2012 Global Temperatures

[csnavywx]

Increased global temperature is the hypothosized aspect of AGW that would supposedly effect EVERYONE.....that's why it gets the attention, and that is what the media has latched onto.

Everyone, just not equally. Heck.. a select few might actually benefit. Disparate effects are something they fail to mention regularly. We can't really expect them be able to explain non-linear effects of warming to a general audience very well, but then again they often foul up on the simplifications too.

[donsutherland1]

Any comments regarding the following maps as well as the respective Joe Bastardi comments?

1) "Cold areas Australia, Antarctica as impressive as hot area over US."

I'll reserve comment until the re-analysis data is in. One can't pre-verify based on model forecasts.

2) "as per winter idea on global temps.. fall about to start. JMA shows week 1. vs wk 3,4 global temps. blue increasing"

First, the JMA has often been too cool in the long-range through much of the spring and summer (to date). Second, global temperature anomalies have fluctuated during the onset of an El Niño, so one can't rule out July's or August's being cooler than June's anomaly. In recent years, when El Niño events commenced during the summer, the global temperature anomaly for the fall has been warmer than the summer one. Hence, assuming the El Niño gets underway this summer, the autumnal global anomaly would likely be higher than the summer one. The June GISS and NCDC numbers are not yet in. It will be interesting to compare things a few months from now to see what happened.

"...Evidence shows why climate clowns are deceptive"

An unnecessary and useless characterization.

[LakeEffectKing]

Everyone, just not equally. Heck.. a select few might actually benefit. Disparate effects are something they fail to mention regularly. We can't really expect them be able to explain non-linear effects of warming to a general audience very well, but then again they often foul up on the simplifications too.

Agree, but that goes to the point of issues with conveying a complicated message (with some arguable % uncertainty) to a public immersed into a volatile political atmosphere. The AGW proponents have choosen to concentrate on global temps as the lead story to the public, right from the get go, so that is what the public perceives as the great threat, and it is the benchmark most tangible to the lay folk.

[csnavywx]

I'm not sure what "views" of mine he supports, but I'll go to bat for ANYONE that is condensendingly told to "think for yourself" or "do yourself a favor". Larry has proven over the past 5+ years since I've been reading his posts that he indeed "thinks for himself".... And your busting people hard "on it" serves no one in a debate, other than to shield your own self insecurities of your point.....ie...you wouldn't make a good teacher...

LEK, your views on this subject are well documented. I think I can put them fairly (in a nutshell):

You believe in a weak to very weak version of the AGW scenario. Most forecasts made are based on assumptions that lead to faulty modeling and that said modeling is so error ridden that it cannot adequately forecast past a few years at most. You think that natural variability has a bigger say than we do. Your biggest peeve with AGW is that it isn't readily falsifiable like many other scientific theories and in your view there is too much selective picking and choosing (subjectiveness and cherry picking) associated with it.

Larry is trying to take the middle ground here on the climate side and thinks he's being objective. Unfortunately, he's not. What I've seen from him on the climate side pales in comparison to the work he does on the weather side. His focus is much too narrow. Now, I don't mean to pick on just him, because I could say this about most of the climate forum. For some odd reason we tend to treat climate parameters with less vigor. For instance... why look at ice extent when you have ice volume? Why count only one heat indicator when there are multiple routes of heat exchange? Why does everybody assume that the IPCC is totally correct in predicting ever-increasing use of fossil fuels in the face of significant depletion? It seems woefully inadequate from a physics standpoint, and I would ask anybody in here to uphold the same rigor we give on the weather side. For some reason... we don't for the most part.

Personally, I struggled for quite a time in coming to a conclusion on this very subject and found myself initially very critical of long-term models (mostly due to their quirky nature in the weather world), but I found listening to one "side" or another did very little due mostly to the fact that there are so many agendas working in the background and pocket-stuffing on both sides. The best thing is to discard both and look at the most objective data possible and approach it from a more statistical point of view. Having said that, said objective data and stats don't look very promising.

I'll lay my personal conclusions directly on the table so there's no mystery as to where I'm coming from.

