2012 Hottest Spring Ever in US

[cyclonebuster]

2004, huh? Still posting old, superceded research I see. Can't you find anything older - say, a translated Babylonian tablet?

Science advances as more data is collected and more analysis is done - so anybody wanting to discuss our current understanding of global climate change would cite the most recent research. You consistently post data and research on the 20th century and talk about solar cycles 20 or 21. I hate to be the bearer of bad news but this isn't the 20th century, its' the 21st - and we're not in solar cycle 20 or 21, since December 2008 we've been in SC24. Why is it you won't post up-to-date data or current research? Is it because the science doesn't support your pet theories?

I think he is referring to this ancient Man Sun cave painting depicting solar output.... I assure you NOAA is more current than this

[donsutherland1]

A chart of radiative forcings does not tell us how much warming we would get from that radiative forcing. That is climate sensitivity, which is HIGHLY uncertain.

The chart compares each of the forcings. From the chart, it is clear that even when uncertainty is factored in, anthropogenic forcings account for most of the recent warming that has been observed. That is the prevailing view among most climate scientists. I suspect when the next synthesis report is prepared by IPCC, the conclusion will remain unchanged and confidence in that conclusion will have increased.

If others seek to disagree with the current consensus, they need to:

1) Prove that the trapping properties of the greenhouse gases are much less than are currently accepted in physics (a close to zero probability)

2) Find another forcing or group of forcings that account for the recent warming so that if one excludes anthropogenic contributions, one would be able to replicate the observed warming.

So far, there's nothing along those lines that has appeared in the peer-reviewed literature.

For now, the global climate continues to warm despite some claims in the blogosphere to the contrary. The 30-year moving average of global temperatures is rising and the calculated trend line is also positive, whether one uses the GISS or NCDC datasets. At the same time, no scientifically robust alternative explanation to the prevailing consensus has survived the scrutiny of peer review.

[ben4vols]

I suspect when the next synthesis report is prepared by IPCC, the conclusion will remain unchanged and confidence in that conclusion will have increased.

Confidence will have increased even though the difference between observed and modeled global temperature continues to rise? In what other branch of science is this acceptable?

[donsutherland1]

Confidence will have increased even though the difference between observed and modeled global temperature continues to rise? In what other branch of science is this acceptable?

I'm talking about confidence in the role that anthropogenic forcings have played in driving recent warming.

The accuracy of the climate models is a different matter. As greater understanding is gained, one can expect those models to be refined further and verification scores to increase. It should also be noted that such models should be used for forecasting long-term trends, not year-to-year anomalies.

Finally, when one is examing climate trends, the minimum statistically valid period is 30 years. That's the minimum period required for temperatures to take on a normal distribution (assuming temperatures are normally distributed). The long-term trend line remains positive (continued warming), regardless of whether one uses the GISS, HADCRUT, or NCDC datasets.

[PhillipS]

Confidence will have increased even though the difference between observed and modeled global temperature continues to rise? In what other branch of science is this acceptable?

The research to refine and extend our understanding of climate forcings and feedback processess is independent of the research into the global climate climate response to those forcings and feedbacks. So we may have increased confidence that we have accurately measured solar variability, for example, without changing our confidence in our understanding of all of the climate processes affected by solar variability.

And this is true of many branches of science. I have a physicist friend working to more accurately measure the mass of an electron. But his adding more significant figures to the value for the mass of an electron won't change our understanding, or lack thereof, of why the electron has exactly that mass.

And, BTW, you are mistaken in your assertion that the difference and modeled global temperatures continues to rise. That might be true if only a simplistic model with a linear trend projection were used - but more sophisticated climate models include known variability factors such as ENSO, solar cycles, and aerosols. A recent paper discussing this was Foster & Rahmstorf 2012: Global Temperature Evolution 1979 - 2010.

Its abstract:

We analyze five prominent time series of global temperature (over land and ocean) for their common time interval since 1979: three surface temperature records (from NASA/GISS, NOAA/NCDC and HadCRU) and two lower-troposphere (LT) temperature records based on satellite microwave sensors (from RSS and UAH). All five series show consistent global warming trends ranging from 0.014 to 0.018 K yr^-1. When the data are adjusted to remove the estimated impact of known factors on short-term temperature variations (El Niño/southern oscillation, volcanic aerosols and solar variability), the global warming signal becomes even more evident as noise is reduced. Lower-troposphere temperature responds more strongly to El Niño/southern oscillation and to volcanic forcing than surface temperature data. The adjusted data show warming at very similar rates to the unadjusted data, with smaller probable errors, and the warming rate is steady over the whole time interval. In all adjusted series, the two hottest years are 2009 and 2010.

