New study sheds light on global warming trends
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — New research by a team of Florida State University scientists shows the first detailed look at global land surface warming trends over the last 100 years, illustrating precisely when and where different areas of the world started to warm up or cool down.
The research indicates that the world is indeed getting warmer, but historical records show that it hasn’t happened everywhere at the same rate.
And that new information even took scientists by surprise.
“Global warming was not as understood as we thought,” said Zhaohua Wu, an assistant professor of meteorology at FSU.
Wu led a team of climate researchers including Fei Ji, a visiting doctoral student at FSU’s Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies (COAPS); Eric Chassignet, director of COAPS; and Jianping Huang, dean of the College of Atmospheric Sciences at Lanzhou University in China. The group, using an analysis method newly developed by Wu and his colleagues, examined land surface temperature trends from 1900 onward for the entire globe, minus Antarctica.
Previous work by scientists on global warming could not provide information of non-uniform warming in space and time due to limitations of previous analysis methods in climate research.
The research team found that noticeable warming first started around the regions circling the Arctic and subtropical regions in both hemispheres. But the largest accumulated warming to date is actually at the northern midlatitudes. They also found that in some areas of the world, cooling had actually occurred.
“The global warming is not uniform,” Chassignet said. “You have areas that have cooled and areas that have warmed.”
For example, from about 1910 to 1980, while the rest of the world was warming up, some areas south of the equator — near the Andes — were actually cooling down, and then had no change at all until the mid 1990s. Other areas near and south of the equator didn’t see significant changes comparable to the rest of the world at all.
The team’s work is featured in the May 4 edition of the journal Nature Climate Change.
The detailed picture of when and where the world has warmed or cooled will provide a greater context to global warming research overall, Wu said.
The paper: Fei Ji, Zhaohua Wu, Jianping Huang, Eric P. Chassignet. Evolution of land surface air temperature trend. Nature Climate Change, 2014; DOI: 10.1038/nclimate2223
Evolution of land surface air temperature trend
Fei Ji, Zhaohua Wu, Jianping Huang & Eric P. Chassignet
Abstract:
The global climate has been experiencing significant warming at an unprecedented pace in the past century1, 2. This warming is spatially and temporally non-uniform, and one needs to understand its evolution to better evaluate its potential societal and economic impact. Here, the evolution of global land surface air temperature trend in the past century is diagnosed using the spatial–temporally multidimensional ensemble empirical mode decomposition method3. We find that the noticeable warming (>0.5 K) started sporadically over the global land and accelerated until around 1980. Both the warming rate and spatial structure have changed little since. The fastest warming in recent decades (>0.4 K per decade) occurred in northern mid-latitudes. From a zonal average perspective, noticeable warming (>0.2 K since 1900) first took place in the subtropical and subpolar regions of the Northern Hemisphere, followed by subtropical warming in the Southern Hemisphere. The two bands of warming in the Northern Hemisphere expanded from 1950 to 1985 and merged to cover the entire Northern Hemisphere.
This must be very unsettling for them…
This is much as I would expect.
Anything other than an increase total energy from the sun that affects surface temperatures will change temperature differentials in the horizontal plane unevenly which creates greater density differentials from place to place across the surface for a given distance.
That changes the rate of convective overturning which is the primary thermostatic mechanism within a gaseous atmosphere.
The findings confirm my long expressed view that the negative system response to internal system forcing elements is a shift in the surface energy distribution and the rate of convective overturning rather than a significant change in average surface temperature.
When the shifts are accompanied by a change in average surface temperature as referred to in this post then that can only be as a result of a change in insolation reaching the surface which involves cloudiness and albedo changes.
During the period of warming discussed there was a reduction in average global cloud cover as was pointed out in an earlier thread on this site.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2007/10/17/earths-albedo-tells-a-interesting-story/
I’m glad to see that WUWT it’s changing its editorial policy to include the publications in Nature, almost all of which it has previously ignored. Usually WUWT would also not mention anything that concludes “The global climate has been experiencing significant warming at an unprecedented pace in the past century”. Notice also how the paprler shows how there has been very fast warming in northern mid-latitudes in the past couple of decades.
