it has somehow been touched by god.
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 22/10/2010 19:22

Dropping out stations does not contribute to any warming effect on global temperature measurements. http://clearclimatecode.org/the-1990s-station-dropout-does-not-have-a-warming-effect/
Posted by: Locke

Re: Temperature trends - 22/10/2010 20:16

Sorry Mike but I don't take anything put out by Tamino seriously. I wouldn't waste my time examining his data based on his previous track record. But to use an oft quoted line from the AGW movement. Has Tamino's work been published in a journal and peer reviewed? (for what the peer review process in climate science is actually worth).

By the way the link from the clearclimatecode page to Tamino's work doesn't work.
Posted by: ROM

Re: Temperature trends - 22/10/2010 20:17

mobihci quote; "they only see their creation as if it has somehow been touched by god".

There was an interesting comment on one climate blog from a psychiatrist.
He had spent some time with a group of modelers of which discipline he did not state, in an assessment / study situation.
He commented that he was quite surprised how the modelers became so wedded to their models that the models became actual reality to them and they became quite divorced from the real world.
Posted by: Vlasta

Re: Temperature trends - 22/10/2010 23:04

As Locke said earlier . There is nothing wrong with GISS and CRU satelite era graphs , only question is how good are pre 1980 , or other words how much they were lowered .
Although there are suspiciously following the same value month by month , year by year as satelite readings .

One would assume that Australia is warmer , lets not forget its only 5% of earth surface and somewhere in the world must be cooler to balance the satelite books .
As it it shaping up , this NINA will bring temps as low as early 2008 . ( I actually predict it will be lower than JAN 2008 -0.20 ) Only this time as everything is slower than in 2007 , temps may bottom in FEB or MAR .

Oceans 60S-60N are at or slightly lower than in 2007 and only Mother nature knows how cooler they will get .

So if Mother nature can on her own mitigate or even negate any warming effect CO2 has by natural forces , then I think we wont have to wait too long for a lot of good byes to hundreds of scientists .
Posted by: Locke

Re: Temperature trends - 23/10/2010 10:01

OK. I've been thinking about this a bit more and to put it in a nutshell.

What we are really struggling with is putting context on the last 30 years of relatively accurate measurements. Because it is really only that context that will allow us to have a hope of accurately predicting what lays ahead with any degree of accuracy.

The questions is when your trying to understand the drivers of likely climate variability for the coming 100 years, how many centuries of past climate variability do you need an accurate understanding of. It surely cant be just the past 100 years only particularly when those 100 years are plagued by quality of data issues and environmental changes that go beyond the GHG's we place in our atmosphere.

The most urgent imperative right now is for us to get better quality climate data to arrive at a greater understanding of how our climate operates. In this respect the AGW movement is both a benefit and a hindrance at the same time. It is a benefit in that it sees billions poured into climate research that would never have been otherwise. It is a hindrance in that so much of that research is blinkered and focused purely on the role of GHG's in the atmosphere.

I would however argue that we are a long way off being in a position to ask for action on possible future climate variation based on our current levels of understanding.
Posted by: __PG__

Re: Temperature trends - 26/10/2010 15:11

Originally Posted By: Arnost


Locke (and Watts and D'Aleo) are simply reporting facts.



The whole 'station drop-out' meme was started by Ross McKitrick years ago, on the basis of this graph.



1) That data is based on a simple arithmetic average, not a spatial average. Do you know the difference? Watts and D'Aleo don't.
2) Watts and D'Aleo aren't just reporting facts. They have made specific claims about a global conspiracy.
Posted by: Arnost

Re: Temperature trends - 26/10/2010 16:19

Mike:
Quote:
Dropping out stations does not contribute to any warming effect on global temperature measurements.


That may be... but it says nothing about station/data quality. My point is about station data quality.
Posted by: Arnost

Re: Temperature trends - 26/10/2010 18:32

__PG__:

Quote:
That data is based on a simple arithmetic average, not a spatial average. Do you know the difference? Watts and D'Aleo don't.


I would suggest that you get into the habit of actually checking up source data. Here's a link to D'Aleo and Watts for your reading pleasure:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf

And we can see that the dropout was global...



Note: the data quality issues vis-a-vis the airports are apparent here in Australia. Though most of the stations that "dropped out" are happily reporting, those that remain are primarily "rural" airports...
Posted by: paddymax

Re: Temperature trends - 26/10/2010 21:48

Thats why everyone is worrying about Global Warming.
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 30/10/2010 07:02

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/29/sp...res/#more-27131
"Dr. Roy Spencer has an essay below on sea surface temperatures starting to bottom out, but in addition to that, the UAH daily lower troposphere plot shows a sharp drop also.
As this graph of UAH TLT from D Kelly O’Day’s site shows, The current global anomaly is 0.044C – or very nearly zero. That’s a big drop from last month when we ended up at 0.60C."
Posted by: Vlasta

Re: Temperature trends - 31/10/2010 23:08

Unless its me who is making a mistake , but I triple checked . So I put it to busy Anthony's life , not being able to verify.
The 0.044 is anomaly since 2002 , not since the satelite era .
October is running at +0.39 ( + - 0.02 )
Last year october was + 0.36 , so nina has so far no effect on lower troposphere temps . 2007 oct was 0.26 , but oceans are a bit cooler at this moment than in 2007 . Thats why satelite temps wont drop yet as the transfer of heat is still in motion . As I said before , the longer it takes , the worst it will be in the end . Assuming nina survives in negative teritory till 2012 , we are heading for a hell of a cooling .
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 01/11/2010 14:43

In the weather not climate box Adelaide had its lowest on record Nov min temp this morning ofn 5.3C!
Posted by: Arnost

Re: Temperature trends - 01/11/2010 19:21

That 5.3C was at 6am - so that's really in October... No November record. poke
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 02/11/2010 13:37

Uah temperature that I predicted for October based on the assumption of a continued warming trend, and a transition to a significant La Nina: 0.43
Actual temperature measured by Uah satellite: 0.42
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 02/11/2010 14:19

No, 6am 1st November is entered into November records Arnost as such. So it stands as the record all time for November minimums.
Cheers Ian

As you can see from here Arnost.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/dwo/IDCJDW5002.latest.shtml
Posted by: CoastalStorm22

Re: Temperature trends - 02/11/2010 14:25

Originally Posted By: Bucketing Down(BD)
In the weather not climate box Adelaide had its lowest on record Nov min temp this morning ofn 5.3C!


How unfortunate for Adelaide.
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 02/11/2010 14:25

Well you may win there Mike, but your assumptiions are vastly wrong about your CO2 warming, come back in two years time and state your case, and I will maybe believe you. I can see solar & ocean runs the earth weather show very convincingly from very strong evidence of my own that has little room for CO2, so why should I look at it any further? As I have said the next 2 years or so will show the real results of what is going on.
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 03/11/2010 18:48

We need some AGW warmth here quick Mike, Adelaide had its coldest Nov min on record on the 1st, Darwin it's coldest Nov day on record yesterday(thanks for the tip J), and now Adelaide today had its coldest Nov day for 16 years...and we still have the fire stocked up here and it is November!!!
Posted by: Blizzard

Re: Temperature trends - 06/11/2010 16:39

Its running about 7C below average for maximums for November in the upper Blue Mountains too. Sure, its early in the month but that is a very cold start for us, perhaps the coldest I can recall.

Here's a nice highland, bagpipe jig for you BD! From our festival today:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsatPVisaOg
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 06/11/2010 17:41

Ark Mun, Blizzard, it's sum wee good baggie museic, and it's a braw breck moonlec nec tenec!
Cheers Ian
PS Great music and video! Thanks for that, it revived my tiredness and I'm up for a jig!
Posted by: Keith

Re: Temperature trends - 06/11/2010 19:20

Ah, Robbie Burns would be proud..'we hae meat, an' we ca eat, and say the Lord be thank'd'. Hoots mon! A wee hoose doon among the heath'r.

And this looks to me like it's going to be the year without a summer in Sydney..almost.
Posted by: Vlasta

Re: Temperature trends - 01/12/2010 16:37

I bring temperature prediction here .
No model would predict 0.5deg drop between 10th and 20th november . I simply outsmarted myself with +0.57 for whole november . You win some , you lose some .
The sharp drop rules out 2010 to be warmer than 1998 , to my relief ! he he . ( that is a win )
Mike your model works perfectly , only because its Excel . We know this is not a normal nina , so averages wont work this time . We can see december to venture into negative teritory already .
I expect now november to be around +0.4 .
Mother nature is close to temps equilibrium and I predict the current 'climate scientists' will have to move within 5 years onto something else . I think Iam kidding my self .
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 02/12/2010 08:24

Originally Posted By: Vlasta
Mike your model works perfectly , only because its Excel . We know this is not a normal nina , so averages wont work this time . We can see december to venture into negative teritory already .
I expect now november to be around +0.4 .


My model predicted a temperature of 0.3 for November. It is based on the 3 strong La Ninas (88/89, 98/99 and 07/08), so the fact that this is a strong La Nina is taken into account. Of course there are always other potential errors, and I would expect the result to be as far as 0.2 degrees out for a single month, and maybe averaging 0.05 out over a 6 month period.
Posted by: dave7

Re: Temperature trends - 04/12/2010 10:39

Effect of Gulf Stream on Temp. Trends
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 04/12/2010 14:47

http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/europe-cold-snap-continues-to-kill/15501
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 04/12/2010 20:37

UAH for Novemeber has come out at 0.38 degrees. This compares to my prediction of 0.3 considering a Co2 warming trend, and this stage of a strong La Nina, so a bit on the warm side. Consider that the peak ENSO influence on temperatures is fairly reliably in January, and we are 10 months after the peak warming influence due to the 09/10 El Nino, and 2 months away from the peak cooling influence of the 10/11 La Nina. We are obviously much closer to the peak cooling month of the ENSO cycle, then the peak warming month, yet the temperature is still higher than any 12 month average achieved between the years 2002 and 2006, during several other El Nino periods.
Posted by: dave7

Re: Temperature trends - 04/12/2010 22:56

Terrible Bucket...heard news report of coldest expected winter in 1000 years up there....not good sign if true.
Posted by: dave7

Re: Temperature trends - 05/12/2010 01:30

[Quote] Won’t make a difference to the true believers though. Hansen will still have his hottest on record even he he has to blowtorch each thermometer himself.

Further to the snow I suspect the wind farms will be generating somewhere between zilch and zero as well. Just the power source to keep the hearth warm on frigid and still nights. Oh we are blessed to be surrounded by so many brilliant minds and not a skerrick of common sense between them.[Quote]
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 06/12/2010 20:38

Australia had its 4th coolest Spring daytime temps on record? South Australia 3rd coolest daytime temps, Queensland 2nd coolest daytime temps, NT coldest daytime temps beating the 74 record.
Queensland had its coldest November daytime temps, Australia as a whole 7th coolest daytime temps for November
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 06/12/2010 22:29

With an unusual amount of cloud daytime temps for Australia were very low. Night time temperatures were still above average.

edit: and a quick check of ESRL shows that the last 90 days have had a far more southerly airstream over the southern parts of Australia than is average for this time of year.
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 07/12/2010 07:32

Australia had its 4th coolest Spring daytime temps on record? South Australia 3rd coolest daytime temps, Queensland 2nd coolest daytime temps, NT coldest daytime temps beating the 74 record.
Queensland had its coldest November daytime temps, Australia as a whole 7th coolest daytime temps for November
Significant change to Spring cooling over a wide area one of the lowest ever Spring temp records!
Significant change to heavy Winter-Spring rains highest ever over a wide area!
Significant change to huge dam inflows!
All predicted by Solar changes...La Nina and Dipole changes are also predicted by the solar changes.
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 07/12/2010 09:10

See my response to the rainfall claims in the rainfall trends thread.
Posted by: __PG__

Re: Temperature trends - 08/12/2010 11:09

Originally Posted By: Bucketing Down(BD)

All predicted by Solar changes...La Nina and Dipole changes are also predicted by the solar changes.


Changes in which area of the spectrum?

Have their been changes in the Sun's magnetic field as well?
Posted by: BOM99

Re: Temperature trends - 12/12/2010 17:35

Originally Posted By: Bucketing Down(BD)
Australia had its 4th coolest Spring daytime temps on record? South Australia 3rd coolest daytime temps, Queensland 2nd coolest daytime temps, NT coldest daytime temps beating the 74 record.
Queensland had its coldest November daytime temps, Australia as a whole 7th coolest daytime temps for November
Significant change to Spring cooling over a wide area one of the lowest ever Spring temp records!
Significant change to heavy Winter-Spring rains highest ever over a wide area!
Significant change to huge dam inflows!
All predicted by Solar changes...La Nina and Dipole changes are also predicted by the solar changes.


Well I must say BD that I am starting to wonder what is going on with the rising temperature trends also. I keep looking out for high temperatures in the Pilbra or anywhere on the Australian mainland and there seems to be nothing unusual happening anywhere. Could still be a short aberration that will end in a year or two, but maybe not. What has again amazed me is the cooling of the NH this winter despite a very hot summer in parts. That seems to suggest to me that my original theory about CO2 not being able to do any more than slightly delay cooling by a few days or a week may be true. In a similar way summer heatwaves may be more likely because of CO2 but only within a short weather cycle when the heating conditions of atmosphere are ideal. So all extra warmth from higher CO2 may always be only very short lived and volatile when/where it occurs and never be able to actually affect global mean temperatures. Maybe the only risk from CO2 is slightly more extreme weather as a result of those temporary short lived pockets of more warmth. However the big picture of global temperature may well be driven by what you say primarily the Sun and Oceans.
Posted by: UK Steve

Re: Temperature trends - 13/12/2010 05:08

There's been a notable downward trend in temperatures here in the past 3 years.

The period from May 2006 to April 2007 was the warmest 12 month period on record (using the CET average series), but since then, there's been a trend towards colder winters and summers. In the past 3 winters, each month has been colder than the same month in the preceding year. Also, we've had the poorest run of summers since the late 80's.

This year is on course to be the coldest since 1987, nearly 2ºC colder than 2006.

Quite incredible since each year since 1996 has been above average.

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/cetml1659on.dat
Posted by: __PG__

Re: Temperature trends - 13/12/2010 11:42

Remember how various people were posting temperature data stating that because England was cold, global warming doesn't exist?

NASA says November 2010 is the hottest on record

Quote:

Northern Europe had negative anomalies of more than 4°C, while the Hudson Bay region of Canada had monthly mean anomalies greater than +10°C.

The extreme warmth in Northeast Canada is undoubtedly related to the fact that Hudson Bay was practically ice free. In the past, including the GISS base period 1951-1980, Hudson Bay was largely ice-covered in November. The contrast of temperatures at coastal stations in years with and without sea ice cover on the neighboring water body is useful for illustrating the dramatic effect of sea ice on surface air temperature. Sea ice insulates the atmosphere from ocean water warmth, allowing surface air to achieve temperatures much lower than that of the ocean. It is for this reason that some of the largest positive temperature anomalies on the planet occur in the Arctic Ocean as sea ice area has decreased in recent years.

The cold anomaly in Northern Europe in November has continued and strengthened in the first half of December. Combined with the unusual cold winter of 2009-2010 in Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes, this regional cold spell has caused widespread commentary that global warming has ended. That is hardly the case. On the contrary, globally November 2010 is the warmest November in the GISS record (which goes back to 1880).


Apparently Warm Canada and Greenland + cold UK and Europe is a classic negative North Atlantic Oscillation.

According the RSS Satellite data set, November 2010 was the 6th warmest on their records going back to 1979

It's the 3rd warmest November on record according to Roy Spencer's UAH dataset going back to 1979.
Posted by: __PG__

Re: Temperature trends - 14/12/2010 14:00

Anthony Watts wants to know why the NASA GISS anomaly for November is so much higher than the UAH anomaly here
Posted by: Seina

Re: Temperature trends - 14/12/2010 18:35

According to the original BoM data, since approximately 1949, the mean annual maximum temperature has been on what appears to be a rising linear trend. Prior to this, the only time when the temperature noticeably dropped was in about 1940-49; the pattern was virtually a stationary trend prior to 1940 – there’s a very distinct difference.

Based on the BoM data, the average 1949 to 2009 is 21.8, prior to 1949 it was about the same, but this does not account for the 1940-49 drop to about 20 C. That drop has been recovered in the last 60 years.

In actual fact it appears there are three patterns, 1887 to 1949, 1949 to 1979 and 1979 to 2009. The latter two follow one another without breaking stride.

The temperature drop/plateau since approximately 2002 isn’t really there; if it is, you’d be hard-pressed to find it.

See: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/hqsites/, 23000/23090
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 14/12/2010 18:45

That is only because Australia was in a cyclic drought caused by solar cycles and ground was bare and dry and cloud much less thatn normal, causes temp to stay high, little at all do with CO2 rise, Naz, rest of world started to level & fall in around approx 2005 onwards, Australia had to wait till the end of the drought, now that has eneded we are rapidly falling now, as predicted by solar and ocean means. (anyway what am I doing back on these threads, too much work to do atm so adious for some time once again!) Cheers
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 15/12/2010 20:39

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/1213/Snow-storm-snarls-Midwest-Is-US-facing-another-extreme-winter
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Snow storm snarls Midwest: Is US facing another extreme winter?
A giant snow storm wreaking havoc on the Midwest is sending blasts of frigid air plunging toward the Southeast. Sound familiar? The atmospheric dynamics are still somewhat of a mystery.

Marcus Marter/South Bend Tribune/AP
-----------------------------------------

By Patrik Jonsson, Staff writer / December 13, 2010

Atlanta
The driving early snowstorms and piercing cold winds blasting the Midwest, South, and East Coast – throwing commutes, air traffic, and football schedules into chaos – are the result of poorly understood atmospheric dynamics that may upset predictions of a milder winter for the eastern half of the US.

Skip to next paragraph
View gallery: Winter weather

Related Stories
Storm dumps snow on Mid-Atlantic, closing airports and government DuPont Circle snowball fight erupts as Washington, DC blasted by snow storm Heavy snow blasts New York: Snowiest month in city's history Scientists at the University of Wisconsin in Madison are among those trying to understand the mysterious interplay between Pacific and North Atlantic weather phenomena that threaten to dunk the Eastern US into a second year in a row of 1970s-style blizzards and cold snaps.

"At this point, this winter looks similar to last winter," says Jonathan Martin, an atmospheric scientist at Wisconsin. "The next question is, why does it look similar, and we're currently not in a position to say definitely what's going on. There are some interrelationships between big pieces of circulation anomaly that feed into one another, including an anomalous pattern over Greenland that's tied into convection in the tropical Pacific Ocean."

Scientists speculate that heat released from storms racing up the US East Coast toward the Labrador Sea may be feeding the so-called North Atlantic Oscillation – nicknamed "The Greenland Block" – in ways that are not yet understood. The region of high pressure over Greenland has pushed huge troughs of Canadian air into the US, causing the fifth biggest snow storm on record in Minneapolis over the weekend and now threatening Orlando, Fla., with 20 degree F temperatures.

The atmospheric upset has had the opposite effect on parts of the West, where cities like Long Beach, Calif., and Phoenix saw record high temperatures Monday.

The snow storm snarled US air traffic in the Midwest, shut down dozens of school districts, including Minneapolis and St. Paul, and led to major commuting problems across the region. The storm played a role in at least six deaths and sparked the first weather-related rescheduling of an NFL football game since hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans in 2005 when the inflatable roof of the Minneapolis Metrodome collapsed early Sunday morning under the weight of two feet of snow.

Posted by: Keith

Re: Temperature trends - 15/12/2010 22:26

Don't these people ever look at history to help them work out the patterns?
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 16/12/2010 08:07

As all the predictions of global cooling are failing, the deniers are turning to the only thing they have left - reports of localised cold conditions in this or that place. The cold in some parts of the NH is balanced by warmth in the Arctic, and may actually be a consquence of Co2 causing the Arctic ice to melt and throwing NH circulation patterns out of whack.
(article from Jeff Masters)

Another aspect to conisder is that a warming planet will lead to stronger and not weaker snow storms. This is because warmer air holds more moisture, and until the entire planet warms enough to eliminate snow (many decades away or never), then wherever it is still cold enough to snow, the amount of snow will increase.

Snow storms with larger amounts of snow are actually evidence of warming. Evidence for cooling would be snow storms that occur closer to the equator, or earlier in Autumn/later in Spring than normal.
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 16/12/2010 09:30

What planet do you live on, Mike! Obviously not earth!
Oceans cooling, cold blasts everywhere, cold in Australia, cold in much of USA, cold in South America.
IPCC predcitions not working...you must be getting desperate to post that!
PS But I forgot, Mike, of course, global warming causes everything even cooling and snow, of course!
And, the third or tnis the fourth huge cold winter in a row in Britain, etc, and, of course, global warming causes a return to coolness and wet in Australia also, as it is to blame for everything!
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 16/12/2010 09:58

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories...15875-22782403/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/13/hundreds-of-new-cold-and-snow-records-set-in-the-usa/
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 16/12/2010 13:03

Originally Posted By: Bucketing Down(BD)
What planet do you live on, Mike! Obviously not earth!
Oceans cooling, cold blasts everywhere, cold in Australia, cold in much of USA, cold in South America.
IPCC predcitions not working...you must be getting desperate to post that!
PS But I forgot, Mike, of course, global warming causes everything even cooling and snow, of course!
And, the third or tnis the fourth huge cold winter in a row in Britain, etc, and, of course, global warming causes a return to coolness and wet in Australia also, as it is to blame for everything!


How you view the world:



What the real world looks like:



And a reminder on our respective predictions. I predicted 0.3 for UAh in November. Actual measured temperature was warmer at 0.38. You had predicted that global temperatures according to NOAA would have reduced from a peak of about 0.6 in 2005 to be about 0.4 this year. The recent November value for NOAA, was 0.69.

We are now very clearly seeing the cooling effect of the La Nina, and have dropped quite a way since the warmest El Nino influenced month in January. Yet the November temperature for the globe in both NOAA and UAH was above the annual average temperature in 2005, which was a warm ENSO year, and since which you have very clearly and wrongly predicted we would see a cooling trend.

I do not blame everything on global warming, only those things that are clearly predicted and expected due to global warming. More snow in very cold areas is global warming. Snow in areas or times that do not normally experience snow is the opposite of global warming. Record rainfall which we have seen in the last few months is global warming. A return to normal rainfall which you predicted, and which we have not seen would be the opposite of global warming.
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 16/12/2010 14:53

I may remind you that that prediction was made before I researched my new forecasting systems as I told you before clearly, but it is quite near the mark anyway. More snow and cooler temps is not global warming, it is jumping on the bandwagon of whatever is happening to try and justify ones AGW theory, same as extreme weather is jumping on nthe bandwagon of whatever is happening to try and justify ones AGW theory. As was TC, typhoon, hurricane increase which has found to be not happening, now. As was the title itself "global warming" which has levelled off and is now cooling and not following trends predicited by AGW, so was named climate change to cover every possibility. As was drought conditions in Australia an AGW phenomenon, but now changed due to rainfall returning, cooler temps to extreme weather etc, etc, etc, etc. Just keep changing the AGW CO2 goalposts and you will never be wrong!!!
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 16/12/2010 15:34

You accuse AGW of changing their theories to fit what is actually observed after the fact. Yet you are the one that tries to excuse your failed cooling forecast as being made before your new forecasting systems were researched.

If you look at some of the articles referenced in this climate progress posting (link) , you see that the link between warmer temperatures and increased snow was scientifically documented well before the recent cold NH winters occurred and the deniers created the 'snowstorms prove global cooling' bandwagon. We do not say 'more snow and cooler' temps is global warming, but 'more snow and warmer temps' is global warming. However deniers have no honest arguments left, so resort to dishonest representations of AGW to try and argue their case.

And as for the heavy rain in Australia, My comments in the rainfall thread noted an increased trend in rainfall for Spring months before the current La Nina developed and we saw record breaking rainfalls. You predicted a return to normal conditions, and breaking rainfall records by a long way is not a return to normal conditions.
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 16/12/2010 16:36

I have non excuses to make the temp is near the mark, so where is the error. I just stated that I have refined my methods since then. I have no changed to siut any new temp or weather. I said earlier the AMO had not cooled as much as expected so it may be a bit low, I admitted that, but no changes there solar and ocean all the time, No change to my australian ,snow, rain, dam inflow and temp forecasts just the same as when I issued them. And have been basically the same for years now if you care to read back on the threads and view my articles.
I have predicted floods for a long time now to my clients as they will verify and I have mentioned it on threads months to years ago, a long solar downturn drought has often or almost always been followed by floods, that is why Aussie is the "land of droughts and flooding rains", all as expected.
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: Temperature trends - 16/12/2010 23:26

I agree with you BD... Empty dams, caused by AGW... Full dams,caused by AGW...
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 17/12/2010 07:29

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/16/uah-and-uhi/#more-29550
Note: clearly satellites can see urban heat, as demonstrated by this recent paper unveiled at the 2010 AGU meeting by NASA. See: Satellites Image the Urban Heat Islands in the Northeast. It can also be demonstrated that the UHI biases the thermometers upwards. As cities grow, so does the increased bias. In that paper NASA says:

The compact city of Providence, R.I., for example, has surface temperatures that are about 12.2 °C (21.9 °F) warmer than the surrounding countryside…
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 17/12/2010 08:03

As has been stated many times before climate scientists already know UHI exists and take it into account. Anyone who thinks that pointing out the existence of UHI is significant knows little about climate change. Anyone who continues to point to the existence of UHI after this has been pointed out multiple times is clearly in denial and is either blatantly dishonest, or refuses to learn anything about climate change.
Posted by: Dr Odious

Re: Temperature trends - 17/12/2010 12:14

Ha Mike your post above "how you see the world" is priceless - extremely funny.

Also, there's an interesting article here http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2697 on the relationship between world coal reserves and potential warming - it seems that some of the IPCC emissions scenarios will turn out to be unrealistic - and that perhaps warming of around 2degC this century might be expected. Anyway, it is interesting that incorporation of realistic coal reserve data is likely to help narrow down estimates of future warming.
Posted by: Seina

Re: Temperature trends - 17/12/2010 12:24

I think my comments in post #908818 - 13-12-2010 02:55 PM in the "Interesting news articles about AGW" thread could be put forward in several threads around here. Science is not just about concrete facts, it's also about being open-minded to alternative views, repeated ad-nausea.
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 17/12/2010 13:15

I just posted a new article on temperature trends...so what is the problem...it is there for anyone to read and agree or disagree...that is all...take it or leave it...your choice.
You want to laugh at NASA also doing a new study...up to you!
From Science @ NASA.gov – Satellites Pinpoint Drivers of Urban Heat Islands in the Northeast

"Providence, R.I.
Cities such as New York, Philadelphia, and Boston are prominent centers of political power. Less known: Their size, background ecology, and development patterns also combine to make them unusually warm, according to NASA scientists who presented new research recently at an American Geophysical Union (AGU) meeting in San Francisco, Calif.

Summer land surface temperature of cities in the Northeast were an average of 7 °C to 9 °C (13°F to 16 °F) warmer than surrounding rural areas over a three year period, the new research shows. The complex phenomenon that drives up temperatures is called the urban heat island effect.

Heat islands are not a newly-discovered phenomenon. Indeed, using simple mercury thermometers, weather watchers have noticed for some two centuries that cities tend to be warmer than surrounding rural areas.

Likewise, researchers have long noticed that the magnitude of heat islands can vary significantly between cities. However, accurate comparisons have long eluded scientists because ground-based air temperature sensors tend to be unevenly distributed and prone to local bias. The lack of quantifiable definitions for urban versus non-urban areas has also hindered comparisons.

Satellite technology, which offers a more uniform view of heat islands, is in the process of changing this. The group of researchers from NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., presented results based on a new method for comparing heat islands at the AGU meeting."

Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 17/12/2010 14:05

I see you have a March 2010 forecast for global temperatures. Pretty much the same as your failed cooling forecast from 2008. One of your serious problems with this forecast is that you forecast a rapidly cooling AMO. This is not going to happen as northern Atlantic temperatures are being driven by AGW (at a guess far more than AMO drives temps, but that point is unclear), and so you have a nice escape clause next year when the cooling doesn't happen, as you can just blame it on the AMO not cooling as expected.

Your forecast from that paper:

'later in 2010 we should start to see the start of the forecast downturn in global temperatures, especially as the current strong El Nino is expected to change to a following strong La Nina...Mean Global Temperatures from then on, say from 2010-2011 onwards..are expected to stay at levels similar to those experienced in the 1945 to 1978 period, IE. about 0.4 to 0.5C less than the current global temperature levels of around 0.6C' You source NOAA for this temperature forecast.

You seem to be forecasting temperatures to drop to about 0.2 (or lower) early next year, and to stay that low. My expectation is that the temperatures will drop somewhere close to the 0.2 level in January, but then will rise through the year, and will be back up above 0.5 by the end of the year.
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 17/12/2010 14:08

Originally Posted By: Bucketing Down(BD)

You want to laugh at NASA also doing a new study...up to you!
From Science @ NASA.gov – Satellites Pinpoint Drivers of Urban Heat Islands in the Northeast



I am sure NASA studies are well done and the results are as claimed. If you want to claim that this has something to do with the measurement of global temperature trends, then please read my previous comment about UHI again. If you are not claiming this has something to do with global temperature trends, then please stop posting stuff that has nothing to do with the thread topic.
Posted by: Seina

Re: Temperature trends - 17/12/2010 14:23

Originally Posted By: Mike Hauber
As all the predictions of global cooling are failing, the deniers are turning to the only thing they have left - reports of localised cold conditions in this or that place.

Reportedly, the cold conditions sweeping through areas of Western Europe are a result of a negative phase of the Northern Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), where atmospheric pressure over Iceland and Greenland is very low and that over Western Europe is very high. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_oscillation. While this may be a natural phenomenon, it is unlikely to be a prolonged situation, as differences in pressure change. In the long-term one may expect a positive NAO to eventuate, or for other climate phenomena to influence conditions.

Originally Posted By: __PG__
Apparently Warm Canada and Greenland + cold UK and Europe is a classic negative North Atlantic Oscillation.

The extent of (anthropogenic) global warming depends to a large degree on the seasonality of a given region. If the troposphere can hold more moisture and there is more evaporation (latent heat released) in areas during periods when a given climate normally experiences more precipitation, there is likely to be more precipitation. As the temperature gradually increases on a global basis, overnight minimums are likely to be higher in the longer term (due to increased cloud cover and moisture in the troposphere, which retains ambient heat energy), while day-time maximums may increase to a lesser extent (inhibited by the aforementioned influences of increased cloud cover and humidity).

In regions where the weather is unseasonal and not expected, this is more likely a sign of shifting climate patterns, which may also be the result of changes in conditions elsewhere. Where regions experience extreme cold when they would normally experience warmer weather (or vice versa), this implies a change in normal trends, which further implies changes may be occurring or originate elsewhere. This is not necessarily a sign of global warming, however the influences of increasing CO2 still have the capacity to contribute to these changes, whether seasonal or unseasonal. Natural variations can both enhance and inhibit global temperature trends.
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 17/12/2010 14:41

Of course it has something to do with climate trends, obviously!!!
Besides it is a "temperature trends" threads is not it?!
The NAO changes are all related to solar influences.
There are a lot of papers published on the subject.
For starters:

"Solar influence on the spatial structure of the NAO during the ...by K Kodera - 2003 - Cited by 33 - Related articles
22 Feb 2003 ... The solar influence on the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), reported in a previous study based on 39 years of data, was confirmed by using ...
www.agu.org/journals/ABS/2003/2002GL016584.shtml
Influence of NAO and clouds on long-term seasonal variations of ...by M Chiacchio - 2010 - Cited by 1 - Related articles
Influence of NAO and clouds on long-term seasonal variations of surface ...
www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009JD012182.shtml
Show more results from agu.orgLong-term variations in the correlation between NAO and solar ...by K Georgieva - 2007 - Cited by 9 - Related articles
The influence of solar activity on NAO in the 11 year sunspot cycle has been studied by a number of authors. Kodera (2003) found that the spatial extend of ...
linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0273117707006382 - Similar
Long-term variations and interrelations of ENSO, NAO and solar ...by B Kirov - 2002 - Cited by 23 - Related articles
Therefore, the influence of solar activity on the long-term changes in NAO ...
linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1474706502000244 - Similar
Show more results from elsevier.com[PDF] NAO and solar radiation variability in the European North AtlanticFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
by D Pozo-Vázquez - 2004 - Cited by 11 - Related articles
is the magnitude of this influence. The aim of the present study is to explore the role of the NAO on the solar radiation (measured at ground level) spatial ...
www.ujaen.es/investiga/tep220/pdf/04_nao.pdf
EVIDENCE OF LATE HOLOCENE SOLAR INFLUENCE ON ALPINE CLIMATE FROM ...by N PRETO - 2003
26 Jul 2003 ... 3, 7-8, 11 and 20-25 yrs, indicative of the influence of wintertime NAO and solar variability. Intervals of very thin laminae occurred ...
gsa.confex.com/gsa/inqu/finalprogram/abstract_54088.htm - Cached
Evidence from Lake Lisan of solar influence on decadal- to ...by S Prasad - 2004 - Cited by 21 - Related articles
Various studies have discussed the probable link of the NAO to solar variability .... I., and Bonani, G., 2001, Persistent solar influence on North Atlantic ...
geology.gsapubs.org/content/32/7/581.full
Solar influences on polar modes of variability - NERC Open ...by JD Haigh - 2006 - Cited by 8 - Related articles
30 Aug 2007 ... There is a clear solar influence on the NAO but no statistically significant signals of solar forcing are found in either the NAM or SAM. ...
nora.nerc.ac.uk/52/ - Cached
Effect of solar activity | Climate LogicThe influence of solar activity (expressed by various indices) on the NAO has been studied by a number of authors. Having reviewed the information available ...
www.climatelogic.com/trends/north.../effect-solar-activity.html - Cached - Similar"
Just google it for many more also.
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 17/12/2010 15:23

Great, solar influences NAO, and NAO influences regional temperature variations. Anyone disagree?
Posted by: BOM99

Re: Temperature trends - 17/12/2010 23:12

Hard to say Mike, I am completely confused now. Does make sense though solar changing the primary heating of the land and affecting cloud which in turn affects NAO and the patterns in the SH as well.

I am looking at the satellite pictures and the SST's in our region atm and suddenly am seeing something that is making sense. Australia is consistently covered by cloud and failing to produce any decent heating for the SH while at the same time the huge La Nina is also inhibiting heating of the SH. The two are feeding each other and are going to reduce the amount of heat pumped into the SH this summer. The result will be a more rapid cooling and rapid onset of autumn next year, this should expand the SAM next winter and produce a much colder winter in 2011.

BD you are a genius and right to have stuck with your theories, I was wrong to have begun to doubt the future after this difficult decade we have been through.
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 18/12/2010 13:38

"Coldest December ever in Britain as snow piles up, Europe freezes
Posted on December 17, 2010 by Ryan Maue

Treacherous: Ice on the M22 outside Ballymena in Co Antrim made for a dangerous driving conditions.

Breaking news! December can still be cold and snowy over parts of the Northern Hemisphere. Don’t look to the American media for much information about European weather; it’s about as foreign as driving on the wrong side of the road. But, in Britain, Italy, and the rest of Europe, the past several weeks have seen “the Arctic refrigerator door” swing wide-open. Here are some example headlines:

Arctic freeze to last another month as AA warns of ‘worst driving conditions imaginable’ for Christmas getaways: Mail Online: “With temperatures expected to fall to -15c (5f), the Met Office said this is ‘almost certain’ to become the coldest December since records began in 1910.”
Europe travel mayhem as arctic freeze strikes again: AFP: “In Italy, rare snowfall disrupted the tourist destinations of Pisa and Florence, forced both airports to close and severely disrupted traffic and the region’s rail network.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/17/co...zes/#more-29619
(PS> Steady on Snowmi..."genius"!!!...that is way over the top!!!)
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 18/12/2010 14:08

matt v. says:
December 17, 2010 at 4:17 pm
The December 17 TELEGRAPH in UKreported

After three successive bad winters, Mr Hammond has also asked John Beddington, the Government’s chief scientific adviser, to examine whether Britain’s transport planning should assume that this weather pattern will continue over the next 20 years.

They are finally starting to see the light. Global cooling has been real for some time now.

Rupert Matthews says:
December 17, 2010 at 4:29 pm
i have just walked home from a sniffter with a friend, involving 2 miles over the top of the Surrey Downs. Not only is it very cold out there, but today’s snow has fallen on top of the snow from 10 days ago to make paths and roads very dangerous. I asked my old mum about this. She said the last time it was this bad was in ’47, but that was after Christmas. She says that snow on top of ice on top of snow before Christmas has not happened in her lifetime, and is fairly certain not that of her mother either – which takes us back to the 1890s. I know anecdote is not evidence, and up here on the Downs things are different to down there in the lowlands, but even so……

Comments on WUWT above


http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/12/kallaste-december-pa-135-ar.html
Sweden coldest in 135 years also:



http://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/st...ather_category2

http://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/st...any_lead_171210

http://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/storm_watch_stories3&stormfile=cold_weather_grips_italy_171210

http://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/st...page_topstories

http://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/st...to_spain_161210

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101217/ap_on_re_eu/eu_europe_weather

Frozen fountains in Rome: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12022394
Posted by: Keith

Re: Temperature trends - 18/12/2010 15:53

Oh dear. Man is such a wicked species to be causing all that warming.
[End sarcastic cynicism]
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 18/12/2010 19:37

Plus.......
December snow for the Alps
Anthony Duke, Saturday December 18, 2010 - 17:41 EDT
Cold air from the south in an upper level trough and widespread cloud cover has caused temperatures across the southeast to plummet. On Saturday, day time temperatures across Victoria, South Australia and parts of NSW were around 5 and 17 degrees below average.

In South Australia Moomba Airport just reached 19 degrees, 17 below average. This is 3 degrees colder than their December minimum average.

Elsewhere the places were in the Victorian Alps where temperatures were as cold as those seen in October. Mount Buller only managed to reach 2 degrees, 13 below average. Falls Creek warmed to just 3 degrees, the coldest it has been in December for 19 years.

Wind gusts on the Alps around 50 to 70 km/h made temperatures feel more like minus 7!

Temperatures are forecast to stay down over the next 48 hours in the southeast, bringing the potential for snow flurries on higher ground.

Overnight on Sunday, temperatures are predicted to step below zero with Mount Hothom set to drop to minus 2. With temperatures this low, precipitation is likely to fall as snow to as low as 1200m.

Temperatures are set to return to around average by mid-week in time for Christmas.

- Weatherzone


http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/december-snow-for-the-alps/15643
Posted by: Seina

Re: Temperature trends - 18/12/2010 21:25

Originally Posted By: Bucketing Down(BD)
Of course it has something to do with climate trends, obviously!!!
Besides it is a "temperature trends" threads is not it?!

I was highlighting the point that being certain is ok…but being rigid about interpreting what’s going on is a little less reasonable without a context.

If we want to be specific about causes and effects, we need to provide specific information about exactly what we're talking about, contextually and quantitatively, including links.

If we simply want to provide information without a view to providing evidence for a specific idea/theory, fine. If we want to provide the evidence, we need to be specific.

In the end, it only takes one little discovery and an entire theory can be blown out of the water.
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: Temperature trends - 19/12/2010 08:52

Quick, go for a drive and leave all the appliances on..... need to make some CO2 for a warm Xmas? Giggle.
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 19/12/2010 09:39

And on it goes.......
http://www.english.rfi.fr/environment/20101218-snow-and-ice-freeze-france-and-europe
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/1218/1224285835951.html?via=mr
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 19/12/2010 09:55

http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/weather-delays-qantas-flights-from-heathrow/15647
Posted by: _Johnno_

Re: Temperature trends - 19/12/2010 09:56

EC was on the ball for this cold snap for Europe I first raised it well over a week ago
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 19/12/2010 09:58

Like mid-winter here today as well, Johnno! cold, windy, odd small hail, frequent showers...15mm already! Might see some snow onn the Alps later!
Posted by: _Johnno_

Re: Temperature trends - 19/12/2010 10:46

We should Ian, a nice little doozie for this time of the Year
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 19/12/2010 11:14

More on the cold

Speculation Alert: “New Little Ice Age Cannot Be Ruled Out”
Wednesday, 15 December 2010 09:16 Rickmer Flor, wetter.info

deviations from the climate mean for December, until 17.12.2010, Source: Bernd-Hussing.de -click
Everybody is talking about global warming – but in Germany and also in many other countries around the world people are currently fighting with the adversities of extreme cold. And indeed: “The year 2010 will be the coldest for ten years in Germany,” said Thomas Globig from the weather service Meteo Media talking to wetter.info . And it might even get worse: “It is quite possible that we are at the beginning of a Little Ice Age,” the meteorologist said. Even the Arctic ice could spread further to the south.

It is already clear: the average temperatures in Germany this year (8.1 degrees Celsius) were 0.2 degrees below the long term measured average of 8.3 degrees. “I fear we will end up still significantly lower by the end of the year”, said Globig. The long-term average is actually the average of all German stations from 1961 to 1990.


Coldest December in 100 years"




http://wetter.t-online.de/winter-extrem-neue-kleine-eiszeit-ist-jetzt-moeglich-/id_43699628/index

“Unbelievable amounts of snow” in Berlin (AW note: 800 flights grounded in EU)

Globig appeals to our long-term memory – and recalls a prolonged period of extremely cold and snowy winter in the 1960s and 1970s. Half a meter of snow fell in Berlin in early March 1970, in Potsdam even 70 centimetres. “From today’s perspective, these amounts were unbelievable.”

Then followed a period of milder years, and, probably the impression spread that there will be no more real winters in Germany”, said Globig. “That was a misjudgment.” People became careless, and as a result the authorities run out of grit in a very short time last winter and this year the airport operators lacked de-icing fluid for airplanes. In the Berlin the S-Bahn traffic came to a halt because of the cold and the high-speed trains did not run either. “Our modern, high-tech world was completely overwhelmed with the winter situation” said Globig.


Even the last winter was extremely hard


Many had succumbed to the delusion that the usually mild winters of the past ten years would continue. But already the winter 2009/2010 – with its long periods of frost and snow well into spring – was an eye-opening event for many. “This eye-opening experience could be even bigger this year,” predicts Globig.

Globig sees two main causes for the significant cooling: First, the cyclical changes in the big air currents over the Atlantic, and second, the variations in solar activity.

“Everyone has heard about the high over the Azores and the low over Iceland,” said Globig. The most important question for weather forecasts for many years was: “What are the air pressure differences between the two regions, how stormy will it be – and how much mild air is being shovelled sequentially from the Atlantic to Europe?”

“Both pressure areas do not exist right now,” explains Globig. On the contrary, over the Azores there is lower air pressure and a high over Iceland. “The weather over the Atlantic is upside down,” said Globig. Now cold air from the polar region has lots of space to flow to Europe – and that is what is happening.


“Normal” fluctuations with large currents


“These changes in the so-called ‘Atlantic Oscillation’ are totally normal – just hard to predict in detail,” explains Globig. The storm “Kyrill” in 2007 was the peak of the flow activity from the Atlantic to Europe. “Since then it has grown quiet over the sea,” the meteorologist said. The lows over the Atlantic have become weaker and weaker.

This effect has taken place in previous years, but at irregular intervals. Science does not yet know much about it, says Globig, „but here lies the key to a better understanding of the seasons”.

The low temperatures could very well go on a few years, maybe decades. Even more icy cold could be possible. „It has happened before, and can be explained with natural climate variability,” said Globig. We could even be at the beginning of a Little Ice Age, “the probability is at least given.”

This is also supported by the current development of solar activity. Solar activity has passed the zenith of a nearly 200 years continuing phase of high activity and will decline in coming decades. Around the years 2040/2050, scientists expect a new so-called solar minimum, with very little supply of solar energy into the Earth’s atmosphere.


Spread of the Arctic ice?

“I think it is even conceivable that the Arctic ice spreads significantly in the years to come,” said Globig. The impact of solar activity on climate has been criminally underestimated for a long time.

The last two weeks have been the coldest in England since the second-to-last solar minimum, many hundreds of years ago. “What actually will happen depends on the next five to ten years,” believes Globig. But one thing now appears to be very likely for the weather expert, “We will have to abandon some climate forecasts. “

Wetter T-Online, 14 December 2010 (translation by Philipp Mueller)
Posted by: The Fishman

Re: Temperature trends - 19/12/2010 14:34

With the weather Melbourne has had this morning, you would think that we are in Europe.
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: Temperature trends - 19/12/2010 22:48

I'm with ya fishman, crissy party this arvo and fruiton cold. I don't like it either. warm pls.
Posted by: BOM99

Re: Temperature trends - 20/12/2010 07:33

Simmonstruf, you should go have a real Christmas Party at Mount Buller this morning, by the obs there must be about 30-40cm (nearly 1/2 a meter) of snow up there.
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 20/12/2010 11:12

It snowed for an hour (6:45am to 7:45am) above Jenolan Caves this morning but didn't settle. Perhaps only the fourth time since 1895. Hard to say, as some falls would have gone unreported in the early days but its a very impressive outcome for December 20.

