What will the global temperature be in 2020 for Noaa and Giss

ScienceRocks

Democrat all the way!
Mar 16, 2010
59,455
6,792
1,900
The Good insane United states of America
2010 was near .545c, which is the baseline. So you get .2c from 2000-2010 warm up over the 1990's, so you would expect .74c for 2020 "baseline". IF global temperatures work in a linear way and worked like the first decade. BUT considering that this decade WON"T have 2002-2007, which was more or less neutral and without huge nina's forcing the avg up and we are likely in a more nina like pattern I'd say .7c for 2020 within a neutral year(NO NINA or Nino).

I'm not saying MAN is causing it or co2 for that matter, but we do appear to be within a time that our planet is warming for some reason. It of course could be entirely natural like the roman or med evil warm periods, but we are within such a period now and I thought it would be interesting to hear your opinion on 2020.

The baseline is more or less the avg of the nina and nino's and other patterns that cause up and downs. In the graph of the giss data this is shown. I believe the reason why the temperature seemed to warm faster in the 1994-2000 period is because of the massive volcano that went off in 1991. I believe it caused the global temperature to drop about -.1c, but we quickly rebounded and warmed near as quick as it would of. That is why the 1990's appear so much faster warming up then the 2000's.
 

Attachments

  • $to 2020.png
    $to 2020.png
    3.9 KB · Views: 85
Last edited:
yes something like that. The period 2002 - 2007 (or even 2002-now) had a cooling solar contribution and cooling ENSO contribution.

My guess is ENSO will head up a little more to just above neutral in coming months, but not won't hover there high or long enough for El Nino status. Even so I think it will be obvious that temperature has jumped upward since circa 2008 and be obvious that we are a moderate El Nino away from a new record.

ENSO will however drop back down into negative well into 2012, we will probably even get another La Nina but my guess is it will be weaker than the one we just had. The end of that negative ENSO period will be around mid 2012. We'll get another El Nino coming on after that (overdue). If that El Nino is moderate to strong then it will set up 2013 for a record year. 2013 would be boosted by it's proximity to solar maximum.

Although I emphasize that to anyone watching closely it should be obvious that temperature has stepped upward before 2013 as temperature during the aforementioned 2012 La Nina should fail to reach expected lows.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #3
strongest La Nina on record.

Based on measurements of air pressure differences, another way of measuring La Niña besides sea-surface temperatures, this La Niña in February was the most intense on record. Accurate measurements go back to 1950.
 
Stanford climate scientists forecast permanently hotter summers beginning in 20 years

The tropics and much of the Northern Hemisphere are likely to experience an irreversible rise in summer temperatures within the next 20 to 60 years if atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations continue to increase, according to a new climate study by Stanford University scientists. The results will be published later this month in the journal Climatic Change Letters.

In the study, the Stanford team concluded that many tropical regions in Africa, Asia and South America could see "the permanent emergence of unprecedented summer heat" in the next two decades. Middle latitudes of Europe, China and North America – including the United States – are likely to undergo extreme summer temperature shifts within 60 years, the researchers found.

"According to our projections, large areas of the globe are likely to warm up so quickly that, by the middle of this century, even the coolest summers will be hotter than the hottest summers of the past 50 years," said the study's lead author, Noah Diffenbaugh, an assistant professor of environmental Earth system science and fellow at the Woods Institute for the Environment at Stanford. The study is co-authored by Stanford research assistant Martin Scherer.
 
The strongest La Nina on record, yet by Dr. Spencer's records, the 13 month running mean will get nowhere near the zero line. In fact, it appears that it will be higher, at it's lowest extent, than all the highs previous to 1998. In spite of the strength of the La Nina, there were only three months below the zero line, and two were just barely below, -0.01, and -0.02. And then there is the global surface ocean temperature, nowhere near matching the 2008 low in spite of the strength of the the La Nina.

Very interesting.

UAH Temperature Update for May, 2011: +0.13 deg. C « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.
 
Daveboy, thy middle name is stupidity. Even as we speak, record high temperatures are being set across the nation. Worldwide, the last year has been extroidinery in the extremes of weather events and the effects on agriculture are being felt worldwide right now.
 
Daveboy, thy middle name is stupidity. Even as we speak, record high temperatures are being set across the nation. Worldwide, the last year has been extroidinery in the extremes of weather events and the effects on agriculture are being felt worldwide right now.
NOAA says the weather hasn't gotten any more extreme since the late 1800's.

And "permanent" means "forever"...NOT "a few human generations". Idiot.

And I don't know what the hell "extroidinery" means.
 
Jan-May was .51c within the giss to .53c within the noaa.

