The usual suspects in the blogs and media have been bloviating about the record warmth of March and spinning it to redline for maximum fear factor, with the “loaded climate dice” theme. For example we have Andrew Freedman of Climate Central and his post, Global Warming May Have Fueled March Heat Wave Odds.
Scary big red maps aside, a quiet look at the data tells an entirely different story.
At least NCDC had the good sense in their report to avoid linking a weather pattern to AGW:
A persistent weather pattern during the month led to 25 states east of the Rockies having their warmest March on record. An additional 15 states had monthly temperatures ranking among their ten warmest. That same pattern brought cooler-than-average conditions to the West Coast states of Washington, Oregon, and California.
Dr. Martin Hoerling on NOAA says much the same thing, attributing much to “randomness” and citing a similar event in March 1910 as seen below in the NCDC data plot:
It is difficult to make credible claims that March 2012 was AGW driven when looking at March 1910 when global CO2 was well below Dr. James Hansen’s posited “safe” 350 PPM level.
Hoerling also says that pulling an AGW signal out of this has “…statistical challenges in estimating how such a shift in distributions would alter extreme event odds, especially of the intensity observed in March 2012 whose magnitude was likely on the order of 4 – 6 standard deviations.”
Dr. Roy Spencer writes that the southerly wind component was the cause, and even shoots down the “yes but” before it gets out of the gate.
New Evidence Our Record Warm March was Not from Global Warming
by Dr. Roy Spencer
As part of my exploration of different surface temperature datasets, I’m examining the relationship between average U.S. temperatures and other weather variables in NOAA’s Integrated Surface Hourly (ISH) dataset. (I think I might have mistakenly called it “International” before, instead of “Integrated” Surface Hourly).
Anyway , one of the things that popped out of my analysis is related to our record warm March this year (2012). Connecting such an event to “global warming” would require either lazy thinking, jumping to conclusions, or evidence that the warmth was not caused by persistent southerly flow over an unusually large area for that time of year.
The U.S. is a pretty small place (about 2% of the Earth), and so a single high or low pressure area can cover most of the country. For example, if unusually persistent southerly flow sets up all month over most of the country, there will be unusual warmth. In that case we are talking about “weather”, not “climate change”.
Why do I say that? Because one of the basic concepts you learn in meteorology is “mass continuity”. If there is persistent and widespread southerly flow over the U.S., there must be (by mass continuity) the same amount of northerly flow elsewhere at the same latitude.
That means that our unusual warmth is matched by unusual coolness someplace else.
Well, guess what? It turns out that our record warm March was ALSO a record for southerly flow, averaged over the U.S. This is shown in the next plot, which comes from about 250 weather stations distributed across the Lower 48 (click for large version; heavy line is trailing 12 month average):
Weather records are broken on occasion, even without global warming. And here we see evidence that our March warmth was simply a chance fluctuation in weather patterns.
If you claim, “Well, maybe global warming caused the extra southerly flow!”, you then are also claiming (through mass continuity) that global warming ALSO caused extra northerly flow (with below normal temperatures) somewhere else.
And no matter what anyone has told you, global warming cannot cause colder than normal weather. It’s not in the physics. The fact that warming has been greatest in the Arctic means that the equator-to-pole temperature contrast has been reduced, which would mean less storminess and less North-South exchange of air masses — not more.
Larkin
Point taken, Mosher is a soft-core warmist, but so what?
That ‘of course’ which I mentioned shows his true allegiance.
His belief in 24/7 warming by a weak trace gas is at the heat of the Warmista fallacy.
If he should happen to chicken out on the Doomsday aspects of Warmism, I say good for him. Back in the 50’s he would have been a ‘fellow traveler’, who thought anti-Communism was the problem. Today he probably thinks that ‘denialism’ is the problem.
Core criterion: does Mosher advocate cap & trade? wind farms? renewable mandates? solar giga-dollar giveaways?
If so then he is still a Warmista, albeit soft-core.
This is not just an intellectual-level scientific debate here.
AGW is a life & death matter all right, but it’s the death of our prosperity, not the Earth’s, that will be delivered by the success of AGW.
Just ask the billions of windmill-sliced bird corpses, which the ‘peer-reviewed’ literature is already trying to hush up.
Just ask the billion food-challenged people how ethanol-madness has priced their food up high, or the victims of fuel-poverty, or the thousands killed by CAFE-unsafe cars.
They all show this is DEAD serious.
