2011 Global Temperatures

[Strongbad]

The issue is not black and white. It is not a case of either-or, nature or nurture, and I did not say genetic makeup is the end all, be all.

Genes predispose and define what is possible. Nurture refines and hones that potential.

There you go lecturing me again as if you feel you are superior.

You really are not correct here. Read more about your DNA and what factors contribute to dormancy or activity. Until then, he has a point to lecture you.

Also, you missed my warning regarding this type of thinking. Eugenicists, Malthusians, et al. are really not the kinds of people we want in science. Really, it is fitting to see that the AGW movement seamlessly blends with these past movements...almost like there is some kind of social trend...

[tacoman25]

Interesting that NO ONE has addressed the paper Dabize introduced us to.

When extreme weather events are regularly occurring more than three standard deviations from the norm something is horribly wrong. If AGW is not the explanation, what pray tell is?

Any that are claiming to be skeptics, as opposed to deniers need an alternative theory to refute these statistical anomalies. Deniers need to be outed as the trolls or imbeciles that they are.

By way of reference those 2.5 deviations below average in intelligence spend their lives learning to tie their shoes, those 2.5 deviations above may join Mensa.

BTW after 20+ years in Mensa I've come to believe that Intelligence without Knowledge is as dangerous as the inverse.

Terry

How is the "norm" for "extreme weather events" established? What are the standards here? All the paper discusses are temperature anomalies, and the specific events it references are the 2010 Moscow heatwave and the 2011 Texas heatwave. However, much more than heatwaves has been blamed on AGW - pretty much any extreme event that grabs the headlines, you can be assured there will be a theory out there about how AGW is behind it.

[WeatherRusty]

How is the "norm" for "extreme weather events" established? What are the standards here? All the paper discusses are temperature anomalies, and the specific events it references are the 2010 Moscow heatwave and the 2011 Texas heatwave. However, much more than heatwaves has been blamed on AGW - pretty much any extreme event that grabs the headlines, you can be assured there will be a theory out there about how AGW is behind it.

To be accurate you should say events that are influenced by occurring in a warmer more moist global environment are associated with AGW.

[WeatherRusty]

You really are not correct here. Read more about your DNA and what factors contribute to dormancy or activity. Until then, he has a point to lecture you.

Also, you missed my warning regarding this type of thinking. Eugenicists, Malthusians, et al. are really not the kinds of people we want in science. Really, it is fitting to see that the AGW movement seamlessly blends with these past movements...almost like there is some kind of social trend...

The characteristic traits of an organism are largely hard coded in the genes. The human genome contains a large range of variation permitting the variation seen in the human family population. Humans can't naturally fly because their genes do not enable them to do so. Humans can speak because their genetic makeup constructs a brain and other body parts capable of speech. My nose may be shorter than yours because of a difference in genes. Variation in human intelligence comes about in the same way but off course can be influenced by environment also.

I am aware of dormant genes, most of our genetic makeup consists of recessive genes or otherwise inactive genes. We have, for instance, the genes to grow a tail. In a few isolated instances, humans are born with more than just a vestigial tail as a result.

[tacoman25]

To be accurate you should say events that are influenced by occurring in a warmer more moist global environment are associated with AGW.

But that is the problem...sure, the loaded dice argument might work ok for heatwaves, but what about events that are not based on temperature anomalies? How can we say that "extreme" events are occurring 3 standard deviations above the norm? What is the factual basis for this? There is consensus agreement that AGW causes warmer surface temperatures, so more and stronger heatwaves are naturally to be expected. But there is much less consensus about how exactly AGW effects hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, droughts, blizzards, etc. And yet the default move is to associate AGW in some way whenever one of these disasters grabs the headlines.

[tacoman25]

Also, I have to take issue with a statement in the study:

Thus there is no need to equivocate about the summer heat waves in Texas in 2011 and Moscow in 2010, which exceeded 3σ – it is nearly certain that they would not have occurred in the absence of global warming. If global warming is not slowed from its current pace, by mid-century 3σ events will be the new norm and 5σ events will be common.

To say that these heatwaves "wouldn't have happened" without global warming is not accurate. The heatwaves were, by and large, due to persistent and unusual weather patterns. The severity was likely enhanced by AGW, but to blame the entire event on AGW is silly. Texas has experienced similar, though not quite as severe, heatwaves before. Obviously the terrible drought in the southern plains played a huge role, just as the Dust Bowl era droughts helped produced extreme heatwaves back in the 1930s. But there is no conclusive evidence that this drought was due to AGW. If anything, it was probably a little hotter (maybe 1-2 degrees) for a little longer thanks to AGW.

