RSS Data Source is here
The RSS (Remote Sensing Systems of Santa Rosa, CA) Microwave Sounder Unit (MSU) lower troposphere global temperature anomaly data for March 2009 was published today and has dropped for the second month after peaking in January. The change from February with a value of 0.230°C to March’s 0.172°C is a (∆T) of -0.058°C.
Recent RSS anomalies
2008 10 0.181
2008 11 0.216
2008 12 0.174
2009 01 0.322
2009 02 0.230
2009 03 0.172
Like RSS, UAH was also announced today, on the blog of Dr. Roy Spencer here who is co-curator of the data with Dr. John Christy at the University of Alabama, Huntsville.
It showed a significant drop, more than double that of RSS:
The change from February with a value of 0.347°C to March’s 0.208°C is a (∆T) of -0.139°C
Recent UAH anomalies:
2009 1 0.304
2009 2 0.347
2009 3 0.208
Oddly, a divergence developed in the Feb 09 data between RSS and UAH, and opposite in direction to boot.
I spoke with Dr. Roy Spencer at the ICCC09 conference (3/10) and asked him about the data divergence. Here is what he had to say:
“I believe it has to do with the differences in how diurnal variation is tracked and adjusted for.” he said. I noted that Feburary was a month with large diurnal variations.
For that reason, UAH has been using data from the AQUA satellite MSU, and RSS to my knowledge does not, and makes an adjustment to account for it. I believe our data [UAH] is probably closer to the true anomaly temperature, and if I’m right, we’ll see the two datasets converge again when the diurnal variations are minimized.”
Looks like the data sets are converging now.
UPDATE: Barry Wise decided to contribute a plot in comments that I thought readers would find interesting.
He writes:
The 1997/98 El Niño temperature spike seems to have had a long lasting effect that is dissipating. This graph shows what the trend was before the event and how the trend was affected by it. The dashed red line is the trend with all of the data and the purple is the trend based on the data before the area highlighted in red. Notice that there appears to be a decaying oscillation. If correct we’re in the third peak which is less than the previous two, and is much closer to the purple trend line.
How apropos…
Check out Hotrod’s post in the http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/01/nasa-headline-deep-solar-minimum/ thread at:
hotrod (17:54:00)
Now somebody look at this graph and compare and tell me it does not look like a rogue wave?
Need the math geniuses to chime in at this point.
Interesting proposition, hotrod. Thanks.
Most transfer of energy propagates through a wave….and be the period a millisecond or a thousand years….there are simliarities.
Chris
Norfolk, VA
Clarification: the 1998 spike being a “rogue wave”
Mind the doors please… Going down.
I’m not seeing a pattern here except the data appears to be in a narrow channel with a slight bias upward. My mark one eyeball fit says 0.15 Deg C over 30 years. That doesn’t seem like much. Am I reading this wrong? I get that fitting a line for slope on the peaks and minimums keeping a focus on the data in this channel between these lines. I know it’s not scientific but it’s pretty close to all the AGW doomsdayers.
Welcome to the 2009 Climate Elevator.
Going down?
When does GISS reveal their take on March?
I’d be interested in the explanation if it diverges from RSS and UAH.
OT: Spaceweather http://www.spaceweather.com/ is doing a running count of blank sunspot days. They were up to 26 but suddenly dropped back to 9. It seems that someone decided a little speck a week ago should count as a spot after all. With that kind of authority, maybe they can declare Pluto to be a planet again…
NEW: Spotless Days
Current Stretch: 9 days*
2009 total: 81 days (87%)
Since 2004: 592 days
Typical Solar Min: 485 days
explanation | more info
Updated 04 Apr 2009
*NOTE: Updated sunspot counts by the Solar Influences Data Center reveal a small, previously unnumbered sunspot on March 26th. This reduces the current stretch of blank suns to 9.
NOAA is showing the last 27 days as spotless:
http://www2.nict.go.jp/y/y223/sept/swcenter/sunspot.html
“*NOTE: Updated sunspot counts by the Solar Influences Data Center reveal a small, previously unnumbered sunspot on March 26th. This reduces the current stretch of blank suns to 9.”
Doesn’t unnumbered mean it is NOT a sunspot?
Jack Green (21:55:50) :
I’m not seeing a pattern here except the data appears to be in a narrow channel with a slight bias upward. My mark one eyeball fit says 0.15 Deg C over 30 years. That doesn’t seem like much. Am I reading this wrong?
Hi Jack,
hre’s a useful website where you can play with graphing the data and trendlines etc. This is a plot showing RSS and a few trendlines: An overall trend, and a couple either side of the big El nino spike a decade ago.
You can alter the parameters using the drop down menus. Have fun.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/plot/rss/trend/plot/rss/from:1979/to:1997/trend/plot/rss/from:1999/trend
UAH March anomaly will be cca 0,14°C. Look how the SST predicts the air temperature few month ahead: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2000/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2000
Since 2003, SST goes downhill and seems accelerating.
I also noted that, it took them 9 days to figure out if it should be counted as a sunspot. I remember that spot in particular since it apeared and lasted for a short time, had to be counted in hours, and then disapeared. A few days later the same plauge region repeated itself and formed a tiny sunspot that again was so short lived it had to be counted in hours.
My qustion is if we count spots that last for hours and are so small that they cover only one two pixels. Don’t we break the data record since such small sunpots would not have been counted 100 years ago with the tools that were available back then?
It will be hard to compare this minimum to older weak minimums if we do not count the spots in the same way.
The temperature drop in March doesn’t surprise me. The Earth is closest to the sun in Jab/Feb. Eyeballing the chart we usually go lower from here over the following months.
Apologies if this was mentioned earlier but this post by Roy Spencer is required reading for people here. He explains the difference between a greenhouse and a blanket (the term Lindzen uses as well), demolishes the 2nd law of thermodynamics argument and the atmospheric IR opacity argument.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/04/in-defense-of-the-greenhouse-effect/
It really looks like the science is homing in on negative feedback.
Juraj V. (23:24:12) :
UAH March anomaly will be cca 0,14°C.
Now that will be a big drop, bringing the two satellite series back into alignment.
re tallbloke: UAH is out, being 0.208; 0.14 was someone´s estimation from solarcycle24 board.
Yet another above average temperatures despite a strong solar minimum. Let’s face it – temperatures are a lot hotter than they should be given a recent La Nina and a cool sun. The reason…. the enhanced greenhouse effect!
My March 2009 SST anomaly update is here:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/04/march-2009-sst-anomaly-update.html
The AMO has continued its decline, but the rate has slowed.
The monthly change (March 2009 Minus February 2009) in Global SST anomalies was approximately +0.025 deg C.
NINO3.4 SST anomalies continue to fluctuate near to the threshold of a minor La Nina.
That Catlin survey tracker hasn’t been updated for 24 hours.
Assuming the technology is working it looks like Hadow has got hypothermia
http://www.catlinarcticsurvey.com/live_from_the_ice.aspx
Please, 6 more months of global warming. I hate winter.
P Folkens (22:32:36) :
When does GISS reveal their take on March?
I’d be interested in the explanation if it diverges from RSS and UAH.
Give them some time, at the moment they must be working on immediate adjustments in order to sweep all the incovenient data under the carpet. 🙂
In the 1990’s, there was a mayor station dropout in the GHCN dataset. The number of stations was decreased by the keepers of this data from 5 thousand to about 1.5 thousand. Most of the ‘lost’ stations were rural ones, so the percentage of UHI-contaminated measurement sites must have been increased. The only source of land observations used by GISS is the GHCN data, they don’t use the GSOD database, which contains up to date observations from 4-5000 surface stations around the world compiled from SYNOP, METAR and other form of reports.
