NOAA Reinstates July 1936 As The Hottest Month On Record

[tacoman25]

That's disputable. You need a mechanism adequately explaining how poor farming practices led to reduced rainfall. All else being equal, evaporating more water at the surface will increase the dewpoint, hence instability.

There is no consensus in the peer reviewed literature re: farming practices and the dust bowl. I happen to think they're unrelated.

 

But you don't understand. Any extreme weather must somehow be our fault. That's how it works.

[Msalgado]

Basically you have so many problems in the various observation sites, observation location changes, changes in equipment, TOB, data stations dropping out, changing land use albeit vegetation or pavement that the surface record is rife with uncertainties. They have tried their best to reconcile this but when the entire trend in the U.S dataset is because of adjustments it just is not convincing. In any event, the U.S land surface is small relative to the globe.  Steven Goddard, Anthony Watts and others have torn apart the USHCN convincingly so I would refer you to their work. I am not going to re-invent the wheel on this.  

 

Quite frankly, the fact that you cite Goddard shows how ignorant you are on the research.  

[Hambone]

[A-L-E-K]

what's up with that

[Hambone]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/06/25/government-data-show-u-s-in-decade-long-cooling/

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

[ORH_wxman]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/06/25/government-data-show-u-s-in-decade-long-cooling/

 

 

I would have to say that article is pretty awful.... "driving a stake through the heart of alarmists"? I mean, the hyperbole and preconceptionalism is pretty glaring.

 

 

At least they do mention that 10 years is a short timespan for trends.

 

 

 

The most obvious answer for the decline in U.S. temps is the PDO flip in 2007.

[tamarack]

 

That's disputable. You need a mechanism adequately explaining how poor farming practices led to reduced rainfall. All else being equal, evaporating more water at the surface will increase the dewpoint, hence instability.

There is no consensus in the peer reviewed literature re: farming practices and the dust bowl. I happen to think they're unrelated.

I'd argue that some of the cause was from settlers cleaning off the native vegetation and trying to raise crops not suited to the semi-arid climate of our western plains. Worked okay with normal to AN rainfall, but a couple years of much BN precip was inevitable, and with the well-adapted native plants gone, nothing was left to hold the soil. There's cause/effect questions involved, but I don't think that cultivation out there was blameless.

Good points on TOBS. I looked with interest at the long-term Maine data, and (of course) compared it to Farmington COOP, which other than a day here and there, has missed only 11 months (6 in 1909, only one since 1913) in records beginning Jan 1893, thus the full timespan of the statewide data. Farmington has almost always bneen milder than statewide (by latitude it's in the southerly quarter of Maine's land area), but the difference has been quite variable. From 1899 thru 1957 Farmington ran 3.84F milder than the temps on the chart with extreme years ranging from 2.83 to 5.18 above. Then 1958-67 saw a "transition", with the average difference 1.94F and years ranging 1.32 to 2.62. 1968 on has run +0.49. with the mildest year at +1.26 and the coolest (1979) at -1.05. There is no overlap of extremes from one time period to another. I think two reasons are in play for the changing relationship, TOBS and station location. I don't have the history of either, but comparing temps at obs time with minima, and timing of heatwaves/coldsnaps with nearby known midnight-OBS stations makes it obvious that Farmington's TOBS has shifted between midnight and 7 AM several times, the most recent 7 AM interval running from about 1961 thru 1999. (No evidence for any 4 PM obs.) I'm also convinced that, prior to about 1955 the station was located in a warmer spot, probably more in the downtown than the current rural/grassy location 1.5 miles north of the center. Since 1893, Farmington has recorded 34 minima of 70F+, and only 7 have come since 1949. For 71+, it's 3 of 21; for 72+ it's 1 (7/21/1977) of 12. Given the overall warming, this preponderance of extra mild minima being 65+ years ago makes no sense, as obs time wouldn't affect it much. I don't envy climatologists trying to produce orderly data from the "chaos" in many of the available records.

[Sundog]

I would have to say that article is pretty awful.... "driving a stake through the heart of alarmists"? I mean, the hyperbole and preconceptionalism is pretty glaring.

At least they do mention that 10 years is a short timespan for trends.

The most obvious answer for the decline in U.S. temps is the PDO flip in 2007.

That's why it's called global warming and not backyard warming.

