2012 Global Temperatures

[GaWx]

Global temperatures have plummeted over the last few days.

They are no where even close to 2010, despite the Weak El Nino in the Pacific. 2010 is currently 0.4 Degrees C warmer than 2012 on AMSU at 14,000 feet.

Please provide a link related to this supposed drastic cooling. Are you talking only about 14K feet? If so, what is the significance of cooling at 14K feet vs. the surface? How's the surface been doing the last few days? Links would be appreciated. Thanks.

[ORH_wxman]

Please provide a link related to this supposed drastic cooling. Are you talking only about 14K feet? If so, what is the significance of cooling at 14K feet vs. the surface? How's the surface been doing the last few days? Links would be appreciated. Thanks.

He's talking about this site:

http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/

channel 5 is the basis for the satellite temps (UAH/RSS) but not the only metric. But you can often get a good idea of how the month will shake out looking at them.

[GaWx]

He's talking about this site:

http://discover.itsc....edu/amsutemps/

channel 5 is the basis for the satellite temps (UAH/RSS) but not the only metric. But you can often get a good idea of how the month will shake out looking at them.

I looked at it but am having trouble following it to be honest. What do you think? Is this really of any significance? The way snowlover123 presented it made it sound like a rather big deal. Then again, I may have misinterpreted what he was saying.

[nflwxman]

I looked at it but am having trouble following it to be honest. What do you think? Is this really of any significance? The way snowlover123 presented it made it sound like a rather big deal. Then again, I may have misinterpreted what he was saying.

From what I understand, the AMSU C. 5 temperatures are usually highly correlated to the anomaly results you would expect (at the surface) on a monthly basis (from the sats UAH and RSS). That being said, there are plenty of months in which the surface anomaly seemingly doesn't track at all with AMSU. The data tracks up and down all on a daily basis, thus, it's not prudent to make judgements based on 5 or so days of declining/raising AMSU temps.

[Snow_Miser]

I looked at it but am having trouble following it to be honest. What do you think? Is this really of any significance? The way snowlover123 presented it made it sound like a rather big deal. Then again, I may have misinterpreted what he was saying.

It's a fairly big drop over the last few days, though climo also probably plays some role in the drop.

I think it's unusual that we are running at close to the middle of the pack even though we currently have a weak El Niño. The ONI for 2010 is only 0.8-0.9 Degrees C warmer than 2012, yet global temps are close to 0.4 Degrees C below 2010 currently.

It's interesting to see how cool 2012 will be in relation to 2010 in the near-future.

[Snow_Miser]

From what I understand, the AMSU C. 5 temperatures are usually highly correlated to the anomaly results you would expect (at the surface) on a monthly basis (from the sats UAH and RSS). That being said, there are plenty of months in which the surface anomaly seemingly doesn't track at all with AMSU. The data tracks up and down all on a daily basis, thus, it's not prudent to make judgements based on 5 or so days of declining/raising AMSU temps.

The atmospheric temperatures are largely determined by the surface radiation. Therefore, of the surface is warmer, you would generally expect the atmosphere to be warmer as well.

[nflwxman]

Technically, we are still in ENSO neutral

conditions (correct me if I'm wrong). Also, isn't there generally. 3-6 month lag between ENSO changes and temps?

[Snow_Miser]

Technically, we are still in ENSO neutral

conditions (correct me if I'm wrong). Also, isn't there generally. 3-6 month lag between ENSO changes and temps?

It isn't "officially" a Weak El Nino, because the SSTs in Nino 3.4 have not been higher than 0.5 Degrees C above average for a few months, but they are definitely currently into Weak El Nino territory.

There is also a 3-4 month or so lag in the Climate System, but we should already be seeing the effects of the increase in SSTs in the Nino regions, since they started increasing in late-2011.

I think that temperatures will probably increase some more in relation to the weak-El Nino, but it's interesting to see the temperatures significantly cooler than 2010 so far this year.

