With apologies to Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. and Steve McQueen, I offer this advice: run ! A giant temperature anomaly is attacking Canada and Greenland.
An Example Of Why A Global Average Temperature Anomaly Is Not An Effective Metric Of Climate
Roy Spencer and John Christy of the University of Alabama at Huntsville have reported in their Global Temperature Report that February 2010 was the 2nd warmest February in 32 years (e.g. see Roy’s summary).
Their spatial map of the anomalies, however, shows that most of the relative warmth was in a focused geographic area; see
The global average is based on the summation of large areas of positive and negative temperature anomalies.
As I have reported before on my weblog; e.g. see
What is the Importance to Climate of Heterogeneous Spatial Trends in Tropospheric Temperatures?,
it is the regional tropospheric temperature anomalies that determine the locations of development and movement of weather systems [which are the actual determinants of such climate events as drought, floods, ect] not a global average temperature anomaly.
I saw a prediction about a year ago based on the forecast for a strong El Nino. The forecast is we would see an outpouring of alarmist claims about record warm temperatures proving AGW. It appears that forecast was right on the mark.
I think we were extremely lucky that the colder areas happen to fall on many populated areas of the planet. With the cold in Europe, the US and northern China the total hysteria we would have seen has been muted.
As I recall, not many years ago we were told that the arctic had gotten stuck in the positive phase of the AO, and this was a sure sign of global warming.
Actually the AO did stay positive a lot, and the AMO was warm, but whether or not this was due to CO2 is what we are debating.
However, once you have stated the Positive AO is due to Global Warming, it does look a bit absurd to turn right around and state the record-setting negative AO is due to Global Warming.
Back around 2000 National Geographic had, as I recall, a rather neat graphic which displayed exactly how the Positive AO led to arctic melting and Global Warming. Can anyone help me locate the issue, or supply a link to the picture? I think it might even be a topic for a post.
Jose said:
“Nothing will be good enough for those who have already made up their minds. That’s my prediction. I’d like to be proven wrong though.”
I completely agree with this Jose…and it cuts both ways for true believers on both sides of the AGW issue…hence why I remain only 75% convinced AGWT is correct, and 25% a skeptic. This means I believe that AGWT is likely correct, but I will always be open to looking at other opinions and interpretations of data. As time goes by I am sure I will be changing that percentage, and it depends on future trends. The next few years are critical, for AGWT makes specific predictions about the trends in many areas that can be readily observed, measured, and analyzed. By 2015, I will be either up to 95% convinced AGWT is correct, or down to 50/50.
Steve Goddard (20:24:40) :
The very negative AO kept the cold air on the Siberian side.
…………………………………………………………………………………..
Thanks for making it simple!
🙂
R. Gates,
I suspect you are 75% convinced of AGW because of the many atributions attributed to AGW without any link at all.
The bulk of fabricated links creates the false perception of “gee there must be something to it if it’s causing all of this”.
Peel away the all of the baseless attributions and what’s left is nothing but fatally flawed climate models and run amoke suppostion which now declares all things consistent with climate models projections.
It’s a merry go round of nonsense.
Sean Peake: (referring to the Arctic weather, diverted to Europe by blocking high over Greenland) ‘And as far as I’m concerned Europe can have it again next year. In fact, keep it—I won’t miss it.’
Thanks Sean, from icy Normandy. Warming up a little now, but we had a cold one.
Near as I can tell from that map, around that area near Greenland was where, as reported here, in 2007 there was a major loss of Arctic ice when the usual ice arches failed to form and the winds pushed the ice through the Nares Strait.
If we accept that the surface temperatures are as warm there as this map says, then we wonder if it is a persistent pattern that needs explanation, such as a localized atmospheric or ocean current condition, or if perhaps there is some source of heat like geothermal activity.
If we go with the theory that these higher temps in the lower troposphere are due to latent heat from lots of ice and snow forming, at the surface it is actually colder, then offhand it looks like things are “averaging out” and nothing special is going on.
First case, something abnormal. Second case, something normal. Which makes more sense?
