Finally some recognition of all the anecdotal weather we’ve been talking about here – Anthony
World Meteorological Organization
Thu Aug 21, 2008 1:15am IST
LONDON (Reuters) – The first half of 2008 was the coolest for at least five years, the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) said on Wednesday.
The whole year will almost certainly be cooler than recent years, although temperatures remain above the historical average.
Global temperatures vary annually according to natural cycles. For example, they are driven by shifting ocean currents, and dips do not undermine the case that man-made greenhouse gas emissions are causing long-term global warming, climate scientists say.
Chillier weather this year is partly because of a global weather pattern called La Nina that follows a periodic warming effect called El Nino.
“We can expect with high probability this year will be cooler than the previous five years,” said Omar Baddour, responsible for climate data and monitoring at the WMO.
“Definitely the La Nina should have had an effect, how much we cannot say.”
“Up to July 2008, this year has been cooler than the previous five years at least. It still looks like it’s warmer than average,” added Baddour.
The global mean temperature to end-July was 0.28 degrees Celsius above the 1961-1990 average, the UK-based MetOffice Hadley Centre for climate change research said on Wednesday. That would make the first half of 2008 the coolest since 2000.
“Of course at the beginning of the year there was La Nina, and that would have had the effect of suppressing temperatures somewhat as well,” Met Office meteorologist John Hammond said.
Of course, it could be that during El Nino, less thermal energy is being transferred from the atmosphere to the oceans and during La Nina, more thermal energy is being transferred from the atmosphere to the oceans. Stll, shouldn,’t the ocean thermal energy content increase during La Nina events, like the current 6+ year long decline in atmospheric temperature?
I read that link you provided Steve, and read Gores statement.
According to him things should be much worse than has happened
In the last decade.
“This report is a reminder once again that global warming is real, and that unless we act, we can expect more extreme weather in the years ahead.”
It is years ahead and he is wrong just like his movie
And yes, it CAN get worse than a Dalton Minimum and “Dickensian Winters;” worse than a Maunder Minimum and “Little Ice Age”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migration_Period_Pessimum
This period is known as “Bond Event 1.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_event
“Bond Events” occur about every 1500 years.
iceFree,
My point is that it is not true that scientists somehow didn’t mention the positive effect of El Nino in 97/98 but are now mentioning the negative effects of La Nina. 97/98 was way above trend, and there are plenty of contemporary scientist’s statements accounting for that at the time by reference to natural variation (go google!). By all means question whether or not the globe is still warming, but please don’t build (I’m not saying that you are) a case against scientists on the basis of a demonstrable lie.
Bern Bray says: “Shouldn’t the models have predicted the changes due to La Nina/El Nino? All I see in the hockey stick is an increase.”
The models don’t predict the EXACT OCCURRENCE of these sort of short-term fluctuations, which are very sensitive to the initial conditions. However, the same sort of fluctuations that are seen in the real climate system are also seen in the models and so the statement you make implying a monotonic increase in the models is false. (See here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/what-the-ipcc-models-really-say/langswitch_lang/en for further discussion.)
Bern Bray says: “Also, scientists have said that the warming due to CO2 has overwhelmed any natural variation. If this is the case, how can La Nina show any effect?”
What scientists have said is that the long-term global temperature trend (on the timescale of decades) is now dominated by CO2. They haven’t said that this trend overwhelms all the natural variability that occurs on the timescale of a few years. In fact, it would be a very strange claim for them to make given (as I noted above) that the models clearly don’t predict this.
The dice analogy should do – if you throw the die fifty times then you can expect the average of your throws to approach the prediction. If you throw it another three times and get three low scores, does that ‘falsify’ the prediction? The die range, 1 to 6, is much greater than the variation you can expect in the average, especially so as you go on throwing over a longer accumulative sequence.
Most of the noise about recent temperatures is based on an analysis of the last few throws, rather than a consideration of the entire sequence.
Joel Shore (13:00:01) :
Thank you for endorsing the idea that the climate models are not up to the task of simulating the real climate, including the “short term fluctuations” of the past 10 years, and indeed are not intended to be.
However, I must take exception to your assertion that scientists do not overstate the importance of CO2 and understate the importance of natural variability. That statement is demonstrably false. Please see Anthony’s posts on the whole CCSP USP “synthesis” issue for an object example.
