2012 Global Temperatures

[Jonger]

That is amazing!!!

All the data is from NASA so it should be well vetted.

Interesting video... Realistically speaking the majority of the temps were not even taken before the 1970's in most of the world. Pre-satalite temps are mostly speculation.

That entire chart is based on a scale of -2 to +2 degrees. If you didn't know that you would assume the world was covered in molten lava today.

[TerryM]

Interesting video... Realistically speaking the majority of the temps were not even taken before the 1970's in most of the world. Pre-satalite temps are mostly speculation.

That entire chart is based on a scale of -2 to +2 degrees. If you didn't know that you would assume the world was covered in molten lava today.

Why wouldn't they be taking temperatures before 1970?

Sea captains have been recording barometric pressures as well as temperatures for hundreds of years. And while there may have been parts of the high Arctic, or parts of Antarctica that hadn't been explored until the middle of the last century, the rest of the world was charted and had it's temperature regularly taken long ago.

The 4 degree range probably covers the variation fairly well. If a 100 degree variation was used it would be difficult to track any changes, while a one or two degree range would max out too early.

The colors are but markers - however red is mostly used to indicate greater heat.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Interesting video... Realistically speaking the majority of the temps were not even taken before the 1970's in most of the world. Pre-satalite temps are mostly speculation.

That entire chart is based on a scale of -2 to +2 degrees. If you didn't know that you would assume the world was covered in molten lava today.

That is not true.

Thermometers in some form have been around for 300-000 years.

So we have a pretty long reliable record back 100-120 years.

Before that it get's more filled with errors but it is recent enough for easy reanalysis probably back to the late 1750s onward.

We have had wide range historical history keeping. When your talking about a global idea you can account for errors at individual stations, use proxies, ice cores...

We would know if the 1720s to 1750s were warming than today. It would be a lot harder to know if the 1220s to 1250s would be warmer.

-2 to +2 swings in a 120 year period are huge.

[ORH_wxman]

Channel 5 is dropping really drastically...it should start rising soon, but depending on how fast it does, it might be colder than 2008 than the month of February. Its been pretty cold this winter despite a weaker Nina than last year...the Atlantic has been cooler.

[The_Global_Warmer]

It's pretty awesome.

Europe was really cold but I think GISS will still have it's wide differences.

I still love seeing the channel 5 temps drop so much. This will hedge on a Nino by Fall and the AMO staying neautral/negative,

I don't know much about the Southern Hemisphere.

You can see the arctic warm bubble over the Laptev/Kara. And it still plummeted. Look at Antarctica in SUMMER! -50-60C at 600mb is cold ANYWHERE.

You can really see the SNow and Ice Albedo affect.

In Eastern Russia you can see the 1030HP in the arctic pulling air from the Fectch of ice, the MYI with the super high albedos in winter with -30 to -40C surface temps all day. Throwing that into Siberia under a broad weak HP and still producing Lows in the -40 to -50c RANGE with some places reaching -55 to -60C. The 850s are currently -35 to upwards of -40C.

I wonder if the climate of Europe would be different if more and more deeper snow pack got entrenched West/Early.

[ORH_wxman]

The cold in Europe is really astounding...you hardly ever see those colors there.

[blue sky]

Global temperature is still sinking. Daily global average temperature at: 14,000 ft / 600 mb (AQUA ch05)

Well below the last ten years.

Since we have been pumping increasing amounts of CO2 the last 14 years....why is temperature so low?

http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/

[PhillipS]

Global temperature is still sinking. Daily global average temperature at: 14,000 ft / 600 mb (AQUA ch05)

Well below the last ten years.

Since we have been pumping increasing amounts of CO2 the last 14 years....why is temperature so low?

http://discover.itsc....edu/amsutemps/

Do a google search for natural variability - and a daily global average is definitely weather, not climate. You need to remember that distinction.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Global temperature is still sinking. Daily global average temperature at: 14,000 ft / 600 mb (AQUA ch05)

Well below the last ten years.

