2011 Global Temperatures

[tacoman25]

This was the big discrepancy of the debate a few years ago when GISS was compared to other data sources. They were consistently warmer in the questioned regions than satellite and known HadCRUT data. Arctic gets talked about a lot, but Africa was a big one and so was Antarctica. There's a reason that the CRU group thinks GISS is too warm even though they are big proponents of AGW.

Yeah, Africa is a huge area, too. It's the second largest continent, bigger than North America.

[skierinvermont]

Yes, GISS clearly missed the area of cold anomalies...they falsely added warmth in Scandinavia and to the south, looks very suspicious.

But they don't ever extrapolate the cold for hundreds of miles...we've looked at these maps, GISS vs RSS, several times...and the extrapolations always tend to be on the warm side. Can't you just admit looking at that map that mistakes are being made? How much clearer can it be when GISS is extrapolating pure warmth when higher-resolution satellites are finding small areas of cold anomalies in a generally mild region? December 2010 and January 2011 have had the same problem. Also, stations closer to the coast and with developed settlements, which is most of them, are going to run a bit milder than other areas of the rural High Arctic, no way around it. The problem with using GISS for the arctic is that the sea of warmth makes it hard for extrapolated data to pick up on the smaller areas of cold; it's an inevitable mistake but probably an intentional one given that Hansen is running the data set, a man who has been arrested for protesting fossil fuels.

If GISS is making bad extrapolations, then it should be checked. Just following the models throughout December, I knew there was a small area of cold anomalies in the Yukon just because I repeatedly saw the -20C contour over the high pressure centered in NW Canada during the month. RSS satellite analysis confirmed my suspicion that it had been a frigid December in parts of the Yukon, but GISS just missed it...doesn't make any sense that someone casually following the weather can have a better understanding of climate trends than NASA. Also, widespread media reports were talking about near-record cold in Scandinavia during December, and yet GISS only had the region 1-2C below normal, seemed suspicious. I don't see the problem with cross-checking.

No I can't you are clearly being biased. It extrapolates cold incorrectly all the time too.

Moreover the TRENDS for the ARCTIC as a WHOLE are nearly the same on both GISS and ERA-25. This tells me no matter what it looks to like you on the maps.. on a whole it is not extrapolating too warm. Maybe slightly too warm.. but much better than HadCRUTS false assumption of no warming.

[BethesdaWX]

No I can't you are clearly being biased. It extrapolates cold incorrectly all the time too.

Moreover the TRENDS for the ARCTIC as a WHOLE are nearly the same on both GISS and ERA-25. This tells me no matter what it looks to like you on the maps.. on a whole it is not extrapolating too warm. Maybe slightly too warm.. but much better than HadCRUTS false assumption of no warming.

GISS has no data.......arctic measurement, along with all other sources, have come in colder. GISS is the warmest, and an outlier from everyone else.

GISS is extrapolating warmth into areas where Satellite data & measurement data show below avg temps.

[nzucker]

No I can't you are clearly being biased. It extrapolates cold incorrectly all the time too.

Moreover the TRENDS for the ARCTIC as a WHOLE are nearly the same on both GISS and ERA-25. This tells me no matter what it looks to like you on the maps.. on a whole it is not extrapolating too warm. Maybe slightly too warm.. but much better than HadCRUTS false assumption of no warming.

It seems that you never answer the question:

Why does low-resolution extrapolation miss small areas of cold in the generally mild Arctic, and doesn't this suggest at least a slight warm bias on the part of GISS?

I'm not saying Hadley isn't flawed as well...I agree on that point, but you always ignore the other side of the argument with cooling in the Antarctic. How convenient!

I don't understand why you used to be a skeptic of global warming and then changed your viewpoint. When we did our radio show, we were always about dispelling the myths about accelerating warming, criticizing Bill McKibben for his biased analysis of climate change, talking about the solar minimum and the PDO as future cooling factors, etc. All of a sudden, you've jumped on the Hansen bandwagon...at the same time we've seen one of the harshest winters in history for our area with two feet of snowpack and temperatures way below normal, experienced huge drops in global temperature on the satellites, set Oklahoma's all-time cold record, seen historic cold in Europe for December, continued the drop in solar activity. It just doesn't make sense at all, but you persist in your viewpoint change.

[tacoman25]

It seems that you never answer the question:

Why does low-resolution extrapolation miss small areas of cold in the generally mild Arctic, and doesn't this suggest at least a slight warm bias on the part of GISS?

