2011 Global Temperatures

[BethesdaWX]

By eye-balling my graphs...

http://vortex.nsstc....2/tmtglhmam_5.4

UAH TMT (Global)... Jan: -0.147, Feb: -0.145, Mar Predicted: -0.24

http://vortex.nsstc....t2lt/uahncdc.lt

UAH SST (Global)... Jan: 0.00, Feb: +0.07, Mar Predicted: +0.10

http://vortex.nsstc....t/tltglhmam_5.4

UAH TLT (Global)... Jan: -0.010, Feb -0.018, Mar Predicted: -0.020

I don't think the TLT will be following the TMT as closely as one might expect.

According to the Maue JRA-25 (unfortunately he no longer has daily charts).

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

There was a plunge at the end of the February, followed by warmer temperatures throughout March.

The UAH SST seems to indicate a moderate increase in temperatures since about the end of October, beginning of November, although the pattern seems to be a little different in the uahncdc.lt file.

This seems to be similar to the Maue GFS which also seems to indicate a sharp increase in temperature in early March.

Yes, but Ryan Maue's site represents surface temps, which of course would follow SST's more closely than the LT.

[BethesdaWX]

Alright, I'm going on Record for this prediction, don't have timeto go into reasoning. Wish me luck

- The Current Warming Spike in LT temps continues into Early April, reaching near Avg, maybe a few ticks above or below, sometime then. A few blips expected on the way up obviously.

-Starting Between APR 4th - 9th, another LT drop should manifest, dropping temps pretty good through Mid April, although nowhere near as low as they went in early March (relative to avg).

-In Mid or Late April, another overall Spike near or above avg.

MAR 2011 finishes somewhere between -0.1 to -0.2C, APR 2011 finishes @ +/- 0.05C

[Clifford]

Oh,

You want predictions for April too.

According to the Ryan Maue website:

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

He is predicting (GFS) that the temperatures will plunge in early April from about +0.36 on March 31 down to -0.34 on April 7 (a change of -0.70 in a week).

That seems like a little ambitious of a drop.

His predictions are that the North Polar anomalies will almost vanish by April 7. I wonder how that will affect the Sea Ice. Especially in the Bering Strait which has been struggling this year with high temperature anomalies in the Alaska region.

I think those predictions sound a little extreme, and perhaps also a little premature.

I've been watching solar activity for a while.

In the last few months, solar flares have been related to a drop in TSI, and a corresponding drop in UAH global TMT temperatures.

In the last few weeks, however, we've had many very large Active Regions on the sun, but most of them are due to old activity, and sunspots/flares that were over a month old. Correspondingly the TSI and 10.7 radio flux have had relatively mild responses, and the UAH TMT and UAH Sea Surface Temperatures have had relatively mild responses. There even seems to be a pause in the Sea Ice Melting this early spring.

I doubt we will see any strong solar activity until the current active regions are resolved. I believe Ryan Maue's predicted drop of 0.7 degrees from late March to early April is a little ambitious, especially when comparing to UAH TMT temperatures.

Perhaps late April, or during May, we'll see another X-Class Flare with a corresponding drop in global temperatures. Perhaps with a UAH Ch 5 TMT 14K anomaly dropping down to -0.4 (0.05 degrees lower than early March, and the lowest of the year)

For the month of April.

Let's go with Sea Surface Temperatures the same as March.

UAH/RSS TLT & TMT temperatures +0.03 degrees over March.

[skierinvermont]

You realize it's not actually Ryan Maue right? He is just hosting images from the GFS on his webpage.

Also, I don't notice any correlation between TSI and UAH TMT on timescales as short as months. There are lots of places on that graph where TSI plummeted but temps rose, and vice versa.

Also, I don't believe there is any correspondence on short timescales between UAH TMT and the surface. The surface frequently drops when TMT is rising, and vice versa.

[skierinvermont]

That the temperature trend as measured from a beginning point to an end point is representative of the long term trend to 95% confidence. If you have 15 years of data you can assume with better than 95% confidence that the trend you measure is representative of the longer term trend. 13 years would not represent enough data to reach the required level of statistical significance.

I have lost the paper that demonstrated this, but this is my recollection.