Like you, LEK, I'm skeptical of climate modeling in the longer run because of above mentioned faulty assumptions and faulty or inadequate capture of non-linear effects, although you and I might differ on the specifics. I view it as a race between CO2 accumulation (and its resultant non-linear effects) and fossil fuel depletion. I think that the most glaring changes have been at the margins (like the Arctic) like one should initially expect from an AGW scenario and that those changes have been clearly worse than originally forecast. The decay of the ice pack has been rapid by climate standards. Other areas simply haven't seen the dire impacts that were predicted yet. On the other hand, in the longer term, I can't see any of these 500-550+ ppm scenarios coming to pass due to a lack of economically recoverable fossil fuels (not resources in place... which is a meaningless number). So in a nutshell, worse than forecast in the shorter to medium term (up to 20-30 years) then significantly better in the long term due to the massively erroneous assumption of ever-growing fossil fuel use. We'll have to live with whatever happens for a long time, so I think it's a very serious issue, but I have a growing suspicion that it won't be as high on the list 20 years from now due to an energy crisis. I also think that region to region effects will be very different. Some regions will likely not be impacted nearly so much as others. Simply taking the temperature and adding 2-3C will not in any way adequately describe what happens in a given region.

[Jonger]

LEK, your views on this subject are well documented. I think I can put them fairly (in a nutshell):

You believe in a weak to very weak version of the AGW scenario. Most forecasts made are based on assumptions that lead to faulty modeling and that said modeling is so error ridden that it cannot adequately forecast past a few years at most. You think that natural variability has a bigger say than we do. Your biggest peeve with AGW is that it isn't readily falsifiable like many other scientific theories and in your view there is too much selective picking and choosing (subjectiveness and cherry picking) associated with it.

Larry is trying to take the middle ground here on the climate side and thinks he's being objective. Unfortunately, he's not. What I've seen from him on the climate side pales in comparison to the work he does on the weather side. His focus is much too narrow. Now, I don't mean to pick on just him, because I could say this about most of the climate forum. For some odd reason we tend to treat climate parameters with less vigor. For instance... why look at ice extent when you have ice volume? Why count only one heat indicator when there are multiple routes of heat exchange? Why does everybody assume that the IPCC is totally correct in predicting ever-increasing use of fossil fuels in the face of significant depletion? It seems woefully inadequate from a physics standpoint, and I would ask anybody in here to uphold the same rigor we give on the weather side. For some reason... we don't for the most part.

Personally, I struggled for quite a time in coming to a conclusion on this very subject and found myself initially very critical of long-term models (mostly due to their quirky nature in the weather world), but I found listening to one "side" or another did very little due mostly to the fact that there are so many agendas working in the background and pocket-stuffing on both sides. The best thing is to discard both and look at the most objective data possible and approach it from a more statistical point of view. Having said that, said objective data and stats don't look very promising.

I'll lay my personal conclusions directly on the table so there's no mystery as to where I'm coming from.

Like you, LEK, I'm skeptical of climate modeling in the longer run because of above mentioned faulty assumptions and faulty or inadequate capture of non-linear effects, although you and I might differ on the specifics. I view it as a race between CO2 accumulation (and its resultant non-linear effects) and fossil fuel depletion. I think that the most glaring changes have been at the margins (like the Arctic) like one should initially expect from an AGW scenario and that those changes have been clearly worse than originally forecast. The decay of the ice pack has been rapid by climate standards. Other areas simply haven't seen the dire impacts that were predicted yet. On the other hand, in the longer term, I can't see any of these 500-550+ ppm scenarios coming to pass due to a lack of economically recoverable fossil fuels (not resources in place... which is a meaningless number). So in a nutshell, worse than forecast in the shorter to medium term (up to 20-30 years) then significantly better in the long term due to the massively erroneous assumption of ever-growing fossil fuel use. We'll have to live with whatever happens for a long time, so I think it's a very serious issue, but I have a growing suspicion that it won't be as high on the list 20 years from now due to an energy crisis. I also think that region to region effects will be very different. Some regions will likely not be impacted nearly so much as others. Simply taking the temperature and adding 2-3C will not in any way adequately describe what happens in a given region.

Nice post, I am too a believer that economically recoverable fossil fuels will run dry well before 450-500ppm is possible. The united states alone has had a 7.7% decrease in co2 since 2006, some say it was partly the economy and others say that energy needs haven't gone down at all.

