2012 Global Temperatures

[okie333]

New year, new thread.

[BethesdaWX]

^{Lets see how this works, January, February, and March all show very little deviation from one another, and hover at similar values to the October through December period, before warmer values occur from April into September. ENSO warms again this spring and summer like it did in 2011 in the eastern regions before the descent into a 3rd year La Nina occurs this summer or fall, which during this La Nina a more significant global temperature drop occurs later this year, or if not, it comes in 2013.}

[The_Global_Warmer]

AMSU channel 5 temps have fallen a ton the last few days.

I figured this was going to happen when the cold dumped out of the arctic into the upper mid latitudes.

However, even with that. The Data set is still running pretty cool. Now 2nd lowest on this date.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Looks like 2011 is heading for 2008 on amsu attm.

[okie333]

Looks like 2011 is heading for 2008 on amsu attm.

Time travel, eh?

[The_Global_Warmer]

Opps.

2012 oviously

[The_Global_Warmer]

AMSU channel 5 temps have continued to free fall and have almost tied 2008 for the lowest on the data set for any month.

This is not surprising given the Nina, -PDO, -AMO.

I also think the recent arctic heat wave plays a role.

But maybe not, channel 6 and 7 have plummeted lower than 2008.

[LakeEffectKing]

AMSU channel 5 temps have continued to free fall and have almost tied 2008 for the lowest on the data set for any month.

This is not surprising given the Nina, -PDO, -AMO.

I also think the recent arctic heat wave plays a role.

But maybe not, channel 6 and 7 have plummeted lower than 2008.

New low for the AMSU data set (since 2002) at the Discover site..... - 21.29 C for Ch. 5...In the big picture, means zilch, but an important enough milestone, in itself, to mention.

[LakeEffectKing]

New low for the AMSU data set (since 2002) at the Discover site..... - 21.29 C for Ch. 5...In the big picture, means zilch, but an important enough milestone, in itself, to mention.

Jan's UAH number is going to be pretty cold....I suspect (though, Nov. and Dec. seemed to buck the Ch. 5 typical correlation)...

Discover Ch. 5 sets 3rd consecutive record cold daily reading at -21.33 C.

[blue sky]

-21.36 today

[donsutherland1]

The corrected coefficients of determination for the January AMSU-5 vs. the following datasets are:

GISS: 0.696

NCDC: 0.690

UAH: 0.819

The relationship between the AMSU-5 and UAH would, based on the first 22 days of January, suggest a negative UAH figure (possibly in the -0.20 to -0.10 range). GISS and NCDC would still have positive anomalies.

[Snow_Miser]

The corrected coefficients of determination for the January AMSU-5 vs. the following datasets are:

GISS: 0.696

NCDC: 0.690

UAH: 0.819

The relationship between the AMSU-5 and UAH would, based on the first 22 days of January, suggest a negative UAH figure. GISS and NCDC would still have positive anomalies.

I think January 2008 finished off with ~-0.30 Degrees Celcius. Correct me if I am wrong. January 2012 is currently below 2008 by a good margin, and has been for a few days now.

By all means, with 2012 now being the coldest in the AMSU record, it does NOT support claims that Global Warming is accelerating, at all.

[donsutherland1]

I think January 2008 finished off with ~-0.30 Degrees Celcius. Correct me if I am wrong. January 2012 is currently below 2008 by a good margin, and has been for a few days now.

By all means, with 2012 now being the coldest in the AMSU record, it does NOT support claims that Global Warming is accelerating, at all.

Three quick things:

1. You are correct about January 2008.

2. The sample size for the Channel 5 temperatures is very small. Hence, there is a lot of uncertainty.

3. One month is too short a period to make any judgments for or against climate change.

[LakeEffectKing]

The corrected coefficients of determination for the January AMSU-5 vs. the following datasets are:

GISS: 0.696

NCDC: 0.690

UAH: 0.819

The relationship between the AMSU-5 and UAH would, based on the first 22 days of January, suggest a negative UAH figure (possibly in the -0.20 to -0.10 range). GISS and NCDC would still have positive anomalies.

Thank you for doing this. 82% is a pretty good "rule of thumb" correlation value. Actually a bit higher than what I would have thought for UAH.

[Snow_Miser]

One month is too short a period to make any judgments for or against climate change.