1893, 1895, 1952 and 1993 are the other snow dates for December up here but its hard to get official dates on marginal events like these.
(posted by Blizzrad on another thread)
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: Temperature trends - 21/12/2010 21:45

There's a mini ice age coming, says man who beats weather experts
December 21, 2010 - 4:41PM

Piers Corbyn not only predicted the current weather, but he believes things are going to get much worse, says Boris Johnson, London's mayor

Do you remember? They said it would be mild and damp, and between one degree and one and a half degrees warmer than average. Well, I am now 46 and that means I have seen more winters than most people on this planet, and I can tell you that this one is a corker.

Never mind the record low attained in Northern Ireland this weekend. I can't remember a time when so much snow has lain so thickly on the ground, and we haven't even reached Christmas. And this is the third tough winter in a row. Is it really true that no one saw this coming?

Actually, they did. Allow me to introduce readers to Piers Corbyn, meteorologist and brother of my old chum, bearded leftie MP Jeremy. Piers Corbyn works in an undistinguished office in Borough High Street. He has no telescope or supercomputer. Armed only with a laptop, huge quantities of publicly available data and a first-class degree in astrophysics, he gets it right again and again.

Back in November, when the Met Office was still doing its "mild winter" schtick, Corbyn said it would be the coldest for 100 years. Indeed, it was back in May that he first predicted a snowy December, and he put his own money on a white Christmas about a month before the Met Office made any such forecast. He said that the Met Office would be wrong about last year's mythical "barbecue summer", and he was vindicated. He was closer to the truth about last winter, too.

He seems to get it right about 85 per cent of the time and serious business people - notably in farming - are starting to invest in his forecasts. In the eyes of many punters, he puts the taxpayer-funded Met Office to shame. How on earth does he do it? He studies the Sun.

He looks at the flow of particles from the Sun, and how they interact with the upper atmosphere, especially air currents such as the jet stream, and he looks at how the Moon and other factors influence those streaming particles.

He takes a snapshot of what the Sun is doing at any given moment, and then he looks back at the record to see when it last did something similar. Then he checks what the weather was like on Earth at the time - and he makes a prophecy.

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weathe...1221-1945a.html
Posted by: AuroraSnow

Re: Temperature trends - 22/12/2010 09:16

2010 in the top three warmest years, 2001-2010 warmest 10-year period

Nice work from our resident climatologist Blair Trewin!
Posted by: HotViking

Re: Temperature trends - 22/12/2010 10:13

"with very little supply of solar energy into the Earth’s atmosphere". Sounds like Earth will turn into a Mars? The Sun will turn off? Really, this statement is ridiculous. I gues they meant to say "a reduction in incoming solar radiatio".
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 22/12/2010 15:08

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-12036233
Record low temp northern Ireland!
Posted by: CoastalStorm22

Re: Temperature trends - 22/12/2010 15:13

Originally Posted By: AuroraSnow
2010 in the top three warmest years, 2001-2010 warmest 10-year period

Nice work from our resident climatologist Blair Trewin!



But we keep getting told were heading for another "mini" ice age, so how can we be having our third warmest year on record? I give up on this whole climate debate thing, what happens, happens, we find a way to adapt and move on with life.
Posted by: Anthony Violi

Re: Temperature trends - 22/12/2010 17:44

Very simple coastalstorm..they get to work and adjust...

Here is the newly adjusted data...
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/monthly.land_ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat

Here is the raw data..

https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=...y=CIavs1Y#gid=0

And here is a graph in more detail..





Seems fairly easy to me...and thats how you get a false warming..
Posted by: AuroraSnow

Re: Temperature trends - 22/12/2010 18:36

Originally Posted By: CoastalStorm22
Originally Posted By: AuroraSnow
2010 in the top three warmest years, 2001-2010 warmest 10-year period

Nice work from our resident climatologist Blair Trewin!



But we keep getting told were heading for another "mini" ice age, so how can we be having our third warmest year on record? I give up on this whole climate debate thing, what happens, happens, we find a way to adapt and move on with life.



Yes we were told to expect a mini ice age a few years ago by the sceptics. Wonder how they got it so wrong?
Posted by: AuroraSnow

Re: Temperature trends - 22/12/2010 18:39

Originally Posted By: Anthony Violi


Seems fairly easy to me...and thats how you get a false warming..


So it's a false warming, but the ice keeps melting?
Maybe the ice is lying as well grin
Posted by: Anthony Violi

Re: Temperature trends - 22/12/2010 20:42

Global Ice extent is largely close to normal, and hasnt really dropped too far in the past few years. Long term trend has been a decrease for the Arctic, and thats to be expected during a warming phase. However thats all over and in a cooling phase with results seen in the next 12 months.
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: Temperature trends - 22/12/2010 22:06

Crap article, excellent comments...

Leading article: The cold offers no comfort on climate change

Climate scientists frequently point out that the weather and the climate are not the same thing. Indeed, they often sum up the difference by saying that the climate is what we expect and the weather it what we get. The climate operates over long periods, often too long for us to remember with any accuracy without the help of good-quality records. The weather, meanwhile, is very much the here and now and is, as a result, at the forefront of our minds, which is the case now.

Two bitterly cold winters on the run seems like a climatic trend, but in fact for scientists they do not (yet) form a pattern that indicates some kind of aberration beyond the natural variation we expect from such a chaotic phenomenon as the global climate system.

For a start, as the Meteorological Office in London points out, what we are seeing in Britain and western Europe is a regional rather than a global effect. As Britain freezes in sub-zero temperatures, Greenland and northern Canada appear to be experiencing warmer than average weather, thanks to some extent by the diversion of the westerly winds that usually bring us damp, mild weather at this time of the year.

Other phenomena may also be playing a role. For instance, Met Office scientists say that the activity of the "La Nina" ocean current in the tropical Pacific Ocean appears to be at a 20-year high. In addition, the longer-term oscillation between low and high pressure systems in the North Atlantic appears to be entering a phase last seen in the 1960s, when we also experienced cold winters.

Such considerations underline the fundamentally complex nature of the global climate system. But they do not negate the fact that global temperatures unequivocally show that the world is getting warmer.

Global warming, despite what we may feel when we step outside, is a reality. It may be difficult, but what is important to keep in mind is the effect that it will have both in the long term, and on the world as a whole. Climate change will be with us long after we've forgotten this little local difficulty called a cold winter.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/lea...ge-2166359.html
Posted by: HotViking

Re: Temperature trends - 23/12/2010 09:10

While La Nina might possibly have some impact on Europe's cold outbreak, the same thing happened last Christmas, when the Pacific was coming out of an El Nino phase. You can't have both phases causing cold winters in Europe!
Posted by: AuroraSnow

Re: Temperature trends - 23/12/2010 09:32

Originally Posted By: Anthony Violi
Global Ice extent is largely close to normal, and hasnt really dropped too far in the past few years. Long term trend has been a decrease for the Arctic, and thats to be expected during a warming phase. However thats all over and in a cooling phase with results seen in the next 12 months.


Anthony, it's not so much the extent but the volume that is important and we are seeing an accelerating decrease in this particularly in the artic and greenland. Have a look at this video I posted for you in the youtube thread.
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 23/12/2010 09:47

Originally Posted By: Anthony Violi
Very simple coastalstorm..they get to work and adjust...

Seems fairly easy to me...and thats how you get a false warming..


Most of the adjustments are less than 0.01 degrees. That would mean at worse the warming since 1900 has been inflated from about 0.69 to get the commonly quoted figure of about 0.7 degrees of warming.
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 23/12/2010 09:54

Originally Posted By: HotViking
While La Nina might possibly have some impact on Europe's cold outbreak, the same thing happened last Christmas, when the Pacific was coming out of an El Nino phase. You can't have both phases causing cold winters in Europe!


What if both warm and cool phases cause cold winters, and neutral results in warmth?

Personally I think ENSO has very little to do with the European winters. Also consider that the temperature change from an ENSO event starts in the tropical Pacific, and then spreads across the globe. I wouldn't be surpised if Europe is actually experiencing a warming effect from the last El Nino event and is yet to experience the cooling influence of the current La Nina.

I think that the very strong -ve AO we saw both last winter and this winter is the primary factor.
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 23/12/2010 18:34

"I wouldn't be surpised if Europe is actually experiencing a warming effect from the last El Nino event and is yet to experience the cooling influence of the current La Nina." (Quote Mike)
Well, if that is the case I hate to think what the temps will plummet down to seeing as we are getting record lows atm!!!

Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 23/12/2010 19:36

We'll probably see cold so severe that it warrants four exclaimation marks at the end of each sentence!!!!

But did you see how hot it is in the Canadian Arctic!!!!! I can use 5 exclamation marks to describe that heat, so I win.



And of course despite all the hype about the coming ice age, and all the predictions during the last La Nina that it would be getting colder, the Uah daily channel 5 temperature is still 0.2 degrees warmer (which is a decade of co2 warming) than the same day in 2007.
Posted by: Locke

Re: Temperature trends - 24/12/2010 08:44

Of course the UAH readings now are still 0.2C higher than in 2007. The El-Nino peak that preceded 2007 was 0.2C cooler.

Looking at current SST's and conditions through the Pacific, I believe we will barely return to neutral conditions in 2011 before transitioning back into another La-Nina event. This will drop the UAH anomaly back to its normal range. My conclusion is based on their being a higher volume of cooler SST's pushed west with this event. These should counter any transition back into El-nino conditions.

Its very clear that the 1998 had the effect of putting in a step change of about 0.2C in the UAH anomaly (all readings since then have been 0.2C higher than they were pre-1998). I suspect the transition back down will not be via a single very strong La-Nina but rather back to back moderate to strong La-Nina events.
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 24/12/2010 08:46

Originally Posted By: Locke
The El-Nino peak that preceded 2007 was 0.2C cooler.



Because the climate is not cooling down as predicted by those who don't understand what is happening.
Posted by: Locke

Re: Temperature trends - 24/12/2010 09:07

Originally Posted By: Mike Hauber
Originally Posted By: Locke
The El-Nino peak that preceded 2007 was 0.2C cooler.



Because the climate is not cooling down as predicted by those who don't understand what is happening.


Start providing some solid proof that ENSO variations of the preceding 3 decades are outside of the boundaries of normal variation and I might pay further attention Mike.

Until then your personal attacks tell what I need to know about where your coming from Mike.
Posted by: Vlasta

Re: Temperature trends - 24/12/2010 10:12

Originally Posted By: Locke
Of course the UAH readings now are still 0.2C higher than in 2007. The El-Nino peak that preceded 2007 was 0.2C cooler.

Looking at current SST's and conditions through the Pacific, I believe we will barely return to neutral conditions in 2011 before transitioning back into another La-Nina event. This will drop the UAH anomaly back to its normal range. My conclusion is based on their being a higher volume of cooler SST's pushed west with this event. These should counter any transition back into El-nino conditions.

Its very clear that the 1998 had the effect of putting in a step change of about 0.2C in the UAH anomaly (all readings since then have been 0.2C higher than they were pre-1998). I suspect the transition back down will not be via a single very strong La-Nina but rather back to back moderate to strong La-Nina events.

This is exactly as I would write it , amazing .

Mike I wish I undertood what is happening , itsnot cooling down as predicted by the past , and I stick to my words the longer it takes the worse it will be in the end .
What is happening in the world right now must have effect on UHA . I bet 0.22 for DEC and JAN to be cooler than 2008 and even cooler FEB . Whole 2011 to be cooler than 2008 , and average for next 5 years not higher than 0.3 , which is after we take first 5 years of sat readings off , somewhere only 0.15 .
Posted by: __PG__

Re: Temperature trends - 24/12/2010 10:32

Originally Posted By: Mike Hauber
We'll probably see cold so severe that it warrants four exclaimation marks at the end of each sentence!!!!

But did you see how hot it is in the Canadian Arctic!!!!! I can use 5 exclamation marks to describe that heat, so I win.


Some communities in the Canadian Arctic have recorded their first every above freezing December temperatures on record. The average maximum temperatures in these regions is about -25 degrees C.

Here are some other comments regarding what is currently happening in the Arctic and in Europe, from Jeff Master's WeatherUndeground blog and NOAA.

From Jeff Master's blog here

Quote:

One talk I attended yesterday was called, "Hot Arctic-Cold Continents: Hemispheric Impacts of Arctic Change.” The talk was given by Dr. Jim Overland of NOAA's Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, one of the world's experts on Arctic weather and climate (I spent many long months flying in the Arctic with him during the three Arctic field programs I participated in during the late 1980s.) Dr. Overland discussed the remarkable winter of 2009 – 2010, which brought record snowstorms to Europe and the U.S. East Coast, along with the coldest temperatures in 25 years, but also brought the warmest winter on record to Canada and much of the Arctic. He demonstrated that the Arctic is normally dominated by low pressure in winter, and a “Polar Vortex” of counter-clockwise circulating winds develops surrounding the North Pole. However, during the winter of 2009-2010, high pressure replaced low pressure over the Arctic, and the Polar Vortex weakened and even reversed at times, with a clockwise flow of air replacing the usual counter-clockwise flow of air around the pole. This unusual flow pattern allowed cold air to spill southwards and be replaced by warm air moving poleward. This pattern is kind of like leaving the refrigerator door ajar--the refrigerator warms up, but all of the cold air spills out into the house.


NOAA have put together a nice little slide show here, from which I took this image

Posted by: __PG__

Re: Temperature trends - 24/12/2010 10:32

Some people still think there is more the puzzle than just reduced ice extent and increased Arctic Ocean heating. From NASA

Quote:

Back to the cold air in Europe: is it possible that reduced Arctic sea ice is affecting weather patterns? Because Hudson Bay (and Baffin Bay, west of Greenland) are at significantly lower latitudes than most of the Arctic Ocean, global warming may cause them to remain ice free into early winter after the Arctic Ocean has become frozen insulating the atmosphere from the ocean. The fixed location of the Hudson-Baffin heat source could plausibly affect weather patterns, in a deterministic way — Europe being half a Rossby wavelength downstream, thus producing a cold European anomaly in the trans-Atlantic seesaw. Several ideas about possible effects of the loss of Arctic sea ice on weather patterns are discussed in papers referenced by Overland, Wang and Walsh.

However, we note in our Reviews of Geophysics paper that the few years just prior to 2009-2010, with low Arctic sea ice, did not produce cold winters in Europe. The cold winter of 2009-2010 was associated with the most extreme Arctic Oscillation in the period of record. Figure 3, from our paper, shows that 7 of the last 10 European winters were warmer than the 1951-1980 average winter, and 10 of the past 10 summers were warmer than climatology. The average warming of European winters is at least as large as the average warming of summers, but it is less noticeable because of the much greater variability in winter.


There is also a discussion about the various possible mechanisms behind cold winters in Europe on Real Climate

The link from Overland, Wang and Walsh contains good news for skiers

Originally Posted By: Overland, Wang and Walsh

Thus we have a potential climate change paradox. Rather than a general warming everywhere, the loss of sea ice and a warmer Arctic can increase the impact of the Arctic on lower latitudes, bringing colder weather to southern locations.
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 24/12/2010 12:50

An issue with blaming either sea ice loss or the solar minimum on the recent cold NH winters is the fact that the pattern has appeared fairly suddenly, and not gradually (at least as far as I can tell). The sea ice reduction started in 1980, and sped up around 2000. Solar activity as measured by TSI started falling about 2002/2003, fell to the level of a typical minimum in 2005, and fell further after that and is only just recently recovering. Whereas the recent strong -ve AO appeared only in 09/10 and appears to be repeating this winter as well. So either something was masking the solar or sea ice effect for a few years, or the effect has a highly non-linear response and only appeared when a certain 'tipping point' threshold was reached. Or the effect may be a chaotic variation in the Arctic Oscillation similar to the 1998 El Nino (with solar and/or sea ice playing a small role).

CET seems to confirm that the cold NH winters are very recent, with the 06/07 being the 2nd warmest winter in the last hundred years (with 2 warmer winters in the 19th century), and 07/08 being not too far behind. On the ENSO front 88/89 was a strong La Nina and the warmest value for the last hundred years, and the 97/98 and 06/07 El Nino years also make top 10, so maybe coincidence, or maybe strong ENSO events of either type cause warm conditions in England.
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 24/12/2010 13:08

It is caused by solar plenty of articloes on it if one bothers to big deep...no need for any other explanantions.
NE off shiore winds over England & west Europe were common in past low solar situations as were blizzards and freezing temps in England and Europe as solar low alters jetstream and pressure configorations.
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 24/12/2010 13:32

From the first article I look at on the link between solar activity and England temperatures:

Clearly any solar control is subtle and far from being the only factor causing variability...

(link)
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 24/12/2010 14:33

Lot further to look yet Mike, keep going! I have not time to find and post atm as that Day is getting too close and too much to do!
Merry Christmas and a happy, healthy and blessed New Year to all on the threads(even if we don't agree at times! :)).
Posted by: BOM99

Re: Temperature trends - 24/12/2010 18:44

Going by that link above we have an 8% chance of entering a Maunder Minimum during the next 50 years.
So this could mean that there is now an 8% chance of there being an Ice Age within the next 50 years.
Merry Christmas all and cold snowy wishes for 2011 onwards.
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 27/12/2010 18:36

brought to my attention by another poster
worth reading...admission of changing temp series in NZ with no basis!
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC1012/S00054/climate-science-coalition-vindicated.htm
Posted by: __PG__

Re: Temperature trends - 31/12/2010 20:46



From NOAA

Originally Posted By: NOAA

The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for November 2010 was 0.69°C (1.24°F) above the 20th century average of 12.9°C (55.2°F). This was the second warmest such period on record. 2004 was the warmest November on record.

For the 2010 year-to-date (January–November), the combined global land and ocean surface temperature was 0.64°C (1.15°F) above the 20th century average—the warmest such period since records began in 1880.
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 03/01/2011 11:06

http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/deadly-cold-snap-hits-northern-india/15782
deadly cold snap hits northern india
http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/japan-snow-causes-massive-traffic-jam/15781
record snow japan cause traffic chaos
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 05/01/2011 09:12

Uah for Dec 2010 is out, and is 0.18. The baseline has been changed to be calculated against the 30 year average from 1980 to 2010, so this cannot be compared to the value predicted, based on the old average from 1980 to 2000.

The peak impact of ENSO on global temperature is usually in January, so we are only one month of when the peak cooling for this La Nina should be expected. And the deep solar minimum continues with the latest TSI values still lower than at any time during the previous minimum. And the December value for Uah is about the same as the 13 month average around 2005, during a period dominated by warm ENSO influence, and the year that some have claimed was the peak of a supposed natural warming cycle, and since which we have been in a supposed cooling trend.

Posted by: Locke

Re: Temperature trends - 05/01/2011 09:21

And the point I suspect your trying to make Mike is based on the amplitude of a single el-nino event (the 2010 one).
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 05/01/2011 10:16

The point I am making is that we are now under the cooling influence of a La Nina, and have had a deep solar minimum now for several and the cooling trend that has been repeatedly predicted/claimed in this forum is nowhere to be seen.

It appears that the point you are trying to make has to do with the amplitutude of the 2010 el-nino. Are you trying to blame the current lack of cooling on this El Nino? How long do you think the 2010 El Nino will maintain global temperatures at an elevated level?
Posted by: Locke

Re: Temperature trends - 05/01/2011 11:43

I think your being disingenuous here Mike. I've seen enough of your posts on these forums Mike to form the view you have a fairly solid understanding of the factors that drive temperature trends.

These factors include solar (which you must concede is lagged), medium term natural cycles such as the AMO and PDO, short term cycles such as ENSO and of course human forcing from GHG's (which I concede are real and do place upwards pressure on temps).

PDO is only just returning to negative conditions and at best the current conditions could be considered close to neutral. The AMO is running at its peak. Solar activity has been reducing since cycle 22 but cycle 22 was one of the biggest of the past 1000 years. We are just coming off an el-nino event which was the strongest since 1998.

The temperature measurements are pretty much around where a reasonable person would have expected them to be given the combination of these factors. Given most of the factors are now in cooling phases, I believe the one short term factors that has lead to the warmer conditions of the past 12 months is an outlier adn we should expect cooling in the coming decade.

I suspect that we will initially this cooling in a transition to neutral ENSO conditions this year transitioning into a moderate to strong La-Nina. We will also see the AMO start to fall bringing cooler SST's in the Atlantic thus placing further downward pressure on global temps. End result will be UAH anomalies fall well below the 2008 minimum.
Posted by: Arnost

Re: Temperature trends - 05/01/2011 12:34

Originally Posted By: Mike Hauber
The point I am making is that we are now under the cooling influence of a La Nina, and have had a deep solar minimum now for several and the cooling trend that has been repeatedly predicted/claimed in this forum is nowhere to be seen.

It appears that the point you are trying to make has to do with the amplitutude of the 2010 el-nino. Are you trying to blame the current lack of cooling on this El Nino? How long do you think the 2010 El Nino will maintain global temperatures at an elevated level?


Mike - we are comming out of a strongish El Nino... If you want to compare apples to apples, then consider, the December 1998 temps (transition from strong Nino to Strong Nina) was higher than this December (2010).

Originally Posted By: Mike Hauber
The peak impact of ENSO on global temperature is usually in January


In 1999, the nadir of the impact of the Nina was not till mid year with the lowest temp in June 1999: [Not updated yet: linky]
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 05/01/2011 13:30

I did say usually not always. 1998 was an exceptional El Nino, and I don't think 2010 is in the same ballpark. We will probably have to wait until about June to be sure that 2011 is following then normal pattern of peak in January.
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 05/01/2011 13:46

Originally Posted By: Locke

I suspect that we will initially this cooling in a transition to neutral ENSO conditions this year transitioning into a moderate to strong La-Nina. We will also see the AMO start to fall bringing cooler SST's in the Atlantic thus placing further downward pressure on global temps. End result will be UAH anomalies fall well below the 2008 minimum.


And when do you think UAH anomalies will fall to below the 2008 minimum?

They may get close to or briefly beat the 2008 minimum sometime between January and May, but after that temperatures will recover and I'm confident that overall 2011 will be warmer than 2008. Unless we get a moderate to strong La Nina next summer, in which case it will be a fairly close call. A big volcano could also make 2011 cooler than 2008.
Posted by: BOM99

Re: Temperature trends - 05/01/2011 14:02

My prediction is that for Australia 2011 will have the same mean temperature as 2000. Still looks to me that we are running on par with the weather patterns from end 1999. In fact I would not rule out that 2011 could end up colder than 2000, I would be quite surprised if it was any warmer.
Posted by: Locke

Re: Temperature trends - 05/01/2011 14:31

The next La-nina cycle should bring us back to about the 2008 minimum. I can only see the next El-nino event as being a weak one.

What I think would be an interesting exercise though would be to reverse out the impacts of the 1982 El-chichon eruption and the 1991 Pinatubo eruptions. I think both these eruptions provided a level of cooling in the first 15 years of the UAH record that has resulted in both the 20 and 30 year UAH average temps against which the anomaly is measured being perhaps 0.1 to 0.2C lower than normal. Thus the anomaly readings are 0.1-0.2 higher than they should be.

If I'm right, barring singular strong ENSO events, the anomaly 13 month running mean should flatten out at around the 0.1C to 0.2C mark rather than an inexorable climb upwards that AGW theory would suggest. Further, as we are now heading into a situation where the majority of natural forcing mechanisms are likely to be of a cooling nature, the 0.1 to O.2C may well be a little high.
Posted by: Arnost

Re: Temperature trends - 05/01/2011 14:51

Since everyone's having a punt:

I will be surporised if we go 2000 equivalent this year. I would also be surprised if any one month nudges the low marks set in Jan 2001 and 2009...

I recon that we will get temps equivalent to 1999 for the year (i.e. around the 0C anomally as per graph above). Only if we go back-to-back Nina, then in 2012 we should get to 2000 equivalent (which I point out was second moderate event in a row).

Posted by: Arnost

Re: Temperature trends - 05/01/2011 15:00

Quote:
What I think would be an interesting exercise though would be to reverse out the impacts of the 1982 El-chichon eruption and the 1991 Pinatubo eruptions.


Have a look at the bottom of this Bob Tisdale post where I did that with HadCRU, and where I link to the sites where and how you can get the adjustments if you want to do it for UAH...

http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/05/annual-and-long-term-impacts-of-el.html
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 06/01/2011 14:13

An interesting exercise is to compare the regional pattern of warming over the last 30 years with the warming period between 1910 and 1940.

Between 1910 and 1940, the pattern of warming is: (link)

We see that the warming is dominated by a warm horseshoe in the NE Pacific - the signature of a warming PDO, and dominate by a generally warming Atlantic. It is quite reasonable to conclude that a warming AMO and warming PDO played a significant role in the warming trend during this period.

Now contrast with the pattern for 1979 to 2009: (link)

This shows the opposite pattern in the Pacifc - the signature of a cooling PDO, and also a general cooling trend in the key equatorial nino regions. There is still warming in the Atlantic, but this warming does not dominate the global pattern as it did in 1910 to 1940. Perhaps a warming AMO contributed to the warming from 1979 to 2009, or perhaps the Atlantic has simply warmed up in response to the strong warming which has occurred on the neighbouring continents. Also note that from 1910 to 1940 the Atlantic warmed more in the south and less in the north. From 1979 to 2009 the Atlantic has warmed more in the north and less in the south.

The patterns of ocean temperature change from 1979 have been very different to the patterns of ocean temperature change from 1910 to 1940, and if anything I think the PDO/ENSO influence has held back global temperatures and stopped them from increasing faster than they otherwise would have.
Posted by: Locke

Re: Temperature trends - 06/01/2011 20:51

Give me a count of the el-nino vs la-nina events durng the 1979 to 2010. See I include 2010 since the most recent el-nino seems to be pivotal as to whether there has been "warming" in the past decade.

How about the SOI. What was the average SOI value during the same period. Once again you are using your misleading "cooling" PDO phrase. We've been over this before. The mean for the PDO over the past 30-35 years has been easily positive. A positive PDO puts upward pressure on global temps. The PDO has only recently gone negative and it is still nowhere near the negative values seen duing the 40's to 70's.

"cooling" PDO my ####. What bugs me about that claim is I know your understanding of these cycles is solid enough that the flaw in what your saying should be obvious.
Posted by: Petros

Re: Temperature trends - 06/01/2011 21:16

".....We see that the warming is dominated by a warm horseshoe in the NE Pacific - the signature of a warming PDO, and dominate by a generally warming Atlantic. It is quite reasonable to conclude that a warming AMO and warming PDO played a significant role in the warming trend during this period.

Now contrast with the pattern for 1979 to 2009: (link)

This shows the opposite pattern in the Pacifc - the signature of a cooling PDO, "


.............. warming PDO's and cooling PDO's!!?? WTF!? then p#ss off the PDO out of the equation then.
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 07/01/2011 08:29

Another way of looking at the actual data:

(link)

On an 11 year average the PDO quite clearly peaks in the 80s and has been declining since then, and reached a negative value around 2005 (i.e. negative average for 1999-2010). The 1910 to 1940 warming period corresponds to an increasing PDO, and the 1980 to 2010 warming period corresponds to a mostly decreasing PDO.

Your argument is that it is a positive PDO and not an increasing PDO that leads to warming. This is based on the idea that an El Nino results in a build up of heat, and multiple El-Ninos during a positive PDO period will result in a gradual build up of heat. However this misunderstands that the basic action of an El Nino is not to accumulate heat, but to release heat that is stored below the surface, and that the heat builds up in a La Nina. By your theory the period of 1999-2001 which was dominated by La Nina should have resulted in a significant decline in temperatures, however it was followed by the very warm period from 2002-2007. In contrast the period 2002-2007 dominated by warm ENSO periods was followed by an unusually cool La Nina in 07/08. Both of these events fit much better with the idea that successive El Ninos release heat and do not accumulate it (successive La Ninas accumulate heat).

Another interesting chart is this one: (link)

This one shows that global temperatures and ocean temperatures increased in sync between 1910 and 1940, which would make sense during a period where ocean variations are driving the warming. From 1980 to 2010 we see that ocean temperatures are lagging behind global temperatures, as Co2 warming impacts the land more easily, and the oceans create a thermal lag and resist this warming.
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 07/01/2011 08:51

From what I see of the graph Mike, SST's just lead land temps, the only change with time is likely to be higher land temps due to the "adjustments" that have gone on in more recent times(which do seem to increase the warming conveniently!)
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 07/01/2011 09:46

It is during recent times that we have satellite records which show exactly the same trend as the surface based observations. Also analysis of temperature data without any adjustments shows almost exactly the same temperature trend as those such as GISS that include adjustments.

The adjustments make no difference to the trend for the last 30 years, during which time SSTs have clearly lagged behind land temperature increases.
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 07/01/2011 09:49

We all know temps have been adjusted up by various old tempo traces and new adjusted comparisons, seen it all so many times, you won;t convince me otherwise, mate!
If you look clearly at the trace peaks and troughs(forget the temp differences) you will see that SST peaks and troughs lead temperature, just as temp leads CO2 always.
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 07/01/2011 09:51

And here are my predictions for UAH for 2011 based on the new baseline. They have been modelled on a similar ENSO response to 1989, 1999,2000 and 2008, and then adding a 0.18 degree/decade warming trend for CO2. These predictions will probably be reviewed sometime in the middle of the year as the next ENSO phase becomes more apparent:

Jan: -0.045
Feb: 0.093
Mar: 0.084
Apr: 0.164
May: 0.089
Jun: 0.073
July: 0.130
Aug 0.110
Sep 0.237
Oct 0.211
Nov 0.192
Dec 0.205

Using this model, but with 88, 98 and 07 (the years I had been using during last year's predictions) would have predicted a value of 0.2 for December, compared to the actual result of 0.18.
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 07/01/2011 09:54

Originally Posted By: Bucketing Down(BD)
We all know temps have been adjusted up by various old tempo traces and new adjusted comparisons, seen it all so many times, you won;t convince me otherwise, mate!
If you look clearly at the trace peaks and troughs(forget the temp differences) you will see that SST peaks and troughs lead temperature, just as temp leads CO2 always.


The small scale changes for global temperature lag SST due to ENSO influences. This doesn't change the fact that in the longer term SST is slower than the global temperature response.
Posted by: Locke

Re: Temperature trends - 07/01/2011 10:23

El-nino events result in a release of heat and as a result global surface temps always rise in connection with el-nino events. You say "that the basic action of an El Nino is not to accumulate heat, but to release heat that is stored below the surface". Clearly this will result in higher temps.

So the period from 1979 has seen a nett release of stored heat from which has resulted in trend to higher surface temps which has only started to be reversed in the past decade. I believe the most recent strong el-nino event will be the last strong el-nino for a long time to come. The oceans are now cooling and the result of this will be a predominantly negative PDO for the coming decade, weak el-nino events and more frequent moderate to strong la-nina's coupled with an AMO heading towards negative territory.

I will be absolutely astounded if global temperature anomalies for the coming 20 years dont drop significantly. As far as global temps are concerned, we hit the peak last decade and now we will move downwards from that peak.
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 07/01/2011 10:26

No land lags SST, the peaks and troughs show it, the long term shows nothing at all just adjustments...it is a weak argument of yours!
Spot on Locke!
Posted by: SGB

Re: Temperature trends - 07/01/2011 10:52

Originally Posted By: Locke
El-nino events result in a release of heat and as a result global surface temps always rise in connection with el-nino events. You say "that the basic action of an El Nino is not to accumulate heat, but to release heat that is stored below the surface". Clearly this will result in higher temps.

So the period from 1979 has seen a nett release of stored heat from which has resulted in trend to higher surface temps which has only started to be reversed in the past decade. I believe the most recent strong el-nino event will be the last strong el-nino for a long time to come. The oceans are now cooling and the result of this will be a predominantly negative PDO for the coming decade, weak el-nino events and more frequent moderate to strong la-nina's coupled with an AMO heading towards negative territory.

I will be absolutely astounded if global temperature anomalies for the coming 20 years dont drop significantly. As far as global temps are concerned, we hit the peak last decade and now we will move downwards from that peak.


Well said Locke, couldn't have put it better myself. And as Joe Bastardi mentions, if you add a couple of wild cards like low solar activity and the possibility of a large volcanic erruption or two, then that would only serve to exacerbate this downward trend.
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 07/01/2011 13:25

New paper shows no missing heat in the ocean! Cooling is occurring!

"Recent energy balance of Earth
"R. S. Knox and D. H. Douglass
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY
Abstract
A recently published estimate of Earth’s global warming trend is 0.63 ± 0.28 W/m2, as calculated from ocean heat content anomaly data spanning 1993–2008. This value is not representative of the recent (2003–2008) warming/cooling rate because of a “flattening” that occurred around 2001–2002. Using only 2003–2008 data from Argo floats, we find
by four different algorithms that the recent trend ranges from –0.010 to –0.160 W/m2 with a typical error bar of ±0.2 W/m2. These results fail to support the existence of a frequently-cited large positive computed radiative imbalance"
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/06/ne...ing/#more-31063
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 07/01/2011 15:04

Originally Posted By: Locke
El-nino events result in a release of heat and as a result global surface temps always rise in connection with el-nino events. You say "that the basic action of an El Nino is not to accumulate heat, but to release heat that is stored below the surface". Clearly this will result in higher temps.

So the period from 1979 has seen a nett release of stored heat from which has resulted in trend to higher surface temps which has only started to be reversed in the past decade.


The heat is released from the ocean into the atmosphere. As the atmosphere cannot store the heat very long this heat is then lost into space. So it will result in higher temperatures while the El Nino is happening. Once all the heat is released the heat is lost, and the result will be in lower temperatures after the El Nino is completed. Therefore a number of successive El Ninos cannot accumulate heat, but would if anything release heat (to be lost) and result in medium term cooling. As observed when we had a longer term warm ENSO event from 2002 to 2006 followed by an unsually cool La Nina in 2008.
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 07/01/2011 15:27

Originally Posted By: Bucketing Down(BD)
New paper shows no missing heat in the ocean! Cooling is occurring!

"Recent energy balance of Earth
"R. S. Knox and D. H. Douglass
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY
Abstract
A recently published estimate of Earth’s global warming trend is 0.63 ± 0.28 W/m2, as calculated from ocean heat content anomaly data spanning 1993–2008. This value is not representative of the recent (2003–2008) warming/cooling rate because of a “flattening” that occurred around 2001–2002. Using only 2003–2008 data from Argo floats, we find
by four different algorithms that the recent trend ranges from –0.010 to –0.160 W/m2 with a typical error bar of ±0.2 W/m2. These results fail to support the existence of a frequently-cited large positive computed radiative imbalance"
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/06/ne...ing/#more-31063


The long term trend in ocean heat is an increase at the same rate as predicted by the models. Four of the results in the article you link find that in the top 700 metres of the ocean, over a period of 5 years, no gain in heat is observed. Another of the results in that article is for the top 2000 metres, and finds that heat has been gained at a significant rate. None of the results find a loss of heat that is statistically distinuishable from zero.

Also if the ocean did not heat up from 2003 to 2008, then why did the sea level rise continue over this time period? Sea level rise is currently dominated by expansion due to warming, with melting of ice caps etc making only a small (but fairly rapidly growing) contribution. The increase in sea level certainly has slowed over the last few years, which reflects the likelihood that a strong solar minimum is enough to temporarily slow down the warming due to CO2. If you exclude the 1998 El Nino, the period during and just after the last solar minimum in 1996 corresponds to a period during which sea level was generally lower than the trend. During and just after the maximum in 2002 there is a period during which sea level was consistenly higher than trend. (Allow about 2-3 years after minimum/max for lag)

Also it is easy to overestimate the impact of ENSO on sea level due to the annual cycle. For instance when judging the impact of the 1998 El Nino compare the peak in 1998 with the peak in 1999 (a La Nina year), and not the peak in 1998 with the trough in 1999
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 07/01/2011 22:52

Below is quite clear evidence that sea surface temperatures have dramatically cooled over most of the worlds ocean area in the past 6 months with the solar downturn!
1. Most of thr Arctic has cooled substantially
2. Hudson Bay and surrounding areas have cooled substantially
3. Greenland area has cooled
4. Norway-Britian-Spain and to Italy Ocean adjacent have cooled
5. North Atlantic has cooled
6. Gulf of mexico has substatially cooled.
7. North part of South Atlantic Ocean has cooled
8. Far South Atlantic Ocean has cooled
9. South of South Pacific Ocean has cooled substantially
10. El Nino-La Nina Pacific Ocean has cooled and broadened
11. Near New Zealand and South of Australia Southern Ocean
has cooled substantially
12. Eastern and far western North Pacific Ocean have cooled substantially
13. Indian Ocean and Indonesian area have cooled substantially
14. Almost all adjacent Antartic area ocean has cooled substantially.

The only real warming evident is near equatorial Africa in the Atlantic, a slab of the South Atlantic Ocean, a slab of the Indian Ocean east of tip of South Africa, and a small area off NW WA.

Convincing irrefutable evidence that the surface of the world's ocean are cooling quite quickly over the vast majority of ocean area due to the solar downturn. This would be expected to carry on with a cooling trend inn the decades ahead and cause land temps to follow suit further than they already have done already also in the decades ahead of forecast further low solar output.

Posted by: ROM

Re: Temperature trends - 08/01/2011 09:55

That global ocean cooling trend that BD has placed in the post above is running far too fast and is far too widespread over all the global oceans for anybody who has a little knowledge about past quite rapid global climate shifts not to be very uneasy as to what may come next.

There was a long post on this very subject of rapid climate shifts only a few days ago on WUWT.
Entitled "Trap Speed" in reference to the rate of change in an abrupt climate shift, the article goes on to deal with a lot of the research into quite abrupt global climate shifts, both warming and cooling, of the past climatic epochs.

The data relies a lot on ice core measurements but some commenters also point out that in the case of say, a very abrupt shift to a warmer climate as indicated in the ice cores, this could also mean that the ice in that particular layer melted at that point and so it would appear that instead of seeing a relatively slow shift to a warmer climate, indicators such as dust and etc would be concentrated in a very narrow band as it settled through the melt water giving the impression of an abrupt climate shift.
However there are other geological indicators that verify that very abrupt shifts in the global climate have occurred very frequently right through out recent geological history.

So, as usual it pays to stay very skeptical about any and all such claims regardless of the direction of the climate change, be it warming or cooling.
Roy Spencer has an interesting post for us non science trained readers entitled "Why Most Published Research Findings are False".
Keeps one's feet on the ground when you see some new far out "consensus' driven, non debatable, "The Science is Settled" claims.

Just maybe as we see that very rapid cooling of the oceans as in BD's post above, the apparently abrupt and unexplainable at our current knowledge level, rapid loss of ocean heat content, we are on the edge of another rapid climate shift but one that has the opposite sign, a negative cooling sign to the great global warming scam that has figured so prominently over the last decade and a half.

God forbid that such a cooling climate is anywhere in mankind's future history.
I will take a warming global climate every time as always in past human history, a warm global climate has led to prosperity, human advancement, adequate food, better health, technological advancement and all the other various needs that have helped mankind climb the ladder of civilisation.

If it had not been for the utter stupidity, fraudulent and perhaps one day, the proven criminal behaviour of a certain cabal of global warming alarmists, catastrophists and the green and enviro cults all engineering their propoganda in an endeavor to force their agenda of control onto the entire human populace then global warming would be the best thing that could have happened to the human race at our present stage of development.

With the cooling of the oceans and the apparent rapid loss of ocean heat content there may be a much darker and far more dangerous climate outcome for the human race than any of the so called catastrophic global warming could have ever dished up.
Posted by: Locke

Re: Temperature trends - 08/01/2011 20:53

When there are short, medium and long term cycles present I believe all cycles will still maintain their integrity. If the medium term cycle such as PDO or AMO both are moving in a particular direction they will not prevent the short term cycles such as ENSO running their course but they will affect the relative amplitude and frequency of those short term cycles to maintain the balance in the medium term cycles.

We have 2 medium term cycles that I am at least somewhat familiar with in the AMO and PDO. The PDO is now negative but only recently so. It will lead to cooler temps but clearly not via a single big 10 year La-nina event because that creates a different imbalance that natural forces will try to correct. Instead we will continue to swing forth between El-nino and La-nina conditions but with La-ninas being dominant until the the other side of the medium term balance is reached and the cycle will switch again.

Overriding all of this I would imagine are long term factors that I don't know a lot about but which clearly don't drown out the signals of the short and medium term climate cycles.
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: Temperature trends - 10/01/2011 19:09

Cool summers, wet winters ahead

HIGH summer temperatures over 42 degrees won’t return to the North East until January 2016 and 2011 will be another wet year, says a retired weather officer living at Wangaratta.

Peter Nelson, who worked with the CSIRO for 34 years and has continued long-term forecasting as a hobby since 1964, successfully predicted a wetter than average 2010 in 2009.

Have you enjoyed the cooler start to summer? Click here and let us know

Mr Nelson said he based his forecasts on an analog statistical method utilising long-term weather records from 30 stations in Australia including those in north-west Australia, Alice Springs and throughout NSW and Queensland.

“It appears that we have seen the last of the very high summer temperatures over 42 degrees which were rather frequent from January 2003 to January 2010,” he said.

“I expect the next big heatwave in January 2016 although early 2013 could surprise.”

Mr Nelson also expects the wet weather to continue throughout 2011, predicting above-average rainfall this month, and in March, June, July, August, September and October.

He said July would be the wettest since 1986, with about 150 millimetres of rain and floods expected.

“This year’s weather is part of a larger pattern, but it won’t be completely similar to 2010,” Mr Nelson said.

“The winter will be wetter. June and July in 2010 were a bit dry.

“We are going through a cycle. In the past when there has been a long period of dry weather it has been followed by cooler and wetter weather.

“There was a similar dry period between 1876 and 1886 and again between 1936 and 1946; after each one there was 10 years of very wet weather.”
Print



http://www.bordermail.com.au/news/local/news/general/cool-summers-wet-winters-ahead/2042809.aspx
Posted by: __PG__

Re: Temperature trends - 13/01/2011 11:53

According to NOAA, 2010 was the equal warmest on record (tied with 2005) and it was also the wettest on record.



Posted by: Bill Illis

Re: Temperature trends - 13/01/2011 13:34


This OLR chart is a fairly typical scenario of a strong La Nina following an El Nino.

In the bottom panel, the blues and pinks are increased cloud cover and increased rainfall.

The browns and blacks are reduced cloud cover and reduced rainfall.

This is the weather pattern that develops in this scenario and it should have been forecast by every weather forecaster and every climate scientist especially for months now.

And it is not going to change for a few months yet. The rain will keep coming and it is unfortunate that CAGW has caused people to almost completely forget about this pattern.

http://cawcr.gov.au/staff/mwheeler/maproom/OLR/m.l3m.html

Posted by: __PG__

Re: Temperature trends - 21/01/2011 11:57

World Meteorological Organsiation confirms 2010 was the equal hottest year on record

Originally Posted By: WMO

In 2010, global average temperature was 0.53°C (0.95°F) above the 1961-90 mean. This value is 0.01°C (0.02°F) above the nominal temperature in 2005, and 0.02°C (0.05°F) above 1998. The difference between the three years is less than the margin of uncertainty (± 0.09°C or ± 0.16°F) in comparing the data.

These statistics are based on data sets maintained by the UK Meteorological Office Hadley Centre/Climatic Research Unit (HadCRU), the U.S. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), and the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

“The 2010 data confirm the Earth’s significant long-term warming trend,” said WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud. “The ten warmest years on record have all occurred since 1998.”

2010 was an exceptionally warm year over much of Africa and southern and western Asia, and in Greenland and Arctic Canada, with many parts of these regions having their hottest years on record.

Over land few parts of the world were significantly cooler than average in 2010, the most notable being parts of northern Europe and central and eastern Australia.
Posted by: __PG__

Re: Temperature trends - 21/01/2011 12:16

Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 21/01/2011 12:25

If you take away the current El Nino peak which is now diminishing, you will see a solar-ocean cycle induced peaked around 2002-2005 and temps are likely to continue to fall from thence onwards due to solar-ocean cycle considerations. All the temp trace lines up with solar-ocean effects very well in actuality.
Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: Temperature trends - 21/01/2011 12:35

1961-1990 Average. Are you serious. A whole 29years. Wow it must take some serious insight to think that a 29year average can possibly give us the slightest possible idea of what is going on. Won't somebody get off there ass and give us a long term plot of what is really happening to the earths climate instead of picking and choosing the small bits of data that support whichever theory it is that they support!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Locke

Re: Temperature trends - 21/01/2011 12:36

Care to put up charts of the 10 year running mean for the PDO and AMO to give some context to that temperature chart PG?
Posted by: __PG__

Re: Temperature trends - 21/01/2011 14:48

Originally Posted By: Bucketing Down(BD)
If you take away the current El Nino peak which is now diminishing, you will see a solar-ocean cycle induced peaked around 2002-2005 and temps are likely to continue to fall from thence onwards due to solar-ocean cycle considerations. All the temp trace lines up with solar-ocean effects very well in actuality.


