2011 Global Temperatures

[BethesdaWX]

Well that's what the model does.. it shows all of the warming can be explained with the PDO/AMO/SOI. That's because it attributes all of the warming from 1900-1960 during the model training period to the PDO/AMO/SOI when clearly much of that warming was solar and/or CO2. That's why it shows 2.5X as much warming from 1950-2010 as it does from 1900-1945 even though the PDO/AMO/SOI cycle is fairly similar. It's a stupid model that would produce infinite warming if you extended it past 2010.

I'm sure he did not intend to pass the ridiculous message that everything was PDO/AMO/SOI related.

If he did, then I disagree with the model, because I was going off the notion that he meant the increased warming rate since 1976 was PDO/AMO oriented, but the long term trend upwards is not.

[Mallow]

It predicted cooling for the one third of its forecast! It will not show infinite warming because its basing the correlation to global temps FROM THE PDO/AMO......So, when the PDO/AMO go negative, it will predict cooling. The AMO is taken into account too bro. The fact is, the drivers were warm, and through all that time, they correlated perfectly.

Its a selective base, meaning, in that window, the correlation from the PDO/AMO to the global temperature was used...and it nailed it.

As skier has noted several times now, the fact that he correlated the PDO/AMO to temperature CHANGES, rather than just plain temperature values, means that if there was any trend in the "training" period (the changes averaged positive, for example), that trend would continue indefinitely (the forecast "changes" in the future would also average positive). It's a long term thing, so there can be periods of "cooling" in the short-term ("one third of its forecast").

It's really not that hard to understand.

Well, if that is true, then the Arctic has not been warming at all since the 1800's. (see below)

This makes zero sense. I have no idea how you came to that conclusion.

The PDO has a larger correlation to global temps... there are 2 PDO's, NH & SH, and they have a large impact on ENSO, which gives them dominance. The AMO is a cycle of its own.............difference is, the AMO has alot more power in the arctic than the PDO does, because the AMO/NAO correlation & the fact that it is at a higher lattitude, basically, the PDO/AMO do different things in a sense.

Submarines surfaced at the north Pole in march in the 1950's...1800's ships went further up than we can now.... both of those were +AMO's.

Again, less powerful globally, but more powerful regionally (arctic, NH)

We're talking about how predictive certain indices are for global temperatures. The AMO has very little if any predictive power WRT global temperatures. This is patently clear just by looking at the correlations. The PDO is somewhat better, and on the multi-decadal scale may be better than anything else we have (probably more because of its connection with ENSO than anything else), but even the PDO is not a great predictor of global temperatures.

[BethesdaWX]

As skier has noted several times now, the fact that he correlated the PDO/AMO to temperature CHANGES, rather than just plain temperature values, means that if there was any trend in the "training" period (the changes averaged positive, for example), that trend would continue indefinitely (the forecast "changes" in the future would also average positive). It's a long term thing, so there can be periods of "cooling" in the short-term ("one third of its forecast").

It's really not that hard to understand.

This makes zero sense. I have no idea how you came to that conclusion.

We're talking about how predictive certain indices are for global temperatures. The AMO has very little if any predictive power WRT global temperatures. This is patently clear just by looking at the correlations. The PDO is somewhat better, and on the multi-decadal scale may be better than anything else we have (probably more because of its connection with ENSO than anything else), but even the PDO is not a great predictor of global temperatures.

What the heck?

1) We know thw PDO/AMO are not responsible for the net warming over the past 200yrs, they only create temperature blips over 40yr timeframes....so, why would we try to correlate them to all the warming we've seen since the LIA? That makes no sense.

2) Dude, You stated the warm AMO value is due to a warmer arctic (why, I'm not sure given the AMO drives arctic temps). The AMO value has been as warm or warmer in the 1800's & 1950's, so the arctic must have been warmer then, right? Thus there would be no long term warming trend if the warm arctic drove the AMO.