[tacoman25]

That's why it's called global warming and not backyard warming.

 

Sure, but let's not forget all of the past predictions for the U.S. that have been made those such as James Hansen, the father of global warming.

 

Back in the 1980s, he predicted some pretty extreme climate changes for the U.S. that we aren't even close to on track for. The 2020s were expected to be 9 degrees or so warmer than the 1980s. http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/12/08/in-1986-the-worlds-greatest-climatologist-james-hansen-predicted-nine-degrees-us-warming-by-the-2020%E2%80%B2s/

 

Of course, that was also when he was using a GCM that has proven to be way too sensitive, so he was way off on a global scale as well: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/15/james-hansens-climate-forecast-of-1988-a-whopping-150-wrong/

 

On top of that, Hansen also predicted significant portions of NYC would be underwater by now: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/22/a-little-known-but-failed-20-year-old-climate-change-prediction-by-dr-james-hansen/

[FloridaJohn]

On top of that, Hansen also predicted significant portions of NYC would be underwater by now: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/22/a-little-known-but-failed-20-year-old-climate-change-prediction-by-dr-james-hansen/

I guess if you take things out of context then anything goes to prove a point.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hansen-West-Side-Highway.htm

[michsnowfreak]

That is true for most of the CONUS in general. Though your region has certainly not seen the uptick recently that some other areas have...particularly the western U.S. Most of the firts half of the 20th century was higher than present for anomalous heat events there:

that's a sweet map! Thanks

[michsnowfreak]

Sure, but let's not forget all of the past predictions for the U.S. that have been made those such as James Hansen, the father of global warming.

Back in the 1980s, he predicted some pretty extreme climate changes for the U.S. that we aren't even close to on track for. The 2020s were expected to be 9 degrees or so warmer than the 1980s. http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/12/08/in-1986-the-worlds-greatest-climatologist-james-hansen-predicted-nine-degrees-us-warming-by-the-2020%E2%80%B2s/

Of course, that was also when he was using a GCM that has proven to be way too sensitive, so he was way off on a global scale as well: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/15/james-hansens-climate-forecast-of-1988-a-whopping-150-wrong/

On top of that, Hansen also predicted significant portions of NYC would be underwater by now: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/22/a-little-known-but-failed-20-year-old-climate-change-prediction-by-dr-james-hansen/

Thats an excellent point. Anytime I have brought up how miserably global warming "predictions" are failing locally, i hear the favorite line "its GLOBAL warming". Yes that is true. However.....I am comparing what was said by some of the "experts" to be happening in a few short decades in Michigan. I have several stories saved from the late 1990s on this topic. I thought they were ridiculous back then, but the fact that we are amidst a decade plus stretch of our snowiest winters on record, and that the 2000s saw the least 90s of any decade in nearly a century is a huge added bonus. If they dont want people to compare local climate to global warming, then stop publishing bogus stories on what will supposedly be happening in this place or that place.

[ORH_wxman]

Thats an excellent point. Anytime I have brought up how miserably global warming "predictions" are failing locally, i hear the favorite line "its GLOBAL warming". Yes that is true. However.....I am comparing what was said by some of the "experts" to be happening in a few short decades in Michigan. I have several stories saved from the late 1990s on this topic. I thought they were ridiculous back then, but the fact that we are amidst a decade plus stretch of our snowiest winters on record, and that the 2000s saw the least 90s of any decade in nearly a century is a huge added bonus. If they dont want people to compare local climate to global warming, then stop publishing bogus stories on what will supposedly be happening in this place or that place.

 

 

The media can't help themselves. It doesn't help that a few scientists also like to make some fairly outrageous statements on their own watch to give them the quotes for their stories.

 

The GCMs are having enough trouble as it is on a global scale....it is well known that they are quite poor on the regional scale. It was talked about in this thread too:

 

http://www.americanwx.com/bb/index.php/topic/43641-usgs-models-show-a-50-decrease-in-conus-snowfall-by-the-2060s/

[Cory]

I'll give you guys a tip from 10 years experience personally dealing with the temperature instruments that makes up the backbone of the USHCN: You can find a more dependable thermometer in the garden section of Walmart. 

[illinois]

The automated system at the Olney/Noble airport that feeds to the national weather service is terrible, it constantly 1 to 2 degrees warmer than surrounding stations and the dew points and humidity are always over done. To be fair I am not sure that it is used as a climate station but it is always interesting to listen to the public radio station out of Carbondale read the local temps and olney be warmer than Carbondale and mt vernon.

