2011 Global Temperatures

[The_Global_Warmer]

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....

What about the change in arctic sea ice cover/solar insolation up there?

[tacoman25]

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

Probably something similar to 2010...when the world almost ended.

[skierinvermont]

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....

2010 was = to 1998 and that El Nino was much weaker.

If we had a similar strength El Nino to 1998 temps would be .05-.15C warmer than 2010 or 1998. Given the ramping up solar activity it would probably be .15-.25C warmer if it occurs a year or two from now.

[tacoman25]

2010 was = to 1998 and that El Nino was much weaker.

If we had a similar strength El Nino to 1998 temps would be .05-.15C warmer than 2010 or 1998. Given the ramping up solar activity it would probably be .15-.25C warmer if it occurs a year or two from now.

And yet 2010 was considerably stronger than the 2003 El Nino, yet the difference in non-GISS sources from 2003 to 2010 temps isn't huge.

[skierinvermont]

And yet 2010 was considerably stronger than the 2003 El Nino, yet the difference in non-GISS sources from 2003 to 2010 temps isn't huge.

Umm what are you talking about?

2010 was a whopping .23C warmer than 2003 on UAH.

The only one that is remotely close to what you said is HadCRUT which excludes the fact that the arctic was dramatically warmer in 2010.

[tacoman25]

Umm what are you talking about?

2010 was a whopping .23C warmer than 2003 on UAH.

The only one that is remotely close to what you said is HadCRUT which excludes the fact that the arctic was dramatically warmer in 2010.

Yep, RSS/UAH were a little over .2C warmer than 2003 in 2010. ENSO was about .4C warmer with the 2009-10 El Nino compared to the 2002-03 El Nino.

You said if we had another El Nino in the range of 1998, it would probably be .15 to .25C warmer than 2010. 1998 had about .7C warmer ENSO forcing compared to 2010. But 2003 to 2010 was 7 years of AGW warming...2010 to 2013 is only 3 years of AGW warming (and 2010 was slightly cooler than 1998 for RSS/UAH). Given the theoretical amount of warming you think we would see if we saw a 1998 strength Nino next year, 2010 should have been at least .25C warmer than 2003 with RSS/UAH.

[skierinvermont]

Yep, RSS/UAH were a little over .2C warmer than 2003 in 2010. ENSO was about .4C warmer with the 2009-10 El Nino compared to the 2002-03 El Nino.

You said if we had another El Nino in the range of 1998, it would probably be .15 to .25C warmer than 2010. 1998 had about .7C warmer ENSO forcing compared to 2010. But 2003 to 2010 was 7 years of AGW warming...2010 to 2013 is only 3 years of AGW warming (and 2010 was slightly cooler than 1998 for RSS/UAH). Given the theoretical amount of warming you think we would see if we saw a 1998 strength Nino next year, 2010 should have been at least .25C warmer than 2003 with RSS/UAH.

Wrong. According to the usual correlations 2010 should have only been .14C warmer than 2003. And a super-nino in 2013 would be .25 warmer than 2010 or 1998.

Here's the math according to the long term correlations for TSI, ENSO and AGW.

1998 vs 2010 expectation: +.2 for AGW, -.08 for solar, -.12 for ENSO = 2010 should be equal

2003 vs 2010 expectation: +.15 for AGW, -.1 for solar, +.09 for ENSO = 2010 should be .14 warmer (not 'at least .25')

hypothetical super-nino in 2013 vs 2010: +.05 for AGW, +.08 for solar, +.12 for ENSO = 2013 should be .25 warmer than 2010/1998 and .39 warmer than 2003

[tacoman25]

Wrong. According to the usual correlations 2010 should have only been .14C warmer than 2003. And a super-nino in 2013 would be .25 warmer than 2010 or 1998.

Here's the math according to the long term correlations for TSI, ENSO and AGW.

1998 vs 2010 expectation: +.2 for AGW, -.08 for solar, -.12 for ENSO = 2010 should be equal

2003 vs 2010 expectation: +.15 for AGW, -.1 for solar, +.09 for ENSO = 2010 should be .14 warmer (not 'at least .25')

hypothetical super-nino in 2013 vs 2010: +.05 for AGW, +.08 for solar, +.12 for ENSO = 2013 should be .25 warmer than 2010/1998 and .39 warmer than 2003

You are taking off too much for solar from 2003 to 2010.

