2012 Global Temperatures

[Snow_Miser]

http://www.weatherbe...letter-3-6-12-a

LOL, Aren't the blue anomalies where the Midwest is scorching right now with 110 degree heat?

[SVT450R]

Channel 5 temps continuing to run below 2010-2011.

[donsutherland1]

Any comments regarding the following maps as well as the respective Joe Bastardi comments?

1) "Cold areas Australia, Antarctica as impressive as hot area over US."

July 1-7, 2012 temp. anom.'s vs. 1981-2010 climo

I deferred comment on the first point until the actual re-analysis data was in. On a global basis, the warmth easily outdueled the cold during the July 1-7, 2012 timeframe.

[GaWx]

I deferred comment on the first point until the actual re-analysis data was in. On a global basis, the warmth easily outdueled the cold during the July 1-7, 2012 timeframe.

Don,

Thanks for following up. Based on this map (1981-2010 base), I agree 100%. In this case unlike the JMA maps, the whites can be treated as neutral. The greens, yellows, and reds easily outduel the blues and purples. Interestingly, Antarctica by itself easily looks warmer than normal on avg.

[GaWx]

Folks,

Attached is a global temp. anom. map from 7/1-8/12 (vs. 1981-2010) that JB just posted in his Twitter. JB referred to this map this way:

"July, even with the Hot spot over the US notice how much of the globe is at or below normal http://policlimate.com/climate/ncep_c… Does Wapo look at this.Not"

He's obviously implying there are more cool than warm anom.'s overall. I say he's wrong. Let's look more closely. The whites here can be treated as neutral. What I'm educatedly guessing is that he is assuming grays are neutral to be able to come up with that misrep. The easiest way to look at this is to consider blues and grays close to mirror opposites. Do the same for greens vs. yellows/reds. Now let's break the average anom. down by areas:

A. Warm areas:

1) North America/Greenland: blues and grays about even but reds/yellows far outweigh green, which I can't even find.

2) Eurasia: more grays than blues; reds/yellows are against greens, which I can't even find.

3) Indian Ocean: far more grays than blues

4) Atlantic Ocean: far more grays than blues; yellows/reds about same as greens (North warm and south ~wash)

5) Arctic Ocean: far more grays than blues

B. ~Wash areas:

1) Pacific: cool north and warm south

2) Africa: warm north and south; cool middle

C. Cool areas:

1) Australia/NZ; no brainer since almost all blue

2) South America: far more blues than grays

3) Antarctica: a little more grays than blues but greens far outweigh yellows/reds, which are barely there

Conclusion: The five warm areas added up are far larger than the three cool area. JB's implication is totally off.

By the way, I do think JB is brilliant in a number of ways and is a unique talent in the met. field. I don't want readers to think I'm one-sided against him. Regardless, I say he's clearly wrong with regard to both this map and the JMA forecast map.

Anyone disagree? Comments welcome.

***Edit: Northern hem. clearly averages warm whereas the southern hem. looks to me to be fairly well balanced, if not a touch cooler than normal overall. Any theories as to why the northern hem. is sig. warmer than the southern hem.? Would the AGW forcing explain this or not? How about the sun forcing?

[ben4vols]

He's obviously implying there are more cool than warm anom.'s overall. I say he's wrong. Let's look more closely. The whites here can be treated as neutral. What I'm educatedly guessing is that he is assuming grays are neutral to be able to come up with that misrep. The easiest way to look at this is to consider blues and grays close to mirror opposites. Do the same for greens vs. yellows/reds. Now let's break the average anom. down by areas:

Top right of the map, there is a global anomaly that says .075.

[GaWx]

Top right of the map, there is a global anomaly that says .075.

Yep, that's confirmation the globe averaged warm. He must have totally missed that.

***Edit: Noting my regional breakdowns, the northern hem. clearly averages warm whereas the southern hem. looks to me to be fairly well balanced, if not a touch cooler than normal overall. Any theories as to why the northern hem. is sig. warmer than the southern hem.? If one looks at just land areas, the diference is a good bit greater because the N. Hem. land areas are solidly warm overall while the S. Hem. land areas are pretty clearly cool overall on that map. Would the AGW forcing explain this or not? How about the sun forcing? What's with the rather sig. hem. diff.'s? Has this been thoroughly researched?

[GaWx]

The following NCEP map, which displays two meter temp. anom.'s YTD to 7/9/12 with a baseline of 1981-2010, has essentially a neutral anom. overall (-.006 C).

