Iceagenow Blog Complains that Record Lows Are Being Ignored

[donsutherland1]

I had to stop following Joe Bastardi on Twitter because I simply couldn't stomach the sheer intellectual dishonesty of cherry picking pockets of cold and shrieking conspiracy that the media was ignoring it. He carried on like that all winter while the entire lower 48 just roasted. Having stopped following him, I can't imagine the windmill-tilting going on right now while the country blazes. They scream data, data, data! yet cherry pick it to death and provide it out of context. A particular favorite of mine are temperature graphs with no data labels on the X time scale access (look! it's cooling).

I took a look this morning to see what is on his twitter page regarding climate change. In one tweet, he wrote:

Joe Bastardi‏@BigJoeBastardi

By the way abnormal warmth n of Russia directly linked with WARM AMO When thats gone in 10 years, globe well below 30 yr mean

On the surface, such an observation seems all right. Clearly, the AMO is positively correlated with Arctic warmth and vice versa.

However, what is not mentioned is that the relationship (just as with the other natural forcings) has been eroding, especially in recent years. This decoupling has implications for forecasting, not just for long-term climate.

Below are two graphs that compare the AMO and Arctic Temperatures (annual and 5-year moving averages). The Y-Axis is in hundredths of a degree ©. The divergence between the Arctic temperatures and AMO shows up in both charts:

[cyclonebuster]

Greenland is quickly getting to a point where every melt season after the snow melts a liw albedo layer is appearing.

This is most responsible for the recent explosion in ice melt along the Greenland ice sheet.

Now regions further North are under going the same process the lower elevations did.

we have already seen incredible changes in the glaciers the last 3 years out to a decade that are major red flags.

To me this is a tipping point or close.

We past he tipping point when Co2 was 350 ppm in the atmosphere. It will stay in our atmosphere now for 100's of years to come. What we are seeing now are lag effects which will go on now for 100's of years into the future unless we get the Co2 down to below 350 ppm. Until then we are doomed.

[donsutherland1]

Will,

I believe the politicization of the climate change issue is a major problem. The scientific understanding and possible policy responses are different matters. Viewing the issue through the political or ideological lens obscures the actual science involved.

Even as I accept the general consensus that the major part of the recent observed warming is due to the marginal anthropogenic contribution of greenhouse gases, I fully recognize uncertainties exist when it comes to the precise measurements, interactions between natural and anthropogenic forcings/feedbacks, etc.

Unfortunately, a fair share of blogs have oversimplified, exaggerated, or taken things out of context in trying to make their point. Policy organizations have also muddied the waters. This response by some policy organizations is understandable, as the interests of their constituencies may well be at odds with a public policy course aimed at trying to address the climate change challenge. They're putting the interests of their constituencies ahead of the science.

Furthermore, policy makers cannot reasonably be expected to immediately enact policy strictly upon the science, even if scientific understanding were complete. Policy makers need to accommodate many other interests beyond science. Real trade-offs are involved. Unless there is sufficient domestic support for the policy changes, those changes won't be sustainable, as the public will simply elect new leaders who would change the policies the public finds objectionable. Real leadership is involved in building and aligning support for difficult policies and such leadership can be uncommon. One finds the same challenge whether it pertains to fiscal policy or climate policy. Hence, the policy response will almost certainly lag the scientific understanding and it will almost certainly fall short of what might best address the issue. That doesn't mean that policy makers should refuse to accept the scientific understanding, as some have done. It means that they should focus their efforts to try to achieve a realistic approach (economically and socially).

I also believe that the media has a difficult time understanding and conveying complex subject matter, whether it relates to the economy or climate science. In part, that relates to the background of journalists (usually not economics or science backgrounds). In part, it relates to the understanding and knowledge of the readers/viewers. The audience's unequal understanding of such complex content complicates the media's challenge and effectiveness.

Trying to explain to the lay person that even as climate change likely increases the probability of certain extremes (e.g., some literature suggests that "100-year" extreme thresholds rise faster than average temperatures), one has to differentiate between climate change itself and synoptic patterns is difficult. The temptation to oversimplify and attribute warmth as prima facie proof of climate change and cold outbreaks as prima facie evidence against it is all too common. Trying to discuss statistical probabilities e.g., changes in mean temperatures and standard deviations for a mean period have led to, let's say, 100° maximum readings becoming X% more likely in statistical terms, is at least as difficult. The public is not equally versed in math and science. In short, the communications challenge would is steep. Exogenous non-science factors (politicization, blogged opinions, efforts by policy institutes, etc.) have only increased the level of difficulty involved and inhibited public understanding.