I'm willing to accept that man might be responsible for some of the warming we have seen, its tough to accept since our only comparable temp record coincides with technological advances that have only recently given us rock solid data. It's kind of a chicken or the egg situation, the tools we have come to acquire in our quest of truth were the result of the very thing we are now trying to access what damages it has potentially caused.

[LakeEffectKing]

LEK, your views on this subject are well documented. I think I can put them fairly (in a nutshell):

You believe in a weak to very weak version of the AGW scenario. Most forecasts made are based on assumptions that lead to faulty modeling and that said modeling is so error ridden that it cannot adequately forecast past a few years at most. You think that natural variability has a bigger say than we do. Your biggest peeve with AGW is that it isn't readily falsifiable like many other scientific theories and in your view there is too much selective picking and choosing (subjectiveness and cherry picking) associated with it.

Larry is trying to take the middle ground here on the climate side and thinks he's being objective. Unfortunately, he's not. What I've seen from him on the climate side pales in comparison to the work he does on the weather side. His focus is much too narrow. Now, I don't mean to pick on just him, because I could say this about most of the climate forum. For some odd reason we tend to treat climate parameters with less vigor. For instance... why look at ice extent when you have ice volume? Why count only one heat indicator when there are multiple routes of heat exchange? Why does everybody assume that the IPCC is totally correct in predicting ever-increasing use of fossil fuels in the face of significant depletion? It seems woefully inadequate from a physics standpoint, and I would ask anybody in here to uphold the same rigor we give on the weather side. For some reason... we don't for the most part.

Personally, I struggled for quite a time in coming to a conclusion on this very subject and found myself initially very critical of long-term models (mostly due to their quirky nature in the weather world), but I found listening to one "side" or another did very little due mostly to the fact that there are so many agendas working in the background and pocket-stuffing on both sides. The best thing is to discard both and look at the most objective data possible and approach it from a more statistical point of view. Having said that, said objective data and stats don't look very promising.

I'll lay my personal conclusions directly on the table so there's no mystery as to where I'm coming from.

Like you, LEK, I'm skeptical of climate modeling in the longer run because of above mentioned faulty assumptions and faulty or inadequate capture of non-linear effects, although you and I might differ on the specifics. I view it as a race between CO2 accumulation (and its resultant non-linear effects) and fossil fuel depletion. I think that the most glaring changes have been at the margins (like the Arctic) like one should initially expect from an AGW scenario and that those changes have been clearly worse than originally forecast. The decay of the ice pack has been rapid by climate standards. Other areas simply haven't seen the dire impacts that were predicted yet. On the other hand, in the longer term, I can't see any of these 500-550+ ppm scenarios coming to pass due to a lack of economically recoverable fossil fuels (not resources in place... which is a meaningless number). So in a nutshell, worse than forecast in the shorter to medium term (up to 20-30 years) then significantly better in the long term due to the massively erroneous assumption of ever-growing fossil fuel use. We'll have to live with whatever happens for a long time, so I think it's a very serious issue, but I have a growing suspicion that it won't be as high on the list 20 years from now due to an energy crisis. I also think that region to region effects will be very different. Some regions will likely not be impacted nearly so much as others. Simply taking the temperature and adding 2-3C will not in any way adequately describe what happens in a given region.

Honestly, you have gotten my views down pretty good! (Stalker! ) I'm not sure if you know, but back some 20+ years ago in college, I was quite a proponent of many of the initial thoughts/hypotheses on AGW...however, I did indeed develop a more skeptical POV as I saw reactions to grad students and some young professors to my "questions"....in a nutshell, they didn't hide their arrogance and insinuated that answering such "trivial" questions was beneath them.

Some of my skeptisim arises from other topics (prevailing dietary recommendations being one of them). But most of my skeptisism has developed as I've grown older, knowing that in the past, nature has "stung" those who have so convincingly proclaimed that they "know her" with a high degree of certainty. I'll take the Under on that every time...and bow to nature, and do so with respect.

So while much of the evidence for AGW is sound, other evidence has higher uncertainty (in my eyes) and is left open for wider interpretaions. And I just have a higher threshold before I go proclaiming most of the prognostications that are associated with so-called catostrophic AGW....

