2011 global temperature thread

[Old Rocks]

If the temps were going down, the glaciers would be increasing, and there would not be the "Decapitated" glaciers. Anyone on the West Coast can see glacial recession on our snow caps.

A42D

 

[ScienceRocks]

UAH-2nd warmest year! In we are seeing the strongest nina since the 70s. This is stronger then 2008 and somewhat stronger then 1999-2000 event. So that is saying something.

1998-.5175c
2010-.4983c

RSS-Im thinking second, but have only worked with 1998, 2010 numbers so far.

2010-.510083c
1998-.5506c

 

[ScienceRocks]

As Anthony Watts states :
"As far as the race for warmest year goes, 1998 (+0.424 deg. C) barely edged out 2010 (+0.411 deg. C), but the difference (0.01 deg. C) is nowhere near statistically significant." (UAH Global Temperature anomaly published, 1998 still warmest year in the UAH satellite record | Watts Up With That?)

When you think about it, id go as far as to say that this year within the enso had the effects of a weak to moderate nina...second warmest in such a year.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Here is this years nino compared to 1998 and it shows how strong this nina is..No nina comes near it in 40 years.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Within the UAH data this year was nearly a tie. A tie against the most powerful nino in 150 years,,,A god damn tie at the same time as 7 of the 12 months of this year had the strongest nina since 1976 and nearly 1954. On top of this the deepest sun spot min since 1912.

Admit that are planet has warmed be it natural or man made. Who the fuck knows, but it is what it is. Yes it is .15c since 1998, but on a planet scale that is what it is.

 

[Old Rocks]

One should look at the bottom of the La Ninas on the graph. Note how much they have gone up.

 

[IanC]

One should look at the bottom of the La Ninas on the graph. Note how much they have gone up.

hahaha, out of the mouths of babes.

that graph does seem to show why global temps went down '50-'76, up '77-99 and stayed flat '00-'10 doesnt it?

 

[IanC]

an interesting excerpt from a NZ paper-

The degree of warming directly caused by the extra carbon dioxide is, by itself, relatively small. This is not controversial. What is controversial is whether this initial change will trigger further climate changes that would be large or damaging.

Debate focuses on climate feedbacks that may or may not suppress, perpetuate or amplify an initial change caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases. A doubling of carbon dioxide, by itself, adds only about one degree Celsius to greenhouse warming. Computer climate models project more warming because the modellers build in feedbacks from water vapour and clouds that amplify the initial change. These are the so called positive feedbacks. For example, higher temperature would mean more evaporation globally, which in turn means more heat-trapping water vapour is put into the atmosphere leading to even higher temperatures.

On the other hand, negative feedbacks might prevail. For example, more water vapour in the atmosphere could lead to greater cloud cover. Clouds reflect the heat from the Sun and cool the Earth, offsetting the initial rise in global temperature.

The role of negative feedback processes are played down by global warming alarmists, whereas sceptics point to the four-billion-year-old global climate record that shows runaway global cooling or warming has never occurred because negative feedbacks regulate the global climate system.

It is important to consider the above in the proper context. Change is a constant feature of climate, even through recent human history. During the Medieval Warm Period, from 900 to 1200AD, the Vikings sailed in Arctic waters that by 1700 had turned to permanent sea ice, and farmed in Greenland soil in a climate that soon became too cold for agriculture.

The Medieval Warm Period was followed by the Little Ice Age which ended around 1850. It in turn was followed by another warm period. The hottest year since 1850 was 1998. In the nine years since 2002 average annual global temperature has not risen.

Most people are surprised to hear that no one has uncovered any empirical real-world evidence that humans are causing dangerous global warming. Finding this evidence is crucial, since scientific issues are resolved by observations that support a theory or hypothesis. They are not resolved by ballot.

Scientific opinion is like climate models; neither is evidence of dangerous global warming.

Chris de Freitas: Emotion clouding underlying science of global warming - National - NZ Herald News

OHHHHHH, the uncertainty of it all.

