2011 Global Temperatures

[skierinvermont]

Nevermind, you were right Jan 1998 - Dec 2011 will have a pretty negative ENSO trend... I just used the last 4 months and made up estimated ONI values for the next 8 months assuming we are transition to negative neutral by summer. The ENSO trend would be -.0018C/yr which would be one of the largest trends on my list.

You were also right than Jan 99 to Dec 11 will have a strong positive trend (Two Ninas to a Nino and a Nina). So yeah it is tough to pick one. One could probably take a straight up average of the Jan98-Dec11 and the Jan99-Dec11 trends because the former is about as positive as the latter is negative.

[tacoman25]

I just realized that Jan97 - Dec10 is a good period to look at because it's the most ENSO neutral of any period we picked. And it's also the longest.

The ENSO trend (5mo lag) is just +.0005C/yr, which is the smallest of any of the 6 periods we have selected.

The temperature trend is +.14C/yr.

In retrospect, I probably should have used a 6 month lag on ENSO.

I think you mean .14C/decade.

However, it doesn't surprise me that Jan 1997 to present shows a higher trend, since things didn't really flatten out more until after the 1997-98 Nino...generally in the 1998-2002 period.

But don't you think Jan 1997 to June 2011 would be more fair, considering that Jan 1997 to Dec 2011 is basically starting with a much more ENSO neutral influenced year than it ends with?

[skierinvermont]

I think you mean .14C/decade.

However, it doesn't surprise me that Jan 1997 to present shows a higher trend, since things didn't really flatten out more until after the 1997-98 Nino...generally in the 1998-2002 period.

But don't you think Jan 1997 to June 2011 would be more fair, considering that Jan 1997 to Dec 2011 is basically starting with a much more ENSO neutral influenced year than it ends with?

Well yeah if we could break the years down by month we could find completely neutral periods but then I have to do the temp trends in Excel as well as the ONI trends

Keep in mind temperatures were very high the last 4 months of 1997 and the ONI had already reached +.8 by May 97 and +1.7 by July.

You would think that Jan97-present would have a higher ENSO trend than Jan98-present but it doesn't (.0005C/yr vs .0008C/yr). I think this is partly because I should be using a 6 month ENSO lag instead of a 5 month, which would make the ENSO trend since Jan98-present lower (it would include a value of +1.7 at the start) and the Jan97-present trend would be fairly unchanged because it would include another neutral value at the start. Then both trends would jump up a bit because they would terminate with -.6 instead of -1.0 from the Nina that was developing this year.

So using a 6 month lag the Jan 98 trend goes from +.0008C/yr to +.0007C./yr while the Jan 97 trend goes from +.0005C/yr to +.0008C/yr.. which makes sense. So they have basically the same ENSO trend but the Jan97 temp trend is +.14C/yr vs Jan98's +.09C/yr. There's just a fair a mount of chance involved because the lag can be slightly different for different ENSO events, and there are other factors at play which can bias particular start and end points over such short periods. Which is why it's helpful to look at as many start and end points as possible. So I'd like to add Jan97-present with a temp trend of +.14C/decade and a slightly positive ENSO trend of +.0008C/yr.

One fair thing to do at the end of this year will be to take an average of Jan98-Dec11 and Jan99-Dec11 because I think the ENSO trend on the former will be about as negative as the latter is positive.

[skierinvermont]

What we really need is for Don to come in here and do this properly. There are statistical methods to remove the ENSO influence I just am not familiar enough to do them quickly.

Even if you remove the ENSO factor statistically, you still have other unexplained factors which bias particular start and end points and I don't know how one could resolve that other than to simply look at multiple different start and end points as we have done.

[tacoman25]

What we really need is for Don to come in here and do this properly. There are statistical methods to remove the ENSO influence I just am not familiar enough to do them quickly.

Agreed. That would be the most accurate analysis, though I think we are in the general range, as whatever method you use shows a significant slowing of warming trends since 1997 and especially 2002.

Using your method with the 6 month lag, though, I think Jan 2000 to Dec 2011 should be pretty darn neutral, and should give a good picture of the trend over the past decade. The fact that it also does not include the monster 1997-98 El Nino might actually be advantageous.

[skierinvermont]

Agreed. That would be the most accurate analysis, though I think we are in the general range, as whatever method you use shows a significant slowing of warming trends since 1997 and especially 2002.

