2011 Global Temperatures

[LakeEffectKing]

RSS out for Nov.:

2010 11 0.315 -0.068 0.688 0.355 1.191 0.126 0.021 0.418 0.208

2010 12 0.220 -0.225 0.472 0.461 1.403 0.162 -0.853 0.230 0.210

2011 1 0.085 -0.300 0.211 0.389 1.803 -0.101 -0.792 0.041 0.130

2011 2 0.051 -0.222 0.054 0.360 -0.104 -0.587 -0.556 -0.012 0.116

2011 3 -0.028 -0.285 0.212 0.009 1.387 0.095 0.070 0.056 -0.116

2011 4 0.105 -0.157 0.366 0.128 0.561 0.084 0.128 0.207 -0.001

2011 5 0.125 -0.026 0.231 0.183 0.811 -0.171 -0.467 0.173 0.074

2011 6 0.297 0.167 0.468 0.263 0.893 0.430 0.523 0.373 0.218

2011 7 0.328 0.234 0.538 0.211 0.583 0.606 1.425 0.414 0.237

2011 8 0.286 0.212 0.564 0.073 0.759 0.689 1.184 0.432 0.133

2011 9 0.287 0.155 0.520 0.189 1.000 0.924 0.255 0.381 0.189

2011 10 0.089 -0.061 0.356 -0.025 0.632 0.130 -0.077 0.205 -0.032

2011 11 0.033 0.025 0.113 -0.042 0.605 -0.016 0.327 0.083 -0.019

[ORH_wxman]

RSS out for Nov.:

2010 11 0.315 -0.068 0.688 0.355 1.191 0.126 0.021 0.418 0.208

2010 12 0.220 -0.225 0.472 0.461 1.403 0.162 -0.853 0.230 0.210

2011 1 0.085 -0.300 0.211 0.389 1.803 -0.101 -0.792 0.041 0.130

2011 2 0.051 -0.222 0.054 0.360 -0.104 -0.587 -0.556 -0.012 0.116

2011 3 -0.028 -0.285 0.212 0.009 1.387 0.095 0.070 0.056 -0.116

2011 4 0.105 -0.157 0.366 0.128 0.561 0.084 0.128 0.207 -0.001

2011 5 0.125 -0.026 0.231 0.183 0.811 -0.171 -0.467 0.173 0.074

2011 6 0.297 0.167 0.468 0.263 0.893 0.430 0.523 0.373 0.218

2011 7 0.328 0.234 0.538 0.211 0.583 0.606 1.425 0.414 0.237

2011 8 0.286 0.212 0.564 0.073 0.759 0.689 1.184 0.432 0.133

2011 9 0.287 0.155 0.520 0.189 1.000 0.924 0.255 0.381 0.189

2011 10 0.089 -0.061 0.356 -0.025 0.632 0.130 -0.077 0.205 -0.032

2011 11 0.033 0.025 0.113 -0.042 0.605 -0.016 0.327 0.083 -0.019

Where is the RSS temp data from? link?

That sounds pretty low.

[LakeEffectKing]

Where is the RSS temp data from? link?

That sounds pretty low.

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

[tacoman25]

http://www.remss.com...Ocean_v03_3.txt

Coldest November since 2000, and it's not even close.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Coldest since 1993 on RSS. That is a long time coming. December won't be as cold from a monthly anomaly perspective. But should be cold vs recent years as well.

La Nina, low-moderate solar output, above average Northern Hemispheric Snow Cover, I think almost near record at one point, the AMO was around .11 in October, should be between .02 and .05 for November, maybe even below.

Things are definitely in a solid cold phase.

[TerryM]

Friv

Any hint on why the AO has not been published for the last few days?

They show a two day spike of over 5 (only occurred 3 times since 1950) then nothing since the 5th.

I'm aware the positive AO tracks with AGW - but these numbers seem anomalous.

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/ao_index.html

[Snowstorms]

Friv

Any hint on why the AO has not been published for the last few days?

They show a two day spike of over 5 (only occurred 3 times since 1950) then nothing since the 5th.

I'm aware the positive AO tracks with AGW - but these numbers seem anomalous.

http://www.cpc.ncep....x/ao_index.html

The stratosphere over top of the Arctic is very cold currently, and that given with the latest uptick in solar activity has really "bombed" the AO across the North allowing limited HP anomalies to develop across the Troposphere warming the Stratosphere.

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/hgt.ao.cdas.gif

With the QBO descending slowly and the Easterlies starting to pick up, perhaps we can nudge in a bit of blocking later on in the Winter, Mid-Jan and onwards perhaps? The AP index remains low despite the increase in solar activity and solar flux.