Ok...

Here is a 14 year "Running Trend Line" Slope Comparison. The red line is indicative of the slope of the 14 year trendline centered at that point.

UAH TLT Data, 1978 to Feb 2011.

[deleted graph]

So,

Depending on the 14 year data range chosen over the last 30+ years, you would end up with a slope of your trendline between -0.0036 to 0.034 degrees C / year.

And, this ignores the fact that there were instrument changes in 1998, and various PDO, AMO weather cycles.

So...

The question remains what you are 95% confident in?

I think I can resolve this. I think the 14 years is the timeperiod for which we have 95% confidence of a slope > zero, given an underlying long term trend of .15C/decade.

In other words, take an underlying trend of .15C/decade, and superimpose natural variability over it. It takes 14 years to be 95% confident the trend will be positive.

[BethesdaWX]

GFS is on board with cooling? I feel a little bit better about my prediction then, I really just based mine off teleconnectors in backlash response to the recent SSW which is now abating.

Although I think GFS might be a bit overdone in cooling (surface), but LT should do something like that IMFO, but not Until Mid April (Most likely in the later time period between the 4th & the 9th)

[BethesdaWX]

Oh,

You want predictions for April too.

According to the Ryan Maue website:

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

He is predicting (GFS) that the temperatures will plunge in early April from about +0.36 on March 31 down to -0.34 on April 7 (a change of -0.70 in a week).

That seems like a little ambitious of a drop.

His predictions are that the North Polar anomalies will almost vanish by April 7. I wonder how that will affect the Sea Ice. Especially in the Bering Strait which has been struggling this year with high temperature anomalies in the Alaska region.

I think those predictions sound a little extreme, and perhaps also a little premature.

I've been watching solar activity for a while.

In the last few months, solar flares have been related to a drop in TSI, and a corresponding drop in UAH global TMT temperatures.

In the last few weeks, however, we've had many very large Active Regions on the sun, but most of them are due to old activity, and sunspots/flares that were over a month old. Correspondingly the TSI and 10.7 radio flux have had relatively mild responses, and the UAH TMT and UAH Sea Surface Temperatures have had relatively mild responses. There even seems to be a pause in the Sea Ice Melting this early spring.

I doubt we will see any strong solar activity until the current active regions are resolved. I believe Ryan Maue's predicted drop of 0.7 degrees from late March to early April is a little ambitious, especially when comparing to UAH TMT temperatures.

Perhaps late April, or during May, we'll see another X-Class Flare with a corresponding drop in global temperatures. Perhaps with a UAH Ch 5 TMT 14K anomaly dropping down to -0.4 (0.05 degrees lower than early March, and the lowest of the year)

For the month of April.

Let's go with Sea Surface Temperatures the same as March.

UAH/RSS TLT & TMT temperatures +0.03 degrees over March.

Given that Global temperature drops have correlation to SSW abation, there is reason to believe the sun may have something to due with them.

However I'm not sure I see a "true" short term correlation between Global temps and solar flares, given that we've seen the MJO change octants during a similar timeframe.

The +AO however is something that could be related, although a +QBO forces against a -AO regardless.

[skierinvermont]

Given that Global temperature drops have correlation to SSW abation,

link?

[BethesdaWX]

link?

Umm, its NOAA, simply look for 10hpa observation on the site and when SSWings occured, and you'll see the correlations on an order of a 1-2 week lag

Its a well known process that SSWings lead to changes in HLB often times down the road, but also seem to signal a change in the tropopause as a whole.

GFS is what I usually use, Penn State E-wall Site has everything you need.

[LakeEffectKing]

March UAH = -0.1

YR MON GLOBAL NH SH TROPICS

2010 01 0.542 0.675 0.410 0.635

2010 02 0.510 0.553 0.466 0.759

2010 03 0.554 0.665 0.443 0.721

2010 04 0.400 0.606 0.193 0.633

2010 05 0.454 0.642 0.265 0.706

2010 06 0.385 0.482 0.287 0.485

2010 07 0.419 0.558 0.280 0.370

2010 08 0.441 0.579 0.304 0.321

2010 09 0.477 0.410 0.545 0.237

2010 10 0.306 0.257 0.356 0.106

2010 11 0.273 0.372 0.173 -0.117

2010 12 0.181 0.217 0.145 -0.222

2011 01 -0.010 -0.055 0.036 -0.372

2011 02 -0.020 -0.042 0.002 -0.348

2011 03 -0.099 -0.073 -0.126 -0.345

And current Ch. 5 is dropping again, right during the time the mean is starting to gain considerable temp.

