2011 Global Temperatures

[okie333]

Looks like I did very well......As UAH is probably between +/- 0.05C (baseline difference), which would validate my Guess from Late MAR.

It may be too late to add a May Guess, but I doubt it changes much, maybe even cools. But I really don't have a clue due to the descending -QBO, which often implies a smaller tropopause, thus a warmer one.

Also, I still cannot get UAH discover site to work

??? Last time I read my physics book it said volume and temperature were directly related.

[BethesdaWX]

??? Last time I read my physics book it said volume and temperature were directly related.

I'm pretty sure a more expansive tropopause overall is cooler, as we see the negative anoms above 500mb.

[skierinvermont]

I'm pretty sure a more expansive tropopause overall is cooler, as we see the negative anoms above 500mb.

No Okie is right... the tropopause expands when the troposphere warms and shrinks when the troposphere cools.. you've got it reversed.

Most of your theories as to the fluctuations in CH5 temps make very little sense and you've never presented any correlations. I recently read according to Dr. Spencer that most of the short term variation is related to increases and decreases in tropical convection, which actually makes physical sense.

[tacoman25]

No Okie is right... the tropopause expands when the troposphere warms and shrinks when the troposphere cools.. you've got it reversed.

Most of your theories as to the fluctuations in in CH5 temps make very little sense and you've never presented any correlations. I recently read according to Dr. Spencer that most of the short term variation is related to increases and decreases in tropical convection, which actually makes physical sense.

The same goes for your inexplicable defense of Dr. Trenberth in the WTF thread...which you have yet to address.

[BethesdaWX]

Most of your theories as to the fluctuations in in CH5 temps make very little sense and you've never presented any correlations. I recently read according to Dr. Spencer that most of the short term variation is related to increases and decreases in tropical convection, which actually makes physical sense.

Wrong, you need to read the link to understand what I was referring to.

Just STFU and think for once in your lonely life......your dipf**k attitude and lack of basic knowledge is getting tiresome.....99% of your posts worthless bickering based on faulty assumptions...you need to stop and take a nap.

Nzucker has owned you in every argument you've had. You've been owned by everyone on this forum, and you can't even see your mis-steps!

This may help you: http://www.eps.jhu.e...inalpaperv9.pdf

R...E...A...D! Until you do, just don't respond.

And........

My theories??? Its your own misunderstanding of what a "correlation" is that has caused your laughable clusterf**k of mis-understandings.

The upper Sigma Levels (1-7) that somewhat represent the QBO, have shown descending easterly Shear. Its simple, a change in the upper atmosphere signals a change in the lower atmosphere, and an abating SSW reverses the high pressure system over the Arctic, which slows down the jet stream.

That is basic physics that all agree on. What are you arguing that are supposedly "My" theories??? You're fookin clueless dude!

Ever since the AMO went warm, the AO/NAO have had an inverse relationships to GTs. Before it went positive, they were not inversely related.

[Mallow]

I'm pretty sure a more expansive tropopause overall is cooler, as we see the negative anoms above 500mb.

The tropopause is a level in the atmosphere. What do you mean by "a more expansive" tropopause? That phrase doesn't really make physical sense.

Do you mean a higher tropopause? If so, a higher tropopause is associated with a warmer troposphere.

[BethesdaWX]

The tropopause is a level in the atmosphere. What do you mean by "a more expansive" tropopause? That phrase doesn't really make physical sense.

Do you mean a higher tropopause? If so, a higher tropopause is associated with a warmer troposphere.

Maybe read a bit more slowly?

Obviously, the tropopause cannot "expand" anywhere but upwards...so, yes, a "higher", "elevated", "expansive"... all have the same meaning. You knew that bro

I was humping on the fact that instead of ignoring a word mix-up that was blatantly obvious from anyones standpoint, a certain someone chose to clusterfook my words as if they had some meaning, when I clearly have stated contrary on numerous occasions.

[ORH_wxman]

Maybe read a bit more slowly?