3) I'm not sure what you base this off, PDO/AMO warming match Perfectly...You can see its a "step", not a warming trend.

[Mallow]

What the heck?

1) We know thw PDO/AMO are not responsible for the net warming over the past 200yrs, they only create temperature blips over 40yr timeframes....so, why would we try to correlate them to all the warming we've seen since the LIA? That makes no sense.

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about here, as I never said anything that someone could construe as implying the above.

2) Dude, You stated the warm AMO value is due to a warmer arctic (why, I'm not sure given the AMO drives arctic temps). The AMO value has been as warm or warmer in the 1800's & 1950's, so the arctic must have been warmer then, right? Thus there would be no long term warming trend if the warm arctic drove the AMO.

I made an off-the-cuff conjecture that may or may not have any validity, but which I never took any further (and don't care to). But the AMO is an index, a numerical construct that describes a "state" of the atmosphere. There's no statement made on what "causes" it or what it controls, so the statement that "the AMO drives arctic temps [and not the other way around]" is not fact, but opinion.

Aside from the fact that an AMO value from the 1800s is probably dubious, why would a warmer Arctic in the past preclude the idea that global temperatures have been trending upward? You're making my point, exactly--that the AMO is a local index and not very useful when looking at global temperatures.

3) I'm not sure what you base this off, PDO/AMO warming match Perfectly...You can see its a "step", not a warming trend.

First of all, your graphic has zero to do with the PDO/AMO. Just stating that the "PDO/AMO warming match perfectly" doesn't make it true.

Secondly, anyone could draw pretty lines on a graph to try to make a point. There's no statistical or scientific basis that lends credence to the idea of a "step"... there's so much noise in the short-term time frames (10-20 years is short-term from a climate perspective) that you're bound to have artifacts in the data like that in the data set that can be interpreted various ways.

But we're getting away from the two main points I was originally making (as usual).

1. The AMO is an extremely poor predictor of global temperatures

2. A reconstruction using correlations to temperature changes rather than just plain temperatures is going to predict temperature changes in the future in the same manner as during the training period. If the average trend is up in the training period, the average long-term trend in the "model" will be up.

[BethesdaWX]

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about here, as I never said anything that someone could construe as implying the above.

I made an off-the-cuff conjecture that may or may not have any validity, but which I never took any further (and don't care to). But the AMO is an index, a numerical construct that describes a "state" of the atmosphere. There's no statement made on what "causes" it or what it controls, so the statement that "the AMO drives arctic temps [and not the other way around]" is not fact, but opinion.

Aside from the fact that an AMO value from the 1800s is probably dubious, why would a warmer Arctic in the past preclude the idea that global temperatures have been trending upward? You're making my point, exactly--that the AMO is a local index and not very useful when looking at global temperatures.

First of all, your graphic has zero to do with the PDO/AMO. Just stating that the "PDO/AMO warming match perfectly" doesn't make it true.

Secondly, anyone could draw pretty lines on a graph to try to make a point. There's no statistical or scientific basis that lends credence to the idea of a "step"... there's so much noise in the short-term time frames (10-20 years is short-term from a climate perspective) that you're bound to have artifacts in the data like that in the data set that can be interpreted various ways.

1) You need to bridge the gap. If you were to detrend the anomalies between the PDO/AMO & the global temps, the end result would show more warming than can be expected, because there is a Long term Warming trend that has nothing to do with PDO/AMO.

2) The arctic is part of the globe, right? I never stated that the AMO was a dominant force in the global pattern, but a big reason the GISS is so warm is due to its arctic anomaly, the AMO has a large impact in Europe, the Arctic, & eastern North America..... those areas will affect the global temperature anomaly in the end. There are 2 PDO's, NH/SH, which intercorrelate with ENSO, so the PDO is dominant over the AMO.