But even assuming that was correct (and it is not), all that proves is that your formula doesn't work and you have little basis to claim how much warmer the next Nino will be. If your forcings were correct, why was 2010 so much warmer compared to 2003 than it should have been?

[skierinvermont]

You are taking off too much for solar from 2003 to 2010.

But even assuming that was correct (and it is not), all that proves is that your formula doesn't work and you have little basis to claim how much warmer the next Nino will be. If your forcings were correct, why was 2010 so much warmer compared to 2003 than it should have been?

umm no I am not taking off too much from 2003 to 2010 for solar... .1C from a major max to a major min like that is pretty conservative actually.

Just because it is off by .09C (less on RSS) for one year doesn't mean the formula doesn't work. The formula works by definition based on the way it is derived. The fact that it 'works' is a mathematical fact based on its derivation via ANOVA analysis. The difference between any two years is predicted always within .1C almost always within .05C.

Using this formula over the last 30 years you would have predicted the next year's temperature within .1C every time, usually .05C. Which is a lot better than 95% of the posters on this board, including yourself, have shown yourselves to be capable of.

[tacoman25]

umm no I am not taking off too much from 2003 to 2010 for solar... .1C from a major max to a major min like that is pretty conservative actually.

Just because it is off by .09C (less on RSS) for one year doesn't mean the formula doesn't work. The formula works by definition based on the way it is derived. The fact that it 'works' is a mathematical fact based on its derivation via ANOVA analysis. The difference between any two years is predicted always within .1C almost always within .05C.

Using this formula over the last 30 years you would have predicted the next year's temperature within .1C every time, usually .05C. Which is a lot better than 95% of the posters on this board, including yourself, have shown yourselves to be capable of.

You are assuming that 2003 was the max year and 2010 the min year. Not quite that simple in reality.

And you need to do a fact check on your statement about my temperature predictions.

[skierinvermont]

You are assuming that 2003 was the max year and 2010 the min year. Not quite that simple in reality.

And you need to do a fact check on your statement about my temperature predictions.

TSI was nearly 1W/m2 lower in 2010 than 2003, that easily means .1C of cooling according to the temp-TSI correlations.

Your guess this year was -.03C on UAH. Of course you'll try and blame that on the ever so slightly faster ENSO warming this summer but the truth is there was only one month all year that was -.03C or below even in the coldest part of the year before ENSO even began to warm. It was a silly guess because you ignored the correlations.

[WeatherRusty]

You are assuming that 2003 was the max year and 2010 the min year. Not quite that simple in reality.

And you need to do a fact check on your statement about my temperature predictions.

[tacoman25]

TSI was nearly 1W/m2 lower in 2010 than 2003, that easily means .1C of cooling according to the temp-TSI correlations.

Your guess this year was -.03C on UAH. Of course you'll try and blame that on the ever so slightly faster ENSO warming this summer but the truth is there was only one month all year that was -.03C or below even in the coldest part of the year before ENSO even began to warm. It was a silly guess because you ignored the correlations.

1) Ever so slightly faster ENSO warming than was expected? It was the fastest/greatest warming on record from a Nina of that strength. There was no way to reasonably anticipate that. And there is no way to deny that had a significant effect on UAH temps over the summer. If we had seen a more normal warming like 2008, I would most likely still have a very good chance to be within .1C of my guess.

2) I have been within .1C on every other yearly guess.

3) I believe my guess was for the satellite temperatures, UAH/RSS combined. That's what it has been in the past.

4) I thought the maximum amount of cooling from max to min was .1C? Rusty has repeatedly said this. 2001 was the max year, and 2008-09 the minimum.

5) How does your formula work for 2004?

[tacoman25]

Yup, that graph shows that the minimum was in 2008-09, and we had begun to rebound by 2010.

[skierinvermont]

1) Ever so slightly faster ENSO warming than was expected? It was the fastest/greatest warming on record from a Nina of that strength. There was no way to reasonably anticipate that. And there is no way to deny that had a significant effect on UAH temps over the summer. If we had seen a more normal warming like 2008, I would most likely still have a very good chance to be within .1C of my guess.

2) I have been within .1C on every other yearly guess.

3) I believe my guess was for the satellite temperatures, UAH/RSS combined. That's what it has been in the past.

4) I thought the maximum amount of cooling from max to min was .1C? Rusty has repeatedly said this. 2001 was the max year, and 2008-09 the minimum.

5) How does your formula work for 2004?

