Record Year-to-Date Temperatures in the US

[PhillipS]

The abstract said that such a natural mechanism would raise tropospheric ozone 4-8% higher than what it was during the pre-industrial times. They also note that the radiative forcing for such a mechanism is VERY uncertain. Uncertainty has been grossly underestimated in the field of climate science, with one side claiming that only small brightness fluctuations in the sun, volcanic aerosols and El Nino Southern Oscillation are the only natural constituents impacting the climate.

That assertion is simply ridiculous.

The bolded is another strawman argument - nobody I"m aware of is claiming that those are the ONLY sources of natural variability. So, as you said yourself, that assertion is ridiculous.

As for your hypothetical volcano enhanced tropospheric ozone mechanism - produce a robust 30 year record of its effect on global temperatures. And keep in mind that volcanic activity has been relatively low for years, and that ozone has a short residency in the troposphere. Ozone residency is measured in months, CO2 residency is measured in millenia - big difference.

[Snow_Miser]

The bolded is another strawman argument - nobody I"m aware of is claiming that those are the ONLY sources of natural variability. So, as you said yourself, that assertion is ridiculous.

As for your hypothetical volcano enhanced tropospheric ozone mechanism - produce a robust 30 year record of its effect on global temperatures. And keep in mind that volcanic activity has been relatively low for years, and that ozone has a short residency in the troposphere. Ozone residency is measured in months, CO2 residency is measured in millenia - big difference.

Oh really?

Then why were only those natural variables removed from the temperature record, and the rest considered to be the remaining anthropogenic trend in Foster and Rahmstorf 2011?

The ozone mechanism was just an example that there are probably natural factors within Foster and Rahmstorf's Anthropogenic trend.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2011JD017390.shtml

TSI is one of the sun's weakest impacts on Climate Change, and the authors have not removed the solar impacts on Cloud Cover, atmospheric circulation chages, the electrical field, and oceanic oscillations.

[ORH_wxman]

There are other natural variables to temperature, but the Foster paper considers them to be insignificant enough to claim that their remaining temperature trend from other factors (that are not ENSO, volcanic or TSI) are "most likely these are exclusively anthropogenic"

[Snow_Miser]

There are other natural variables to temperature, but the Foster paper considers them to be insignificant enough to claim that their remaining temperature trend from other factors (that are not ENSO, volcanic or TSI) are "most likely these are exclusively anthropogenic"

Yes, exactly my point.

[PhillipS]

Oh really?

Then why were only those natural variables removed from the temperature record, and the rest considered to be the remaining anthropogenic trend in Foster and Rahmstorf 2011?

The ozone mechanism was just an example that there are probably natural factors within Foster and Rahmstorf's Anthropogenic trend.

http://www.agu.org/p...1JD017390.shtml

TSI is one of the sun's weakest impacts on Climate Change, and the authors have not removed the solar impacts on Cloud Cover, atmospheric circulation chages, the electrical field, and oceanic oscillations.

You are back to your rhetorical handwaving - you haven't produced a record, at least 30 years long, of the effects on global temperature of ANY of those hypothetical mechanisms. And until you do they aren't relevant to the Foster & Rahmstorf analysis. They can't extract a signal that hasn't been measured. Nobody can. So by repeatedly bringing this up you're demonstrating your ignorance, not any flaw in their methodology.

[Snow_Miser]

You are back to your rhetorical handwaving - you haven't produced a record, at least 30 years long, of the effects on global temperature of ANY of those hypothetical mechanisms. And until you do they aren't relevant to the Foster & Rahmstorf analysis. They can't extract a signal that hasn't been measured. Nobody can. So by repeatedly bringing this up you're demonstrating your ignorance, not any flaw in their methodology.

The mechanisms I pointed out are not hypothetical by any means, they are quite significant, and have been observationally measured. They have also not been removed from the Rahmstorf analysis.

The impact from multidecadal oceanic oscillations has not been removed from the temperature trend as well.

[PhillipS]

The mechanisms I pointed out are not hypothetical by any means, they are quite significant, and have been observationally measured. They have also not been removed from the Rahmstorf analysis.

The impact from multidecadal oceanic oscillations has not been removed from the temperature trend as well.

Produce at least a 30 year record or take your OT trolling elsewhere.

