2013 Global Temperatures

[ORH_wxman]

RSS is missing some of the arctic and has coarser spatial resolution.  Secondly, the met office did make some improvements to their SST methodology in 2011.  I believe NASA has even suggested that they feel like they need to do a similar correction in the 2012 global temperature review.  I have not read the full paper so I'm not sure what the correction is, but they said if they applied it to GISS data it increases the trend from 0.08 C/decade to 0.10 C/decade (which not really a huge difference over such a short period of time).

 

But I agree, they obviously need to continue to defend their method as they do suggest the highest trend in the last 15 years.

 

 

Well GISS is +0.06C per decade...whether you start from 1998 or 2000. From 1997 it is +0.07C per decade. If you start it from 1999, then it is +0.09C per decade.

 

If their SST claim from the press release is correct and it ups the trend by +0.02C per decade for the above GISS trends, then that still leaves their revised Hadcrut4 as a solid warm outlier. Not quite as egregious, but enough to still question it.

 

RSS goes to 82.5N, so it is missing a very very small portion of the arctic. Not nearly enough to explain difference. The coarser resolution might explain it, but it would have to be shown mathametically.

[AvantHiatus]

Don't think anyone every doubted that, buddy.

Do not make the mistake in believing that he is biased, there are signs that we are breaking albeit slowly from the hiatus period.

[Jonger]

Do not make the mistake in believing that he is biased, there are signs that we are breaking albeit slowly from the hiatus period.

 

SSTA's can bounce around quite a bit from month to month. I believe many times anomalies are just the result of a lack of storms moving through and churning up the surface water, possibly why the Atlantic was so warm when there was a total lack of tropical storms.

 

Warm SSTA's are the main reason for being higher than last year at this time.... I'm not sure this means the hiatus is over.

 

Just like you tried saying the arctic ice flat-line was because of warm water, which it was 100% wind.

[nflwxman]

Do not make the mistake in believing that he is biased, there are signs that we are breaking albeit slowly from the hiatus period.

If there WAS even a hiatus period.  It seems more aptly called a "slowdown."

[AvantHiatus]

SSTA's can bounce around quite a bit from month to month. I believe many times anomalies are just the result of a lack of storms moving through and churning up the surface water, possibly why the Atlantic was so warm when there was a total lack of tropical storms.

 

Warm SSTA's are the main reason for being higher than last year at this time.... I'm not sure this means the hiatus is over.

 

Just like you tried saying the arctic ice flat-line was because of warm water, which it was 100% wind.

The overall arctic and world is not particularly cold, I certainly do not a see a downward trend from where we are and the warmer SST's are an additional effect to be monitored. As most know, the arctic can be warm while the US is very cold, this is known as arctic amplification.

 

We can claim with high certainty that a warmer arctic will lead to warmer times down the road as the Arctic's albedo influence and snow-cover generation is unrivaled. Most of Western Russia and Siberia are very warm, and our decently cold November is a response to anomalous ridging in that region. El Nino would be the final blow in order to bring us into record territory in my opinion.

 

In response to the warm water idea, it was mostly a reference to warm water changing the position of high pressure systems so that they become favorable for a dipole pattern; my fault for not elaborating on that. Another strawman bites the dust.

[Jonger]

Do not make the mistake in believing that he is biased, there are signs that we are breaking albeit slowly from the hiatus period.

 

He's beyond biased, are you serious? His name is the global warmer.

[Jonger]

The overall arctic and world is not particularly cold, I certainly do not a see a downward trend from where we are and the warmer SST's are an additional effect to be monitored. As most know, the arctic can be warm while the US is very cold, this is known as arctic amplification.

 

We can claim with high certainty that a warmer arctic will lead to warmer times down the road as the Arctic's albedo influence and snow-cover generation is unrivaled. Most of Western Russia and Siberia are very warm, and our decently cold November is a response to anomalous ridging in that region. El Nino would be the final blow in order to bring us into record territory in my opinion.

 

In response to the warm water idea, it was mostly a reference to warm water changing the position of high pressure systems so that they become favorable for a dipole pattern; my fault for not elaborating on that.

 

The arctic is mostly within a degree or two of normal.... But its not cold eh?

 

Do you even look at data?

[bluewave]

If there WAS even a hiatus period.  It seems more aptly called a "slowdown."

 

Or just a slower rate of surface temperature warming during -PDO intervals relative to positive ones. 

