2012 Global Temperatures

[tacoman25]

Well, if the PDO remains negative and a grand solar min occurs 15 years down the line, we will likely be having the same conversation then about the slowing of a global trend. Only that we will likely be 0.2-0.4 degrees warmer than present at that point.

Ultimately, the longer natural variability masks the signal in negative way, the more surprised we will all be it acts in a positive way towards surface temps.

So I guess you are assuming warming will accelerate over the next 15 years? Because we aren't warming at that rate now, certainly not even close to .4C/15 years.

[Snow_Miser]

So I guess you are assuming warming will accelerate over the next 15 years? Because we aren't warming at that rate now, certainly not even close to .4C/15 years.

On the Skeptical Sciene trend calculator, we aren't even warming on some datasets over the last 11 years.

[ORH_wxman]

So I guess you are assuming warming will accelerate over the next 15 years? Because we aren't warming at that rate now, certainly not even close to .4C/15 years.

Yes I said that earlier, but he didn't elaborate. I think his 0.4C of warming "in the pipeline" in the next 15 years is extremely unlikely. But its possible. We don't know know enough yet to rule that out, but I find it extremely unlikely. To get 0.4C of warming in the next 15 years, we would need to see a warming that exceeds anything we have seen on the modern global temperature record. The mid 1970s to 1990 came fairly close, but did not reach it as the rise was about 0.33C in that time.

[csnavywx]

The PDO is a natural internal oscillation, and it can create climate change by changing the amount of global cloudiness by 1 or 2% by altering weather patterns.

Kirkby et al. 2011 did not really prove anything other than the fact that GCRs enhance the nucleation rate, which is really no surprise, considering that GCRs are correlated to the tree ring width, (Dengel et al. 2009) they impact The Diurnal Temperature Range substantially after a Forbush Decrease (Dragic et al. 2011) A link between low latitude precipitation and Earth's Magnetic Field (Knudsen and Riisager 2009) They are highly correlated to precipitation changes (Kniveton and Todd 2001)(Stozhkov et al. 1995) and are highly correlated to atmospheric aerosols (Svensmark et al. 2009).

In fact, while they confirmed a linkbetween the nucleation of particles and cosmic rays, they say that, "

Ion-induced nucleation will manifest itself as a steady production

of new particles that is difficult to isolate in atmospheric observations

because of other sources of variability but is nevertheless taking place

and could be quite large when averaged globally over the troposphere.

However, the fraction of these freshly nucleated particles that grow to

sufficient sizes to seed cloud droplets, as well as the role of organic

vapours in the nucleation and growth processes, remain open questions

experimentally."

Thus, CERN did not confirm the magnitude of the GCR-Cloud effect, but confirmed that the link is there.

Observational evidence has indicated that GCRs significantly influences the atmospheric parameters, and therefore, impacts the Climate.

According to Yu 2002, the GCR Flux has decreased by 5-8% during the late-20th Century, reflecting an increase in Solar Activity, and a natural component to the late-20th Century Warming. Other studies like Lockwood et al. 1999 also confirm this, with a 41% increase in the sun's magnetic activity during the late-20th Century corresponding to a 4% decrease in the GCR Flux during the late-20th Century.

Annndd, you missed the point completely here. In a real world environment GCRs amplify the nucleation rate by 2 to 10 times that of the shielded (or "sterilized") environment, depending on temperature (clustered on colder values). This means a 5-10% change in GCRs is almost vanishingly small compared to the overall base effect. IF it were as large as you suggest, it should be easily visible on temperature records going back any long-term period. It clearly doesn't.

[csnavywx]

Yes I said that earlier, but he didn't elaborate. I think his 0.4C of warming "in the pipeline" in the next 15 years is extremely unlikely. But its possible. We don't know know enough yet to rule that out, but I find it extremely unlikely. To get 0.4C of warming in the next 15 years, we would need to see a warming that exceeds anything we have seen on the modern global temperature record. The mid 1970s to 1990 came fairly close, but did not reach it as the rise was about 0.33C in that time.

Depends on the aerosol forcing being produced right now. I believe it to be quite high, especially with the rapid growth rate of "dirty" sources of electricity in the developing world. It also depends on the albedo feedback mechanism in the Arctic, which is a fairly large regional feedback.