That is correct, but I think that if Global Warming were to be accelerating, you would not see record lows still being made in the AMSU record. Let alone record lows being made with only a moderate La Nina. 2009 featured a similar strength La Nina, and a 2nd year Nina, but it was significantly warmer than the current 2nd year La Nina.

2012 is close to 0.6 Degrees C cooler than 2009 at Ch. 5. That should not be happening if Global Warming were to be accelerating. you would see 2012 be largely warmer than 2009.

[LakeEffectKing]

Three quick things:

1. You are correct about January 2008.

2. The sample size for the Channel 5 temperatures is very small. Hence, there is a lot of uncertainty.

3. One month is too short a period to make any judgments for or against climate change.

Heck, several decades may not be enough to assess the accuracy of the proposed global T at yr 2100....IMO, the entire hypothesis and the testing of it (that which includes the year 2100 as an "endpoint" and includes ranges of proposed temperature increases) is quite futile. Ascertaining the impact value of ONE changing climate variable amongst the incredible complexity with which the climate "web" exists, is (again IMO) a grossly overvalued "best estimation".....

Don, have you run any R-squared's on CO2 and the various global T datasets over multiple time spans???

[LakeEffectKing]

That is correct, but I think that if Global Warming were to be accelerating, you would not see record lows still being made in the AMSU record. Let alone record lows being made with only a moderate La Nina. 2009 featured a similar strength La Nina, and a 2nd year Nina, but it was significantly warmer than the current 2nd year La Nina.

2012 is close to 0.6 Degrees C cooler than 2009 at Ch. 5. That should not be happening if Global Warming were to be accelerating. you would see 2012 be largely warmer than 2009.

The term "accelerating", while used less frequently now than in the past, still was never really the view of the "consensus" experts communicating the AGW hypothesis. Both sides tend to view the other "extremes" as being more representative of the "other side" than what the "consensus view" of each side actually is.

[donsutherland1]

Don, have you run any R-squared's on CO2 and the various global T datasets over multiple time spans???

I ran some numbers last year against annual temperatures (GISS and UAH). I don't recall the exact values but the r2 was around 0.5 for UAH and higher for GISS (1978-2010 data for a comparable timeframe). I didn't place that much value on year-to-year comparisons.

However, I also ran the numbers using 30-year moving averages, because year-to-year variations in temperatures are influenced by many factors that could offset any possible climatic signal e.g, ENSO. The coefficient of determination using a 30-year moving average for CO2 and GISS was much higher than that for annual CO2 vs. annual temperature anomalies (>0.9 if I recall correctly). The relationship was also statistically significant at a 95% confidence level. I couldn't use UAH, because that dataset does not go back far enough to have many data points. GISS goes back farther, but I still had less than 30 when using the 30-year moving averages due to the CO2 record's not going back far enough in time.

[WeatherRusty]

That is correct, but I think that if Global Warming were to be accelerating, you would not see record lows still being made in the AMSU record. Let alone record lows being made with only a moderate La Nina. 2009 featured a similar strength La Nina, and a 2nd year Nina, but it was significantly warmer than the current 2nd year La Nina.

2012 is close to 0.6 Degrees C cooler than 2009 at Ch. 5. That should not be happening if Global Warming were to be accelerating. you would see 2012 be largely warmer than 2009.

Less than 1 month versus the latest full year:

• La Niña, which is defined by cooler-than-normal waters in the eastern and central equatorial Pacific Ocean that affects weather patterns around the globe, was present during much of 2011. A relatively strong phase of La Niña opened the year, then dissipated in the spring before re-emerging in October and lasting through the end of the year. When compared to previous La Niña years, the 2011 global surface temperature was the warmest observed during such a year.
  

NOAA

[donsutherland1]

I re-ran the 30-year moving averages (CO2 = Independent Variable; GISS Temperature Anomaly = Dependent Variable) adding the 2011 data to the old chart, which I still had on my computer. The result is below:

[LakeEffectKing]

I ran some numbers last year against annual temperatures (GISS and UAH). I don't recall the exact values but the r2 was around 0.5 for UAH and higher for GISS (1978-2010 data for a comparable timeframe). I didn't place that much value on year-to-year comparisons.

