Snow

[skierinvermont]

Since our warming is caused by the Sun and Not Co2, if we head into a Dalton, we would cool dramatially. We actually need to resume warming in the first place FYI....cooling since 2002, now that the JAN anomaly came out from UAH, and continues the trend of global cooling since the beginning of the Last Decade (the 2000's)

We just experienced the fastest 4 month drop in global temps in recorded history....0.5C in 4 months... only difference......don't expect us to bounce back up very far.

No. We are all aware of your crackpot theories, unfortunately for you that is not what the science supports.

[BethesdaWX]

No. We are all aware of your crackpot theories, unfortunately for you that is not what the science supports.

Theres really nothing you, or anyone else can do about it, AGW theory will be dead in 20 years. Count on it.

When it happens, I'll be linking your old posts in my sig, because it will be fun...for me.

[skierinvermont]

If we were heading into a Dalton, we should hope for far more than a buffer. It's not easy raising crops and feeding the world when summer weather in the richest agrigable lands on earth becomes unstable on the cooler side. The ideal climate may be something warmer than present. I don't think that question is settled. My understanding of the sea level rise is that it won't come in as a tsunami like in a Hollywood movie. Even the original post talked of a centuries-long process. I would think humans could make accomodation in that timeframe. Regardless, the question is still not settled - what is better - WARMER, or COLDER? I know you said "something around present" but that implies the past 10,000 years of stability is maintainable. Is it? There are other factors at play when taking the 10,000 year view of climate, vs. a few decades of warming or cooling.

The sea level rise associated with 450ppm (where we will be in 15 years or so) would be enough to require the movement of entire cities such as NYC within a few hundred years. Somehow, even in a couple hundred years I don't think that will be an easy or desirable task.

[skierinvermont]

Theres really nothing you, or anyone else can do about it, AGW theory will be dead in 20 years. Count on it.

When it happens, I'll be linking your old posts in my sig, because it will be fun...for me.

Thanks for your input.

[nzucker]

Thanks for your input.

Can you come online, Skier?

BTW I do agree we are at the threshold of a potentially major cooling...we're still tracking well below the Dalton Minimum, may be entering Maunder Minimum territory soon. Combined with the -PDO/-ENSO cycle we've moved into, expect a lot of harsh winters and agricultural damage if the sun doesn't wake up soon.

[skierinvermont]

Can you come online, Skier?

BTW I do agree we are at the threshold of a potentially major cooling...we're still tracking well below the Dalton Minimum, may be entering Maunder Minimum territory soon. Combined with the -PDO/-ENSO cycle we've moved into, expect a lot of harsh winters and agricultural damage if the sun doesn't wake up soon.

Temperatures are currently at near record levels and will not fall appreciably due to the rapidly accumulating heat in the earth's system.

[BethesdaWX]

Temperatures are currently at near record levels and will not fall appreciably due to the rapidly accumulating heat in the earth's system.

I bet you'll brush through this post and any other, thus you miss the message everytime.

1) The globe will cool significantly in the next 30 years, and has been doing so since 2002.....this will continue through the 2040's. Febuary 2011 is setting up to be one of the top 5 coldest ever in the satellite era, if you look back at the data for once. If you thought the January anomaly dropped fast, wait until you see FEB. And this La Nina is nowhere near the strength of some past others....yet we just experienced 0.5C drop in 4 months.....a record.

2) The earth maintaines balance through equilibium, and is not "building up" energy. Energy at any quantity is recycled and/or put away/stored. If there was a buildup of energy occuring, we would see more longwave release from earth, not less! The earth recycles everything in its realm, everything is a cycle. In a sense, "global temperature" is somewhat decieving, because there is no "new" energy present, unless we see changes from the source...the sun.

Model used to derive forcings in the atmosphere are based of the assumption that our earth's warming is due to Co2.....it is not, this is why they will fail within 20 years.

[superjames1992]

Temperatures are currently at near record levels and will not fall appreciably due to the rapidly accumulating heat in the earth's system.

