2011 Global Temperatures

[Clifford]

This is just simply wrong. Clifford posted the AMSU CH5 anomalies recently and it clearly showed CH5 bottomed out in late January and have been on a rising trend since then. The first two days of march averaged -.13C on Ch5. Perhaps he would be so kind as to post an updated chart (or tell me how to make one).

Hopefully it doesn't look too cluttered.

UAH SST anomaly has just crossed zero (although slope may be declining slightly). (current, 3/4/2011, +0.167°C)

UAH 14K anomaly is decreasing (although slope may also be declining slightly). (current, 3/3/2011, -0.19°C)

Oddly the two have opposite trends, although 14K is quite high up. I do wonder if there is some overlap in their measuring causing the opposite trends.

The TMT (14K) Temperature is now the lowest in a decade. But, the difference between several of the years is hardly significant, especially considering that 2008 was in a "temporary" increase, and it may be in part due to confounding between surface and TMT channels.

Ryan Maue JRA-25 has been low for a while, but seems to be climbing slightly. (current, 3/4/2011, -0.17°C)

BTW... plotted on 1/12 year months.

How to create the graph.

The download files are listed in the image. Or:

Sea Surface Temperature:

http://discover.itsc...S_chLT.r001.txt

CH5 - 14K

http://discover.itsc...S_ch05.r002.txt

Ryan Maue (you have to capture and type in the temps/anomalies).

http://www.coaps.fsu...11.html#picture

http://www.coaps.fsu.../~maue/weather/

Although, he now has 2 plots.

Jan 09 to present

http://www.coaps.fsu...e_anomalies.jpg

Jan 05 to present

http://www.coaps.fsu...malies_2005.jpg

I use OpenOffice (which you can download for FREE).

To plot, import the data into either OpenOffice or Excel.

The top of the files gives a column description.

For Ch5,

Column 1: Date (m/dy)

Column 9: 2009

Column 10: 2010 (about halfway down turns to all -999.000)

Column 13: Average (I believe this is the 1979-1998 average).

The -999.000 are handy to help you get the columns right, and so that you know the data was intentionally left blank. However, I use Find&Replace to replace it with blank (which doesn't affect averages and etc).

Their format makes it handy to compare dates. You calculate the Anomaly by subtracting Temp-Average for each day.

I always fight with dates, so I always count the dates in the year, starting with 0, and divide by 365 for normal years, or 366 for leap years, thus everything I do uses a pretty uniform date fraction.

Just graph the anomalies. I like XY Scatter. You can also use "line" that gives 1 tick per day.

Sea Surface Temperature was a little more complicated as it didn't include an average column (thus I only have what is included in the file from 2003 to 2011).

Column 1: Date (m/dy)

Column 9: 2011

Again, find and replace the -999.000

Since my data set was short, I averaged all the years including 2011 to get my daily averages.

I still had quite a bit of noise so I tried a 9 day running average. That seemed to smooth it out quite a bit, although it may not have been absolutely necessary.

One other note...

Different data sets seem to use different number conventions.

UAH uses Kelvin. Once you calculate the Anomaly, it is the same as Celsius.

Some such as NASA use either tenths or hundredths.

Dealing with February 29th is a pain. Fortunately last year and this year aren't leap years.

You will have to decide how to deal with missing data. You may be able to just ignore it.

I like to average for a single missing data point, and interpolation for 2 or more missing points

For example, for 2 missing points. Let A&B be the values immediately before and after.

First blank: A+(B-A)*(1/3)

Second: A+(B-A)*(2/3)

Comments are always welcome.

Oh, I've also meant to do monthly averages... but will defer to the monthly data sets that have been officially released, especially since the 14K numbers seem to be more representative of trends than absolute values on Earth (perhaps that is their intention). And, as mentioned, the non standard basis period due to limited daily data for the Sea Surface Temperatures (2003-2011).

For the monthly data sets, TLT (Temp Lower Troposphere) and TMT (Temp Middle Troposphere) are close, but not quite the same.

Global warming is supposed to cool TLS (Temp Lower Stratosphere), and both the UAH and RSS data sets also show slightly higher TMT than TLT in the 80's, and slightly lower TMT than TLT in the 2000's (and similar TLS anomalies).

Trends are more ambiguous, especially with the AMSU dataset in the last decade.

[BethesdaWX]

AMSU

As I and nzucker anticipated, we have not bottomed out, and could very well reach a new "lowest" global anom for the La Nina on AMSU Aqua. We'll be running colder than 2008 for a good 20 days in a row coming up.

