Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,618
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    RyRyB
    Newest Member
    RyRyB
    Joined

2012 Global Temperatures


okie333

Recommended Posts

Here is my calculations. Another large rise today. So 14 days down and 2012 is far ahead of 2011 and 2002 and running near tied with 2010 now.

So in other words, you just made the line up.

Now that your claims have shown to have no substantial basis, including a hand drawn line on a graph, why should anyone take any of your claims seriously in the future?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

So in other words, you just made the line up.

Now that your claims have shown to have no substantial basis, including a hand drawn line on a graph, why should anyone take any of your claims seriously in the future?

I will see you here in early July when UAH posts around a .42 to .47 TLT anomaly.

you can tell me all about how the Earth is cooling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will see you here in early July when UAH posts around a .42 to .47 TLT anomaly.

you can tell me all about how the Earth is cooling.

The earth isn't cooling, we are in a hiatus and I am expecting cooling in the next few decades with the quiet sun. I think the -PDO has been the cause of this flatline in temperatures over recent years, and once the full lag of the sun is fully recognized by the climate system, combined with a -AMO should cool temperatures.

I'm not saying June won't be a warm month. It probably will be if nothing else significantly changes, but to post anomalies of what June will be and what "place" June will come in is disingenuous, because there is still the chance that something could happen with the AMSU Global temperatures from now to the end of the month.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The earth isn't cooling, we are in a hiatus and I am expecting cooling in the next few decades with the quiet sun. I think the -PDO has been the cause of this flatline in temperatures over recent years, and once the full lag of the sun is fully recognized by the climate system, combined with a -AMO should cool temperatures.

I'm not saying June won't be a warm month. It probably will be if nothing else significantly changes, but to post anomalies of what June will be and what "place" June will come in is disingenuous, because there is still the chance that something could happen with the AMSU Global temperatures from now to the end of the month.

Please explain to me how when the past decade has been the warmest such period, with nearly all the warmest years on record occurring during that time, it can be claimed that there has been little to no warming? There may or may not have been a new high temp year during that period depending on the database used, but the average temperature has been higher than any other such period in the surface record for over a decade. How can that not be considered warming?

Also, because of the way radiative forcing is computed, the Sun would have to increase it's radiative output by 22W/m^2 in order to produce an equivalent radiative forcing to a doubling of CO2. To fully negate CO2's radiative forcing the Sun would have to decrease it's output the same. I highly doubt that will happen!

So we are left hoping against hope that solar magnetic field induced, cosmic ray modulated global low cloud amount will come to the rescue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please explain to me how when the past decade has been the warmest such period, with nearly all the warmest years on record occurring during that time, it can be claimed that there has been little to no warming? There may or may not have been a new high temp year during that period depending on the database used, but the average temperature has been higher than any other such period in the surface record for over a decade. How can that not be considered warming?

Also, because of the way radiative forcing is computed, the Sun would have to increase it's radiative output by 22W/m^2 in order to produce an equivalent radiative forcing to a doubling of CO2. To fully negate CO2's radiative forcing the Sun would have to decrease it's output the same. I highly doubt that will happen!

You are first of all,

Ignoring the indirect impacts of the sun

Ignoring that an amplifying mechanism to the solar irradiance cycle has been observed, and this factor amplifies the solar changes by up to a factor of 7

The climate is insensitive, and the warming trend over the 20th Century cannot be explained by an increase in CO2 concentrations.

If the climate system is indeed more sensitive than climate models have modeled, then CO2 alone is not enough to nearly account for the warming observed. A larger factor is needed.

PDO-and-20th-Century-warming-Fig05.jpg

The scatter plot above shows the temperature anomaly plotted over the energy imbalances as measured by CERES over 2000-2007. The plot above also shows two patterns: Linear Striations and Radiative Spirals. The radiative spirals act to reduce the slope of the line, thus obscuring the true feedback and making the climate system appear to be more sensitive than it actually is (Spencer and Braswell 2008). The true feedback can be calculated by the slopes of the linear striations, which according to Spencer and Braswell is during a time when non-radiative forcings are the strongest, so the slopes of these lines are not contaminated by the radiative spirals (primarily from the Cloud Forcing). The slope of the striations is 8.3 w/m^2/Degree C, meaning that it would take 8.3 w/m^2 to warm the Earth's temperature up by 1 Degree C. This indicates significant negative feedback, since no feedback would correspond to a slope of approxmately 3.3 w/m^2/Degree C.

