2011 global temperature thread

[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

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)

well Matthew, at least you are acknowledging there is a lag.

as the old joke goes- "now we are just haggling over the price"

 

[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)

well Matthew, at least you are acknowledging there is a lag.

as the old joke goes- "now we are just haggling over the price"

True, but there was much less lag within the tropics...This nina has covered the area of 1999-2000 and 2008 nina since September and may of had strong effects back to June...I remember looking at charts for Sept-dec 1998 and only can find a weak nina event around nov-dec time frame. This is the nina that became the nina of 1999-2000. This event didn't have much effect on 1998 and most importantly 1998 from about Jan-March had the most powerful nino in recorded history going back 150 years. By that I mean area 3.4 was near 2.8c for a time compared to this event we just saw that was near 1.8c.

Another factor was the size. The nino of 1998 was a monster that took up a huge area with its effects. 2009-2010 was decent, but that is comparing highs boy scouts the the marines.

There is three factors that make up the effect of a nina or nina
1# Max anomalies
2# size of the effected area
3# How long did it last?

1# How deep did it get within its max...Most ninas and ninos since 2001 have been between -1.2 and +1.2 for a time within 3.4.

2# What was the size of the anomaly, which is very important as a thin coupe hundred km wide area of warmers water is going to do much less to effect climate then one that can effect 500-1,000 km wide area and goes into the western Pacific.

3# If I remember right 2009-2010 nino was over two years...But only lasted about 5 months. The time to effect weather is between 3-4 months, so it didn't have time to do much. ON the other hand 1999-2000 nina was nearly two years. 2008 nina was a year....Much more capable of effecting temperature around the word. In so 7 and 1/2 event of nina that we are in has about the same effect as our nino on this year. Maybe the nino did have more effects on the arctic, but most it was damn close.



So at the end of the day you cant compare this to 1998..Not even close.

 

[Old Rocks]

Except it was pretty much just as warm as 1998. Hmmm.......

 

[Chris]

Record Events for Thu Dec 30, 2010 through Wed Jan 5, 2011

High Temperatures: 222
Low Temperatures: 140

HAMweather Climate Center - Record High Temperatures for The Past Week - Continental US View

 

[ScienceRocks]

Wow, chris.

Anyways here is todays map I made of the 30 day avgs...The circle areas are my attempted of estimation.

 

[editec]

Remember back when science wasn't subject to a vote?

I miss those days.

 

[Old Rocks]

When the reality of science intersects the economical interests that control so much of the world, that science becomes a political football. And the scientists find themselves being vilified by those interests and their blind followers.

 

[ScienceRocks]

This is how it would be without enso.

Open Mind | Science, Politics, Life, the Universe, and Everything

 

[mdn2000]

The only thing heating up is the level of attacks against all that oppose the rule of Environuts.

 

[ScienceRocks]

The only thing heating up is the level of attacks against all that oppose the rule of Environuts.

Wow! The 200 years from 1700-2010 has seen nearly 1.5c of warming. Im not environut because I support nuclear power to get the job done. On a home to home scale, sure other options are good, but for our cities gots to be nuclear.

 

[rdean]

It?s Official: 2010 Warmest on Record

Five cities in the Northeast set the record for the warmest year in 2010, according to statistics released by the Northeast Regional Climate Center (NRCC) at Cornell University on January 3, 2010.
The cities — Hartford, CN, Caribou, ME, Boston, MA, Concord, NH, and Providence, RI — were among 35 monitored by the NRCC. All but four of the 35 cities experienced above-average temperatures overall. None of the cities had a record-setting low average for the year.

Will the high temperatures continue into 2011?

 

[IanC]

This is how it would be without enso.

Open Mind | Science, Politics, Life, the Universe, and Everything

how come no one is interested in this?

the steady increase is remarkable, I would have thought it would be step wise. of course I dont have the statistical skills to look at how the smoothing was done or how the effect was removed. but very interesting if it is not just a smearing effect that seems to come into play when data is analyzed and modified to interact with a different type of data set. hopefully there will be more news on this attempt to break out temps from ocean currents, maybe even a real paper.

 

[IanC]

I came across an interesting comparison between the 1930's and the 2000's, using only raw temps from complete records.

To get the most comparable data, we used only those stations that had full data (i.e. 12 months per year) for all the years in both the 1930s and 2000s. Only 430 (6%) out of the original 7280 stations fulfil this criterion.