Obviously, the tropopause cannot "expand" anywhere but upwards...so, yes, a "higher", "elevated", "expansive"... all have the same meaning. You knew that bro

I was humping on the fact that instead of ignoring a word mix-up that was blatantly obvious from anyones standpoint, a certain someone chose to clusterfook my words as if they had some meaning, when I clearly have stated contrary on numerous occasions.

The troposphere can expand...what you said made no sense. Tropopause is a level where the stratosphere and troposphere meet.

[Sickman]

The troposphere can expand...what you said made no sense. Tropopause is a level where the stratosphere and troposphere meet.

When a balloon is inflated, the walls don't expand in thickness, the air inside of it expands.

Perhaps Bethesda should concentrate more on his verbiage, and less on name-calling and dragging this subforum down the sewer.

[BethesdaWX]

The troposphere can expand...what you said made no sense. Tropopause is a level where the stratosphere and troposphere meet.

ORH: I prefer use the word "expansive" regarding the whole Mish-Mash, not "higher"... I just don't like "higher", has no substance for my somewhat peevish ways of thinking....if you have a problem with it, thats fine, and I'll be careful around you if it bothers you that much But everyone here knew what I was referring to is the point why bringing it up is silly, I feel this way at least.

Sickman: I was not "Name Calling" anyone, but I may have gone overboard....my frustrations with a certain member are shared, I assume. I'll try to tone it down.

[Mallow]

ORH: I prefer use the word "expansive" regarding the whole Mish-Mash, not "higher"... I just don't like "higher", has no substance for my somewhat peevish ways of thinking....if you have a problem with it, thats fine, and I'll be careful around you if it bothers you that much But everyone here knew what I was referring to is the point why bringing it up is silly, I feel this way at least.

Sickman: I was not "Name Calling" anyone, but I may have gone overboard....my frustrations with a certain member are shared, I assume. I'll try to tone it down.

We didn't know what you were referring to. We guessed that you meant a higher tropopause (though you were also talking about cooling, which made that more confusing). "Expansive" simply doesn't make sense in the context of the tropopause, as it's a surface, whereas "expansive" implies a volumetric component.

My guess is that you were confusing the tropopause with the troposphere?

[BethesdaWX]

We didn't know what you were referring to. We guessed that you meant a higher tropopause (though you were also talking about cooling, which made that more confusing). "Expansive" simply doesn't make sense in the context of the tropopause, as it's a surface, whereas "expansive" implies a volumetric component.

My guess is that you were confusing the tropopause with the troposphere?

The answer you seek is in my post you quoted. A higher tropopause coincides with a more expansive troposphere... so using "expansive" as a one-for-all is just easier for me to type.... unfortunately when I think fast.....sometimes I type the wrong words, it has happened numerous times here, and my message should still be discernable

As for my "cooling" reference, I was referring the effect of the AO (which is often dictated/affected by the +/-QBO phase) on global temperatures. So the -QBO/-AO are more common in Tandom rather than +QBO/-AO, which a +IO really makes it hard to get the -AO unless there is Solar Influence.

The QBO phases determine the extent of the Tropopshere, no? The -QBO developing now and descending easterly Shear zone already signal a change from our +QBO regimine.

Removing the effects of all known drivers except the AO (Excluding GCC, which is the biggie), the AO wintertime temperature only correlated to Global Temps from the early 1960's to the mid 1990's, which fits perfectly into the -AMO phase. The +AMO phase Broke before 1963, and after 1993, both saw poor correlation between the AO and the GTA.

Of course its never perfect, and Global Cloud Cover is likely a Major Player Here, but the message is clear. I just didn't word it well.

[nzucker]

GFS shows global temperatures below average for the next week despite the fading of La Nina:

[BethesdaWX]

Surface temps are Colder, but the LT as a whole is warmer, although that too should begin to cool sometime this week.

Arctic to cool well below avg as well, but the wind pattern up there is still terrible.

[nzucker]

Arctic to cool well below avg as well, but the wind pattern up there is still terrible.

We're not doing too badly on arctic ice with the recent uptick on JAXA, and I assume we won't burn too much ice in the next week with below average temperatures over Baffin Bay and much of the High Arctic.