What do you mean? The 2010 El Nino was mild, whilst the La Nina that developed since the middle of the year is potentially the strongest on record.
Posted by: __PG__

Re: Temperature trends - 21/01/2011 14:51

Originally Posted By: Brett Guy
1961-1990 Average. Are you serious. A whole 29years. Wow it must take some serious insight to think that a 29year average can possibly give us the slightest possible idea of what is going on. Won't somebody get off there ass and give us a long term plot of what is really happening to the earths climate instead of picking and choosing the small bits of data that support whichever theory it is that they support!!!!!!!!!!!!


The choice of base period is irrelevant. All it does is shift the magnitude of the anomalies up or down but the trend remains the same.

Do you understand that now? Or do you want more information?
Posted by: Seina

Re: Temperature trends - 21/01/2011 15:10

Originally Posted By: Brett Guy
Won't somebody get off there ass and give us a long term plot of what is really happening to the earths climate instead of picking and choosing the small bits of data that support whichever theory it is that they support!!!!!!!!!!!!

You would like raw data, say temperature or similar?
Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: Temperature trends - 21/01/2011 15:15

Yep. Raw data please. Give me a simple temp plot of all recorded years. No bias or anomoly crap and no comparison to this time period or that. If I compared the last 100 years to a particular 100year period in the last ice age it would show we are in a warming trend would it not?
Posted by: Seina

Re: Temperature trends - 21/01/2011 15:31

Originally Posted By: Brett Guy
Yep. Raw data please.

No bias or anomoly crap and no comparison to this time period or that.

You do realised environmental or sites changes are biases if they are no accounted for?

Originally Posted By: Brett Guy
If I compared the last 100 years to a particular 100year period in the last ice age it would show we are in a warming trend would it not?

It might…it really does depend on the locations of observations.
Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: Temperature trends - 21/01/2011 16:11

Ok. Here is something I just found. It is an ice core from Vostok that apparently goes back 450,000 years. From what I can interperate from this we should be worrying about whether we have enough pairs of winter woolies.
Ice core record
Posted by: Locke

Re: Temperature trends - 21/01/2011 17:49

Originally Posted By: __PG__
Originally Posted By: Bucketing Down(BD)
If you take away the current El Nino peak which is now diminishing, you will see a solar-ocean cycle induced peaked around 2002-2005 and temps are likely to continue to fall from thence onwards due to solar-ocean cycle considerations. All the temp trace lines up with solar-ocean effects very well in actuality.


What do you mean? The 2010 El Nino was mild, whilst the La Nina that developed since the middle of the year is potentially the strongest on record.


The impact on SST's and global temps from the 2010 El-nino was far from mild. Whilst BOM may have classified the overall effect of the El-nino as weak in terms of its direct impact on Australia the Nino 3.4 readings could in no way have been classified as "mild" and in this regard BOM classified it as a moderate event.

The La-nina that developed in 2010 only began to impact global temperatures in the final quarter of the year as you are surely aware. Care to make any bet on whether 2011 is going to be "the warmest year on record" PG? How about 2012 perhaps? I'll go out on a limb right now and say that we just had the warmest year this decade in terms of average global temps.

How do you think the temperatures this coming decade are going to compare with those of the last? I'd think even someone with your AGW bias is likely to see the writing on the wall in terms of which way temperatures are heading for the remainder of this decade.
Posted by: BOM99

Re: Temperature trends - 21/01/2011 18:50

At this early stage of this decade I feel comfortably confident that this decade will not be any warmer than the last. Maybe the same or a little cooler hopefully but not warmer.

Originally Posted By: Brett Guy
Ok. Here is something I just found. It is an ice core from Vostok that apparently goes back 450,000 years. From what I can interperate from this we should be worrying about whether we have enough pairs of winter woolies.
Ice core record


The writing has always been on the wall that another ice age should happen that is true which is what sparked the worries in the 70's. Looking at those regular cycles you just cannot really explain it without a big external influence on the Earth. Orbit variations around the sun just do not cut it for me either since this pattern of recurring ice ages has not always been there and is only a feature of the last 2 million years. The only thing that makes any sense to me is a change in the behavior of the sun that began 2 million years ago. The sun is a complex beast and it is aging and changing with age, we know so little about it really.
Posted by: SGB

Re: Temperature trends - 21/01/2011 19:54

PG, I suggest checking out Joe Bastardi's blog every now and then for a dose of reality. You may just learn something new or who knows, it may open your eyes to a whole new way of thinking...
Posted by: SGB

Re: Temperature trends - 21/01/2011 20:16

Awesome litte video here by Joe Bastardi entitled: "A La Nina That Is King?... More Cold to Follow!" He talks about the short term cooling/warming affects of El Niños and La Niñas, the longer term affects of the PDO cycle and also the Solar Cycle influence... love his enthusiasm for weather! grin
Posted by: Ben Sandilands

Re: Temperature trends - 21/01/2011 20:34

Snowmi,

The state of solar research is such that we know far more about our sun and stellar physics than ever before, yet have also learned that we hardly know anything.

Astronomy does allow us to find stars with a broadly similar nature (and mass) to ours at different stages of their life cycle. That helps a great deal. But among the other factors of potential importance to the paleohistory of our solar influences are such things as its encounters with other stars, and energetic cosmic events like close range novas and supernovas.

Current sky surveys and computational strength are allowing surveys to get underway that plot the relative motions of the stars and allow with increasing accuracy, a recreation of where our sun and other currently nearby stellar objects have been for millions of years into the past.

In some cases, this is likely to give researchers of early climate anomalies or patterns of behavior an insight into events which may have severely affected the atmosphere of a much younger earth. We might even be able to decide if the disruption to the orbits of the outer planets that is implied by current observations involved a close approach of a small dense star such as a white or red dwarf, and even help us decide if some of the minor planets and moons were stripped off or captured from such a star.

A correlation between striking changes in our past terrestrial environments and a passing star cannot be ruled out or in until these surveys are completed and the search for matches occurs, almost certainly within the next 20 years.
Posted by: Locke

Re: Temperature trends - 21/01/2011 22:15

Wow Ben. You have truly impressed me. Nice to see a mind so open to possiblities. (absoluitely no sarcasm intended).
Posted by: Ben Sandilands

Re: Temperature trends - 22/01/2011 08:02

As an aged star and sky watcher I'd really like the pace of discovery to accelerate a bit!
Posted by: BOM99

Re: Temperature trends - 22/01/2011 09:00

Ben, I would also still like to see a lot more study done into the climate of our other planets, that could finally prove if the sun is the cause of those up and down temps of the last 2 million years. I am still not convinced of the causes of that recent climate correlation with Mars that was mentioned a few years ago. We need to be able to go much further back and look at the last million years on Mars, I am sure it could be done if we get some on ground geologic studies from the planet.
Posted by: Ben Sandilands

Re: Temperature trends - 22/01/2011 09:29

The large scale inconsistency between the early Mars (warm and wet) and an early Earth (frozen from pole to pole) disappears if each planet exchanged orbits in the following epochs.

Did a brown dwarf, or other gravitationally significant intruder come sufficiently close to the early solar system to set this in motion? It may be a while, or maybe never, that we find a convincing answer to such speculations, but it would exciting if firmer clues are found.


It is possible for non-destructive orbital exchanges to occur.
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 22/01/2011 18:36

New record cold temperatures in Minnesota
From NWS Duluth, MN, an old record beaten by five degrees:

RECORD EVENT REPORT
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE DULUTH MN
518 PM CST FRI JAN 21 2011

...RECORD LOW TEMPERATURE SET AT INTERNATIONAL FALLS MN...

A RECORD LOW TEMPERATURE OF -46 DEGREES WAS SET AT INTERNATIONAL
FALLS MN TODAY. THIS BREAKS THE OLD RECORD OF -41 SET IN 1954.
Posted by: _Johnno_

Re: Temperature trends - 22/01/2011 18:48

Hi guys just wondering what the global temp anomaly for December was? I have read somewhere it was +0.18c can someone confirm that? And is it true that January global temps are running slightly below normal?
Posted by: SGB

Re: Temperature trends - 22/01/2011 19:14

Hi Johnno, you're correct, the December global temperature anomaly was +0.18c going by objective satellite data. Linky.

Also, if you'd like to monitor how January is going, I'd suggest the AMSU-A site. After the page loads, on the bottom left-hand corner go to the menu "Show global average temperature at," then choose, "14,000 ft / 600 mb (AQUA ch05 v2)" then click on the "Average" check-box on the bottom right side, then click "Redraw." Currently it show us slightly below average... however just for interest's sake, click on the 2010 check-box as well and click "Redraw" again and you'll be able to see just how much lower we are temperature wise compared to last year, bearing in mind we were in the middle of a moderate El Niño then and now we're in the middle of a Strong La Niña.

Hope this helps! smile
Posted by: BOM99

Re: Temperature trends - 22/01/2011 19:27

Originally Posted By: Bucketing Down(BD)
New record cold temperatures in Minnesota
From NWS Duluth, MN, an old record beaten by five degrees:

RECORD EVENT REPORT
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE DULUTH MN
518 PM CST FRI JAN 21 2011

...RECORD LOW TEMPERATURE SET AT INTERNATIONAL FALLS MN...

A RECORD LOW TEMPERATURE OF -46 DEGREES WAS SET AT INTERNATIONAL
FALLS MN TODAY. THIS BREAKS THE OLD RECORD OF -41 SET IN 1954.


Can you post a link to this?, I tried looking up the readings on Wunderground and am getting only -35.1 at around 5am on the 21st.
http://www.wunderground.com/weatherstati...ay=21&year=2011

Not sure about those world means Johnoo, but I think the AMSU satellite temps are running nice and low for a change.
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 22/01/2011 20:05

http://www.crh.noaa.gov/news/display_cmsstory.php?wfo=dlh&storyid=63000&source=0

There U go Snowmi

Cheers

PS update suggests equal lowest at Apt!
Posted by: BOM99

Re: Temperature trends - 22/01/2011 23:06

Thanks for that BD, they mention that is was at Babbitt where the -46 record fell.
Certainly quite a decent cold spell now in that area around Hudson Bay also, that was mild about a month ago balancing things out again.
Posted by: _Johnno_

Re: Temperature trends - 23/01/2011 11:06

Originally Posted By: SGB
Hi Johnno, you're correct, the December global temperature anomaly was +0.18c going by objective satellite data. Linky.

Also, if you'd like to monitor how January is going, I'd suggest the AMSU-A site. After the page loads, on the bottom left-hand corner go to the menu "Show global average temperature at," then choose, "14,000 ft / 600 mb (AQUA ch05 v2)" then click on the "Average" check-box on the bottom right side, then click "Redraw." Currently it show us slightly below average... however just for interest's sake, click on the 2010 check-box as well and click "Redraw" again and you'll be able to see just how much lower we are temperature wise compared to last year, bearing in mind we were in the middle of a moderate El Niño then and now we're in the middle of a Strong La Niña.

Hope this helps! smile



Cheers!
Posted by: ROM

Re: Temperature trends - 24/01/2011 17:41

GFS 2 metre raw global temp anomalies and forecasts;

The global temp anomaly is the small red print in the top right and is currently at [ f06 hrs] -0.2066C
[ base line 1979 - 2009 ]
Run the pointer along the hours line and you get a changing view of the forecast 2 Metre global temp anomalies out to 180 hrs from initialisation.
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 29/01/2011 16:38

uah-prelim-january-temp-may-be-below-normal-globally
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/28/ua...lly/#more-32587
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 30/01/2011 16:24

Hartford, Connecticut’s monthly snow approaching six feet!

The prolific snows which have hit the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast this winter–during January in particular–are without precedent. January tallies haven’t just surpassed previous snow records–they’ve obliterated them. In the New York City area, where an 8.1 inch total is considered normal to date, snow totals have reached 3 feet–at some locations, even more! Central Park’s 36.0 inch month to date tally has eclipsed the 86 year old previous record of 27.4 inches set in 1925. Records have also fallen at Newark (37.3 inches), La Guardia (32.4 inches), Bridgeport, Connecticut (41.8 inches) and Islip on Long Island (34.2 inches).


Among the most stunning of all the January snow totals close to the New York City area is the 56.9 inches which have hit Hartford, Connecticut. That’s four and a half times the city’s typical full-January total of 12.6 inches.

Word of the huge monthly snow amounts there comes just days after that area was hit by yet another snowstorm–a system which rode into New York on gusts as high as 49 mph. Snowfall at New York’s Central Park hit 19.0 inches as did tallies out of Clifton and Roselle, New Jersey.

The same lightning-laced snow system put down 15.1 inches in Philadelphia, 16 inches Jersey City, New Jersey and 11.5 inches at South Boston, Massachusetts. The Nation’s Capital measured 5 inches at Reagan National Airport.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/29/record-monthly-snowfalls-in-the-northeast/#more-32685

http://www.wtnh.com/dpp/news/new_haven_cty/new-havens-next-step-in-snow-response
Posted by: Ben Sandilands

Re: Temperature trends - 30/01/2011 19:22

Here's some anecdotal summaries from relatives and contacts in the US.

In the New York and upstate and NE states areas the situation is fantastic, with good deep snow unless you live there, in which case too good and too deep. The winter came good late in December after an ordinary start, that is little or no snow and bitterly cold.

In the upper mid west, specifically in the upper part of Iowa and Minnesota, it has been variable but on average below par, with settled snow depths low or even bare earth, with is not up to usual standards. However there was a very cold outbreak a few weeks ago, and before that a periods of days when the ploughs couldn't keep up with the drifts.

In Washington state on the eastern side of the passes there was around 15-30 cms snow over much the state from just before Thanksgiving Day and the skiing has been incred. However things are back to 'normal' for much of January, light to lighter than usual snow even on the passes with the odd very bad day however, and the farming worry is a continued downtrend in snow pack in the catchment areas that are critical to summer irrigation. (This is rain shadow country).

West of the passes it has has been an average to slightly above average winter for settled snow, but Vancouver BC had one very big dump in December.

The higher parts of California, and I refer to high as in altitude, have experienced a good snowy winter by CA standards.
Posted by: aslaws

Re: Temperature trends - 30/01/2011 20:25

Originally Posted By: Bucketing Down(BD)
uah-prelim-january-temp-may-be-below-normal-globally
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/28/ua...lly/#more-32587


Is this not expected during a La Nina event BD?
Will be interesting if below average global temps can be maintained this year (and in years to come)
Might be the next few years that confirm whether AGW is a reality or whether CO2 is not quite as crucial as the majority of climate scientists feel.
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 30/01/2011 20:31

yes with a big La Nina as this one, but I would opt for continuing levelling off and slow fall away of global temps based on Solar and Ocean downturn in months and years to come, progressively getting stronger if solar downturn becomes a Maunder Minimum type downturn. Volcanoes are also overdue for big eruptions which may throw a big cooling spanner in the works if they go off as is forecast by some experts.
(PS thanks for extra snow reports Ben)
Posted by: Spatch

Re: Temperature trends - 30/01/2011 20:38

I love hockey sticks grin

Temperature reconstructions of upper Atlantic Water in the eastern Fram Strait over the past ~2100 years



Warming North Atlantic water tied to heating Arctic

The temperatures of North Atlantic Ocean water flowing north into the Arctic Ocean adjacent to Greenland -- the warmest water in at least 2,000 years -- are likely related to the amplification of global warming in the Arctic, says a new international study involving the University of Colorado Boulder.

Led by Robert Spielhagen of the Academy of Sciences, Humanities and Literature in Mainz, Germany, the study showed that water from the Fram Strait that runs between Greenland and Svalbard -- an archipelago constituting the northernmost part of Norway -- has warmed roughly 3.5 degrees Fahrenheit in the past century. The Fram Strait water temperatures today are about 2.5 degrees F warmer than during the Medieval Warm Period, which heated the North Atlantic from roughly 900 to 1300 and affected the climate in Northern Europe and northern North America.

The team believes that the rapid warming of the Arctic and recent decrease in Arctic sea ice extent are tied to the enhanced heat transfer from the North Atlantic Ocean, said Spielhagen. According to CU-Boulder's National Snow and Ice Data Center, the total loss of Arctic sea ice extent from 1979 to 2009 was an area larger than the state of Alaska, and some scientists there believe the Arctic will become ice-free during the summers within the next several decades.

"Such a warming of the Atlantic water in the Fram Strait is significantly different from all climate variations in the last 2,000 years," said Spielhagen, also of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences in Keil, Germany.

"Cold seawater is critical for the formation of sea ice, which helps to cool the planet by reflecting sunlight back to space," said Marchitto. "Sea ice also allows Arctic air temperatures to be very cold by forming an insulating blanket over the ocean. Warmer waters could lead to major sea ice loss and drastic changes for the Arctic."

The rate of Arctic sea ice decline appears to be accelerating due to positive feedbacks between the ice, the Arctic Ocean and the atmosphere, Marchitto said. As Arctic temperatures rise, summer ice cover declines, more solar heat is absorbed by the ocean and additional ice melts. Warmer water may delay freezing in the fall, leading to thinner ice cover in winter and spring, making the sea ice more vulnerable to melting during the next summer.

Air temperatures in Greenland have risen roughly 7 degrees F in the past several decades, thought to be due primarily to an increase in Earth's greenhouse gases, according to CU-Boulder scientists.

Click to read the full article
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 30/01/2011 21:28

"Since continuous meteorological and oceanographic data for the Fram Strait reach back only 150 years, the team drilled ocean sediment cores dating back 2,000 years to determine past water temperatures. The researchers used microscopic, shelled protozoan organisms called foraminifera -- which prefer specific water temperatures at depths of roughly 150 to 650 feet -- as tiny thermometers.

In addition, the team used a second, independent method that involved analyzing the chemical composition of the foraminifera shells to reconstruct past water temperatures in the Fram Strait, said Marchitto"....thought to be due primarily to an increase in Earth's greenhouse gases, according to CU-Boulder scientists
Posted by: Bill Illis

Re: Temperature trends - 31/01/2011 00:43


I don't know if people are interested in this, but we can take a longer look at the climate going back 635 million years.

In my opinion, continental alignments and the resulting land glacier build-up/no land glacier build-up/albedo affect explains the climate history better than CO2.

http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/9508/tempco2570mlefttoright.png





For example, the south polar wandering of Gondwana provides a good explanation for the Ordovician/Silurian ice age and the Carboniferous ice age (keeping in mind that large land glaciers will eventually/occasionally push land masses below sea level which then breaks-up the glaciers - if you look at how much of the continental plates of northern North America and northern Eurasia is below sea level now, it appears this has also ocurred in the last 5 million years in the Arctic.) .

Posted by: Ben Sandilands

Re: Temperature trends - 31/01/2011 06:11

Bill,

Hasn't this always been acknowledged, in that paleo-geography had a profound influence on the climate. There were no anthropogenic inputs into the environment then, in fact no anthro-anything, and no synthetic atmospheric compounds either.

I don't see how there is any connection between those events and the remorseless rise of a carbon overburden in the atmosphere since we began liberating substantial quantities of fossil sourced carbon into the air, and oceans, altering the existing regimen of heat reradiation through the atmosphere and a range of feedbacks, including increased oceanic acidification.

It is clear surely that the history of the planet, including cosmic and solar radiation inputs, is of immense importance. Quite possibly of the utmost importance.

But that would be no excuse to ignore our role in the current world, and try to understand its relevance, and try to prevent it from impeding the natural heat balance in which the greenhouse gas plays such an important role.

My own unpopular view here is that both extremes in the debate are being very unscientific when they dismiss in advance of further research, the significance or manmade and paleo processes, many of which have the laws of chemistry and physics in common. These laws are neither selective nor exclusive. If the greenhouse gas effect works in nature, then it works in relation to fossil sourced carbon too.

It is even more surprising that solar research is quoted against the AGW concerns when that research is primarily operated by the same sections of the science community.



Posted by: _Johnno_

Re: Temperature trends - 31/01/2011 08:51

Fear of famine as N Korea freezes

North Asia correspondent Mark Willacy, Monday January 31, 2011 - 08:22 EDT
North Korea says it is experiencing its coldest winter on record, raising fears of worsening food shortages and famine.

The country's central newsagency says the average daily maximum for this month was minus five degrees Celsius, while Pyongyang hit a low of minus 18C.

It is the first time since records began in 1945 that temperatures have stayed below freezing for a whole month.

Pyongyang says the freezing winter will delay preparations for the spring planting, raising fears of disease outbreaks and worsening malnutrition in the impoverished state.

The United Nations recently warned that 5 million North Koreans will face food shortages this year.

- ABC

© ABC 2010
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 31/01/2011 09:48

The points in Bills post,to me, are that CO2 DOES NOT correlate with past global est temps, and todays CO2 levels are fairly low in earths history from past est's it seems.
Posted by: Ben Sandilands

Re: Temperature trends - 31/01/2011 10:22

Got it. They certainly didn't correlate either in the very early epochs, but those extremely high levels of CO2 occurred in a world where photosynthesis had not arisen, where there was no carbon-oxygen cycle, and no plants. We had stromatolites and microbes.

And as you or ROM and others have repeatedly pointed out, the earlier epochs were characterised by extremely high concentrations of CO2. Which is it, was it low CO2 early in our geological history, or high levels?

In the history of the most recent glacial-interglacial sequences, we observe a planet not only similar to the one we know, but one on which our ancestors were walking on the face of the earth.

In those sequences the ice core records show a carbon dioxide measure of around 180 up to 300 or slightly above. Not 385 ppm.

Given the sensitivity of the planet as our species has known it to minor cyclical variations in orbits and solar outputs, and the importance of CO2 to the regulation of re-radiation through the atmosphere I can't see a good reason why the pre-dinosaur epochs and an atmosphere that some inconsistently claim was either low carbon or high carbon in nature should be an excuse to argue that current atmospheric research is misguided, a conspiracy, or irrelevant.

Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 31/01/2011 10:36



For 550m years ago at 3C per doubling of Co2 there was enough Co2 to make temps about 12 degrees warmer. As noted on the diagram solar radiation was 3.6% lower which accounts for cooling of 2.3 degrees. However the Co2 figure is quoted with feedbacks, and the solar radiation figure is quoted without feedbacks (I worked it out from Stefan Boltzman). If we apply the same feedbacks to solar, we get a cooling influence of about 7 degrees, and a Co2 warming influence of 12 degrees for which we expect temperatures to have been about 5 degrees warmer than the present. Which is about what the temperature record shows.
Posted by: Loopy Radar

Re: Temperature trends - 31/01/2011 10:36

Originally Posted By: Spatch
I love hockey sticks grin

Temperature reconstructions of upper Atlantic Water in the eastern Fram Strait over the past ~2100 years



Warming North Atlantic water tied to heating Arctic

The temperatures of North Atlantic Ocean water flowing north into the Arctic Ocean adjacent to Greenland -- the warmest water in at least 2,000 years -- are likely related to the amplification of global warming in the Arctic, says a new international study involving the University of Colorado Boulder.

Led by Robert Spielhagen of the Academy of Sciences, Humanities and Literature in Mainz, Germany, the study showed that water from the Fram Strait that runs between Greenland and Svalbard -- an archipelago constituting the northernmost part of Norway -- has warmed roughly 3.5 degrees Fahrenheit in the past century. The Fram Strait water temperatures today are about 2.5 degrees F warmer than during the Medieval Warm Period, which heated the North Atlantic from roughly 900 to 1300 and affected the climate in Northern Europe and northern North America.

The team believes that the rapid warming of the Arctic and recent decrease in Arctic sea ice extent are tied to the enhanced heat transfer from the North Atlantic Ocean, said Spielhagen. According to CU-Boulder's National Snow and Ice Data Center, the total loss of Arctic sea ice extent from 1979 to 2009 was an area larger than the state of Alaska, and some scientists there believe the Arctic will become ice-free during the summers within the next several decades.

"Such a warming of the Atlantic water in the Fram Strait is significantly different from all climate variations in the last 2,000 years," said Spielhagen, also of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences in Keil, Germany.

"Cold seawater is critical for the formation of sea ice, which helps to cool the planet by reflecting sunlight back to space," said Marchitto. "Sea ice also allows Arctic air temperatures to be very cold by forming an insulating blanket over the ocean. Warmer waters could lead to major sea ice loss and drastic changes for the Arctic."

The rate of Arctic sea ice decline appears to be accelerating due to positive feedbacks between the ice, the Arctic Ocean and the atmosphere, Marchitto said. As Arctic temperatures rise, summer ice cover declines, more solar heat is absorbed by the ocean and additional ice melts. Warmer water may delay freezing in the fall, leading to thinner ice cover in winter and spring, making the sea ice more vulnerable to melting during the next summer.

Air temperatures in Greenland have risen roughly 7 degrees F in the past several decades, thought to be due primarily to an increase in Earth's greenhouse gases, according to CU-Boulder scientists.

Click to read the full article


No hockey stick here!
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/angmaggs.gif
or here
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/dmkshavn.gif
or here
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/egdesmnd.gif
or here
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/giuk-gap.gif
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/godthaab.gif
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/greenl-2.gif
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/ilulissa.gif
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/janmayen.gif
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/grnland.gif
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/grnland.gif

So where does your big hockey stick come from?
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 31/01/2011 11:04

Look closely at the reconstruction of the upper Atlantic Water. It shows a steep increase in temperature up to early in the 20th century, and a mild increase since then. In the instrumental record it is only since about 2000 that the Arctic temps have risen above values in the early 20th century. Looking at those individual stations, all but one of them show the temperature history from 1950 to 2002, during which there was no significant increase in Arctic temperatures. And the first one goes back to the 19th century, and does show a 2-3 degree increase which is consistent with the increase at the end of the 'hockey stick' reconstruction of the Atlantic Water.

The temperature data is certainly quite consistent with the last part of that hockey stick.

The interesting question is why is so much of the warming in the late 19th/early 20th century? Perhaps natural variations played a large part. Note that Co2 was certainly increasing in the 19th century, but at a much lower rate than during the later part of the 20th century.

Another possible influence on the steep response in the late 19th/early 20th century is a non-linear response to the Co2 warming. This could occur as ice albedo feedback is a very important part of the temperature response in the Arctic. In the 19th century there may have been a lot more ice in the north Atlantic that may have been vulnerable to melt with only a small change of temperature and provided a very strong feedback to a small amount of warming. In contrast the current situation seems to be a fairly low variation in sea ice in the Atlantic area with the sea ice edge moving very little near the boundary between warm Atlantic waters and much coldeer Arctic waters. Much of the recent retreat in Arctic sea ice is on the Pacific side of the Arctic basin, eg (link)
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 31/01/2011 11:16

I dont see any correlation of CO2 with the temp trace...neither at the quoted snowball earth period of minus 25C at 12,000ppm CO2?!!!
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 31/01/2011 11:23

Tamino has an interestin arcticle about the AMO and its relationship with global temperatures (link)

Particularly telling is his chart showing the difference between North Atlantic temperatures and global temperatures. During the warming episode around the 30s and 40s the Atlantic Ocean was warming faster than the globe, and it is likely that variations in the North Atlantic were a significant contribution to global warming during this time period. However since 1980 it is very clear that north Atlantic temperatures have been significantly lagging behind global warming, and if anything are holding global temperatures down, and not causing them to increase.

Posted by: Spatch

Re: Temperature trends - 31/01/2011 11:31

@ Loopy Radar.Here's what I think is causing the hockey sticks.



Which has caused this hockey stick in CO2 levels.



Which has caused this hockey stick in temperatures.



And here's yet another hockey stick. Comparison of northern hemisphere and global temperature reconstructions.



Ref:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hockey-stick-or-hockey-league.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/new-remperature-reconstruction-vindicates.html
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 31/01/2011 11:35

Oh come on Spatch. Don't you know how much fraud those clever people over at Climate Audit have uncovered in the hockey stick:



(article)
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 31/01/2011 12:41

Any-one can make up a hockey stick! Manns has been completely discredited! Flogging a dead horse there!!!
Posted by: Arnost

Re: Temperature trends - 31/01/2011 12:58

You call THAT a Hockey Stick...???

THIS is a Hockey Stick!



[And it HAS to be true! It's from Nature.com - so we can't deny the truth of that - eh?]
Posted by: Spatch

Re: Temperature trends - 31/01/2011 13:06

@ Mike grin

@ BD. is that the best come back you've got? Disappointed.

BTW, you may have noticed that there are temperature reconstructions by several other people on that graph as well. Are they all discredited too?
Posted by: Spatch

Re: Temperature trends - 31/01/2011 13:16

@ Arnost. Wheeee! Now you're talking!

Some folks here reckon that the hockey stick blade should be pointing downwards because we are currently heading into an ice age.

Can someone here show me that graph as It'd make a nice addition to my hockey stick collection.
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 31/01/2011 13:21

I dont need to come up with anything else, no one believes Mann's effort. History show that it is foolish.
Even the other temp constructions show that!
Posted by: Spatch

Re: Temperature trends - 31/01/2011 13:38

@ BD. The other temp reconstructions correlate very well with Mann's. Your argument fails woefully on that one point.

You'll need to discredit all of the other authors shown on the graph as well. Can you?
Posted by: Arnost

Re: Temperature trends - 31/01/2011 13:46

Spatch
Quote:
Can someone here show me that graph as It'd make a nice addition to my hockey stick collection.


Surprised you don't have it! It's from the Nature.com article where the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) weighed in with a report on the ‘hockey-stick’ plot, with which it laid the controversy to rest...

Coming from Nature and NAS, well - I really don't know why there's been this debate since then... its pretty much well settled - eh?

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v441/n7097/full/4411032a.html
the img is here
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v441/n7097/images/4411032a-i1.0.jpg

[Got everything! Especially note how well the graph captures the LIA in September 1456.]
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 31/01/2011 13:51

http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps
Jan 2011 temp today equal lowest in last 9 years.
Posted by: Bill Illis

Re: Temperature trends - 31/01/2011 14:18

Originally Posted By: Mike Hauber
For 550m years ago at 3C per doubling of Co2 there was enough Co2 to make temps about 12 degrees warmer. As noted on the diagram solar radiation was 3.6% lower which accounts for cooling of 2.3 degrees. However the Co2 figure is quoted with feedbacks, and the solar radiation figure is quoted without feedbacks (I worked it out from Stefan Boltzman). If we apply the same feedbacks to solar, we get a cooling influence of about 7 degrees, and a Co2 warming influence of 12 degrees for which we expect temperatures to have been about 5 degrees warmer than the present. Which is about what the temperature record shows.



You can't work out the solar forcing unless you also know what the Earth's Albedo was.


The formula is Solar Forcing Temp = [TSI * (1 - Albedo )/ 4 / 5.67e-8]^.25

We know the 550 Mya period was quite warm with very little land glacier at that point- the Cambrian explosion of life was just happening. So the Albedo was probably lower than today at about the Earth average throughout history at about 0.272 (versus 0.298 today).

It actually works to be exactly the same solar forcing temp as today.
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 31/01/2011 14:56

Forcing is always calculated before feedbacks such as change in albedo are considered.

And why was it warm with very little glacier 550 million years ago? With a weaker sun than today it can't have been because of the sun. But with far more Co2 in the atmosphere that helped keep it warm enough to get rid of the glaciers.
Posted by: Bill Illis

Re: Temperature trends - 31/01/2011 15:55

Originally Posted By: Mike Hauber
Forcing is always calculated before feedbacks such as change in albedo are considered.

And why was it warm with very little glacier 550 million years ago? With a weaker sun than today it can't have been because of the sun. But with far more Co2 in the atmosphere that helped keep it warm enough to get rid of the glaciers.


Because all the continents had moved off the poles through continental drift.

Solar forcing cannot be calculated "with feedbacks."

Take the solar forcing 550 Mya and multiply that by the assumed 0.75C per watt/m2 feedback factor.

"Solar forcing temp with feedback 550 Mya" = 1312 watts/m2 * (1-0.272) / 4 ) * 0.75C/W/m2 = 179K or -95C.

It doesn't work.

Shortcuts were taken in the development of the theory.

You were on the right track with Stefan Boltzmann but global warming theory drops this important formula when feedbacks enter the picture.
Posted by: Loopy Radar

Re: Temperature trends - 31/01/2011 18:19

Originally Posted By: Spatch
@ Loopy Radar.Here's what I think is causing the hockey sticks.



Which has caused this hockey stick in CO2 levels.



Which has caused this hockey stick in temperatures.



And here's yet another hockey stick. Comparison of northern hemisphere and global temperature reconstructions.



Ref:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hockey-stick-or-hockey-league.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/new-remperature-reconstruction-vindicates.html





Just like a politician, deflect the question.
200 plus station temp records w'out urban heating increase over time.
Posted by: davidg

Re: Temperature trends - 31/01/2011 18:31

Beware the 1000 year temp. reconstruction with the instrumental record tacked on.
Posted by: Spatch

Re: Temperature trends - 31/01/2011 18:37

Originally Posted By: davidg
Beware the 1000 year temp. reconstruction with the instrumental record tacked on.


Why?
Posted by: Spatch

Re: Temperature trends - 31/01/2011 18:43

Originally Posted By: Spatch
@ BD. The other temp reconstructions correlate very well with Mann's. Your argument fails woefully on that one point.

You'll need to discredit all of the other authors shown on the graph as well. Can you?


Well BD? You going to answer the question? You're quick to smear Mann but when pressed to back up your weak argument you scamper off. Come on now and justify your accusations.
Posted by: Arnost

Re: Temperature trends - 31/01/2011 19:38

Spatch... we all know that Mike Mann's original reconstructions were crap. [Yes the one NAS endorsed and hence my facetious "LIA in September 1456"! wink ]

Ask anyone who knows a bit about history ... you will find that HH Lamb's original work will bear out. In any case there are literally hundreds of studies showing that there was a global medieval warm period (as warm if not warmer than current) and a cold Little Ice Age.

So if you are looking for nice graphs to add to your collection - try following the links to the studies from here - or here.

Paraphrasing Einstein: “All it takes is one fact to prove this wrong”. So here are two things impossible in today’s climes (one for each side of the globe).

Viking farm / settlement excavated out of permafrost - Gården under Sandet



Elephant seal breeding colony on the shores of Antarctica inshore of an icesheet with latest carbon dated to about 1000 – 500 years ago: (PNAS Article)


And hence proves that the hockey stick is crap and is nothing but a cynical attempt to rewrite history for political purpose.

Ian owes you no justification.

Posted by: davidg

Re: Temperature trends - 31/01/2011 20:24

Originally Posted By: Spatch
Originally Posted By: davidg
Beware the 1000 year temp. reconstruction with the instrumental record tacked on.


Why?


The same reason the IPCC choose to only include the past 30 years of temperature records in their Assesments. Temperature records before the 1960-70's, (i.e. before accurate instrumental records were taken using consitent measurment methods and calibrated instruments, and before further reinforcement using satellite data) are simply inaccurate. Rebuilding the temperature trace using ice cores can be inheritly inaccurate as they only provide a localised record of temperature variations and IMO cannot be used as an accuarte temp proxy. Even when combined with lower latitude ice cores from tropical or subtropical glacial formations, it still doesnt not provide an accurate depiction of the global temperature. They can be effected by any number of localised climatic conditions such as drought, above average snowfall as well as changes in ice flow and melt water contamination (in the case of tropical or subtropical regions).

In conclusion, comparing the re-constructed ice core temp trace to the instrumental record is not generally a good idea for the reasons listed above. Useful yes, but accurate no.
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 31/01/2011 20:34

History shows Mann is off beam & so do the other temp reconstructions(if they can be believed anyway as DG says. I prefer history myself it is more accurate.
Posted by: Spatch

Re: Temperature trends - 31/01/2011 22:06

Originally Posted By: Arnost
Spatch... we all know that Mike Mann's original reconstructions were crap. [Yes the one NAS endorsed and hence my facetious "LIA in September 1456"! wink ]

Ask anyone who knows a bit about history ... you will find that HH Lamb's original work will bear out. In any case there are literally hundreds of studies showing that there was a global medieval warm period (as warm if not warmer than current) and a cold Little Ice Age.

So if you are looking for nice graphs to add to your collection - try following the links to the studies from here - or here.

Paraphrasing Einstein: “All it takes is one fact to prove this wrong”. So here are two things impossible in today’s climes (one for each side of the globe).

Viking farm / settlement excavated out of permafrost - Gården under Sandet



Elephant seal breeding colony on the shores of Antarctica inshore of an icesheet with latest carbon dated to about 1000 – 500 years ago: (PNAS Article)


And hence proves that the hockey stick is crap and is nothing but a cynical attempt to rewrite history for political purpose.

Ian owes you no justification.



Ah yes, the farm under the sand. Read up on how it got buried under that sand. And of course it would be frozen being buried away from the sunlight. Did you know that there are currently 51 farms in Greenland today? They farm sheep and grow vegetables to supply the local shops. Now that the ice is rapidly melting in Greenland farming is booming.

Those MWP graphs that you linked to. Most of them are way out of date and some only show temps up to the 1900's or before, kinda useless don't you think. Nice try but no banana.
Posted by: davidg

Re: Temperature trends - 31/01/2011 22:20

Lol as they have for centuries, in the south.

Originally Posted By: Spatch
And of course it would be frozen being buried away from the sunlight.


I couldnt quite fgure this one out, but are you suggesting that permafrost exists because the ground below the surface receives no sunlight? Pretty sure thats been established for quite a longe time. Since the beginning of time one would assume.

Furthermore, the graphs that Arnost linked to by and large run up to and including the year 2000. Not sure what you're on about Spatch, but your posts are dimissive and inaccurate.
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 31/01/2011 22:41

"Global warming at its heart is driven by an imbalance of energy: more solar energy is entering the atmosphere than leaving it," says NCAR scientist John Fasullo. "Our concern is that we aren't able to entirely monitor or understand the imbalance. This reveals a glaring hole in our ability to observe the build-up of heat in our climate system."

"The heat will come back to haunt us sooner or later," says NCAR scientist Kevin Trenberth, the lead author. "The reprieve we've had from warming temperatures in the last few years will not continue."

http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2010/04/missing_heat_will_eventually_s_1.html

We are waiting for the IPCC etc temp predictions to start again to get anywhere near the match with the actual global temp in the past 12 years.
We will have to have a huge upturn in temp soon or CO2 has lost control, or maybe it never had control!
Posted by: Arnost

Re: Temperature trends - 31/01/2011 22:45

"Read up on how it got buried under that sand"... OK:

Quote:
Sheets of ice sliding down the mountain toward GUS may have pushed sand over the eastern coast of Greenland, burying the Viking settlements. The sand slide was probably a major catastrophic event, comparable to an earthquake.


Which suggests that it was covered by a glacier - which would then explain why the land there is now permaforst whereas before it was quite arable...

Regardless - the issue is that there MUST have been a large (-ve) temperature excursion to create a) the deep permafrost in Greenland and b) perennially freeze the Nansen Ice shelf. The Mann's (and IPCC TAR's) Hockey Stick suggests that between the peak of the MWP (January 1173 smile )and LIA (September 1456 smile ) is some 0.5C difference. Sorry - but I find that rather hard to belive...
Posted by: Arnost

Re: Temperature trends - 01/02/2011 00:23

DG
Quote:
Beware the 1000 year temp. reconstruction with the instrumental record tacked on.


Ahhh... The crux of the "Hide the Decline" issue. The point about the 'Hide the Decline' debate is very much germane to much of what we know about past climate of the last several millennia.

I guess everyone knows the story where this reconstruction:

From: KR Briffa 2000 “Annual climate variab...s 19:87-105

Ended up as the green line here:

From: IPCC Third Assessment Report 2.3.2.2 Multi-proxy synthesis of recent temperature change

It is undisputed that the decline obvious in Briffa 2000 was deleted and instrumental temperatures were spliced in so that the graph shown to policymakers showed proxy records as always tracking instrumental temperatures.

Clever tricks and such aside, the fact that we have no explanation for the modern divergence suggests that we cannot have certainty that such divergence would not / did not occur in the past. Assuming for the time being the instrumental record is robust, plus the fact that there is nothing particularly different about conditions in the latter half of the 20th century and earlier periods, then the conclusion one draws is that it is not possible to reconstruct past temperatures on the basis of tree ring data.

There is of course another interesting aspect to this…

Briffa 2000 concerned itself with the Northern Boreal Forest… The caption for Fig. 5 is:
Quote:
Fig. 5. An indication of growing season temperature changes across the whole of the northern boreal forest. The histogram indicates yearly averages of maximum tree ring density at nearly 400 sites around the globe…


Igor Polyakov is arguably one of the foremost Arctic researchers and his Arctic temperature reconstruction (top panel below) is really not far from what Keith Briffa found above:

From linky

This is something that I have not yet seen being picked up on – this being the case, we have another element of fudging here… and that is that we have northern high latitude reconstruction being mixed in with global reconstructions… as Jones 98, and Mann 98 / 99 certainly are… (as well as mixing in the instrumental record).

Combining unrelated series to give an impression that the proxy records as always tracking instrumental temperatures, (when in fact they didn't) is, I feel, indefensible.
Posted by: Spatch

Re: Temperature trends - 01/02/2011 06:45

Originally Posted By: Arnost
"Read up on how it got buried under that sand"... OK:

Quote:
Sheets of ice sliding down the mountain toward GUS may have pushed sand over the eastern coast of Greenland, burying the Viking settlements. The sand slide was probably a major catastrophic event, comparable to an earthquake.


Which suggests that it was covered by a glacier - which would then explain why the land there is now permaforst whereas before it was quite arable...

Regardless - the issue is that there MUST have been a large (-ve) temperature excursion to create a) the deep permafrost in Greenland and b) perennially freeze the Nansen Ice shelf. The Mann's (and IPCC TAR's) Hockey Stick suggests that between the peak of the MWP (January 1173 smile )and LIA (September 1456 smile ) is some 0.5C difference. Sorry - but I find that rather hard to belive...


This paper is a must read if you're interested in the facts.

Global Signatures and Dynamical Origins of the Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Anomaly

Global temperatures are known to have varied over the past 1500 years, but the spatial patterns have remained poorly defined. We used a global climate proxy network to reconstruct surface
temperature patterns over this interval. The Medieval period is found to display warmth that matches or exceeds that of the past decade in some regions, but which falls well below recent levels globally. This period is marked by a tendency for La Niña–like conditions in the tropical Pacific.
The coldest temperatures of the Little Ice Age are observed over the interval 1400 to 1700 C.E., with greatest cooling over the extratropical Northern Hemisphere continents. The patterns of temperature change imply dynamical responses of climate to natural radiative forcing changes involving El Niño and the North Atlantic Oscillation–Arctic Oscillation.

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/shared/articles/MannetalScience09.pdf
Posted by: Arnost

Re: Temperature trends - 01/02/2011 07:36

Are you suggesting Mann found the MWP then not so... If you look at the spacials (from memory there was a post on scepticalscience) the paper only "found" a bit of warmth around Greenland... Obviously history wS a bit embarrSing. And the suggestion that the MWP was a predominantly a negative ENSO environment is counterintuitive.

And Tilljander was still uses upside down. Very poor!
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 01/02/2011 07:56

Originally Posted By: Bill Illis
Originally Posted By: Mike Hauber
Forcing is always calculated before feedbacks such as change in albedo are considered.

And why was it warm with very little glacier 550 million years ago? With a weaker sun than today it can't have been because of the sun. But with far more Co2 in the atmosphere that helped keep it warm enough to get rid of the glaciers.


Because all the continents had moved off the poles through continental drift.

Solar forcing cannot be calculated "with feedbacks."

Take the solar forcing 550 Mya and multiply that by the assumed 0.75C per watt/m2 feedback factor.

"Solar forcing temp with feedback 550 Mya" = 1312 watts/m2 * (1-0.272) / 4 ) * 0.75C/W/m2 = 179K or -95C.

It doesn't work.

Shortcuts were taken in the development of the theory.

You were on the right track with Stefan Boltzmann but global warming theory drops this important formula when feedbacks enter the picture.


Stefan Boltzmann gives the temperature of a body without any greenhouse effect. It cannot work for accurately calculating the temperature of a body that is undergoing a greenhouse effect. Your forumula is meaningless. And the albedo values you quoted earlier to give the earth's temperature were obviously made up to give the correct answer, and not actually measured or derived in any meaningful way.
Posted by: Spatch

Re: Temperature trends - 01/02/2011 07:59

Originally Posted By: davidg
Lol as they have for centuries, in the south.

Originally Posted By: Spatch
And of course it would be frozen being buried away from the sunlight.


I couldnt quite fgure this one out, but are you suggesting that permafrost exists because the ground below the surface receives no sunlight? Pretty sure thats been established for quite a longe time. Since the beginning of time one would assume.

Furthermore, the graphs that Arnost linked to by and large run up to and including the year 2000. Not sure what you're on about Spatch, but your posts are dimissive and inaccurate.


That website website with it's graphs relies on folks not actually clicking on the graphs.

It is a misleading and shameful effort. The authors should rightfully be hung out to dry.

I challenge you to click on all of the graphs and then say honestly that all of the graphs show that the MWP was warmer globally than today.
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 01/02/2011 08:02

These are all theoretical arguments really, the data is psuedo and cannot be relied upon to be accurate enough for what we are measuring.
past history shows the lows and highs well which are more reliable. Anyway the IPCC predictions are well under, if they come back to what
they should be then we have the real evidence. Solar and ocean changes are mimicing past and present changes.
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 01/02/2011 08:05

Originally Posted By: Arnost
And the suggestion that the MWP was a predominantly a negative ENSO environment is counterintuitive.


