|
Post by walterdnes on Feb 8, 2009 7:38:06 GMT
I don't like what I'm about to write, but the beginning of 2009 is looking pretty good for Hadley's prediction of a +0.44 anomaly for 2009 at www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20081230.htmlFor January, my adjusted regression of UAH daily temps gave... Hadley 0.47 GISS 0.59 UAH 0.31 RSS 0.32 RSS is in, and it's 0.322. This indicates that my value for Hadley should be close to the actual value. The February 2009 UAH values started 0.2 below February 2007 (*NOT* 2008) but are rapidly creeping up on 2007, and could overtake 2007 on the 7th or 8th. The February 2007 anomalies were... Hadley 0.520 GISS 0.63 UAH 0.450 RSS 0.389 If February 2009 continues to track February 2007, the first two months of 2009 would average almost +0.5 anomaly for Hadley. I'm really surprised by the ongoing warm temperatures from the satellite data, given that... Any ideas about what gives? BTW, I would love to have my projection for warm Jan+Feb turn out wrong, but I don't see how.
|
|
|
Post by neilhamp on Feb 8, 2009 8:20:48 GMT
These are exactly my concerns Walter. I will follow this thread with interest. The RSS numbers for January indicated a much warmer set of temperatures in the Southern Hemisphere. I cannot understand this when we are told that La Nina conditions apply in the Pacific and the solar minimum continues into 2009
|
|
|
Post by neilhamp on Feb 8, 2009 9:44:22 GMT
Roy Spencer's new sight also sugests warmer conditions for 2009 Go to discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/Roy states the following on his blog: - For those who are interested in monitoring how the current month’s global average tropospheric temperature is shaping up, we have a website where you can plot daily global average satellite-based temperatures since August 1998. The data come from the AMSU instrument flying on the NOAA-15 satellite, and the updates are made automatically once a day in the late afternoon; they run about 1-2 days behind real-time. Use the drop-down menu to pick “ch5″ (AMSU channel 5) which is the channel John Christy and I use to monitor mid-tropospheric temperatures. The check boxes allow you to choose which years to display. The Met office claim that 2009 will be the fifth hottest year. I calculate this to have been 2004. Unfortunately 2004 is the same colour as 2009 but temperatures are certainly hotter than 2004 so far this year
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Feb 8, 2009 12:01:31 GMT
|
|
|
Post by glc on Feb 8, 2009 12:27:43 GMT
Question...what has typically been happening around january?
I don't know - what? Or more precisely I don't know what has been happening which may have acused the surface and LT to warm
...and what typically happens later in the year?
Sorry you've got me again. What does "typically" happen later in the year?
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Feb 8, 2009 14:21:49 GMT
I don't like what I'm about to write, but the beginning of 2009 is looking pretty good for Hadley's prediction of a +0.44 anomaly for 2009 at www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20081230.htmlFor January, my adjusted regression of UAH daily temps gave... Hadley 0.47 GISS 0.59 UAH 0.31 RSS 0.32 RSS is in, and it's 0.322. This indicates that my value for Hadley should be close to the actual value. The February 2009 UAH values started 0.2 below February 2007 (*NOT* 2008) but are rapidly creeping up on 2007, and could overtake 2007 on the 7th or 8th. The February 2007 anomalies were... Hadley 0.520 GISS 0.63 UAH 0.450 RSS 0.389 If February 2009 continues to track February 2007, the first two months of 2009 would average almost +0.5 anomaly for Hadley. I'm really surprised by the ongoing warm temperatures from the satellite data, given that... Any ideas about what gives? BTW, I would love to have my projection for warm Jan+Feb turn out wrong, but I don't see how. I am focussing on the sudden stratospheric warming, for a couple of reasons. 1. As a phenomenon, it is of a scale and suddenness that boggles the mind, and we do not know what causes it or even what causes it to be particularly large, such as the one in January. It is representative to me of our very poor understanding of the ocean-atmosphere system in general. Could it be that the largest SSW measured is linked to the deepest solar minimum of the space age, too? Of course it could. Could they be completely unrelated? Absolutely!!! The point is that even the best scientists are conjecturing and that the atmosphere is behaving chaotically. Even those of us who claim to understand what a chaotic system looks, smells, and tastes like seem to want, in our human weakness, to want it to behave in a linear fashion. 2. We know too little about the sudden stratospheric warming to know whether it may have warmed the troposphere. It seems like a large coincidence that the SSW and troposphere temperature spike happened within a fortnight of each other. Even if the SSW and the tropospheric temperature have nothing to do with each other, the troposphere temperature increase could well be part of the planet cooling itself. If the oceans don't show evidence of warming (and they don't), believing otherwise seems counter-intuitive. Someone could assert that CO2, in the middle of the 2008-09 winter started flexing its muscles the way we all knew it would, and that was the reason for the spike. In fact, I'm sure someone will. ;D
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Feb 8, 2009 14:24:39 GMT
Question...what has typically been happening around january? I don't know - what? Or more precisely I don't know what has been happening which may have acused the surface and LT to warm ...and what typically happens later in the year?Sorry you've got me again. What does "typically" happen later in the year? Have a hard time looking at a squiggly line? Quite frequently the anomaly spikes to or near its highest point around january...then usually drops off several tenths of a degree around the middle of the year.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 8, 2009 14:28:31 GMT
This discussion is interesting for what it is NOT saying. We have potential for mid-troposphere temperatures to be higher and also a possibly unconnected Sudden Stratospheric Warming (SSW). The _ atmosphere_ is warmer especially in the medium and higher levels. At the same time the _ ocean_ temperatures are slowly dropping. The atmosphere is the exit for heat energy into space, and there appears to be more there on the way out. At the same time the ocean temperatures indicate that the heat content of the planet is _ dropping_. This is what the La Nina shows - the Pacific is cooling near the coast of North and South America. Ocean heat capacity is many orders of magnitude higher than the atmosphere and it is losing heat and we are seeing that heat as it uses the atmosphere to exit into space. It is difficult to identify a reason that heat is apparently escaping from the oceans despite the various positive forcings. There must be a negative forcing somewhere with an unexpectedly high magnitude - some of the clouds in the tropics have been shown to have negative forcings of the order of -100WM -2. This could be something like the high ice clouds that have been seen - noctilucent and others. Daily Argo reports especially from the deeper ocean temperature reports are a LOT more important when monitoring the planets heat budget than reported atmospheric temperatures. "The Argo float data showed that in the winter of 2007-2008, cold water sank significantly beyond .62 miles (1,000 meters) deep in northern seas for the first time in eight years and for only the second time since the mid-1990s. Beyond that depth, waters can be swept into lower limb of the Conveyor and carried around the world.
