2012 Global Temperatures

[Snow_Miser]

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

I'm not sure what you mean by the Southern Hemisphere being a "distraction" about what is currently going on with the Global Climate. The Southern Hemisphere is just as important as the Northern Hemisphere.

[ORH_wxman]

I'm not sure what you mean by the Southern Hemisphere being a "distraction" about what is currently going on with the Global Climate. The Southern Hemisphere is just as important as the Northern Hemisphere.

You could argue that the Southern Hemisphere is more important then the Northern Hemisphere when it comes to sea level rise. Most of the land ice is locked up in Antarctica.

[TerryM]

You could argue that the Southern Hemisphere is more important then the Northern Hemisphere when it comes to sea level rise. Most of the land ice is locked up in Antarctica.

That's true. Food production and the bulk of the population however reside in the NH. If either hemisphere reached a 'run away' stage wouldn't this precipitate a crisis?

Waiting for the other to catch up would not be an option so why should the lagging one divert us from concentrating on where the danger is likely to come from.

Terry

[The_Global_Warmer]

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.

The amo may never go negative again in the traditional sense and if a negative period does materialize it may not be until 2025. That would put GHG forcings much stronger and higher.

We might see a stabilization of arctic amplification but I doubt we see a reduction from the current levels. I wouldn't be surprised if we never go below 1C+ above normal on Giss temp arctic anomaly's again. As long as we keep seeing these sea ice deficit's in fall and winter large temperature anomaly's will come with them.

On top of that the overall globe will warm, even if a -AMO could materialize like the one in the 70s. Or close to it, more warm intrusions from the South will help off-set any impact it would have.

That also doesn't factor in the sea ice retreating even more. There is nothing attm showing any chance for a recovery back to min's in the 6-7 mil range or higher that would come with temps below the 1C threshold.

Greenlands albedo changes will also increase temps above 64N.

Nature Geoscience 4, 151–155 (2011) doi:10.1038/ngeo1062 Received 13 August 2010 Accepted 08 December 2010 Published online 16 January 2011

The extent of snow cover¹ and sea ice² in the Northern Hemispherehas declined since 1979, coincident with hemispheric warming and indicative of a positive feedback of surface reflectivity on climate. This albedo feedback of snow on land has been quantified from observations at seasonal timescales^{3, 4, 5, 6}, and century-scale feedback has been assessed using climate models^{7, 8, 9, 10}. However, the total impact of the cryosphere on radiative forcing and albedo feedback has yet to be determined from measurements. Here we assess the influence of the Northern Hemisphere cryosphere on Earth’s radiation budget at the top of the atmosphere—termed cryosphere radiative forcing—by synthesizing a variety of remote sensing and field measurements. We estimate mean Northern Hemisphere forcing at −4.6 to −2.2 W m⁻², with a peak in May of −9.0±2.7 W m⁻². We find that cyrospheric cooling declined by 0.45 W m⁻² from 1979 to 2008, with nearly equal contributions from changes in land snow cover and sea ice. On the basis of these observations, we conclude that the albedo feedback from the Northern Hemisphere cryosphere falls between 0.3 and 1.1 W m⁻² K⁻¹, substantially larger than comparable estimates obtained from 18 climate models.

[SVT450R]

Weather bell global anomaly maps are showing a -0.0005C to date for the month and a 0.0008C since Jan 1.

[Vergent]

Weather bell global anomaly maps are showing a -0.0005C to date for the month and a 0.0008C since Jan 1.

So, on average, we are kind of normal?

[donsutherland1]

Weather bell global anomaly maps are showing a -0.0005C to date for the month and a 0.0008C since Jan 1.

Those maps are wrong (yet again). The January-August anomaly (1981-2010 baseline) is > +0.1°C on both GISS and NCDC. The first half of September has not had cold of a magnitude to all but wipe out the warm anomaly that has accumulated over the course of the year. The Weatherbell maps also appear to show more expansive cold anomalies than the NCEP-NCAR re-analysis maps for September, so September is probably also running above the 1981-2010 baseline, too.

The error on the Weatherbell maps has been persistent. If the source of the error can't be found, perhaps a statistical adjustment should be applied to the raw anomaly with the adjusted anomaly being posted on the maps.

[nflwxman]

Those maps are wrong (yet again). The January-August anomaly (1981-2010 baseline) is > +0.1°C on both GISS and NCDC. The first half of September has not had cold of a magnitude to all but wipe out the warm anomaly that has accumulated over the course of the year. The Weatherbell maps also appear to show more expansive cold anomalies than the NCEP-NCAR re-analysis maps for September, so September is probably also running above the 1981-2010 baseline, too.

The error on the Weatherbell maps has been persistent. If the source of the error can't be found, perhaps a statistical adjustment should be applied to the raw anomaly with the adjusted anomaly being posted on the maps.