[Clifford]

We're not doing too badly on arctic ice with the recent uptick on JAXA, and I assume we won't burn too much ice in the next week with below average temperatures over Baffin Bay and much of the High Arctic.

Don't you like it...

Post something.

Then an hour later and the updated data comes out showing a very respectable 100,000 sq km drop from

12.396406 to 12.293281 million sq km (early evening data, morning data is usually slightly higher).

The North Pole has been showing fairly neutral or slightly cold anomaly for the last week or two, although that may be ending next week according to the Maue website:

http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/extreme/gfs/current/nh_raw_temp.html

Perhaps after most of the ice in the Sea of Okhotsk and the southern Bering Sea melts, the rate of ice melt will decrease.

[skierinvermont]

GFS shows global temperatures below average for the next week despite the fading of La Nina:

Not surprising at all .. in fact warmer than one might expect.. so I don't really understand the use of word "despite." It's a 1979-2009 baseline on the image you posted... to be less than .06C below the 1979-2009 baseline at the end of a La Nina is surprisingly warm considering the 3 month lag to surface temps from ENSO. We are solidly (+.1 to +.3C) above the 1951-1980 and 1961-1990 baselines despite the 3 month ENSO lag being very Nina and the ongoing weakly Nina conditions.

[nzucker]

Not surprising at all .. in fact warmer than one might expect.. so I don't really understand the use of word "despite." It's a 1979-2009 baseline... to be less than .05C below the 1979-2009 baseline at the end of a La Nina s surprisingly warm.

It's not "surprisingly warm" because a few weeks ago the anomaly was around +.2C so it's all dependent on context/expectations.

The reason I used the word "despite" is since it's surprising that we'd cool considerably when the ENSO is clearly headed towards El Nino...

[tacoman25]

Not surprising at all .. in fact warmer than one might expect.. so I don't really understand the use of word "despite." It's a 1979-2009 baseline on the image you posted... to be less than .06C below the 1979-2009 baseline at the end of a La Nina is surprisingly warm considering the 3 month lag to surface temps from ENSO. We are solidly (+.1 to +.3C) above the 1951-1980 and 1961-1990 baselines despite the 3 month ENSO lag being very Nina and the ongoing weakly Nina conditions.

Not sure what you mean by "very Nina", but -ENSO conditions haven't been near strong since January. Five months ago.

[skierinvermont]

Not sure what you mean by "very Nina", but -ENSO conditions haven't been near strong since January. Five months ago.

very did not necessarily imply strong

[nzucker]

Not surprising at all .. in fact warmer than one might expect.. so I don't really understand the use of word "despite." It's a 1979-2009 baseline on the image you posted... to be less than .06C below the 1979-2009 baseline at the end of a La Nina is surprisingly warm considering the 3 month lag to surface temps from ENSO. We are solidly (+.1 to +.3C) above the 1951-1980 and 1961-1990 baselines despite the 3 month ENSO lag being very Nina and the ongoing weakly Nina conditions.

Skier always finds a way to twist things to look warm when global temperatures are actually cool. Congrats on the spin, maybe you should join Viner and the rest of the corrupt gang.

-.05C is NOT a warm anomaly considering how quickly the La Niña has abated, as well as the AGW component. Having below average global temperatures is impressive when we're in a time of neutral ENSO conditions.

[skierinvermont]

It's not "surprisingly warm" because a few weeks ago the anomaly was around +.2C so it's all dependent on context/expectations.

The reason I used the word "despite" is since it's surprising that we'd cool considerably when the ENSO is clearly headed towards El Nino...

No it's not surprising at all that we'd cool a few tenths heading into a Nino. Week to week temperature bounce around all over the place.

We are ~.4-.5C warmer than comparable ENSO conditions 50 years ago. By historical standards, -.05C on a 1979-2009 baseline at the end of a NIna is quite warm. This is simply indicative of the long term warming trend.

[skierinvermont]

Skier always finds a way to twist things to look warm when global temperatures are actually cool. Congrats on the spin, maybe you should join Viner and the rest of the corrupt gang.

-.05C is NOT a warm anomaly considering how quickly the La Niña has abated, as well as the AGW component. Having below average global temperatures is impressive when we're in a time of neutral ENSO conditions.