Sinking was undoubtedly enhanced last winter by air temperatures over the North Atlantic that were 9° to 11°F (5° to 6°C) colder than in the previous seven years. That often occurs when a seesawing pattern of high- and low-pressure air masses, called the North Atlantic Oscillation, is in its “positive” position, bringing frigid westerly winds from Canada streaking across the North Atlantic. But, curiously, that was also the case in 2006-2007, in which sinking did not occur.
The lack of substantial sinking throughout the decade meant that there was no “preconditioning”—that is, colder waters could not build up from previous winters to a point where they are easily pushed over a density threshold and sink the following year, the research team said. That made the sudden reappearance of sinking in 2007-2008 all the more surprising."www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=54347There is something complex happening in this huge system of interlinked chaotic sub-systems and it isn't just as simple as Co 2 radiative forcing making the atmosphere warm. "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Hamlet Act 1. Scene V
|
|
|
Post by tallbloke on Feb 8, 2009 14:55:46 GMT
There must be a negative forcing somewhere with an unexpectedly high magnitude Good post, I just wanted to add another possibility. Rather than a negative forcing, it could be the absence of a positive forcing one of whose effects has previously been overlooked. I refer to the building up of heat in the pacific warm pool, released in el nino's during the modern warming, and now peaked. This, in combination with the increase in albedo due to increased cloud cover as measured by the earthshine project, could be the main cause of falling SST's while the atmosphere does it's own thing in response to poorly understood forcings of other kinds.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Feb 8, 2009 15:25:15 GMT
Have a hard time looking at a squiggly line? Quite frequently the anomaly spikes to or near its highest point around january...then usually drops off several tenths of a degree around the middle of the year.
If it "usually" does what you say why did you only show the temperature record back to 2000. What you actually mean is this has happened a couple of times recently and we're desperately hoping it happens again this year else the global cooling campaign is shot to pieces.
Oh and , by the way, I can read the squiggly line and it looks to me as though the magnitude of the Jan->May anomaly falls could be linked to El Nino activity - but there's insufficient data to have any firm ideas on this.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Feb 8, 2009 15:30:12 GMT
We have potential for mid-troposphere temperatures to be higher and also a possibly unconnected Sudden Stratospheric Warming (SSW). The _atmosphere_ is warmer especially in the medium and higher levels
Have you got any data to support this?
At the same time the _ocean_ temperatures are slowly dropping.
and this?
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Feb 8, 2009 23:29:53 GMT
We have potential for mid-troposphere temperatures to be higher and also a possibly unconnected Sudden Stratospheric Warming (SSW). The _atmosphere_ is warmer especially in the medium and higher levelsHave you got any data to support this? At the same time the _ocean_ temperatures are slowly dropping. and this?
|
|
|
Post by tallbloke on Feb 8, 2009 23:44:13 GMT
Intrigueing graph of the atmosphere. One thing is for sure, the sudden rise is nothing to do with co2.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Feb 9, 2009 0:24:34 GMT
Have a hard time looking at a squiggly line? Quite frequently the anomaly spikes to or near its highest point around january...then usually drops off several tenths of a degree around the middle of the year.If it "usually" does what you say why did you only show the temperature record back to 2000. What you actually mean is this has happened a couple of times recently and we're desperately hoping it happens again this year else the global cooling campaign is shot to pieces. Actually I only did it back to 2000 because if you do it longer it switches the hash marks to every other year. It's less prominent in the other years but still there.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Feb 9, 2009 0:52:54 GMT
Magellan
I asked for data to support certain statements and the answer is clearly "No".
Your first graph shows a temperature spike in the stratosphere above the arctic. There is, however, nothing in the AMSU satellite record which shows that the stratosphere as a whole has been warmer than normal in January (but I'll check again). On the contrary, it appears to be somewhat cooler than recent years. The troposphere, on the other hand, is considerably warmer.
The 2nd graph is simply a plot of SSTs - and it's quite apparent that even during the recent La Nina, SSTs were still above what they were for most of the 1980s and 1990s. Sticking in a trend line from 2001 is just desperate cherry picking. Why 2001? Why not 1999 or 2000 - the last time there was a significant La Nina.
|
|