April 2012 heats up as 5th warmest month globally

compsys

Well I'm glad at least some parts of the world enjoyed a warm April :rolleyes:

Interesting that April turned out to be so exceptionally warm when so much of the UK, Ireland, North West Europe and Scandinavia were so cool.

The last time the globe had a month that averaged below the 20th Century normal was February 1985. April makes it 326 months in a row. Nearly half the population of the world has never seen a month that was cooler than normal, according to United Nations data. :eek:

This really is crazy when you think how many below average months we've had temperature wise in Ireland over the past five years or so, at least in parts of the East.

Full article here:

http://weather.yahoo.com/april-2012-heats-5th-warmest-month-globally-151818867.html

K_1

I think 'normal' isn't really normal if it hasn't been round in nearly 30 years!

Danno

The figures are cooked... all of Ireland in red showing above temperatures based upon 71-00 data... our own Met says we were 1c colder than 61-90 data...

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/map-blended-mntp/201204.gif <<< cooked map with Ireland clearly in red...

http://www.met.ie/climate/monthly_summarys/apr12sum.pdf <<< Met Eireann's honesty...

Keep paying the carbon taxes folks. :rolleyes:

compsys

Are you reading the graph correctly? The article clearly says

Last month was the third hottest April in the United States and unusually warm in Russia, but cooler than normal in parts of western Europe.

:rolleyes:

MiNdGaM3

Danno wrote: »

The figures are cooked... all of Ireland in red showing above temperatures based upon 71-00 data... our own Met says we were 1c colder than 61-90 data...

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/map-blended-mntp/201204.gif <<< cooked map with Ireland clearly in red...

http://www.met.ie/climate/monthly_summarys/apr12sum.pdf <<< Met Eireann's honesty...

Keep paying the carbon taxes folks. :rolleyes:

Actually, based on the Met Eireann Summary, we were only 0.66C below the 1961-1990 average, so careful not to cook that data!

The NOAA anomaly map you linked to is based in land and sea surface temperature anomalies. So while the surface air temperatures around Ireland averaged a little below normal, the sea surface temperatures averaged above normal for the month, resulting in a slightly above average month overall. Hence the small red dot (<1C) for the Ireland region.

M.T. Cranium

The raw data globally display three characteristics worth noting, in my humble opinion.

First, they have gone more or less steady-state since about 2002. The rise in global temperatures was at its highest rate between 1986 and 1997. After a peak with the 1997-98 El Nino (at about 0.5 C above 1951-80 which is the normal period used in the data in my link) there was a bit of a downturn in the years 1999 to 2001, but since 2002 most years have come in between 0.45 and 0.65.

Second, the regional differences are noticeable and the subarctic is warming more than other regions.

Third, the data set itself has some dubious reliability issues, in that some stations could be contaminated by urban heat island effects, which are certainly "anthropogenic warming" but not of the kind being postulated in the AGW theory.

Here's the link, the data can only be used to illustrate the first of my three contentions above.

http://data.giss.nas...GLB.Ts dSST.txt

As to the distinction between greenhouse warming and urban heat island effects, it should be noted that the two are not mutually exclusive. The way that an urban heat island operates is that it tends to build up over several days, then it becomes dispersed by stronger winds in cloudy daytime weather in particular. But that heat does not vanish, it is incorporated into the global atmosphere. Some of its origin is of greenhouse variety and some is due to albedo changes (surface reflectivity) due to the relatively dark surfaces of large urban areas (this traps and stores heat). I estimate that about one third to one half of reported warming, if true (some of the data could be compromised by site changes), is from mixing of urban heat island warming rather than global greenhouse processes.

The other unknown is to what extent the cause and effect is in the direction implied (greenhouse gas causes warming) and not in the other direction (warmer atmosphere induces greater releases of greenhouse gases). This is important in the consideration of how natural variability and AGW interact. If a natural cooling cycle reversed the upward temperature trend, then that might feed back into the greenhouse gas production rate, especially for methane in melting areas of the subarctic.

In other words, it is all complicated, and tends to be a more subtle process than the media would have us believe. The past five years in Ireland and the UK reveal just how fragile this "global warming" can be, I don't have ready access to Irish data but I recall posting elsewhere a study showing that the period 1988-2007 had warmed by 1.2 C relative to long-term CET but that had fallen back to 0.4 C in 2008-11 inclusive. That is similar to 1971-87, so it appears that a peak has been reached and passed in some ways. The last year or two in North America on the other hand have seen a return to near-record warmth in many places, similar to peaks around 1990 and 1998.

I think this situation is on the borderline between significant and random, and could yet go either way, because natural variability is probably two or three times stronger than the AGW signal, and can push it around almost at will. We found that out big-time in December 2010.

MiNdGaM3

Good post MTC, and you've got some valid points there. Assuming none of us are climate scientists, so I'll give my own humble opinion on this.

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

The raw data globally display three characteristics worth noting, in my humble opinion.

First, they have gone more or less steady-state since about 2002. The rise in global temperatures was at its highest rate between 1986 and 1997. After a peak with the 1997-98 El Nino (at about 0.5 C above 1951-80 which is the normal period used in the data in my link) there was a bit of a downturn in the years 1999 to 2001, but since 2002 most years have come in between 0.45 and 0.65.

The global temperatures do seem to have turned somewhat steady since 1997. That time also coincides with with a switch towards a -ve PDO and a more La Nina dominant setting, along with a continued long term downward trend in sunspots and a downward trend in the NAO. I think much of that can go towards explaining the flat lining global temperatures.

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

Second, the regional differences are noticeable and the subarctic is warming more than other regions.

Can't argue with that!

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

Third, the data set itself has some dubious reliability issues, in that some stations could be contaminated by urban heat island effects, which are certainly "anthropogenic warming" but not of the kind being postulated in the AGW theory.

The trend with urban stations is the same as the trend in rural locations and the UHI is accounted for when generating the published data.

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

Here's the link, the data can only be used to illustrate the first of my three contentions above.

http://data.giss.nas...GLB.Ts dSST.txt

The link is broken, but I presume it's just the global temperature data yes?

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

As to the distinction between greenhouse warming and urban heat island effects, it should be noted that the two are not mutually exclusive. The way that an urban heat island operates is that it tends to build up over several days, then it becomes dispersed by stronger winds in cloudy daytime weather in particular. But that heat does not vanish, it is incorporated into the global atmosphere. Some of its origin is of greenhouse variety and some is due to albedo changes (surface reflectivity) due to the relatively dark surfaces of large urban areas (this traps and stores heat). I estimate that about one third to one half of reported warming, if true (some of the data could be compromised by site changes), is from mixing of urban heat island warming rather than global greenhouse processes.

That's true, while every uncertainty cannot be accounted for with regard the UHI effect, I think most climate scientists have a pretty good handle on it. As I mentioned earlier, the trend is the same in rural and urban areas. Also, if it was contributing significantly to global temperatures, we'd expect to see more industrialised areas with the largest +ve temperature anomalies, which just isn't the case.

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

The other unknown is to what extent the cause and effect is in the direction implied (greenhouse gas causes warming) and not in the other direction (warmer atmosphere induces greater releases of greenhouse gases). This is important in the consideration of how natural variability and AGW interact. If a natural cooling cycle reversed the upward temperature trend, then that might feed back into the greenhouse gas production rate, especially for methane in melting areas of the subarctic.

We know that the oceans have absorbed roughly a third of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, as we can see with the ocean acidification issue. The human produced CO2 I think can be identified by the isotope ratio between C12 and C13. The feedback mechanisms do exist, such as in the Arctic and subarctic as you mentioned, with rises in methane from destabilisation of shallow ocean hydrates and melting permafrost among others.

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

In other words, it is all complicated, and tends to be a more subtle process than the media would have us believe. The past five years in Ireland and the UK reveal just how fragile this "global warming" can be, I don't have ready access to Irish data but I recall posting elsewhere a study showing that the period 1988-2007 had warmed by 1.2 C relative to long-term CET but that had fallen back to 0.4 C in 2008-11 inclusive. That is similar to 1971-87, so it appears that a peak has been reached and passed in some ways. The last year or two in North America on the other hand have seen a return to near-record warmth in many places, similar to peaks around 1990 and 1998.

I think this situation is on the borderline between significant and random, and could yet go either way, because natural variability is probably two or three times stronger than the AGW signal, and can push it around almost at will. We found that out big-time in December 2010.

