2012 Global Temperatures

[donsutherland1]

Again, I think you are wrong. UHI is not properly accounted for after homogenization as Roy Spencer (and Anthony Watts to some degree) has shown time and time again. If you have one station sitting outside of town that reads .6C cooler than the one sitting in town the only thing homogenization is going to do is overly warm the area by .3C. It doesn't make sense that they continue to upwardly adjust temperature readings.

If subsequent literature demonstrates that additional refinements could better deal with issues such as UHI, I'm all for improvements that would make the climate record more accurate. To date, I don't believe Dr. Spencer has submitted an article on the issue to any of the leading meteorological or climate journals depriving his position of rigorous scientific scrutiny. To his credit, Watts has submitted a paper, but the submitted paper didn't deal with time of observation bias (TOBS). I'm not aware of the paper's having been revised to deal with that issue, among others that might arise during the peer review process. The impact on the paper's findings once TOBS and other issues are addressed remains to be seen, but there is a chance that the impact could be large. Right now, the uncertainty is too great to reach any firm conclusions regarding Watts's findings.

Unfortunately they don't "homogenize" fairly either. They obviously weight temperatures from urban area's more than they do temperature's from rural areas. This was shown in a study done by Edward Long comparing urban and rural raw temperature data vs their adjusted data. As you can see below the urban data is hardly effected by the "homogenization" or adjustments but the rural data is effected heavily. His paper can be found here.

This paper compares trends in raw urban and rural temperature data. There's a larger increase in urban temperatures in the raw data. The paper then assumes that such a trend calls into question the NCDC's adjusted data (larger adjustments for rural areas than urban ones) that result in a slightly greater warming in rural areas. IMO, what is missing is the paper's attempt to examine the adjustments themselves that lead to that outcome. TOBS has been an important factor. In other words, one cannot automatically assume that trends in the adjusted data that disagree with trends in the raw data indicate that the adjusted data is unreliable. One has to examine the validity of the adjustments themselves before one can reach such a conclusion.

[Alpha5]

For the NYC area, its fairly clear that UHI has been disrupting readings significantly, LGA and EWR may be even worse

West Point is pretty rural and removed from most UHI. Central Park is obviously in the center of it

[ben4vols]

If subsequent literature demonstrates that additional refinements could better deal with issues such as UHI, I'm all for improvements that would make the climate record more accurate. To date, I don't believe Dr. Spencer has submitted an article on the issue to any of the leading meteorological or climate journals depriving his position of rigorous scientific scrutiny.

I don't think Dr. Spencer holds a high opinion of the current state of the peer review process in this field. His findings stand on their own merit and are there for any and all to tear down if they wish.

In other words, one cannot automatically assume that trends in the adjusted data that disagree with trends in the raw data indicate that the adjusted data is unreliable. One has to examine the validity of the adjustments themselves before one can reach such a conclusion.

There is no validity in only adjusting rural temps to match urban temps. Using Tobs as an excuse is ridiculous. In large part disregarding UHI is equally ridiculous. No rational person would agree with that unless it supported their agenda. As Mr. Spencer points out, "When “global warming” only shows up after the data are adjusted, one can understand why so many people are suspicious of the adjustments."

[nflwxman]

I don't think Dr. Spencer holds a high opinion of the current state of the peer review process in this field. His findings stand on their own merit and are there for any and all to tear down if they wish.

There is no validity in only adjusting rural temps to match urban temps. Using Tobs as an excuse is ridiculous. In large part disregarding UHI is equally ridiculous. No rational person would agree with that unless it supported their agenda. As Mr. Spencer points out, "When “global warming” only shows up after the data are adjusted, one can understand why so many people are suspicious of the adjustments."

So what is everyone trying to prove exactly by posting all these graphs that show major cities have UHI? Posting a graph of NYC temperature data does not disprove or prove anything, really. Everybody knows that UHI exists, and the GISS and NOAA/NCDC data teams are no exception. They have established a process that has been rigorously peer reviewed. Don sited the paper by Hanson earlier in the thread, which is just one of many that establish the process for correcting for UHI in temperature data. If Roy Spencer sincerely believes there are significant errors in the current surface temperature evaluation process, he should submit his findings to a peer review board in which they will gain instant credibility. Heck, a paper like Roy's could change the monitoring program of urban stations entirely. If he doesn't want to submit his findings, and continues to maintain the severity of his accusation, he will only to appeal to those only looking to disprove tangible climate change instead of futher understand the science of it.

