2013 Global Temperatures

[LithiaWx]

Pretty telling. Is AGW disproved? Of course not. Are we warming as fast as previous projections given CO2 emissions? Clearly, no. Does this make future projections more questionable? It has to. In fact, warming projections by the "experts" have been steadily downgraded over the past decade or so. Catastrophic predictions of climate change should be taken with a grain of salt, given the track record so far.

 

 

6a010536b58035970c0192ac58b389970d.png

  

I am sure there is a counterargument, but if not, that chart is extremely telling.  And gets to the heart of the debate - all agree we are warming, but the how dire the situation is another issue entirely.

First off hadcrut3 doesn't measure the arctic. Secondly I can't take a graph serious with the language major fail written on it.

[LithiaWx]

We are still pretty warm on the CFS.

[Jonger]

We are still pretty warm on the CFS.

It actually decreased, not much... but some.

[PhillipS]

Pretty telling. Is AGW disproved? Of course not. Are we warming as fast as previous projections given CO2 emissions? Clearly, no. Does this make future projections more questionable? It has to. In fact, warming projections by the "experts" have been steadily downgraded over the past decade or so. Catastrophic predictions of climate change should be taken with a grain of salt, given the track record so far.

 

 

6a010536b58035970c0192ac58b389970d.png

 

Thank you for posting that chart - it is a classic example of dishonest chartsmanship and I feel it would be a good lesson in honest skepticism to go over some of its more egregious lies.  So, in no particular order:

 

• Using the obsolete HADCRUT3 anomaly record instead of the HADCRUT4 record - The HADCRUT3 temperature record did not include the polar regions so it was biased cooler than the actual observed global anomaly record.  This is one of the reasons it was replaced by the HADCRUT4 record.  Using the outdated HADCRUT3 record was simply deceptive.
• Apples to Oranges comparisons - Notice the FAR, SAR, and TAR trend lines from 1990 to 2005?  Those are not model predictions of annual global anomalies, those are decadal temperature trend lines and are completely unrelated to the subject of the chart.  A simple reality check is that the initial IPCC model projections weren't made until 2000, so there couldn't be model predictions from the 90s.  The extraneous trend lines could only have been put on this chart to confuse and deceive.
• Using multiple baselines - Notice how the model predictions start in 2000 but are already about 0.2 C off the observed anomalies?  Since the model predictions start from the observed record and extend into the future, there has to be an initial match.  That 0.2 C puzzled me at first until I realized that whomever built this chart failed to normalize the baselines of the model predictions with the HADCRUT3 record.  Failing to normalize multiple baselines is more than an 'Oops!', it's a blatant lie to deceive the reader.  Visually shift the B1, A1B and A2 lines down 0.2 C and see how much better the models fit the observed.
• Omitting confidence levels - Models don't output a single predictive line, they provide a range of possible future values, typically given as the 95% confidence interval. At the start of the modeled period the confidence interval is pretty tight and it broadens over time due to natural variability and other uncertainties.  So long as the observed values are within the 95% confidence interval the model is said to be performing well.  Showing only a line (which I assume is the median value for the confidence interval) was done to make if look as though the models aren't performing well.

So how would this chart look if the lies and deceptions were cleaned up?  Well, here is a chart from earlier this year on this same topic:

 

 

 

First, a graph showing the annual mean anomalies from the CMIP3 models plotted against the surface temperature records from the HadCRUT4, NCDC and GISTEMP products (it really doesn’t matter which). Everything has been baselined to 1980-1999 (as in the 2007 IPCC report) and the envelope in grey encloses 95% of the model runs.  [source]

 

Honest skepticism means checking and examining what others present to you.  Whatever your opinions, it's foolish and lazy to just blindly accept what you're told, PARTICULARLY when it matches your own biases.  Think about it , try to understand it, and look for mistakes.  Being an honest skeptic means being a 'Doubting Thomas'.