 

[ORH_wxman]

The arctic is mostly within a degree or two of normal.... But its not cold eh?

 

Do you even look at data?

 

 

Relative to average? No it is not cold. It has still been above average this year, just not as above average as recent years.

[Jonger]

Relative to average? No it is not cold. It has still been above average this year, just not as above average as recent years.

 

I said right in my post its above average..... Ice coverage didn't flat line last week because of a temps, it was wind.

 

He made a post a few pages back that we saw the flat line because of warm upwelling, which was flat out wrong, I won't even debate that kind of nonsense.

[AvantHiatus]

The arctic is mostly within a degree or two of normal.... But its not cold eh?

 

Do you even look at data?

Torch city

 

[AvantHiatus]

I said right in my post its above average..... Ice coverage didn't flat line last week because of a temps, it was wind.

 

He made a post a few pages back that we saw the flat line because of warm upwelling, which was flat out wrong, I won't even debate that kind of nonsense.

 

In response to the warm water idea, it was mostly a reference to warm water changing the position of high pressure systems so that they become favorable for a dipole pattern; my fault for not elaborating on that. Another strawman bites the dust.

[Jonger]

Torch city

 

 

Its .37C....

 

Torch has a new term, I see just as much blue as red... Its a wash.

[Jonger]

 

I said right in my post its above average..... Ice coverage didn't flat line last week because of a temps, it was wind.

 

He made a post a few pages back that we saw the flat line because of warm upwelling, which was flat out wrong, I won't even debate that kind of nonsense.

 

In response to the warm water idea, it was mostly a reference to warm water changing the position of high pressure systems so that they become favorable for a dipole pattern; my fault for not elaborating on that. Another strawman bites the dust.

 

 

You better race to delete that post, I'm going to repost it.

[ORH_wxman]

I said right in my post its above average..... Ice coverage didn't flat line last week because of a temps, it was wind.

 

He made a post a few pages back that we saw the flat line because of warm upwelling, which was flat out wrong, I won't even debate that kind of nonsense.

 

 

Well it sounds like your argument with him is for the sea ice thread...but yes, it was wind and not temperatures that slowed down the ice. The sfc temps up there were near 10F last week.

[Jonger]

[nflwxman]

Or just a slower rate of surface temperature warming during -PDO intervals relative to positive ones. 

 

Fig.A2.gif

 

Yes.  I'd like to see what the next 10 years of PDO- induced temperatures do before declaring the power and/or lack of power over the PDO over global temperatures.  It's tough to say how much it attributed to the slowdown between 1950-1974.  It's possible that it's impact has been slightly overstated in recent papers, especially if the surface temperature record is due for a revision as the paper above describes.

[Jonger]

He does reference the dipole, which is a favorite term for something that has shown to exist in cooler or warmer arctic temp regimes, but this post was in reference to why the ice flat lined last week, the water temps had nothing to do with it.

[AvantHiatus]

More strawman, that idea was based on the fact that the arctic ice cannot return to pre-2007 thickness due to a permanent barrier caused by water temperatures, not that it was actually melting the ice. Time to move on, sorry for not elaborating on these ideas when they were posted.

 

I keep forgetting that this is a scientific forum for obvious reasons.

[ORH_wxman]

Yes.  I'd like to see what the next 10 years of PDO- induced temperatures do before declaring the power and/or lack of power over the PDO over global temperatures.  It's tough to say how much it attributed to the slowdown between 1950-1974.  It's possible that it's impact has been overstated in recent papers.

 

 

That is very possible and something we'll learn more about in the next decade. It is also very possible that sensitivity to GHGs has been overstated.

[bluewave]

Yes.  I'd like to see what the next 10 years of PDO- induced temperatures do before declaring the power and/or lack of power over the PDO over global temperatures.  It's tough to say how much it attributed to the slowdown between 1950-1974.  It's possible that it's impact has been slightly overstated in recent papers, especially if the surface temperature record is due for a revision as the paper above describes.

 

The overlap of the -AMO and -PDO from 63-76 probably was the reason in addition to less Co2 for colder temps during

that hiatus period. 

 

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-09/csu-occ092010.php

 

 

Ocean cooling contributed to mid-20th century global warming hiatus        

FORT COLLINS – The hiatus of global warming in the Northern Hemisphere during the mid-20th century may have been due to an abrupt cooling event centered over the North Atlantic around 1970, rather than the cooling effects of tropospheric pollution, according to a new paper appearing today in Nature.