Because we were using the very same stations in both decades (with no drop-outs or add-ins) there was no need to calculate anomalies; rather we simply compared the average temperature of all stations.

1930s average 2000s average Change between 1930s & 2000s
Rural (154) 9.944°C 9.869°C -0.075°C
Suburban (93) 12.122°C 11.954°C -0.168°C
Urban (172) 13.077°C 13.540°C 0.463°C
Other (11) 9.093°C 8.688°C -0.405°C

The result was perhaps a little surprising; the average temperature from 2000 to 2009 was lower than the average temperature from 1930 to 1939 for all station types except Urban.

Which Was The Warmest Decade? | Digging in the Clay

funny how things change when 'corrections' are added.

of course most of the readings were from the US so maybe we should compare it to this

 

[Old Rocks]

Apples and oranges, Ian. Note that the first graph was global, the second for the USA. The USA comprises less than 2% of the earth's surface.

This is a prime example of not only cherry picking data, but also lying by misdirection. You also impugn the scientific honor of the scientists involved with that sentence about most of the readings of the upper graph being from the US. You know very well that they factor that in.

 

[IanC]

Apples and oranges, Ian. Note that the first graph was global, the second for the USA. The USA comprises less than 2% of the earth's surface.

This is a prime example of not only cherry picking data, but also lying by misdirection. You also impugn the scientific honor of the scientists involved with that sentence about most of the readings of the upper graph being from the US. You know very well that they factor that in.

are you having a problem reading for comprehension today? did you not look at the link to find out what was being done? the complete data sites used in the comparison were global but mostly from the US. that is why I put both the global and the US temp graphs up. I thought I was trying to be fair.

 

[ScienceRocks]

http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2010/december/12_10GTR.pdf

Jan. 6, 2011
Vol. 20, No. 8
For Additional Information:
Dr. John Christy, (256) 961-7763
john.christy@nsstc.uah.edu
Dr. Roy Spencer, (256) 961-7960
roy.spencer@nsstc.uah.edu
Global Temperature Report: December 2010

2010 finishes in a statistical tie
as the warmest year in the past 32


Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.14 C per decade
December temperatures (preliminary)

Global composite temp.: +0.18 C (about 0.32° Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for December.

Northern Hemisphere: +0.21 C (about 0.38° Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for December.

Southern Hemisphere: +0.15 C (about 0.26° Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for December.

Tropics: -0.22 C (about 0.40° Fahrenheit) below 30-year average for December.
November temperatures (revised):

Global Composite: +0.27 C above 30-year average

Northern Hemisphere: +0.37 C above 30-year average
Southern Hemisphere: +0.17 C above 30-year average
Tropics: -0.12 C below 30-year average

(All temperature anomalies are based on a 30-year average (1981-2010) for the month reported.)
Notes on data released Jan. 6, 2011:


2010 finished in a photo finish with 1998 for the warmest year in the 32-year satellite temperature
record, according to Dr. John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the
Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. 2010 was only 0.013 C
cooler than 1998, an amount that is not statistically significant.

Both 1998 and 2010 were years in which an El Nino Pacific Ocean warming event raised temperatures
around the globe. In recent months a La Nina Pacific Ocean cooling event has been
building; temperatures in the tropics were cooler than seasonal norms for both November and
December.

Annual Global Average Anomaly
(Warmest to Coolest)*
1. 1998 +0.424 C
#2. 2010 +0.411 C
3. 2005 +0.251 C
4. 2002 +0.220 C
5. 2009 +0.187 C
6. 2003 +0.185 C
7. 2006 +0.175 C
8. 2007 +0.168 C
9. 2001 +0.112 C
10. 2004 +0.104 C
11. 1991 +0.025 C
12. 1987 +0.018 C
12. 1995 +0.018 C
14. 1988 +0.017 C
15. 1980 -0.003 C
16. 1990 -0.017 C