[PhillipS]

Any comments regarding the following maps as well as the respective Joe Bastardi comments?

1) "Cold areas Australia, Antarctica as impressive as hot area over US."

July 1-7, 2012 temp. anom.'s vs. 1981-2010 climo

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

2) "as per winter idea on global temps.. fall about to start. JMA shows week 1. vs wk 3,4 global temps. blue increasing"

"Even this week, just as much blue and cold as red and warm. Evidence shows why climate clowns are deceptive"

JMA anom. fcasts

Well, did you notice that he chose to use the JMA anomaly data (baseline 1981 - 2010) instead of GISS (baseline 1951 - 1980), NCDC (baseline 1901 - 2000) or HADCRUT (baseline 1961 - 1990)? This had the effect of making the positive anomalies look cooler and the negative anomalies look colder.

Why do you suppose he did that? An honest skeptic might think it was a disingenuous attempt to fool the readers.

[The_Global_Warmer]

LEK, your views on this subject are well documented. I think I can put them fairly (in a nutshell):

You believe in a weak to very weak version of the AGW scenario. Most forecasts made are based on assumptions that lead to faulty modeling and that said modeling is so error ridden that it cannot adequately forecast past a few years at most. You think that natural variability has a bigger say than we do. Your biggest peeve with AGW is that it isn't readily falsifiable like many other scientific theories and in your view there is too much selective picking and choosing (subjectiveness and cherry picking) associated with it.

Larry is trying to take the middle ground here on the climate side and thinks he's being objective. Unfortunately, he's not. What I've seen from him on the climate side pales in comparison to the work he does on the weather side. His focus is much too narrow. Now, I don't mean to pick on just him, because I could say this about most of the climate forum. For some odd reason we tend to treat climate parameters with less vigor. For instance... why look at ice extent when you have ice volume? Why count only one heat indicator when there are multiple routes of heat exchange? Why does everybody assume that the IPCC is totally correct in predicting ever-increasing use of fossil fuels in the face of significant depletion? It seems woefully inadequate from a physics standpoint, and I would ask anybody in here to uphold the same rigor we give on the weather side. For some reason... we don't for the most part.

Personally, I struggled for quite a time in coming to a conclusion on this very subject and found myself initially very critical of long-term models (mostly due to their quirky nature in the weather world), but I found listening to one "side" or another did very little due mostly to the fact that there are so many agendas working in the background and pocket-stuffing on both sides. The best thing is to discard both and look at the most objective data possible and approach it from a more statistical point of view. Having said that, said objective data and stats don't look very promising.

I'll lay my personal conclusions directly on the table so there's no mystery as to where I'm coming from.

Like you, LEK, I'm skeptical of climate modeling in the longer run because of above mentioned faulty assumptions and faulty or inadequate capture of non-linear effects, although you and I might differ on the specifics. I view it as a race between CO2 accumulation (and its resultant non-linear effects) and fossil fuel depletion. I think that the most glaring changes have been at the margins (like the Arctic) like one should initially expect from an AGW scenario and that those changes have been clearly worse than originally forecast. The decay of the ice pack has been rapid by climate standards. Other areas simply haven't seen the dire impacts that were predicted yet. On the other hand, in the longer term, I can't see any of these 500-550+ ppm scenarios coming to pass due to a lack of economically recoverable fossil fuels (not resources in place... which is a meaningless number). So in a nutshell, worse than forecast in the shorter to medium term (up to 20-30 years) then significantly better in the long term due to the massively erroneous assumption of ever-growing fossil fuel use. We'll have to live with whatever happens for a long time, so I think it's a very serious issue, but I have a growing suspicion that it won't be as high on the list 20 years from now due to an energy crisis. I also think that region to region effects will be very different. Some regions will likely not be impacted nearly so much as others. Simply taking the temperature and adding 2-3C will not in any way adequately describe what happens in a given region.

Right now at the equator we have hit 397ppm. In the arctic we have reached 400ppm.

We are going up between 2-3ppm per year pending ENSO.

Assuming we stay at that or rise the next 20 years we end up at.

450-465ppm.

30 years:

485-500ppm.

50 years:

510-550ppm.

