2011 Global Temperatures

[skierinvermont]

You can't be happy unless temperatures are perceived as warm.

I don't need to portray temperatures as warm. Temperatures ARE warm by long-term century scale standards. Current temperatures are a solid +.5C or more warmer than comparable ENSO conditions 40 years ago.

This is a climate forum. I am going to present temperatures relative to their long-term means, by which they are very warm.

[nzucker]

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.

But then why say "Children won't know what snow is" if you believe "heavy snow will return."

British snowfall is almost entirely due to the NAO index. There should be MORE snow in the next 30 years because of the NAO, not less because of AGW (which is what Viner implies). Indeed, 08-09, 09-10, and 10-11 were all very snowy winters in the UK despite global temperatures being warmer generally than they were in the 80s and 90s.

[nzucker]

I don't need to portray temperatures as warm. Temperatures ARE warm by long-term century scale standards. Current temperatures are a solid +.5C or more warmer than comparable ENSO conditions 40 years ago.

This is a climate forum. I am going to present temperatures relative to their long-term means, by which they are very warm.

1971-2000 is a long-term mean, and temperatures are .05C BELOW that on the GFS. So that's not warm compared to a long-term mean. That's pretty cool, and certainly not a "problem" worth throwing billions of dollars at.

You can't compare temperatures to 1900 because of the fading influence of the Little Ice Age, the recent period of very high PDO/historic solar max, etc.

[skierinvermont]

But then why say "Children won't know what snow is" if you believe "heavy snow will return."

Because they are casual comments to a reporter. Nobody except a moron would take that literally. To say in the same sentence that "children won't know what snow is" and "heavy snow will return" is obviously a contradiction, but anybody with a brain understands the meaning in context. Weather always causes variation but there is a long-term decline. You of course chop off the part about "heavy snow will return' and just run with the other half of the statement.. which completely destroys the obvious intended meaning. It's manipulation and the worst part is unlike most people you do it intentionally instead of subconsciously.

[skierinvermont]

1971-2000 is a long-term mean, and temperatures are .05C BELOW that on the GFS. So that's not warm compared to a long-term mean. That's pretty cool, and certainly not a "problem" worth throwing billions of dollars at.

You can't compare temperatures to 1900 because of the fading influence of the Little Ice Age, the recent period of very high PDO/historic solar max, etc.

1) No they are .05C below the 1979-2009 mean.. which would put them .05 to .1C above the 1971-2000 mean. I have pointed out that it's the 1979-2009 mean 3 times now, and somehow you still are confused about this. It is clearly labelled as 1979-2009 on the graphic. If it was -.05C on the 1971-2000 mean that would be a little cool by historical standards, but on a 1979-2009 mean which is .1-.15C warmer it's quite warm.

2) Global warming occurs on timescales of 50-100 years.. 30 years is certainly not long.

3) I'm not comparing to 1900.. I'm comparing to the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, 1970s.

4) It's funny originally you claimed that you weren't saying it was cool by historical standards (only that it was surprising it cooled from +.25 to -.05 heading into Nino), and now you are saying it's cool by historical standards. You are contradicting yourself. So please clarify... are you saying it is cool by historical standards or are you simply saying it is odd that it would cool heading into a Nino? Both claims are wrong, but I'm curious as to which wrong claim you are actually trying to make, the first or the second or both?

[tacoman25]

very did not necessarily imply strong

Yes, it does.

ver·y

adverb, adjective, ( Obsolete ) ver·i·er, ver·i·est. –adverb 1. in a high degree; extremely; exceedingly: A giant is very tall. 2. (used as an intensive emphasizing superlatives or stressing identity or oppositeness): the very best thing; in the very same place as before.

"High degree", "extreme", "exceedingly" ENSO would only apply to strong conditions.

[skierinvermont]

Yes, it does.

ver·y

adverb, adjective, ( Obsolete ) ver·i·er, ver·i·est. –adverb 1. in a high degree; extremely; exceedingly: A giant is very tall. 2. (used as an intensive emphasizing superlatives or stressing identity or oppositeness): the very best thing; in the very same place as before.

"High degree", "extreme", "exceedingly" ENSO would only apply to strong conditions.

You're right.. instead of calling it "an official strong Nina on the ONI" they should just say it's "very ninaish" since they are clearly synonyms.

Please forgive me, I thought the term "very" had a broader meaning to most people. I was unaware that my use of the term "very Nina conditions" to describe a moderate La Nina would result in a thorough investigation, accusations of bias, and name calling.

[tacoman25]

You're right.. instead of calling it "an official strong Nina on the ONI" they should just say it's "very ninaish" since they are clearly synonyms.

Please forgive me, I thought the term "very" had a broader meaning to most people. I was unaware that my use of the term "very Nina conditions" to describe a moderate La Nina would result in a thorough investigation, accusations of bias, and name calling.

