2011 Global Temperatures

[skierinvermont]

And if you deny that Ninas following Ninos tend to be much warmer (zucker has already acknowledged this) then I'm just going to conduct all of my comparisons vs 2008 instead of 1999 and claim we've warmed .15C in three years. Astronomical warming!

In reality, it's clear that 2008 was so cold because it wasn't preceded by a Nino... and 2011 will be solidly warmer because it was preceded by a strong Nino... and 1999 was even more strongly affected due to the much stronger Nino.

[skierinvermont]

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

Not so sure about that. The J and M Had temps might be bumped up ~.1C with the UAH poles and 1999 might be bumped down a bit. I don't have a monthly version so I'm just ballparking. I might make a monthly version later.

[tacoman25]

Not so sure about that. The J and M Had temps might be bumped up ~.1C with the UAH poles and 1999 might be bumped down a bit. I don't have a monthly version so I'm just ballparking. I might make a monthly version later.

There's no way it would be that much just from the poles. And even if it somehow was, HadCRU would still be about even with 1999. GISS is by far on its own this year so far.

[tacoman25]

And if you deny that Ninas following Ninos tend to be much warmer (zucker has already acknowledged this) then I'm just going to conduct all of my comparisons vs 2008 instead of 1999 and claim we've warmed .15C in three years. Astronomical warming!

In reality, it's clear that 2008 was so cold because it wasn't preceded by a Nino... and 2011 will be solidly warmer because it was preceded by a strong Nino... and 1999 was even more strongly affected due to the much stronger Nino.

Um...five posts up.

[skierinvermont]

There's no way it would be that much just from the poles. And even if it somehow was, HadCRU would still be about even with 1999. GISS is by far on its own this year so far.

True.. GISS was weirdly cold in 1999. Even just looking at 60-60 GISS is much colder than HadCRUT than in surrounding years. Either GISS was too cold in 1999 or HadCRUT was too warm, or both. Which is why I like an average of Had and GISS 60-60 + UAH poles.

[skierinvermont]

Um...five posts up.

Ok but you still seem to be disputing the effect on the year as a whole. Look at 1989 vs 1985 and 2008 vs 1999/2011.

1989 was .16C (GISS), .2C (Had) and .1C (UAH) warmer than 1985 just 4 years previous, even though the 1989 Nina was much stronger and remained stronger throughout the early part of the year.

Either we had .1-.2C of AGW in 4 years, or the 1988 Nino had a .1-.15C warming effect on 1989.

So assuming a .12C effect, either .5C was exerted in the first quarter, or else the effect lasted longer than a quarter.

[tacoman25]

True.. GISS was weirdly cold in 1999. Even just looking at 60-60 GISS is much colder than HadCRUT than in surrounding years. Either GISS was too cold in 1999 or HadCRUT was too warm, or both. Which is why I like an average of Had and GISS 60-60 + UAH poles.

Or GISS is too warm this year. Might want to consider that possibility, too.

[skierinvermont]

Or GISS is too warm this year. Might want to consider that possibility, too.

Or HadCRUT 60-60 is too cold.

The best compromise for the surface is Had/GISS 60-60 and UAH poles. I don't have monthly values for that so hard to say whether we have been warmer or cooler than 1999.

[tacoman25]

Ok but you still seem to be disputing the effect on the year as a whole. Look at 1989 vs 1985 and 2008 vs 1999/2011.

1989 was .16C (GISS), .2C (Had) and .1C (UAH) warmer than 1985 just 5 years previous, even though the 1989 Nina was much stronger and remained stronger throughout the year.

Either we had .1-.2C of AGW in 4 years, or the 1988 Nino had a .1-.15C warming effect on 1989.

So assuming a .12C effect, either .5C was exerted in the first quarter, or else the effect lasted longer than a quarter.

I think a strong Nino can effect the first 3 months of a Nina year following it...which of course is going to make the year as a whole warmer. But after that, I don't see any evidence that the effect hangs on.

One thing to keep in mind in comparing 1985 to 1989 (besides preceding ENSO) is once again the solar factor. Solar was much higher in 1989.

