|
Post by duwayne on Jan 26, 2018 23:54:02 GMT
Neilhamp, sometime after the year 2010, UAH revised their anomalies to version 6 with a new base period of 1981-2010. This change in base year caused the UAH anomalies to drop by 0.1C. I reduced my forecast for 2007 to 2037 by a like amount to make the forecast compatible with version 6. I covered this earlier in this thread and noted that even though I reduced my forecast number from the original forecast of 0.3C to 0.2C (0.18C to 2 decimal places) that it was still the same forecast but expressed as version 6 anomalies.
I’ve not seen anything yet which convinces me there is a high probability that the sun is going to cause significant changes in global temperatures between now and the end of the century so I have not tried to incorporate that into my estimate. But I'm open to any arguments that you or others may have.
One additional thing, as noted in the September 18, 2008 post, it is copied from an earlier post which I made on an older thread. When the site administrator warned us that he was eliminating the older thread, I retained the copy. Hence, I refer to my forecast as dating from 2007.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jan 27, 2018 2:05:51 GMT
Neilhamp, sometime after the year 2010, UAH revised their anomalies to version 6 with a new base period of 1981-2010. This change in base year caused the UAH anomalies to drop by 0.1C. I reduced my forecast for 2007 to 2037 by a like amount to make the forecast compatible with version 6. I covered this earlier in this thread and noted that even though I reduced my forecast number from the original forecast of 0.3C to 0.2C (0.18C to 2 decimal places) that it was still the same forecast but expressed as version 6 anomalies. I’ve not seen anything yet which convinces me there is a high probability that the sun is going to cause significant changes in global temperatures between now and the end of the century so I have not tried to incorporate that into my estimate. But I'm open to any arguments that you or others may have. One additional thing, as noted in the September 18, 2008 post, it is copied from an earlier post which I made on an older thread. When the site administrator warned us that he was eliminating the older thread, I retained the copy. Hence, I refer to my forecast as dating from 2007. I think you will have your answer in the next 5 years. If the current and projected "solar funk" doesn't show a serious downturn in that period, as data suggests has happened in similar past situations ... regardless of actual drivers ..., then a serious explanation or re-write of the hypothesis will be required.
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Jan 27, 2018 21:27:09 GMT
Misouriboy, back in 2007 when I made my original forecast some were proposing that solar activity was going to decline significantly in the next several decades, perhaps to Maunder minimum levels and global temperatures were going to fall drastically as a result. I saw that as a possibility but not a probability since not only did solar activity have to fall significantly but it had drive temperatures down which is not certainty.
The cycle 24 peak which followed was, in fact, on the low side, but global temperatures have not fallen and 2017 was the 3rd highest on record.
As I’ve noted recently, I expect the first half of 2018 to be cooler due to La Nina and its aftermath and we may even see monthly UAH anomalies fall to 0.0C. And as I’ve said before, there is still the likelihood of a super La Nina sometime during the next 20 years as the ocean current cool cycle plays out.
That will certainly get some discussion going about the coming ice age. But there are some early indications that Cycle 25 will be more active than Cycle 24.
What would have to happen in the next 5 years to indicate to you that ultra-low solar activity and ultra-cold temperatures attributable to low solar activity are here or on the way? What is the likelihood of that happening?