Well it goes dead against the idea that a cooling PDO will cause a cooling climate, which is a central belief of many who question climate science. But just because something is counterintuitive doesn't make it wrong.

But where is the actual evidence that a cooling PDO will cause a cooling climate? Consider the average PDO values for the last 3 decades as the earth has warmed:

81-90: 0.70
91-00: 0.31
01-10: -0.09
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 01/02/2011 08:17

Originally Posted By: Bucketing Down(BD)
Anyway the IPCC predictions are well under,


IPCC predicted warming trend - model average for last 30 years is 0.18 degrees per decade.
Actual observed warming trend - depending on temperature series is 0.16 degrees per decade.

Now if we had certainty about all the natural cycles and how they influence temperatures we could be confident that IPCC over estimated climate change by about 12%. However there are significant unknowns in the climate. So the reason why we have had 12% less warming over the last 30 years could be any combination of:
- Co2 not warming as much as thought
- The PDO cooling for the last 30 years
- The Atlantic has warmed much slower than the rest of the globe for the last 30 years, suggesting the AMO is actually in a cooling mode.
- The decline in solar activity (mostly since 2005)

With all the natural cycles pointing towards cooling perhaps Co2 is even warming faster than expected.
Posted by: davidg

Re: Temperature trends - 01/02/2011 08:19

Im not saying i 100% agree with those graphs as the majority use either ice core data or tree ring data which as detailed previously, i beleive to be an inaccurate way to measure temperature. It can however be useful for measuring temp trends globally as that website is aiming to do.

Anyway, if you actually look at the graphs you will see that they do in fact support the fact that the MWP was warmer or as warm as today. The fact that you have challenged me to look at the grpahs without even checking them yourself proves your own ignorance. The MAJORITY of those graphs run up to and including the year 2000, and even if they dont i fail to see how that proves anything. They still reference modern baseline averages as a comparison. A tiny amount of research would tell you that.
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 01/02/2011 08:20


If we add the new Jan temp which will obviously be much lower...
Circle the past El Nino & volcanic as is done, and the recent past EL Nino peak(not circled yet), and the temp trace peaks nicely with a broad peak around 2001 to 2007 and is on the way downwards following solar-ocean peak and their now falling trends.
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 01/02/2011 08:32

The 'broad peak from 2001 to 2007' was dominated by warm ENSO with 2 El Ninos during this period. It did get cooler after this period when we had 2 years of cool ENSO conditions. Then we get another El Nino and temperatures go even higher. This La Nina has been almost constantly warmer on a day to day comparison than the 07/08 La Nina. 2008 was the warmest La Nina year ever measured, and I'm confident that 2011 will beat this record.
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 01/02/2011 09:23

Not anything of note in that period really Mike. The future will show what is going on Jan 2011 global temps will be quite low by the look.
Solar is only just kicking in with lag, as are oceans.
Posted by: Arnost

Re: Temperature trends - 01/02/2011 11:13

Mike
Quote:
This La Nina has been almost constantly warmer on a day to day comparison than the 07/08 La Nina. 2008 was the warmest La Nina year ever measured, and I'm confident that 2011 will beat this record.

It is interesting that as you say that the global temps associated with this Nina are high. I find it rather puzzling that the SSTs in the Nino regions have not responded to the SOI and the increased Trade Wind anomalies [where the zonal anoms across Nino 3.4 in Dec in particular are about as high as they get!].



Yet, the record shows that the surface did not cool.



As I said puzzling.

However – the temps associated with this La Nina ARE about the same as those associated with the 99 Nina (which is one coming of the El Nino spike)…
Posted by: Arnost

Re: Temperature trends - 01/02/2011 11:13

Mike
Quote:
that a cooling PDO will cause a cooling climate, … is a central belief of many who question climate science


Strawman – As I said many times “the PDO is dependent upon ENSO on all timescales” (Newman et al 2004).


But to play the game:
Quote:
Consider the average PDO values for the last 3 decades as the earth has warmed:

81-90: 0.70
91-00: 0.31
01-10: -0.09


If you finally acknowledge that the earth cooled in the early to mid 80’s and 90’s as a consequence of El Chichon and Pinatubo and factor that into the trends – you will see that there really would have been only the main spike-up from mid 70’s to early 80’s, a smallish rise to 2000 and flat from there. Which then ties really nicely to your PDO values.

Quote:
Actual observed warming trend - depending on temperature series is 0.16 degrees per decade


And significantly flattened the observed warming trend.
Posted by: Spatch

Re: Temperature trends - 02/02/2011 05:55

Originally Posted By: davidg
Im not saying i 100% agree with those graphs as the majority use either ice core data or tree ring data which as detailed previously, i beleive to be an inaccurate way to measure temperature. It can however be useful for measuring temp trends globally as that website is aiming to do.

Anyway, if you actually look at the graphs you will see that they do in fact support the fact that the MWP was warmer or as warm as today. The fact that you have challenged me to look at the grpahs without even checking them yourself proves your own ignorance. The MAJORITY of those graphs run up to and including the year 2000, and even if they dont i fail to see how that proves anything. They still reference modern baseline averages as a comparison. A tiny amount of research would tell you that.


A couple of points.

First up I did look at the graphs and I also read several of the papers that the graphs were pulled from so your accusation that I hadn't checked the graphs is wrong.

Secondly you claim the majority of the graphs use either ice core data or tree ring data. Ice core data can only come from a very limited region of the globe obviously and there are only two graphs that show ice core data.

The first one is from the paper Climatic changes, Norsemen and modern man - published in 1975 - way out of date and irrelevant. The graph taken from it has been doctored and is misleading.

The second one is from the paper Oxygen isotope and palaeotemperature records from six Greenland ice-core stations: Camp Century, Dye-3, GRIP, GISP2, Renland and NorthGRIP. The graph taken from that doesn't show the modern warming so it's irrelevant.

That's it for the ice core graphs.

That leaves us with the tree ring data graphs, which according to your claim that the majority of the graphs use either ice core data or tree ring data, must make up the bulk of the remaining graphs.

Well you're wrong. Only a handful of the remaining graphs show tree ring data. Most of the graphs are from lake sediments and marine sediments and a few from stalagmites and pollen.

Like I said in my previous post the website relies on folks not actually clicking on the graphs, something you clearly didn't do.

Some of the graphs show that at different locations and at different times in the past the temps were similar to modern temps.

The graphs do not show that the MWP was warmer globally than it is now. End of story.
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 02/02/2011 07:41

Mammoth snow storm pounds US
North America correspondent Jane Cowan, Wednesday February 2, 2011 - 07:10 EDT
A huge winter storm is dumping snow, ice and sleet across a huge swathe of the United States.

High winds and freezing rain have turned roads into ice rinks, knocking over trees and power lines as the storm rolls across the Midwest towards the north-east.

In Kansas City, a busload of students flipped over on an icy lane, while in Colorado cars slid off a slick highway.

Thirty states are on winter storm watches and blizzard warnings have been issued for eight states.

Places like St Louis and Milwaukee could be hardest hit with snowdrifts as deep as three metres predicted in parts.

The threat is so serious, president Barack Obama has been briefed by homeland security secretary Janet Napolitano.

More than two dozen states could be affected by the end of the week.

- ABC

© ABC 2010
Posted by: davidg

Re: Temperature trends - 02/02/2011 07:59

Originally Posted By: Spatch
Originally Posted By: davidg
Im not saying i 100% agree with those graphs as the majority use either ice core data or tree ring data which as detailed previously, i beleive to be an inaccurate way to measure temperature. It can however be useful for measuring temp trends globally as that website is aiming to do.

Anyway, if you actually look at the graphs you will see that they do in fact support the fact that the MWP was warmer or as warm as today. The fact that you have challenged me to look at the grpahs without even checking them yourself proves your own ignorance. The MAJORITY of those graphs run up to and including the year 2000, and even if they dont i fail to see how that proves anything. They still reference modern baseline averages as a comparison. A tiny amount of research would tell you that.


A couple of points.

First up I did look at the graphs and I also read several of the papers that the graphs were pulled from so your accusation that I hadn't checked the graphs is wrong.

Secondly you claim the majority of the graphs use either ice core data or tree ring data. Ice core data can only come from a very limited region of the globe obviously and there are only two graphs that show ice core data.

The first one is from the paper Climatic changes, Norsemen and modern man - published in 1975 - way out of date and irrelevant. The graph taken from it has been doctored and is misleading.

The second one is from the paper Oxygen isotope and palaeotemperature records from six Greenland ice-core stations: Camp Century, Dye-3, GRIP, GISP2, Renland and NorthGRIP. The graph taken from that doesn't show the modern warming so it's irrelevant.

That's it for the ice core graphs.

That leaves us with the tree ring data graphs, which according to your claim that the majority of the graphs use either ice core data or tree ring data, must make up the bulk of the remaining graphs.

Well you're wrong. Only a handful of the remaining graphs show tree ring data. Most of the graphs are from lake sediments and marine sediments and a few from stalagmites and pollen.

Like I said in my previous post the website relies on folks not actually clicking on the graphs, something you clearly didn't do.

Some of the graphs show that at different locations and at different times in the past the temps were similar to modern temps.

The graphs do not show that the MWP was warmer globally than it is now. End of story.







So you picked out one flaw in my entire post where i inadverdently left out lake sediments and suddenly my entire argument is flawed? I clicked on most of the graphs and looked at the temperature trace. The fact that i left out one of the ways in which the data was gathered is meaningless. It was an honest mistake which i would normally apologise for but in this case i think ill reserve the courtesy. In fact i even agree with you that the results are sprurious at best due to the collection and analysis methods used. The same issues surrounding ice cores and tree ring data effect lake and marine sediments. Even still can you please explain to everyone how you have come to the conclusion that they do not show the MWP?

Originally Posted By: Spatch
Some of the graphs show that at different locations and at different times in the past the temps were similar to modern temps


So basically you are saying that they show a MWP? Isnt this exactly the point that those who published the papers are trying to make? Also when you say some, do you not mean all? There are roughly 45 graphs on that page. I dont have time to read every single journal that they were published in however from what i can tell, all the ones i veiwed show a MWP.
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 02/02/2011 10:09

Originally Posted By: Arnost

If you finally acknowledge that the earth cooled in the early to mid 80’s and 90’s as a consequence of El Chichon and Pinatubo and factor that into the trends – you will see that there really would have been only the main spike-up from mid 70’s to early 80’s, a smallish rise to 2000 and flat from there. Which then ties really nicely to your PDO values.



Of course the earth cooled due to the eruptions of El Chichon and Pinatubo. The Pinatubo eruption was in 1992 wich is close to the middle of a 1980 to 2010 period, so would have had very little effect on the overall trend. El Chicon is near the start and would have had some effect. Consider that for the months prior to El Chicon the average UAH temp was -0.08, and the ENSO conditions were warm neutral, similar to the 2002-2006 period (as per MEI index). Temperatures in the last 10 years are significantly warmer than the period in the early 1980s were these volcanos could not possibly have had any cooling effect.
Posted by: Spatch

Re: Temperature trends - 02/02/2011 10:15

Originally Posted By: davidg
Originally Posted By: Spatch
Originally Posted By: davidg
Im not saying i 100% agree with those graphs as the majority use either ice core data or tree ring data which as detailed previously, i beleive to be an inaccurate way to measure temperature. It can however be useful for measuring temp trends globally as that website is aiming to do.

Anyway, if you actually look at the graphs you will see that they do in fact support the fact that the MWP was warmer or as warm as today. The fact that you have challenged me to look at the grpahs without even checking them yourself proves your own ignorance. The MAJORITY of those graphs run up to and including the year 2000, and even if they dont i fail to see how that proves anything. They still reference modern baseline averages as a comparison. A tiny amount of research would tell you that.


A couple of points.

First up I did look at the graphs and I also read several of the papers that the graphs were pulled from so your accusation that I hadn't checked the graphs is wrong.

Secondly you claim the majority of the graphs use either ice core data or tree ring data. Ice core data can only come from a very limited region of the globe obviously and there are only two graphs that show ice core data.

The first one is from the paper Climatic changes, Norsemen and modern man - published in 1975 - way out of date and irrelevant. The graph taken from it has been doctored and is misleading.

The second one is from the paper Oxygen isotope and palaeotemperature records from six Greenland ice-core stations: Camp Century, Dye-3, GRIP, GISP2, Renland and NorthGRIP. The graph taken from that doesn't show the modern warming so it's irrelevant.

That's it for the ice core graphs.

That leaves us with the tree ring data graphs, which according to your claim that the majority of the graphs use either ice core data or tree ring data, must make up the bulk of the remaining graphs.

Well you're wrong. Only a handful of the remaining graphs show tree ring data. Most of the graphs are from lake sediments and marine sediments and a few from stalagmites and pollen.

Like I said in my previous post the website relies on folks not actually clicking on the graphs, something you clearly didn't do.

Some of the graphs show that at different locations and at different times in the past the temps were similar to modern temps.

The graphs do not show that the MWP was warmer globally than it is now. End of story.







So you picked out one flaw in my entire post where i inadverdently left out lake sediments and suddenly my entire argument is flawed? I clicked on most of the graphs and looked at the temperature trace. The fact that i left out one of the ways in which the data was gathered is meaningless. It was an honest mistake which i would normally apologise for but in this case i think ill reserve the courtesy. In fact i even agree with you that the results are sprurious at best due to the collection and analysis methods used. The same issues surrounding ice cores and tree ring data effect lake and marine sediments. Even still can you please explain to everyone how you have come to the conclusion that they do not show the MWP?

Originally Posted By: Spatch
Some of the graphs show that at different locations and at different times in the past the temps were similar to modern temps


So basically you are saying that they show a MWP? Isnt this exactly the point that those who published the papers are trying to make? Also when you say some, do you not mean all? There are roughly 45 graphs on that page. I dont have time to read every single journal that they were published in however from what i can tell, all the ones i veiwed show a MWP.


You claimed that there was a global medieval warm period (as warm if not warmer than current) and used that website with the graphs as evidence.

I have shown that that website cannot be used as evidence that the MWP was as warm [globally] if not warmer, than current temps.

Do you understand that?

I never claimed that there was no MWP. My argument is that the MWP was not warmer globally than the current temps.

The operative word here is Globally.

And this is important to understand as well.

Some of the graphs show that at different locations and at different times in the past the temps were similar to modern temps.

At different times in the past the graphs show regional hot spots. You cannot then add them all together and say the MWP was warmer globally than today because you are not using the exact same time period for each regional hot spot.

Do you understand that?
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 02/02/2011 10:27

And does the earth being warmer or less warm than the medieval warm period actually mean anything if we want to know how much the earth will warm up due to Co2?

It is logically possible that the earth could be warmer now than MWP, and that current warmth is caused by natural factors. And it is logically possible that the earth is cooler now than the MWP, and that current warmth was still caused by Co2.
Posted by: Spatch

Re: Temperature trends - 02/02/2011 10:46

Originally Posted By: Mike Hauber
And does the earth being warmer or less warm than the medieval warm period actually mean anything if we want to know how much the earth will warm up due to Co2?

It is logically possible that the earth could be warmer now than MWP, and that current warmth is caused by natural factors. And it is logically possible that the earth is cooler now than the MWP, and that current warmth was still caused by Co2.


The problem is that some sceptics use the claim that the MWP was warmer than current conditions as evidence that the recent warming is not unusual and hence must be natural, not man-made.
Posted by: davidg

Re: Temperature trends - 02/02/2011 11:12

Originally Posted By: Spatch

You claimed that there was a global medieval warm period (as warm if not warmer than current) and used that website with the graphs as evidence.


Sigh. I never claimed there was a MWP, i just wanted to discuss it. The authors of the studies from which those graphs were pulled made their summations based on the evidence presented in their findings. I think there is a lot of evidence to indicate that there was but I wouldnt say I'm 100% convinced as of yet. There are many scientitsts who deny the existence of the MWP and some who claim it dissproves AGW theory. I would say both are emotionally motivated.

Originally Posted By: Spatch

I have shown that that website cannot be used as evidence that the MWP was as warm [globally] if not warmer, than current temps.


No you didnt, you just said that and then provide no evidence to the contrary. Also the website just provides readers with a collection of evidence based, peer reveiwed journal articles that can be easily accessed by those seeking more information. You're the one who is attempting to discredit the website authors for claims they never even made. The heading reads "The MWP: A global phenomenon" for which it was. The heading isnt "The MWP: Proof that the entire earth was as warm as today" or "MWP: Debunks the AGW myth". You are supposed to read the articles and make your own mind up. Obviously the website authors beleive it was the case but thats just their opinion. They let the facts contained in the documents linked to do the talking.

Originally Posted By: Spatch

Do you understand that?

I never claimed that there was no MWP. My argument is that the MWP was not warmer globally than the current temps.

The operative word here is Globally.

And this is important to understand as well.

Some of the graphs show that at different locations and at different times in the past the temps were similar (Or Higher) to modern temps.



See my additions in bold. Please elaborate, because all of the graphs show the same trend and many of them show higher temps than modern records show. By all means enilighten me. I have asked you to pro
Originally Posted By: Spatch

At different times in the past the graphs show regional hot spots. You cannot then add them all together and say the MWP was warmer globally than today because you are not using the exact same time period for each regional hot spot.

Do you understand that?


Lol, but you accept the temp records derived from ice core proxies no?

Once again, the website has provided the evidence available that indicates a MWP did in fact exist in an easy to access grpah showing where the proxies were gathered. They then provide links to the journals in question, thus closing the information loop.

Please provide the evidence to back up your own claims and then maybe you might be taken alittle more seriously. Its preferable though, that we discuss the MWP itself rather than the credibility of a website.
Posted by: davidg

Re: Temperature trends - 02/02/2011 11:15

Originally Posted By: Mike Hauber
And does the earth being warmer or less warm than the medieval warm period actually mean anything if we want to know how much the earth will warm up due to Co2?

It is logically possible that the earth could be warmer now than MWP, and that current warmth is caused by natural factors. And it is logically possible that the earth is cooler now than the MWP, and that current warmth was still caused by Co2.


I agree, however this thread is about temperature trends. Of course AGW will be the focal point but i see no harm discussing the MWP and any possible connection to AGW theory. To ignore the past is foolish. Understanding past temp trends, (especially the extremes such as the MWP and little ice age) will go a long way to understanding our own environmental situation.
Posted by: Arnost

Re: Temperature trends - 02/02/2011 14:23

Originally Posted By: Mike Hauber
And does the earth being warmer or less warm than the medieval warm period actually mean anything if we want to know how much the earth will warm up due to Co2?

It is logically possible that the earth could be warmer now than MWP, and that current warmth is caused by natural factors. And it is logically possible that the earth is cooler now than the MWP, and that current warmth was still caused by Co2.


Cheers! smile
Posted by: Arnost

Re: Temperature trends - 02/02/2011 14:30

Originally Posted By: Spatch
Originally Posted By: Mike Hauber
And does the earth being warmer or less warm than the medieval warm period actually mean anything if we want to know how much the earth will warm up due to Co2?

It is logically possible that the earth could be warmer now than MWP, and that current warmth is caused by natural factors. And it is logically possible that the earth is cooler now than the MWP, and that current warmth was still caused by Co2.


The problem is that some sceptics use the claim that the MWP was warmer than current conditions as evidence that the recent warming is not unusual and hence must be natural, not man-made.





The problem is not what you say - but is that the MBH 98/99 vintage Hockey Sticks deny the MWP/LIA temp variations, and the flat trend is then pushed at the policy makers as "proof" that the current temps are not just the hottest in the last millenia - but way beyond any normal variation... which is flat out dishonest.

cheers
Posted by: SGB

Re: Temperature trends - 03/02/2011 10:27

Huge drop in UAH Global Temperatures to -0.01, though not completely unexpected for anyone following the AMSU site at 600mb which has been showing January running consistently below the running average.

AMSU
UAH Global Temperatures
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 03/02/2011 11:01

The UAH temp of -0.01 is warmer than the value of -0.04 I predicted based on the normal response to a strong cooling ENSO cycle, and a Co2 warming trend equal to that predicted by the IPCC. It is 0.3 degrees warmer than January 2008 which was a similar significant La Nina, and at which stage many loudly celebrated the cooling over the 12 months from Jan 07 to Jan 08, and confidently predicted further cooling.

Since that month, every single month has been warmer.

Most ENSO events have the peak impact on temperatures in January, so on that pattern we should see warming slowly resume from February. The 97/98 El Nino was an exception with strong heating peaking in April, and after that peak the following 98/99 La Nina took until June to reach a minimum temperature.

Ahead of the 09/10 El Nino all we heard from some was that the El Nino was not going to amount to anything. After the El Nino claims are then made that it was a big El Nino and the warm temperatures last year should not be counted. Ahead of the current La Nina all we heard was how it was a major La Nina and would cause strong cooling.

How long before the lack of cooling compared to previous La Ninas becomes obvious and we start hearing about how it really wasn't much of a La Nina after all?
Posted by: SGB

Re: Temperature trends - 03/02/2011 13:16

Well Mike, I guess time will tell, but with a double-dip La Niña not unfeasible as BOM's ENSO Wrap-up yesterday hinted: "The most likely outcome is for a return to neutral conditions, but there is a chance of La Niña persisting for the rest of the year." Temps could well remain at or around the 32 year running average for the entire year of 2011.

Furthermore if the primary temperature drivers of our planet are in fact the Oceans (PDO/AMO long term and La Niña/El Niño short term), secondary solar output and with lag time considered there's still plenty of room for further cooling, though how much and for how long is still uncertain.

Don't forget the 2008 La Niña came off the back of only a weak El Niño so naturally the trend down ended cooler than what we are seeing now, however if you examine both drops in response to the La Niña one can see they are almost the same so far.

You and others may be wondering why I haven't yet mentioned Co2 as a temperature driver and that is because I am a firm believer that is has absolutely no affect whatsoever on our worlds global temperatures.

For those who are interested I will post a link to a paper detailing that it is mathematically impossible to have an atmosphere Co2 greenhouse affect on Earth according to the Laws of Physics.

Link

Abstract

The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea the authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier 1824, Tyndall 1861 and Arrhenius 1896, but which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism by which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system.

According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist.

Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such a mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles clarified.

By showing that:

(a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects,

(b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet,

(c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 °C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly,

(d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately,

(e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical,

(f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.
Posted by: Spatch

Re: Temperature trends - 03/02/2011 13:22

Originally Posted By: Arnost
Originally Posted By: Spatch
Originally Posted By: Mike Hauber
And does the earth being warmer or less warm than the medieval warm period actually mean anything if we want to know how much the earth will warm up due to Co2?

It is logically possible that the earth could be warmer now than MWP, and that current warmth is caused by natural factors. And it is logically possible that the earth is cooler now than the MWP, and that current warmth was still caused by Co2.


The problem is that some sceptics use the claim that the MWP was warmer than current conditions as evidence that the recent warming is not unusual and hence must be natural, not man-made.





The problem is not what you say - but is that the MBH 98/99 vintage Hockey Sticks deny the MWP/LIA temp variations, and the flat trend is then pushed at the policy makers as "proof" that the current temps are not just the hottest in the last millenia - but way beyond any normal variation... which is flat out dishonest.

cheers


Your accusation of dishonesty is way out of line in my opinion.

You need to back up your accusation with hard evidence that there was any dishonesty in order to be credible.

I won't enter into any debate on the hockey stick issue.

Instead I recommend reading this article and following up on the references supplied at the end of the article to get the complete story.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy
Posted by: Spatch

Re: Temperature trends - 03/02/2011 13:36

Originally Posted By: SGB
Well Mike, I guess time will tell, but with a double-dip La Niña not unfeasible as BOM's ENSO Wrap-up yesterday hinted: "The most likely outcome is for a return to neutral conditions, but there is a chance of La Niña persisting for the rest of the year." Temps could well remain at or around the 32 year running average for the entire year of 2011.

Furthermore if the primary temperature drivers of our planet are in fact the Oceans (PDO/AMO long term and La Niña/El Niño short term), secondary solar output and with lag time considered there's still plenty of room for further cooling, though how much and for how long is still uncertain.

Don't forget the 2008 La Niña came off the back of only a weak El Niño so naturally the trend down ended cooler than what we are seeing now, however if you examine both drops in response to the La Niña one can see they are almost the same so far.

You and others may be wondering why I haven't yet mentioned Co2 as a temperature driver and that is because I am a firm believer that is has absolutely no affect whatsoever on our worlds global temperatures.

For those who are interested I will post a link to a paper detailing that it is mathematically impossible to have an atmosphere Co2 greenhouse affect on Earth according to the Laws of Physics.

Link

Abstract

The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea the authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier 1824, Tyndall 1861 and Arrhenius 1896, but which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism by which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system.

According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist.

Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such a mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles clarified.

By showing that:

(a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects,

(b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet,

(c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 °C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly,

(d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately,

(e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical,

(f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.


And here's a link to another paper.

COMMENT ON "FALSIFICATION OF THE ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GREENHOUSE EFFECTS WITHIN THE FRAME OF PHYSICS"

Abstract:

In this journal, Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner claim to have falsified the existence of an atmospheric greenhouse effect.1

Here, we show that their methods, logic, and conclusions are in error.

Their most significant errors include trying to apply the Clausius statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics to only one side of a heat transfer process rather than the entire process, and systematically ignoring most non-radiative heat flows applicable to the Earth's surface and atmosphere.

They claim that radiative heat transfer from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface is forbidden, ignoring the larger transfer in the other direction which makes the complete process allowed. Further, by ignoring heat capacity and non-radiative heat flows, they claim that radiative balance requires that the surface cool by 100 K or more at night, an obvious absurdity induced by an unphysical assumption.

This comment concentrates on these two major points, while also taking note of some of Gerlich and Tscheuschner's other errors and misunderstandings.

http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb/24/2410/S021797921005555X.html

http://climatephysicsforums.com/topic/3292392/1/
Posted by: Seina

Re: Temperature trends - 03/02/2011 13:37

Originally Posted By: Mike Hauber
And does the earth being warmer or less warm than the medieval warm period actually mean anything if we want to know how much the earth will warm up due to Co2?

I do not believe it is causally relevant unless we have hard facts about the underlying causes of the medieval warming period. Drawing comparisons between how warm or cool a particular period is in relation to another without justifying why the comparisons are admissible can potentially be misleading.

I am not 100% sure the MWP was a global phenomenon.
Posted by: Spatch

Re: Temperature trends - 03/02/2011 13:56

Originally Posted By: davidg
Originally Posted By: Spatch

You claimed that there was a global medieval warm period (as warm if not warmer than current) and used that website with the graphs as evidence.


Sigh. I never claimed there was a MWP, i just wanted to discuss it. The authors of the studies from which those graphs were pulled made their summations based on the evidence presented in their findings. I think there is a lot of evidence to indicate that there was but I wouldnt say I'm 100% convinced as of yet. There are many scientitsts who deny the existence of the MWP and some who claim it dissproves AGW theory. I would say both are emotionally motivated.

Originally Posted By: Spatch

I have shown that that website cannot be used as evidence that the MWP was as warm [globally] if not warmer, than current temps.


No you didnt, you just said that and then provide no evidence to the contrary. Also the website just provides readers with a collection of evidence based, peer reveiwed journal articles that can be easily accessed by those seeking more information. You're the one who is attempting to discredit the website authors for claims they never even made. The heading reads "The MWP: A global phenomenon" for which it was. The heading isnt "The MWP: Proof that the entire earth was as warm as today" or "MWP: Debunks the AGW myth". You are supposed to read the articles and make your own mind up. Obviously the website authors beleive it was the case but thats just their opinion. They let the facts contained in the documents linked to do the talking.

Originally Posted By: Spatch

Do you understand that?

I never claimed that there was no MWP. My argument is that the MWP was not warmer globally than the current temps.

The operative word here is Globally.

And this is important to understand as well.

Some of the graphs show that at different locations and at different times in the past the temps were similar (Or Higher) to modern temps.



See my additions in bold. Please elaborate, because all of the graphs show the same trend and many of them show higher temps than modern records show. By all means enilighten me. I have asked you to pro
Originally Posted By: Spatch

At different times in the past the graphs show regional hot spots. You cannot then add them all together and say the MWP was warmer globally than today because you are not using the exact same time period for each regional hot spot.

Do you understand that?


Lol, but you accept the temp records derived from ice core proxies no?

Once again, the website has provided the evidence available that indicates a MWP did in fact exist in an easy to access grpah showing where the proxies were gathered. They then provide links to the journals in question, thus closing the information loop.

Please provide the evidence to back up your own claims and then maybe you might be taken alittle more seriously. Its preferable though, that we discuss the MWP itself rather than the credibility of a website.


Ok, so you'd like to discuss the MWP. I posted this paper earlier in this thread but you may not have read it. I recommend that you do read it if you really are interested in a fascinating study of our recent climate history.

Global Signatures and Dynamical Origins of the Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Anomaly

Global temperatures are known to have varied over the past 1500 years, but the spatial patterns have remained poorly defined. We used a global climate proxy network to reconstruct surface temperature patterns over this interval. The Medieval period is found to display warmth that matches or exceeds that of the past decade in some regions, but which falls well below recent levels globally. This period is marked by a tendency for La Niña–like conditions in the tropical Pacific.
The coldest temperatures of the Little Ice Age are observed over the interval 1400 to 1700 C.E., with greatest cooling over the extratropical Northern Hemisphere continents. The patterns of temperature change imply dynamical responses of climate to natural radiative forcing changes involving El Niño and the North Atlantic Oscillation–Arctic Oscillation.

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/shared/articles/MannetalScience09.pdf
Posted by: Arnost

Re: Temperature trends - 03/02/2011 15:19

Spatch… under the umbrella of “science” to exclude inconvenient data, to draw attention away from uncertainty, and to pretend that there is unanimity when there is not, while trying to influence policy makers making multi-trillion decisions is dishonest. It would be criminally negligent if it was a pharmaceutical (or resources etc) company trying to do this...

Look - there is a range and diversity of opinion amongst professionals working in this area. Some publically support the hockey stick and the methodology, and some have reservations. For example Keith Briffa:
Quote:

I believe that they are more concerned with trying to temper their ideas so as not to "offend" Mann et al. … namely that Mann et al do most likely loose the low frequency variance in their reconstruction and they may very well be underestimating the Medieval warmth

from the climategate email (1014240346.txt)
or
Quote:
Can I just say that I am not in the MBH camp - if that be characterized by an unshakable
"belief" one way or the other , regarding the absolute magnitude of the global MWP. I
certainly believe the " medieval" period was warmer than the 18th century - the equivalence
of the warmth in the post 1900 period, and the post 1980s ,compared to the circa Medieval
times is very much still an area for much better resolution.

from
climategate]climategate email (1051638938.txt)

and
Quote:
I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards 'apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more … For the record, I do believe that the proxy data do show unusually warm conditions in recent decades. I am not sure that this unusual warming is so clear in the summer responsive data. I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years ago. I do not believe that global mean annual temperatures have simply cooled progressively over thousands of years as Mike appears to

from the
climategate email (938031546.txt)

And here’s a very recent quote by Paul Dennis (Head of Head of the Stable Isotope and Noble Gas Laboratories in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia).

Quote:
The point about the 'Hide the Decline' debate is germane to much of what we know about past climate of the last several millennia. There is a discrepancy between the modern tree ring data and the instrumental record. Assuming for the time being the instrumental record is robust then the conclusion one draws is that it is not possible to reconstruct past temperatures on the basis of tree ring data.
The 'hide the decline' graph splices together the modern temperature record and a proxy temperature curve based very largely on tree ring data. But we have direct observation that tree rings don't always respond as we might think to temperature thus shouldn't be splicing the two together without a very large sign writ large which says 'Caveat Emptor'.
This is especially so when preparing material for NGO's, policymakers etc.


From:
http://slsingh.posterous.com/41313406

And:
Quote:

This goes to the heart of the debate over whether modern temperatures and rates of climate change are unprecedented or not. I strongly suspect that in both cases the answer is a negative.

By hiding the divergence one's attention is drawn away from the uncertainties of the palaeoclimate record.


From:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/1/29/paul-dennis-on-the-trick.html#comments


To pretend that there is no doubt, to overturn 100's of years of work by people like Lamb, Brookes and others, and finally to change history... is dishonest.
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: Temperature trends - 03/02/2011 16:07

Originally Posted By: Arnost
Spatch… under the umbrella of “science” to exclude inconvenient data, to draw attention away from uncertainty, and to pretend that there is unanimity when there is not, while trying to influence policy makers making multi-trillion decisions is dishonest. It would be criminally negligent if it was a pharmaceutical (or resources etc) company trying to do this...

Look - there is a range and diversity of opinion amongst professionals working in this area. Some publically support the hockey stick and the methodology, and some have reservations.

To pretend that there is no doubt, to overturn 100's of years of work by people like Lamb, Brookes and others, and finally to change history... is dishonest.


You make an accusation of dishonesty without specifying any target. Is your accusation is against populist media sources such as 'inconvenient truth'? Then media reports routinely exclude inconvenient data, draw attention away from uncertainty etc and so you would be arguing that the media is routinely criminally negligent? I personally would love to see the media held to account for such practices, but such practices are common as mud and I think we'd have a snowball's chance in hell of seeing this happen.

Is your accusation against individual scientists? Well individual scientists seem to quite routinely promote their own point of view and minimise opposing points of view during debate. Are Hansen and Spencer criminally negligent for having points of view at the extreme ends of the climate debate? Or is one of them correct and honest, and the other criminally negligent for being wrong?

If your accusation is against reports which attempt to weigh up all sides of a scientific debate, such as the IPCC, then I don't think the accusation is fair and reasonable. Consider what the IPCC report (link) actually states:

'The ‘hockey stick’ reconstruction of Mann et al. (1999) has been the subject of several critical studies. Soon and Baliunas (2003) challenged the conclusion that the 20th century was the warmest at a hemispheric average scale. '

The IPCC openly admits that some scientists have challenged the hockey stick view, and that there is not unanimity on this issue.

'On the evidence of the previous and four new reconstructions that reach back more than 1 kyr, it is likely that the 20th century was the warmest in at least the past 1.3 kyr.'

The term 'likely' allows for some doubt. It is used to label beliefs that they consider to be true with probability above 66%, in contrast to 'very likely' which implies a probability of >90%. The IPCC openly admit that there is not certainty on this issue, and imply a probability of bewteeen 10% and 34% that they are wrong.

Another interesting aspect of what the IPCC claim is that the changes during the last few centuries can be attributed to definite natural causes and are not simply the result of internal variation:

'It is very likely that climate changes of at least the seven centuries prior to 1950 were not due to unforced variability alone. Detection and attribution studies indicate that a substantial fraction of pre-industrial NH inter-decadal temperature variability contained in reconstructions for those centuries is very likely attributable to natural external forcing. Such forcing includes episodic cooling due to known volcanic eruptions, a number of which were larger than those of the 20th century (based on evidence such as ice cores), and long-term variations in solar irradiance, such as reduced radiation during the Maunder Minimum.' (link)
Posted by: Spatch

Re: Temperature trends - 03/02/2011 16:35

Originally Posted By: Arnost
Spatch… under the umbrella of “science” to exclude inconvenient data, to draw attention away from uncertainty, and to pretend that there is unanimity when there is not, while trying to influence policy makers making multi-trillion decisions is dishonest. It would be criminally negligent if it was a pharmaceutical (or resources etc) company trying to do this...

Look - there is a range and diversity of opinion amongst professionals working in this area. Some publically support the hockey stick and the methodology, and some have reservations. For example Keith Briffa:
Quote:

I believe that they are more concerned with trying to temper their ideas so as not to "offend" Mann et al. … namely that Mann et al do most likely loose the low frequency variance in their reconstruction and they may very well be underestimating the Medieval warmth

from the climategate email (1014240346.txt)
or
Quote:
Can I just say that I am not in the MBH camp - if that be characterized by an unshakable
"belief" one way or the other , regarding the absolute magnitude of the global MWP. I
certainly believe the " medieval" period was warmer than the 18th century - the equivalence
of the warmth in the post 1900 period, and the post 1980s ,compared to the circa Medieval
times is very much still an area for much better resolution.

from
climategate]climategate email (1051638938.txt)

and
Quote:
I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards 'apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more … For the record, I do believe that the proxy data do show unusually warm conditions in recent decades. I am not sure that this unusual warming is so clear in the summer responsive data. I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years ago. I do not believe that global mean annual temperatures have simply cooled progressively over thousands of years as Mike appears to

from the
climategate email (938031546.txt)

And here’s a very recent quote by Paul Dennis (Head of Head of the Stable Isotope and Noble Gas Laboratories in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia).

Quote:
The point about the 'Hide the Decline' debate is germane to much of what we know about past climate of the last several millennia. There is a discrepancy between the modern tree ring data and the instrumental record. Assuming for the time being the instrumental record is robust then the conclusion one draws is that it is not possible to reconstruct past temperatures on the basis of tree ring data.
The 'hide the decline' graph splices together the modern temperature record and a proxy temperature curve based very largely on tree ring data. But we have direct observation that tree rings don't always respond as we might think to temperature thus shouldn't be splicing the two together without a very large sign writ large which says 'Caveat Emptor'.
This is especially so when preparing material for NGO's, policymakers etc.


From:
http://slsingh.posterous.com/41313406

And:
Quote:

This goes to the heart of the debate over whether modern temperatures and rates of climate change are unprecedented or not. I strongly suspect that in both cases the answer is a negative.

By hiding the divergence one's attention is drawn away from the uncertainties of the palaeoclimate record.


From:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/1/29/paul-dennis-on-the-trick.html#comments


To pretend that there is no doubt, to overturn 100's of years of work by people like Lamb, Brookes and others, and finally to change history... is dishonest.


A few emails taken out of context to try and construct an argument that there was wilful dishonesty is quite frankly disingenuous.

I'm bored with the sceptics continually smearing the reputations of scientists. It's tiring. If you can't debate the science without resorting to smear and falsehoods then why bother.

This is the temperature trends thread after all, not the smear the scientists thread.
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 03/02/2011 16:46

How about everyone get back on the real topic please!!!!!!!!!!!...all this last few pages is mainly rubbish not involving the topic at all!!!!!!!!!!!!
What a waste or time end energy and computer space!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: _Johnno_

Re: Temperature trends - 03/02/2011 19:39

Real topic.. I am led to believe global temps for Jan fell into the Negatives?
Posted by: ROM

Re: Temperature trends - 03/02/2011 20:18

From Dr. Roy Spencer's blog, Johnno
Dr. Roy Spencer is the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite.

UAH Update for January 2011: Global Temperatures in Freefall

He also has a graph or two on global rainfall
Posted by: Ben Sandilands

Re: Temperature trends - 03/02/2011 21:06

BD,

I agree that we are losing the true path to enlightenment in some of the recent posts, but this conflagration was ignited you might recall by truly absurd claims that all the ice core samples had in historic or is that hysteric times been massively manipulated to disguise the fact that the CO2 ppm measure pre 1900 was really 330 pmm not 280 pmm.

That fantasy has not been withdrawn. It should be.
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: Temperature trends - 03/02/2011 21:12

Coincidence or climate change?http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/43560.html
Posted by: Vlasta

Re: Temperature trends - 04/02/2011 02:35

Originally Posted By: _Johnno_
Real topic.. I am led to believe global temps for Jan fell into the Negatives?

All wrong folks , there are only two nerds about global temps , and its me and Mike
Firstly , there were 2 adjusments , how global temps are meassured .
1st one , to bring the anomoly to comparable values took place (cant remember now lol ) . That means it wont jump due to seasonal ups and downs .
2nd was that the base was changed to from 1980 - 2010 , that alone erode the january 0 anomaly ( old base would show + 0.1 )

It confuse me a lot let alone you folks
So the the january zero actually means we havent reached the 2008 nina yet , still short by 0.1 deg .
As a sceptic to global warming , no problem . I pointed out a long time ago , this nina is diffrent and global temps will drop futher in FEB . There is a much bigger lag in transfer the heat than ever before , so I bet my house that anomaly for FEb will be lower than JAN . There is 1st time for everything .
As I see it we are approaching temps equibrium
Posted by: SGB

Re: Temperature trends - 05/02/2011 15:32

Wow, check out the GFS based forecast global temp anomaly for 12th Feb... -0.4975

Link.

If these predictions up until the 12th comes off and stays down for the remainder of Feb then surely we should see a drop even further from the January value of -0.01
Posted by: Seina

Re: Temperature trends - 05/02/2011 16:57

Originally Posted By: SGB
For those who are interested I will post a link to a paper detailing that it is mathematically impossible to have an atmosphere Co2 greenhouse affect on Earth according to the Laws of Physics.

Link

I would be careful about interpreting that paper.
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 15/02/2011 20:47

Russian Winter: severe cold to invade Moscow and Eastern Europe
Posted on February 15, 2011 by Ryan Maue

Napoleon's army made its way out of Russia, his forces had been decimated.
Post by Dr. Ryan N. Maue

Throughout history, the term Russian Winter has come to explain the multitude of military failures of various invading forces into European Russia. The effects of weather and short-term climate on warfare has been recognized and studied for generations. One such campaign involved Napoleon’s march across western Russia toward Moscow in 1812. Yet, with what records survive, the winter of 1812-1813 was apparently relatively mild. Move ahead to the winter of 2010-2011, which has been relatively mild over most of Eastern Europe and Western Russia, including Moscow where the cold blasts have been short-lived. However, during this week and the next ten-days, a brutal Arctic blast is poised to engulf Scandinavia and Eastern Europe, and become even colder as it pushes eastward — crossing the Urals through Russia — beneath a powerful dome of high pressure. Daily temperature anomalies will range from 15° to 35°C below normal, which is already very cold in February. In familiar Fahrenheit: Moscow will likely see near -30°F with surrounding areas -40° to -50°F. Eastward in Central Russia and Siberia during the next several days, temperatures will likely test the -60°F range.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/15/ru...ope/#more-34075
Posted by: ROM

Re: Temperature trends - 21/02/2011 09:56

How to manufacture record global temperatures and then con a naive and biased MSM into believing it!

A good explanation on why 2010 was supposedly the hottest year ever or at least since 1998.
[ Well supposedly the hottest year in the last 100 or so. We won't mention the Medieval or Roman or Minoan or Bronze age warming periods or the other 4.5 billion years since the planet formed. ]

Which rises the question that how come with the continuous rise in supposed Anthropogenic origin CO2, if 2010 finally made it past 1998 by just by a minute and statistically null amount, just where is all this dire and continuous warming of the planet been going that we have been promised since there have been no increases in measured global temps [ according to Hansen's own data ] occurring since 1998.

From Steve Goddard's Real Science blog; Hansen’s Bogus Extrapolations
Posted by: Spatch

Re: Temperature trends - 21/02/2011 11:33

Originally Posted By: ROM
How to manufacture record global temperatures and then con a naive and biased MSM into believing it!

A good explanation on why 2010 was supposedly the hottest year ever or at least since 1998.
[ Well supposedly the hottest year in the last 100 or so. We won't mention the Medieval or Roman or Minoan or Bronze age warming periods or the other 4.5 billion years since the planet formed. ]

Which rises the question that how come with the continuous rise in supposed Anthropogenic origin CO2, if 2010 finally made it past 1998 by just by a minute and statistically null amount, just where is all this dire and continuous warming of the planet been going that we have been promised since there have been no increases in measured global temps [ according to Hansen's own data ] occurring since 1998.

From Steve Goddard's Real Science blog; Hansen’s Bogus Extrapolations


"just where is all this dire and continuous warming of the planet been going that we have been promised since there have been no increases in measured global temps [ according to Hansen's own data ] occurring since 1998."

You probably won't be alive in 2050, and definitely won't be alive in 2100. It's the folks that will be alive then that will be witness to the predicted dire consequences of Human induced Climate Change.

We've been witness to a Globe that has warmed decade after decade since the 1970's. Each decade has been warmer than the one preceding it. That is forecast to continue into the future. The rate of warming is forecast to increase as well.
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 21/02/2011 11:57

The solar downturn and ocean cycles are and will put a stop to any warming and drop temps till about 2050, before we see a solar upturn and ocean up turn once again, by then we will be wanting an upturn I would suggest!
Posted by: Blizzard

Re: Temperature trends - 21/02/2011 12:07

From a selfish point of view BD, I hope you are right, as I like my winter fronts. It should be quite easy to measure the effects of a solar downturn up this way in winter, so lets see how it pans out this winter and the next few. Stronger fronts should be on the way, I'd hope.
Posted by: Locke

Re: Temperature trends - 21/02/2011 13:57

I would be very worried if it hadn't warmed since the 1970's given both the AMO and PDO were in positive phases. The PDO has only turned negative during the past 4-5 years and the AMO still is near the peak of its positive phase.

Even given this, temperatures certainly appear to have plateaud somewhat during the past decade which is reasonably consistent with where these 2 medium term natural cycles are currently at.

Increases in temperature during since the 70's have been no greater than the temperature increases seen during the previous period when both these phases were positive. But of course why consider natural climate cycles when you can blame your fellow man and then jack up his taxes using CO2 as an excuse.

If and when carbon trading becomes widespread it will be very interesting to follow the money trail to see whose getting rich off it.
Posted by: Spatch

Re: Temperature trends - 21/02/2011 14:12

On misleading solar-climate relationship

Abstract.