I'm not saying Hadley isn't flawed as well...I agree on that point, but you always ignore the other side of the argument with cooling in the Antarctic. How convenient!

I don't understand why you used to be a skeptic of global warming and then changed your viewpoint. When we did our radio show, we were always about dispelling the myths about accelerating warming, criticizing Bill McKibben for his biased analysis of climate change, talking about the solar minimum and the PDO as future cooling factors, etc. All of a sudden, you've jumped on the Hansen bandwagon...at the same time we've seen one of the harshest winters in history for our area with two feet of snowpack and temperatures way below normal, experienced huge drops in global temperature on the satellites, set Oklahoma's all-time cold record, seen historic cold in Europe for December, continued the drop in solar activity. It just doesn't make sense at all, but you persist in your viewpoint change.

Oftentimes when someone changes their mind or adopts a new viewpoint, they bite hard...only to pull back and go more moderate later when they've had more time to weigh both sides. I know that has happened to me with a number of issues.

[skierinvermont]

It seems that you never answer the question:

Why does low-resolution extrapolation miss small areas of cold in the generally mild Arctic, and doesn't this suggest at least a slight warm bias on the part of GISS?

Because a cold bubble didnt happen to fall on one of the arctic reporting stations in that particular area of that particular month. Other times it extrapolates cold falsely.

And on a WHOLE we know that the extrapolations of the arctic are LARGELY correct because it matches up nicely with independent studies (like I have said perhaps slightly too high but vastly better than HadCRUT's assumption of no warming). If I were going to b**ch about GISS it wouldn't be about the arctic it would be about Africa or Antarctica where the relationship to other data sources is not nearly as good.

You could try comparing the recent O'Donnell paper on Antarctica to GISS.

[BethesdaWX]

Because a cold bubble didnt happen to fall on one of the arctic reporting stations in that particular area of that particular month. Other times it extrapolates cold falsely.

And on a WHOLE we know that the extrapolations of the arctic are LARGELY correct because it matches up nicely with independent studies (like I have said perhaps slightly too high but vastly better than HadCRUT's assumption of no warming). If I were going to b**ch about GISS it wouldn't be about the arctic it would be about Africa or Antarctica where the relationship to other data sources is not nearly as good.

You could try comparing the recent O'Donnell paper on Antarctica to GISS.

Where has HADCRUT assumed no warming? Its too easy to b**ch about the Antarctic with GISS. UAH has been measuring down there for 32yrs, showing the steady cooling the entire time, which correlates with the sea ice increase...GISS is not needed in this case.

Ice melt cannot occur where temps never -10C.

[nzucker]

Where has HADCRUT assumed no warming? Its too easy to b**ch about the Antarctic with GISS. UAH has been measuring down there for 32yrs, showing the steady cooling the entire time, which correlates with the sea ice increase...GISS is not needed in this case.

Ice melt cannot occur where temps never -10C.

I think the idea of Antarctic sea ice expansion due to cooling temperatures may be false. If anything, there seems to be an inverse relationship between how much sea ice there is and global temperatures. In the 1930s and 1940s, warm years globally, Antarctic sea ice was quite robust. It declined precipitously in cold years globally like the 1950s, and then expanded in the 1990s and 2000s, which were the warmest decades in recorded history. Moreover, the ice is on the edges of Antarctica, which have not experienced the same cooling trend as the interior; the Antarctic Peninsula has actually seen quite a bit of warming in recent years. I agree with your basic point that GISS/NASA has attempted to obfuscate the fact that the Antarctic is mostly cooling, which is a strike against the "high latitudes warm fastest" theory, but I'm not sure the sea ice is relevant to this discussion.

[BethesdaWX]

I think the idea of Antarctic sea ice expansion due to cooling temperatures may be false. If anything, there seems to be an inverse relationship between how much sea ice there is and global temperatures. In the 1930s and 1940s, warm years globally, Antarctic sea ice was quite robust. It declined precipitously in cold years globally like the 1950s, and then expanded in the 1990s and 2000s, which were the warmest decades in recorded history. Moreover, the ice is on the edges of Antarctica, which have not experienced the same cooling trend as the interior; the Antarctic Peninsula has actually seen quite a bit of warming in recent years. I agree with your basic point that GISS/NASA has attempted to obfuscate the fact that the Antarctic is mostly cooling, which is a strike against the "high latitudes warm fastest" theory, but I'm not sure the sea ice is relevant to this discussion.

You mean cold years globally? -PDO phase timeframes tend to warm the Antarctic, and visa versa, it tends to deviate from the global trend...basically backwards. Locally, the cooling in the antarctic regions, near the pole itself, tend to commence during +PDO years.