The northern hem. clearly averages warm (sea and land) while the southern hem. clearly averages cool thanks to cool land (oceans pretty balanced). Any comments as to the reasons for the disparity between the hem.'s? Does either AGW or sun related forcing favor this kind of dichotomy?

[Snow_Miser]

The following NCEP map, which displays two meter temp. anom.'s YTD to 7/9/12 with a baseline of 1981-2010, has essentially a neutral anom. overall (-.006 C).

The northern hem. clearly averages warm (sea and especially land) while the southern hem. clearly averages cool thanks to cool land (oceans pretty balanced). Any comments as to the reasons for the disparity between the hem.'s? Does either AGW or sun related forcing favor this kind of dichotomy?

A lot of the reason why the NH has warmed faster than the Southern Hemisphere is because of Arctic Amplification, which is what you would see with any warming, Solar or GHG. The Northern Hemisphere also has more landmasses, which is probably why it is also warming faster.

[donsutherland1]

The following NCEP map, which displays two meter temp. anom.'s YTD to 7/9/12 with a baseline of 1981-2010, has essentially a neutral anom. overall (-.006 C).

The northern hem. clearly averages warm (sea and land) while the southern hem. clearly averages cool thanks to cool land (oceans pretty balanced). Any comments as to the reasons for the disparity between the hem.'s? Does either AGW or sun related forcing favor this kind of dichotomy?

Two quick things:

1. I'll post the Re-analysis data when the data through July 9 is available. From having looked at the year-to-date figures on a monthly basis, that map looks too cool for the year-to-date, even when one correctly reads the gray areas. Perhaps the resolution is too course when it comes to the calculations?

2. The relative difference between the two hemispheres (SH being less warm than the NH) might be tied to the biopolar seesaw.

[GaWx]

A lot of the reason why the NH has warmed faster than the Southern Hemisphere is because of Arctic Amplification, which is what you would see with any warming, Solar or GHG. The Northern Hemisphere also has more landmasses, which is probably why it is also warming faster.

Yes, but this map implies that the southern hem. has cooled overall during 1/1-7/9/12 (thanks to the land areas) vs. the prior 30 years. How can that be possible? What would be the source of the southern hem. land cooling for that six+ month period?

[The_Global_Warmer]

Yep, that's confirmation the globe averaged warm. He must have totally missed that.

***Edit: Noting my regional breakdowns, the northern hem. clearly averages warm whereas the southern hem. looks to me to be fairly well balanced, if not a touch cooler than normal overall. Any theories as to why the northern hem. is sig. warmer than the southern hem.? If one looks at just land areas, the diference is a good bit greater because the N. Hem. land areas are solidly warm overall while the S. Hem. land areas are pretty clearly cool overall on that map. Would the AGW forcing explain this or not? How about the sun forcing? What's with the rather sig. hem. diff.'s? Has this been thoroughly researched?

Channel 5 temps continuing to run below 2010-2011.

Has there been another period like this where the TLT number deviated from the channel 5 number?

I would assume that Snow Albedo has played a large role in this but snow albedo was also low last year.

UAH shows the Northern Hemisphere Land anomaly being very large and carrying the 2012 monthly warm anomalies.

YR MON GLOBAL NH SH TROPICS

2011 01 -0.010 -0.055 +0.036 -0.372

2011 02 -0.020 -0.042 +0.002 -0.348

2011 03 -0.101 -0.073 -0.128 -0.342

2011 04 +0.117 +0.195 +0.039 -0.229

2011 05 +0.133 +0.145 +0.121 -0.043

2011 06 +0.315 +0.379 +0.250 +0.233

2011 07 +0.374 +0.344 +0.404 +0.204

2011 08 +0.327 +0.321 +0.332 +0.155

2011 09 +0.289 +0.304 +0.274 +0.178

2011 10 +0.116 +0.169 +0.062 -0.054

2011 11 +0.123 +0.075 +0.170 +0.024

2011 12 +0.126 +0.197 +0.055 +0.041

2012 01 -0.089 -0.058 -0.120 -0.137

2012 02 -0.111 -0.014 -0.209 -0.276

2012 03 +0.111 +0.129 +0.094 -0.106

2012 04 +0.299 +0.413 +0.185 -0.117

2012 05 +0.292 +0.444 +0.141 +0.033

2012 06 +0.369 +0.540 +0.199 +0.140

2012 is clearly very warm at the surface. I won't be surprised if GISS and NCDC come in very warm for June.

[PhillipS]

The following NCEP map, which displays two meter temp. anom.'s YTD to 7/9/12 with a baseline of 1981-2010, has essentially a neutral anom. overall (-.006 C).