 

[skookerasbil]

who cares about this data gobbly gook.

In Januray of 2010, the US Snow and Ice Data Center in Colorado reported that the Arctic ice masses have increased 27%.

All the rest of the data is distraction by the k00ks or those with a vested interest to distract.

 

[skookerasbil]

gobbly

 

[ScienceRocks]

ENSO has no effect on the energy budget unless it can change the albedo of our planet...Which data shows it don't or has any effect within the data.. It is just a shift of where that energy is...Ninos cause much more severe rain events within the western Hemisphere and drought in the east, but nina just the opposite. It works within the short term climate system of earth. The warming we are discusing is a long term.

That California event was weird because that is not normal for a nina, but of a nino.

This nina is far stronger then 2008 and even stronger then 1999-2000.

 

[Old Rocks]

One should look at the bottom of the La Ninas on the graph. Note how much they have gone up.

hahaha, out of the mouths of babes.

that graph does seem to show why global temps went down '50-'76, up '77-99 and stayed flat '00-'10 doesnt it?

Ian, are you truly blind? There is no point on that graph that is flat. In fact, the period that you call flat is a decided slope up. Click on the graph for an enlarged version of it. I assume you did not do this, and am giving you the benefit of the doubt, for nobody could honestly state what you did after seeing the graph clearly

 

[Old Rocks]

an interesting excerpt from a NZ paper-

The degree of warming directly caused by the extra carbon dioxide is, by itself, relatively small. This is not controversial. What is controversial is whether this initial change will trigger further climate changes that would be large or damaging.

Debate focuses on climate feedbacks that may or may not suppress, perpetuate or amplify an initial change caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases. A doubling of carbon dioxide, by itself, adds only about one degree Celsius to greenhouse warming. Computer climate models project more warming because the modellers build in feedbacks from water vapour and clouds that amplify the initial change. These are the so called positive feedbacks. For example, higher temperature would mean more evaporation globally, which in turn means more heat-trapping water vapour is put into the atmosphere leading to even higher temperatures.

On the other hand, negative feedbacks might prevail. For example, more water vapour in the atmosphere could lead to greater cloud cover. Clouds reflect the heat from the Sun and cool the Earth, offsetting the initial rise in global temperature.

The role of negative feedback processes are played down by global warming alarmists, whereas sceptics point to the four-billion-year-old global climate record that shows runaway global cooling or warming has never occurred because negative feedbacks regulate the global climate system.

It is important to consider the above in the proper context. Change is a constant feature of climate, even through recent human history. During the Medieval Warm Period, from 900 to 1200AD, the Vikings sailed in Arctic waters that by 1700 had turned to permanent sea ice, and farmed in Greenland soil in a climate that soon became too cold for agriculture.

The Medieval Warm Period was followed by the Little Ice Age which ended around 1850. It in turn was followed by another warm period. The hottest year since 1850 was 1998. In the nine years since 2002 average annual global temperature has not risen.

Most people are surprised to hear that no one has uncovered any empirical real-world evidence that humans are causing dangerous global warming. Finding this evidence is crucial, since scientific issues are resolved by observations that support a theory or hypothesis. They are not resolved by ballot.

Scientific opinion is like climate models; neither is evidence of dangerous global warming.

Chris de Freitas: Emotion clouding underlying science of global warming - National - NZ Herald News

OHHHHHH, the uncertainty of it all.

Never heard of this dingbat before, but he or she is an idiot. The evidence has been demonstrated time and again by scientists from around the world. However, I suppose if a lie turns you on and makes you happy, so be it.

Chris de Freitas: Emotion clouding underlying science of global warming - National - NZ Herald News

Most people are surprised to hear that no one has uncovered any empirical real-world evidence that humans are causing dangerous global warming. Finding this evidence is crucial, since scientific issues are resolved by observations that support a theory or hypothesis. They are not resolved by ballot.