Mike says:
April 16, 2012 at 5:38 pm
Did you happen to notice the 2.2F/century trend for March? And then there is this:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2012/2012GL051000.shtml
Evidence linking Arctic amplification to extreme weather in mid-latitudes
Key Points
•Enhanced Arctic warming reduces poleward temperature gradient
•Weaker gradient affects waves in upper-level flow in two observable ways
•Both effects slow weather patterns, favoring extreme weather
######################
2.2 F/century would be close to the IPCC projection of 3*C by 2100
Jeef says:
April 16, 2012 at 4:27 pm
… Drill during Summer months then complete the wellheads with a subsea tie back via pipeline laid in Summer….
——————————————————————————
So we’ll call that “intermittent oil”…
not a “great” way to stabilize the energy supply,
just like intermittent windmills, intermittent solar, intermittent tides, intermittent batteries, etc., etc.
Steven Mosher says:
April 16, 2012 at 1:27 pm
“…That said, in a world that is warming, you can expect more marches like the one we had.”
In a world that is warming? okay let’s call it ‘global warming’ for talk sake, You are basically pushing the point of view that because of ‘global warming’ the US can expect more warm marches in the future.
Then you say;
“The warm march is of course tied to the levels of GHGs. If they were higher, the temp would be higher. if they were lower the temp would be lower.”
Okay, let’s add your Greenhouse element to your point of view about ‘global warming’ and call it “Greenhouse Global Warming”, Now that we have the terminology for your point of view, where is your proof linking a tiny quantity of atmospheric gas to warm marches in the US?
Do you also believe that because of “Greenhouse Global Warming” that snow will be a thing of the past? Where in fact do you draw the line? Do you consider this “Greenhouse Global Warming” potentially catastrophic too?
Maybe we can redefine your terminology further and for talk sake call it “Catastrophic Greenhouse Global Warming”.
Does man play an additional role in producing some of the tiny quantity of atmospheric gas? let’s redefine our terminology of your point of view again for talk sake and call it “Catastrophic Anthropogenic Greenhouse Global Warming”, Hmm, this wont do it’s not catchy enough for the public.
As you have suggested that a greater amount of this relatively tiny quantity of atmospheric gas causes the climatic region of the US to be warmer during march, maybe we should redefine the terminology of your point of view yet again, and call it “Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change” or “Climate Change” for short.
Now, You’ll need to get a campaign going to prevent this climate change formally know as “Catastrophic Anthropogenic Greenhouse Global Warming”, So how about promoting the idea that CO2 is a dangerous anthropogenic gas and (Waite for it) get people to offset their carbon production/use, lets call this anthropogenic carbon production/use a “carbon foot print”, I think that your on a winner there Mosher, but you’ll probably need to quickly stifle those who would disagree with you, a known good way of doing this is to say the debate is over and inform the public that the science is settled, Oh and make up suggestive labels for any scientific opposition, that’s a particularly clever tactic, it takes the heat of your perticular brand of science and people will want to become disassociated from siding with your opposition for fear of being labeled, and don’t forget to throw in a fue rumers for good measure.
I hope this will be of some to you, best of luck 🙂 /JK
kbray – with subsea completion tied back to a land based refinery or pipeline to further South you can pump oil all year. The key is that everything is on the ocean floor under the Winter ice. Many oilfields are developed using this method; it’s cheaper than installing a platform.
“2.2 F/century would be close to the IPCC projection of 3*C by 2100” by renewable
Quite right,coal-powered car guy. And 0.1F/century would be about close to the IPCC guesstimate of 5C after the Mann discumbobulator got done with it. And since when did scientists start mixing units????
“New Evidence Our Record Warm March was Not from Global Warming
by Dr. Roy Spencer”
====================================================
Dr. Spencer,
you do not need any evidence do debunk the idea of “global warming” causing your record warm March. The only thing you need is the definition of “global warming”, that is surely familiar to you.
“Global warming” can not cause any warming anywhere. Why?
Because “global warming” is per definition a sort of average thing. It is exactly the other way round: a warming at a certain place does contribute to the rise in the “global average” indeed, so the rise in the average is a RESULT, but no way a cause.
Jeef,
I see.
I thought you meant “tied back” as in having your “tubes tied back”.
There is always a clever solution to a problem,
whether the problem is real or imagined.
The human brain is a wonderful thing…
…when engaged.
kbray – my fault. Too many years on the service side of the industry so I assume people know the meanings of standard terms. For the general reader, a subsea tieback means a wellhead (the bit on the sea floor where the blowout preventer is) where oil goes direct through an undersea line to somewhere else rather than a platform (or tanker or semisubmersible etc!) on the sea surface over the well.
Steven Mosher says:
April 16, 2012 at 1:27 pm
The warm march is of course tied to the levels of GHGs. If they were higher, the temp would be higher. if they were lower the temp would be lower.
=============================================================
The idea about warming “greenhouse gasses” has been debunked by professor Wood in 1909: http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/wood_rw.1909.html . The glass plate in his experiment had a much stronger effect, than the “greenhouse gasses”, but it was not able to produce any significant warming.