We shall see!

[nzucker]

Temperatures are currently at near record levels and will not fall appreciably due to the rapidly accumulating heat in the earth's system.

How are global temperatures at near record levels? UAH just came in with 0C anomaly compared to the 30-year baseline; it sounds like we're running about average compared to what is expected in the contemporary climate. Global SSTs are equal to 2008 levels basically, and that was the coolest year globally in the last decade. Even if we're significantly warmer than average compared to a 100-year baseline, it's not as if the globe is torching as it was during 2010 and 1998. Global temperatures have had a massive drop, which looks to continue given the AMSU data and the widespread cooling in SSTs throughout the Indian Ocean and Indonesia. I wouldn't be surprised if this were a more permanent decline, as well, given that sunspot activity looks to be running between Dalton and Maunder levels, and we know what happened during those periods.

If you haven't noticed, the extreme cold and snow/ice this winter is having much more of an effect on people's lives than sea level rise, super hurricanes, or any of those things supposedly connected with anthropogenic global warming. Over a hundred people died in Poland this December due to temperatures being 15F below average, and both Heathrow and Gatwick airport were closed multiple times due to snowstorms in London. The January 31st blizzard paralyzed the Midwest with hundreds of cars stranded on Lake Shore Drive in Chicago, Dallas Airport experiencing hundreds of delays/cancellations due to ice and snow, etc. Right now, Southern Texas is experiencing one of its worst arctic outbreaks in history; El Paso dropped to 1F last night and had a high of only 18F today, destroying crops in the Rio Grande Valley. Thousands of Mexicans are suffering from extreme cold due to the brutal airmass over the northern part of the country, with nighttime lows in the single digits in Chihuahua, an area where people have shanty houses with no central heating. Rolling blackouts are affecting hundreds of thousands of Texans; power demand has spiked incredibly with the ice storm and arctic outbreak. It seems to me that cold and snow are much worse for the human race than warmer conditions; we were born of the tropics, after all.

I bet you'll brush through this post and any other, thus you miss the message everytime.

1) The globe will cool significantly in the next 30 years, and has been doing so since 2002.....this will continue through the 2040's. Febuary 2011 is setting up to be one of the top 5 coldest ever in the satellite era, if you look back at the data for once. If you thought the January anomaly dropped fast, wait until you see FEB. And this La Nina is nowhere near the strength of some past others....yet we just experienced 0.5C drop in 4 months.....a record.

2) The earth maintaines balance through equilibium, and is not "building up" energy. Energy at any quantity is recycled and/or put away/stored. If there was a buildup of energy occuring, we would see more longwave release from earth, not less! The earth recycles everything in its realm, everything is a cycle. In a sense, "global temperature" is somewhat decieving, because there is no "new" energy present, unless we see changes from the source...the sun.

Model used to derive forcings in the atmosphere are based of the assumption that our earth's warming is due to Co2.....it is not, this is why they will fail within 20 years.

There is some energy building up between 700-2000m in the ocean, Bethesda, but I see what you're saying about the cyclical nature of warming and cooling patterns. I do believe the long-term trend in global temperatures will be upward since we have not succeeded in the Kyoto goals of bringing emissions down to 1990 levels and developing nations continue to pollute more, but we may have a period of cold for the next 30-50 years with the -PDO and solar minimum. Many of the extremists fail to realize that the ideas of medium-range cooling due to natural factors (sun, ENSO, PDO, volcanoes) and long-term warming due to greenhouse gases are not mutually exclusive...I believe both will happen. I think it's safe to say that many people WILL suffer from very harsh winters in Western Europe and North America in the next 30 years, since the cooler global temperatures combining with a powerful -AO/-NAO blocking scheme means the bulk of the extreme cold and heavy snowfall occurs in highly populated areas. So that's something to worry about, especially with what we've seen recently....near record snow and snow cover in NYC, 3rd biggest snowstorm ever in Chicago, record cold in Texas, coldest December on record for Florida/Gulf Coast etc..