David W. J. Thompson, an atmospheric science professor at Colorado State University, is the lead author on the paper. Other authors are John M. Wallace at the University of Washington, and John J. Kennedy at the Met Office and Phil D. Jones of the University of East Anglia, both in the United Kingdom.

The international team of scientists discovered an unexpectedly abrupt cooling event that occurred between roughly 1968 and 1972 in Northern Hemisphere ocean temperatures. The research indicates that the cooling played a key role in the different rates of warming seen in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres in the middle 20th century.

"We knew that the Northern Hemisphere oceans cooled during the mid-20th century, but the sudden nature of that cooling surprised us," Thompson said.

While the temperature drop was evident in data from all Northern Hemisphere oceans, it was most pronounced in the northern North Atlantic, a region of the world ocean thought to be climatically dynamic.

"Accounting for the effects of some forms of natural variability - such as El Nino and volcanic eruptions - helped us to identify the suddenness of the event," Jones said.

The different rates of warming in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres in the middle 20th century are frequently attributed to the larger buildup of tropospheric aerosol pollution in the rapidly industrializing Northern Hemisphere. Aerosol pollution contributes to cooling of the Earth's surface and thus can attenuate the warming due to increasing greenhouse gases.

But the new paper offers an alternative interpretation of the difference in mid-century temperature trends.

"The suddenness of the drop in Northern Hemisphere ocean temperatures relative to the Southern Hemisphere is difficult to reconcile with the relatively slow buildup of tropospheric aerosols," Thompson said.

"We don't know why the Northern Hemisphere ocean areas cooled so rapidly around 1970. But the cooling appears to be largest in a climatically important region of the ocean," Wallace said.

[tacoman25]

 

The overlap of the -AMO and -PDO from 63-76 probably was the reason in addition to less Co2 for colder temps during

that hiatus period. 

 

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-09/csu-occ092010.php

 

 

Ocean cooling contributed to mid-20th century global warming hiatus        

FORT COLLINS – The hiatus of global warming in the Northern Hemisphere during the mid-20th century may have been due to an abrupt cooling event centered over the North Atlantic around 1970, rather than the cooling effects of tropospheric pollution, according to a new paper appearing today in Nature.

David W. J. Thompson, an atmospheric science professor at Colorado State University, is the lead author on the paper. Other authors are John M. Wallace at the University of Washington, and John J. Kennedy at the Met Office and Phil D. Jones of the University of East Anglia, both in the United Kingdom.

The international team of scientists discovered an unexpectedly abrupt cooling event that occurred between roughly 1968 and 1972 in Northern Hemisphere ocean temperatures. The research indicates that the cooling played a key role in the different rates of warming seen in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres in the middle 20th century.

"We knew that the Northern Hemisphere oceans cooled during the mid-20th century, but the sudden nature of that cooling surprised us," Thompson said.

While the temperature drop was evident in data from all Northern Hemisphere oceans, it was most pronounced in the northern North Atlantic, a region of the world ocean thought to be climatically dynamic.

"Accounting for the effects of some forms of natural variability - such as El Nino and volcanic eruptions - helped us to identify the suddenness of the event," Jones said.

The different rates of warming in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres in the middle 20th century are frequently attributed to the larger buildup of tropospheric aerosol pollution in the rapidly industrializing Northern Hemisphere. Aerosol pollution contributes to cooling of the Earth's surface and thus can attenuate the warming due to increasing greenhouse gases.

But the new paper offers an alternative interpretation of the difference in mid-century temperature trends.

"The suddenness of the drop in Northern Hemisphere ocean temperatures relative to the Southern Hemisphere is difficult to reconcile with the relatively slow buildup of tropospheric aerosols," Thompson said.

"We don't know why the Northern Hemisphere ocean areas cooled so rapidly around 1970. But the cooling appears to be largest in a climatically important region of the ocean," Wallace said.

 

Seems kind of silly how that paper focuses on the AMO but completely ignores the PDO, when the Pacific is much bigger than the Atlantic and has a larger influence on global climate trends. Not to mention the NH hiatus in warming started well before the -AMO set in...it started in the 1950s as -PDO took over. The PDO and AMO were both in negative phases during the 1968-72 period they reference.