The senstiivty for a CO2 doubling as measured by CERES is approximately 0.44 Degrees C. This means that CO2 could have contributed to approximately 0.17 Degrees C of the long term warming trend observed so far.

A larger factor is needed to explain the warming observed, and the sun is an ample candidate for such a factor, since it has so many ways in which it can impact climate and the atmospheric parameters on Earth.

And you are ignoring that temperatures could be at high levels but are not increasing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to Steven Goddard we are currently in 2nd place for coldest year of the new millenium (avg. temp anomaly GISS).

Global Temperature indices

Anomalies in °C HADCrut GISS NOAA UAH MSU-RSS TempLS Jan 2012 0.217 0.34 0.366 -0.08 -0.058 0.238 Feb 2012 0.193 0.41 0.36 -0.11 -0.121 0.193 Mar 2012 0.305 0.47 0.453 0.11 0.074 0.318 Apr 2012 0.482 0.55 0.66 0.3 0.333 0.525 May 2012 NA 0.65 0.663 0.29 0.233 0.526

According to logic and reason The Earth is near record warmth at the surface and now building globally again in the LT layer. We have barely seen ENSO get going.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, except nothing, absolutely nothing backs this. You are going on a wing and a prayer I suppose.

Well, based on everything I've read at this forum and other places as well as using my own judgement, I certainly can't eliminate the possibility that the sun's longterm energy output has played a significant role %wise in the ups and downs of avg. global temperatures. IF it truly has been significant, then I sincerely feel the globe could cool off pretty significantly over the next 20 years or so IF a grand solar minimum actually does continue to get established regardless of the level of warming caused by AGW. A lot of my feelings on this potential were renewed recently when I examined the ~0.5 C cooling of 1880-1910, whose years were dominated by a longterm solar minimum that had started ~1875-6. To this point, there has been no explanation regarding the likely major influence on the 1880-1910 cooling outside of solar influences. IF a grand min. does dominate, we'll certainly know a lot more by 2030 based on what global temp.'s actually do. If they only barely cool, don't cool, or warm up, it could probably then be concluded that the sun's influence is relatively small. However, if the globe were to cool down between now and ~2030 in a similar fashion to the ~0.5 C cooldown of 1880-1910, especially if volcanic activity weren't extremely high, then more eyes are likely going to be aimed toward the sun as far as cyclical global temp. influences are concerned.

Edit: If the globe doesn't cool nontrivially between now and, say, ~2017-18, then my suspicion about the sun possibly being a major influence would likely diminish rather significantly being that the current quietness really got going back around 2008-9. Whereas the idea of a lag seems quite plausible, especially when considering the length of time it takes the oceans to warm and cool (also there appears to have been about a five year lag during the 1875-1880 period from the start of that longterm solar minimum and the peak of global temp.'s), I would think that significant cooling would likely start by no later than the 8-10 year point after the start of the longterm solar min. if there truly is a big solar impact. Until, then, may the great discussions continue!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see much of a flatline in the temperatures.

dTs_60+132mons.gif

This graph, which I think I got from you, better shows what looks fairly flat line to me since 2000 and especially since 2005(admittedly, the big 1998 spike may have gotten things ahead of themselves by a few years, which could cause some deception):

post-882-0-70342200-1340137156_thumb.gif

I think we'll know a lot more with regard to the strength of the sun's influence based on what occurs over the next five years or so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see much of a flatline in the temperatures.

dTs_60+132mons.gif

For guy like SL who copy and paste's most of the dialogue they bring here you would think a general level of understanding of the Earth's energy budget would be in order.

wohc2012.jpg?t=1337725124

So OHC continues to rise through the 2000s. Right now the last three seasons hold record highs for OHC content which is figured up 4 times per year in 3 month segments.

slide2-1.jpg?t=1338745400

How much GHG forcing(warming) is going into melting ice and snow?

BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2_CY-3.png?t=1340137253

How about Glaciers?