[ORH_wxman]

TOBS is a bigger problem in rural data versus urban data since most rural data are coops, so it is expected that rural data is adjusted more than urban data. However, the TOBS issue should not be large in the past 20 to 25 years as most coops are homogeneous now in their time of observations.

Therefore, you should expect to see a larger discrepancy in the trend of rural data vs urban data the further we go back.

I'm not sure if those graphs posted further above are correct, but they show the opposite pheonomenon happening. This means that if TOBS is becoming less of an issue, then some other factor must be outweighing the declining TOBS influence. It would be interesting to see what the adjustments are.

I don't think the temperature data is majorly flawed...but there could potentially be some small (but significant) issues with the adjustments.

[ben4vols]

TOBS is a bigger problem in rural data versus urban data since most rural data are coops, so it is expected that rural data is adjusted more than urban data. However, the TOBS issue should not be large in the past 20 to 25 years as most coops are homogeneous now in their time of observations.

Therefore, you should expect to see a larger discrepancy in the trend of rural data vs urban data the further we go back.

I'm not sure if those graphs posted further above are correct, but they show the opposite pheonomenon happening. This means that if TOBS is becoming less of an issue, then some other factor must be outweighing the declining TOBS influence. It would be interesting to see what the adjustments are.

I don't think the temperature data is majorly flawed...but there could potentially be some small (but significant) issues with the adjustments.

I'm not so sure that Tobs was ever that big of a deal. Back in the day city folk were smart enough to check the temp at the same time each day and reset but the country folk were too dumb to figure it out? There is also a rule of large numbers at work here too. Over the course of countless daily observations, small discrepancies here and there will be washed out.

[ORH_wxman]

I'm not so sure that Tobs was ever that big of a deal. Back in the day city folk were smart enough to check the temp at the same time each day and reset but the country folk were too dumb to figure it out? There is also a rule of large numbers at work here too. Over the course of countless daily observations, small discrepancies here and there will be washed out.

The effect of more temperature obs being taken in the afternoon vs the early morning in rural sites would give the older rural readings a warm bias in the trend...however, it is unclear to what magnitude this happened and the documentation of it.

It would be interesting to see an accurate graph of only TOBs adjustments over time. I don't trust the one Goddard posted, though if it was correct, it would be in contradiction to the findings of Menne et al on the influence of TOBS.

[The_Global_Warmer]

2012 hasn't had any upward vaults but has slowed it's downward slope.

2011 was 0.29 in Sept and 0.12 in Oct, and 0.13 in Dec and January.

According to a poster on Dr. Roy's Blog if 2012 has a 0.34C from Sept-Dec it would finish 4th warmest on the UAH data set. I think it's probably destined for 5th or 6th.

2013 if Nino for half the year might have a shot at 1998.

[Snow_Miser]

2012 hasn't had any upward vaults but has slowed it's downward slope.

2011 was 0.29 in Sept and 0.12 in Oct, and 0.13 in Dec and January.

According to a poster on Dr. Roy's Blog if 2012 has a 0.34C from Sept-Dec it would finish 4th warmest on the UAH data set. I think it's probably destined for 5th or 6th.

2013 if Nino for half the year might have a shot at 1998.

You are hoping for 2013 to have a shot at 1998 for the first part of 2013. However, there is absolutely zero indication that this will happen, as the Niño is starting to collapse and weaken already as cooler than normal sea surface temperatures are starting to appear in te Niño regions. The Niño really never truly got it's act together because of strong easterlies. If you compare what the state of the tropical pacific looks like now when compared to two weeks ago, they are significantly different.

The state of the tropical pacific looks NOTHING like 1998, so I'm not sure why you made that comment.

[The_Global_Warmer]

You are hoping for 2013 to have a shot at 1998 for the first part of 2013. However, there is absolutely zero indication that this will happen, as the Niño is starting to collapse and weaken already as cooler than normal sea surface temperatures are starting to appear in te Niño regions. The Niño really never truly got it's act together because of strong easterlies. If you compare what the state of the tropical pacific looks like now when compared to two weeks ago, they are significantly different.

The state of the tropical pacific looks NOTHING like 1998, so I'm not sure why you made that comment.

2013 if Nino for half the year might have a shot at 1998.

hopingpresent participle of hope (Verb)

Verb:

• Want something to happen or be the case: "he's hoping for compensation"; "I hope that the kids are OK".
  

Once again the merry-go-round of gross misinterpretation takes place. At the risk of a flame war over why you can just make up whatever you see fit and place it onto me, I will just assume you were over zealous at the pragmatic statement. I never said I was hoping it would happen. How could you infer that from my statement?