[Snow_Miser]

Produce at least a 30 year record or take your OT trolling elsewhere.

So I am trolling when I am saying that there are substantial natural signals that could still be within the anthropogenic trend derived by Foster and Rahmstorf?

Here are a few papers published recently:

http://iopscience.io..._7_4_044004.pdf

http://www.friendsof.../Rao-GCR_GW.pdf

http://www.ann-geoph...22-725-2004.pdf

http://strat-www.met...-et-al-2006.pdf

http://soap.siteturb...etal_2005AG.pdf

http://arxiv.org/PS_...1103.4255v1.pdf

[tacoman25]

The updated HadCRUT has 2010 and 2005 in a virtual tie with 1998.

http://www.metoffice...hadcrut-updates

1998 is still warmest. True, there is only .02C difference between 1998 and 2010, but then there is only .12C difference between their warmest year and the 10th warmest year (2001). HadCRU doesn't vary as much as some other global temp sources from year to year.

EDIT: Nevermind, I see the updated version has the top three all within .01C, with 2010 first. .06C increase for 2005, with only .10C difference between the #1 year and #10 year. Every year warmed, except 1998. Strange.

[ORH_wxman]

1998 is still warmest. True, there is only .02C difference between 1998 and 2010, but then there is only .12C difference between their warmest year and the 10th warmest year (2001). HadCRU doesn't vary as much as some other global temp sources from year to year.

EDIT: Nevermind, I see the updated version has the top three all within .01C, with 2010 first. .06C increase for 2005, with only .10C difference between the #1 year and #10 year. Every year warmed, except 1998. Strange.

Yeah thats CRUtemp4....its not operational though from what I have seen. They don't issue monthyl updates unless its somewhere hidden from easy access...it only goes to the end of 2010.

[ORH_wxman]

There's an interesting new paper that puts the Foster and Rahmstorf study to question. While they found that the long term trend upward of 0.08 Degrees C per decade was mostly anthropogenic over the 20th Century, they found that the late-20th Century Warming was mostly natural, with Greenhouse Gases and other factors they did not remove contributing only 40%.

http://journals.amet...JAS-D-12-0208.1

This is pretty off topic for this thread which already strayed a bit too much OT...you should probably post this either in the global temperature thread or just make a new thread for it.

[Snow_Miser]

This is pretty off topic for this thread which already strayed a bit too much OT...you should probably post this either in the global temperature thread or just make a new thread for it.

Fair enough, since the Foster and Rahmstorf paper got brought up in this thread, I thought a similar paper would have been appropriate.

Apologies.

[ORH_wxman]

Fair enough, since the Foster and Rahmstorf paper got brought up in this thread, I thought a similar paper would have been appropriate.

Apologies.

Its fine...the Foster/Rahmstorf paper was really not that related to this thread and probably shouldn't have been debated for as long as it was...I'm as guilty as anyone. Also, since the paper you are showing is new...probably better for another thread. The Foster paper was already known before this thread.

[dabize]

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/10/19

An interesting video for all those who say that current temps are not significantly warmer than they were in the '30s - this reminds us how un-reassuring that thought is...........

[SVT450R]

http://www.commondre...line/2012/10/19

An interesting video for all those who say that current temps are not significantly warmer than they were in the '30s - this reminds us how un-reassuring that thought is...........

Wow this is a new phenomenon never seen before.

[LocoAko]

Wow this is a new phenomenon never seen before.

While I'm still new to the area, the impression I got is that it was one of the most severe dust storms experienced since the 1930s, where things like this would have been common. With such improved agricultural practices of that era, it is noteworthy that a dust storm like this occurred.

[dabize]

While I'm still new to the area, the impression I got is that it was one of the most severe dust storms experienced since the 1930s, where things like this would have been common. With such improved agricultural practices of that era, it is noteworthy that a dust storm like this occurred.

Bingo

My first thought was admittedly a bit political: "Did they give up contouring when they started voting GOP?"

[SVT450R]

While I'm still new to the area, the impression I got is that it was one of the most severe dust storms experienced since the 1930s, where things like this would have been common. With such improved agricultural practices of that era, it is noteworthy that a dust storm like this occurred.

Congrats on the move i looked at it more like hyperbole talk to say a dust storm which isn't that rare to happen in the US proves that it was warmer then the 30's.

