2011 Global Temperatures

[tacoman25]

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. Which was 10% in the most recent year and on the trend line.

The "climate dice" describing the chance of an unusually warm or cool season, relative to the climatology of 1951-1980, have progressively become more "loaded" during the past 30 years, coincident with increased global warming. The most dramatic and important change of the climate dice is the appearance of a new category of extreme climate outliers. These extremes were practically absent in the period of climatology, covering much less than 1% of Earth's surface. Now summertime extremely hot outliers, more than three standard deviations (σ) warmer than climatology, typically cover about 10% of the land area.

How can you say something is "typical" based on a couple years?

[skierinvermont]

They are calling it the new norm.

I do not see that anywhere. And even if they did say that, it is defensible by the fact that the trend line has reached 10% indicating that we are at a point where it is likely about 10% of land will have 3SD anomalies. If I had to predict what % of the earth would have 3SD anomalies next year or the year after, I would say 'about 10%' because I believe that to be the present average. Actually I might even say 11 or 12%.

[tacoman25]

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.

Actually, they do predict that 3sd above the 1951-80 norm will be the "new norm" by mid century.

[tacoman25]

The "climate dice" describing the chance of an unusually warm or cool season, relative to the climatology of 1951-1980, have progressively become more "loaded" during the past 30 years, coincident with increased global warming. The most dramatic and important change of the climate dice is the appearance of a new category of extreme climate outliers. These extremes were practically absent in the period of climatology, covering much less than 1% of Earth's surface. Now summertime extremely hot outliers, more than three standard deviations (σ) warmer than climatology, typically cover about 10% of the land area.

In addition, if you look at this statement closely they are talking about seasons. And yet right after this, they then go on to talk about specific events. I'm not sure it's sound logic to make the leap from the chances of a temperature deviation during a season to the odds for a specific event.

[skierinvermont]

Actually, they do predict that 3sd above the 1951-80 norm will be the "new norm" by mid century.

That is a prediction about the future not a statement about the present.

[skierinvermont]

In addition, if you look at this statement closely they are talking about seasons. And yet right after this, they then go on to talk about specific events. I'm not sure it's sound logic to make the leap from the chances of a temperature deviation during a season to the odds for a specific event.

It's perfectly sound logic. It naturally and necessarily follows.

If 10% of the earth is covered by events which used to be .15% of the earth, the chance that any one of those would occur individually without global warming is 1.5%.

[tacoman25]

That is a prediction about the future not a statement about the present.

You said they didn't make any claims about the future. They did.

[tacoman25]

It's perfectly sound logic. It naturally and necessarily follows.

If 10% of the earth is covered by events which used to be .15% of the earth, the chance that any one of those would occur individually without global warming is 1.5%.

It's nice to know such a complex and chaotic system can be solved with simple math!

[skierinvermont]

It's nice to know such a complex and chaotic system can be solved with simple math!

Yes it is. Global temperatures clearly have followed and still do follow a near-normal distribution. The only thing that's different is that the mean of this distribution has shifted.

Thus any increase in the frequency of 'hot' events or decrease in the frequency of 'cold' events is entirely due to a warming global temperature. And the chance that any one of those 'hot' events would occur without this global warming is exceptionally small.

[tacoman25]

Yes it is. Global temperatures clearly have followed and still do follow a near-normal distribution. The only thing that's different is that the mean of this distribution has shifted.

Thus any increase in the frequency of 'hot' events or decrease in the frequency of 'cold' events is entirely due to a warming global temperature. And the chance that any one of those 'hot' events would occur without this global warming is exceptionally small.

The frequency of individual events is not documented. Only seasonal anomalies.

[dabize]

Yes it is. Global temperatures clearly have followed and still do follow a near-normal distribution. The only thing that's different is that the mean of this distribution has shifted.

Thus any increase in the frequency of 'hot' events or decrease in the frequency of 'cold' events is entirely due to a warming global temperature. And the chance that any one of those 'hot' events would occur without this global warming is exceptionally small.

This is why the paper appealed to me.