You can already see the Antarctic Sea Ice has Been Decreasing since the -PDO flip in 2007. The Antarctic never likes to play along with the rest of the globe.

[nzucker]

You mean cold years globally? -PDO phase timeframes tend to warm the Antarctic, and visa versa, it tends to deviate from the global trend...basically backwards. Locally, the cooling in the antarctic regions, near the pole itself, tend to commence during +PDO years.

You can already see the Antarctic Sea Ice has Been Decreasing since the -PDO flip in 2007. The Antarctic never likes to play along with the rest of the globe.

Yeah that's what I meant. Seems like when the Earth warms, the Antarctica cools, and vice versa. Your point that colder temperatures may have something to do with Antarctic sea ice increase, however, is questionable given the warming that's occurred on the margins of the Frozen Continent, especially near the Antarctic Peninsula. It does look as if the SST anomalies have been tanking in the Southern Ocean lately, with the formation of a strong cold pool near 160W, 60S.

[skierinvermont]

Where has HADCRUT assumed no warming? Its too easy to b**ch about the Antarctic with GISS.

The arctic.

[skierinvermont]

I don't understand why you used to be a skeptic of global warming and then changed your viewpoint. When we did our radio show, we were always about dispelling the myths about accelerating warming, criticizing Bill McKibben for his biased analysis of climate change, talking about the solar minimum and the PDO as future cooling factors, etc. All of a sudden, you've jumped on the Hansen bandwagon...at the same time we've seen one of the harshest winters in history for our area with two feet of snowpack and temperatures way below normal, experienced huge drops in global temperature on the satellites, set Oklahoma's all-time cold record, seen historic cold in Europe for December, continued the drop in solar activity. It just doesn't make sense at all, but you persist in your viewpoint change.

I haven't changed my position on AGW or this particular issue at all really.. mostly I am just fed up with all the nonsense that most skeptics argue especially as I've become more familiar with the peer-reviewed literature.

I haven't changed my position on this particular issue either. I had and still have legitimate beefs with the GISS analysis, but I have never descended to the point of attacking the process of extrapolation itself. I have always recognized that GISS more accurately represents the arctic than HadCRUT which leaves it blank and that this is the primary divergence between the two and that therefore at the very least an average of the two could be used. Or you could do what I have mentioned before which is fill in HadCRUT with satellite data in the arctic, which would bump the trends up closer to GISS. I'm not saying HadCRUT should actually do this - the whole point of GISS and HadCRUT is they measure the surface. But to get an idea of what the true surface temperature trend is, you could do that as a mental exercise.

And I have criticized McKibben and still would criticize him for doing exactly what you are doing now .. confusing weather with climate.

My current snowpack.. my winter temperatures... Oklahoma's winter temps... or even a single winter in Europe... have absolutely no place in a discussion about climate change and do not factor into my thoughts in the slightest. Why on earth would these local short term events make me into a skeptic?

[BethesdaWX]

The arctic.

Yes... HADCRUT has a warming trend in the arctic regions it uses.

[BethesdaWX]

Yeah that's what I meant. Seems like when the Earth warms, the Antarctica cools, and vice versa. Your point that colder temperatures may have something to do with Antarctic sea ice increase, however, is questionable given the warming that's occurred on the margins of the Frozen Continent, especially near the Antarctic Peninsula. It does look as if the SST anomalies have been tanking in the Southern Ocean lately, with the formation of a strong cold pool near 160W, 60S.

I think I may have mis-typed lol. I meant the cold anomalies over the Antarctic Continent correlate with the increaseing ice, not the colder anomalies over the globe.

[nzucker]

You could try comparing the recent O'Donnell paper on Antarctica to GISS.

It looks as if GISS may show slightly less warming in Antarctica compared to O'Donnell in the 1957-2006 time frame, although they both agree that the interior has had some areas with cooling while the Peninsula has warmed dramatically. What does speak volumes about the climate change movement is how much trouble O'Donnell was given in trying to publish his paper, since it was a refutation of the mainstream literature by Steig. Alhough O'Donnell seems to be a believer in global warming himself, his lack of extremism made it hard for him to get published.

I haven't changed my position on AGW or this particular issue at all really.. mostly I am just fed up with all the nonsense that most skeptics argue especially as I've become more familiar with the peer-reviewed literature.