In my opinion, the last 5 years show how fragile our weather can be, not global warming. The short term drops in the CET and Irish temperature you mentioned are what I'd consider weather also, rather than indicative of climate. While it perhaps isn't of much importance globally, the trend for Ireland has largely followed the global trend. http://www.met.ie/climate-ireland/surface-temperature.asp
While future predictions contain some uncertainty, to me it seems clear that warming the last century, especially the last 50 years, has been driven much more so by man made CO2 than anything else

So on the whole, I'll have to respectfully disagree with you:)

Su Campu

Not to mention the fact that in areas that have no data, they interpolate and calculate a value that invariably gives a warm trend. See here

The following figure shows temperature trends for the Siberian area highlighted previously (Lat 65 to 80 - Long 100 to 135). Of the eight main temperature dots on the IPCC map, three are interpolated (no data). Of the five with data, the number of stations is indicated in the lower left corner of each grid-based temperature graph. The only grid with more than two stations shows no warming over the available data. The average for the entire 15 x 35 degree area is shown in the upper right of the figure. Of the eight individual stations, only two exhibit any warming since the 1930’s (the one in long 130-135 and only one of the two in long 110-115). An important issue is to keep in mind is that in the calculation of global average temperatures, the interpolated grid boxes are averaged in with the ones that actually have data. This example shows how sparse and varying data can contribute to an average that is not necessarily representative.





Areas of the Sahara are also given false warm anomalies.

Deep Easterly

compsys wrote: »

This really is crazy when you think how many below average months we've had temperature wise in Ireland over the past five years or so, at least in parts of the East.

We've had very few cooler than average months really over the last 5 years, although they do seem to have increased in frequency since Nov 2009 oddly enough.

Su Campu

Speaking of the urban heat island effect, here is a Brazilian article from a couple of years ago (in Portuguese) which highlights the fact that, apart from large cities (such as São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Buenos Aires, Curitiba, etc), there is no warming trend in South America over the past several decades. The author also states that, even in the large cities, the individual warmings started when these cities underwent large growth. He claims that these facts have been hidden from the public.

http://www.metsul.com/secoes/visualiza.php?cod_subsecao=33&cod_texto=557

MiNdGaM3

Su Campu wrote: »

Speaking of the urban heat island effect, here is a Brazilian article from a couple of years ago (in Portuguese) which highlights the fact that, apart from large cities (such as São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Buenos Aires, Curitiba, etc), there is no warming trend in South America over the past several decades. The author also states that, even in the large cities, the individual warmings started when these cities underwent large growth. He claims that these facts have been hidden from the public.

http://www.metsul.com/secoes/visualiza.php?cod_subsecao=33&cod_texto=557

I'm not sure whether it's the translation or just poorly done, but it seems the scales keep changing on the graphs in that article, there are no trend lines used and the author only mentions urban expansion times in particular cities and gives little explanation as to why. Also, using only 20 stations to represent an entire continent isn't really representative, and even if we give it the benefit of the doubt and say it's correct, then it should also be observable across the rest of the world.
These climate scientists aren't all idiots and would have noticed such an obvious pattern by now.
As for the title claiming the data is being hidden, I'm pretty sure with all the sceptical websites and organisations out there, if something like this was real and mattered, we'd be hearing all about it now!

compsys

Deep Easterly wrote: »

We've had very few cooler than average months really over the last 5 years, although they do seem to have increased in frequency since Nov 2009 oddly enough.

Well Dublin Airport has had 7 since January 2011 alone and Casement has had 5 - that seems a large enough number to me. I can't comment on Ireland as a whole however.

Danno

MiNdGaM3 wrote: »

...using only 20 stations to represent an entire continent isn't really representative, and even if we give it the benefit of the doubt and say it's correct, then it should also be observable across the rest of the world.

But yet when a map shows warming, it's infilled data is allowed to stand? Double standards much?

These climate scientists aren't all idiots and would have noticed such an obvious pattern by now.

Certainly not... if I was paid to find global warming... i'd damn well find it. This quango survives on grant aid you know.

As for the title claiming the data is being hidden, I'm pretty sure with all the sceptical websites and organisations out there, if something like this was real and mattered, we'd be hearing all about it now!

You are hearing about it now.

Deep Easterly

compsys wrote: »

Well Dublin Airport has had 7 since January 2011 alone and Casement has had 5 - that seems a large enough number to me. I can't comment on Ireland as a whole however.

Pretty much the same trend over the rest of the country but I would be cautious about comparing Dublin Airport's recent data against its long-term means as was discussed on this thread last year.

MiNdGaM3

Danno wrote: »

But yet when a map shows warming, it's infilled data is allowed to stand? Double standards much?

What? If we're talking about the NOAA maps, they use optimal interpolation. I don't know what weighting they use in the different parameters, so rather than jump to conclusions, I'll choose not to comment on it until I understand the methods a bit better.
But I can understand how that might seem like too much effort to some.

Danno wrote: »

Certainly not... if I was paid to find global warming... i'd damn well find it. This quango survives on grant aid you know.

All scientists, in every field of study, are paid by somebody.
Do you question whether cancer is real because drug companies pay scientists to investigate the causes, cures and treatment for it?
If there were fundamental flaws in the work, it would be pointed out. Instead, oversimplifications are made, lies and propaganda are distributed and all the while little or no scientific evidence is out there against man made global warming.

Danno wrote: »

You are hearing about it now.

The article is from 2007, I'm sure the author could have created a scientific paper with it if it had any real scientific basis.

While we're at it, is it the global warming you don't believe to have occurred, or just that CO2 ain't the cause?

Su Campu

I had this debate on another forum back in 2007 and I got the same dismissive replies, with people dodging the fact that in a wide expanse of South America, only the large cities are showing a warming trend. The scale of the charts has nothing to do with it, and in any case they all have data for the past 50 years. You don't need trend lines to see the difference. That again is dodging the issue.

Say we had seen Pheonix Park showing a warming trend but Casement, Dublin Airport, Oak Park and Mullingar without it. Would you then say the same thing? Different part of the world but the same scenario. Would you say Ireland (or at least Leinster) was warming or not? Wouldn't the Pheonix Park data look a little suspicious? The same thing is really happening in Brazil and Argentina, so deal with that real issue.

MiNdGaM3

Su Campu wrote: »

I had this debate on another forum back in 2007 and I got the same dismissive replies, with people dodging the fact that in a wide expanse of South America, only the large cities are showing a warming trend. The scale of the charts has nothing to do with it, and in any case they all have data for the past 50 years. You don't need trend lines to see the difference. That again is dodging the issue.

You're doing a fine job of dismissing the points I made.
A) Why does the author only describe periods of rapid urban expansion for some areas and not others and where are the sources? His description of the trends in the graphs often don't match what the graphs actually show.
Scale does matter. For example, why is the Rio graph cut off before 2000 without explanation? Look at x axis scales, why so much variety? If he's gonna rely on crude visual comparisons, at least make the graphs comparable!
C) Many areas where he claims a neutral or cooling trend, look much more to me like a slow rising or flat trend, hence a trend line would help, and if he was somehow accurate in his assertions it couldn't hurt, could it?
D) This is supposed to be some kinda scientific refutation of CO2 induced climate change. So why not make his work more scientific? Use a larger data set, show sources, expand his ideas to other continents. Why rely on eye-balling a handful of graphs? The power of suggestion can do wonders!

Su Campu wrote: »

Say we had seen Pheonix Park showing a warming trend but Casement, Dublin Airport, Oak Park and Mullingar without it. Would you then say the same thing? Different part of the world but the same scenario. Would you say Ireland (or at least Leinster) was warming or not? Wouldn't the Pheonix Park data look a little suspicious? The same thing is really happening in Brazil and Argentina, so deal with that real issue.

That would be something, but it's not happening. If the authors assertions were true, then that is the pattern we'd expect to be the norm all around the world, but it isn't.

C'mon Su, science has moved beyond the realms of eye-balling graphs. When someone with as clear and obvious a bias as can be seen in the article tries to give evidence against something as well accepted as CO2 causing warming, they really need to be scientific and systematic about it.
Even if the article was true, it would not come close to refuting global warming by CO2, only a demonstration on UHI and regional variation.

Su Campu

The author does NOT deny warming is occuring around the world, and the graphics not his, they are from NASA. I speak Portuguese so I will translate it properly, so we don't have to rely on Google translate.

[FONT=trebuchet ms,geneva][/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms,geneva]
First of all, I would like to reiterate my stance on whether global warming is an unquestionable fact. Not one piece of data exists that supports the claims of those who deny the warming of the planet in the last 30 years. On the other hand, I reiterate my understanding that such warming has occured through well descernable natural causes and t[/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms,geneva]he future scenario is not[/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms,geneva] frightening and hopeless, as is suggested in the recent media and scientific hysteria. What you are about to read in this post are facts and data proportionate with an institution well known for its scientific rigour[/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms,geneva], and the graphics that follow were not produced by MetSul Meteorologia or by me personally, but by an independent third party.