[The_Global_Warmer]

can we get an update on the records?

[donsutherland1]

can we get an update on the records?

Final June Numbers:

Daily Record Highs: 3,282; Daily Record Lows: 820; Ratio: 4.0 daily record highs per daily record low

Monthly Record Highs: 645; Monthly Record Lows: 20; Ratio: 32.3 monthly record highs per monthly record low

July 1-3, 2012:

Daily Record Highs: 919; Daily Record Lows: 19; Ratio: 48.4 daily record highs per daily record low

Monthly Record Highs: 109; Monthly Record Lows: 5; Ratio: 21.8 monthly record highs per monthly record low

[winterymix]

Final June Numbers:

Daily Record Highs: 3,282; Daily Record Lows: 820; Ratio: 4.0 daily record highs per daily record low

Monthly Record Highs: 645; Monthly Record Lows: 20; Ratio: 32.3 monthly record highs per monthly record low

Am not a climatologist but my insight suggests that the breaking of monthly records to the

warm side has implied importance.

Don, the select statistics are shocking, really. It appears that many decades of anthropomorphic CO2 belched into our atmosphere have induced climate change. Nature can still surprise us. It is not beyond the realm of reason that the rubber band can only go so far before it over corrects to the opposite polarity. At this time, my hunch is that statistics such as those that you have compiled paint a compelling picture of widespread warming.

[donsutherland1]

Am not a climatologist but my insight suggests that the breaking of monthly records to the

warm side has implied importance.

Don, the select statistics are shocking, really. It appears that many decades of anthropomorphic CO2 belched into our atmosphere have induced climate change. Nature can still surprise us. It is not beyond the realm of reason that the rubber band can only go so far before it over corrects to the opposite polarity. At this time, my hunch is that statistics such as those that you have compiled paint a compelling picture of widespread warming.

Winterymix,

I'm sure that climate change has increased the probability of the kind of extremes that occurred during June. The below chart shows monthly and all-time record highs as a percentage of daily record highs for June. I compared June 2012 with June 1934, June 1936, and June 2002 (probably the closest ENSO analog summer to the current one).

[ben4vols]

Am not a climatologist but my insight suggests that the breaking of monthly records to the

warm side has implied importance.

Don, the select statistics are shocking, really. It appears that many decades of anthropomorphic CO2 belched into our atmosphere have induced climate change. Nature can still surprise us. It is not beyond the realm of reason that the rubber band can only go so far before it over corrects to the opposite polarity. At this time, my hunch is that statistics such as those that you have compiled paint a compelling picture of widespread warming.

Or it could just be weather. Look at the southeast which has baked for the last week and still most of the southeast was below normal for June. Was anyone crying global cooling at the 1st half of the month?

[bluewave]

Or it could just be weather. Look at the southeast which has baked for the last week and still most of the southeast was below normal for June. Was anyone crying global cooling at the 1st half of the month?

A warming climate doesn't mean that we still won't see record low temperatures.

It's all about the ratio of record highs to lows increasing with continued warming.

https://www2.ucar.ed...-lows-across-us

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/03/extremely-hot/

[donsutherland1]

Or it could just be weather.

Ongoing warming is increasing the probability of extreme heat. In other words the same pattern today produces warmer readings than the same pattern of 30 years ago. To illustrate what I mean, let's use the probability of a 100° day in Washington, DC as an example.

Since the 1961-1990 base period, the statistical probability of a 100° day in Washington, DC has increased 37.8% (1981-2010 base period). That increase is continuing. If one takes the most recent 30-year period (1983-2012), the statiscal probability of a 100° day in June has increased further. It is now 52.2% above the statistical probability for the 1961-1990 base period.

The increasing probability of warmth is not confined to local areas. It is global, with the greatest increase in probability occurring in the Arctic region where Arctic temperatures are decoupling from the earlier tight relationship with the AMO.

Below is a chart that compares the June outcome for ENSO and teleconnections similar to those of June 2012 and the June 2012 outcome. Consistent with the ongoing warming, one finds a much warmer outcome in 2012 than had been the case with similar ENSO-teleconnections in the past.

In sum, the synoptic situation led to the June 2012 outcomes. However, climate change led to a warmer outcome than would otherwise have occurred. That outcome is not a matter of random chance.

[FloridaJohn]

Or it could just be weather. Look at the southeast which has baked for the last week and still most of the southeast was below normal for June. Was anyone crying global cooling at the 1st half of the month?

I think the lower temperatures in the SE during June were more a product of the persistant cloud cover and rain associated with TS Debby than an general cooling in the area.