It is not so difficult to find out the overall effect of this event… I’m quite convinced that the large-scale station dropout is the main reason for the divergence between GISTEMP and other global temperature records.
Sorry to go OT but the biotelemetry for the Catlin Team concerns me. See http://www.catlinarcticsurvey.com/live_from_the_ice.aspx
Pen Hadow’s core temperature (whilst I watch) is somewhere around 34-35C which is the sort of temperature where mild hypothermia sets in and only two degrees abovr where severe hypothermia sets in.
That is rather ridiculous of spaceweather to say the least, if it has not been numbered it is not a spot!
Soon when technology gives us even better views of the sun they will start counting the really tiny spots that can’t be seen with current technology (if that’s possible)
http://www.solen.info/solar/ does not list there being any spots 9 days ago and neither does sc24.com…. clearly people are getting spot-hungry.
Is there any organisation that uses techniques to count sunspots as they were counted 150 years ago?? Anyone??? Is there any possible way to determine what the sunspot count currently would be had 2008-09s sunspots occurred in 1850s??
If there is anyone who knows if there are any groups/organisations that use old methods, please let us know.
Update: Pen’s core temperature has gone back up to 36C (judging from the heart monitor he’s had a breather, but his skin temperature is at 30C so he’s losing a lot of heat somewhere.
Hadow’s temperature as shown on that site has risen 3° since I posted an hour ago. So a technical hitch apparently. Site still suggests they haven’t moved since yesterday though. Getting in some sunbathing and surfing probably
http://www.catlinarcticsurvey.com/live_from_the_ice.aspx
A possibility of false reading should be considered. Rapid increase in 1998 appear to be unlike anything recorded before.
It should be noted that in 1998 number of observatories recorded unusual burst of cosmic radiation. They of cause could have caused increase in temperature, but more likely affected RSS sensors.
An extraordinary increase in cosmic-ray intensity has been recorded on September 29, 1998 by the Rome detectors (rigidity threshold 6.2 GV).
http://www.springerlink.com/content/r654l25g85461131/
The September 29, 1998, cosmic ray ground level enhancement had a complex intensity-time profile with two distinct peaks observed at some neutron monitors. The event was detected by surface and some underground muon telescopes indicating the presence of particles up to 30 GV.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1998/98JA02100.shtml
Data obtained in Chile with the standard neutron monitor (Santiago: 6 NM-64; geomagnetic cut-off rigidity: about 11 GV) are reported for the ground-level solar cosmic-ray event registered on September 29, 1989. Possible studies connected with such a rare event are suggested to understand even more solar-interplanetary-terrestrial relations.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990NCimC..13..639C
Just a little note:
Official spotless days on 2009 (by SIDC) @ March 3rd, 2009 are 79, and series from 2004 counts 588 spotless days.
Regards,
Rick, from Italy
Rex Murphy.
“So how do you like our green world?”
“… though it may be cruel and ironic, what the preachments of Al Gore and David Suzuki have failed to achieve, the crisis of the world’s banking systems and consequent recession will accomplish. What their stark cries of alarm over imminent planetary collapse, the rise of the oceans and the plight of the polar bear could not move people and governments to do voluntarily, the iron laws of economic crisis will effect. What Kyoto speciously promised, the downturn, in part, will deliver. Surely, however bitter the means, this is good news from their perspective.
It would, of course, be tasteless to celebrate the fact. There is a lot of misery for a lot of people when good times turn to bad. But it would be almost unnatural for those who have been warning the rest of us for nearly two decades that we are in a “planetary emergency” – that we must forswear our dependence on fossil fuels, that petroleum is evil, that the oil sands are the dirtiest project on the planet – not to take some uplift that what they have wished for (however inadvertently) has come to pass.”
“If Prince Charles, another Horseperson of the eco-Apocalypse, really believes that “the threat of catastrophic climate change calls into question humanity’s continued existence on the planet,” then, in some secret chamber of his royal heart, he must be cheering the great blizzard roiling the world’s economies. For it is surely, as night follows day, reducing the call on the world’s energy and “downsizing” the dreaded “carbon footprints” of whole nations. But we do not hear his cheering or the cheering of the Sierra Clubs or the Earth Hour glee clubs because that would be acknowledging the truth of what their prescriptions for a new economy – the “green economy” – really mean.
Do you really wish to know what this “green economy” will look like? Look out the recession’s window. We’re in it.”
http://tinyurl.com/cfv35f
Link to Dr Spencer above re Greenhouse Effect then link to ‘Al Gore recants’ Did he really recant on April 1st or is this a Spencer April Fool? If true why no comments for the past three days?
Age of Stupid?
Does this mean there has been no global warming for 30 years?
REPLY: If you are going to post here again, please choose a different handle. The one you chose is offensive to some of our green posters here. – Anthony
The temperature drop in March doesn’t surprise me. The Earth is closest to the sun in Jab/Feb. Eyeballing the chart we usually go lower from here over the following months.
We seem to get this every month or so. The monthly figures are anomalies not temperatures. The anomalies are calculated values which are relative to the mean for a particular month. So the anomaly for Jan is relative to the 1979-1997 Jan mean … the anomaly for Feb is relative to the 1979-1997 Feb mean … and so on for Mar, Apr etc.
Unfortunately we all tend to get a bit sloppy when talking about anomalies and it’s easy, therefore, for misunderstandings to occur. But think of it this way. It’s perfectly possible for March to be warmer than January – but to have a lower anomaly.
Someone may correct me on this but I believe that, due to the vastly different areas of land/ocean coverage in the 2 hemispheres, Jun/Jul/Aug global temperatures are actually higher than Dec/Jan/Feb global temperatures.
.
Regards the geomagnetic activity (GA) graph in this earlier post, some commentators were saying that the data does not fit the global temperature rise (GW), because the 1933 dip on the GA graph is anomalous – it does not fit the warming trend.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/04/solar-geomagnetic-ap-index-now-at-lowest-point-in-its-history/
However, the GA data used in this post only goes back to the 1930s, and provides a poor snap-shot of the bigger picture. If you use the Australian IPS GA graph, which goes back to 1844, you will see a different picture.
http://www.ips.gov.au/Educational/3/1/4
Clearly the 1930s GA minimum was not a minimum at all, just a dip. The real GA minimum occured in about 1900, and thus the true GA minimum did indeed coincide with the global temperature (GW) minimum in the 1900s.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
Actually, the two datasets coincide rather well. A minimum in the 1900s, rising to a maximum in the 1950s, dropping back until the 1980s and then rising to a new peak.
If GW is following GA, then the recent steep decline in GA would suggest we are in for a steep cooling period – a real mini Ice-Age.
.
P Folkens (22:32:36) :
When does GISS reveal their take on March?
I’d be interested in the explanation if it diverges from RSS and UAH.
How do you mean “diverges from RSS and UAH”. GISS anomalies for both Jan and Feb were relativey much cooler than both UAH and RSS. Using the same base period as the satellite data (1979-1997) the GISS Feb anomaly was +0.15 compared with +0.36 for UAH and +0.23 for RSS. A GISS March anomaly of ~0.49 would represent an anomaly of ~0.20 relative to the satellite base period.
I read this blog and analyse the data and it seems overwhelmingly that there really is no evidence to support the doom of AGW religion. So I ask the question why does the AGW fraternity continue to be supported by most world governments? When will they see the light? Will we have to wait until our landscapes are covered in useless industrial wind turbines and any economy we have left is destroyed by foolish taxes such as cap and trade? I am a scientist and I do not understand this madness.
Just eyeballing the 2 graphs suggests to me that we’re simply in a brief La Nina phase – similar to the one in 1998-2001. There ‘s no way anyone can, at this point in time at least, reasonably interpret the recent lower anomlies as the beginning of a sharp (or even slight) cooling trend.