Using your method with the 6 month lag, though, I think Jan 2000 to Dec 2011 should be pretty darn neutral, and should give a good picture of the trend over the past decade. The fact that it also does not include the monster 1997-98 El Nino might actually be advantageous.

Yes - definitely slowing. The most interesting discovery for me is that once you ENSO correct you can actually see that the slowing is especially 2002-present not 1998-present. People think it's 1998-present because a lot of the ENSO trends starting in 1998 end up with negative ENSO trends which need to be corrected for. This is a cool discovery because it coincides nicely with the decline in solar activity that began in 2002 (and also the PDO drop off since 2007).

You're also correct about jan 00 to Dec 11.. using my hypothetical ONI data for the next 7 months I get a 6 month lagged trend of only -.0005C/yr which would be among the most neutral periods we have selected. The trend from 00-present is .17C/decade but 12 more months of cold temperatures will reduce that a lot.

So the three periods to look at at the end of this year will be

1) Jan00-Dec11

2) an average of Jan98-Dec11 and Jan99-Dec11

[nzucker]

Do you have access to the adjusted satellite numbers like STAR? Do those also show a slowing trend to the warming like UAH/RSS, despite showing nearly .2C/decade?

2011 should continue the tendency towards less warming in recent years; it will be the coldest year since 2008 easily, and one of the coldest in the last 15 years of satellite data. According to AMSU, Channel 5 has stabilized a bit but global SSTs are once again dropping, moving towards 2008 and away from the rest of the pack. There's been some impressive cooling near Australia and in the Indian Ocean lately.

[BethesdaWX]

Do you have access to the adjusted satellite numbers like STAR? Do those also show a slowing trend to the warming like UAH/RSS, despite showing nearly .2C/decade?

2011 should continue the tendency towards less warming in recent years; it will be the coldest year since 2008 easily, and one of the coldest in the last 15 years of satellite data. According to AMSU, Channel 5 has stabilized a bit but global SSTs are once again dropping, moving towards 2008 and away from the rest of the pack. There's been some impressive cooling near Australia and in the Indian Ocean lately.

Yes 2011 is gonna be a "cold" year.

It will take Several Weak Solar Cycles to reverse/remove the warming from the Modern Max. Almost 1 century of record breaking solar activity will take 2-3 weak cycles to flush the accumulated warming from it.

Intra-Cycle, The lag for solar cooling is 2-6yrs after the fact, so the minimum should start having an effect now....the "real" cooling would commence during the weak solar max 4-5 years from now......a weak solar max removes alot of energy that would be hitting earth.

I do not anticipate any significant Global Cooling until 2015 or so. I know I was saying 2020, but I see things are progressing faster than I originally thought.

[skierinvermont]

Do you have access to the adjusted satellite numbers like STAR? Do those also show a slowing trend to the warming like UAH/RSS, despite showing nearly .2C/decade?

2011 should continue the tendency towards less warming in recent years; it will be the coldest year since 2008 easily, and one of the coldest in the last 15 years of satellite data. According to AMSU, Channel 5 has stabilized a bit but global SSTs are once again dropping, moving towards 2008 and away from the rest of the pack. There's been some impressive cooling near Australia and in the Indian Ocean lately.

It's really hard to say - they haven't released their data yet because they are still in the process of performing some other adjustments. So I have to go by the figures in their journal articles and it's too hard to tell just by looking. I would assume it does show some relative slowing as well but it might not be as much if the SNO calibration method finds big errors for UAH/RSS in the last decade.

[skierinvermont]

Yes 2011 is gonna be a "cold" year.

It will take Several Weak Solar Cycles to reverse/remove the warming from the Modern Max. Almost 1 century of record breaking solar activity will take 2-3 weak cycles to flush the accumulated warming from it.

Intra-Cycle, The lag for solar cooling is 2-6yrs after the fact, so the minimum should start having an effect now....the "real" cooling would commence during the weak solar max 4-5 years from now......a weak solar max removes alot of energy that would be hitting earth.

I do not anticipate any significant Global Cooling until 2015 or so. I know I was saying 2020, but I see things are progressing faster than I originally thought.

I just showed that there is little to no lag intra-cycle. Go ahead and look at the graph and circle where the lag is.

