2011 Global Temperatures

[skierinvermont]

you originally said you didn't think we would finish below .15C.

No I did not. This is a lie. What I said was I thought we would finish "about .15C."

[skierinvermont]

Interestingly, the peak UAH temp this summer was higher than any other month outside of the 1998 and 2010 strong Ninos except for one month following the 06-07 Nino.

Obviously trends are superior to little pieces of trivia like this, but it does go to show you how much we have warmed in the last 10 years if summers following mod/strong Ninas are now warmer than summers following all but the strongest Nino events.

[Jesse]

Interestingly, the peak UAH temp this summer was higher than any other month outside of the 1998 and 2010 strong Ninos except for one month following the 06-07 Nino.

Obviously trends are superior to little pieces of trivia like this, but it does go to show you how much we have warmed in the last 10 years if summers following mod/strong Ninas are now warmer than summers following all but the strongest Nino events.

We've had net warming in the last ten years? Could you post a graph proving this?

[skierinvermont]

We've had net warming in the last ten years? Could you post a graph proving this?

Sure. This is 2000-2011. I did 2000-2011 because it is important to start and end in the same ENSO state (I checked to make sure the ENSO trend 2000-2011 is neutral and it is). But 2001-2011 also shows warming, despite having a very negative ENSO trend due to starting in a series of Nino years and ending in Nina.

* The ENSO trend 2001-2011 is -.5/decade. The ENSO trend 2000-2011 is +.05/decade. Both periods show warming on both sources, but the ENSO neutral period has more.

About .15C/decade on both sources.

[skierinvermont]

1) Jan00-Dec11

2) an average of Jan98-Dec11 and Jan99-Dec11

These are the two periods taco and I agreed at the start of this year would be good ENSO 'fair' periods to look at at the end of this year (for UAH w/ 6 month ENSO lag). The year isn't quite over yet but the trends probably won't change too much because there are only 3 more months of data and the temperatures should fall pretty close to the trend line.

1) UAH trend: +.15C/decade

ENSO trend: +.05/decade (fairly neutral)

2) UAH trend: .07 and +.18 yield an average of .12C/decade

From these 2 methods we find that the ENSO-fair trend over the last 11-13 years has been .12-.15C/decade.

[Strongbad]

We've had net warming in the last ten years? Could you post a graph proving this?

By asking this question, you leave open the possibility that a graph showing warming can be cherry-picked out of the litter. Had he chose HADCRUT instead, you would be seeing a decline in temps over the past decade.

Also, it's important to note that even the source you did see does not show the previous decade. Had it, the spike in temps would be even greater. Either way, warmists have accepted that Earth is not warming as fast as some earlier models predicted it would, as can be seen by the decline in exponential warmth since 1998.

[Jesse]

By asking this question, you leave open the possibility that a graph showing warming can be cherry-picked out of the litter. Had he chose HADCRUT instead, you would be seeing a decline in temps over the past decade.

Also, it's important to note that even the source you did see does not show the previous decade. Had it, the spike in temps would be even greater. Either way, warmists have accepted that Earth is not warming as fast as some earlier models predicted it would, as can be seen by the decline in exponential warmth since 1998.

Oh, I realize this, and his choice doesn't surprise me. Just thought it'd be interesting to see what he came up with.

[skierinvermont]

By asking this question, you leave open the possibility that a graph showing warming can be cherry-picked out of the litter. Had he chose HADCRUT instead, you would be seeing a decline in temps over the past decade.

Also, it's important to note that even the source you did see does not show the previous decade. Had it, the spike in temps would be even greater. Either way, warmists have accepted that Earth is not warming as fast as some earlier models predicted it would, as can be seen by the decline in exponential warmth since 1998.

The graph I posted shows UAH which most skeptics seem pretty comfortable with (despite its flaws which they ignore but that is another matter entirely).