*Compared to 30-year seasonal norms
The globe continues to warm unevenly, with warming increasing as you go north: The Arctic
Ocean has warmed an average of 1.66 C (about 2.99 degrees Fahrenheit) in the past 32 years. By
comparison, the Antarctic continent has cooled about 0.29 C (more than half a degree Fahrenheit)
during the same time.
The continental, contiguous U.S. has warmed by about 0.67 C (about 1.21 degrees Fahrenheit)
since 1979.
17. 1981 -0.040 C
18. 2008 -0.041 C
19. 1997 -0.044 C
20. 1999 -0.051 C
21. 1983 -0.056 C
21. 2000 -0.056 C
23. 1996 -0.071 C
24. 1994 -0.104 C
25. 1979 -0.165 C
26. 1989 -0.202 C
27. 1986 -0.239 C
28. 1993 -0.240 C
29. 1982 -0.245 C
30. 1992 -0.284 C
31. 1985 -0.304 C
32. 1984 -0.348 C


Climate trends since November 1979
(Degrees C per decade)
Globe Land Ocean
+0.14 +0.18 +0.12

NH Land Ocean
+0.21 +0.24 +0.17

SH Land Ocean
+0.08 +0.07 +0.08

Trpcs Land Ocean
+0.08 +0.10 +0.07

(The tropics extend from 20° N to 20° S latitude)

NoExt Land Ocean
+0.27 +0.28 +0.25

(NoExt goes from 20° N to 85° N latitude)
SoExt Land Ocean
+0.07 +0.04 +0.08
(SoExt goes from 20° S to 85° S latitude)
NoPol Land Ocean
+0.47 +0.44 +0.52
(The North Polar region is from 60° N to 85° N latitude)
SoPol Land Ocean
-0.07 -0.09 -0.06
(The South Polar region is from 60° S to 85° S latitude)
USA48
+0.21


Technical Note:
Beginning with this Global Temperature Report, the baseline period used to determine seasonal
norms changes. It has been the 20-year (1979 to 1998) period at the beginning of the satellite
record. Starting this month the report will use a new 30-year (1981 to 2010) reference average to
match the climatological period normally used with climate data by the U.N.’s World Meteorological
Organization.
“This will not affect the long term trend, which is the most important of the numbers we produce,
but will ‘reshuffle’ anomalies to reflect the new base period,” said Christy.
Higher resolution color maps of local temperature anomalies may soon be available on-line at:
Global Temperature Report
The processed temperature data is available on-line at:
vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt
As part of an ongoing joint project between UAHuntsville, NOAA and NASA, Christy and Dr.
Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist in the ESSC, use data gathered by advanced microwave
sounding units on NOAA and NASA satellites to get accurate temperature readings for
almost all regions of the Earth. This includes remote desert, ocean and rain forest areas where
reliable climate data are not otherwise available.
The satellite-based instruments measure the temperature of the atmosphere from the surface up
to an altitude of about eight kilometers above sea level. Once the monthly temperature data is
collected and processed, it is placed in a “public” computer file for immediate access by atmospheric
scientists in the U.S. and abroad.
Neither Christy nor Spencer receives any research support or funding from oil, coal or industrial
companies or organizations, or from any private or special interest groups. All of their climate
research funding comes from federal and state grants or contracts.


The tropics where -.12c below the 30 year avg. That means the Nina had a huge ******* amount of effect on earths temperature out come in 2010. 1998 only had a very tiny Nina in the very end.

 

[ScienceRocks]

In case anyones is wondering...The peak based on UAH data for the tropics for 1998 was 1.27c within 4 ******* months above 1c for the tropics from Jan-April...Of course that did go down to .07c in Nov and 0c by Dec...But this year;PEAKED AT .78c! Hows that for comparing the nino!!!

To show effect of the nina this years nov was -.12c and dec -.24c . So NOT even close with the nino and a strong nina. So this year was warmer without the ENSO effects...Pure and ******* simple!

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt

Here is what 2010 came in close with.

Few pics of the nino of 1998!

7-8-2010 it was the nina was the same as 12-14-1998.

The start of the nina of 1999-2000. Mid Dec 1998. TINY. So it takes 2-4 months for the effect of the nina to be had on the earth...1998 didnt see any. Huge nino from heck to boot.

In case you are wondering here is mid dec 2010.

