2011 9th Warmest Year in Satellite Record

[konradv]

what is more important, the actual average temp of any particular year or the change from the proceeding year? the 90's saw a lot of increase but the 00's were stagnant at a high average. which measurement carries more information, the actual temperature or the rate of change?

is CO2 more important than cloud cover? or is it Matthew's beloved ENSO? I don't think we have peeled away enough onion skin to know yet but I think we should keep measuring everything we can. the answer is down the road and we will find it. even after this disasterous detour into the CO2 cul-de-sac we have taken.

How is it a cul-de-sac? GHGs will always figure in to overall climate influences. The only questions are "how much" and "when", not "if".

 

[konradv]

another gay thread about a topic that brings yawns in 2012............

Relative to the public at large, nobody cares about this shit anymore!!!

I've been noticing that you've been gravitating to the gay threads! Care to explain? Got something to share?

 

[konradv]

what is more important, the actual average temp of any particular year or the change from the proceeding year? the 90's saw a lot of increase but the 00's were stagnant at a high average. which measurement carries more information, the actual temperature or the rate of change?

Ah yes, the moldy old denier cult myths - "warming stopped in 1998' & 'temperatures flat for last decade'.

Global warming greatest in past decade
PhysOrg.com
September 1, 2008
(excerpts)

Researchers confirm that surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere were warmer over the last 10 years than any time during the last 1300 years, and, if the climate scientists include the somewhat controversial data derived from tree-ring records, the warming is anomalous for at least 1700 years.

"Some have argued that tree-ring data is unacceptable for this type of study," says Michael Mann, associate professor of meteorology and geosciences and director of Penn State's Earth System Science Center. "Now we can eliminate tree rings and still have enough data from other so-called 'proxies' to derive a long-term Northern Hemisphere temperature record." The proxies used by the researchers included information from marine and lake sediment cores, ice cores, coral cores and tree rings. "We looked at a much expanded database and our methods are more sophisticated than those used previously," says Mann.


What has global warming done since 1998?
Last updated on 18 December 2011
(excerpts)

To claim global warming stopped in 1998 overlooks one simple physical reality - the land and atmosphere are just a small fraction of the Earth's climate (albeit the part we inhabit). The entire planet is accumulating heat due to an energy imbalance. The atmosphere is warming. Oceans are accumulating energy. Land absorbs energy and ice absorbs heat to melt. To get the full picture on global warming, you need to view the Earth's entire heat content.

This analysis is performed in An observationally based energy balance for the Earth since 1950 (Murphy 2009) which adds up heat content from the ocean, atmosphere, land and ice. To calculate the Earth's total heat content, the authors used data of ocean heat content from the upper 700 metres. They included heat content from deeper waters down to 3000 metres depth. They computed atmospheric heat content using the surface temperature record and the heat capacity of the troposphere. Land and ice heat content (the energy required to melt ice) were also included.

Figure 1: Total Earth Heat Content anomaly from 1950 (Murphy 2009). Ocean data taken from Domingues et al 2008. Land + Atmosphere includes the heat absorbed to melt ice.

A look at the Earth's total heat content clearly shows global warming has continued past 1998. The planet is still accumulating heat. So why do surface temperature records show 1998 as the hottest year on record? We see in Figure 1 that the heat capacity of the land and atmosphere is small compared to the ocean. Hence, relatively small exchanges of heat between the atmosphere and ocean can cause significant changes in surface temperature.

In 1998, an abnormally strong El Nino caused heat transfer from the Pacific Ocean to the atmosphere. Consequently, we experienced above average surface temperatures. Conversely, the last few years have seen moderate La Nina conditions which had a cooling effect on global temperatures. And the last few months have swung back to warmer El Nino conditions. This has coincided with the warmest June-August sea surface temperatures on record. This internal variation where heat is shuffled around our climate is the reason why surface temperature is such a noisy signal.






CO2 is definitely more important than either one of those in the long term. CO2 levels can keep increasing indefinitely and the greenhouse effects will get greater. Cloud cover can both reflect sunlight away from the Earth and trap heat energy underneath them (clear winter nights are much colder than cloud covered winter nights) and the ENSO variations just move the heat around between the atmosphere and the oceans. Rising CO2 levels will inevitably trap even more heat energy in the Earth's atmosphere and oceans.