A key issue of climate change is to identify the forcings and their relative contributions. Solar-climate relationship is currently the matter of a fierce debate. We address here the need for high quality observations and adequate statistical approach. A recent work by Le Mouël et al. (2010) and its companion paper by Kossobokov et al. (2010) show spectacular correlations between solar activity and meteorological parameters. We question both the data and the method used in these works. We stress 1) that correlation with solar forcing alone is meaningless unless other forcings are properly accounted and that sunspot counting is a poor indicator of solar irradiance, 2) that long series of temperature require homogenization to remove historical artefacts that affect long term variability, 3) that incorrect application of statistical tests leads to interpret as significant a signal which arises from pure random fluctuations. As a consequence, we reject the results and the conclusions of Le Mouël et al. (2010) and Kossobokov et al. (2010). We believe that our contribution bears some general interest in removing confusion from the scientific debate.

Ref:
http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/6/767/2010/cpd-6-767-2010.html

---------------

There's a great article on this paper over at RealClimate.

How easy it is to get fooled
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 21/02/2011 15:46

I see no indication that either real climate nor the abstract properly understand at all what the various solar outputs do to weather and climate.
I cannot see anything to do with anything other than cosmic rays and solar irradiance and TSI type broad brushed output and sunspot talk which don't "cut the mustard" of the huge number of solar ouput studies that have found significant, real time weather and climate relationships. And from my own research I can see that it is real, I use these connections every day and they work all the time. So don't try to fool me with your blanket approaches which hold little water. I will follow what I have researched and what solar scientists have found over the years, not met scientists & real climate folk who appear to have little understanding of the right approachs required, so it seems to me!
Posted by: Ben Sandilands

Re: Temperature trends - 21/02/2011 15:50

I think we should be factual about carbon taxes. So far, where carbon trading has been tried abroad in Europe, the schemes have been disastrous money losers, frankly, going to the races or a casino might have been a better bet and much more fun. There is no negative impact of so called environmental levies on the general Australian taxpayer because we don't have any true carbon trading schemes. The problem with electricity bills in this country is entirely the result of poorly executed privatisations and monopoly pricing. Power prices in this country are an ugly story that could have been much uglier had we had a carbon trading scheme, but that is a hypothetical, and if the record of either side of the house is any guide, there won't be one for fear of electoral repercussions.

The seriously costly price of gasoline and diesel is not influenced by any carbon trading schemes, but by supply, demand and the OPEC cartel, and undesirably anti-competitive practices in petrol retailing in Australia. And if you think that is bad, 1.3 billion people in China are engaged in their long march to a place in the economic sun, followed by 1 billion in India, over 250 million in Indonesia, and so forth.

These factors, not shonky carbon trading schemes, are the bringers of fiscal woe to all of us, and are driving the search for renewable alternatives framed by desperation rather than enlightened policy settings or climate science issues.
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 21/02/2011 16:17

At least NASA is looking more closely at solar at last with the launch of several satellites to take measurements, let's hope they look at all the outputs not just TSI and the like broad brushed outputs, and even IPCC are going to look more closely on their next report. So hopefully we can get a more balanced approach and get a lot nearer the mark at last. We shall see iof it is real balanced research or just lip- service in time anyway!
Posted by: Spatch

Re: Temperature trends - 21/02/2011 17:03

Originally Posted By: Bucketing Down(BD)
I see no indication that either real climate nor the abstract properly understand at all what the various solar outputs do to weather and climate.
I cannot see anything to do with anything other than cosmic rays and solar irradiance and TSI type broad brushed output and sunspot talk which don't "cut the mustard" of the huge number of solar ouput studies that have found significant, real time weather and climate relationships. And from my own research I can see that it is real, I use these connections every day and they work all the time. So don't try to fool me with your blanket approaches which hold little water. I will follow what I have researched and what solar scientists have found over the years, not met scientists & real climate folk who appear to have little understanding of the right approachs required, so it seems to me!


I'm not trying to fool anyone BD. The paper I presented is relevant to the debate.

If anything it is you who's playing the fool with your wild predictions of what the sun will be doing 40 years from now.

Not even NASA goes that far out into the future.

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml

-------------

Speaking of being fooled when it comes to studies of the sun's effect on climate Tamino has a great post on the subject.

Fooled Again
Posted by: ROM

Re: Temperature trends - 21/02/2011 17:55

Well, well, well!
BD is told to shut up by Spatch because he hasn't a clue as to what the sun may be doing in 40 years time.
And that Sun is something that CAN be measured and checked

But the same Spatch tells us on page 28 of this thread with absolute assurance, that
Quote:
You probably won't be alive in 2050, and definitely won't be alive in 2100. It's the folks that will be alive then that will be witness to the predicted dire consequences of Human induced Climate Change.

Amazing things those climate models
They can accurately predict climate and weather 50 years out but the Sun which we can see and measure is not at all reliable enough to base any predictions on.
Posted by: Ben Sandilands

Re: Temperature trends - 21/02/2011 19:02

BD,

It's not a case of NASA 'at last' doing something about solar. I suggest you call up a list of solar missions, and discover the continuity of research into solar and deep cosmic influences which have been the well funded preoccupation of the GISS and other research bodies for decades.

It is particularly instructive to look at how the solar research ambitions of the 70s and 80s had to wait for the necessary developments in launch systems to become a reality.

This included the development of space and complimentary terrestrial long baseline arrays capable of creating accurate images of other solar disks representing various part of the main sequence star path so that we can begin to accurately place our sun at its stage of its lifetime in collections of thousands of other similar medium sized yellow stars that are at earlier or later stages of the same sequence.

By doing this we can learn much more about the early solar influences on our planet, as well as those that will come into play in the longer time scale future.

This intensity of methodical solar research has lasted a lifetime. It isn't something that has just happened.
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 21/02/2011 19:11

Crikey BS the comment was made because at last they have put up some recent decent new solar satellites and stepped up the assult in the past few years...
because they are now more feeling that solar is more important to the climate than they and as well the IPCC originally said. Both bodies were not particularly giving solar much climate credit before in their reports that I saw anyway...but now they are...hence the "at last" comment.
Give the dog a bone and give me some credit, I have pushed solar and NASA research for ages...don't be so picky over a few words here and there.
I expected ypou of all people would have been pleased that I was congratulating them and IPCC for a bit of credit(as long as they fulfill their promise and it is not window dressing stuff) but no you have a go at me...what on earth will ever please you!!!
Posted by: Ben Sandilands

Re: Temperature trends - 21/02/2011 19:49

But BD, they have been doing it for ages. Well, longer than we have been posting on this forum.

But I think we agree that we need to keep the baaastards honest however.
Posted by: Arnost

Re: Temperature trends - 21/02/2011 23:51

Quote:
So far, where carbon trading has been tried abroad in Europe, the schemes have been disastrous money losers


No they haven't! The crims have made heaps out of them... wink

It's a well known fact that the vast majority of carbon trades are fraudulent and only the "known" bodgy trades have netted the crims billions in the last couple of years. linky
Posted by: Ben Sandilands

Re: Temperature trends - 22/02/2011 06:19

Thanks Arnost. The graphic on the link is like an expanded version of the GST avoidance schemes that are the cause of quite a few ATO investigations here in recent months. (Hint. Time for some more celebrity watching in the Federal Court.)

However there are several other wrinkles to the story. The trading schemes are almost defunct, as indicated in the story, and as far as the states are concerned, the theft is notional, in that it means the non collection of taxation revenue on activities that weren't always real. It is like saying the state didn't collect a gambling tax on bets punters never made, or made to a bookmaker who wasn't licensed and audited.

The story also puts these frauds in the same category as other trading frauds that unfortunately occur on a large scale in corporate and securities exchange trading.

In many cases, much to the frustration or ordinary taxpayers like myself, major companies get away with these frauds because they structure their affairs to minimise tax (which is legal) rather than evade it (which is illegal.)
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 23/02/2011 19:45

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/22/nycs-seasonal-snowfall-3rd-largest-on-record/#more-34549
nycs-seasonal-snowfall-3rd-largest-on-record
Posted by: SGB

Re: Temperature trends - 25/02/2011 16:20

Global temp anomalies at 600mb have finally fallen below that of 2008 for the same time that year. Link.

I wouldn't be surprised if the February anomaly ended up somewhere between -.10 and -.20
Posted by: Vlasta

Re: Temperature trends - 26/02/2011 02:01

Geeez . Spent 2 hours with global temps and finaly got rid off the old anomalies .
Facts are , after seasonal adjustmentes and new base period , JAN 2008 was -0.3 and FEB -0.25 . Still few days to go .
I learnt a lot wagering my house , so my bet was FEB to be lower than JAN and I double my bet now .
And Iam not worried we are some 0.2 deg behind 2008 , there is a lag of at least 6 months this time . Long shot , we are gonna match 2008 anomaly temps of -0.04 this year as well .
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 27/02/2011 17:55

Hard Freeze: California Wine Country
Posted on February 26, 2011 by Anthony Watts
I mentioned earlier today that my friend Jan Null, former lead forecaster for the NWS in San Francisco and now operator of Golden Gate Weather Service pointed out that a number of cold records were set overnight. Looks like we are in for a second night, and it looks even colder for some areas. Napa’s wine valley may hit 26-27 tonight. 2011 may not be a good year for wine then. We’ll see. Other grape growing areas in coastal valleys will also be affected:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/26/hard-freeze-california-wine-country/#more-34872
Posted by: Ben Sandilands

Re: Temperature trends - 28/02/2011 06:38

Vlasta,

Did removing the 'old anomalies' give you a warmer or colder result?

How did you define an 'old anomaly'?

Are there 'new anomalies' we need to be concerned about?

Just asking. I think after the recent and less recent rorts in other quarters, we need to sensitive to working over data to remove anything, but I acknowledge that there is a need to do so for technical reasons, and if you can point us toward any lay friendly papers on how this is done that would be useful.

Many thanks
Posted by: _Johnno_

Re: Temperature trends - 28/02/2011 11:40

Originally Posted By: Bucketing Down(BD)
Hard Freeze: California Wine Country
Posted on February 26, 2011 by Anthony Watts
I mentioned earlier today that my friend Jan Null, former lead forecaster for the NWS in San Francisco and now operator of Golden Gate Weather Service pointed out that a number of cold records were set overnight. Looks like we are in for a second night, and it looks even colder for some areas. Napa’s wine valley may hit 26-27 tonight. 2011 may not be a good year for wine then. We’ll see. Other grape growing areas in coastal valleys will also be affected:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/26/hard-freeze-california-wine-country/#more-34872



Snow for the 1st time in San Fransico in 35 Years
Posted by: Spatch

Re: Temperature trends - 28/02/2011 11:49

Originally Posted By: _Johnno_
Originally Posted By: Bucketing Down(BD)
Hard Freeze: California Wine Country
Posted on February 26, 2011 by Anthony Watts
I mentioned earlier today that my friend Jan Null, former lead forecaster for the NWS in San Francisco and now operator of Golden Gate Weather Service pointed out that a number of cold records were set overnight. Looks like we are in for a second night, and it looks even colder for some areas. Napa’s wine valley may hit 26-27 tonight. 2011 may not be a good year for wine then. We’ll see. Other grape growing areas in coastal valleys will also be affected:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/26/hard-freeze-california-wine-country/#more-34872



Snow for the 1st time in San Fransico in 35 Years


There was no snow in San Francisco according to this report.

San Francisco -- Snow sprinkled Bay Area foothills Saturday morning and crept within a few hundred feet of sea level. But for those dreaming of a white Frisco, dream on.

The storm sweeping south from Canada brought some record low temperatures, showers and unstable air, a formula that might have produced the first measurable snowfall on downtown San Francisco streets in 35 years.

But by the time the coldest air arrived early Saturday, the winds and rain were moving on to the Central Coast, said meteorologist Rick Canepa of the National Weather Service.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/02/27/BAQA1HVCAQ.DTL
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 28/02/2011 12:17

Snow fell overnight in the highest reaches of San Francisco, but the Bay area dodged the heavier flurries forecasters had been expecting, the weather service said on Saturday.

Northern California did experience record low temperatures overnight in several cities.

San Francisco got down to 37 degrees, which tied the previous cold weather record for this day set in 1962, said Chris Stumpf, meteorologist with the National Weather Service.

San Jose tied a record low of 33 degrees set way back in 1897, and Oakland got down to 34 degrees, breaking a record set in 1987.

"It was definitely cold enough, but it didn't have the precipitation that we needed to get any of the snow showers that we were hoping for," Stumpf said.

"It looks like it's clearing out right now, and we'll start to warm up as we go through the week," he said.

The Twin Peaks area of San Francisco, where elevations are about 900 feet above sea level, received a dusting of snow, and there were also reports of light snow in Los Gatos, a town near San Jose, and the Santa Cruz Mountains, Stumpf said.

The snowfall in San Francisco coated the ground briefly, but quickly melted. No snow was observed in downtown San Francisco and AccuWeather.com meteorologist Dave Samuhel said the dusting would not count toward official records that show the last measurable snowfall in the area 35 years ago.

In southern California, two inches of snow fell along the Grapevine section of the Golden State Freeway north of Los Angeles,
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/26/us-weather-sanfrancisco-idUSTRE71P1NH20110226
Posted by: Spatch

Re: Temperature trends - 28/02/2011 12:29

How about the weather in Perth, it's been rather hot there. I think WUWT should know about it as they like to talk about the weather.

Long hot summer nights bring new record

Perth has broken its record for the greatest number of consecutive warm nights.

The minimum overnight temperature for the Perth metropolitan area has remained above 20 degrees for 14 consecutive nights, breaking the last record set in 1990.

There have also been 21 consecutive days of temperatures over 30 degrees.

http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/long-hot-summer-nights-bring-new-record/16645

---------------

Perth enduring second hottest summer on record

Perth has been sweltering in its hottest summer in 33 years and second hottest summer in more than 110 years of records, according to weatherzone.com.au.

"It's virtually a certainty with the rest of the month staying well above 20 degrees at night and rising to the mid 30s every day," weatherzone meteorologist Brett Dutschke said.

The summer maximum will average at just under 32 degrees, about two degrees hotter than the long-term norm and the highest in 33 years.

The summer average minimum will turn out to be 19 degrees, one and a half degrees warmer than the long-term norm and the highest in 19 years.

Combining nighttime minimums and daytime maximums, the average temperature will come out at 25.4 degrees, the highest since the summer of 1977/1978 and second highest on record.

http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/perth-enduring-second-hottest-summer-on-record/16609
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 28/02/2011 12:46

That is all to be expected in Perth with very strong la nina, hotter than normal ocean temps off coast and lot of TC's bringing warm to hot atmosphere down over them...Nothing at all to do with global Co2 warming.
Meanwhile...Coolest summer we have had here for a long time. We have clover shot and mushrooms up already in late Feb...unheard of! vegies and tomatoes could do with a lot more heat to ripen up also!
Posted by: Vlasta

Re: Temperature trends - 28/02/2011 17:08

Originally Posted By: Ben Sandilands
Vlasta,

Did removing the 'old anomalies' give you a warmer or colder result?

How did you define an 'old anomaly'?

Are there 'new anomalies' we need to be concerned about?

Just asking. I think after the recent and less recent rorts in other quarters, we need to sensitive to working over data to remove anything, but I acknowledge that there is a need to do so for technical reasons, and if you can point us toward any lay friendly papers on how this is done that would be useful.

Many thanks


Ben
Very difficult as I would have to post at least 6 links and its so confusing even for a temperature nerd like me .

Actually its worse than I thought !!
Comparing past GISS and CRU anomalies versus satelite we find that they are 0.1 - 0.2 higher , as one would expect .

I happen to have Dr R Spencer's seasonal adjustments ( in the end it doesnt change year temps , only brings anomaly to almost same value every month )
JAN is -0.15 plus new 1980-2010 base adds another -0.1 , so without that satelite anomaly would be for JAN + 0.25 !! insted of posted 0.0 !! See Ben I lied I will never get old anomalies out of my head . LOL
How come , CRU anomaly was lower at 0.194 . They forgot about the adjustments .
FEB is currently running at +0.09 , there is largest seasonal adjustment to satelite temps of -0.18 , plus minus 0.1 (new base) and we should end up -0.2 ( still behind FEB 2008 of -0.25 ) It will be very interesting and Iam dying to see what GISS and CRU will come up with .
Frankly they will have to go into negatives as well.
I hope this is understandable
Posted by: Petros

Re: Temperature trends - 28/02/2011 18:11

Originally Posted By: Ben Sandilands
.............The problem with electricity bills in this country is entirely the result of poorly executed privatisations and monopoly pricing........


You are SO WRONG there Ben. Using the Victorian power stations (cant use NSW because they are still owned by the government), there is virtually no pricing power achievable by the generators to date.

In fact they have been burnt by Kennets models of $70 per MWHR by mid 2000's. Have a look at the AEMO site, you will see that system marginal prices are in the high $20's even now!!!
Posted by: Ben Sandilands

Re: Temperature trends - 28/02/2011 18:47

Vlasta,

Thanks for the reply. Very keen to see how the next months turn out as the winter usually ends in March in the northern world.

Petros,

The privatisations also include the sale of distribution rights, and the likes of Integral Energy have been forthright in linking their capital costs to the never ending (it seems) series of increases. I dread the actual sale in NSW of the plants, however we are in the unusual ideological position of having the incoming conservative coalition promising not to privatise and the outgoing (I think) Labor administration being dragged kicking and whimpering to the inevitable rejection of that process. The extra charges consumers are paying for their power are of enormous concern pending a carbon price, and it is intriguing today to see the opposite spins at work, one claiming that without a carbon price their will be no reinvestment, no efficiencies and even higher prices, and that other claiming precisely the same outcomes with a carbon price.
Posted by: Petros

Re: Temperature trends - 28/02/2011 19:11

Originally Posted By: Ben Sandilands
Vlasta,

Thanks for the reply. Very keen to see how the next months turn out as the winter usually ends in March in the northern world.

Petros,

The privatisations also include the sale of distribution rights, and the likes of Integral Energy have been forthright in linking their capital costs to the never ending (it seems) series of increases. I dread the actual sale in NSW of the plants, however we are in the unusual ideological position of having the incoming conservative coalition promising not to privatise and the outgoing (I think) Labor administration being dragged kicking and whimpering to the inevitable rejection of that process. The extra charges consumers are paying for their power are of enormous concern pending a carbon price, and it is intriguing today to see the opposite spins at work, one claiming that without a carbon price their will be no reinvestment, no efficiencies and even higher prices, and that other claiming precisely the same outcomes with a carbon price.


... and about your monopoly pricing statement????
Posted by: Ben Sandilands

Re: Temperature trends - 28/02/2011 19:29

I have a choice of one supplier where I live, and my power bill has come within $100 of doubling in 18 months, including a processing fee of $48 a quarter. Or is that a Jonathan Cleese 'fee' fee. Or Fifi!
Posted by: _Johnno_

Re: Temperature trends - 28/02/2011 20:00

Yeah clover all over the lawns here you think it was September or October
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: Temperature trends - 28/02/2011 21:45

Yes Johnno, and I noticed some Capeweed and winter-grass the other day? Very very early for these weeds. Out comes the pre-emergent...
Posted by: __PG__

Re: Temperature trends - 01/03/2011 12:10

BoM 2010 Annual Climate Statement is online
Posted by: Spatch

Re: Temperature trends - 05/03/2011 12:22


A common sceptic talking point is that warming has stopped during the last decade.

Analyzing Temperatures over Recent Years

Another common argument is that global temperatures have leveled-off over the past decade, or that there has been no global warming since 2000. It is true that a linear trend fit over just the past 10 years of data shows little to no warming, but this argument is somewhat misleading.

Climate change is a multi-decadal phenomenon, and short-term temperatures are strongly affected by natural variability.

To best assess if the warming over the past 40 years has continued into the most recent decade, analysts can do a simple test: Calculate the trend in temperatures for the period from 1970 to 2000, and use it to predict what temperatures over the last decade would be expected to have been prior to actually knowing them.

Reviewing actual temperatures from 2001 to 2010 indicates how the trend changes. If the 1970-2010 trend is higher than the 1970 to 2000 trend, then the last decade was warmer than expected.



The figure above shows global land temperatures from 1970-2000 (in black) and 1970-2010 (in red), with the trends for both. The results show clearly that global land temperatures over the past decade were considerably warmer than would have been expected given the prior temperature record.



Ocean temperatures over the past decade have been pretty much consistent with the prior temperature trend, with similar variability as seen in the past.




Combining both land and ocean temperatures shows that global temperatures over the past decade have been warming slightly faster than would otherwise have been expected given the prior temperature trend. This analysis should help put to rest spurious arguments that global warming somehow “stopped” over the past decade. The more interesting questions are how variability over the last decade compares to past variability, and how consistent recent temperatures have been with climate model projections.

Both of those questions are current areas of focus for the climate science community.

Link
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 05/03/2011 13:39





Plus, should be tagged [El Nino Warming} fpr late 2009-2010

End of highest solar output in 1,000years around 2000 approx and big solar slowdown commencing after that, with lag so effects still much larger to come = end of global warming period!
Posted by: mobihci

Re: Temperature trends - 05/03/2011 21:52

Originally Posted By: Spatch

A common sceptic talking point is that warming has stopped during the last decade.

Analyzing Temperatures over Recent Years

Another common argument is that global temperatures have leveled-off over the past decade, or that there has been no global warming since 2000. It is true that a linear trend fit over just the past 10 years of data shows little to no warming, but this argument is somewhat misleading.

Climate change is a multi-decadal phenomenon, and short-term temperatures are strongly affected by natural variability.

To best assess if the warming over the past 40 years has continued into the most recent decade, analysts can do a simple test: Calculate the trend in temperatures for the period from 1970 to 2000, and use it to predict what temperatures over the last decade would be expected to have been prior to actually knowing them.

Reviewing actual temperatures from 2001 to 2010 indicates how the trend changes. If the 1970-2010 trend is higher than the 1970 to 2000 trend, then the last decade was warmer than expected.



The figure above shows global land temperatures from 1970-2000 (in black) and 1970-2010 (in red), with the trends for both. The results show clearly that global land temperatures over the past decade were considerably warmer than would have been expected given the prior temperature record.



Ocean temperatures over the past decade have been pretty much consistent with the prior temperature trend, with similar variability as seen in the past.




Combining both land and ocean temperatures shows that global temperatures over the past decade have been warming slightly faster than would otherwise have been expected given the prior temperature trend. This analysis should help put to rest spurious arguments that global warming somehow “stopped” over the past decade. The more interesting questions are how variability over the last decade compares to past variability, and how consistent recent temperatures have been with climate model projections.

Both of those questions are current areas of focus for the climate science community.

Link









sceptics use the last decade is cooling line to make reference to the stupidity of saying that the previous 30 years were unusual.

the cherry picking award would have to go to the agw believers. nowhere in any field has there been such misrepresentation of the history of our climate than with last 40 years warming crap, except maybe the hockeystick, the extended version of the propaganda.

the way i look at it, the record started with satellite data, and even that is not rock solid evidence for anything.

the satellite data is most important because it our current best technology.

the ground stations are important for a semi formal comparison, and this must be over the whole dataset, not this 30 year crap which do not even cover one pdo cycle.

the proxy data is important for a semi formal comparison, and this must be over many different proxy data types/sets.

too much weight has been put on obviously inaccurate and incomplete data sets of ground stations. they are what they were meant for, a guide for the current weather, not for sensing some fraction of a degree or some other crap, and fractions are what would be needed to claim some sort of average. i mean here we are worried about 0.6degc when the stations themselves have 0.5 deg error margins, and the product of temps for averages etc require another order of accuracy ie +/-0.01degc. yeah right!!

it doesnt get any better with LOTS of stations either. its all passed off as numbers will smooth out the inaccuracies, but this is just crap when stations are used to adjust others. inaccuracy GROWS, not shrinks. error margins must be multiplied with the numbers, yet i dont see a temp data set with a +/- 2.5deg which is what should be presented.

all we get is this cherry picked crap with tight error margins and ridiculous conclusions.

the current temps show no semblance to the climate model outputs, all one has to do to see this is to compare the satellite record with ANY of the climate models. not only the ones that were meant to be with todays co2 levels, but the models still get the NO increase in co2 level HIGHER than the reality, how pathetically wrong is that? not just wrong by a fraction, wrong by the WHOLE amount of warming for the last 150 years.

spatch, why dont you try and actually address something here instead of just passing it by. lets talk about why you believe the models are accurate in their predictions, when they so obvioously are not. i am interested to hear, lets start with what they actually predicted with co2 continuing the way it was prediction.
Posted by: Ben Sandilands

Re: Temperature trends - 06/03/2011 06:57

I think the 'crap' reference to tenths of a degree touches on an important failing in the current discussion, in that it is obsessed even meticulously and learnedly obsessed with the micro end of things.

If we turn to the macro scale I think matters are much less subtle.

The macro end is the retreat and even disappearance of substantial glaciation in a world in which the micro trend says cooler, but the large scale human experience says less ice.

The macro end of the discussion has to try and reconcile disappearing permafrost with what are in some parts of this discussion claimed to be clear and imminent signs of a new ice age now.

The macro end is really annoying too, in that the glacial response to cooling, which is behaving as though warming is taking place, has been, astonishingly, accompanied by core ice temperatures rising above freezing point. No matter whether the glaciation is in a high precipitation zone, or an arid zone, outside of the southern polar extremes, where warming has to go a very long way before it even reaches 0C in super cool ice masses.

Reconciling the macro and micro scale changes could be compared to the differences between quantum scale physics and large scale Newtonian physics. Not actually a robust comparison at all, but one that might work at a lay reader level for a short period.
Posted by: mobihci

Re: Temperature trends - 06/03/2011 10:27

no ben, that macro scale is still micro. considering the cycles the arctic and antarctic have gone through in the past, the time scales are micro, and there is nothing to say they didnt happen that way in the past. all there is to say is the empirical evidence in things like the vikings setting up shop in greenland. there can be no less truth than that.

cherry picking the data of eg the arctic to prove a point about the warming world is exactly what i was referring to before. you must ignore the context and just center on one little item that could really be from anything.

the glacier retreats etc are showing NO sign of increased rate of melt over times when co2 could not be even considered, so they are meaningless for this discussion on how co2 affects temperatures. the empirical evidence here once again shows that no matter the scale, the effect of the increased co2 is virtually nil.

the combination of natural warming and the claimed warming from co2 is just as deceptive a trick as the deliberate cherry picking. this trick continues to be used in nearly every presentation (not scientific). its just an insult to everyones intelligence.

one would think that this trick would stop once talking to people whom obviously already know the trick, yet it continues unabated. its either an insult, or believed to be the best way to defend the undefendable, and still an insult.
Posted by: Ben Sandilands

Re: Temperature trends - 06/03/2011 11:07

Not sure I completely follow, but I will try to. (Weekend distractions). I wasn't even thinking about the AGW inputs, just the glaring discrepancy in the macro world we readily observe with the micro scale changes that you I think correctly pointed too.

They are moving away from each other, not towards. For whatever reasons. It is really difficult to ignore deglaciation and loss of permafrost on such a broad scale. Even if I was convinced that fossil carbon release somewhat suspended the effects of carbon that we see (and benefit from) in the natural world, I would want to know why there is an inverse relationship between deglaciation and permafrost disappearance and a cooling trend.

When that discrepancy is explained, we will learn something. What we will learn, I don't know, but in its true form, that is what science is for. One thing that fascinates me, as a journalist, is the gradual emergence in the public mind of 'exceptions' that do not fit comfortably with perceived or accepted wisdom. Eventually they have to be dealt with, and I really don't have any enthusiasm for seeing them as debating points, or as a cause for regarding the scientific questions as being settled in any way.

Yes, I think AGW is real and needs to be addressed, but through technology not ideological social engineering. But do I want to be right about AGW? No way.

To me this is about coping with unpleasant reality. In some quarters, an exaggerated reality too, but nevertheless one that is important when all the false information and cultural warfare is put aside.
Posted by: Seina

Re: Temperature trends - 06/03/2011 14:10

I don’t see what’s so exciting about quoting or picking up on exaggerated claims…if you know that an exaggerated claim, whether it supports the idea of a coming ice age or coming global warming catastrophe, is made, why pay any attention to it? Why even mentioned it when it’s not relevant to the science?

In other words, if an exaggerated claim with reference to either one of the above scenarios is made, ignore it! It’s that simple!
Posted by: Ben Sandilands

Re: Temperature trends - 06/03/2011 14:51

I agree but the problem with exaggerated claims from any direction is that they tend to be the fuel of public debate. I'd also agree that the media can minimise this to some extent if it collectively or unanimously wants to. There are some writers who do, just as there are some public figures that take a more measured approach, but they are in a minority and probably will be until it is realised by the public that the more extreme pro and anti claims have failed to come about, and the seas haven't frozen and sky hasn't fallen.

Climate change, like other controversial issues, is a lightning rod for cultural warfare. But even by resisting the attachment of all sorts of 'other' issues to climate arguments involves by some measure engaging in cultural hostilities just by saying they are in error. Not a good look.
Posted by: mobihci

Re: Temperature trends - 06/03/2011 22:00

first off, i dont believe you were 'not thinking of agw inputs', and any sane person can work that out. to continue down that path of play dumb, is just the continuing insult. why dont you just talk to the person and relate in a direct manner instead of speaking as if the person has no brain? or is it just that you wish to continue with the insults?

second, as i said the macro issue is not what you claim it to be, so address that, not what you seem to want me to believe is our macro view of the world. ie 30 years.
Posted by: Ben Sandilands

Re: Temperature trends - 07/03/2011 06:49

mobihci,

If you have to invent what I was thinking to fit your agenda you are lacking credibility. Play the science, not the person. Re-reading your earlier responses you even had to try and re-invent 'macro' to fit in with the difference between large scale and small scale weather metrics. And it was something you raised!

PS I don't want you to believe anything. I thought you had raised an interesting point about micro scale events.
Posted by: mobihci

Re: Temperature trends - 07/03/2011 21:05

fine ben, i didnt expect much more form you than that reply. my guess is that others will have followed the previous posts and will expect that too.

first, you did not think i raised an interesting point about micro scale events, i was talking about temperature trends, and specifically regarding co2 (read my post). your REPLY to MY post was a very poor attempted attack on what you perceive as the sceptics reasoning. but, as i pointed out in my reply (the empirical evidence of the vikings farming in greenland), you failed, which shows the failed reasoning of YOUR argument. instead of addressing this, you just attack me for bringing the truth forth, as usual.

playing the science is what i want here. why not address the science which would be the failure of the models, predictions, theory that is agw. i would love to actually hear some defence for a change instead of the ignore, deceive and play dumb sequence played over and over.

answer some questions that sceptics ask instead of your own questions.

you know that simple logic dictates that when models fail as they have, they need to be revised, not sold better, yet here we are in a world where instead of dealing with the models inaccuracies (such as with the previous natural change in arctic sea ice), we get an answer about how much different it looks today! could be dirty, thin, less, reducing faster etc etc, but sure enough it is being sold instead of be dealt with in a scientific fashion.
Posted by: Ben Sandilands

Re: Temperature trends - 07/03/2011 21:45

mobihci

You seem to be retreating from your original post on this, which I thought was very interesting.

There is a discrepancy between the small and large scale metrics. So long as the world deglaciates and the permafrost retreats we have a discrepancy between a cooling world and one where ice melts on a geographical scale that contradicts the cooling trend.

Why?

Here's hoping for a cold and snowy winter.
Posted by: davidg

Re: Temperature trends - 07/03/2011 22:51

The world has reached somewhat of a plateu in temp and has started to slowly decline. Your grasp on basic chemistry and physics must be pretty weak if you cant understand why that doesnt automatically translate into advancing glaciers. Let me put it in terms you might understand because this has been explained several times in this thread alone.

If the freezer door is left open, the ice inside will begin to melt. This is because the temperature went up. Once the door is closed, the temperature will begin to go down again, BUT(and read this carefully!), the melt water will not turn into ice again until it reaches a temp < 0c. I know it may sound complicated but its all true, i learnt it at primary school.

Now that weve got the basics down, explain to me again why we should expect to see glaciers advancing during an interglacial period? Also, maybe some other questions put to you from previous posters might remain unanswered.
Posted by: Bill Illis

Re: Temperature trends - 07/03/2011 23:31


If you want to see another view of the temperature trends, let's use a technique which is often used in climate science, detrending - removing a linear trend so that one can see the cycles easier (or to remove what might be the global warming trend).

The linear trend of the monthly Hadcrut3 temperature series (back to 1871 because that is the date the ocean cycle data becomes reliable, earlier it is not).

http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/8678/hadcrut3trend.png




Now we remove the trend and we see a nice up and down cycle in the climate. At this point, the data could be described as this cycle imposed on an uptrend trend of 0.053C per decade (only one-quarter of the trend expected for the current time according to the IPCC).

http://img853.imageshack.us/img853/2091/hadcrut3detrended.png



This detrended line looks awfully like the AMO. Too close to be a coincidence. Now I'm using monthly data here so there is much more varariation in the numbers than the standard smoothed or annual numbers used by everyone. I always use the highest resolution data available so that more information is available and important variability is not lost.

http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/9449/hacrut3detrendedandthea.png



But I can get an even better match with the biggest, fastest ocean current regions on the planet, including the ENSO. Don't forget to look at 1877-78.

http://img121.imageshack.us/img121/5443/hadcrut3detrallcycles.png




So Hadcrut3 can be described as a linear trend of 0.053C per decade with a number of up and down ocean cycles imposed on it.

The last 20 years warming trend is really an up cycle in these ocean currents which are now trending down. The January ocean cycle number is bang on the Hadcrut3 detrended line which means there has been no acceleration in the 0.053C per decade trend over time.
Posted by: Arnost

Re: Temperature trends - 08/03/2011 00:30

Thanks Bill... That's a pretty tight fit.

As you say, getting as granular information as possible is critical - and hence my signature line... For example, what's happening from the late1940's through the 50's - where there wasn't any significnat tropical volcanic activity is a pointer to the next most important driver of the temp variability.

It is an interesting exercise to remove the AMO and ENSO as what you then have left is a solar signature. That 50's discrepancy is the giveaway and can be used as a scalar.

The big takeout though is that replicating the temps does not require adjustment for soot and other non volcanic aerosols. It is another reason why the models are suspect and very probably overestimate climate sensitivity to CO2.

Good stuff.
Posted by: Ben Sandilands

Re: Temperature trends - 08/03/2011 07:14

davidg,

The sensitivity of glaciers to positive ice accumulation is as immediate as the response of the snow and ice mass to the mechanics of glacial deformation and movement.

However the sensitivity of permafrost is even faster. There is no signal whatsoever of permafrost reclamation or recovery. At the moment the prediction that there is a lag in the cooling trend taking effect on glacial and periglacial is wrong because the core temperature of the melting ice masses has not fallen to freezing pooint. It has continued to rise. Which is why they are melting.

It is this really, really obvious consequences of warmer glacial or indeed former glacial environments on snow and ice accumulation and stability that we have to deal with.

The current discussion is not dealing with it

This is the question no-one has answered or reconciled. The response seems to be to ask me to answer different questions. I am a lay person asking the blinding obvious.

Why are the glaciers and permafrost retreating or disappearing?

(Similarly, where have our cold and snowy winters in the previously cold and snowy parts of Australia gone. I'm betting we will see something of a revival this winter. That isn't an answer but a hope.)
Posted by: davidg

Re: Temperature trends - 08/03/2011 07:48

I dont know whether you're simply baiting or genuinely asking but ill go again. The reason they are still retreating or disappering is because global temps have not dropped far enough to see the advancement of glacial ice and perma frost. Unless global temps drop further i doubt we will see any increase in glaciers and ice, especially in tropical and sub tropical zones. Im not saying we should be seeing the advancement of glaciers, that seems to defy logic considering we are still coming out of an ice age and are still well within the Holocene interglacial period and arguably still within the climate optimum. The question has been given the same response over and over again yet you continue to claim no-one has answered it. Unless you have something else to add i think its pointless continually repeating oneself
Posted by: davidg

Re: Temperature trends - 08/03/2011 08:28

Nice stuff Bill, just one thing i need to ask as its been playing on my mind for years.

Global temps were at a time around the 1880's (according to Hadcrut) up to -0.8c below the global “average”. What might be the reason for this large anomaly?
Posted by: Ben Sandilands

Re: Temperature trends - 08/03/2011 08:47

davidg,

The reason for persisting with the question (and I broadly agree with your answer) is that somewhat over-the-top claims are continually made in this forum that there is an imminent risk of an ice age, that the world should be preparing for this not dealing with global warming, and that the evidence lies in record breaking cold events that are killing people on a large scale.

Those claims suffered in my opinion from the same hyperbole that afflicts the extreme warmistas, who I also have no time for.

They also go back to false but never retracted claims about massive snowfalls in the high Sierra on October 13 2009 and flying magnetometer measurements of ice tens of metres thick in an extensive layer between Greenland and Iceland. All of it fictional.

As a reporter I accept as justified the critcisms of the media for exaggerating warming, and giving unquestioning support to scientists or political figures seeking to leverage warming hysteria.

However that same hysteria is apparent in this forum from the opposite direction.

As you rightly point out, we are dealing with trends and very small changes in temperature, that would indeed over time, become important. No argument with that, other than to note that if they continue to be cyclical and are substantially linked to solar (which is also a point I agree with) they will not be of any comfort in dealing with underlying increases caused by the large scale and persistent release of fossil sourced carbon.

Hyperbole has derailed the sensible public discussion of these issues. And I would argue that more of the blame lies with the warmistas than the coldistas.

But hyperbole needs to be resisted.

Every time someone suggests that the cooling trend puts us in imminent danger of an ice age, I think it important to point to continued deglaciation and loss of permafrost.

I do read your replies and the very thoughtful concerns voiced by others on this forum, and do appreicate them.
Posted by: davidg

Re: Temperature trends - 08/03/2011 09:52

I agree with your points surrounding hyperbole but I’m not sure anyone is saying that we are definitely heading for another ice age. I think all some people have said (and correct me if I’m wrong) is that with all the hype surrounding Global warming, if the earth does suddenly cool due to decreased solar activity coupled with, as Bill has pointed out, a possibly imminent drop in the AMO, it could have very real effects on global food production. As this is closely tied with temperature trends I think it’s a fair point to make. If we are pouring all our time and money and energy into one basket (i.e. coping with “AGW”) then we may be caught unawares. This is the why having such a large proportion of climate research tied up with the AGW cavalcade may prove to be foolish in time. It gives less scope to the research being produced, by extension we then run the risk of being caught with our pants down. Whilst the analogy may be light hearted, it would have very real effects for billions of people living day to day.
Posted by: __PG__

Re: Temperature trends - 08/03/2011 10:16

February 2010 saw an equal-record low for Arctic Ice extent, it ties with Feburary 2005 (link)
Posted by: Keith

Re: Temperature trends - 08/03/2011 10:28

Bill or Arnost, do either of you have a link to the Hadcrut data?

Thanks
Posted by: Coxy

Re: Temperature trends - 08/03/2011 11:15

Originally Posted By: Bill Illis


The linear trend of the monthly Hadcrut3 temperature series (back to 1871 because that is the date the ocean cycle data becomes reliable, earlier it is not).

http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/8678/hadcrut3trend.png




http://img853.imageshack.us/img853/2091/hadcrut3detrended.png





How come the detrended data seems to start "warmer" than the trended one? I'm not clear how that works.

eg, the early sections are between 0.0 and -0.6 with a spike at around 0.4 in the Trended graph. Yet in the untrended, the early sections are between 0.5 and -0.1 with a spike at 0.8.

How does removing the trend line modify the underlying data and plot points on the graph?
Posted by: Arnost

Re: Temperature trends - 08/03/2011 11:16

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/index.html

Go through the Time Series data files...
Posted by: Bill Illis

Re: Temperature trends - 08/03/2011 11:31

Originally Posted By: davidg
... just one thing i need to ask as its been playing on my mind for years.

Global temps were at a time around the 1880's (according to Hadcrut) up to -0.8c below the global “average”. What might be the reason for this large anomaly?



The big drop was December 1892 to February 1893.

There is no real explanation for it. No known volcanoes and the ocean cycles don't show much. A La Nina developed at this time but it was not a really, really deep one.

I know that a large number of the record low temperatures from where I'm from occured at this time. There are lots of anecdotal reports and paintings of places that don't normally get snow, being buried in it.

It appears to be a real phenomenon. In the northern hemisphere, it might have been the coldest winter in the records.

Hadcrut3 can be obtained here. First Column.

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/monthly

Posted by: Keith

Re: Temperature trends - 08/03/2011 11:43

Thanks for the links guys!

With the trend removed, those two peaks at ~70 year intervals look very much like what Carl Smith was referring to in one of his posts a few years back. I think it had something to do with the position of the earth from the electromagnetic 'centre' of the Sun, and it parallelled the SOI. However I'm relying on a rusty memory.

I'm also not entirely sure why a trend should be removed (except to show the cycles)..in other words, should predictions of future temperatures be based on the detrended data?
Posted by: Arnost

Re: Temperature trends - 08/03/2011 11:58

LOL February 1893 was also the big Brisbane flood.

The SOI for that year is rather strange - here are the monthly BoM numbers:
1883 6.0 9.1 -25.3 14.4 13.9 3.4 -10.2 1.4 -8.2 4.8 5.2 -15.2

And that March number @-25.3 amidst positive numbers does stick out.
Posted by: Bill Illis

Re: Temperature trends - 08/03/2011 12:16

Originally Posted By: Coxy


How come the detrended data seems to start "warmer" than the trended one? I'm not clear how that works.

eg, the early sections are between 0.0 and -0.6 with a spike at around 0.4 in the Trended graph. Yet in the untrended, the early sections are between 0.5 and -0.1 with a spike at 0.8.

How does removing the trend line modify the underlying data and plot points on the graph?



Its just a mathematical transform.

The 1880s were warmer than the early 1900s for example.

One could think of it as we have been warming since 1871 at 0.053C per decade (a much lower number than people think).

But the ocean cycles went strongly negative in the early 1900s and cooled us off. They then went into a warming cycle from 1918 to 1942 and the Earth warmed rapidly. They then went into a cooling cyle in 1944 and the Earth cooled off for thirty years, then they ...
Posted by: Coxy

Re: Temperature trends - 08/03/2011 13:26

Originally Posted By: Bill Illis
Originally Posted By: Coxy


How come the detrended data seems to start "warmer" than the trended one? I'm not clear how that works.

eg, the early sections are between 0.0 and -0.6 with a spike at around 0.4 in the Trended graph. Yet in the untrended, the early sections are between 0.5 and -0.1 with a spike at 0.8.

How does removing the trend line modify the underlying data and plot points on the graph?



Its just a mathematical transform.

The 1880s were warmer than the early 1900s for example.

One could think of it as we have been warming since 1871 at 0.053C per decade (a much lower number than people think).

But the ocean cycles went strongly negative in the early 1900s and cooled us off. They then went into a warming cycle from 1918 to 1942 and the Earth warmed rapidly. They then went into a cooling cyle in 1944 and the Earth cooled off for thirty years, then they ...


OK, I think I understand. It's basically the "0" line is slanted, for want of a better word, to reflect the 0.053C per decade rise, and then the data plotted along that.

That makes sense.
Posted by: jbeatty

Re: Temperature trends - 08/03/2011 17:04

I don't understand why people mention melting permafrost in the same breath as retreating glaciers.

Permafrost thaw is an ongoing process acting upon a residual formation tens of thousands of years old, laid down during the coldest depths of the last ice age, and for thousands of years it has been slowly melting. The operative word here is s-l-o-w-l-y. There is no clear evidence that this process is accelerating, and nothing short of another severe ice age can stop it.

Mammoth Ivory liberated from melting permafrost is known to have been exported to China from Russia since the 4th century BCE. An active European trade was also undertaken with the Roman Empire and continued into medieval times.

From the mid eighteenth century the Siberian ivory industry expanded dramatically but it was during the Nineteenth Century that enormous quantities of Mammoth ivory released from melting permafrost was exported from Siberia for the manufacture of objects as diverse as billiard balls, piano keys, decorative boxes and even inlay on Scottish bagpipe drones. This was a significant income for the Tsarist economy.

With the ban on Elephant Ivory enforced, once more Mammoth Ivory is meeting demand. Some estimate that up to ten million Mammoth carcasses remain to be thawed from permafrost.
Posted by: retired weather man

Re: Temperature trends - 08/03/2011 17:51

Originally Posted By: Arnost
LOL February 1893 was also the big Brisbane flood.

The SOI for that year is rather strange - here are the monthly BoM numbers:
1883 6.0 9.1 -25.3 14.4 13.9 3.4 -10.2 1.4 -8.2 4.8 5.2 -15.2

And that March number @-25.3 amidst positive numbers does stick out.
Also in reply to post by Bill IIInis a couple of posts earlier....

The then record highest MSL pressure in the world of 1080+hPa( since beaten a few times ) was recorded at a Russian location in Dec 1892. Our southern monsoon mostly originates from this area. It must have been a good resulting southern monsoon as 3 tropical cyclones affected the Brisbane area in Feb 1893 resulting in the Brisbane floods.
Posted by: Ben Sandilands

Re: Temperature trends - 08/03/2011 17:56

jbeatty,

People are mentioning this because their buildings are collapsing, their road tunnels getting blocked and power and teleferique pylons are falling out of rock foundations in which the rigidity of the frozen material was an integral part of the engineering calculations.