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jan 28, 2018 0:26:38 GMT
Misouriboy, back in 2007 when I made my original forecast some were proposing that solar activity was going to decline significantly in the next several decades, perhaps to Maunder minimum levels and global temperatures were going to fall drastically as a result. I saw that as a possibility but not a probability since not only did solar activity have to fall significantly but it had drive temperatures down which is not certainty. The cycle 24 peak which followed was, in fact, on the low side, but global temperatures have not fallen and 2017 was the 3rd highest on record. As I’ve noted recently, I expect the first half of 2018 to be cooler due to La Nina and its aftermath and we may even see monthly UAH anomalies fall to 0.0C. And as I’ve said before, there is still the likelihood of a super La Nina sometime during the next 20 years as the ocean current cool cycle plays out. That will certainly get some discussion going about the coming ice age. But there are some early indications that Cycle 25 will be more active than Cycle 24. What would have to happen in the next 5 years to indicate to you that ultra-low solar activity and ultra-cold temperatures attributable to low solar activity are here or on the way? What is the likelihood of that happening? First, we'd have to have a reliable metric for temperature change. I have NO faith in the NCDC/NOAA numbers. It's like what ENRON became to an accountant. The books are cooked and the cooks are crooks. And I really do hate to say that because I've been a data guy my whole professional life. After all the data I've retrieved, assembled and compared to the "official" numbers, it just doesn't add up. Time after time I (and others) see data changed from the historical records ... even from the NCDC's own files, which are still there for review. And naturally they change to reflect an upward bias. North Dakota is a very good example. Several of the "official" larger stations continue to show increases, perhaps at a deceasing rate ... but some smaller long-record locations (forgotten about) show that temps have been declining since perhaps as early as the 1990s, and certainly since 2005. I believe that Sig verifies that. No telling what goes on in areas where people don't live and "the sun don't shine". You'll note that those red anomalous areas are more and more concentrated in those areas that are difficult for others to check. Fortunately we have data alternatives where NOAA does not have a monopoly. Ocean temps are widely monitored and of critical importance. The world does not heat if the oceans cool (I believe that one). And unless geothermal energy provides a significant contribution (unknown but some think it's true), then changes in solar inputs and cloud cover are (to me) the primary source and regulator of ocean energy intake. The ocean has warmed since 1900 (all the records show it) with a dip in the 1960s-70s coincident with the 1-cycle solar downturn in the middle of the 20th century solar maximum, and in the upper Mid-West with the PDO flip that occurred in the 1940s. It does not surprise me that there would be a lag in recorded temp response as the ocean de-heats and I have never personally seen an attempt to quantify this. However, the PDO (which is really just a measure of spatial heat distribution) and the AMO (which is a true heat measure) are on the decline. ARGO shows a similar trend in shallow, below-surface values since its inception in 2004. This corresponds reasonably well with Great Plains and Western Europe stations that I maintain. We MUST monitor recording stations whose chain of control does not run through NOAA. The expected temperature declines are already evident outside of the "official" numbers, although there is still a lag ... not yet like the precipitous declines that were observed in the Great Plains when the PDO went negative in the 1940s followed by the solar decline in the early 1960s. If the output of solar cycles is modulated by the great oceanic regulator, then we should not expect that their effect would be instantaneous ... but the heat reservoir appears to be perhaps playing out. Weather extremes were large during solar minimum 2008-10 and they seem to be amping up again in the last three years. This will take a toll on the recorded temps and the average Joe's perception of reality. Not even NOAA can play a shell game forever ... warm=cold won't fly for long in Ottumwa nor in any part of Missouri that I know of. And it's not just winter. Summer temps have also been on a shallow downward trajectory in the upper Great Plains since 1990. Unlike winter declines that occurred when the PDO flipped, summers declined by about 1 C when SC20 failed. August temps are now about 0.5 C lower than in 2000. If summer temps continue downward, then that would be an important decision point. I personally believe that low solar activity has an important effect on Earth's climate ... just as the records that we have seem to indicate that it did in the past. I was trained as a geologist, so I'm inclined to let the data and rational thought rule. And based on past performance, I don't believe a word that the climate arm of NOAA says.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 28, 2018 4:05:36 GMT
Missouriboy: I concur about ND.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 28, 2018 5:45:18 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jan 28, 2018 7:07:16 GMT