I haven't changed my position on this particular issue either. I had and still have legitimate beefs with the GISS analysis, but I have never descended to the point of attacking the process of extrapolation itself. I have always recognized that GISS more accurately represents the arctic than HadCRUT which leaves it blank and that this is the primary divergence between the two and that therefore at the very least an average of the two could be used. Or you could do what I have mentioned before which is fill in HadCRUT with satellite data in the arctic, which would bump the trends up closer to GISS. I'm not saying HadCRUT should actually do this - the whole point of GISS and HadCRUT is they measure the surface. But to get an idea of what the true surface temperature trend is, you could do that as a mental exercise.

And I have criticized McKibben and still would criticize him for doing exactly what you are doing now .. confusing weather with climate.

My current snowpack.. my winter temperatures... Oklahoma's winter temps... or even a single winter in Europe... have absolutely no place in a discussion about climate change and do not factor into my thoughts in the slightest. Why on earth would these local short term events make me into a skeptic?

I don't think much of what skeptics argue is "nonsense." You just get one side of the story from peer-reviewed articles and the IPCC, so you need to turn to the other side to get a different perspective. The truth lies in the middle, as always. AGW proponents have often ignored natural variables proven to have dramatic effects on the climate; both the PDO and solar activity are either not mentioned or glossed over in IPCC 2007, a bit strange when we're approaching an historic minimum in activity. Even the 2009 UN update on climate didn't delve into the more complex solar forecasting that meteorologists are now attempting, which seems a bit weird with activity dipping towards Maunder levels which would have a major impact on mid-latitude weather patterns and global temperatures.

False extrapolations on GISS should be corrected, or the source is useless. What's the point of assigning a +2C anomaly to a point in NW Canada if that anomaly wasn't actually there? If we know from media reports that Scandinavia had one of its coldest Decembers ever, and we see GISS showing temperatures only 1-2C below average, it should be changed. GISS extrapolations need to be checked against other sources, period. Although Hadley may miss warmth in the Arctic, its approach of not filling in low-data areas is admirable. If you don't have the data, don't make up the data. It's patently obvious that there is a bias introduced in GISS extrapolation since the same errors show up in multiple months, leading to warmer anomalies than the rest of the sources. It is particularly heinous to make up data when the satellites are right there measuring, showing that GISS is an archaic source that should be phased out.

All these anecdotal, short-term events are starting to pile up evidence for two things. First, we're probably headed for a very cold and snowy period in the mid-latitudes, related to the solar minimum and its effect on the NAO and AO. This will have a large impact on how freely we live, how much energy we consume, how many people suffer injuries or deaths due to accidents on slippery roads, heart attacks from shoveling huge snowstorms, exposure to extreme cold in poor countries, etc. I'd argue that a moderate global warming may be beneficial to society, especially considering the natural factors that are pointing towards very harsh winters in the next 20-30 years.

The second point is that the sequence of cold, snowy winters proves incorrect the notion that global warming was responsible for the mild winters we had in the 90s. British climatologist Viner made the heinous comment, "Children will never see snow again," and Bill McKibben discussed in his books the idea that January in the Adirondack Mountains would pass from a month of deep snows to one of warm rains. Given that Britain had its coldest December on record in 2010 after a brutal Winter 09-10, and that Saranac Lake plunged to -40C in January 2009, these ideas were a bunch of garbage. So how can one have any respect for a climate movement that has become so extreme it ignores basic meteorology in favor of alarmism? And then, when the "mild winters" theory isn't working so great, the so-called experts invent a theory about how increasing snow over Siberia caused by global warming is responsible for the blocking patterns delivering excess snow and severe cold to the mid-latitudes. This idea flies in the face of a popular mainstream theory a few years ago about how the constant +NAO/+AO was caused by warming of the Indian Ocean due to AGW. So there's clearly a sense of hypocrisy and manipulation of the truth in the movement. There's also a problem acknowledging the large role natural factors have in shaping Earth's climate, a role that is much more important than carbon emissions, for fear that people will lose interest if they think the changes aren't man's responsibility.

[Clifford]

My current snowpack.. my winter temperatures... Oklahoma's winter temps... or even a single winter in Europe... have absolutely no place in a discussion about climate change and do not factor into my thoughts in the slightest. Why on earth would these local short term events make me into a skeptic?

Absolutely... You don't want to attribute too much weight to a "local" phenomenon. And truthfully, it has been pretty "normal" here in Oregon. Perhaps even a bit on the mild side.

I do wonder when Florida gets hammered with one of the worst snow storms in decades... then the next year, Alabama gets hit.

The last time we had really cold weather... was nearly 40 years ago.