I don't think we have peeled away enough onion skin to know yet but I think we should keep measuring everything we can. the answer is down the road and we will find it. even after this disasterous(sic) detour into the CO2 cul-de-sac we have taken.

I'm more interested in what the professional climate scientists "think" than what some confused and deluded random bystander like yourself "thinks". That you are in fact a deluded tool of the fossil fuel industry is clearly revealed by your use of the idiotic and meaningless denier cult phrase: "CO2 cul-de-sac". The fact that you deny the scientifically established physics of greenhouse gases shows you to be just another anti-science righwingnut clueless denier dupe.

I am more interested in what the data say than in the exaggerated and distorted thoughts and conclusions of some of the 'professional climate scientists'. I am even less interested in your ad homs like "deluded tool of the fossil fuel industry" and "anti-science righwingnut clueless denier dupe". but if that is your style and it makes you happy, go right ahead.

you think I am being duped and deluded but you never consider that you are at risk of the same thing by credulously believing everything as presented to you, especially when you get it via SkepticalScience.

ie- is this graph reasonable or is it emotionally affecting you to come to erroneous conclusions? you have to examine the labelling of the x and y axis and the positioning of the origin. if the intent was to show that the heat content of the atmosphere is miniscule compared to the oceans then it is alright. but if it is trying to show the relative increase of heat content of the oceans it is wildly deceiving. the average global temp is what? ~288K? and the increase has been less than 1K since 1950 so the actual increase in heat content is a very small fraction. are the measurements before ARGO widespread and reliable? not really but we have to start with something. here is a graph of NODC figures since 1955, before and after the adjustment in 2010.

notice that the heat content now looks more like the the global temp curve, which is reasonable. another thing to notice is the type of corrections that were made when it was no longer possible to hide decreased rate of warming. unlike Hansen's GISS land temp adjustments that are unaccountable to scrutiny the OHC adjustments had to make sense. so the artificial lowering of older measurements and raising of newer measurements had to be reversed.

I dont mind that you speak up and defend CAGW. once you make up your mind it is hard to change but I have never been close to being convinced that it is the only or even the best description of the realities of the last few hundreds or thousands of years. I do find it disheartening that so many people like you are willing to mix the scientific and political components together and then resort to an us-vs-them mentality where you no longer even think about the direction the evidence is leading.

I find it strange that those who tout natural cycles would hang their hat, not on an actual decrease in temperature, but on a "decreased RATE of warming". Am I missing something here or are natural cycles invoked only to bash the other guy?

 

[konradv]

That's another way of saying "temperatures have been flat."

Even assuming that 9 of the top 10 temps being from the last decade means that temps have been "flat" for a decade, shouldn't they be cooling? Isn't a warm cycle supposed to be followed by a cool cycle? There hasn't been a cooling cycle for 100 years! Each warm cycle has been followed by a flat cycle that was followed by a new warm cycle that begins about the same place the old warm cycle left off. What has happened to the natural cooling cycles????

100 years is a very short time when you look at the history of the climate. We had a warm period during the roman empire and another one that peaked around 1200 AD. That's a separation of roughly 1000 years. Our climate has been warming since about the year 1650. 100 years is nothing

Those cooling periods were not good times for the human race. They were times of famine, drought and blight.

What cooling period? We're talking about warming! Are you pushing an effort to increase GHGs to forestall the coming Ice Age?!?!

 

[bripat9643]

Even assuming that 9 of the top 10 temps being from the last decade means that temps have been "flat" for a decade, shouldn't they be cooling? Isn't a warm cycle supposed to be followed by a cool cycle? There hasn't been a cooling cycle for 100 years! Each warm cycle has been followed by a flat cycle that was followed by a new warm cycle that begins about the same place the old warm cycle left off. What has happened to the natural cooling cycles????

100 years is a very short time when you look at the history of the climate. We had a warm period during the roman empire and another one that peaked around 1200 AD. That's a separation of roughly 1000 years. Our climate has been warming since about the year 1650. 100 years is nothing

Those cooling periods were not good times for the human race. They were times of famine, drought and blight.

What cooling period? We're talking about warming! Are you pushing an effort to increase GHGs to forestall the coming Ice Age?!?!