HadCRUT does not include the poles of the earth which have warmed rapidly over the last 10 years. As I have shown elsewhere on this forum, when you take HadCRUT 60S to 60N and then infill the poles with UAH data, it agrees with GISS.

I refuse to use HadCRUT without the polar data included. Here, for your pleasure, is HadCRUT with the polar data included from UAH. It shows a trend of .12C/decade 1999-2010 and .08C/decade 2000-2010.

[skierinvermont]

Suddenly using UAH is cherry-picking now huh? I thought that's what all the skeptics were in love with because it showed the least warming 1979-2008. Now that UAH is warming rapidly .. I guess the skeptics new favorite choice is HadCRUT even though it leaves both poles blank. What a joke you people are.

I do my very best to provide reliable data and to analyze it an unbiased way that is ENSO-neutral and I get accused of cherry picking because I didn't use HadCRUT which leaves the poles blank. I refuse to use HadCRUT as long as they leave the poles blank. Honestly, this is very upsetting to me.. I am here in good faith doing my best to provide fair balanced information.

[tacoman25]

A big part of the reason the trend 2000-2011 is still that positive is because of the 2009-10 El Nino is near the end (strongest +ENSO event during the period) and the 1999-00 Nina is at the beginning (strongest -ENSO event during the period). Also, when I agreed that Jan 2000 to Dec 2011 would be a fair analysis, I didn't know at the time that ENSO would rise so fast this past spring, even going +. This had a major impact on 2011's temperatures, and is far different than what occurred in 2000.

[skierinvermont]

A big part of the reason the trend 2000-2011 is still that positive is because of the 2009-10 El Nino is near the end (strongest +ENSO event during the period) and the 1999-00 Nina is at the beginning (strongest -ENSO event during the period). Also, when I agreed that Jan 2000 to Dec 2011 would be a fair analysis, I didn't know at the time that ENSO would rise so fast this past spring, even going +. This had a major impact on 2011's temperatures, and is far different than what occurred in 2000.

The ENSO trend is neutral and the trimonthlies never went positive. It was slightly higher than one might expect, but a few tenths on the ONI makes very little difference. Which is why the ENSO trend is neutral. What was of primary importance to getting the post-2000 trend to go neutral was the inclusion of the mod/strong 2010-2011 Nina which was not included on the 2000-2010 period because of the 6 month lag. Now that the 2010-2011 Nina is included, the ENSO trend is neutral, a few tenths higher than expected ONI in May and June not withstanding.

The 2000-2011 period is ENSO neutral because of the prevailing Nino conditions 2002-2005 which is one of the most +ENSO periods ever.

So much for integrity.

[WeatherRusty]

The ENSO trend is neutral and the trimonthlies never went positive. It was slightly higher than one might expect, but a few tenths on the ONI makes very little difference. Which is why the ENSO trend is neutral. What was of primary importance to getting the post-2000 trend to go neutral was the inclusion of the mod/strong 2010-2011 Nina which was not included on the 2000-2010 period because of the 6 month lag. Now that the 2010-2011 Nina is included, the ENSO trend is neutral.

The 2000-2011 period is ENSO neutral because of the prevailing Nino conditions 2002-2005 which is one of the most +ENSO periods ever.

So much for integrity.

Proper trend analysis lends equal weight to all the intermediary points as well as the end points. When 10 of the warmest years on record have occurred during the past 12 years, we have a very strong indication of a warming climate, any particular start and end points inclusive.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Suddenly using UAH is cherry-picking now huh? I thought that's what all the skeptics were in love with because it showed the least warming 1979-2008. Now that UAH is warming rapidly .. I guess the skeptics new favorite choice is HadCRUT even though it leaves both poles blank. What a joke you people are.

I do my very best to provide reliable data and to analyze it an unbiased way that is ENSO-neutral and I get accused of cherry picking because I didn't use HadCRUT which leaves the poles blank. I refuse to use HadCRUT as long as they leave the poles blank. Honestly, this is very upsetting to me.. I am here in good faith doing my best to provide fair balanced information.