And, I thought it was just a "local thing"... but, people were declaring the coming of an "Ice Age". Now I know why.

It turns out it wasn't just a local phenomenon... well, I guess it depends on how you define "local" as I have no doubt that it affected everywhere from Mercury to Pluto, although it hasn't reached Andromeda yet.

The next few years will likely have significant rebound (downward) in global temperatures. At this point it is too early to claim that Anthropogenic Global Warming is non-existent, but it will certainly cause a re-adjustment of the calculations. It is too tempting to follow just the upstrokes in a trend and ignore the inevitable downturns.

What is obvious is that the "Urban Effect" is REAL.

And the "Urban Effect" is growing.

And... I have no doubt that even Antarctica is struggling with the Urban Effect (ANTARCTICA????) You don't think they shut off the heat in their igloos do you?

My prediction is that we'll spend $50 Billion on better "thermometers"... only to diagnose that the old thermometers were misleading, and that people had been underestimating the Urban Effect, and overestimating the the temperature changes away from the Urban centers.

Furthermore, we will discover that Astronomers and Meteorologists 400 years ago were better at reading the SUN than today's climatologists with all their multi-billion dollar gizmos.

[skierinvermont]

It looks as if GISS may show slightly less warming in Antarctica compared to O'Donnell in the 1957-2006 time frame, although they both agree that the interior has had some areas with cooling while the Peninsula has warmed dramatically. What does speak volumes about the climate change movement is how much trouble O'Donnell was given in trying to publish his paper, since it was a refutation of the mainstream literature by Steig. Alhough O'Donnell seems to be a believer in global warming himself, his lack of extremism made it hard for him to get published.

I don't think much of what skeptics argue is "nonsense." You just get one side of the story from peer-reviewed articles and the IPCC, so you need to turn to the other side to get a different perspective. The truth lies in the middle, as always. AGW proponents have often ignored natural variables proven to have dramatic effects on the climate; both the PDO and solar activity are either not mentioned or glossed over in IPCC 2007, a bit strange when we're approaching an historic minimum in activity. Even the 2009 UN update on climate didn't delve into the more complex solar forecasting that meteorologists are now attempting, which seems a bit weird with activity dipping towards Maunder levels which would have a major impact on mid-latitude weather patterns and global temperatures.

False extrapolations on GISS should be corrected, or the source is useless. What's the point of assigning a +2C anomaly to a point in NW Canada if that anomaly wasn't actually there? If we know from media reports that Scandinavia had one of its coldest Decembers ever, and we see GISS showing temperatures only 1-2C below average, it should be changed. GISS extrapolations need to be checked against other sources, period. Although Hadley may miss warmth in the Arctic, its approach of not filling in low-data areas is admirable. If you don't have the data, don't make up the data. It's patently obvious that there is a bias introduced in GISS extrapolation since the same errors show up in multiple months, leading to warmer anomalies than the rest of the sources. It is particularly heinous to make up data when the satellites are right there measuring, showing that GISS is an archaic source that should be phased out.

You obviously do not understand the mathematical implications or purpose of extrapolation. I am getting tired of you repeating your same old and woefully incorrect arguments.

You can form an accurate index of global temperatures from as little as 60 stations around the globe and extrapolating between them. GISS uses 2,000. The amount of data used in GISS is redundant. The extrapolations balance out in the end. Moreover, we know it balances out because reanalyses like ERA-40 agree with GISS on the long-term trend for the globe, but have the correct spatial pattern which GISS lacks due to extrapolation.

Your original assertion was that somehow recent weather events are somehow pertinent to me being or not being a skeptic. As I said before, these events do not factor into my thoughts at all and should not be even mentioned in the same sentence as whether or not one is a skeptic. While a string of -NAO winters may be interesting from a meteorological perspective and refute some old predictions that AGW would cause more +NAO, it is absolutely not relevant to the core of the AGW debate.

[Clifford]

Your original assertion was that somehow recent weather events are somehow pertinent to me being or not being a skeptic. As I said before, these events do not factor into my thoughts at all and should not be even mentioned in the same sentence as whether or not one is a skeptic. While a string of -NAO winters may be interesting from a meteorological perspective and refute some old predictions that AGW would cause more +NAO, it is absolutely not relevant to the core of the AGW debate.

Ahhh...

So the AGW people only consider recent the string of El Niño years as being part of the temperature growth.

But, they don't consider the La Niña years?