You really don't know shit about anything, do you, dipshit?

 

[konradv]

100 years is a very short time when you look at the history of the climate. We had a warm period during the roman empire and another one that peaked around 1200 AD. That's a separation of roughly 1000 years. Our climate has been warming since about the year 1650. 100 years is nothing

Those cooling periods were not good times for the human race. They were times of famine, drought and blight.

What cooling period? We're talking about warming! Are you pushing an effort to increase GHGs to forestall the coming Ice Age?!?!

You really don't know shit about anything, do you, dipshit?

I know you're joke, !!!

 

[IanC]

what is more important, the actual average temp of any particular year or the change from the proceeding year? the 90's saw a lot of increase but the 00's were stagnant at a high average. which measurement carries more information, the actual temperature or the rate of change?

is CO2 more important than cloud cover? or is it Matthew's beloved ENSO? I don't think we have peeled away enough onion skin to know yet but I think we should keep measuring everything we can. the answer is down the road and we will find it. even after this disasterous detour into the CO2 cul-de-sac we have taken.

How is it a cul-de-sac? GHGs will always figure in to overall climate influences. The only questions are "how much" and "when", not "if".

CO2 culdesac means that the science has gone down a dead end road and continues to circle around just one factor, CO2. we need to back up and travel other roads and factors before we get to the destination. we cant get there stuck on the wrong block going around in circles, it is a different block and probably on a different street.

 

[IanC]

Ah yes, the moldy old denier cult myths - "warming stopped in 1998' & 'temperatures flat for last decade'.

Global warming greatest in past decade
PhysOrg.com
September 1, 2008
(excerpts)

Researchers confirm that surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere were warmer over the last 10 years than any time during the last 1300 years, and, if the climate scientists include the somewhat controversial data derived from tree-ring records, the warming is anomalous for at least 1700 years.

"Some have argued that tree-ring data is unacceptable for this type of study," says Michael Mann, associate professor of meteorology and geosciences and director of Penn State's Earth System Science Center. "Now we can eliminate tree rings and still have enough data from other so-called 'proxies' to derive a long-term Northern Hemisphere temperature record." The proxies used by the researchers included information from marine and lake sediment cores, ice cores, coral cores and tree rings. "We looked at a much expanded database and our methods are more sophisticated than those used previously," says Mann.


What has global warming done since 1998?
Last updated on 18 December 2011
(excerpts)

To claim global warming stopped in 1998 overlooks one simple physical reality - the land and atmosphere are just a small fraction of the Earth's climate (albeit the part we inhabit). The entire planet is accumulating heat due to an energy imbalance. The atmosphere is warming. Oceans are accumulating energy. Land absorbs energy and ice absorbs heat to melt. To get the full picture on global warming, you need to view the Earth's entire heat content.

This analysis is performed in An observationally based energy balance for the Earth since 1950 (Murphy 2009) which adds up heat content from the ocean, atmosphere, land and ice. To calculate the Earth's total heat content, the authors used data of ocean heat content from the upper 700 metres. They included heat content from deeper waters down to 3000 metres depth. They computed atmospheric heat content using the surface temperature record and the heat capacity of the troposphere. Land and ice heat content (the energy required to melt ice) were also included.

Figure 1: Total Earth Heat Content anomaly from 1950 (Murphy 2009). Ocean data taken from Domingues et al 2008. Land + Atmosphere includes the heat absorbed to melt ice.

A look at the Earth's total heat content clearly shows global warming has continued past 1998. The planet is still accumulating heat. So why do surface temperature records show 1998 as the hottest year on record? We see in Figure 1 that the heat capacity of the land and atmosphere is small compared to the ocean. Hence, relatively small exchanges of heat between the atmosphere and ocean can cause significant changes in surface temperature.

In 1998, an abnormally strong El Nino caused heat transfer from the Pacific Ocean to the atmosphere. Consequently, we experienced above average surface temperatures. Conversely, the last few years have seen moderate La Nina conditions which had a cooling effect on global temperatures. And the last few months have swung back to warmer El Nino conditions. This has coincided with the warmest June-August sea surface temperatures on record. This internal variation where heat is shuffled around our climate is the reason why surface temperature is such a noisy signal.