I just showed why there is no applicable mechanism for much of a lag inter-cycle either. The fluctuations between a weak max and a strong max are tiny... less than a .1W/m2 difference in energy reaching the surface. It only looks like it is a bigger difference because all of the graphs zoom in the fluctuation which makes it look like TSI goes to zero during the minimum. You need to pay attention to your Y-axis. The biggest cooling potential is from having longer cycles in which you spend more time in the minimum.

[salbers]

Yes, just like with diurnal and seasonal cycles, the forcing has signifiant effect right away with peak effect with just about a 30-60 degree or so lag in phase, corresponding to about 1-2 year time for an 11 year solar cycle.

[BethesdaWX]

I just showed that there is little to no lag intra-cycle. Go ahead and look at the graph and circle where the lag is.

I just showed why there is no applicable mechanism for much of a lag inter-cycle either. The fluctuations between a weak max and a strong max are tiny... less than a .1W/m2 difference in energy reaching the surface. It only looks like it is a bigger difference because all of the graphs zoom in the fluctuation which makes it look like TSI goes to zero during the minimum. You need to pay attention to your Y-axis. The biggest cooling potential is from having longer cycles in which you spend more time in the minimum.

And I just showed it wasn't.

Did you read the study I posted yesterday? 1-2 years is too short for temperature effect overall...arctic/blocking/temperature is another story...."effects" in general is relative.

It also depends on the type of activity being seen on the sun.

http://www.scribd.co...bal-Temperature

The more relevant stuff is a littel later into the study.

[tacoman25]

It's really hard to say - they haven't released their data yet because they are still in the process of performing some other adjustments. So I have to go by the figures in their journal articles and it's too hard to tell just by looking. I would assume it does show some relative slowing as well but it might not be as much if the SNO calibration method finds big errors for UAH/RSS in the last decade.

Then I would really have trouble favoring it over UAH/RSS, seeing as how the surface-based sources also show significant slowing over the past 10 years.

Also, if STAR finds RSS more accurate and are closer to them than UAH, they are actually less likely to show as much warming as UAH over the past 10-12 years.

[tacoman25]

Yes, just like with diurnal and seasonal cycles, the forcing has signifiant effect right away with peak effect with just about a 30-60 degree or so lag in phase, corresponding to about 1-2 year time for an 11 year solar cycle.

But a longer, slower rise from an exceptionally low minimum should mean a more significant and longer period of negative forcing as well.

And we really don't know about the cumulative effect of low cycles.

Imagine if the winter solstice lasted 2 weeks longer than normal. Or if we had a series of exceptionally short summers.

[BethesdaWX]

Thats the point I've been trying to make to Skier. Intracycle cooling is very minimal.....take away the Energy of a Solar Max (as in, a Weak solar cycle 24), and the effect is much more pronounced.

As in perspective....ALL minimums drop to near Zero, or "bottom out"...its the missing energy in a Weak Maximum where we see significant cooling.

This was seen in the 1970's..where 1 weak solar cycle (It was actually a strong cycle by Dalton Min Standards ) led to a very cold 7 years. Thankfully, it was simply a blip in a century of Record Breaking Solar Cycles.

[tacoman25]

Thats the point I've been trying to make to Skier. Intracycle cooling is very minimal.....take away the Energy of a Solar Max (as in, a Weak solar cycle 24), and the effect is much more pronounced.

As in perspective....ALL minimums drop to near Zero, or "bottom out"...its the missing energy in a Weak Maximum where we see significant cooling.

This was seen in the 1970's..where 1 weak solar cycle (It was actually a strong cycle by Dalton Min Standards ) led to a very cold 7 years. Thankfully, it was simply a blip in a century of Record Breaking Solar Cycles.

Globally, though, I don't believe the 1970s were cooler than the 1960s or 1950s?

[BethesdaWX]

Globally, though, I don't believe the 1970s were cooler than the 1960s or 1950s?

Not Really, but why should they have been? It takes more than 1 moderate solar cycle in a Sea of Record breaking cycles to Create the Cooling.

I also tend not to look at GISS for research on historical temps...if you know what I mean

[tacoman25]

Not Really, but why should they have been? It takes more than 1 moderate solar cycle in a Sea of Record breaking cycles to Create the Cooling.

