2011 Global Temperatures

[BethesdaWX]

2008 had another dip against climo in mid March, but it stayed high for most of February and early March. We could put quite a bit of distance between 2011 and 2008 if the cooling trend continues, but it might be hard to maintain given that SSTs are generally running a bit milder this year.

Yeah thats true. The only hope I would think is the fact that the actual La Nina/forcing in 2008 weakened earlier. It seems as if the global temp "wants" to drop more at this point, a 4 month drop of 0.5C...a record, in a moderate La Nina, exceeded my expectations.

[nzucker]

Apparently I contribute alot of "global warming".

Oh God, you should be banned from the forum for saying this...

On the other hand, maybe you can toss some of your good luck over to me and Ski...

[skierinvermont]

moderate La Nina, exceeded my expectations.

What are you talking about I heard this Nina was going to rival the record strong Nina of '73-74. Somebody told me that just a month ago.

[nzucker]

What are you talking about I heard this Nina was going to rival the record strong Nina of '73-74. Somebody told me that just a month ago.

Just like someone told me DC was going to see a 91-92 winter last season...I guess we all have our moments.

To be fair, however, the MEI did rival 73-74, and I was one of the first people to nail the strong La Niña while everyone else was still in multi year El Niño fury.

[BethesdaWX]

What are you talking about I heard this Nina was going to rival the record strong Nina of '73-74. Somebody told me that just a month ago.

Are you referring to me? I said the resulting drop in temperatures exceeded my expectations...

[skierinvermont]

Are you referring to me? I said the resulting drop in temperatures exceeded my expectations...

No .. zucker said this

[nzucker]

No .. zucker said this

74-75 redux next year?

[skierinvermont]

Just like someone told me DC was going to see a 91-92 winter last season...I guess we all have our moments.

To be fair, however, the MEI did rival 73-74, and I was one of the first people to nail the strong La Niña while everyone else was still in multi year El Niño fury.

At least you finally admit you were wrong.

Just had to throw in the 'to be fair' though didn't you. You specifically said ONI.. which did not make any sense considering OHC, SSTs and computer model data from ECMWF and CFS at the time. It was mathematically impossible without some kind of super-record drop in late January, of which there was no sign of. Moreover, forecasts aren't worth much without sound reasoning. CPC was predicting a Nina by April. This is why the whole idea of weenies forecasting is just not that great. People argue about who gets credit for what forecast.. but nobody is really using a novel or superior methodology to that used by experts and CPC. Which means it basically comes down to luck and getting forecasts right for the wrong reasons and I don't think that deserves much credit.

Now maybe if you are forecasting something very specific.. like snowfall for a particular location you can beat the experts simply because you can devote more effort to that location and to that one forecast.

[nzucker]

At least you finally admit you were wrong.

Just had to throw in the 'to be fair' though didn't you. You specifically said ONI.. which did not make any sense considering OHC, SSTs and computer model data from ECMWF and CFS at the time. It was mathematically impossible without some kind of super-record drop in late January, of which there was no sign of. Moreover, forecasts aren't worth much without sound reasoning. CPC was predicting a Nina by April. This is why the whole idea of weenies forecasting is just not that great. People argue about who gets credit for what forecast.. but nobody is really using a novel or superior methodology to that used by experts and CPC. Which means it basically comes down to luck and getting forecasts right for the wrong reasons and I don't think that deserves much credit.

Now maybe if you are forecasting something very specific.. like snowfall for a particular location you can beat the experts simply because you can devote more effort to that location and to that one forecast.

CPC winter forecasts basically suck, though...they base everything on ENSO and have "Equal Chances" for like 2/3 of the country. I mean get some balls and actually predict whether temperatures are going to be above or below average. To their credit, they did have the mid-Atlantic in "Equal Chances" this year despite the fact that the region is usually warmer than normal in a strong La Niña, so I guess they've started to pay more attention to the NAO/AO after last year's debacle. It was actually the coldest December on record in the Southeast.