NASA is an institute that is above any suspicion when it comes to scientific knowledge and excellence. Among its staff is Jim Hansen, one of the biggest and oldest supporters of these scare stories, and who claims to have been censured by the White House for his beliefs. The institution run by Hansen in NASA has a wealth of historical temperature records for stations right throughout the world. These data are used in the Global Climate Models that project these cataclysmic scenarios for the next decades, so the precision of these data must be very high to prevent distortion in the numerical forecast data.
[/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms,geneva]
This analysis will concentrate on South America as this is of most interest to us. It deals with one of the areas least likely to suffer the harmful consequences forecast by the scientists who defend the catastrophic scenarios. If we are in global warming, what better than to have a look at how much the region has warmed by. The NASA graphic for São Paulo leaves no doubt that the Paulista capital has undergone remarkable warming during the 20th century, something that will feed the claims of those who post a bleak outlook for humanity.

---

[/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms,geneva]Another enormous metropolitan area that could be an example of global warming is Rio de Janeiro, which shows a strong rise in temperature since the 40s. The values, however, show a leveling off since the start of the 60s.

---

While Rio showed this leveling off, Curitiba, on the other hand, showed strong warming starting around the same time.

---

Are these strong temperature rises in these three cities eveidence of global warming? The answer is a big fat no. [/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms,geneva]It can be noted from the graphs that the warming starts at completely distinct periods. São Paulo warms from the end of the 1900s, when there weren't thousands of cars emitting their greenhouse gases. Rio warmed until the 40s, then leveled off. Curitiba only started warming from the end of the 50s. Global warming does not explain these temperature trends; urbanisation does. Urban expansion took place in different forms and at different times in these cities, with São Paulo witnessing an exponential building growth at the start of the 20th century. Rio underwent the same process, but topographical limitations impeded further horizontal growth, which is reflected in the growth of Grande Rio, and not exactly in the city of Rio, which is wedged between Serra Geral and the sea. Even Curitiba, like the other cities, underwent accelerated growth from the middle of the century. If the cause was Global Warming, why did the warming start in different decades in the different cities?[/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms,geneva]
The theory is confirmed by the temperature behaviour in Porto Alegre. In the last 100 years, the temperature of the Gaucho capital shows no great variation. In the last 50 years, when the weather station was located in a green area (Botanical Gardens), there was no significant change in temperature patterns. The large vegetation cover around the station mitigated the effects of the urbanisation observed during the 20th century and esplains the stability.

I could go on, but there's no point spending an hour translating it. The key answers to your questions are:

[/FONT]

• [FONT=trebuchet ms,geneva]He concentrated on South America as that is his key audience. [/FONT]

• [FONT=trebuchet ms,geneva]The graphics are from NASA, so not his, and therefore he cannot put in an accurate trendline.[/FONT]

• [FONT=trebuchet ms,geneva]The growth of each city quoted is obviously there for anyone to look up, so there is no reason to doubt his dates.[/FONT]

[FONT=trebuchet ms,geneva]
This is a blog, not a scientific paper. However, I have no reason to believe that the data are not correct. They are from NASA, which you claim above use "optimum" processess. I disagree with your argument that the trends are not what he claims. Eyeballing is accurate enough in this case to see the huge differences. "Level" may not be exactly level, alright, but it is clear that they are level when compared to the large cities. It would be interesting to see the same thing expanded to other parts of the world. I have seen similar for the States, where many of the climate stations are in ludiricous locations, such as tarmac carparks, near air conditioning outlets, etc.
[/FONT]

MiNdGaM3

Su Campu wrote: »

The author does NOT deny warming is occuring around the world, and the graphics not his, they are from NASA. I speak Portuguese so I will translate it properly, so we don't have to rely on Google translate.


[/I]
I could go on, but there's no point spending an hour translating it. The key answers to your questions are:

[/SIZE][/FONT]

• [FONT=trebuchet ms,geneva]He concentrated on South America as that is his key audience. [/FONT]

• [FONT=trebuchet ms,geneva]The graphics are from NASA, so not his, and therefore he cannot put in an accurate trendline.[/FONT]

• [FONT=trebuchet ms,geneva]The growth of each city quoted is obviously there for anyone to look up, so there is no reason to doubt his dates.[/FONT]

[FONT=trebuchet ms,geneva]
This is a blog, not a scientific paper. However, I have no reason to believe that the data are not correct. They are from NASA, which you claim above use "optimum" processess. I disagree with your argument that the trends are not what he claims. Eyeballing is accurate enough in this case to see the huge differences. "Level" may not be exactly level, alright, but it is clear that they are level when compared to the large cities. It would be interesting to see the same thing expanded to other parts of the world. I have seen similar for the States, where many of the climate stations are in ludiricous locations, such as tarmac carparks, near air conditioning outlets, etc.
[/FONT]

First off, I never said he denied global warming, just CO2 induced warming.

Also, he shows a large number of city graphs, with a general upward temperature trend. Their not all the same trend... thus CO2 isn't causing global warming?... where is the logic in that? Nobody has ever said every region of the world has to warm at exactly the same rate.
So saying that because the temperature trend in a number of cities, separated by thousands of km, isn't identical - he claims that as a no for CO2 warming.

He even claims that while Rosario shows warming, 2 nearby cities, Concord and Paso de Los Libres, the temperature is steady, thus showing the warming in Rosario to be due to urbanisation. Concord and Paso de Los Libres are about 1,000km and 500km from Rosario respectively and both much further inland. If we were analysing temperature trends in say Edinburgh, we wouldn't use Oslo and Reykjavik for comparison.

He compares selective temperatures trends with cherry picked and vague urban expansion descriptions. That is not very scientific in my opinion. As for going after the sources myself to prove him right or wrong, my response to that would be that the onus lies with the author to back up his claims with data and references, not the reader.

As for the temperature data, if that was the best he could do then fine. But, how many stations did he leave out? How many cities did he leave out? Why not include descriptions of the station locations for all cities rather than just 1 when it suited him? Why only use such a small area of S. America? Does the rest of the data not fit the agenda? Are there any rural stations? Why not request the actual data rather than just graphs? And so on and so on...
Here is a screen shot of the cities used in the article, green for no trend or decline (only 1 or 2 clear declines) and red for increasing temperatures, just to show the kind of area he used.


I honestly believe that the blog post is about secondary school geography level analysis. I know that kinda thing certainly wouldn't get me more than a pass (if lucky) in Uni!
Anyway, I can see why few people have paid much attention to the article/blog. Apologies if all this makes me appear dismissive, I just don't think it is up to standard to be honest.

Nabber

MiNdGaM3 wrote: »

Instead, oversimplifications are made, lies and propaganda are distributed and all the while little or no scientific evidence is out there against man made global warming.

That's quite the bold statement.

If it is accepted that cities cause a 'warm island effect' why is their Data accepted at all for these studies. Why not judge global warming exclusively on mountain stations and weather ballons?

Like with all popular opinions, the people who hold them take a higher ground, a calling that they have answered (That's what they come across like, not all tho )

There is far too much money in GW research to accept any of it at this stage, If the Nat-Geo channel didn't pump it out so hard, I may take more seriously....

Bring back the hole in ozone layer scare....

MiNdGaM3

Nabber wrote: »

That's quite the bold statement.

If it is accepted that cities cause a 'warm island effect' why is their Data accepted at all for these studies. Why not judge global warming exclusively on mountain stations and weather ballons?

Like with all popular opinions, the people who hold them take a higher ground, a calling that they have answered (That's what they come across like, not all tho )

There is far too much money in GW research to accept any of it at this stage, If the Nat-Geo channel didn't pump it out so hard, I may take more seriously....

Bring back the hole in ozone layer scare....

The urban heat island effect is accounted for, and adjustments are made to counter the effects. For most long term stations, the trend in the same for both rural and urban settings.

There is money involved in all research, climate science is no different. Though it's not like the hydrocarbon industry, which stands to lose the most from any CO2 restrictions, is in any way short of cash! But because they cannot find any scientific basis on which to produce countering scientific evidence, they resort to tactics ranging from spreading a stance of "no scientific consensus" myth, to billboards such as these


Hence the "bold" statement I made!

Su Campu

You don't seem to be getting it. This is not a scientific paper, it's a blog, and like most blogs it is a short concise piece, not 10 or 20 pages of indepth peer-reviewed scientific analysis with references. He therefore takes a sample of the main cities of the continent, as they are of most interest to his readers and I'm sure he doesn't have 6 months or a year to dedicate to writing a full paper. I'm not sure how extensive the climate dataset is for that part of the world, so there may not be too many stations to choose from in the first place.

My point is that most stations around the world have become urbanised in recent decades, with rural station becoming rarer and rarer. He shows examples of differences between large urban centres and more rural locations. Global temperature anomaly maps show warming for South America, but these would be contaminated by the false warmings of the large cities. Take these data out and you may get a very different result. The period of interest is since the 60s, as this is when the CO2 warming is claimed to have taken place. If CO2 is indeed doing as nasty a job as we're being led to believe, then we should see every rural station showing warming too, with a common baseline trend behind local factors. Your map is not as reliable as you make out. You have left out Concordia altogether. You have a warming trend for Rocha and Trelew, when in fact they are level since the 60s and 40s, respectively). Correct that and the graph will look very different.