In regards to my statement. 1998 had a 0.428C yearly UAH anomaly. Going into the Super El NINO year the baseline was far lower, thus it took an extreme event to warm the TLT to that anomaly. Since then while no year has passed 1998 the Earth has warmed up and can not cool off to the degree of Pre-1998 without a powerful La Nina and even then it's very quick to rebound. The black dot represents where a year would have to average to break 1998.

Since April 2012 has come in at .29, .29, .37, .28, .34 averaging roughly 0.32C about 0.11C below 1998's yearly average. With a very negative PDO, lower solar forcing, and a neutral ENSO. No doubt warming has been slowed, but it's also apparent as time goes by how much easier it will be to eclipse 1998 with far less ideal conditions 1998 enjoyed.

UAH in 2010 was .422 IIRC or very close to that with lesser conditions.

Weekly Global SST's from 1990-present. 1998 had the super nino to push global sst's and global temps so warm. But even with a neutral ENSO 2012 has come within 0.05 or so of passing the 1998 records minus one week in late 1997.

Obviously a Nino of that magnitude now would shatter the global sst records and global temp records.

I don't know if ENSO will drop back to NINA or not. But we don't need a super nino to get to a new record high. year after year ENSO effect's global sst's less and less in terms of a Strong NINO to reach the 0.3C+ area.

[nzucker]

2010 was a strong Niño Friv...that's what got us within a few thousandths of the record. This event isn't nearly that strong in the tropical Pacific.

[Snow_Miser]

Once again the merry-go-round of gross misinterpretation takes place. At the risk of a flame war over why you can just make up whatever you see fit and place it onto me, I will just assume you were over zealous at the pragmatic statement. I never said I was hoping it would happen. How could you infer that from my statement?

In regards to my statement. 1998 had a 0.428C yearly UAH anomaly. Going into the Super El NINO year the baseline was far lower, thus it took an extreme event to warm the TLT to that anomaly. Since then while no year has passed 1998 the Earth has warmed up and can not cool off to the degree of Pre-1998 without a powerful La Nina and even then it's very quick to rebound. The black dot represents where a year would have to average to break 1998.

Since April 2012 has come in at .29, .29, .37, .28, .34 averaging roughly 0.32C about 0.11C below 1998's yearly average. With a very negative PDO, lower solar forcing, and a neutral ENSO. No doubt warming has been slowed, but it's also apparent as time goes by how much easier it will be to eclipse 1998 with far less ideal conditions 1998 enjoyed.

UAH in 2010 was .422 IIRC or very close to that with lesser conditions.

Weekly Global SST's from 1990-present. 1998 had the super nino to push global sst's and global temps so warm. But even with a neutral ENSO 2012 has come within 0.05 or so of passing the 1998 records minus one week in late 1997.

Obviously a Nino of that magnitude now would shatter the global sst records and global temp records.

I don't know if ENSO will drop back to NINA or not. But we don't need a super nino to get to a new record high. year after year ENSO effect's global sst's less and less in terms of a Strong NINO to reach the 0.3C+ area.

With all due respect Friv, there was little to no substance for your claim that we could reach 1998 temperature levels, as the state of the tropical pacific is much different than in 1998. We are no where even close to reaching the positive SST anomalies in the tropical pacific like we did in 1998.

[The_Global_Warmer]

With all due respect Friv, there was little to no substance for your claim that we could reach 1998 temperature levels, as the state of the tropical pacific is much different than in 1998.

We are no where even close to reaching the positive SST anomalies in the tropical pacific like we did in 1998.

So what? I don't understand why you think we need that? If we had a NINO like that monthly anomaly's on UAH might reach .85-1.0C, instead of .66C max it hit twice in 1998.

Global SST matter above all. The pacific doesn't have to be anything if the rest of the Earth's oceans make up the difference. I feel like your talking to me as if your not wanting to accept what is clearly taking place.

Once more these are global ssts from 1990-Sept 12th 2012. 2012 has made it up to 0.320C on the weekly sst charts and has averaged roughly 0.29C the last 7 weeks. This is very high for the underlying conditions.

Just because ENSO is right around neutral doesn't mean the rest of the globe isn't making up for it. If ENSO was at a mild nino or stronger we would probably be looking at .40-.55C sst globally and breaking the sst record.

UAH again has been .29, .29, .37, .28, .34, and looking like .35-.40 for Sept.

Even with the large dip in 2008 and the very quick drops during NH winters during La Nina's. Look at the last 2.75 years and the trend line is still going up. And the PDO is still negative big time. There is a very clear warming signal in there, you can see it in between the ENSO variance.