I also tend not to look at GISS for research on historical temps...if you know what I mean

I haven't looked at the longterm HadCRU records for awhile....do they show a more pronounced cooling the in the 1970s?

[skierinvermont]

But a longer, slower rise from an exceptionally low minimum should mean a more significant and longer period of negative forcing as well.

And we really don't know about the cumulative effect of low cycles.

Imagine if the winter solstice lasted 2 weeks longer than normal. Or if we had a series of exceptionally short summers.

The effect isn't cumulative.. the incoming SW decreases and then stays at a low level until the next maximum. The net forcing is still exceptionally positive at near .9W/m2.

Do you have any theoretical mechanism that would cause a lag/cumulative effect? The only two I can think of are:

1) it takes time for the oceans to cool

2) increasing ice positive feedback

Neither 1 nor 2 is applicable here because the earth is rapidly accumulating heat no matter where we are in the solar cycle.

[skierinvermont]

And I just showed it wasn't.

Did you read the study I posted yesterday? 1-2 years is too short for temperature effect overall...arctic/blocking/temperature is another story...."effects" in general is relative.

It also depends on the type of activity being seen on the sun.

http://www.scribd.co...bal-Temperature

The more relevant stuff is a littel later into the study.

This study is old and barely readable. This isn't really disputable.. you perform a simple correlation study and temperature lags the solar cycle by 1-2 years NOT 6. It's basic very straightforward math.

Are we reinventing math now too?

In fact we don't even need math, all you have to do is look at this chart to see there is very little lag between intra-cycle changes and temperature:

[nzucker]

The effect isn't cumulative.. the incoming SW decreases and then stays at a low level until the next maximum. The net forcing is still exceptionally positive at near .9W/m2.

Do you have any theoretical mechanism that would cause a lag/cumulative effect? The only two I can think of are:

1) it takes time for the oceans to cool

2) increasing ice positive feedback

Neither 1 nor 2 is applicable here because the earth is rapidly accumulating heat no matter where we are in the solar cycle.

Remember though, the energy emitted by the sun only changes by .1% from the peak to the trough of a solar cycle; this is certainly not enough to cause large-scale climate transformations like the Little Ice Age. If we accept that the Little Ice Age was based in solar variation (and there are certainly other theories such as higher volcanic activity and reduced carbon emissions from the Black Death), then we must explain how solar minima can induce cooling beyond the .1% variation that's commonly seen between the top and bottom of a cycle. During the Maunder Minimum, for example, it is believed that the sun's rotation actually slowed, and this may have had effects on Earth's climate that are not yet well understood. Then you have other controversial theories such as cosmic ray feedbacks and such...the problem is we don't really know what a powerful solar minimum does, because we've never experienced one in the era of modern science. However, at least looking at European records, it's clear that the most dramatic change in regional climate occurred well after the beginning of the Maunder Minimum, which started in 1645. Britain's "Great Frost" was in Winter 1683-84, with the Thames frozen for two months with ice up to a foot thick. 1688 was also an especially severe winter in England, and the majority of climate-related famines in Europe occurred in the 1690s. So what explains this apparent lag? Is it just chance: a matter of regional climate, or was there a cumulative impact of having so many years with unusually low solar activity?

Also, the ocean cooling and ice feedbacks could still be applicable in a modern solar minimum. Even if we remain in energy imbalance due to carbon, the drop in solar activity could cause a gradual reduction in this imbalance; if you are counting on positive feedbacks to enhance the warming caused by the greenhouse effect itself, as IPCC does, then you'd get exponentially further from the predicted trend line of global temperature as the solar minimum continued and the positive feedbacks were much less than expected. Also, the -PDO combined with the solar minimum may make the Arctic more vital even in the face of an energy imbalance, which would be stored mostly in the cold Pacific Ocean cycle....akin to what's happened in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean where many regions have experienced cooling and ice growth despite the planet's accumulating energy.

[Clifford]

NOAA has finally released their January 2011 report.

http://www.ncdc.noaa...c/global/2011/1

Land: + 0.47 °C (marked as 29^th warmest, tied with 1949).

Ocean +0.35°C (marked as 11^th warmest)

Land&Ocean +0.38°C (17^th warmest)

Northern Hemisphere Land +0.43°C (37^th warmest)

Southern Hemisphere Land +0.50°C (12^th warmest)

It is still listed somewhat higher than 2008.

