2012 Global Temperatures

[nflwxman]

That is just factually incorrect. The last ten years have been the warmest decade on record and

2011 was the warmest on record for the Arctic. You can blame the failure to set a new global record

after the 2010 high on the La Nina as explained by the Texas state climatologist.

http://blog.chron.co...ack-of-warming/

So we see a couple of recent La Niñas have caused the recent global temperature trend to level off. But be honest: doesn’t it seem likely that, barring another major volcanic eruption, the next El Niño will cause global temperatures to break their previous record? Doesn’t it appear that whatever has caused global temperatures to rise over the past four decades is still going strong?

So about that lack of warming: Yes, it’s real. You can thank La Niña.

As for whether this means that Tyndall gases are no longer having an impact: Nice try.

Thank you bluewave for that thorough explaination. Based on the UAH data (which I gather is a fairly well-respected dataset), there still seems to be a trend upward from 2000-2012. I'm not sure "leveling off" is the term I would use to describe the last 10-15 years of global surface temperature. I suspect one could cherry pick any decade to come up with flatter trend line. In fact may end up being our own undoing in the US in particular. If we don't see instant temperature changes pointedly due to AGW, our resolve to fix the issue will wane.

Anyway, back on topic. I wonder when the next moderate to strong nino will show. Most on the mid-atlantic board seem to think El Nino is a given this winter. Is there universal expectation of that here as well?

[Snow_Miser]

Chris, last time I checked, the Arctic is not the entire Globe. That's what GLOBAL warming is, isn't it?

We reached a high point in the 1990s, and have not warmed since, thus the 2000s were the warmest on record. There was no change in temperature during the 2000s, which is what made your statement misleading.

All of the temperature sources agree that over the last decade we did not warm at all.

UAH

http://woodfortrees....last:2012/trend

GISS

http://woodfortrees....last:2012/trend

HadCRUT3

http://woodfortrees....last:2012/trend

Wood For Trees Temp Index shows a slight warming, but that warming is not considered to be statistically significant.

http://woodfortrees....last:2012/trend

http://woodfortrees....last:2012/trend

RSS MSU

Sea Surface Temperatures have also flatlined:

http://woodfortrees....last:2012/trend

With relatively quiet solar activity compared to the 20th Century, the -PDO and the incoming -AMO, I wouldn't be so sure of this latest El Nino breaking records for the warmest El Nino on record.

I never have said that Greenhouse Gases are now having no impact, that is a mischaracterization and misrepresentation of my position.

[Snow_Miser]

Thank you bluewave for that thorough explaination. Based on the UAH data (which I gather is a fairly well-respected dataset), there still seems to be a trend upward from 2000-2012. I'm not sure "leveling off" is the term I would use to describe the last 10-15 years of global surface temperature. I suspect one could cherry pick any decade to come up with flatter trend line. In fact may end up being our own undoing in the US in particular. If we don't see instant temperature changes pointedly due to AGW, our resolve to fix the issue will wane.

UAH is the only dataset that shows a statistically insignificant trend upward over the last decade.

[Snow_Miser]

Anyway, back on topic. I wonder when the next moderate to strong nino will show. Most on the mid-atlantic board seem to think El Nino is a given this winter. Is there universal expectation of that here as well?

I am thinking that a moderate west-based Nino will probably develop this winter, which should raise the Global temps some.

[WeatherRusty]

It is a basic given that the Greenhouse Effect exists, but it is also a given that if you increase the amount of solar radiation reaching Earth, you will also get warming.

The amount of solar radiation reaching Earth is some of the most unusual high amounts during the entire Holocene.

We both agree to the fact that solar variation impacts the Earth's climate system. However, as you know, TSI change alone is insufficient to explain our current warming scenario or the variation in global temperature over the past millennia to likely millions of years. Orbital changes and Earth's axial tilt play a much larger role in long term climate change than intrinsic solar variability.

The IPCC lists TSI variability since 1750 most likely to reside between 0.08 and 0.30 watts per meter squared with 0.12 watt most likely. This gives a Planck response of less than 0.1C.

That's why you look to clouds and cosmic rays to explain most of the warming.

[Snow_Miser]

That's why you look to clouds and cosmic rays to explain most of the warming.

I look to Cosmic Rays as an explaination to explain the warming, because another forcing has been observed during the solar cycle that amplifies the forcing from TSI by up to a factor of 7.