It takes the essential fact of warming and presents it in a way that is difficult to hide by obfuscation. Look at the squirming attempts we are getting here to find some way to qualify this dataset so as to avoid the inevitable conclusion - the climate is warming inexorably on a global scale, giving rise to many more extreme local events than would be expected if it was static. This warming is highly significant; well above 99% confidence - plenty to satisfy scientists, BTW.

Finally - a KISS argument for a critically important issue that needs it badly.

[tacoman25]

This is why the paper appealed to me.

It takes the essential fact of warming and presents it in a way that is difficult to hide by obfuscation. Look at the squirming attempts we are getting here to find some way to qualify this dataset so as to avoid the inevitable conclusion - the climate is warming inexorably on a global scale, giving rise to many more extreme local events than would be expected if it was static. This warming is highly significant; well above 99% confidence - plenty to satisfy scientists, BTW.

Finally - a KISS argument for a critically important issue that needs it badly.

Well sure, it's a great paper if you are looking for an argument to say that AGW is causing specific events. That's the issue though: it clearly aims for that goal (so many AGW proponents want to be able to say "Look, this happened because of global warming!"), as is evident by the introduction in the paper. Which is not a truly scientific approach.

Again, individual events are not documented - only anomalous seasons.

[TerryM]

Well sure, it's a great paper if you are looking for an argument to say that AGW is causing specific events. That's the issue though: it clearly aims for that goal (so many AGW proponents want to be able to say "Look, this happened because of global warming!"), as is evident by the introduction in the paper. Which is not a truly scientific approach.

Again, individual events are not documented - only anomalous seasons.

In what way is this not a scientific approach?

If I wanted to show that growth hormones were dangerous and set up an experiment that showed that 10% of rats fed the hormone ballooned to a size previously attained by only 1.5% of them would this not be seen as scientific?

[tacoman25]

In what way is this not a scientific approach?

If I wanted to show that growth hormones were dangerous and set up an experiment that showed that 10% of rats fed the hormone ballooned to a size previously attained by only 1.5% of them would this not be seen as scientific?

Please show me in the paper where they prove individual events can be directly attributed to AGW.

[skierinvermont]

The frequency of individual events is not documented. Only seasonal anomalies.

A hot summer is an "event."

[skierinvermont]

Please show me in the paper where they prove individual events can be directly attributed to AGW.

Again, it's not about showing positive attribution because it always takes a billion trillion trillion variables interacting in a causative manner to produce any individual outcome, it's about showing that these individual events would 'almost certainly' not have happened without global warming.

Which is what the paper says. These events would 'almost certainly' not have occurred without global warming. That is just a statistical fact. Events of such magnitude would occur with near 100X less frequency if the mean distribution had not been shifted by global warming. Thus any one of those events can be said to 'almost certainly not occur' (99% confidence) without global warming.

[TerryM]

Please show me in the paper where they prove individual events can be directly attributed to AGW.

Do you truly not understand that attribution of an individual event is irrelevant?

Do you truly not understand that changing the odds from .15% to 10% means that your point is moot?

If I deal myself 4 aces, twice in a row, I cheated - both times.

You are either amazingly obtuse, or you are disingenuous.

If it's the former, lets play some poker.

[tacoman25]

Again, it's not about showing positive attribution because it always takes a billion trillion trillion variables interacting in a causative manner to produce any individual outcome, it's about showing that these individual events would 'almost certainly' not have happened without global warming.

Which is what the paper says. These events would 'almost certainly' not have occurred without global warming. That is just a statistical fact. Events of such magnitude would occur with near 100X less frequency if the mean distribution had not been shifted by global warming. Thus any one of those events can be said to 'almost certainly not occur' (99% confidence) without global warming.

Their statistics are based on seasonal anomalies, not individual events/heatwaves. You cannot get around this fact.

[tacoman25]

Do you truly not understand that attribution of an individual event is irrelevant?

Do you truly not understand that changing the odds from .15% to 10% means that your point is moot?