(I’m holding out for the longshot of previously-unknown geothermal activity, solely because unexpected sudden volcanic eruptions can be rather interesting. And it would also be interesting to see the CAGW-believers’ response to seeing their “melting Arctic ice and disappearing Greenland glaciers” “proof of global warming” be thrown into severe doubt.)
Another highly germane point is that one could easily pick any 50 or 100 year period in the last 1000s of years and and find levels of fluctuations in the many same things now being wrongly and without any linkage attributed to CO2 emissions.
The presumption that current variations are new to an otherwise stable and unchanging planet is absurd on it’s face.
But for warmers to be forever looking around and finding every change, real or imagined, to be a trend and indicator of human caused global warming is the stuff of unethical fanatic activism attempting to push forward an agenda by piling up fabricated justification and urgency.
Coupled with their disparaging (to ruin) of all who question and reject these tactics and it’s clear this is just another historical example of attempted tyranny.
Fortunately the global masses, armed with the global Internet, are able to crush such global efforts.
The sound one hears over at RealClimate, ClimateProgress and ClimateCentral, regardless of how clever they think they are presenting it, are the squeals from wanna be tyrants on their last gasp dictates that we all conform to their demands.
The Gavin Schmidts, Joe Romms, Jane Lubchencos, Michael Manns, James Hansens, et al, are indeed scoundrels in the process of getting exactly what they should.
Scientist for Truth,
You’re right it is plate carre. I was in a hurry and realised later that I’d confused ‘equal area’ with ‘equirectangular’
I moved to New Brunswick, Canada at the beginning of 2008 and have been taking my own temperature readings since then. I can attest to the warmth of this winter compared to last winter. My figures are:
Week no ave min 09 ave max 09 ave min 10 ave max 10
1 -9 -3 -1 +1
2 -11 -3 -8 -2
3 -18 -9 -7 0
4 -15 -7 -7 0
5 -8 +1 -17 -7
6 -12 -2 -9 -1
7 -8 +1 -1 +3
8 -8 0 -1 +3
9 -5 +1 0 +2
10 -7 +2 -4 +5
11 -9 +1 -4 +7
So, on average the minimums in 2010 have been 4.5 degrees warmer than in 2009, and the maximums have been 2.6 degrees warmer.
Highly unscientific, anecdotal etc, but that’s the story in my back yard!
carrot eater (12:36:34) :
Yeah, the cold blob is down here in sunny FLORIDA!!!!!!!!!!!!! Come on spring, we’re tired of El this and El that and all the other Els and blobs!
@ur momisugly R. de Haan (05:22:44) :
Actually, that situation would be perfect. Then the military-industrial complex and the scientific-industrial elite would each be assigned one of America’s two parties as opposition, and we will be able to sort this out rather quickly. Do you support the military-industrial complex or acknowledge its existence?
Steve Oregon (11:21:43) :
Peel away the all of the baseless attributions and what’s left is nothing but fatally flawed climate models
Here’s a work showing computer climate model outputs not matching observation, in other words, what the computer models predict will happen isn’t happening :
“These conclusions contrast strongly with those of recent publications…”
http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/papers/Published%20JOC1651.pdf
Cartoon:
Caption: Blob / Blab / Blub
Image: Gore / Monbiot / Hansen (Storms of My Grandchildren)
It would appear as a cherry on a watermelon. Mercator maps are utterly useless in showing global areas, they were invented for navigation. No projection is perfect, but a Robinson projection (National Geographic standard these days, I believe) would be much more fair and informative.
Pascvaks (12:51:24) : ‘Anomalies’ are friendly little things that wouldn’t hurt a fly.
I always thought anomalies were those fringey looking things with all of the edge tentacle in fishtanks. Ah, here we are: “a group of water dwelling, predatory animals of the order Actiniaria.”
Yep, they wouldn’t hurt a fly, because the only flies that make it down to one are already dead.
The blob has inverted to very cold.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/ANIM/sfctmpmer_01a.fnl.30.gif
Steve Goddard (23:00:58)
Seems so – I am in Montreal on business, its snowing, will reach -8 C this week at night according to local forecasts. Parts of the Canadian winter were mild but it seems now its making up for lost time. (I remembered to bring a woolly hat at the last minute, just as well.)
Make that -13 C.