Misouriboy, back in 2007 when I made my original forecast some were proposing that solar activity was going to decline significantly in the next several decades, perhaps to Maunder minimum levels and global temperatures were going to fall drastically as a result. I saw that as a possibility but not a probability since not only did solar activity have to fall significantly but it had drive temperatures down which is not certainty. The cycle 24 peak which followed was, in fact, on the low side, but global temperatures have not fallen and 2017 was the 3rd highest on record. As I’ve noted recently, I expect the first half of 2018 to be cooler due to La Nina and its aftermath and we may even see monthly UAH anomalies fall to 0.0C. And as I’ve said before, there is still the likelihood of a super La Nina sometime during the next 20 years as the ocean current cool cycle plays out. That will certainly get some discussion going about the coming ice age. But there are some early indications that Cycle 25 will be more active than Cycle 24. What would have to happen in the next 5 years to indicate to you that ultra-low solar activity and ultra-cold temperatures attributable to low solar activity are here or on the way? What is the likelihood of that happening? First, we'd have to have a reliable metric for temperature change. I have NO faith in the NCDC/NOAA numbers. It's like what ENRON became to an accountant. The books are cooked and the cooks are crooks. And I really do hate to say that because I've been a data guy my whole professional life. After all the data I've retrieved, assembled and compared to the "official" numbers, it just doesn't add up. Time after time I (and others) see data changed from the historical records ... even from the NCDC's own files, which are still there for review. And naturally they change to reflect an upward bias. North Dakota is a very good example. Several of the "official" larger stations continue to show increases, perhaps at a deceasing rate ... but some smaller long-record locations (forgotten about) show that temps have been declining since perhaps as early as the 1990s, and certainly since 2005. I believe that Sig verifies that. No telling what goes on in areas where people don't live and "the sun don't shine". You'll note that those red anomalous areas are more and more concentrated in those areas that are difficult for others to check. Fortunately we have data alternatives where NOAA does not have a monopoly. Ocean temps are widely monitored and of critical importance. The world does not heat if the oceans cool (I believe that one). And unless geothermal energy provides a significant contribution (unknown but some think it's true), then changes in solar inputs and cloud cover are (to me) the primary source and regulator of ocean energy intake. The ocean has warmed since 1900 (all the records show it) with a dip in the 1960s-70s coincident with the 1-cycle solar downturn in the middle of the 20th century solar maximum, and in the upper Mid-West with the PDO flip that occurred in the 1940s. It does not surprise me that there would be a lag in recorded temp response as the ocean de-heats and I have never personally seen an attempt to quantify this. However, the PDO (which is really just a measure of spatial heat distribution) and the AMO (which is a true heat measure) are on the decline. ARGO shows a similar trend in shallow, below-surface values since its inception in 2004. This corresponds reasonably well with Great Plains and Western Europe stations that I maintain. We MUST monitor recording stations whose chain of control does not run through NOAA. The expected temperature declines are already evident outside of the "official" numbers, although there is still a lag ... not yet like the precipitous declines that were observed in the Great Plains when the PDO went negative in the 1940s followed by the solar decline in the early 1960s. If the output of solar cycles is modulated by the great oceanic regulator, then we should not expect that their effect would be instantaneous ... but the heat reservoir appears to be perhaps playing out. Weather extremes were large during solar minimum 2008-10 and they seem to be amping up again in the last three years. This will take a toll on the recorded temps and the average Joe's perception of reality. Not even NOAA can play a shell game forever ... warm=cold won't fly for long in Ottumwa nor in any part of Missouri that I know of. And it's not just winter. Summer temps have also been on a shallow downward trajectory in the upper Great Plains since 1990. Unlike winter declines that occurred when the PDO flipped, summers declined by about 1 C when SC20 failed. August temps are now about 0.5 C lower than in 2000. If summer temps continue downward, then that would be an important decision point. I personally believe that low solar activity has an important effect on Earth's climate ... just as the records that we have seem to indicate that it did in the past. I was trained as a geologist, so I'm inclined to let the data and rational thought rule. And based on past performance, I don't believe a word that the climate arm of NOAA says. It would be interesting to see a comparison between stations that are 'monitored' by NOAA and those that are not but which are in the same area. Note that it is not only the US 'climate scientists' that feel they have to prove their hypotheses by modifying original data, UK, Australia and New Zealand have the same problem.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jan 28, 2018 13:59:06 GMT
No Almost by definition from the article - there are animal remains in the permafrost. So the Earth was habitable further North - and this is a problem?