The AO linked with AGW, I dont think so.

Nov-Mar seasonal height anomalies from 79-95 when the AMO was negative.

Notice we see a strong Polar Vertex across the Arctic with consistent LP anomalies across the Atmosphere and virtually no signs of any blocking. The consistent +AO phase from bout the mid 80's thru the mid 90's really destroyed the Sea Ice and with no -AO/-NAO the cold air was trapped across the North thus the lower latiudes experienced very warm winters adding to the rising global temps.

Nov-Mar seasonal height anomalies from 95-11 when the AMO was positive;

Notice the blocking present across the Arctic?

I could add more but thats enuff. And lastly the NAM index; seasonal NAM index is the last one.

I think it relates closely to the PDO/AMO;

[tacoman25]

Friv

Any hint on why the AO has not been published for the last few days?

They show a two day spike of over 5 (only occurred 3 times since 1950) then nothing since the 5th.

I'm aware the positive AO tracks with AGW - but these numbers seem anomalous.

http://www.cpc.ncep....x/ao_index.html

Say what? You realize that the last two winters prior to this one had record-breaking -AO at times, right? In fact, there was even a thread posted on here about a theory that AGW was causing the highly anomalous blocking, due to feedback in the atmosphere from lower summer/fall Arctic ice extent.

[The_Global_Warmer]

I think the AMO was going positive after 1987. Then the Volcanos blew and sent it negative would be an obvious to less solar energy.

if that is the case we could already be in.a transition phase. or in a neutral phase. (-1 to +1 on the yearly range.

On the de trended long term range..the AGW signal will show up in the background. The positive phases will be higher and higher or more frequent and the lower phases will be not as low and less frequent.

This has already appeared...we will see how this goes. I will try and dig more on this.

I also wonder if arctic warming enhances the AMO because If the water souroundung the arctic is warmer the evap cooling might be less than otherwise allowing a slightly warmer N. Atlantic.

[Tropopause_Fold]

Coldest since 1993 on RSS. That is a long time coming. December won't be as cold from a monthly anomaly perspective. But should be cold vs recent years as well.

La Nina, low-moderate solar output, above average Northern Hemispheric Snow Cover, I think almost near record at one point, the AMO was around .11 in October, should be between .02 and .05 for November, maybe even below.

Things are definitely in a solid cold phase.

if that is true, that's an impressive number.

[Snow_Miser]

2011 is back to being the coldest in the entire AMSU record. If it keeps on decreasing or stabilizes throughout the entire month of December, I think that December will probably be the coldest December in at least a decade.

[TerryM]

Sno

How do temps at 14000 ft relate to surface temperatures? I understood that as GHG increased the temperatures on the surface, the atmosphere at higher altitude would cool. Is the graph intended to show that the increase in GHG has indeed acted as theory predicts?

[Jesse]

Sno

How do temps at 14000 ft relate to surface temperatures? I understood that as GHG increased the temperatures on the surface, the atmosphere at higher altitude would cool. Is the graph intended to show that the increase in GHG has indeed acted as theory predicts?

They're talking way higher than 14,000'. Temps at 14,000' roughly correlate with surface temps.

So no, this kind of plunge in satellite temps doesn't support AGW theory. Quite the opposite, in fact.

[TerryM]

They're talking way higher than 14,000'. Temps at 14,000' roughly correlate with surface temps.

So no, this kind of plunge in satellite temps doesn't support AGW theory. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Then I would expect surface temperatures for 2011 to have been the coldest in some time?

[Snow_Miser]

Sno

How do temps at 14000 ft relate to surface temperatures? I understood that as GHG increased the temperatures on the surface, the atmosphere at higher altitude would cool. Is the graph intended to show that the increase in GHG has indeed acted as theory predicts?

Hi Terry,

The Temperatures at 14,000 feet are relevant to what UAH calculates which is the Lower Trophospheric Global Temperature, which would include 600 mb/14,000 feet. Increasing GHGs would warm the surface AND the LT, and the LT Global Temperatures are a good measurement to see if the troposphere is continuing to gain additional energy or not. The Stratosphere is where the GHGs cool, which is, as Jesse correctly pointed out, much much higher than 14,000 feet. They cool the stratosphere because GHGs allow for less OLR to reach the Stratosphere, allowing it to cool.

However, Stratospheric Cooling is complicated with Ozone Depletion with multiple causations actually helps to cool the stratosphere further. Interestingly, the stratospheric temperatures have flatlined for 15 years, which is a good indicator that with GHGs increasing during that time period, that they are likely NOT the cause of the stratospheric cooling that took place during that timeframe, and it is probably due to another factor, such as Ozone Depletion.