So we will really have to hit the brick wall and hope changes are made.

On top of that, the methane issue is a big one. big one!

But yeah, I agree long term we don't know what's going to happen.

But short term we have a better Idea...I hate the BS on the short term stuff.

[csnavywx]

Right now at the equator we have hit 397ppm. In the arctic we have reached 400ppm.

We are going up between 2-3ppm per year pending ENSO.

Assuming we stay at that or rise the next 20 years we end up at.

450-465ppm.

30 years:

485-500ppm.

50 years:

510-550ppm.

So we will really have to hit the brick wall and hope changes are made.

On top of that, the methane issue is a big one. big one!

But yeah, I agree long term we don't know what's going to happen.

But short term we have a better Idea...I hate the BS on the short term stuff.

450 won't be that tough to hit due almost entirely to inertia in the system. 500-550 will be. Even if you take the realistic high-end scenarios of oil, gas and coal extraction, we should flatten out well before 550. Then you have to take into account the economic damage and consumption drops from ever-increasing prices over time. Make no mistake, that 10% drop in oil usage in the US has come at a high price. My hunch is that we have a double date with entropy, and the fuel one will be rearing its head sooner than we like.

With the methane releases, I haven't seen enough convincing evidence to see that as anything other than a statistical "tail" event (or small to very small probability). It may come to pass as a relatively minor factor that gets dwarfed in noise as it releases over a longer time scale and then there's that smaller chance it does something more significant. It takes a very significant amount of heat penetration to melt subsea permafrost and I just don't think we're quite to the point where we have to worry about it yet. There are some vulnerable areas but the amount of research on it isn't quite where I'd like it to be.

[TerryM]

With the methane releases, I haven't seen enough convincing evidence to see that as anything other than a statistical "tail" event (or small to very small probability). It may come to pass as a relatively minor factor that gets dwarfed in noise as it releases over a longer time scale and then there's that smaller chance it does something more significant. It takes a very significant amount of heat penetration to melt subsea permafrost and I just don't think we're quite to the point where we have to worry about it yet. There are some vulnerable areas but the amount of research on it isn't quite where I'd like it to be.

I've found S&S's studies (sibilant to a fault), to be convincing and frightening. If a slow emission rate proves true we still have bunches of CO2 to deal with.

This lecture of theirs from 2010 captures the gist of their concerns without filtering by reporters.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:PEIMdPkMpd8J:symposium2010.serdp-estcp.org/content/download/8914/107496/version/3/file/1A_Shakhova_Final.pdf+%22esas%22+3.5Gt&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca

Terry

[TerryM]

Sorry about the above link - seems to have lost all the graphics. I'll see if I can locate a comparable one tomorrow.(unless someone else has something at hand)

Terry

[GaWx]

Last time I checked air temperatures were one small part of the entire system. So GaWx, exactly how do you account for the massive heat gains via SST increases and ice melt?

Magic? "Natural Variability"? It's easy to tag something as true when you arbitrarily narrow the focus as to make it meaningless.

Tell me... exactly what do you think will happen when we get to the point that the rest of the Arctic sea ice cap melts away in the summer? Oh wait... I know! All that energy will go into sensible heat and latent heat of vaporization instead of the latent heat of fusion.

Do yourself a favor. Stop listening to this seriously misled clown and do your own thinking. Look at the real data... the meaningful data. For instance, I prefer ice volume over ice extent. Why? Well... if I forecasted the atmosphere in 2D, I'd bust horribly every time... and for good damn reason.

1) This is a global temp. thread. That's all I'm addressing with my post as opposed to the entire system. What's wrong with addressing it, alone, in this, the appropriate thread?

2) I wasn't taking JB's side nor going against him. I wanted to generate additional robust discussion among various sides on the issue of global temp.'s.