No one is suggesting it has not been going on for a long time. But it is the current warming, or is that cooling interval, in which the problem has become manifest.

The first link is to an Alaskan government resource. I won't cherry pick. This paper, which extends into further parts, provides valuable metrics about the good things the Alaskan authorities see as coming from global warming, as well as the exceedingly inconvenient consequences of discontinuous permafrost loss.

The paper acknowledges the time scales you touch upon, but isn't dismissive of the problem, and goes into considerable detail about what is happening, and takes the view that following this chaotic transition, there will be positive benefits for the transport and construction sector, not to leave out improved forestry productivity.

This is the Alaskan link:

Alaska-A permafrost educational resource many parts

The second link is to an engineering group specialising in permafrost issues. Some of the material if you drill down is confronting and intended for professional engineers.

Terradat-permafrost engineering issues

The third link is to a Swiss article about the federation's overview of the problem, and the very expensive solutions it has embarked on.

Swiss info on permafrost--administrative
Posted by: Arnost

Re: Temperature trends - 08/03/2011 18:01

RWM:
Quote:
The then record highest MSL pressure in the world of 1080+hPa( since beaten a few times ) was recorded at a Russian location in Dec 1892.


Interesting times then. 1892 was also when the lowest Nth Hemisphere temp was set in Verkhoyansk, Russia. [Temperatures of -67.7 °C (-90 °F) were recorded on consecutive days, February 5 and 7, 1892]
Posted by: jbeatty

Re: Temperature trends - 08/03/2011 18:09

Originally Posted By: Ben Sandilands
jbeatty,


No one is suggesting it has not been going on for a long time. But it is the current warming, or is that cooling interval, in which the problem has become manifest.



"No one is suggesting it has not been going on for a long time. But it is during the current warming alarmism, or is that cooling alarmism, in which the problem has become politicised"

There ya go Ben. Fixed! grin
Posted by: Arnost

Re: Temperature trends - 08/03/2011 18:39

Ben,

The commings and goings of glaciers has been happening regularly over the holocene:
linky

I know you love the high cold places - and that's all fine and good. Today's glaciation extent is unusualy high compared to that in some of the warmer parts of the Holocene, and the fact that this is so as we are not expected to get out of this interglacial for possibly another 10,000 years [and by other accounting multiple tens of thousands of year linky ] is something that we will just have to live with.
Posted by: Ben Sandilands

Re: Temperature trends - 08/03/2011 19:48

Yes, there is no doubt that today's glaciation is unusually high compared to some of the warmer parts of the Holocene, because by definition, they must be.

We are comparing the warmer parts to the present, and we can choose some exceedingly warm intervals, including one in which Oetzi, who may be a common ancestor to many of those of us on the forum, was liberated from his icy grave for the first time in the Austrian alps, then floated around a small lake, before once again being claimed by periglacial snow drifts until his discovery last century.

However, if we choose European history since the onset of the Little Ice Age, in the late 14th century, today's global extent of glaciation is at its lowest in more than 600 years, and spectacularly so compared to our grandparents times as well as within the lifetime of someone of my antiquity, which is 67 years. In that period we have also lost the more general experience of snowy winters outside the ski areas in the higher elevations of NSW into southern Queensland, across Victoria, and to quite a surprising degree in Tasmania. These losses in temperate to sub-polar latitudes, are quite consistent without reference to precipitation. They are not consistent in polar latitudes, including northern Greenland, Spitzbergen and the main truly polar sections of greater Antarctica.

I have no doubt that the anthropogenic or fossil carbon release factor, whatever it is found to be through calm and patient research, will come to an end, not through political action but the fierce necessity to replace carbon releasing energy sources with alternatives.

That will leave our species, or its successors, to deal with whatever cards nature plays.

Posted by: Arnost

Re: Temperature trends - 08/03/2011 21:00

Quote:
That will leave our species, or its successors, to deal with whatever cards nature plays.


The future is and forever will be unknown. Regardless of how well we think we've got things figured out something pernicious will occur. In Asimov's "Foundation" Hari Seldon appears at time of the Mule crisis and his psychohistoric prediction fails big time.

We are spending scarce resources in an inevitably doomed to fail attempt to maintain temperatures at a historically very low point - compared to the rest of the Holocene and especially the other interglacials. We can bankrupt ourselves and then a Mule event over which we have no control with our current level of technology [think what wod have happened if that X40+ solar flare was directed our way] and knocks us back to the stone-age. This is a once of shot we have at this - rebuilding civilisation without easy access to minerals, ores and petrochemicals will make the job really difficult.

If the bridges are burnt and there's no return - you've got to bull through. And this is where Lomborgs arguments have merit, and indeed some of the good doctor Asimov's.

You can not expect things to stay the same.
Posted by: Ben Sandilands

Re: Temperature trends - 08/03/2011 21:21

As an Asimov fan and an admirer of Lomborg both before and after his significant revision of his assessments we have something in common.

But in terms of strict economic and accounting principles I don't see any serious figures as to how much our disposable income or in broader old fashioned terms the wealth of nations has been diminished by fighting global warming. Especially in net terms, looking at new industrial activity.

The US economy has resisted spending anything fighting global warming but is not just a basket case, but I hate to say this, almost certainly broke. We face some terrible economic adjustments because of market and fiduciary failings that make global warming distractions seem trivial. A lot of the fundamental assumptions about transitioning from economies that make things to economies that are sustained by 'service' industries are coming undone. In so called green developments most of the really serious activity is being funded by private capital, and those of us who try to monitor the field find it very difficult to see through the barriers of proprietory restrictions. The difficulty thrown up by new energy ventures and notable green investors like BP and GE indicates by proxy that there is something to protect, not just the odd case of fraud.

There is a risk of insane or impracticable political settings injuring the citizens of various states, but really, we see nothing remotely comparable or measurable to failings in banking regulation in the US and Europe (and to a much lesser extent in Australia.)

In the event that the white dwarf companion to Sirius suddenly exceeds the Chandrasekhar limit there will be no 'we' and no rebuilding of our civilisation.

Posted by: Arnost

Re: Temperature trends - 08/03/2011 21:43

History is littered with Black Swan events. Bottom line is they by definition are unpredictable.

Bringing this somewhat back on topic - we are currently in a cool part of the interglacial... Which as I sugested earlier is expected to last for a minimum of 10,000 years, and probably significantly longer if those calculating Milankovic cycles are right. We have no explanation for the Heinrich or Dansgard O events that occurred during the glacial period. I have seen no one explain what drove those events and why one of those could not be acting at present...

We must take the next step and ensure that a nearby super- nova does not end this wonderful experiment of creation.
Posted by: Bill Illis

Re: Temperature trends - 08/03/2011 23:04

Originally Posted By: Arnost
History is littered with Black Swan events. Bottom line is they by definition are unpredictable.

... We have no explanation for the Heinrich or Dansgard O events that occurred during the glacial period ...


I think they are caused by Albedo periodically increasing (the glacial fronts in North America and Europe periodically melting back).

The Sun or solar irradiance in the summer was far too high for the glaciers to be sustained as far south as they were. The solar irradiance in the summer in southern Canada during the ice ages would have been enough to raise summer temperatures to 20C at the glacial fronts. The melting at the glacial fronts in the summer would have been furious.

For the glaciers to get as far south as they did, there would need to be a build-up/accumulation in the central spreading regions like Hudson Bay and the Baltic Sea (3 kms high and thus much colder) which periodically reached a level where they made a sudden push south as a result of gravity.

Once the pressure from the central spreading regions was relieved and the glaciers had pushed south, they would melt back again since the solar irradiance was more then warm enough in the summer to do so. Albedo would go up and the northern hemisphere temperatures would rise again. Its not hard to imagine this happening every 5,000 years.

It is easier to understand when one looks at how much solar irradiance actually changes in the Milankovitch cycles for a particular location. And it is a very, very small change - just 250 kms or so. If North America and Europe were just 150 kms farther south than they are, there would not have been any ice ages.
Posted by: Arnost

Re: Temperature trends - 08/03/2011 23:55

Thanks Bill,

Though my statement was more rhetorical than otherwise, I still think that any explanation of the cause of these events is still speculation. Whilst "albedo change" sounds fine... What caused the albedo to change? Sea currents, cosmic rays from near supernovae, Fred Hoyle's black cloud?

It is hubris to think we understand why the temps vary across the millenia and longer. It is folly to put all our eggs in the CO2 as a prime driver basket. It is sheer stupidity to try to force climate not to change.

Keep up the good work.
Posted by: Arnost

Re: Temperature trends - 09/03/2011 00:06



http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/abrupt/data3.html
Posted by: S .O.

Re: Temperature trends - 09/03/2011 01:37

Originally Posted By: Bill Illis
Originally Posted By: davidg
... just one thing i need to ask as its been playing on my mind for years.

Global temps were at a time around the 1880's (according to Hadcrut) up to -0.8c below the global “average”. What might be the reason for this large anomaly?



The big drop was December 1892 to February 1893.

There is no real explanation for it. No known volcanoes and the ocean cycles don't show much. A La Nina developed at this time but it was not a really, really deep one.

I know that a large number of the record low temperatures from where I'm from occured at this time. There are lots of anecdotal reports and paintings of places that don't normally get snow, being buried in it.

It appears to be a real phenomenon. In the northern hemisphere, it might have been the coldest winter in the records.

Hadcrut3 can be obtained here. First Column.

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/monthly



Bill and others .

Not sure this is a direct connection , but never the less there is a good chart for Antarctic SST's that reflects these " rises , and extreme dips " around the times you mention .

Firstly the most profound effects on climate in this era is well known in the form of Krakatoa in relation to Albedo . However there is record of an island in close proximity to Bouvet volcano (sthn end of Mid Atlantic ridge ) Thompson island that disappeared around 1893 . Which would more than likely been not witnessed or felt due to it being the most remote island in the world , furthest from any inhabitated place . Like Krakatoa , this could of been a contributor to airborne effects on weather , but more than likely most activity would have influenced Ocean Currents and Ocean temperature Anomalies , Which can be observed in a graph at the bottom of this link .
" www.appinsys.com/Globalwarming/RS_Antacticpeninsula.htm "

This and the links provided within , detail the influence of Volcanic activity on sea surface temps at the strongest restriction between Sth America and Antarctic Peninsula of the largest/longest Ocean current , Southern Ocean Circumpolar Drift/current .

Both of these events (Krakatoa+ Bouvet) are located at significant places of Interest within the Oceanic currents flow , so non atmosperic influences haven't been attributed to the significant effects of these two events , especially seeing that they would be delayed due to the need of currents to alter or mix within/thru the entire current loop . Not to mention recent , more studied/analysed effects that this region Antarctic Subterranean contributes to Sea Temperature rise .

If proven , this would go a long way towards recent conversations myself and ROM have had in relation to The Southern Ocean and its ability to effect the weather for the entire globe .

I hope this is a valid connection ? None the less interesting in itself .


Posted by: Ben Sandilands

Re: Temperature trends - 09/03/2011 06:43

One of the perplexing physical experiences of living at altitude on glaciers is how fiercely hot you can get when the sun is high, even though the air temperature head high may be -20C, and the ice temperature a short distance below the surface or inside an ice cave (the preferred way to deal with extreme night cold and winds) may be -2C in the Himalayas or Alps, but sometimes down to -50C or deeper in polar super cooled environments.

Not only will you get very hot wearing just a shirt but any exposed skin, especially around the lips, nose, forehead, ears and back of neck, gets severely sunburned without regular use of block outs, which in turn, increase your discomfort from day time heat.

These effects are explained by increased ultra violet radiation and the processes of insolation, in which a frigid mass of snow nevertheless captures solar energy, uses it to consolidated ice crystals, and reradiates much of it at a different wavelength back into the atmosphere.

When we try to visualise the world in the final and most intensely cold 30,000 years of the last major glacial, we need to take into account the ice inferno landscape that our ancestors and the creatures would have experienced moving around those continental sheets of ice, or walking, walking ever seeking the lands of the higher sun beyond the grip of the ice.

The major 'black swan' disruptions Arnost and Bill mention are fascinating. Somewhere in the geological record, or perhaps even in the geology of other planets, we will I suspect one day find a startling new piece of evidence that will confirm a shared chronology and likely cause for some of these incidents.
Posted by: petethemoskeet

Re: Temperature trends - 10/03/2011 13:43

News from NOAA about the recent Russian heatwave
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/09/noaa-findsclimate-change-blameless-in-2010-russian-heat-wave/
Posted by: Spatch

Re: Temperature trends - 11/03/2011 12:16

Natural Variability Main Culprit of Deadly Russian Heat Wave That Killed Thousands

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110309_russianheatwave.html

While a contribution to the heat wave from climate change could not be entirely ruled out, if it was present, it played a much smaller role than naturally occurring meteorological processes in explaining this heat wave’s intensity.

The researchers cautioned that this extreme event provides a glimpse into the region’s future as greenhouse gases continue to increase, and the signal of a warming climate, even at this regional scale, begins to emerge more clearly from natural variability in coming decades. Climate models evaluated for the new study show a rapidly increasing risk of such heat waves in western Russia, from less than one percent in 2010, to 10 percent or more by the end of this century.

“It appears that parts of Russia are on the cusp of a period in which the risk of extreme heat events will increase rapidly,” said co-author Martin Hoerling, a research meteorologist, also from ESRL.

Dole called the intensity of this heat wave a “climate surprise,” expected to occur only very rarely in Russia’s current climate. With the possibility of more such events in the future, studying the Russian event better prepares scientists to understand climate phenomena that will affect the U.S. and other parts of the globe.


http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/show.html

Commentary

Climate change has fundamentally altered Earth's atmosphere in significant ways; the additional heat and moisture in the atmosphere alters global sea surface temperature and atmospheric circulation patterns, making it difficult to disentangle to what degree an extreme weather event may be natural. The new NOAA attribution study on the Russian Heat Wave of 2010 is a reminder that the atmosphere is capable of generating extreme events on its own, without the aid of climate change. Attribution studies are difficult and take many months or years to complete. When an extreme weather event such as a great flood or deadly heat wave occurs, all we can say at the time is that climate change is loading the dice in favor of such extreme events. At the time of the Russian heat wave, I suspected that human-caused climate change was likely a significant factor, since a study of the world's previous deadliest heat wave, the 2003 European heat wave (Stott et al., 2004), found that human-caused climate change had increased the odds of that event occurring by a factor of four.

An important question to ask is if this type of natural atmospheric blocking event--where the jet stream gets "stuck" in particular contorted shape that contributes to extreme weather events--will increase or decrease in a future warmer climate. I asked climate modeling expert Dr. Ricky Rood, who writes our Climate Change blog, what the models say. His view was, "the physical basis, process, and cause and effect of blocking events are poorly understood in theory and observations and less well understood in models. It is very difficult problem, where the state-of-the-art understanding is low." So, we don't really know what will happen to blocking events in the future climate. Barnes and Hartman (2010) found that the computer models used in the 2007 [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report generally showed a decrease in the frequency of blocking events in a future climate. This occurs because the jet stream moves poleward in a future warming climate, and the jet stream is less prone to getting "stuck" in a blocking event when it is closer to the pole. The paper summarizes previous studies on the subject thusly: "Previous studies have found evidence for blocking frequency to decrease with global warming, although they disagree on whether the duration of extreme blocking events will increase or decrease [Sillmann and Croci-Maspoli, 2009; Matsueda et al., 2009]." So, the models give us reason to hope that blocking events leading to extreme weather will decrease in the future, though the uncertainty in this prediction is high. However, the climate models used in 2010 Russian heat wave study showed a rapidly increasing risk of heat waves in western Russia, from less than one percent in 2010, to 10 percent or more by the end of this century. The authors conclude that warming attributable to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations "is very likely to produce more frequent and extreme heat waves later this century," a central finding of the 2007 IPCC report.
Posted by: Bill Illis

Re: Temperature trends - 11/03/2011 12:24


In my continuing series about natural climate variability, let's look at an El Nino year transitioning to a La Nina year (3 month lag with a smaller occasional bump at an 8 month lag intact).

Just a small change of about -0.9C

http://img860.imageshack.us/img860/6513/dailyuahtempsmar82010.png

Posted by: davidg

Re: Temperature trends - 11/03/2011 16:02

Hey Bill where do you get your daily UAH temperatures from? Ive had a look around and cant really find much.
Posted by: Bill Illis

Re: Temperature trends - 11/03/2011 23:53

Originally Posted By: davidg
Hey Bill where do you get your daily UAH temperatures from? Ive had a look around and cant really find
much.


Located here in order of Global, SH, NH, Tropics (divide by 1000 to turn into degree C).

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/tltday_5.4

You can also monitor the daily numbers here in degrees K (be aware there are adjustments applied to these values which can vary between adding 0.0C to 0.2C, +0.123C average)

http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/data/amsu_daily_85N85S_ch05.r002.txt
Posted by: Vlasta

Re: Temperature trends - 12/03/2011 02:09

Originally Posted By: davidg
Hey Bill where do you get your daily UAH temperatures from? Ive had a look around and cant really find much.


This way its better . Ben asked too , but I was lazy

This set is before Dr R Spencer introduced sesonal adjustments note JAN 2008 was -0.046

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2

This set is after seasonal adjustment plus new base line 1980 - 2010, again note JAN 2008 become -0.30

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2

And here are dailly AQUA ch 05 . I calculated but it doesnt match UHA temps , as you can see it runs well below MAR 2008 at this moment
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps

Have fun .
Posted by: davidg

Re: Temperature trends - 12/03/2011 11:38

Awesome, thanks guys.
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: Temperature trends - 15/03/2011 07:22

Climate Change Causes

http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true
Posted by: ROM

Re: Temperature trends - 17/03/2011 10:55

From the Climate Realists blog.
It will be very interesting to see if this forecast cooling trend follows the path that the researchers below have suggested.
That global temps follow the ENSO phase with about a 7 month time lag.

If it does the warmistas are really going to have their work cut out in trying to come up with another "global warming" causes "global cooling" explanation but as we all know anything at all can be explained by "global warming" / "climate change" if one can seriously twist, distort and corrupt the logic and data enough.
As 2010 was almost exactly equal in global temps to 1998 and above the previously warmest year measured, [ 1938, which was subsequently "adjusted" out of it's warmest year ever position by the CRU and GISS ] therefore there has not been any increase in global temps since 1998.
So a cool year well below past years in 2011 would mean that there will be an overall drop in the global temperatures over the last decade.
Makes a bit of a mess of the claims that rising CO2 levels create ever higher global temperatures and is the reason for "global warming"/ "climate change", a claim that was an absolute certitude and beyond dispute according to the believers only a couple of years ago and a claim which one was not allowed to and could not disputed as it was backed by a "consensus", a term no longer used for some strange reason, of "thousands of scientists." [/sarc]

How times they are a'changing!!

The press release;

Quote:
COOL YEAR PREDICTED

It is likely that 2011 will be the coolest year since 1956, or even earlier, says the lead author of a peer-reviewed paper published in 2009:

Our ENSO - temperature paper of 2009 and the aftermath by John McLean

The paper, by John McLean, Professor Chris de Freitas and Professor Bob Carter, showed that the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI), a measure of El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) conditions, is a very good indicator of average global atmospheric temperatures approximately seven months ahead, except when volcanic eruptions cause short-term cooling.

The lead author, McLean, points to a fall in temperatures that began in October last year, seven months after the abrupt shift to La Nina conditions, and according to last month's data is still continuing.

"The delayed response is important for two reasons." McLean says, "Firstly the high annual average temperature in 2010 was due to the El Nino that ended around March but whose delayed effect on temperature continued until late in the year. Secondly it means that the ENSO conditions can be used to predict with reasonable confidence the average global temperatures up to seven months ahead."

Several previous scientific papers have discussed the delayed response, including two by critics of McLean's paper. Although the other papers used different data sources they came to similar conclusions about the delay.

The key question is how much influence the ENSO has on average global temperature. McLean says that this is difficult to determine, because both can be affected by short-term events such as wind, clouds and tropical storms, but the sustained close relationship in the data of the last 50 years shows the influence is significant.

"The historical data also casts serious doubt on the hypothesis that carbon dioxide causes dangerous global warming," says McLean. "Since 1958 there's been a 30% increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide and if this had a major influence on temperature we'd expect to see clear evidence of the temperature continually rising above what the SOI suggests it should be, but this is not happening".

The Bureau of Meteorology reports that ENSO models currently indicate that the La Nina will be with us well into autumn and fade slowly to neutral conditions by June. Taking into account the seven-month time lag it is likely that 2011 will be the coolest year since 1956 or even earlier, McLean says.

He also says that records show the oceans absorb more carbon dioxide during a La Nina event than during an El Nino, which means that the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide in 2011 is likely to be less than in recent years.
Posted by: Loopy Radar

Re: Temperature trends - 17/03/2011 11:27

Originally Posted By: ROM
From the Climate Realists blog.
It will be very interesting to see if this forecast cooling trend follows the path that the researchers below have suggested.
That global temps follow the ENSO phase with about a 7 month time lag.

If it does the warmistas are really going to have their work cut out in trying to come up with another "global warming" causes "global cooling" explanation but as we all know anything at all can be explained by "global warming" / "climate change" if one can seriously twist, distort and corrupt the logic and data enough.
As 2010 was almost exactly equal in global temps to 1998 and above the previously warmest year measured, [ 1938, which was subsequently "adjusted" out of it's warmest year ever position by the CRU and GISS ] therefore there has not been any increase in global temps since 1998.
So a cool year well below past years in 2011 would mean that there will be an overall drop in the global temperatures over the last decade.
Makes a bit of a mess of the claims that rising CO2 levels create ever higher global temperatures and is the reason for "global warming"/ "climate change", a claim that was an absolute certitude and beyond dispute according to the believers only a couple of years ago and a claim which one was not allowed to and could not disputed as it was backed by a "consensus", a term no longer used for some strange reason, of "thousands of scientists." [/sarc]

How times they are a'changing!!

The press release;

Quote:
COOL YEAR PREDICTED

It is likely that 2011 will be the coolest year since 1956, or even earlier, says the lead author of a peer-reviewed paper published in 2009:

Our ENSO - temperature paper of 2009 and the aftermath by John McLean

The paper, by John McLean, Professor Chris de Freitas and Professor Bob Carter, showed that the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI), a measure of El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) conditions, is a very good indicator of average global atmospheric temperatures approximately seven months ahead, except when volcanic eruptions cause short-term cooling.

The lead author, McLean, points to a fall in temperatures that began in October last year, seven months after the abrupt shift to La Nina conditions, and according to last month's data is still continuing.

"The delayed response is important for two reasons." McLean says, "Firstly the high annual average temperature in 2010 was due to the El Nino that ended around March but whose delayed effect on temperature continued until late in the year. Secondly it means that the ENSO conditions can be used to predict with reasonable confidence the average global temperatures up to seven months ahead."

Several previous scientific papers have discussed the delayed response, including two by critics of McLean's paper. Although the other papers used different data sources they came to similar conclusions about the delay.

The key question is how much influence the ENSO has on average global temperature. McLean says that this is difficult to determine, because both can be affected by short-term events such as wind, clouds and tropical storms, but the sustained close relationship in the data of the last 50 years shows the influence is significant.

"The historical data also casts serious doubt on the hypothesis that carbon dioxide causes dangerous global warming," says McLean. "Since 1958 there's been a 30% increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide and if this had a major influence on temperature we'd expect to see clear evidence of the temperature continually rising above what the SOI suggests it should be, but this is not happening".

The Bureau of Meteorology reports that ENSO models currently indicate that the La Nina will be with us well into autumn and fade slowly to neutral conditions by June. Taking into account the seven-month time lag it is likely that 2011 will be the coolest year since 1956 or even earlier, McLean says.

He also says that records show the oceans absorb more carbon dioxide during a La Nina event than during an El Nino, which means that the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide in 2011 is likely to be less than in recent years.





Nah.They'll spin it. It'll go something like this.
"We did say that the models still lacked clarification. However, certainty on the fundamentals of global warming trend will stand the test of time, but the current negative SOI phenomenon (cycle) wasn't adequately inserted into the models.
We are now currently doing this, but it isn't expected to have much impact on the long term upward trend. In fact. the current consensus is an intensity of the trend overall this century"
They will say whatever it takes it to keep their place at the table, reputation in tact. And a handy paycheck in the bank, a nice Rolls Royce, a nice French private school for the kids, and the very best organic food.
Posted by: Seina

Re: Temperature trends - 17/03/2011 13:39

One rule of science, as I understand it, is that we don't remove data from temperature trends to demonstrate a point, no matter what the cause of the data's behaviour is thought to be (El Nino, La Nino, Earthquakes, Tsunamis, whatever). To compare datasets which partially exclude recognition of major regional climate events with those that don't I would think is inadmissible.

Also, again as I understand it, concerning chaos theory, by definition, in-field measurements or observations (evidence)account for this (sensitive dependence) on the corresponding spatial and temporal scales (measurements are finite). It therefore cannot realistically be said that a climate effect, known or unknown, is not accounted for in trends. Altering the data/trend, however, will remove/alter this accountability.
Posted by: BOM99

Re: Temperature trends - 18/03/2011 06:32

Trends do depend a lot on where you start your trend, but only in the short term.
I just checked my mean trend from mid 2008 until now and its a shocker.
For this short peiod the climate here is WARMING at 1deg for every 2.87 years.
Posted by: BOM99

Re: Temperature trends - 19/03/2011 22:54

The warming trend in temps is still a bit of a worry. The 2007/2008 low spot where this chart begins only just came back to normal which gave me a false sense of security. Amazing to think that back in the late 80's and early 90's the values mainly remained in the "Cool" range here as per the chart. Seems almost unimaginable now. This is the reason for such a massive decline in snowfalls on the CT's over the last 25 years.

If there is any truth in there "not being" significant AGW then this graph will have to level out before the end of this decade. And it should not be that hard, all it would take is a few normal years to follow from now and all will be well. As soon as the normal years outweigh the warm ones it would have to turn into a down trend.

However already the downtrend that began in August last year is showing signs of stalling, hoping this will be only temporary.

Posted by: Spatch

Re: Temperature trends - 21/03/2011 08:43



Berkeley temperature study results “confirm the reality of global warming and support in all essential respects the historical temperature analyses of the NOAA, NASA, and HadCRU”

Their preliminary results sit right within the results of NOAA, NASA, and HadCRU, confirming that prior analyses were correct in every way that matters.

Their analysis supports the view that there is no fire behind the smokescreen put up by climate science deniers.

http://climateprogress.org/2011/03/20/berkeley-temperature-study-results-global-warming/

------------

I can't wait to see how Watts, Curry, McIntyre et al try to spin this. Not a good day for the deniers...*grin*
Posted by: Locke

Re: Temperature trends - 21/03/2011 17:30

Let me provide you with a quote directly from the Berkeley site.

"A preliminary analysis of 2% of the Berkeley Earth dataset shows a global temperature trend that goes up and down with global cycles, and does so broadly in sync with the temperature records from other groups such as NOAA, NASA, and Hadley CRU. However, the preliminary analysis includes only a very small subset (2%) of randomly chosen data, and does not include any method for correcting for biases such as the urban heat island effect, the time of observation bias, etc. The Berkeley Earth team feels very strongly that no conclusions can yet be drawn from this preliminary analysis."

This is why so few people trust AGW proponents. I had to do a double take as soon as I saw your post Spatch. Given the study was only recently announced I couldn't possibly see how it could be even close to giving any conclusive findings.

What a deceitful post. Whats the bet if I post the quote from the Berkeley site on climateprogress it gets deleted.
Posted by: Keith

Re: Temperature trends - 21/03/2011 18:23

Hmm..what are the 'essential respects', and what are the ways that matter?

I bet there's no consensus on what those might be...if only because the science is in its relative infancy, with so much research required in areas that haven't been researched because there's no political or financial gain in it. Let alone make such a dogmatic statement based on 2% of the data.

If that doesn't give statistical science a bad name I don't know what else could.
Posted by: ROM

Re: Temperature trends - 21/03/2011 19:38

Sometimes Locke, you really have do have to sit down and just laugh at some of the asinine comments!

Cheers wink
Posted by: jdh

Re: Temperature trends - 22/03/2011 09:09

Unfortunately, the articles on the Berkeley webpages are not datestamped. However, the fact that the project has been running for about a year, and they say they have completed a draft paper, suggests they have analysed more than 2% of the data.

It's also interesting that even with 2% of the data, they produced fairly similar results to the other full datasets. They are correct not to draw a conclusion from that, but it is worthy of note.
Posted by: Spatch

Re: Temperature trends - 22/03/2011 10:00

Originally Posted By: Locke
This is the type of misleading BS we constantly see from AGW Proponents. So here we go. Let me provide you with a quote directly from the Berkeley site.

"A preliminary analysis of 2% of the Berkeley Earth dataset shows a global temperature trend that goes up and down with global cycles, and does so broadly in sync with the temperature records from other groups such as NOAA, NASA, and Hadley CRU. However, the preliminary analysis includes only a very small subset (2%) of randomly chosen data, and does not include any method for correcting for biases such as the urban heat island effect, the time of observation bias, etc. The Berkeley Earth team feels very strongly that no conclusions can yet be drawn from this preliminary analysis."

This is why so few people trust AGW proponents. I had to do a double take as soon as I saw your post Spatch. Given the study was only recently announced I couldn't possibly see how it could be even close to giving any conclusive findings.

What a deceitful post. Whats the bet if I post the quote from the Berkeley site on climateprogress it gets deleted.


"What a deceitful post. Whats the bet if I post the quote from the Berkeley site on climateprogress it gets deleted."

There was no deceit and a post nearly identical to yours by David W got published on climateprogress.

http://climateprogress.org/2011/03/20/be...#comment-332972

Here's JR's reply.

[JR: Other than a gratuitous three-word characterization of my post that is both utterly inappropriate and unjustified based on the rest of your comment, why should I delete this comment? Well, OK, you misrepresent my post, but that is just a reflection on you and the anti-science crowd you represent.

What relevance is some undated statement on their website to Caldeira's statement about their new draft report?

To repeat, one of the world's leading climate scientists (who helped fund the project) has seen the draft report and explains what it means in an email. He asked me to post that explanation on my website. I did so.

Note that your phrase "you believe it is" demonstrates that you didn't even read this post. The post is not about what I believe. It is what one of the world's leading climate scientists has written.]
Posted by: Locke

Re: Temperature trends - 22/03/2011 11:24

Spatch, I won't even go into any detail on the length of time between when I posted to when the post finally appeared nor Joe's use of the word anti-science in his response. It really tells me all I need to know about Joe and his propoganda blog.

Let's look at the opening part of the entry on Climate Progress.

"The head of the Berkeley team, Richard Muller, confirmed at a public talk on Saturday that they have started writing a draft report and based on their preliminary analysis,"

and again what appears in the FAQ on the Berkeley site.

"A preliminary analysis of 2% of the Berkeley Earth dataset shows a global temperature trend that goes up and down with global cycles, and does so broadly in sync with the temperature records from other groups such as NOAA, NASA, and Hadley CRU. However, the preliminary analysis includes only a very small subset (2%) of randomly chosen data, and does not include any method for correcting for biases such as the urban heat island effect, the time of observation bias, etc. The Berkeley Earth team feels very strongly that no conclusions can yet be drawn from this preliminary analysis."

Then Climate Progress quotes from an email sent to them by climatologist Ken Caldeira who indicates he has seen the draft. Ken says:

"I have seen a copy of the Berkeley group’s draft paper, which of course would be expected to be revised before submission.
......
Their analysis supports the view that there is no fire behind the smokescreen put up by climate science deniers."

Seems fairly clear to me Spatch and lines up well with the FAQ entry on the Berkeley site. Joe has now admitted on Climate Progress he hasn't seen the actual draft but is simply reporting what climatologist Ken Caldeira has said. Ken's attitude towards those who take the anti-AGW position is clearly indicated in his email.

"Their analysis supports the view that there is no fire behind the smokescreen put up by climate science deniers.."

I'll let readers of this thread draw their own conclusions. I still call it deceitful. Trust these people at your own peril.

I doubt we will ever see what was in the "draft" discussed by Ken Caldeira.
Posted by: Bill Illis

Re: Temperature trends - 22/03/2011 11:39


I posted this a few days ago on another board.

------------------

"Something from the Guardian’s news article on the Berkeley group’s effort to construct a new temperature series caught my eye.

Peter Thorne, (of climategate fame, who has worked in most of the climategate institutions and until recently, was leading an effort to build a new temperature series under the auspices of the WMO and the UK Met Office) is quoted as saying,

“We need groups like Berkeley stepping up to the plate and taking this challenge on, because it’s the only way we’re going to move forwards. I wish there were 10 other groups doing this,” he says.

So, there is the playbook against the Berkeley group.

It is standard technique of the pro-AGW’ers. Get out ahead of some new non-AGW publication or get a rebuttal published in a very short timeframe in order to short-circuit any new non-AGW finding. The rebuttal allows them to ignore the finding and keep the publication/finding out of the IPCC etc. It is now the standard MO from the pro-AGW set.

Somewhere, a group from the Met, UEA and the NCDC is trying to replicate some of the Berkeley Group’s activities in advance (with the appropriate +0.4C adjustments applied) and will try to upstage them or something of the sort. Either that, or a number of groups will be ready to take the Berkeley Group’s raw database collation and apply the appropriate data torture techniques and come up with an even greater trend in temperatures.

Maybe they actually have 10 groups on standby already.

Might be a little paranoid, but this is their standard MO."


Posted by: Locke

Re: Temperature trends - 22/03/2011 11:47

Of course Joe can debunk my post on Climate Progress by simply having Ken confirm exactly how much data was used in the preparation of the draft paper. Something he should have done before he posted on his blog in the first place.

I note Steve Mosher has also indicated on his blog that he has seen the material that constitutes the "draft" and he believes Joe and Ken have mischacterized the content of the draft.

It will be interesting to see this develop.
Posted by: Locke

Re: Temperature trends - 23/03/2011 22:54

Hey Spatch whats the latest on Joe's and Ken's claims. WUWT has provided an update just in case you were interested.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/22/the-not-evil-just-romm-2-solution/#more-36392

After Joes response to my post on his blog I find the reality of the situation hilarious. Thank god for sites like ClimateProgress. They do a simply awesome job of turning people into sceptics by their continuing failure to get things right.

Little advice Joe. Perhaps carry out some simple checks first before posting such silliness in future. Same goes for you Spatch but I do have to thank you for bringing it to my attention.
Posted by: Spatch

Re: Temperature trends - 24/03/2011 07:10

Originally Posted By: Locke
Hey Spatch whats the latest on Joe's and Ken's claims. WUWT has provided an update just in case you were interested.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/22/the-not-evil-just-romm-2-solution/#more-36392

After Joes response to my post on his blog I find the reality of the situation hilarious. Thank god for sites like ClimateProgress. They do a simply awesome job of turning people into sceptics by their continuing failure to get things right.

Little advice Joe. Perhaps carry out some simple checks first before posting such silliness in future. Same goes for you Spatch but I do have to thank you for bringing it to my attention.


...and here's JR's latest post.

Bombshell 1: Climate science deniers claim to have full access to Berkeley temperature study work-product — and are now working with the Berkeley team!

Bombshell 2: BEST's Project Chair Richard Muller confirms ClimateProgress reporting, contradicts WattsUpWithThat

http://climateprogress.org/2011/03/22/climate-science-deniers-berkeley-temperature-study/

----------

It seems JR's plan to flush out the sceptics worked a treat.

" I published his email in part because I wanted to smoke out the deniers. A number of climate scientists had told me they believed the deniers were working feverishly to change and/or spin the main results. What I didn’t know — what few people knew — was that the hard-core deniers in fact had unprecedented access to the BEST work-product. That gives the lie to BEST somehow being a transparent effort to work the data independently and restore “credibility” to the global temperature record, something the record didn’t actually need.

My post was far more successful than I ever imagined. The deniers — Steven Mosher and Anthony Watts — went ballistic, since they obviously thought they were going to be able to control how the final product was shaped and spun."
Posted by: Locke

Re: Temperature trends - 24/03/2011 08:30

Lol Spatch. I have no problems with people reading the post on WUWT

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/22/the-not-evil-just-romm-2-solution/#more-36392

and then reading the post at Climate Progress

http://climateprogress.org/2011/03/22/climate-science-deniers-berkeley-temperature-study/


and then the FAQ at the Berkeley site which incidentally was updated after Ken Caldieara started shooting his mouth off.

http://www.berkeleyearth.org/FAQ

and then drawing their own conclusions. Spatch I don't really think you or Joe understand how bad this type of propagand and spin doctoring makes AGW proponents look.

Joe Romm and his blog are a laughable so please Spatch keep linking to him. No one does more to help the sceptics cause than Joe.
Posted by: Spatch

Re: Temperature trends - 24/03/2011 10:59


I'll happily continue to link to Climate Progress.

And I'm sure you'll keep linking to Anthony Watts website. How's his *cough* U.S. surface temperature record project going these days? I notice he's not updated it since 07/16/2009.

http://www.surfacestations.org/

-----------

The video that Arch Denier Anthony Watts tried to ban from YouTube.

http://www.youtube.com/v/P_0-gX7aUKk?

-----------

On the reliability of the U.S. surface temperature record.

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2010.pdf
Posted by: Locke

Re: Temperature trends - 24/03/2011 11:14

I believe Anthony is continuing the research as are the guys at Berkeley. Analysing the full data set and investigating issues with the acutal temperature measurement sites and their classification is a truly mammoth task which is why I greeted the post on Climate Progress with such scepticism to start with.

It was very clear that whatever Ken Caldiera was looking at when he sent it to Joe Romm at Climate Progress was analysis based on only a small part of the temeprature data set. The FAQ at Berkeley confirmed this and I really fail to understand how Joe couldn't perceive this. I think he saw only the words "support global warming" and lost any semblance of objectivity on the matter.

When I see you throw around terms like "arch denier" and Joe use terms like "anti-science" it communicates volumes to the blogging community on your ability to rationally analyse and investigate these matters.
Posted by: Spatch

Re: Temperature trends - 24/03/2011 11:42


The Hot Summer of 2010: Redrawing the Temperature Record Map of Europe

The summer of 2010 was exceptionally warm in eastern Europe and large parts of Russia. We provide evidence that the anomalous 2010 warmth that caused adverse impacts exceeded the amplitude and spatial extent of the previous hottest summer of 2003. "Mega-heatwaves" such as the 2003 and 2010 events broke the 500-year-long seasonal temperature records over approximately 50% of Europe. According to regional multi-model experiments, the probability of a summer experiencing "mega-heatwaves" will increase by a factor of 5 to 10 within the next 40 years. However, the magnitude of the 2010 event was so extreme that despite this increase, the occurrence of an analogue over the same region remains fairly unlikely until the second half of the 21st century.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2011/03/16/science.1201224

-----------

My comment:

So much for extra CO2 being good for crops when heatwaves have devastated crops on a massive scale.
Posted by: teckert

Re: Temperature trends - 24/03/2011 12:24

Stick to the topic guys.
You have had enough warnings. Anymore off-topic rants or personal attacks will immediately result in a ban.
Please message mods/admin or use the notify post option if you have an issue.
Posted by: Seina

Re: Temperature trends - 24/03/2011 14:02

If you look at the annual total evaporation for the data nearest your location, and then compare it with the mean maximum annual temperature, on a long-term trend (say 50 years or more), you might find an interesting relation which reflects how it is possible to use one climate variable to model another smile .

Given understanding temperature is so important to the climate change debate, this idea might seem very helpful to those wanting to get a better idea of what the temperature is actually doing.
Posted by: Cats&dogs

Re: Temperature trends - 25/03/2011 12:36

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/25/3173587.htm

An interesting read, article on ABC website today. Possible effect (or not)of climate change on ocean/atmosphere interraction, and vice versa. Nice to see a reporter actually reporting on a real scientist stating facts without the emotive guff.
Posted by: davidg

Re: Temperature trends - 25/03/2011 12:43

From the other thread http://forum.weatherzone.com.au/ubbthreads.php/topics/958220/33/The_Climate_Change_Politics_Th


Originally Posted By: Spatch
Originally Posted By: davidg
I didnt dispute that, i said that global temps have fallen slightly (or have not risen, depending on which temp trace you look at) since 2001. They are two completely seperate issues. See what i mean about lack of understanding?


But 2010 tied with 2005 as the hottest year on record since record-keeping began in 1880.

The 10 warmest years on record have all occurred since 1998.

In 2010, the global average temperature was 0.53 degrees Celsius, above the 1961 to 1990 mean that is used as a yardstick for climate measurements, according to the WMO.

Over the past decade, global temperatures have been the highest-ever recorded for a 10-year period since the beginning of instrument-based climate records.

2001 to 2010 set a new record as the warmest decade ever.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/01/21/3117825.htm

http://www.climateshifts.org/?p=6116

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/warmest-year-on-record/story-e6frg6so-1225987372032







http://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm#Estimates of recent global temperature change

Theres the temp traces. All show a either no upward trend since 2001 (or as i said 1997-98, depending on whether you factor the massive Nino in or not), or a cooling trend since 2001. Anyway you can make up your own mind although i suspect its been made for you.
Posted by: Spatch

Re: Temperature trends - 25/03/2011 13:01

Originally Posted By: davidg
From the other thread http://forum.weatherzone.com.au/ubbthreads.php/topics/958220/33/The_Climate_Change_Politics_Th


Originally Posted By: Spatch
Originally Posted By: davidg
I didnt dispute that, i said that global temps have fallen slightly (or have not risen, depending on which temp trace you look at) since 2001. They are two completely seperate issues. See what i mean about lack of understanding?


But 2010 tied with 2005 as the hottest year on record since record-keeping began in 1880.

The 10 warmest years on record have all occurred since 1998.

In 2010, the global average temperature was 0.53 degrees Celsius, above the 1961 to 1990 mean that is used as a yardstick for climate measurements, according to the WMO.

Over the past decade, global temperatures have been the highest-ever recorded for a 10-year period since the beginning of instrument-based climate records.

2001 to 2010 set a new record as the warmest decade ever.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/01/21/3117825.htm

http://www.climateshifts.org/?p=6116

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/warmest-year-on-record/story-e6frg6so-1225987372032







http://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm#Estimates of recent global temperature change

Theres the temp traces. All show a either no upward trend since 2001 (or as i said 1997-98, depending on whether you factor the massive Nino in or not), or a cooling trend since 2001. Anyway you can make up your own mind although i suspect its been made for you.


You said:

"All show a either no upward trend since 2001 (or as i said 1997-98, depending on whether you factor the massive Nino in or not), or a cooling trend since 2001."

That is not true. This one graph alone clearly shows an upward trend since 2001.

Posted by: davidg

Re: Temperature trends - 25/03/2011 13:13

No it doesnt, if you apply a linear trend to the values since 2001 it shows a statistically insignificant trend (i.e slightly cooling but not enought to constitute a cooling trend). Not a warming trend at any rate. The same is true of UAH although its cooling trend is more marked. Hadcrut and RSS both show significant cooling trends since 2001.
Posted by: davidg

Re: Temperature trends - 25/03/2011 13:15

You can do this at Woodfor trees but their software does not appear to have the most up to date global temp estimates.

RSS Linear Trend Est. 2001-2012

Its very easy to cherry pick data and get whatever trend you like but seeing as though were only talking about 2001-2011 that should be a problem. I generally prefer to use the 36 month moving average as it give a more accurate version of events. See below:

RSS 36 month moving average
Posted by: davidg

Re: Temperature trends - 25/03/2011 13:27

Originally Posted By: davidg
seeing as though were only talking about 2001-2011 that shouldn't be a problem.


Correction to previous post in bold. Edit time ran out.
Posted by: Dustydevil

Re: Temperature trends - 25/03/2011 13:37

"On the reliability of the U.S. surface temperature record.

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2010.pdf"

Interesting paper. Ever wondered about the reliability of temperature records from ANY met station?

Ever wondered just how reliable "homogenization" of a temperature record is?

I certainly wouldn't trust homogenization that is done by someone with an agenda to push.

Can you imagine how difficult it must be to get that homogenization correct when you have to deal with changes caused by site relocations, instrument changes, changes to instrument shelters, and so on? Plenty of room for errors to creep in with all that lot to deal with.

And then you need to amalgamate all those "homogenized" records to create a "global" temperature.

Gee, I hope those boffins can be TRUSTED to get it right.
Posted by: Spatch

Re: Temperature trends - 25/03/2011 14:08

Yes, it is difficult to do the work that BOM does, among others, which is why they are highly trained - unlike blog scientists.

Show me a valid reason to not trust them to get it right.
Posted by: Spatch

Re: Temperature trends - 25/03/2011 14:10

Originally Posted By: davidg
You can do this at Woodfor trees but their software does not appear to have the most up to date global temp estimates.

RSS Linear Trend Est. 2001-2012

Its very easy to cherry pick data and get whatever trend you like but seeing as though were only talking about 2001-2011 that should be a problem. I generally prefer to use the 36 month moving average as it give a more accurate version of events. See below:

RSS 36 month moving average


It still doesn't change these facts.

