2011 Global Temperatures

[skierinvermont]

Dude, this is the 2011 temprature thread, its all about the variability in short term, not the AGW Hypothesis.

LEK made the original post about "missing heat" which is not related to single-year temperatures and short term variability... iceice was simply responding to that. If we all agree that neither the Nina cold nor Nino warmth are related to AGW science, then those types of comments shouldn't be in these threads..

Odd that you chose to single out iceice instead of LEK...

[tacoman25]

Yeah that's really a beautiful shot, well done by the photographer! I wasn't aware these volcanoes were supposed to have major climate effects, however, as they just scraped the stratosphere.

Little to no effect. Not big enough, not high enough, not comparable at all to previous climate-altering eruptions.

[BethesdaWX]

LEK made the original post about "missing heat" which is not related to single-year temperatures and short term variability... iceice was simply responding to that. If we all agree that neither the Nina cold nor Nino warmth are related to AGW science, then those types of comments shouldn't be in these threads..

Odd that you chose to single out iceice instead of LEK...

yes we agree

I was responding to both of them, since "IceIceByeBye" was the last post to read, I just responded to it. not sure why you think I'm singling people out

[LakeEffectKing]

My post was going to the point that the "Team" was concerned about where the missing heat was.....and since it hasn't "shown up" yet.....and we are cooling (yes....some of it is La Nina induced) it still makes for more "missing heat" (as in that I assume the argument from AGW folks is that it gets "pumped" into the oceans).....oh well, keep hanging on the "in the pipeline" mode, or shift to another alternate sub-hypothesis.

[BethesdaWX]

Rusty...is this post going to be related to the topic of 2011 temps?

[skierinvermont]

Rusty...is this post going to be related to the topic of 2011 temps?

Might I suggest you let people finish posting and then responding to the content of their posts, instead of trying to preempt their posts with allegations that they are posting too quickly, are not calm, or are posting off-topic.

[WeatherRusty]

My post was going to the point that the "Team" was concerned about where the missing heat was.....and since it hasn't "shown up" yet.....and we are cooling (yes....some of it is La Nina induced) it still makes for more "missing heat" (as in that I assume the argument from AGW folks is that it gets "pumped" into the oceans).....oh well, keep hanging on the "in the pipeline" mode, or shift to another alternate sub-hypothesis.

Better than 90% the energy absorbed by Earth's surface goes into the Oceans. The radiant energy going into the ocean is greater than the energy the oceans are radiating to the atmosphere and subsequently to space. The result as detected from the top of atmosphere is the 0.9W/m^2 positive energy imbalance. Either the incoming downward energy must decrease or the ocean surface must warm (on average) in order to restore the balance. This is basic physics which applies to any body that warms radiatively like the Earth is warmed by the Sun. If you deny this then your argument is not scientific.

The Earth is warming, it has to be because it is absorbing greater energy than it is emitting. Where is the 0.9W/m^2 going? Some of it has warmed the surface, the world is a warmer place than it was even a decade ago. Land surfaces have warmed as have SSTs. Lots of ice has been melting. When the energy used to warm the land, seas and ice is accounted for, there still remains a portion of the imbalance unaccounted for. We don't measure the deep oceans well, so maybe it is going there.

Regardless of whether we figure out where that energy is going, as long as there remains a positive energy imbalance the world must further warm in order to radiate the energy necessary to eliminate the imbalance. That is the source of "warming in the pipeline" and represents a physical reality...If you find that to be ridiculous or a "deceptive sub-hypothesis" then you just don't understand the physics very well.

[BethesdaWX]

Better than 90% the energy absorbed by Earth's surface goes into the Oceans. The radiant energy going into the ocean is greater than the energy the oceans are radiating to the atmosphere and subsequently to space. The result as detected from the top of atmosphere is the 0.9W/m^2 positive energy imbalance. Either the incoming downward energy must decrease or the ocean surface must warm (on average) in order to restore the balance. This is basic physics which applies to any body that warms radiatively like the Earth is warmed by the Sun. If you deny this then your argument is not scientific.

The Earth is warming, it has to be because it is absorbing greater energy than it is emitting. Where is the 0.9W/m^2 going? Some of it has warmed the surface, the world is a warmer place than it was even a decade ago. Land surfaces have warmed as have SSTs. Lots of ice has been melting. When the energy used to warm the land, seas and ice is accounted for, there still remains a portion of the imbalance unaccounted for. We don't measure the deep oceans well, so maybe it is going there.