Most warming is claimed to occur in the northern hemisphere, which, coincidentally, is where the majority of populated areas and hence biased warmings are. With these cities growing and more and more rural stations being stepped down, it is no wonder that the data are being made look worse than they actually are. No doubt that the earth has warmed in the last few decades of the 20th century, but it's strange how it has leveled off in the last one. PDO turning negative and lower solar activity are the obvious reasons, but no one seems to want to entertain that fact.

MiNdGaM3

Su Campu wrote: »

You don't seem to be getting it. This is not a scientific paper, it's a blog, and like most blogs it is a short concise piece, not 10 or 20 pages of indepth peer-reviewed scientific analysis with references. He therefore takes a sample of the main cities of the continent, as they are of most interest to his readers and I'm sure he doesn't have 6 months or a year to dedicate to writing a full paper. I'm not sure how extensive the climate dataset is for that part of the world, so there may not be too many stations to choose from in the first place.

My point is that most stations around the world have become urbanised in recent decades, with rural station becoming rarer and rarer. He shows examples of differences between large urban centres and more rural locations. Global temperature anomaly maps show warming for South America, but these would be contaminated by the false warmings of the large cities. Take these data out and you may get a very different result. The period of interest is since the 60s, as this is when the CO2 warming is claimed to have taken place. If CO2 is indeed doing as nasty a job as we're being led to believe, then we should see every rural station showing warming too, with a common baseline trend behind local factors. Your map is not as reliable as you make out. You have left out Concordia altogether. You have a warming trend for Rocha and Trelew, when in fact they are level since the 60s and 40s, respectively). Correct that and the graph will look very different.

Most warming is claimed to occur in the northern hemisphere, which, coincidentally, is where the majority of populated areas and hence biased warmings are. With these cities growing and more and more rural stations being stepped down, it is no wonder that the data are being made look worse than they actually are. No doubt that the earth has warmed in the last few decades of the 20th century, but it's strange how it has leveled off in the last one. PDO turning negative and lower solar activity are the obvious reasons, but no one seems to want to entertain that fact.

Scientific papers don't take up many pages usually, and seen as this type of analysis should be straight forward, it could probably be done in a few days or less. So considering all the information that is completely lacking, the sources that are lacking, the empirical data that's lacking, and the relatively small area and seemingly arbitrary station choices, I'll stick with it not being up to anywhere near the standard to justify the title "Why is this information being hidden?"

The UHI is accounted for and urban and rural stations display the same trend. The northern hemisphere is warmer because of the larger land mass, the melting Arctic sea ice and the fact that we've less ice sheet cover than the southern hemisphere. The industrialisation aspect is accounted for and besides, satellite data show warming is occurring now as well.

These stations in the blog are so far apart and we know so little about how they were chosen that its not safe to make any conclusions. Regional variation can be impressive!

As for my map, I'm not making any big claims with it! I definitely included some city called Concordia, though perhaps not the right one? I also used my own interpretation of the graph trends, seeing as I disagreed with many of the ones decided on by the author.

As for your last paragraph, if UHI is driving so much of global temperatures, why did they peak in the late nineties? And seen as the last 15 years we've been on a downward trend in sea ice, snow cover, PDO, ENSO, NAO and a long term solar decrease, why are we only managing to barely flatline global temperatures? Not even a slight decrease like the 0s to 70s.
Also, plenty of studies are being done and have been done of the affects of solar activity and ocean cycles/oscillations. Just because they don't appear across the mainstream media doesn't mean they don't exist.
Do you think CO2 has no warming effect at all?

Nabber

MiNdGaM3 wrote: »

There is money involved in all research, climate science is no different. Though it's not like the hydrocarbon industry, which stands to lose the most from any CO2 restrictions, is in any way short of cash! But because they cannot find any scientific basis on which to produce countering scientific evidence, they resort to tactics ranging from spreading a stance of "no scientific consensus" myth,

You have like so many missed most of the counter argument.

Counter argument being, prove global warming is man made.

Currently it can't be done. We don't know what the weather 'should be like' As with most fields of science, it is now totally unacceptable to say 'we don't have an answer'.
An answer has to be given. Hence global warming.

As for the Hydro Carbon industry. What's to be scared of, wind energy, solar, energy, hydro? All are laughable. Dirtier than they are clean.

Sea levels are always thrown out there to be on the rise
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006GL028492.shtml


A time comes when you say enough is enough

Su Campu

MiNdGaM3 wrote: »

As for your last paragraph, if UHI is driving so much of global temperatures, why did they peak in the late nineties? And seen as the last 15 years we've been on a downward trend in sea ice, snow cover, PDO, ENSO, NAO and a long term solar decrease, why are we only managing to barely flatline global temperatures? Not even a slight decrease like the 0s to 70s.
Also, plenty of studies are being done and have been done of the affects of solar activity and ocean cycles/oscillations. Just because they don't appear across the mainstream media doesn't mean they don't exist.
Do you think CO2 has no warming effect at all?

So quote some of these articles to back up your argument then, like you say he should have done. :cool:

The leveling of the last 10-15 years (which was not forecast by the hockey-stick models by the way) is probably in some part down to the thermal inertia of the oceans, which are continuing to release some heat built up in the previous decades' solar activity, and also the continued urbanisation of stations. No doubt the globe has warmed, as it always has and will, but I don't feel that it has as much as is being claimed. The global warming of the early 20th century is identical in slope and scale to the warming since the start of the 70s, but the earlier one was put down to solar activity. It was followed by 20-30 years of leveling. We are seeing an identical pattern emerging now, with warming from the 70s, and leveling since the late 90s. We have a much larger population now, with infinitely more car and plane journeys, so we really should not be seeing leveling if CO2 is the main culprit. It does have a small radiative forcing, but is dwarfed by that of H2O and other factors.

MiNdGaM3

Nabber wrote: »

You have like so many missed most of the counter argument.

Counter argument being, prove global warming is man made.

Currently it can't be done. We don't know what the weather 'should be like' As with most fields of science, it is now totally unacceptable to say 'we don't have an answer'.
An answer has to be given. Hence global warming.

As for the Hydro Carbon industry. What's to be scared of, wind energy, solar, energy, hydro? All are laughable. Dirtier than they are clean.

Sea levels are always thrown out there to be on the rise
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006GL028492.shtml


A time comes when you say enough is enough

Prove that global warming is man made you say, well, humans are increasing the amount of atmospheric CO2 (if you don't accept that then I think I'm wasting my time here!), and there are numerous studies showing that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It's kind of a fact! You can dispute how much warming it causes, but there is no scientific evidence to say it causes no warming.
But, just for you a small sample of papers demonstrating the radiative impact of the extra CO2 we're emmitting:D
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html
http://spiedigitallibrary.org/proceedings/resource/2/psisdg/5543/1/164_1?isAuthorized=no
http://www.eumetsat.int/Home/Main/Publications/Conference_and_Workshop_Proceedings/groups/cps/documents/document/pdf_conf_p50_s9_01_harries_v.pdf
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JD011800.shtml
http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/2004/2003GL018765.shtml
http://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm
http://thingsbreak.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/anthropogenic-and-natural-warming-inferred-from-changes-in-earths-energy-balance.pdf

By the way, the link agu link you posted, shows sea levels are rising... so the point of it?

The hydrocarbon industries profits would be affected by caps on CO2 output... I don't think that's jumping to conclusions. I'm not talking about the validity of alternative energies.

The last link you posted to is a list of things possibly affected by global warming, not necessarily anthropogenic global warming. So really you're taking a dig at yourself with that one too!

Su Campu

MiNdGaM3 wrote: »

By the way, the link agu link you posted, shows sea levels are rising... so the point of it?

It actually shows that the rate of rise was greatest during the first half of the last century, around 35% greater than the second half, which includes the large increase centred on the 80s. That's not the way we should be seeing it, if the alarmists are to be believed. I thought the train was supposed to be running out of control?

MiNdGaM3

Su Campu wrote: »

So quote some of these articles to back up your argument then, like you say he should have done. :cool:

The leveling of the last 10-15 years (which was not forecast by the hockey-stick models by the way) is probably in some part down to the thermal inertia of the oceans, which are continuing to release some heat built up in the previous decades' solar activity, and also the continued urbanisation of stations. No doubt the globe has warmed, as it always has and will, but I don't feel that it has as much as is being claimed. The global warming of the early 20th century is identical in slope and scale to the warming since the start of the 70s, but the earlier one was put down to solar activity. It was followed by 20-30 years of leveling. We are seeing an identical pattern emerging now, with warming from the 70s, and leveling since the late 90s. We have a much larger population now, with infinitely more car and plane journeys, so we really should not be seeing leveling if CO2 is the main culprit. It does have a small radiative forcing, but is dwarfed by that of H2O and other factors.