[tacoman25]

Or HadCRUT 60-60 is too cold.

The best compromise for the surface is Had/GISS 60-60 and UAH poles. I don't have monthly values for that so hard to say whether we have been warmer or cooler than 1999.

Well, considering how much cooler HadCRU has been than 1999, as well as UAH, I think it's clear that HadCRU/UAH couldn't be more than slightly warmer than 1999 (probably not even that), and HadCRU/UAH is much closer to 1999 than GISS has been.

[skierinvermont]

I think a strong Nino can effect the first 3 months of a Nina year following it...which of course is going to make the year as a whole warmer. But after that, I don't see any evidence that the effect hangs on.

One thing to keep in mind in comparing 1985 to 1989 (besides preceding ENSO) is once again the solar factor. Solar was much higher in 1989.

Ok yes solar was stronger, but the Nina was also .8C stronger at peak (for the year as a whole with 3 month lag it was .3C stronger). The solar might be a bit bigger but they would come close to cancelling.

So we're left with 1989 being .1-.2C warmer than 1985. Even if we go with a lower value like .12C, that means that the effect in the first quarter would have to have been .5C to produce an effect of .12C on the entire year. Clearly effect isn't .5C in the first quarter... it's maybe .3-.4C in the first quarter then .1-.2C in the second quarter. Something like that. I think it also makes physical sense for it to last more than a few months. The cooling effect of Pinatubo lasted long after the aerosols dissipated. The heat built up during a strong Nino in the upper oceans outside of the ENSO regions would take a long time to dissipate. I think I have heard it remarked that the heat built up in the upper oceans took years to dissipate after the 1998 Nino.

[skierinvermont]

Well, considering how much cooler HadCRU has been than 1999, as well as UAH, I think it's clear that HadCRU/UAH couldn't be more than slightly warmer than 1999 (probably not even that), and HadCRU/UAH is much closer to 1999 than GISS has been.

It's not the UAH global anom that matters.. it's the polar anom... which was around .9C for JFM combined in the arctic.. and the antarctic looks to have been .5-1C warmer than 1999 as well.

[tacoman25]

Ok yes solar was stronger, but the Nina was also .8C stronger at peak (for the year as a whole with 3 month lag it was .3C stronger). The solar might be a bit bigger but they would come close to cancelling.

So we're left with 1989 being .1-.2C warmer than 1985. Even if we go with a lower value like .12C, that means that the effect in the first quarter would have to have been .5C to produce an effect of .12C on the entire year. Clearly effect isn't .5C in the first quarter... it's maybe .3-.4C in the first quarter then .1-.2C in the second quarter. Something like that. I think it also makes physical sense for it to last more than a few months. The cooling effect of Pinatubo lasted long after the aerosols dissipated. The heat built up during a strong Nino in the upper oceans outside of the ENSO regions would take a long time to dissipate.

I don't know, the 1980s seemed to have stronger underlying warming going on. I mean, look at how much 1990 warmed from 1989, without the aid of a Nino developing.

I'm just saying, if you look at the individual months/quarters, there is no evidence in that warming from a previous Nino lasts through the year. If you compare 1999 to 2000 even, they are pretty even Apr-Dec.

[tacoman25]

It's not the UAH global anom that matters.. it's the polar anom... which was around .9C for JFM combined in the arctic.. and the antarctic looks to have been .5-1C warmer than 1999 as well.

Look how much colder HadCRU was Jan/Feb 2011 than 1999. No way UAH polar anomalies make HadCRU/UAH any more than slightly warmer than 1999...and even that is unlikely.

GISS has clearly continued its trend of being the warm outlier.

[skierinvermont]

Look how much colder HadCRU was Jan/Feb 2011 than 1999. No way UAH polar anomalies make HadCRU/UAH any more than slightly warmer than 1999...and even that is unlikely.

GISS has clearly continued its trend of being the warm outlier.

Well there is some divergence between Had and GISS for 60-60 since 1999. So it looks like that has continued for the first 3 months of 2011, although much of it is eliminated by adding in the poles to HadCRUT.