CO2 is definitely more important than either one of those in the long term. CO2 levels can keep increasing indefinitely and the greenhouse effects will get greater. Cloud cover can both reflect sunlight away from the Earth and trap heat energy underneath them (clear winter nights are much colder than cloud covered winter nights) and the ENSO variations just move the heat around between the atmosphere and the oceans. Rising CO2 levels will inevitably trap even more heat energy in the Earth's atmosphere and oceans.





I'm more interested in what the professional climate scientists "think" than what some confused and deluded random bystander like yourself "thinks". That you are in fact a deluded tool of the fossil fuel industry is clearly revealed by your use of the idiotic and meaningless denier cult phrase: "CO2 cul-de-sac". The fact that you deny the scientifically established physics of greenhouse gases shows you to be just another anti-science righwingnut clueless denier dupe.

I am more interested in what the data say than in the exaggerated and distorted thoughts and conclusions of some of the 'professional climate scientists'. I am even less interested in your ad homs like "deluded tool of the fossil fuel industry" and "anti-science righwingnut clueless denier dupe". but if that is your style and it makes you happy, go right ahead.

you think I am being duped and deluded but you never consider that you are at risk of the same thing by credulously believing everything as presented to you, especially when you get it via SkepticalScience.

ie- is this graph reasonable or is it emotionally affecting you to come to erroneous conclusions? you have to examine the labelling of the x and y axis and the positioning of the origin. if the intent was to show that the heat content of the atmosphere is miniscule compared to the oceans then it is alright. but if it is trying to show the relative increase of heat content of the oceans it is wildly deceiving. the average global temp is what? ~288K? and the increase has been less than 1K since 1950 so the actual increase in heat content is a very small fraction. are the measurements before ARGO widespread and reliable? not really but we have to start with something. here is a graph of NODC figures since 1955, before and after the adjustment in 2010.

notice that the heat content now looks more like the the global temp curve, which is reasonable. another thing to notice is the type of corrections that were made when it was no longer possible to hide decreased rate of warming. unlike Hansen's GISS land temp adjustments that are unaccountable to scrutiny the OHC adjustments had to make sense. so the artificial lowering of older measurements and raising of newer measurements had to be reversed.

I dont mind that you speak up and defend CAGW. once you make up your mind it is hard to change but I have never been close to being convinced that it is the only or even the best description of the realities of the last few hundreds or thousands of years. I do find it disheartening that so many people like you are willing to mix the scientific and political components together and then resort to an us-vs-them mentality where you no longer even think about the direction the evidence is leading.

I find it strange that those who tout natural cycles would hang their hat, not on an actual decrease in temperature, but on a "decreased RATE of warming". Am I missing something here or are natural cycles invoked only to bash the other guy?

the temp of the earth has been amazingly stable. the graph of 'avg' temp would be pretty near impossible to even see if we plotted the actual ups and downs of daily temps.

konradv- you wonder why I am more concerned about rates of increase or decrease? things dont change unless some force is acting on them. times of change mean imbalance, times of stability mean less imbalance. if you want to find important factors you need to examine times of change where the imbalance is larger than the background noise.

 

[IanC]

and I put up the graph of OHCs before and after the adjustments of 2010 to highlight that you cant always take data at face value. there is a lot of leeway built in that can be influenced by those who present the data. past measurements dont stay the same and the shape of the curves seem to change arbitrarily. compare the shape of Hansen's adjustments for continental US temps at the turn of the millenium

and who can forget the drop in post 2000 US temps after McIntyre pointed out the Y2K bug? those corrections were adjusted out of existence within a couple of years and the new values for the 00's are higher than ever.

 

[Old Rocks]

Continental US is less than 2% of the world's area. Had you added Alaska to that, the graph would look very differant. Also, please link the source of the graph.

 

[IanC]

Old Rocks- yes the continental US is less than 2% of the world's area. all land areas are less than 30% of the total area. the difference is that the ContUS has been measured extensively for quite a while whereas most of the oceans and much of the rest of the land mass has not. if US temps are that easy to manipulate why should we believe that historical ocean and non western style countries have records that are pristeen and reliable, with no added biases?

the blink comparator is made from 2 GISS graphs. we have been over this before. the earlier graph even 'disappeared' for a while until complaints were made and it was restored at the GISS website.

