2011 Global Temperatures

[skierinvermont]

"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.

I'm not saying there is definitely ZERO effect.. there is always SOME effect due to chaos theory if nothing else. But given the ENSO progression wasn't significantly different until 2 weeks ago and even in the past 2 weeks the difference is still quite small (maybe a mere .1C vs 2008 and .3C vs 1999)... such a short small difference is clearly insignificant on a global scale. ENSO afffects global temperatures by altering the global energy budget... it takes a while for the heat to build up at the surface outside of the ENSO region.

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 understand what you are getting at and there is perhaps some utility for doing things the way you suggest but the primary purpose of "correcting" for solar and ENSO is to find the underlying CO2 trend. With that purpose in mind, one must clearly correct much more for a high solar max than a very weak solar max. If the maxima the next 50 years are exceptionally weak, then clearly their effect on the underlying CO2 trend will be much less than that of very strong cycles. You seem to be trying to use these corrected values to predict future temperature, but that is not the purpose. The purpose is to remove the solar and ENSO effect to highlight the AGW effect. If the solar effect is negative over the next 100 years, then the "corrected" temps will be consistently warmer than the uncorrected temps. This will highlight the fact that the underlying AGW trend was positive, despite the negative solar impact.

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 agree .07-.08C/decade is a good estimate for UAH. I'm just saying it would be better to do a more quantitative method. I doubt that it would be very different, and is probably just as likely to be lower than .08C/decade than higher.

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.

You don't get to call people names and antagonize them and then flip a switch and start being friendly and expect other people to follow suit. You need to take responsibility for your behavior and then perhaps you will find other people are less hostile in response. In the past 12 hours you have accused me of being "unable to think for myself," "scared to be my own person," being a "fricking apologist," spin, bias etc. None of these personal attacks have any place in a civil discussion if that is indeed your goal. Yes, I have been sarcastic and condescending in response to these personal attacks. When the personal attacks stop, then civil discussion will ensue. Those posters and those portions of your posts which are actually substantive and engaging have and will as usual receive substantive responses.

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.

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

Skier would make a good lawyer.

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.

....time to drop your bias and think for yourself. Challenge yourself to move away from such a narrow perspective. \

[skierinvermont]

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.

As noted above, the antagonistic nasty posts from zucker continue unabated.

[ORH_wxman]

As noted above, the antagonistic nasty posts from zucker continue unabated.

They should stop. I haven't been in this particular thread a whole lot recently, but they should stop from both sides. I prefer not to have to moderate in this forum because it should be about science, not the individual. The only person who was ever restricted was bethesda back on eastern because his name calling got out of hand.

We've issued some warnings. Warnings aren't public though.

[skierinvermont]

They should stop. I haven't been in this particular thread a whole lot recently, but they should stop from both sides. I prefer not to have to moderate in this forum because it should be about science, not the individual. The only person who was ever restricted was bethesda back on eastern because his name calling got out of hand.

We've issued some warnings. Warnings aren't public though.

It is really quite frustrating to have much of my personal life and opinions of my character developed from knowledge of my personal life strewn across a public forum. Obviously zucker and I have had a "falling out" over the last several months to put it mildly. I have plenty of "dirt" but I don't post it because it is completely inappropriate. And yet I find what he obviously intends to be insulting reflections on my personal character in every other one of his posts and the occasional "accidental" slip of some private detail. It probably isn't quite as apparent to people unfamiliar with the personal history but it is quite frustrating nonetheless.

[ORH_wxman]

It is really quite frustrating to have much of my personal life and opinions of my character developed from knowledge of my personal life strewn across a public forum. Obviously zucker and I have had a "falling out" over the last several months to put it mildly. I have plenty of "dirt" but I don't post it because it is completely inappropriate. And yet I find what he obviously intends to be insulting reflections on my personal character in every other one of his posts and the occasional "accidental" slip of some private detail. It probably isn't quite as apparent to people unfamiliar with the personal history but it is quite frustrating nonetheless.

I don't really know anything about your personal life other than where you went to college and where you currently live....so whatever he said certainly didn't resonate in my memory. But if anything seems incredibly over the top to you, you should report it. We really rely on the report system a lot...especially in threads that don't get a ton of views like in this forum.