2010 tied with 2005 as the hottest year on record since record-keeping began in 1880.

The 10 warmest years on record have all occurred since 1998.

In 2010, the global average temperature was 0.53 degrees Celsius, above the 1961 to 1990 mean that is used as a yardstick for climate measurements, according to the WMO.

Over the past decade, global temperatures have been the highest-ever recorded for a 10-year period since the beginning of instrument-based climate records.

2001 to 2010 set a new record as the warmest decade ever.
Posted by: roves

Re: Temperature trends - 25/03/2011 14:14

Of course they cant be trusted just jump over to WUWT to see yet another coverup by these criminals I mean climate scientists to hide data that doesn't fit their agenda just more proof that AGW is BS.
Shame on the people pushing this AGW rubbish.
Posted by: Dustydevil

Re: Temperature trends - 25/03/2011 14:20

Spatch,

did you see some of the posts I submitted in the Climate Politics Thread about the Bureau's attitude towards the correct siting of the barometer in Darwin? Essentially, it does not meet WMO or BoM specifications and I was told that 'near enough is good enough'. If that attitude prevails and is shown to the collection and processing of other elements of met data (and it is), then I remain cautious in considering their data.

Where did record keeping begin in 1880? I've read papers that suggest temperatures before that date have been reliably determined (again treat with caution) and were sometimes found to be warmer than they are now. IF those records can be believed, it has been hotter in years gone by.

The "yardstick" you refer to is a CONVENIENT period to use because they like to use a 30 year block of data. IT is NOT used as a measure or example of any average world temperature.

Temperatures MIGHT be higher now, since the beginning of instrument-based climate records but some scientist will tell us that temperatures have been even higher in previous times. If we believe those scientists, 2001 to 2010 is not the warmest decade ever.

Who to believe?
Posted by: Locke

Re: Temperature trends - 25/03/2011 14:30

When you measure the plateau of the peak of an upward cycle in temps you would expect many of the years near the peak to be the warmest on record.

If PDO and AMO cycles hold their usual course for the next 10 years I highly doubt you will be able to repeat the claim in ten years time.

That being said in terms of climate cycles I'm not sure 10 years is a valid timeframe to be trying to make a point on so I'm not sure cooling or a lack of warming since 2001 is something for us anti-AGW proponents to hang our hats on.

I'd be much more interested in where we are by 2020. If we don't see a consistent cooling trend emerge in the next ten years then it would certainly strengthen the AGW case particularly if the sun remains relatively quiet.

We very much need to get a handle on what natural climate cycles are doing doing to global temps and climatic conditions as in a world of 6 billion people, climate variation whether you believe it is natural or anthropogenic represents a significant threat to the welfare of everyone who lives on this planet.

Currently so much of the billions poured into climate research is going into proving the catastrophic AGW hypothesis and to me this represents wasted dollars at a time when we need thos dollars to be spent more wisely.
Posted by: Spatch

Re: Temperature trends - 25/03/2011 15:07

Originally Posted By: Dustydevil
Spatch,

did you see some of the posts I submitted in the Climate Politics Thread about the Bureau's attitude towards the correct siting of the barometer in Darwin? Essentially, it does not meet WMO or BoM specifications and I was told that 'near enough is good enough'. If that attitude prevails and is shown to the collection and processing of other elements of met data (and it is), then I remain cautious in considering their data.

Where did record keeping begin in 1880? I've read papers that suggest temperatures before that date have been reliably determined (again treat with caution) and were sometimes found to be warmer than they are now. IF those records can be believed, it has been hotter in years gone by.

The "yardstick" you refer to is a CONVENIENT period to use because they like to use a 30 year block of data. IT is NOT used as a measure or example of any average world temperature.

Temperatures MIGHT be higher now, since the beginning of instrument-based climate records but some scientist will tell us that temperatures have been even higher in previous times. If we believe those scientists, 2001 to 2010 is not the warmest decade ever.

Who to believe?



Your pathetic crusade to try and discredit the BOM is a joke.

It really is laughable that based on what one person allegedly said and on one single observation you supposedly made in Darwin, that you try to cast doubt on the entire BOM.

When confronted with facts that you don't like you resort to the last desperate weapon in your armoury - You attack the messenger.

That tired old tactic used by deniers of climate science just doesn't cut it.

Posted by: davidg

Re: Temperature trends - 25/03/2011 15:33

Originally Posted By: Spatch
Originally Posted By: davidg
You can do this at Woodfor trees but their software does not appear to have the most up to date global temp estimates.

RSS Linear Trend Est. 2001-2012

Its very easy to cherry pick data and get whatever trend you like but seeing as though were only talking about 2001-2011 that should be a problem. I generally prefer to use the 36 month moving average as it give a more accurate version of events. See below:

RSS 36 month moving average


It still doesn't change these facts.

2010 tied with 2005 as the hottest year on record since record-keeping began in 1880.

The 10 warmest years on record have all occurred since 1998.

In 2010, the global average temperature was 0.53 degrees Celsius, above the 1961 to 1990 mean that is used as a yardstick for climate measurements, according to the WMO.

Over the past decade, global temperatures have been the highest-ever recorded for a 10-year period since the beginning of instrument-based climate records.

2001 to 2010 set a new record as the warmest decade ever.


We're talking about two different things entirely.
Posted by: davidg

Re: Temperature trends - 25/03/2011 15:38

Originally Posted By: Locke
When you measure the plateau of the peak of an upward cycle in temps you would expect many of the years near the peak to be the warmest on record.

If PDO and AMO cycles hold their usual course for the next 10 years I highly doubt you will be able to repeat the claim in ten years time.

That being said in terms of climate cycles I'm not sure 10 years is a valid timeframe to be trying to make a point on so I'm not sure cooling or a lack of warming since 2001 is something for us anti-AGW proponents to hang our hats on.

I'd be much more interested in where we are by 2020. If we don't see a consistent cooling trend emerge in the next ten years then it would certainly strengthen the AGW case particularly if the sun remains relatively quiet.

We very much need to get a handle on what natural climate cycles are doing doing to global temps and climatic conditions as in a world of 6 billion people, climate variation whether you believe it is natural or anthropogenic represents a significant threat to the welfare of everyone who lives on this planet.

Currently so much of the billions poured into climate research is going into proving the catastrophic AGW hypothesis and to me this represents wasted dollars at a time when we need thos dollars to be spent more wisely.


Couldnt agree more Locke. I still think 10 years is statistcally significant when compared to only a 30 year warming trend but thia has been discussed at length in this forum before. In the end i dont think its all that relevant but i was just trying to give Spatch a bit of backround on what i was trying to say (a laboured and vain effort given hindsight). The more relevant part of my post however was the failure of the models to predict the current plateu/cooling trend. Im not saying it proves or dissproves anything, but it certainly displays an unexplained failing in the GCM's predictions.
Posted by: Spatch

Re: Temperature trends - 25/03/2011 16:09

Natural variability will influence the year to year temps. The models never predicted a record global temperature every year. The long term trend is a warming one, not cooling. The argument to just wait and see what happens in another 10 years is ridiculous.
Posted by: Dustydevil

Re: Temperature trends - 25/03/2011 16:15

Sorry Spatch.

No crusade against the BoM. I am surprised that they would be so flippant about measuring such important data. They aspire to be a 'best practice' organisation but their attitude to data collection leaves something to be desired. There are several areas where data collection is becoming poorer; most notably where automatic instruments are replacing the humans (Govt policy reducing funding rather than a BoM policy). It wouldn't be hard for them to take more care and do things properly so that their data is beyond reproach; so why don't they?

Would you please indicate where you think I've attacked the messenger; I'd like to fix that.

I'd also be interested to hear your answers to the questions I asked previously. Despite what you seem to think, I am genuinely interested to learn something.
Posted by: Locke

Re: Temperature trends - 25/03/2011 16:34

Originally Posted By: Spatch
Natural variability will influence the year to year temps. The models never predicted a record global temperature every year. The long term trend is a warming one, not cooling. The argument to just wait and see what happens in another 10 years is ridiculous.


Which begs the question what is meant by a "long term trend". Is 30-40 years a long term trend when measuring climate variation. What is the long term trend over 200 years? Warming? Warming caused by greenhouse gases? How about 1000 years.

When your talking AGW its generally accepted were talking what has happened in the past 40 years. Given a full PDO or AMO cycle is 60-70 years and we have only 30-40 years of Satellite data spliced in with all sorts of other methods of masuring temperature anomalies over longer spans of time arguing "the long term trend is a warming one" is a little too simlistic.

Your argument Spatch is that the last 30-40 years shows a warming trend and this coincides with the time period during which AGW theory says we should expect warming. All good and fine but it also coincides with 30-40 years of natural climate cycle that would also show warming.

Further the rate of warming during the current warm phase is really no higher than what was seen during the previous time both the AMO and PDO were in their positive phases.

Does this disprove AGW theory? By no means but I also don't see how you could argue that it conclusively proves AGW theory.
Posted by: Spatch

Re: Temperature trends - 25/03/2011 17:00


Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing.

In 1905, PDO switched to a warm phase as global warming began. In 1946, PDO switched to a cool phase as temperatures cool mid-century. In 1977, PDO switched to a warm phase around the same time as the modern global warming period. Is PDO the smoking gun?

While PDO does have some degree of correlation with short term variations in global temperature, the striking feature is the contrast in trends between PDO and global temperature. Obviously the PDO as an oscillation between positive and negative values shows no long term trend. In contrast, temperature displays a long term warming trend. When the PDO last switched to a cool phase, global temperatures were about 0.4C cooler than currently.

The long term warming trend indicates the total energy in the Earth's climate system is increasing. This is due to an energy imbalance - more energy is coming in than is going out.

One way to test this skeptic theory is to plot the Global Temperature Anomaly alongside the PDO Index (shown below). What we find is that although the PDO index appears to influence short-term temperature changes, global temperatures have a distinct upward trend, while the PDO Index does not.



Natural oscillations like PDO simply move heat around from oceans to air and vice-versa. They don't have the ability to either create or retain heat, therefore they're not capable of causing a long-term warming trend, just short-term temperature variations. Basically they're an example of internal variability, not an external radiative forcing. If PDO were responsible for warming the surface, the oceans would be cooling, which is not the case.

These results are expected. The long term warming trend is a result of an energy imbalance caused primarily by an increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. In contrast, the PDO is an internal process and does not increase or decrease the total energy in the climate system.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Pacific-Decadal-Oscillation.htm
Posted by: Dustydevil

Re: Temperature trends - 25/03/2011 19:08

Hi Spatch.

"Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing."

Humans are the dominant forcing?????? You've got proof?????

This Global Temperature; where is it measured? A 'homogenised' figure; an artificial figure that everyone ASSUMES is correct.......

No way can that be considered anything like CONCLUSIVE proof. It is nothing more than an ASSUMPTION.

And no answers to simple questions I asked? Hmmm...
Posted by: davidg

Re: Temperature trends - 25/03/2011 20:59

Spatch seems to have trouble answering any questions, simple or otherwise. I wouldnt bother Dustydevil.
Posted by: LittleDavey83

Re: Temperature trends - 25/03/2011 23:07

Spatch:

Could you please reproduce that graph with the two sets of data having the SAME y-axis scale, so the temperature readings are not exaggerated?

Could you also please include ocean temperatures (again on the same scale) so we can see the correlation (or lack of)?
Posted by: Seina

Re: Temperature trends - 25/03/2011 23:28

Originally Posted By: Spatch



A suggestion for further interpretation:

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ?

Originally Posted By: ROM
Posted by: Vlasta

Re: Temperature trends - 26/03/2011 07:27

This is for both alarmists and flat earth belivers . How do you know what temps were say 1900 and all those graphs later on . Its a joke .
I think Locke said , lets wait 10 years and see what happens . I hope I will be around that time but we wont have to wait that long . 5 years enough!! Maybe even a couple of years will do the job .
From a flat earth believer , so far I say this strongest ever Nina didnt deliver to satelite temps . Iam fully aware of the ocean temps ( higher than 2008 ), but there is the question . Is really ENSO ( lets forget PDO and AMO for a moment)behind to satelite temps 6-9 months , or are we seing longer forsing ? Say 2 years ? Have we reached the equilibrium , lol cant spell that word , I think so . That would answer my problem perfectly . We are gonna see the effect of nina 2008 now . 2011 is well behind 2008 , dont forget Iam temps nerd , people dont do what I do . I read and read and read and read what others have to say .
Posted by: Locke

Re: Temperature trends - 26/03/2011 09:22

I doubt even the most strident AGW believers would deny that natural climate cycles like the AMO and PDO impact global temperatures. However the data we have on these cycles is far more limited than the land surface temperature data we have. This has to impact our understanding of the natural range of these cycles.

A good example I can think of is some recent "research" I've done on historical flood levels in Brisbane. The graphs you can find on the BOM site gives flood levels back to 1840. Looking at this data you can see 5 floods from 1840 to 1900 that recorded over 5m at the Brisbane city gauge. 3 of those floods exceeded 7m and 2 were over 8m. Contrast this to the whole of the twentieth century where there was only one flood in excess of 5m.

Its very difficult then when looking at the Brisbane flood history to make predictions on the possibility of a flood in excess of 7m because the timeframe is really not long enough to accurately predict frequency and amplitude of flood events.

I would argue the same applies to AMO and PDO cycles. I am not convinced we currently have enough data to predict what is "normal" in terms of amplitude and frequency. Until we can this has to make predicting global temperature trends very difficult.
Posted by: Spatch

Re: Temperature trends - 26/03/2011 09:31


Caution - Climate Bollocks ...doing nothing is the best policy.
Posted by: roves

Re: Temperature trends - 26/03/2011 09:32

Vlasta I to do a lot of reading and IMHO the temp records that keep getting thrown up are useless with the adjustments made to them what I would like to see to have some faith about where the temp is going would be a temp record based on the raw data exclusive then we MIGHT have an idea of whats going on now and in to the future.
As a farmer if I played with the numbers as much as I see around this topic my bank would drop me as fast as I could change the numbers again.
Posted by: Locke

Re: Temperature trends - 26/03/2011 23:55

I have a lot more faith in the UAH satellite temps. Given they match reasonably closely with surface station temps over the period of the satellite records I think the surface station record since the satellite data became available has been reasonably reliable. This means I agree the data shows a warming trend since 1970.

Unfortunately though, many of adjustments have been made to surface station temperature records prior to the satellite era making the period before 1970 look much cooler and thus creating a longer term warming trend that may be more difficult to justify. This longer term data is important because it gives a context to the longer term natural climate cycles such as the AMO or PDO.

If you look at the PDO index linked above it was predominantly positive since 1970 (only recently going negative). What we cant do is look to the temperature record the last time the PDO was positive to get a gauge of what global temps should look like because the older surface station temperature data is so compromised.

One would assume just as other natural climate cycles vary in their strength then surely one would argue so can medium cycles such as the AMO and PDO. Until we have accurate temp recordings for several AMO and PDO cycles how can we possibly know what the norm is and what the natural variation is.
Posted by: mobihci

Re: Temperature trends - 27/03/2011 01:56



just how much rubbish can one site push out. it really doesnt take too much brain power to work out it is rubbish too!

i mean, consider that graph above from the quoted post, and this is solid proof of only one thing- the person who wrote that article believes that the climate never changed in the past!

its so obviously wrong in every sense of the word, i cant believe anyone would want to quote it. its fine as some sort of gimmick for children who know no better, but for everyone that reads here, its just insulting.
Posted by: Spatch

Re: Temperature trends - 27/03/2011 08:04

Originally Posted By: mobihci


just how much rubbish can one site push out. it really doesnt take too much brain power to work out it is rubbish too!

i mean, consider that graph above from the quoted post, and this is solid proof of only one thing- the person who wrote that article believes that the climate never changed in the past!

its so obviously wrong in every sense of the word, i cant believe anyone would want to quote it. its fine as some sort of gimmick for children who know no better, but for everyone that reads here, its just insulting.





The PDO is an oscillation with no trend. It moves the heat through different parts of the climate system but can not create nor retain heat. It can not be the cause of the long term warming trend we are now witnessing.

Posted by: Keith

Re: Temperature trends - 27/03/2011 08:17

Replies to the posts in Spatch's link are interesting. From them it seems that the only reason there's no trend is that the series is statistically detrended before calculation.
Posted by: Locke

Re: Temperature trends - 27/03/2011 09:13

The PDO is an oscillation which should show no trend if measured over multiple cycles.

If you isolate 30 years when the PDO is positive out of a full 60 year cycle it will certainly display a warming trend.

The period 1970-2011 when it is argued man-made CO2 has created a warming trend the PDO has been predominantly positive.

The assertion that PDO shows no trend is misleading in the context of what we are discussing. It would certainly show a warming trend for the AGW period because the AGW peiod does not cover multiple PDO cycles it only covers the part of the PDO cycle which is warming.
Posted by: Keith

Re: Temperature trends - 27/03/2011 12:19

This is a plot of the monthly PDO from January 1950 to December 2010 (link):



The following extract from the data link is relevant:

Updated standardized values for the PDO index, derived as the leading PC of monthly SST anomalies in the North Pacific Ocean, poleward of 20N. The monthly mean global average SST anomalies are removed to separate this pattern of variability from any "global warming" signal that may be present in the data.

I take it that by 'standardised', the mean of the data has been subtracted from each data point which has then been divided by the data's standard deviation. This would be the 'global warming' signal. On the face of the data, a Mann-Kendall statistical trend test reveals an overwhelmingly significant upward trend.

I have superimposed a 23 month moving average trendline which clearly isolated cycles in the series and obviously trends up and down are going to exist within shorter time frames.
Posted by: Spatch

Re: Temperature trends - 27/03/2011 12:34

Have a read of the link below.

It will help you to understand this sentence...

The PDO doesn’t cause global warming, the PDO is global warming.

On the Relationship between the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the Global Average Mean Temperature

The ‘classical’ definition of PDO excludes any trend in the data. But what would happen if the trend were not excluded? How would that influence the shape of the PDO time-series and its corresponding EOF (empirical orthogonal function; basically, what the PDO looks like in space instead of time)?

Click to read the article.
Posted by: Locke

Re: Temperature trends - 27/03/2011 14:18

I'm having a hard time grasping why Spatch is arguing about the impact of the PDO on global temperature trends for periods in excess of 60+ years when AGW theory only discusses what has happened in the past 30-40 years.

You can spin it any of a million ways but temperatures warm during a positive PDO phase and in the past 40 years we have had predominantly positive PDO values. Since we don't have enough data to know what the "normal" rate of warming is during a positive PDO phase any discussion of longer terms is irrelevant fluff.

Keith, looking at your chart, how can you possibly tell your start and end point are at equivalent points on the cycle? Whilst a full cycle could be expected to return no discernible trend anything less or more would have a significant impact on the final result. The PDO cycle is not statically fixed at 60 years as far as I'm aware just as many other cycles aren't. The only way you can overcome this is to have accurate measurements over multiple cycles (and not just 2) which we certainly don't have.

As an example if I was trying to gauge what impact an el-nino event is likely to have on global temperatures I certainly couldn't do so by looking at a single event. If I had data from a dozen events though, I would at least know the average and have some outliers. We do not have this for the PDO nor will we have it for a long time to come.
Posted by: Keith

Re: Temperature trends - 27/03/2011 14:48

Hi Locke,

I wasn't setting out to define the cycles, but simply mentioned them in passing by way of observation. In other words, from a quick look at the plot, cycles are visible. The intention was mainly to demonstrate that an upward trend exists, at least over the years plotted. I could look into cycles at greater depth but for now have chosen not to.
Posted by: Bill Illis

Re: Temperature trends - 27/03/2011 19:40


The PDO index is a poor measure of the impact of Pacific ocean cycles on the climate. It is a statistical measure rather than an ocean temperature measure and it has a very poor correlation to temperatures. It is a strawman.

For the Pacific, just use the ENSO and the Kuroshio current which exhibit no trend over time but have a large influence on the global temperature cycles and a much higher correlation.

The ocean cycles should not impart a long-term trend upward in the temperature series. But the AMO, for example, can have cycles that go up for 30 years (and even longer going by some of the historical reconstructions).

So one could have a 1976 to 2000 up cycle in the global temperature numbers which is 50% caused by the AMO cycle. One could have a 30 year down cycle as in 1944 to 1976 which is 50% caused by the AMO down cycle.

One can have temperatures spiking up by 0.35C as a result of a strong El Nino and then down by -0.7C when a La Nina follows in the next year. (UAH Temperatures have changed by over 0.9C in the last year).

Imposed on this natural variability is an upward trend in temperatures. The globe has warmed in the last 100 years.

It is less than half the trend which the theory says it should be however.
Posted by: Locke

Re: Temperature trends - 27/03/2011 20:20

Originally Posted By: Keith
Hi Locke,

I wasn't setting out to define the cycles, but simply mentioned them in passing by way of observation. In other words, from a quick look at the plot, cycles are visible. The intention was mainly to demonstrate that an upward trend exists, at least over the years plotted. I could look into cycles at greater depth but for now have chosen not to.


No problems Keith. But would it be the case if you were looking for any trend in a cycle you would need to start and finish from the same point in the cycle to get an accurate measurement of the trend. Looking at the chart this seems like it would be exceedingly difficult to do.
Posted by: LittleDavey83

Re: Temperature trends - 27/03/2011 22:11

Spatch, buried in that article you linked is this:
"there is still significant periodicity at 15-25 years. But this frequency is not what is usually cited as being the ’cause’ of global warming. Instead, it is the longer 70-year periodicity. Since the time-series is so short compared to 70 years, we cannot know whether there is in fact a significant 70 year period in the global mean surface temperature unless we use a proxy reconstruction (which I’m sure someone already has done)."

In other words - "everything I'm saying here might be complete baloney because we don't have enough data to check if there is actually a longer-term cycle which might explain these effects and prove them as natural variability - but I'm sure someone else will be able to tell you if I'm right or not..."
Posted by: mobihci

Re: Temperature trends - 28/03/2011 00:54

Originally Posted By: Bill Illis



Imposed on this natural variability is an upward trend in temperatures. The globe has warmed in the last 100 years.

It is less than half the trend which the theory says it should be however.


it is unknown how much is natural and how much isnt, so there is no 'half the trend' etc.

its just unknown.

the climate changed in the past, and until it is known how and by how much, then attributing anything to a known un-natural cause is just guessing, and has no place in the structure of evidence.

changes to the ocean cycles are just one way for trends to develop, but may not even exist! it doesnt matter. the trends for eg from the mwp obviously are not caused by un-natural processes, so why the hell do we care that there is a slight trend now?!

there always will be a trend one way or the other.

to be drawn into these arguments about eg the pdo not causing the warming trend is just playing the awg proponents game. IT DOES NOT MATTER!
Posted by: Keith

Re: Temperature trends - 28/03/2011 08:30

Originally Posted By: Locke
Originally Posted By: Keith
Hi Locke,

I wasn't setting out to define the cycles, but simply mentioned them in passing by way of observation. In other words, from a quick look at the plot, cycles are visible. The intention was mainly to demonstrate that an upward trend exists, at least over the years plotted. I could look into cycles at greater depth but for now have chosen not to.


No problems Keith. But would it be the case if you were looking for any trend in a cycle you would need to start and finish from the same point in the cycle to get an accurate measurement of the trend. Looking at the chart this seems like it would be exceedingly difficult to do.


Yes, it would be difficult, which is why I wouldn't start with a particular point in the data.

When it comes to the length of the data record, surely that is the problem with all the data we have on anything..the oldest is about 150 years or so. Even if you do a simulation (eg Monte Carlo) you are only duplicating the built-in properties of the dataset and extending it over time. Maybe examination of cycles could then proceed on the assumption that there haven't been any external influences that might have caused the cycles to be different say in 1700-1800 to what they were in 1900-2000. This is where we get into difficulties and I think where science gets into difficulties, because it has to make assumptions that cannot be supported by hard observed evidence.

As Bill said, to really measure the influence of the oceans on the temperature you have to look at the actual temperatures. The first PC of the series is merely a statistical tool that captures most of the variance in the data. For the purpose of a PC analysis it's normal to standardise it first..though not being all that well-read in stats I'm not sure why that is so.

For what it's all worth I ran a Monte Carlo simulation of the PDO for a 300 year period on the 1950-2010 data then subjected it to a wavelet analysis. This disclosed numerous cycles, suggesting to me that we are dealing with a measure that has multiple likely influences or inputs.

Spatch is drawing a very long bow by saying that the PDO is global warming. It isn't. It can't be. Apart from the countless other influences on climate that exist, the PDO is only a measure of the North Pacific Ocean above a certain latitude.
Posted by: Keith

Re: Temperature trends - 28/03/2011 09:09

Originally Posted By: Keith

........which is why I wouldn't start with a particular point in the data.

Point of clarification. We are looking at 2 things at a time; the general trend, and the isolation of cycles. It was these cycles that I was referring to, not the data series by itself, on which the general trend has been based.
Posted by: Spatch

Re: Temperature trends - 28/03/2011 11:48


A Spanish Hockey Stick!

Land surface temperature changes in Northern Iberia since 4000 yr BP, based on δ13C of speleothems

Abstract

The surface temperature changes for the last 4000 years in northern inland Iberia (an area particularly sensitive to climate change) are determined by a high resolution study of carbon stable isotope records of stalagmites from three caves (Kaite, Cueva del Cobre, and Cueva Mayor) separated several tens of kilometers away in N Spain. Despite the local conditions of each cave, the isotopic series show a good overall coherence, and resulted to be strongly sensitive to surface temperature changes.

[snip]

Remarkably, the presented records allow direct comparison of recent warming with former warm intervals such as the Roman or the Medieval periods. That comparison reveals the 20th century as the time with highest surface temperatures of the last 4000 years for the studied area.

Click
Posted by: Locke

Re: Temperature trends - 28/03/2011 12:55

I suspect we are pretty much agreeing then Keith.

For me another way to put it is by comparing to ENSO cycles. One thing I'm sure we could all agree on is during el-nino events global temperatures will rise and during la-nina events they will fall. This is lagged somewhat as the surface and atmospheric temps respond to SST's as far as I'm aware.

So, if I was trying to find out the natural range of the shorter term temperature variations caused by these cycles I would certainlly need more than one or two ENSO cycles to draw any definitive conclusions.

I'm arguing the same logic applies to longer cycles like the PDO. Our data gathering period is too short in relation to the length of the cycle for us to yet be close to fully understanding the natural variability of their peaks and troughs.

So when temperatures rise in the postive phase of a PDO cycle we really have little idea of what an average temperature response is during this phase of the cycle with accurate satellite temperature measurements of only a single positive PDO phase.
Posted by: SGB

Re: Temperature trends - 29/03/2011 17:15

Very interesting little video on "Hide the Decline" posted by Joe Bastardi on WeatherBell. Shows the manipulation that goes on with some data sets that so many people take for gospel.

Hide the Decline
Posted by: Arnost

Re: Temperature trends - 29/03/2011 18:18

Those Iberian temps look a bit wonky for the Roman Warm period... Maybe, they missed an adjustment for rainfall (as that is a contribitor to stalagtite buildup).



History tells us that the Roman epoch ended in a big wet... for example here is a recent study suggesting just that. And here is a nice pic showing precipitation proxies in the Western Mediterranean area.

So maybe these are not pure temp proxies...
Posted by: mobihci

Re: Temperature trends - 29/03/2011 23:21

so, one proxy that probably shows no skill in current temps shows a level of warming beyond belief, yet-





which show less than a third of the warming shown by that proxy.

the people of greenland will get their farms eventually, but they may have to wait until 6000 years ago.. hmm-

http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/10/northern-greenland-less-ice-6000-7000.html

of course this warming event was not from man, but some sort of cycle or set of cycles. harmonic? who knows, one thing is for sure neither do the experts who write the articles about past warming/cooling/cycles etc, because they are all bloody different.

now i dont know about you, but when i hear conflicting stories about why and how, how fast/slow these changes occur, i listen with political ears only. there have been too many lies. eg carter has a presentation that shows larger climate changes over a shorter period than even the dud giss temp construction(imagining), and i believe it. have seen the documentation behind it, and will never accept the 'faster than the past' red herring, or even just outright lie.

my polticial ear hears that iberia temps look strangely like the 'new' re-invented hockey stick. meanwhile even the simplest of problems here such as the divergence of the various ground temp records is left unresolved.

btw those pics are from this thread-

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/13/congenital-climate-abnormalities/

there are other fine pic there too like this one-

Posted by: Arnost

Re: Temperature trends - 29/03/2011 23:51

Quote:
my polticial ear hears that iberia temps look strangely like the 'new' re-invented hockey stick. meanwhile even the simplest of problems here such as the divergence of the various ground temp records is left unresolved.


Hatchet job on GISP2 - and I actually feel sorry for Richard Alley as he is one of the few Climate Scientists that actually goes out "into the lab" so to speak.


From the abstract

Quote:
Remarkably, the presented records allow direct comparison of recent warming with former warm intervals such as the Roman or the Medieval periods. That comparison reveals the 20th century as the time with highest surface temperatures of the last 4000 years for the studied area.



"Remarkably" the GISP2 data is dusted!
Posted by: Spatch

Re: Temperature trends - 30/03/2011 09:36

Originally Posted By: Arnost
Quote:
my polticial ear hears that iberia temps look strangely like the 'new' re-invented hockey stick. meanwhile even the simplest of problems here such as the divergence of the various ground temp records is left unresolved.


Hatchet job on GISP2 - and I actually feel sorry for Richard Alley as he is one of the few Climate Scientists that actually goes out "into the lab" so to speak.


From the abstract

Quote:
Remarkably, the presented records allow direct comparison of recent warming with former warm intervals such as the Roman or the Medieval periods. That comparison reveals the 20th century as the time with highest surface temperatures of the last 4000 years for the studied area.



"Remarkably" the GISP2 data is dusted!


No, Gisp2 data is not dusted.

A few facts...

GISP2 is clearly a local record of temperature for the summit of the Greenland ice sheet, not a proxy for global temperature.

The Holocene shows a very slow, gradual cooling trend over the past 6,000 years but the mechanisms behind the cooling are well understood.

The cooling during the past 6,000 years globally is on the scale of 1-2C and we have abruptly altered the trend and are now pushing the planet toward warming.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=577

--------------

What the Ice Cores Tell Us, and How Deniers Distort it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c90nab5i-TQ

A widely circulated piece of climate denial nonsense purports to use legitimate evidence from greenland ice cores to debunk the record of global warming.

Displaying temperature records out of context, and making the claim of legitimacy by citing the data, and it's primary author, Dr Richard Alley, this popular propaganda piece pretends to be based on actual evidence, when it is anything but.

---------------

Richard Alley in the New York Times
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/08/richard-alley-on-old-ice-climate...

Richard Alley before congress
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2m9SNzxJJA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9S_82BUshM8


Richard Alley Speech to American Geophysical Union
http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml
excerpted here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uE6at2IEUOU

Alley Dances to explain Ice Ages
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NQPolcYoIc

Richard Alley: Conversations from Penn State
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2MO7O5mTK0

and here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfAswUeljQ0&feature=ch%20annel

Reading Greenland Ice Cores
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2MO7O5mTK0
Posted by: Bill Illis

Re: Temperature trends - 30/03/2011 13:01

Richard Alley used an inaccurate formula in converting the Greenland do18 isotope data into temperatures.

He used the average global conversion factor when must use a local factor which includes latitude, altitude, proximity to oceans etc.

Take Alley's numbers and divide by three.

Posted by: Spatch

Re: Temperature trends - 30/03/2011 19:01

Originally Posted By: Bill Illis
Richard Alley used an inaccurate formula in converting the Greenland do18 isotope data into temperatures.

He used the average global conversion factor when must use a local factor which includes latitude, altitude, proximity to oceans etc.

Take Alley's numbers and divide by three.



I'd like to see the evidence for that claim. It sounds like it was simply made up.
Posted by: Spatch

Re: Temperature trends - 30/03/2011 19:19

Some sceptics are predicting the globe is going to enter a long cooling phase. Check out how wrong they've been in the past with their whacky predictions.

David Archibald predicts the May 2009 UAH MSU Global Temperature Result



Archibald states that:

"The combination of a 0.3° response to the current La Nina and the usual 0.3° decline from January to May will result in a 0.6° decline to May 2009 to a result of -0.4° (0.4° below the long term average)."

Now in complete contrast with his "prediction", the UAH global lower-troposphere temperature for May 2009 was +0.06 (with respect to the 1980-2010 mean). RSS gave a global anomaly of +0.05 C for May 2009. And 2009 ended up being the second warmest year on record in the GISS data at the time. Archibald was horribly wrong.

http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=197

---------

And here's a cracker from John McLean...

"it is likely that 2011 will be the coolest year since 1956 or even earlier"

It's hard to overstate the magnitude of this prediction. As the saying goes, a picture is worth a thousand words:



Now that's a decline!

The MetOffice official forecast for 2011.

"Although La Niña has stabilised, it is still expected to affect global temperature through the coming year. This effect is small compared to the total accrued global warming to date, but it does mean that 2011 is unlikely to be a record year according to the Met Office prediction based on the three main datasets. Nevertheless an anomaly of 0.44 °C is still likely — with the range very likely to be between 0.28 °C and 0.60 °C. The middle of this range would place 2011 among the top 10 warmest years on the record."

Also of note, is the UK Met Office's statement that:

"Over the years 2000–2010 that the Met Office has issued forecasts of annual global temperature, the mean value of the forecast error is 0.06 °C."

http://www.skepticalscience.com/mclean-exaggerating-natural-cycles.html
Posted by: Spatch

Re: Temperature trends - 30/03/2011 19:49

Hey Bill, you made a mistake in this post. You said Richard Alley said 20.0C per doubling is possible. Alley actually said 14 to 16 degrees Fahrenheit per doubling is possible.

I think you need to correct your mistake.

Quote:
Bill Illis says:
December 25, 2010 at 9:10 pm
The Earth has experienced as much as 4.5 doublings of CO2 in the past. (There is even an estimate of 5.5 doublings during Snowball Earth).

So, Alley’s math would predict temperatures at those times of well over 100C and even as much as 145C – more than enough to boil off the oceans and put us into the Venus runaway. What happened instead – even more icesheets than we have today

Obviously, Richard Alley has compromised mathematical abilities – like his miscalibration of the Greenland ice core isotope data showed (off by a factor of two) and like his 2009 Bjerknes lecture at the AGU “The Biggest Control Knob: CO2 in Earth Climate History” which had all the pro-AGWers literally swooning last year (the actual data he used which I also have does not exhibit anything like the correlation he commented on).

I don’t know how one could put together that lecture and then later say, 20.0C per doubling is possible. One must not have understood it at all.

I’m starting to wonder if students who have very poor math skills eventually migrate into climate science because they can get away with a lot of bad math in this field – in fact, it is encouraged. No matter what the data actually adds up to – it must equal 3.0C per doubling regardless – even cooling with higher CO2 levels means 3.0C (or 20.0C) per doubling is correct. That would explain much of the problems in this field.

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/12/24/dr-richard-alley-expects-20-degrees-of-warming/



Richard Alley said:

“I believe that Mr. Gillis inadvertently made a small numerical error in quoting me. In addition, I have received inquiries via e-mail indicating that versions of this post are circulating in which a punctuation error attributes to me a statement that was made by Mr. Gillis.

The effect of these two issues is to make it appear that I disagree with the assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or that I somehow have made a new contribution to our understanding of climate sensitivity.

In fact, I have not made any new contribution, and I continue to believe that the assessments of the IPCC, and the National Academy of Sciences, provide our best guide to the effects of carbon dioxide on climate. My statements were intended to communicate the assessed science.

The interested reader might start with Figure 1 in Box 10.2 in chapter 10 of the I.P.C.C. Working Group 1 Fourth Assessment Report. The best estimate of climate sensitivity is near 3 degrees Centigrade of warming, or 5 to 6 degrees Fahrenheit, for equilibrium response to doubled CO2, but with an uncertainty range that extends further to higher values than to lower ones. As shown there, if one wants to be highly confident that the stated uncertainty range includes all possibilities, sensitivity as high as 8 or 9 degrees Centigrade, or 14 to 16 degrees Fahrenheit, is at least slightly possible based on some analyses. Proper quantification is given there and in the references cited by the I.P.C.C. report.”

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/23/climate-change-and-balanced-coverage/
Posted by: mobihci

Re: Temperature trends - 30/03/2011 22:24

Originally Posted By: Arnost
Quote:
my polticial ear hears that iberia temps look strangely like the 'new' re-invented hockey stick. meanwhile even the simplest of problems here such as the divergence of the various ground temp records is left unresolved.


Hatchet job on GISP2 - and I actually feel sorry for Richard Alley as he is one of the few Climate Scientists that actually goes out "into the lab" so to speak.


From the abstract

Quote:
Remarkably, the presented records allow direct comparison of recent warming with former warm intervals such as the Roman or the Medieval periods. That comparison reveals the 20th century as the time with highest surface temperatures of the last 4000 years for the studied area.



"Remarkably" the GISP2 data is dusted!


yes, thats fairly clear from the responses here.

ice cores are obviously only local indicators, unless al gore uses them.

clearly ice core data is a bit of a pain in the rear end to the salesmen because it just doesnt play the game. first it shows significant past, rapid temperature changes which must be explained, hmm or you can just say that the last 6000 years has been a steady cooling! haha, then second it shows the co2 lags the temperature changes, which outright kills anything above the +1.5deg per doubling argument.

wont matter though, because there is a cave that shows current temps WITH the past temps next to them, in graph form and all!. oh wow, no, sham wow!

i particularly liked this presentation of the gisp2 data-

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/the-big-picture-65-million-years-of-temperature-swings/



this is another particularly good presentation of it-

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/28/2010%E2%80%94where-does-it-fit-in-the-warmest-year-list/

oh and this little gem-

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/01/rebuttal-to-the-skeptical-science-crux-of-a-core/
Posted by: Spatch

Re: Temperature trends - 30/03/2011 23:14

Last February, Andrew Revkin asked Dr. Alley, the lead scientist for GISP2, to respond to the interpretation of GISP2 by people like Dr. Hall. His response then is equally applicable today. A couple clips:

“First off, no single temperature record from anywhere can prove or disprove global warming, because the temperature is a local record, and one site is not the whole world. One of the lessons drawn from comparing Greenland to Antarctica and many other places is that some of the temperature changes (the ice-age cycling) are very widespread and shared among most records, but other of the temperature changes (sometimes called millennial, or abrupt, or Younger-Dryas-type) are antiphased between Greenland and the south, and still other temperature changes may be unrelated between different places (one anomalously cold year in Greenland does not tell you the temperature anomaly in Australia or Peru). ”

… and …

“So, using GISP2 data to argue against global warming is, well, stupid, or misguided, or misled, or something, but surely not scientifically sensible. And, using GISP2 data within the larger picture of climate science demonstrates that our scientific understanding is good, supports our expectation of global warming, but raises the small-chance-of-big-problem issue that in turn influences the discussion of optimal human response.”

Here’s the full Revkin article:

Reality Check on Old Ice, Climate and CO2

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/08/richard-alley-on-old-ice-climate-and-co2/#h

------------

Dr. Alley's detailed response is what separates good scientists from denialists. Denialists argue like lawyers, misrepresenting a witness, or cherry-picking a piece of information while ignoring everything else. Lawyers defending or prosecuting a very weak case do this extensively. Similarly, those seeking to argue against the overwhelming evidence on global warming find themselves misrepresenting the work of scientists or selectively focusing on a few pieces of data. We should be skeptical of the global warming "skeptics".

Posted by: Bill Illis

Re: Temperature trends - 30/03/2011 23:26

Originally Posted By: Spatch
Originally Posted By: Bill Illis
Richard Alley used an inaccurate formula in converting the Greenland do18 isotope data into temperatures.

He used the average global conversion factor when must use a local factor which includes latitude, altitude, proximity to oceans etc.

Take Alley's numbers and divide by three.



I'd like to see the evidence for that claim. It sounds like it was simply made up.


Copied from a Textbook on Isotope Usage:

For Greenland d 18O = 0.72 T – 13.4
At the LGM, d 18O = –40‰, and so T = –36.9°C
Early Holocene, d 18O = –32‰, and so T = –25.8°C

Thus, DT is 11.1°C

(This is for Camp Century, at 2000 metres and closer to the coast, so as one moves to the higher elevation at the GISP2 site and farther from the coast, the formula will bump from 0.72 T to .85 T or so).
Posted by: Spatch

Re: Temperature trends - 30/03/2011 23:40

Here's a GISP2 graph showing temps up to 2009.




http://hot-topic.co.nz/easterbrooks-wrong-again/

http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2011/01/garbled-reasoning-at-wuwt.html



Posted by: Spatch

Re: Temperature trends - 30/03/2011 23:46

Originally Posted By: Bill Illis
Originally Posted By: Spatch
Originally Posted By: Bill Illis
Richard Alley used an inaccurate formula in converting the Greenland do18 isotope data into temperatures.

He used the average global conversion factor when must use a local factor which includes latitude, altitude, proximity to oceans etc.

Take Alley's numbers and divide by three.



I'd like to see the evidence for that claim. It sounds like it was simply made up.


Copied from a Textbook on Isotope Usage:

For Greenland d 18O = 0.72 T – 13.4
At the LGM, d 18O = –40‰, and so T = –36.9°C
Early Holocene, d 18O = –32‰, and so T = –25.8°C

Thus, DT is 11.1°C

(This is for Camp Century, at 2000 metres and closer to the coast, so as one moves to the higher elevation at the GISP2 site and farther from the coast, the formula will bump from 0.72 T to .85 T or so).


Yes, and now you need to show evidence that Dr Alley used an inaccurate formula in converting the Greenland do18 isotope data into temperatures.

Better still why don't you email him with your claim and see what he says.
Posted by: Bill Illis

Re: Temperature trends - 31/03/2011 13:24


Spatch, why does your chart above show 4C of warming in Greenland from 1840 to 2009.

The actual paper that the data came from only shows 1C of warming from 1840 to 2007.

Richard Alley says his data ended in 1855.

[Basically this ends up being the same number used by Easterbrook who was quoting global numbers - there should be twice as much temperature change in Greenland as the global estimate as the theory of polar amplication indicates should happen and which seems to actually happen in the real climate)].

http://polarmet.osu.edu/PolarMet/PMGFulldocs/box_yang_jc_2009.pdf

I'm just saying that people need to be more careful with their math in this debate. It should math-focussed since we are talking about numbers here almost all the time.

One should note 1930 versus 2007.

Posted by: Spatch

Re: Temperature trends - 31/03/2011 14:03

Originally Posted By: Bill Illis

Spatch, why does your chart above show 4C of warming in Greenland from 1840 to 2009.

The actual paper that the data came from only shows 1C of warming from 1840 to 2007.

Richard Alley says his data ended in 1855.

[Basically this ends up being the same number used by Easterbrook who was quoting global numbers - there should be twice as much temperature change in Greenland as the global estimate as the theory of polar amplication indicates should happen and which seems to actually happen in the real climate)].

http://polarmet.osu.edu/PolarMet/PMGFulldocs/box_yang_jc_2009.pdf

I'm just saying that people need to be more careful with their math in this debate. It should math-focussed since we are talking about numbers here almost all the time.

One should note 1930 versus 2007.



Bill, if you had read the link I posted that the chart was from you'd not have needed to ask that question.

Here's the link again.

http://hot-topic.co.nz/easterbrooks-wrong-again/

BTW, have you emailed Richard Alley yet?

You could also clear up your mistake you made when you said Richard Alley said 20.0C per doubling is possible, when what Richard Alley actually said is 14 to 16 degrees Fahrenheit per doubling is possible.

Note the difference. Celsius v's Fahrenheit.

That's a very careless mistake you made there don't you think?

And to top that off you made a whole post based on that mistake where you rubbished Richard Alley's work.

http://forum.weatherzone.com.au/ubbthreads.php/topics/980532/Re_Temperature_trends#Post980532
Posted by: Spatch

Re: Temperature trends - 31/03/2011 17:40

Originally Posted By: Locke
Lol Spatch. I have no problems with people reading the post on WUWT

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/22/the-not-evil-just-romm-2-solution/#more-36392

and then reading the post at Climate Progress

http://climateprogress.org/2011/03/22/climate-science-deniers-berkeley-temperature-study/


and then the FAQ at the Berkeley site which incidentally was updated after Ken Caldieara started shooting his mouth off.

http://www.berkeleyearth.org/FAQ

and then drawing their own conclusions. Spatch I don't really think you or Joe understand how bad this type of propagand and spin doctoring makes AGW proponents look.

Joe Romm and his blog are a laughable so please Spatch keep linking to him. No one does more to help the sceptics cause than Joe.


Berkeley temperature team explains attack on its initial findings by WattsUpWithThat was pure fabrication

It was fairly obvious the discredited denier Anthony Watts made a false statement and egregious blunder last week when he attacked the initial findings of Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project. Of course, that’s true of most posts on WattsUpWithThat, but this fabrication stands out because Watts usually attacks climate science, not the confusionists.