But I object to calling GISS an outlier since it is really only comparable to Had and even then only after excluding the poles, or adding them into Had. The satellites are affected differently by ENSO, solar and other factors and so have different short term trends from the surface. And there is large disagreement on how to interpret the tropospheric data ranging coolest to warmest from UAH to RSS to RAOBCORE and RICH, to Fu and V&G, to STAR. So you've got two problems when comparing UAH or RSS to GISS:

1. The satellites measure the LT while GISS measures the surface... over short periods especially different trends may be observed. I'd be more comfortable doing 30-yr trend comparisons (if #2 is accounted for) than a 10-yr trend, and especially comparing two individual years.

2. Other LT data shows more warming than UAH or RSS.

#1, and especially #2 are why I don't think the term "outlier" is applicable to GISS.

[nzucker]

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.

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.

I'm just saying this Niña is going to end up fading faster than 1999, and that's been true since March. It's possible that we're starting to see some rebound in surface temperatures due to the fact that we're heading towards neutral/El Niño. I don't know the significance of this, but I've noticed a huge bubble of 20C 850s near the Peruvian coastline, and this bubble seems larger than normal. I don't know if this is related to the emerging warmth in Region 1.2 and Region 3, but I suspect it might be. 1998 had record warmth in Lima, Peru due to the powerful east-based El Niño, so I do suspect that temperatures in these regions might be affected by SSTs in the ENSO regions. Here is an example from the GFS of how the ENSO change might already be affecting the surface; it's just a hypothesis, but I study the models for South America fairly frequently after having lived in Chile for 6 months during the winter, and this does look a bit unusual:

Also, we may not be able to throw on .1C to account for the solar minimum because I've read recently that some people believe that we're hitting the maximum right now, albeit an unusually low one. It would be bizarre to have a weak cycle also be such a short one, as historically during the Dalton and Maunder Minima, the cycles were very long. Dr. Svalgaard believes, nevertheless, that we are approaching the solar maximum this instant due to the fact that the magnetic field has seen a reversal. I'd like to see more confirmation of this from NASA, but it's an interesting article on Watts:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/08/solar-max-so-soon/#more-39503

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.

I thought we concluded that RSS has been about .06C/decade in the last 10 years and UAH about .08C/decade in the last 10 years. The trend may be a bit higher since 1998, but it shouldn't make too much of a difference since we're only adding on three years.

And if you deny that Ninas following Ninos tend to be much warmer (zucker has already acknowledged this) then I'm just going to conduct all of my comparisons vs 2008 instead of 1999 and claim we've warmed .15C in three years. Astronomical warming!

In reality, it's clear that 2008 was so cold because it wasn't preceded by a Nino... and 2011 will be solidly warmer because it was preceded by a strong Nino... and 1999 was even more strongly affected due to the much stronger Nino.

I don't think anyone is denying that there is a lag of warmth following an El Niño, we're just debating how long it lasts. Also, you keep saying that 2008 wasn't preceded by a Niño. However, it was; Winter 06-07 was a moderate Niño that peaked at 1.1C. It wasn't nearly the strength of the 2010, 1998, or 1983 warm ENSO events, but it did have some lag effect, although probably fairly minimal.

Claiming astronomical warming because of 2008's relatively cold anomalies would be a mistake. First, as we've discussed, the El Niño preceding the 07-08 moderate La Niña was .7C weaker in its peak. Second, we were actually at the solar minimum, with long stretches of spotless days, especially in Fall 2008. The reduction in TSI from the solar minimum would have cooled 2008 more. If we accept hypothetically that this is the solar maximum compared to 2008 being in a time of solar minimum, then we would have to subtract more than .1C from this year's global temperature anomaly to find the true anthropogenic warming trend. We don't know if Dr. Svalgaard is correct, but if he has hit the nail on the head, the solar cycle could account for the relative mildness of the 2010-2011 Niña. Finally, the -PDO configuration was much stronger in Winter 07-08, with extremely, brutally cold waters in the Gulf of Alaska. This year, the GoA and California coast has been below average, but not nearly to the same extent. This may be one of the reasons we saw a much more favorable Pacific pattern, with the MJO moving into Phase 8, for East Coast snow/cold this winter.