[bluewave]

It isn't "officially" a Weak El Nino, because the SSTs in Nino 3.4 have not been higher than 0.5 Degrees C above average for a few months, but they are definitely currently into Weak El Nino territory.

There is also a 3-4 month or so lag in the Climate System, but we should already be seeing the effects of the increase in SSTs in the Nino regions, since they started increasing in late-2011.

I think that temperatures will probably increase some more in relation to the weak-El Nino, but it's interesting to see the temperatures significantly cooler than 2010 so far this year.

You can't really compare 2012 to 2010 because the 2010 El Nino developed in 2009. So we are at the same point

in development that we were in summer 2009 right now. The year to compare 2010 to will be 2013. That being said,

this looks to be a weaker El Nino than 2010 was so it's uncertain what the 2013 global temperatures will look like at

this point.

The Northern Hemisphere through July is running +.70 vs +.60 for 2009.

[ORH_wxman]

The Northern Hemisphere through July is running +.95 vs +.78 for 2009.

The Southern Hemisphere through July is running +0.28 vs +0.46 in 2009.

[ORH_wxman]

I looked at it but am having trouble following it to be honest. What do you think? Is this really of any significance? The way snowlover123 presented it made it sound like a rather big deal. Then again, I may have misinterpreted what he was saying.

It wasn't a big deal unless you were really scutanizing how August may come out...but even then a few day drop isn't that significant. Even a several week drop or rise isn't a big deal in the scheme of things. The data is noisy on that level.

[bluewave]

The Southern Hemisphere through July is running +0.28 vs +0.46 in 2009.

I suspect we'll continue to see more of a disparity as the NH continues to warm faster.

[ORH_wxman]

Where are you getting the NH temp data from? I assumed GISS, but it doesn't look right because on GISS, NH temps are running about 0.10C warmer than 2009 and not 0.17C.

This is confirmed by the global average which says we are running about 0.04C cooler than 2009 through July.

[bluewave]

Where are you getting the NH temp data from? I assumed GISS, but it doesn't look right because on GISS, NH temps are running about 0.10C warmer than 2009 and not 0.17C.

This is confirmed by the global average which says we are running about 0.04C cooler than 2009 through July.

That's weird. Another dataset must have come up in the link I was looking at. This year is +.70 vs +.60 in 2009.

Australia and other spots in the SH are cooler this year so far vs 2009.

[skierinvermont]

I looked at it but am having trouble following it to be honest. What do you think? Is this really of any significance? The way snowlover123 presented it made it sound like a rather big deal. Then again, I may have misinterpreted what he was saying.

Monthly anomalies for the lower troposphere as measured by UAH and RSS can fluctuate dramatically from month to month. Even more dramatic swings can occur over the course of a week or two. A .4C drop or rise over the course of a few weeks is not too uncommon.

Surface anomalies also can fluctuate quite a bit month to month.

Annual or semi-annual anomalies tend to be more stable with short term variability highly correlated to the ENSO state.

The AGW signal is most apparent over 15 to 30 years of data. ENSO becomes a fairly small factor after about 15 years, and 30 years helps to encompass several solar cycles. But ENSO and solar can still influence 15 or 30 year temperature trends.

[skierinvermont]

From what I understand, the AMSU C. 5 temperatures are usually highly correlated to the anomaly results you would expect (at the surface) on a monthly basis (from the sats UAH and RSS). That being said, there are plenty of months in which the surface anomaly seemingly doesn't track at all with AMSU. The data tracks up and down all on a daily basis, thus, it's not prudent to make judgements based on 5 or so days of declining/raising AMSU temps.

UAH and RSS do not measure surface temperature. They measure the temperature of the lower troposphere with a weighting function that is centered at 14,000ft.

CH5 is highly correlated to the UAH and RSS monthly anomalies because they both measure the same thing (lower tropospheric temperatures). The primary source of data for UAH and RSS is CH5. There may be some other data incorporated from other channels, and some data corrections applied. But that is the only difference.