Regardless of whether we figure out where that energy is going, as long as there remains a positive energy imbalance the world must further warm in order to radiate the energy necessary to eliminate the imbalance. That is the source of "warming in the pipeline" and represents a physical reality...If you find that to be ridiculous or a "deceptive sub-hypothesis" then you just don't understand the physics very well.

For the last time, this is the 2011 Global temperature thread, not a place to Discuss AGW Hypothesis.

Your post perfectly explains why "AGW hypothesis" is Failing...

If you would like to debate this issue further, please create an AGW debate thread, or PM me, or whatever you want.

[skierinvermont]

For the last time, this is the 2011 Global temperature thread, not a place to Discuss AGW Hypothesis.

Your post perfectly explains why "AGW hypothesis" is Failing...

If you would like to debate this issue further, please create an AGW debate thread, or PM me, or whatever you want.

Would you like me to go back and quote the literally 100s of posts of yours in this thread which do not directly relate to 2011 temperatures?

[BethesdaWX]

Would you like me to go back and quote the literally 100s of posts of yours in this thread which do not directly relate to 2011 temperatures?

If I have any, They've only been in response to others' veering off, I've never started an off topic posting spree....ever.

I'll quote you, rusty, iceice, etc, if needs be, and my posts that would follow, or yours that I would respond to.

[skierinvermont]

If I have any, They've only been in response to others' veering off, I've never started an off topic posting spree....ever.

I'll quote you, rusty, iceice, etc, if needs be, and my posts that would follow, or yours that I would respond to.

Rusty was responding to another poster as well.

This thread has been 99% general AGW discussion not specifically 2011 temperatures. Stop playing games. Nobody else cares.

If Rusty isn't allowed to respond to LEK's "off topic" post, perhaps you, in order to be consistent, should delete your literally 100s of "off-topic" responses in this thread.

[BethesdaWX]

To Get Back on Topic, AMSU has fallen even further below the average today, while remaining flat.

The Calculated trend since the Dip in JAN is now Down (cooling), not flat It appears this is about as low as we can possible go, any lower would be a HUGE surprise.

If we do not see a large spike soon, MAR may end up .2 - .3C colder than FEB

[BethesdaWX]

Rusty was responding to another poster as well.

This thread has been 99% general AGW discussion not specifically 2011 temperatures. Stop playing games. Nobody else cares.

If Rusty isn't allowed to respond to LEK's "off topic" post, perhaps you, in order to be consistent, should delete your literally 100s of "off-topic" responses in this thread.

BullSh*t

This thread has been about 2011 temps 80% of the time, the 20% off topic posts have come from warmists who respond with "well the drop doesn't disprove AGW" crap.

The few off topic posts I have are in response to you, rusty, and the off topic banter that needs to be contained.

[BethesdaWX]

LOL, we are 0.82C colder than this time Last year, maybe we make a run at 1C?

That is insane considering the drop only took 4 months

[skierinvermont]

BullSh*t

This thread has been about 2011 temps 80% of the time, the 20% off topic posts have come from warmists who respond with "well the drop doesn't disprove AGW" crap.

The few off topic posts I have are in response to you, rusty, and the off topic banter that needs to be contained.

Perhaps you can convince the moderating staff to delete all these "off-topic" posts given your sudden new-found concern for this organizational scheme of this sub-forum.

[BethesdaWX]

Perhaps you can convince the moderating staff to delete all these "off-topic" posts given your sudden new-found concern for this organizational scheme of this sub-forum.

That is up to them, I just would prefer not to debate AGW Hypothesis in the 2011 Temperature thread, and I'm sure you, and most everyone else here, agrees.

[BethesdaWX]

Hilarious. RFLMFAO.

I love you

U Mad?

[BethesdaWX]

This post is off-topic. Please take it to a separate thread.

So is this one.

Enough

[BethesdaWX]

To Get Back on Topic, AMSU has fallen even further below the average today, while remaining flat.

The Calculated trend since the Dip in JAN is now Down (cooling), not flat It appears this is about as low as we can possible go, any lower would be a HUGE surprise.

If we do not see a large spike soon, MAR may end up .2 - .3C colder than FEB

[skierinvermont]

That is up to them, I just would prefer not to debate AGW Hypothesis in the 2011 Temperature thread, and I'm sure you, and most everyone else here, agrees.

No I do not agree. This thread has been used for general AGW discussion since the beginning. These threads have been used for that purpose for years, long before you started posting here.

[ORH_wxman]

You guys can quit bickering any time now.