[donsutherland1]

Another common argument to explain the warming is that the PDO-AMO combination is responsible. Given the long-term nature of climate, I used 30-year periods to define climatic temperatures, just as NOAA does when defining its baselines.

The charts are as follows:

1. Predicted vs. actual global temperature anomalies based on the PDO and AMO (30 year moving averages)

2. Precited vs. actual global temperature anomalies based on CO2 (30 year moving averages)

Several points:

1. The 30-year moving average of global temperatures show a continued warming in spite of year-to-year variability.

2. Were the PDO-AMO the principal drivers, the 30-year moving average global temperature anomaly should already have turned downward. It hasn't.

3. Use of the 30-year moving averages reveals that has been a near constant increase in global temperatures (just as there has been in the atmospheric concentration of CO2), which replicates what the literature suggests should be the case.

The paper introduced in another thread by PhillipS stated, in part:

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.

[winterymix]

...Several points:

1. The 30-year moving average of global temperatures show a continued warming in spite of year-to-year variability.

2. Were the PDO-AMO the principal drivers, the 30-year moving average global temperature anomaly should already have turned downward. It hasn't.

3. Use of the 30-year moving averages reveals that has been a near constant increase in global temperatures (just as there has been in the atmospheric concentration of CO2), which replicates what the literature suggests should be the case.

The paper introduced in another thread by PhillipS stated, in part:

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....

Don: Your offerings of important climate change insights are captivating, to say the least.

At this point in the discussion, I'm interested to know if the data supports the hypothesis that climate change induced by increase of atmospheric CO2 levels will

also induce a trend of warmer nightime low temperatures especially at temperature recording stations located at higher latitudes. Annecdotally, Canadian data indicates

that they have warmer nights and also warmer seasons for the better portion of a decade.

If I knew how to track USA data, I would take a look at such; simply put, do you think there is value in tracking the recordation of new daily "warm minimums" and also, attempting to track such trends by latitude? What about tracking new record warm monthly minimums?

[hooralph]

Great stuff, Don. Powerful data.

[donsutherland1]

Don: Your offerings of important climate change insights are captivating, to say the least.

At this point in the discussion, I'm interested to know if the data supports the hypothesis that climate change induced by increase of atmospheric CO2 levels will

also induce a trend of warmer nightime low temperatures especially at temperature recording stations located at higher latitudes. Annecdotally, Canadian data indicates

that they have warmer nights and also warmer seasons for the better portion of a decade.

If I knew how to track USA data, I would take a look at such; simply put, do you think there is value in tracking the recordation of new daily "warm minimums" and also, attempting to track such trends by latitude? What about tracking new record warm monthly minimums?

Thanks Winterymix.

The evidence I've seen suggests that minimum temperatures are warming, especially at the high latitudes. One example, is Minneapolis-St. Paul. The following are the average minimum temperatures:

1980-89: 36.3°

1990-99: 36.5°

2000-10: 38.4°

Urbanization has had some influence, but it likely does not largely explain the dramatic leap in minimum temperatures that has occurred in the 2000s and has continued (the 2001-10 average minimum temperature had increased further to 38.7°).

The average population of the 1990s in the Minneapolis-St. Paul Metro area was 17.8% above that of the 1980s (yet only a small increase in minimum temperatures occurred). In the 2000s, it was an additional 14.1% above the average population of the 1990s (yet a dramatic increase in minimum temperatures occurred).

As far as I know, the daily records (record maximums and minimums) are not separated by latitude. Trying to do so would probably be quite time-consuming. However, the data show that the number of record high minimum temperatures (daily and monthly) has been increasing.

[donsutherland1]

Thanks Hooralph. Also, thanks Wxtrix for posting the SOTC link.

[hckyplayer8]

I think the lower temperatures in the SE during June were more a product of the persistant cloud cover and rain associated with TS Debby than an general cooling in the area.

That's like saying the higher temperatures across the Rockies and Plains were a product of clear skies and lack of precip associated with anomalous and persistent ridging.

[WxUSAF]

Last week I attended the Comparative Climatology of Terrestrial Planets conference in Boulder, CO. Among the more distinguished attendees were James Hansen and Raymond Pierrehumbert.

Dr. Hansen presented one of the most powerful (and I think easily understandable) figures that directly relates to this thread. Bluewave posted something similar above. Basically, since 1980, the decadally-averaged temperature anomaly bell curve has consistently shifted to the warmer side of the chart. While the 40s-70s bell curves all fell over 0° anomalies, the 80s curve was slightly shifted right, 90s curve farther right, and 00s curve was centered over 1 sigma (standard deviation). 3-sigma warm anomalies, which formerly occurred 0.1% of the time, are now occuring 10% of the time. 4 and 5-sigma cold anomalies are essentially non-existent now.