Cooling signal was, and still is, pretty good for global cooling imfo. Strong SSW should enfore a -NAO Late MAR.

[nzucker]

AMSU

As I and nzucker anticipated, we have not bottomed out, and could very well reach a new "lowest" global anom for the La Nina on AMSU Aqua. We'll be running colder than 2008 for a good 20 days in a row coming up.

Cooling signal was, and still is, pretty good for global cooling imfo. Strong SSW should enfore a -NAO Late MAR.

Awesome drop, now WAY below average.

Temps are tanking..maybe the Ice Age is finally here

[iceicebyebye]

Awesome drop, now WAY below average.

as one would expect, given the duration and strength of the current Nina phase (which soon will be moderating, as will global temps on top of seasonal movement)...

no surprises here, but also nothing that will alter the continued long term warming trends...

[BethesdaWX]

as one would expect, given the duration and strength of the current Nina phase (which soon will be moderating, as will global temps on top of seasonal movement)...

no surprises here, but also nothing that will alter the continued long term warming trends...

What long term warming trend? With the FEB anom on UAH, we've been cooling since 2002.

FYI, 2008 had much colder global ocean SST's and a stronger La Nina/-PDO...and we've been colder than 2008 for 20 days now, and may finish the year colder.

Not to mention we just came out of a mega Nino.

[WeatherRusty]

What long term warming trend? With the FEB anom on UAH, we've been cooling since 2002.

FYI, 2008 had much colder global ocean SST's and a stronger La Nina/-PDO...and we've been colder than 2008 for 20 days now, and may finish the year colder.

Not to mention we just came out of a mega Nino.

The one that resulted in the 2000's being the warmest 10 year period in the entire instrumental record despite your supposed cooling since 2002.

[Clifford]

as one would expect, given the duration and strength of the current Nina phase (which soon will be moderating, as will global temps on top of seasonal movement)...

I'm not convinced that the La Niña will be going away any time soon.

When you look at past El Niño/La Niña cycles.

Frequently a short, strong El Niño is followed by a multi-year La Niña.

So...

1972 - Strong El Niño, followed by about a 3 year La Niña.

1982 - Strong El Niño, followed by a 3 year La Niña.

1998 - Strong El Niño, followed by a 3 year La Niña.

Now... during the La Niña phases, the temperatures do tend to slowly rise.... over a time course of a couple of years as it returns back towards an El Niño.

Looking at the NOAA SST images:

The oceans do show up somewhat warm just west of Peru/Columbia/Central America.

However. there is a cool patch right on the Peru Coastline. Looking at past La Niña cycles, this cool patch seems to be important in feeding the La Niña currents.

The La Niña is also connected to Baja in the North, and Argentina in the south, also both associated with maintaining the La Niña.

It also continues to be warm on the East Coast of Australia... another sign of a strong La Niña.

I don't have the subsurface current analysis, but based on surface temperature patterns, I'd expect the La Niña to last into mid 2012 at least.

Temperature could moderate somewhat over that period as freqeuntly occurs during the 2nd or 3rd year of a La Niña cycle.

UAH seems to be showing a moderating of the Sea Surface Temperatures, but that may be just an oscillation, or perhaps merely an artifact as I had noted that the UAH TMT (14K) temperatures seemed to be falling at the same time the SST temperatures were rising.

I can't see evidence for a significant recent warming trend on the NOAA images above, although it might be difficult to pick up a tenth of a degree average change.

[Clifford]

The one that resulted in the 2000's being the warmest 10 year period in the entire instrumental record despite your supposed cooling since 2002.

Temperatures seem to be in a Plateau from 97/98 to present.

If the baseline temperatures are accurate, then we do remain at a "high", but with very little change in the last 14 years.

At least for USA records, there is some dispute on whether 1934, 1998, or later years was actually the "hottest", but the historical records do show more year to year variation in the past than we have seen recently.

[BethesdaWX]

The one that resulted in the 2000's being the warmest 10 year period in the entire instrumental record despite your supposed cooling since 2002.

We're talking about UAH dude. nWith the Release of the FEB2011 anomaly, we are now officially in a cooling trend since 2002...almost a decade.

FYI...Its not a warming trend, its a 1-2 step leveling of anomaies coinciding perfectly with the +AMO flip.