What's interesting about the weatherbell site is that you can check the GFS global forecasted anomaly, which generally seems to be in the right ballpark. Then when you check their "global temperature analysis page" you get a very cold biased anomaly. Heck, if you look at their graphs, it appears that 2006 and 2007 were warmer than 2010. I'm pretty sure no other data set has that. I hope Weatherbell is above manipulating data, but their global temperatures make no sense whatsoever.

[ben4vols]

Those maps are wrong (yet again). The January-August anomaly (1981-2010 baseline) is > +0.1°C on both GISS and NCDC.

Technically they aren't wrong, they just do not match other sources. It's ridiculous to think you can get a global temp accurately to 0.1C.

[ben4vols]

I hope Weatherbell is above manipulating data, but their global temperatures make no sense whatsoever.

I would find it ironic if the warmists got their undies in a wad over Weatherbell "manipulating" (ohh wait we call it adjustments) the temp. data downward after YEARS of Jimmy Hanson waving his magic wand and adjusting any data he can get his hands on in a manner that would enhance the AGW signal.

[nflwxman]

I would find it ironic if the warmists got their undies in a wad over Weatherbell "manipulating" (ohh wait we call it adjustments) the temp. data downward after YEARS of Jimmy Hanson waving his magic wand and adjusting any data he can get his hands on in a manner that would enhance the AGW signal.

I'm not accusing them, but it makes you wonder why their "dataset" isn't matching up with the rest of the world's data. If you have some evidence of hanson cooking the books, then by all means, share it. The GISS dataset generally agrees with the trends of the other mainstream data sources in terms of overall trend. Weatherbell's does not even come close.

[ben4vols]

I'm not accusing them, but it makes you wonder why their "dataset" isn't matching up with the rest of the world's data. If you have some evidence of hanson cooking the books, then by all means, share it. The GISS dataset generally agrees with the trends of the other mainstream data sources in terms of overall trend. Weathbell's does not even come close.

Everyone knows Hanson cooks the books, the question is was it done honestly and correctly. A lot of people at NASA signed a letter that aren't too happy with Jimmy Hanson. There is also a lot of data coming in from the new USCRN network and UHI studies that show he may have overcooked the books a bit.

[SVT450R]

So, on average, we are kind of normal?

You should go back into hibernation.

[SVT450R]

Those maps are wrong (yet again). The January-August anomaly (1981-2010 baseline) is > +0.1°C on both GISS and NCDC. The first half of September has not had cold of a magnitude to all but wipe out the warm anomaly that has accumulated over the course of the year. The Weatherbell maps also appear to show more expansive cold anomalies than the NCEP-NCAR re-analysis maps for September, so September is probably also running above the 1981-2010 baseline, too.

The error on the Weatherbell maps has been persistent. If the source of the error can't be found, perhaps a statistical adjustment should be applied to the raw anomaly with the adjusted anomaly being posted on the maps.

Don could you post when you get the chance year to date for NCEP-NCAR anomaly map to compare with weatherbell graphic.

[donsutherland1]

Technically they aren't wrong, they just do not match other sources. It's ridiculous to think you can get a global temp accurately to 0.1C.

Measuring a reading consistent with what might be found were instrument coverage continuous is one thing (population vs. sample), though a representative sample should provide a figure that is close to the population it represents.

Measuring against a baseline using the coverage that is available is completely another. If one measures reasonably accurately, an error > 0.1°C in the latter case is enormous. The enormity of the difference is powerful evidence that the measurement is not accurate (as the difference is similar vis-a-vis the other global datasets).

For illustrative purposes, here are the August 2012 anomalies (1981-2010 baseline) for GISS and NCDC:

GISS: +0.215°C

NCDC: +0.226°C

Difference: 0.011°C

[donsutherland1]

Don could you post when you get the chance year to date for NCEP-NCAR anomaly map to compare with weatherbell graphic.

NCEP-NCAR's map is only out to 9/14 right now. I'll post that map tonight. The biggest difference could concern Antarctica (NCEP-NCAR has a large part of the continent warmer than normal; Weatherbell has most of the continent colder than normal).

[Jonger]

Technically they aren't wrong, they just do not match other sources. It's ridiculous to think you can get a global temp accurately to 0.1C.

With surface station contamination, the lower number is probably correct. Considering there is no logical way a human structure or site placement can give off artificially low readings, it can only skew high.

If we are going to split hairs, this is relevant.

[ORH_wxman]

NCEP-NCAR's map is only out to 9/14 right now. I'll post that map tonight. The biggest difference could concern Antarctica (NCEP-NCAR has a large part of the continent warmer than normal; Weatherbell has most of the continent colder than normal).

I do know that the NCEP maps do not match other sources in Antarctica...both the satellite anomalies and the reanalysis of O'Donnell et al 2010. NCEP shows virtually the entire continent with a significant warming trend in the last 30 years while the other sources show the significant warming mainly confined to the antarctic peninsula. However, this is not proof that the NCEP maps are wrong for 2012.