A couple other general conclusions from the conference:

1. Earth will not turn into Venus with a runaway greenhouse, but if we burn all fossil fuels, it will still be completely inhospitable to humans and most higher forms of life. Burning all FFs and CH4 hydrates would give most of the planet (even over the oceans) average annual temperatures above 40C.

2. Clouds are, by far, the biggest unknown in climate predictions. Most of the spread in climate models comes from their treatment of clouds. Most evidence suggests that clouds will not "save us", but there is a great deal of uncertainty in their impact. Their inherently small-scale, variable nature makes them very challenging to model. Details as small as droplet size and time-of-day create big impacts on their albedo effect.

[ben4vols]

Ongoing warming is increasing the probability of extreme heat. In other words the same pattern today produces warmer readings than the same pattern of 30 years ago. To illustrate what I mean, let's use the probability of a 100° day in Washington, DC as an example.

Since the 1961-1990 base period, the statistical probability of a 100° day in Washington, DC has increased 37.8% (1981-2010 base period). That increase is continuing. If one takes the most recent 30-year period (1983-2012), the statiscal probability of a 100° day in June has increased further. It is now 52.2% above the statistical probability for the 1961-1990 base period.

This is surprising to you? Have you looked at a temperature graph dating further back (say 1900)? How does this period of warming compare to the last period of warming? If you want to do a true comparison then actually compare warming periods. Don't compare a warming period with a cooling period. Of course you will get a greater probability of a 100 degree day.

The increasing probability of warmth is not confined to local areas. It is global, with the greatest increase in probability occurring in the Arctic region where Arctic temperatures are decoupling from the earlier tight relationship with the AMO.

Use raw Arctic numbers (not manipulated) and see what you get. Also, like the above, use comparable warm periods.

[ben4vols]

Last week I attended the Comparative Climatology of Terrestrial Planets conference in Boulder, CO. Among the more distinguished attendees were James Hansen and Raymond Pierrehumbert.

Dr. Hansen presented one of the most powerful (and I think easily understandable) figures that directly relates to this thread. Bluewave posted something similar above. Basically, since 1980, the decadally-averaged temperature anomaly bell curve has consistently shifted to the warmer side of the chart. While the 40s-70s bell curves all fell over 0° anomalies, the 80s curve was slightly shifted right, 90s curve farther right, and 00s curve was centered over 1 sigma (standard deviation). 3-sigma warm anomalies, which formerly occurred 0.1% of the time, are now occuring 10% of the time. 4 and 5-sigma cold anomalies are essentially non-existent now.

I wonder what the bell curve would have looked like from 1910-1940? Of course Magic Man Hansen would have used his manipulated data, so it would look nice and pretty. Is anyone surprised the 1940-1970 bell curve fell over 0 degree anomalies? is anyone surprised the bell curve has moved from 1970 to 2000?

[bluewave]

Last week I attended the Comparative Climatology of Terrestrial Planets conference in Boulder, CO. Among the more distinguished attendees were James Hansen and Raymond Pierrehumbert.

Dr. Hansen presented one of the most powerful (and I think easily understandable) figures that directly relates to this thread. Bluewave posted something similar above. Basically, since 1980, the decadally-averaged temperature anomaly bell curve has consistently shifted to the warmer side of the chart. While the 40s-70s bell curves all fell over 0° anomalies, the 80s curve was slightly shifted right, 90s curve farther right, and 00s curve was centered over 1 sigma (standard deviation). 3-sigma warm anomalies, which formerly occurred 0.1% of the time, are now occuring 10% of the time. 4 and 5-sigma cold anomalies are essentially non-existent now.

A couple other general conclusions from the conference:

1. Earth will not turn into Venus with a runaway greenhouse, but if we burn all fossil fuels, it will still be completely inhospitable to humans and most higher forms of life. Burning all FFs and CH4 hydrates would give most of the planet (even over the oceans) average annual temperatures above 40C.

2. Clouds are, by far, the biggest unknown in climate predictions. Most of the spread in climate models comes from their treatment of clouds. Most evidence suggests that clouds will not "save us", but there is a great deal of uncertainty in their impact. Their inherently small-scale, variable nature makes them very challenging to model. Details as small as droplet size and time-of-day create big impacts on their albedo effect.

Thanks for providing us with a summary of the conference.