There was a fascinating story in the Economist about an Irish lighthouse that was hit by a rogue wave. The light itself revolved in a near-frictionless vat of mercury:
How big was the rogue wave? The lighthouse was 177 feet tall!
[source]
peat (22:35:13) :
OT: Spaceweather http://www.spaceweather.com/ is doing a running count of blank sunspot days. They were up to 26 but suddenly dropped back to 9.
That is *very* strange. The same thing happened in August 08 when we were about to make a new record streak of spotless days. I saw these tin-tiny specks in March on SOHO, they lasted for only a few hours. They were *very* small, rather similar to the dead pixel at ~4 o’clock in the continuum image (just not quite as black). I am an amateur astronomer and have seen and photographed sunspots myself (see my website). Those specks cannot possibly have been visible visually using a small earth-based refractor. I cannot understand how they can be counted in, and why now and not then?
Do we have a bias in the counting process? Is there some motivation somewhere to try to keep us from breaking records of spotless days?
Even if they somehow remain in the statistics (they should not), to me it means the incredibly low minimum we are experiencing is actually estimated too high.
Thanks Tallbloke. It would nice to be able to do a lognormal fit of the data since mother nature is reported to order things like rain drop size, etc. Thanks for the link and I’ll play with it.
A negative feedback that doesn’t get much mention is that provided by water vapour. Water is evaporated from the earths surface taking with it latent heat. The water vapour is lifted towards the sky anything up to 18kms where it condenses releasing its heat as I.R. which radiates in all directions. Thus half of this heat radiates upward towards space. The amount of heat is considerable at approx 1000/lb of water. This operation is very similar to the operation of a refrigerator, ie the heat is transported from the evaporator inside the cabinet and is released outside the cabinet at the condenser.
As the temperature of the earths surface increases the evaporation increases thus taking more heat away from the surface upwards towards space.
sorry 1000Btu/lb of water
My usual observation:
Virtually consistent temperature cycling around roughly 0C anomaly until 1998, a “jump up” to a higher anomaly for one several year cycle, now back down onto the original cycles in the rough ballpark of 0C anomaly.
This means, perhaps virtually 0C net change over the last 30 years — if one uses an analysis more sophisticated than a straight line through clearly non-linear data.
Anyhow, we’ll see as the next several years pass.
You can break these charts into two sections – 1979 to mid 1997 and 1998 to today. First half shows no appearant trend, up or down. But something happened in late ’97/early ’98. Saw an article a few weeks ago suggesting a gamma burst which occurred in early ’98. Any other suggestions? ’98 is definitely an outlier and suggests some anomaly other than normal variations.
Bill
SIDC seem to be getting desparate. Would that Speck have been seen 150 years ago?
To continue, too soon, how do they hold a committe to review Sun Specks. If it wasn’t a Spot 9 days ago, why is it now?
John Finn (04:08:08) :
Just eyeballing the 2 graphs suggests to me that we’re simply in a brief La Nina phase – similar to the one in 1998-2001. There ’s no way anyone can, at this point in time at least, reasonably interpret the recent lower anomlies as the beginning of a sharp (or even slight) cooling trend.
Nor can anyone, at this point in time at least, reasonably interpret the data since ~2001 to support a long term upward trend (AGW). While some think we may be seeing the beginning of a period of cooling, it is hardly based the recent lower anomalies alone. It is, rather, based on a variety of considerations, such as the tendency of the PDO to persist in either a warming or cooling mode for multiple decades, and it now being in a cool phase; and the possibility of a Dalton type solar minimum. And so on. The recent lower anomalies would be consistent with the emergence of a period of cooling, but are certainly not themselves proof of it.
It may well be that we are simply seeing natural climate variability. But climate naturally varies on all time scales, from the MJO, to QBO, to ENSO, to PDO, AMO, and so on. On top of all these natural cycles we have 11, 22, 44, and 80-100 year solar cycles. And there are longer cycles, as well. These cycles generate a lot of “noise” in observed data like temperatures. The cycles work differently on regional scales than on hemispheric or global scales, further complicating the analysis of observed data. Given the current state of knowledge of all of this — which is not all that great — to think that we can pick out a short period of time, circa the past 2-3 decades, and claim to be able to divine an AGW signal in all of this attributable entirely to CO2 is incredulous. It is like reading tea leaves, or Rorschach blots.
Gerard has hit the nail on the head!
Gerard wrote: “So I ask the question why does the AGW fraternity continue to be supported by most world governments?”
That’s very simple. What’s the easiest way to justify a massive new tax regime while simultaneously giving governments vast new controls of sections of the economy that they did not control before? Cap and tax, babeeee!!
The only way to bring this about is to scare the bejeesus out of ordinary folk on a daily basis. If you start off with the young’uns, it’s a lot easier, of course.
Just about the only other data sets that flow/tract with the general up and down noise and gradual rise then fall of these various global temperature graphs are SST data sets/oscillation indicators. Sun output does not. Cosmic ray data does not. CO2 data does not. Pollution and other sources of aerosols do not. The weather patterns we get that are tied to oceanic “weather” patterns and trade winds do. But it so lacks drama and trauma, and is decidedly much less fatalistically romantic to the “save mother Earth before it is too late” folks to assign our backdoor temperatures to wind and water. Nothing bleeds under the wind and water scenario, at least nothing that was human-caused. But even more important, we humans become insignificant in the face of this nature versus nurture revelation. And humans, no matter which side of the debate you are on, hate to be insignificant.
.
>>. So I ask the question why does the AGW fraternity
>>continue to be supported by most world governments?
AGW is not only a New Religion, it is a diversion tactic. As long as populations are scared about something, and can see their leaders trying to do something about it, they remain docile. At the same time, world leaders can use AGW divert your eyes from much more pressing matters.
And, it can be taxed…..
.
Please. Read”Changes from RSS TLT version 3.1 to 3.2 version”(on MSU data)
You will see that the trend (1979-2008 ) is 0.180K/decade.
This is consistent with land-sea measurements and with mean climate -models.
This is CONSISTENT climate warming.
The Catlin survey people(http://www.catlinarcticsurvey.com/) are to be resupplied soon. (on Sunday their time.) so the lack of movement recently may mean they have found a place for the plane to land, stopped and are conserving energy.
The lack of communication though is more of an indication of trouble. It has been two days since Pen Hadrow’s most recent post on 10.40am 2nd April. They normally post on the twitter before mid-day. They apparently put in a sit-rep at 1800 GMT which is three and a half hours from now so there may be some news soon.
They are at 129 degrees West right now which is in the same time zone as either Anchorage or Vancouver.( About 7 or 8 hours behind GMT and about 20 hours behind my time zone.) When they report the time of their posts they do not say what time zone they are using so it is difficult to know how long it has been since the last post.
It’s difficult to believe their body temp, heart and respiration readings are accurate or a live feed. It is hard enough to get good readings in a hospital bed, let alone in a cold tent.
About temperature jump in January. Something hit magnetosphere in January 21 it was HUGE
look ant this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqWNNhsYrdI check temperature probably will be higher too..
DJ (00:47:34) :
“Yet another above average temperatures despite a strong solar minimum. Let’s face it – temperatures are a lot hotter than they should be given a recent La Nina and a cool sun. The reason…. the enhanced greenhouse effect!”
In Michigan we are surrounding by some large bodies of water. They have the effect of delaying the onset of colder temperature in the Fall and warmer temperatures in the Spring.
I can only imagine that the oceans act like the great lakes but on a much larger scale. The temperature will have a delayed response to changes in the Sun (or whatever) due to the heat stored in the oceans. However, once that engine of cooling gets going, I would expect it to go for years beyond whatever was causing it to cool in the first place. (By the way, as a scientist, I have to come down on the side of something other than CO2!)