Here’s the hilarious story of Watts’ self-inflicted implosion, what Shakespeare called being hoist with his own petard.

http://climateprogress.org/2011/03/29/wattsupwiththat-attack-fabrication/

Anthony Watts says:
March 29, 2011 at 5:18 pm
Yes, I made a mistake, I misheard what was being presented, which happens sometimes. As you may know I’m about 80% hearing impaired and the presentation made to me was verbal with some printed graphs. I did not get to come back with any of those graphs, notes, or data so I had to rely on what I heard. I simply misheard and thought the 2% were the Japan stations they showed me.

I was in contact with Dr. Muller last night and planned an update to that post which I will do. You’d holler about it either way so the timing isn’t much important.

[JR: Your cry for sympathy would have more credibility if your post hadn't been full of cock-sure invective. That entire post was based on 100% certainty that you were right and I was wrong. Not only that, but when a commenter pointed out that you were obviously wrong many days ago, you dismissed him and left the egregious error up for several days!

Indeed, what's really laughable about this comment is that your post begins by attacking me for a post where I actually made a correction, whereas you sat on your error for days and days, even after I and others pointed it out!

If your plan is to point to your infirmity whenever someone points out an egregious error you make, then next time don't express your statements with such certainty, with such dismissiveness for every other human being.

---------

I liked this comment:

I think that the remaining 20% hearing that you have is highly selective Anthony, and miraculously manages to filter out the inconvenient findings concerning climate science. Truth is you heard what you wanted to hear and did not bother to check your facts. Something you have a propensity to do.
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 31/03/2011 19:16

Handy up to date new daily graph for anyone interested.
http://processtrends.com/images/RClimate_UAH_Ch5_latest.png
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 31/03/2011 19:18

This is from...
Enhanced UAH Channel 5 Temperature Anomaly Trend Chart: Update 1
Posted on August 19, 2010 by Kelly| 17 Comments
This post discusses my updated and enhanced UAH Channel 5 daily trend chart. Updated 3/29/11


Update 1: 3/29/11

Since I have received a number of comments and questions about this post, I am updating it to address these comments and improve the chart.

I plot the Channel 5 data because it is available in rear real time so that readers can get a sense for how the monthly global temperature anomaly is shaping up. However, the comments tell me that there is some confusion about Channel 5 and how it compares to the UAH TLT data.

Lucia at The Blackboard has a detailed discussion of UAH TLT and Channel 5 here. Bob Illis has an interesting chart that shows the differences between UAH TLT and Channel 5 here.

Dr. Roy Spencer discussed tracking daily global temperature anomalies here.

I have revised my chart to show both the UAH TLT 5.4 and Channel 5 monthly trends as well as the daily Channel 5 data for the current month.

#############################################################

originally added a daily UAH Channel 5 chart in my May 9,2010 post. UAH changed their file format over the summer so I had to revise the chart.

This new R based version has several features that help track daily temperature anomalies:

Shows monthly average values for available data
Shows current month-to-date average and highlights previous year monthly averages so that readers can assess the current month with respect to the same month in previous years
Shows daily values for current month in figure-inside-figure
Shows maximum day of year values for each day in current month
I update this chart daily in the Climate Trends Sidebar so you can quickly see how the UAH satellite based global temperature anomaly is developing over the month. Please note that UAH’s Channel 5 values are adjusted by UAH at the end of month so that it is only an indication of the actual monthly anomaly.



http://chartsgraphs.wordpress.com/2010/08/19/enhanced-uah-channel-5-temperature-anomaly-trend-chart/
Posted by: davidg

Re: Temperature trends - 31/03/2011 20:46

Originally Posted By: Spatch
I think that the remaining 20% hearing that you have is highly selective Anthony, and miraculously manages to filter out the inconvenient findings concerning climate science. Truth is you heard what you wanted to hear and did not bother to check your facts. Something you have a propensity to do


Just for posterity.
Posted by: Spatch

Re: Temperature trends - 01/04/2011 06:38

STATEMENT TO THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE AND TECHNOLOGY
OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Richard A. Muller

Professor of Physics
University of California, Berkeley
Chair, Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project

31 March 2011

http://berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Muller_Testimony_31_March_2011

I begin by talking about Global Warming

Prior groups at NOAA, NASA, and in the UK (HadCRU) estimate about a 1.2 degree C land temperature rise from the early 1900s to the present. This 1.2 degree rise is what we call global warming. Their work is excellent, and the Berkeley Earth project strives to build on it.

Human caused global warming is somewhat smaller. According to the most recent IPCC report (2007), the human component became apparent only after 1957, and it amounts to “most” of the 0.7 degree rise since then. Let’s assume the human-caused warming is 0.6 degrees.

The magnitude of this temperature rise is a key scientific and public policy concern. A 0.2 degree uncertainty puts the human component between 0.4 and 0.8 degrees – a factor of two uncertainty. Policy depends on this number. It needs to be improved. Berkeley Earth is working to improve on the accuracy of this key number by using a more complete set of data, and by looking at biases in a new way.

Bias in Data Selection

Prior groups (NOAA, NASA, HadCRU) selected for their analysis 12% to 22% of the roughly 39,000 available stations. (The number of stations they used varied from 4,500 to a maximum of 8,500.) They believe their station selection was unbiased. Outside groups have questioned that, and claimed that the selection picked records with large temperature increases. Such bias could be inadvertent, for example, a result of choosing long continuous records. (A long record might mean a station that was once on the outskirts and is now within a city.)
To avoid such station selection bias, Berkeley Earth has developed techniques to work with all the available stations. This requires a technique that can include short and
discontinuous records.

In an initial test, Berkeley Earth chose stations randomly from the complete set of 39,028 stations. Such a selection is free of station selection bias.

In our preliminary analysis of these stations, we found a warming trend. It is very similar to that reported by the prior groups: a rise of about 0.7 degrees C since 1957.

Let me now address the problem of Poor Temperature Station Quality

Many temperature stations in the U.S. are located near buildings, in parking lots, or close to heat sources. Anthony Watts and his team has shown that most of the current stations
in the US Historical Climatology Network would be ranked “poor” by NOAA’s own standards, with error uncertainties up to 5 degrees C.

Did such poor station quality exaggerate the estimates of global warming? We’ve studied this issue, and our preliminary answer is no.

The Berkeley Earth analysis shows that over the past 50 years the poor stations in the U.S. network do not show greater warming than do the good stations.

Thus, although poor station quality might affect absolute temperature, it does not appear to affect trends, and for global warming estimates, the trend is what is important.

In Summary

Despite potential biases in the data, methods of analysis can be used to reduce bias effects well enough to enable us to measure long-term Earth temperature changes. Data integrity
is adequate. Based on our initial work at Berkeley Earth, I believe that some of the most worrisome biases are less of a problem than I had previously thought.
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 01/04/2011 09:47

"Expect the BEST, plan for the worst
Posted on March 31, 2011 by Willis Eschenbach
Well, I had hoped for the best from BEST, the new Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project looking at the global temperature record. I was disheartened, however, by the Congressional testimony of Dr. Richard Muller of BEST.

Global Warming

Prior groups at NOAA, NASA, and in the UK (HadCRU) estimate about a 1.2 degree C land temperature rise from the early 1900s to the present. This 1.2 degree rise is what we call global warming. Their work is excellent, and the Berkeley Earth project strives to build on it.

Human caused global warming is somewhat smaller. According to the most recent IPCC report (2007), the human component became apparent only after 1957, and it
amounts to “most” of the 0.7 degree rise since then. Let’s assume the human-caused warming is 0.6 degrees.

The magnitude of this temperature rise is a key scientific and public policy concern. A 0.2 degree uncertainty puts the human component between 0.4 and 0.8 degrees – a factor of two uncertainty. Policy depends on this number. It needs to be improved.

Why do I think his testimony doesn’t help in the slightest? Well, to start with, I’ve never heard anyone make the claim that the land surface air temperature (excluding oceans) of the earth has warmed 1.2°C since 1900.


He cites three land temperature datasets, NOAA , NASA (GISTEMP), and HadCRU (he presumably means CRUTEM, not HadCRU).

Here’s the problem. The actual land surface air temperature warming since 1900 according to the existing datasets is:

NASA GISTEMP: 0.72°C

NOAA NCDC: 0.86°C

CRUTEM: 0.92°C

So Dr. Muller, in his first and most public appearance on the subject, has made some of the more unusual claims about the existing temperature datasets I’ve heard to date.

1. Since the largest temperature rise in the three datasets is 30% greater than the smallest rise, their work is not “excellent” in any sense of the word. Nor should the BEST team “strive to build on it.” Instead, they should strive to understand why the three vary so widely. What decisions make the difference? Which decisions make little difference?

2. Not one of the three datasets shows a temperature rise anywhere near the 1.2°C rise Muller is claiming since 1900. The largest one shows only about 3/4 of his claimed rise.

3. He claims a “0.2 degree uncertainty”. But the difference between the largest and smallest calculated warming from the three datasets is 0.2°C, so the uncertainty has to be a lot more than that …

4. He says that the land warming since 1957 is 0.7°C. The records beg to differ. Here’s the land warming since 1957:

NASA GISTEMP: 0.83°C

NOAA NCDC: 1.10°C

CRUTEM: 0.93°C

Note that none of them are anywhere near 0.7°C. Note also the huge difference in the trends in these “excellent” datasets, a difference of half a degree per century.

5. He fails to distinguish CRUTEM (the land-only temperature record produced by the Climategate folks) from HadCRU (a land-ocean record produced jointly by the Hadley folks and the Climategate folks). A minor point to be sure, but one indicating his unfamiliarity with the underlying datasets he is discussing.

It can’t be a Celsius versus Fahrenheit error, because it goes both ways. He claims a larger rise 1900-present than the datasets show, and a smaller rise 1958-present than the datasets.

I must confess, I’m mystified by all of this. With his testimony, Dr. Muller has totally destroyed any credibility he might have had with me. He might be able to rebuild it by explaining his strange numbers. But to give that kind of erroneous testimony, not in a random paper he might written quickly, but to Congress itself, marks him to me as a man driven by a very serious agenda, a man who doesn’t check his work and who pays insufficient attention to facts in testimony. I had hoped we wouldn’t have another temperature record hag-ridden by people with an axe to grind … foolish me.

Perhaps someone who knows Dr. Muller could ask him to explain his cheerleading before Congress. I call it cheerleading because it certainly wasn’t scientific testimony of any kind I’m familiar with. I hear Dr. Muller is a good guy, and very popular with the students, but still … color me very disappointed.

w.

PS – Muller also said:

Let me now address the problem of

Poor Temperature Station Quality

Many temperature stations in the U.S. are located near buildings, in parking lots, or close to heat sources. Anthony Watts and his team has shown that most of the current stations in the US Historical Climatology Network would be ranked “poor” by NOAA’s own standards, with error uncertainties up to 5 degrees C.

Did such poor station quality exaggerate the estimates of global warming? We’ve studied this issue, and our preliminary answer is no.

The Berkeley Earth analysis shows that over the past 50 years the poor stations in the U.S. network do not show greater warming than do the good stations.

Thus, although poor station quality might affect absolute temperature, it does not appear to affect trends, and for global warming estimates, the trend is what is important.

Dr. Muller, I’m going to call foul on this one. For you to announce your pre-publication results on this issue is way, way out of line. You get to have your claim entered into the Congressional Record and you don’t even have to produce a single citation or publish a paper or show a scrap of data or code? That is scientific back-stabbing via Congressional testimony, and on my planet it is absolutely unacceptable.

That is taking unfair advantage of your fifteen minutes of fame. Show your work and numbers like anyone else and we’ll evaluate them. Then you may be able to crow, or not, before Congress.

But to stand up before Congress as an expert witness and refer solely to your own unpublished, uncited, and un-verifiable claims? Sorry, but if you want to make that most public scientific claim, that bad siting doesn’t affect temperature trends, you have to show your work just like anyone else. If you want to make that claim before Congress, then PUBLISH YOUR DATA AND CODE like the rest of us mortals. Put your results where your mouth is, or if not, leave it out of your Congressional testimony. Why is that not obvious?.......further reading follows....."

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/31/expect-the-best-plan-for-the-worst/#more-37009
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 01/04/2011 10:05

"Clarification on BEST submitted to the House
Posted on March 31, 2011 by Anthony Watts
As many know, there’s a hearing today in the House of Representatives with the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology and there are a number of people attending, including Dr. John Christy of UAH and Dr. Richard Muller of the newly minted Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project.

There seems a bit of a rush here, as BEST hasn’t completed all of their promised data techniques that would be able to remove the different kinds of data biases we’ve noted. That was the promise, that is why I signed on (to share my data and collaborate with them). Yet somehow, much of that has been thrown out the window, and they are presenting some results today without the full set of techniques applied. Based on my current understanding, they don’t even have some of them fully working and debugged yet. Knowing that, today’s hearing presenting preliminary results seems rather topsy turvy. But, post normal science political theater is like that.

I have submitted this letter to be included in the record today. It is written for the Members of the committee, to give them a general overview of the issue, so may seem generalized and previously covered in some areas. It also addresses technical concerns I have, also shared by Dr. Pielke Sr. on the issue. I’ll point out that on the front page of the BEST project, they tout openness and replicability, but none of that is available in this instance, even to Dr. Pielke and I. They’ve had a couple of weeks with the surfacestations data, and now without fully completing the main theme of data cleaning, are releasing early conclusions based on that data, without providing the ability to replicate. I’ve seen some graphical output, but that’s it. What I really want to see is a paper and methods. Our upcoming paper was shared with BEST in confidence."
Response to Muller.......
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/response_to_muller_testimony.pdf
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 01/04/2011 10:27

Honey scarce as cold weather grounds bees
Friday April 1, 2011 - 08:23 EDT
http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/honey-scarce-as-cold-weather-grounds-bees/16993

Adelaide has wettest start to year
Friday April 1, 2011 - 09:20 EDT
http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/adelaide-has-wettest-start-to-year/16999

Adelaide Advertiser 1/4/2011 Coldest Max temp for Adelaide on record.
Posted by: Spatch

Re: Temperature trends - 01/04/2011 10:29

The take home lesson here for the sceptics is that it does not matter who takes on the task of analysing the surface temperature record. The results will always confirm that NOAA, NASA, HadCRU etc have done their work correctly. The rising trend in global temperature due to human activities is reality- no amount of bleating will change that fact.

Posted by: Dustydevil

Re: Temperature trends - 01/04/2011 11:06

"I think that the remaining 20% hearing that you have is highly selective Anthony, and miraculously manages to filter out the inconvenient findings concerning climate science. Truth is you heard what you wanted to hear and did not bother to check your facts. Something you have a propensity to do."

The same could be said of a lot of people on both sides of the argument. It is a pity that so many people submit links to papers and then can not, or will not, answer questions about some of the content of those papers. It would appear that these people have not conducted any sort of critical appraisal of the material and when confronted with questions, run and hide.

Simply posting links to papers that have told you what you want to hear, won't convince anyone. Answering questions will go a long way to proving that you actually understand the material you are suggesting others should read. It would also indicate that you've checked some facts too, rather than just assuming someone else has done it for you.
Posted by: Keith

Re: Temperature trends - 01/04/2011 11:29

If that's the case DD we may as well all pack up and stop wasting our time here. Because that's what this and similar discussions have been reduced to. I'm fed up to here with reading spiteful rejoinders from one side to another simply because there's a disagreement. I suggest that there's more of that here than there are lack of answers...or knowledge, for that matter.

The first thing anyone should ask of the writer of a linked article is, not whether its contents are valid, but, is anyone paying them to write it, on which side of the debate did they stand before they wrote it, and what (if any) political views caused them to stand on that side.
Posted by: Spatch

Re: Temperature trends - 01/04/2011 12:29


Hottest March on record

Perth has recorded its hottest March on record with an average maximum temperature of 31.9 degrees.

Nine days last month had a maximum temperature of 35 degrees or above.

The previous record average was an average of 31.8 degrees in 1978.

The Bureau of Meteorology also reported no rain in the Perth Metropolitan area last month and is forecasting a dry start to April.

http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/hottest-march-on-record/17006
Posted by: Coxy

Re: Temperature trends - 01/04/2011 13:26

Coldest December on Record

Amberley has recorded its coldest December on record with an average maximum temperature of 27.8 degrees.

http://reg.bom.gov.au/climate/current/month/qld/archive/201012.brisbane.shtml#records
Posted by: Spatch

Re: Temperature trends - 01/04/2011 14:40


I like this game...

*goes hunting for more record breaking hot weather*
Posted by: Dustydevil

Re: Temperature trends - 01/04/2011 14:46

Keith,

I agree. I hold out hope that we see some intelligent debate on some of these topics but I don't feel too confident sometimes. There is nothing wrong with disagreements, only the manner in which some of them are articulated. At least some of the posters can post interesting and informative material; thanks to those who do. I am always happy to learn new things.

Here's hoping!
Posted by: Spatch

Re: Temperature trends - 01/04/2011 14:54

Found some!

An exceptional summer heatwave in greater Sydney and the Hunter Valley.

Between January 30th and February 6th 2011, the Sydney Metropolitan and Hunter regions of NSW experienced an extended hot spell, breaking numerous records.

Records for consecutive days above thresholds were set at many locations, with Sydney Observatory Hill recording seven consecutive days above 30°C between the 31st and the 6th with 41.5°C recorded on the 5th(the highest daily maximum temperature recorded during the hot spell at Sydney Observatory Hill).

This is the longest hot spell recorded in the city in 152 years of record, beating the previous record by two days.

Western parts of the city also experienced record hot spells, with six consecutive days above 38°C in Richmond between January 31st and February 5th, breaking the previous record of five days set in January 1979. Record warm periods were also recorded at several stations in the Hunter Valley, with six consecutive days above 39°C at Cessnock; twice the length of the previous record of three days.

Daily temperature records broken

As well as breaking records for the duration of hot days and nights, individual daily records for minimum temperature were also broken during this event. The most widespread record breaking event occurred on February 3rd when all-time records were broken at several locations in the Central West Slopes and
Illawarra districts. Minimum temperature records for February were also broken at locations in the Northwest Plains and Central Tablelands, with additional records broken later during the heat event. The night of the 5th was exceptionally warm in the Sydney region and along the central coast, with Sydney Observatory Hill recording a minimum temperature of 27.6°C to 9am on the 6th, breaking the previous record by 1°C. Sydney Airport, Williamtown RAAF, and Newcastle Nobbys also recorded their warmest night on record on this day, with February records at Cessnock, Paterson (Tocal) and Jerrys Plains in the Hunter regions.

Several stations recorded several days with temperatures above their previous daily minimum temperature records for February. Most notably Bankstown Airport AWS, broke its 43 year record minimum of 25.0°C on the 2nd(26.0°C), with two other days on
the 3rd(25.4°C) and 6th February (25.9°C) recording minimums in excess of the previous record. Newcastle (Nobbys Head) also recorded daily minimum temperatures above its previous warmest February night on record on the 2nd, 3rd, 5th and 6th.

http://reg.bom.gov.au/climate/current/statements/scs27.pdf

Posted by: Seina

Re: Temperature trends - 01/04/2011 15:04

This is not a game...I'm really getting quite peeved at the quality of posts in many climate threads.

I believe Dustydevil is quite right.
Posted by: Coxy

Re: Temperature trends - 01/04/2011 15:11

[Withdrawing from the "Weather is not Climate" game]

At least it makes a change from the vitriol and mudslinging.
Posted by: Keith

Re: Temperature trends - 01/04/2011 15:20

Naz, it's true this isn't a game. Most of us want to post some intelligent commentary but we get put off by the bullying we get because many of us don't have a degree and are therefore made to feel we have no right to say anything.

Maybe that's the intention of those who engage in the spite and put-downs.
Posted by: Coxy

Re: Temperature trends - 01/04/2011 15:23

Originally Posted By: Keith
Naz, it's true this isn't a game. Most of us want to post some intelligent commentary but we get put off by the bullying we get because many of us don't have a degree and are therefore made to feel we have no right to say anything.

Maybe that's the intention of those who engage in the spite and put-downs.


The irony is that those putting you down for not having a degree AFAIK have no qualifications themselves. They just parrot the lines of those who do.
Posted by: Seina

Re: Temperature trends - 01/04/2011 15:29

What I find unwanted is the confusion generated that might not have been otherwise...if there wasn't the vitriol.

Granted people have had some good points smile ... but it can go to a shambles when people starting questioning the person outright rather than the idea.

Use of things such as "your wrong" when it could be something like "have you considered" ... doesn't help.
Posted by: Coxy

Re: Temperature trends - 01/04/2011 15:48

Originally Posted By: -Cosmic- (naz)
What I find unwanted is the confusion generated that might not have been otherwise...if there wasn't the vitriol.

Granted people have had some good points smile ... but it can go to a shambles when people starting questioning the person outright rather than the idea.

Use of things such as "your wrong" when it could be something like "have you considered" ... doesn't help.


Absolutely. But that's not unique to this debate. It's a feature of every debate I've ever witnessed or been part of on the internet in the 16 years I've been exposed to it.

Whether it's politics, science, social standards or football, there is always someone who will say "your (sic) wrong". There's always someone who will point out something you said that is factually wrong once, and thus use it as proof that anything and everything you say from that point on is wrong.

It's frustrating as hell. But it's a fact of internet life.
Posted by: Spatch

Re: Temperature trends - 01/04/2011 15:48

Originally Posted By: Coxy
[Withdrawing from the "Weather is not Climate" game]



Smart move Coxy - now we need .ptl to withdraw as well seeing as he started it...

http://forum.weatherzone.com.au/ubbthreads.php/topics/981211/Re_Temperature_trends#Post981211
Posted by: Coxy

Re: Temperature trends - 01/04/2011 16:12

Hehe. Well it just adds nothing. Local temperature trends and anomalies are neither here nor there. Although that doesn't stop the likes of Penny Wong and Bob Brown using any particular heat waves to say "this is going to happen more with global warming".

It hurts their political cause rather than aids it.

EDIT
And for the sake of balance - same thing when Andrew Bolt points at a cold day or unseasonable snow and says the opposite...
Posted by: Keith

Re: Temperature trends - 01/04/2011 16:14

Spatch, do you want the discussion to be closed? You'd best take that up privately.
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 01/04/2011 21:05

How about a few posts on temp trends up and down(the topic of the thread) instead of mutterings!
Posted by: mobihci

Re: Temperature trends - 01/04/2011 22:24

Originally Posted By: Spatch

“First off, no single temperature record from anywhere can prove or disprove global warming, because the temperature is a local record, and one site is not the whole world. One of the lessons drawn from comparing Greenland to Antarctica and many other places is that some of the temperature changes (the ice-age cycling) are very widespread and shared among most records, but other of the temperature changes (sometimes called millennial, or abrupt, or Younger-Dryas-type) are antiphased between Greenland and the south, and still other temperature changes may be unrelated between different places (one anomalously cold year in Greenland does not tell you the temperature anomaly in Australia or Peru). ”

… and …

“So, using GISP2 data to argue against global warming is, well, stupid, or misguided, or misled, or something, but surely not scientifically sensible. And, using GISP2 data within the larger picture of climate science demonstrates that our scientific understanding is good, supports our expectation of global warming, but raises the small-chance-of-big-problem issue that in turn influences the discussion of optimal human response.”



good one revkin, so, what did mr gore say to that?

so spatch, you claim that the last 6000 years have been smooth cooling, and then there is a sudden rise caused by us. so, what exactly caused the mwp and lia? and why do they not rate a mention considering they are prominent in our records.

this set of proxies show the mwp compared with recent levels-

http://www.co2science.org/data/timemap/mwpmap.html

Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: Temperature trends - 02/04/2011 08:45

"Pielke Sr. on the Muller testimony
Posted on April 1, 2011 by Anthony Watts
Comments On The Testimony Of Richard Muller At the United States House Of Representatives Committee On Science, Space And Technology

By Dr. Roger Pielke Sr.

First, as posted on my son’s weblog in

Global Temperature Trends

the global temperature anomaly is essentially irrelevant in terms of climate change issues that matter to society and the environment. Even in terms of global warming, it is a grossly inadequate measure, as discussed, for example, in

Pielke Sr., R.A., 2003: Heat storage within the Earth system. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 84, 331-335.

Pielke Sr., R.A., 2008: A broader view of the role of humans in the climate system. Physics Today, 61, Vol. 11, 54-55.

The global average surface temperature, however, unfortunately, has become the icon of the IPCC community and in the policy debate. As my son wrote in his post

“The debate over climate change has many people on both sides of the issue wrapped up in discussing global average temperature trends. I understand this as it is an icon with great political symbolism. It has proved a convenient political battleground, but the reality is that it should matter little to the policy case for decarbonization.”

This political focus has resulted in Richard Muller’s testimony on his Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project yesterday to The Science, Space and Technology Committee of the House Of Representatives. In his (in my view, premature) testimony he makes the following claims

“The world temperature data has sufficient integrity to be used to determine global temperature trends”

“…. we find that the warming seen in the “poor” stations is virtually indistinguishable from that seen in the “good” stations.”

“The Berkeley Earth agreement with the prior analysis surprised us, since our preliminary results don’t yet address many of the known biases”?

The contradictory statement in the last sentence from his testimony contradicts the first two sentences.

All his study has accomplished so far is to confirm that NCDC, GISS and CRU honestly used the raw observed data as the starting point for their analyses. This is not a surprising result. We have never questioned this aspect of their analyses.

The uncertainties and systematic biases that we have published in several peer-reviewed papers, however, remain unexplored so far by Richard Muller and colleagues as part of The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project. We summarized these issues in our paper

Pielke Sr., R.A., C. Davey, D. Niyogi, S. Fall, J. Steinweg-Woods, K. Hubbard, X. Lin, M. Cai, Y.-K. Lim, H. Li, J. Nielsen-Gammon, K. Gallo, R. Hale, R. Mahmood, S. Foster, R.T. McNider, and P. Blanken, 2007: Unresolved issues with the assessment of multi-decadal global land surface temperature trends. J. Geophys. Res., 112, D24S08, doi:10.1029/2006JD008229

where the issues include:

a systematic bias in the use of multi-decadal trends in minimum air temperatures
the use of surface observing sites that are not spatially representative of the region
the failure to consider the variation of surface air temperature trends with height above the surface
the lack of incorporation of the effect of concurrent multi-decadal trends in the surface air absolute humidity
the absence of the statistical documentation of the uncertainty of each step in the adjustment of raw data to a “homogenized data set” (e.g. time of observation bias; equipment changes; station moves)
the need to assess the absolute temperatures at which a temperature trend occurs, since a temperature anomaly at a cold temperature has less of an effect on outgoing long wave radiation that the same temperature anomaly at a warm temperature.
We have explored most of these issues in peer-reviewed papers and found them to be important remaining uncertainties and biases. Richard Muller and his colleagues have not yet examined these concerns, yet chose to report on his very preliminary results at a House Hearing. A sample of our papers include:..."

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/01/pielke-sr-on-the-muller-testimony/#more-37033
Posted by: Spatch

Re: Temperature trends - 02/04/2011 12:15

Originally Posted By: mobihci
Originally Posted By: Spatch

“First off, no single temperature record from anywhere can prove or disprove global warming, because the temperature is a local record, and one site is not the whole world. One of the lessons drawn from comparing Greenland to Antarctica and many other places is that some of the temperature changes (the ice-age cycling) are very widespread and shared among most records, but other of the temperature changes (sometimes called millennial, or abrupt, or Younger-Dryas-type) are antiphased between Greenland and the south, and still other temperature changes may be unrelated between different places (one anomalously cold year in Greenland does not tell you the temperature anomaly in Australia or Peru). ”

… and …

“So, using GISP2 data to argue against global warming is, well, stupid, or misguided, or misled, or something, but surely not scientifically sensible. And, using GISP2 data within the larger picture of climate science demonstrates that our scientific understanding is good, supports our expectation of global warming, but raises the small-chance-of-big-problem issue that in turn influences the discussion of optimal human response.”



good one revkin, so, what did mr gore say to that?

so spatch, you claim that the last 6000 years have been smooth cooling, and then there is a sudden rise caused by us. so, what exactly caused the mwp and lia? and why do they not rate a mention considering they are prominent in our records.

this set of proxies show the mwp compared with recent levels-

http://www.co2science.org/data/timemap/mwpmap.html





The MWP has been studied by scientists, no-one has ignored it. That is a straw man argument put up by sceptics.

The MWP was warm, but not as warm as it is now, and it was regional in extent, often many years apart from each other.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/302/5644/404.short

Climate in Medieval Time

Many papers have referred to a "Medieval Warm Period." But how well defined is climate in this period, and was it as warm as or warmer than it is today? In their Perspective, Bradley et al. review the evidence and conclude that although the High Medieval (1100 to 1200 A.D.) was warmer than subsequent centuries, it was not warmer than the late 20th century. Moreover, the warmest Medieval temperatures were not synchronous around the globe. Large changes in precipitation patterns are a particular characteristic of "High Medieval" time. The underlying mechanisms for such changes must be elucidated further to inform the ongoing debate on natural climate variability and anthropogenic climate change.
Posted by: _Johnno_

Re: Temperature trends - 02/04/2011 12:33

March daytime Maximum anomalies temperture for Australia..


http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/awap/temp/inde...=month&area=nat
Posted by: _Johnno_

Re: Temperature trends - 02/04/2011 13:39

From the BOM

Temperatures
Maximum temperatures nationally were the coldest on record with a national anomaly of -2.19°C. Most of Australia recorded below average mean maxima with parts of the north and south of the country recording their coldest March on record.


http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/month/aus/summary.shtml
Posted by: _Johnno_

Re: Temperature trends - 02/04/2011 14:11

http://www.bom.gov.au/web03/ncc/www/awap...30120110331.gif
Posted by: _Johnno_

Re: Temperature trends - 02/04/2011 14:22

And for those who don't know this follows the 5th coolest February on record as a Nation iregards to daytime Maximum temps..

http://www.bom.gov.au/web03/ncc/www/awap...20120110228.gif

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/month/aus/archive/201102.summary.shtml
Posted by: _Johnno_

Re: Temperature trends - 02/04/2011 15:39

Also forgot to add Wettest March on record for Australia
Posted by: Spatch

Re: Temperature trends - 02/04/2011 16:55

Just an observation - sceptics are happy to quote the BOM when temperature anomalies are low but they scream about how the BOM can't be trusted when they show high temperature anomalies. Curious don't you think?

Australia in March 2011

Temperatures

Maximum temperatures nationally were the coldest on record with a national anomaly of -2.19°C. Most of Australia recorded below average mean maxima with parts of the north and south of the country recording their coldest March on record. This was partly due to increased cloudiness across most of the country associated with the above average rainfall recorded throughout the month. March 2011 included some contrasts between the majority of Australia and the west and east coasts, which were the only areas that experienced above average daytime temperatures. Temperatures were coolest in the central part of Australia where rainfall was most abnormal, with maximum temperatures more than 3°C below average Similarly, drier conditions matched up with areas of above-normal maxima in western WA.
Eastern WA, western Queensland as well as large parts of NT and SA recorded maxima more than 3°C below average with SA and NT recording their coldest March on record. The lowest anomalies were recorded within eastern WA where temperatures were up to 6°C below average. In marked contrast, the west of WA recorded above average maxima with southwest WA recording temperatures up to 4°C above average. The east and southwest of WA each ranked as the coldest and warmest on record respectively. Despite the contrast, cool maximum temperatures dominated across large parts of the country with WA ranking as the 5th lowest on record. Victoria ranked as the 3rd lowest on record with every state, with the exception of Tasmania, ranking March this year in the coldest top ten.
Minimum temperatures were almost right on average with an anomaly of +0.02°C. Areas along the north, east and west coasts of Australia recorded above-normal minimum temperatures, peaking up to 3°C above normal on the WA coast north of Perth, while the interior of WA recorded minima up to 3°C below-normal. Most of central and eastern inland parts of Australia recorded night-time temperatures within 1°C of the average, with the exception of a few scattered areas which recorded temperatures up to 2°C above-normal.

Nights were particularly warm along parts of the northeast and west coasts of Australia where minimum temperatures ranked in the highest decile. In contrast, a large area in eastern WA ranked in the lowest 10% for both maximum and minimum temperatures.





Posted by: _Johnno_

Re: Temperature trends - 02/04/2011 18:35

Spatch it isn't always cos of cloud cover that brings these temps to record levels if thats the case why wasn't it the coldest Spring on record for Australia when it was the wettest??? And Coldest for Summer when it was the 2nd wettest on record?? Victoria had its wettest Summer on record but wasn't anywhere near the coldest so you need to get your head out of the AGW clan and realise there are other factors like Colder air in the uppers, last week of March it was cool and clear through much of inland Australia and Southern inland Australia but temps were 5c below normal through most of this large area so its not always to do with cloud/rain
Posted by: mobihci

Re: Temperature trends - 02/04/2011 22:11

Quote:
The MWP has been studied by scientists, no-one has ignored it. That is a straw man argument put up by sceptics.

The MWP was warm, but not as warm as it is now, and it was regional in extent, often many years apart from each other.



there is a good reference page here-

http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php

the number of studies done is one interesting aspect considering you seem to want people to believe that most scientists dont agree on the mwp being warmer than now or even particularly warmer as you stated previously that there was a smooth cooling in the last 6000 years.



really the argument goes to a he said, she said system, but it neither here nor there for my question posed to you. you are trying to divert attention away from the critical argument.

do you still believe there was 6000 years of smooth cooling, then a rapid warming in the past 100 years?

i mean, mate, i have shown you actual thermometer records of fairly fast temp change and obviously not caused by co2, i have also shown a combination of proxies that say that rapid change is not usual in the past, and still you are interested in the postulation that the mwp is regional and at different times (specks on a timeline).

you say that the mwp was warm, so there we have something, and even by the worst of standards, the wiki, we can see it was close to the level of warming now. where did this extra warmth come from? and why did we sink back to the lia just after?

i mean i am sure you must know these things because you have to first eliminate them from the natural component to work out the un-natural component of current warming. or is it just that you guys couldnt be bothered with this and just go straight onto the 'from authority' argument that other scientists say it is so, so it is so!

Posted by: Bill Illis

Re: Temperature trends - 02/04/2011 22:47


Given the BEST team's report on 2% of Land temperatures, I thought I'd provide some additional data for background.

First Land temperatures from Crutem3 (the land component of Hadcrut3). There is a lot of variation in these numbers and some wild swings and some cyclicality.

http://img863.imageshack.us/img863/424/hadcrut3crutem3componen.png




But there is also Oceans to consider (70% of the surface). And the Oceans sometimes have even more swing than the Land, but they have fallen behind starting in about 1988.

http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/9137/hadcrut3landoceancompon.png





And besides that, the southern hemisphere has different trends than the northern hemisphere Oceans, or at least sometimes larger swings. Particularly in the 1946 down blip, which you may have heard about.

http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/4811/hadsst2nhsh.png

Posted by: S .O.

Re: Temperature trends - 02/04/2011 23:27

Originally Posted By: Spatch
Just an observation - sceptics are happy to quote the BOM when temperature anomalies are low but they scream about how the BOM can't be trusted when they show high temperature anomalies. Curious don't you think?

Australia in March 2011

Temperatures

Maximum temperatures nationally were the coldest on record with a national anomaly of -2.19°C. Most of Australia recorded below average mean maxima with parts of the north and south of the country recording their coldest March on record. This was partly due to increased cloudiness across most of the country associated with the above average rainfall recorded throughout the month. March 2011 included some contrasts between the majority of Australia and the west and east coasts, which were the only areas that experienced above average daytime temperatures. Temperatures were coolest in the central part of Australia where rainfall was most abnormal, with maximum temperatures more than 3°C below average Similarly, drier conditions matched up with areas of above-normal maxima in western WA.
Eastern WA, western Queensland as well as large parts of NT and SA recorded maxima more than 3°C below average with SA and NT recording their coldest March on record. The lowest anomalies were recorded within eastern WA where temperatures were up to 6°C below average. In marked contrast, the west of WA recorded above average maxima with southwest WA recording temperatures up to 4°C above average. The east and southwest of WA each ranked as the coldest and warmest on record respectively. Despite the contrast, cool maximum temperatures dominated across large parts of the country with WA ranking as the 5th lowest on record. Victoria ranked as the 3rd lowest on record with every state, with the exception of Tasmania, ranking March this year in the coldest top ten.
Minimum temperatures were almost right on average with an anomaly of +0.02°C. Areas along the north, east and west coasts of Australia recorded above-normal minimum temperatures, peaking up to 3°C above normal on the WA coast north of Perth, while the interior of WA recorded minima up to 3°C below-normal. Most of central and eastern inland parts of Australia recorded night-time temperatures within 1°C of the average, with the exception of a few scattered areas which recorded temperatures up to 2°C above-normal.

Nights were particularly warm along parts of the northeast and west coasts of Australia where minimum temperatures ranked in the highest decile. In contrast, a large area in eastern WA ranked in the lowest 10% for both maximum and minimum temperatures.


Spatch ,

Maybe it would be wise to not upload graphs and stop cutting+pasting facts you obviously have no background Knowledge on .
Ie : stick to the quasi science of climate :- and leave the Meteorology to the experts .

Quote : From Blair Trewin (BOM)? , in the " Perth endless summer thread " - General weather section .

" It's correct that the summer of coastal WA lags behind most other parts of the country. March is warmer than December along the coastal strip almost everywhere from Carnarvon to the SA border. In part this is a response to the seabreeze influence, which weakens during autumn as the land cools and the land-sea temperature contrast lessens (the proportion of W/SW winds at Perth Airport at 3pm drops from around 70% in November-December to below 50% in March). The lag is much less pronounced inland - even as close as Northam and York, December is clearly warmer than March, and by the time you get to Southern Cross it isn't that much cooler than February.

The land-sea temperature contrast has been particularly weak this summer, with unusually warm sea temperatures. Since the beginning of February there's an maximum temperature anomaly gradient of about 6 degrees between Perth and Kalgoorlie (Perth's running about 3 degrees above, Kalgoorlie 3 degrees below). It's actually going to be one of WA's cooler recorded Marchs averaged statewide. "

IF people read further into things other than the headlines they would see why .

IE : The Leuwin current is running alot harder ( very high SST's ) , in response to ITF transferring more water from the WNPWP in the last 12 mths .
Due to Strong La Nina / Strong Neagtive IOD in the last 13 Mths .
As to why we are seeing this , it seems that the PDO is changing .
Want more info try the " IOD thread " or even try some reading that has influences on AGW research .

My input to any side of these Tit for Tat's is for both sides to find Possible Cause/ Understanding for " Natural " Climate effects before dreaming/cooking up all sorts of " Man " attributal climate effects .
" Man " for too long has been self absorbed trying to master "space" , before they even have a reasonable understanding of every inch of the Planet .
More is known about Mars than Ocean Currents and influences/anomalies .
Posted by: Bill Illis

Re: Temperature trends - 03/04/2011 00:58


Recent high-resolution Satellite temps.

First Oceans on April 1. Very high SSTs around Perth, but the Pacific Warm Pool is clearly cooling down now from all the cloud cover and from the La Nina infiltrating. Kurushio is much above normal but the starting point has now turned negative. Warm water inflitrating the start of the ENSO regions. Cold Gulf Stream. Very warm southern Ocean in the important Brazil-Malvinus Confluence and the Agulhas. Lots of interesting "V"s.

http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/3708/april1ssts.jpg




Now the Land temperatures in the week of March 14th to the 21st (there is always a little delay in this pic).

Australia is very cold (except for Perth). Lots of snow still in western North America (which is 2 to 3 weeks behind seasonality- a typical lagged La Nina response). Pretty cold Asia. The Arctic has been quite warm in the last 3 months.

http://img859.imageshack.us/img859/5932/march1421land.jpg



Posted by: S .O.

Re: Temperature trends - 03/04/2011 01:49

Bill ,

These are great .

One question i would like to know is , can they show a monthly average .

The warm pools ( Surface ) shows cooling from obvious cloud cover . Perhaps higher unseasonal/seasonal rainfall could be accountable for the low surface temps in western half of WPWP ( Sth China Sea ) Area was site to uncharacteristic low s up to a month ago
. Note : Region close to West Papua/Phillipines/Kalamantan is still well above .
WPWP is very multi leveled and has a complex depth mixing which can see large variations in short term analysis . We have heightened ITF transfers due to current station of Moon/Sun ( Saros Cycle ) .

Apart from SCS , I see other strange anomalies off the skeleton coast of Namibia , which like the Peru Current usually dominates that coast with quite cool SST's/current . The Transvaal (Sth Africa ) current seems quite strong . With Typical Mixing Eddies off the Cape unusually higher as we normally see variations here . Obvious West Africa currents lacking has influenced .

Others of significance could be the quite distinct contrast off Labrador and Newfoundland ( NE America ) . Honshu/Kamchatka Region .
Of which I'm unsure if any are contributile to upwelling?

As said before the land temps are going to lag a fair way behind , and subseasurface . We have extensive Data on Pacific Subsea , but would love to sea more data on the South Atlantic , and Southern Ocean . As there really seems to be something special going on there .

Again thanks for the great visuals .

Pete
Posted by: Bill Illis

Re: Temperature trends - 03/04/2011 02:35


Darn, looks like I accidently put the March Ocean SST map up. I meant to put April 1 up but here it is anyway. A little change from the monthly.

You can view the different available maps here (and there is a lot of different ones - might take awhile to get used to it). This is the Ocean link.

http://neo.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/Search.html?group=32

April 1 SSTs

http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/8131/april1ssts2.jpg

Posted by: Spatch

Re: Temperature trends - 03/04/2011 06:16

Originally Posted By: mobihci
Quote:
The MWP has been studied by scientists, no-one has ignored it. That is a straw man argument put up by sceptics.

The MWP was warm, but not as warm as it is now, and it was regional in extent, often many years apart from each other.



there is a good reference page here-

http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php

the number of studies done is one interesting aspect considering you seem to want people to believe that most scientists dont agree on the mwp being warmer than now or even particularly warmer as you stated previously that there was a smooth cooling in the last 6000 years.



really the argument goes to a he said, she said system, but it neither here nor there for my question posed to you. you are trying to divert attention away from the critical argument.

do you still believe there was 6000 years of smooth cooling, then a rapid warming in the past 100 years?

i mean, mate, i have shown you actual thermometer records of fairly fast temp change and obviously not caused by co2, i have also shown a combination of proxies that say that rapid change is not usual in the past, and still you are interested in the postulation that the mwp is regional and at different times (specks on a timeline).

you say that the mwp was warm, so there we have something, and even by the worst of standards, the wiki, we can see it was close to the level of warming now. where did this extra warmth come from? and why did we sink back to the lia just after?

i mean i am sure you must know these things because you have to first eliminate them from the natural component to work out the un-natural component of current warming. or is it just that you guys couldnt be bothered with this and just go straight onto the 'from authority' argument that other scientists say it is so, so it is so!



You said:
"do you still believe there was 6000 years of smooth cooling, then a rapid warming in the past 100 years?"


Yes, the evidence is clear. Check out the graph below. Look at the line curving downwards starting 6000 years ago. Be aware that the graph ends at 1855 so it doesn't show the modern warming.



----------

In answer to your questions about the MWP read these.


Global Signatures and Dynamical Origins of the Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Anomaly

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/shared/articles/MannetalScience09.pdf


Past regional cold and warm periods linked to natural climate drivers.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-11/ps-prc112309.php

-----------

These graphs clearly show the MWP was cooler globally compared to recent times.


Reconstructed surface temperature anomaly for Medieval Warm Period (950 to 1250 A.D.), relative to the 1961– 1990 reference period. Gray areas indicates regions where adequate temperature data are unavailable.


Surface temperature anomaly for period 1999 to 2008, relative to the 1961– 1990 reference period. Gray areas indicates regions where adequate temperature data are unavailable (NOAA).
Posted by: _Johnno_

Re: Temperature trends - 03/04/2011 09:24

Spatch.. I pose a Question for you.. If the Cloud and moisture and humidity was so profilic in March why is the minimum average temp anomaly preety much average? Only 0.02c for Australia???? Was much larger/warmer in January and February with all the record rain and cloud we had for Australia so your theory of just being cloud and rain that puts these temps down to record level doesn't fit buddy
Posted by: _Johnno_

Re: Temperature trends - 03/04/2011 09:41

Wettest March on record for Australia but Minimum anomaly is average fancy that hey! You would expect the nightime temp to be warmer than normal or alot warmer than normal but not in this case.
Posted by: Vlasta

Re: Temperature trends - 03/04/2011 10:20

I would explain it like this . BOM doesnt adjust temps for UHI , every station is more or less effected by it . So its only natural temps are rising .
In case of this summer I would translate + 0.02 into - 0.5 and cooling . Sadly I dont think I sell this to anybody , let alone warmistas .
Posted by: mobihci

Re: Temperature trends - 03/04/2011 11:53

Quote:
n answer to your questions about the MWP read these.


Global Signatures and Dynamical Origins of the Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Anomaly

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/shared/articles/MannetalScience09.pdf


Past regional cold and warm periods linked to natural climate drivers.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-11/ps-prc112309.php



all mann rubbish on the mwp before the re-adjusted hockey stick. i am sure you still believe in the tree ring crap mann come up with, but everyone else has moved on. even the agw proponents have moved past this point and accepted 'more' warming than the mann rubbish.

just one simple correction here-



is just simple maths errors which mann was for