It's called the Human Condition + Anonymity. It is not likely these same posters would be able to do this if they were linking there real facebooks and IM names with pics of themselves and stuff in there profile. Because they wouldl be taking personal responsibility. I doubt a 55 year old man would openly come here and be that foolish and ignorant. But he would if he was completely anonymous. That means there real life and this are not in-sync. That means zero personal accountability. And the ones who actual put themselves on the line claiming such ignorant crap or being so dishonest like using Hadcrut knowing the poles are warming much faster than the rest of Earth do not respond. I have been keeping copied posts of this. And I am up to about 20 in a week of bogus claims or lies intellectually here where posters say X, get called out asking for Y and they never respond. It happens daily. Why is it not moderated here. Can the mods not asses that kind of BS and at least put on 48 hour bans or posting limits? Why is this not top priority here? what the hell is that? how can it not be...

this period is also the end of the best solar min in how long?

[BeastFromTheEast]

Can the mods not asses that kind of BS and at least put on 48 hour bans or posting limits? Why is this not top priority here? what the hell is that? how can it not be...

How about when you post bs fear mongering like you did a little while ago in climate future thread?

This is really hard to type, it sounds so absurd. Yet we are only a couple years maybe a decade a way at most from it happening in real time. God help us all.

This is a disaster of epic proportions.

Should that be moderated as well? Theres a spectrum bud, and your way way way on one end of it. Try to be a little more neutral holmes

[The_Global_Warmer]

How about when you post bs fear mongering like you did a little while ago in climate future thread?

Should that be moderated as well? Theres a spectrum bud, and your way way way on one end of it. Try to be a little more neutral holmes

So you take something I wrote in thread where the author asks for completely SUBJECTIVE views and opinions and you compare it to people supplementing fiction in place of science fact?

As far as the fear mongering...once again I made clear I was giving a subjective opinion. Explain the harm?

You are anti-science on a science board. Why are you even here?

[tacoman25]

The ENSO trend is neutral and the trimonthlies never went positive. It was slightly higher than one might expect, but a few tenths on the ONI makes very little difference. Which is why the ENSO trend is neutral. What was of primary importance to getting the post-2000 trend to go neutral was the inclusion of the mod/strong 2010-2011 Nina which was not included on the 2000-2010 period because of the 6 month lag. Now that the 2010-2011 Nina is included, the ENSO trend is neutral, a few tenths higher than expected ONI in May and June not withstanding.

The 2000-2011 period is ENSO neutral because of the prevailing Nino conditions 2002-2005 which is one of the most +ENSO periods ever.

So much for integrity.

There is no way you can argue that the ONI/OHC trend this year was typical of major -ENSO events. It wasn't. Therefore, it is perfectly fair to say that affected the temperature anomalies and that the ENSO evolution was quite a bit different than 2000. Had ONI/OHC been similar to what it was in 2000 this year, 2011's anomalies would have undoubtedly been cooler. The last 4 months, instead of averaging about .32C, probably would have been around .15 to .20C (UAH).

[BeastFromTheEast]

So you take something I wrote in thread where the author asks for completely SUBJECTIVE views and opinions and you compare it to people supplementing fiction in place of science fact?

As far as the fear mongering...once again I made clear I was giving a subjective opinion. Explain the harm?

You are anti-science on a science board. Why are you even here?

Yeah I sure am anti-science, thats precisely why I am a science major correct? I am a liberal, lefty, whatever you want to call it..

I just don't believe in the "myths" that some of you hardcore alarmists like to believe in.

Your so scared of this so called end coming to the planet because of AGW.. Then why aren't you going outside and staying off the computer and actually doing something to curtail this? What do expect to accomplish spewing the same bs on these forums? Hoping to convert a few very knowledgeable mets and a handful enthusiasts who also don't agree with you? Is that worth it? What good will come from that?