3) I already had posted immediately after my original post on this that the JMA whites, which one could easily assume are neutral, are actually slightly warm anomalies. When one considers that, I'd actually guess that the JMA days 16-29 forecast is actually, if anything, averaging a slight WARM anomaly based on my eyeballing. My eyeballing tells me that about half the map coverage is white and slightly more than half is covered by the sum of white and yellow. Not a single other person noted this. So, I'm assuming that most assumed the average was for a slightly COOL anomaly. Note that I never said or implied it was averaging cool. I was merely quoting JB, who obviously was saying that. So, I think he's clearly wrong with his interpretation of the JMA. Also, note that latitudes of 60-90 are not even included.) Here's a repost of the JMA maps:

[GaWx]

Do yourself a favor and get off the elitist bullS*(**! mantra. Seriously, Larry has been one of the fairest of all in this forum when it comes to objectivity.

Thanks, LEK.

[GaWx]

First, the JMA has often been too cool in the long-range through much of the spring and summer (to date).

An unnecessary and useless characterization.

Don,

1) So, it sounds like the JMA may very well have a cool bias. Moreover, as I mentioned, I think that that JMA day 16-29 fcast is likely slightly warm as opposed to cool based on my eyeballing.

2) I agree. Name calling doesn't accomplish anything and, if anything, just looks bad.

[GaWx]

Well, did you notice that he chose to use the JMA anomaly data (baseline 1981 - 2010) instead of GISS (baseline 1951 - 1980), NCDC (baseline 1901 - 2000) or HADCRUT (baseline 1961 - 1990)? This had the effect of making the positive anomalies look cooler and the negative anomalies look colder.

Why do you suppose he did that? An honest skeptic might think it was a disingenuous attempt to fool the readers.

Keep in mind that I, myself, typed in 1981-2010, myself, above the NCEP map so that the baseline was clear. Also, note that gray is warm, not neutral, on the NCEP map in case you missed it.

[donsutherland1]

Don,

1) So, it sounds like the JMA may very well have a cool bias. Moreover, as I mentioned, I think that that JMA day 16-29 fcast is likely slightly warm as opposed to cool based on my eyeballing.

I agree. Also, one can't be too sure how the increased spread among ensemble members in the very extended time range is playing out in having a damping effect on areas of likely cool and warm anomalies.

Respect to the July 1-7 model forecast cited by JB (from the first point), the July 1-7 re-analysis charts aren't available yet. However, from the July 1-5 period, the cool anomalies in Antarctica were notably smaller than those depicted on the forecast and large areas of warm anomalies there were also present. Much more warmth was also seen in the July 1-5 period across Eurasia than what the model forecast showed. I'll post the comparison when the data is available. No matter how the data works out, I still don't believe it is good practice to use model forecasts to pre-verify outcomes.

[GaWx]

JB is now making the following absolutely false statement on Twitter:

"JMA showing global cooling from roughly 50/50 split week one to almost 70/30 cool to warm week 3,4"

Again, looking at that same JMA day 16-29 fcast map, JB must be misinterpreting the whites as neutral instead of what they are per the

legend, which is 0 to +1. He obviously must be assuming only yellows are warm. So, he must be comparing blues to yellows. Blues do far outweigh yellows. However, he should be comparing the sum of yellows AND WHITES to blues. Does anyone else here see my point? If I had a Twitter account, I'd go on there and refute him on that. There's no doubt in my mind that the 0 to +1 whites, themselves, cover at least close to 50% of the area of the globe shown! So, if anything, warm anomalies (white plus yellows) actually cover something like 55-60% of the map!

[LakeEffectKing]

JB is now making the following absolutely false statement on Twitter:

"JMA showing global cooling from roughly 50/50 split week one to almost 70/30 cool to warm week 3,4"

Again, looking at that same JMA day 16-29 fcast map, JB must be misinterpreting the whites as neutral instead of what they are per the

legend, which is 0 to +1. He obviously must be assuming only yellows are warm. So, he must be comparing blues to yellows. Blues do far outweigh yellows. However, he should be comparing the sum of yellows AND WHITES to blues. Does anyone else here see my point? If I had a Twitter account, I'd go on there and refute him on that. There's no doubt in my mind that the 0 to +1 whites, themselves, cover at least close to 50% of the area of the globe shown! So, if anything, warm anomalies (white plus yellows) actually cover something like 55-60% of the map!

Unless he is using a different display source that might show narrower temp. countours (which could, theoretically, show the "whites" in your chart/map as mostly closer to 0 than +.1 and the blues as mostly closer to -.1 than 0) then I agree, his statement is clearly a misrepresentation.