[BethesdaWX]

How are global temperatures at near record levels? UAH just came in with 0C anomaly compared to the 30-year baseline; it sounds like we're running about average compared to what is expected in the contemporary climate. Global SSTs are equal to 2008 levels basically, and that was the coolest year globally in the last decade. Even if we're significantly warmer than average compared to a 100-year baseline, it's not as if the globe is torching as it was during 2010 and 1998. Global temperatures have had a massive drop, which looks to continue given the AMSU data and the widespread cooling in SSTs throughout the Indian Ocean and Indonesia. I wouldn't be surprised if this were a more permanent decline, as well, given that sunspot activity looks to be running between Dalton and Maunder levels, and we know what happened during those periods.

If you haven't noticed, the extreme cold and snow/ice this winter is having much more of an effect on people's lives than sea level rise, super hurricanes, or any of those things supposedly connected with anthropogenic global warming. Over a hundred people died in Poland this December due to temperatures being 15F below average, and both Heathrow and Gatwick airport were closed multiple times due to snowstorms in London. The January 31st blizzard paralyzed the Midwest with hundreds of cars stranded on Lake Shore Drive in Chicago, Dallas Airport experiencing hundreds of delays/cancellations due to ice and snow, etc. Right now, Southern Texas is experiencing one of its worst arctic outbreaks in history; El Paso dropped to 1F last night and had a high of only 18F today, destroying crops in the Rio Grande Valley. Thousands of Mexicans are suffering from extreme cold due to the brutal airmass over the northern part of the country, with nighttime lows in the single digits in Chihuahua, an area where people have shanty houses with no central heating. Rolling blackouts are affecting hundreds of thousands of Texans; power demand has spiked incredibly with the ice storm and arctic outbreak. It seems to me that cold and snow are much worse for the human race than warmer conditions; we were born of the tropics, after all.

There is some energy building up between 700-2000m in the ocean, Bethesda, but I see what you're saying about the cyclical nature of warming and cooling patterns. I do believe the long-term trend in global temperatures will be upward since we have not succeeded in the Kyoto goals of bringing emissions down to 1990 levels and developing nations continue to pollute more, but we may have a period of cold for the next 30-50 years with the -PDO and solar minimum. Many of the extremists fail to realize that the ideas of medium-range cooling due to natural factors (sun, ENSO, PDO, volcanoes) and long-term warming due to greenhouse gases are not mutually exclusive...I believe both will happen. I think it's safe to say that many people WILL suffer from very harsh winters in Western Europe and North America in the next 30 years, since the cooler global temperatures combining with a powerful -AO/-NAO blocking scheme means the bulk of the extreme cold and heavy snowfall occurs in highly populated areas. So that's something to worry about, especially with what we've seen recently....near record snow and snow cover in NYC, 3rd biggest snowstorm ever in Chicago, record cold in Texas, coldest December on record for Florida/Gulf Coast etc..

Oh, I thought we were talking about the atmosphere. The oceans I view as a big sink in general..................there is a reason 95% of the stored energy is below 1500M, the energy will be recycled complete within its stay, given the oceans can trap it for over 5000yrs....we'll be burning fossil fuels for another 70yrs....big differenc there. I'm a bit more skeptical on "AGW" than you are obviously.

What happened to all that energy during the dinosour age? Answer....its still here, just not in the same physical form....it never left! The reason it was in a different form was because the atmospheric makeup was almost foreign compared to todays, hydrogen was not the stannding basis! The high Co2/Methane trace gases are always an effect of larger scale drivers, not the cause. The Earths GHE does not, by any means, represent a typical "greenhouse", this is where the warmists go wrong in their computer models.

Much of the AGW actually defies the laws of physics, GHE wise. Yet they use the physics they purposely circumvented to attempt to shoot down arguments from the other side.