Get out there bud, spread the "word" you'll accomplish much more by doing that

[skierinvermont]

There is no way you can argue that the ONI/OHC trend this year was typical of major -ENSO events. It wasn't. Therefore, it is perfectly fair to say that affected the temperature anomalies and that the ENSO evolution was quite a bit different than 2000. Had ONI/OHC been similar to what it was in 2000 this year, 2011's anomalies would have undoubtedly been cooler.

Yes the ENSO evolution was about .3-.5C higher than one might expect in May June July... but that is almost completely irrelevant to the 11 year trend. The 2000-2010 trend was ENSO+. The 2000-2011 ENSO trend is neutral because it includes the '10-'11 Nina. It is the inclusion of the very cold ENSO negative period that is of primary importance in determining both the ENSO and temperature trends... not a couple tenths over the summer.

Even if this summer had been a tenth or two of a degree colder, it would make very little difference to the 11-yr trend. The primary reason the post-2000 ENSO trend went neutral is the '10-'11 Nina.

The 2000-2011 ENSO trend is neutral. End of story. You can b**ch and moan all you want.. but that's all there is to it. It is an ENSO-fair period to examine and it yields .15C/decade since 2000. The other method I provided yielded .12C/decade.

[tacoman25]

Yes the ENSO evolution was about .3-.5C higher than one might expect in May June July... but that is almost completely irrelevant to the 11 year trend. The 2000-2010 trend was ENSO+. The 2000-2011 ENSO trend is neutral because it includes the '10-'11 Nina.

Even if this summer had been a tenth or two of a degree colder, it would make very little difference to the 11-yr trend. The primary reason the post-2000 ENSO trend went neutral is the '10-'11 Nina.

The 2000-2011 ENSO trend is neutral. End of story. You can b**ch and moan all you want.. but that's all there is to it.

I'm not b**ch and moaning. I'm explaining why when I said that early this year, the expectation was for 2011 to be more -ENSO than it has been, and for corresponding temperature anomalies to be cooler. That spike from April-June made a big difference from 2000, the year I was comparing it to. If 2011 hadn't spiked like that with OHC/ONI and had instead maintained similar -ENSO anomalies to 2000, the ENSO trend still would have been neutral, but the temperature trend from Jan 2000 to Dec 2011 would have been lower.

Try it. Show me the trend if June-September had averaged .15C-.2C on UAH (a reasonable assumption if ONI/OHC had maintained levels near 2000), and then assuming we average .1C for the rest of 2011. The trend is lower, is it not?

[skierinvermont]

I'm not b**ch and moaning. I'm explaining why when I said that early this year, the expectation was for 2011 to be more -ENSO than it has been, and for corresponding temperature anomalies to be cooler. That spike from April-June made a big difference from 2000, the year I was comparing it to. If 2011 hadn't spiked like that with OHC/ONI and had instead maintained similar -ENSO anomalies to 2000, the ENSO trend still would have been neutral, but the temperature trend from Jan 2000 to Dec 2011 would have been lower.

Try it. Show me the trend if June-September had averaged .15C-.2C on UAH (a reasonable assumption if ONI/OHC had maintained levels near 2000), and then assuming we average .1C for the rest of 2011. The trend is lower, is it not?

And I'm telling you it doesn't make a difference. If you had any intuitive understanding of trends and ability for mental math you would get this. But since you insist I will do the math for you.

First of all, your estimate of .12-.17 of cooling attributable solely to a few tenths of ONI is an overestimate. Much of this summer's warmth had little to do with the ONI. The rebound from JFM was a lot larger than you'd expect even compared to other years that had similar ENSO evolutions. The correlations I've done before show a much smaller response to the ONI than that. According to the correlations if the ONI had been a .3-.5C lower, temps would have only been a few hundredths of a degree lower.

Nevertheless, I will use a fairly large value of .1C of cooling June-September. Even this drastically exceeds what the correlations tell us.

This lowers the trend from .15C/decade to .14C/decade. If you incorrectly insist that the temperature really would have been .15C cooler if the ONI had been slightly lower, then it would bring it down to .135C/decade.