The northern hem. clearly averages warm (sea and especially land) while the southern hem. clearly averages cool thanks to cool land (oceans pretty balanced). Any comments as to the reasons for the disparity between the hem.'s? Does either AGW or sun related forcing favor this kind of dichotomy?

The explanation I've seen several places for the disparity is that the NH has a much greater percentage of land area and so warms faster than the SH with its extensive oceans. Oceans, of course, having a higher thermal mass. Here are the current GISS plots for NH, tropics, and SH:

The other thing to keep in mind is JB's use of anomaly plots with a 1981 - 2010 baseline - choosing a baseline which includes the hottest years ever recorded has the effect of making recent anomalies appear cooler than they would if a different baseline had been used. GISS, for example, uses a 1951 - 1980 baseline on its anomaly plots. Since the difference in the baselines is about 0.4 C, add that delta T to JB's plots and you'll see that little, if any, of the Earth is anomalously cool..

[donsutherland1]

If one has noticed, the maps produced by Policlimate have consistently shown a cold global anomaly (1981-2010 base period). After running through the GISS data, I believe the Policlimate maps are not accurately calculating the global land and sea temperature anomaly, even when one considers the warmer base period.

1. NCDC Re-Analysis Maps have shown much more warmth than the Policlimate maps. For example, in the most recent Policlimate map posted in this thread for the January 1-July 9 timeframe, most of Antarctica is shown as cold or very cold. When one runs the NCDC Re-Analysis maps (January 1-July 7), one finds most of Antarctica has been warmer than normal for the year as a whole. It is improbable that the 2-day gap between the Policlimate maps and the NCDC maps would account for this disparity.

2. When the January-May 2012 anomaly is measured against the January-May 1981-2010 average temperature, the January-May 2012 period has a global land and surface temperature anomaly of +0.096°.

[The_Global_Warmer]

If one has noticed, the maps produced by Policlimate have consistently shown a cold global anomaly (1981-2010 base period). After running through the GISS data, I believe the Policlimate maps are not accurately calculating the global land and sea temperature anomaly, even when one considers the warmer base period.

1. NCDC Re-Analysis Maps have shown much more warmth than the Policlimate maps. For example, in the most recent Policlimate map posted in this thread for the January 1-July 9 timeframe, most of Antarctica is shown as cold or very cold. When one runs the NCDC Re-Analysis maps (January 1-July 7), one finds most of Antarctica has been warmer than normal for the year as a whole. It is improbable that the 2-day gap between the Policlimate maps and the NCDC maps would account for this disparity.

2. When the January-May 2012 anomaly is measured against the January-May 1981-2010 average temperature, the January-May 2012 period has a global land and surface temperature anomaly of +0.096°.

Maybe the maps from Policlimate are based on GFS 2m temps?

[donsutherland1]

Maybe the maps from Policlimate are based on GFS 2m temps?

If that's the case, then using the sum of forecast 2m temperatures as a measure for the temperature anomalies is probably a misuse of the maps, as forecasts are not actual outcomes. I've now run the NCDC numbers and January-May 2012 is running +0.072°C above the January-May 1981-2010 baseline. Both the GISS and NCDC numbers suggest that 2012 is running warmer than normal, even if one uses the 1981-2010 baseline.

[The_Global_Warmer]

If that's the case, then using the sum of forecast 2m temperatures as a measure for the temperature anomalies is probably a misuse of the maps, as forecasts are not actual outcomes. I've now run the NCDC numbers and January-May 2012 is running +0.072°C above the January-May 1981-2010 baseline. Both the GISS and NCDC numbers suggest that 2012 is running warmer than normal, even if one uses the 1981-2010 baseline.

We also need to think the large land based anomalies which could have to do with the stronger sun, snow and ice albedo. While the oceans are warm but not that abnormal.

I mean it's a global weather scheme but the land area's continuously torch now for a while. Is this bigger than or just a mish mash of patterns and it's a small run of record heat in many places.

Or are we seeing the first big signs of direct GHG enhanced forcing from insolation over land while the oceans are in a cooler cycle. Still warm though and rising attm, but the NINO has been sketchy.

[donsutherland1]

We also need to think the large land based anomalies which could have to do with the stronger sun, snow and ice albedo. While the oceans are warm but not that abnormal.

I mean it's a global weather scheme but the land area's continuously torch now for a while. Is this bigger than or just a mish mash of patterns and it's a small run of record heat in many places.