[Clifford]

Since I keep seeing my graph showing up over and over again....

Here's the latest.

The TMT (14K) temperature anomalies have fallen every day from February 27 to March 9.

The Ocean Temperatures reached a peak on March 6, and have been been falling for the last few days.

The JRA-25 also reached a peak on March 8, and was lower on March 9 (last day I've captured). The data seems to have some large oscillations, but appears to have a downward January/February/March trend.

As far as past comparisons.

http://vortex.nsstc....u/t2/tmtday_5.4

(historical, in thousandths)

My daily calculations seem to follow the monthly published TMT values, but do vary about +/- 0.05 degrees. Eventually I'll try to figure out why the two datasets don't match up better.

The TMT Global anomaly exceeded -0.4 from November 24 1999 to November 26, 1999

The TMT Global anomaly exceeded -0.4 from January 3,2000 to January 17, 2000.

During which it exceeded -0.5 from January 9 through January 12, 2000.

The TMT Global anomaly also exceeded -0.4 from January 30, 2008 to February 6, 2008 (including 2 days at -0.396 to -0.399)

The TMT Global anomaly also exceeded -0.4 from April 12, 2008 to April 14, 2008.

I'll try to throw together some comparative graphs for the 2000 and 2008 La Nina cycles.

Perhaps also 84 and 89.

Odd.

1993 looks to have a temperature anomaly profile similar to a La Nina, but isn't officially listed as a La Nina. Unfortunately the NOAA "anomnight" images only go back to mid-1996. Ryan Maue does have some old JRA-25 images of the period, but pretty low resolution. He is slowly trickling up good resolution historical GFS images, but I haven't captured the right period yet

Actually, I think Fall of 92 did actually have a very weak La Nina pattern, but reached lower than expected temperatures for a longer than expected duration.

[BethesdaWX]

No I do not agree. This thread has been used for general AGW discussion since the beginning.

Read the Board rules about off-topic posting.

This is the 2011 Temperature Thread.

[BethesdaWX]

Since I keep seeing my graph showing up over and over again....

Here's the latest.

The TMT (14K) temperature anomalies have fallen every day from February 27 to March 9.

The Ocean Temperatures reached a peak on March 6, and have been been falling for the last few days.

The JRA-25 also reached a peak on March 8, and was lower on March 9 (last day I've captured). The data seems to have some large oscillations, but appears to have a downward January/February/March trend.

As far as past comparisons.

http://vortex.nsstc....u/t2/tmtday_5.4

(historical, in thousandths)

My daily calculations seem to follow the monthly published TMT values, but do vary about +/- 0.05 degrees. Eventually I'll try to figure out why the two datasets don't match up better.

The TMT Global anomaly exceeded -0.4 from November 24 1999 to November 26, 1999

The TMT Global anomaly exceeded -0.4 from January 3,2000 to January 17, 2000.

During which it exceeded -0.5 from January 9 through January 12, 2000.

The TMT Global anomaly also exceeded -0.4 from January 30, 2008 to February 6, 2008 (including 2 days at -0.396 to -0.399)

The TMT Global anomaly also exceeded -0.4 from April 12, 2008 to April 14, 2008.

I'll try to throw together some comparative graphs for the 2000 and 2008 La Nina cycles.

Perhaps also 84 and 89.

Odd.

1993 looks to have a temperature anomaly profile similar to a La Nina, but isn't officially listed as a La Nina. Unfortunately the NOAA "anomnight" images only go back to mid-1996. Ryan Maue does have some old JRA-25 images of the period, but pretty low resolution. He is slowly trickling up good resolution historical GFS images, but I haven't captured the right period yet

Actually, I think Fall of 92 did actually have a very weak La Nina pattern, but reached lower than expected temperatures for a longer than expected duration.

The downward trend continues, I wonder how much lower we could go.

[skierinvermont]

Since I keep seeing my graph showing up over and over again....

Thanks.. I was just going to try making one. The problem I have is when I copy and paste the values into excel they all go into one cell. How do I import it properly?

Would you mind throwing on a trend line since Jan 25 or so?

[ORH_wxman]

Read the Board rules about off-topic posting.

This is the 2011 Temperature Thread.

Dude, STFU....if you think posts are not worthy then report them instead of turning this into an entire page filled with your own moderation guidelines. You are the last person who should be instructing people how to post. You were put on mod preview back on eastern for a reason.

[BethesdaWX]

Excuse me?

Please don't pin this on me, I was not the one off topic, Its quite annoying when 1/2 of the posts are Arguments that are De-railing an otherwise decent thread.