 

[IanC]

[ QUOTE=Old Rocks;3163015]

One should look at the bottom of the La Ninas on the graph. Note how much they have gone up.

hahaha, out of the mouths of babes.

that graph does seem to show why global temps went down '50-'76, up '77-99 and stayed flat '00-'10 doesnt it?

Ian, are you truly blind? There is no point on that graph that is flat. In fact, the period that you call flat is a decided slope up. Click on the graph for an enlarged version of it. I assume you did not do this, and am giving you the benefit of the doubt, for nobody could honestly state what you did after seeing the graph clearly[/QUOTE]

OR- are you blind? do you not see that when La Ninas predominate that global temps go down and when El Ninos predominate the temp goes up? or that temps stay flat when neither predominates?

little warming since we came out of the Little Ice Age, even less that can be attributed to CO2. what happened to huge steady increase forecast by the models? its not there.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I have just got done comparing this 2010 to 1998. What would it be if we had the same nino and sun spot pattern today?

1998 was .4c outside the baseline. So .21c higher, so within rss data of .55+.21=.76c for the year avg, say 2012. WOW. The peak is near .25-.30c higher then the avg in the early parts of 1998, so that would be near 1.01c. Here is a rough idea of it in graph.

Again this is assuming a year within the next 3 turns out much like 1998.

 

[IanC]

ENSO effects are time lagged. in much the same way that the longest day of the year is not the hottest. the 2010 la nina is 7.5 months less 6 months lag time. looks like temp anomalies will be going down for a while

 

[Old Rocks]

OK. Then how is 2011 going to rank? I say that it will rank in the top ten. You see, you are looking at two areas and stating that it is much cooler, yet there are also many areas that are much warmer at the same time. Why do you think that December came in positive?

 

[Old Rocks]

Look at the graph for the ice covered area in the Arctic Ocean. For the second year in a row, it is below -1.5 in January. Will it rebound, as it did last year? Maybe, but that is very thin ice, formed late in the year. And look at Hudsons Bay. Still not ice covered. It has been much warmer in the Artic this summer than normal. Going to be interesting to see how this plays out over the coming summer.

 

[ScienceRocks]

ENSO effects are time lagged. in much the same way that the longest day of the year is not the hottest. the 2010 la nina is 7.5 months less 6 months lag time. looks like temp anomalies will be going down for a while

Nina and ninos have there effect within 3-4 months. Meteorology and research shows this. But this one because of possible other factors(ever warmer earth? was a weird)

 

[IanC]

OK. Then how is 2011 going to rank? I say that it will rank in the top ten. You see, you are looking at two areas and stating that it is much cooler, yet there are also many areas that are much warmer at the same time. Why do you think that December came in positive?

Obviously you dont understand my position on climate. The globe has warmed up and cooled down many times since coming out of the last major ice age. The earth has been warmer than now, and the rate of change is relatively constant.

If thermometers had been invented in 1200 we wouldnt be having this argument. As luck would have it thermometers arrived at the end of the Little Ice Age, leaving us with a low starting point. If satellites had been put up in 1930 we wouldnt be having this argument. As luck would have it satellites went up in 1979, at the end of the last cooling period, leaving us with a low starting point.

I dont really give a crap whether 2011 is warmer or cooler. I dont care if we are at the top of the latest warming period or we are beggining to drop again. Climate changes. Your myopic fixation with CO2 may give you delicious chills up your spine, or satisfy your need to imagine deadly wrath from God for man's sin, but I am unconvinced. There are many plausible explanations for what is going on right now and I expect there will be new or revamped explanations forthcoming in both the near and far future. The majority of research and funding has been directed at CO2 study. I think this has skewed the focus away from a lot of other areas of investigation, and even kept the interest on CO2 when it has failed to produce the imagined results. A lot of climate scientists seem to think they are lawyers hired to burnish the reputation of CO2 theory rather than scientists charged with the duty of finding the truth.