They are also going bye bye.

Snow_Cover_Summer.png?t=1339494110

nhland_season2-2.gif?t=1338955125

Now I have to say I am not coming back to argue the garbage that will come from this post in reply. I can do that anymore, it's taxing on the soul to deal with trickersters and frauds doing something I love, which is learning science.

alt_gmsl_seas_rem.jpg?t=1340139403

There is a nice sea level rise graph, wow look at that, the rise has exploded back on the same path it was. At all time record highs again during the "low" interval.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This graph, which I think I got from you, better shows what looks fairly flat line to me since 2000 and especially since 2005(admittedly, the big 1998 spike may have gotten things ahead of themselves by a few years, which could cause some deception):

I think we'll know a lot more with regard to the strength of the sun's influence based on what occurs over the next five years or so.

Do you bother factoring in how much heat it take to maintain this level of warmth as well as continue to rapidly melt ice and increase OHC?

To say it's not warming is not true at all.

If it was the same as 2000 then Arctic Sea Ice, Greenland, Glaciers and so on would not have accelerated drastically.

We have also seen a Nina with a -PDO and a long solar min and we have still seen temperatures, OHC, Ice melt reach new record highs together with temps moving there now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see much of a flatline in the temperatures.

dTs_60+132mons.gif

Based on what you posted you can see the 60 month running mean has flat lined/warming slowed so to say and the 132 month mean should also in the near future considering it is an 11 year average.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you bother factoring in how much heat it take to maintain this level of warmth as well as continue to rapidly melt ice and increase OHC?

To say it's not warming is not true at all.

If it was the same as 2000 then Arctic Sea Ice, Greenland, Glaciers and so on would not have accelerated drastically.

We have also seen a Nina with a -PDO and a long solar min and we have still seen temperatures, OHC, Ice melt reach new record highs together with temps moving there now.

Friv it's been stated many times around the forum that there is a 5-8 year lag on solar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just saw Friv's post.

A few things.

The data for OHC at 0-2000 meters is very poor.

Greenland and the Northern Hemisphere in Summer and Spring do not represent the entire globe all year round.

PIOMAS does not use up to date observations

And Sea Level can be influenced by a variety of factors.

That is all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just saw Friv's post.

A few things.

The data for OHC at 0-2000 meters is very poor. - Unless you link to supporting data this is just your unsupported opinion, and are you saying that it is wrong to use the data available, even if it is less than perfect? Do you understand the concepts of uncertainty and confidence intervals?

Greenland and the Northern Hemisphere in Summer and Spring do not represent the entire globe all year round. - Strawman argument, nobody ever said they did.

PIOMAS does not use up to date observations - You are flat wrong. PIOMAS is calibrated by bouys and by Cryosat data - what observations are more up to date?

And Sea Level can be influenced by a variety of factors. This is simply handwaving - what is your point?

That is all. - Actually, that was nothing.

Response in blue above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on what you posted you can see the 60 month running mean has flat lined/warming slowed so to say and the 132 month mean should also in the near future considering it is an 11 year average.

One can also see that the last warming period was pretty close to the warming period we just came out of. Also one can see around 1940 it took about 8 years or so before global temps started to really cool in any significant fashion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTING PHILLIPS:

Unless you link to supporting data this is just your unsupported opinion, and are you saying that it is wrong to use the data available, even if it is less than perfect? Do you understand the concepts of uncertainty and confidence intervals?

Strawman argument, nobody ever said they did.

You are flat wrong. PIOMAS is calibrated by bouys and by Cryosat data- what observations are more up to date?

. This is simply handwaving - what is your point?

================================================================

No, I am saying that there are large uncertainties with the OHC data for 0-2000 meters.

In fact, with two datasets, we can see that there has been no change in OHC over the last several years in the depths that are the most accurate.

figure-7.png?w=640&h=416&h=416

Friv was using those charts as indicators that somehow my argument was wrong, so I am not sure how else I am supposed to interpret them.

PIOMAS has been shown to be way too low in the ice thickness department compared to observations from Crysosat.