If I deal myself 4 aces, twice in a row, I cheated - both times.

You are either amazingly obtuse, or you are disingenuous.

If it's the former, lets play some poker.

Made quite a bit of money at that game.

And that's no bluff.

[tacoman25]

Do you truly not understand that attribution of an individual event is irrelevant?

\

Why then do they feel the need to single out individual events?

[The_Global_Warmer]

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 never-mind....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.

This doesn't make Giss laughable at all. I doubt the satellites measure temps in areas of wilderness very well or let alone the surface as well as GISS does. Either way GISS can be "laughable in it's depiction of arctic temps when we compare it to buoy data. In October there was wide areas well over 10C for the month that GISS didn't account for. That can go both ways.

The satellites in October show a cooler mid level and upper level Lower atmosphere. GISS shows the heat of the surface better, especially in the northern hemisphere.

So we could just blend them. NOAA/NCDC/NCAR/GISS pretty much agree with there various data sets and UAH and RSS are as well for their TLT set.

No one called UAH and RSS laughable, they seem well within the range of normal for October 2011, the Earth is in a cooler period and it shows much more above the surface.

October is the month when the surface air inversions all over the Northern Hemisphere set up as the mid levels cool with stable areas of cold air and the oceans up north release the heat they stored from the sea ice anomalies.

I bet they get closer in November since the channel 5 and 6 temps have warmed some and the heat release is lowering.

[skierinvermont]

Their statistics are based on seasonal anomalies, not individual events/heatwaves. You cannot get around this fact.

An event is a completely arbitrary term and is whatever you define it as. In this case an event = 1 hot or cold season. The frequency of these 'hot' events has increased tremendously.

And the Moscow, Texas, and European heatwave 'events' are typically defined by the seasonal anomaly in most other papers as well.

[WeatherRusty]

This argument over attribution could probably go on forever unresolved to anyone's satisfaction. As skier has said, there are countless interactions at every scale which work together to produce any weather event. However, certain relatively few of them are vastly more important than the rest, the global environment being one of them.

A warmer world would be theoretically expected to produce weather somewhat different than a cooler world. There is simply more energy available to be dissipated. More thermal energy and greater latent heat of evaporation. We might also expect shifting regions of dominant weather or climate.

Question:

If the observed warming over the past century were entirely due to a warming Sun, would we be as reluctant to accept that the resultant weather would or has changed in some ways without being able to demonstrably prove a one on one relationship? (See first sentence / first paragraph)

[tacoman25]

This argument over attribution could probably go on forever unresolved to anyone's satisfaction. As skier has said, there are countless interactions at every scale which work together to produce any weather event. However, certain relatively few of them are vastly more important than the rest, the global environment being one of them.

That's basically what I said as well. Except I would say the actual weather pattern is more important for a major event occurrin than the global environment.

So question: what are the odds Fairbanks, AK would be having one of their all-time greatest November cold waves right now? Based on the loaded dice against it?

[skierinvermont]

That's basically what I said as well. Except I would say the actual weather pattern is more important for a major event occurrin than the global environment.

How can you possibly say which is more important when the vast majority of hot summers (99% of them) the last decade would not have happened without global warming?

That's like saying sugar is more important than flour when making chocolate chip cookies. You can't make cookies without either of them, how can you possibly say one is more important?

[tacoman25]

How can you possibly say which is more important when the vast majority of hot summers (99% of them) the last decade would not have happened without global warming?

That's like saying sugar is more important than flour when making chocolate chip cookies. You can't make cookies without either of them, how can you possibly say one is more important?

What is your definition of hot? Are you saying that 99% of the summers in various locations globallly above the 1951-80 mean would not have occurred without AGW? I'm talking about individual events, anyway, i.e. heatwaves. A hot summer can be attributed more to AGW (though weather patterns still play a huge role) than an individual extreme event, which is only exacerbated by AGW. For an extreme heatwave to occur, you pretty much need a very unusual pattern, with or without AGW. Whereas a whole summer can end up quite warm without any extreme patterns.