We are now out of the IPCC confidence, despite the warm alignment of the Drivers for so long...yet we see no warming. There should be nothing holding back AGW since YOUR supposed "overwhelming the natural drivers" hypothesis.

Warming seen recently is likely not due to CO2 for the following reason, one of many.

The assumption of constant relative humidity is not correct. Here is a graph of global average annual relative humidity at various elevations in the atmosphere expressed in millibars (mb) from 300 mb to 700 mb for the period 1948 to 2008. [standard atmospheric pressure = 1013 mb. 1 mb = 1 hectopascal (hPa)] The data is from the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory here.

( http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/Climate_Change_Science.html#Correlation)

This graph shows that the relative humidity has been dropping, especially at higher elevations allowing more heat to escape to space. The curve labelled 300 mb is at about 9 km altitude, which is in the middle of the predicted (but missing) tropical troposphere hot-spot. This is the critical elevation as this is where radiation can start to escape without being recaptured. The average relative humidity at this altitude has declined by 20% (or 9.4 percentiles) from 1948 to 2008!

Doubling the amount of CO2 would increase temperatures by only about 1 degree Celsius if nothing else changed according to the IPCC. But the amount of water vapour will change in response to a CO2 induced temperature increase. Warmer air can hold more water vapour, so if relative humidity remains constant, the amount of water vapour increases with increasing temperatures. More water vapour, being a powerful greenhouse gas, would cause a further temperature increase, which is called a positive feedback. Most of the IPCC’s projected warming is due to this water vapour feedback.

But the above graph shows falling relative humidity where the IPCC says changing water vapour content is most important. If relative humidity declines with increasing CO2 concentrations, the amount of water vapour in the upper troposphere may not increase, but might decline instead, resulting in a negative water vapour feedback.

Here is a graph of specific humidity, or the actual water vapour content, in grams of water vapour per kilogram of air, at the 400 mb level (about 8 km altitude).

This shows that the actual water vapour content in the upper troposphere has declined by 17% from 1948 to 2008 at the 400 mb pressure level. The climate models predict that humidity will increase in the upper troposphere, but the data shows a large decrease, just where water vapour changes have the greatest effect on global temperatures.

[nzucker]

I'm not convinced that the La Niña will be going away any time soon.

The oceans do show up somewhat warm just west of Peru/Columbia/Central America.

However. there is a cool patch right on the Peru Coastline. Looking at past La Niña cycles, this cool patch seems to be important in feeding the La Niña currents.

The La Niña is also connected to Baja in the North, and Argentina in the south, also both associated with maintaining the La Niña.

It also continues to be warm on the East Coast of Australia... another sign of a strong La Niña.

I don't have the subsurface current analysis, but based on surface temperature patterns, I'd expect the La Niña to last into mid 2012 at least.

Temperature could moderate somewhat over that period as freqeuntly occurs during the 2nd or 3rd year of a La Niña cycle.

UAH seems to be showing a moderating of the Sea Surface Temperatures, but that may be just an oscillation, or perhaps merely an artifact as I had noted that the UAH TMT (14K) temperatures seemed to be falling at the same time the SST temperatures were rising.

I can't see evidence for a significant recent warming trend on the NOAA images above, although it might be difficult to pick up a tenth of a degree average change.

Yeah, it's very rare to go from Strong Niño-->Strong Niña and not get a multi-year event. The Niña state is just inherently more stable so it tends to last a while. This event looks very healthy with the North Pacific pattern as well: classic Aleutian ridge with cold anomalies/troughing over the West Coast and up into the GoA. -PDO has really become cemented late this winter. We have strong trade winds coming as well which should help to prolong the cold waters in the ENSO region:

I'd assume we see at least a weak Niña for NH Winter 11-12.

[Mencken_Fan]

Hello BethesdaWX. Like you, my niece graduated HS in Montgomery county last fall. She was killed last night in a car crash.

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/117516638.html

I know there's a gazillion people up there, but I wonder if you knew her or any of her friends.

You take care of yourself man.

[BethesdaWX]

Hello BethesdaWX. Like you, my niece graduated HS in Montgomery county last fall. She was killed last night in a car crash.

http://www.nbcwashin.../117516638.html

I know there's a gazillion people up there, but I wonder if you knew her or any of her friends.

You take care of yourself man.

Oh no, I'm so sorry! Its crazy because I drove past that wreck coming home from a movie, but I did not know her.

Hope all is well with you, I know what its like to lose a family member, it really sucks.