[bluewave]

Seems kind of silly how that paper focuses on the AMO but completely ignores the PDO, when the Pacific is much bigger than the Atlantic and has a larger influence on global climate trends. Not to mention the NH hiatus in warming started well before the -AMO set in...it started in the 1950s as -PDO took over. The PDO and AMO were both in negative phases during the 1968-72 period they reference.

 

I think that study was focusing on a short range local cooling event which occurred during a longer -PDO hiatus period. Obviously

the PDO exerts a greater influence on a global scale than the AMO does. It was not a paper specifically about the PDO like

several  have been the last few years.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Wow jonger is just a big liar. Damn.

[Jonger]

Wow jonger is just a big liar. Damn.

No idea why you are still allowed to call people this.

[skierinvermont]

Blue wave, I still find the pdand amo unsatisfactory. Where is the accelerated ohc increase in the the two -pdo? The lack of accelerated ohc and slow radiative forcing can explain the majority of hiatus.

Orh, simply pointing out how the 'hybrid ' method is an outlier is unhelpful without examining the validity of the reasons for the methodology. Being an outlier doesn't make it suspicious if the reasons are valid.

[ORH_wxman]

Blue wave, I still find the pdand amo unsatisfactory. Where is the accelerated ohc increase in the the two -pdo? The lack of accelerated ohc and slow radiative forcing can explain the majority of hiatus.

Orh, simply pointing out how the 'hybrid ' method is an outlier is unhelpful without examining the validity of the reasons for the methodology. Being an outlier doesn't make it suspicious if the reasons are valid.

 

 

They didn't address why GISS would be so much less despite full coverage except a tidbit in the press release about it having some bias in the SST data. They made no reference to UAH having a lower trend. Granted, the satellites are not measuring the same thing, but for a time period of 15 years, they should be plenty close.

 

Their method might be perfectly valid, however, there's still a lot of questions that will have to be answered in further literature.

[bluewave]

Blue wave, I still find the pdand amo unsatisfactory. Where is the accelerated ohc increase in the the two -pdo? The lack of accelerated ohc and slow radiative forcing can explain the majority of hiatus.

Orh, simply pointing out how the 'hybrid ' method is an outlier is unhelpful without examining the validity of the reasons for the methodology. Being an outlier doesn't make it suspicious if the reasons are valid.

 

We don't have the good deep ocean data for the last -PDO which was obviously pre-Argo.

But recent studies show more heating deeper in the ocean relative to the surface in -PDO

phases. The earlier -PDO had a cooler earth climate with less OHC so the effect probably wouldn't

have been as strong as we have seen now.

 

 

 

 

 

[chubbs]

If the PDO and other ocean circulation cycles are as important as some recent papers indicate then it doesn't make sense to focus on short-term temperature records when judging AGW or evaluating climate models unless these cycles can be factored in to the analysis. Better to evaluate over a complete cycle of natural forcing which looks to be 50-60 years. Some of the problems with lack of complete coverage or different metrics will also even out over a longer period.. 

[bluewave]

If the PDO and other ocean circulation cycles are as important as some recent papers indicate then it doesn't make sense to focus on short-term temperature records when judging AGW or evaluating climate models unless these cycles can be factored in to the analysis. Better to evaluate over a complete cycle of natural forcing which looks to be 50-60 years. Some of the problems with lack of complete coverage or different metrics will also even out over a longer period.. 

 

The newer studies that take the PDO into account have slower warming over the next 100 years or so than was previously shown

in older model studies. But 1.4C of further warming is still a very significant temperature rise. It's pretty much

a guarantee that we'll pass the 2C of total warming that scientists want us to avoid by then on a business as

usual path. It would be great if we were closer to transitioning to a post carbon economy now. But that may have

to wait for 2050-2100 when technology progresses further enough.

 

 

http://www.scienceda...10918144941.htm

 

 

To track where the heat was going, Meehl and colleagues used a powerful software tool known as the Community Climate System Model, which was developed by scientists at NCAR and the Department of Energy with colleagues at other organizations. Using the model's ability to portray complex interactions between the atmosphere, land, oceans, and sea ice, they performed five simulations of global temperatures.

The simulations, which were based on projections of future greenhouse gas emissions from human activities, indicated that temperatures would rise by several degrees during this century. But each simulation also showed periods in which temperatures would stabilize for about a decade before climbing again. For example, one simulation showed the global average rising by about 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit (1.4 degrees Celsius) between 2000 and 2100, but with two decade-long hiatus periods during the century.