[michsnowfreak]

The media can't help themselves. It doesn't help that a few scientists also like to make some fairly outrageous statements on their own watch to give them the quotes for their stories.

 

The GCMs are having enough trouble as it is on a global scale....it is well known that they are quite poor on the regional scale. It was talked about in this thread too:

 

http://www.americanwx.com/bb/index.php/topic/43641-usgs-models-show-a-50-decrease-in-conus-snowfall-by-the-2060s/

Good points. And yes I remember that thread quite well lol. There is absolutely ZERO signs of snowfall decreasing...and in fact...if you want to take "trends"...one would suggest snowfall would be INCREASING by 2060 for many (not saying it will..Im just saying if you took trends).

[nflwxman]

Good points. And yes I remember that thread quite well lol. There is absolutely ZERO signs of snowfall decreasing...and in fact...if you want to take "trends"...one would suggest snowfall would be INCREASING by 2060 for many (not saying it will..Im just saying if you took trends).

Weather matters even on a decadal scale for a small region. That's why statistical perimeters that define the significance of a particular trend are defined. While I'm not positive about CONUS snowfall increases, I doubt there is much significance when considering an entire century of data. Either way, there is much to be learned about regional projections. I happen to think on a global scale, models have faired relatively well.

I run and design complex fluid dynamical models for a living, and you would be shocked at the RMS error that come out of those things, even on a small scale.

[tacoman25]

I guess if you take things out of context then anything goes to prove a point.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hansen-West-Side-Highway.htm

 

So you deny Hansen made erroneous predictions? 

 

Hansen is disputing the story after the fact. Given how WAY off his other predictions such as the one in the newspaper (which he cannot dispute) were, he hasn't given us much reason to doubt the original story about NYC. It's not like that prediction was more extreme than claiming the U.S. in the 2020s would be 9 degrees warmer. Again, are you just going to ignore other things he said?

 

So we're past the 20 year mark and he would have been indisputably wrong...but let's assume he's telling the truth and he meant 40 years from 1988 and not 20. He will need sea level rise in NYC to really pick up the pace in the next 10 years to even come close to what he claimed. Like, a 1,000% faster than it's been rising.

 

At this point, either prediction is laughable. And if you look at the overall context of Hansen's thoughts from 20-30 years ago, it's clear he thought we'd be seeing more extreme changes by now (or very soon) than we have or are on track for.

 

I can show you other statements he's made if you don't believe me.

[tacoman25]

Weather matters even on a decadal scale for a small region. That's why statistical perimeters that define the significance of a particular trend are defined. While I'm not positive about CONUS snowfall increases, I doubt there is much significance when considering an entire century of data. Either way, there is much to be learned about regional projections. I happen to think on a global scale, models have faired relatively well.

I run and design complex fluid dynamical models for a living, and you would be shocked at the RMS error that come out of those things, even on a small scale.

 

Based on...? Are you assuming that current models will be much more accurate than models from the 1980s and 1990s? Because those haven't proven to be all that great to this point.

[Sundog]

Are we people familiar with the fact that we have satellites that measure temperature as well? People are always referencing some poorly placed thermometer on a tarmac as if this is the only thing we rely on to piece together the temperature record.

And we can still use biased thermometers to check for trends so the data is not totally useless.

[FloridaJohn]

So you deny Hansen made erroneous predictions? 

 

Hansen is disputing the story after the fact. Given how WAY off his other predictions such as the one in the newspaper (which he cannot dispute) were, he hasn't given us much reason to doubt the original story about NYC. It's not like that prediction was more extreme than claiming the U.S. in the 2020s would be 9 degrees warmer. Again, are you just going to ignore other things he said?

 

So we're past the 20 year mark and he would have been indisputably wrong...but let's assume he's telling the truth and he meant 40 years from 1988 and not 20. He will need sea level rise in NYC to really pick up the pace in the next 10 years to even come close to what he claimed. Like, a 1,000% faster than it's been rising.

 

At this point, either prediction is laughable. And if you look at the overall context of Hansen's thoughts from 20-30 years ago, it's clear he thought we'd be seeing more extreme changes by now (or very soon) than we have or are on track for.

