|
Post by jimcripwell on May 16, 2009 13:56:55 GMT
neilhamp writes "So far, 2009 is cooler than 6 out of the last 7 years"
We should not underestimate the importance of what you have shown. A few years ago, it became obvious that GISSTEMP data was showing a bias towards higher temperatures. Two suggestions were made for this; one that GISS were cooking the books; and two their extrapolating to the poles showed a significant difference for their data. I always hoped the latter was correct. At the beginning of 2008, there were signs that the GISS data was retuning to be more in agreement with the other data sets. It seems that the Arctric really did warm a few years ago, and now temperatures seem to be cooling, This fits in with this data. Gavin Schmidt and RealClimate have nailed their colors to the mast in using GISS data for their analysese. And it is true that GISS was the last data set to show that world temperatures were declining. If GISS were all the time acting as scientists, as I hope, then this finding is genuine. It is going to be a lot more difficult for the warmaohioics to hide behind the GISS data and claim that global temperatursare not falling.
|
|
|
Post by kenfeldman on May 16, 2009 17:20:39 GMT
GISSTEMP anomoly data for the first 4 months of each year 1998 0.60 1999 0.38* 2000 0.42* 2001 0.43* 2002 0.71 2003 0.53 2004 0.55 2005 0.64 2006 0.52 2007 0.68 2008 0.37* 2009 0.46 So far, 2009 is cooler than 6 out of the last 7 years 0.14 degrees below the 2002/7 mean If you extend the analysis back four more decades, where would the last two years rate? It should be easy to do with a spreadsheet. Also, four months is a very short time, climate wise. At least look at a whole year. Other than 1998 (the year of the super El Nino), the 21st century annual average temperatures are higher than any other in the records going back to 1880. This year looks like it's going to continue the streak, with a start of 0.46 for the first four months. We'd need to see strong cooling to get down to 20th century temperatures over the next 8 months. And we've had mostly La Nina conditions the past two years, a negative PDO and the weakest sun in a century. Face it deniers, the world is warming, not cooling.
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 16, 2009 17:39:29 GMT
To expand on Ken's point I will just post:
|
|
|
Post by hiddigeigei on May 16, 2009 19:15:20 GMT
To expand on Ken's point I will just post: Wow! Calculate the proper correction factor for all the naturally-caused cold weather we’ve had, and any fool can see it’s getting hotter and hotter.
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on May 16, 2009 19:39:25 GMT
To expand on Ken's point I will just post: Wow! Calculate the proper correction factor for all the naturally-caused cold weather we’ve had, and any fool can see it’s getting hotter and hotter. And yet much cooler than during the Holocene Optimum 7,000 years ago. Hmmmm.... Sea levels 4 to 6 meters below where they were during the Eemian Interglacial (the one before the Holocene). Hmmmm... Shame Al wasn't there to scare people during either period. Blaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!! ;D
|
|
|
Post by glc on May 16, 2009 19:45:41 GMT
And we've had mostly La Nina conditions the past two years, a negative PDO and the weakest sun in a century. Face it deniers, the world is warming, not cooling.
Indeed it is - and at virtually the same rate that it was warming in the 30 years between 1916 and 1945.
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on May 16, 2009 20:40:37 GMT
And we've had mostly La Nina conditions the past two years, a negative PDO and the weakest sun in a century. Face it deniers, the world is warming, not cooling.Indeed it is - and at virtually the same rate that it was warming in the 30 years between 1916 and 1945. All of which is insignificant noise and confirmation of the fact that the late 20th and early 21st centuries have been especially benign, and not particularly warm, according to the NCDC: Abstract here: www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/alley2000/alley2000.html
|
|
|
Post by tacoman25 on May 16, 2009 21:20:11 GMT
GISSTEMP anomoly data for the first 4 months of each year 1998 0.60 1999 0.38* 2000 0.42* 2001 0.43* 2002 0.71 2003 0.53 2004 0.55 2005 0.64 2006 0.52 2007 0.68 2008 0.37* 2009 0.46 So far, 2009 is cooler than 6 out of the last 7 years 0.14 degrees below the 2002/7 mean If you extend the analysis back four more decades, where would the last two years rate? It should be easy to do with a spreadsheet. Also, four months is a very short time, climate wise. At least look at a whole year. Other than 1998 (the year of the super El Nino), the 21st century annual average temperatures are higher than any other in the records going back to 1880. This year looks like it's going to continue the streak, with a start of 0.46 for the first four months. We'd need to see strong cooling to get down to 20th century temperatures over the next 8 months. And we've had mostly La Nina conditions the past two years, a negative PDO and the weakest sun in a century. Face it deniers, the world is warming, not cooling.Your name-calling is very unbecoming and shows your sad lack of objectivity. And no, there has been no warming this decade. Ken, you repeatedly fail to address the fact that the 90s were substantially cooled by Pinatubo, meaning the world has warmed LESS over the past 20 years than it did the previous 20 before that. And yet CO2 has been steadily increasing the whole time. Face it, Ken, CO2 is failing to warm as advertised.
|
|
|
Post by tacoman25 on May 16, 2009 21:24:10 GMT
To expand on Ken's point I will just post: Exactly how much forcing is assigned to ENSO, PDO and solar in that graph? Also, did you consider the fact that NASA has said there is a 1-2 year lag for solar effects to effect global temperatures?
|
|
|
Post by tacoman25 on May 16, 2009 21:40:56 GMT
I would like to continue to remind people that 2006 is easily the closest recent ENSO match to 2009. Therefore, if you want to make a fair comparison (and perhaps speculate about solar/PDO effects since then), look at 2006 temperatures to date compared to 2009.
