Dr. Ryan Maue posted one of his WeatherBell analysis maps on Twitter today, and the result is no Headline maker, it is simply “normal”.
He writes (image follows):
February 2013 global temperature anomaly compared to 1981-2010 mean: -0.001°C or 1/1000th of a degree below avg.
It will be interesting to see what the other climate data sources show for February.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Phobos sounds greek anyway January was quite warm for ALL temp reportng agencies. Its FEb thats “normall”
Phobos says:
“What is causing this “climbing?”
And how much longer will it continue? (Please show your work.)”
Go on then Phobos – you tell us how much longer you think it will continue and what you think caused the start of the climb (SUVs in the 1890s?).
You have to give a specific number of years that you believe the climb will last for, so that you can be held to account in future. I’m going to be generous of spirit and not even ask you to “show your work” for the length of time you have computed. You can’t say fairer than that.
NB As someone already said above: why aren’t greenies like Phobos rejoicing at the fact that the temperature is not climbing at the exponential rate that Jim, Al and the IPCC told us would happen? It’s because Phobos and his/her ilk are really ‘disaster junkies’ who aren’t happy unless there is something they can blame on evil capitalists.
It’s also rather ironic/laughable that these afore-mentioned greenies spend their time screaming about ‘Big Oil’ on the blogs they access, using computers encased in plastic made out of fossil fuels, powered by the electricity from power stations they claim are ‘killing the earth’. Hypocrites.
The extreme AGW paradigm requires global cooling to explain a return to normal average global temperature.
In the past when the solar magnetic cycle when into a deep minimum there was global cooling, It will be interesting to hear the imaginative story that will be fabricated to explain global cooling if and when there is more evidence of global cooling. It is significantly more difficult for the extreme AGW paradigm pushers to explain global cooling as opposed to a lack of warming.
It is interesting that the geomagnetic field is showing signs of significant change. The field strength in the vicinity of the South Atlantic anomaly is 30% less than the main field. The northern geomagnetic pole is moving toward Russia at 50 kilometers a year.The planet cool when there is a significant reduction in the geomagnetic field and when the geomagnetic field alignment is significantly off set from the axis of planetary rotation.
AMSU is running at about 0.3C higher than this time last year, suggesting a UAH figure of about 0.3C, roughly back to where they were in Oct/Nov.
Meanwhile I’m still waiting for HADCRUT numbers for Jan!!
richard verney says:
March 1, 2013 at 2:51 am
Yesterday, we had 3 typhoons over the sea. It was a spectacular sight seeing the sea being ripped up into the atmosphere. I spoke to many people and no one could remember a previous occassion when one could see 3 typhoons at the same time. A rare event, but only weather.
—————————————————————————————————————
I suppose, you mean tornadoes – or water hoses, as we call them in Germany, if they happen to occur over water – rather than typhoons, don’t you?
A very rare and spectacular sight, nonetheless!
And while we’re at it – the extent of Arctic sea ice looks – er – NORMAL – according to the JAXA and NORSEX satellite-sourced graphs – which of course faithfully identify both freezing AND melting…
(P.S. Here in the UK its STILL bloody cold..!)
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/old_icecover.uk.php
Arctic ice for the recent day or two has not been this high in the past several years.
This is quite a slow arctic death spiral.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Uh-oh – arctic ice crossing into the zone of 2 sigma from 1979-2000 avg.
If this year’s line approaches the avg line, they will have to redefine how the line is calculated again, just like they did one day before the lines crossed last years.
That is my weather prediction.
No, it crossed into that 2 sigma zone of the “average” arctic sea ice extents a long many weeks ago.
Now, its approaching (getting close to) the 2000-2010 average line.
This all after a record low extents in September.
Perhaps Dr. Roy Spencer can help.
Phobos says:
February 28, 2013 at 9:22 pm
You’re pretty good at deflection and selective editing there, Phobos (and then tying to play the part of my “perfesser” by requiring to see my work, which role you obviously are not)–because the ball is in your court: In the post you responded to, I continued with:
Or are you going to somehow convince me CO2 began in earnest in 1849? Or 1860?
