2011 Global Temperatures

[skierinvermont]

3 strike rule

1) TSI does not correlate long term, only intermittently thru 11yr cycles. Strike 1

2) The GRAPH the IPCC model is trying to Match is incorrect through the use of Faulty Tree ring Data, as I posted above. Strike 2

1) Yes it does correlate long term. TSI was low during the LIA, high during the MWP. When fed through IPCC models, TSI and volcanism accurately predict the temperature variation of the last 1,000 years in general.

2) No peer reviewed reconstruction shows more variation from the MWP to the LIA than Moberg et al. 2005, which is included in the IPCC graphs.

You yourself used to use Moberg et al. 2005, until you realized it doesn't support your argument. Hypocrisy at its finest.

[BethesdaWX]

You are a Liar

1) Wrong: Peer reviewed expaining the Issues with using faulty Tree rings: http://www.ncasi.org...il.aspx?id=3025

2) TSI fluctuates <1% thorugh the biggest solar cycles.

2) The GRAPH the IPCC model is trying to Match is incorrect through the use of Faulty Tree ring Data, as I posted above.

The reason we see such large variations is the Suns ability to manipulate the climate system and its internal forcings/feedbacks.

This graph includes the entire 95% confidence interval.

PEER REVIEWED

Loehle, C., and J.H. McCulloch. 2008. Correction to: A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-treering proxies. Energy & Environment 19(1): 93-100. Note: Supplemental data are available in a ZIP file.

Historical data provide a baseline for judging how anomalous recent temperature changes are and for assessing the degree to which organisms are likely to be adversely affected by current or future warming. Climate histories are commonly reconstructed from a variety of sources, including ice cores, tree rings, and sediment. Tree-ring data, being the most abundant for recent centuries, tend to dominate reconstructions. There are reasons to believe that tree ring data may not properly capture long-term climate changes. In this study, eighteen 2000-year-long series were obtained that were not based on tree ring data. Data in each series were smoothed with a 30-year running mean. All data were then converted to anomalies by subtracting the mean of each series from that series. The overall mean series was then computed by simple averaging. The mean time series shows quite coherent structure. The mean series shows the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and Little Ice Age (LIA) quite clearly, with the MWP being approximately 0.3°C warmer than 20th century values at these eighteen sites

[skierinvermont]

You are a Liar

1) Wrong: Peer reviewed expaining the Issues with using faulty Tree rings: http://www.ncasi.org...il.aspx?id=3025

2) TSI fluctuates <1% thorugh the biggest solar cycles.

2) The GRAPH the IPCC model is trying to Match is incorrect through the use of Faulty Tree ring Data, as I posted above.

The reason we see such large variations is the Suns ability to manipulate the climate system and its internal forcings/feedbacks.

This graph includes the entire 95% confidence interval.

PEER REVIEWED

Loehle, C., and J.H. McCulloch. 2008. Correction to: A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-treering proxies. Energy & Environment 19(1): 93-100. Note: Supplemental data are available in a ZIP file.

Historical data provide a baseline for judging how anomalous recent temperature changes are and for assessing the degree to which organisms are likely to be adversely affected by current or future warming. Climate histories are commonly reconstructed from a variety of sources, including ice cores, tree rings, and sediment. Tree-ring data, being the most abundant for recent centuries, tend to dominate reconstructions. There are reasons to believe that tree ring data may not properly capture long-term climate changes. In this study, eighteen 2000-year-long series were obtained that were not based on tree ring data. Data in each series were smoothed with a 30-year running mean. All data were then converted to anomalies by subtracting the mean of each series from that series. The overall mean series was then computed by simple averaging. The mean time series shows quite coherent structure. The mean series shows the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and Little Ice Age (LIA) quite clearly, with the MWP being approximately 0.3°C warmer than 20th century values at these eighteen sites

The Loehle paper has been thoroughly refuted.

First of all, Energy and Environment, although it is technically peer-reviewed, the editor of the journal has publicly stated his agenda against AGW. As have members of their editorial board. It is not widely cited and is generally considered fringe. But nevertheless, I will refute the paper on the merits:

1. The paper only uses 18 proxies, most of which are clustered in the NH (where temperature changes are larger). 18 is too few, and there are not enough in the SH. For comparison, the newer reconstructions by Mann, Moberg and others are using 1,000+ proxies.

Funny how you will b**ch and moan about GISS only using 10,000 stations, but 18 is enough to reconstruct the entire globe for the last 2,000 years. Hypocrisy at its finest.

2. There are issues with dating in the individual proxies. For example his SE Atlantic Ocean sediment proxy (Framer et al. 2005) can only be dated to an accuracy of +/-200 years. If you can't accurately date your date, you cannot combine it with other data series into a single chronology. Other issues arise with other proxies. Sometimes he got the start dates wrong so the chronology is mis-aligned.

Many other problems exist.. etc. etc. etc. READ the following link:

http://www.realclima...econstructions/

Last but not least, despite the numerous methodological errors, Loehle 2007 does not fall very far from IPCC reconstructions. However, due to the methodological errors, don't be surprised when Loehle doesn't end up in the next IPCC report.