Or are we seeing the first big signs of direct GHG enhanced forcing from insolation over land while the oceans are in a cooler cycle. Still warm though and rising attm, but the NINO has been sketchy.

I agree with you.

IMO, the early hints of the growing impact of GHG forcing (now the largest forcing and still growing in relative and absolute terms) was seen in the data where natural forcings were being displaced. With global land masses running about 0.16°C warmer than the global land and oceans measure and the Northern Hemisphere running more than +0.25°C above the global land and oceans measure (2002-11 averages), I don't believe the growing incidence of outbreaks of extreme heat in North America and Eurasia are too surprising. Had they failed to materialize, that would have been surprising.

In that context, although May 2012 was the second warmest on record in the CONUS (just missing the 1934 mark by .03°F), the Northern Hemisphere experienced its warmest May on record. It will interesting to see if the Northern Hemisphere also had its warmest June on record.

Finally, the Arctic region's warmth relative to normal has topped all other regions. The warmth was particularly notable last winter and, even though it's still far away, the CFSv2 shows more brutal warmth there for Winter 2012-13.

[GaWx]

Having contradictory maps that display temp. anom.'s is frustrating. What are we to believe is most accurate and why?

I'm seeing contradictory maps regarding Antarctica. Are the maps that show it averaging cool 1/1/12-7/8/12 vs. 1981-2010 not to be trusted?

[ben4vols]

The other thing to keep in mind is JB's use of anomaly plots with a 1981 - 2010 baseline - choosing a baseline which includes the hottest years ever recorded has the effect of making recent anomalies appear cooler than they would if a different baseline had been used. GISS, for example, uses a 1951 - 1980 baseline on its anomaly plots. Since the difference in the baselines is about 0.4 C, add that delta T to JB's plots and you'll see that little, if any, of the Earth is anomalously cool..

Wonder why GISS uses 1951-1980 (largely a cooling period)? That isn't standard practice. Usually the last 30 years are used. This is one of the huge problems in the climate debate. It is a shell game. Which temp data numbers will they use this time and vs what 30 year climate period.

[CoastalWx]

I can't explain parts of Russia without seeing the precip maps from January on, but we also have a large feedback from dry weather in the Rockies and much of the Plains states. When you have an increasing sun angle and soils that are overall consistently drying out such as we had from January-June...that adds to a feedback process that can significantly affect temps. This isn't a case where soils start drying out now through September along with a decreasing sun angle. That imo, could explain part of, or a large part of the temps in NAMR.

[donsutherland1]

Wonder why GISS uses 1951-1980 (largely a cooling period)? That isn't standard practice. Usually the last 30 years are used. This is one of the huge problems in the climate debate. It is a shell game. Which temp data numbers will they use this time and vs what 30 year climate period.

NCDC uses the larger 20th century averages as the baseline. GISS and NCDC results are quite consistent.

[PhillipS]

Wonder why GISS uses 1951-1980 (largely a cooling period)? That isn't standard practice. Usually the last 30 years are used. This is one of the huge problems in the climate debate. It is a shell game. Which temp data numbers will they use this time and vs what 30 year climate period.

If that were true today's 'standard' baseline would be 1982 - 2011, next years's would be 1983 - 2012, and so on endlessly. I'm not aware of any climate group that does that.

Most organizations are reluctant to change their anomaly baseline because when they do they have to go back and recalculate all of the historic anomalies. And all of their old graphs and charts are then obsolete. Easier just to stick to an adopted baseline unless there is a compelling reason to change.

If you feel that constantly changing baselines is the climate science standard practice, please provide a link to some documentation of that practice. Here's what I found from a quick google search, it's from the Environment Canadawebsite.

The 1961-1990 normal period has been selected as the standard reference for many of these studies, as it is considered to:

• be representative of the present-day or recent average climate in the study region;
  
• be of a sufficient duration to encompass a range of climatic variations, including a number of significant weather anomalies;
  
• cover a period for which data on all major climatological variables are abundant, adequately distributed over space and readily available;
  
• include data of sufficiently high quality for use in evaluating impacts; and
  
• be consistent or readily comparable with baseline climatologies used in other impact assessments.
  

However, it is recognized that:

• in some cases there is better data access from an earlier time period (e.g. 1951-1980 or even 1931-1960);
  
• in some, but not all, regions more recent periods may already contain a significant warming trend which may be greenhouse gas related;
  
• a 30-year period may not be of sufficient duration to reflect natural climatic variability on a multidecadal timescale, which could be important when considering long-term impacts.
  