A couple posters who already chimed in are correct. This thread is about 2011 global temps. That's what the subject should be.

I'm not sure what you are telling me. "My own moderating guidelines"?

[Clifford]

Thanks.. I was just going to try making one. The problem I have is when I copy and paste the values into excel they all go into one cell. How do I import it properly?

Oh.

I don't know if I have Excel. Perhaps stashed around here somewhere on an incredibly obsolete computer.

I also sometimes have that issue with getting everything in a single cell.

Try opening Notepad.

Copy and paste into Notepad.

Copy again

And paste into Excel

Alternatively Save the TXT.

Then open it in excel (if you can).

Otherwise open it in Notepad, and try the copy and paste.

If you keep it up to date, then you only need to cut and paste a day or two worth of data.

Would you mind throwing on a trend line since Jan 25 or so?

I'll try to pick out some representative dates for a trend line. However, it doesn't seem to be representative of anything real.

I looked at many of the previous temperature drops around La Nina cycles, and there are obviously a lot of ups and downs.

In this case, the SST does appear to be trending up from about November to present. However, the rapid drop in TMT may also indicate a drop in SST.

Likewise, in late January the TMT appeared to start trending upwards throughout the month of February. That seems to have changed with a 0.3 degree drop.

If you look at the TMT, it appears to have hit a local low in late November.

The next couple of oscillations appeared to be upward, followed by another drop.

Overall, from late November, looking at the minimums, the temperature seems to be dropping in a stepwise fashion, with a slight recovery, followed by another drop.

Then it dropped again in late December, early January.

Over a 1 month time period.

Changing from a 0.1 degree oscillation to a 0.3 degree continuing drop. We don't know how far down it will go. The slope appears to be decreasing, but it did that a week ago before a further drop.

Your r² Goodness of Fit would undoubtedly be low.

[skierinvermont]

Oh.

I don't know if I have Excel. Perhaps stashed around here somewhere on an incredibly obsolete computer.

I also sometimes have that issue with getting everything in a single cell.

Try opening Notepad.

Copy and paste into Notepad.

Copy again

And paste into Excel

Alternatively Save the TXT.

Then open it in excel (if you can).

Otherwise open it in Notepad, and try the copy and paste.

If you keep it up to date, then you only need to cut and paste a day or two worth of data.

I'll try to pick out some representative dates for a trend line. However, it doesn't seem to be representative of anything real.

I looked at many of the previous temperature drops around La Nina cycles, and there are obviously a lot of ups and downs.

In this case, the SST does appear to be trending up from about November to present. However, the rapid drop in TMT may also indicate a drop in SST.

Likewise, in late January the TMT appeared to start trending upwards throughout the month of February. That seems to have changed with a 0.3 degree drop.

If you look at the TMT, it appears to have hit a local low in late November.

The next couple of oscillations appeared to be upward, followed by another drop.

Overall, from late November, looking at the minimums, the temperature seems to be dropping in a stepwise fashion, with a slight recovery, followed by another drop.

Then it dropped again in late December, early January.

Over a 1 month time period.

Changing from a 0.1 degree oscillation to a 0.3 degree continuing drop. We don't know how far down it will go. The slope appears to be decreasing, but it did that a week ago before a further drop.

Your r² Goodness of Fit would undoubtedly be low.

Yes if it keeps dropping or stays at similarly low values for a week or two, then I would say that this is more than a blip and we have had further significant cooling. If it recovers sharply, then the trend line will never really go negative since late January, and I would say we are just oscillating up and down but not really trending anywhere.

I'll try your advice with excel.

[WeatherRusty]

The supposed "missing heat" is becoming more "missing"......

The above is the comment which lead to this latest off topic debacle. This was an attempt to tie the current La Nina cooling to the larger issue surrounding AGW. Every thread in this climate change forum is discussed amidst the backdrop of the overriding issue of climate change or global warming. When someone implies AGW to be called into question based on a relatively short term trend of cooling, particularly when confusing a short term measure of internal variability for a long term measure of climate change, then they should be corrected for the sake of passers by who may just be lurking. I shouldn't have to stand by idly when I feel incorrect information is being put forth which may suggest to some that a La Nina somehow invalidates AGW or when the science is being mocked.

This is supposed to be fun and entertaining. NO ONE should come here to learn about climate change. Some people are taking things to seriously. Debate and exercise your brain, and if you are careful you could actually learn a few things or be pointed to reliable sources for information.