[tacoman25]

And I'm telling you it doesn't make a difference. If you had any intuitive understanding of trends and ability for mental math you would get this. But since you insist I will do the math for you.

First of all, your estimate of .12-.17 of cooling attributable solely to a few tenths of ONI is an overestimate. Much of this summer's warmth had little to do with the ONI. The rebound from JFM was a lot larger than you'd expect even compared to other years that had similar ENSO evolutions. The correlations I've done before show a much smaller response to the ONI than that. According to the correlations if the ONI had been a .3-.5C lower, temps would have only been a few hundredths of a degree lower.

Nevertheless, I will use a fairly large value of .1C of cooling June-September. Even this drastically exceeds what the correlations tell us.

This lowers the trend from .15C/decade to .14C/decade. If you incorrectly insist that the temperature really would have been .15C cooler if the ONI had been slightly lower, then it would bring it down to .135C/decade.

Wrong. The ENSO warming from January to May was unprecedented for a moderate/strong Nina. By far. You can't really compare it to any previous years.

[skierinvermont]

Wrong. The ENSO warming from January to May was unprecedented for a moderate/strong Nina. By far. You can't really compare it to any previous years.

That doesn't mean the temperature warming that took place was attributable to ENSO which was only a few tenths warmer than other Nina summers like 1989 (-.3 JJA on the ONI). Or 2008 which reached -.1 on the JJA ONI. Only .1C different.

Are you really saying this .1C of difference from 2008 on the ONI accounts for .15C of extra warming?

I think subtracting off .1C is a pretty reasonable estimate of what this summer would have looked like if the ONI had followed a typical course.

You know if you really want to get picky... maybe there is a big difference between -.5 and 0.0 on the ONI. Maybe ENSO neutral years are actually pretty warm while those that stay below -.5 are a lot colder. In other words, the temperature response isn't linear to the ONI (of course it isn't exactly but the hope is this is a reasonable approximation). Perhaps we can refine the relationship and describe how it is not linear.

My personal observation is that neutral years tend to be pretty warm. Warmer than one might expect based on the ONI correlation. If anything this could explain why 2001-2007 was so warm. No there weren't constant Nino conditions, but there was no true La Nina either and the neutral conditions are only somewhat cooler than the Nino conditions. This could be another explanation for why there's been less warming 2001/2002-2008. 2008 was the first serious La Nina. Perhaps I should treat neutral conditions as more like weak Nino conditions in terms of their effect on temperature.

[tacoman25]

That doesn't mean the temperature warming that took place was attributable to ENSO which was only a few tenths warmer than other Nina summers like 1989 (-.3 JJA on the ONI). Or 2008 which reached -.1 on the JJA ONI. Only .1C different.

Are you really saying this .1C of difference from 2008 on the ONI accounts for .15C of extra warming?

I think subtracting off .1C is a pretty reasonable estimate of what this summer would have looked like if the ONI had followed a typical course.

You know if you really want to get picky... maybe there is a big difference between -.5 and 0.0 on the ONI. Maybe ENSO neutral years are actually pretty warm while those that stay below -.5 are a lot colder. In other words, the temperature response isn't linear to the ONI (of course it isn't exactly but the hope is this is a reasonable approximation). Perhaps we can refine the relationship and describe how it is not linear.

My personal observation is that neutral years tend to be pretty warm. Warmer than one might expect based on the ONI correlation. If anything this could explain why 2001-2007 was so warm. No there weren't constant Nino conditions, but there was no true La Nina either and the neutral conditions are only somewhat cooler than the Nino conditions. This could be another explanation for why there's been less warming 2001/2002-2008. 2008 was the first serious La Nina. Perhaps I should treat neutral conditions as more like weak Nino conditions in terms of their effect on temperature.