I'm battling a corner on my own, how much time do you think I have:pac:

Luckily, climate isn't measured in time spans of 10-15 years, so justification of climate predictions will need a little more time.
But, what the hey! if were gonna start using 15 year means to judge climate, then perhaps we should look at a few pieces of data. The graphs are my own, data from sources such as HADCRUT, NOAA, NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis etc, so reputable sources.
All since 1998
AMO-Flatline


PDO-Dropping


ENSO-Dropping


NAO-Dropping (though not a driver)


And sunspots since 1955.... Dropping!


Temperature-Flatlined


Solar activity has been declining since at least '55, so I don't thinl we can blame that. Besides, nobody has found a direct mechanism by which solar cycle variation can affect the earths temperature, only correlations. (Which we know, does not always equal causation!)

Your claim about global warming in the early 20th century being the same in slope and scale, that's simply not true, and we've had this discussion before! It demonstrates the issue of "eyeballing" graphs.


As for you sea level rise comment, as ever, it's the long term trend that counts, not the decadal variation. Anyway, different studies yield different results, but the important thing is they all agree on the long term trend.
http://academics.eckerd.edu/instructor/hastindw/MS1410-001_FA08/handouts/2008SLRSustain.pdf

MiNdGaM3

Just to let ya know, I won't be responding to or at least spending any time responding to posts for the next week on this thread. I have my final 4th year exam on Thursday (on "Environmental Remote Sensing" no less!) and I've already wasted way too much time on this thread that I should have spent studying!
I will return though, full of scientific papers and more evidence, I promise:pac:

Su Campu

Thank you for the graphs, I take it the trendlines were done numerically and not just eyeballed in there!! :pac:

I think in one go you've just pretty much rubbished the whole AGW argument. The two major oceanic drivers - the PDO and ENSO, obviously have a large effect on temperatures, with the late-century rising coinciding with the warm PDO phase. Factor in the increased station urbanisation and we'd probably see that temperature flatline show a slight cooling trend.

With the increased solar activity and hence shortwave flux of the early century, this stored oceanic heat has probably been slowly released over the past 40 years, and we are now reaching an equilibrium of sorts. Ok there is a faster rise in the later warming, but I think I've given my reasons why that might be. The flatline is of course still too short, but is 15 years longer than the models were predicting in their hockey stick craziness! :rolleyes:

Anyway, I think we've done this to death. Good luck with the exam

Danno

MiNdGaM3 wrote: »

The hydrocarbon industries profits would be affected by caps on CO2 output...

This is the bull fook ology that makes my blood boil. The profits will never be affected never, mark my words. YOU and I will PAY at the pumps.

Rightio, got that one...?

Now, if all the green furry bunnies want to jump up and down about stopping dirty oil being burnt... then give us the alternatives... until then STFU and get designing.

Deep Easterly

Danno wrote: »

This is the bull fook ology that makes my blood boil. The profits will never be affected never, mark my words. YOU and I will PAY at the pumps.

Rightio, got that one...?

Now, if all the green furry bunnies want to jump up and down about stopping dirty oil being burnt... then give us the alternatives... until then STFU and get designing.

I remember during a seminar while at college one cold morning a couple of years back there was hot debate about the evils of oil companies and their political allegiances. Fair enough, but had to laugh when one particular person who was the most vocal against such literally ran to the radiator to warm herself when the seminar finished. When I pointed this out this little irony to her she took real offense almost as if I insulted her or something.

People are funny things.. :P

sharper

Su Campu wrote: »

I think in one go you've just pretty much rubbished the whole AGW argument. The two major oceanic drivers - the PDO and ENSO, obviously have a large effect on temperatures, with the late-century rising coinciding with the warm PDO phase. Factor in the increased station urbanisation and we'd probably see that temperature flatline show a slight cooling trend.

Hang on - as pointed out PDO and ENSO are negative over the last 10 years. If you want to adjust temperatures for them then they'll decrease the previous warming trend but increase the recent trend. You can't subtract from the temperature trend when they're positive and then keep subtracting from them when they're negative.

In any event someone has already gone to the trouble of removing those indexes from the temperature signal

http://www.skepticalscience.com/foster-and-rahmstorf-measure-global-warming-signal.html

Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) have published a paper in Environmental Research Letters seeking to extract the human-caused global warming signal from the global surface temperature and lower troposphere temperature data. In order to accomplish this goal, the authors effectively filter out the effects of solar activity, the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO), and volcanic activity. The result is shown in Figure 1 below.

I should also note that while you've mentioned UHI a lot and attributed a huge amount of observed warming to it, the UAH and RSS records are both derived from satellite observations and are not subject to UHI influences. Here is a comparison of all the records together with their trends over the satellite era



You're simply not going to make that warming disappear by claiming UHI.

The ocean heat content dwarfs that of the atmosphere and it too is warming, again not a product of UHI

With the increased solar activity and hence shortwave flux of the early century, this stored oceanic heat has probably been slowly released over the past 40 years, and we are now reaching an equilibrium of sorts.

Scientists that do this for a living have considered ways to measure the climate energy imbalance and see if it's approaching equilibrium or becoming more imbalanced. Contrary to your statement above it's the latter, again as measured by satellites which are able to monitor incoming and outgoing energy.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/energy-budget.html

Hansen's team concluded that Earth has absorbed more than half a watt more solar energy per square meter than it let off throughout the six year study period. The calculated value of the imbalance (0.58 watts of excess energy per square meter) is more than twice as much as the reduction in the amount of solar energy supplied to the planet between maximum and minimum solar activity (0.25 watts per square meter).

Hansen's analysis of the information collected by Argo, along with other ground-based and satellite data, show the upper ocean has absorbed 71 percent of the excess energy and the Southern Ocean, where there are few Argo floats, has absorbed 12 percent. The abyssal zone of the ocean, between about 3,000 and 6,000 meters (9,800 and 20,000 feet) below the surface, absorbed five percent, while ice absorbed eight percent and land four percent.

If your argument was correct then we'd be emitting more energy than we absorb, since the sea would be releasing energy from a previous solar high. Instead the opposite is true.

Su Campu

sharper wrote: »

Hang on - as pointed out PDO and ENSO are negative over the last 10 years. If you want to adjust temperatures for them then they'll decrease the previous warming trend but increase the recent trend. You can't subtract from the temperature trend when they're positive and then keep subtracting from them when they're negative.

I'm not sure I follow you there. I said they contributed to the warming in their positive phases, so the recent trend (70-00) was a product of this. Where was I subtracting when they were positive? I was doing the opposite!

Regarding the satellite data. I don't put much weight into satellite surface temperature data as it is different to that measured by a sensor at the required 1.5 metres above ground level. The problem with the whole temperature record is that we have three different types of temperatures all in the one curve - proxy, instrumental and satellite. That is bad science. I still have not seen any work that has shown that surface temperatures measured by satellite are the same as those measured by a standard weather station. I have seen the opposite though. Satellites measure lower tropospheric temperature, which is not the same as the instrumental dataset for the past 150 years. Your chart shows up to 400% difference between even the different satellite datasets themselves, so let's keep satellite data out of a discussion on station trends.

You speak of the ocean heat content dwarfing that of the atmosphere. My point exactly. Which do you think is the driver of global atmospheric temperature? The ocean. A vast heat sink with an enormous heat flux to the overlying atmosphere. The atmosphere acts in response to the oceans. The oceans also release more dissolved CO2 as they warm, which has in itself probably contributed to the CO2 record of the past half century. Warm PDO concided with the recent warming, it has now started negative within the last decade and the temperature has leveled off. With it continuing further negative in the next decade we should see the temperature continue to follow suit.

People have their different opinions, but I'm sure that in time, those of the alarmist viewpoint will discover how ridiculous the science and politics of the past 30 years has been. I do agree 100% that we need to clean things up, stop our reliance on oil, and maximise the green energy potential that lies there wasted. There is absolutely no justifiable reason why we can't meet the majority of our energy needs through wind, ocean, tidal and solar means. The reason is politics, but as I said, that's not justifiable.

sharper

Su Campu wrote: »

I'm not sure I follow you there. I said they contributed to the warming in their positive phases, so the recent trend (70-00) was a product of this. Where was I subtracting when they were positive? I was doing the opposite!

You're saying that if you remove the effects of ENSO etc it would reduce overall warming and sure this is likely true - for the period in which they were positive. You further assert that since recent temperatures are somewhat flat it might bring them to the point of cooling but as the graphs show for the period in which temperatures are flat, the indexes are negative. So no cooling when you correct for them.

Regarding the satellite data. I don't put much weight into satellite surface temperature data as it is different to that measured by a sensor at the required 1.5 metres above ground level.

I have no idea what you're saying here but it sounds like you've somehow managed to dismiss a completely independent line of evidence which again shows the planet is warming.