Now, this being a free country with reasonably free speech you can keep repeating the same debunked denialist themes, but don't fool yourself into thinking they are credible.

[Isotherm]

Notice how the distance between the global temperature and AK Index lines increases beginning with the 1951-80 base period. Even the AK Index graph shows a weakening relationship between solar activity and global temperatures.

If you want to talk about a weakening relationship with time -- note the disconnect b/t Co2 and temp since 2000

I'm sure the response would be "well obviously it's not a 1 to 1 correlation, it's a background trend." While that may be the case, apparently Co2 is not as significant a factor as previously thought, given the correlation has certainly weakened since 2000. That's indisputable.

[LocoAko]

Ah yes, the 'ole "fit it with a sinusoidal curve"...

[ben4vols]

Now, this being a free country with reasonably free speech you can keep repeating the same debunked denialist themes, but don't fool yourself into thinking they are credible.

Nothing you posted debunked anything I posted. All you did is muddy the waters with incoherent babbling. Anyone who can rub 2 brain cells together can look at IPCC modeling/hindcasting and compare it to observations. Of course even then it isn't really observed temperature as that has been manipulated as well.

[Isotherm]

Ah yes, the 'ole "fit it with a sinusoidal curve"...

Does this one work better for you?

[cyclonebuster]

The research to refine and extend our understanding of climate forcings and feedback processess is independent of the research into the global climate climate response to those forcings and feedbacks. So we may have increased confidence that we have accurately measured solar variability, for example, without changing our confidence in our understanding of all of the climate processes affected by solar variability.

And this is true of many branches of science. I have a physicist friend working to more accurately measure the mass of an electron. But his adding more significant figures to the value for the mass of an electron won't change our understanding, or lack thereof, of why the electron has exactly that mass.

And, BTW, you are mistaken in your assertion that the difference and modeled global temperatures continues to rise. That might be true if only a simplistic model with a linear trend projection were used - but more sophisticated climate models include known variability factors such as ENSO, solar cycles, and aerosols. A recent paper discussing this was Foster & Rahmstorf 2012: Global Temperature Evolution 1979 - 2010.

Its abstract:

We analyze five prominent time series of global temperature (over land and ocean) for their common time interval since 1979: three surface temperature records (from NASA/GISS, NOAA/NCDC and HadCRU) and two lower-troposphere (LT) temperature records based on satellite microwave sensors (from RSS and UAH). All five series show consistent global warming trends ranging from 0.014 to 0.018 K yr^-1. When the data are adjusted to remove the estimated impact of known factors on short-term temperature variations (El Niño/southern oscillation, volcanic aerosols and solar variability), the global warming signal becomes even more evident as noise is reduced. Lower-troposphere temperature responds more strongly to El Niño/southern oscillation and to volcanic forcing than surface temperature data. The adjusted data show warming at very similar rates to the unadjusted data, with smaller probable errors, and the warming rate is steady over the whole time interval. In all adjusted series, the two hottest years are 2009 and 2010.

Now, this being a free country with reasonably free speech you can keep repeating the same debunked denialist themes, but don't fool yourself into thinking they are credible.

BTW the warming is not Linear either. A common misconception is that it is linear and they can predict the date when we reach the tipping point. Be assured the tipping point will be sooner rather than later because the trend is not linear and some have said the tipping point is already here..........NOAA graphs support the argument here:

The Global Surface Temperature is Rising

Global annual average temperature measured over land and oceans. Red bars indicate temperatures above and blue bars indicate temperatures below the 1901-2000 average temperature.

The black line shows atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration in parts per million. Global average temperature is one of the most-cited indicators of global climate change, and shows an increase of approximately 1.4°F since the early 20^th Century. The global surface temperature is based on air temperature data over land and sea-surface temperatures observed from ships, buoys and satellites. There is a clear long-term global warming trend, while each individual year does not always show a temperature increase relative to the previous year, and some years show greater changes than others. These year-to-year fluctuations in temperature are due to natural processes, such as the effects of El Ninos, La Ninas, and the eruption of large volcanoes. Notably, the 20 warmest years have all occurred since 1981, and the 10 warmest have all occurred in the past 12 years.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/

Any questions?

[LocoAko]

Does this one work better for you?