[Harry]

Antarctica is killing us this month.... I would have never believed the arctic would be below normal and Antarctica would be above normal for our summer period. Big shocker.

 

My hunch is this has a bit to do with that.. As far as Antartica goes.

[tacoman25]

  

First off hadcrut3 doesn't measure the arctic. Secondly I can't take a graph serious with the language major fail written on it.

 

1. Hadcrut3 doesn't measure as much of the Arctic as some other sources, true. But those projections were made for Hadcrut3, limited Arctic coverage withstanding.

 

2. That language was just added to the graph by someone else. Doesn't change the source data one bit.

[tacoman25]

Thank you for posting that chart - it is a classic example of dishonest chartsmanship and I feel it would be a good lesson in honest skepticism to go over some of its more egregious lies.  So, in no particular order:

 

• Using the obsolete HADCRUT3 anomaly record instead of the HADCRUT4 record - The HADCRUT3 temperature record did not include the polar regions so it was biased cooler than the actual observed global anomaly record.  This is one of the reasons it was replaced by the HADCRUT4 record.  Using the outdated HADCRUT3 record was simply deceptive.
• Apples to Oranges comparisons - Notice the FAR, SAR, and TAR trend lines from 1990 to 2005?  Those are not model predictions of annual global anomalies, those are decadal temperature trend lines and are completely unrelated to the subject of the chart.  A simple reality check is that the initial IPCC model projections weren't made until 2000, so there couldn't be model predictions from the 90s.  The extraneous trend lines could only have been put on this chart to confuse and deceive.
• Using multiple baselines - Notice how the model predictions start in 2000 but are already about 0.2 C off the observed anomalies?  Since the model predictions start from the observed record and extend into the future, there has to be an initial match.  That 0.2 C puzzled me at first until I realized that whomever built this chart failed to normalize the baselines of the model predictions with the HADCRUT3 record.  Failing to normalize multiple baselines is more than an 'Oops!', it's a blatant lie to deceive the reader.  Visually shift the B1, A1B and A2 lines down 0.2 C and see how much better the models fit the observed.
• Omitting confidence levels - Models don't output a single predictive line, they provide a range of possible future values, typically given as the 95% confidence interval. At the start of the modeled period the confidence interval is pretty tight and it broadens over time due to natural variability and other uncertainties.  So long as the observed values are within the 95% confidence interval the model is said to be performing well.  Showing only a line (which I assume is the median value for the confidence interval) was done to make if look as though the models aren't performing well.

So how would this chart look if the lies and deceptions were cleaned up?  Well, here is a chart from earlier this year on this same topic:

 

 

 

First, a graph showing the annual mean anomalies from the CMIP3 models plotted against the surface temperature records from the HadCRUT4, NCDC and GISTEMP products (it really doesn’t matter which). Everything has been baselined to 1980-1999 (as in the 2007 IPCC report) and the envelope in grey encloses 95% of the model runs.  [source]

 

Honest skepticism means checking and examining what others present to you.  Whatever your opinions, it's foolish and lazy to just blindly accept what you're told, PARTICULARLY when it matches your own biases.  Think about it , try to understand it, and look for mistakes.  Being an honest skeptic means being a 'Doubting Thomas'.

 

You make some valid points I'll have to look into. However, your chart appears different than other ones I have seen that take into account previous projections. Even with that one, we are definitely falling below majority of projections, and a .7C spread seems awfully big. We are further below the baseline projection than at any previous point on that chart.

 

Also, keep in mind the record pre-2000 was Hadcrut3, so even if you want to call it biased cold, it still had a warming trendline going into the 2000s.

[tacoman25]

Are all of these flawed as well? The general point remains...we have fallen below projections to date.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Jonger]

You make some valid points I'll have to look into. However, your chart appears different than other ones I have seen that take into account previous projections. Even with that one, we are definitely falling below majority of projections, and a .7C spread seems awfully big. We are further below the baseline projection than at any previous point on that chart.