I'm not talking about weenie forecasts, though...I'm talking about highly skilled forecasters like Jim Hughes and Chuck who were all banging the El Niño drum into the summer. I was very skeptical of this approach given the -PDO regime and the history for Strong La Niñas to form after a Strong El Niño...Overall I didn't do too badly on the ENSO, the summer, or the winter forecasts. We'll see how the weak La Niña works out next winter, haven't researched enough to throw out an official forecast but that seems to make sense...we seem to be following the early 70s progression pretty well except for the greater degree of high-latitude blocking, so I wouldn't be surprised if we saw a winter like 74-75 in terms of ENSO, except much colder across the CONUS with the low solar and the -NAO decadal regime. There seemed to be some signs of Niño forming with the MJO in Phase 8 and some warmer waters in the eastern regions, but that has dissipated a bit and we've got a heavy period of trades incoming which will probably cool the ENSO regions more. Most of the models seem to have us about weak Niña next winter.

[skierinvermont]

74-75 redux next year?

I'd just go with whatever the model consensus is at this point which is weak Nina to neutral. I don't think either of us really have the skill to beat the models, and throwing out a guess and getting lucky doesn't mean much to me.

[nzucker]

I'd just go with whatever the model consensus is at this point which is weak Nina to neutral. I don't think either of us really have the skill to beat the models, and throwing out a guess and getting lucky doesn't mean much to me.

That's what I'm saying...74-75 was a weak Niña after a record strong one...very similar progression to what we saw in 09-10/10-11....75-76 reverted back to a strong Niña so we might be dealing with a three year event if that analog has any merit.

A weak Niña would really be ideal for the East Coast weenies in a -NAO/low solar regime. Weak Niña years tend to favor more periods of a +PNA/-EPO than their stronger counterparts; we saw one of the bigger EPO blocks on record in January 2009, which resulted in an historic arctic outbreak for the Upper Midwest and Northern New England with Maine's lowest temperature ever. I can't think of many weak Niña winters that were disappointing here, and many of them were historic including 66-67 and 95-96. One wildcard in a weak Niña is how the subtropical jet evolves. In 95-96, the winter started with little subtropical energy, and the January 1996 blizzard was indeed a split polar jet storm. However, the STJ became active in February and March, allowing us to break the snowfall records at many stations in the East. So we could be dealing with an even fiercer winter than this year, given that we'll be starting off with much lower global temperatures and potentially adding the STJ to the mix as well as a more consistently +PNA.

I wonder how global temperatures will react if the La Niña reverts to weak status, but the North Pacific keeps cooling from the -PDO, and we continue cooling in the Indian Ocean and Indonesia from all the convection those regions have seen as well as the wave of tropical cyclones affecting places further south towards Australia. We might see some further drops early in the weak Niña regime before we return to slightly warmer values globally. This might be the time to figure out if the solar minimum is truly starting to affect the Earth's climate; do we achieve a long period of colder readings as we've started to see in Jan/Feb 2011, or do we revert immediately to the global warmth that's characterized the last two decades?

[skierinvermont]

That's what I'm saying...74-75 was a weak Niña after a record strong one...very similar progression to what we saw in 09-10/10-11....75-76 reverted back to a strong Niña so we might be dealing with a three year event if that analog has any merit.

A weak Niña would really be ideal for the East Coast weenies in a -NAO/low solar regime. Weak Niña years tend to favor more periods of a +PNA/-EPO than their stronger counterparts; we saw one of the bigger EPO blocks on record in January 2009, which resulted in an historic arctic outbreak for the Upper Midwest and Northern New England with Maine's lowest temperature ever. I can't think of many weak Niña winters that were disappointing here, and many of them were historic including 66-67 and 95-96. One wildcard in a weak Niña is how the subtropical jet evolves. In 95-96, the winter started with little subtropical energy, and the January 1996 blizzard was indeed a split polar jet storm. However, the STJ became active in February and March, allowing us to break the snowfall records at many stations in the East. So we could be dealing with an even fiercer winter than this year, given that we'll be starting off with much lower global temperatures and potentially adding the STJ to the mix as well as a more consistently +PNA.