[GaWx]

Unless he is using a different display source that might show narrower temp. countours (which could, theoretically, show the "whites" in your chart/map as mostly closer to 0 than +.1 and the blues as mostly closer to -.1 than 0) then I agree, his statement is clearly a misrepresentation.

LEK/Folks,

Here is a repost of the map in question..focus on the 2nd of the two maps..this is the same map to which he is referring going to a 70/30 cool to warm split:

JB's statement:

"JMA showing global cooling from roughly 50/50 split week one to almost 70/30 cool to warm week 3,4."

JB is essentially saying that regarding the 2nd map there is slightly more than twice the area of cool anom.'s (blues) vs. warm anom.'s (whites plus yellows although he appears to be assuming whites are neutral rather than warm). That is simply not true!! My rough estimate is that the blues cover only about 40% of the southern hemisphere and ~50-55% of the northern hem. So, I roughly estimate that the blues cover only 45% of the entire map.

*To make it easier to visualize, just imagine the whites being yellows.*

[Mallow]

LEK/Folks,

Here is a repost of the map in question..focus on the 2nd of the two maps..this is the same map to which he is referring going to a 70/30 cool to warm split:

JB's statement:

"JMA showing global cooling from roughly 50/50 split week one to almost 70/30 cool to warm week 3,4."

JB is essentially saying that regarding the 2nd map there is slightly more than twice the area of cool anom.'s (blues) vs. warm anom.'s (whites plus yellows although he appears to be assuming whites are neutral rather than warm). That is simply not true!! My rough estimate is that the blues cover only about 40% of the southern hemisphere and ~50-55% of the northern hem. So, I roughly estimate that the blues cover only 45% of the entire map.

*To make it easier to visualize, just imagine the whites being yellows.*

Right. Moreover, it's a long-range forecast from a terrible model... he is really, really grasping at straws. And the straws aren't even there.

[Snow_Miser]

Very odd stuff going on at AMSU.

Channel 5 temps decreased by .02 Degrees C, but temperatures at 36,000 feet increased by .02 Degrees C.

Could this discrepency be due to a solar effect passing through the atmosphere from top to bottom?

http://www.cbsnews.c...y-solar-flares/

Not saying it is due to a solar effect, but it is interesting to see this discrepency on AMSU.

[ORH_wxman]

Very odd stuff going on at AMSU.

Channel 5 temps decreased by .02 Degrees C, but temperatures at 36,000 feet increased by .02 Degrees C.

Could this discrepency be due to a solar effect passing through the atmosphere from top to bottom?

http://www.cbsnews.c...y-solar-flares/

Not saying it is due to a solar effect, but it is interesting to see this discrepency on AMSU.

36,000 feet is getting pretty high up, those temps could easily be affected by the stratosphere.

[Snow_Miser]

36,000 feet is getting pretty high up, those temps could easily be affected by the stratosphere.

Of course.

I just thought it was interesting to point out.

[GaWx]

http://www.weatherbe...ary-july-7-2012

LEK/Folks,

Here is a repost of the map in question..focus on the 2nd of the two maps..this is the same map to which he is referring going to a 70/30 cool to warm split:

JB's statement:

"JMA showing global cooling from roughly 50/50 split week one to almost 70/30 cool to warm week 3,4."

JB is essentially saying that regarding the 2nd map there is slightly more than twice the area of cool anom.'s (blues) vs. warm anom.'s (whites plus yellows although he appears to be assuming whites are neutral rather than warm). That is simply not true!! My rough estimate is that the blues cover only about 40% of the southern hemisphere and ~50-55% of the northern hem. So, I roughly estimate that the blues cover only 45% of the entire map.

*To make it easier to visualize, just imagine the whites being yellows.*

Folks,

I just got the link to a video JB made yesterday: http://www.weatherbe...ary-july-7-2012

Listen at 3:20! Regarding the JMA days 16-29 fcast, he says "The Japanese model once we get to weeks 3 and 4 here is adamant, it looks like, on it being cool across much of the globe. Look, there's much more blue than yellow here."

Yes, of course, there's much more blue (colder than 0 anomaly) than yellow (warmer than +1 anomaly). There'd almost have to be. He thinks he's comparing apples to apples but he's not at all. No, it is not cool across much of the globe...it is cool across something like 45% of the map and warm across like 55%.