Scientifically, the best statement would probably be: "it is very likely that the Texas and Moscow heatwaves were exacerbated by global warming". To say that the event occurred because of AGW, or that we know exactly how much AGW played a role in a particular event is foolish and unsubstantiated.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Another supposed Mensa poster. Amazing...

How is GISS a laughable data set?

This is from NOAA/NCDC:

The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for October 2011 was the eighth warmest on record at 58.14 F (14.58 C), which is 1.04 F (0.58 C) above the 20th century average of 57.1 F (14.0 C). The margin of error associated with this temperature is +/- 0.13 F (0.07 C).

they are not direct comparisons because GISS has a different baseline. But they are very close using land based observations. The science has been explained to you many times. I could explain it to my 5 year old son, I am sure he would grasp the concept of the "sky" vs the "land". here is the link to the NOAA/NCDC data: 8th warmest on record

So How is GISS a laughable data set?

[skierinvermont]

Also, I have to take issue with a statement in the study:

Thus there is no need to equivocate about the summer heat waves in Texas in 2011 and Moscow in 2010, which exceeded 3σ – it is nearly certain that they would not have occurred in the absence of global warming. If global warming is not slowed from its current pace, by mid-century 3σ events will be the new norm and 5σ events will be common.

To say that these heatwaves "wouldn't have happened" without global warming is not accurate. The heatwaves were, by and large, due to persistent and unusual weather patterns. The severity was likely enhanced by AGW, but to blame the entire event on AGW is silly. Texas has experienced similar, though not quite as severe, heatwaves before. Obviously the terrible drought in the southern plains played a huge role, just as the Dust Bowl era droughts helped produced extreme heatwaves back in the 1930s. But there is no conclusive evidence that this drought was due to AGW. If anything, it was probably a little hotter (maybe 1-2 degrees) for a little longer thanks to AGW.

Scientifically, the best statement would probably be: "it is very likely that the Texas and Moscow heatwaves were exacerbated by global warming". To say that the event occurred because of AGW, or that we know exactly how much AGW played a role in a particular event is foolish and unsubstantiated.

I think it's pretty clear in the context of the paper that they mean the specific heatwave of X magnitude would not have occurred without AGW, not that Moscow would never ever see heatwaves without AGW. Plus you'd just have to be pretty stupid to believe that they were saying the latter.

[Sunny and Warm]

Also, I have to take issue with a statement in the study:

Thus there is no need to equivocate about the summer heat waves in Texas in 2011 and Moscow in 2010, which exceeded 3σ – it is nearly certain that they would not have occurred in the absence of global warming. If global warming is not slowed from its current pace, by mid-century 3σ events will be the new norm and 5σ events will be common.

To say that these heatwaves "wouldn't have happened" without global warming is not accurate. The heatwaves were, by and large, due to persistent and unusual weather patterns. The severity was likely enhanced by AGW, but to blame the entire event on AGW is silly. Texas has experienced similar, though not quite as severe, heatwaves before. Obviously the terrible drought in the southern plains played a huge role, just as the Dust Bowl era droughts helped produced extreme heatwaves back in the 1930s. But there is no conclusive evidence that this drought was due to AGW. If anything, it was probably a little hotter (maybe 1-2 degrees) for a little longer thanks to AGW.

Scientifically, the best statement would probably be: "it is very likely that the Texas and Moscow heatwaves were exacerbated by global warming". To say that the event occurred because of AGW, or that we know exactly how much AGW played a role in a particular event is foolish and unsubstantiated.

In fact, the Moscow event was specifically studied for AGW genesis, and what they found is that this particular heat wave could NOT be attributed to AGW.

[LakeEffectKing]

How is GISS a laughable data set?

This is from NOAA/NCDC:

they are not direct comparisons because GISS has a different baseline. But they are very close using land based observations. The science has been explained to you many times. I could explain it to my 5 year old son, I am sure he would grasp the concept of the "sky" vs the "land". here is the link to the NOAA/NCDC data: 8th warmest on record

So How is GISS a laughable data set?

I'll answer since I believe you are on his ignore list. I'll preface and say not "laughable", but certainly this dataset out of them all, makes you scratch your head the most.