[Jesse]

Then I would expect surface temperatures for 2011 to have been the coldest in some time?

If GISS weren't so recklessly manipulated and extrapolated, yes, they probably would be.

At least for the last few months.

[skierinvermont]

If GISS weren't so recklessly manipulated and extrapolated, yes, they probably would be.

At least for the last few months.

Take your lies to another forum.

[skierinvermont]

Hi Terry,

The Temperatures at 14,000 feet are relevant to what UAH calculates which is the Lower Trophospheric Global Temperature, which would include 600 mb/14,000 feet. Increasing GHGs would warm the surface AND the LT, and the LT Global Temperatures are a good measurement to see if the troposphere is continuing to gain additional energy or not. The Stratosphere is where the GHGs cool, which is, as Jesse correctly pointed out, much much higher than 14,000 feet. They cool the stratosphere because GHGs allow for less OLR to reach the Stratosphere, allowing it to cool.

However, Stratospheric Cooling is complicated with Ozone Depletion with multiple causations actually helps to cool the stratosphere further. Interestingly, the stratospheric temperatures have flatlined for 15 years, which is a good indicator that with GHGs increasing during that time period, that they are likely NOT the cause of the stratospheric cooling that took place during that timeframe, and it is probably due to another factor, such as Ozone Depletion.

Pretty funny how you carefully explain that there are many simultaneous factors influencing stratospheric temperatures but then incorrectly and in contradiction claim that a 15 year flat-line proves that GHGs have not been causing stratospheric cooling in the long-run. Pretty basic logical contradiction.

[skierinvermont]

Then I would expect surface temperatures for 2011 to have been the coldest in some time?

month to month temperatures in the lower troposphere and at the surface don't have much correlation. So if UAH/RSS TLT (lower trop. temps) drop/rise .2C from one month to the next, the surface doesn't usually follow suit.

In the long run they theoretically should correlate very closely, with the lower troposphere warming at a ratio of 1.1X to the surface. The measured ratio has been a bit less than this depending on what tropospheric source you use (varying from .7-1.2X depending on source). This is likely due to measurement error for surface and/or lower tropospheric temperature. The error is more likely in measurement of tropospheric temperatures which has greater uncertainty than the measurement of the surface by GISS, BEST, HadCRUT etc.

[The_Global_Warmer]

If GISS weren't so recklessly manipulated and extrapolated, yes, they probably would be.

At least for the last few months.

How is GISS manipulated?

I can prove that the arctic is colder on GISS anomaly wise than reality. This is only in October and November so far.

The Sats do an even worse job than NCDC or GISS at arctic temps. Maybe the SATs do better with sparse data areas like Siberia.

The funniest part of this is that both are backed by sound climatology and meteorology.

We have a la Nina, negative AMO, negative PDO, nuetral solar influence.

The data are running at normal for their 30 year data set. They use a warmer baseline than GISS. NCDC uses the 20th century and GISS uses 1951-1980.

GISS is warmer because of the arctic which Is from heat leaving the water as ice freezes and heat leaves until the ice is near a meter thick unless there is none to leave.

Both sets of data correlate well to the current phenomenom.

They are where they should be given what we have seen with global warming so far

What the ipcc says what Hansen says what Al Gore says is irrelevant.

The science is well documented.

If in 2013 we have an el niño with a positive AMO and solar max and nuetral PDO which less sea ice than now then we should be record warm. If we are not near that then we should investigate why and try to find out why.

[Snow_Miser]

Pretty funny how you carefully explain that there are many simultaneous factors influencing stratospheric temperatures but then incorrectly and in contradiction claim that a 15 year flat-line proves that GHGs have not been causing stratospheric cooling in the long-run. Pretty basic logical contradiction.

Yes, if all factors were kept the same, while the GHG concentration on Earth increased, then stratospheric cooling would result because of the reasons stated above. However, with GHGs increasing during this timeperiod, you would have observed a continued decrease during that timeframe, if they were "driving" stratospheric cooling.

That is not the case.

[WeatherRusty]

Yes, if all factors were kept the same, while the GHG concentration on Earth increased, then stratospheric cooling would result because of the reasons stated above. However, with GHGs increasing during this timeperiod, you would have observed a continued decrease during that timeframe, if they were "driving" stratospheric cooling.

That is not the case.

What do you mean by "driving"? If GHSs were always at every time interval the strongest influence then yes, the trend would be continuous in one direction. On relatively short time intervals other factors of variability can exceed the greenhouse gases in strength, but over longer periods of time the GHSs monotonic rise will prevail.