[BethesdaWX]

March UAH = -0.1

YR MON GLOBAL NH SH TROPICS

2010 01 0.542 0.675 0.410 0.635

2010 02 0.510 0.553 0.466 0.759

2010 03 0.554 0.665 0.443 0.721

2010 04 0.400 0.606 0.193 0.633

2010 05 0.454 0.642 0.265 0.706

2010 06 0.385 0.482 0.287 0.485

2010 07 0.419 0.558 0.280 0.370

2010 08 0.441 0.579 0.304 0.321

2010 09 0.477 0.410 0.545 0.237

2010 10 0.306 0.257 0.356 0.106

2010 11 0.273 0.372 0.173 -0.117

2010 12 0.181 0.217 0.145 -0.222

2011 01 -0.010 -0.055 0.036 -0.372

2011 02 -0.020 -0.042 0.002 -0.348

2011 03 -0.099 -0.073 -0.126 -0.345

And current Ch. 5 is dropping again, right during the time the mean is starting to gain considerable temp.

Nice

Both the NH and SH cooled, while the tropics held. I wouldn't be surpried if april dropped further.

[skierinvermont]

Umm, its NOAA, simply look for 10hpa observation on the site and when SSWings occured, and you'll see the correlations on an order of a 1-2 week lag

Its a well known process that SSWings lead to changes in HLB often times down the road, but also seem to signal a change in the tropopause as a whole.

GFS is what I usually use, Penn State E-wall Site has everything you need.

I want a link to the correlation, not a link to the 10hpa data. You claimed there is a correlation. Please demonstrate this correlation. It should be pretty easy to demonstrate. If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't go around claiming it.

[BethesdaWX]

I want a link to the correlation, not a link to the 10hpa data. You claimed there is a correlation. Please demonstrate this correlation. It should be pretty easy to demonstrate. If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't go around claiming it.

Go to NOAA and compare AMSU to 10HPA SSWings, theres the correlations.

understand?

[skierinvermont]

Go to NOAA and compare AMSU to 10HPA SSWings, theres the correlations.

understand?

Correlations are not performed by simply looking at two data series qualitatively. Perform the actual quantitative correlation calculations yourself, or link to somebody else who already has. This should be fairly easy if a correlation actually exists.

[BethesdaWX]

Correlations are not performed by simply looking at two data series. Perform the actual quantitative correlation calculations yourself, or link to somebody else who already has. This should be fairly easy if a correlation actually exists.

Correlation is just a correlation, Look at GeoMag and the AO/NAO...flawless correlation, but we have no idea how it correlates.

All I did to accurately predict the warming/cooling spikes was look at the GFS Stratospheric 10HPA forecast, look at OBS, and times of change. It has worked well for me, even if I haven't figured exactly why

[nzucker]

Correlations are not performed by simply looking at two data series qualitatively. Perform the actual quantitative correlation calculations yourself, or link to somebody else who already has. This should be fairly easy if a correlation actually exists.

Right, but you've said yourself that a -AO should correlate to slightly lower global temps since it's like cracking an egg on the top of the Earth. SSWs are often seen as reasons behind the development of a -AO, so Bethesda's theory probably has some validity. We'll see if UAH/AMSU starts to drop off later this month as the AO comes down from its hugely positive swing.

[skierinvermont]

Right, but you've said yourself that a -AO should correlate to slightly lower global temps since it's like cracking an egg on the top of the Earth. SSWs are often seen as reasons behind the development of a -AO, so Bethesda's theory probably has some validity. We'll see if UAH/AMSU starts to drop off later this month as the AO comes down from its hugely positive swing.

I said that was my hypothesis.. I don't know that it's actually true. He has claimed there is a correlation.. if there is one he should post the evidence.