What if we flip from the 1990's and 2000's being dominated by El Niño currents to the 2010's being dominated by La Niña currents? Obviously it would be early to speculate on that, but it wouldn't be surprising.

Obviously one must look at more than just the transition from El Niño to La Niña, but the temperature balances as a whole.

[skierinvermont]

Ahhh...

So the AGW people only consider recent the string of El Niño years as being part of the temperature growth.

But, they don't consider the La Niña years?

What if we flip from the 1990's and 2000's being dominated by El Niño currents to the 2010's being dominated by La Niña currents? Obviously it would be early to speculate on that, but it wouldn't be surprising.

Obviously one must look at more than just the transition from El Niño to La Niña, but the temperature balances as a whole.

What does this have to do with my post at all? Your post seems completely unrelated.

[nzucker]

You obviously do not understand the mathematical implications or purpose of extrapolation. I am getting tired of you repeating your same old and woefully incorrect arguments.

You can form an accurate index of global temperatures from as little as 60 stations around the globe and extrapolating between them. GISS uses 2,000. The amount of data used in GISS is redundant. The extrapolations balance out in the end. Moreover, we know it balances out because reanalyses like ERA-40 agree with GISS on the long-term trend for the globe, but have the correct spatial pattern which GISS lacks due to extrapolation.

Your original assertion was that somehow recent weather events are somehow pertinent to me being or not being a skeptic. As I said before, these events do not factor into my thoughts at all and should not be even mentioned in the same sentence as whether or not one is a skeptic. While a string of -NAO winters may be interesting from a meteorological perspective and refute some old predictions that AGW would cause more +NAO, it is absolutely not relevant to the core of the AGW debate.

It seems you're the one repeating the same arguments: other people on here such as Tacoman and Bethesda have taken issue with GISS extrapolations as well, and I have indeed proved that there are errors being made in extrapolating warm anomalies to areas that didn't really have warmth. In the face of overwhelming evidence, you reject this sensible logic in favor of your usual "statistical" arguments. If you had 60 stations spaced equally around the globe with equal extrapolation from all points, then yes it would be a valid technique for measuring global temperatures. That's not the case with GISS, though: you have extrapolation in only certain areas which may not be representative of the whole, whether it be by chance, UHI, geography, etc. The same errors of extrapolating too warm are showing up in the same areas, like the Yukon in December 2010 and January 2011. If you don't see this pattern, you're not looking hard enough. I can't believe you're willing to ignore these errors, especially when the motivations of the database manger, James Hansen, are highly questionable. You always claim to adhere to "the science," but you have no problem with the fact that we're measuring temperatures incorrectly and then not fixing them despite overwhelming evidence that there's been a mistake in the extrapolation process. It makes no sense and shows your inherent bias.

Actually, I do think recent weather events are relevant to the debate. One part of the debate is whether global warming would be harmful, and given the extreme negative effects from recent winters in the mid-latitudes, effects which perhaps were not fully understood until we saw a powerful -AO/-NAO, it might be concluded that moderate global warming is less harmful since the downsides are mitigated by the positives of having less severe winters. This year, we've had serious agricultural damage in Florida and Texas's Rio Grande Valley, we've had hundreds of deaths in Europe due to extreme cold in December, we've had some of the worst road conditions ever seen in this area. I think most people would find a transition to slightly milder winters better, and with natural factors slowing the warming, it probably wouldn't have the same impact on ecosystems with more time for adaptation.

Also, whether you agree or not, seeing these harsh winters rejects some of the more extreme global warming theory. Going from "global warming causes mild winters because of the Indian Ocean's warmth creating a +NAO/+AO" to "global warming causes cold winters because of the Siberian snow cover's effect on the -NAO/-AO" has proven that the movement is truly not certain of its theory; it just goes where the wind blows to satisfy the need to reinforce sentiments of a rapidly warming world. Also, the strong -NAO/-AO being seen right now is probably due to the solar minimum, which is a harbinger of colder times to come both globally and in our region. We don't usually see semi-permanent blocking patterns of this magnitude unless we have a deep drop in solar activity, and that seems to be the case right now. In this sense, noticing and being conscious of the changes in our backyard can help us develop an understanding of what the future climate might look like, both regionally and globally.