“renewable guy” is spreading a lot of misinformation here. That’s because he gets his talking points from unreliable blogs like Skeptical Pseudo-science. Let’s see if we can help educate him. It’s worth a try, anyway.
First, the sea surface temperature [SST] is normal. It varies somewhat differently each year, but it is well within normal parameters. Reliable oxygen isotope proxy records going back 3,000 years show that current SST’s are completely normal. In addition, the false alarmist claims of accelerating sea level rise have been thoroughly falsified.
Next, the IPCC’s global warming predictions have no connection with reality, as empirical records show. The rise in global temperature has been on the same trend line since the LIA, thus deconstructing the conjecture that CO2 is the cause: the warming trend has been at the same, steady rate whether CO2 was at 280 ppmv, or 392 ppmv. The effect of CO2, if any, is too small to measure.
Next, ‘renewable guy’ claims that weather events are becoming more devastating. Wrong. And record high temperatures generally happened well in the past. In fact, we should be hoping for a warmer climate, because cold kills.
‘Renewable guy’ wades into the Arctic discussion, ignoring the Antarctic because it doesn’t follow the alarmist narrative. The Antarctic has much more ice than the Arctic, and global sea ice is completely normal, indicating that CO2 has nothing to do with the cyclical polar ice cover.
‘Renewable guy’ also claims that Hansen is right. As if. Hansen has been consistently wrong for the past 30 years. To get some perspective, let’s look at where we are now. All this wild-eyed, spittle flecked arm waving over a few tenths of a degree change over the past century and a half ignores the fact that temperatures have been a lot warmer, and MUCH colder in the past. James Hansen has his lunatic [“coal trains of death”] opinions. Fortunately, he has been consistently wrong.
Justthinkin says:
April 16, 2012 at 6:21 pm
“2.2 F/century would be close to the IPCC projection of 3*C by 2100″ by renewable
Quite right,coal-powered car guy. And 0.1F/century would be about close to the IPCC guesstimate of 5C after the Mann discumbobulator got done with it. And since when did scientists start mixing units????
#################################
Whether I mix my units or not, the issue as about the earth warming and why. Why has the earth warmed .7*C since about 1850? You are here for support for your view of warming or not. I agree with Steve Mosher, the more co2 the warmer it will be.
Smokey says:
April 16, 2012 at 7:30 pm
“renewable guy” is spreading a lot of misinformation here. That’s because he gets his talking points from unreliable blogs like Skeptical Pseudo-science. Let’s see if we can help educate him. It’s worth a try, anyway.
###########################
Skeptical science has reviewed Hansen’s paper to come out soon that looks at the whole earth rather than a single event such as the March heat wave. His data is showing as I have tried to simplify out, that the warm extreme events are increasing and the cold extreme events are decreasing. If you can hold your nose long enough, I encourage to read through the two SKS aritcles. Hansen is the first to approach the earth as a whole for the change that we have gone through in this statistical fashion. It strengthens the view that the weather is on steroids.
I will be able to continue this discussion tomorrow if you like.
“If you claim, “Well, maybe global warming caused the extra southerly flow!”, you then are also claiming (through mass continuity) that global warming ALSO caused extra northerly flow (with below normal temperatures) somewhere else.”
Conversely, you are claiming that if the warm patch is NOT related to global warming, then there should be an equivalent below-normal region where the air is indeed flowing north at unusual rates. There is a small cool region near Ukraine. There is a warm patch over the Pacific and warm patch another over Europe.
Where is the cool region where the winds are returning toward the south from the north?
http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2012/march/032012globalmap.png
Anthony says “Scary big red maps aside, a quiet look at the data tells an entirely different story.”
Actually, a quiet statistical look at the data tells the same story. Statistical analysis suggests that this March was exceptionally hot (1 of the 4 most exceptional months in the US in the last 118 years), and March has been unusually warm for the entire last decade. In fact, annual temperatures have been on a warm streak for nearly 2 decades.
It could be argued, I suppose, that this March might have been this hot even if it had not fallen in the midst of a continued hot streak. (And that the two most exceptionally cold months just happened to fall during the first 1/3 of the 1900’s when it was cooler in general.) But to me, Occam’s Razor would suggest that when the two most exceptionally hot months fall during an exceptionally hot streak, that there is a connection.
For more details see:
https://sites.google.com/site/sciencestatsandstuff/global-warming/miscellaneous-comments/march-2012-us-temperature-records
Kasuha says:
April 16, 2012 at 2:11 pm
Check the map:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/04/uah-global-temperature-anomaly-up-in-march-at-0-11c/
[Note: Global temps are what matter. March up, April down. ~dbs, mod.]