Ok yes solar was stronger, but the Nina was also .8C stronger at peak (for the year as a whole with 3 month lag it was .3C stronger). The solar might be a bit bigger but they would come close to cancelling.

So we're left with 1989 being .1-.2C warmer than 1985. Even if we go with a lower value like .12C, that means that the effect in the first quarter would have to have been .5C to produce an effect of .12C on the entire year. Clearly effect isn't .5C in the first quarter... it's maybe .3-.4C in the first quarter then .1-.2C in the second quarter. Something like that. I think it also makes physical sense for it to last more than a few months. The cooling effect of Pinatubo lasted long after the aerosols dissipated. The heat built up during a strong Nino in the upper oceans outside of the ENSO regions would take a long time to dissipate. I think I have heard it remarked that the heat built up in the upper oceans took years to dissipate after the 1998 Nino.

Remember, 86-87/87-88 was a double strong Niño...the first year was technically moderate but fairly beefy at +1.3C, and then 87-88 hit +1.6C for official strong status. I don't know how this affects the analysis but just wanted to mention that it was a rare occasion when a pretty robust El Niño was followed by an even more powerful warm ENSO event.

Also, might El Chichón have had some effect on the 84-85 temperature regime? I know it was fading since the eruption was back in 1982, but not sure the longer-term global effects had completely dissipated.

[tacoman25]

Well there is some divergence between Had and GISS for 60-60 since 1999. So it looks like that has continued for the first 3 months of 2011, although much of it is eliminated by adding in the poles to HadCRUT.

But I object to calling GISS an outlier since it is really only comparable to Had and even then only after excluding the poles, or adding them into Had. The satellites are affected differently by ENSO, solar and other factors and so have different short term trends from the surface. And there is large disagreement on how to interpret the tropospheric data ranging coolest to warmest from UAH to RSS to RAOBCORE and RICH, to Fu and V&G, to STAR. So you've got two problems when comparing UAH or RSS to GISS:

1. The satellites measure the LT while GISS measures the surface... over short periods especially different trends may be observed. I'd be more comfortable doing 30-yr trend comparisons (if #2 is accounted for) than a 10-yr trend, and especially comparing two individual years.

2. Other LT data shows more warming than UAH or RSS.

#1, and especially #2 are why I don't think the term "outlier" is applicable to GISS.

An outlier is something that stands apart from the rest of the group. In recent years, and this year, GISS has consistently been the one source easily warmer than all other sources. It has diverged, and this has been proven. You can provide reasons for that, you can cite longterm trends, you can try to discredit the other sources...but none of that changes the fact that of the 4 major global temperature sources, GISS is currently (and has been for years) the outlier. It's not debatable, it's fact.

Now, that may or may not be important...it MAY be a short term thing, it's POSSIBLE all of the other sources are wrong and GISS is right, any number of rationalizations may have some truth to them. I'm not saying GISS is evil. But they are the temperature outlier in 2011 and in general since 2005.

[tacoman25]

I don't know, the 1980s seemed to have stronger underlying warming going on. I mean, look at how much 1990 warmed from 1989, without the aid of a Nino developing.

I'm just saying, if you look at the individual months/quarters, there is no evidence in that warming from a previous Nino lasts through the year. If you compare 1999 to 2000 even, they are pretty even Apr-Dec.

Did you look at this skiier? Even with 1999 following the strongest El Nino on record, the last 3/4 of the year showed no signs of being warmer than a second year Nina.

[BethesdaWX]

Andrew,

I am absolutely Baffled as to why you won't use NCDC data, I mean really? Is it a purposeful method to avoid the good datasets and embrace the one not-so-good dataseT?

[nzucker]

Did you look at this skiier? Even with 1999 following the strongest El Nino on record, the last 3/4 of the year showed no signs of being warmer than a second year Nina.

The latter half of 1999 was cold on UAH, and didn't show much sign of being influenced by the preceding Niño.

Aug 1999: -0.12C

Sep 1999: +0.01C

Oct 1999: -0.05C

Nov 1999: -0.08C

Dec 1999: -0.08C

[skierinvermont]

I'm just saying this Niña is going to end up fading faster than 1999, and that's been true since March.