I'm just not sure what the point is. No one ever said it'd be a completely linear relationship between CO2 and global temperatures in the short term. There are so many other factors at play, some of which we don't understand and some which we do. I already posted a study that showed when you accounted for natural forcings at play the temperature trend has not slowed down at all and still correlates well with CO2 (I'll see if I can dig up that post). I just wouldn't claim that the relationship between CO2 and global temperatures is "not as significant as once thought" ... seems a little disingenuous to me.

[donsutherland1]

Thanks for sharing this paper, PhillipS.

Some excerpts from the paper:

Lean and Rind performed a multivariate correlation anlayis for the period 1889-2006 using the CRU temperature data, and found that they could explain 76% of the temperature variance over this period from anthropogenic forcing, El Niño, volcanic aerosols and solar variability. The long-term warming trend almost exclusively stems from anthropogenic forcing...

The resultant adjusted data show clearly, both visually and when subjected to statistical analysis, that the rate of global warming due to other factors (most likely these are exclusively anthropogenic) has been remarkably steady during the 32 years from 1979 through 2010. There is no indication of any slowdown or acceleration of global warming, beyond the variability induced by these known natural factors. Because the effects of volcanic eruptions and of ENSO are very short-term and that of solar variability very small, none of these factors can be expected to exert a significant influence on the continuation of global warming over the coming decades.

Note: To faciltate the reading, I left out the parenthetical citations. The information is well-documented.

Key points:

1. The long-term warming trend is primarily being driven by anthropogenic causes.

2. The warming associated with the anthropogenic forcings has remained steady.

3. The known natural forcings are not likely to significantly influence the ongoing long-term warming.

[Isotherm]

I'm just not sure what the point is. No one ever said it'd be a completely linear relationship between CO2 and global temperatures in the short term. There are so many other factors at play, some of which we don't understand and some which we do. I already posted a study that showed when you accounted for natural forcings at play the temperature trend has not slowed down at all and still correlates well with CO2 (I'll see if I can dig up that post). I just wouldn't claim that the relationship between CO2 and global temperatures is "not as significant as once thought" ... seems a little disingenuous to me.

Maybe we aren't as far apart as I had thought. There are certainly other factors at play, and I don't think even the most extreme scenarios anticipated a 1 to 1 correlation. However, there is no doubt that many predictions from 2000 onward regarding the temp/Co2 curve have busted. Global temperatures are not following Co2 levels as closely as they were 1980-2000, and this was unexpected by many.

[ben4vols]

I'm talking about confidence in the role that anthropogenic forcings have played in driving recent warming.

The accuracy of the climate models is a different matter. As greater understanding is gained, one can expect those models to be refined further and verification scores to increase. It should also be noted that such models should be used for forecasting long-term trends, not year-to-year anomalies.

Finally, when one is examing climate trends, the minimum statistically valid period is 30 years. That's the minimum period required for temperatures to take on a normal distribution (assuming temperatures are normally distributed). The long-term trend line remains positive (continued warming), regardless of whether one uses the GISS, HADCRUT, or NCDC datasets.

The accuracy of the climate models is at the heart of the matter. Also it looks like the new models for AR5 are not going to be much different data wise than the models used for AR4. They still can't model past climate correctly and will of course model future climate way too warm.

[Isotherm]

I'm just not sure what the point is. No one ever said it'd be a completely linear relationship between CO2 and global temperatures in the short term. There are so many other factors at play, some of which we don't understand and some which we do. I already posted a study that showed when you accounted for natural forcings at play the temperature trend has not slowed down at all and still correlates well with CO2 (I'll see if I can dig up that post). I just wouldn't claim that the relationship between CO2 and global temperatures is "not as significant as once thought" ... seems a little disingenuous to me.

Also, I don't believe we're capable of fully quantifying all natural forcings in play at this point in time (such that it can just be removed as a variable). There are so many intricate feedbacks that are beyond our scope of understanding, in my opinion, and too difficult to model/simulate accurately.

[donsutherland1]

If you want to talk about a weakening relationship with time -- note the disconnect b/t Co2 and temp since 2000

Natural factors are largely responsible for the seeming slowdown in the rise in global temperatures. Since 2000, the three-month moving average of the Oceanic Niño Index (ONI) has been negative for 81 months (55%) and positive for 61 months (41%). Since 2007, the ONI has been negative for 49 months (77%) and positive for 15 months (23%). From 2005 into 2011, there was also an abnormally prolonged and deep solar minimum.

Nevertheless, global warm temperature anomalies persisted despite the dramatic shift in natural forcings that should have led to a much cooler outcome.