I wonder how global temperatures will react if the La Niña reverts to weak status, but the North Pacific keeps cooling from the -PDO, and we continue cooling in the Indian Ocean and Indonesia from all the convection those regions have seen as well as the wave of tropical cyclones affecting places further south towards Australia. We might see some further drops early in the weak Niña regime before we return to slightly warmer values globally. This might be the time to figure out if the solar minimum is truly starting to affect the Earth's climate; do we achieve a long period of colder readings as we've started to see in Jan/Feb 2011, or do we revert immediately to the global warmth that's characterized the last two decades?

I think we already have observed close to the maximum effect of the solar minimum. The correlations I have seen and posted multiple times do not show much lag and we have had low solar for quite some time now. And we have in fact witnessed the expected cooling, given global temperatures are below the long term trend lines.

Regarding the effect of multi-year Nina's on temp, we only have one recent example of a multi-year Nina event '99 and 2000. And on both UAH and GISS, 2000 was not any colder than 1999 even though the '99-00 Nina event was slightly stronger than the first one in '98-99. So at least in that example, the second year of the Nina didn't do much.

However if we go back farther, the last example before that was a 3 year event which made '74, '75 and '76 into Nina years, with the first and last year of the Nina being strong with a weak year in the middle. In that case, GISS was .1C colder in the last year 1976, than in the first two years. So in that case perhaps there was an effect from it lasting 3 years. The 2nd year which was weak was also as cold as the first year which was strong.

Then we have 1971 and 1972, although in 1972 the transition to Nino was quite rapid and GISS obviously lags less than UAH would have. So in that case the second year of Nina was .1C warmer. Although if we look at the monthly anomalies, the coldest months occurred early in the second year of the event, before the transition to Nino had begun.

Then we have 55 56 and 57, 56 being the coldest of the three, and 57 being warmer because it was transitioning to Nino.

So there does seem to be some effect, at least at the surface, even though 2000 was not cooler than 1999 on GISS or UAH. A weak Nina probably wouldn't be enough though, the cases I am seeing where 2nd or 3rd years are cooler are when it has dipped back into mod/strong of similar strength or stronger than the first event. Originally I was thinking multi-year might not cause additional cooling because it didn't in 1999-2000, but if you go back farther there is some speculative evidence that it did have a slight additional cooling effect.

[tacoman25]

It is of note that CH5 briefly was lower than 2008 for a couple days around Jan 4, and yet January as a month ended up .29C warmer than 2008.

This is why I really don't care about each and every little tick.

And it's why I am sticking with my prediction of -.05 to -.1C for February, well warmer than 2008's -.25C.

However, if you compare to 1999 (last mod/strong Nina that followed a strong Nino, and as well all know 1998 was about the same temp as 2010 with UAH), 2010 is running cooler.

Jan 1999: .03C

Feb 1999: .14C

Mar 1999: -.10C

[skierinvermont]

However, if you compare to 1999 (last mod/strong Nina that followed a strong Nino, and as well all know 1998 was about the same temp as 2010 with UAH), 2010 is running cooler.

Jan 1999: .03C

Feb 1999: .14C

Mar 1999: -.10C

Good point.

The same can be said of 2008 vs 1999/2000 ... 2008 was colder for those particular months, although the yearly value in 2008 (-.03) was warmer than 1999 (-.05) or 2000.

Of course, comparing individual years isn't as meaningful as trend lines, and the trend since 1998 on UAH is nearly .1C/decade, despite the fact that the trend starts in a strong El Nino.

Part of the reason I think comparing 1999/2000 vs 2008 or 2011 shows little warming is 1) it's just individual years so there is some chance involved 2) 1999/2000 was at the point when we would expect maximal warming from the solar cycle peak, while 2008 and especially 2011 are near the maximal cooling effect of the minimum 3) UAH is biased cold and other sources show more warming

[tacoman25]

Good point.

The same can be said of 2008 vs 1999/2000 ... 2008 was colder for those particular months, although the yearly value in 2008 (-.03) was warmer than 1999 (-.05) or 2000.