2010

1.6

1.4

1.1

0.7

0.2

-0.3

-0.8

-1.2

-1.4

-1.5

-1.5

-1.5

2011

-1.4

-1.3

-1.0

-0.7

-0.4

-0.2

-0.2

-0.3

-0.6

-0.8

-1.0

-1.0

2012

-0.9

-0.7

-0.5

-0.3

-0.1

0.0

0.1

We do not need a powerful NINO to get to that level on a yearly basis. Obviously if we go back to a NINA we won't be breaking the record.

If we stay at this even level and spend 6 months in Nino like 0.6 to 1.2 on that ONI chart I think 2013 will at or slightly above 1998 on the year.

Whereas 1998 needed a super nino to propell it's record. 2010 didn't need a super nino to basically tie it. 2012 and beyond will need even less.

[ORH_wxman]

Friv, 2008 SSTs got lower than 1999 despite a weaker La Nina...its really irrelevant to use one point extremes as "proof" something is a new trend or means much. Can you explain why 2008 got lower despite the weaker La Nina and despite 9 years of ferocious greenhouse gas forcing between the two data points?

[The_Global_Warmer]

There is an obvious background warming trend taking place, which will obviously alleviate the need for a super nino to break a record warm period. I don't need some 100 percent proof to see the obvious.

I assume you are referring to the differences below. Or on the ENSO sst chart? Either way your talking about peanut differences. I am sure you response is that what I was talking about was small differences, except we don't have a NINO in 2012, not even close.

1999 and 2008 are far more comparable. 2012 vs 2010 or 2004 or 2002 were all NINO's, 2012 is not.

2010 NINO was much weaker than 1998 but came at the end of a the big solar min during a very weak solar period and still managed to break certain global temp records and almost beat 1998 on UAH. Then from mid to late 2010 to now with the NINA the sst chart shows no cooling down to previous low and cooling to be quick, UAH/NCDC/GISS all show things to be warmer than ever before for NINA conditions in 2011. Then in 2012 for UAH temperatures spiked back up putting April-Sept(at least) between 3rd-6th on the data set but with neutral ENSO conditions. Global SSTs are also warmer than we have seen before with neutral conditions.

Not to mention the huge -PDO and the lasting effects of the solar min and we still reach 0.3C+ on the global SSTs.

By default future enso events will be subjected to the baseline of the Earth's energy balance which continues to increase, so to me it's not surprising.

If you don't like this kind of critical thinking piecing part together, tare me up, I don't care, the results will come and they will speak for themselves. I approach the arctic sea ice this way and it works, I approach sea level rise this way and its works, I have approached tracking UAH temps this way and so far it has worked for me as well. It's never perfect but it puts me very close in the ballpark.

I am a firm believer that you can predict possible out-comes with puzzle pieces pending how you define them in real time only using the past a proxy to define the pieces. Since we can not predict ENSO well at all we have to rely on multiple outcomes from running many puzzled variables together with the same value scale but different amounts of ingredients and if situation A, B,C, D, E and so on works out I think the one with the simulated puzzle pieces that most closely represented reality will come out on top unless unknown variables come into the fold. And as of now I do not think there are many of those out there, our technology, knowledge, and understanding of the Earth's climate has advanced enough IMO for a high enough level of understanding to have success like this.

If we can eventually predict the 1-2 yr ENSO cycles we could nail it down big time.

The TSI data shows 2008 along the bottom of a grand solar min where TSI dropped on these various data sets 1-2W/m2 from the incline of a huge solar max in 1999/2000 where the lowest SST point was on this graph. This was near the TSI max or solar max. That should have a pretty damn big effect on things.

[nflwxman]

Anyone else notice that amsu hasn't updated in a few days? I wonder if there is something wrong with the sensor?

[ORH_wxman]

Anyone else notice that amsu hasn't updated in a few days? I wonder if there is something wrong with the sensor?

The last day I see is the 20th...which is normal. It should update to the 21st sometime today. Its usually 3 days behind the current day for values. Not sure if you were looking at the discover site, but I assumed you were.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Anyone else notice that amsu hasn't updated in a few days? I wonder if there is something wrong with the sensor?

I couldn't get on their site yesterday at all. Today it seems things are up working fine. The 21st was updated. the most up to date weekly global sst anomaly's show a slight rise after a drop at the start of the month. Overall they are heading down but this indicates 2012 isn't going into the tank until these do.