Southern Asia, China, and India were reporting cold weather.

Although, I suppose the "Heat Wave" in Northern Asia is just relative.... :snowman:

[skierinvermont]

Remember though, the energy emitted by the sun only changes by .1% from the peak to the trough of a solar cycle; this is certainly not enough to cause large-scale climate transformations like the Little Ice Age. If we accept that the Little Ice Age was based in solar variation (and there are certainly other theories such as higher volcanic activity and reduced carbon emissions from the Black Death), then we must explain how solar minima can induce cooling beyond the .1% variation that's commonly seen between the top and bottom of a cycle. During the Maunder Minimum, for example, it is believed that the sun's rotation actually slowed, and this may have had effects on Earth's climate that are not yet well understood. Then you have other controversial theories such as cosmic ray feedbacks and such...the problem is we don't really know what a powerful solar minimum does, because we've never experienced one in the era of modern science. However, at least looking at European records, it's clear that the most dramatic change in regional climate occurred well after the beginning of the Maunder Minimum, which started in 1645. Britain's "Great Frost" was in Winter 1683-84, with the Thames frozen for two months with ice up to a foot thick. 1688 was also an especially severe winter in England, and the majority of climate-related famines in Europe occurred in the 1690s. So what explains this apparent lag? Is it just chance: a matter of regional climate, or was there a cumulative impact of having so many years with unusually low solar activity?

Also, the ocean cooling and ice feedbacks could still be applicable in a modern solar minimum. Even if we remain in energy imbalance due to carbon, the drop in solar activity could cause a gradual reduction in this imbalance; if you are counting on positive feedbacks to enhance the warming caused by the greenhouse effect itself, as IPCC does, then you'd get exponentially further from the predicted trend line of global temperature as the solar minimum continued and the positive feedbacks were much less than expected. Also, the -PDO combined with the solar minimum may make the Arctic more vital even in the face of an energy imbalance, which would be stored mostly in the cold Pacific Ocean cycle....akin to what's happened in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean where many regions have experienced cooling and ice growth despite the planet's accumulating energy.

This is a common myth. IPCC models are able to reproduce the LIA and MWP using existing understandings of forcings and their historical reconstructions.

Yes prolonged low solar activity could lessen the positive feedbacks for warming. However, this is not the same thing as inducing positive feedbacks for cooling that would have been experienced in the LIA. There will not be an increase in albedo and there will not be a cooling of the global oceans. So it could slow down the warming slightly but it isn't going to cause any cooling as long as the earth continues to rapidly accumulate heat at a rate of .9W/m2.

[nzucker]

This is a common myth. IPCC models are able to reproduce the LIA and MWP using existing understandings of forcings and their historical reconstructions.

Yes prolonged low solar activity could lessen the positive feedbacks for warming. However, this is not the same thing as inducing positive feedbacks for cooling that would have been experienced in the LIA. There will not be an increase in albedo and there will not be a cooling of the global oceans. So it could slow down the warming slightly but it isn't going to cause any cooling as long as the earth continues to rapidly accumulate heat at a rate of .9W/m2.

To be fair, though, the IPCC uses the minimal variation between MWP and LIA, certainly less than many skeptics would argue existed...It's easier to explain a .25C change in global climate using solar irradiance than a 1C change, and there's not complete consensus on what the global temperature was back then; all the proxies have their issues and large error bars, and the anecdotal reports pinpoint different cooling regimes beginning at varying times across the globe, with a common consensus that there was a cooling period between 1300-1800. So it's only a myth if you believe in the IPCC definitions of the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age. Also, the 2007 IPCC report doesn't comment much on other aspects of solar variation besides total radiation emitted, whereas there has been much argument about meteorologists that solar changes can affect ENSO, cloud formation, the AO/NAO, etc. We definitely have an incomplete picture of how solar minima work given that we're just beginning to understand changes in the sun's rotation during the Maunder, the way solar can shape the tropical Pacific...no need for the common hubris that the IPCC has it all figured out. One of the best tools that the skeptics have is just how little we actually know about the climate, most ironically its ultimate driver, the sun.