[tacoman25]

The one that resulted in the 2000's being the warmest 10 year period in the entire instrumental record despite your supposed cooling since 2002.

Those two statements are not mutually exclusive.

What is interesting is that when Pinatubo is properly accouted for with 1990s temperatures, we saw greater warming from the 1970s to the 1980s, and the 1980s to 1990s, than we saw from the 1990s to 2000s.

In other words, if decadal trends mean anything, we are seeing decelerating warming.

[tacoman25]

It looks like the RSS Numbers have come in:

ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/m...ly_time_series/

TLT Land and Ocean:

Global Dec 0.220, Jan 0.084 Feb 0.051

N Polar Dec 1.401, Jan 1.801, Feb -0.110

S Polar Dec 0.165, Jan -0.098, Feb -0.580

USA Dec -0.853, Jan -0.792, Feb -0.563

TLT Land

Global Dec 0.340, Jan 0.076, Feb -0.174

S Polar Dec 0.277 Jan 0.908, Feb -1.426

TLT Ocean

Global Dec 0.162, Jan 0.088, Feb 0.160

First time U.S. temperatures have seen -.5 or colder anomalies for three straight months since 1993.

[WeatherRusty]

Those two statements are not mutually exclusive.

What is interesting is that when Pinatubo is properly accouted for with 1990s temperatures, we saw greater warming from the 1970s to the 1980s, and the 1980s to 1990s, than we saw from the 1990s to 2000s.

In other words, if decadal trends mean anything, we are seeing decelerating warming.

There is no denying that the trend over the past decade has displayed little continued significant warming if any at all. It was still the warmest decade within the instrumental record however.

I will put my faith in the expected dominance of greenhouse warming as revealed by the physics that the coming decade will again be the warmest on record. By how much I couldn't say. No major eruptions allowed, unless factored in such as you did with Pinatubo.

[BethesdaWX]

There is no denying that the trend over the past decade has displayed little continued significant warming if any at all. It was still the warmest decade within the instrumental record however.

I will put my faith in the expected dominance of greenhouse warming as revealed by the physics that the coming decade will again be the warmest on record. By how much I couldn't say. No major eruptions allowed, unless factored in such as you did with Pinatubo.

Do you deny that the warming seen since 1940 is likely not Greenhouse related? The IPCC bases much of its expected warming off feedbacks from CO2/Water Vapor, stating that...if there were no feedbacks, Warming per doubling would probably be in the 1C range.

Now, if Water Vapor were to decrease between 300-700mb, this would result in a Major Negative Feedback. A 20% decrease in humidity between 300-700mb since 1948 would pretty much cancel out any CO2 warming we could have experienced.

http://www.friendsof...tml#Correlation

This graph shows that the relative humidity has been dropping, especially at higher elevations allowing more heat to escape to space. The curve labelled 300 mb is at about 9 km altitude, which is in the middle of the predicted (but missing) tropical troposphere hot-spot. This is the critical elevation as this is where radiation can start to escape without being recaptured. The average relative humidity at this altitude has declined by 20% (or 9.4 percentiles) from 1948 to 2008!

This would prevent much warming resulting from any CO2 increase.....if there is any significant warming resulting from such in the 1st place.

[Clifford]

There is no denying that the trend over the past decade has displayed little continued significant warming if any at all. It was still the warmest decade within the instrumental record however.

I will put my faith in the expected dominance of greenhouse warming as revealed by the physics that the coming decade will again be the warmest on record. By how much I couldn't say. No major eruptions allowed, unless factored in such as you did with Pinatubo.

You might have to submit that request on the Volcanoes to Mother Nature herself.

Does Mt. Eyjafjallajökull count... if one could ever pronounce it?

Let's get this straight...

You're not predicting that the 2010's will be warmer than the 1990's, but rather the 2010's will be warmer than the the period from

Jan 1, 2001 to Dec 31 2010.

Where do you put the "zero year"? Preceding or following decade?

RSS/UAH record set, Global Land and Ocean TLT?

Straight average 10 years worth of monthly anomaly data.

I'd say you have a bet...

But, likely we'd never track each other down in a decade

[nzucker]

There is no denying that the trend over the past decade has displayed little continued significant warming if any at all. It was still the warmest decade within the instrumental record however.

I will put my faith in the expected dominance of greenhouse warming as revealed by the physics that the coming decade will again be the warmest on record. By how much I couldn't say. No major eruptions allowed, unless factored in such as you did with Pinatubo.