3) This is where dipsh*t data smoothing cannot be used! In 31 years, we have no trend from 1979 through 1996, AMO goes warm in 1996, we see temps warm, then flat line from 1998-2011, and we've been cooling since 2002 with an El Nino interruption. It is important too look objectively at the data, and do not smooth it/10yr incriments, thats deceptive & misleading, and not the proper way to analyze.

Don't think so narrowly.

[Mallow]

1) You need to bridge the gap. If you were to detrend the anomalies between the PDO/AMO & the global temps, the end result would show more warming than can be expected, because there is a Long term Warming trend that has nothing to do with PDO/AMO.

Again, this is not the dispute. I'm not sure where this came from, because the argument has never been about any of the above.

2) The arctic is part of the globe, right? I never stated that the AMO was a dominant force in the global pattern, but a big reason the GISS is so warm is due to its arctic anomaly, the AMO has a large impact in Europe, the Arctic, & eastern North America..... those areas will affect the global temperature anomaly in the end. There are 2 PDO's, NH/SH, which intercorrelate with ENSO, so the PDO is dominant over the AMO.

My point is that the AMO's local impact is clearly not enough to impact the globe as a whole. If it was, it would be better-correlated with global temperatures. The AMO is simply not a predictor of global temperatures.

3) This is where dipsh*t data smoothing cannot be used! In 31 years, we have no trend from 1979 through 1996, AMO goes warm in 1996, we see temps warm, then flat line from 1998-2011, and we've been cooling since 2002 with an El Nino interruption. It is important too look objectively at the data, and do not smooth it/10yr incriments, thats deceptive & misleading, and not the proper way to analyze.

Again, I don't know where any of this is coming from. This is not the argument. My arguments are as follows:

1. The AMO is an extremely poor predictor of global temperatures

2. A reconstruction using correlations to temperature changes rather than just plain temperatures is going to predict temperature changes in the future in the same manner as during the training period. If the average trend is up in the training period, the average long-term trend in the "model" will be up.

Don't think so narrowly.

I have tried to refrain from using this kind of language, and would ask that you do the same.

[BethesdaWX]

Again, this is not the dispute. I'm not sure where this came from, because the argument has never been about any of the above.

My point is that the AMO's local impact is clearly not enough to impact the globe as a whole. If it was, it would be better-correlated with global temperatures. The AMO is simply not a predictor of global temperatures.

Again, I don't know where any of this is coming from. This is not the argument. My arguments are as follows:

1. The AMO is an extremely poor predictor of global temperatures

2. A reconstruction using correlations to temperature changes rather than just plain temperatures is going to predict temperature changes in the future in the same manner as during the training period. If the average trend is up in the training period, the average long-term trend in the "model" will be up.

I have tried to refrain from using this kind of language, and would ask that you do the same.

Your argument and my argument are completely unrelated then. I never argued the AMO is a "predictor" of global temps, heck, it doesn't match. However, it does have an impact on the final global anomaly due to its influence on the Arctic, Europe, & Eastern N America... that doesn't mean it is a predictor of global temps.

1) So, whats the point? I agree with you, but that was never my argument. My argument is that the warming trend CANNOT BE DETRENDED, otherwise it makes no sense given the warming trend over the past 200yrs, & into the training period, has nothing to do with the PDO/AMO/SOI. You cannot remove the net warming over the training period, because the that unrelated warming makes the trend.

[skierinvermont]

1) So, whats the point? I agree with you, but that was never my argument. My argument is that the warming trend CANNOT BE DETRENDED, otherwise it makes no sense given the warming trend over the past 200yrs, & into the training period, has nothing to do with the PDO/AMO/SOI. You cannot remove the net warming over the training period, because the that unrelated warming makes the trend.

Yes you can.. you just detrend the AMO/PDO/SOI data as well. Higher AMO/PDO/SOI values will still correspond to increasing temperatures, but the correlations will be balanced around 0 instead of being biased positive. There's really no other way to do it, if you don't de-trend the data, then you will attribute solar and CO2 temperature increases to the PDO/AMO/SOI.