[BethesdaWX]

They should stop. I haven't been in this particular thread a whole lot recently, but they should stop from both sides. I prefer not to have to moderate in this forum because it should be about science, not the individual. The only person who was ever restricted was bethesda back on eastern because his name calling got out of hand.

We've issued some warnings. Warnings aren't public though.

well thanks for calling me out.

not that this is relevant enough to continue, but superficial aspects of the issues here are constantly honed in upon, while the underlying roots don't get a whisper. not everyone will express it the same way, so its the feelings and motives themselves that I feel have been ignored.

So... whatever... I guess

[ORH_wxman]

well thanks for calling me out.

not that this is relevant enough to continue, but superficial aspects of the issues here are constantly honed in upon, while the underlying roots don't get a wisper. not everyone will express it the same way, so its the feelings and motives themselves that I feel have been ignored.

You should get called out. You've had a lot of belligerent language on here recently but haven't really gotten any punishment. So it was in a way sort of a heads up that this needs to stop. Just because you put stars in place of your 4 letter words doesn't mean you aren't posting in that manner.

People need to stop the personalization of the debates on here.

[tacoman25]

You should get called out. You've had a lot of belligerent language on here recently but haven't really gotten any punishment. So it was in a way sort of a heads up that this needs to stop. Just because you put stars in place of your 4 letter words doesn't mean you aren't posting in that manner.

People need to stop the personalization of the debates on here.

Seriously. This entire page has almost nothing to do with the topic at hand, thanks to just that.

[skierinvermont]

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.

If it were simply differences in methods, then I would agree GISS was an outlier. But it's not that GISS has different methods than UAH.. it's that they are measuring two physically different quantities. Saying GISS is an outlier from UAH/RSS is like saying a thermometer in my yard is an outlier from 5 thermometers in your yard. They're not measuring the same thing.

Now as Will says, there is an expectations of a correspondence. But this correspondence (1.1 to 1) is expected in the long-run not necessarily over a period of 5 or 10 years. Lapse rates determine the scaling ratio of temperatures from surface to troposphere and I doubt lapse rates remain constant over periods as short as 5 or 10 years. Changes in weather patterns could cause the surface to warm faster than the LT over a short period. For example, ENSO tends to effect the LT more strongly than the surface. So if we select a period with a -ENSO trend, we might find a slightly positive surface temperature trend (due to the combined warming effect of AGW and cooling effect of ENSO) but a negative trend in the troposphere (due to the overwhelming stronger -ENSO effect).

And my point about the multiple credible temperature data sources that show more warming than GISS stands.

[skierinvermont]

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.

Well you might be right.. I don't think there is enough data to prove it one way or another. I think the 1985 vs 1989 example suggests the effect of the 1988 Nino lasted well into 1989.

And I think it also makes physical sense. A nino builds up a lot of heat in the troposphere and in the upper few hundred meters of the ocean. It takes time for this heat to dissipate. More than 3 months.

[ORH_wxman]

If it were simply differences in methods, then I would agree GISS was an outlier. But it's not that GISS has different methods than UAH.. it's that they are measuring two physically different quantities. Saying GISS is an outlier from UAH/RSS is like saying a thermometer in my yard is an outlier from 5 thermometers in your yard. They're not measuring the same thing.

Now as Will says, there is an expectations of a correspondence. But this correspondence (1.1 to 1) is expected in the long-run not necessarily over a period of 5 or 10 years. Lapse rates determine the scaling ratio of temperatures from surface to troposphere and I doubt lapse rates remain constant over periods as short as 5 or 10 years. Changes in weather patterns could cause the surface to warm faster than the LT over a short period.

And my point about the multiple credible temperature data sources that show more warming than GISS stands.

The divergence of GISS in the last 10 years is a bit disturbing, but it can definitely even out. But if it doesn't over the next 5-8 years, then I think there is a much bigger problem with them than just a sample size issue.

I am skeptical they will even out, but perhaps they do. I think as we cool into this next ocean cycle, they will diverge more. CRU has its own problems too even if we cite vs GISS. They have been a bit questionable in several areas...but given their history vs GISS, its strange to see such a divergence.

Antarctica remains a big question of concern as well as the arctic...but the former has had larger issues that have often been overshadowed by the arctic "extrapolation" debate.