 

I can show you other statements he's made if you don't believe me.

 

I'm more interested in the statements he makes in published (aka scientific) literature. That's where the real predictions are. Chit-chatting with a newspaper reporter about what might happen in hypothetical situations is not a "prediction" no matter what Anthony Watts or Tony "Steve Goddard" Heller say. James Hansen has more scientific credibility than those two people put together. Once they start publishing their predictions in scientific journals then we can start comparing their skills with Hansen's.

 

I don't really have a problem with Hansen being wrong in his published predictions, either. What I am more interested is in why those predictions are wrong. What part was missing? How did CO2 emissions compare to the orginal estimate? How were  aerosol emissions compared to the original estimates? What was the basis of the original error bars? Was anything changed or learned since the original prediction that would alter that? You know, scientific process and all.

 

Here's a comparison done in 2012 between Hansen's prediction in 1988 and what happened. I don't think it is that bad considering how simple that model was compared to today's model. In general, it shows a consitent warming more or less in line with what actually happened, and it has certainly faired better than alternate predictions of the time (many of which were "there will be no noticible warming").

 

[FloridaJohn]

Are we people familiar with the fact that we have satellites that measure temperature as well? People are always referencing some poorly placed thermometer on a tarmac as if this is the only thing we rely on to piece together the temperature record.

And we can still use biased thermometers to check for trends so the data is not totally useless.

 

Satellite measurements are not without their own problems.

[bluewave]

I'm more interested in the statements he makes in published (aka scientific) literature. That's where the real predictions are. Chit-chatting with a newspaper reporter about what might happen in hypothetical situations is not a "prediction" no matter what Anthony Watts or Tony "Steve Goddard" Heller say. James Hansen has more scientific credibility than those two people put together. Once they start publishing their predictions in scientific journals then we can start comparing their skills with Hansen's.

 

I don't really have a problem with Hansen being wrong in his published predictions, either. What I am more interested is in why those predictions are wrong. What part was missing? How did CO2 emissions compare to the orginal estimate? How were  aerosol emissions compared to the original estimates? What was the basis of the original error bars? Was anything changed or learned since the original prediction that would alter that? You know, scientific process and all.

 

Here's a comparison done in 2012 between Hansen's prediction in 1988 and what happened. I don't think it is that bad considering how simple that model was compared to today's model. In general, it shows a consitent warming more or less in line with what actually happened, and it has certainly faired better than alternate predictions of the time (many of which were "there will be no noticible warming").

 

 

But  scenario C represents a big miss since emissions weren't capped at year 2000 levels.

 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JD093iD08p09341/abstract;jsessionid=39A79ABF8C509617FEC07D46F5B8FD2B.f03t01

 

C assumes a rapid curtailment of trace gas emissions such that the net climate forcing ceases to increase after the year 2000. 

 

 

 

 

 

[GaWx]

Satellite measurements are not without their own problems.

Checking out the posts for the last 3 weeks in Friv's ENSO thread (in the main forecasting discussion forum) would tell one that satellites may not be reliable for measures of SST's. Look at the recent ~0.4 C discrepancy in NINO 3.4 between the TAO buoys and the satellite based SST's (0.4 C warmer) analyzed there. Actually, NOAA ignored the warmer satellite based data and went with SST's consistent with the TAO buoys for their weekly NIÑO 3.4 updates. A similar too warm satellite based data issue occurred in November, 2012, when NOAA also ignored the warmer satellite based data and went instead with the buoys. Are these two periods indicative of a more widespread problem with the accuracy of satellite based data? Friv has been following this issue as much as anyone here and has even voiced his own frustrations about these inconsistencies.

Opinions?

[nflwxman]

Based on...? Are you assuming that current models will be much more accurate than models from the 1980s and 1990s? Because those haven't proven to be all that great to this point.

Climate models are judged statistically on their hindcast abilities simply because the data points are abundant and cause a significant set to use.  If you believe think the last 10 years of CIMP5 model performance has dramatically hindered the overall performance marks of the recent global models, you'd be incorrect.  

 

James Hansen's 1988 model assumed a 4.2C TCS (which is likely 25%-50% too high).  In addition, Hansen overestimated methane growth and underestimated chinese aerosal growth.  In lieu of that, his predictions did not too poorly.  Science is not just what..it's how and why.  People seem to forget that too often. 