You yourself said that it makes no sense to attribute all of the warming since 1960 to the PDO/AMO/SOI, and yet that's precisely what his model does. On it's face, it just doesn't make sense. The warm phase 1990-2010 is 2.5X warmer than the warm phase 1925-1945 in his model, even though the PDO/AMO/SOI cycle is fairly similar. Why would one 'natural cycle' have a peak of .4C and another of 1.0C when they are fairly similar? Answer: they obviously would not. We are simply explaining to you why his model comes up with this obviously erroneous result.

[BethesdaWX]

Yes you can.. you just detrend the AMO/PDO/SOI data as well. Higher AMO/PDO/SOI values will still correspond to increasing temperatures, but the correlations will be balanced around 0 instead of being biased positive. There's really no other way to do it, if you don't de-trend the data, then you will attribute solar and CO2 temperature increases to the PDO/AMO/SOI.

You yourself said that it makes no sense to attribute all of the warming since 1960 to the PDO/AMO/SOI, and yet that's precisely what his model does. On it's face, it just doesn't make sense. The warm phase 1990-2010 is 2.5X warmer than the warm phase 1925-1945 in his model, even though the PDO/AMO/SOI cycle is fairly similar. Why would one 'natural cycle' have a peak of .4C and another of 1.0C when they are fairly similar? Answer: they obviously would not. We are simply explaining to you why his model comes up with this obviously erroneous result.

Agreed, If anyone is trying to attribute all warming since 1960 to AMO/PDO/SOI, then they're wrong. I was going by the notion that he was trying to convey the fact that the accellerated warming rate since 1976 was AMO/PDO/SOI related. I assume he knows that... if not, then I'm not sure why he has a PHD.

Any graph that tries to correlate AMO/PDO/SOI to the warming (Whether it be Solar, Co2, or both) over the past 200yrs will make zero sense.

[skierinvermont]

Agreed, If anyone is trying to attribute all warming since 1960 to AMO/PDO/SOI, then they're wrong. I was going by the notion that he was trying to convey the fact that the accellerated warming rate since 1976 was AMO/PDO/SOI related. I assume he knows that... if not, then I'm not sure why he has a PHD.

Any graph that tries to correlate AMO/PDO/SOI to the warming (Whether it be Solar, Co2, or both) over the past 200yrs will make zero sense.

I completely agree the PDO/SOI has added to our warming the last 30 years, we don't need a model to tell us that (especially one which uses poor statistical techniques).

[BethesdaWX]

I completely agree the PDO/SOI has added to our warming the last 30 years, we don't need a model to tell us that (especially one which uses poor statistical techniques).

kk, we're good on this one then.

[tacoman25]

I completely agree the PDO/SOI has added to our warming the last 30 years, we don't need a model to tell us that (especially one which uses poor statistical techniques).

I haven't seen the IPCC or other major "climate authorities" acknowledge this. Seems a bit odd to not address such a major factor, especially when they analyze temperature trends since the 1970s.

[nzucker]

AMSU Channel 5 shows a massive drop in global temperatures in the last couple of weeks...we're currently running 1.12F below last year, and near the bottom of the pack, with 2008 being the only colder year according to the AMSU analysis. Global SSTs have also been taking a plunge...

This is not totally unexpected with a strong La Niña, but the satellites are going to come in pretty cool this year. Heck, even GISS was down to .4C for December 2010. I have to wonder if the frigid airmasses we are experiencing this winter may be marginally linked to the drop-off in global temperatures.

[skierinvermont]

I have to wonder if the frigid airmasses we are experiencing this winter may be marginally linked to the drop-off in global temperatures.

I suppose theoretically a few tenths of the temperature at any given location could be attributed to the drop in the global mean, but remember most of Canada, all of Greenland, most of the high arctic, western Russia and the Black Sea area are all torching. The vast majority of our regional temperature is due to the weather pattern not the drop in the global mean.