 

Also, keep in mind the record pre-2000 was Hadcrut3, so even if you want to call it biased cold, it still had a warming trendline going into the 2000s.

 

This chart has probably been tweaked to align all data sets so perfect, I have never seen such a perfect overlay of the datasets.

[nflwxman]

Are all of these flawed as well? The general point remains...we have fallen below projections to date.

 

 

 

IPCC-Prediction.jpg

 

Figure4.png

 

6a010536b58035970c01538efc5da3970b-350wi.png

I think you are also making the mistake of assuming a 5 year "under-performance" of temperatures is an indication that predictive models are failing.  Within this time period 2008- persent, we have relatively low sunspot activity, a strongly negative PDO regime, and a la nina dominated equatorial paciific.  I think it's wise to let things "shake out" as they will over the next decade before declaring any model is performing poorly.  As Philip said, we are well within the confidence intervals if the data is correctly aligned.

[tacoman25]

I think you are also making the mistake of assuming a 5 year "under-performance" of temperatures is an indication that predictive models are failing.  Within this time period 2008- persent, we have relatively low sunspot activity, a strongly negative PDO regime, and a la nina dominated equatorial paciific.  I think it's wise to let things "shake out" as they will over the next decade before declaring any model is performing poorly.  As Philip said, we are well within the confidence intervals if the data is correctly aligned.

 

Based on the CO2 increase we've seen, it's been more than 5 years of under-performance. And sure, if you give yourself confidence intervals of .7C (from 13 years ago!), we are still within that 95% range...though I believe as Will has posted before, we are actually very close to falling out of the 95% confidence intervals of some previous projections.

[LakeEffectKing]

I think you are also making the mistake of assuming a 5 year "under-performance" of temperatures is an indication that predictive models are failing.  Within this time period 2008- persent, we have relatively low sunspot activity, a strongly negative PDO regime, and a la nina dominated equatorial paciific.  I think it's wise to let things "shake out" as they will over the next decade before declaring any model is performing poorly.  As Philip said, we are well within the confidence intervals if the data is correctly aligned.

It's a 12 year underperformance.  Solar was supposed to be "overwhelmed" by CO2...so the warming community is backtracking on that.  I have always said that the oceans are the key to the entire climate puzzle.  The active solar cycles during the last half of last century, undoubtedly, slowly heated our planet, and stored a large amount of that heat in the oceans.  We shall see what the warming community says in a few years when temps continue to flatline or slowly decline.

 

[Jesse]

It's a 12 year underperformance.  Solar was supposed to be "overwhelmed" by CO2...so the warming community is backtracking on that.  I have always said that the oceans are the key to the entire climate puzzle.  The active solar cycles during the last half of last century, undoubtedly, slowly heated our planet, and stored a large amount of that heat in the oceans.  We shall see what the warming community says in a few years when temps continue to flatline or slowly decline.

 

 

One thing for sure is that we will see a lot of wild, poorly written, desperate and rationalizing posts from friv.

[nflwxman]

It's a 12 year underperformance.  Solar was supposed to be "overwhelmed" by CO2...so the warming community is backtracking on that.  I have always said that the oceans are the key to the entire climate puzzle.  The active solar cycles during the last half of last century, undoubtedly, slowly heated our planet, and stored a large amount of that heat in the oceans.  We shall see what the warming community says in a few years when temps continue to flatline or slowly decline.

 

 

There are many papers out there that attempt to define ocean cycles in terms of the PDO and AO.  The vast majority of them consider the PDO a short term fluctuation in a long term trend. Actually, Don S. (in the PDO thread) had a really good simple model attempting to define the impact of global temperatures if a historic PDO decline were to unfold over the next 15 years based on general forcing.  I believe his model had values around 0.7 above the 1950-1980 global mean temperature in the years 2021-2030 (assuming an aggressive PDO decline).

 

Regardless- OHC is rising unabated according to ARGO floats.  That heat won't stay trapped in there forever.  The imbalance remains even if it's not shown in surface temperatures. As we all know the ocean is 90% of the puzzle.