Annual Global Land & Sea Temperature Anomalies (NCDC):

2000 +0.412°C

2001 +0.535°C

2002 +0.595°C

2003 +0.604°C

2004 +0.562°C

2005 +0.637°C

2006 +0.582°C

2007 +0.575°C

2008 +0.498°C

2009 +0.579°C

2010 +0.637°C

2011 +0.511°C

2012 +0.498°C (through May)

With an emergent El Niño event, 2012 will very likely prove to be warmer than 2011 was. Already, the global land and sea temperature anomalies for April and May were +0.658° and +0.655° respectively. In fact, were the remainder of 2012 to average +0.522° above normal, 2012 would wind up warmer than 2011. It will be interesting to see if the expected El Niño event leads to 2013's surpassing the 2010 anomaly.

In the end, natural factors may have masked some of the warming signal associated with CO2, but that doesn't mean that the signal has weakened. The paper provided by PhillipS confirms that the anthropogenic warming signal has remained steady. Separate research by Hansen also confirmed that despite the extreme solar minimum, the earth's energy imbalance persisted (meaning warming continues).

[WeatherRusty]

If you want to talk about a weakening relationship with time -- note the disconnect b/t Co2 and temp since 2000

I'm sure the response would be "well obviously it's not a 1 to 1 correlation, it's a background trend." While that may be the case, apparently Co2 is not as significant a factor as previously thought, given the correlation has certainly weakened since 2000. That's indisputable.

The physics which determines the forced temperature change equaling 1.2C/2X(CO2) does not change because we measure a real world trend over a statistically insignificant period (less than 17 years) which deviates from an anticipated linear output from computer models. The real world temperature response is not linear.

Where is it stated in the literature that the CO2 forcing should dominate on a timescale as short as 12 years? The physics wins in the long run, and radiative physics determines the strength of the various forcings on global temperature. CO2 forcing (by the numbers) dominates only on time scales exceeding factors such as ENSO, certain volcanic episodes and solar variability.

[ben4vols]

The physics wins in the long run, and radiative physics determines the strength of the various forcings on global temperature. CO2 forcing (by the numbers) dominates only on time scales exceeding factors such as ENSO, certain volcanic episodes and solar variability.

Do you know the amount of warming needed for current observations to catch up to the IPCC AR4 model scenario which closely matches our current GHG's? Not only would it have to catch up but it would have to keep pace after that. It is a completely bogus scenario.

[WeatherRusty]

Do you know the amount of warming needed for current observations to catch up to the IPCC AR4 model scenario which closely matches our current GHG's? Not only would it have to catch up but it would have to keep pace after that. It is a completely bogus scenario.

Which scenario are we on? Which will be followed in the coming decades?

Note the 'likely range' given for each scenario.

To answer your question...it depends.

[Vergent]

The accuracy of the climate models is at the heart of the matter. Also it looks like the new models for AR5 are not going to be much different data wise than the models used for AR4. They still can't model past climate correctly and will of course model future climate way too warm.

Watt planet do you live on?

[cyclonebuster]

Do you know the amount of warming needed for current observations to catch up to the IPCC AR4 model scenario which closely matches our current GHG's? Not only would it have to catch up but it would have to keep pace after that. It is a completely bogus scenario.

Ice mass not looking good either.

[bluewave]

The differences people are seeing over the short term are mostly the result of the ENSO cycle.

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

The long term pattern of warming continues uninterrupted.

2011 was the warmest year on record for the Arctic which strongly influences our weather here.

http://data.giss.nas...Ann.Ts dSST.txt

[donsutherland1]

The long term pattern of warming continues uninterrupted.

Exactly. It's remarkable how warm things stayed despite the longest, deepest solar minimum since at least the early 20th century and consecutive La Niña events. Already, with the emergent El Niño, the global temperature is rising fast. Globally, May 2012 ranked as the second warmest May on record, trailing only May 2010.

[Isotherm]

Exactly. It's remarkable how warm things stayed despite the longest, deepest solar minimum since at least the early 20th century and consecutive La Niña events. Already, with the emergent El Niño, the global temperature is rising fast. Globally, May 2012 ranked as the second warmest May on record, trailing only May 2010.

The impacts of the solar miminum on global temperature do not begin until the 5+ year mark. There is a fairly significant lag between the two. I'd expect to see the resultant gradual cooling in the next several years. I'm very interested to see how the next decade evolves.