[skierinvermont]

It seems you're the one repeating the same arguments: other people on here such as Tacoman and Bethesda have taken issue with GISS extrapolations as well, and I have indeed proved that there are errors being made in extrapolating warm anomalies to areas that didn't really have warmth. In the face of overwhelming evidence, you reject this sensible logic in favor of your usual "statistical" arguments. If you had 60 stations spaced equally around the globe with equal extrapolation from all points, then yes it would be a valid technique for measuring global temperatures. That's not the case with GISS, though: you have extrapolation in only certain areas which may not be representative of the whole, whether it be by chance, UHI, geography, etc. The same errors of extrapolating too warm are showing up in the same areas, like the Yukon in December 2010 and January 2011. If you don't see this pattern, you're not looking hard enough. I can't believe you're willing to ignore these errors, especially when the motivations of the database manger, James Hansen, are highly questionable. You always claim to adhere to "the science," but you have no problem with the fact that we're measuring temperatures incorrectly and then not fixing them despite overwhelming evidence that there's been a mistake in the extrapolation process. It makes no sense and shows your inherent bias.

Actually, I do think recent weather events are relevant to the debate. One part of the debate is whether global warming would be harmful, and given the extreme negative effects from recent winters in the mid-latitudes, effects which perhaps were not fully understood until we saw a powerful -AO/-NAO, it might be concluded that moderate global warming is less harmful since the downsides are mitigated by the positives of having less severe winters. This year, we've had serious agricultural damage in Florida and Texas's Rio Grande Valley, we've had hundreds of deaths in Europe due to extreme cold in December, we've had some of the worst road conditions ever seen in this area. I think most people would find a transition to slightly milder winters better, and with natural factors slowing the warming, it probably wouldn't have the same impact on ecosystems with more time for adaptation.

Also, whether you agree or not, seeing these harsh winters rejects some of the more extreme global warming theory. Going from "global warming causes mild winters because of the Indian Ocean's warmth creating a +NAO/+AO" to "global warming causes cold winters because of the Siberian snow cover's effect on the -NAO/-AO" has proven that the movement is truly not certain of its theory; it just goes where the wind blows to satisfy the need to reinforce sentiments of a rapidly warming world. Also, the strong -NAO/-AO being seen right now is probably due to the solar minimum, which is a harbinger of colder times to come both globally and in our region. We don't usually see semi-permanent blocking patterns of this magnitude unless we have a deep drop in solar activity, and that seems to be the case right now. In this sense, noticing and being conscious of the changes in our backyard can help us develop an understanding of what the future climate might look like, both regionally and globally.

You can form an accurate index from 60 UNEQUALLY spaced stations extrapolating 2000+ miles. You have made absolutely no argument that the extrapolation creates a bias in one direction.. because there is no argument to be made. Any argument must be made against the location of the station.. not extrapolation inherently. Extrapolation in and of itself is a statistically sound method.

Moreover, I have not said that recent local events have no relevance to some of the finer aspects of climate change's consequences. I said VERY SPECIFICALLY these events are completely irrelevant to the CORE of the AGW debate (IE is the earth warming and what is causing it) and whether or not I am a skeptic.

[tacoman25]

You obviously do not understand the mathematical implications or purpose of extrapolation. I am getting tired of you repeating your same old and woefully incorrect arguments.

You can form an accurate index of global temperatures from as little as 60 stations around the globe and extrapolating between them. GISS uses 2,000. The amount of data used in GISS is redundant. The extrapolations balance out in the end. Moreover, we know it balances out because reanalyses like ERA-40 agree with GISS on the long-term trend for the globe, but have the correct spatial pattern which GISS lacks due to extrapolation.

Your original assertion was that somehow recent weather events are somehow pertinent to me being or not being a skeptic. As I said before, these events do not factor into my thoughts at all and should not be even mentioned in the same sentence as whether or not one is a skeptic. While a string of -NAO winters may be interesting from a meteorological perspective and refute some old predictions that AGW would cause more +NAO, it is absolutely not relevant to the core of the AGW debate.

I don't understand how you can make posts like this on one hand, but acknowledge that GISS's analysis seems off in some areas like Africa in others.

[skierinvermont]

I don't understand how you can make posts like this on one hand, but acknowledge that GISS's analysis seems off in some areas like Africa in others.

Because mathematically, it balances out. GISS is too warm in Africa, but too cold in NA, SA, and Australia. Analyses like ERA-40 agree with the long term trend of GISS, but have the correct spatial and regional trends which GISS lacks due to the low resolution.

[tacoman25]

Because mathematically, it balances out. GISS is too warm in Africa, but too cold in NA, SA, and Australia. Analyses like ERA-40 agree with the long term trend of GISS, but have the correct spatial and regional trends which GISS lacks due to the low resolution.

I haven't seen any definitive proof that GISS is "too cold" in NA, Australia, or especially SA.