I congratulate the WUWT team for a more balanced selection of posts that takes seriously the reality of manmade global warming!
Peter – I think you forgot the /sarc tag for that last paragraph?
Peter Burmer says:
May 5, 2014 at 12:41 am
Where
have
you
been?
This paper is of no surprise at all.
Over three years ago WUWT carried a piece written by Verity Jones and myself that observed that there was cooling as well as warming going on
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/04/in-search-of-cooling-trends/
As Mosh will no doubt be along shortly I would again suggest to him that this is a subject worthy of BEST. How much of the world is cooling, how much is warming and what are the timescales?
tonyb
The Warmists spin off tangents that just amaze me !
First, to petey burmer~ Weren’t you that guy who climbed out of the bomb shelter, after spending your entire life underground?
Question to everyone else: haven’t (at least some) alarmists insisted that the above was always the case? I know back where I post my articles, one parrot, errrr shill, errr Tru Believer, insists that ‘warming in some regions, cooling in others’ has always been the claim. Now, we’re finding out they are only just finding this out?
Peter Burmer says:
May 5, 2014 at 12:41 am
——————————–
Actually it should have been posted under “comedy”.
They managed to use “unprecedented” in the very first line of the abstract. I think there’s a prize for that…
That “unprecedented” is of course garbage. Warming of similar amounts and rate have been observed pre 1950 before any significant human use of fossil and non-fossil hydrocarbon fuels.
So what if there has been on and off warming since the little ice age? It has nothing to do with radiative gases.
Oh and the Nature publication? They blew their credibility on climate long ago. They used the term of vilification “deniers” in editorials. Until they sack all editors involved in vilification of sceptics there will be no respect.
…but only five years to save planet Zog.
Peter Burmer:
Thankyou for the laughs-out-loud you gave me with your satirical post at May 5, 2014 at 12:41 am.
Each statement in your post is illogical and/or untrue but is typical of the nonsense spouted by AGW ‘true believers’. Truly, your post is superb satire!
My favourite of the silly statements in your post is
The “balance” of WUWT has always been to assess the “reality of manmade global warming”. And there is no evidence that there is any such “reality”. Indeed, as the discussed paper reports there has not been global warming: there has only been local cooling and local warming.
Richard
So we have global warming in the NH, some global cooling in the SH, no increase in the warming trend since about 1980, More CO2 in the atmosphere since 1980 – and it’s definitely CO2’s fault.
Right; I think I’ve got it.
Sorry the abstract doesn’t mention CO2. Is there change in the air?
This article proves beyond doubt that there is no enhanced GHE from CO2: if there was, the warming would be uniform.
That negative feedback in the atmosphere reduces CO2-AGW below the ‘no-feedback’ 1.2 K climate sensitivity is proved by no statistically-significant atmospheric warming for nearly 18 years. However, it’ll take some time for the indoctrination of the public by fake IPCC physics to be undone.
By that time, we’ll be well into the new Little Ice Age.
inter glacial warming period means earth warms shock.
The language and content of the unqualified posting of the abstract on this wantonly warmist “research” rather confirms my increasing belief that all those submerged Watts are beginning to surface where least expected – byesee!
“Notice also how the paper shows how there has been very fast warming in northern mid-latitudes in the past couple of decades.”
Where most of the developed world lives eh? You know, the ones that build cities around themometers, and have all those ‘heat islands’
Wha-da-yah-mean, Global warmings not global?
The global climate has been experiencing significant warming at an unprecedented pace in the past century
I stopped reading there. GIGO.
It leaves one big question. Actually two.
Does the local warming correlate with urbanisation or intensification of agriculture ?