And you do understand, I hope, that it doesn't matter if the baseline period is warming or cooling, the baseline period is simpy used to calulate a constant value for determining anomalies. The trend doesn't change.

[donsutherland1]

Having contradictory maps that display temp. anom.'s is frustrating. What are we to believe is most accurate and why?

I'm seeing contradictory maps regarding Antarctica. Are the maps that show it averaging cool 1/1/12-7/8/12 vs. 1981-2010 not to be trusted?

Given the quality controls in the NCEP/NCAR re-analysis data and the consistency of that data with the observed global temperature anomalies on both the NCDC and GISS datasets, I believe the re-analysis data probably reasonably represents the YTD Antarctic anomalies.

The Policlimate maps have consistently shown a slight cool anomaly YTD (global basis). Yet, if one uses either the NCDC or GISS data (measured against the 1981-2010 baseline), one still gets warm anomalies with either data set for the YTD (January-May comparisons). If the jump in the UAH readings for June is accurate (and the re-analysis maps imply that June may have been warmer than May), the January-June warm anomaly may be larger than the January-May one.

[Jonger]

If that were true today's 'standard' baseline would be 1982 - 2011, next years's would be 1983 - 2012, and so on endlessly. I'm not aware of any climate group that does that.

Most organizations are reluctant to change their anomaly baseline because when they do they have to go back and recalculate all of the historic anomalies. And all of their old graphs and charts are then obsolete. Easier just to stick to an adopted baseline unless there is a compelling reason to change.

If you feel that constantly changing baselines is the climate science standard practice, please provide a link to some documentation of that practice. Here's what I found from a quick google search, it's from the Environment Canadawebsite.

The 1961-1990 normal period has been selected as the standard reference for many of these studies, as it is considered to:

• be representative of the present-day or recent average climate in the study region;
  
• be of a sufficient duration to encompass a range of climatic variations, including a number of significant weather anomalies;
  
• cover a period for which data on all major climatological variables are abundant, adequately distributed over space and readily available;
  
• include data of sufficiently high quality for use in evaluating impacts; and
  
• be consistent or readily comparable with baseline climatologies used in other impact assessments.
  

However, it is recognized that:

• in some cases there is better data access from an earlier time period (e.g. 1951-1980 or even 1931-1960);
  
• in some, but not all, regions more recent periods may already contain a significant warming trend which may be greenhouse gas related;
  
• a 30-year period may not be of sufficient duration to reflect natural climatic variability on a multidecadal timescale, which could be important when considering long-term impacts.
  

And you do understand, I hope, that it doesn't matter if the baseline period is warming or cooling, the baseline period is simpy used to calulate a constant value for determining anomalies. The trend doesn't change.

I'm not totally sure that the aerosol global dimming theory post WW2 is reality or a cop-out for cooling. Using 1961-1990 basically covers the peak era of the aerosols effects, assuming they really were the cause of the cooling. Nothing is black and white in this science unfortunately.

Global dimming is the gradual reduction in the amount of global direct irradiance at the Earth's surface that was observed for several decades after the start of systematic measurements in the 1950s. The effect varies by location, but worldwide it has been estimated to be of the order of a 4% reduction over the three decades from 1960–1990.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming

[Snow_Miser]

Don,

Can I have a picture of the NCEP/NCAR reanalysis data for May 2012 for Antarctica? I am curious to see if the satellite data from UAH agrees with it or not.

UAH had an anomaly for May 2012 to be around 0.25 Degrees C for Antarctica.

[Mallow]

Don,

Can I have a picture of the NCEP/NCAR reanalysis data for May 2012 for Antarctica? I am curious to see if the satellite data from UAH agrees with it or not.

UAH had an anomaly for May 2012 to be around 0.25 Degrees C for Antarctica.

http://www.esrl.noaa...composites/day/

Enjoy.

EDIT: Here's the map, though.

[Snow_Miser]

http://www.esrl.noaa...composites/day/

Enjoy.

Thank you very much.

I will make sure to have this bookmarked.

[Snow_Miser]

The NCAR/NCEP re-analysis looks warm compared to the satellite data for Antarctica.

Note that in the re-analysis maps there are large areas of Antarctica that are much above normal, and the warm anomalies totally cancel out the cool anomalies.

Looking at satellite observations for Antarctica, it looks like UAH is cooler than the re-analysis data from NCAR for Antarctica during May 2012.

[Snow_Miser]

Here is the satellite based temperatures for the globe for May 2012. Note that Antarctica is generally cooler than what is depicted in the NCEP/NCAR reanalysis maps.