 

[konradv]

what is more important, the actual average temp of any particular year or the change from the proceeding year? the 90's saw a lot of increase but the 00's were stagnant at a high average. which measurement carries more information, the actual temperature or the rate of change?

is CO2 more important than cloud cover? or is it Matthew's beloved ENSO? I don't think we have peeled away enough onion skin to know yet but I think we should keep measuring everything we can. the answer is down the road and we will find it. even after this disasterous detour into the CO2 cul-de-sac we have taken.

How is it a cul-de-sac? GHGs will always figure in to overall climate influences. The only questions are "how much" and "when", not "if".

CO2 culdesac means that the science has gone down a dead end road and continues to circle around just one factor, CO2. we need to back up and travel other roads and factors before we get to the destination. we cant get there stuck on the wrong block going around in circles, it is a different block and probably on a different street.

Isn't that because it's the factor that's changing non-naturally? If you don't think it's coming from man, the skeptic/denier side is going to have to come up with a plausible explanation. Other factors come and go, but seem to get most of the attention, while my question never gets answered.

 

[IanC]

as for Alaska-

The figure at right shows clearly that this trend is non-linear: a linear trend might have been expected from the fairly steady observed increase of CO2 during this time period. The figure shows the temperature departure from the long-term mean (1949-2009) for all stations. It can be seen that there are large variations from year to year and the 5-year moving average demonstrates large increase in 1976. The period 1949 to 1975 was substantially colder than the period from 1977 to 2009, however since 1977 little additional warming has occurred in Alaska with the exception of Barrow and a few other locations. The stepwise shift appearing in the temperature data in 1976 corresponds to a phase shift of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation from a negative phase to a positive phase

the linear trend for Alaska is quite high. before I asked if absolute temps were more important, or if the rate of change was more informative. in this case it seems as if noticing the steep change that occured when the PDO switched is a primary factor and the trend over the whole period is in fact somewhat misleading.

more info and links at Temperature Change in Alaska

 

[IanC]

How is it a cul-de-sac? GHGs will always figure in to overall climate influences. The only questions are "how much" and "when", not "if".

CO2 culdesac means that the science has gone down a dead end road and continues to circle around just one factor, CO2. we need to back up and travel other roads and factors before we get to the destination. we cant get there stuck on the wrong block going around in circles, it is a different block and probably on a different street.

Isn't that because it's the factor that's changing non-naturally? If you don't think it's coming from man, the skeptic/denier side is going to have to come up with a plausible explanation. Other factors come and go, but seem to get most of the attention, while my question never gets answered.

konradv- it makes no sense to hector me over CO2. I have already done more than you to support the physics of CO2 as a factor. I just dont believe it is a main factor because I think it is mediated by other pathways in the climate system. you see it as a singular mechanism unaffected by other factors whereas I see it as a small factor that is lost in the myriad of other factors controlling temps and climate. just because it is partially manmade doesnt give it special status in the real world.

 

[konradv]

CO2 culdesac means that the science has gone down a dead end road and continues to circle around just one factor, CO2. we need to back up and travel other roads and factors before we get to the destination. we cant get there stuck on the wrong block going around in circles, it is a different block and probably on a different street.

Isn't that because it's the factor that's changing non-naturally? If you don't think it's coming from man, the skeptic/denier side is going to have to come up with a plausible explanation. Other factors come and go, but seem to get most of the attention, while my question never gets answered.

konradv- it makes no sense to hector me over CO2. I have already done more than you to support the physics of CO2 as a factor. I just dont believe it is a main factor because I think it is mediated by other pathways in the climate system. you see it as a singular mechanism unaffected by other factors whereas I see it as a small factor that is lost in the myriad of other factors controlling temps and climate. just because it is partially manmade doesnt give it special status in the real world.

Of course it's not the main factor, the sun is. That's NOT the point. It's the factor that's changing in one direction, rather than cycling like the others. It's also the factor over which we have control. You may want to downplay its role, but I don't consider a 30-40% rise over historical averages to be insignificant, particularly if the rise continues, as it will, if we keep emitting more CO2 in DAYS than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year.