[WeatherRusty]

If the 2000s were the warmest 10 year period on record (since 1880), how can it be stated that temperature had not warmed?

The average temperature must have increased in order for the 2000s to be the warmest decade. I can't see any logical way around that. The record high need not be broken in order to raise the average. Nights warming more than daytime would do it, and that of course is just what is observed.

[donsutherland1]

Several quick points:

1. The apparent flattening of some temperature curves or dips represent short-term variability.

2. The long-term trend is still up over the minimum climatic period (30 years), whether one uses GISS, NCDC, or HADCRUT.

For example, here's the global land and ocean temperatures for the 1982-2011 period (annual anomalies, 30-year average anomaly, and trend line):

[donsutherland1]

LEK,

How does this relate to the land-sea temp.'s at the following link? ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/monthly.land_ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat

That's the NCDC dataset. Its baseline is the 20th century mean vs. 1951-80 for GISS. I believe the NCDC dataset will be updated at some time in the next 7-10 days.

[nzucker]

UAH is the only dataset that shows a statistically insignificant trend upward over the last decade.

You have to be careful of starting/ending points in terms of ENSO. Your graphs are starting around either 1997 or 2002, which was headed into moderate-strong Niño conditions, and ending around now, which is coming off a multi-year La Niña. Obviously, cherrypicking start and end points is going to reduce the trend in global warming and hide any anthropogenic forcing since you're not accounting for the ONI.

I do agree that global warming has slowed in the past 10 years. The satellites show a warming trend of around .07C/decade in the last 10 years versus approximately .13C/decade since 1979. RSS is actually the source that's shown the biggest plateau in global temperatures even though UAH overall shows the least warming in the period of satellite data.

[The_Global_Warmer]

I can manipulate and cherry pick data sets to fit anything I want to see as well.

[The_Global_Warmer]

I actually agreed with this statement when you made it.....are you surprised at the decrease from May?

I forgot I wanted to add this:We are definitely going to fall short of 2010 in July. But the sat trends are back to warming at the mid and upper levels of the lower troposphere. We have seen a huge trend for 2010-2011 to stay warm later in July-August. With ENSO lag, we may be seeing some NINO influence. Which is also semi tied to arctic clouds and summer PV. Which the models have been showing.it will be interesting to see how long the big NH land based anomalies last.

[Snow_Miser]

You have to be careful of starting/ending points in terms of ENSO. Your graphs are starting around either 1997 or 2002, which was headed into moderate-strong Niño conditions, and ending around now, which is coming off a multi-year La Niña. Obviously, cherrypicking start and end points is going to reduce the trend in global warming and hide any anthropogenic forcing since you're not accounting for the ONI.

I do agree that global warming has slowed in the past 10 years. The satellites show a warming trend of around .07C/decade in the last 10 years versus approximately .13C/decade since 1979. RSS is actually the source that's shown the biggest plateau in global temperatures even though UAH overall shows the least warming in the period of satellite data.

Fair enough, let's start off with 2001, which according to the CPC had a weak La Nina-neutral ENSO.

There is still no warming even with a chart starting in 2001 for all the datasets.

http://woodfortrees.org/graph/wti/from:2001/last:2012/plot/wti/from:2001/last:2012/trend

http://woodfortrees.org/graph/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/last:2012/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/last:2012/trend

http://woodfortrees.org/graph/gistemp/from:2001/last:2012/plot/gistemp/from:2001/last:2012/trend

http://woodfortrees.org/graph/rss/from:2001/last:2012/plot/rss/from:2001/last:2012/trend

http://woodfortrees.org/graph/uah/from:2001/last:2012/plot/uah/from:2001/last:2012/trend

Obviously we can not eliminate the La Nina effect into 2012 to try and get an estimate with whether we are still continuing to warm, so I think we will get an indicator with this upcoming El Nino with regard to whether we are still warming or not.

[Snow_Miser]

If the 2000s were the warmest 10 year period on record (since 1880), how can it be stated that temperature had not warmed?

Certainly they are warmer than where they were in the 1880s, but there was no additional statistically significant temperature increase observed during this period of time. We had reached a high point in temperatures in the late-1990s, and have virtually flatlined since then.

[WeatherRusty]

Certainly they are warmer than where they were in the 1880s, but there was no additional statistically significant temperature increase observed during this period of time. We had reached a high point in temperatures in the late-1990s, and have virtually flatlined since then.