This confirms what I suspected: this clearly implies that JB is falsely assuming that the white areas are neutral whereas they are actually warm anomalies (0 to +1 or the exact opposite of the light blues, which are 0 to -1). This is a very bad mistake. If anyone here has a twitter account and would like to respond to him and correct him, I encourage it. I don't.

By the way and as people who have read my posts should realize, I'm quite open-minded about how much of global warming has been due to AGW and how much from natural cycles, especially the sun. At this point, I want to see how the next five years or so play out to get a better feel for the sun's influence. So, I consider myself to be fairly neutral in general compared to most posters here. My intent was not to take one side or the other here. I just wanted to generate more good discussion. I do think that JB has made some points in the past that deserve to at least be discussed. However, here JB is just flat out mistaken due I assume to carelessness caused by his extreme passion to debate the other side. This is quite disappointing and I hope he avoids errors like this in the future.

[LakeEffectKing]

Through the 16th 2012 continues to rise towards the record highs. The Green lines shows what 2012 if it flat-lined today.

Great call (so far) from 3 weeks ago!!!

[The_Global_Warmer]

Great call (so far) from 3 weeks ago!!!

I think we are about to see a rise. But if we don't it would be a good study case in a couple of months. The Nino 1-2 regions have dropped big time.

[HailMan06]

http://www.weatherbe...ary-july-7-2012

Folks,

I just got the link to a video JB made yesterday: http://www.weatherbe...ary-july-7-2012

Listen at 3:20! Regarding the JMA days 16-29 fcast, he says "The Japanese model once we get to weeks 3 and 4 here is adamant, it looks like, on it being cool across much of the globe. Look, there's much more blue than yellow here."

Yes, on course, there's much more blue (colder than 0 anomaly) than yellow (warmer than +1 anomaly). There'd almost have to be. He thinks he's comparing apples to apples but he's not at all. No, it is not cool across much of the globe...it is cool across something like 45% of the map and warm across like 55%.

This confirms what I suspected: this clearly implies that JB is falsely assuming that the white areas are neutral whereas they are actually warm anomalies (0 to +1 or the exact opposite of the light blues, which are 0 to -1). This is a very bad mistake. If anyone here has a twitter account and would like to respond to him and correct him, I encourage it. I don't.

By the way and as people who have read my posts should realize, I'm quite open-minded about how much of global warming has been due to AGW and how much from natural cycles, especially the sun. At this point, I want to see how the next five years or so play out to get a better feel for the sun's influence. So, I consider myself to be fairly neutral in general compared to most posters here. So, my intent was not to take one side or the other here. I just wanted to generate more good dscussion. I do think that JB has made some points in the past that deserve to at least be discussed. However, here JB is just flat out mistaken due I assume to carelessness caused by his extreme passion to debate the other side. This is quite disappointing and I hope he avoids errors like this in the future.

I seriously believe he is becoming so obsessed with debunking global warming he is dragging the issue into his forecasts. Just look at all his recent seasonal forecasts that have busted by being way too cold. Then when he simply ignores his mistakes and keeps on making more. JB used to be one of my favorite forecasters and always followed since he was one of the most moderate people at AccuWeather. He always has been a skeptic but only because he was an independent thinker tended to not be one-sided. I'm been really disappointed in him and seriously hope he gets some help, because this obsession of his is not helping his credibility or health.

[ben4vols]

I seriously believe he is becoming so obsessed with debunking global warming he is dragging the issue into his forecasts. Just look at all his recent seasonal forecasts that have busted by being way too cold. Then when he simply ignores his mistakes and keeps on making more. JB used to be one of my favorite forecasters and always followed since he was one of the most moderate people at AccuWeather. He always has been a skeptic but only because he was an independent thinker tended to not be one-sided. I'm been really disappointed in him and seriously hope he gets some help, because this obsession of his is not helping his credibility or health.

What was his summer forecast?

[The_Global_Warmer]

Has there been another period like this where the TLT number deviated from the channel 5 number?

[donsutherland1]

What was his summer forecast?

http://www.weatherbell.com/newsletter-3-6-12-a