No, what you said originally was that 2011 declined faster than 1999 beginning in late winter. And you're still saying the fading faster has been true since March... which is wrong. it began slightly in April, and really wasn't significantly different until the last 2 weeks. The effect on GLOBAL temperatures to this point is insignificant. Global temps lag ENSO by 3 months.

It's possible that we're starting to see some rebound in surface temperatures due to the fact that we're heading towards neutral/El Niño. I don't know the significance of this, but I've noticed a huge bubble of 20C 850s near the Peruvian coastline, and this bubble seems larger than normal. I don't know if this is related to the emerging warmth in Region 1.2 and Region 3, but I suspect it might be. 1998 had record warmth in Lima, Peru due to the powerful east-based El Niño, so I do suspect that temperatures in these regions might be affected by SSTs in the ENSO regions. Here is an example from the GFS of how the ENSO change might already be affecting the surface; it's just a hypothesis, but I study the models for South America fairly frequently after having lived in Chile for 6 months during the winter, and this does look a bit unusual:

20C anomalies are normal this time of year in that area. There is a small bubble of slightly +anomalies in the region but as you can see they are insignificant on a global scale:

Also, we may not be able to throw on .1C to account for the solar minimum because I've read recently that some people believe that we're hitting the maximum right now, albeit an unusually low one. It would be bizarre to have a weak cycle also be such a short one, as historically during the Dalton and Maunder Minima, the cycles were very long. Dr. Svalgaard believes, nevertheless, that we are approaching the solar maximum this instant due to the fact that the magnetic field has seen a reversal. I'd like to see more confirmation of this from NASA, but it's an interesting article on Watts:

http://wattsupwithth...oon/#more-39503

It doesn't matter if this is officially the maximum.. solar activity is still quite low. What matters is the TSI number and TSI is much lower than 1999, especially if we apply a 1 year lag. The earth doesn't just say "oooh I think the sun is hitting its maximum now I had better warm up .1C+."

The maximum is a human defined construct and doesn't have a physical effect on global temperatures.

I thought we concluded that RSS has been about .06C/decade in the last 10 years and UAH about .08C/decade in the last 10 years. The trend may be a bit higher since 1998, but it shouldn't make too much of a difference since we're only adding on three years.

I specifically discussed our previous agreement of .08C/decade UAH and .06C/decade RSS ENSO corrected. What I explained was that we arrived at this qualitatively based on our own estimates. What would probably be more accurate is to do a qualitative correction as I have done for GISS. It's as if you didn't read what I wrote. I specifically mentioned our previous discussion and then I was simply noting ways in which it could be improved. For you to come back and ask ... "I thought we agreed XXX" indicates you missed the point of my post entirely. Yes we agreed XXX and I am suggesting a better method than what we used at that time.

Second, we were actually at the solar minimum, with long stretches of spotless days, especially in Fall 2008. The reduction in TSI from the solar minimum would have cooled 2008 more. If we accept hypothetically that this is the solar maximum compared to 2008 being in a time of solar minimum, then we would have to subtract more than .1C from this year's global temperature anomaly to find the true anthropogenic warming trend. We don't know if Dr. Svalgaard is correct, but if he has hit the nail on the head, the solar cycle could account for the relative mildness of the 2010-2011 Niña.

Again it doesn't matter if this is the official "maximum" that doesn't mean one adds on .1C+ to compare to 2008. TSI is only slightly higher than in 2008 and not much at all if we use a 1 year lag. The solar correction would be negligible. Are you really suggesting the sun has caused .1C+ of warming in the last 3 years because we're slightly higher than a dead solar minimum which may or (more likely) may not be the official maximum?

Remember, 86-87/87-88 was a double strong Niño...the first year was technically moderate but fairly beefy at +1.3C, and then 87-88 hit +1.6C for official strong status. I don't know how this affects the analysis but just wanted to mention that it was a rare occasion when a pretty robust El Niño was followed by an even more powerful warm ENSO event.

Also, might El Chichón have had some effect on the 84-85 temperature regime? I know it was fading since the eruption was back in 1982, but not sure the longer-term global effects had completely dissipated.