[tacoman25]

While I'm still new to the area, the impression I got is that it was one of the most severe dust storms experienced since the 1930s, where things like this would have been common. With such improved agricultural practices of that era, it is noteworthy that a dust storm like this occurred.

But it's still been one of the worst droughts in many areas since the Dust Bowl era. And yes, because agricultural practices have improved, there have been far fewer dust storms. One big dust storm during a severe drought proves nothing. Other than the fact that dust storms are more likely to occur on the plains during droughts.

[LocoAko]

Congrats on the move i looked at it more like hyperbole talk to say a dust storm which isn't that rare to happen in the US proves that it was warmer then the 30's.

Thanks! I reread the article and just didn't see anyone saying this individual dust storm proved it was warmer than the 30s. All they said is that the Plains are having some of the warmest temperatures ever recorded (true) and are in a severe drought (true), which has been correlated with global warming expectations (true) and has lead to dust storms reminiscent of the Dust Bowl era (true). Where's the controversial statement in that?

But it's still been one of the worst droughts in many areas since the Dust Bowl era. And yes, because agricultural practices have improved, there have been far fewer dust storms. One big dust storm during a severe drought proves nothing. Other than the fact that dust storms are more likely to occur on the plains during droughts.

Yes, but as I said, the article made no such inference. They did say that drought and extreme temperatures are expected to worsen with climate change, which as far as I've heard is still the case. And with progressively worse and worse drought, dust storms like this (which seem to be due to drought more than agricultural failings, though the 30s were certainly a combination) are expected to become more frequent.

[tacoman25]

Yes, but as I said, the article made no such inference. They did say that drought and extreme temperatures are expected to worsen with climate change, which as far as I've heard is still the case. And with progressively worse and worse drought, dust storms like this (which seem to be due to drought more than agricultural failings, though the 30s were certainly a combination) are expected to become more frequent.

The original post on it by dabize made it sound like one event reminiscent of the Dust Bowl era proves something about climate change. It doesn't prove anything, except that drought leads to dust storms on the plains. Now if there were an established correlation between rising global temps and rising number of severe droughts/dust storms on the plains, that would be something else.

[LocoAko]

The original post on it by dabize made it sound like one event reminiscent of the Dust Bowl era proves something about climate change. It doesn't prove anything, except that drought leads to dust storms on the plains. Now if there were an established correlation between rising global temps and rising number of severe droughts/dust storms on the plains, that would be something else.

I think this is a pretty fair look at the subject: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/07/24/what-we-know-about-climate-change-and-drought/

And, of course, the latest from James Hansen on the subject...

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/07/30/1205276109

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/08/04/climate-change-real-scientist.html

[SVT450R]

Thanks! I reread the article and just didn't see anyone saying this individual dust storm proved it was warmer than the 30s. All they said is that the Plains are having some of the warmest temperatures ever recorded (true) and are in a severe drought (true), which has been correlated with global warming expectations (true) and has lead to dust storms reminiscent of the Dust Bowl era (true). Where's the controversial statement in that?

I agree mostly with the points you have mentioned it was more about the op's choice of words then the actual article.

[LocoAko]

I agree mostly with the points you have mentioned it was more about the op's choice of words then the actual article.

Fair enough. I admittedly never saw the OP.

[PhillipS]

The NCDC has released the October State of the Climate report [source] and January through October is the warmest first 10 months on record for the lower 48 states.

From the Supplemental Material:

This time series shows the 2012 year-to-date temperature through October, which was the warmest first ten months of any year on record for the lower 48. The year-to-date evolution of the contiguous U.S. temperatures for each year back to 1895 are also shown, with the five warmest and five coolest years highlighted. The January-October 2012 contiguous U.S. average temperature was 58.4°F, 3.4°F above average.

As can be seen on their interactive Temperature anomaly page [source], 2012 so far has been the hottest year on record for a large number of US citeis, and in the top 5 for many more. Not one US city has had a record cool year, though Bethel AK came close.

Now, before the pseudo-skeptics respond with vitriol - yes,I know these record highs are regional, not global and, yes, I know that a 10 month period reflects weather, not climate. But the data are completely consistent with increasing AGW - and certainly debunk any claim that cooling has occurred or that warming has flat-lined.