I can’t wait to see your evidence. Oh, and everything else you mention or refute or argue is meaningless if the cornerstone of your theme, CO2 Caused The Warming, is null and void.
And believe me, it’s null and void.
Or believe me not; Mother Nature is in control here, not your exhaust pipes, although a greening biosphere is to be celebrated.
See, the null hypothesis is that mother nature has been controlling temperatures from the get-go, so if you question that, it is YOU that has some explaining to do and a bunch of work to show.
Because you have a very difficult hole to climb out of. For example, Jimbo above indicates even the IPCC states that man’s CO2 started having a discernible effect after 1960. So what caused the warming from the LIA to at least 1960?. Here’s your ultimate answer:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/solar/
And if we look at temperature trends (sans wooden, but the inferrence on today’s temperatures gets really bad if you include tree ring data), today’s warming is nothing unusual at all and certainly not the results of CO2. I refer you to:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Holocene,Historicandrecentglobaltemperatures.pdf
especially Figure 11 of the above reference (by Briffa), which demonstrates that if one eliminates CO2-contaminated temperature proxies (tree rings), the remaining (more accurate) proxies show a MWP that was consistently much warmer than today’s temperatures (even with the fudge factors, called “homogenization”, climsci people apply). And read the conclusions of the study–they’re damning for the CAGW crowd.
So the ball is still in your court, Phobos–show us that CO2 caused the warming from 1960 to the Present, even though it’s nothing out of the ordinary (i.e., it can be considered “natural”, caused by Mother Nature, etc. etc. because it isn’t unprecedented at all). You must disprove the null hypothesis which requires that you show us YOUR work.
Or agree that CO2 is not a significant influence on today’s temperatures (and a huge benefit, I might add); that man is not controlling the environment with his use of fossil fuels; that you are therefore not a member of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Genocidal Warmista crowd that’s responsible for the death of millions of struggling/starving humans by artificially inflating foodstuff prices by pushing facinorous CO2-related policies, and we’ll let it go at that; you’re off the hook.
Jimmy Haigh says:
February 28, 2013 at 8:21 pm
I watched a short report on the BBC this morning about record snowfall in Japan. I knew it was coming… and there it was: “Some scientists say this couldbe because of global warming?”.
Visit the Sea Ice page here at WUWT and let’s see how “warming” stands up. Four or five years ago, Japanese Arctic ice tour folks were complaining that, where once the sea ice could be viewed on a short trip by sea, it now required many days to reach the ice. Well, now the ice has reached them in spades. It is jammed up along the entire north coast of Hokkaido and has muffin-topped over the sides and along the coast of North Korea. This is 100% ice cover – no floating ice hopping needed. It totally envelops Sakhalin Island just to the NNW of Hokkaido. You can walk from PRK to Detroit on ice if the spirit moves you. Also, look at the deep cold North of 80 as per the Danish plot:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/hycomARC/navo/arcticicennowcast.gif
Alvin says:
March 1, 2013 at 4:29 am
What is “normal” and who gets to determine what that is?
. . . and
Mindert Eiting says:
March 1, 2013 at 12:31 am
About “normal”
I do not know if the update to the “normals” as described below will make a difference but with folks reporting results to 3 or 4 decimal places it would be principled and appropriate to follow the standards agreed upon. This would fit with many of the Richard Feynman quotes we have seen here on WUWT – something like ‘ scientists should investigate all the reasons why their results might be wrong’ or ‘don’t try to fool anyone, and you are the easiest one to fool’, ‘if your results don’t match your theory, the theory is wrong’, and so on. [You can look up the originals.]
Since the mid-1930s there has been an established international agreement to calculate “normal” temperature and precipitation using a 30-year average. After a year ending in zero (0) a new set of “normals” is calculated and used until another decade has passed. The idea was to provide a simple basis for comparisons that folks could personally relate to.