The blue line is Loehle superimposed upon the IPCC reconstructions.

[BethesdaWX]

The Loehle paper has been thoroughly refuted.

First of all, Energy and Environment, although it is technically peer-reviewed, the editor of the journal has publicly stated his agenda against AGW. As have members of their editorial board. It is not widely cited and is generally considered fringe. But nevertheless, I will refute the paper on the merits:

1. The paper only uses 18 proxies, most of which are clustered in the NH (where temperature changes are larger). 18 is too few, and there are not enough in the SH.

2. There are issues with dating in the individual proxies. For example his SE Atlantic Ocean sediment proxy (Framer et al. 2005) can only be dated to an accuracy of +/-200 years. If you can't accurately date your date, you cannot combine it with other data series into a single chronology. Other issues arise with other proxies. Sometimes he got the start dates wrong so the chronology is mis-aligned.

Many other problems exist.. etc. etc. etc. READ the following link:

http://www.realclima...econstructions/

Last but not least, despite the numerous methodological errors, Loehle 2007 does not fall very far from IPCC reconstructions. However, due to the methodological errors, don't be surprised when Loehle doesn't end up in the next IPCC report.

The blue line is Loehle superimposed upon the IPCC reconstructions.

You need to learn how to refute, before you can do so.

It is the other way around dude, they explain why Tree ring proxies need to be removed...all of them. Any other proxy system using tree-ring data is likely faulty.

If their study was botched, the IPCC wouldn't use it. I'll Explain this to you below Mr. Numbnut.

It uses the 18 proxies with the lowest error bars, and they are all global. If the timespan resolution is 200yrs, the only way you wouldn't be able to use it is if it diverged in measurement timespan from the other proxy data with similar standards, which is doesn't. They explain this in the Journal.

But first....

Before you reconstruct Anything, take tree ring proxies out!

And, you cannot superimopse measurement data into proxy data

[skierinvermont]

You need to learn how to refute, before you can do so.

It is the other way around dude, they explain why Tree ring proxies need to be removed...all of them. Any other proxy system using tree-ring data is likely faulty.

If their study was botched, the IPCC wouldn't use it. I'll Explain this to you below Mr. Numbnut.

It uses the 18 proxies with the lowest error bars, and they are all global. If the timespan resolution is 200yrs, the only way you wouldn't be able to use it is if it diverged in measurement timespan from the other proxxy data with similar standards, which is doesn't. They explain this in the Journal.

But first....

Before you reconstruct Anything, take tree ring proxies out!

You didn't respond to anything in the above post, or anything in the RealClimate post. The 18 reconstructions he uses are not global. This is a patently false.

Please read and respond to the post above, as well as the remaining criticisms raised in the RealClimate post.

[BethesdaWX]

Measurement data added onto the end of a proxy is purposely misleading FYI

Measurement data in the MWP would likely have been much higher than that of today.

[BethesdaWX]

Yes, I am aware of the 50yr fast-forward, the data extends into the 1930's in reailty. But unfortuntely for you and RC, there are misnomers here regarding the relativity of proxy data. The worst Proxy you can Use is Tree Ring Data. Proxy accuracy is relative. You can take Any Proxy, and find reasons competely not to use it, and land proxies are the worst.

The Most accurate Proxies are Ice Core proxies, high-resolution deuterium, dD and d18O where sediments/particulates deposited around the Globe are trapped In the ice core, and is easy to determine the GLOBAL temperature from such

This is what is revealed. Higher resolution unchanging into the past.

[ORH_wxman]

Did you guys honestly just take the 2011 global temp thread and turn it into another hockey stick debate?

[BethesdaWX]

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.

Link me the data series you are using...then I'll link mine.

[skierinvermont]

Link me the data series you are using...then I'll link mine.

The ones that you told me to look at.

[BethesdaWX]

To get Back on Topic Now.....

We have now dropped back below 2008 with the Latest LT drop. At this rate, we'll have Yet Another new "lowest" Anom within 3 days, could it really happen? Unlikely in my view.

Global Temps should be well above 2008 right now though. We're now at the time where SSTs in 2008 are Far below 2010/11.

AMSU 2008 went through an enormous spike in Mid April. We're really running out of time to even compare to 2008 if we cannot spike by then, and run the risk of Plunging in the means Of course we never know what will happen, this is just a bunch of talk at this point

[BethesdaWX]

The ones that you told me to look at.

Link it then to prove you were using it...

I can already tell you haven't looked, and I'll tell you why if you cannot link it now.

Hint: Its not a "data series", its a stratospheric Map of 10HPA SSW fluctuations in correltion to overall changes in LT/tropopause.

[tacoman25]

Skiier, you never answered an important question I asked earlier: why does your temp graph (TSI and ENSO corrected) use no lag time for TSI, when numerous sources (including NASA) state that there is a lag time (generally in the 1-3 year range)? This discrepency cannot be ignored, especially when this forcing alters the graph so much.