This isn't an issue that can be solved by stating "mathematically, extrapolation balances out". That's just theory, and it relies on equal distribution of cold/warm extrapolation, which you certainly have not proven.

[skierinvermont]

I haven't seen any definitive proof that GISS is "too cold" in NA, Australia, or especially SA.

This isn't an issue that can be solved by stating "mathematically, extrapolation balances out". That's just theory, and it relies on equal distribution of cold/warm extrapolation, which you certainly have not proven.

Nobody has proven that there is more warm extrapolation than cold. People are just pointing at maps and saying "ooo look in that month it extrapolated too warm there." Well I can play the same game and point out spots where it extrapolated too cold. For example, there was a month a few months ago where GISS extrapolated far too cold around the black sea. Of course, all of these comparisons are being made to UAH which is of course a flawed methodology since 1) The surface may be different than the troposphere in a given month 2) UAH uses a flawed methodology.

And I have proven that there is just as much cold extrapolation as warm extrapolation. Other analyses, like ERA-40, agree with GISS on the long term trend, but have the correct spatial and regional trends.

It's up to the people making the accusation to show that it is falsely extrapolating warmth incorrectly more often than cold, because theoretically it should not. Nobody has offered this proof. You can't use UAH because of the reasons I have given ( 1) the surface may be different than the troposphere 2) UAH is flawed) and if you use a surface reanalyses product like ERA or NCEP, you will find that they agree with GISS on the long term trend, and that they find just as much false cold extrapolation as false warm extrapolation.

[tacoman25]

Nobody has proven that there is more warm extrapolation than cold. People are just pointing at maps and saying "ooo look in that month it extrapolated too warm there." Well I can play the same game and point out spots where it extrapolated too cold. For example, there was a month a few months ago where GISS extrapolated far too cold around the black sea. Of course, all of these comparisons are being made to UAH which is of course a flawed methodology since 1) The surface may be different than the troposphere in a given month 2) UAH uses a flawed methodology.

And I have proven that there is just as much cold extrapolation as warm extrapolation. Other analyses, like ERA-40, agree with GISS on the long term trend, but have the correct spatial and regional trends.

No, I made a detailed analysis of RSS temp maps and GISS temp maps a while ago and found that GISS easily had more warmer areas than colder. Consistently in Africa (a huge area), parts of SA, parts of the Arctic, and parts of Asia mainly.

And how again have you proven there is just as much cold extrapolation?

I am really getting tired of you claiming your opinions as fact. This is what I mean by losing your objectivity.

[tacoman25]

Please answer me this: since you love to make a big deal of the .02C/decade difference between UAH/RSS, what happens when you remove the initial year (1979) and start from 1980 instead?

[skierinvermont]

Please answer me this: since you love to make a big deal of the .02C/decade difference between UAH/RSS, what happens when you remove the initial year (1979) and start from 1980 instead?

It wouldn't make a difference.. 1 year doesn't affect a 30 year linear regression very much at all unless it were a huge outlier (like 2C difference)

Here it is anyways.. RSS warms a full .06C-.07C more over the period .. or slightly more than .02C/decade:

[skierinvermont]

No, I made a detailed analysis of RSS temp maps and GISS temp maps a while ago and found that GISS easily had more warmer areas than colder. Consistently in Africa (a huge area), parts of SA, parts of the Arctic, and parts of Asia mainly.

And how again have you proven there is just as much cold extrapolation?

I am really getting tired of you claiming your opinions as fact. This is what I mean by losing your objectivity.

I'd love to see this.. were you doing it for particular months? particular years? or 30 year year trends?

I'd really only be interested if it were the latter.

And if you were doing the latter.. I highly doubt you would have been able to eyeball the difference, since globally GISS and RSS differ by only .01C/decade... a difference I highly doubt you would have been able to detect simply looking at maps.

Moreover, the same objection I raised before still applies - you can't use RSS to crosscheck GISS, since what occurs at the surface will be different than in the troposphere.

And the other objection I raised applies as well, RSS contains significant errors that have yet to be worked out and which likely bias it cold. So you are using data which might be quite flawed to cross-check GISS.. doesn't make much sense to me.

[tacoman25]

It wouldn't make a difference.. 1 year doesn't affect a 30 year linear regression very much at all unless it were a huge outlier (like 2C difference)

Here it is anyways.. RSS warms a full .06C-.07C more over the period .. or slightly more than .02C/decade:

Yes, it varies depending on what year you choose. Over time, it appears they are moving closer together, as far as longterm trend.