Of course, comparing individual years isn't as meaningful as trend lines, and the trend since 1998 on UAH is nearly .1C/decade, despite the fact that the trend starts in a strong El Nino.

Part of the reason I think comparing 1999/2000 vs 2008 or 2011 shows little warming is 1) it's just individual years so there is some chance involved 2) 1999/2000 was at the point when we would expect maximal warming from the solar cycle peak, while 2008 and especially 2011 are near the maximal cooling effect of the minimum 3) UAH is biased cold and other sources show more warming

But as was already pointed out, 2008 did not come on the heels of a strong Nino like 1999 and 2011. With that in mind, 1999 makes a better temperature comparison at this point to 2011 than 2008 does.

Trend line since 1998 with UAH is .1C/decade? How do you get that? Certainly not if you go through Jan 2011.

And I don't think your "UAH is biased cold" argument applies here, considering RSS has a cooler trend than UAH since 1998, and was also warmer in early 1999.

Additionally, it's not surprising at all that 1999 ended up cooler than 2008, considering ENSO overall was easily lower for 1999.

[nzucker]

I think we already have observed close to the maximum effect of the solar minimum. The correlations I have seen and posted multiple times do not show much lag and we have had low solar for quite some time now. And we have in fact witnessed the expected cooling, given global temperatures are below the long term trend lines.

If you're talking about the individual effect of Cycle 24, then sure, we've probably seen about as much as we're going to see. We haven't really had low solar activity for that long, though, as I don't recall the spotless period starting before 2008.

But remember, the effect of solar comes in two ways: the downturn possible in each cycle, and having a series of low cycles. If we're truly entering a Maunder/Dalton Period with several incredibly low solar cycles in a row, then obviously we haven't seen the maximum cooling effect possible. There would obviously be a cumulative effect of years with lower solar radiation, changes in cosmic rays, albedo feedbacks on Earth, etc.

And I don't think your "UAH is biased cold" argument applies here, considering RSS has a cooler trend than UAH since 1998, and was also warmer in early 1999.

Skier always breaks out the "UAH is too cold" argument even though the evidence isn't conclusive. I've read the papers he's posted that challenge the official UAH/RSS numbers as being too cool, and they're nothing more than different interpretations of satellite data based on various correction factors. Nothing conclusive at all.

It is interesting that we're seeing more potential for cooling with a La Niña in 2008 and 2011 than 1999; this may be how we tease out the solar influence on global temperature. It also shows that the warming hasn't been impressive in the last decade...there's more room for downward adjustment in global temperature now that we've entered the -PDO/low solar cycle than there was in the late 90s, despite rising greenhouse gas concentrations. This definitely shows that natural factors are more important than CO2 in the short-term.

[nzucker]

Then we have 1971 and 1972, although in 1972 the transition to Nino was quite rapid and GISS obviously lags less than UAH would have. So in that case the second year of Nina was .1C warmer. Although if we look at the monthly anomalies, the coldest months occurred early in the second year of the event, before the transition to Nino had begun.

70-71 was a much stronger Niña than 71-72, so I think that explains the discrepancy. 1972 was also the start of the third strongest El Niño on record.

Then we have 55 56 and 57, 56 being the coldest of the three, and 57 being warmer because it was transitioning to Nino.

So there does seem to be some effect, at least at the surface, even though 2000 was not cooler than 1999 on GISS or UAH. A weak Nina probably wouldn't be enough though, the cases I am seeing where 2nd or 3rd years are cooler are when it has dipped back into mod/strong of similar strength or stronger than the first event. Originally I was thinking multi-year might not cause additional cooling because it didn't in 1999-2000, but if you go back farther there is some speculative evidence that it did have a slight additional cooling effect.

1957 was also warmer because it was a weak Niña...1956 was one of the strongest Niñas on record, peaked at -2.0C.

What will be interesting is if we get a weak Niña next winter and then revert back to strong Niña, that would have the best cooling potential.

[BethesdaWX]

Good point.

The same can be said of 2008 vs 1999/2000 ... 2008 was colder for those particular months, although the yearly value in 2008 (-.03) was warmer than 1999 (-.05) or 2000.