I found a link to the paper that discusses what you mentioned.

http://www.columbia....ClimateDice.pdf

[donsutherland1]

This is surprising to you? Have you looked at a temperature graph dating further back (say 1900)? How does this period of warming compare to the last period of warming? If you want to do a true comparison then actually compare warming periods. Don't compare a warming period with a cooling period. Of course you will get a greater probability of a 100 degree day.

Use raw Arctic numbers (not manipulated) and see what you get. Also, like the above, use comparable warm periods.

The current warmth in the Arctic blows away the warm episode of earlier in the 20th century. The peak of that earlier warmth was +1.44°C above normal in 1938. 2011 had an anomaly of +2.31°C. Furthermore, 5-year moving average has been above the 1938 annual peak since 2006 and the 10-year moving average exceeded the 1938 annual peak beginning in 2010.

Finally, given the BEST Project's examination of datasets, including GISS, there's no reasonable basis to throw out the data. It can be relied upon.

[LocoAko]

Another common argument to explain the warming is that the PDO-AMO combination is responsible. Given the long-term nature of climate, I used 30-year periods to define climatic temperatures, just as NOAA does when defining its baselines.

The charts are as follows:

1. Predicted vs. actual global temperature anomalies based on the PDO and AMO (30 year moving averages)

2. Precited vs. actual global temperature anomalies based on CO2 (30 year moving averages)

Several points:

1. The 30-year moving average of global temperatures show a continued warming in spite of year-to-year variability.

2. Were the PDO-AMO the principal drivers, the 30-year moving average global temperature anomaly should already have turned downward. It hasn't.

3. Use of the 30-year moving averages reveals that has been a near constant increase in global temperatures (just as there has been in the atmospheric concentration of CO2), which replicates what the literature suggests should be the case.

The paper introduced in another thread by PhillipS stated, in part:

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.

Wow, great post Don. Much appreciated.

[Jonger]

Thanks Winterymix.

The evidence I've seen suggests that minimum temperatures are warming, especially at the high latitudes. One example, is Minneapolis-St. Paul. The following are the average minimum temperatures:

1980-89: 36.3°

1990-99: 36.5°

2000-10: 38.4°

Urbanization has had some influence, but it likely does not largely explain the dramatic leap in minimum temperatures that has occurred in the 2000s and has continued (the 2001-10 average minimum temperature had increased further to 38.7°).

The average population of the 1990s in the Minneapolis-St. Paul Metro area was 17.8% above that of the 1980s (yet only a small increase in minimum temperatures occurred). In the 2000s, it was an additional 14.1% above the average population of the 1990s (yet a dramatic increase in minimum temperatures occurred).

As far as I know, the daily records (record maximums and minimums) are not separated by latitude. Trying to do so would probably be quite time-consuming. However, the data show that the number of record high minimum temperatures (daily and monthly) has been increasing.

In that time span I would have actually expected a bigger increase in minimums, bias aside, this coincides with UHI perfectly. Michigan's 100 year temp incease is around 0.4F.

Sent from my ADR6425LVW 2

[donsutherland1]

In that time span I would have actually expected a bigger increase in minimums, bias aside, this coincides with UHI perfectly. Michigan's 100 year temp incease is around 0.4F.

Sent from my ADR6425LVW 2

An almost 2°F jump in the average minimum temperature in a decade is not small (1990-99: 36.5° vs. 2000-10: 38.4° at MSP).

[ben4vols]

Finally, given the BEST Project's examination of datasets, including GISS, there's no reasonable basis to throw out the data. It can be relied upon.

Tampered data cannot be relied upon. Let's see a graph with the old data and see what is looks like vs the tampered data.

Is it any wonder why the Arctic is "warmer"?

[A-L-E-K]

DonS just got slapped in the face with a Steven Goddard link...why is BB still here?

[A-L-E-K]

Goddard...the man too dishonest for whatsupwiththat.com

[ben4vols]

DonS just got slapped in the face with a Steven Goddard link...why is BB still here?

More drive by trolling. I love to see the alarmists get their undies in a wad when Goddard, Watts, Spencer, Tisdale, etc are ever mentioned or their site linked. Even if it is a simple GISS graph from Goddard's site, it was too much for Alec. Gotta love it.

[donsutherland1]

Tampered data cannot be relied upon.

The blogger from whom you provided the graphic didn't understand the revision process and methodology involved. A paper explaining the process can be found at: http://pubs.giss.nas...Hansen_etal.pdf

As noted previously, the BEST Project reviewed the datasets. GISS was found to be representative.

P.S. For those interested in updates to GISS, the updates page can be found at: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates_v3/