If the aerosol forcing is a significant factor, we should see it come into play quite obviously. This makes it falsifiable on a relatively short time frame (several years) due to couple of key facts:

1) Sulfate aerosol lifetime is relatively short.

2) Increasing emissions over time are required to maintain the effect due to #1.

Therefore, if we see a sustained flattening or dropping of the SO2/aerosol trend without any corresponding temperature rise in relatively short order, it will put a severe constraint on how strong it is.

With the PROC installing SO2 scrubbers, we may get a chance soon.

[tacoman25]

Depends on the aerosol forcing being produced right now. I believe it to be quite high, especially with the rapid growth rate of "dirty" sources of electricity in the developing world. It also depends on the albedo feedback mechanism in the Arctic, which is a fairly large regional feedback.

If the aerosol forcing is a significant factor, we should see it come into play quite obviously. This makes it falsifiable on a relatively short time frame (several years) due to couple of key facts:

1) Sulfate aerosol lifetime is relatively short.

2) Increasing emissions over time are required to maintain the effect due to #1.

Therefore, if we see a sustained flattening or dropping of the SO2/aerosol trend without any corresponding temperature rise in relatively short order, it will put a severe constraint on how strong it is.

With the PROC installing SO2 scrubbers, we may get a chance soon.

Do you have any actual statistics showing SO2 increases in the atmosphere recently due to power plants in China? Remember, it takes a TON of SO2/aerosols put in the atmosphere in a short period of time to have a serious effect on global temperatures (see VE5 and higher volcanic eruptions).

No offense, but it seems like some people just want to attribute every climate trend or change in trend to human causes.

[ORH_wxman]

Depends on the aerosol forcing being produced right now. I believe it to be quite high, especially with the rapid growth rate of "dirty" sources of electricity in the developing world. It also depends on the albedo feedback mechanism in the Arctic, which is a fairly large regional feedback.

If the aerosol forcing is a significant factor, we should see it come into play quite obviously. This makes it falsifiable on a relatively short time frame (several years) due to couple of key facts:

1) Sulfate aerosol lifetime is relatively short.

2) Increasing emissions over time are required to maintain the effect due to #1.

Therefore, if we see a sustained flattening or dropping of the SO2/aerosol trend without any corresponding temperature rise in relatively short order, it will put a severe constraint on how strong it is.

With the PROC installing SO2 scrubbers, we may get a chance soon.

I find this to be an inefficient explanation for the warming post-1976...and subsequent flat-lining since 2007.

Are you still confident that we see 0,4C of warming in the next 10-15 years?

[TerryM]

After witnessing the Arctic melt this year would you advise waiting 10 to 15 years to find out?

Terry

[ORH_wxman]

After witnessing the Arctic melt this year would you advise waiting 10 to 15 years to find out?

Terry

Absolutely. The Arctic is not the only place the globe...if it was, we would not be discussing this lack of temp rise since the arctic his risen fast. Instead, its been no rise in the past 10+ years on a global scale.

[Snow_Miser]

Annndd, you missed the point completely here. In a real world environment GCRs amplify the nucleation rate by 2 to 10 times that of the shielded (or "sterilized") environment, depending on temperature (clustered on colder values). This means a 5-10% change in GCRs is almost vanishingly small compared to the overall base effect. IF it were as large as you suggest, it should be easily visible on temperature records going back any long-term period. It clearly doesn't.

CERN did not confirm that the effect was vanishingly small, as they have yet to see how many of the nucleated particles grow into CCNs. Then they will be able to confirm the magnitude of the GCR-Cloud effect. This is what they are currently doing right now.

Why should GCRs be visible in the temperature record over the last 150 years? The GCRs have decreased substantially since the LIA, and have decreased by at least 15%, if not higher. The fact that observations show a strong correlation between the GCR Flux and key atmospheric parameters and dynamics would lead anyone to believe that the GCR effect is significant.

[nflwxman]

Absolutely. The Arctic is not the only place the globe...if it was, we would not be discussing this lack of temp rise since the arctic his risen fast. Instead, its been no rise in the past 10+ years on a global scale.

I agree with this. The Arctic is a small portion of the picture. While we don't yet know the entire set of consequences that comes with Arctic warming and subsequent ice retreat, we have to look globally to understand the overall impact greenhouse gas forcing has on our planet. That being said, I still think its clear that the lack of a strong rise in global temps the last 10 years has been driven almost entirely by ENSO and solar activity. The next 20 years will be a very interesting time to view climate change patterns.