ENSO hasn't been helpful but the Northern Hemisphere is warm. From 30 or 40N to 90N it's record warm on the sst charts Bob Tisdale get's his data from.

display plot oiv2.ctl

ssta 1

03jan2012 to 19sep2012

Global:

[nflwxman]

I couldn't get on their site yesterday at all. Today it seems things are up working fine. The 21st was updated. the most up to date weekly global sst anomaly's show a slight rise after a drop at the start of the month. Overall they are heading down but this indicates 2012 isn't going into the tank until these do.

ENSO hasn't been helpful but the Northern Hemisphere is warm. From 30 or 40N to 90N it's record warm on the sst charts Bob Tisdale get's his data from.

display plot oiv2.ctl

ssta 1

03jan2012 to 19sep2012

Global:

So your expectation is that SSTs remain warming (+.3), but El Nino contributes very little to that this fall/winter?

[The_Global_Warmer]

So your expectation is that SSTs remain warming (+.3), but El Nino contributes very little to that this fall/winter?

No. I was simply pointing out that it's abnormally warm for no NINO.

We can see ENSO is neutral but on the + side of neutral. But the global sst anomaly is being driven by the warmth in the Northern Hemisphere. But these will shortly go down and I doubt the Southern Oceans will warm enough to make up for it, so without NINO it should cool, I don't think however it will be near as cool as 2011 without Nina.

This ties into my point earlier, if NINO did come together like 2010 global sst's would be at record levels.

[forkyfork]

when did this cooling happen? the past five years of mainly nina conditions? how is it that the same people who say the past 100 years isn't enough of a sample size are convinced we are cooling because of the last 5?

[ORH_wxman]

when did this cooling happen? the past five years of mainly nina conditions? how is it that the same people who say the past 100 years isn't enough of a sample size are convinced we are cooling because of the last 5?

We are cooling recently since the mid 2000s at about 0.09C per decade. But that time frame is too short and doesn't represent the long term trend. ENSO makes it very noisy.

The long term trend is about +0.06C per decade according to GISS (and Hadcrut is very close).

[eduggs]

Strictly speaking we cannot tell if we have warmed or cooled in that time period. The error bars associated with the data points are large compared to the magnitude of estimated temperature change... and therefore the range of possible slope values for the best fit line includes both positive and negative values.

That average numerical value (estimated parameter) has decreased over this time period, but the true parameter is unknown.

We are cooling recently since the mid 2000s at about 0.09C per decade. But that time frame is too short and doesn't represent the long term trend. ENSO makes it very noisy.

The long term trend is about +0.06C per decade according to GISS (and Hadcrut is very close).

[ORH_wxman]

Strictly speaking we cannot tell if we have warmed or cooled in that time period. The error bars associated with the data points are large compared to the magnitude of estimated temperature change... and therefore the range of possible slope values for the best fit line includes both positive and negative values.

That average numerical value (estimated parameter) has decreased over this time period, but the true parameter is unknown.

I don't know what the exact error bars are, but something like a tenth difference (or even half that) should be good enough...unless it isn't...if that is the case, then the claims of "warmest year on record" and stuff like that probably shouldn't be published to media outlets.

[tacoman25]

when did this cooling happen? the past five years of mainly nina conditions? how is it that the same people who say the past 100 years isn't enough of a sample size are convinced we are cooling because of the last 5?

Not sure anyone in this thread is saying that.

[The_Global_Warmer]

[ben4vols]

It would be interesting to see an accurate graph of only TOBs adjustments over time. I don't trust the one Goddard posted, though if it was correct, it would be in contradiction to the findings of Menne et al on the influence of TOBS.

Goddard updated his USHCN adjustments graph the other day. As you say, if his graph is correct, why have raw temps this year been adjusted upwards of close to 1.75 F?

[ORH_wxman]

Goddard updated his USHCN adjustments graph the other day. As you say, if his graph is correct, why have raw temps this year been adjusted upwards of close to 1.75 F?

That graph looks almost impossible. I'm skeptical of its accuracy.

However, we did see revisions downward for Jan/Feb temps recently well after the initial adjustments were made, so perhaps the full extent of QCing the data takes a while. Not sure though.

If the graph is somehow accurate, I would certainly wonder why such drastic adjustments are needed this year.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Global sst's as of Sept 19th have held steady near 0.3C. September's chances of being second warmest globally on UAH's records continue to improve.

[Jonger]

Goddard updated his USHCN adjustments graph the other day. As you say, if his graph is correct, why have raw temps this year been adjusted upwards of close to 1.75 F?

Ya gotta tweak em... There's a certain nature trick to it.

Jon