[skierinvermont]

How are global temperatures at near record levels? UAH just came in with 0C anomaly compared to the 30-year baseline; it sounds like we're running about average compared to what is expected in the contemporary climate. Global SSTs are equal to 2008 levels basically, and that was the coolest year globally in the last decade. Even if we're significantly warmer than average compared to a 100-year baseline, it's not as if the globe is torching as it was during 2010 and 1998. Global temperatures have had a massive drop, which looks to continue given the AMSU data and the widespread cooling in SSTs throughout the Indian Ocean and Indonesia. I wouldn't be surprised if this were a more permanent decline, as well, given that sunspot activity looks to be running between Dalton and Maunder levels, and we know what happened during those periods.

This is a climate change forum. I really don't give a damn about year to year fluctuations due to ENSO. Global temperatures are at near record levels.

[BethesdaWX]

This is a climate change forum. I really don't give a damn about year to year fluctuations due to ENSO. Global temperatures are at near record levels.

Global temperatures are not near record levels........global temperatures have been cooling since 2002, and will continue to do so through the 2040's.

We dropped 0.5C in 4 months....the fastest drop of that magnitude in the entire satellite era..............this La Nina is not nearly as strong as many others.

[nzucker]

This is a climate change forum. I really don't give a damn about year to year fluctuations due to ENSO. Global temperatures are at near record levels.

If La Niña/-PDO is becoming the norm, however, due to the cycle, then it is not just a fluctuation. I believe most experts are expecting La Niña winters to overwhelm El Niño in the next 30 years. This is one of the reasons we saw global cooling during the 1950s: we had moderate/strong La Niña years in 48-49, 49-50, 54-55, and 55-56, as well as a bunch of weak La Niña winters. In my mind, that streak of La Niñas, uninterrupted by a strong El Niño, allowed the Earth to cool down. That type of sequence wouldn't be unprecedented now given what we're seeing in the SST pattern and the low solar activity, and the cooling effect should be exacerbated by the powerful solar minimum.

Also, how can we be at near record levels if measurements show us to be around the 30-year average? I agree that this decade has been near-record warmth, but a lot of that is just due to the +AMO, lack of volcanic eruptions, slight dominance of El Niño etc. If we are dropping now, we are dropping. Let's call a spade a spade and recognize that we've seen a swift decline in global temperatures, one that may continue and have widespread societal ramifications if it is a sign of what's to come. No reason not to acknowledge the trend towards cooler global temperatures as well as harsher winters in the populated areas of the mid-latitudes.

And you still haven't addressed the idea that global warming might be less harmful than the current extremes of cold/snow we see in winter.

[skierinvermont]

If La Niña/-PDO is becoming the norm, however, due to the cycle, then it is not just a fluctuation. I believe most experts are expecting La Niña winters to overwhelm El Niño in the next 30 years. This is one of the reasons we saw global cooling during the 1950s: we had moderate/strong La Niña years in 48-49, 49-50, 54-55, and 55-56, as well as a bunch of weak La Niña winters. In my mind, that streak of La Niñas, uninterrupted by a strong El Niño, allowed the Earth to cool down. That type of sequence wouldn't be unprecedented now given what we're seeing in the SST pattern and the low solar activity, and the cooling effect should be exacerbated by the powerful solar minimum.

Also, how can we be at near record levels if measurements show us to be around the 30-year average? I agree that this decade has been near-record warmth, but a lot of that is just due to the +AMO, lack of volcanic eruptions, slight dominance of El Niño etc. If we are dropping now, we are dropping. Let's call a spade a spade and recognize that we've seen a swift decline in global temperatures, one that may continue and have widespread societal ramifications if it is a sign of what's to come. No reason not to acknowledge the trend towards cooler global temperatures as well as harsher winters in the populated areas of the mid-latitudes.

And you still haven't addressed the idea that global warming might be less harmful than the current extremes of cold/snow we see in winter.