[skierinvermont]

The divergence of GISS in the last 10 years is a bit disturbing, but it can definitely even out. But if it doesn't over the next 5-8 years, then I think there is a much bigger problem with them than just a sample size issue.

I am skeptical they will even out, but perhaps they do. I think as we cool into this next ocean cycle, they will diverge more. CRU has its own problems too even if we cite vs GISS. They have been a bit questionable in several areas...but given their history vs GISS, its strange to see such a divergence.

Antarctica remains a big question of concern as well as the arctic...but the former has had larger issues that have often been overshadowed by the arctic "extrapolation" debate.

I think the divergence vs. HadCRUT+UAH poles (which is pretty small to begin with) will even out.. but there will always be some divergence between regular GISS and Had because the arctic is so much warmer than it used to be and I don't anticipate it ever cooling back to normal for more than a few months or maybe years. So basically I think the (smaller) mid-latitude divergence will even out.

As for comparisons to the various tropospheric sources.. I think first we need to figure out what is the most accurate representation of the troposphere. UAH, RSS, radiosonde, STAR etc? That may take a while to resolve, and perhaps better equipment as well which isn't being funded yet.

[tacoman25]

If it were simply differences in methods, then I would agree GISS was an outlier. But it's not that GISS has different methods than UAH.. it's that they are measuring two physically different quantities. Saying GISS is an outlier from UAH/RSS is like saying a thermometer in my yard is an outlier from 5 thermometers in your yard. They're not measuring the same thing.

And yet Hadley, which also measuring something else, still agrees much more with UAH/RSS than GISS in recent years. Of the four major global temperature sources, GISS has diverged since 2005 from the other three, which makes it the outlier. For better or worse, it shouldn't be that hard to accept. It's just fact.

[ORH_wxman]

I think the divergence vs. HadCRUT+UAH poles (which is pretty small to begin with) will even out.. but there will always be some divergence between regular GISS and Had because the arctic is so much warmer than it used to be and I don't anticipate it ever cooling back to normal for more than a few months or maybe years. So basically I think the (smaller) mid-latitude divergence will even out.

As for comparisons to the various tropospheric sources.. I think first we need to figure out what is the most accurate representation of the troposphere. UAH, RSS, radiosonde, STAR etc? That may take a while to resolve, and perhaps better equipment as well which isn't being funded yet.

Those non-operational sources are pretty irrelevant right now. Until they become operational, then they are not really viable. NOAA/NCDC had cooler temps in the Canadian/poleside arctic this past month than GISS did, but we don't bother to reference them. NSIDC was even colder and they are "arctic experts".

[skierinvermont]

And yet Hadley, which also measuring something else, still agrees much more with UAH/RSS than GISS in recent years. Of the four major global temperature sources, GISS has diverged since 2005 from the other three, which makes it the outlier. For better or worse, it shouldn't be that hard to accept. It's just fact.

"Global temperature sources" is a bit simplistic though.. it's really 1 "global surface temperature source using big extrapolations" 1 "semi-global surface temperature" source and 2 "global tropospheric temperature" sources.

I can understand why someone might phrase it as an "outlier" and won't object to that as long as it is understood that they are measuring physically different quantitities and that there is no expectation of an exact correspondence in the short term.

[tacoman25]

Well you might be right.. I don't think there is enough data to prove it one way or another. I think the 1985 vs 1989 example suggests the effect of the 1988 Nino lasted well into 1989.

And I think it also makes physical sense. A nino builds up a lot of heat in the troposphere and in the upper few hundred meters of the ocean. It takes time for this heat to dissipate. More than 3 months.

Well, 1985 and 1989 is just one example, and I already noted there are some other contributing factors to that: solar and that fairly strong underlying warming trend from the early 1980s to the late 1990s (due in part to the +PDO phase).

I agree that all of the heat that a Nino builds up takes time to dissipate, longer than three months. But not over a year after a Nina has developed, as you were suggesting. Not that we really understand the physics of it enough to make a good guess anyway, but just looking at the overall evidence, I don't see the warming effect lasting more than 6-9 months after a Nino has died, depending on its strength/duration.

[ORH_wxman]

"Global temperature sources" is a bit simplistic though.. it's really 1 "global surface temperature source using big extrapolations" 1 "semi-global surface temperature" source and 2 "global tropospheric temperature" sources.