For one, let's remember this Oct. 2008 fiasco:

Unbelievably easy error to catch (the replication of the Sept. data set over Russia (90+ stations) and dumped into the Oct. global temp) requiring maybe a 10 year old's ability to quality check.....raises red flags that there may not be ANY quality checks!!! Doesn't the "huge red blob" scream "Hansen...we have a problem."????? Not so for the experts in the field, putting out a very PUBLIC chart. Unacceptable at the most. How embarassing, at the very least!! (Yes, it didn't change the overall Global temp by much, but geeze!!, it's almost as though they WANT people have pity for them!!!

Two.

Probably opening a can of worms, but the extrapolation method between stations having vast areas of wilderness between them is.....almost laughable (at least to place any kind of "confidence" in that entire area).

And three....oh nevermind....just cruise over to Eastern's climate archives, do a simple search......and all sorts of goodies between skier/Bethesda/ and Will, will pop up for your entertainment re: GISS.

[Sunny and Warm]

I'll answer since I believe you are on his ignore list. I'll preface and say not "laughable", but certainly this dataset out of them all, makes you scratch your head the most.

For one, let's remember this Oct. 2008 fiasco:

Unbelievably easy error to catch (the replication of the Sept. data set over Russia (90+ stations) and dumped into the Oct. global temp) requiring maybe a 10 year old's ability to quality check.....raises red flags that there may not be ANY quality checks!!! Doesn't the "huge red blob" scream "Hansen, we may have a problem."????? Not so for the experts in the field, putting out a very PUBLIC chart. How embarassing!!

Two.

Probably opening a can of worms, but the extrapolation method between stations having vast areas of wilderness between them is.....almost laughable (at least to place any kind of "confidence" in that entire area).

And three....oh nevermind....just cruise over to Eastern's climate archives, do a simple search......and all sorts of goodies between skier/Bethesda/ and Will, will pop up for your entertainment re: GISS.

You know, I almost wrote a post earlier today reminding Friv and Skier to quit asking me questions. I don't see them unless they are in a body of another post. I won't respond to them, so if you guys read this, take heed.

Your point #2 is why I called GISS laughable. They claim a homogenous quality and error of data whether it is for the USA or for Siberia or for Mongolia, and whether the data is collected as 100 sites per 1000km by weather experts, or 2 sites per 1000km collected by sheep herders.

[tacoman25]

I think it's pretty clear in the context of the paper that they mean the specific heatwave of X magnitude would not have occurred without AGW, not that Moscow would never ever see heatwaves without AGW. Plus you'd just have to be pretty stupid to believe that they were saying the latter.

Well see, that's the problem with blaming an event on AGW - which is essentially what they are advocating with that paper. We know that these heatwaves would have occurred without AGW, and they probably would have been severe. Just not quite as extreme as they were with AGW. But no mention is made of the natural factors that undoubtedly play a huge role in the event actually occurring. What the authors are basically doing is saying that because AGW causes more common heat extremes, any extreme heatwave on the level of those they cited should be unequivocally blamed on AGW - when in reality, AGW only played a role in the severity, and we don't know exactly how much that is.

Quite frankly, I think they are trying to oversimplify a very complex issue.

[skierinvermont]

Well see, that's the problem with blaming an event on AGW - which is essentially what they are advocating with that paper. We know that these heatwaves would have occurred without AGW, and they probably would have been severe. Just not quite as extreme as they were with AGW. But no mention is made of the natural factors that undoubtedly play a huge role in the event actually occurring. What the authors are basically doing is saying that because AGW causes more common heat extremes, any extreme heatwave on the level of those they cited should be unequivocally blamed on AGW - when in reality, AGW only played a role in the severity, and we don't know exactly how much that is.

Quite frankly, I think they are trying to oversimplify a very complex issue.

No that is not what the paper says at all. The paper is exceptionally clear in its thesis of a 'loading of the dice' towards higher standard deviation events. The entire purpose of the paper is to demonstrate that central thesis.

In fact, that's the title of the paper:

"The New Climate Dice"

[skierinvermont]

Two.

Probably opening a can of worms, but the extrapolation method between stations having vast areas of wilderness between them is.....almost laughable (at least to place any kind of "confidence" in that entire area).

Not if you have an eighth grader's grasp of mathematics.

[tacoman25]

No that is not what the paper says at all. The paper is exceptionally clear in its thesis of a 'loading of the dice' towards higher standard deviation events. The entire purpose of the paper is to demonstrate that central thesis.