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Jan 28, 2018 16:33:18 GMT
No Almost by definition from the article - there are animal remains in the permafrost. So the Earth was habitable further North - and this is a problem? Not only that, not many tropical animals...
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jan 29, 2018 12:53:44 GMT
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Jan 29, 2018 20:33:04 GMT
Misouriboy, back in 2007 when I made my original forecast some were proposing that solar activity was going to decline significantly in the next several decades, perhaps to Maunder minimum levels and global temperatures were going to fall drastically as a result. I saw that as a possibility but not a probability since not only did solar activity have to fall significantly but it had drive temperatures down which is not certainty. The cycle 24 peak which followed was, in fact, on the low side, but global temperatures have not fallen and 2017 was the 3rd highest on record. As I’ve noted recently, I expect the first half of 2018 to be cooler due to La Nina and its aftermath and we may even see monthly UAH anomalies fall to 0.0C. And as I’ve said before, there is still the likelihood of a super La Nina sometime during the next 20 years as the ocean current cool cycle plays out. That will certainly get some discussion going about the coming ice age. But there are some early indications that Cycle 25 will be more active than Cycle 24. What would have to happen in the next 5 years to indicate to you that ultra-low solar activity and ultra-cold temperatures attributable to low solar activity are here or on the way? What is the likelihood of that happening? First, we'd have to have a reliable metric for temperature change. I have NO faith in the NCDC/NOAA numbers. It's like what ENRON became to an accountant. The books are cooked and the cooks are crooks. And I really do hate to say that because I've been a data guy my whole professional life. After all the data I've retrieved, assembled and compared to the "official" numbers, it just doesn't add up. Time after time I (and others) see data changed from the historical records ... even from the NCDC's own files, which are still there for review. And naturally they change to reflect an upward bias. North Dakota is a very good example. Several of the "official" larger stations continue to show increases, perhaps at a deceasing rate ... but some smaller long-record locations (forgotten about) show that temps have been declining since perhaps as early as the 1990s, and certainly since 2005. I believe that Sig verifies that. No telling what goes on in areas where people don't live and "the sun don't shine". You'll note that those red anomalous areas are more and more concentrated in those areas that are difficult for others to check. notrickszone.com/2018/01/19/rare-weather-station-unchanged-over-138-years-data-show-no-co2-impact-on-temperature/#sthash.ryoM7UtQ.dpbs
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jan 29, 2018 21:48:38 GMT
First, we'd have to have a reliable metric for temperature change. I have NO faith in the NCDC/NOAA numbers. It's like what ENRON became to an accountant. The books are cooked and the cooks are crooks. And I really do hate to say that because I've been a data guy my whole professional life. After all the data I've retrieved, assembled and compared to the "official" numbers, it just doesn't add up. Time after time I (and others) see data changed from the historical records ... even from the NCDC's own files, which are still there for review. And naturally they change to reflect an upward bias. North Dakota is a very good example. Several of the "official" larger stations continue to show increases, perhaps at a deceasing rate ... but some smaller long-record locations (forgotten about) show that temps have been declining since perhaps as early as the 1990s, and certainly since 2005. I believe that Sig verifies that. No telling what goes on in areas where people don't live and "the sun don't shine". You'll note that those red anomalous areas are more and more concentrated in those areas that are difficult for others to check. notrickszone.com/2018/01/19/rare-weather-station-unchanged-over-138-years-data-show-no-co2-impact-on-temperature/#sthash.ryoM7UtQ.dpbsDone in by good German engineering and dedicated fathers. I wonder if the beer/wine consumption index is inversely related to January temperatures. January of 2017 was the seventh coldest since 1879, posting a mean of – 6.1°C.