[skierinvermont]

Correlation is just a correlation, Look at GeoMag and the AO/NAO...flawless correlation, but we have no idea how it correlates.

All I did to accurately predict the warming/cooling spikes was look at the GFS Stratospheric 10HPA forecast, look at OBS, and times of change. It has worked well for me, even if I haven't figured exactly why

Correlations are mathematical calculations. You don't need to know "why" but you do need to do the math to demonstrate a correlation. They are not performed simply by looking at two data series and saying that you think they look similar.

Perform the correlation test yourself, or link to somebody else that has. If the correlation actually exists, this should be fairly easy. Otherwise don't claim there is a correlation.

[LakeEffectKing]

Correlations are mathematical calculations. You don't need to know "why" but you do need to do the math to demonstrate a correlation. They are not performed simply by looking at two data series and saying that you think they look similar.

Perform the correlation test yourself, or link to somebody else that has. If the correlation actually exists, this should be fairly easy. Otherwise don't claim there is a correlation.

Come on Skier! You know as well as anyone else that you can make a visual correlation (without doing the superdy duper mathmatics) as a first approximation, especially if it turns out to be a strong one. If it's a weak correlation, then yes, a statistical breakdown is warranted to tease out the exact correlation figure.

That is the whole point of VISUAL AIDS such as graphs charts....etc.....you can estimate relationships/correlations via these data presentation methods.

BTW...anyone have a site that updates RSS monthly data relatively quickly??? The old source I used I guess is not being added to....it's stuck at 12/2010.

[skierinvermont]

Come on Skier! You know as well as anyone else that you can make a visual correlation (without doing the superdy duper mathmatics) as a first approximation, especially if it turns out to be a strong one. If it's a weak correlation, then yes, a statistical breakdown is warranted to tease out the exact correlation figure.

That is the whole point of VISUAL AIDS such as graphs charts....etc.....you can estimate relationships/correlations via these data presentation methods.

BTW...anyone have a site that updates RSS monthly data relatively quickly??? The old source I used I guess is not being added to....it's stuck at 12/2010.

Yeah and I'm looking at the two data series and qualitatively I don't see a correlation, so I'm asking him for the quantitative evidence.

[skierinvermont]

I finally got around to statistically removing ENSO, TSI, and Volcano variation from the temperature series 1980-2010. I used the skierinvermont^TM temperature index (Average of HadCRUT/GISS 60S-60N with UAH at the poles) which I believe to be one of the most accurate ways to estimate surface temperature. Yearly temperature anomalies were adjusted by -.105C for each 1C of ONI (3 month lag), and by the theoretical -.18C for each W/m2 anomaly of TSI. The years 1992, 1993, and 1994 were adjusted by +.27, +.14 and +.07C respectively to adjust for Pinatubo. The result of removing the ENSO, TSI, and volcanic variation is a much more consistent temperature series that shows much more steady increase. Obviously not all variation can be removed because of unexplained variation and the interaction of factors, but much of it can be removed by using accepted relationships between ENSO, TSI, volcanoes and temperature which constitute the 3 strongest, most consistent, and predictable short-term effects on temperature.

The following graph is ENSO, TSI, and Volcano adjusted (blue line) along with a 5 year smoother (red line).

[tacoman25]

I finally got around to statistically removing ENSO, TSI, and Volcano variation from the temperature series 1980-2010. I used the skierinvermont^TM temperature index (Average of HadCRUT/GISS 60S-60N with UAH at the poles) which I believe to be one of the most accurate ways to estimate surface temperature. Yearly temperature anomalies were adjusted by -.105C for each 1C of ONI (3 month lag), and by the theoretical -.18C for each W/m2 anomaly of TSI. The years 1992, 1993, and 1994 were adjusted by +.27, +.14 and +.07C respectively to adjust for Pinatubo. The result of removing the ENSO, TSI, and volcanic variation is a much more consistent temperature series that shows much more steady increase. Obviously not all variation can be removed because of unexplained variation and the interaction of factors, but much of it can be removed by using accepted relationships between ENSO, TSI, volcanoes and temperature which constitute the 3 strongest, most consistent, and predictable short-term effects on temperature.