Lower tropospheric temperatures from UAH, RSS, or CH5 are NOT closely correlated with surface temperatures on a monthly basis.

[tacoman25]

UAH and RSS do not measure surface temperature. They measure the temperature of the lower troposphere with a weighting function that is centered at 14,000ft.

CH5 is highly correlated to the UAH and RSS monthly anomalies because they both measure the same thing (lower tropospheric temperatures). The primary source of data for UAH and RSS is CH5. There may be some other data incorporated from other channels, and some data corrections applied. But that is the only difference.

Lower tropospheric temperatures from UAH, RSS, or CH5 are NOT closely correlated with surface temperatures on a monthly basis.

In some ways they are, though. If you look at AMSU satellite temperature maps, the areas of the globe where the lower troposphere is warm/cool tend to match up very well overall with surface temperature maps. So the lower troposphere temps do seem to be closely correlated with the surface temps in that respect.

[skierinvermont]

In some ways they are, though. If you look at AMSU satellite temperature maps, the areas of the globe where the lower troposphere is warm/cool tend to match up very well overall with surface temperature maps. So the lower troposphere temps do seem to be closely correlated with the surface temps in that respect.

Yes spatially they are correlated in that if it's hot in the LT in eastern Russia, it's hot at the surface.

But the overall gloal anomalies are not very well correlated month to month.

[tacoman25]

Yes spatially they are correlated in that if it's hot in the LT in eastern Russia, it's hot at the surface.

But the overall gloal anomalies are not very well correlated month to month.

Right. I just wanted to make sure people who may not know were aware that even though the monthly anomalies don't always correlate for whatever reason, it's not like the lower troposphere temps are not related in any way to the surface temps. It's basically the same airmasses affecting both the LT and surface.

[ORH_wxman]

Channel 5 on AMSU is currently running almost exactly even with 2011 to date in August (0.007C warmer), so I am going to guess that the UAH number is close to the +0.33C from last August. within a couple of hundreths.

[GaWx]

"Inconvenient Truth: CO2 Disconnect With Global Temperature Continues!

By Joe Bastardi · September 1, 2012

With climate change a huge issue this election season, we should review the latest facts on the matter. In this chart, CO2 continues its rise. The global temperatures, however, have not only leveled off, they have begun to fall. This result is in line with natural climate cycle theory.

The temperatures are from the Hadley Center which the IPCC has been using as one of their measuring tools for the global temperature. The dashed blue line represents the sea surface temperature. Since the oceans have 1000 times the heat capacity of the air, and C02 makes up only .0004 of the air (of which man has contributed .00002), logic tells us C02 cannot be causing the warming. The logical conclusion then is that the cyclical nature of the ocean temperatures are a cause, not C02. It makes no sense to blame man, who has contributed .00002 to a gas, which has 1/1000th the heat capacity of the ocean, for the planetary temperature variations.

Using practical application, if the admission to the school of your choice, be it Cornell, or lets say Columbia or Harvard, depended on you answering this question -- "Given the facts presented in the chart above, is CO2 driving the Earth’s temperature?" -- what would your answer be?

We must face the facts, not imagine them."

Link to chart:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/1-s2-0-s0921818112001658-gr11.jpg

I found this via JB's Twitter. Any comments, pro or con?

[PhillipS]

"Inconvenient Truth: CO2 Disconnect With Global Temperature Continues!

By Joe Bastardi · September 1, 2012

With climate change a huge issue this election season, we should review the latest facts on the matter. In this chart, CO2 continues its rise. The global temperatures, however, have not only leveled off, they have begun to fall. This result is in line with natural climate cycle theory.