Since we have been pumping increasing amounts of CO2 the last 14 years....why is temperature so low?

http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/

That is not low compared to pre mid 90s maybe not even that far back. Either way, maybe you could tie a few things together.

Solar decline since 2003. Longest low sun tsi and spots in how long?

If you stop the solar output of the sun. The largest affected system is the water. as we saw the top later ohc-700m flatline while ohc-1000/2000m increased. This suggests heat making I way down. Remember those are anomalies. The ohc flatline lasted 8 years before it was broken. The N. Atlantic has cooled quite a bit.

Minus 2005 and 2010.

That cooling results in a mostly neutral amo, which is now negative ironically the arctic is warm all on it's lonesome.

The PDO flipped negative about ten years ago.

Increased nina. Which we are in 3 of 4 years now.

I think the pull of AGW and its feedbacks can seen quite clear.

When temps start dropping and not back to normal vs 1981-2010 climo for a few. months you would hope that happen given the cold period.

[Snowstorms]

That is not low compared to pre mid 90s maybe not even that far back. Either way, maybe you could tie a few things together.

Solar decline since 2003. Longest low sun tsi and spots in how long?

If you stop the solar output of the sun. The largest affected system is the water. as we saw the top later ohc-700m flatline while ohc-1000/2000m increased. This suggests heat making I way down. Remember those are anomalies. The ohc flatline lasted 8 years before it was broken. The N. Atlantic has cooled quite a bit.

Minus 2005 and 2010.

That cooling results in a mostly neutral amo, which is now negative ironically the arctic is warm all on it's lonesome.

The PDO flipped negative about ten years ago.

Increased nina. Which we are in 3 of 4 years now.

I think the pull of AGW and its feedbacks can seen quite clear.

When temps start dropping and not back to normal vs 1981-2010 climo for a few. months you would hope that happen given the cold period.

Actually the PDO flipped in 2007. NOAA confirmed this flip in 2008 with the persistent La Nina anomaly from 2007 thru early 2009.

http://earthobservat...iew.php?id=8703

Since the PDO flip, I've seen many regional changes in terms of weather. Summers have gotten wetter across the Great Lakes region and Atlantic Canada along with increasing snowfall. 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2010-11 were above normal snowfall wise across our region expect 2009-10 and this year thus far.

We had that three year La Nina regime from 1998-2001 following the super El Nino of 97. The El Nino released tremendous amounts of heat from the Oceans thus warming the troposphere/atmosphere and ultimately the surface. The 1998-2001 Nina regime did help cool global temps back closer to to normal but the consistent El nino phase from 2002-2007 prevented the Earth from cooling but did help to keep temps across the atmosphere consistent with no noticeable rises, Again since 2007 we've had 4 Nina's including this year and only one Nino (strong). The Earth isnt going to cool tremendously in one year. Its a slow process and it will take a while for the OHC and the Earth to respond to these changes (lag effect).I for one would be patient and see what happens this decade before coming to any conclusions.

As for the AMO, over the past few months we've been slightly negative but otherwise I dont think we've entered the cool phase for the AMO yet. I'd lean towards 2015-2020 before we see any consistent changes across the Atlantic.

If we do observe a cooling trend thru the next 10-20 years then I think Climate science can come to an agreement, but lets see.

[WeatherRusty]

Actually the PDO flipped in 2007. NOAA confirmed this flip in 2008 with the persistent La Nina anomaly from 2007 thru early 2009.

http://earthobservat...iew.php?id=8703

Since the PDO flip, I've seen many regional changes in terms of weather. Summers have gotten wetter across the Great Lakes region and Atlantic Canada along with increasing snowfall. 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2010-11 were above normal snowfall wise across our region expect 2009-10 and this year thus far.