As you know, there is a lag for satellite temperatures. JJA ONI was close to 2008, but AMJ and MJJ were .4C colder in 2008. 2000 saw .4 and .5C difference for those two trimonthlies. So yeah, it was signficant.

[Strongbad]

Your so scared of this so called end coming to the planet because of AGW.. Then why aren't you going outside and staying off the computer and actually doing something to curtail this? What do expect to accomplish spewing the same bs on these forums? Hoping to convert a few very knowledgeable mets and a handful enthusiasts who also don't agree with you? Is that worth it? What good will come from that?

Get out there bud, spread the "word" you'll accomplish much more by doing that

This really sums it up for me too. The conundrum for Apocalypse Now AGW'ers is whether they continue to take for granted the leisure of modernity like their laptops and cellphones, or their heated homes with cable t.v., a car or two in the garage, etc. Most of these luxuries were manufactured at some factory or plant and released their fair share of carbon into our atmosphere. By buying these appliances, and shoveling their faces with supermarket goodies, they are really supporting the beast they intend to destroy.

While they get to enjoy the whole sitting at home and complaining of impending doom, they are either unaware or turn a blind eye to some of the true horrors their scare stories have led to. Whichever warmists out there supported the Kyoto treaty, and the EU's carbon trading schemes, they are now seeing the results. Some 20,000 people displaced in Uganda in the name of Global Warming (truth) or the 23 Honduran farmers killed in the name of Global Warming (also true). These incidents cast a dark shadow on the AGW movement.

[skierinvermont]

As you know, there is a lag for satellite temperatures. JJA ONI was close to 2008, but AMJ and MJJ were .4C colder in 2008. 2000 saw .4 and .5C difference for those two trimonthlies. So yeah, it was signficant.

The ONI correlation says that only makes a difference of a few hundredths to summer temps. If you're going to start editing the ONI-temp correlation for non-linear relationships, you need to do that for the entire period. A consistent methodology must be maintained.

[LakeEffectKing]

GISS September:

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec J-D D-N DJF MAM JJA SON Year

2001 38 40 54 40 49 45 51 45 47 43 65 51 47 45 33 48 47 52 2001

2002 72 70 87 55 56 46 56 45 51 50 50 37 56 57 64 66 49 50 2002

2003 66 50 52 49 52 40 49 62 60 67 48 68 55 53 51 51 50 58 2003

2004 52 65 58 51 34 33 19 41 46 57 65 50 48 49 62 48 31 56 2004

2005 71 56 70 61 56 59 55 56 68 72 64 62 63 62 59 62 57 68 2005

2006 46 61 58 42 38 55 42 65 57 59 63 71 55 54 56 46 54 60 2006

2007 90 63 65 68 60 52 55 54 50 53 47 40 58 61 75 64 54 50 2007

2008 18 26 66 43 41 34 52 35 52 55 58 47 44 43 28 50 40 55 2008

2009 55 46 47 49 53 61 66 56 65 61 68 60 57 56 49 50 61 65 2009

2010 70 75 86 75 64 55 51 54 55 63 71 41 63 65 68 75 53 63 2010

2011 44 43 56 55 43 51 59 61 48

[The_Global_Warmer]

I hate to see what happens when the next strong el niño comes about.

[Strongbad]

I hate to see what happens when the next strong el niño comes about.

If that happens, my guess is that there will be higher temps and you trumpeting a disappearing Arctic?

[The_Global_Warmer]

If that happens, my guess is that there will be higher temps and you trumpeting a disappearing Arctic?

I dont make the weather I discuss it here for passion and hobby.

I can't help that this is taking place.

Humans are a very clever and resourceful bunch. There is always hope we can fix this until it would "literally be to late".

[LakeEffectKing]

I hate to see what happens when the next strong el niño comes about.

Well, seeing as the temperatures just prior to the "Grand Daddy" El Nino in 1998, were within a tenth of a degree or so (GISS) as they are now, I'd suspect that a good guesstimate would be near 1998 temps....maybe a tad lower due to the cooler phase of the PDO....