The temperatures are from the Hadley Center which the IPCC has been using as one of their measuring tools for the global temperature. The dashed blue line represents the sea surface temperature. Since the oceans have 1000 times the heat capacity of the air, and C02 makes up only .0004 of the air (of which man has contributed .00002), logic tells us C02 cannot be causing the warming. The logical conclusion then is that the cyclical nature of the ocean temperatures are a cause, not C02. It makes no sense to blame man, who has contributed .00002 to a gas, which has 1/1000th the heat capacity of the ocean, for the planetary temperature variations.

Using practical application, if the admission to the school of your choice, be it Cornell, or lets say Columbia or Harvard, depended on you answering this question -- "Given the facts presented in the chart above, is CO2 driving the Earth’s temperature?" -- what would your answer be?

We must face the facts, not imagine them."

Link to chart:

http://wattsupwithth...001658-gr11.jpg

I found this via JB's Twitter. Any comments, pro or con?

Only that JB is a disingenuous clown who denies the enormous body of climate theory and data, prefering innstead 'common sense'. Anybody who gives him a nanogram of credibility is a fool.

I guess that's a con.

[donsutherland1]

"Inconvenient Truth: CO2 Disconnect With Global Temperature Continues!

By Joe Bastardi · September 1, 2012

With climate change a huge issue this election season, we should review the latest facts on the matter. In this chart, CO2 continues its rise. The global temperatures, however, have not only leveled off, they have begun to fall. This result is in line with natural climate cycle theory.

The temperatures are from the Hadley Center which the IPCC has been using as one of their measuring tools for the global temperature. The dashed blue line represents the sea surface temperature. Since the oceans have 1000 times the heat capacity of the air, and C02 makes up only .0004 of the air (of which man has contributed .00002), logic tells us C02 cannot be causing the warming. The logical conclusion then is that the cyclical nature of the ocean temperatures are a cause, not C02. It makes no sense to blame man, who has contributed .00002 to a gas, which has 1/1000th the heat capacity of the ocean, for the planetary temperature variations.

Using practical application, if the admission to the school of your choice, be it Cornell, or lets say Columbia or Harvard, depended on you answering this question -- "Given the facts presented in the chart above, is CO2 driving the Earth’s temperature?" -- what would your answer be?

We must face the facts, not imagine them."

Link to chart:

http://wattsupwithth...001658-gr11.jpg

I found this via JB's Twitter. Any comments, pro or con?

Three points:

1) At this time, the global land and ocean temperature trend remains positive. Both the 30-year moving average and 30-year trend line are positive. As noted previously, some of the temperature charts JB uses appear to have a cold bias, consistently showing monthly global anomalies more than 0.1°C below the actual figures (using the 1981-2010 baseline).

2) The "greenhouse effect" is a well-established principle in physics. Atmospheric CO2 is rising, therefore the some portion of energy that once escaped is now being trapped. Although human emissions are modest compared to total emissions of CO2, it is the human emissions that have made the marginal difference of creating a persistent imbalance under which CO2 emissions exceed CO2 absorption. In other words, were there no human emissions (actually were human emissions at about 50% of the current level, there would still be a balance between emissions and absorption). The marginal impact is the correct way to analyze the problem. Pointing to small percentages is the wrong way to do so.

3) Natural oceanic cycles (which redistribute heat) occur within the context of the forcings, which add energy to the earth's climate system. The energy imbalance is well-documented. Forcings are natural (solar, volcanoes, orbital fluctuations) and anthropogenic (greenhouse gas emissions). The latter has increased in relative importance. Hence, the natural oceanic cycles and even shorter-term synoptic patterns are playing out in the context of a warming world (with the growing anthropogenic forcing adding energy to the earth's climate system).

[WeatherRusty]

"Inconvenient Truth: CO2 Disconnect With Global Temperature Continues!

By Joe Bastardi · September 1, 2012

With climate change a huge issue this election season, we should review the latest facts on the matter. In this chart, CO2 continues its rise. The global temperatures, however, have not only leveled off, they have begun to fall. This result is in line with natural climate cycle theory.