 

[IanC]

I am sorry that you cant seem to do anything but ride around the cul-de-sac saying the same things over and over again. when you have a new thought, look me up

 

[Jeremy]

Wow. 9th warmest since we've put weather satellites into orbit.

Impressive.

 

[konradv]

Wow. 9th warmest since we've put weather satellites into orbit.

Impressive.

Quite so, as the skeptics keep telling us we're supposed to be heading towards an Ice Age.

 

[Old Rocks]

as for Alaska-

The figure at right shows clearly that this trend is non-linear: a linear trend might have been expected from the fairly steady observed increase of CO2 during this time period. The figure shows the temperature departure from the long-term mean (1949-2009) for all stations. It can be seen that there are large variations from year to year and the 5-year moving average demonstrates large increase in 1976. The period 1949 to 1975 was substantially colder than the period from 1977 to 2009, however since 1977 little additional warming has occurred in Alaska with the exception of Barrow and a few other locations. The stepwise shift appearing in the temperature data in 1976 corresponds to a phase shift of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation from a negative phase to a positive phase

the linear trend for Alaska is quite high. before I asked if absolute temps were more important, or if the rate of change was more informative. in this case it seems as if noticing the steep change that occured when the PDO switched is a primary factor and the trend over the whole period is in fact somewhat misleading.

more info and links at Temperature Change in Alaska

Misleading? How so? Perhaps you should look at that chart more carefully. In fact, the whole site has some very interesting information. Note how much the temperature increase varies from south to north. How much higher the increase in warmth is on the north coast compared to southern Alaska.

And the seasonal temps are particularly telling. Much higher increase in warmth in the winter.

Again, to the graph you posted. Look at the clustering of high temps toward the right side. Seems to me to indicate a very rapid rate of warming. Yes, there is a step effect on that graph. The same as we see on the other graphs of ice, ocean temps, and land temps. A rapid rise, platueing, and another rapid rise. And at every platueing you people start yapping about a cooling. Sheesh.

http://climate.gi.alaska.edu/ClimTrends/Change/TempChange.html

 

[Old Rocks]

CO2 culdesac means that the science has gone down a dead end road and continues to circle around just one factor, CO2. we need to back up and travel other roads and factors before we get to the destination. we cant get there stuck on the wrong block going around in circles, it is a different block and probably on a different street.

Isn't that because it's the factor that's changing non-naturally? If you don't think it's coming from man, the skeptic/denier side is going to have to come up with a plausible explanation. Other factors come and go, but seem to get most of the attention, while my question never gets answered.

konradv- it makes no sense to hector me over CO2. I have already done more than you to support the physics of CO2 as a factor. I just dont believe it is a main factor because I think it is mediated by other pathways in the climate system. you see it as a singular mechanism unaffected by other factors whereas I see it as a small factor that is lost in the myriad of other factors controlling temps and climate. just because it is partially manmade doesnt give it special status in the real world.

Ian. Very simple physics.

There are only two basic factors in the heat of the surface of the earth. One, the amount of energy from the sun. Two, the amount of energy that is retained.

The amount of energy from the sun has been in a very minute decline for nearly fifty years. The amount of energy that the atmosphere retains has been increasing because of a very significant increase in GHGs in the atmosphere. The primary GHG in the atmosphere is CO2, even though H2O vapor has a bigger effect. But H2O vapor has a residence time of less than 10 days, CO2, decades to centuries. So H2O is a feedback, CO2 is a driver.

The cause of the 40% increase in CO2 is us. The cause of the increase in CH4, from a bit over 700 ppb to well over 1800 ppb is us.

Now CH4 is a very potent GHG in the short run. A CO2 equivelence of 60 to 160. Even the lower figure puts the CO2 equivelence figure at present over 450 ppm, without counting the very potent industrial GHGs, many of which have equivelency figures in the thousands, some, tens of thousands.

So we are close to having doubled the amount of GHG heating in the atmosphere right now. All that has kept us from seeing really major effects prior to now is the amount of heat that the oceans are absorbing.

But that sword has a double edge. For by warming the oceans, we are already seeing the outgassing of the clathrates in the Arctic Ocean. And it won't take much of that before we are simply along for the ride.

Then you can truly say that it is nature, not man. Kind of like triggering a landslide, then stating that it is gravity, the dynamite had nothing to do with it.