The following graph is ENSO, TSI, and Volcano adjusted (blue line) along with a 5 year smoother (red line).

Sorry bud, I don't buy it. It contradicts Real Climate's own ENSO-corrected graphs for the 2002-2008 period, for starters. If you don't know what I'm talking about, I can provide.

Nearly a .2C ENSO-corrected jump from the early 2000s to 2010? Uh, no.

[skierinvermont]

Sorry bud, I don't buy it. It contradicts Real Climate's own ENSO-corrected graphs for the 2002-2008 period, for starters. If you don't know what I'm talking about, I can provide.

Did you read?

It's not ENSO-corrected.

It is ENSO and TSI corrected (and volcano corrected for 1992-1994). The standard effect of TSI is .18C per W/m2. This effect was applied across the solar cycle and explains much (but not all) of the recent slowing in temperature increase.

[tacoman25]

Sorry bud, I don't buy it. It contradicts Real Climate's own ENSO-corrected graphs for the 2002-2008 period, for starters. If you don't know what I'm talking about, I can provide.

Nearly a .2C ENSO-corrected jump from the early 2000s to late 2000s? Uh, no.

[skierinvermont]

Did you read?

It's not ENSO-corrected.

It is ENSO and TSI corrected (and volcano corrected for 1992-1994). The standard effect of TSI is .18C per W/m2. This effect was applied across the solar cycle and explains much (but not all) of the recent slowing in temperature increase.

[tacoman25]

Did you read?

It's not ENSO-corrected.

It is ENSO and TSI corrected (and volcano corrected for 1992-1994). The standard effect of TSI is .18C per W/m2. This effect was applied across the solar cycle and explains much (but not all) of the recent slowing in temperature increase.

1. Your volcano corrections are off. Most expects estimate Pinatubo's cooling to be .4-.5C. Think about it...your graph still shows 1991-93 cooler than they should be, considering those were El Nino years.

2. If the difference between solar cycle trough/peak is .1C, according to you and others.

[skierinvermont]

1. Your volcano corrections are off. Most expects estimate Pinatubo's cooling to be .4-.5C. Think about it...your graph still shows 1991-93 cooler than they should be, considering those we El Nino years.

2. If the difference between solar cycle trough/peak is .1C, according to you and others.

I've always said .1-.2C peak to trough. The .18C peak to trough is based on the recent Camp study.

The study is Surface warming by the solar cycle as revealed by the composite mean difference projection by Charles D. Camp and Ka Kit Tung. They find a global warming signal of 0.18°C attributable to the 11-year solar cycle. Eg - from solar minimum to solar maximum, global temperatures increase 0.18°C due to an increase in Total Solar Irradiance (TSI).

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Solar-cycles-and-global-warming.html

[nzucker]

You can't just take out the effects of a solar minimum that's going to last an unknown amount of years, probably 50-100, with cooling both from well-known TSI intra-cycle patterns and larger inter-cycle periods. I feel that solar isn't really a good variable for correction since we know so little about it.

Of course, this may also be an argument against taking out ENSO, since many believe the sun is the ultimate cause of El Niño/La Niña variations.

[tacoman25]

I've always said .1-.2C peak to trough. The .18C peak to trough is based on the recent Camp study.

The study is Surface warming by the solar cycle as revealed by the composite mean difference projection by Charles D. Camp and Ka Kit Tung. They find a global warming signal of 0.18°C attributable to the 11-year solar cycle. Eg - from solar minimum to solar maximum, global temperatures increase 0.18°C due to an increase in Total Solar Irradiance (TSI).

http://www.skeptical...al-warming.html

What kind of lag did you use?

[skierinvermont]

You can't just take out the effects of a solar minimum that's going to last an unknown amount of years, probably 50-100, with cooling both from well-known TSI intra-cycle patterns and larger inter-cycle periods. I feel that solar isn't really a good variable for correction since we know so little about it.

Of course, this may also be an argument against taking out ENSO, since many believe the sun is the ultimate cause of El Niño/La Niña variations.

I am removing the effect of the 11-yr solar cycle, not inter-cycle changes. The effect of the 11-yr solar cycle is fairly well understood and can be deduced from straightforward correlations.