We had that three year La Nina regime from 1998-2001 following the super El Nino of 97. The El Nino released tremendous amounts of heat from the Oceans thus warming the troposphere/atmosphere and ultimately the surface. The 1998-2001 Nina regime did help cool global temps back closer to to normal but the consistent El nino phase from 2002-2007 prevented the Earth from cooling but did help to keep temps across the atmosphere consistent with no noticeable rises, Again since 2007 we've had 4 Nina's including this year and only one Nino (strong). The Earth isnt going to cool tremendously in one year. Its a slow process and it will take a while for the OHC and the Earth to respond to these changes (lag effect).I for one would be patient and see what happens this decade before coming to any conclusions.

As for the AMO, over the past few months we've been slightly negative but otherwise I dont think we've entered the cool phase for the AMO yet. I'd lean towards 2015-2020 before we see any consistent changes across the Atlantic.

If we do observe a cooling trend thru the next 10-20 years then I think Climate science can come to an agreement, but lets see.

Do you factor into your thinking the observation that one of the two sources of radiative energy warming the Earth's surface is being turned up a few watts?

[The_Global_Warmer]

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/correlation/pdo.data

Maybe they classify it as that. But the PDO was negative From July of 1998 to June of 2002 almost every month.

Then it was positive from then until October of 2004, a lot of that was nearly even.

Then in 04 had 3 negative months.

2005 we had 3 negative months.

2006 we had 4 negative months.

2007 had six negative months and finished negative for the year.

2008 on has mostly been negative.

From July 1998-Present the PDO has been negative on a month to month basis 61% of the time.

I think that is a Negative phase. Either way....it has been on that slope since the late 90s.

[Strongbad]

The eight coldest days of the past decade have occurred in 2012. The global temperature plummet continues.

http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/data/amsu_daily_85N85S_ch05.r002.txt

[blue sky]

Do a google search for natural variability - and a daily global average is definitely weather, not climate. You need to remember that distinction.

As a skeptic I place a great deal of thought into the idea that there are other forcings on the climate besides Co2. And that our knowledge of all these forcings is still in its infancy.

I am not sure I agree that a daily global temperature is just weather. How many days would you suggest that it takes to become climate?

The weather service does climate forecasts for the seasons over small portions of the earth. I think a daily global temperature is more climate than weather. Interesting discussion though.

[PhillipS]

As a skeptic I place a great deal of thought into the idea that there are other forcings on the climate besides Co2. And that our knowledge of all these forcings is still in its infancy.

I am not sure I agree that a daily global temperature is just weather. How many days would you suggest that it takes to become climate?

The weather service does climate forecasts for the seasons over small portions of the earth. I think a daily global temperature is more climate than weather. Interesting discussion though.

Well, since the accepted time period for climate trends is thirty years - 30 X 365 = 10,957 days including leap years. Aw, heck, let's just round it down to an even 10,000 days. Easier to remember.

There was a recent article on the temperature record with several of the primary sources of natural variability compensated for. Foster and Rahmstorf, 2011 Global temperature evolution. Here is what the global temperature record since 1979 looks like:

Figure 4.

Adjusted data sets for all five sources, after removing the estimated influence of el Niño, volcanic eruptions and solar variations.

4 shows the adjusted data sets (with the influence of MEI, AOD and TSI, as well as the residual annual cycle removed) for monthly data. Two facts are evident. First, the agreement between the different data sets, even between surface and LT data, is excellent. Second, the global warming signal (which is still present in the adjusted data because the linear time trend is

not

removed) is far clearer and more consistent. When the fluctuations in temperature over the last 32 years (which tend to obscure the continuation of the global warming trend) are accounted for, it becomes obvious that there has not been any cessation, or even any slowing, of global warming over the last decade (or at any time during this time span). In other words, any deviations from an unchanging linear warming trend are explained by the influence of ENSO, volcanoes and solar variability.

If you read the whole paper I think you'll agree that the Earth is still warming, and that a brief cold snap is very little to selebrate about.

[blue sky]

Well, since the accepted time period for climate trends is thirty years - 30 X 365 = 10,957 days including leap years. Aw, heck, let's just round it down to an even 10,000 days. Easier to remember.

There was a recent article on the temperature record with . Foster and Rahmstorf, 2011 Global temperature evolution. Here is what the global temperature record since 1979 looks like:

Figure 4.