The temperatures are from the Hadley Center which the IPCC has been using as one of their measuring tools for the global temperature. The dashed blue line represents the sea surface temperature. Since the oceans have 1000 times the heat capacity of the air, and C02 makes up only .0004 of the air (of which man has contributed .00002), logic tells us C02 cannot be causing the warming. The logical conclusion then is that the cyclical nature of the ocean temperatures are a cause, not C02. It makes no sense to blame man, who has contributed .00002 to a gas, which has 1/1000th the heat capacity of the ocean, for the planetary temperature variations.

Using practical application, if the admission to the school of your choice, be it Cornell, or lets say Columbia or Harvard, depended on you answering this question -- "Given the facts presented in the chart above, is CO2 driving the Earth’s temperature?" -- what would your answer be?

We must face the facts, not imagine them."

Link to chart:

http://wattsupwithth...001658-gr11.jpg

I found this via JB's Twitter. Any comments, pro or con?

1) Short term trends = natural variability

2) Long term trend = dominated by CO2 and a strengthening greenhouse effect

It's not either/or, as Bastardi seems want to conclude.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Bob Tisdale hasn't updated his pretty graphs yet, so these will have to do. August 2012 averaged 0.275C anomaly up a bit from July and about 0.05C below the 2010 peak.

display plot monoiv2.ctl

ssta 1

nov2003 to aug2012

Weekly SSTs:

display plot oiv2.ctl

ssta 1

03jan2003 to 29aug2012

A better view:

display plot oiv2.ctl

ssta 1

03jan2009 to 29aug2012

This weekly view is easier to see the recent peaks. The 3rd week in August peaked above 0.3C about 0.31C, the most recent week is slightly lower but still slightly above 0.3C.

Current Channel 5 Temps:

09/02 253.714, 253.654, 253.462, 253.798, 253.635, 253.632, 253.485, 253.656, 253.919, 253.728, 253.843

While taking wildly different paths 2011 and 2012 both ended up pretty even in August. 2011 had a TLT of .33 in August and a .29 in September. 2010 had a .44 in August and a .48 in September.

I am foreseeing Mr. Joe Bastardi looking very very bad during the next 6-12 months unless ENSO takes a big dive the other way.

[Msalgado]

It will be interesting to see if the low levels of arctic ice help keep global temps this fall a bit warmer than in the past.

[ben4vols]

I am foreseeing Mr. Joe Bastardi looking very very bad during the next 6-12 months unless ENSO takes a big dive the other way.

Still hoping for a decent Nino? Not looking good.

[nflwxman]

Still hoping for a decent Nino? Not looking good.

Whether there is a weak/moderate/strong nino in 2012-2013 is not really important outside of temporarily spiking global temperatures (and potentially bringing awareness to the issue once again). It's clear from Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) and other studies that discuss natural variability as it pertains to global warming of the last 10 years that the anthropogenic forcing of global temperatures has not gone away or slowed. We all know that 2011 was the warmest La Nina dominented year on record, which should count for something (at least in the scientific community) The frequency at which El Nino and La Nina manifests likely will not change from century to century, thus whether we spike the warmth now or later from El Nino is irrelevant from a scientic perspective. The upward trend will show itself over time as ENSO plays out.

[ben4vols]

It's clear from Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) and other studies that discuss natural variability as it pertains to global warming of the last 10 years that the anthropogenic forcing of global temperatures has not gone away or slowed.

The poor temp. data, has it not been adjusted enough?

[nflwxman]

The poor temp. data, has it not been adjusted enough?

The true scientist doesn't take data at face value, they try to understand why and how, no? Of course, there are folks who for the sake of making a particular point never really reveal the how and why. For them, it's easier just to say global warming stopped in 2000 (or whatever the start year is for cherry picking) and say, end of story. Thankfully, there are scientistics who took the time to understand the forcing behind global temps.