I don't give a damn about year to year ENSO fluctuations and I'm not going to discuss it. The next decent +ENSO event we will be right back at record temperatures. This is stupid and I am not discussing it. AGW is about the long-term trends of the past 100 years, and from that perspective we are at near record temperatures. End of story. Just be glad I didn't say we are actually at record temperatures given this is the warmest decade in the instrumental record which is really the shortest period of any significance in a climate change discussion.

[skierinvermont]

Just so we are all clear.

I call this "near record temperatures."

If you want to call it something else, be my guest, I don't really care what you call it.

[nzucker]

You need a CAT scan, quit dipsh*tting people.

Global temperatures are not near record levels........global temperatures have been cooling since 2002, and will continue to do so through the 2040's. Again...WE'RE IN A FOOKIN COOLING TREND MR. HOMO!

We dropped 0.5C in 4 months....the fastest drop of that magnitude in the entire satellite era..............this La Nina is not nearly as strong as many others.

The record-breaking drop in global temperatures is pretty interesting, and may be a sign of the solar minimum, given that this La Niña is strong but not the strongest ever. It seems that since 2007, when the +PDO phase ended, La Niña has had the ability to cause much greater cooling effects. The 07-08 La Niña produced more cooling globally than the 98-99 event, and this year's La Niña seems destined to accelerate the cooling trend well beyond what 1999 and 2008 saw. This may be an artifact of the shifting PDO or steady decline in solar flux, but that is yet to be determined. We'll just have to wait and see where we go from here, but I'm betting that warm years like 2010 and 1998 will be few and far between in the next decade. It will be a significant repudiation of AGW if this decade does not come in as the warmest on record, and if we continue to see the trends towards harsher winters in highly populated areas.

[BethesdaWX]

The record-breaking drop in global temperatures is pretty interesting, and may be a sign of the solar minimum, given that this La Niña is strong but not the strongest ever. It seems that since 2007, when the +PDO phase ended, La Niña has had the ability to cause much greater cooling effects. The 07-08 La Niña produced more cooling globally than the 98-99 event, and this year's La Niña seems destined to accelerate the cooling trend well beyond what 1999 and 2008 saw. This may be an artifact of the shifting PDO or steady decline in solar flux, but that is yet to be determined. We'll just have to wait and see where we go from here, but I'm betting that warm years like 2010 and 1998 will be few and far between in the next decade. It will be a significant repudiation of AGW if this decade does not come in as the warmest on record, and if we continue to see the trends towards harsher winters in highly populated areas.

Agree 100%. Dropping 0.5C, in 4 months, is absolutely astounding, we could drop another 0.2 or 0.3C by May, maybe more?....and that would be 0.7-0.8C in 7 months a moderate ENSO event! This Febuary is setting up to be one of the coldest in the satellite era.

We can also see....since the PDO went cold, the La Ninas have increased in strength & frequency.

[WeatherRusty]

Here we are less than one year removed from what was or nearly was, depending on the source, the warmest year on record and you guys are speaking of a pronounced cooling trend. Laughable! Last year's El Nino elevated global temps to near or above 1998 and 2005 levels, and now we see a La Nina dropping temps significantly. What we are experiencing are large magnitude, short term deviations from the mean which carry no predictive value on there own as to where the long term trend is headed.

Will reduced solar, -PDO etc. depress global temps somewhat? Of course they will. Will volcanic activity impact global temps? Of course it will. Will an enhanced greenhouse effect outweigh these factors in the long run? You better believe it. The forcing from CO2 alone will outweigh the full range of solar variability in less than one decade. Ocean cycles average out to zero impact. Volcanic activity near the tropics if frequent enough would introduce a relatively strong cooling effect.

[tacoman25]

Temperatures are currently at near record levels and will not fall appreciably due to the rapidly accumulating heat in the earth's system.

This is so 2010.

[tacoman25]

I don't give a damn about year to year ENSO fluctuations and I'm not going to discuss it. The next decent +ENSO event we will be right back at record temperatures. This is stupid and I am not discussing it. AGW is about the long-term trends of the past 100 years, and from that perspective we are at near record temperatures. End of story. Just be glad I didn't say we are actually at record temperatures given this is the warmest decade in the instrumental record which is really the shortest period of any significance in a climate change discussion.