The satellite temps in March were being affected by two major influences,
– the ENSO changes which occurred in December (there is 3 month lag); and then,
– the continuing travails of the Sudden Stratospheric Warming event which occurred in the January (which has affected the lower troposphere satellite temps in January, February and March more than the surface measurements).
The Nino 3.4 Anomaly dropped from -0.22C in November to -0.73C in December. This should have provided a reduction of -0.03C in the satellite temps in March.
The January Sudden Stratospheric Warming event (the north polar vortex gets disrupted and temperatures get redistributed all across the entire NH atmosphere for a period of several weeks) seems to have finally ended now but there was still some additional warming in March in the NH at the levels of the lower troposphere measured by the satellites.
Northern high latitudes [1,000 MB surface, 0.4MB top of the atmosphere] – past 3 months – still a little unsettled going into April
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_JFM_NH_2009.gif
Equatorial latitudes – below normal except for the high stratosphere which is above
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_JFM_EQ_2009.gif
Southern high latitudes – mostly below normal
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_JFM_SH_2009.gif
I expect the surface temperatures from Hadcrut and GISS will be down -0.04C in March.
alexandriu doru — you’re missing the point. Whether any data sets show consistent warming over the last 30 years is not at issue. What is at issue is whether the last 30 years of warming (and, like it or not, the current 10-year trend is a cooling one and that is no more or less relevant) necessarily predicates a further 30 years of warming to come.
History is against you. We warmed from about 1910 to 1940, cooled to about 1970, warmed to about 2000, look as if we are cooling at the moment.
Even a layman like me doesn’t need a calculator to see a trend.
Perhaps you would care to explain precisely where I am wrong in my analysis. Go on, make a name for yourself! Be the first warm-monger to actually explain why you are right and we are wrong!!
DJ (00:47:34) wrote:
Yet another above average temperatures despite a strong solar minimum. Let’s face it – temperatures are a lot hotter than they should be given a recent La Nina and a cool sun. The reason…. the enhanced greenhouse effect!
DJ:
I have a URL below for you to look at. Anthony, et allia, evaluate temperature sensing devices and their positioning relative to heat islands and other forms of terrain and foliage that corrupt their readings. As you will see if you follow the URL below, jet engine exhaust and pavement (concrete and asphalt) severely compromise the ability of this site to give accurate readings according to published standards.
My point is: Don’t believe the temperature averages as the measuring devices are not in an environmental vacuum. And, most of the measuring sites are undergoing environmental changes that effect readings upward all around the world. Again, Anthony is doing yoeman’s work at educating anybody who is willing to “open his mind” and stop reciting the dogma of AGW worship.
Please read Mike O’s (05:53:21) post again as his point is right-on. I have read that the lag between low solar activity, TSI, and Cosmic Ray influence could be from 3 to 7 years before we “feel” the effects on earth in terms of temperature averages.
I am not a scientist, but by having an open mind and reading what analytical posters write on this blog is an education.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/category/uhi/
Here is another anomaly from spaceweather.com
They are so eager to go to the next solar cycle that they will take whatever looks like a sun spot. Maybe they should give that burnt pixel a permanent sunspot number and claim that the sun is really acting up!!!
NEW: Spotless Days
Current Stretch: 9 days*
2009 total: 81 days (87%)
Since 2004: 592 days
Typical Solar Min: 485 days
explanation | more info
Updated 04 Apr 2009
*NOTE: Updated sunspot counts by the Solar Influences Data Center reveal a small, previously unnumbered sunspot on March 26th. This reduces the current stretch of blank suns to 9.
Shouldn’t you be comparing with the previous year? Everyone knows March is warmer than February.
The 1997/98 El Niño temperature spike seems to have had a long lasting effect that is dissipating. This graph shows what the trend was before the event and how the trend was affected by it. The dashed red line is the trend with all of the data and the purple is the trend based on the data before the area highlighted in red. Notice that there appears to be a decaying oscillation. If correct we’re in the third peak which is less than the previous two, and is much closer to the purple trend line.
OK that didn’t seem to work. Here’s the link.
RSS Trends
MarekT (05:48:52) :
Was it a flare? Did it cause the Sudden Startospheric Warming?
Mike N-that’s why they are reported in ~anomalies~ and not absolute values. The annual cycle is removed.
I’ve updated my model for RSS which adjusts for the impact of the ENSO and the AMO (basically takes out the big spikes from the 1997-98 El Nino as well as the 2007-2009 La Nina).
The global warming signal residual is a little higher now at 0.745C per CO2 doubling.
http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/6784/rsswarming.png
I like using the log warming chart because it provides another perspective.
http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/8838/rsslogwarming.png
RSS’ March Anomaly is +0.172C which is just a little higher than it was at the end of 1979. Taking out the impact of the ENSO and the AMO, the warming is only 0.05C per decade.
Tober Wood :
Sun at this time was dead, no sunspot, no flares. But don’t believe me, check yourself
http://sohodata.nascom.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/data_query
BarryW (07:32:40) : RSS Trends
The graph begins in the mid 70s when there was concern about a distinct cooling trend. If the starting point went back another couple of decades when the trend from 1950 to 1975 was cooling, I suspect the purple line would be flatter.
The reason…. the enhanced greenhouse effect!
Possibly. Or not.
A normal minimum has little effect. If it develops into a Grand Minimum, all bets are off.
Even if it is AGW (and it may be), the effect is small and seems to be no threat.
You are perfectly right:30 years of warming do not mean that the warming will continue.
But there are 23 groups of scientists who calculated a future warming of 2…4 K for the next century.
There are zero groups of scientists(including Lindzen) who calculated less then 1K.
I am more ready to accept the opinion of men who DID a calculation .
Sorry for my english.
Robert Wood:
Did it cause the Sudden Startospheric Warming?
Check this link
http://www.interactions.org/cms/?pid=1027544
and this
http://ams.confex.com/ams/17Fluid15Middle/techprogram/paper_154033.htm
How about France´s underground nuclear tests in South Pacific:
“Despite the end of the Cold War and decreased security tensions, France conducted eight tests between September 1995 and May 1996. Six of the eight tests were completed on the following dates: Sept. 5, 1993; Oct. 1, 1995; Oct. 27, 1995; Nov. 22, 1995; Dec.27, 1995 and Jan. 27, 1996.”
http://www1.american.edu/ted/ice/mururoa.htm
alexandriu doru (08:50:39) :
Is that more or less than the number of groups of investment modelers that calculated that sub-prime loans and the repackaging of them represented a reasonable risk?
cooling trend continues
evanmjones (08:48:51) :
The reason…. the enhanced greenhouse effect!
Possibly. Or not.
A normal minimum has little effect. If it develops into a Grand Minimum, all bets are off.
Even if it is AGW (and it may be), the effect is small and seems to be no threat.
If instead of a lineal trend we calculate a hexic trend, the cooling becomes evidently abrupt. The tip during 1998, due to the activity of El Niño makes the linear trends a bit deceptive.
See this graph, for example: http://biocab.org/Delta_T_UAH-English.jpg
Don’t things like the earth’s albedo (or CO2, or whatever) drive the first derivative of global temperature, instead of temperature directly? I’m not a climatologist and maybe I just missed this in what I’ve read but it seems to me that the differential equations aspect of all this doesn’t get enough discussion.
For example, I read many times that the average temperature over a solar cycle seems driven by the length of the previous cycle. If temp moves like the integral of sunspots, and the long cycles are long because of long minimums at the end, then this all makes perfect sense. The minimum drags the global temp down and starts off the next cycle at a low value — yielding a cold cycle.