[skierinvermont]

Yes, if all factors were kept the same, while the GHG concentration on Earth increased, then stratospheric cooling would result because of the reasons stated above. However, with GHGs increasing during this timeperiod, you would have observed a continued decrease during that timeframe, if they were "driving" stratospheric cooling.

That is not the case.

As you said previously there are many factors which influence stratospheric temperatures. Thus in the short-run it's quite probable that the GHG cooling effect will be blocked or enhanced by other factors, like ozone.

A five year old could understand this concept. You are perverting basic logic.

[tacoman25]

Sno

How do temps at 14000 ft relate to surface temperatures? I understood that as GHG increased the temperatures on the surface, the atmosphere at higher altitude would cool. Is the graph intended to show that the increase in GHG has indeed acted as theory predicts?

No. 14,000' is still the lower troposphere, which should be warming at least as quickly as the surface per theory.

[Snow_Miser]

What do you mean by "driving"? If GHSs were always at every time interval the strongest influence then yes, the trend would be continuous in one direction. On relatively short time intervals other factors of variability can exceed the greenhouse gases in strength, but over longer periods of time the GHSs monotonic rise will prevail.

As you said previously there are many factors which influence stratospheric temperatures. Thus in the short-run it's quite probable that the GHG cooling effect will be blocked or enhanced by other factors, like ozone.

Okay, let's hypothetically assume that GHGs are the primary reason for why the stratosphere has cooled overall since the satellite era began.

If skier is right that variability in Ozone can temporarily "hide" the long term decline in GHG induced stratospheric cooling, why can't a long term decrease in Ozone be responsible for the stratospheric cooling if simple variability in Ozone over a short timeframe can overwhelm the stratospheric cooling induced by GHGs?

In addition, in the graph I posted that showed the current temperature trends in the stratosphere, sudden changes in the stratospheric temperature were all observed in the dataset during major volcanic eruptions.

After a major volcanic eruption, why does the temperature significantly cool right after it significantly warms?

It is because the sulfate aerosoles from the major volcanic eruptions get into the stratosphere, and first warm the stratosphere because they absorb more sunlight.

However, the stratospheric temperature immediately cools, because Sulfate Aerosoles decrease Ozone which causes cooling up in that region.

Changes in ozone have significant implications for the stratospheric temperature, and this is evidenced by the variability with ozone associated with volcanism.

[The_Global_Warmer]

No. 14,000' is still the lower troposphere, which should be warming at least as quickly as the surface per theory.

Who's theory is this?

Its wrong

[LakeEffectKing]

I'm going to guess that UAH comes in at 0.00 for Nov.

Ehhh....a shade below an "epic" fail....UAH finally out:

YR MON GLOBAL NH SH TROPICS

2011 1 -0.010 -0.055 0.036 -0.372

2011 2 -0.020 -0.042 0.002 -0.348

2011 3 -0.101 -0.073 -0.128 -0.342

2011 4 +0.117 +0.195 +0.039 -0.229

2011 5 +0.133 +0.145 +0.121 -0.043

2011 6 +0.315 +0.379 +0.250 +0.233

2011 7 +0.374 +0.344 +0.404 +0.204

2011 8 +0.327 +0.321 +0.332 +0.155

2011 9 +0.289 +0.304 +0.274 +0.178

2011 10 +0.116 +0.169 +0.062 -0.054

2011 11 +0.123 +0.075 +0.170 +0.024

www.drroyspencer.com

[tacoman25]

Who's theory is this?

Its wrong

AGW theory. Yes, the LT is supposed to be warming just as fast as the surface.

[WeatherRusty]

AGW theory. Yes, the LT is supposed to be warming just as fast as the surface.

The reason is that in the mid levels of the troposphere (especially in the tropics) the adiabatic lapse rate should lean more towards the moist rate and away from the dry rate as the upper air becomes more moist. This means the air cools more slowly with increasing height.

This is the positive water vapor feedback. That feedback is mostly negated by the negative lapse rate feedback (the greenhouse effect relies on it being colder aloft), but the result is the upper air warming somewhat faster than the surface (especially in the tropics). This should occur regardless of the cause for the warming...anthropogenic or not, so it is not really specific to AGW, but rather to any warming of the lower atmosphere.

[Tropopause_Fold]

As you said previously there are many factors which influence stratospheric temperatures. Thus in the short-run it's quite probable that the GHG cooling effect will be blocked or enhanced by other factors, like ozone.

A five year old could understand this concept. You are perverting basic logic.

skier...i respect your knowledge, but i find so many of your posts irritating and condescending ...this one ranks near the top.

you have an internet attitude problem. not sure i get it.

why act like this? - overcompensating for something else?

i'm embarrassed for you.