I don't think El Chichon would have affected 1985 (the year in question) temperatures much at all. Pinatubo's effect was mostly gone 3 years after the event (some small effect remained). Chichon's effect was much smaller than Pinatubo's and likely would have only lasted about 2-3 years which most of the effect in the first year and a half. El Chichon also occurred earlier in the year than Pinatubo.

[skierinvermont]

An outlier is something that stands apart from the rest of the group. In recent years, and this year, GISS has consistently been the one source easily warmer than all other sources. It has diverged, and this has been proven. You can provide reasons for that, you can cite longterm trends, you can try to discredit the other sources...but none of that changes the fact that of the 4 major global temperature sources, GISS is currently (and has been for years) the outlier. It's not debatable, it's fact.

Now, that may or may not be important...it MAY be a short term thing, it's POSSIBLE all of the other sources are wrong and GISS is right, any number of rationalizations may have some truth to them. I'm not saying GISS is evil. But they are the temperature outlier in 2011 and in general since 2005.

In terms of my first point (that they measure different things physically) saying that GISS is an outlier from UAH is like saying my SAT score is an outlier compared to the number of vegetables you harvest each year in your garden. It's apples to oranges. To call something an outlier usually there is an implication that it falls in the same category as the things it is being compared to. GISS doesn't. GISS measures the surface, while UAH and RSS (and RICH, RAOBCORE, V&G, Fu, and STAR) measure the LT. There is no expectation that they will correspond closely over short time periods or when making year to year comparisons. Only over long time periods should we expect a close 1:1 (actually theoretically 1.1 : 1) comparison.

And in terms of my second point, this shows that even if we do make the apples to orange comparison, we find that GISS is not the outlier. Several credible sources have trended slightly to moderately warmer than GISS. The number of credible sources I now of trending warmer to or equal with GISS is equal to the number trending lower.

[skierinvermont]

Did you look at this skiier? Even with 1999 following the strongest El Nino on record, the last 3/4 of the year showed no signs of being warmer than a second year Nina.

If there were no residual 1998 Nino effect, We would expect the last 3/4 of 1999 to be much cooler than the last 3/4 of 2000. The ONI using a 3 month lag was much lower for the last 3/4 of 1999 than for 2000. The fact that it wasn't colder than April-Dec 2000 indicates there may have been some remaining residual effect from 1998 in Apr-Dec 1999.

And even though to zucker I have been harping on how the ENSO divergence between 1999 and 2011 began too recently (only a few weeks ago) to have much effect yet I do believe that there is some effect after 1.5-3 months. So the fact that November but especially October were both much higher on the ONi in 2000 than 1999 probably also had some warming influence on 2000. By that point 2000 was .6-.7C higher on the ONI than 1999 (August and September were .5 and .6C higher respectively).

[tacoman25]

In terms of my first point (that they measure different things physically) saying that GISS is an outlier from UAH is like saying my SAT score is an outlier compared to the number of vegetables you harvest each year in your garden. It's apples to oranges. To call something an outlier usually there is an implication that it falls in the same category as the things it is being compared to. GISS doesn't. GISS measures the surface, while UAH and RSS (and RICH, RAOBCORE, V&G, Fu, and STAR) measure the LT. There is no expectation that they will correspond closely over short time periods or when making year to year comparisons. Only over long time periods should we expect a close 1:1 (actually theoretically 1.1 : 1) comparison.

And in terms of my second point, this shows that even if we do make the apples to orange comparison, we find that GISS is not the outlier. Several credible sources have trended slightly to moderately warmer than GISS. The number of credible sources I now of trending warmer to or equal with GISS is equal to the number trending lower.

I am talking about ALL FOUR MAJOR TEMPERATURE SOURCES. You can use your "apples to oranges" argument all you want, but the fact is that despite their differences in methods, the other three sources have all agreed much better than GISS since 2005. Again, rationalize away, but that fact makes GISS the outlier...whatever that means to you, it's not debatable.