_________________________
To mod: … so what? If you wanted to answer Jaggar’s question, you could have done so in your own post, not break into mine. He was asking about March, not April. And I can see some pretty blue spots on your own map, too, so I don’t get what you think was wrong on what I posted.
Classic piece of non-scientific deception from NOAA.
Note the “9point binominal filter” goes right up to the end of the data. This means they are using Mannian DATA INFILLING. The legit 9 point filter results will stop 5 years earlier, the date of the last complete 9 point filter window.
I can guarantee from what their green line does at the end that they are doing what Met Office *used to do*: they repeat the last data point to fill the window. This means they are counting the record march temp FIVE times in the supposedly smoothed and filtered 9 year plot.
As a result the green line shoots up to “unprecedented” levels because of ONE DATA POINT
NOAA here are being unscientific and deceptive.
I notice that the graph has a flat line labelled “long term average”. How long is that long term? Does it take account of the LIA, MWP, etc? In short, are we *sure* that the long term average is actually flat?
Wow…if it gets any warmer in the USA then the polar bears will soon be able to walk to New York!
WUWT?
This of course, explains the warm mild weather we had in the winters 2010 and 2011. Wait, those were cold, brutal winters. The greenhouse gases must have been much lower.
NOAA would have everyone believe in Anthropogenic GLOBAL warming. It therefore follows that it must stick to ONLY what is happening in continental USA. Thus nary a wrod about the brutally COLD winter in Eastern Europe and much ofthe northern parts of Russia, Mongilia China, etc
FINALLY! Today the Low reached a balmy 40F this morning for the first time this year! Oh joy! We finally get some of that not so global warmth that has eluded our valley for so long. Perhaps we can think about starting a garden soon.
Tim Folkerts says:
April 16, 2012 at 9:11 pm
It could be argued, I suppose, that this March might have been this hot even if it had not fallen in the midst of a continued hot streak. (And that the two most exceptionally cold months just happened to fall during the first 1/3 of the 1900′s when it was cooler in general.) But to me, Occam’s Razor would suggest that when the two most exceptionally hot months fall during an exceptionally hot streak, that there is a connection.
I know you people think C02 has magical properties, but do you really suppose that C02 somehow has forced up temps in the US, while barely (if at all) managing an effect globally?
Consider HadCRUT’s 100-year temp. record, even with its flawed temperature records with their warm bias:
http://www.c3headlines.com/2012/01/last-100-years-of-co2-temperatures-the-ipccs-hadcrut-data-confirms-co2s-small-impact-on-global-warmi.html
If one were to remove the warm bias, C02’s already-small effect would vanish completely in the noise.
Bruce Cobb says “I know you people think C02 has magical properties …”
I can’t speak for “you people”. but I think CO2 has IR absorptive/emissive properties. But then as Arthur C. Clarke warned, “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” Perhaps this science is just too advanced for you.
You “data analysis” that you link to tends to confirm this. Just about the worse way to judge the change in something with a lot of natural variability is it simply look at the two end points, which is apparently what you did in your link. WAY better would be to find the slope for the periods. When you do this, you will see that your graph gets reversed. The SLOPE for 1912-1961 is 0.00648 C/yr (or 0.32 C for the 50 year period). The SLOPE for 1962-2011 is 0.0141C/yr (or 0.70C for the 50 years), which is more than twice what is was for the earlier period.
So when the analysis is done at a college freshman level, rather than a junior high level, your conclusion is exactly backwards and your data tends to SUPPORT CO2-caused global warming, rather then contradicting it.
“but do you really suppose that C02 somehow has forced up temps in the US, while barely (if at all) managing an effect globally?”
Nope. I think there are large variations in time and location — known as “weather”. The US got a rather unusual batch of weather during March. This warm weather was boosted by a general warming of the globe that is obvious in any number of temperature records. There are many factors that influence that global temperature — including IR properties of GHG’s like H2O and CO2. So CO2 helped force up the global temperature, while weather helped make one particular area exceptional warm.
A forecast for May in the UK
“The coldest or near coldest May for 100 years in Central and East parts with a record run of bitter Northerly winds. Snow at times especially on high ground in NE / East. Spring put in reverse”
http://www.weatheraction.com/displayarticle.asp?a=450&c=5
“Piers Corbyn astrophysicist of Weatheraction.com says “We are making this headline from our 45day ahead Britain & Ireland forecast public because of its importance. It is an economically impactful forecast and more detail of the timing of cold and wintry blasts, East-West splits and drought or not implications are available to subscribers and will also be reviewed for the 30day ahead forecast due at end of April.”
“The very cold expectations apply to East parts and near – Europe rather than Ireland and West Britain”