And yet the 2000s were only .1C warmer than the 1990s when Pinatubo is accounted for.

What is interesting is that you may be right....temperatures overall may continue to stay pretty "warm" or even "near record" levels for the next couple decades, without any global cooling - and yet we could see somewhat similar conditions to the Dalton minimum in the U.S. and Europe, thanks to continued high latitude blocking. Globally temperatures may remain warm, but over certain regions, we may continue to see cold/severe winters for quite awhile. An interesting paradox.

[tacoman25]

Here we are less than one year removed from what was or nearly was, depending on the source, the warmest year on record and you guys are speaking of a pronounced cooling trend. Laughable! Last year's El Nino elevated global temps to near or above 1998 and 2005 levels, and now we see a La Nina dropping temps significantly. What we are experiencing are large magnitude, short term deviations from the mean which carry no predictive value on there own as to where the long term trend is headed.

Do you know where HadCRU came in for 2010?

[WeatherRusty]

Do you know where HadCRU came in for 2010?

A. In the Hadley Centre and Climate Research Unit data set HadCRUT3 the 10 warmest years on record were:

1. 1998 0.52°C
2. 2010 0.50°C
3. 2005 0.47°C
4. 2003 0.46°C
5. 2002 0.46°C
6. 2009 0.44°C
7. 2004 0.43°C
8. 2006 0.43°C
9. 2007 0.40°C
10. 2001 0.40°C

However, please bear in mind that the uncertainties on these values are around ±0.1°C. 1998 could have been as cool as 2006, which would alter the rankings. Although this uncertainty range is an attempt to comprehensively assess the uncertainty in the global average, the method used contains many tacit assumptions about how a global average should be calculated. NCDC and NASA GISS produce their own estimates of the global average temperature using more or less independent methods. Because there is no correct method of estimating the global average temperature from the sometimes sparse observations, the differences between the analyses can be thought of as an additional uncertainty that would be impossible to assess if only a single global temperature analysis existed. Vose et al. 2005 (An intercomparison of trends in surface air temperature analyses at the global, hemispheric, and grid-box scale, GRL) showed that the largest differences between the land surface air temperature data sets arose from the way that the gridded data were averaged to obtain a global value. For data sets which combine land and ocean data there are additional uncertainties, for example how to estimate temperature anomalies over the polar regions. Despite the differences in approach, the average correlation between the three major global temperature data sets is greater than 0.98. The GISS analysis of surface temperatures places 2005 and 2007 ahead of 1998.

Source

[tacoman25]

A. In the Hadley Centre and Climate Research Unit data set HadCRUT3 the 10 warmest years on record were:

1. 1998 0.52°C
2. 2010 0.50°C
3. 2005 0.47°C
4. 2003 0.46°C
5. 2002 0.46°C
6. 2009 0.44°C
7. 2004 0.43°C
8. 2006 0.43°C
9. 2007 0.40°C
10. 2001 0.40°C

However, please bear in mind that the uncertainties on these values are around ±0.1°C. 1998 could have been as cool as 2006, which would alter the rankings. Although this uncertainty range is an attempt to comprehensively assess the uncertainty in the global average, the method used contains many tacit assumptions about how a global average should be calculated. NCDC and NASA GISS produce their own estimates of the global average temperature using more or less independent methods. Because there is no correct method of estimating the global average temperature from the sometimes sparse observations, the differences between the analyses can be thought of as an additional uncertainty that would be impossible to assess if only a single global temperature analysis existed. Vose et al. 2005 (An intercomparison of trends in surface air temperature analyses at the global, hemispheric, and grid-box scale, GRL) showed that the largest differences between the land surface air temperature data sets arose from the way that the gridded data were averaged to obtain a global value. For data sets which combine land and ocean data there are additional uncertainties, for example how to estimate temperature anomalies over the polar regions. Despite the differences in approach, the average correlation between the three major global temperature data sets is greater than 0.98. The GISS analysis of surface temperatures places 2005 and 2007 ahead of 1998.