 

[BenNatuf]

Westwall, It's hard to believe that a lie of this scale could be happening if it was occurring.

it is occurring and its been exposed. I wouldn't go so far as to say its a "lie" as much as a manipulation though

If global warming is pr oven to be a fraud then all our temperature data has been screwed with to the point that we may never have had a record that is trustworthy and would need to start over again.

we just need to have scientist with integrity, no agenda, and nothing to gain to look at what data we do have and correct it

A trillion dollar scam....The skeptics argue a case of fraud and it is all a lie, but can they prove that the arctic has not warmed

you probably need to look at how they figure it has. griding in warmer temperatures I've water and disregarding the in situ data from the buoys isn't exactly proof of "warming", it is proof of manipulation though. Do you have any idea how they compute the temperatures? How they manipulate the data to support their argument?

and that the theory that this air could be caused by a shift within the weather pattern as the pro global warmers say? And since the pro global warmers have nearly total control over all temperature data then how would we know one way or the other?

they don't have total control, they just control the programming that produce an output for the gridded averages, and that's where they manipulate the hell out of it.

No data shows a cooling trend and being such it is controlled by the scientist that are pro global warming then we wouldn't know if a full fledged ice age was coming either way.

that is 100% absolutely false. The trend over the last 15 years is cooler. Not much... but cooler.

It is hard for me to wrap my head around such treason and fraud if that was the case.

self interest. Their is no need for a conspiracy or even a conscious effort. It is in the interest of the warmist to show warming, over 80 BILLION dollars of research money is tied to it, take away the warming and the research dollars go somewhere else.

Most of science would be damaged for a long time.

no it would not. The same thing essentially happened a few years back in pharmaceuticals, the peer review process was a broken there as it is in warmist propaganda.

I'm just going to assume for the time being that there is slightly more truthfulness and honor within science then this. To think otherwise would believe that the whole system has swirled down the crapper and outright treason throughout the scientific community and political alike is occurring.

the politics is where the corruption is. which would include the politics of science. There are plenty of honest scientist out there and they continue their work outside of the IPCC's circle of friends.

It is my belief that the forcing of co2 is much less then any of these scientist would like us to believe.

any of them? Spencer, Christie, Lindzen and Scaffetta have all proposed lower climate sensitivity to CO2 (among hundreds of others) The mythos of AGW is be driven by politics at the UN and the money that feeds it.

We're following A1F1 or worst case for co2 over the last 5 years and no where near even seeing the middle ground warming even based on the data supplied by the giss and noaa. I call into question just how strong of a green house co2 really is...We will see.

their sensitivity variables are built on false assumptions of past CO2 levels and poor modeling of solar variables. The models they construct all have the faulty data programmed in.

Now saying we're seeing now warming at all or even cooling is yet to be proved...I believe some warming is occurring.

you're belief would be wrong

Using the noaa and giss data doesn't show a huge increase over 1990-1999, but of a moderation of the temperature being each year hits close to the other, but doesn't beat it by a large amount, which helps up the avg, but is not a sign of a increase of the warming. Our friends badly need 2010 to be number 1 and maybe 2012 beating it by a larger a mount to prove that the warming is occurring faster...

they cannot show that, there has been no warming since 1998 and a cooling trend in the last 15 years.

Yes the solar output from our star has been decreasing and could be a case for those prediction of such cooling, but how would we know? Who knows because all temperature data says otherwise...Be it fraud or that the earth maybe warming up...

The temperature data does not say otherwise. A good start to defeating the myth would be Scafettas booklet he created for the EPA based on his work with West and Wilson.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_change_cause.pdf

you could then go on to look at some of Spencer or Lindzens work on clouds and Mcintyre and Mckitricks work on NCDC and CRU temperature reconstructions and UHI effects. There is literally a ton of information out there, in peer reviewed and published journals from scientists who disagree strongly with the IPCC and the warmist cabal.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ben, you are full of shit. Even Dr. Spencer shows that it has been warming in major way in the last 15 years.

 

[ScienceRocks]

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf

Page 10 shows when conditons within the Pacific went negative. Around Mid April. Some good news--3.4 has warmed from -1.7 to -1.5c...Good. I hope the son of a ***** turns around and becomes bigger then the nino of 1998. Then we can end the ******* debate. I hope 2012 has our first 3c+ anomaly within 3.4 for a nino in history. I hope the son of a ***** is around in some form the entire year of 2012. Now that would be a fairer way to compare 1998 to this year.

Nina from heck with the most positive soi for any dec and second positive ever. Something around 26.1, which is stratospheric!!! Biggest nina since 1976 is being fueled by it. I think it is possible the mother ****** does a quick reverse too. I think if so we beat 1998 by .25c+!!!