As for the values being regional - so what? Any US policy on climate change needs to address the reality of our regional warming, precipitation trends, and sea-level trends, which are at least as important for us as global trends. We have important decisions to make and implement on energy, water, and infrastructure and the only prayer we have for making good decisions is understand regional changes in the context of global climate changes.

[SVT450R]

The January threw July period is the main reason why this year is so anomalously high to date since august the US hasn't been nearly as torched as the preceding months. It's obvious this year is an outlier compared to other years so i don't see how it proves much of anything it's only a single year.

[PhillipS]

The January threw July period is the main reason why this year is so anomalously high to date since august the US hasn't been nearly as torched as the preceding months. It's obvious this year is an outlier compared to other years so i don't see how it proves much of anything it's only a single year.

Why do you feel that 2012 is "obviously" an outlier compared to other years? Here's the current UAH global temp plot:

It is easy to see why 1998 is generally considered an outlier - global temperatures that year were unprecedented. But other than AGW causing record high temps for the US, what distinguishes 2012 from other years?

[The_Global_Warmer]

Why do you feel that 2012 is "obviously" an outlier compared to other years? Here's the current UAH global temp plot:

It is easy to see why 1998 is generally considered an outlier - global temperatures that year were unprecedented. But other than AGW causing record high temps for the US, what distinguishes 2012 from other years?

I think he is just refering to 2012 in the CONUS as an outlier. But then again it's a record warm outlier. And will end up with 4 of the top 6 warmest years since 1998 in the CONUS.

And even if that were not true it doesn't matter that it's an outlier it is still as it stands a record that blows out the rest of the competition. And when you see the top 5 years they were prettty good outliers vs other years. So the trend of outliers is towards warmer and more record warmth. And never before seen record warmth in the modern record.

The last top 5 cold year was 88 years ago and the rest 100 years ago or more.

It is pretty likely we will see another top 5 warm year by 2020 and next to impossible we will ever see a top 5 cold year again or top 10 or maybe more, not sure how far that goes before a record post 1998 is in the top cold list.

[SVT450R]

Why do you feel that 2012 is "obviously" an outlier compared to other years? Here's the current UAH global temp plot:

It is easy to see why 1998 is generally considered an outlier - global temperatures that year were unprecedented. But other than AGW causing record high temps for the US, what distinguishes 2012 from other years?

I thought we are talking US temps not global.

[TerryM]

The NCDC has released the October State of the Climate report [source] and January through October is the warmest first 10 months on record for the lower 48 states.

From the Supplemental Material:

This time series shows the 2012 year-to-date temperature through October, which was the warmest first ten months of any year on record for the lower 48. The year-to-date evolution of the contiguous U.S. temperatures for each year back to 1895 are also shown, with the five warmest and five coolest years highlighted. The January-October 2012 contiguous U.S. average temperature was 58.4°F, 3.4°F above average.

As can be seen on their interactive Temperature anomaly page [source], 2012 so far has been the hottest year on record for a large number of US citeis, and in the top 5 for many more. Not one US city has had a record cool year, though Bethel AK came close.

Now, before the pseudo-skeptics respond with vitriol - yes,I know these record highs are regional, not global and, yes, I know that a 10 month period reflects weather, not climate. But the data are completely consistent with increasing AGW - and certainly debunk any claim that cooling has occurred or that warming has flat-lined.

As for the values being regional - so what? Any US policy on climate change needs to address the reality of our regional warming, precipitation trends, and sea-level trends, which are at least as important for us as global trends. We have important decisions to make and implement on energy, water, and infrastructure and the only prayer we have for making good decisions is understand regional changes in the context of global climate changes.

Primarily a bump for the chart.

The US ceased as a manufacturing hub some time ago. What the US has produced in quantity has been agricultural exports, but can farmers be expected to keep up with changes being brought about by AGW.

Drought, flash flooding, late spring freezes, heat waves - they're inconvenient to those of us in urban environments, but disastrous to those raising crops or livestock. I attended a lecture on corn production last month and found that even with genetically modified crops the bushels/acre returns in most areas are dropping to levels not seen since the dust bowl era. The bio-fuel producers are importing corn for the first time.

Without Manufacturing or Agricultural produce just what is the US economy supposed to be based on?

Terry