Source

Thanks for the info.

As far as the uncertainty goes, all of the major sources pretty much agree that 1998, 2005, and 2010 are the three warmest years, so I think that's pretty well established. GISS has 2007 in there as well, but none of the other sources have it close to the top 3. GISS now has 2005, 2007, and 2010 as all warmer than 1998, while HadCRU, RSS, and UAH all continue to show 1998 as the warmest.

Thus, when looking for consensus....

1. 1998 (super El Nino)

2. 2010 (very strong El Nino)

3. 2005 (weak El Nino)

[skierinvermont]

And yet the 2000s were only .1C warmer than the 1990s when Pinatubo is accounted for.

What is interesting is that you may be right....temperatures overall may continue to stay pretty "warm" or even "near record" levels for the next couple decades, without any global cooling - and yet we could see somewhat similar conditions to the Dalton minimum in the U.S. and Europe, thanks to continued high latitude blocking. Globally temperatures may remain warm, but over certain regions, we may continue to see cold/severe winters for quite awhile. An interesting paradox.

I absolutely could see this happening.. the past few decades have had pretty mild winters in most of those areas well beyond what one would expect from AGW alone, and so it's entirely possible a switch could occur or at least a reversion to the mean, especially if we do have low solar activity and if low solar does in fact cause blocking.

But let's not kid ourselves, unless global temperatures show a significant declining trend, we are at or near a record warm earth from a climate change perspective. Actually, I should say atmosphere, because the earth as a whole has warmed greatly over the last 10 year, not earth, because it's just the atmosphere that has stagnated.

[skierinvermont]

Thanks for the info.

As far as the uncertainty goes, all of the major sources pretty much agree that 1998, 2005, and 2010 are the three warmest years, so I think that's pretty well established. GISS has 2007 in there as well, but none of the other sources have it close to the top 3. GISS now has 2005, 2007, and 2010 as all warmer than 1998, while HadCRU, RSS, and UAH all continue to show 1998 as the warmest.

Thus, when looking for consensus....

1. 1998 (super El Nino)

2. 2010 (very strong El Nino)

3. 2005 (weak El Nino)

Pretty much agree although I would probably put 2010 tied with 1998, given GISS had it significantly warmer and HadCRUT missed some very large +anomalies in the arctic in 2010.

[nzucker]

I absolutely could see this happening.. the past few decades have had pretty mild winters in most of those areas well beyond what one would expect from AGW alone, and so it's entirely possible a switch could occur or at least a reversion to the mean, especially if we do have low solar activity and if low solar does in fact cause blocking.

But let's not kid ourselves, unless global temperatures show a significant declining trend, we are at or near a record warm earth from a climate change perspective. Actually, I should say atmosphere, because the earth as a whole has warmed greatly over the last 10 year, not earth, because it's just the atmosphere that has stagnated.

It doesn't make much sense to buy the idea that an extreme solar minimum causes high-latitude blocking but not global cooling; it's pretty obvious that the Little Ice Age was an example of both of these factors working in concert. If we get the Dalton/Maunder Minimum, we're probably going to see the world cool down as well as more of a -NAO/-AO. So if you assume we're going to have the major solar drop-off, then it would be reasonable to expect a decline in global temperatures as well, at least in the next 30 years considering the cold signals from the PDO/ENSO. I don't think you can really separate the different parts of the "cold cycle" as you are doing.

There's also a difference between what the satellites show for January 2011 global temperatures and the decadal warmth; that's where the argument comes in here. You're referring to the long-term warming trend while Bethesda is discussing the short-term decline on the satellites. Whether it's just a normal fluctuation due to La Niña or a sign of things to come, well, that's one's personal opinion. We're certainly seeing some warning signs here in the US that harsher winters are on the way, ones that are often associated with the start of a solar minimum and a colder globe...but whether that's really the case or it's just a blip on the radar screen, we'll have to wait to find out.