Of course, comparing individual years isn't as meaningful as trend lines, and the trend since 1998 on UAH is nearly .1C/decade, despite the fact that the trend starts in a strong El Nino.

Part of the reason I think comparing 1999/2000 vs 2008 or 2011 shows little warming is 1) it's just individual years so there is some chance involved 2) 1999/2000 was at the point when we would expect maximal warming from the solar cycle peak, while 2008 and especially 2011 are near the maximal cooling effect of the minimum 3) UAH is biased cold and other sources show more warming

Agree somewhat.

Difference being, the biggest cooling from the 11yr cycle minimum doesn't occur at the minima, it occurs as we come out of the minima (aka, "lag" from the start of cooling). Then, as we see more activity, we see a higher response in the atmosphere. The "lag time" for temperature impact, whether its 1 year, 3 years, or 8 years (studies suggest that any are possible depending on the structure/speed of the minimum), suggest the lag for the biggest cooling comes that number of years AFTER the minimum.

Even so, 2008 didn't have a large El Nino beforehand........the 2010 El Nino was West Based, suggesting a stronger atmospheric signal, which was one of the reasons for the delayed cooling this yr. Also 2010 had a much larger +AMO, which has an impact on the Northern Hemisphere. The +AMO repercussion was in the stratosphere through the fall, which kept global anoms up there.

So really, we were set alot warmer this time than 1998, and most certainly 2008.

[skierinvermont]

If you're talking about the individual effect of Cycle 24, then sure, we've probably seen about as much as we're going to see. We haven't really had low solar activity for that long, though, as I don't recall the spotless period starting before 2008.

We weren't spotless (or nearly spotless) until 08-10) but there has been low activity since 05.

But remember, the effect of solar comes in two ways: the downturn possible in each cycle, and having a series of low cycles. If we're truly entering a Maunder/Dalton Period with several incredibly low solar cycles in a row, then obviously we haven't seen the maximum cooling effect possible. There would obviously be a cumulative effect of years with lower solar radiation, changes in cosmic rays, albedo feedbacks on Earth, etc.

This is not obvious at all.. this is basically just you speculating. Most of the effect of high solar activity is felt immediately. More SW radiation hits the earth's surface which leads to higher temperatures. It's possible that prolonged low solar activity in the LIA had some cumulative effect. However, the mechanisms whereby this cumulative effect would occur would be via an ocean lag and an albedo feedback. It would take time for the oceans to cool during the LIA, and it would take time for the glaciers and sea ice to grow. This could cause a small cumulative effect. I say small because the changes in albedo were not enough to cause much change in temperature globally, and the ocean effect is simply a lag not a positive feedback so it cannot amplify the effect beyond the original mechanism.

While these two factors may have produced some cumulative effect during the LIA, neither of them is at play currently. The oceans are going to continue to warm, and glaciers and ice continue to melt, because the earth is in a large energy imbalance. The positive feedback from ice and the lag effect of cooling oceans, will only come into play if you can reverse the energy imbalance of .9W/m2, which there has been no sign of happening, and which solar fluctuations are not large enough to reverse.

Skier always breaks out the "UAH is too cold" argument even though the evidence isn't conclusive. I've read the papers he's posted that challenge the official UAH/RSS numbers as being too cool, and they're nothing more than different interpretations of satellite data based on various correction factors. Nothing conclusive at all.

It is not simply a "different" method.. it's a method which uses more information and which the authors argue is better. The method is called simultaneous nadir overpass (SNO) and it uses points in the orbit of the NOAA MSU satellites where they intersect at the same time to calibrate them better. This results in a substantial reduction in error.

It's also worth noting that both UAH and RSS have large uncertainties in their long term trends. The UAH trend for the global oceans is .08K +/- .103K/decade, the RSS trend is .135 +/- .113K/decade. The quantifiable error estimates for UAH are larger than the actual trend itself. This just goes to show that both UAH and RSS have very large error estimates, and basically should be treated as no better than a guess in the dark.