For example, go to the link below and you can see three periods, namely 1961-1990, 1971-2000, 1981-2010. These are shown on the left side. The table on the right shows 1948-2012 for a summary. The computer era has changed things some but when a TV or radio station reports the weather they will be comparing the day’s numbers to the 1981-2010 period.
http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?wa7473
The idea was to have a reference period that an adult could relate to. A person, say age 40 to 50, would have “normals” associated with his or her teenage and young adult years. It seemed to make sense to the folks that were interested in how weather records should be tallied and reported. There was no serious intention that these data would be used in the name of CAGW.
The World Meteorological Organization (WMO)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Meteorological_Organization
. . . was preceded by the (IMO)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Meteorological_Organization
I think the manner of defining normals was established in 1935 at the Warsaw Conference of Directors (see above link for some history).
Note that these are international with many member countries so many folks will have to agree to changes.
It’s worse than we thought. The temp should be much higher given AGW, but the climate disruption caused by AGW has been so severe that we are starting to see cooler months like this. The climate is in an abnormal, chaotic state due to AGW. Indeed, the very failure of predictions generated by AGW models is very powerful evidence that those models are correct.
Henceforth, any weather unexpected by AGW models should be taken as prima facie evidence in favor of those models.
the comment that was snipped merely pointed out that the chart shown NCEP CFRS
was the result of a model.
See the chart posted in this post. That is the result of a model.
My comment was on topic and pointed people to the papers and documentation.
I pointed folks to the documentation to the model and the radiative physics core that it used.
I then explained that if people accept the results of the model, they implicitly accept the physics
These “extreme average” events are the strongest proof yet of global warming.
Phobos says:
February 28, 2013 at 8:37 pm
HadCRUT4 just posted their January data today: 9th-warmest January in 164 years.
Odd that it should be that high….
About right for about 9 years after the natural oscillatory temperature peak in 2003-2005 – now its downhill for a while.
Tez says: “So that is 32 years without warming.”
I have to agree with Phobos on this one. Just because you have one month where the anomaly is below a baseline from 1981 to 2010 in no way implies there hasn’t been any warming for 32 years.
I’m skeptical of CAGW but let’s stay within reality. The Earth has been warming up, just not as quickly as the alarmists have predicted.
The eerie stability of the climate and hyper-normalcy of sea ice is just terrifying. I recommend all concerned youth sterilize themselves for Mother Earth.
(Obvious sarcasm, I hope.)
See http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1980/to:2013.09/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1980/to:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2013.09/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1980/to:2013.09/mean:13
The HADCRUT4 trend since 2002 is now (2013.08) near -0.5°C (-0.9°F) per century.
I just posted the new graphic. HADCRUT3 is still just up to 2012.84.
Steven Mosher says:
March 1, 2013 at 8:42 am
“I then explained that if people accept the results of the model, they implicitly accept the physics”
Your comment was just fine until the last sentence. I don’t suppose “the physics” would include one or more well confirmed physical hypotheses about forcings or feedbacks? If so, please copy one from the model and show us. Models are one thing and well confirmed physical hypotheses are another.
Jim Ryan says:
March 1, 2013 at 8:32 am
“Henceforth, any weather unexpected by AGW models should be taken as prima facie evidence in favor of those models.”
Excellent work. You have shown that you are qualified to be a professor of CAGW or a commentator on msnbc.
A comment on the color scale. The -7 pastel is too easily confused with -1. The -8 blue is too close to -2.
The upshot is that the Eastern Siberian -10 to dark blue does’t look enough different than the -2 offshore and over China.
The same problem exists with the pastel at +11.
Hmmm…. +7 is a LOT darker than -7. I have a problem with that.
All the major sources showed a well above average January, including UAH at +0.506. As a hobby, I do a linear regression with the daily temps and the UAH monthlies. My projection for February is for UAH to come in at +0.260.
D.B. Stealey says:
“Now that global ice cover is back to its long term average, declining polar ice is another failed prediction of the alarmist crowd”
But But But… It only matters in the Arctic… and only in Summer…