Furthermore, polar ice might move like the integral of temperature (or at least have that as a term in the diff eq.) Right? The albedo could be mostly the second derivative of polar ice (though also some first derivative contribution would make sense).
Furthermore, if the cosmic rays are a function of the solar flux filling the whole solar system (more or less the integral of sunspots over a year or so) then we could even see some third derivative effects.
This means the polar ice response to the current minimum could be a long time coming but once it starts to build could be pretty predictable.
Right?
I’m just an educated layman but this stuff seems intuitive to me. Surely some of the papers take this point of view.
alexandriu doru (08:50:39) :
“I am more ready to accept the opinion of men who DID a calculation .
Sorry for my english.”
Your English is pretty good, no apologies needed. The problem is you shouldn’t accept anyone’s opinion since we are dealing with a complex chaotic situation. All opinions are little better than guesses.
Think about all the diseases that have not been cured even though billions of dollars in research has been done. It’s not easy to understand complex systems.
To john .m.
“comparaison n’est pas raison”
ANY ~snip~ was capable to produce a climate model.
In physics you MUST calculate.
When Lindzen will produce a model with 0.5K/dubling co2 i will reconsider my position.
Until then, let’s stop playing games with the fate of our grandchildren.
Alexandriu doru
but the calculations must match the observed data, or be explained. any hypothesis must be testable.
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/04/03/global-warming-a-classic-case-of-alarmism/
Alexandriu Doru
You said, “Until then, let’s stop playing games with the fate of our grandchildren.”
These men are those who would determine the fate of our grandchildren:
http://green-agenda.com/
“Deşteaptă-te, române”
Mike Bryant
The problem we foreigners observe is that you have been taughtto believe in statistics as in polls instead of laws of nature, the data is always “conveniently adjusted” like the figures on the ordinate axis shown above: Those temperature differences are not actually perceived by humans and any “lucky” event in the future, like the 1997-98 el Nino would alter these completely. Actual phenomena is what really counts and it is what WUWT is after, trying to show what nature is telling us confronting it against the “end of the world” preaching.
Alexandriu doru utters the standard alarmist ploy:
When did you stop beating your wife?
Why should you expect me to care about the fate of your grandchildren Mr Doru? Do you think all the people who do not believe in the AGW scam are childless? Or do we not love our children the way you love yours?
It is not up to Lindzen to prove the AGW and CO2 theory wrong – it is up to the proponents of the theory to prove it – and to date I have seen no evidence of this ‘proof’.
alexandriu doru (10:08:54) :
Excerpt from article by Dr. Sallie Baliunas (Harvard astrophysicist), Dr. Tim Patterson (Carleton U paleoclimatologist) and me, published in 2002.
http://www.apegga.org/Members/Publications/peggs/WEB11_02/kyoto_pt.htm
“Computer models that predict catastrophic human-induced global warming have consistently failed to accurately reproduce past and present climate changes, so their predictions of future climate changes are highly suspect. These models incorrectly assume that increased CO2 concentration is a major driver of atmospheric warming, and also assume large positive feedbacks arising from increased CO2 concentration, for which there is no scientific evidence. Without these speculated positive feedbacks, even a doubling of CO2 concentration would lead to a theoretical warming of only approximately 1º C.”
(end of excerpt)
I also predicted in another 2002 article that global cooling would start soon, based on a conversation with Tim Patterson.
Score:
All your experts including the IPCC – Zero.
My experts – 2
Everyone has children – you do not own the moral high ground.
As far as the intellectual high ground…
Regards, Allan
alexandriu doru (10:08:54) :
Until then, let’s stop playing games with the fate of our grandchildren.
Questioning authority, whether its climate modelers or investment bankers, is playing games with the fate of our grandchildren?
Good grief. Maybe I should just ask the UN how my kids should dress too. Who knows, it might impact who they marry, and “gasp”, what those grandkids may look like.
Is it OK for me to watch the basketball game tonight, or should I just read what the experts have to say on the pre-game show?
alexandriu doru (10:08:54) wrote:
To john .m.
“comparaison n’est pas raison”
ANY denialist was capable to produce a climate model.
In physics you MUST calculate.
When Lindzen will produce a model with 0.5K/dubling co2 i will reconsider my position.
Until then, let’s stop playing games with the fate of our grandchildren.
Dearest Alexandriu:
Us “denialist”s are not the ones suffering from denial, it is people who hear a sermon and believe it to be the truth. To one degree or another, AGW may be occuring, but analytical people will try to understand our solar/earth system before we subjegate our children and grandchildren to standards of living that are far below our own.
It is a fact that CO2 levels have been at much, much higher levels than they are today, and the earth did not suffer from runaway global warming. You know, the laws of thermodynamics really are true. Only the sun is capable of tranforming enough energy to create life, or change life, on earth as we know it. On Earth, the laws of energy rule; heat energy in = heat energy out, or the temperature rises or cools.
There are no huge hidden energy producing sources on this planet. The sun is our only energy source; everything here on Earth is because of the Sun.
CO2 seems to be a small part of this dynamic system and human beings are almost insignificant to this system.
Alexandriu, please close your bible and open your mind. Bibles and religion, in most cases, are good for instilling morals in our society, but that is about all.
MarkM
alexandriu doru,
every calculation of climate sensitivity is based on some interpretation of physical processes in atmosphere, convective motions, cloud formation, water vapor and precipitation increases as a response to initial greenhouse warming. All calculation that find high climate sensitivity are based, without an exemption, on the assumption of strong positive feedback of clouds and water vapor. This assumption is according to findings of 5 or 6 independent teams completely wrong. Climate is not dominated by positive but by negative feedbacks, and all calculations assuming strong positive feedbacks are simply WRONG. So, your pointing to various “calculations: as a “proof” that climate sensitivity is high is obviosuly without the merit; various guys who make the same mistake do not proof [prove] anything. Just like various so called “independent studies” of Hockey Team in paleoclimatology are not proof of anything, because all them use the same, faulty proxies (like bristlecones and foxtatils) in their calculations of paleo temperatures.
An please stop using that stupid term “denialist”, because it doesn’t make your arguments sounding any better.
“Stop playing games with the fate of our grandchildren”
How about AGW advocates stop playing games with the prosperity and freedom of me and any descendants I may have? The “fate of our grandchildren” is not so threatened as you naively believe. As long as they are allowed free determination of their own actions, they can bring themselves up to great prosperity. Wealthy people will have no trouble coping with Climate change, and some climate change is inevitable. The people who are most vulnerable are the poorest among us-especially the third world. They need ~sustained~ development, not “sustainable” development. The world which is best off is the richest one, regardless of how warm it is.
It should be do not “prove” instead “proof”. When you write things quickly and English is not your mother tongue. 🙂
John Finn (04:08:08) : writes:
“eyeballing the 2 graphs suggests to me that we’re simply in a brief La Nina phase – similar to the one in 1998-2001. There ’s no way anyone can, at this point in time at least, reasonably interpret the recent lower anomlies as the beginning of a sharp (or even slight) cooling trend.”
Try eyeballing this one. Driven by the notable drop in th temperature of the great southern ocean, there is no doubt the planet is cooling!!!!
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2sh/from:1998/plot/hadsst2sh/from:2001/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1998/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2001/trend
alexandriu doru (10:08:54) :
“When Lindzen will produce a model with 0.5K/dubling co2 i will reconsider my position.”
Read this and weep!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/30/lindzen-on-negative-climate-feedback/
As he states near the end of the article:
The Bottom Line
The earth’s climate (in contrast to the climate in current climate GCMs) is dominated by a strong net negative feedback. Climate sensitivity is on the order of 0.3°C
Um, the global cooling argument isn’t helped with stringing the data like that.