[Jonger]

I think you are also making the mistake of assuming a 5 year "under-performance" of temperatures is an indication that predictive models are failing.  Within this time period 2008- persent, we have relatively low sunspot activity, a strongly negative PDO regime, and a la nina dominated equatorial paciific.  I think it's wise to let things "shake out" as they will over the next decade before declaring any model is performing poorly.  As Philip said, we are well within the confidence intervals if the data is correctly aligned.

It's a 12 year underperformance.  Solar was supposed to be "overwhelmed" by CO2...so the warming community is backtracking on that.  I have always said that the oceans are the key to the entire climate puzzle.  The active solar cycles during the last half of last century, undoubtedly, slowly heated our planet, and stored a large amount of that heat in the oceans.  We shall see what the warming community says in a few years when temps continue to flatline or slowly decline.

 

Lets say the oceans are where the heat is, do we really think it would be possible land observations to continue to be unaffected? At some point that will have to transfer to land, when will that happen is what I want to know.

[tacoman25]

Lets say the oceans are where the heat is, do we really think it would be possible land observations to continue to be unaffected? At some point that will have to transfer to land, when will that happen is what I want to know.

 

I would think during the next +PDO/+ENSO phase. But even if we see an accelerated version of the +PDO phase warming from the late 1970s to early 2000s, the path to future warming we are following appears to be slower than previously assumed when all we had was the warming from the 1970s to 2000s to look at.

[nflwxman]

Lets say the oceans are where the heat is, do we really think it would be possible land observations to continue to be unaffected? At some point that will have to transfer to land, when will that happen is what I want to know.

 

Sure.  I mean, it's technically "seeping" out at all times.  But it doesn't truly unload with maximum efficiency without a positive PDO and ENSO.  

 

If you look at the 1950's and 60's, one has to believe the strongly negative PDO phase had a large influence on the global surface temperature hiatus.  The 5 year average global temperature dropped nearly 0.2 degrees in and around 1950 with the PDO phase switch.  This did not stop future warming from occurring in earnest later in the 20th century.   Hence, why not cherry picking is important.

 

In present time, what should be VERY telling is the fact the temperature has NOT cooled in the 7-8 years despite the transition to a strongly negative PDO and quieter sun.  I mean, 2011 and 2012 were both considered "La Nina" years with a PDO in the basement and their respective temperatures did not even dip below 0.55 deg above the 1950-1980 global mean.

 

I believe that truly shows the AGW signal.  Assuming the PDO and ONI do not continue to plummet over the next 10 years (versus what they are now)- we should see the signal overwhelm the "natural variability" and set new temperature records by the end of the decade.

 

EDIT:  I'd also like to mention climate models have little predicting power for the PDO and ENSO. That's why cherry picking 5 or 10 years of model performance is a fruitless effort IMO.

 

 

 

[tacoman25]

Sure.  I mean, it's technically "seeping" out at all times.  But it doesn't truly unload with maximum efficiency without a positive PDO and ENSO.  

 

If you look at the 1950's and 60's, one has to believe the strongly negative PDO phase had a large influence on the global surface temperature hiatus.  The 5 year average global temperature dropped nearly 0.2 degrees in and around 1950 with the PDO phase switch.  This did not stop future warming from occurring in earnest later in the 20th century.   Hence, why not cherry picking is important.

 

In present time, what should be VERY telling is the fact the temperature has NOT cooled in the 7-8 years despite the transition to a strongly negative PDO and quieter sun.  I mean, 2011 and 2012 were both considered "La Nina" years with a PDO in the basement and their respective temperatures did not even dip below 0.55 deg above the 1950-1980 global mean.

 

I believe that truly shows the AGW signal.  Assuming the PDO and ONI do not continue to plummet over the next 10 years (versus what they are now)- we should see the signal overwhelm the "natural variability" and set new temperature records by the end of the decade.