It was simply a misleading statement. We were barely even in moderate Nina conditions three months ago.

"Very" clearly implies strong in this context. If I said: "It's VERY hot outside", and it was 75 degrees, that would be a little misleading don't you think?

[skierinvermont]

It was simply a misleading statement. We were barely even in moderate Nina conditions three months ago.

"Very" clearly implies strong in this context. If I said: "It's VERY hot outside", and it was 75 degrees, that would be a little misleading don't you think?

Feb 1/2 the ONI was -1.5 Feb 7/8 it was -1.2 and then it remained at -1.2 to -1.3 for the remainder of the month. So 3 months ago it was solidly moderate and closer to the strong side. 3 months and 1 week ago it was officially in strong territory, so at worst, I was off by 1 week.

If these are not "very Nina conditions" to you, feel free to substitute another word, I have already clarified what I meant. I assumed we were all familiar with the actual numbers but apparently not.

[tacoman25]

Feb 1/2 the ONI was -1.5 Feb 7/8 it was -1.2 and then it remained at -1.2 to -1.3 for the remainder of the month. So 3 months ago it was solidly moderate and closer to the strong side. 3 months and 1 week ago it was officially in strong territory, so at worst, I was off by 1 week.

If these are not "very Nina conditions" to you, feel free to substitute another word, I have already clarified what I meant. I assumed we were all familiar with the actual numbers but apparently not.

The monthly Nino 3.4 ONI number for February was -1.1 from the CPC. Like I said, barely moderate.

[nzucker]

1) No they are .05C below the 1979-2009 mean.. which would put them .05 to .1C above the 1971-2000 mean. I have pointed out that it's the 1979-2009 mean 3 times now, and somehow you still are confused about this. It is clearly labelled as 1979-2009 on the graphic. If it was -.05C on the 1971-2000 mean that would be a little cool by historical standards, but on a 1979-2009 mean which is .1-.15C warmer it's quite warm.

2) Global warming occurs on timescales of 50-100 years.. 30 years is certainly not long.

3) I'm not comparing to 1900.. I'm comparing to the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, 1970s.

4) It's funny originally you claimed that you weren't saying it was cool by historical standards (only that it was surprising it cooled from +.25 to -.05 heading into Nino), and now you are saying it's cool by historical standards. You are contradicting yourself. So please clarify... are you saying it is cool by historical standards or are you simply saying it is odd that it would cool heading into a Nino? Both claims are wrong, but I'm curious as to which wrong claim you are actually trying to make, the first or the second or both?

Sorry, I meant 1979-2009, hard to do this while teaching 2nd graders LOL...

My original comment was based on the fact that the global temp had rapidly warmed per the GFS anomalies coming out of the Nina, and that we'd seen a sudden turn towards cooling in recent weeks despite the ENSO progression and the rapid turn away from Nina conditions. It wasn't really intended to be a comparison to historical temperature trends or anything of that sort. But sure, it is relatively cool for our era.

[skierinvermont]

The monthly Nino 3.4 ONI number for February was -1.1 from the CPC. Like I said, barely moderate.

No it wasn't, the monthly number was -1.3. .2C below "strong" and .4C above "weak."

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/indices/sstoi.indices

[skierinvermont]

But sure, it is relatively cool for our era.

Not for emerging from a Nina.

[skierinvermont]

UAH should come in between -.05 and +.05 for April. I'm guessing that it will come in at 0 to +.1 for May.

CH5 update:

[tacoman25]

No it wasn't, the monthly number was -1.3. .2C below "strong" and .4C above "weak."

http://www.cpc.ncep....s/sstoi.indices

Oh, my bad...was looking at the Nino 4 number. Regardless, it was moderate and not strong.

[nzucker]

Not for emerging from a Nina.

A lot of the global temperature sources have shown us just a bit warmer than 2008, which is one of the lower years looking at the recent AMSU/UAH data. We've been slightly warmer than that year, corresponding to the stronger Nino in 2010, so I think overall temperatures are pretty low this year. Obviously we haven't had that many Ninas lately anyway with the run of Nino from 02-05 so any moderate Nina is going to look pretty cool when plotted against the other years.

And the main point was that the GFS was already up to +.25C anomaly, so this is a big tick downwards from that.

[tacoman25]

Not for emerging from a Nina.

Compared to what? The last mod/strong Nina that followed a major El Nino was 1998-99. 1999 has had similar temps to 2011 up to this point. This Nina has weakened more than 1999 though over the past 6 weeks.

[nzucker]

Compared to what? The last mod/strong Nina that followed a major El Nino was 1998-99. 1999 has had similar temps to 2011 up to this point. This Nina has weakened more than 1999 though over the past 6 weeks.