My point is that Sea Level Rise is not a clear cut case for AGW:

http://www.clim-past.net/8/787/2012/cp-8-787-2012.html

Results suggest that in the tropical Pacific, sea level trend fluctuations are dominated by the internal variability of the ocean–atmosphere coupled system. While our analysis cannot rule out any influence of anthropogenic forcing, it concludes that the latter effect in that particular region is still hardly detectable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This graph, which I think I got from you, better shows what looks fairly flat line to me since 2000 and especially since 2005(admittedly, the big 1998 spike may have gotten things ahead of themselves by a few years, which could cause some deception):

Yes, I posted that graph earlier. I like it a lot, but the problem with that graph is that it doesn't have any trendlines on it. Sometimes, when left to it's own devices, the mind can create a corellation that doesn't really exist. That was why I posted the second graph which shows trend lines over a larger time period. When you look at the long-term trends, you can see a steady progression of rising temperatures.

Based on what you posted you can see the 60 month running mean has flat lined/warming slowed so to say and the 132 month mean should also in the near future considering it is an 11 year average.

Correct. There are a couple "humps" in the 60-month trend. I don't think anyone is claiming a constant rate at which temperatures rise. You can also see a fairly significant number of years where the temperature remained fairly constant through the '60's to the '80s, but when you look at the overall graph, you see that was just a temporary slowdown, and the global warming trends did not really stop at all.

Here's a chart from here that shows the temperatures per decade in bar chart format. Looking at it this way, you can see that temperatures are still climbing.

global-temp-change-decade-a_wblog.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTING PHILLIPS:

Unless you link to supporting data this is just your unsupported opinion, and are you saying that it is wrong to use the data available, even if it is less than perfect? Do you understand the concepts of uncertainty and confidence intervals?

Strawman argument, nobody ever said they did.

You are flat wrong. PIOMAS is calibrated by bouys and by Cryosat data- what observations are more up to date?

. This is simply handwaving - what is your point?

================================================================

No, I am saying that there are large uncertainties with the OHC data for 0-2000 meters.

In fact, with two datasets, we can see that there has been no change in OHC over the last several years in the depths that are the most accurate.

figure-7.png?w=640&h=416&h=416

Friv was using those charts as indicators that somehow my argument was wrong, so I am not sure how else I am supposed to interpret them.

PIOMAS has been shown to be way too low in the ice thickness department compared to observations from Crysosat.

My point is that Sea Level Rise is not a clear cut case for AGW:

http://www.clim-past...8-787-2012.html

Results suggest that in the tropical Pacific, sea level trend fluctuations are dominated by the internal variability of the ocean–atmosphere coupled system. While our analysis cannot rule out any influence of anthropogenic forcing, it concludes that the latter effect in that particular region is still hardly detectable.

So you admit that you have never looked at Cryosat2 data?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you admit that you have never looked at Cryosat2 data?

Don't be silly.

This from an analysis from Clifford, a member of this forum (say, what happened to him, he hasn't posted here in while):

QUOTING Clifford:

I've roughly divided the Arctic into different regions numbered 1-12 (with region 4 large, and somewhat diverse of seasonal ice).

PioasCryoSatComparison.gif

Then using the scale, I've tried to attribute an ice thickness to each region.

ThicknessEstimates.gif

===============================

Note that the PIOMAS graphic is for March, wheras the Cryosat graphic is for January/February. PIOMAS should have slightly more ice than Cryosat, but instead it has significantly less ice than Cryosat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't be silly.

This from an analysis from Clifford, a member of this forum (say, what happened to him, he hasn't posted here in while):

QUOTING Clifford:

I've roughly divided the Arctic into different regions numbered 1-12 (with region 4 large, and somewhat diverse of seasonal ice).

PioasCryoSatComparison.gif

Then using the scale, I've tried to attribute an ice thickness to each region.

ThicknessEstimates.gif

===============================

Note that the PIOMAS graphic is for March, wheras the Cryosat graphic is for January/February. PIOMAS should have slightly more ice than Cryosat, but instead it has significantly less ice than Cryosat.

I hate to ruin the good time but your using completely useless and bunk data that the folks who make cryosat2 "GO" replaced with new data 2-3 months ago I believe, they also said their findings validate Piomas.

I would of thought this would have been noticed, it was a wide main stream press release with it.

So you don't know or your just trolling

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...