[Snow_Miser]

I agree with this. The Arctic is a small portion of the picture. While we don't yet know the entire set of consequences that comes with Arctic warming and subsequent ice retreat, we have to look globally to understand the overall impact greenhouse gas forcing has on our planet. That being said, I still think its clear that the lack of a strong rise in global temps the last 10 years has been driven almost entirely by ENSO and solar activity and not a slowing of greenhouse gas forcing. The next 20 years will be a very interesting time to view climate change patterns.

What do you mean by a "slowing of the Greenhouse Gas Forcing?"

[nflwxman]

What do you mean by a "slowing of the Greenhouse Gas Forcing?"

Adjusted my original post. Understand that is a confusing term.

[Snow_Miser]

Adjusted my original post. Understand that is a confusing term.

Thank you for the clarification.

[ORH_wxman]

I agree with this. The Arctic is a small portion of the picture. While we don't yet know the entire set of consequences that comes with Arctic warming and subsequent ice retreat, we have to look globally to understand the overall impact greenhouse gas forcing has on our planet. That being said, I still think its clear that the lack of a strong rise in global temps the last 10 years has been driven almost entirely by ENSO and solar activity and not a slowing of greenhouse gas forcing. The next 20 years will be a very interesting time to view climate change patterns.

I 100% agree with this...we know the GHG emissions haven't slowed, so the slowing down of global temperature rise is not because of GHG. Its because of natural variation.

The ENSO part I believe is the PDO shift which in the negative phase supports more frequent and stronger La Nina episodes while the positive phase supports more frequent and strong El Nino episodes. However, each PDO phase is not of equal strength or longevity which has been demonstrated in the peer reviewed evidence of the PDO reconstruction back over 1000 years..the relative consistent periodicity in the PDO has only been present for about 200 years. The AMO is similar to an extent but even more unpredictable than the PDO both in amplitude and duration.

[Vergent]

Absolutely. The Arctic is not the only place the globe...if it was, we would not be discussing this lack of temp rise since the arctic his risen fast. Instead, its been no rise in the past 10+ years on a global scale.

Could you explain this map? I'm confused. It does not look normal to me. Has this ever happened before? Could anything bad happen?

Edit

Is this your negative feedback gearing up?

[ORH_wxman]

Could you explain this map? I'm confused. It does not look normal to me. Has this ever happened before? Could anything bad happen?

No, its above normal...well above normal actually.

Its also a 384 hour GFS prog.

Its also the arctic and not the globe.

Sure something "bad" could happen.

Not sure what your point is on this map in response to the post you quoted.

[Snow_Miser]

Could you explain this map? I'm confused. It does not look normal to me. Has this ever happened before? Could anything bad happen?

Edit

Is this your negative feedback gearing up?

If you look at the entire Globe for this year so far on the NCEP GFS re-analyses, we can see that there are substantial areas that are below the 30 year mean. Some posters have brought up that these maps may have a cold bias, and they may have, but for a comparison's sake, the graphic you posted is highly misleading.

Global Temperatures are right around the 30 year mean for 2012 on these charts.

[nflwxman]

If you look at the entire Globe for this year so far on the NCEP GFS re-analyses, we can see that there are substantial areas that are below the 30 year mean. Some posters have brought up that these maps may have a cold bias, and they may have, but for a comparison's sake, the graphic you posted is highly misleading.

Global Temperatures are right around the 30 year mean for 2012 on these charts.

I have no idea where that bulk number comes from. I realize you got that from the weatherbell site. It doesn't match up with the NCAR reanalysis data set in the least.

[ORH_wxman]

With the GISS global temperature anomaly of 0.56C updated for August 2012....the following are the global temperature trends using the GISS monthly data:

2002-2012: -0.03C per decade

2000-2012: +0.06C per decade

1995-2012: +0.11C per decade

1980-2012: +0.15C per decade

1950-2012: +0.11C per decade

[nflwxman]

NCDC global analysis out.

4th warmest August registered.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2012/8

[forkyfork]

With the GISS global temperature anomaly of 0.56C updated for August 2012....the following are the global temperature trends using the GISS monthly data:

2002-2012: -0.03C per decade

2000-2012: +0.06C per decade

1995-2012: +0.11C per decade

1980-2012: +0.15C per decade

1950-2012: +0.11C per decade

can you post a breakdown by hemisphere?