Yeah the Nina is taking a huge hit now with strong westerly wind anomalies over the Pacific:

MJO trucking for the Nino phases 6-8:

[skierinvermont]

Compared to what? The last mod/strong Nina that followed a major El Nino was 1998-99. 1999 has had similar temps to 2011 up to this point. This Nina has weakened more than 1999 though over the past 6 weeks.

The 1998 Nino was stronger which caused the Nina cooling to be more delayed. 1999 continued dropping while we have clearly bottomed out and begun warming at this point. For the satellites, the weakening of the ONI won't substantially affect temperatures until this fall.

At the surface we have been substantially warmer than 1999.

[nzucker]

The 1998 Nino was stronger which caused the Nina cooling to be more delayed. 1999 continued dropping while we have clearly bottomed out at this point.

At the surface we have been substantially warmer than 1999.

The fact that this Nina is weakening quicker should make up in temperatures for the fact that 1998 was a stronger El Nino. 1999 never got below -0.8C trimonthly, don't see that happening here. This Nina looks to be on its last legs...

[skierinvermont]

The fact that this Nina is weakening quicker should make up in temperatures for the fact that 1998 was a stronger El Nino. 1999 never got below -0.8C trimonthly, don't see that happening here. This Nina looks to be on its last legs...

That doesn't affect the satellites until this fall though and the surface until this summer. By the end of the year 1999 may be a good ENSO analog, with the stronger preceding Nino compensating for the more prolonged Nina conditions.

I would agree, by the end of this year, 1999 would be a decent ENSO analog. But by then I think annual 2011 temps will be ~.1C warmer. Of course you can never get a perfect ENSO analog and the solar activity was higher in 1999.

[nzucker]

That doesn't affect the satellites until this fall though and the surface until this summer. By the end of the year 1999 may be a good ENSO analog, with the stronger preceding Nino compensating for the more prolonged Nina conditions.

I would agree, by the end of this year, 1999 would be a decent ENSO analog. But by then I think annual 2011 temps will be ~.1C warmer. Of course you can never get a perfect ENSO analog and the solar activity was higher in 1999.

The fact that the Nina faded pretty quickly in the late winter/spring could certainly be affecting the surface by now. I think I was agreeing with you saying that 1999 would make a decent ENSO analog. And even if temperatures did finish nearly .1C warmer with ENSO conditions being overall equal, that wouldn't be a victory for AGW proponents since that was 12 years ago and we're supposed to be warming around .2C/decade, which would imply this year should be even warmer. Even if you take out like .1C for solar (we're not at the bottom now, by any means), we'd still be about .05C below where expected if you use IPCC estimates, or even farther from the warming rate we need to achieve considering the more aggressive worst-case predictions from Hadley. Also, if you take out that much for solar, you're admitting the fact that this cycle may have "missed its maximum" argues for cooler conditions down the road.

[tacoman25]

The 1998 Nino was stronger which caused the Nina cooling to be more delayed. 1999 continued dropping while we have clearly bottomed out and begun warming at this point. For the satellites, the weakening of the ONI won't substantially affect temperatures until this fall.

At the surface we have been substantially warmer than 1999.

Only GISS. HadCRU has been easily colder in 2011, actually.

And if you want to use HadCRU/UAH for the poles, I'm sure you will still find it to be easily colder than GISS and comparable to 1999.

[tacoman25]

That doesn't affect the satellites until this fall though and the surface until this summer. By the end of the year 1999 may be a good ENSO analog, with the stronger preceding Nino compensating for the more prolonged Nina conditions.

I would agree, by the end of this year, 1999 would be a decent ENSO analog. But by then I think annual 2011 temps will be ~.1C warmer. Of course you can never get a perfect ENSO analog and the solar activity was higher in 1999.

This is kind of silly, as there is no perfect system for determining how exact ENSO strength/duration effects temperatures. By the end of 1999, the 1997-98 Nino had been dead for over 18 months. As strong as it was, I highly doubt it was still effecting global temps after the first couple months of 1999, when the full effects of the Nina kicked in. I don't think it makes much sense to say things will "balance out" and 2011 will be comparable to 1999 by the end (when effects from the preceding Ninos both years are no longer relevant...and 1999 mainted a lower -ENSO state than we are seeing in 2011 now).

[skierinvermont]

The fact that the Nina faded pretty quickly in the late winter/spring could certainly be affecting the surface by now. I think I was agreeing with you saying that 1999 would make a decent ENSO analog. And even if temperatures did finish nearly .1C warmer with ENSO conditions being overall equal, that wouldn't be a victory for AGW proponents since that was 12 years ago and we're supposed to be warming around .2C/decade, which would imply this year should be even warmer. Even if you take out like .1C for solar (we're not at the bottom now, by any means), we'd still be about .05C below where expected if you use IPCC estimates, or even farther from the warming rate we need to achieve considering the more aggressive worst-case predictions from Hadley. Also, if you take out that much for solar, you're admitting the fact that this cycle may have "missed its maximum" argues for cooler conditions down the road.