In fact, that's the title of the paper:

"The New Climate Dice"

Read what I quoted. In that statement, the assumption is that the dice is so loaded, that specific events can simply be attributed to AGW. It's just not that simple. Other factors play a role that they fail to acknowledge.

[skierinvermont]

Read what I quoted. In that statement, the assumption is that the dice is so loaded, that specific events can simply be attributed to AGW. It's just not that simple. Other factors play a role that they fail to acknowledge.

Actually if you read the paper they are very clear that all extreme heatwaves are "a combination of natural weather and AGW." That's a quote. But you'd have to read past the abstract to get that.

What the Abstract is saying is a very particular mathematical claim. Because 3sd events, which are supposed to only occur .15% of the time, are now occurring 10% of the time, it is possible to say that any one of those events today would almost certainly not occur 50 years ago. The key word being "almost certainly." Still possible, but about 75X less likely. Hence "almost certainly would not have occurred."

[tacoman25]

Actually if you read the paper they are very clear that all extreme heatwaves are "a combination of natural weather and AGW." That's a quote. But you'd have to read past the abstract to get that.

What the Abstract is saying is a very particular mathematical claim. Because 3sd events, which are supposed to only occur .15% of the time, are now occurring 10% of the time, it is possible to say that any one of those events today would almost certainly not occur 50 years ago. The key word being "almost certainly." Still possible, but about 75X less likely. Hence "almost certainly would not have occurred."

I did read the rest of the paper, and I believe their abstract is misleading within that context. Also, I believe the claim that 3sd events are occurring 10% of the time is misleading, as the period of reference is too short to accurately determine the 10%.

[skierinvermont]

I did read the rest of the paper, and I believe their abstract is misleading within that context. Also, I believe the claim that 3sd events are occurring 10% of the time is misleading, as the period of reference is too short to accurately determine the 10%.

No it's not too short.. the statement was "now" which mean the present.. not the past several decades.. not future decades. Now. The present. It is a simple statement of fact that roughly 10% of the earth is covered with 3SD anomalies at present.

[tacoman25]

No it's not too short.. the statement was "now" which mean the present.. not the past several decades.. not future decades. Now. The present. It is a simple statement of fact that roughly 10% of the earth is covered with 3SD anomalies at present.

I don't think it's wise to base such claims on a couple of unusual NH summers. You did note they were only talking about summer, right?

I would be much more convinced if they could demonstrate a gradual increase over the past 50-100 years in the number of 3sd events, something that corresponded with CO2 forcing over that time period.

[skierinvermont]

I don't think it's wise to base such claims on a couple of unusual NH summers. You did note they were only talking about summer, right?

I would be much more convinced if they could demonstrate a gradual increase over the past 50-100 years in the number of 3sd events, something that corresponded with CO2 forcing over that time period.

To the bolded, they do show exactly one such graph. It shows the gradual increase in 2 and 3SD events over the course of the 1900-2010 period. The frequency of 3SD events was near 0 up until the mid/late* 1980s. The frequency of 2SD events was very low (just a few percent) until the 1980s when they began rising, currently near 30% today.

And 10% falls right on a line of best fit if one were to draw one. Which justifies saying that the frequency of 3SD is "now" roughly 10%.

*Note for taco: mid != late

[okie333]

Also, I have to take issue with a statement in the study:

Thus there is no need to equivocate about the summer heat waves in Texas in 2011 and Moscow in 2010, which exceeded 3σ – it is nearly certain that they would not have occurred in the absence of global warming. If global warming is not slowed from its current pace, by mid-century 3σ events will be the new norm and 5σ events will be common.

To say that these heatwaves "wouldn't have happened" without global warming is not accurate. The heatwaves were, by and large, due to persistent and unusual weather patterns. The severity was likely enhanced by AGW, but to blame the entire event on AGW is silly. Texas has experienced similar, though not quite as severe, heatwaves before. Obviously the terrible drought in the southern plains played a huge role, just as the Dust Bowl era droughts helped produced extreme heatwaves back in the 1930s. But there is no conclusive evidence that this drought was due to AGW. If anything, it was probably a little hotter (maybe 1-2 degrees) for a little longer thanks to AGW.

Scientifically, the best statement would probably be: "it is very likely that the Texas and Moscow heatwaves were exacerbated by global warming". To say that the event occurred because of AGW, or that we know exactly how much AGW played a role in a particular event is foolish and unsubstantiated.