[nzucker]

I suppose theoretically a few tenths of the temperature at any given location could be attributed to the drop in the global mean, but remember most of Canada, all of Greenland, most of the high arctic, western Russia and the Black Sea area are all torching. The vast majority of our regional temperature is due to the weather pattern not the drop in the global mean.

Canada isn't torching at all....this winter has been quite a bit below average in the Yukon/Northwest Territories/Canadian Prairies. December was very cold in these areas, and January has continued the trend but with Eastern Canada becoming much colder than average, too.

Here is what we've got tomorrow in terms of 850mb temp departures...Western Russia and Europe are below average too:

Not sure what you're talking about...been a very cold winter in Europe, Japan, NE China, NW Canada, and parts of the Atlantic Arctic.

[skierinvermont]

Canada isn't torching at all....

In the month Canada averaged well above average and most of of it by land area was above average. The only area that was below average was NW canada and the south-central plains. If you really want to dispute this I will provide the data.

Not sure what you're talking about...been a very cold winter in Europe, Japan, NE China, NW Canada, and parts of the Atlantic Arctic.

Where did I say any of those areas were above average? It's funny when you disagree and get nasty but don't even seem to read what I write.

On average, the northern hemisphere was well above average in December. More of the northern hemisphere was above average than below average. You can't attribute our regional cold to global temperature when most regions were actually above average and if we were posting from any of those regions we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

I'm willing to attribute no more than a few tenths of our cold to the drop in global temperature and that is only relative to the record global warmth of the last decade. That's all I said in my above post and you decided to get nasty and disagree. If you actually disagree with that statement then you don't understand the difference between weather and climate. If you actually disagree with that go ahead and explain why, otherwise I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with other than for the sake of disagreeing.

[nzucker]

In the month Canada averaged well above average and most of of it by land area was above average. The only area that was below average was NW canada and the south-central plains. If you really want to dispute this I will provide the data.

Where did I say any of those areas were above average? It's funny when you disagree and get nasty but don't even seem to read what I write.

On average, the northern hemisphere was well above average in December. More of the northern hemisphere was above average than below average. Seems silly to attribute our regional cold to global temperature when most regions were actually above average and if we were posting from any of those regions we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

I'm willing to attribute no more than a few tenths of our cold to the drop in global temperature and that is only relative to the record global warmth of the last decade. That's all I said in my above post and you decided to get nasty and disagree. If you actually disagree with that statement then you don't understand the difference between weather and climate.

I'm not trying to be nasty at all, I didn't think any of my comments were derogatory. I was just talking about the hemispheric temperature pattern.

I just don't agree that Canada has been torching....if you look at Winter 09-10, that was a torch for Canada, warmest on record. This year, eastern Canada has torched whereas the Yukon, NW Territories, and Prairies have been pretty chilly. We've definitely had a pipeline for cold into the United States. Also, you're going to see a significant reduction in the positive anomalies over Eastern Canada and Greenland in the next two weeks with the polar vortex planted squarely over these areas. I wouldn't be surprised if Quebec and Labrador get back near average for the winter if the PV hangs around...ECM shows -38C 850s associated with this polar low. If this continues into February, it will be one of the most remarkable turnarounds in winter temperatures, from brutally warm for Eastern Canada in December 2010 to brutally cold there in January/February 2011.

Also, you said Western Russia was torching, but the GEFS shows these areas significantly below average right now. I don't know if you were talking about the entire winter, but you seemed to imply they were above average this week, which is incorrect. So I felt this needed a correction.

Of course, most of our cold weather is due to the blocking over AK...we have very low heights compared to normal with the massive block over Alaska as well as a ridge over the North Atlantic. I think 99% of the brutal cold is due to that factor, but that's not to say that global temperatures being 1.1F lower than last year can't have a small impact now and a larger impact down the road. I wasn't attributing our arctic outbreak to global temperatures, of course, but just mentioning that there does seem to be a lot more cold air available this winter than last year.