STAR uses inter-satellite calibration to cut down on this error. For the same period STAR finds .214 +/-. 069K/decade.

http://www.star.nesd...orStructure.pdf

So it is kind of funny watching everybody trying to nitpick each and every little detail from UAH when the published error estimates over +/-.1K/decade. This means that even according to UAH, the actual trend could be anywhere from 2.5X more warming than they indicate, or the earth could be cooling. It's a guess in the dark and it makes little sense to be citing such an inaccurate source as evidence of a lack of warming.

[BethesdaWX]

I get seriously "irked" by some of the solar comments I see. Lag time for atmospheric cooling, whether its 2 years, or 6 years... would begin that many years after the minimum. Knowing we recently came off a modern max.......If the upcoming solar maximum is a weak one, that is when we would see maximum cooling. Decreasing the MAXIMUM amount of energy affecting Earth will yeild higher cooling results...

Now........when the solar cycle increases after the minima, we see further cooling for the first several years of the increasing cycle (as has been observed), before we see the warming.

A WEAK SOLAR MAXIMUM ALWAYS HAS MOE COOLING IMPACT THAN ANY SOLAR MININUM BECAUSE ALL MINIMUMS ARE VIRTUALLY THE SAME<, MAXIMUMS CONTAIN THE REAL ENERGY.......TAKE THAT AWAY, AND YOU HAVE COOLING.

[skierinvermont]

But as was already pointed out, 2008 did not come on the heels of a strong Nino like 1999 and 2011. With that in mind, 1999 makes a better temperature comparison at this point to 2011 than 2008 does.

...

Additionally, it's not surprising at all that 1999 ended up cooler than 2008, considering ENSO overall was easily lower for 1999.

That's exactly what I'm saying .. looking at ENSO alone it is somewhat surprising how cold 2008 and 2011 have been vs 1999 and 2000. Part of the 2008 may be because, as you say it was not on the heels of strong Nino. The other three explanations I have offered are 1) they're just annual comparisons so there is some chance/unexplained variability 2) 1999/2000 were solar peak, 2008/2011 were solar min 3) UAH shows less warming this decade than STAR (which uses better calibration techniques for satellites), or HadCRUT, or GISS.

Trend line since 1998 with UAH is .1C/decade? How do you get that? Certainly not if you go through Jan 2011.

Yes it is (not I said nearly, the actual value is probably .08 or .09C/decade):

And I don't think your "UAH is biased cold" argument applies here, considering RSS has a cooler trend than UAH since 1998, and was also warmer in early 1999.

It doesn't apply vs RSS that is correct, but it would apply vs STAR (which uses better calibration methods) and vs surface measurements.

There's also the fact that, especially for short periods and the period of switch between MSU and AMSU, there is a large amount of uncertainty in both UAH and RSS. According to their published quantifiable error, the actual trend since 1998 could be as high as +.25C/decade or as low as -.1C/decade (my estimates based on their published 30yr-trend error estimates of +/-.11C/decade)

[tacoman25]

It is not simply a "different" method.. it's a method which uses more information and which the authors argue is better. The method is called simultaneous nadir overpass (SNO) and it uses points in the orbit of the NOAA MSU satellites where they intersect at the same time to calibrate them better. This results in a substantial reduction in error.

It's also worth noting that both UAH and RSS have large uncertainties in their long term trends. The UAH trend for the global oceans is .08K +/- .103K/decade, the RSS trend is .135 +/- .113K/decade. The quantifiable error estimates for UAH are larger than the actual trend itself. This just goes to show that both UAH and RSS have very large error estimates, and basically should be treated as no better than a guess in the dark.

STAR uses inter-satellite calibration to cut down on this error. For the same period STAR finds .214 +/-. 069K/decade.

http://www.star.nesd...orStructure.pdf

So it is kind of funny watching everybody trying to nitpick each and every little detail from UAH when the published error estimates over +/-.1K/decade. This means that even according to UAH, the actual trend could be anywhere from 2.5X more warming than they indicate, or the earth could be cooling. It's a guess in the dark and it makes little sense to be citing such an inaccurate source as evidence of a lack of warming.

And how would this apply to IPCC estimate ranges?