1) As I have shown before, it still doesn't make much difference at all. The difference between average and fastest is very small. If the summer had been a few tenths lower on the ONI, you would still be off by over .1C. There was only one month all year that was as cold as your laughable -.03C.

2) Liar. You were off by .12 (too cold as usual) last year as well. Unfortunately, your past years of horrible predictions have been lost.

3) Liar.

I'll go with +.48C for GISS, and -.03C for UAH.

Do you just make stuff up assuming nobody will bother to check whether you're lying?

4) As I've explained repeatedly, the correlation is to TSI not what you arbitrarily label the min and max. There's a 1-yr lag often used as well.

[tacoman25]

1) As I have shown before, it still doesn't make much difference at all. The difference between average and fastest is very small. If the summer had been a few tenths lower on the ONI, you would still be off by over .1C. There was only one month all year that was as cold as your laughable -.03C.

2) Liar. You were off by .12 (too cold as usual) last year as well. Unfortunately, your past years of horrible predictions have been lost.

3) Liar.

Do you just make stuff up assuming nobody will bother to check whether you're lying?

4) As I've explained repeatedly, the correlation is to TSI not what you arbitrarily label the min and max. There's a 1-yr lag often used as well.

1) You don't know that. You also don't know where 2011 will end up. Stop assuming so much. And you call my prediction "laughable", but what about your late minimum? And that was just within a few weeks, not a whole year!

2) Excuse me? When have I ever lied before? I don't - all of the sudden you think I completely lack character? Get a hold of yourself. It's sad when you have to resort to name calling. I remember being off by .08C, how do you know I was off by .12C? Maybe you forgot, but I was on the warmer end of predictions for 2010.

3) I have never believed in using just UAH, why? I have predicted for the satellites before, not just UAH. Do you not remember how the temperature predictions were before? Some people guessed for all 4 sources, some guessed surface vs. satellite. Just calling me a liar is pretty silly. SHOW ME WHERE I'VE LIED.

4) The whole lag thing is pretty arbitrary, since I've heard anywhere from 1-3+ years.

[skierinvermont]

1) You don't know that. You also don't know where 2011 will end up. Stop assuming so much. And you call my prediction "laughable", but what about your early minimum? And that was just within a few weeks, not a whole year!

2) Excuse me? When have I ever lied before? I don't - all of the sudden you think I completely lack character? Get a hold of yourself. It's sad when you have to resort to name calling. I remember being off by .08C, how do you know I was off by .12C? Maybe you forgot, but I was on the warmer end of predictions for 2010.

3) I have never believed in using just UAH, why? I have predicted for the satellites before, not just UAH. Do you not remember how the temperature predictions were before? Some people guessed for all 4 sources, some guessed surface vs. satellite. Just calling me a liar is pretty silly. SHOW ME WHERE I'VE LIED.

4) The whole lag thing is pretty arbitrary, since I've heard anywhere from 1-3+ years.

1) Well you can make excuses all you want.. but the fact is you would have been off by well over .1C even if it followed a normal Nina progression. Only one month the whole year was as cold as your guess.. it's hard to overstate how terrible that is.

I didn't 'predict' a late minimum, I suggested it as a possibility due to the warm SSTs. You know as well as I it's impossible to predict when the minimum will occur since it is 99% dependent on the weather in September. But you're just playing you're typical dishonest 'gotcha' games. And of course you're the one that INSISTED on a late August minimum which is completely unheard of and a terrible prediction.

2) I checked. You predicted .38 for UAH/RSS on the old baseline.. the actual was .50. You shouldn't have claimed to be within .1C every other year if you didn't know it to be true.

3) Your prediction was specifically for UAH. You said "FOR UAH: -.03C" ... to claim you weren't predicting for UAH is a blatant black and white lie.

[tacoman25]

1) Well you can make excuses all you want.. but the fact is you would have been off by well over .1C even if it followed a normal Nina progression. Only one month the whole year was as cold as your guess.. it's hard to overstate how terrible that is.

I didn't 'predict' a late minimum, I suggested it as a possibility due to the warm SSTs. You know as well as I it's impossible to predict when the minimum will occur since it is 99% dependent on the weather in September. But you're just playing you're typical dishonest 'gotcha' games. And of course you're the one that INSISTED on a late August minimum which is completely unheard of and a terrible prediction.

2) I checked. You predicted .38 for UAH/RSS on the old baseline.. the actual was .50. You shouldn't have claimed to be within .1C every other year if you didn't know it to be true.

3) Your prediction was specifically for UAH. You said "FOR UAH: -.03C" ... to claim you weren't predicting for UAH is a blatant black and white lie.

1) Uh huh, and the first three months on UAH were all well within .1C of my guess. How many months this year have you been more than .1C off your yearly guess? And you never know, 2011 could come up with some surprising anomalies the next couple months and make you eat your words. Don't assume too much.

As far as the minimum, you suggested it was more likely due to the warm SSTs. I insisted the pattern in September would be more important. I was right.

2) Where did you check? And you just confirmed what I claimed: my predictions in the past have been for UAH/RSS, the satellite average. Which is why I thought that was my prediction for this year, too.

3) See number 2. I may have been mistaken, but I wasn't lying. It was wrong of you to assume I was.

4) Why won't you address the lag aspect of solar? Because you know it would throw off your neat little formula? Speaking of which, you never answered how the formula works for 2004....

[skierinvermont]

1) Uh huh, and the first three months on UAH were all within .1C of my guess. How many months this year have you been more than .1C off your yearly guess? And you never know, 2011 could come up with some surprising anomalies the next couple months and make you eat your words. Don't assume too much.

As far as the minimum, you suggested it was more likely due to the warm SSTs. I insisted the pattern in September would be more important. I was right.

2) Where did you check? And you just confirmed what I claimed: my predictions in the past have been for UAH/RSS, the satellite average. Which is why I thought that was my prediction for this year, too.

3) See number 2. I may have been mistaken, but I wasn't lying. It was wrong of you to assume I was.

4) Why won't you address the lag aspect of solar? Because you know it would throw off your neat little formula? Speaking of which, you never answered how it works for 2004....

1) JFM are always the coldest period of any Nina year. The fact that only one of those months was as cold as your guess shows just how terrible your guess was. The temperature was sure to rise from there and you were already busting low. Which is why I said in March that everybody is going to bust low including myself.

As for the minimum.. I never said the weather was not important if you had asked I would have said it is 99% of cause of the minimum date. The warm SSTs were 1 tiny little factor that I mentioned off hand and you have latched onto for some stupid reason. If you thought the weather in September would determine the minimum.. why were you so convinced that the min would occur in August which has never happened before?

2) I checked at EUSX. your guess was .38. Actual .50. You were off by .12C too cold as usual. Your claim to be within .1C last year is a lie.

3) You specifically said your guess was "FOR UAH: -.03C." To claim you were guessing for UAH+RSS is a blatant lie. You should be ashamed of yourself.

4) No it doesn't throw the formula off at all.. the formula works quite well with a lag anywhere from 0-3 years. And works best for 1 year which is why I use 1 year.

[WeatherRusty]

If we allow for the TSI induced temperature response to be 0.05C rather than 0.1C over the period 2003 to 2010 then the formula gives:

2003 vs 2010 expectation: +.15 for AGW, -.05 for solar, +.09 for ENSO = 2010 should be .19 warmer (not 'at least .25')

rather than

2003 vs 2010 expectation: +.15 for AGW, -.1 for solar, +.09 for ENSO = 2010 should be .14 warmer (not 'at least .25')

which is closer the the actual measured anomaly of just over 0.2C.

reducing solar forcing brings the formula closer to reality.

[tacoman25]

Honest, straightforward question for skiier: you have previously claimed that UAH is less accurate than RSS. Why then do you constantly use UAH when making satellite temperature trend analysis, etc now? Why not use RSS, if UAH is less accurate?

[skierinvermont]

Honest, straightforward question for skiier: you have previously claimed that UAH is less accurate than RSS. Why then do you constantly use UAH when making satellite temperature trend analysis, etc now? Why not use RSS, if UAH is less accurate?

Because the 'skeptics' love UAH because it's run by Spencer.

I might have to start using RSS though because if UAH keeps warming so much it will quickly fall out of favor with the WUWT crowd.

And as I've said before, I don't think either (UAH/RSS) of them are particularly accurate. Over a 30 year period, GISS or HadCRUT+UAH poles is likely more accurate than either of them based on the published error bars for the quantifiable error.

[Snowstorms]

Hmm Global temps have started to fall once again on AMSU across the Troposphere and Global SST's have also dropped off recently. Coldest Global SST's on AMSU.

Currently up at 14,000ft Global temps are cooler than most every year expect 2008 and is basically tied with 2007.

Avg. Global temps for the next 8 days is at +0.132. Quite the warm anomaly across Northern Europe, seems reasonable given the East Based -NAO with Northern Canada remaining below normal which may help with the Arctic Sea Ice/Snow cover across that region.

[tacoman25]

Because the 'skeptics' love UAH because it's run by Spencer.

I might have to start using RSS though because if UAH keeps warming so much it will quickly fall out of favor with the WUWT crowd.

And as I've said before, I don't think either (UAH/RSS) of them are particularly accurate. Over a 30 year period, GISS or HadCRUT+UAH poles is likely more accurate than either of them based on the published error bars for the quantifiable error.

Seems like a copout to me. Why would you bend to the "skeptics"? Why not stick with your convictions and use the source you believe to be more accurate from the satellites?

I think it's worth pointing out that many of the periods you have analyzed using UAH data (since 1998, 2000, 2001, etc) have less of a warming trend with RSS. 30 year trends withstanding, if you have made the argument that UAH is less accurate, it only makes sense for you to use RSS when making these trend analysis.

[skierinvermont]

Keep in mind the AMSU page stopped updating SST data Oct 3 when AMSR-E was shutdown. I'm also slightly suspicious of the big drop off in SSTs right before it was shut down, although I haven't heard reason to believe the problems that were occurring would have affected the quality of the data being collected. Anybody know any other good global SST anomaly sources?

[skierinvermont]

Seems like a copout to me. Why would you bend to the "skeptics"? Why not stick with your convictions and use the source you believe to be more accurate from the satellites?

I think it's worth pointing out that many of the periods you have analyzed using UAH data (since 1998, 2000, 2001, etc) have less of a warming trend with RSS. 30 year trends withstanding, if you have made the argument that UAH is less accurate, it only makes sense for you to use RSS when making these trend analysis.

I've been using UAH long before I ever even delved into the accuracy of RSS vs UAH. I answered your question as honestly and straightforwardly as I could. I use it because that is what the WUWT crowd is comfortable with. If I want to make I point to some of the folks that don't really understand the data and who harbor conspiracy theory type suspicions of the data, then I need to use a source that they trust emotionally to get my point across.

For short-term trends it probably would be best to take an average of UAH and RSS. And honestly I forget the reasons why I said RSS is more accurate. The only thing I do remember saying UAH is the outlier among all tropospheric sources (UAH, RSS, STAR, and all the radiosonde sources). But given UAH is catching up that reason is less applicable now. Its mid-tropospheric trends are still way out of whack though with all the other data.

[tacoman25]

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.

For example, what is the RSS trend for this period? Let's go with the superior temp source here.

[tacoman25]

I've been using UAH long before I ever even delved into the accuracy of RSS vs UAH. I answered your question as honestly and straightforwardly as I could. I use it because that is what the WUWT crowd is comfortable with. If I want to make I point to some of the folks that don't really understand the data and who harbor conspiracy theory type suspicions of the data, then I need to use a source that they trust emotionally to get my point across.

For short-term trends it probably would be best to take an average of UAH and RSS.

I think that is a cop out and it doesn't add up. You use a lot of other sources that some people aren't "comfortable with"...like GISS.

[skierinvermont]

I think that is a cop out and it doesn't add up. You use a lot of other sources that some people aren't "comfortable with"...like GISS.

Yes and I don't believe that UAH is accurate at all. But if I want to make a point about how the arctic has warmed for example, it makes sense to use UAH because the deniers will never believe GISS (even though it's right). If you want to accuse me of lying about my reasoning well then I have nothing else to say.

[tacoman25]

For short-term trends it probably would be best to take an average of UAH and RSS. And honestly I forget the reasons why I said RSS is more accurate. The only thing I do remember saying UAH is the outlier among all tropospheric sources (UAH, RSS, STAR, and all the radiosonde sources). But given UAH is catching up that reason is less applicable now. Its mid-tropospheric trends are still way out of whack though with all the other data.

Wait, so you have said RSS is more accurate and longterm trends indicate UAH is the outlier...but now short term trends mean UAH is "catching up", even though short term trends are quite a bit different for RSS, the more accurate source? This does not seem to be consistent logic.

I suggest you back up your earlier assertions about UAH and do temperature comparisons/trends using RSS as the satellite source. I have never had a preference for one over the other, I am just asking you for some intellectual consistency. I also haven't seen much opposition to RSS from the "deniers", unlike GISS.

You have to admit it does seem suspicious that you prefer to use UAH in short term comparisons (when it has more warming than RSS), when you have repeatedly said you believe it is the least accurate source and has the most flawed data.