[forkyfork]

I have no idea where that bulk number comes from. I realize you got that from the weatherbell site. It doesn't match up with the NCAR reanalysis data set in the least.

every time someone posts a weatherbell global temp anomaly image, it doesn't match up with the reanalysis data

[ORH_wxman]

can you post a breakdown by hemisphere?

I'd have to run the numbers again in excel....but I do know that it was something like -0.06C per decade for southern hemisphere and +0.06 for the northern hemisphere since 2002 when I ran them about a month ago.

The data is here:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/NH.Ts+dSST.txt

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/SH.Ts+dSST.txt

[Snow_Miser]

What place did 2012 come in on the RSS dataset for August?

[TerryM]

Could it be that hemispheric temperatures are far more important than global?

Idle speculation of course, but the NH is where everyone lives (don't tell the Aussies), and with CO2 and CH4 rising much more rapidly in this half, the results here are the ones that are to be watched.

I recognize of course that eventually things will balance out, but if the disparity grows over time isn't it possible that we could see a period when the NH is devastated by enhanced warming while the SH remains more or less as it is. In this case the global rise would be possibly less than half of what almost all of the industrialized world is left to deal with.

In a hypothetical situation where the NH shows a 4C increase and the SH 1C, the global average would only be 2.5C - probably not a run away situation, while the NH would be about to experience all the horror scenarios that the most alarmed have postulated.

Terry

[nzucker]

Could it be that hemispheric temperatures are far more important than global?

Idle speculation of course, but the NH is where everyone lives (don't tell the Aussies), and with CO2 and CH4 rising much more rapidly in this half, the results here are the ones that are to be watched.

I recognize of course that eventually things will balance out, but if the disparity grows over time isn't it possible that we could see a period when the NH is devastated by enhanced warming while the SH remains more or less as it is. In this case the global rise would be possibly less than half of what almost all of the industrialized world is left to deal with.

In a hypothetical situation where the NH shows a 4C increase and the SH 1C, the global average would only be 2.5C - probably not a run away situation, while the NH would be about to experience all the horror scenarios that the most alarmed have postulated.

Terry

I doubt this happens...when the AMO goes negative, you'll see a reduction in the Arctic amplification which has driven a lot of the disparity. Also, the Southern Hemisphere sea ice will reach a natural limit as the cooling in the Southern Ocean can't continue forever. So far, since 2002 we've seen the Northern Hemisphere warming around .08C/decade and the Southern Hemisphere cooling around .03C decade (figures are slightly different on each global temperature source...HadCRUT which excludes much of the Arctic has the planet cooling at -.06C/decade since 2002). We're talking about a difference of a tenth of a degree between the hemispheres, not multiple degrees as you're pondering.

[Snow_Miser]

I doubt this happens...when the AMO goes negative, you'll see a reduction in the Arctic amplification which has driven a lot of the disparity. Also, the Southern Hemisphere sea ice will reach a natural limit as the cooling in the Southern Ocean can't continue forever. So far, since 2002 we've seen the Northern Hemisphere warming around .08C/decade and the Southern Hemisphere cooling around .03C decade (figures are slightly different on each global temperature source...HadCRUT which excludes much of the Arctic has the planet cooling at -.06C/decade since 2002). We're talking about a difference of a tenth of a degree between the hemispheres, not multiple degrees as you're pondering.

I believe HadCruT3 is showing a cooling trend of -.06 Degrees C/Decade from 2001. Since 2002 it shows a steeper cooling trend of -.09 Degrees C/Decade.

[Jonger]

Could you explain this map? I'm confused. It does not look normal to me. Has this ever happened before? Could anything bad happen?

Edit

Is this your negative feedback gearing up?

We have only monitored the arctic for 33 years. So you tell me what happened the previous 10,000 years, the records melted away the last time it happened.

You could always reconstruct something based on signals found in nature, like tree rings......... NM.

384 hours... you serious?

[TerryM]

nz - Snow

Yea

I wasn't intending to plug in particularly realistic numbers, rather just posing the question as to whether SH temperatures should be of huge concern to us at this stage of the warming. The NH seems to be affected much more than the southern by positive feedbacks, and if it continues on this course that gap between the two would have to increase. At some point the SH would be only a distraction to what was occurring here.

Terry