Now I will tell you something like this
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1990/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1990/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1990/to:2004/trend
I started the trend line from 1990 to 2004 and then another one to today, while the trend is up, notice how the slope is becoming less impressive, if the oceans keep cooling we should be back to a straight line in less than a few years.
Anthony,
Thanks for providing this plot. I generally send this monthly plot to many of my friends and others to offset the AGW propaganda that gets streamed daily over the MSM. Your real data and facts are convincing for all who receive and and take the time to read, except for the few who will deny the facts regardless of how strong they are. We skeptics periodically need a dose of reality that you provide. I have discussed this with those to whom I send your information, and they are surprised by the real temperature and ice data.
I wonder if you have ever considered posting such monthly plots and other relavent information on the WUWT home page, along the lines that you do for the sea ice plots, where they can be easily found and sent to another person that needs information other than the MSM Propaganda . Better yet possibly a central location (URL within WUWT?) where one can find a collection of such important plots/data that we can forward to others including the un-informed, media folks, Federal, State, and Local politicians, etc. again to offset the MSM propaganda.
It goes without saying, I’m afraid that we skeptics are loosing the battle of getting the message out, and the consequences are enormous. Just look at the plans put together by Waxman and Obama based on the opinion that CO2 is a pollutant and has caused all the temperature increase since the late 1800’s.
Your efforts are greatly appreciated and I know it takes a lot of effort by you and others!!
Thanks again
Don Shaw
“Until then, let’s stop playing games with the fate of our grandchildren.”
Heh. The skeptics would happy to do so. I think what you actually mean is let’s START playing games with the fate of our grandchildren. For all the AGW crowd know, their prescriptions could be dooming us to another Ice Age, which would be so catastrophically worse than any warming scenario it almost makes one wonder why we would worry about warming at all.
I am more ready to accept the opinion of men who DID a calculation .
This is known as the activity trap. If someone tells you they have calculated that when you next spin the roulette wheel it will land on 17, would you believe them and put a trillion dollars down? And yet so many are willing to believe we can predict within a few degrees the sum all the significant feedbacks in the Earth’s climate, to the point they want us to bet trillions on these models.
At the top under Barry Wise’s chart update he has:
“The 1997/98 El Niño temperature spike seems to have had a long lasting effect that is dissipating. . . . . Notice that there appears to be a decaying oscillation. If correct we’re in the third peak . . .”
All who haven’t read Bob T’s reports on this issue should. First one is:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/01/can-el-nino-events-explain-all-of.html
P Folkens (08:45:24) :
Actually I think it’s more complex than that. The linked chart shows all of the trends of 10, 30 and 50 year lengths based on the Hadley data which goes back to 1850. Notice the sinusoidal change in the trends the are pronounced at the 30 yr length and above and that the trend of the last 30 yrs is starting to diminish. Peak to trough is about 30 yrs. This leads me to believe that we’re in for a long cold spell.
Hadley Trends
Carsten Arnholm, Norway (04:13:50) :
Nice web site
“alexandriu doru (05:20:40) : This is CONSISTENT climate warming.”
I see you also like the caps lock.
“Consistent” in temperature is a relative term.
It was warmer on earth during the Medieval Warming Period (1000–1350 A.D.) than it is now. And it is even warmer on earth during the Roman Warming Period (600–200 B.C.) than the Medieval Warming Period. And it is yet warmer during the Holocene Optimum (~7000–2000 B.C.) than during the Roman Warming Period.
This is consistent cooling.
How about the Chinese Holocene? Did you know about it?
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Changes_in_temperature_Chinese_holocene.PNG
“alexandriu doru (05:20:40) : This is CONSISTENT climate warming.”
I don’t know what your point was in saying this. Because it means NOTHING! (there, how’s that for caps lock 😉 ! )
BarryW
Well isn’t that interesting. I did the same thing about two weeks ago. What were the two slopes? I got 0.72 deg C/Century for your purple line (the same as the 20th century!!) and 1.56 Deg C/Century for your red line. I added ( being used to stock market software) two parallel line going through the top and bottom peaks to get a range. Have you done this using UAH? Now if I can only figure out how to use flickr!!
From http://www.algorelied.com
Apr 03
Letter to the Editor: “…the only thing certain about global warming is the amount of fraud and deception used to promote it….”
From The Messenger (Fort Dodge, Iowa):
To the editor:
If Obama is going to stick us with a “carbon tax” he will have to hurry while there are still some global warming scientists who haven’t defected. One of the latest to jump ship is John Theon. Theon is speaking out against scientists who “have manipulated the observed data” to defend their computer models. Theon was also James Hansen’s superior at NASA.
James Hansen is the “father of global warming.” Hansen is also the “father of global cooling.” In the 1970s Hansen wrote a computer program predicting that the world was on the verge of a “new ice age.” Hansen will say whatever it takes to keep the money rolling in and his face on TV.
Hansen’s institute at NASA was recently caught cooking the books on global warming again. Hansen proclaimed that last October was the warmest October on record but when their data was scrutinized, it was found that they had to substitute some of September’s data to do it. The NASA institute tried to cover this up but with all the scientists defecting from the climate change cult, NASA’s data is subject to more serious examination than it used to be.
Last spring Dr. Kerry Emanuel of MIT, who was Al Gore’s hurricane consultant for his movie, renounced the connection between hurricanes and global warming. He further said that none of the global warming computer models are believable.
And, Al Gore was also caught in a deception. He used video footage in his “documentary” that was pirated from a doomsday flick, “The Day After Tomorrow.” It turned out that the video he pirated wasn’t even real. It was a computer animation.
Obama says that the science of global warming is certain but the only thing certain about global warming is the amount of fraud and deception used to promote it and the amount of predictions that don’t come true.
A few weeks ago the manatees left the ocean and swam up the rivers in Florida and huddled together next the power plants trying to keep warm. Apparently, Obama and Al Gore forgot to tell the manatees that the oceans are supposed to be heating up because of “climate change.”
Roger Huetig
Fort Dodge
Just checked – I did do it for UAH – the slopes were 0.36 Deg C/Cent and 1.32 Deg C /Cent respectively.
Bring back the lobotomies!
http://jer-skepticscorner.blogspot.com/2009/04/lobotomized-science.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article2709551.ece
Anthony, This was on Dr. Roy Spencers website
Mr. Gore Recants
April 1st, 2009 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
In an unprecedented about-face, Al Gore last night recanted his claim that mankind is causing global warming. The announcement was made late Tuesday night from his Nashville home through his press secretary. Mr. Gore has remained unavailable for comment. In part, the announcement reads:
“While I will continue to support the development and rapid deployment of alternative energy technologies, I believe that the science can no longer support the view that catastrophic global warming is probable. This decision has required considerable soul searching on my part. But this is the nature of science, and scientific progress. I have no regrets over the path I have chosen.”
The announcement says that Mr. Gore will be publicly renouncing his portion of the Nobel Peace Prize, which was awarded to him in 2007 for his tireless efforts to raise global awareness of the climate crisis. In fact, he will no longer be referring to the fight against a ‘climate crisis’, but instead the fight will continue against a “global energy crisis”.
“The need for inexpensive and readily available energy is the most important issue facing the world’s poor”, the statement reads, “and I will be advocating free market approaches to the leaders of Third World countries in order to allow their citizens to enter and contribute to the 21st Century global economy.”
There is also the hint that he is considering returning his Academy Award for best documentary, although he hopes that a new movie category (best movie, science fiction) will be created to accommodate his highly acclaimed motion picture on global warming, An Inconvenient Truth.
Please comment and put me out of my misery!
REPLY: April Fools
John Good:
I think that was an April Fools joke.
From an ex Australian airline pilot:
It was April and the Aboriginals in a remote part of Northern Australia asked their new elder if the coming winter was going to be cold or mild.