The problem with the whole temperature record is that we have three different types of temperatures all in the one curve - proxy, instrumental and satellite.

I again don't know what you're saying - where was this integrated curve presented? By whom?

That is bad science. I still have not seen any work that has shown that surface temperatures measured by satellite are the same as those measured by a standard weather station. I have seen the opposite though.

Er what? This is from 1996 with data ending in 1995! If the "opposite" is really true why not something that makes use of the last 17 years of data (in a record that's 33 years long!)

Satellites measure lower tropospheric temperature, which is not the same as the instrumental dataset for the past 150 years. Your chart shows up to 400% difference between even the different satellite datasets themselves, so let's keep satellite data out of a discussion on station trends.

Yes satellites measure the troposphere. Which is warming. I don't know where you got a "400% difference" from but it sounds like you made it up.

You speak of the ocean heat content dwarfing that of the atmosphere. My point exactly. Which do you think is the driver of global atmospheric temperature? The ocean. A vast heat sink with an enormous heat flux to the overlying atmosphere. The atmosphere acts in response to the oceans.

Sorry but you don't get to simply invoke the oceans as an explanation without evidence. The evidence says the oceans are warming in response to a change in atmospheric composition. If you want to assert that actually the surface is warming because of unrelated ocean cycles you need to show this to be case. MiNdGaM3 has already posted the various ocean indices which show their negative, not positive influence. Yet temperatures on the surface remain high relative to the entire instrumental record.

The oceans also release more dissolved CO2 as they warm, which has in itself probably contributed to the CO2 record of the past half century. Warm PDO concided with the recent warming, it has now started negative within the last decade and the temperature has leveled off. With it continuing further negative in the next decade we should see the temperature continue to follow suit.

The oceans are a net sink of C02 not a source. They're absorbing approximately 50% of the extra amount added by humans. The increase of C02 in the atmosphere is completely attributable to human activity and would actually be twice what it is if not for the oceans absorbing it.

People have their different opinions

Different opinions sure but not everyone has facts and evidence.

, but I'm sure that in time, those of the alarmist viewpoint will discover how ridiculous the science and politics of the past 30 years has been. I do agree 100% that we need to clean things up, stop our reliance on oil, and maximise the green energy potential that lies there wasted. There is absolutely no justifiable reason why we can't meet the majority of our energy needs through wind, ocean, tidal and solar means. The reason is politics, but as I said, that's not justifiable.

I have no idea what you consider to be an alarmist viewpoint. All I've read from you here is you trying to argue there's no warming, well maybe some but it's totally natural and caused by something else. This contradicts physics and is nothing to do with politics.

M.T. Cranium

Sorry about that broken link, this should work:


http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt


The rate of global temperature increase has taken some irregular upward lurches since the mid-1970s but has become almost flat-line since 2002. These are the five-year global departures from the base-line (averages from the period 1951-80 considered to be pre-AGW).

1972-76 .. -0.03

1977-81 .. +0.14

1982-86 .. +0.11

1987-91 .. +0.30

1992-96 .. +0.23

1997-2001 .. +0.44

2002-06 .. +0.55

2007-11 .. +0.54

2012 (J-A) .. +0.44

Now I'm aware that some question even this data set, but if you accept that it is reliable, the trend is clearly levelling off since the new century began. The strong El Nino in 1997-98 caused a spike to 0.55, and this value has only been exceeded in two years out of the past thirteen, equalled in one. I added the fragment from this year just to show that nothing sudden has just taken place. The value should not be taken as equally significant from so small a sample of time, so I would discourage anyone from saying "look, it's starting to drop."

The discussion of urban heat islands was interesting. I realize these data sets are supposed to filter out the urban effects, but many airports in far suburban locations are gradually being surrounded by urban sprawl. The biggest increases in urban heat islands tend to occur in the early to middle stages of development. When a town grows from about 2,000 population to 20,000, the amount of U.H.I. is on the order of 1 C deg. It takes from about there to 2 million to get the second degree of warming. Few actual urban areas are entirely regular spherical concentrations, they tend to spread out somewhat haphazardly and airports get slowly surrounded. But site differences can be enormous. I remember getting interested in this while studying Toronto airport data for a project in the 1960s. They had moved the airport weather station some distance away from the buildings (at what was then a much smaller airport than today, let's say similar to Shannon). Almost immediately, on cold nights, a slightly enhanced amount of aerial drainage and loss of the local "urban" effect dropped the monthly means at least half a degree C (it was a full degree F that we were using in Canada then). Comparison with undisturbed locations around the region showed that all of this change in mean temperature was caused by the drop on about a third of all nights in the order of 2-3 degrees. Otherwise, the station was recording probably the exact same as it would have in the old location, or very close to that. Since those days, Toronto airport has been gradually surrounded by suburbs that have become as built up as the city that used to sit well off to the southeast of the site. This likely means that YYZ has increased in temperature by at least 1 C deg, even though its local site has remained fairly undisturbed. I plan to study this again when I have time, but I suspect the new regional conditions have returned the temperature trends to what they were in the original case, although I would imagine it's a bit of a balance between a regional rise and a retention of some of the dropoff on cold nights.

We have to realize that much of the data going into the global studies are subject to these very complicated situations, it's not nearly as easy as saying "we are just using stations that are way out in the middle of nowhere" because very few weather stations are actually like that. A place like "Norfolk, Nebraska regional airport" may sound like a guaranteed farmer's field, but it too can be surrounded by suburban sprawl in today's fast-growing society. And then there's the question of what farmers are growing in their fields, the albedo effects ... getting a real reading on global changes from these ever-changing sites is not as easy as it may sound. I am always more impressed by changes in index values like foliation dates, ice cover or snow cover dates. These give us a more reliable picture of whether large-scale climate change is underway or not.

I remain convinced that most of the variations we have seen in the past thirty years are natural variability at work. And that makes me suspicious that sudden changes could lie around the corner, towards a colder climate, because that has happened many times in the past, for reasons entirely unrelated to our presence on the planet. The last 3-4 winters in Europe have shown that unexpected changes to colder weather are still possible -- that is to say, unexpected by the UN panel on climate change (who are always scrambling to find a new spin, but let's be honest, almost everyone active in weather science knows that a colder climate regime produces colder weather, not warmer weather feeding back from somewhere else).

M.T. Cranium

I also wanted to comment on the thread title, the past month of April was indeed 5th warmest in the data series (my previous post, link) -- but it was not the 5th warmest month of all the data, just of Aprils. In fact, the value of +0.56 deg is just about the average of the past ten years.

The warmest months in the data series were +0.88 in Jan 2007 and March 2002, +0.87. At that time, third place was Feb 1998 in the strong El Nino event which had reached +0.82. Third place was recently taken by March 2010 at +0.84. To give a bit of context, a value of +0.42 was established in Jan 1958, so like the overall record, these extremes are running about a half degree above pre-AGW data.

Su Campu

sharper wrote: »

You're saying that if you remove the effects of ENSO etc it would reduce overall warming and sure this is likely true - for the period in which they were positive. You further assert that since recent temperatures are somewhat flat it might bring them to the point of cooling but as the graphs show for the period in which temperatures are flat, the indexes are negative. So no cooling when you correct for them.

No, The PDO is still falling and will probably reach its minimum in another 10 years or so. Its affects should therefore be stronger then and for the following decade or so.

I have no idea what you're saying here but it sounds like you've somehow managed to dismiss a completely independent line of evidence which again shows the planet is warming.

My point being that the discussion was about instrumental station records, so lower tropospheric satellite data, while showing warming, are a totally different type of fish when it comes to speaking about "surface" temperatures.

I again don't know what you're saying - where was this integrated curve presented? By whom?

The historical global temperature record curve over the past centuries, which shows relatively level proxy data up to the mid 19th century, then the miraculous spike upwards at the start of the instrumental record.

Er what? This is from 1996 with data ending in 1995! If the "opposite" is really true why not something that makes use of the last 17 years of data (in a record that's 33 years long!)

As I said, satellite and instrumental data are not interchangeable.

Yes satellites measure the troposphere. Which is warming. I don't know where you got a "400% difference" from but it sounds like you made it up.

No I didn't make it up. If you cared to look at the individual satellite records you will see that in some areas there is a spread of around 400% in the anomaly values. Compare the red and cyan curves. These are not like ensenble forecasts, where you would expect a spread. These are MEASURED data, but even still, we have one showing a 0.1 degree anomaly while another shows 0.4 degree. In a business where 10ths of a degree count, this is crazy.

Sorry but you don't get to simply invoke the oceans as an explanation without evidence. The evidence says the oceans are warming in response to a change in atmospheric composition. If you want to assert that actually the surface is warming because of unrelated ocean cycles you need to show this to be case. MiNdGaM3 has already posted the various ocean indices which show their negative, not positive influence. Yet temperatures on the surface remain high relative to the entire instrumental record.