My full post from above:

If the 2000s were the warmest 10 year period on record (since 1880), how can it be stated that temperature had not warmed?

The average temperature must have increased in order for the 2000s to be the warmest decade. I can't see any logical way around that. The record high need not be broken in order to raise the average. Nights warming more than daytime would do it, and that of course is just what is observed.

The 2000s were warmer than the 1990s which were warmer than the 80s which were warmer than the 70s.

Is this last statement true or is it not?

[Snow_Miser]

My full post from above:

The 2000s were warmer than the 1990s which were warmer than the 80s which were warmer than the 70s.

Is this last statement true or is it not?

Yes.

As I said previously, the 2000s was indeed the warmest decade on record, but that is because we reached a high point in temperatures during the late-1990s and have not warmed statistically significantly since.

[csnavywx]

Keep on riding the bias train....

[Snow_Miser]

Keep on riding the bias train....

The only problem with that comparison is that this decade allegedly had the highest energy imbalance ever recorded per the climate models, so it would become less and less likely that we would start to flatline any time soon over the last 10 years.

You will also notice that NONE of the trends downward in the temperatures in the Skeptical Science graph that you posted feautred such a hiatus in OHC gain at 0-700 meters, making this truly a hiatus/flatlining period.

Therefore, you are making a truly illogical comparison in your post above.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Global OHC levels

1992 0.5717500

1993 0.6837500

1994 1.509750

1995 2.264000

1996 4.544000

1997 3.245000

1998 4.304250

1999 5.942750

2000 5.856500

2001 4.117000

2002 6.788750

2003 9.951750

2004 10.24050

2005 8.412250

2006 10.42975

2007 9.478500

2008 10.05250

2009 10.12675

2010 10.36800

2011 10.86900

2012 12.10700*

I realize the OHC has slowed. But when we use the yearly averages I can't see how the Earth's showing any kind of cooling or much leveling off.

OHC has slowly risen year to year for 6 years, with 2012 possibly coming in quite a bit of a jump.

This is also during the largest solar min since?

Yet OHC is currently at all time peaks..

Which tells us even with the solar lag it slowed the growth but didn't stop it at all

and 2012 is now at the peak.

[bluewave]

Thank you bluewave for that thorough explaination. Based on the UAH data (which I gather is a fairly well-respected dataset), there still seems to be a trend upward from 2000-2012. I'm not sure "leveling off" is the term I would use to describe the last 10-15 years of global surface temperature. I suspect one could cherry pick any decade to come up with flatter trend line. In fact may end up being our own undoing in the US in particular. If we don't see instant temperature changes pointedly due to AGW, our resolve to fix the issue will wane.

Anyway, back on topic. I wonder when the next moderate to strong nino will show. Most on the mid-atlantic board seem to think El Nino is a given this winter. Is there universal expectation of that here as well?

This is a really comprehensive recent paper which shows the true global arming signal:

http://iopscience.io...44022/fulltext/

This analysis confirms the strong influence of known factors on short-term variations in global temperature, including ENSO, volcanic aerosols and to a lesser degree solar variation. It also emphasizes that LT temperature is affected by these factors much more strongly than surface temperature.

Perhaps most important, it enables us to remove an estimate of their influence, thereby isolating the global warming signal. The resultant adjusted data show clearly, both visually and when subjected to statistical analysis, that the rate of global warming due to other factors (most likely these are exclusively anthropogenic) has been remarkably steady during the 32 years from 1979 through 2010. There is no indication of any slowdown or acceleration of global warming, beyond the variability induced by these known natural factors. Because the effects of volcanic eruptions and of ENSO are very short-term and that of solar variability very small (figure 7), none of these factors can be expected to exert a significant influence on the continuation of global warming over the coming decades. The close agreement between all five adjusted data sets suggests that it is meaningful to average them in order to produce a composite record of planetary warming. Annual averages of the result are shown in figure 8. This is the true global warming signal.

[Snow_Miser]

This is a really comprehensive recent paper which shows the true global arming signal:

http://iopscience.io...44022/fulltext/

This analysis confirms the strong influence of known factors on short-term variations in global temperature, including ENSO, volcanic aerosols and to a lesser degree solar variation. It also emphasizes that LT temperature is affected by these factors much more strongly than surface temperature.