3 sigma means it should happen every 370 years if there is a normal distribution. Also, there is significant evidence that weather events do not follow a normal distribution, but rather one in which extreme events are more likely than they would be in a normal distribution.

[tacoman25]

To the bolded, they do show exactly one such graph. It shows the gradual increase in 2 and 3SD events over the course of the 1900-2010 period. The frequency of 3SD events was near 0 up until the mid/late* 1980s. The frequency of 2SD events was very low (just a few percent) until the 1980s when they began rising, currently near 30% today.

And 10% falls right on a line of best fit if one were to draw one. Which justifies saying that the frequency of 3SD is "now" roughly 10%.

*Note for taco: mid != late

1. It's only for June/July/August.

2. Every year from 1999 to 2009 was easily lower than 10%. Therefore, they are basing an awful lot on the last couple summers.

[skierinvermont]

1. It's only for June/July/August.

2. Every year from 1999 to 2009 was easily lower than 10%. Therefore, they are basing an awful lot on the last couple summers.

1. No they also provide a similar graph for winter.

2. It is a good estimate based on the trend line. There's no more mathematically valid way to say what the % is at present than a trend line. In addition, the years 2007-2009 were near 10% though below.

[tacoman25]

1. No they also provide a similar graph for winter.

2. It is a good estimate based on the trend line. There's no more mathematically valid way to say what the % is at present than a trend line. In addition, the years 2007-2009 were near 10% though below.

1. You said the graphs going back to 1900. Those are only for summer.

2. It looks easily above the trend line to me.

[skierinvermont]

3 sigma means it should happen every 370 years if there is a normal distribution. Also, there is significant evidence that weather events do not follow a normal distribution, but rather one in which extreme events are more likely than they would be in a normal distribution.

No it is more like 1 in 700 yeas because we are talking about only 1 tail of the distribution, not two.

Also the fact that extreme weather events do not perfectly fit a normal distribution does not matter for the purpose of this study because it is a relative comparison being made. The frequency of 3SD events used to be very near the expected value of .15%. Now it is 10%.*

*unless you are tacoman, then it is i don't know what?

[tacoman25]

Regardless, it's clear these researchers are basing a lot off the last couple summers, from referencing the two big heatwaves in 2010 and 2011 to claiming 10% is the "new norm". There has been an uptick the past two winters in "very cold" and "extremely cold" areas as well. Wouldn't want to read too much into that, though!

[skierinvermont]

1. You said the graphs going back to 1900. Those are only for summer.

2. It looks easily above the trend line to me.

1. You can easily infer from the 1950-2010 graph for winter what the 1900-2010 graph would look like.

2. You are probably looking at the wrong graph. Be sure to look at the graph for 'land only' because that is what his statement refers to. For land only the past 3 years have been 7, 17, and 10% which includes two Nina years. Given this I would say that the present 'true' frequency of 3SD events is actually over 10% not under.

[Hambone]

The Mensa posters are just funny to read. Anybody who needs to share that information as a way of boasting might be covering something up...

What really strikes me is the post by that guy, Mencken (sp?). To bring up "good genes" when discussing his family history is akin to the eugenicist crowd of the Romantic era. We know what that led to...

Really, that is what will keep people from favoring the warmists. Anyone who dares speak of superior genetics is asking for it.

[tacoman25]

2. You are probably looking at the wrong graph. Be sure to look at the graph for 'land only' because that is what his statement refers to. For land only the past 3 years have been 7, 17, and 10% which includes two Nina years. Given this I would say that the present 'true' frequency of 3SD events is actually over 10% not under.

Nope, I'm looking at the same graph. As you state, 2009 was closer to 5% than 10%, as were the previous 10 years.

Like I said, they are making a judgement based on a very short period.

[skierinvermont]

Nope, I'm looking at the same graph. As you state, 2009 was closer to 5% than 10%, as were the previous 10 years.

Like I said, they are making a judgement based on a very short period.

So when somebody says that the temperature this year was +.453 you would say that they were looking at too short a period to say what the temperature this year was? Should we look at last years temperature to tell us what this years temperature is?

They are not making a claim about what the mean frequency over the last decade or what the future decade will be. They are saying what it is at present. That doesn't require taking a sample .. it s simply a statement of fact just like saying the temperature this year was XYZ. Which was 10% in the most recent year and on the trend line.