Adjusted data sets for all five sources, after removing the estimated influence of el Niño, volcanic eruptions and solar variations.

4 shows the adjusted data sets (with the influence of MEI, AOD and TSI, as well as the residual annual cycle removed) for monthly data. Two facts are evident. First, the agreement between the different data sets, even between surface and LT data, is excellent. Second, the global warming signal (which is still present in the adjusted data because the linear time trend is

not

removed) is far clearer and more consistent. When the fluctuations in temperature over the last 32 years (which tend to obscure the continuation of the global warming trend) are accounted for, it becomes obvious that there has not been any cessation, or even any slowing, of global warming over the last decade (or at any time during this time span). In other words, any deviations from an unchanging linear warming trend are explained by the influence of ENSO, volcanoes and solar variability.

If you read the whole paper I think you'll agree that the Earth is still warming, and that a brief cold snap is very little to selebrate about.

So weather determines daily global temperature for 29 years...and than we can call it climate?

Why does Noaa come out with monthly reports that report such and such month was ranked 12th(or whatever) warmist of the past 100+ years. They are not using your thirty year rule and not even close to the globe in area.

And i like the line...."several of the primary sources of natural variability compensated for"

I have a feeling this compensation...not noted in the IPCC reports is going to get much bigger as real data does not match modal data.

[TerryM]

So weather determines daily global temperature for 29 years...and than we can call it climate?

Why does Noaa come out with monthly reports that report such and such month was ranked 12th(or whatever) warmist of the past 100+ years. They are not using your thirty year rule and not even close to the globe in area.

And i like the line...."several of the primary sources of natural variability compensated for"

I have a feeling this compensation...not noted in the IPCC reports is going to get much bigger as real data does not match modal data.

Personally I like to use Arctic Ice as a rough proxy for what is happening, at least in the Northern Hemisphere. The IPCC modeled forcasts are shown below, as well as an indication of what the 'real data' show. It appears that the IPCC have been much too conservative in their analysis of how bad things would get.

[FPizz]

Personally I like to use Arctic Ice as a rough proxy for what is happening, at least in the Northern Hemisphere. The IPCC modeled forcasts are shown below, as well as an indication of what the 'real data' show. It appears that the IPCC have been much too conservative in their analysis of how bad things would get.

That is a small area to use for the whole northern hemisphere. The arctic accounts for a small %

[TerryM]

That is a small area to use for the whole northern hemisphere. The arctic accounts for a small %

True - But the graph nicely indicates that the IPCC is far too conservative in it's predictions.

[blue sky]

True - But the graph nicely indicates that the IPCC is far too conservative in it's predictions.

The IPCC temperature modals are horrible.

http://reason.com/blog/2012/02/24/diagnosing-the-climate-over-at-the-wall

In this respect, an important gauge of scientific expertise is the ability to make successful predictions. When predictions fail, we say the theory is "falsified" and we should look for the reasons for the failure. Shown in the nearby graph is the measured annual temperature of the earth since 1989, just before the first report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Also shown are the projections of the likely increase of temperature, as published in the Summaries of each of the four IPCC reports, the first in the year 1990 and the last in the year 2007.

These projections were based on IPCC computer models of how increased atmospheric CO2 should warm the earth. Some of the models predict higher or lower rates of warming, but the projections shown in the graph and their extensions into the distant future are the basis of most studies of environmental effects and mitigation policy options. Year-to-year fluctuations and discrepancies are unimportant; longer-term trends are significant.

From the graph it appears that the projections exaggerate, substantially, the response of the earth's temperature to CO2 which increased by about 11% from 1989 through 2011. Furthermore, when one examines the historical temperature record throughout the 20th century and into the 21st, the data strongly suggest a much lower CO2 effect than almost all models calculate.

[The_Global_Warmer]

I never really gave the global temperatures much study until the end of the melt season last year.

I find it incredibly fascinating that years and hundreds of posts on the Sea Ice thread screaming natural variability.

Its the PDO

its the AMO

Its the solar min lag

It's the NAO and AO in the 90s.