UAH
2006: .329 2009: .237
RSS
2006: .287 2009: .241
GISS
2006: .52 2009: .46
|
|
|
Post by glc on May 16, 2009 23:33:36 GMT
I would like to continue to remind people that 2006 is easily the closest recent ENSO match to 2009. Therefore, if you want to make a fair comparison (and perhaps speculate about solar/PDO effects since then), look at 2006 temperatures to date compared to 2009.
You need to take into account that 2009 followed a fairly deep La Nina - unlike 2006.
|
|
|
Post by tacoman25 on May 17, 2009 3:27:05 GMT
I would like to continue to remind people that 2006 is easily the closest recent ENSO match to 2009. Therefore, if you want to make a fair comparison (and perhaps speculate about solar/PDO effects since then), look at 2006 temperatures to date compared to 2009.You need to take into account that 2009 followed a fairly deep La Nina - unlike 2006. Doesn't matter...the old Nina completely faded to neutral conditions for a few months last year. So the cooling effects of that Nina disappeared for a few months as well. Sep 2005 - April 2006 were nearly identical ENSO-wise to Sep 2008 - April 2009.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 17, 2009 3:50:18 GMT
I would like to continue to remind people that 2006 is easily the closest recent ENSO match to 2009. Therefore, if you want to make a fair comparison (and perhaps speculate about solar/PDO effects since then), look at 2006 temperatures to date compared to 2009.You need to take into account that 2009 followed a fairly deep La Nina - unlike 2006. Doesn't matter...the old Nina completely faded to neutral conditions for a few months last year. So the cooling effects of that Nina disappeared for a few months as well. Sep 2005 - April 2006 were nearly identical ENSO-wise to Sep 2008 - April 2009. I think GLC is suggesting that the missing heat is hiding somewhere in the atmosphere.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on May 17, 2009 4:07:23 GMT
I would like to continue to remind people that 2006 is easily the closest recent ENSO match to 2009. Therefore, if you want to make a fair comparison (and perhaps speculate about solar/PDO effects since then), look at 2006 temperatures to date compared to 2009.You need to take into account that 2009 followed a fairly deep La Nina - unlike 2006. Indeed, it is obvious we know f*ck-all about the climate system. The CO2 has failed to warm as advertised. The longer term ocean current states are only a loose indication of the direction the temperature goes. The sun's affect on climate seems to have rather unimpressive limits. ...and the big one, we're not entirely sure what could be driving the major climate shifts. There are correlations but nothing that seems able to vary the energy input or output enough.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on May 17, 2009 4:35:12 GMT
Doesn't matter...the old Nina completely faded to neutral conditions for a few months last year. So the cooling effects of that Nina disappeared for a few months as well. Sep 2005 - April 2006 were nearly identical ENSO-wise to Sep 2008 - April 2009. I think GLC is suggesting that the missing heat is hiding somewhere in the atmosphere. The heat is supposed to be in the tropics..... Note the magical year of 1992 glc has been hooked on lately. The 30 year trend is identical to 1992-2009 in the tropical troposphere. This is an inconvenient problem for warmologists. Where is the CO2 warming signal in the tropics? As CO2 is a "well mixed" gas and varies by 4% from pole to pole, how is it the further north it goes, the higher the trend? There is a linear relationship (per radiative forcing equations) between CO2 forcing and temperature rise, so obviously the ups and downs (oscillations) in the temperature data cannot be anything related to CO2. Taken at face value then, the forcing is the same at the equator as it is at the poles, yet the tropics do not have the characteristic CO2 driven "hot spot" the warmers are now denying should be there. Therefore, something else must account for the much higher warming trends (> 4x) north of the tropics. Hmm, what could that be, and why would anyone think the satellites wouldn't be detecting it? What cooling is "masking" the CO2 signal? Where is the missing heat? glc constantly harps about 2008 being a La Nina year thereby making it unfair to include it in calculating a cooling trend, yet I don't recall any of his trends excluding ENSO. If ENSO and volcanic events were removed, where would that put the "long term" trend? Nevertheless, those ENSO/volcano peaks and valleys are still there, rearing their ugly heads. So warmers, would you be so kind as to point out the "strong positive feedback" CO2 signal in the tropics? And how is it global temperatures for 7+ years have failed to rise? That's a good place to start (again). There is no "gentle upward movement" in temperatures that can be explained by CO2 AGW. Sorry, it doesn't exist.
|
|