My apologies if I came off as harsh...I just wanted to clarify some things, and I wasn't confusing weather and climate. But I do think being over 1F colder globally can make a minor difference...this is one reason Chuck said it's hard to have record cold in a strong El Niño. We had a decent pattern for cold last year but never seemed to achieve the arctic temperatures, this year has been notably different. I obviously agree that most of the drop in global temperatures is related to SSTA in the Tropical Pacific and Indian Ocean, not land anomalies...that's what the La Niña does, I think we concur. It might be having some large-scale effects, however.

[skierinvermont]

Of course, most of our cold weather is due to the blocking over AK...we have very low heights compared to normal with the massive block over Alaska as well as a ridge over the North Atlantic. I think 99% of the brutal cold is due to that factor, but that's not to say that global temperatures being 1.1F lower than last year can't have a small impact now and a larger impact down the road. I wasn't attributing our arctic outbreak to global temperatures, of course, but just mentioning that there does seem to be a lot more cold air available this winter than last year.

My apologies if I came off as harsh...I just wanted to clarify some things, and I wasn't confusing weather and climate. But I do think being over 1F colder globally can make a minor difference...this is one reason Chuck said it's hard to have record cold in a strong El Niño. We had a decent pattern for cold last year but never seemed to achieve the arctic temperatures, this year has been notably different. I obviously agree that most of the drop in global temperatures is related to SSTA in the Tropical Pacific and Indian Ocean, not land anomalies...that's what the La Niña does, I think we concur. It might be having some large-scale effects, however.

You seem to be obfuscating the issue with vague qualitative comments like "there's more cold air available this year" and "we had a decent pattern for cold last year but never seemed to achieve the arctic temperatures."

When most regions are above average and the northern hemisphere is still well above average, you can't attribute more than a few tenths of our cold to the drop in global temps. Maybe .5C if you're comparing to the peak of a strong Nino. The rest is just weather.

We didn't have no cold last year because global temps were so high. We had no cold because the weather pattern wasn't favorable for cold in New England. If we had the exact same weather pattern as last year but global temperatures were .5C cooler.. well then we would have been about .5C cooler.

[nzucker]

You seem to be obfuscating the issue with vague qualitative comments like "there's more cold air available this year" and "we had a decent pattern for cold last year but never seemed to achieve the arctic temperatures."

When most regions are above average and the northern hemisphere is still well above average, you can't attribute more than a few tenths of our cold to the drop in global temps. Maybe .5C if you're comparing to the peak of a strong Nino. The rest is just weather.

We didn't have no cold last year because global temps were so high. We had no cold because the weather pattern wasn't favorable for cold in New England. If we had the exact same weather pattern as last year but global temperatures were .5C cooler.. well then we would have been about .5C cooler.

I just think, looking at the models, there seems to be more cold air in Canada and globally. This is clearly a qualitative observation, as is my commentary about the remarkable cold/snowy conditions here in NYC metro...doesn't mean it's invalid especially when we're dealing with issues like the solar minimum that only have qualitative data available given the time period in the 1600s and 1800s. It seems that Western Europe and the Eastern US are reverting to conditions last seen during the Dalton Minimum with consistent snowpack, large Nor'easters, and periods of bitter arctic cold....much of this due to the -AO/-NAO pattern, but doubtlessly influenced by global temperatures. These qualitative observations are consistent with quantitative data...ECM weeklies show the NH going .5C below average in February, England had its coldest December in 100 years of records, AMSU satellite trends are strongly downward, etc. Of course it's mostly just weather, but not completely when we're talking about the peak of a strong Niño versus a peak of a strong Niña. The NH is certainly backing off the extreme warmth we saw last year, even if it's still warmer than average...