But even if you replaced the other analysis in for the NCEP values in Antarctica, I do not think that would be enough to erase the discrepancy between the weatherbell map and NCEP.

[nflwxman]

I do know that the NCEP maps do not match other sources in Antarctica...both the satellite anomalies and the reanalysis of O'Donnell et al 2010. NCEP shows virtually the entire continent with a significant warming trend in the last 30 years while the other sources show the significant warming mainly confined to the antarctic peninsula. However, this is not proof that the NCEP maps are wrong for 2012.

But even if you replaced the other analysis in for the NCEP values in Antarctica, I do not think that would be enough to erase the discrepancy between the weatherbell map and NCEP.

Or any other credible source for that matter.

[ORH_wxman]

Or any other credible source for that matter.

Yeah they are not in line with any of the sources we use.

[donsutherland1]

I do know that the NCEP maps do not match other sources in Antarctica...both the satellite anomalies and the reanalysis of O'Donnell et al 2010. NCEP shows virtually the entire continent with a significant warming trend in the last 30 years while the other sources show the significant warming mainly confined to the antarctic peninsula. However, this is not proof that the NCEP maps are wrong for 2012.

But even if you replaced the other analysis in for the NCEP values in Antarctica, I do not think that would be enough to erase the discrepancy between the weatherbell map and NCEP.

I agree, Will. In this case, I was only using referring to the January 1-September 14, 2012 timeframe.

The interior of the continent may have been cooling over the past 30 years, even as the Peninsula has warmed rapidly. If so, that's not dissimilar to what happened during the last time Greenland was warming (the Antarctic Peninsula warmed, while Antarctica as a whole cooled in the bi-polar thermal seesaw).

[PhillipS]

With surface station contamination, the lower number is probably correct. Considering there is no logical way a human structure or site placement can give off artificially low readings, it can only skew high.

If we are going to split hairs, this is relevant.

Simply not true. Tall structures and landscaping can shade a surface station during part or all of a day. Sprinkler systems can cool temps and boost humidity. And heat pumps, which have exhaust temps above ambient in summer, have exhaust temps below ambient temperature in winter.

[dabize]

Everyone knows Hanson cooks the books, the question is was it done honestly and correctly. A lot of people at NASA signed a letter that aren't too happy with Jimmy Hanson. There is also a lot of data coming in from the new USCRN network and UHI studies that show he may have overcooked the books a bit.

This is objectionable in the absence of direct evidence. "Everyone" knows nothing of the kind.

The "lot of people at NASA" are mostly retired, have no connection with climate science and have signed questionable LTEs for the denialisti in the past that have been chewed over here before.

[forkyfork]

This is objectionable in the absence of direct evidence. "Everyone" knows nothing of the kind.

The "lot of people at NASA" are mostly retired, have no connection with climate science and have signed questionable LTEs for the denialisti in the past that have been chewed over here before.

he can't provide any evidence

[csnavywx]

he can't provide any evidence

Of course he can't. He likes to slam people for stuff he knows nothing about (or jumps to conclusions on), make ridiculous statements, then retreat to pseudoscience and logical fallacies when his "argument" doesn't work. The cognitive dissonance displayed is stunning.

Thank god for the Ignore function on this board.

[Jonger]

Everyone knows Hanson cooks the books, the question is was it done honestly and correctly. A lot of people at NASA signed a letter that aren't too happy with Jimmy Hanson. There is also a lot of data coming in from the new USCRN network and UHI studies that show he may have overcooked the books a bit.

[tacoman25]

Simply not true. Tall structures and landscaping can shade a surface station during part or all of a day. Sprinkler systems can cool temps and boost humidity. And heat pumps, which have exhaust temps above ambient in summer, have exhaust temps below ambient temperature in winter.

All of those may be true, but in general, there is no doubt that human structures/materials (especially concrete/asphalt) provide a warming bias to temperatures overall.

[PhillipS]

All of those may be true, but in general, there is no doubt that human structures/materials (especially concrete/asphalt) provide a warming bias to temperatures overall.

There is no 'may' about it - what I said is true and what Jonger posted above is false. This isn't a matter of opinion.

Your being an apologist for him and his disinformation does not help him or you. It just comes across as a demonstration of denialist tribalism.

[ben4vols]

Of course he can't. He likes to slam people for stuff he knows nothing about (or jumps to conclusions on), make ridiculous statements, then retreat to pseudoscience and logical fallacies when his "argument" doesn't work. The cognitive dissonance displayed is stunning.

Thank god for the Ignore function on this board.

I like to slam people...as you slam me? Good job by you. Who did I slam exactly?

[ben4vols]

Simply not true. Tall structures and landscaping can shade a surface station during part or all of a day. Sprinkler systems can cool temps and boost humidity. And heat pumps, which have exhaust temps above ambient in summer, have exhaust temps below ambient temperature in winter.

So you think there is more spurious cooling than heating being recorded in the station data?