And again, if we are using math this way to establish AGW as the main cause of extreme events, what are the odds that the ongoing cold wave in Fairbanks would be happening now? It appears very possible it will end up being a 3SD event.

[skierinvermont]

What is your definition of hot? Are you saying that 99% of the summers in various locations globallly above the 1951-80 mean would not have occurred without AGW? I'm talking about individual events, anyway, i.e. heatwaves. A hot summer can be attributed more to AGW (though weather patterns still play a huge role) than an individual extreme event, which is only exacerbated by AGW. For an extreme heatwave to occur, you pretty much need a very unusual pattern, with or without AGW. Whereas a whole summer can end up quite warm without any extreme patterns.

And again, if we are using math this way to establish AGW as the main cause of extreme events, what are the odds that the ongoing cold wave in Fairbanks would be happening now? It appears very possible it will end up being a 3SD event.

I am referring to a very specific event, specifically a 3SD above average summer.

99% of these events would not have occurred without global warming. So it makes absolutely zero sense on your part to say that other factors were more important. Just like it doesn't make any sense to say flour is more important than sugar when making cookies. You need both.

[tacoman25]

I am referring to a very specific event, specifically a 3SD above average summer.

99% of these events would not have occurred without global warming. So it makes absolutely zero sense on your part to say that other factors were more important. Just like it doesn't make any sense to say flour is more important than sugar when making cookies. You need both.

I consider a heatwave a very specific event, not a whole summer. No one refers to a winter or summer as an "event". An event is always a heatwave, snowstorm, cold snap, hurricane, tornado, flood, etc. This is how scientists refer to them as well, see the yahoo article.

Why are you avoiding the question about the coldwave in Fairbanks?

[skierinvermont]

I consider a heatwave a very specific event, not a whole summer. No one refers to a winter or summer as an "event". An event is always a heatwave, snowstorm, cold snap, hurricane, tornado, flood, etc. This is how scientists refer to them as well, see the yahoo article.

Why are you avoiding the question about the coldwave in Fairbanks?

Event is an entirely arbitrary term. It could mean 1 season, 1 year, decades, centuries, thousands or even millions of years in climate science.

Scientists refer to the Russian, European, and TX heatwaves as "events" which lasted an entire season. You're just flat out wrong.. people refer to seasons as events all the time.

Regarding the Fairbanks cold, I am sure that when Hansen et al. update this paper 5, 10 or 20 years from now, it will be included if indeed it is a 3SD event. Or in any paper on the topic of shorter events (montly, weekly or daily) I am sure it will be included.

And I can guarantee you that the frequency of such events has dropped precipitously (as Hansen's paper shows over the 1900-2010 period).

[tacoman25]

Event is an entirely arbitrary term. It could mean 1 season, 1 year, decades, centuries, thousands or even millions of years in climate science.

Scientists refer to the Russian, European, and TX heatwaves as "events" which lasted an entire season. You're just flat out wrong.. people refer to seasons as events all the time.

Regarding the Fairbanks cold, I am sure that when Hansen et al. update this paper 5, 10 or 20 years from now, it will be included if indeed it is a 3SD event. Or in any paper on the topic of shorter events (montly, weekly or daily) I am sure it will be included.

And I can guarantee you that the frequency of such events has dropped precipitously (as Hansen's paper shows over the 1900-2010 period).

I think it comes down to weather vs. climate. Weather events vs. climate events. The timescale is the main dividing factor. I've been referring to the tendency to blame just about any extreme weather event on AGW. This paper appears to be trying to address both weather and climate events in relation to AGW. Or at least blur the line.

You are ignoring the obvious point about the Fairbanks cold wave. If it does indeed turn out to be a 3SD cold event (likely), doesn't that mean it had a 99% chance of not occurring thanks to AGW? After all, that's the exact reverse of the logic/math you are using to say that 3SD warm events have to be due to AGW, since there was only a 1% chance they would have occurred 100 years ago?

Therefore, mathematically, the Fairbanks coldwave should not be occurring, per AGW-induced odds.