 

EDIT:  I'd also like to mention climate models have little predicting power for the PDO and ENSO. That's why cherry picking 5 or 10 years of model performance is a fruitless effort IMO.

 

 

 

 

No one is "cherry-picking" anything. Before temps started flatlining, climate scientists were not expecting that to happen. We've since learned a lot more about natural cycles like the PDO and how they significantly influence decadal trends, but that doesn't excuse the fact that the warming the past decade or so has been slower than was expected 10, 15, or 20 years ago.

 

You do realize that most climate scientists over the past 10 years have toned down future predictions of warming?

[Jonger]

Sure. I mean, it's technically "seeping" out at all times. But it doesn't truly unload with maximum efficiency without a positive PDO and ENSO.

If you look at the 1950's and 60's, one has to believe the strongly negative PDO phase had a large influence on the global surface temperature hiatus. The 5 year average global temperature dropped nearly 0.2 degrees in and around 1950 with the PDO phase switch. This did not stop future warming from occurring in earnest later in the 20th century. Hence, why not cherry picking is important.

In present time, what should be VERY telling is the fact the temperature has NOT cooled in the 7-8 years despite the transition to a strongly negative PDO and quieter sun. I mean, 2011 and 2012 were both considered "La Nina" years with a PDO in the basement and their respective temperatures did not even dip below 0.55 deg above the 1950-1980 global mean.

I believe that truly shows the AGW signal. Assuming the PDO and ONI do not continue to plummet over the next 10 years (versus what they are now)- we should see the signal overwhelm the "natural variability" and set new temperature records by the end of the decade.

EDIT: I'd also like to mention climate models have little predicting power for the PDO and ENSO. That's why cherry picking 5 or 10 years of model performance is a fruitless effort IMO.

No one is "cherry-picking" anything. Before temps started flatlining, climate scientists were not expecting that to happen. We've since learned a lot more about natural cycles like the PDO and how they significantly influence decadal trends, but that doesn't excuse the fact that the warming the past decade or so has been slower than was expected 10, 15, or 20 years ago.

You do realize that most climate scientists over the past 10 years have toned down future predictions of warming?

What triggers flags of doubt, the more accurate our monitoring methods get, the more of a flat-line we start to see.

[LithiaWx]

Not quote as warm today on the CFS but the result should still be a very warm monthly reading if we don't start cooling off faster.

[nflwxman]

No one is "cherry-picking" anything. Before temps started flatlining, climate scientists were not expecting that to happen. We've since learned a lot more about natural cycles like the PDO and how they significantly influence decadal trends, but that doesn't excuse the fact that the warming the past decade or so has been slower than was expected 10, 15, or 20 years ago.

 

You do realize that most climate scientists over the past 10 years have toned down future predictions of warming?

Could you provide some evidence?  I've seen the metoffice tone down their future projection of near term decade warming, but I haven't seen too many climate scientists change their stance on climate sensitivity.

[tacoman25]

Could you provide some evidence?  I've seen the metoffice tone down their future projection of near term decade warming, but I haven't seen too many climate scientists change their stance on climate sensitivity.

 

Take a look at this article and some of the links within for a good start: http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/04/climate-sensitivity-estimates-trending-d.

[LithiaWx]

CFS is holding stead over the last few days

[The_Global_Warmer]

Global ssts show a bit of cooling over the far N. Pacific.  But warming in other places. 

 

 

 

This shows another push of sub-surface warmth. 

 

 

 

CFS is still around a .13C anomaly with 12.5 days left in the month.  That equates to a .68C(.63-.73) on GISS.  .68C would tie Aug 2013 with 2011 and 1998 as the warmest on GISS records.

 

 

 

 

Today spiked back up a bit towards .20C. 

 

[skierinvermont]

Wow,, lots of denier rubbish cluttering up this thread. 

 

Amazing how tacoman continues with this denier rubbish after being educated on the subject so many times.. his bias always reverts him right back to the denier nonsense.