[WinterWxLuvr]

This should give pause to those who argue that the Earth has been warmer in the past, yet somehow life flourished. Yes it has been warmer in the past. I'm talking about centuries to millennia such as previous interglacial periods which were not much more that 1C warmer than today, yet sea levels were many meters higher. Even the lukewarmers should take note of how close paleo-data places us to a much different world for human habitation should temps rise only another 1C-2C....

This is the kind of thinking that I just don't follow. If the worlds temp rises1,2,3... degrees, we lose some habitable land near the ocean. I get that. But we would gain land that now is simply too cold for large human populations. We would adapt. Some species of animals would become extinct, but wouldn't others thrive? If, if the dire global warming predictions come true, I think the planets plants and animals will adapt just fine in most instances. Maybe you are suggesting pretty much the same thing, that the world will simply change, and I'm just misreading what you wrote.

[skierinvermont]

It doesn't make much sense to buy the idea that an extreme solar minimum causes high-latitude blocking but not global cooling; it's pretty obvious that the Little Ice Age was an example of both of these factors working in concert. If we get the Dalton/Maunder Minimum, we're probably going to see the world cool down as well as more of a -NAO/-AO. So if you assume we're going to have the major solar drop-off, then it would be reasonable to expect a decline in global temperatures as well, at least in the next 30 years considering the cold signals from the PDO/ENSO. I don't think you can really separate the different parts of the "cold cycle" as you are doing.

There's also a difference between what the satellites show for January 2011 global temperatures and the decadal warmth; that's where the argument comes in here. You're referring to the long-term warming trend while Bethesda is discussing the short-term decline on the satellites. Whether it's just a normal fluctuation due to La Niña or a sign of things to come, well, that's one's personal opinion. We're certainly seeing some warning signs here in the US that harsher winters are on the way, ones that are often associated with the start of a solar minimum and a colder globe...but whether that's really the case or it's just a blip on the radar screen, we'll have to wait to find out.

Yes it does. All reconstructions show that the cooling in the Dalton was most strongly felt in Europe and North America.

[nzucker]

Yes it does. All reconstructions show that the cooling in the Dalton was most strongly felt in Europe and North America.

This is true, but there was definitely a global effect as well in terms of cooling the climate. Wouldn't it be hard for temperatures not to fall at least somewhat if we did have a solar minimum in between the Maunder and Dalton with a strong -PDO/-ENSO pattern? It seems inevitable that we'd see some degree of global cooling if this plays out regardless of carbon's influence.

[Clifford]

The past month? How about the past year? Russian heat wave and fires, Pakistan floods, multiple flooding events in the US, Brazilian flood, Australian floods (western Pacific very warm), deep incursions of cold to the south and warmth to the north. Atlantic as warm as ever measured this past summer. If you isolate on the past month then maybe you have a point, I just don't think you can disregard the global warmth of the past year so quickly.

A complex system is at it's most unstable when it is in the act of change. These type events become more likely in a changing climate.

Truthfully, the weather here in the Willamette Valley, Oregon has been pretty unremarkable this year.

However, the most extreme weather I can remember were 3 winters that all happened during the last solar minimum during the late 60's and early 70's. . I think I'd tend to attribute the recent cold winters to the solar minimum we're currently in... just like the 60's and 70's, rather than blaming the cold on the hypothesized warming.

We regularly have had wildfires in the western USA and California for as long as I can remember. I'd be reluctant to blame a wildfire on AGW when it is more likely attributable to a careless camper, or a dry thunderstorm which happens periodically.

Say we can attribute 1/10 events being exacerbated by the hypothesized global warming. We'll never know which 1/10 of the events it actually was. But, people want to blame all the unrelated events on it.

Was the earthquake in Haiti caused by Global Warming too?

Let's stick to the point of what is actually likely attributable to a warming planet. Everything else is just political rhetoric.