However, I also ran the numbers using 30-year moving averages, because year-to-year variations in temperatures are influenced by many factors that could offset any possible climatic signal e.g, ENSO. The coefficient of determination using a 30-year moving average for CO2 and GISS was much higher than that for annual CO2 vs. annual temperature anomalies (>0.9 if I recall correctly). The relationship was also statistically significant at a 95% confidence level. I couldn't use UAH, because that dataset does not go back far enough to have many data points. GISS goes back farther, but I still had less than 30 when using the 30-year moving averages due to the CO2 record's not going back far enough in time.

Using the 30 yr. moving ave. and coming up with such a high percentage vs. T makes sense, just based on a cursory glance at a T vs. CO2 time plot....however, If my statistics cobwebs are not too inhibitive, I'd guess that the length of the dataset (CO2) along with the overall length of your arbitrarily picked 30 years as your endpoints of a moving average, play a role in the resultant high correlation....but I digress...

Edit:

Can you run the coefficient of determination over the last 10 days .... UAHt vs. CO2 ????

[donsutherland1]

I'd guess that the length of the dataset (CO2) along with the overall length of your arbitrarily picked 30 years as your endpoints of a moving average, play a role in the resultant high correlation....but I digress...

That's certainly a possibility. Unfortunately, I was constrained by the annual CO2 data which only goes back to 1959 (full year).Hence, the 1959-88 period was the first one in the 30-year rolling average.

ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt

[WeatherRusty]

Using the 30 yr. moving ave. and coming up with such a high percentage vs. T makes sense, just based on a cursory glance at a T vs. CO2 time plot....however, If my statistics cobwebs are not too inhibitive, I'd guess that the length of the dataset (CO2) along with the overall length of your arbitrarily picked 30 years as your endpoints of a moving average, play a role in the resultant high correlation....but I digress...

Edit:

Can you run the coefficient of determination over the last 10 days .... UAHt vs. CO2 ????

Got It!

[The_Global_Warmer]

I think January 2008 finished off with ~-0.30 Degrees Celcius. Correct me if I am wrong. January 2012 is currently below 2008 by a good margin, and has been for a few days now.

By all means, with 2012 now being the coldest in the AMSU record, it does NOT support claims that Global Warming is accelerating, at all.

Look..I am not trying to be a bleep about this. But that is absurd..AGW manifests it self in many forms, air temperature is one and a big one.

But the Satelittes for one are not the gospel.

Look at where the warmest anomalies are.

Here is the most recent one the 21st:

That is just the 21st. You can see almost the entire area where UAH/AMSU is not gettign which is 82-90N is where the warmest anomalies are. This is no joke...the recent pattern exhuasted the coldest air out of the arctic. This is cleary a perfect storm of sorts AMSU to drop even further. If you smoothed those very warm areas up there with cold somewhere else to even it out...who knows if we would be seeing this large of a drop.

To ignore this would be to ignore reality. I expect it to be pretty chilly attm regardless.

On top of that UAH uses 1981-2010 baseline which will give a false impression as well considering the natural variability of climate is in full swing over that time and is right now in a very cool period.

I am sure the AMSU channel 5 temps would still be cold, but it's no coincidence that temps plummeted at the same time very very warm anomalies appeared right where the SAT can not measure.

On top of that:

-PDO

-AMO

LA Nina

coming out of solar min

extensive snow cover

above average Antarctic Sea ice the last few months

Arctic Sea Ice was recently near normals before a set back

I think most of the climate indicies indicate a very cool period. It's not like temperatures at the surface or even on Satelites are dropping anywhere near pre modern global warming levels and even so this drop won't be to long before a rebound as the Nina weakens into spring.

Let's just try to have a fair discussion and yeah I don't agree that the warming is accelerating at this time

[donsutherland1]

But the Satelittes for one are not the gospel.

I agree, at least when it comes to measuring surface temperatures.

For those who are not familiar with it, UAH measures lower tropospheric, mid tropospheric, and stratospheric temperatures, not surface temperatures. This is an important distinction. One can recall numerous occasions where the surface temperatures were much warmer than would have been implied by 850 mb temperatures or vice versa. AMSU-Channel 5 records temperatures at 600 mb. Not surprisingly, because UAH does not measure surface temperatures, the coefficient of determination (r2) between AMSU-Channel 5 and UAH is higher than it is relative to the AMSU-5 and either NCDC or GISS datasets, both of which do measure surface temperatures. One can't beat the satellites when it comes to estimating temperatures at various levels of the atmosphere.