Since he was an elder in a modern community he had never been taught the old secrets. When he looked at the sky he couldn’t tell what the winter was going to be like.
Nevertheless, to be on the safe side, he told his tribe that the winter was indeed going to be cold and that the members of the tribe should collect firewood to be prepared.
But being a practical leader, after several days he had an idea. He walked out to the telephone booth on the highway, called the Bureau of Meteorology and asked, ‘Is the coming winter in this area going to be cold?’
The meteorologist responded, ‘It looks like this winter is going to be quite cold.’
So the elder went back to his people and told them to collect even more wood in order to be prepared.
A week later he called the Bureau of Meteorology again. ‘Does it still look like it is going to be a very cold winter?’
The meteorologist again replied, ‘Yes, it’s going to be a very cold winter.’
The elder again went back to his community and ordered them to collect every scrap of firewood they could find.
Two weeks later the elder called the Bureau again. ‘Are you absolutely sure that the winter is going to be very cold?’ he asked.
‘Absolutely,’ the man replied. ‘It’s looking more and more like it is going to be one of the coldest winters ever.’
‘How can you be so sure?’ the elder asked.
The weatherman replied, ‘Our satellites have reported that the Aboriginals in the north are collecting firewood like crazy, and that’s always a sure sign.’
Ron de Haan: “Hansen’s institute at NASA was recently caught cooking the books on global warming again. Hansen proclaimed…”
No it wasn’t, and Hansen made no proclamation. As you will know, the original data was recorded in error and automatically updated to GISS. The mistaken data was human error exacerbated by technology.
It’s understandable that sceptics will have strong views about global warming, but spreading misinformation about your enemies and accusing them of fraud and deception fatally undermines your argument. Stay with the data and science and you can make a much more persuasive case.
This is OT, but the RSS and UAH shouldn’t mind the distraction. I’d post at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/11/21/weather-channel-nixes-forecast-earth-possibly-cullen/ but the comment box went away.
At the time of the Novemeber announcement I printed a copy of http://www.weather.com/tv/personalities/ to keep handy. A time honored technique in companies I’ve been involved with during layoff cycles is to take an old group photo and blackout people as they leave the company. Thank you Weather Channel for providing a very useful page for that!
I took a look today and noticed that several people beyond the November crowd are gone. Apparently some more changes happened in February or March, I did check the list in late February to see if Heidi Cullen was still on. She was, but isn’t now.
People disappeared in November:
Eboni Deon
Cheryl Lemke
Dave Schwartz
(Several others where are not “on-air personalities” and hence not on the page.)
People disappeared in February/March:
Kristina Abernathy
Heidi Cullen
Kristin Dodd
Jorma Duran
Rich Johnson
Mark Mancuso
Sharon Resultan
Mancuso’s Wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Mancuso was edited on March 2nd to say formerly employed by TWC, but apparently http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_meteorologists_on_The_Weather_Channel was edited early in February.
Apologies if this is old news of if no one cares. I get most of the weather I need locally or on the web, but spend way too much time on WUWT.
> vukcevic (03:05:04) :
=======================================
A possibility of false reading should be considered. Rapid increase in 1998 appear to be unlike anything recorded before.
It should be noted that in 1998 number of observatories recorded unusual burst of cosmic radiation. They of cause could have caused increase in temperature, but more likely affected RSS sensors.
An extraordinary increase in cosmic-ray intensity has been recorded on September 29, 1998 by the Rome detectors (rigidity threshold 6.2 GV).
=======================================
Sorry, I disagree with that line of thought. Check out the raw data for for Hadley and GISS and UAH and RSS. All 4 series started climbing in the first half of 1997, rose for almost a year, peaked in early 1998, and were on their way down by September 1998, hitting a local bottom around mid 1999. 1998 was *NOT* a “one-month-wonder”. There were several months of well-above-normal temperatures, and they happened well before the September 1998 cosmic ray event you refer to.
The 1998 el Nino was not without precedent, either, but you do have to go back 120 years. See the 12 month running mean graph of Hadley data at
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/mean:12/from:1850 and also, take a look at Hadley’s monthly data from August 1877 to April 1878. The 1877/1878 spike was just as big, if not bigger than, the 1997/1998 el Nino spike. How warm was it, you ask? Hadley’s February 1878 anomaly, +0.364, was actually warmer than their February 2009 anomaly, +0.345
By the way, that +0.144 UAH prediction was mine. I think I’ll give up for good this time. If anything, satellite data appears to be a trailing indicator for Hadley data.
Bill Yarber asks at (04:47:59) :
“You can break these charts into two sections – 1979 to mid 1997 and 1998 to today. First half shows no appearant trend, up or down. But something happened in late ‘97/early ‘98… Any…suggestions? ‘98 is definitely an outlier and suggests some anomaly other than normal variations.”
Has anyone considered the oblateness shift that occurred just prior to the spike?
Steve Hempell (15:31:30) :
For me
RSS red is 1.55 per Century and purple is .69
UAH red is 1.2 and purple .3
GISS red is 1.6 and purple 1.0
Hadley red is 1.58 and purple .89
Answers depend somewhat on where you decide the El Niño started and the differences between “pure” surface and lower Trop. Eyeballing it still looks like the data is returning to the purple line.
Brendan H: point taken and rightly so, no exaggerations are required by either side of the argument. I myself was a bit of a skeptic idiot when I posted (not here I think) that RSS axis graphs were squewed down a bit on the right margin “0” which “apparently” exaggerated the anomaly on TLT temps. My sight must be deceiving me, because when I actually measured with a ruler they are exactly spot on. My apologies. Lesson… double and triple check before making assumptions
What caused the spike of 1998?
See this quote: “Since the energy of that 1998 warming peak did not come from the ENSO system it is entirely unaccounted for and could well be cosmogenic. Gamma ray burst GRB 971214 is a possible candidate
source.”
Entire paper here: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/ThereWasNoGlobalWarmingBefore1997(February15th2009).pdf
Interesting conjecture, anyway.
Chris
Norfolk, VA
But the rogue wave of the steep-walled spike in 98 is an interesting idea.
(Thanks again, Hotrod.)
Remember….waves (be their periods a a matter of seconds…or a matter of years) are still transfers of energy.
Super Statospheric Warming event possibly related to the GRB (from a neutron star about 30,000 light years away) at around the same time Jan 21-22??
Back in February I and others were raising the question about the remarkable juxtaposition between the GRB and the SSW…
Now the SSW had already begun a few days before the GRB….but the SSW definitely seemed to amplify after the GRB hit on Jan 21-22.
You all have seen the you-tube vid of earth’s magnetosphere getting hit by something really big.
At the same time, when the polar vortex in the NH literally got blown apart and such a fantastic warming of the entire column ensued, the CPC chart showing the cross-section of the polar vortex, showed this…..and continues to show. You can still see the big red month-long blob from the 200 mb level on up.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/hgt.shtml
All of the other charts that i have seen, including the 10mb animation on the same CPC site, show much-quicker significant cooling after the SSW….in direct contradiction to the above.
Can anyone explain this? I have emailed the CPC and never got a response.
If the above is malfunctioning? (perhaps from the GRB burst, as Lief postulated)
And if it is a malfunction, then why has it not been pulled?
So…in conclusion: The above chart shows a clear correlation with the GRB that hit Jan 21-22.
But the 10mb animation (from the CPC site) shows significant cooling…long before any cooling took place (if one is to believe the above link).
Anybody have some answers?
BarryW
A number of observations:
Pre El Nino trend of UAH is much less than RSS.
The overall trends are quite close (UAH being the “outlier”).
The Pre El Nino trends are significantly different from the overall trend for all groups. The satellite groups being much the lower. ??????