[ORH_wxman]

I am talking about ALL FOUR MAJOR TEMPERATURE SOURCES. You can use your "apples to oranges" argument all you want, but the fact is that despite their differences in methods, the other three sources have all agreed much better than GISS since 2005. Again, rationalize away, but that fact makes GISS the outlier...whatever that means to you, it's not debatable.

LT should be warming faster than the surface anyway according to all the climate models out there and AGW theory. So I think its relevant to ask why that is not happening.

Same reason we should be asking why Antarctica isn't warming much at all when its supposed to be one of the fastest warming areas.

[tacoman25]

If there were no residual 1998 Nino effect, We would expect the last 3/4 of 1999 to be much cooler than the last 3/4 of 2000. The ONI using a 3 month lag was much lower for the last 3/4 of 1999 than for 2000. The fact that it wasn't colder than April-Dec 2000 indicates there may have been some remaining residual effect from 1998 in Apr-Dec 1999.

And even though to zucker I have been harping on how the ENSO divergence between 1999 and 2011 began too recently (only a few weeks ago) to have much effect yet I do believe that there is some effect after 1.5-3 months. So the fact that November but especially October were both much higher on the ONi in 2000 than 1999 probably also had some warming influence on 2000. By that point 2000 was .6-.7C higher on the ONI than 1999 (August and September were .5 and .6C higher respectively).

You are contradicting your own logic. If the carryover from mod/strong ENSO events carries through most of the next year, a second year Nina year like 2000 should be colder because it has the momentum of the previous Nina year as well. In addition, the 1999-00 Nina peaked colder than the 1998-99 one, and in fact the first three trimonthlies of 2000 were colder than 1999, and the fourth one was just as cold. So all factors favored at least March-August being easily colder in 2000. But they weren't.

[nzucker]

No, what you said originally was that 2011 declined faster than 1999 beginning in late winter. And you're still saying the fading faster has been true since March... which is wrong. it began slightly in April, and really wasn't significantly different until the last 2 weeks. The effect on GLOBAL temperatures to this point is insignificant. Global temps lag ENSO by 3 months. 20C anomalies are normal this time of year in that area. There is a small bubble of slightly +anomalies in the region but as you can see they are insignificant on a global scale.

"Since March" means in my mind that it began in April....I guess that was a bit confusing. It has faded much faster than 1999 recently, and that's going to cancel out the warming effect on global temperatures from the '98 El Niño. I think we are both in agreement that 1999 and 2011 are going to be pretty decent ENSO analogs for temperature trend analysis; they may also be decent solar analogs, each representing a "near peak" state despite the difference in strength inter-cycle, which isn't something I think we should correct for since that might influence temperatures in the future from repeated low cycles/weak maxima. I'm also not entirely convinced the lag period is set to "3 months" or "5 months"....it seems there's a general range for all years but there can be some individual variation. For example, global temperatures on GISS were quite high through the summer of 2010 despite the fact that the El Niño was basically gone by May/early June. In terms of Peru, yes it's not a huge anomaly, but remember that the grey is all above average on Maue's maps so there's definitely some warmth down there. It's hard to know exactly when an ENSO change has passed its lag because it depends on so many factors including the PDO, the placement of the anomalies in the ENSO regions, etc. So I don't think we can definitively state that "none of this year's warmth relative to 2008 has been due to the Niña weakening"...both 2008 and 1999 were Niñas followed by another Niña, which implies a different OHC, global wind pattern, stratospheric pattern...all things that can affect global temperatures.

It doesn't matter if this is officially the maximum.. solar activity is still quite low. What matters is the TSI number and TSI is much lower than 1999, especially if we apply a 1 year lag. The earth doesn't just say "oooh I think the sun is hitting its maximum now I had better warm up .1C+. The maximum is a human defined construct and doesn't have a physical effect on global temperatures.

I don't think the TSI number being lower than 1999 is what matters. The reason we use a correction for solar activity is that we have a concrete knowledge that there is an intra-cycle difference near .15C from peak to trough, so therefore it's easy to adjust a temperature trend so one year doesn't have a leg up on another year by being at a different part of the 11-year cycle. However, we know much less about the power of long-term changes in solar activity, and thus it's much more difficult to use standard statistical corrections to analyze this. For example, perhaps 2011 shouldn't be corrected for low TSI if this maximum indeed represents what the solar maxima are going to look like in the next 50 years; if each maximum is going to be similarly weak, then making a correction will lead to an incorrectly warm temperature prediction in future decades since you can't expect the same TSI associated with older maxima as what TSI number we are seeing here with the weaker cycles. Do you understand what I'm trying to get at? Maybe it is confusing but I think I am making sense.