It will suck for the IPCC/Hansen if the 2010s don't come out warmer than the 2000s. 2011 will certainly help the skeptic cause.

A multi-year Niña means that we'll fall well outside the IPCC 2007 GCM 95% confidence interval. That last happened in 07-08 but then we recovered a bunch of warmth with the strong El Niño last season. Doesn't look like La Niña is going anywhere for now, though

[BethesdaWX]

It will suck for the IPCC/Hansen if the 2010s don't come out warmer than the 2000s. 2011 will certainly help the skeptic cause.

A multi-year Niña means that we'll fall well outside the IPCC 2007 GCM 95% confidence interval. That last happened in 07-08 but then we recovered a bunch of warmth with the strong El Niño last season. Doesn't look like La Niña is going anywhere for now, though

Haha the only hope to get back in the cone is for a strong El Nino at this point.....pathetic.

[nzucker]

Haha the only hope to get back in the cone is for a strong El Nino at this point.....pathetic.

Might be 10 years before we get one of those again with the way the Pacific looks now.

Classic strong Niña/-PDO with the amplified Aleutian ridge, cold SST anomalies off the West Coast stretching down to the Baja and towards the Humboldt Current...

[BethesdaWX]

Might be 10 years before we get one of those again with the way the Pacific looks now.

Classic strong Niña/-PDO with the amplified Aleutian ridge, cold SST anomalies off the West Coast stretching down to the Baja and towards the Humboldt Current...

Yeah the -PDO has recently become much more potent. The first week of March has come in quite chilly! I think we see either a weak La Nina or Neutral ENSO enxt winter.

The +AMO is getting ridiculous though, thus we see the extreme impact on the arctic Ice.

[nzucker]

Yeah the -PDO has recently become much more potent. The first week of March has come in quite chilly! I think we see either a weak La Nina or Neutral ENSO enxt winter.

The +AMO is getting ridiculous though, thus we see the extreme impact on the arctic Ice.

Probably a weak La Niña although I wouldn't be surprised if we got back into moderate....

The +NAO pattern should start to weaken some of the extreme warmth in the North Atlantic...big vortex coming up with a strong Icelandic low/Azores high:

We're seeing a major pattern change over the Atlantic compared to early in the winter.

[Clifford]

Do you deny that the warming seen since 1940 is likely not Greenhouse related? The IPCC bases much of its expected warming off feedbacks from CO2/Water Vapor, stating that...if there were no feedbacks, Warming per doubling would probably be in the 1C range.

Now, if Water Vapor were to decrease between 300-700mb, this would result in a Major Negative Feedback. A 20% decrease in humidity between 300-700mb since 1948 would pretty much cancel out any CO2 warming we could have experienced.

http://www.friendsof...tml#Correlation

This graph shows that the relative humidity has been dropping, especially at higher elevations allowing more heat to escape to space. The curve labelled 300 mb is at about 9 km altitude, which is in the middle of the predicted (but missing) tropical troposphere hot-spot. This is the critical elevation as this is where radiation can start to escape without being recaptured. The average relative humidity at this altitude has declined by 20% (or 9.4 percentiles) from 1948 to 2008!

This would prevent much warming resulting from any CO2 increase.....if there is any significant warming resulting from such in the 1st place.

I found the datasource.

Interesting page.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/data/timeseries/timeseries1.pl

One should probably be using Specific Humidity rather than Relative Humidity for the greenhouse effect as it gives a better representation of the average quantity of water in the air, independent of temperature.

For many of the pressures, the specific humidity had bottomed out around 1980, and had somewhat gained since then.

I'd actually be somewhat concerned with a drop in humidity. Any idea of the cause? Aerosols & Particulates?

The precipitation also seems to have bottomed out around 1980 and increased since then, although one might need to smooth out the annual variability to get a better idea of the trend.

[BethesdaWX]

I found the datasource.

Interesting page.

http://www.esrl.noaa.../timeseries1.pl

One should probably be using Specific Humidity rather than Relative Humidity for the greenhouse effect as it gives a better representation of the average quantity of water in the air, independent of temperature.

For many of the pressures, the specific humidity had bottomed out around 1980, and had somewhat gained since then.

I'd actually be somewhat concerned with a drop in humidity. Any idea of the cause? Aerosols & Particulates?

The precipitation also seems to have bottomed out around 1980 and increased since then, although one might need to smooth out the annual variability to get a better idea of the trend.