See my first reply above on the response to oceanic indices.

The oceans are a net sink of C02 not a source. They're absorbing approximately 50% of the extra amount added by humans. The increase of C02 in the atmosphere is completely attributable to human activity and would actually be twice what it is if not for the oceans absorbing it.

Basic physics says that if the oceans warm, they increasingly release dissolved gases, including CO2. Therefore loss will outweigh aborption through the late 20th century warming.

Su Campu

Also, please explain the level trend of the past 10-12 years. If CO2 is such a big factor then why has the temperature not continued its rise, as predicted in the hockey stick models in which so much faith has been trusted. What has caused temperatures to stabilise? Surely some factor larger than CO2 is the cause???? I know a decade is not a climatic period, but another couple of years and we're then starting to get into questionable territory. Still, it wasn't shown in the models.

sharper

Su Campu wrote: »

No, The PDO is still falling and will probably reach its minimum in another 10 years or so. Its affects should therefore be stronger then and for the following decade or so.

Right but it's still falling along with a number of other factors like solar activity you want to use to explain 20th century warming. If the factors that are supposed to be causing the warming are falling and temperatures are not then what is causing the difference?

My point being that the discussion was about instrumental station records, so lower tropospheric satellite data, while showing warming, are a totally different type of fish when it comes to speaking about "surface" temperatures.

So let's see the surface temperature warming we see you want to explain away as an artefact of monitoring stations in urban areas, the tropospheric warming you want to explain as being completely unrelated to the surface? Then what is causing the troposphere to warm? How confident are you that it's possible for the troposphere to warm without the surface having done so?

The historical global temperature record curve over the past centuries, which shows relatively level proxy data up to the mid 19th century, then the miraculous spike upwards at the start of the instrumental record.

Again what curve is this and why are you trying to argue against it in this discussion?

As I said, satellite and instrumental data are not interchangeable.

I haven't said they're interchangeable.

I've said the satellite data severely constrains the maximum possible UHI effect you can attribute to the surface record.

No I didn't make it up. If you cared to look at the individual satellite records you will see that in some areas there is a spread of around 400% in the anomaly values. Compare the red and cyan curves. These are not like ensenble forecasts, where you would expect a spread. These are MEASURED data, but even still, we have one showing a 0.1 degree anomaly while another shows 0.4 degree. In a business where 10ths of a degree count, this is crazy.

What? You're eyeballing the graphs and claiming a "400% difference" that way?

Basic physics says that if the oceans warm, they increasingly release dissolved gases, including CO2. Therefore loss will outweigh aborption through the late 20th century warming.

The physics tells us the oceans are not yet warm enough to be a net contributor to atmospheric C02. They are a net sink, this is indisputable.

Since you want to argue the point though you're left with yet another inconsistency: If the oceans are a net contributor (as you claim) then why has atmospheric C02 only increased by about half of what humans emitted? Where the half of human emissions and 100% of what the oceans emitted go?

Also, please explain the level trend of the past 10-12 years.

Natural variability was greater than warming caused by C02 over the time period.

If CO2 is such a big factor then why has the temperature not continued its rise, as predicted in the hockey stick models

You keep using the phrase the "hockey stick models" which tells me you don't know what the hockey stick or models are.

The hockey stick is a paleoclimate reconstruction of temperatures.

Models are computer simulations of the underlying physics that drive climate. They have no relationship with each other.

The models produce periods of upto 15 years with flat temperatures where solar activity is assumed a constant.

Still, it wasn't shown in the models.

As pointed out yes it is. The models don't attempt to predict specific periods of warming, cooling or flat temperatures but rather decadal temperature trends averaged across multiple decades.

To be perfectly honest it sounds like you've gotten all of your information from blogs and political sources. You use incorrect terms interchangeably and appear to have no idea what the various temperature records are for or how they're collected. You believe you can dismiss whole lines of evidence simply because they contract you or you don't like them.

I recommend starting with the basics and forming an understanding of how climate works and how it's studied. If you want to just form an opinion and then google for blogs that will support it then you'll certainly find plenty but you'll learn nothing.

Nabber

The true relationship between CO2 and its role in the greenhouse effect is not fully understood.
I remember ready a study on rock samples that showed CO2 rose after the planet warmed. So CO2 was an affect and not a cause.
All facts should be layed out for GW theory. These silly videos of bits of uce collapsing into the sea should end. We all.know the ice goes through yearly cycles. Or polar bears on a lonely peice of ice like it never happened before 1980.

I`m on the phone so cant really back up my opinion. Feel free to brush over it ;-)

Su Campu

I'm very well aware of how climate works and of what models are, and do not rely on blogs for my information, so less of the pompous attitude please. Are you going to respond to MT's post above? He is a real climatologist, but still puts most of the warming down to natural causes. Does he need one of your crash courses on climatology too then?

You don't seem to be able to grasp what I'm saying about the PDO, or are deliberately misquoting me - or both. Let me try again - maybe a picture will help. The PDO was positive from the 70s up to after the turn of the century, and global warming occured. Further back, it was also positive up to the 40s and similarly global warming occured. It was negative from 40s-70s and global warming stopped. It has now become negative again and hey presto - global warming has stopped. It should continue to become more negative over the next decade or so, so there is nothing to suggest that the trend of the last century will suddenly stop and the leveling or even cooling will not continue. You cannot deny that the temperature record has more or less followed the PDO.



Yes it's not as simple as all that, but for some strange reason you seem to be implying that I am saying that recent warming occured when the PDO was negative. I am saying the opposite, as above. So let's put that one to bed for once and for all.

You also don't seem to know what temperature record curve I am refering to, yet you quote it yourself. But here's a picture of it, if it will help.




About the satellite records....yes, if we're talking about warm anomalies here, then one dataset claims 4 times more warming than some others since around 2003. That is a 400% difference. (EDIT: Looking at it again the difference is actually around 300%). Compare the red to cyan or purple. If these are measured data then why the big discrepency? Which is right? Why are they different? Are surface station records not more reliable? Well, some of them are, but many have been contaminated by urbanisation. Again, I refer you to MT's post on Toronto above - work done by a real climatologist, not made up by me.



Regarding the oceans - I was saying that there is an equilibirum between absorption and release of CO2. That equilibrium gets shifted towards release as the ocean warms, but I did not say that the oceans are a net source. Again that is you misquoting me.

sharper

Su Campu wrote: »

I'm very well aware of how climate works and of what models are

If you knew what models are you would not say things like "hockey stick models" nor would you make claims about whether they predicted temperature trends over a specific time period.

If you knew how climate works you would not argue the troposphere is irrelevant in a discussion of surface temperature.

, and do not rely on blogs for my information, so less of the pompous attitude please. Are you going to respond to MT's post above? He is a real climatologist, but still puts most of the warming down to natural causes. Does he need one of your crash courses on climatology too then?

There is nothing in MT's post that helps you. His post demonstrates an understanding of the topic in contrast to yours which is all over the place.

The PDO was positive from the 70s up to after the turn of the century, and global warming occured. Further back, it was also positive up to the 40s and similarly global warming occured. It was negative from 40s-70s and global warming stopped. It has now become negative again and hey presto - global warming has stopped.

This is the problem for you - you want to explain surface warming with ocean cycles yet the surface does not cool in response to them, only flattens. If the energy heating the surface is coming from the ocean then where is it coming from when the ocean cycle is negative?

It should continue to become more negative over the next decade or so, so there is nothing to suggest that the trend of the last century will suddenly stop and the leveling or even cooling will not continue.

Again, what is keeping the surface warm for the last 10 years if the ocean cycle was negative? Something has to warm it all the time since the surface continuously looses energy.

You cannot deny that the temperature record has more or less followed the PDO.

Of course I can and even according your own description the temperature record does not follow the PDO but is merely partially influenced by it.

i.e.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/09/PDO.svg/800px-PDO.svg.png

Versus surface temperature



This is a very poor match and you have failed to explain why temperatures don't return to the same level when the ocean cycles turn negative, they remain at a plateau which increases further in the next cycle.

Yes it's not as simple as all that, but for some strange reason you seem to be implying that I am saying that recent warming occured when the PDO was negative. I am saying the opposite, as above. So let's put that one to bed for once and for all.

I am saying that when we apply your approach of correcting for ocean cycles it increases temperature in the period in which the cycles are negative i.e. the last 10 years.

You also don't seem to know what temperature record curve I am refering to, yet you quote it yourself. But here's a picture of it, if it will help.

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/images/mwp/ipcc_6_1_large.jpg/image_large

I haven't referred to that graph a single time. I also note the graph you posted does not fit your previous description i.e.

I don't put much weight into satellite surface temperature data as it is different to that measured by a sensor at the required 1.5 metres above ground level. The problem with the whole temperature record is that we have three different types of temperatures all in the one curve - proxy, instrumental and satellite. That is bad science.