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Jan 30, 2018 4:04:53 GMT
Misouriboy, back in 2007 when I made my original forecast some were proposing that solar activity was going to decline significantly in the next several decades, perhaps to Maunder minimum levels and global temperatures were going to fall drastically as a result. I saw that as a possibility but not a probability since not only did solar activity have to fall significantly but it had drive temperatures down which is not certainty. The cycle 24 peak which followed was, in fact, on the low side, but global temperatures have not fallen and 2017 was the 3rd highest on record. As I’ve noted recently, I expect the first half of 2018 to be cooler due to La Nina and its aftermath and we may even see monthly UAH anomalies fall to 0.0C. And as I’ve said before, there is still the likelihood of a super La Nina sometime during the next 20 years as the ocean current cool cycle plays out. That will certainly get some discussion going about the coming ice age. But there are some early indications that Cycle 25 will be more active than Cycle 24. What would have to happen in the next 5 years to indicate to you that ultra-low solar activity and ultra-cold temperatures attributable to low solar activity are here or on the way? What is the likelihood of that happening? First, we'd have to have a reliable metric for temperature change. I have NO faith in the NCDC/NOAA numbers. It's like what ENRON became to an accountant. The books are cooked and the cooks are crooks. And I really do hate to say that because I've been a data guy my whole professional life. After all the data I've retrieved, assembled and compared to the "official" numbers, it just doesn't add up. Time after time I (and others) see data changed from the historical records ... even from the NCDC's own files, which are still there for review. And naturally they change to reflect an upward bias. North Dakota is a very good example. Several of the "official" larger stations continue to show increases, perhaps at a deceasing rate ... but some smaller long-record locations (forgotten about) show that temps have been declining since perhaps as early as the 1990s, and certainly since 2005. I believe that Sig verifies that. No telling what goes on in areas where people don't live and "the sun don't shine". You'll note that those red anomalous areas are more and more concentrated in those areas that are difficult for others to check. Fortunately we have data alternatives where NOAA does not have a monopoly. Ocean temps are widely monitored and of critical importance. The world does not heat if the oceans cool (I believe that one). And unless geothermal energy provides a significant contribution (unknown but some think it's true), then changes in solar inputs and cloud cover are (to me) the primary source and regulator of ocean energy intake. The ocean has warmed since 1900 (all the records show it) with a dip in the 1960s-70s coincident with the 1-cycle solar downturn in the middle of the 20th century solar maximum, and in the upper Mid-West with the PDO flip that occurred in the 1940s. It does not surprise me that there would be a lag in recorded temp response as the ocean de-heats and I have never personally seen an attempt to quantify this. However, the PDO (which is really just a measure of spatial heat distribution) and the AMO (which is a true heat measure) are on the decline. ARGO shows a similar trend in shallow, below-surface values since its inception in 2004. This corresponds reasonably well with Great Plains and Western Europe stations that I maintain. We MUST monitor recording stations whose chain of control does not run through NOAA. The expected temperature declines are already evident outside of the "official" numbers, although there is still a lag ... not yet like the precipitous declines that were observed in the Great Plains when the PDO went negative in the 1940s followed by the solar decline in the early 1960s. If the output of solar cycles is modulated by the great oceanic regulator, then we should not expect that their effect would be instantaneous ... but the heat reservoir appears to be perhaps playing out. Weather extremes were large during solar minimum 2008-10 and they seem to be amping up again in the last three years. This will take a toll on the recorded temps and the average Joe's perception of reality. Not even NOAA can play a shell game forever ... warm=cold won't fly for long in Ottumwa nor in any part of Missouri that I know of. And it's not just winter. Summer temps have also been on a shallow downward trajectory in the upper Great Plains since 1990. Unlike winter declines that occurred when the PDO flipped, summers declined by about 1 C when SC20 failed. August temps are now about 0.5 C lower than in 2000. If summer temps continue downward, then that would be an important decision point. I personally believe that low solar activity has an important effect on Earth's climate ... just as the records that we have seem to indicate that it did in the past. I was trained as a geologist, so I'm inclined to let the data and rational thought rule. And based on past performance, I don't believe a word that the climate arm of NOAA says. Missouriboy, I share your distrust of NOAA. I do, however, believe that the UAH anomalies may be OK. Although the Upper Great Plains data you have may be good, I’m not sure it’s representative of the global picture. For example, If I read you correctly, the Upper Great Plains August temperatures have dropped a half degree from August 2000 to August 2017. Meanwhile, the UAH global anomalies have increased from -0.11C to 0.41C over the same period. Currently, the average UAH anomaly for 2007-2017 is 0.18C. In my opinion, that time frame is long enough to smooth out ENSO effects and is representative of the trend temperature. If the lower Solar activity is going to have a significant impact on global temperatures during the next 5 years might we expect to see anomalies of significantly less than zero, say -0.3C with ENSO at or near neutral (recognizing that temperatures tend to lag ENSO by 3 to 4 months)? Or better yet, since solar activity is a multi-year phenomenon, might we expect to see UAH average anomalies of -0.3C for multi-year periods where ENSO effects would even out?