It seemed we should have been colder last year with the massive -AO/-NAO. We did have a mediocre EPO index with the polar vortex staying over Russia, but December 2010 also had a generally +EPO/-AO/-NAO pattern with the PV on the other side of the globe....yet temperatures were record cold in the Southeast/Mid-Atlantic and very cold in the Northeast this December...compared to just moderate cold last year. The sub tropical jet may be responsible for introducing some warmth, but I'm sure the global temperature change has made some difference as well. So it's mostly weather, but partially a climate issue.

My main contention was your post saying that Canada was torching, whereas large areas of the country were significantly below average in December including the Yukon and NW Territories, also into Alaska. Eastern Canada is still way above average, but even this incredible warmth looks to be mostly erased in the next few weeks if the ECM and GFS come close to verifying. That means that Canada could average below normal for Winter 10-11, a big departure from last season and a contributing factor to colder NH temperatures.

[skierinvermont]

My main contention was your post saying that Canada was torching, whereas large areas of the country were significantly below average in December including the Yukon and NW Territories, also into Alaska. Eastern Canada is still way above average, but even this incredible warmth looks to be mostly erased in the next few weeks if the ECM and GFS come close to verifying. That means that Canada could average below normal for Winter 10-11, a big departure from last season and a contributing factor to colder NH temperatures.

Well then you are wrong. Most of Canada by land area was above average in December and Canada on a whole averaged above average.

Finally, no matter how you want to spin it and make it sound like the global temperature drop is making more cold in the hemisphere.. it isn't really. Most of the hemisphere is still above average, the hemisphere is well above average overall. And regionally, the EUS would not be much warmer if the globe were as warm as last year and we had the same weather pattern. A .5C difference globally is a .5C difference no matter how you slice it.

[BethesdaWX]

Well then you are wrong. Most of Canada by land area was above average in December and Canada on a whole averaged above average.

Finally, no matter how you want to spin it and make it sound like the global temperature drop is making more cold in the hemisphere.. it isn't really. Most of the hemisphere is still above average, the hemisphere is well above average overall. And regionally, the EUS would not be much warmer if the globe were as warm as last year and we had the same weather pattern. A .5C difference globally is a .5C difference no matter how you slice it.

The Global temperature is -.3C as we speak.

[skierinvermont]

The Global temperature is -.3C as we speak.

Not it's not. Even the new 1979-2010 UAH baseline we are probably +0-.1C right now.. and that baseline is in no way representative of the long-term average of the last 120 years.

[tacoman25]

Not it's not. Even the new 1979-2010 UAH baseline we are probably +0-.1C right now.. and that baseline is in no way representative of the long-term average of the last 120 years.

Um...did anyone say it was? Which global temp source has anomalies based off a 120 year average?

[nzucker]

Well then you are wrong. Most of Canada by land area was above average in December and Canada on a whole averaged above average.

Finally, no matter how you want to spin it and make it sound like the global temperature drop is making more cold in the hemisphere.. it isn't really. Most of the hemisphere is still above average, the hemisphere is well above average overall. And regionally, the EUS would not be much warmer if the globe were as warm as last year and we had the same weather pattern. A .5C difference globally is a .5C difference no matter how you slice it.

Obviously Canada was above average with a massive -NAO block....December came in at like +10C for Baffin Island/Hudson Bay with a widespread area of 5C anomalies in the eastern part of the country. It looks as if the Canadian Prairies averaged close to -1C with the Yukon/Alaska being -2C or so, setting up a decent pipeline of cold into the CONUS and eventually the East. This month, Canada has been a lot colder, and it looks as if the trend will be continuing for February. So let's just see where the NH and Canadian anomalies end up for January and February before making a judgment early on. GFS and ECM show widespread areas of -30C to -40C 850s, very impressive. I disagree with the use of the word "torch" though given that there's been a significant area of below normal anomalies and modeling and present trends shows that the above normal areas will lose a bunch of their positive anomaly by mid February. 09-10 was a torch in Canada, this year probably ends up a near average winter, maybe slightly above if the west-based NAO comes back as some are expecting. Definitely not a torch.