The graph you presented has no satellite data and simply graphs a number of different temperature reconstructions with the CRU surface instrumental record separately graphed.

About the satellite records....yes, if we're talking about warm anomalies here, then one dataset claims 4 times more warming than some others since around 2003. That is a 400% difference.

You eyeballing graphs and pulling numbers out of your head is not data nor analysis.

If you want to claim a 400% difference between records then show your work, not "Look at that bit there, that looks sort of 400% different".

Compare the red to cyan or purple. If these are measured data then why the big discrepency? Which is right? Whay are they different? Are surface station records not more reliable?

You're again demonstrating a fundamental lack of knowledge about climate science and science generally.

There are multiple records run by different teams because global temperature analysis is an area of active research. They disagree in areas because of differences of approaches in how data should be handled. The differences between them increase confidence they're close to the right answer, not the opposite as you're trying to claim.

Well, some of them are, but many have been contaminated by urbanisation. Again, I refer you to MT's post on Toronto above - work done by a real climatologist, not made up by me.

All of the surface temperature records use different approaches to deal with urbanisation and it's an area of active research. However it's extremely unlikely any UHI correction will have a significant impact on the overall trend.

Regarding the oceans - I was saying that there is an equilibirum between absorption and release of CO2. That equilibrium gets shifted towards release as the ocean warms, but I did not say that the oceans are a net source. Again that is you misquoting me.

Yes you did say that. Twice.

The atmosphere acts in response to the oceans. The oceans also release more dissolved CO2 as they warm, which has in itself probably contributed to the CO2 record of the past half century.

Basic physics says that if the oceans warm, they increasingly release dissolved gases, including CO2. Therefore loss will outweigh aborption through the late 20th century warming.

I am not "misquoting" you and if you keep claiming that I'll have no option but to assume we're not having an honest discussion. If you want to play games go for it but I'm not playing.

Now you still have the same problem: If oceans are merely in equilibrium with their C02 absorption/emission where are 50% of human emissions going? Do you know?

Su Campu

Again you continue with the attitude. My reference to "hockey stick models" was a tongue in cheek swipe at the hockey stick graph, as they show this "hockey stick" rise continuing on unabated to Doom. But if the term annoys you then I will stop using it. Jeez... :rolleyes:

Again, I do know how climate works and that tropospheric temperatures are important. What I am questioning is the accuracy of our measurement of them and how we can claim with the IPCC's "90% certainty" that they are warming at X °C/decade when there is a large spread in the measurement. Then the models are fed these data. Garbage in, garbage out.

You quickly gloss over MT's claims in a further attempt to have a swipe at me. Yes there is a lot in there that supports me - that most warming was natural, and that urbanisation does affect temperature records. Did you even read it? There's too much work there for you to just glide over.

Re. the PDO again. Take a look at the temperature record over the last century. It has more or less followed the PDO. Now zoom out to say a 1000 year scale. The last century's warmings become noise on a greater underlying trend, including the Medieval Warming and Little Ice Age. Zoom out further and we see the Milankovitch cycles and their extreme rapid warming. An everchanging roundabout of changing climate, sometimes of extreme proportions.



People seem to think that the 61-90 average is the ideal normal, and anything warmer or cooler that that is a cause for concern. I don't get why the consequences of a warming climate are invariably cast as bad for everyone, as if everyone will suffer. I have also yet to see the real (not alleged) effects that recent warming has done, or indeed what the warming of the 40s did for that matter. We're hearing the scare stories but where are the disasters occuring? And let's leave media and politics out of the answer.

sharper

Su Campu wrote: »

Re. the PDO again. Take a look at the temperature record over the last century. It has more or less followed the PDO.

I just posted the temperature record over the last century which very clearly does not follow the PDO. It's not even close.

People seem to think that the 61-90 average is the ideal normal, and anything warmer or cooler that that is a cause for concern.

The cause for concern is the rate of change. The effect of Milankovitch cycles is felt across thousands of years. We have have every reason to think modern temperatures are unprecedented over the last couple of of thousand years and that the rate of change is unprecedented over a much longer time period.

Su Campu

sharper wrote: »

I just posted the temperature record over the last century which very clearly does not follow the PDO. It's not even close.

Huh? The warmings coincide very closely with the positive PDO phases. How can you say they don't?

The cause for concern is the rate of change. The effect of Milankovitch cycles is felt across thousands of years. We have have every reason to think modern temperatures are unprecedented over the last couple of of thousand years and that the rate of change is unprecedented over a much longer time period.

But the at best ~100 year resolution of the proxy records is not enough to resolve decadal-scale warmings like the recent one, though they do show many noisy peaks of a similar rate all the way back through the ages. All noise of course, but still an illustration of how dangerous it is to state that "modern temperatures are unprecedented over the last couple of of thousand years and that the rate of change is unprecedented over a much longer time period."

sharper

Su Campu wrote: »

Huh? The warmings coincide very closely with the positive PDO phases. How can you say they don't?

You can't pick a part you like and ignore the rest. You can make anything match anything if you loosen the criteria enough. Of course the oceans being warmer are going to show up as some warming on the surface as well. Nobody disputes that ocean cycles have some effect on temperatures over short periods of time.

The problem for your case is you're claiming the oceans explain warming across a long period of time when it's clear even from visual inspection that the temperature record does not follow the PDO - if it did then the temperatures would return to what they were when it turns negative. They do not.

But the at best ~100 year resolution of the proxy records is not enough to resolve decadal-scale warmings like the recent one, though they do show many noisy peaks of a similar rate all the way back through the ages. All noise of course, but still an illustration of how dangerous it is to state that "modern temperatures are unprecedented over the last couple of of thousand years and that the rate of change is unprecedented over a much longer time period."

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/images/mwp/ipcc_6_1_large.jpg/image_large

The graph you posted shows modern temperatures higher now than at any point in the last 1200 years. I don't know how you think it supports you.

Su Campu

sharper wrote: »

You can't pick a part you like and ignore the rest. You can make anything match anything if you loosen the criteria enough. Of course the oceans being warmer are going to show up as some warming on the surface as well. Nobody disputes that ocean cycles have some effect on temperatures over short periods of time.

The warming of around 1920 to the mid 40s coincided with the positive PDO from 1924-1946, the leveling off from mid 40s to mid 70s with the negative PDO of 1947-1976, and the warming again of the mid 70s to 1998 with the positive PDO of 1997-2000. PDO Source

Have a read of this 2008 study

Evidence is presented that the recent worldwide land warming has occurred largely in response to a worldwide warming of the oceans rather than as a direct response to increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) over land. Atmospheric model simulations of the last half-century with prescribed observed ocean temperature changes, but without prescribed GHG changes, account for most of the land warming. The oceanic influence has occurred through hydrodynamic-radiative teleconnections, primarily by moistening and warming the air over land and increasing the downward longwave radiation at the surface. The oceans may themselves have warmed from a combination of natural and anthropogenic influences.

The problem for your case is you're claiming the oceans explain warming across a long period of time when it's clear even from visual inspection that the temperature record does not follow the PDO - if it did then the temperatures would return to what they were when it turns negative. They do not.

Again, please read what I said. There are underlying larger-scale trends on which these shorter scale fluctuations are superimposed.

The graph you posted shows modern temperatures higher now than at any point in the last 1200 years. I don't know how you think it supports you.

Again, please read what I said. The rate of change you said was unprecedented could very well have occured and not been resolved by the proxy data. Yes it shows us warmer, but exactly how much warmer is still IMO a question for debate, for the reasons I have been describing all along.

sharper

Su Campu wrote: »

The warming of around 1920 to the mid 40s coincided with the positive PDO from 1924-1946, the leveling off from mid 40s to mid 70s with the negative PDO of 1947-1976, and the warming again of the mid 70s to 1998 with the positive PDO of 1997-2000.

I don't know how to put it any more simply.

Temperatures level off but remain at their high when the index is negative. Then temperatures increase further when the index turns positive again.

This means the ocean cycle does not explain the temperature - a warming/cooling cycle cannot explain continuous warming elsewhere.

Over decades ocean cycles cancel each other i.e. warming equals cooling as they must do because oceans are a store of energy not a source.

The ocean heat content has already been posted and it's increasing - if the oceans were transferring heat to the surface then ocean heat content would be decreasing - heat moves from point to another, it does not get duplicated in both places.

The energy imbalance has also already been discussed and the Earth is absorbing more energy than it releases, the opposite of what we expect if warming is being caused by stored energy from the oceans.

Your claim is completely contradicted by multiple observations across multiple systems.

Su Campu

I really don't have to keep repeating myself about the underlying multi-century-scale forcings that have been happening since time began and that can explain the slower increases in background trends. I don't know how else to word it. I'll leave it by saying that eventually the whole AGW-hype flame will burn out and nature will have the last laugh.

Deep Easterly

Climate Change Explained Parody

:pac: