2011 Global Temperatures

[skierinvermont]

According to research by skier and others, the UAH Arctic temperature trends have been pretty similar to GISS.

Well they are close enough so that the difference isn't very important globally. But UAH is like 25% less warming than GISS in the arctic. Doesn't necessarily mean GISS is wrong given their probably has been more warming at the surface due to the loss of snow and ice. But it's arguable which one would be better given GISS's low spatial coverage in the high arctic.. so I think it is fine to use UAH when infilling the arctic on HadCRUT. Costs and benefits to both.

Perhaps ideally you'd only use UAH for above 78-80N which would allow you to limit the GISS extrapolations to more like 500km.

[The_Global_Warmer]

The reason it's less anomalously warm at 850mb is not really that the OLR is trapped under the clouds (although that's probably a small part of the reason)... it's that the heat gets dispersed in the atmosphere and transported globally. 925mb is below the clouds I think.. but would be less anomalous than the surface.

Regardless, I think you are overestimating the significance of this OLR globally.

It could a .01 or .10 change upwards. Regardless it's a new happening that is not properly accounted for. I am sure GISS will be warmer. Didn't you say there was a chance it could be over .50 if it is or around that and is too cool for the arctic it really shows how these climate changes can affect different parts of the atmosphere.

More than that I want truth. Cold or warm I seek truth. If it's a colder truth many members of this board would ask me to quit my job and double my salary and paye threw paypal to find it. if it's a Warner truth I will get trolled over and over.

Everyday for what skier? Anyways I am going to figure out how much the increased OLR added to the global anomalies and how much extra energy has been added. And that is just energ leaving the ocean.

Did you see those water temps in the Beaufort I posted in the snow tracking thread. NO wonder the ice melts out so easy now.anyways. I don't care if it's no change which it will be done but it can be .01 or .10 I just want to understand the system.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Can someone show me what UAH had for the arctic? Like 60N to 90N

[skierinvermont]

It could a .01 or .10 change upwards. Regardless it's a new happening that is not properly accounted for. I am sure GISS will be warmer. Didn't you say there was a chance it could be over .50 if it is or around that and is too cool for the arctic it really shows how these climate changes can affect different parts of the atmosphere.

More than that I want truth. Cold or warm I seek truth. If it's a colder truth many members of this board would ask me to quit my job and double my salary and paye threw paypal to find it. if it's a Warner truth I will get trolled over and over.

Everyday for what skier? Anyways I am going to figure out how much the increased OLR added to the global anomalies and how much extra energy has been added. And that is just energ leaving the ocean.

Did you see those water temps in the Beaufort I posted in the snow tracking thread. NO wonder the ice melts out so easy now.anyways. I don't care if it's no change which it will be done but it can be .01 or .10 I just want to understand the system.

Well we did that rough ballpark calculation recently... I think that is a good estimate of the significance of the change globally.

Also... the warm surface temps in the arctic most certainly will show up on GISS.. GISS is not too cool for the arctic.. there are thermometers up their recording this which are part of GISS.

[skierinvermont]

Can someone show me what UAH had for the arctic? Like 60N to 90N

Well OCt isn't out yet.. probably a few more days.

I don't know if UAH releases maps. But here is the AMSU brightness data from which UAH is created. For September:

(doesn't show the whole arctic... I think it may be another satellite - not the same satellite that AMSU is onboard - that does the high arctic .. it's called TIROS-N or something)

[skierinvermont]

It will be interesting to see if you apply the same logic if Oct/Nov/Dec is colder than any other year in the past 10 years (of course, your post ignores the fact that 2011 had a significantly warmer ENSO spring than any other year following a mod/strong Nina).

But again, I feel that the fairest thing to do is to include both UAH and RSS when looking at satellite temps and trends. This has always been my stance.

The corrollary to my post would be more like if this winter were colder than any since 1980.

[Alpha5]

October comes in at +0.114, decent drop from september

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2011-0-11-deg-c/

[skierinvermont]

I know GISS will cover the arctic well so that will be my basis for 60-90N or mostly 70-90N

Actually the data is pretty sparse.. GISS is probably a very poor measurement for monthly temperatures. The long-term trends are more accurate because the extrapolations balance out over the long-run.

On a monthly basis.. I would probably use UAH (although that is not surface) or a reanalysis source like NCEP or ECMWF (although this is not actual observational surface data .. it is modeled off of other observational data).

Long run using GISS for the arctic is pretty good because the sampling error created by extrapolation decreases over longer time periods. There could still be some residual bias due to the lack of observations above 75N and the reliance on extrapolation. But it's a good estimate. Alternatively, you can use UAH which shows 25% less warming in the long-run in the arctic. But that may be because it is measuring the troposphere instead of the surface which most likely has warmed more. And UAH has other measurement errors associated with it.

[The_Global_Warmer]

OLR September 1st to October 31st in four segments from 60-80N. I could not upload them more than 9 years at a time. so 1980-1988, 1989-1996, 1997-2005, 2006-2011. The results are

1989-1996:

1997-2005:

2006-2011:

Well...that is a pretty clear trend.

I looked over other smaller dates and subsets going back to the late 70s and weather can play a role on the short term a week maybe two. But it is obvious it is from the lack of sea ice and this is during increased snow cover during October likely from the increased moisture.

I am looking threw profiles of buoys to find correlations if at all possible. I have to get some sleep I work the 2nd shift today and have my son this weekend. I hope to get some results by next week I will also do what I can to find out the surface impact. Hopefully we can look at October 2011 closely when Giss and all of the UAH data is out. The newest buoys even track incoming solar radiation between 400-700 NM, how awesome.

The brass tax of it is that our technology right now has reached a point where we can find the answers we seek, the guessing games are about over.

[The_Global_Warmer]

I think GISS an UAH are going to be far far apart for October.

[skierinvermont]

Friv of course OLR has increased 1980-present.. the arctic has warmed. And most of this warming is independent of the decline in sea ice. In fact, it is the primary cause of the decline in sea ice.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Friv of course OLR has increased 1980-present.. the arctic has warmed. And most of this warming is independent of the decline in sea ice. In fact, it is the primary cause of the decline in sea ice.

If the sea ice was the same as it was from the 1979-1995 mean it would be 75 percent as warm as it has been from 2005-2011?

what natural factors turned the tides so much it melted off 70+% of the sea ice volume.

The higher OLR came when there was so much more open water. Which wasn't until the 2000s.

The major warming started around the same time.

if this is not true then show me where it isn't.

[skierinvermont]

If the sea ice was the same as it was from the 1979-1995 mean it would be 75 percent as warm as it has been from 2005-2011?

what natural factors turned the tides so much it melted off 70+% of the sea ice volume.

The higher OLR came when there was so much more open water. Which wasn't until the 2000s.

The major warming started around the same time.

if this is not true then show me where it isn't.

Exactly.. the major warming occurred simultaneous to the increase in OLR. You have the direction in causality reversed. You can't deduce the direction of causality just from the fact that both happened at the same time. The warm weather caused (most of) the increase in OLR... we know this because loss of sea ice alone doesn't cause THAT much increase in OLR.

Look how high OLR is in January these days even when the arctic is 100% frozen (composite of all Jans 2005-2011). 10W/m2 above average over the ice. It's just as anomalous as September and October when there is open water. And my map is on the 1981-2010 baseline while yours is on the lower 1979-1995 baseline.

The arctic has warmed a lot for a number of reasons independent of sea ice. The decline in sea ice represents a moderate feedback regionally, and a small one globally. But the arctic would have warmed dramatically without this sea ice due to rising GHG concentrations (which cause the most warming in the arctic) and natural weather patterns which have shifted warmer over the last 20 years in the arctic.

NOTE: blues = above average OLR.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Do you think that has anyhibg to do with the 50-150 meter layer being warmer now days?

Can the arctic release olr year round. Just slower as the ice thickens? I looked at some buoys and that warm "river" is there in winter as well and is still quite warm.

I hope to find some buoys oh the Kara, laptev and ESB where the major warmIng takes place. I want to see profiles in the 100-200 Meter deep seas if at all Possible. I am not sure if the Russians use the ITPs as well.

One thing for sure Is the arctic is holding heat. Does it flow into the atlantic and pacific?

[Snow_Miser]

I'm thinking that UAH will probably come in cool for November. We are running at record lows in the AMSU record, and have taken a sharp dip in recent days:

[LakeEffectKing]

RSS for Oct.:

2010 10 0.301 0.139 0.397 0.386 1.123 0.353 0.494 0.289 0.315

2010 11 0.316 -0.067 0.688 0.355 1.191 0.127 0.020 0.418 0.208

2010 12 0.221 -0.225 0.471 0.462 1.404 0.163 -0.853 0.230 0.211

2011 1 0.085 -0.299 0.211 0.389 1.803 -0.101 -0.792 0.041 0.131

2011 2 0.051 -0.222 0.054 0.360 -0.104 -0.587 -0.557 -0.012 0.117

2011 3 -0.028 -0.285 0.211 0.009 1.387 0.095 0.069 0.055 -0.116

2011 4 0.106 -0.157 0.365 0.128 0.561 0.085 0.128 0.207 -0.000

2011 5 0.125 -0.026 0.230 0.184 0.811 -0.170 -0.468 0.172 0.075

2011 6 0.297 0.167 0.468 0.264 0.893 0.431 0.522 0.373 0.218

2011 7 0.328 0.234 0.537 0.211 0.583 0.606 1.424 0.414 0.237

2011 8 0.286 0.213 0.563 0.074 0.759 0.690 1.184 0.432 0.133

2011 9 0.287 0.155 0.520 0.190 1.001 0.924 0.255 0.381 0.189

2011 10 0.089 -0.061 0.355 -0.024 0.632 0.131 -0.078 0.204 -0.031

[The_Global_Warmer]

RSS for Oct.:

2010 10 0.301 0.139 0.397 0.386 1.123 0.353 0.494 0.289 0.315

2010 11 0.316 -0.067 0.688 0.355 1.191 0.127 0.020 0.418 0.208

2010 12 0.221 -0.225 0.471 0.462 1.404 0.163 -0.853 0.230 0.211

2011 1 0.085 -0.299 0.211 0.389 1.803 -0.101 -0.792 0.041 0.131

2011 2 0.051 -0.222 0.054 0.360 -0.104 -0.587 -0.557 -0.012 0.117

2011 3 -0.028 -0.285 0.211 0.009 1.387 0.095 0.069 0.055 -0.116

2011 4 0.106 -0.157 0.365 0.128 0.561 0.085 0.128 0.207 -0.000

2011 5 0.125 -0.026 0.230 0.184 0.811 -0.170 -0.468 0.172 0.075

2011 6 0.297 0.167 0.468 0.264 0.893 0.431 0.522 0.373 0.218

2011 7 0.328 0.234 0.537 0.211 0.583 0.606 1.424 0.414 0.237

2011 8 0.286 0.213 0.563 0.074 0.759 0.690 1.184 0.432 0.133

2011 9 0.287 0.155 0.520 0.190 1.001 0.924 0.255 0.381 0.189

2011 10 0.089 -0.061 0.355 -0.024 0.632 0.131 -0.078 0.204 -0.031

Will you link me to where this comes from?

[skierinvermont]

Will you link me to where this comes from?

http://www.ncdc.noaa...and-precip/msu/

Lower Troposphere (LT) is what is most commonly reported.

EDIT: just checked, RSS isn't out yet on that site, LEK must be getting it somewhere that updates faster.

For UAH I use Roy Spencer's site because he posts the new month's number there as soon as it is released:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

[LakeEffectKing]

Will you link me to where this comes from?

http://www.remss.com/data/msu/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_3.txt

[The_Global_Warmer]

http://www.ncdc.noaa...and-precip/msu/

Lower Troposphere (LT) is what is most commonly reported.

EDIT: just checked, RSS isn't out yet on that site, LEK must be getting it somewhere that updates faster.

For UAH I use Roy Spencer's site because he posts the new month's number there as soon as it is released:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

So rss is a mean of the TLT level. About 0-10km but weighted more as it goes down? UAH is 700mb or so? Or is it a blend and a deep profile like RSS? And then Giss is the sum of thousands of real time surface based obs? That extrapolates areas with less OBS?

[skierinvermont]

So rss is a mean of the TLT level. About 0-10km but weighted more as it goes down? UAH is 700mb or so? Or is it a blend and a deep profile like RSS? And then Giss is the sum of thousands of real time surface based obs? That extrapolates areas with less OBS?

UAH and RSS both do a mean of the TLT level, and they both also do TMT. Usually what is reported and discussed is the TLT #.

And I wouldn't really call GISS a "sum" it is a spatially weighted average. Basically divide the earth up into tiny grid cells which are about 200km X 200km each, and then define the temperature of each grid cell by a weighted average of all thermometers within 1200km. Stations at the grid cell center are weighed 1, while stations 1200km away are weighted 0. A station 600km away would be weighted .5.

[LakeEffectKing]

I think GISS an UAH are going to be far far apart for October.

Good call:

Oct GISS:

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 52 50 50 37 56 57 64 66 49 51 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 61 63 62 59 62 57 68 2005

2006 46 62 58 42 38 55 42 65 57 59 64 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 17 26 66 43 41 34 52 34 52 55 58 47 44 43 28 50 40 55 2008

2009 55 46 47 49 53 61 66 56 64 60 68 60 57 56 49 50 61 64 2009

2010 70 75 85 75 64 55 50 54 54 62 71 41 63 65 68 75 53 63 2010

2011 45 42 56 55 43 51 61 62 48 54********** ********* 43 51 58***** 2011

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

So UAH and RSS (sats) take a tumble and GISS goes up. Let the debate begin, as we await (for another 2+ weeks ) Oct. HadCrut!

[Sunny and Warm]

Good call:

Oct GISS:

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 52 50 50 37 56 57 64 66 49 51 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 61 63 62 59 62 57 68 2005

2006 46 62 58 42 38 55 42 65 57 59 64 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 17 26 66 43 41 34 52 34 52 55 58 47 44 43 28 50 40 55 2008

2009 55 46 47 49 53 61 66 56 64 60 68 60 57 56 49 50 61 64 2009

2010 70 75 85 75 64 55 50 54 54 62 71 41 63 65 68 75 53 63 2010

2011 45 42 56 55 43 51 61 62 48 54********** ********* 43 51 58***** 2011

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

So UAH and RSS (sats) take a tumble and GISS goes up. Let the debate begin, as we await (for another 2+ weeks ) Oct. HadCrut!

GISS really is a laughable dataset at this point.

[The_Global_Warmer]

GISS really is a laughable dataset at this point.

How So?

[skierinvermont]

Let the debate begin

What debate? The surface is not the same as the troposphere. One can cool while the other warms over short timescales. We see it happen both ways all the time.

[skierinvermont]

GISS really is a laughable dataset at this point.

Based on what? Because I've reviewed all the skeptic talking points re: GISS and found them seriously flawed. HadCRUT+UAH poles generally corroborates GISS.

[The_Global_Warmer]

What debate? The surface is not the same as the troposphere. One can cool while the other warms over short timescales. We see it happen both ways all the time.

We see it in spring all the time here with snow.

Anyways:

Lines up with a major arctic heat release

[dabize]

Kind of curious about how folks here will react to this paper. I am at the DC Neuroscience meeting (that's what I do for a living; I publish actively in a controversial area here, but am a climate/weather amateur), and was considering the issue of making generally persuasive scientific arguments when I found this paper.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20111110_NewClimateDice.pdf

It seems to me that the key variable overlooked or distorted by (by honest or otherwise skeptics of AGW, respectively) is the fairly steadily increasing geographical extent of warm anomalies over the past 30 years relative to the previous 30. Even though this analysis necessarily limits the time considered to the modern era (of the Keeling curve, global satellite data, etc), it seems to me that this approach describes how local temp anomalies (i.e. "weather") can be linked to (and should be considered in the context of) clear and serious changes in climate driven by non-contestable changes in global CO2 levels.

I have had a hard time (as an experienced scientist in a non-climate field) explaining just why I find the evidence and prospective magnitude of AGW so disturbing, and so have mostly not even bothered to discuss the issue here, given how it so often leads to shouting. To me, the larger picture seems obvious, and the skepticism expressed (even by professional mets here) seems (to me) to be unscientific, misplaced, politically driven or all three put together. I DO know something of how emotion clouds judgement and drives argument even among the well-trained - this is inherent in the wiring of the limbic and prefrontal cortices and affects neuroscientists (among many others) all the time.

But this paper encapsulates what I think is the most persuasive approach to communicating a "warmista's" alarm: borrowing the inherent stability of large scale parallel data sets to reduce the enormous noise level of local and short term temporal variability inherent in weather and reveal a well correlated global increase in warm anomaly risk vs CO2 increase. To me, the result is highly disturbing, and greatly strengthens the case for taking preventative/palliative measures immediately.

There is a pretty lively discussion of this paper and related issue over at RealClimate as well, for those interested.

I realize that this might be more suitably posted as a new thread, but as I am not an expert/regular poster at AW (I lurk a lot), I thought this might be better posted here as a comment.

[skierinvermont]

Kind of curious about how folks here will react to this paper. I am at the DC Neuroscience meeting (that's what I do for a living; I publish actively in a controversial area here, but am a climate/weather amateur), and was considering the issue of making generally persuasive scientific arguments when I found this paper.

http://www.columbia....ClimateDice.pdf

It seems to me that the key variable overlooked or distorted by (by honest or otherwise skeptics of AGW, respectively) is the fairly steadily increasing geographical extent of warm anomalies over the past 30 years relative to the previous 30. Even though this analysis necessarily limits the time considered to the modern era (of the Keeling curve, global satellite data, etc), it seems to me that this approach describes how local temp anomalies (i.e. "weather") can be linked to (and should be considered in the context of) clear and serious changes in climate driven by non-contestable changes in global CO2 levels.

I have had a hard time (as an experienced scientist in a non-climate field) explaining just why I find the evidence and prospective magnitude of AGW so disturbing, and so have mostly not even bothered to discuss the issue here, given how it so often leads to shouting. To me, the larger picture seems obvious, and the skepticism expressed (even by professional mets here) seems (to me) to be unscientific, misplaced, politically driven or all three put together. I DO know something of how emotion clouds judgement and drives argument even among the well-trained - this is inherent in the wiring of the limbic and prefrontal cortices and affects neuroscientists (among many others) all the time.

But this paper encapsulates what I think is the most persuasive approach to communicating a "warmista's" alarm: borrowing the inherent stability of large scale parallel data sets to reduce the enormous noise level of local and short term temporal variability inherent in weather and reveal a well correlated global increase in warm anomaly risk vs CO2 increase. To me, the result is highly disturbing, and greatly strengthens the case for taking preventative/palliative measures immediately.

There is a pretty lively discussion of this paper and related issue over at RealClimate as well, for those interested.

I realize that this might be more suitably posted as a new thread, but as I am not an expert/regular poster at AW (I lurk a lot), I thought this might be better posted here as a comment.

This paper is an excellent demonstration of how weather has been skewed warmer by the general warming of climate. And it really hammers home the 'loading of the dice' paradigm which many climate scientists have been trying to explain to the public instead of the 'X weather event was caused by CO2' paradigm which certain less knowledgeable/responsible scientists have expressed and which is commonly expressed in the media.

Now this doesn't necessarily prove that the warming is caused by CO2. It is probably a good indication that the warming is externally forced given that the warming is global and not just regional. Only an external forcing could possibly explain the fact that the entire troposphere, surface and even the oceans of the earth have warmed.

It still all comes back to the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that a doubling of CO2 leads to 3.7W/m2 of radiative forcing and thus 1.2C of surface warming not including the probable positive feedback (primarily water vapor).

[dabize]

This paper is an excellent demonstration of how weather has been skewed warmer by the general warming of climate. And it really hammers home the 'loading of the dice' paradigm which many climate scientists have been trying to explain to the public instead of the 'X weather event was caused by CO2' paradigm which certain less knowledgeable/responsible scientists have expressed and which is commonly expressed in the media.

Now this doesn't necessarily prove that the warming is caused by CO2. It is probably a good indication that the warming is externally forced given that the warming is global and not just regional. Only an external forcing could possibly explain the fact that the entire troposphere, surface and even the oceans of the earth have warmed.

It still all comes back to the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that a doubling of CO2 leads to 3.7W/m2 of radiative forcing and thus 1.2C of surface warming not including the probable positive feedback (primarily water vapor).

Agreed that while the warming/CO2 correlation is not an established causal relationship, the established nature of CO2-induced heat trapping makes it hard to believe that such widespread heating does not have a causal element from CO2. Not sure how you could formally show causality without a "control" planet to play with, anyhow.

I guess CO2 is the trout in the (ever warming) global milk.......to butcher the classic metaphor for extremely strong circumstantial evidence.

This kind of presentation makes it really hard for a skeptic to hide in in the underbrush of UHI and local variation.

That should apply especially to scientifically trained (read pro met) skeptics, of which there are surprisingly many.

The appalling willingness of American culture to root against scientists and science is another matter.....