Your “backpedaling” (if I may so characterize it – yes, I may) on behalf of, apparently, the entire “consensus” community, I do find encouraging, so thank you for that as well.
I see that temperature data is still based on the anomoly of the 30 year period between 1961 and 1990. When will they change the base period to 1971 to 2000? Is it because they know the anomoly will drop because the base period will be warmer?
It seems like the base period will have to change eventually.
Do they want a real positive feed back? Although we could call it negative… If we are going into a cooling period, there will be less water in the air… less clouds! Water liquid and vapor in the atmosphere is the greatest greenhouse gas that account for our comfortable temperature of average 15C. Take away the atmospheric water and you will see that it will get closer than -15 C. The less water in the air, the less heat gets trapped.
Have you ever noticed that in the middle of winter those days when the sky is blue are really cold?
I have 2008 so far in ~20th place out of the last 30, according to UAH and RSS data.
” Steven Talbot (13:29:34) :
Most of the noise about recent temperatures is based on an analysis of the last few throws, rather than a consideration of the entire sequence. ”
Let me see if I follow the analogy…
temperature data are used _selectively_ as though to “prove” an outcome which in reality has been predetermined, and motivated by something other than a desire to get the truth, whether that truth is “inconvenient” or not…
that there’s really much more to the temperature story than the predetermined, ulterior-motive result, and we must consider the “entire sequence,” including inconvenient truths such, oh, I dunno, the Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice Age, solar variability, the real warming power of CO2, which drops off exponentially after the first 20 or so ppmv…
Or are you simply using “dice” to argue that trillions of dollar are being spent on what is essentially a crap shoot?
I tell you, the irony is so appetizing, that I really must be careful not to gorge myself.
I know the feast is just beginning.
John-X.
Thank you for endorsing the idea that the climate models are not up to the task of simulating the real climate, including the “short term fluctuations” of the past 10 years, and indeed are not intended to be.
They’re not intended to predict the weather (although GCMs are now being involved in that, with promising results)! Nobody has ever pretended otherwise! GCM runs of future long-term climate are not even base-lined in any detail against current real-world conditions. So what? They include ENSO, variation, for example, but have no interest in predicting its timing. It’s true they didn’t ‘predict’ the recent La Nina (they didn’t try to), but just as true they didn’t predict the 97/98 El Nino (they didn’t try to). In terms of long-term development, the timing is of no consequence whatsoever. You seem to be very delighted to have confirmed that the models are not doing what nobody ever suggested they were supposed to do.
MWhite: As I understand it, if the new sunspot has a reverse polarity then it’s the start of sunspot cycle #24 otherwise it’s still part of SC #23.
RealClimate’s opinion is so one sided.
There most recent blog entry, discussing whether or not to listen to geologists in regards to climate, I wrote this back. It doesn’t mean much, unless you agree with me:
In the long run, I’m not afraid of a warming planet. It sounds unfrightening to me, really.
An ice age sounds much more difficult to survive through.
Those are the deadline facts.
Now…if you get off on arguing who’s more intelligent or right…then by all means, do so.
Happiness found in other useful pursuits, is infinitely more important to me than being right about evil humans and all that they do on a planet for an infinitely insignificant speck of time.
Followed Steven Talbot’s advice and “looked up the evidence” concerning newsworthiness of the 1997/1998 ENSO event then and now.
Now that there has been no warming for the past 8 (or 10 years), it has become fashionable to emphasize that 1998 was an unusual ENSO (and therefore an all-time warm) year. I can Google at least 10 recent articles, in particular on AGW-friendly sites that tell me this.
This was not the case back in 2001, when IPCC published its TAR (SPM).
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/climate-changes-2001/synthesis-spm/synthesis-spm-en.pdf
“The atmospheric concentrations of key anthropogenic greenhouse gases (i.e. carbon dioxide …) reached their highest recorded levels in the 1990s, primarily due to the combustion of fossil fuels …”
“Globally it is very likely that the 1990s was the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in the instrumental record …”
No mention is made of ENSO.
Going into more detail in the WG1 technical report:
http://www.grida.no/CLIMATE/IPCC_TAR/wg1/pdf/WG1_TAR-FRONT.PDF
1998 is mentioned six times (pp. 2,3,26,28,35,56) as the “warmest year” (of the instrumental record or of the millenium). The 1990s are mentioned as “the warmest decade” five times and the years 1995, 1997 and 1998 are mentioned as the “warmest globally”.