[BethesdaWX]

that map was updated in November

[skierinvermont]

I get seriously "irked" by some of the solar comments I see. Lag time for atmospheric cooling, whether its 2 years, or 6 years... would begin that many years after the minimum. Knowing we recently came off a modern max.......If the upcoming solar maximum is a weak one, that is when we would see maximum cooling. Decreasing the MAXIMUM amount of energy affecting Earth will yeild higher cooling results...

Now........when the solar cycle increases after the minima, we see further cooling for the first several years of the increasing cycle (as has been observed), before we see the warming.

A WEAK SOLAR MAXIMUM ALWAYS HAS MOE COOLING IMPACT THAN ANY SOLAR MININUM BECAUSE ALL MINIMUMS ARE VIRTUALLY THE SAME<, MAXIMUMS CONTAIN THE REAL ENERGY.......TAKE THAT AWAY, AND YOU HAVE COOLING.

We are not discussing inter-cycle cooling, we are discussing intra-cycle cooling IE from max to min. It remains to be seen whether the next several solar cycles will be low activity.

The cooling doesn't "begin" with a lag of 2 years that is when the maximum cooling effect is felt.

The studies I have read show little to no lag effect. If you have studies which show a longer lag effect, I would love to see them.

[skierinvermont]

And how would this apply to IPCC estimate ranges?

Are you asking what the 95% confidence interval for IPCC esimates are? .. 1.8-4.5C by 2100 if I recall correctly.

[skierinvermont]

that map was updated in November

Yep - but 2 months more of data doesn't change linear trend calculations very much at all. We've been over this before. If you would like I can do it again with the extra 2 months of data but it will waste 15 minutes of time because I will have to do it on my own in Excel.

[tacoman25]

Yes it is (not I said nearly, the actual value is probably .08 or .09C/decade):

That graph is not up to date. If you went year to year, 1998 to 2010 would not show a .08 or .09C/decade trend. If you went Jan 1998 to Jan 2010 it would be an essentially flat trend, and if you went Jan 1998 to Jan 2011 it would be a downward trend.

It doesn't apply vs RSS that is correct, but it would apply vs STAR (which uses better calibration methods) and vs surface measurements.

There's also the fact that, especially for short periods and the period of switch between MSU and AMSU, there is a large amount of uncertainty in both UAH and RSS. According to their published quantifiable error, the actual trend since 1998 could be as high as +.25C/decade or as low as -.1C/decade (my estimates based on their published 30yr-trend error estimates of +/-.11C/decade)

Well, it just doesn't make sense that you are singling out UAH for this time period (1998-present) for a cold bias, when RSS has a cooler trend over that period.

[tacoman25]

Are you asking what the 95% confidence interval for IPCC esimates are? .. 1.8-4.5C by 2100 if I recall correctly.

Yup....which allows for huge decadal trend range. By your words, basically a "guess in the dark".

[BethesdaWX]

We are not discussing inter-cycle cooling, we are discussing intra-cycle cooling IE from max to min. It remains to be seen whether the next several solar cycles will be low activity.

The cooling doesn't "begin" with a lag of 2 years that is when the maximum cooling effect is felt.

The studies I have read show little to no lag effect. If you have studies which show a longer lag effect, I would love to see them.

I guess my point is the real "significant" cooling would commence during a weaker solar MAX, not the minimum. We should expect very little in the way of solar cooling at this time.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/16745163/Solar-Wind-Near-Earth-Indicator-Of-Variations-In-Global-Temperature

[skierinvermont]

Yup....which allows for huge decadal trend range. By your words, basically a "stab in the dark".

Indeed. In fact, those are century long error estimates. As you know, error estimates for shorter time periods are usually much longer. For a single decade, IPCC estimates of temperature change would have much more quantifiable error. Which is exactly why even using the wildly inaccurate and likely cold biased UAH data the IPCC decadal trends are not invalidated.

(Although it is worth noting that the century long error in IPCC estimates comes from uncertainty in the actual climate sensitivity, while uncertainty in decade long trends comes from both short term variability and uncertainty about the actual climate sensitivity).