However, when it comes to surface temperatures, IMO, the NCDC and GISS datasets are probably the most robust surface temperature records available. They rely on a large number of surface instruments and the sampling is extensive in most parts of the world. In the Arctic/Antarctic where instrument coverage is limited, GISS relies on an extrapolation technique that has been validated by research (estimated error is +/- 0.05°C at a 95% confidence level or 1.96 standard deviations from the mean error).

[LakeEffectKing]

Look..I am not trying to be a bleep about this. But that is absurd..AGW manifests it self in many forms, air temperature is one and a big one.

But the Satelittes for one are not the gospel.

Look at where the warmest anomalies are.

Here is the most recent one the 21st:

That is just the 21st. You can see almost the entire area where UAH/AMSU is not gettign which is 82-90N is where the warmest anomalies are. This is no joke...the recent pattern exhuasted the coldest air out of the arctic. This is cleary a perfect storm of sorts AMSU to drop even further. If you smoothed those very warm areas up there with cold somewhere else to even it out...who knows if we would be seeing this large of a drop.

To ignore this would be to ignore reality. I expect it to be pretty chilly attm regardless.

On top of that UAH uses 1981-2010 baseline which will give a false impression as well considering the natural variability of climate is in full swing over that time and is right now in a very cool period.

I am sure the AMSU channel 5 temps would still be cold, but it's no coincidence that temps plummeted at the same time very very warm anomalies appeared right where the SAT can not measure.

On top of that:

-PDO

-AMO

LA Nina

coming out of solar min

extensive snow cover

above average Antarctic Sea ice the last few months

Arctic Sea Ice was recently near normals before a set back

I think most of the climate indicies indicate a very cool period. It's not like temperatures at the surface or even on Satelites are dropping anywhere near pre modern global warming levels and even so this drop won't be to long before a rebound as the Nina weakens into spring.

Let's just try to have a fair discussion and yeah I don't agree that the warming is accelerating at this time

You do understand just how small an area north of a line of latitude 82 deg. is, right?

A = 2*pi*R^2(1-sin(lat))

[The_Global_Warmer]

You do understand just how small an area north of a line of latitude 82 deg. is, right?

A = 2*pi*R^2(1-sin(lat))

Yeah I do. But it also plays a role.

Are we supposed to ignore it for some reason?

[LakeEffectKing]

Yeah I do. But it also plays a role.

Are we supposed to ignore it for some reason?

Point to me where I said to ignore it!!!! Come on Friv.....You were the one who made it a point that taking the EXTRAPOLATED temps of the area north of 82N and "spread it out" that it might offset some of the cold anomolies that the satellites can "see"....and all I am saying is that THAT particular offset would be quite small due to the relatively small area as compared to the entire globe....and the stretched out projection map grossly provides a visual illusion wrt areal coverage at the poles.

But you ask if I want to ignore it?

Edit:

BTW, the area you reference is slightly larger than the country of Algeria.... and is ~.48% of total area of Earth.

[blue sky]

-21.37

Coldest day last 10 years(unadjusted)

[The_Global_Warmer]

Point to me where I said to ignore it!!!! Come on Friv.....You were the one who made it a point that taking the EXTRAPOLATED temps of the area north of 82N and "spread it out" that it might offset some of the cold anomolies that the satellites can "see"....and all I am saying is that THAT particular offset would be quite small due to the relatively small area as compared to the entire globe....and the stretched out projection map grossly provides a visual illusion wrt areal coverage at the poles.

But you ask if I want to ignore it?

Edit:

BTW, the area you reference is slightly larger than the country of Algeria.... and is ~.48% of total area of Earth.

1. That is a small area of the Earth.

2. Even so it turns out irrelevant anyways.

3. Why?

4. Because....

5. The 82N thing and 70S thing only count on RSS, not the raw daily channel 5 ascending and descending passes averages.

6. So that covers nearly the entire Earth except 2-3 degrees around each pole

7. That makes the pole area warmth even more irrelevent

8. Chill Out, I wasn't singling you out, I was asking a general question.