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jan 31, 2018 6:30:18 GMT
First, we'd have to have a reliable metric for temperature change. I have NO faith in the NCDC/NOAA numbers. It's like what ENRON became to an accountant. The books are cooked and the cooks are crooks. And I really do hate to say that because I've been a data guy my whole professional life. After all the data I've retrieved, assembled and compared to the "official" numbers, it just doesn't add up. Time after time I (and others) see data changed from the historical records ... even from the NCDC's own files, which are still there for review. And naturally they change to reflect an upward bias. North Dakota is a very good example. Several of the "official" larger stations continue to show increases, perhaps at a deceasing rate ... but some smaller long-record locations (forgotten about) show that temps have been declining since perhaps as early as the 1990s, and certainly since 2005. I believe that Sig verifies that. No telling what goes on in areas where people don't live and "the sun don't shine". You'll note that those red anomalous areas are more and more concentrated in those areas that are difficult for others to check. Fortunately we have data alternatives where NOAA does not have a monopoly. Ocean temps are widely monitored and of critical importance. The world does not heat if the oceans cool (I believe that one). And unless geothermal energy provides a significant contribution (unknown but some think it's true), then changes in solar inputs and cloud cover are (to me) the primary source and regulator of ocean energy intake. The ocean has warmed since 1900 (all the records show it) with a dip in the 1960s-70s coincident with the 1-cycle solar downturn in the middle of the 20th century solar maximum, and in the upper Mid-West with the PDO flip that occurred in the 1940s. It does not surprise me that there would be a lag in recorded temp response as the ocean de-heats and I have never personally seen an attempt to quantify this. However, the PDO (which is really just a measure of spatial heat distribution) and the AMO (which is a true heat measure) are on the decline. ARGO shows a similar trend in shallow, below-surface values since its inception in 2004. This corresponds reasonably well with Great Plains and Western Europe stations that I maintain. We MUST monitor recording stations whose chain of control does not run through NOAA. The expected temperature declines are already evident outside of the "official" numbers, although there is still a lag ... not yet like the precipitous declines that were observed in the Great Plains when the PDO went negative in the 1940s followed by the solar decline in the early 1960s. If the output of solar cycles is modulated by the great oceanic regulator, then we should not expect that their effect would be instantaneous ... but the heat reservoir appears to be perhaps playing out. Weather extremes were large during solar minimum 2008-10 and they seem to be amping up again in the last three years. This will take a toll on the recorded temps and the average Joe's perception of reality. Not even NOAA can play a shell game forever ... warm=cold won't fly for long in Ottumwa nor in any part of Missouri that I know of. And it's not just winter. Summer temps have also been on a shallow downward trajectory in the upper Great Plains since 1990. Unlike winter declines that occurred when the PDO flipped, summers declined by about 1 C when SC20 failed. August temps are now about 0.5 C lower than in 2000. If summer temps continue downward, then that would be an important decision point. I personally believe that low solar activity has an important effect on Earth's climate ... just as the records that we have seem to indicate that it did in the past. I was trained as a geologist, so I'm inclined to let the data and rational thought rule. And based on past performance, I don't believe a word that the climate arm of NOAA says. Missouriboy, I share your distrust of NOAA. I do, however, believe