What is even more funny is the fact that the noaa that doesn't cover antiarctica got a .58c, but giss that does got only a .5c for June. The antarctic is being a bitch.

June 2008 within the noaa was .48c to .58c for 2011 or +.1c.

But within the giss June 2008 was .34c to .50c for 2011. So 2011 was 8th warmest June....
 
Last edited:
Jan-May was .51c within the giss to .53c within the noaa.

What is even more funny is the fact that the noaa that doesn't cover antiarctica got a .58c, but giss that does got only a .5c for June. The antarctic is being a bitch.

June 2008 within the noaa was .48c to .58c for 2011 or +.1c.

But within the giss June 2008 was .34c to .50c for 2011. So 2011 was 8th warmest June....

Aww, its juts not cooperating with your agenda? LOL careful man, people may see your tell...:lol:
 
Jan-May was .51c within the giss to .53c within the noaa.

What is even more funny is the fact that the noaa that doesn't cover antiarctica got a .58c, but giss that does got only a .5c for June. The antarctic is being a bitch.

June 2008 within the noaa was .48c to .58c for 2011 or +.1c.

But within the giss June 2008 was .34c to .50c for 2011. So 2011 was 8th warmest June....

Aww, its juts not cooperating with your agenda? LOL careful man, people may see your tell...:lol:

It proves that the giss is the most complete data set we have. It takes all the earth hot or cold.
 
Jan-May was .51c within the giss to .53c within the noaa.

What is even more funny is the fact that the noaa that doesn't cover antiarctica got a .58c, but giss that does got only a .5c for June. The antarctic is being a bitch.

June 2008 within the noaa was .48c to .58c for 2011 or +.1c.

But within the giss June 2008 was .34c to .50c for 2011. So 2011 was 8th warmest June....

Aww, its juts not cooperating with your agenda? LOL careful man, people may see your tell...:lol:

It proves that the giss is the most complete data set we have. It takes all the earth hot or cold.

Yes, yes most accurate in a system full of flaws and inaccuracies... Thats kind of like being the best thief in prison...:lol:
 
Aww, its juts not cooperating with your agenda? LOL careful man, people may see your tell...:lol:

It proves that the giss is the most complete data set we have. It takes all the earth hot or cold.

Yes, yes most accurate in a system full of flaws and inaccuracies... Thats kind of like being the best thief in prison...:lol:

Something tells me that you don't trust none of the data sets. How can we even start to debate the issue--- if we don't have anything to have even a ounce of faith in?
 
Last edited:
It proves that the giss is the most complete data set we have. It takes all the earth hot or cold.

Yes, yes most accurate in a system full of flaws and inaccuracies... Thats kind of like being the best thief in prison...:lol:

Something tells me that you don't trust none of the data sets. How can we even start to debate the issue--- if we don't have anything to have even a ounce of faith in?

I do not hold faith in a system so full of issues. No matter the system or how I may wish for or against it. When the truth is more important than funding, an agenda or political/social ideology, I may have some faith in it.

I used to believe in them. Hell I nearly fell for every single liberal democrat claim there was at one time or another. Everytime they cried "its for the kids" or "its for the good of all of us" I would jump on the bandwagon. Then I got older and my responsibilities and priorities changed, and my thinking had to go from idealistic to realistic.

At this point in my life I know some very basic truths. Socialism is not about bringing everyone up to the same level, but rather bringing everyone down to the same level save for a very select few. That no matter what the crisis a politician will 99% of the time use it to help himself get more of what he wants, all the while tell us all how its for us. And that when politics and money are involved, truth is relative to their agenda. Oh and whoever controls the media can control 70-80 percent of the people in a given country.

So no I have no faith in a system that is continuously shown to be false.
 
My, my, ol' G thinks that socialism is capable of melting glaciers and ice caps. Buddy boy, it is not politics that is increasing the world temperature, but the GHGs from the burning of fossil fuels. And it is irrelevant what political system that burning is occuring in.
 
My, my, ol' G thinks that socialism is capable of melting glaciers and ice caps. Buddy boy, it is not politics that is increasing the world temperature, but the GHGs from the burning of fossil fuels. And it is irrelevant what political system that burning is occuring in.
Then why do you idiots insist that changing the political system will solve it?
 
My, my, ol' G thinks that socialism is capable of melting glaciers and ice caps. Buddy boy, it is not politics that is increasing the world temperature, but the GHGs from the burning of fossil fuels. And it is irrelevant what political system that burning is occuring in.

I would tell you how completely ignorant you are, but there really is no point anymore. You are a PR monkey we all know it.

Dance monkey, Dance...:clap2:
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top