Viner gave a fairly basic description of the long-term decline in London snowfall related to AGW and you manipulated his comments by chopping off the part about "heavy snow will return" to make it sound like he was saying it would never snow again. Such blatant manipulation is the epitome of intellectual corruption.

[nzucker]

very did not necessarily imply strong

Amazing how he twists his way out of things, isn't it ElTacoman?

Skier would make a good lawyer.

[skierinvermont]

Having below average global temperatures is impressive when we're in a time of neutral ENSO conditions.

1) The weekly 3.4 numbers are still in official weak negative territory.

2) The 3-month lagged numbers, which make the strongest determination of present temperatures, were in moderate negative territory.

[nzucker]

Viner gave a fairly basic description of the long-term decline in London snowfall related to AGW and you manipulated his comments by chopping off the part about "heavy snow will return" to make it sound like he was saying it would never snow again. Such blatant manipulation is the epitome of intellectual corruption.

He did NOT give a "basic description." He deliberately used the emotional appeal of "children not seeing snow anymore" to make a point about global warming, even though 99% of the reason for snowless winters in Britain had nothing to do with AGW and everything to do with the NAO index, which he should understand as a top climatologist. 09-10 was a top snowy winter in the UK despite global temperatures being 2nd warmest, so that just shows you how much the average global temperature influences British snowfall compared to high-latitude blocking. Viner was deliberately trying to obfuscate the string of +NAO winters in order to make an emotionally-charged argument about climate change. That's NOT science.

And stop being such a fricking apologist for everything who believes in AGW. It's clear that you're just so uncertain of your own beliefs, so scared to be your own person. Start thinking for yourself, already.

[skierinvermont]

Amazing how he twists his way out of things, isn't it ElTacoman?

Skier would make a good lawyer.

Yes it's simply amazing that the word very could mean anything but "an official ONI reading of -1.5 or lower!" How could it possibly mean anything else except that? That must totally blow your mind!

EVERYBODY knows that the word "very" ALWAYS means an ONI reading of -1.5 or lower!

[skierinvermont]

And stop being such a fricking apologist for everything who believes in AGW. It's clear that you're just so uncertain of your own beliefs, so scared to be your own person. Start thinking for yourself, already.

You've got me! Dr. Zuckerboy!

[nzucker]

Yes it's simply amazing that the word very could mean anything but "an official ONI reading of -1.5 or lower!" How could it possibly mean anything else except that? That must totally blow your mind!

EVERYBODY knows that the word "very" ALWAYS means an ONI reading of -1.5 or lower!

Well you're the one who argues with me for using the word "despite" even though it clearly made sense in the context of GFS global temperatures dropping significantly from +.25C to -.05C even with a move towards El Niño conditions.

Clearly, the word "despite" was a challenge to your belief in climate change. You can't be happy unless temperatures are perceived as warm. Every incident of cooling is portrayed by you as "just a temporary drop" or "still warmer than historical conditions."

Listen to what LakeEffectKing said....time to drop your bias and think for yourself. Challenge yourself to move away from such a narrow perspective. Put yourself in the shoes of the general public approaching Viner's comments, or the on-the-fence voter examining the weak trend in global temperatures, whatever. You are never going to learn anything if you approach these arguments from a contrarian perspective where all you want to do is mock the other posters who are more skeptical of climate change.

[skierinvermont]

He did NOT give a "basic description." He deliberately used the emotional appeal of "children not seeing snow anymore" to make a point about global warming, even though 99% of the reason for snowless winters in Britain had nothing to do with AGW and everything to do with the NAO index, which he should understand as a top climatologist. 09-10 was a top snowy winter in the UK despite global temperatures being 2nd warmest, so that just shows you how much the average global temperature influences British snowfall compared to high-latitude blocking. Viner was deliberately trying to obfuscate the string of +NAO winters in order to make an emotionally-charged argument about climate change. That's NOT science.

The specific statement that "heavy snow will return" clearly indicates that the string of snowless winters is partly due to weather, but that a long-term decline has also occurred and will continue.

By chopping off this statement you manipulate its very obvious intended meaning.