Another index I am watching is the ONI. I have posted the graphs for ONI compared to RSS. There seems to be much more recognition of the role of the oceans now. These graphs (no smoothing) certainly are interesting. I tried to take out the influence of the two major volcanoes. Interesting how the temperature/ONI trends match better around 1992. I’m watching this to see if the pattern continues as new data comes in.
RSS/UAH
http://www.flickr.com/photos/37061901@N05/3413677242/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/37061901@N05/3412581353/
ONI
http://www.flickr.com/photos/37061901@N05/3413677220/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/37061901@N05/3413677224/
(Anthony: Using your site to try posting graphs on fickr. Hope you don’t mind. Will not make it a practice!!) :]
Does anyone know why they are no longer putting out actual maps of the satellite temp on
http://climate.uah.edu ?
Those maps were much more useful than “.172”!
Savethesharks
From “Eureka Alert” ; Cosmic rays detected deep underground reveal secrets of the upper atmosphere;
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-01/tncf-crd012109.php
Also “Science Daily”; http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090325155429.htm
MarekT (05:48:52) : About temperature jump in January. Something hit magnetosphere in January 21 it was HUGE
look ant this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqWNNhsYrdI check temperature probably will be higher too..
That was well worth looking at Marek. Thank you. For those who don’t know, we got hit by a pulse from an anomalous x-ray pulsar and that caused the SSW (Sudden Stratospheric Warming) event which caused weather soon after. It’s not a frequent occurrence.
I looked further and found a whole series of U-tubes that I can warmly recommend to everyone here as utterly magical to watch. I listed them here on our Forum
Meanwhile down in the Antarctic …
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7984054.stm
Amazing videos Lucy! Thanks for posting.
Thanks lucy. All I can say is WOW.
The contract killers of AGW:
http://penoflight.com/climatebuzz/?p=474
ROM (21:48:38) :
> From “Eureka Alert” ; Cosmic rays detected deep underground reveal secrets of the upper atmosphere;
Don’t forget http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/22/correlation-demonstrated-bewteen-cosmic-rays-and-temperature-of-the-stratosphere/ . 🙂
Lucy Skywalker (02:03:35) :
One that you listed, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXnSOQBv8XI seems to have been updated a couple days later by http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgcd3diPNm8
The new version cleans up a few things and has some new animations. Well worth watching.
Very good article from Jennifer Marohasy’s blog helps to explain feedback using common sense, experience and data.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/04/role-of-water-vapour-in-climate-change/#more-4654
Pamela Gray @05:11:58
Just about the only other data sets that flow/tract with the general up and down noise and gradual rise then fall of these various global temperature graphs are SST data sets/oscillation indicators. Sun output does not. Cosmic ray data does not.
Well, as I see it, the oceans are basically sloshing around and distributing the heat, not creating or destroying it. The only longer term internal factor of note would be albedo change. The only things to effect the planet’s heat are external factors, solar & cosmic.
Nice video Lucy. How were Earth’s temps looking during and after the blast?
It was either cosmic rays, Al Gore inhaling or a failed attack from a prototype Death Star. I put my bet on the second option.
Wow, Lucy!
So, that darn natural X-ray event upset the cooling trend for January and Febraury. When the “Sudden Stratospheric Warming Event” was announced, I wondered what could have caused it.
This is a very cool article. Someone here was keeping the lid on this for a while? Like putting presents under the tree a week before Christmas and telling the little redhead not to touch? Sorry, but I just thought it was eye candy and could not resist providing the link. Just so you know, my Christmas stocking developed a finger-sized hole in the toe from the year in and year out little redhead sneaking a peek.
http://www.intellicast.com/Community/Content.aspx?a=174
This will contribute just a bit to the Global Temperature Anomaly for April:
(From National Weather Service, for Los Angeles area):
“…SEVERAL HOURS OF FREEZING TEMPERATURES EXPECTED EARLY THIS MORNING OVER INTERIOR VALLEYS OF SOUTHWEST CALIFORNIA…
.CLEAR SKIES…A DRY AIRMASS…AND LIGHT WINDS WILL COMBINE THIS MORNING TO ALLOW TEMPERATURES TO FALL TO WELL BELOW FREEZING FOR
SEVERAL HOURS. THESE TEMPERATURES WILL LIKELY CAUSE HARD FREEZES AND PLANT DAMAGE. THIS MORNING`S LOW TEMPERATURES WILL BE NEAR RECORD TERRITORY FOR THIS TIME OF THE YEAR.” (emphasis added)
On the Sudden Stratospheric Warming events,
The video of the impact on the magnetosphere is quite remarkable and we should be watching this pulsar more closely because obviously it can affect us, even being so far away. It is actually a little unnerving.
But SSWs occur regularly throughout the northern hemisphere winter. There is at least one moderate-sized event each winter. In fact, in 2008, there were four of them in succession.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_JFM_NH_2008.gif
The 2009 event was just the biggest on record. And the event seems to have started on January 20th, a day or more before the pulsar event hit.
Secondly, there was no impact on the southern hemisphere from the magnetosphere event. If the pulsar caused it, then we should have seen the impact at both poles. In fact, the southern hemisphere has only had 1 SSW event before in the record.
I think the SSWs are just a function of the polar vortex. Like any spinning phenomenon, sometimes it gets a little out of balance and flys apart (breaks into two vortices or three). Stratosphere and lower atmosphere temperatures and winds just get spread around in unusual ways afterward.
The northern polar vortex is just more succeptible to this in the winter while the southern vortex is just so strong, it doesn’t happen very often there.
The Earth Observatory has a nice animation of this year’s event and you can see how the polar vortex just gets disrupted.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/36000/36972/npole_gmao_200901-02.mov
Now, if someone could back to all the SSWs throughout the record (40 of them or so) and match them up to magnetosphere impacts from solar storms or pulsar ejections (and then explain why it only impacts the northern hemisphere),
… then one would really have something.
Bill Illis @06:15:40
We only have the satellite record to be able discrern them over both poles. But the first SSW was observed in 1952.
Why the asymmetry?
Robert, the external heat source IS the Sun. The Earth is what causes heat to vary here on the planet. Of the two heavenly bodies, the Sun is the FAR more stable entity. Earth is a chaotic system with heating vents and plugs all over the place.
Why is it so hard to get people to look at the HUGE sources of variation here on Earth? Why spend infinite number of hours studying a tiny, tiny, tiny variation of the Sun? The change in the Sun during the Summer over the past century would not make me change from short shorts to cutoffs. But weather pattern variations most certainly cause me to run for my sweater and long pants in July. The tiny, tiny, tiny variation of the Sun would not make me change from winter wheat to spring wheat or back again, but a cold Pacific most certainly would.
somebody on this thread did mention GSOD.
Very much thanks for that.
There were the datas I was searching for quite some time.
I’m still downloading….2.33 GB currently…and still at 1981…
Thanks
KlausB
Bill, thanks for the post.
Could you please help explain this:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/hgt.shtml
Best,
Chris
Norfolk, VA
Pamela you are just too one-sided in your oceanic forcing ideas.
It is NOT just the oceans [while they may be the majority of the equation], it is ALSO the sun.
Calling something that accounts for 99% of the solar system mass [regardless of its variability or lack thereof] can NOT be EVER referred to as “tiny, tiny, tiny.”
It is not one main driver.
It is one [main] primary driver with one [main] secondary driver.
Capice??
Chris
Norfolk, VA
El Nino…. Rogue waves?
Or harmonics?
Does anybody have any background in ocean harmonics?
It seems to me that what we are seeing is some type of cymatics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cymatics
The wind/currents/other? provide the forcing and the ocean provides the “wave”. Whatever the forcing, El nino and nina are two states that the ocean is attempting to achieve within the state of chaos.
And the El Nino is the resultant standing wave:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cymatics