that the UAH anomalies may be OK. Although the Upper Great Plains data you have may be good, I’m not sure it’s representative of the global picture. For example, If I read you correctly, the Upper Great Plains August temperatures have dropped a half degree from August 2000 to August 2017. Meanwhile, the UAH global anomalies have increased from -0.11C to 0.41C over the same period. Currently, the average UAH anomaly for 2007-2017 is 0.18C. In my opinion, that time frame is long enough to smooth out ENSO effects and is representative of the trend temperature. If the lower Solar activity is going to have a significant impact on global temperatures during the next 5 years might we expect to see anomalies of significantly less than zero, say -0.3C with ENSO at or near neutral (recognizing that temperatures tend to lag ENSO by 3 to 4 months)? Or better yet, since solar activity is a multi-year phenomenon, might we expect to see UAH average anomalies of -0.3C for multi-year periods where ENSO effects would even out? I hadn't updated my UAH satellite data base for a while, so I went back and did the update and conducted some comparisons. Here I was more interested in the UAH land values for the US in comparison to my Great Plains weather records. You be the judge. UAH's USA48 estimates show an average anomaly of 0.25 for the 2007-2017 period. This compares to a Global Land Anomaly of 0.29 ... not dramatically different. The US land mass is generally between 20 and 50 N Latitude. Monthly values for these two areas are plotted in Chart 1. The general trend line is the same with select temporal excursions (both positive and negative) in the US. The smaller the area, the greater the variance. As a start, I choose three Great Plains stations (that I have reasonable faith in) as a beginning proxy for the American Grain Belt: Watertown. SD, Waterloo, IA and Columbia, MO. These stations extend from 39 N to 45 N latitude. I plotted both annual and January-February anomalies for each station against similar UAH USA48 values. Results in Charts 2 and 3. I was really impressed at how well the UAH data reproduced the direction (sign) of each up and down. Magnitudes of course are different as one would expect of a surface station reading versus an estimate compiled for a location somewhere above ground level. Annual average anomalies for the three stations from 2007 to 2017 (0.59, 0.03, -0.09 south to north) yield a composite average of 0.18 C. Not bad ... and if I added another station further south, I might come close to 0.25. Conformity in anomaly direction suggests that Grain Belt temperatures have moved in the same direction (on an annual basis) as the continental US.Chart 3 shows January-February temperature anomalies and they show the same general result. The USA48 anomaly average for 2007-2017 was 0.05. Grain Belt stations show -0.76 (0.24, -0.95 and -1.09 from south to north). It's getting colder from south to north across the grain Belt. This shows in the annual anomalies as well. Now look at Chart 4 ... monthly and 13-month anomalies for the USA48. Note the very sharp decline in the 2008-2009 period. That was the solar minimum between SC23 and SC24. We are already headed back that direction and we have 2-3 years left to actual minimum and probably 1-2 years after that before we start getting larger numbers of SC25 sunspots ... so, 2020 to 2022, 3 to 5 years of possibly worse weather than we've seen to date. That could take a lot of additional heat out of the oceans. Monthly negative anomalies for 2008-10 hit nearly -2 in February, 2010. I remember what weather was like in Flagstaff, AZ. We got buried. That was the 4th lowest value in the 39-year series. Don't know how low this will drive global temps, but a series of winters (and perhaps cooler summers) like those they are also having in China could certainly add to the downward pressure.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Jan 31, 2018 7:50:32 GMT
Missouri, what is the base line for comparison of anomalies? Be gentle ... please.
|
|