On p.26 there is a single mention of “high global temperature associated with the 1997 to 1998 El Niño event”.
A 1998 report by Tom Karl, Director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA’s) National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). cited the warm year 1997, with mention of anthropogenic warming, but no mention of ENSO.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/01/980113062713.htm
In another (2000) report emphasizing human impact on climate Karl wrote:
“there is only a one-in-20 chance that the string of record high temperatures in 1997-1998 was simply an unusual event, rather than a change point, the start of a new and faster ongoing trend.”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/02/000222103553.htm
In testimony (2001) before the US Senate, Karl stated, “The 1990s are likely to have been the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year of the past 1000 years.” No mention was made of ENSO.
http://www.senate.gov/~gov_affairs/071801_karl.htm
The 1997/1998 ENSO event was not “big news” back when it occurred and shortly thereafter.
It has only become a “hot news item” since there has been no subsequent warming since then.
Max
Message to Steve Talbot
You wrote that CGMs were not intended to predict future climate change.
Check out AR4 WG1 Chapter 10, Figure 10.4
This shows various GCM scenario projections to the year 2300!
Yes, I said 2300!
How absurd.
Max
Back then it was also referred to as the El Nino event and was trumpeted constantly.
I’m not going to look up the references, but I remember that winter, the late late opening of Tioga pass (July 1st–I drove it that day) and all the subsequent floods with the term “El Nino” always in the headlines.
I also remember NASA stating that ’98 was the warmest temperatures since the 30’s, not warmer, but that release has long been pulled from the web and no, I do not have a copy.
manacker,
Here are some more references for you:
A persistent El Niño in the first half of the year and the unprecedented warmth of the Indian Ocean contributed to this record warm year.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/1998/ann/ann98.html
The 1998 warmth was associated partly with a strong El Niño that warmed the air over the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean in the first half of the year and in turn affected weather around the world.
http://www.junkscience.com/dec98/smash.htm (quoting NASA)
In 1998, under the influence of an extremely strong El Niño episode, the annual global temperature surged beyond every other year on record.
http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/releases2006/jan06/noaa06-013.html
Enough already. Get sceptical!
manacker,
Message to Steve Talbot
You wrote that CGMs were not intended to predict future climate change.
No I didn’t. Care to try quoting me?
jeez,
Back then it was also referred to as the El Nino event and was trumpeted constantly
Exactly so – I think we’re in agreement on this, though perhaps not in other judgments! 🙂
manacker,
Btw, I wrote a detailed response to your googling post with evidence of scientists statements from the time, but it seems to have been eaten by the spam filter 🙁 Can’t be bothered again -you’ll select what you want to, I’m sure.
jeez says: “I also remember NASA stating that ‘98 was the warmest temperatures since the 30’s, not warmer, but that release has long been pulled from the web and no, I do not have a copy.”
You are probably remembering a statement about the temperatures in the contiguous U.S. as opposed to the global temperatures. Globally, 1998 was (at the time and still now) clearly warmer than it was in the 1930s.
KW says: “Happiness found in other useful pursuits, is infinitely more important to me than being right about evil humans and all that they do on a planet for an infinitely insignificant speck of time.”
I find this sort of attitude strange. Of course it is true that on timescales of millions of years, what we do on the earth over the next century isn’t going to be all that important. (It may have a dramatic effect if we cause mass extinctions, but new species will eventually evolve as they have before.)
However, on the other hand, you can apply this same logic to anything. Do you think it matters particularly to the long term fate of the earth if terrorists fly airplanes into buildings or Saddam Hussein has WMDs or whether social security or medicare can pay their obligations? The point is that we don’t live on the timescale of millions of years and I find it rather strange that some of the same people who get so worked up about the things that I mentioned can somehow be so sanguine about some of these environmental problems like climate change.
Steve Talbot: I just don’t know what to say, you talk of trends. I just look at
a longer time frame that’s all. I don’t think that NASA has studyed it long enough to know one way, or the other. “97/98 was way above trend” on what
time frame? Can you tell me with 100% certaincy an El Nino like that has never happened before? At some time in past history?
It’s easy to be unconcerned about climate change. If the climate never changed, that would be something to be concerned about. Climate change is NOT an environmental problem. The climate has always changed, get used to it. If you do not realize that the climate changes, you must be very young and not very well-read.