I specifically discussed our previous agreement of .08C/decade UAH and .06C/decade RSS ENSO corrected. What I explained was that we arrived at this qualitatively based on our own estimates. What would probably be more accurate is to do a qualitative correction as I have done for GISS. It's as if you didn't read what I wrote. I specifically mentioned our previous discussion and then I was simply noting ways in which it could be improved. For you to come back and ask ... "I thought we agreed XXX" indicates you missed the point of my post entirely. Yes we agreed XXX and I am suggesting a better method than what we used at that time.

I know you have done more sophisticated analysis for GISS and Hadley+UAH polar infilling. However, I think .07/decade in the last 10-12 years is a good estimate for the satellites, and one that we can use casually in conversation.

I have trouble including STAR and the alternative satellite measurements since we don't have much data available. This makes it hard to compare and look for trends/accuracy/divergence...we don't know where or when the warmth is occurring to bring the trend up towards .18-.20C/decade.

[tacoman25]

LT should be warming faster than the surface anyway according to all the climate models out there and AGW theory. So I think its relevant to ask why that is not happening.

Same reason we should be asking why Antarctica isn't warming much at all when its supposed to be one of the fastest warming areas.

No need to ask questions. Everything is going according to plan. It all adds up perfectly. The only science that is possibly flawed is satellite temperature measurements.

[nzucker]

No need to ask questions. Everything is going according to plan. It all adds up perfectly. The only science that is possibly flawed is satellite temperature measurements.

It's interesting, skierinvermont used to be quite a skeptic, but now he appears to have become biased in the other direction. I think he overcompensated for being uncomfortable associating with the skeptics, who are known to be funded by oil companies and anti-environment, which is obviously not his lifestyle/viewpoint.

Also, Andrew, I still feel as if your posts are a bit antagonistic towards me. I am making a concerted effort to be friendly and civil in these discussions, and I should be treated as such. Perhaps you don't intend to make acrimonious comments, but I feel a certain degree of harsh criticism and condescension that I don't like. I'd enjoy going back to just old-school climate banter among friends, none of this personal stuff. As I said, I'm really trying hard to keep it clean in this forum after all the problems earlier this year, and I'd like you to do the same.

[ORH_wxman]

It's interesting, skierinvermont used to be quite a skeptic, but now he appears to have become biased in the other direction. I think he overcompensated for being uncomfortable associating with the skeptics, who are known to be funded by oil companies and anti-environment, which is obviously not his lifestyle/viewpoint.

Also, Andrew, I still feel as if your posts are a bit antagonistic towards me. I am making a concerted effort to be friendly and civil in these discussions, and I should be treated as such. Perhaps you don't intend to make acrimonious comments, but I feel a certain degree of harsh criticism and condescension that I don't like. I'd enjoy going back to just old-school climate banter among friends, none of this personal stuff. As I said, I'm really trying hard to keep it clean in this forum after all the problems earlier this year, and I'd like you to do the same.

I think everyone should stop with the antagonistic posts and its been coming from both sides. I think his posts have been better recently...there was a time where you guys were getting pretty nasty but it seems to have come down a notch.

Being a skeptic with environmental concerns isn't that hard. In fact, even some crazy goofball skeptics like Goddard are big environmental freaks (he rides his bike everywhere and has been a park ranger at national parks). The problem is I think a lot of the general non-skeptic community, whether they are complete alarmist nut jobs or simply kind of apathetic to the whole debate, view a "skeptic" in the same light as "big oil" and "bad for environment" and that is just not the case.

I do stuff like donate to Audubon every year and belong to Cornell lab of ornithology...but none of that means I have to believe a whack job like Hansen when he tells me we are all burning up and sea levels will rise ridiculous levels by 2100.