Your comparison of the ONI in '99 and '11 is wrong. The ONI was actually colder in March of 2011 than March 1999. And that's only 2 months ago, less than the 3 month lag. 99 and '11 didn't even begin to differentiate on ENSO until April, and only substantially by May (assuming current trends continue and modelling is correct). So we are only just beginning to differentiate substantially within the past couple weeks.. no where near the typical 3 month lag time.

Like I said, by the end of the year 1999 may be a decent ENSO match. As of this point, it is not, due to the strength of the 1998 El Nino.

It will probably end up around .1C warmer than 1999 and throw on .1C for the solar min vs max and you have .2C in 12 years.. near the expected rate of .18C/decade. And this is despite the fact that there is no perfect ENSO analog.

A better way than comparing individual years would be to ENSO and solar correct the trends which is which is what I have posted about previously. The ENSO corrected trend since 1999 is around .12C/decade (this is adjusted downwards from a raw trend of .18C/decade since 1999). Considering this essentially encompasses a max to min solar period, the solar corrected trend is around .2C/decade, perhaps slightly higher than the .18C/decade predicted value.

[skierinvermont]

This is kind of silly,

As I said, there is no perfect ENSO match.. even if we try to come up with factors that balance, it's going to be an approximation. A better way would be to ENSO correct the trends rather than individual years. When we do that we find an ENSO corrected trend of around .12C/decade for trends starting anytime between 1997 and 2001. When we solar correct the trends we find near the predicted .18C/decade.

as there is no perfect system for determining how exact ENSO strength/duration effects temperatures. By the end of 1999, the 1997-98 Nino had been dead for over 18 months. As strong as it was, I highly doubt it was still effecting global temps after the first couple months of 1999, when the full effects of the Nina kicked in. I don't think it makes much sense to say things will "balance out" and 2011 will be comparable to 1999 by the end (when effects from the preceding Ninos both years are no longer relevant...and 1999 mainted a lower -ENSO state than we are seeing in 2011 now).

i have provided good evidence in the past that Ninas following strong Ninos tend to be warmer than those that don't. The effect is quite strong in the beginning of the year and then fades, although it remains even into summer. The overall effect on the entire year is substantial.

[tacoman25]

Your comparison of the ONI in '99 and '11 is wrong. The ONI was actually colder in March of 2011 than March 1999. And that's only 2 months ago, less than the 3 month lag. 99 and '11 didn't even begin to differentiate on ENSO until April, and only substantially by May (assuming current trends continue and modelling is correct). So we are only just beginning to differentiate substantially within the past couple weeks.. no where near the typical 3 month lag time.

Like I said, by the end of the year 1999 may be a decent ENSO match. As of this point, it is not, due to the strength of the 1998 El Nino.

It will probably end up around .1C warmer than 1999 and throw on .1C for the solar min vs max and you have .2C in 12 years.. near the expected rate of .18C/decade. And this is despite the fact that there is no perfect ENSO analog.

A better way than comparing individual years would be to ENSO and solar correct the trends which is which is what I have posted about previously. The ENSO corrected trend since 1999 is around .12C/decade (this is adjusted downwards from a raw trend of .18C/decade since 1999). Considering this essentially encompasses a max to min solar period, the solar corrected trend is around .2C/decade, perhaps slightly higher than the .18C/decade predicted value.

For UAH, it's like .07-08C/decade.

[skierinvermont]

For UAH, it's like .07-08C/decade.

Well I've never actually done it for the trends on UAH... we only arrived at that number through our discussion of trying to fine ENSO-neutral periods or comparing +ENSO and -ENSO periods and qualitatively trying to estimate what the underlying ENSO-neutral trend was. I'll try a more quantitative method.

Also it's not just GISS, it's also .12C/decade since the late 90s on HadCRT+UAH poles.

[tacoman25]

i have provided good evidence in the past that Ninas following strong Ninos tend to be warmer than those that don't. The effect is quite strong in the beginning of the year and then fades, although it remains even into summer. The overall effect on the entire year is substantial.

Of course, we both agree that any Nina following a strong Nino is going to be warmer. But I don't see any evidence that the effect lasts past the first quarter of the next year. I don't think 2011 is feeling any effects from the 2009-10 Nino at this point, and I don't think 1999 was either. Same with other years...look at 1989, 1974, etc.

[tacoman25]

Well I've never actually done it for the trends on UAH... we only arrived at that number through our discussion of trying to fine ENSO-neutral periods or comparing +ENSO and -ENSO periods and qualitatively trying to estimate what the underlying ENSO-neutral trend was. I'll try a more quantitative method.

Also it's not just GISS, it's also .12C/decade since the late 90s on HadCRT+UAH poles.

Well, it is just GISS that has had 2011 running warmer than 1999.