Perhaps most important, it enables us to remove an estimate of their influence, thereby isolating the global warming signal. The resultant adjusted data show clearly, both visually and when subjected to statistical analysis, that the rate of global warming due to other factors (most likely these are exclusively anthropogenic) has been remarkably steady during the 32 years from 1979 through 2010. There is no indication of any slowdown or acceleration of global warming, beyond the variability induced by these known natural factors. Because the effects of volcanic eruptions and of ENSO are very short-term and that of solar variability very small (figure 7), none of these factors can be expected to exert a significant influence on the continuation of global warming over the coming decades. The close agreement between all five adjusted data sets suggests that it is meaningful to average them in order to produce a composite record of planetary warming. Annual averages of the result are shown in figure 8. This is the true global warming signal.

This study is a joke.

If I ignore some factors I could claim that the Earth has not warmed at all over the last 30 years.

That is exactly what this study has done except they ignore factors so that they only get the co2 forcing.

[Snow_Miser]

Global OHC levels

1992 0.5717500

1993 0.6837500

1994 1.509750

1995 2.264000

1996 4.544000

1997 3.245000

1998 4.304250

1999 5.942750

2000 5.856500

2001 4.117000

2002 6.788750

2003 9.951750

2004 10.24050

2005 8.412250

2006 10.42975

2007 9.478500

2008 10.05250

2009 10.12675

2010 10.36800

2011 10.86900

2012 12.10700*

I realize the OHC has slowed. But when we use the yearly averages I can't see how the Earth's showing any kind of cooling or much leveling off.

OHC has slowly risen year to year for 6 years, with 2012 possibly coming in quite a bit of a jump.

This is also during the largest solar min since?

Yet OHC is currently at all time peaks..

Which tells us even with the solar lag it slowed the growth but didn't stop it at all

and 2012 is now at the peak.

OHC gain started slowing down in 2003, well before the solar min.

It is sort of ridiculous how you expect an immediate equilibrium climate response from the system to a forcing, when we have such a large heat sink like the oceans.

The solar forcing should begin to manifest in the temperature data sets in 2014.

[donsutherland1]

OHC gain started slowing down in 2003, well before the solar min.

It is sort of ridiculous how you expect an immediate equilibrium climate response from the system to a forcing, when we have such a large heat sink like the oceans.

The solar forcing should begin to manifest in the temperature data sets in 2014.

While one can argue that a full temperature response might not have been expected immediately, there should have been a more significant response. However, even if there's some disagreement on temperatures, the point where there should have been an immediate and dramatic response concerned the Earth's energy imbalance.

If solar forcing were the dominant factor, the Earth's energy imbalance should have disappeared. Instead, there was only a modest reduction in the Earth's energy imbalance.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2011/2011_Hansen_etal.pdf

Therefore, the sun is not responsible for most of the Earth's energy imbalance. As that energy imbalance is responsible for the observed long-term warming, solar activity cannot largely explain that trend.

[bluewave]

This study is a joke.

If I ignore some factors I could claim that the Earth has not warmed at all over the last 30 years.

That is exactly what this study has done except they ignore factors so that they only get the co2 forcing.

It's only a joke to you because you don't like the outcome of the study.

[Snow_Miser]

It's only a joke to you because you don't like the outcome of the study.

No, it is a joke for the reasons I stated above.

Key words for that graph: natural variability!!

[winterymix]

This study is a joke.

The cited study is elegant. The authors used standard definitions and statistical methodologies.

The authors were knowledgeable enough to assemble statistics from independent sources and then to do the meta-analysis that yields insight; the trends are parallel from the varied sources. This is standard scientific methodology. The authors didn't force any conclusions.

[WeatherRusty]

This study is a joke.

If I ignore some factors I could claim that the Earth has not warmed at all over the last 30 years.

That is exactly what this study has done except they ignore factors so that they only get the co2 forcing.

This is an attribution study. They remove three 'known factors' from the mix of major contributors to the overall 30 year temperature trend as averaged over the five datasets under consideration.

Specifically, they remove solar variation (TSI), volcanism and the big one...ENSO to reveal the remaining trend.

Don't worry though Snowlover123, you can still claim mysterious unknowns and ignored factors such as GCRs remain as part of the warming signal.

[Snow_Miser]

While one can argue that a full temperature response might not have been expected immediately, there should have been a more significant response. However, even if there's some disagreement on temperatures, the point where there should have been an immediate and dramatic response concerned the Earth's energy imbalance.