I can understand why someone might phrase it as an "outlier" and won't object to that as long as it is understood that they are measuring physically different quantitities and that there is no expectation of an exact correspondence in the short term.

GISS has diverged regardless the last 10 years even if we "try" to make it apples to apples...ala inserting UAH arctic data into CRU and what not. Long term they haven't been bad, but the last 10 years (which is starting to get a bit on the long side...but still within error) is definitely characterized as a legit questionable outlier.

We might see it come back as we all said, but if it doesn't then it needs to be asked. There's no harm in wondering why they are going warmer for a decade.

[tacoman25]

"Global temperature sources" is a bit simplistic though.. it's really 1 "global surface temperature source using big extrapolations" 1 "semi-global surface temperature" source and 2 "global tropospheric temperature" sources.

I can understand why someone might phrase it as an "outlier" and won't object to that as long as it is understood that they are measuring physically different quantitities and that there is no expectation of an exact correspondence in the short term.

Well again, you are welcome to your own interpretation of the signifigance. It's worth noting that while we only have a short record to compare, GISS's divergence since 2005 is unparalleled. There hasn't been another comparable time period where one source was consistently coming in so much warmer than the others.

[skierinvermont]

Those non-operational sources are pretty irrelevant right now. Until they become operational, then they are not really viable. NOAA/NCDC had cooler temps in the Canadian/poleside arctic this past month than GISS did, but we don't bother to reference them. NSIDC was even colder and they are "arctic experts".

I think RICH and RAOBCORE are regularly updated and are used frequently in peer-reviewed studies for validation. STAR is beginning to be as well.

We basically talk about GISS, Had RSS and UAH because they are the most accessible not because they are what is most frequently used in the literature.

[skierinvermont]

Well again, you are welcome to your own interpretation of the signifigance. It's worth noting that while we only have a short record to compare, GISS's divergence since 2005 is unparalleled. There hasn't been another comparable time period where one source was consistently coming in so much warmer than the others.

Sure there has been... HadCRUT+UAH poles diverged more strongly from GISS in the 90s than GISS has from HadCRUT+UAH 2005-present.

[tacoman25]

I think RICH and RAOBCORE are regularly updated and are used frequently in peer-reviewed studies for validation. STAR is beginning to be as well.

We basically talk about GISS, Had RSS and UAH because they are the most accessible not because they are what is most frequently used in the literature.

I'm somewhat skeptical of these other satellite sources you cite. Just as you would likely be if another surface data source appeared that had less of a longterm warming trend than GISS. Who started them? How are they funded? What studies have they been used in?

[ORH_wxman]

I think RICH and RAOBCORE are regularly updated and are used frequently in peer-reviewed studies for validation. STAR is beginning to be as well.

We basically talk about GISS, Had RSS and UAH because they are the most accessible not because they are what is most frequently used in the literature.

I think those sources will have to pass a lot more literature to be used as operational in terms of global temp trends. They are backups right now, but I guarantee they have not been scrutinized nearly as much as the others due to their lack of operational use. They will be eventually I'm sure. When they are, then we can use them a bit more. The RAOB data I know has some homogeneous issues with UHI and site location that probably has not been fully scrutinized yet. STAR I haven't read much upon yet, but I plan to this summer to see what its flaws are currently that is keeping it from being a UAH or RSS.

[skierinvermont]

There was a recent paper published just a couple weeks ago by Carl Mears and Frank Wentz (from RSS) and Peter Thorne who are all big-dogs in the remote sensing field which concerns some of the tropospheric datasets and their inconsistencies. I post this because it is very recent and because, to date, I haven't seen a lot of comment from the RSS folks on the other tropospheric data sources except UAH.

I'm trying to get the full version of the article but that might have to wait until next time I am at a library.

http://www.agu.org/p...0JD014954.shtml

Measurements made by the Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) and the Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit (AMSU) provide a multidecadal record of global atmospheric temperature change, which have been used by several groups to produce long-term temperature records of thick layers of the atmosphere from the lower troposphere to the lower stratosphere. Here we present an internal uncertainty estimate for the Remote Sensing Systems data sets made using a Monte Carlo approach that includes contributions to the total uncertainty from sampling error, premerge adjustments to each individual satellite, and the merging procedure. The results can be used to estimate uncertainties in this product at all space and time scales of interest to any specific application. On small space and time scales sampling effects dominate. On the longer time scales intersatellite merging is important at all levels and the diurnal adjustment is a critical uncertainty for the two layers that have a significant surface component, particularly over land. A comparison of trends for the globe, tropics, and extratropics between the best estimate data set along with these error estimates and homogenized radiosonde estimates and available MSU/AMSU estimates from other groups is undertaken. This shows consistency between our product and those produced by others within the stated uncertainty for many regions and layers. In almost as many cases, however, the interdata set differences of the estimated trends are too large be accounted for by the internal uncertainty estimates derived herein.