 

Models, including those used in the 2007 IPPC report, have trends of +/- .3 over periods of 13 years precisely because they recognize a large unknown short-term natural component. 

 

You LOVE demanding and pretending that mainstream science give very exact predictions and then shouting outrage when observations don't match those precise predictions. In reality, mainstream science has never given exact predictions and has always given a very large range of uncertainty precisely because mainstream science recognizes a very large amount of unpredictable short-term variability. That's why the IPCC focused almost exclusively on the 100 year timeline with very little attention given to the short-term timeline. It was considered and still is considered unpredictable.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Global SSTS on the weeklies cooled slightly from last week but remains essentially at the .30C mark.  The 30-90N zone cooled.  The Tropics warmed.

 

[ORH_wxman]

Wow,, lots of denier rubbish cluttering up this thread. 

 

Amazing how tacoman continues with this denier rubbish after being educated on the subject so many times.. his bias always reverts him right back to the denier nonsense.

 

Models, including those used in the 2007 IPPC report, have trends of +/- .3 over periods of 13 years precisely because they recognize a large unknown short-term natural component. 

 

You LOVE demanding and pretending that mainstream science give very exact predictions and then shouting outrage when observations don't match those precise predictions. In reality, mainstream science has never given exact predictions and has always given a very large range of uncertainty precisely because mainstream science recognizes a very large amount of unpredictable short-term variability. That's why the IPCC focused almost exclusively on the 100 year timeline with very little attention given to the short-term timeline. It was considered and still is considered unpredictable.

 

 

You are glossing over how bad their short term predictions are though...even including the error bars which are barely keeping them within the 95% confidence interval. They are problematic and it hasn't gone unnoticed by the scientific community either. A lot of papers on sensitivity have been coming out using the most recent decade of average global temps in addition to the previous 50+ years and lowering their estimates.

 

So while its important to keep the recent slowdown of warming in perspective, its also important not to shrug it off as merely inconsequential because its "still within the error bars". Clearly the GCMS have some issues which doesn't exclude the possibility that they are too sensitive to CO2.

[nflwxman]

NCDC comes in at the 6th warmest July (0.61)

 

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/7

[tacoman25]

Wow,, lots of denier rubbish cluttering up this thread. 

 

Amazing how tacoman continues with this denier rubbish after being educated on the subject so many times.. his bias always reverts him right back to the denier nonsense.

 

Models, including those used in the 2007 IPPC report, have trends of +/- .3 over periods of 13 years precisely because they recognize a large unknown short-term natural component. 

 

You LOVE demanding and pretending that mainstream science give very exact predictions and then shouting outrage when observations don't match those precise predictions. In reality, mainstream science has never given exact predictions and has always given a very large range of uncertainty precisely because mainstream science recognizes a very large amount of unpredictable short-term variability. That's why the IPCC focused almost exclusively on the 100 year timeline with very little attention given to the short-term timeline. It was considered and still is considered unpredictable.

 

Amazing how some people continue to falsely label others "denier" despite being educated many times on what a denier actually is.

 

You failed to actually refute anything I actually said as well. Nothing I said had to do with the 2007 IPCC report. And I certainly have never demanded exact predictions from science - quite the opposite, actually.

 

Take your accusatory, false drivel elsewhere.

[tacoman25]

You are glossing over how bad their short term predictions are though...even including the error bars which are barely keeping them within the 95% confidence interval. They are problematic and it hasn't gone unnoticed by the scientific community either. A lot of papers on sensitivity have been coming out using the most recent decade of average global temps in addition to the previous 50+ years and lowering their estimates.

 

So while its important to keep the recent slowdown of warming in perspective, its also important not to shrug it off as merely inconsequential because its "still within the error bars". Clearly the GCMS have some issues which doesn't exclude the possibility that they are too sensitive to CO2.

 

Bingo. This was my overall point that skiier somehow missed.