A 0.5C difference is probably less here since the largest change has been in tropical temperatures, but it still could propel us towards seeing slightly colder temperatures. Obviously, the H5 pattern is responsible for what airmasses we get, but these airmasses can be moderated/exaggerated by changes in global temperatures.

Not it's not. Even the new 1979-2010 UAH baseline we are probably +0-.1C right now.. and that baseline is in no way representative of the long-term average of the last 120 years.

AMSU Channel 5 is currently at .62C below last January, which came in around +.6C...so we're running around zero anomaly for the daily readings, slightly more for the month. Channel 5 and Global SSTs have had an incredible drop this month, very impressive and perhaps a start of significant changes in global climate.

[BethesdaWX]

Not it's not. Even the new 1979-2010 UAH baseline we are probably +0-.1C right now.. and that baseline is in no way representative of the long-term average of the last 120 years.

You are a pathetic joke if you're actually serious... don't make crap up.

Go to AMSU now and tell me what you see. Your statement "we're probably" shows you did not look at any sources......I did.

FYI, models have it dropping in the next 2 weeks on the ECMWF, GFS, to -0.4C by day 11.

[skierinvermont]

You are a pathetic joke if you're actually serious... don't make crap up.

Go to AMSU now and tell me what you see. Your statement "we're probably" shows you did not look at any sources......I did.

FYI, models have it dropping in the next 2 weeks on the ECMWF, GFS, to -0.4C by day 11.

I did look at AMSU Ch 5. We are running about .1C colder than last month which came in at .18C on UAH. So we are probably currently right about .08C on UAH.

[BethesdaWX]

I did look at AMSU Ch 5. We are running about .1C colder than last month which came in at .18C on UAH. So we are probably currently right about .08C on UAH.

Yep, thats JAN 20th.. today we're at almost -.3C.

[nzucker]

I did look at AMSU Ch 5. We are running about .1C colder than last month which came in at .18C on UAH. So we are probably currently right about .08C on UAH.

Remember that we're on the new baseline though, so .08C=-.02C....and the AMSU charts show we've been falling off a cliff lately in terms of global temperatures, so we'll have to see if that trend continues..that could imply the last third of the month averages farther below normal than the first 2/3.

Interesting that global SSTs seem to be dropping rapidly now, even when 2008 had leveled out some with respect to SST anomalies.

[skierinvermont]

Obviously Canada was above average with a massive -NAO block....

Ok good we agree. Glad you changed your mind.

AMSU Channel 5 is currently at .62C below last January, which came in around +.6C...so we're running around zero anomaly for the daily readings, slightly more for the month. Channel 5 and Global SSTs have had an incredible drop this month, very impressive and perhaps a start of significant changes in global climate.

So we agree here as well since I said UAH would be about 0-.1C right now. No way to know exactly.. but definitely not the -.2C Bethesda said. I arrive at a similar figure to you based on the fact that Ch. 5 is .09C colder than last month so far and last month was .18C on UAH.

And all of this is relative to a 1979-2010 baseline which is no way representative of the long-term average.

So to claim we are ".2C below average" is just laughable. Even on UAH we are 0-.1C.. and compared to the long-term average we are more like .3-.4C.

[BethesdaWX]

Ok good we agree. Glad you changed your mind.

So we agree here as well since I said UAH would be about 0-.1C right now. No way to know exactly.. but definitely not the -.2C Bethesda said. I arrive at a similar figure to you based on the fact that Ch. 5 is .09C colder than last month so far and last month was .18C on UAH.

And all of this is relative to a 1979-2010 baseline which is no way representative of the long-term average.

So to claim we are ".2C below average" is just laughable. Even on UAH we are 0-.1C.. and compared to the long-term average we are more like .3-.4C.

I said todays (JAN 23) alone was -0.3C based on Ryan Maui's site... not the month as a whole... hence the quote "as we speak".