[tacoman25]

Sure there has been... HadCRUT+UAH poles diverged more strongly from GISS in the 90s than GISS has from HadCRUT+UAH 2005-present.

HadCRUT + UAH is not an official temperature source. My point stands: since 1979, there has never been a period like 2005-present where one source kept coming in this much warmer and setting new yearly temperature records while the others did not.

[skierinvermont]

HadCRUT + UAH is not an official temperature source.

No, but it should be.

[ORH_wxman]

GISS has been the warmest outlier in the past 10 years (almost)...

Since the beginning of 2002...skier's own graph

[ORH_wxman]

Since 2005 too...GISS has been the clear outlier...the claim that CRU+UAH in polar regions is worse than GISS is false. GISS has been warmer.

[skierinvermont]

Since 2005 too...GISS has been the clear outlier...the claim that CRU+UAH in polar regions is worse than GISS is false. GISS has been warmer.

I'm not sure if you misunderstood me or if you were just stating that generally but I didn't say CRU+UAH poles has warmed faster than GISS over recent years. Some of the divergence since 2002 has definitely been due to the mid-latitudes. I would expect that divergence to shrink, but not necessarily the global divergence, if the poles remain warm.

[ORH_wxman]

I'm not sure if you misunderstood me or if you were just stating that generally but I didn't say CRU+UAH poles has warmed faster than GISS over recent years. Some of the divergence since 2002 has definitely been due to the mid-latitudes. I would expect that divergence to shrink, but not necessarily the global divergence, if the poles remain warm.

No, I understood you. I was just saying that the GISS has been off its rocker recently. I know you showed that there have been other divergences earlier and I think that is very valid. I put the graph up because the 2005-present has been more than any other combo when you take out the poles on GISS.

I do not expect the divergence to stop because of GISS' measuring techniques. But I could def be wrong. We'll see in the next few years. I find GISS to be biased warm. CRU has gone cold recently, but they aren't great either. They just have better coverage outside of the USA...but they might have shat the bed this past month in Canada as that is the spot that both sources have poor coverage and seemed to be far off on satellite coverage.

[nzucker]

As noted above, the antagonistic nasty posts from zucker continue unabated.

I don't think saying someone is "a frickin apologist for AGW believers" or "needs to reexamine their own beliefs" is an antagonistic, nasty post. All I'm saying is that you used to be much more of a skeptic with very independent, self-aware viewpoints, and lately you seem to have fallen back in the mainstream along with constantly making excuses for the hype and errors of the AGW crowd. It's almost as though the skeptic perspective scared you, and you became uncomfortable being outside the scientific majority. Considering that Will doesn't seem to remember my making any comments regarding aspects of your personal life, I think perhaps you are exaggrating a bit here. I think we've both made a few inappropriate comments and should just move past it with the notion that we'll refrain from such personal attacks in the future. And I don't think saying you're an "apologist" is having "knowlrdge of my personal life strewn across a public forum."

It is really quite frustrating to have much of my personal life and opinions of my character developed from knowledge of my personal life strewn across a public forum. Obviously zucker and I have had a "falling out" over the last several months to put it mildly. I have plenty of "dirt" but I don't post it because it is completely inappropriate. And yet I find what he obviously intends to be insulting reflections on my personal character in every other one of his posts and the occasional "accidental" slip of some private detail. It probably isn't quite as apparent to people unfamiliar with the personal history but it is quite frustrating nonetheless.

Well maybe we should just end the falling out and realize it's all Internet garbage/irresponsibility. Exchanges on climate change online shouldn't affect a real-life friendship. In this case they have, but as I wrote in the PM, we should work on getting past the silly AmericanWX debates and being friends because of the things that count....shared interests and hobbies, time spent together. We need to chat personally and privately about this soon. That is all I will say here.