[donsutherland1]

The impacts of the solar miminum on global temperature do not begin until the 5+ year mark. There is a fairly significant lag between the two. I'd expect to see the resultant gradual cooling in the next several years. I'm very interested to see how the next decade evolves.

I've read that the lag is 18 months.

[icebreaker5221]

Maybe we aren't as far apart as I had thought. There are certainly other factors at play, and I don't think even the most extreme scenarios anticipated a 1 to 1 correlation. However, there is no doubt that many predictions from 2000 onward regarding the temp/Co2 curve have busted. Global temperatures are not following Co2 levels as closely as they were 1980-2000, and this was unexpected by many.

Also, I don't believe we're capable of fully quantifying all natural forcings in play at this point in time (such that it can just be removed as a variable). There are so many intricate feedbacks that are beyond our scope of understanding, in my opinion, and too difficult to model/simulate accurately.

Exactly. It's remarkable how warm things stayed despite the longest, deepest solar minimum since at least the early 20th century and consecutive La Niña events. Already, with the emergent El Niño, the global temperature is rising fast. Globally, May 2012 ranked as the second warmest May on record, trailing only May 2010.

Global climate models do not and cannot account for solar variability. What's modeled is a solar forcing term that varies based upon time of day and time of year. Even if some models account for 11-year solar cycles, it is well beyond their capabilities for predict the strength of each solar cycle (even Sun models are horrible at that). While the sun was quite active from 1980-2000, it has been comparatively quiet since. CO2 + active sun resulted in rapid warming, CO2 + quiet sun more recently has resulted in very slow warming.

Also, while climate models can represent ENSO events, they do not time them correctly. The recent double La Nina was not well handled in the GCMs.

Just to echo Don's point, it's impressive that we haven't seen cooling despite these combined factors. As the sun becomes more active and ENSO trends positive again, we should certainly break temperature records from 1997 and 2010.

[Isotherm]

I've read that the lag is 18 months.

The length of the solar cycle is most important, and there is a cumulative effect over time. The long length of cycle 23 will influence temperatures in cycle 24.

The authors of this article discuss in depth the relationship b/t previous solar cycle length and corresponding global temp decrease many years later.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1202.1954v1.pdf

[bluewave]

There was a recent study that showed that any decrease in solar output over the next century would only

have a minimal impact on the projected degree of warming. The main player would continue to be the amount

of carbon dioxide that we emit.

http://www.pik-potsd...-global-warming

03/10/2010 - A new Grand Minimum of solar activity would decrease the rise of global mean temperature caused by human greenhouse gas emissions only marginally. A new modelling study by researchers of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, published online today in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, finds a temperature offset of at most 0.3 degrees Celsius until the end of the century. This is less than ten percent of the temperature rise projected under “business as usual” scenarios of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

[icebreaker5221]

The length of the solar cycle is most important, and there is a cumulative effect over time. The long length of cycle 23 will influence temperatures in cycle 24.

The authors of this article discuss in depth the relationship b/t previous solar cycle length and corresponding global temp decrease many years later.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1202.1954v1.pdf

"Relations between the length of a sunspot cycle and the average temperature

in the same and the next cycle are calculated for a number of meteorological

stations in Norway and in the North Atlantic region. No significant trend

is found between the length of a cycle and the average temperature in the

same cycle, but a significant negative trend is found between the length of a

cycle and the temperature in the next cycle. This provides a tool to predict

an average temperature decrease of at least 1.0 ◦ C from solar cycle 23 to 24

for the stations and areas analyzed. We find for the Norwegian local stations

investigated that 25–56% of the temperature increase the last 150 years may

be attributed to the Sun. For 3 North Atlantic stations we get 63–72%

solar contribution. This points to the Atlantic currents as reinforcing a solar

signal."

Let's see if that happens.

Also, I'm not sure if correlations between solar activity and temperatures only in NW Europe can be generalized to the rest of the world. I suspect a much shorter lag globally.

[cyclonebuster]

Y'all need to get a grip on Solar Activity. Output has been steady yet temperature still rises as GHG's rise. Doesn't that tell you anything? Do you think NOAA is lying to you?????

The amount of solar energy received at the top of our atmosphere has followed its natural 11-year cycle of small ups and downs, but with no net increase. Over the same period, global temperature has risen markedly. This indicates that it is extremely unlikely that solar influence has been a significant driver of global temperature change over several decades.

Global surface temperature (top, blue) and the Sun's energy received at the top of Earth's atmosphere (red, bottom). Solar energy has been measured by satellites since 1978.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/