It's the H5 pattern

So let me get this straight. Everyone on this board that has any worthful opinion to offer on this stuff or facts agree's that those things have an impact on the ice.

We have had -PDO months 61% of the time since July of 1998.

Since the 1997/98 El Nino. Enso went blue basically until 2002/03 then had weak warmer phases. Then a strong NINA in 2008, then a much stronger NINA in 2010.11, now coming out of another medium nina heading into year 3 of it.

So since 1998 the ENSO index has trended colder overall, releasing less heat into the earths atmosphere.

Sun Spots/TSI, however you want to break this down. We finally had a month of sunspots equivelant to sometime in 2002 in equal number, nearly a decade lower than right now which is barely half of the last peak. We had 2004-2011 with less than 50 a month, with near blackouts for a couple years.

It is really that hard to see the correlation of this to OHC-700M and OHC-2000M or OHC-1000M?

OHC-700M stopped sky rocketing when the solar min got underway. Maybe there isn't anywhere near 100 percent lap over. But that would have far less affect on the OHC-1000 because we are talking more volume and less radical heat changes to make that anomaly rise. This also again coincides with the -PDO and trending negative ENSO.

let us also not forget the always loved AMO index.

I believe that at some point when the conditions become more favorable for warmer temps globally new records will be set.

We drop back to 10-20th all time levels and it's as if we made it back to the natural climate before the industrial revolution.

but what is worse is how we must bring in the protaganist IPCC to compare there failed predictions as a way to deflect from the reality.

These projections were based on IPCC computer models of how increased atmospheric CO2 should warm the earth. Some of the models predict higher or lower rates of warming, but the projections shown in the graph and their extensions into the distant future are the basis of most studies of environmental effects and mitigation policy options. Year-to-year fluctuations and discrepancies are unimportant; longer-term trends are significant.

From the graph it appears that the projections exaggerate, substantially, the response of the earth's temperature to CO2 which increased by about 11% from 1989 through 2011. Furthermore, when one examines the historical temperature record throughout the 20th century and into the 21st, the data strongly suggest a much lower CO2 effect than almost all models calculate.

1. I think the fact that the IPCC changes their predictions based on more available data is a good thing.

2: What is interesting is since 1987 two El Nino years have been cooler than the previous ones. Also the rate of warming in La Nina Years since 1980 is nearly the same as El Nino years.

We will all see shortly, it is almost a guarentee that we will see a full El NINO or +Nuetral conditions for a few years. I have a feeling records are going down and the hit and runners in these threads will be long gone.

[Snow_Miser]

Personally I like to use Arctic Ice as a rough proxy for what is happening, at least in the Northern Hemisphere. The IPCC modeled forcasts are shown below, as well as an indication of what the 'real data' show. It appears that the IPCC have been much too conservative in their analysis of how bad things would get.

Terry,

How do you know that the IPCC GCMs have correctly implemented the natural climatic variability signals from the PDO/AMO/Beaufort Gyre/AO/NAO?

Do you think it is possible that the IPCC models predicted too little melting because they haven't correctly implemented this natural climatic variability?

[TerryM]

Terry,

How do you know that the IPCC GCMs have correctly implemented the natural climatic variability signals from the PDO/AMO/Beaufort Gyre/AO/NAO?

Do you think it is possible that the IPCC models predicted too little melting because they haven't correctly implemented this natural climatic variability?

It seems obvious that none of the IPCC's models have come close to predicting what we are seeing.

My WAG is that none of them envisioned an Arctic with temps often 10C or more above normal. If 2007 was the only example we had to look at, I'd say the strong Gyre would definitely be suspect, After 2011, when advection through Nares and Fram were minimal, when the NWP opened, then most of the ice floated north instead of draining southward, when the majority of ice loss was from in situ melting - not advection, then I've got to discount the Gyre, I found that a negative AO during melt season can flip, and doing so bring the melt season to an early end. I don't think that PDO or AMO had much to do with it, but I've been wrong before.