If solar forcing were the dominant factor, the Earth's energy imbalance should have disappeared. Instead, there was only a modest reduction in the Earth's energy imbalance.

http://pubs.giss.nas...Hansen_etal.pdf

Therefore, the sun is not responsible for most of the Earth's energy imbalance. As that energy imbalance is responsible for the observed long-term warming, solar activity cannot largely explain that trend.

Surely you know that there are many other analyses that contradict the Hansen imbalance values.

Dr. Gerhard Kramm has a nice reply that essentially debunks Hansen's methedologies.

http://www.pas.roche...plusFigs1_2.pdf

Earth’s radiation imbalance is determined from ocean heat content data and compared with results of

direct measurements. Distinct time intervals of alternating positive and negative values are found: 1960–

mid-1970s (−0.15), mid-1970s–2000 (+0.15), 2001–present (−0.2 W/m2), and are consistent with prior

reports. These climate shifts limit climate predictability.

http://www.pas.roche...Press_final.pdf

Using only 2003–2008 data from Argo floats, we find

by four different algorithms that the recent trend ranges from –0.010 to –0.160 W/m2 with a typical error bar of ±0.2

W/m2. These results fail to support the existence of a frequently-cited large positive computed radiative imbalance.

[PhillipS]

This study is a joke.

If I ignore some factors I could claim that the Earth has not warmed at all over the last 30 years.

That is exactly what this study has done except they ignore factors so that they only get the co2 forcing.

That's exactly what you do - you ignore factors and and claim the Earth has stopped warming. You can't logically invoke natural variability to explain long-term warming but deny natural variability to explain short-term pauses in that warming.

AGW science has never claimed that the rise inglobal temperature would be monotonic with each and every year warmer than the previous - but you treat any 'pause' or 'flatlining' as if it refuted mainstream AGW. Bad new, Snowjob, it doesn't.

Climate scientists have said since the beginning that the global temperature record is composed of both natural variability (involving a number of factors including quasi-periodic processes such as ENSO, the solar cycle, and transient events such as volcano eruptions) and a long-term warming trend due to anthropogenic release of gigatons of greenhouse gases. In engineering terms, the global temperature record is a fluctuating signal (natural varialbility) overlayed on a rising signal (AGW). The resulting composite global temperature record is noisy, as expected, making it difficult to assess the factors unless the signals are seperated. Which is what Foster and Rahmstorf did in their paper - they detrended the global temperature record by compensating for several of the known natural variability factors in order to extract the AGW signal. Can you suggest any other approach to looking solely at the AGW signal?

Their paper is a good example of solid peer-reviewed research. Since it was published it hasn't been refuted by any more recent research - so why do you call it a joke?

[donsutherland1]

Surely you know that there are many other analyses that contradict the Hansen imbalance values.

Dr. Gerhard Kramm has a nice reply that essentially debunks Hansen's methedologies.

http://www.pas.roche...plusFigs1_2.pdf

Earth’s radiation imbalance is determined from ocean heat content data and compared with results of

direct measurements. Distinct time intervals of alternating positive and negative values are found: 1960–

mid-1970s (−0.15), mid-1970s–2000 (+0.15), 2001–present (−0.2 W/m2), and are consistent with prior

reports. These climate shifts limit climate predictability.

http://www.pas.roche...Press_final.pdf

Using only 2003–2008 data from Argo floats, we find

by four different algorithms that the recent trend ranges from –0.010 to –0.160 W/m2 with a typical error bar of ±0.2

W/m2. These results fail to support the existence of a frequently-cited large positive computed radiative imbalance.

Several quick points:

1. The paper you posted preceded the Hansen publication.

2. The paper you posted deals strictly with the 0m - 700m depth (it does mention a paper that finds a strong positive imbalance in the 0m - 2000m range).

3. A footnote in the Hansen paper reveals that the imbalances are progressively larger as one moves from 0m - 700m to 10m - 1500m and 0m to 2000m based on 2005-10 trends. This may imply that more of the oceanic heat content is accumulating at greater depths.

4. An update by Levitus, et. al. and also 2010 paper by Lyman, et al. also reaffirmed the existence of a positive imbalance at 0m - 700m.

5. The Hansen paper also notes that some earlier indications of more robust decreases in oceanic heat uptake after 2003 were related to instrument artifacts, not to mention potential ARGO biases related to pressure sensor drifts that were documented in a 2011 paper by Barket et al. I am not sure whether the paper you posted is impacted by that issue.