There could still be positive changes in sea ice/snow cover in a -PDO/-AO/low solar regime...I mean Winter 09-10 had some of the highest Northern Hemisphere snow cover despite some of the warmest global temps ever recorded. Extrapolate those changes to the Arctic over a longer period of time and you'd start to see some albedo feedbacks.

[BethesdaWX]

This study is old and barely readable. This isn't really disputable.. you perform a simple correlation study and temperature lags the solar cycle by 1-2 years NOT 6. It's basic very straightforward math.

Are we reinventing math now too?

In fact we don't even need math, all you have to do is look at this chart to see there is very little lag between intra-cycle changes and temperature:

huh? You call that old? Whats wrong with the science behind it again? It disagrees with yours....right.

I referenced 1 of many studies showing greater then 2 year lags. Will( ORHwxman) stated that the majority of studies show lagtimes of 2-3 yrs, some are around 4, even some near 6.

I'm in the 3-4 year camp, but I do not know enough about this to say that with anything other than the basics in the science.

[BethesdaWX]

This is a common myth. IPCC models are able to reproduce the LIA and MWP using existing understandings of forcings and their historical reconstructions.

Yes prolonged low solar activity could lessen the positive feedbacks for warming. However, this is not the same thing as inducing positive feedbacks for cooling that would have been experienced in the LIA. There will not be an increase in albedo and there will not be a cooling of the global oceans. So it could slow down the warming slightly but it isn't going to cause any cooling as long as the earth continues to rapidly accumulate heat at a rate of .9W/m2.

If that is true, then you've become a skeptic. I'd like reference to these models.

Our current Solar Max is on the same level as the MWP Max, Our CWP temperatures are on the same lavel as the MWP temperatures.

Our Modern Max was a faster "spike" upwards from weak solar in the 1700's/1800's to a huge Max from 1915-2000, which is why we see the "spike" in temps and sea level.

[BethesdaWX]

To get back on topic, Long Range GFS hs the global temp anomaly dropping near -0.4C next week, the ECMWF weeklies have drop then too...only it continues stronger into week 2, then maintaining near -0.3C weeks 3-4.

We are about to plunge below 2008 by a good margin, and may remain below it for over a month. Remember, the 2008 La Nina went through an earlier weakening phase, and a faster one too.

http://discover.itsc...e.csh?amsutemps

[nzucker]

To get back on topic, Long Range GFS hs the global temp anomaly dropping near -0.4C next week, the ECMWF weeklies have drop then too...only it continues stronger into week 2, then maintaining near -0.3C weeks 3-4.

We are about to plunge below 2008 by a good margin, and may remain below it for over a month. Remember, the 2008 La Nina went through an earlier weakening phase, and a faster one too.

http://discover.itsc...e.csh?amsutemps

Yeah, 2008 had a big spike now while we've started dropping again on Channel 5, so this is the chance to pick up some ground on 2008 as the coldest year in recent satellite records. The average also starts to rise swiftly at the beginning of March, so if the GFS/ECM are correct and this is reflected on AMSU, we may see quite the period of cooling. I hope this is just the start of a long, long winter

[ORH_wxman]

huh? You call that old? Whats wrong with the science behind it again? It disagrees with yours....right.

I referenced 1 of many studies showing greater then 2 year lags. Will( ORHwxman) stated that the majority of studies show lagtimes of 2-3 yrs, some are around 4, even some near 6.

I'm in the 3-4 year camp, but I do not know enough about this to say that with anything other than the basics in the science.

I've never seen anything that claims over a 4 year lag. I've seen 3 years and it wasn't the majority of studies, though its difficult to filter out the solar factor entirely because it has some small co-variance with the ocean cycles...they are all on cycles, but they aren't the exact same length every time and they are not the same strength each time...including the PDO/AMO cycles. The larger issue with solar lag is the longer term effects (i.e. a series of high cycles or a series of low cycles) and its not well understood.

[BethesdaWX]

Yeah, 2008 had a big spike now while we've started dropping again on Channel 5, so this is the chance to pick up some ground on 2008 as the coldest year in recent satellite records. The average also starts to rise swiftly at the beginning of March, so if the GFS/ECM are correct and this is reflected on AMSU, we may see quite the period of cooling. I hope this is just the start of a long, long winter

Aren't you sick of the cold, raw, nasty winter yet? I'm dying for some warmth.

heck, i'll emit as much Co2 as I can into the atmosphere