It seems possible that none of the models weighted ice volume enough, and I have my own little theory about how it might be possible to melt sea ice without insolation but with lots of GHG's, aerosols and some patches of low albedo. I think aerosols act as positive forcers during Arctic Winter as opposed to negative forcers when the sun is out.

I think it's instructive to remember that when the IPCC was first predicting a summer melt of the pole within a hundred years, this was seen as alarmist. I at least can't imagine a scenario in which it doesn't melt out before then.

Terry

Quick edit:

Just noticed this is in Global Temperatures - it obviously belongs under Arctic Sea Ice Extent - If you wish to comment on this please do so over there and I'll respond.

Thanks

[blue sky]

Personally I like to use Arctic Ice as a rough proxy for what is happening, at least in the Northern Hemisphere. The IPCC modeled forcasts are shown below, as well as an indication of what the 'real data' show. It appears that the IPCC have been much too conservative in their analysis of how bad things would get.

It looks like these models have failed. The model makers did not incluced other forcings. The ice is outside the ensemble standard deviation. Perhaps these model failures means that CO2 is not the primary driver of sea ice.

[TerryM]

It looks like these models have failed. The model makers did not incluced other forcings. The ice is outside the ensemble standard deviation. Perhaps these model failures means that CO2 is not the primary driver of sea ice.

Or, more likely either climate is more sensitive to CO2 than expected or the additional forcings as CO2 driven heating occurs, was underestimated, particularly for arctic regions.

You do believe in GHG warming?

[blue sky]

Or, more likely either climate is more sensitive to CO2 than expected or the additional forcings as CO2 driven heating occurs, was underestimated, particularly for arctic regions.

You do believe in GHG warming?

I think that CO2 can influence climate. I am skeptical on our ability to predict to what affect given our current knowledge

How come the Antarctic climate(Ice) is not affected by this? Is the CO2 different down there or are there other non CO2 forcings in play?

The Ipcc models don't seem good at this point whether for global temps or ice.

[Strongbad]

I think that CO2 can influence climate. I am skeptical on our ability to predict to what affect given our current knowledge

How come the Antarctic climate(Ice) is not affected by this? Is the CO2 different down there or are there other non CO2 forcings in play?

The Ipcc models don't seem good at this point whether for global temps or ice.

The next few decades may prove to be very hard for TerryM and his friends. Well based on Terry's picture, not sure about him. But his friends will definitely need to pay attention to this decade of stalled warming and the past few years of dropping sea levels, and see if this is the start of something greater than they imagine.

[LakeEffectKing]

The next few decades may prove to be very hard for TerryM and his friends. Well based on Terry's picture, not sure about him. But his friends will definitely need to pay attention to this decade of stalled warming and the past few years of dropping sea levels, and see if this is the start of something greater than they imagine.

As much as I disagree with Terry....the bolden is not necessary, nor does further any potential for any decent debate.....not that I haven't been guilty in the past....but we can change....right?

[PhillipS]

The next few decades may prove to be very hard for TerryM and his friends. Well based on Terry's picture, not sure about him. But his friends will definitely need to pay attention to this decade of stalled warming and the past few years of dropping sea levels, and see if this is the start of something greater than they imagine.

I'm curious why you feel that the sea level has been dropping for th epast few years. Here is the latest plot of sea levels measurements:

Granted there were a few months of drop from late-2010 through mid-2011, but the current levels are higher than any sea level measured before 2009. Help us see the several years of dropping sea levels.

Or was that just disinformation?

[LakeEffectKing]

I'm curious why you feel that the sea level has been dropping for th epast few years. Here is the latest plot of sea levels measurements:

Granted there were a few months of drop from late-2010 through mid-2011, but the current levels are higher than any sea level measured before 2009. Help us see the several years of dropping sea levels.

Or was that just disinformation?

So before 2009?? AGREE! But he stated the past "few"!! It's 2012....so, actually, per definition ("a few") he's gottcha Phil! But we all know that this is (all together now)..."consistant with what we would expect in an AGW...blah blah blah").