Yes, Thats True, but there is a reason they call it "relative" humidity, as in, what its relative to The drop in humidity in general is pretty insane. GCR's have been decreasing for the pst 100yrs, however, the reason it is so complicated is because there are a wide range of effects of such changes. A 20% decreae in humidity should give anyone the notion that CO2 warming should have been little to none since the late 1940's.

LCC/GCC and TP is something that has correlated to GCR changes...however, thats the same thing as Correlating CO2 to Warming, it gets us nowhere. The effects on the troposphere will not be the same as those in the stratosphere, nd it is likely a combination of factors.

There are studies linking the Drop In Humidity to Changes in the Earths upper atmosphere, coinciding with The Bombardment of the Magnetic Field from GCR's,

[BethesdaWX]

Probably a weak La Niña although I wouldn't be surprised if we got back into moderate....

The +NAO pattern should start to weaken some of the extreme warmth in the North Atlantic...big vortex coming up with a strong Icelandic low/Azores high:

We're seeing a major pattern change over the Atlantic compared to early in the winter.

Are you sure about the Moderate La Nina? MJO behavior at this point after the "influential peak" has me somewhat doubtful we see a Moderate Nina, maybe not even weak, but Heck, I've been wrong before.

Also, notice that, over the eastern US, the "great" arctic outbreaks seem to focus during -AMO periods, such as the last one seen in 1994.

[WeatherRusty]

You might have to submit that request on the Volcanoes to Mother Nature herself.

Does Mt. Eyjafjallajökull count... if one could ever pronounce it?

Let's get this straight...

You're not predicting that the 2010's will be warmer than the 1990's, but rather the 2010's will be warmer than the the period from

Jan 1, 2001 to Dec 31 2010.

Where do you put the "zero year"? Preceding or following decade?

RSS/UAH record set, Global Land and Ocean TLT?

Straight average 10 years worth of monthly anomaly data.

I'd say you have a bet...

But, likely we'd never track each other down in a decade

1A) Only major volcanic eruptions taking place in the tropics need be considered.

1B) the 2010's will be warmer than the the period from Jan 1, 2001 to Dec 31 2010. Correct

2) Since there was no year "zero" the new decade begins Jan 1, 2011.

3) Use average of GISS, NOAA, HadCRUT3, RSS and UAH.

4) I'd say you have a bet... Your favorite beverage

5) I hope to loose and also to be alive in ten years!

[WeatherRusty]

It will suck for the IPCC/Hansen if the 2010s don't come out warmer than the 2000s. 2011 will certainly help the skeptic cause.

A multi-year Niña means that we'll fall well outside the IPCC 2007 GCM 95% confidence interval. That last happened in 07-08 but then we recovered a bunch of warmth with the strong El Niño last season. Doesn't look like La Niña is going anywhere for now, though

It will suck for the scientific establishment if the 2010s fail to be warmer than the 2000s. If we have gone essentially two decades without statistically significant warming there will be a lot of head scratching going on. This would be especially so if the TOA radiative imbalance were to not simultaneously increase.

[skierinvermont]

Hopefully it doesn't look too cluttered.

Thanks for that.. I should be able to figure out how to make it on my own now from your instructions.

[skierinvermont]

We're talking about UAH dude. nWith the Release of the FEB2011 anomaly, we are now officially in a cooling trend since 2002...almost a decade.

The ENSO corrected trend since 2002 is about .06K/decade on UAH (more on Had/GISS) as Zucker, tacoman and I already discussed.

[ORH_wxman]

It will suck for the scientific establishment if the 2010s fail to be warmer than the 2000s. If we have gone essentially two decades without statistically significant warming there will be a lot of head scratching going on. This would be especially so if the TOA radiative imbalance were to not simultaneously increase.

I don't think it will be that bad. It will prove that a lot of science is still flawed in this field, but I think it might help in reducing the political noose on this particular field of science. Because no matter how much we want to try and keep politics out of it, that will never happen in the status quo since the IPCC is a consultant for policy changes among the UN. That automatically makes this a politically biased field.

The skeptic view on the whole I think it good for the science...that's how good science works. You do not black ball skeptic views and expect to get unbiased results. Obviously it would be frustrating for many scientists in terms of the actual hardcore physics involved if the next decade doesn't warm....but I think it would reduce the political strain and make this a more conventional scientific debate.

There is clearly some stuff we do not know about the climate system...we can add energy, but we are severely lacking IMHO on heat sinks and our full knowledge of outgoing energy via cloud feedback and particle feedback.