[skierinvermont]

Link it then to prove you were using it...

I can already tell you haven't looked, and I'll tell you why if you cannot link it now.

Hint: Its not a "data series", its a stratospheric Map of 10HPA SSW fluctuations in correltion to overall changes in LT/tropopause.

I do not see a correlation to AMSU TLT data.

[skierinvermont]

Skiier, you never answered an important question I asked earlier: why does your temp graph (TSI and ENSO corrected) use no lag time for TSI, when numerous sources (including NASA) state that there is a lag time (generally in the 1-3 year range)? This discrepency cannot be ignored, especially when this forcing alters the graph so much.

I did answer... because the study I read didn't use a lag. It wouldn't change the overall picture very much. I've never heard 3 before for TSI, have heard 1-2 before.

[skierinvermont]

Why is this like pulling teeth Bethesda? If there is a correlation, post it.

I must have asked a dozen times now.

[BethesdaWX]

Bejjing Climate Model definitely is Joining the Cold 2011-12 train, as has now been boarded by the JMA, and the CFS is trending downward as well.

2 of those 3 models have it colder than this year.

Insanity! Each Monthly Run just keeps getting colder into the -0.4C range beginning later this year. Overdone? Probably.

[skierinvermont]

Here's using TSI 1-yr lag FWIW.. still a monotic underlying trend

[BethesdaWX]

I do not see a correlation to AMSU TLT data.

Dude, I'm talking about SSWing events signaling change, not the mean 10HPA temp alone.

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/#emct

This site, you can track forecasts, past conditions and stratospheric animations, and see what I'm talking about. I'm tired right now.

[BethesdaWX]

Here's using TSI 1-yr lag FWIW.. still a monotic underlying trend

Try UAH for once.....you refuse to use it for whatever reason......probably because it does not support your views!

[LakeEffectKing]

[Jesse]

I think skier and bethesda should be confined to their own forum where they can argue in pointless circles as much as they want, and banned from the rest of the sub-forums.

[BethesdaWX]

I think skier and bethesda should be confined to their own forum where they can argue in pointless circles as much as they want, and banned from the rest of the sub-forums.

Hey, I tried to get this back on topic, and skier refused to do so. Skiers next post will be Off Topic too after I try to get the thread back on track now.....for the 4th time......with my Cold biased, but accurate, update on 2011 temps

We have now dropped back below 2008 with the Latest LT drop. At this rate, we'll have Yet Another new "lowest" Anom within 3 days Global Temps should be well above 2008 right now though. We're now at the time where SSTs in 2008 are Far below 2010/11. AMSU 2008 went through an very spike in Mid April. We're really running out of time to even compare to 2008 if we cannot spike by then, and run the risk of Plunging in the means Of course we never know what will happen, this is just a bunch of talk at this point.

Bejjing Climate Model definitely is Joining the Cold 2011-12 train, as has now been boarded by the JMA, and the CFS is trending downward as well.

2 of those 3 models have it colder than this year.

Insanity! Each Monthly Run just keeps getting colder into the -0.4C range beginning later this year. Overdone? Probably.

[ORH_wxman]

Seriously, try to keep this remotely related to the 2011 temperatures. The same ridiculous circular arguments get really tiresome after a while.

[ORH_wxman]

You guys have your own thread to continue the discussion there.

[ORH_wxman]

To get back on topic, here is the latest AMSU channel 5 anomalies (actually 3 days old)....red being 2011, yellow 2008, and orange is average. You can see the huge spike coming up in 2008 so we'll have to see if 2011 follows a similar path.

[skierinvermont]

Here's the CH5 anomalies, which I think is a little easier to look at than trying to compare the raw to the average. Definitely have dropped a little more than I was expecting, I would have thought based on climo we would bottom in Jan/Feb, but March was a little lower. Nothing too shocking yet but if we keep going down that would be a little weird given climo and last years Nina progression.

[BethesdaWX]

Here's the CH5 anomalies, which I think is a little easier to look at than trying to compare the raw to the average. Definitely have dropped a little more than I was expecting, I would have thought based on climo we would bottom in Jan/Feb, but March was a little lower. Nothing too shocking yet but if we keep going down that would be a little weird given climo and last years Nina progression.

thankyou for admitting you were wrong about the bottom out.

What are you throughts for April? I might end up busting too warm.

[skierinvermont]

I'd probably guess around -.05-0.

[BethesdaWX]

I'd probably guess around -.05-0.

kk

I'm already on the hook for my +/- 0.05C unfortunately. If I could Guess again, I'd probably go with -0.05 to -0.2 based on several factors that I feel I may have ignored timing wise.

As long as the Atmosphere (SOI, GLAAM, AAM) remain somewhat La Nina, I'd think any real rebound would be hard to come by.

Also, does anyone have Global SST data for this La Nina?

EDIT: Well, its been rising since Mid JAN, so a 5 month Lag suggest that Mid JUNE should be the Bottom out Point?

The 5 month Lag is suspicious since 2008 began rising right after it Global SST's started rising, but 2011 has continued to fall...