 

Tamino put together a "redesign" of Hansen's crude 1988 model with the observed/calculated forcings (from the 2007 IPCC report).  

 

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/03/21/hansens-1988-predictions/

 

 

[nflwxman]

Checking out the posts for the last 3 weeks in Friv's ENSO thread (in the main forecasting discussion forum) would tell one that satellites may not be reliable for measures of SST's. Look at the recent ~0.4 C discrepancy in NINO 3.4 between the TAO buoys and the satellite based SST's (0.4 C warmer) analyzed there. Actually, NOAA ignored the warmer satellite based data and went with SST's consistent with the TAO buoys for their weekly updates. A similar too warm satellite based data issue occurred in November, 2012, when NOAA also ignored the warmer satellite based data and went instead with the buoys. Are these two periods indicative of a more widespread problem with the accuracy of satellite based data? Friv has been following this issue as much as anyone here and has even voiced his own frustrations about these inconsistencies.

Opinions?

I think the satellites are better at middle/upper troposphere temperatures in the tropics, where moisture gradients and cloud cover are less abundant to confuse the sensors.  For localized surface observations, I can certainly see how satellites are fallible.

[FloridaJohn]

But  scenario C represents a big miss since emissions weren't capped at year 2000 levels.

 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JD093iD08p09341/abstract;jsessionid=39A79ABF8C509617FEC07D46F5B8FD2B.f03t01

 

C assumes a rapid curtailment of trace gas emissions such that the net climate forcing ceases to increase after the year 2000. 

 

co2_data_mlo.png

 

Yes, Scenario B is closer to what happened in regards to CO2 emissions. I did not say in my post that we should compare to Scenario C. If you are looking for a full analysis of Hansen's original prediction, here is a good paper (PDF) that came out in 2010.

 

From that paper, we learn:

 

"There are several factors that contribute to the Hansen forecast being a little too high. The model had an equilibrium sensitivity to doubled CO2 of 4.2 ◦C which is toward the high end of the range considered likely today. Furthermore, the simplified nature of the ocean component of the model results in a transient climate response that is even more extreme. This model also omits the cooling effect of sulfate aerosols, which were poorly understood at that time."

 

Like I said, this was a rather simple model compared to ones we run today. Also from the paper,

 

"Therefore, we can reasonably hope for modern GCMs to give predictions of globally averaged annual temperature that are at least as skillful over similar time spans in the future, although this cannot yet be directly tested against independent data in the manner

we have presented here. Furthermore, today’s models have more interacting components and are of higher resolution, so the global temperature response is only a first-order test of model performance."

 

It would be interesting to see what Hansen's models would show with the better information we have today. Although, in that case, the models would probably look more like current models.

[nflwxman]

FloridaJohn,

 

Look at tamino's link above. He "reran" Hansens model with today's understanding of the forcing over the last 25 years.

[ORH_wxman]

Checking out the posts for the last 3 weeks in Friv's ENSO thread (in the main forecasting discussion forum) would tell one that satellites may not be reliable for measures of SST's. Look at the recent ~0.4 C discrepancy in NINO 3.4 between the TAO buoys and the satellite based SST's (0.4 C warmer) analyzed there. Actually, NOAA ignored the warmer satellite based data and went with SST's consistent with the TAO buoys for their weekly updates. A similar too warm satellite based data issue occurred in November, 2012, when NOAA also ignored the warmer satellite based data and went instead with the buoys. Are these two periods indicative of a more widespread problem with the accuracy of satellite based data? Friv has been following this issue as much as anyone here and has even voiced his own frustrations about these inconsistencies.

Opinions?

 

 

I don't think the satellite SSTs have those errors on larger scales and longer time periods.

 

When forecasting for a localized area over a short time frame (such as weekly Nino 3.4 data)...there is more potential for error. Validation of the Reynolds SST dataset (OISSTv2) showed that they were within a few hundreths of a degree celsius of drifting buoys averaged globally...but that over shorter time periods and smaller areas, the errors were much more likely to increase. This is true especially when there is persistent cloud cover.

[ORH_wxman]

Hansen's 1988 model was primitive...so I'd expect it to perform terribly. No real surprise.

 

 

I posted this in another thread...but it is certainly relevant to this discussion:

 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50562/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false

 

 

The latest generation of climate models are not without major issues as discussed in that paper published last year.