I’m pretty sure that GW isn’t the same everywhere all the time, but I’m a bit surprised to find out it is spatially and temporally non-uniform.
And maybe some day in the future the modelers will try to simulate the coupled ocean-atmosphere processes that cause the surfaces of the oceans to warm and cool in specific patterns in space and time, which impact where the land surface air temperatures warm and cool in specific patterns in space and time. Until the modelers are capable of creating those basics coupled ocean-atmosphere processes, the models have no relationship to the real world and serve no purpose in attribution studies or in projections of future climate.
So this means that there is no global warming, just varying temperature trends at varying locations around the globe. Now exactly where will the catastrophic bit happen? More money from the gravy train needed so that we can determine exactly who’s children’s children’s children will be in danger. And of course once that has all been modeled there will be mass migration to the protected areas- the dreaded climate change refugees.
@ Spartacusisfree
…This article proves beyond doubt that there is no enhanced GHE from CO2: if there was, the warming would be uniform…
OMG! We have UNEVEN WARMING! What do you think could be causing this dangerous phenomenon?
Why, of course – it must be the demon CO2! Everywhere we go, we find CO2 responsible for some problem. Another reason to pay more taxes to the IPCC…
So. Have I got this right. Some parts of the globe sometimes get warmer. Some parts of the globe sometimes get cooler.
And scientists are needed to tell us this?
Katherine says:
May 5, 2014 at 1:56 am
The global climate has been experiencing significant warming at an unprecedented pace in the past century
I stopped reading there. GIGO.
==============================================================
When I hear the word “unprecedented” I reach for my BS detector. Mind you, the word has been corrupted in recent years, so much so that our idiot Energy Secretary, Ed Davey, came up with this peach, I think about recent rainfall but am happy to be corrected, stating that
“It is unprecedented, and hasn’t happened for 30 years”.
So, yes, “unprecedented” really means “bullshit on the way”
I’m guessing one particular word in my last comment got it put into moderation… may as well Delete it.
Scientist #1: I measured something. Some places are getting warmer recently, and some are getting cooler! I think something is happening!
Scientist #2: Shouldn’t we gather more data to make sure?
Scientist #1: But, what if something bad happens before we are done??
Scientist #2: I don’t want to die. What shall we call it?
Scientist #1: …”Global Warming”?
Scientist #2: Nah, too specific.
Scientist #1: …”Climate Change”?
Scientist #1 and #2: Publish first!!
My understanding is that according to the basic physical principles of global warming theory, there will be more warming everywhere, although the warming will not necessarily be uniform, i.e., polar amplification. If regions of the plant were cooling over the long term, then that could only be attributable to ‘natural variability’ which is, I suppose, the catch-all phrase for ‘we don’t know why that might be.’
One more for the file… the file of things that everyone will laugh at in a few more years.
“Hey, remember when everyone thought the climate was all messed up?”
“Yeah, we were so naive back then.”
“Not all of us were fooled…”
“Denier!”
And they need to do a whole paper on this? C’mon, it getting warmer in the NH and cooler in the SH regularly every year and it even switches around. /sarc.
How bad are the models in predicting the earth’s energy budget? Commonly it is said that per doubling of CO2, sans feedbacks, the earth will warm .8 degrees. (I think I got that right) Does this mean the earth would accumulate enough energy to raise the average T .8 degrees?
If so, then are the already failed models worse than we thought? Certainly it takes less energy to raise the T of the arctic two degrees, then it does to raise the same area of the tropics two degrees. So, since most of the warming is near the arctic, and some mid latitude, and almost none in the tropics, are the already failed models, worse then we thought?
(Thoughts on this appreciated)
occurred in northern mid-latitudes…..
It’s a miracle…..
….they discovered UHI
This falls under the category of “Don’t tell us the merely obvious, just tell us the blatantly obvious!”.
I would have been shocked if they tried to say that warming was uniform. Even a blind man could see that whopper.
>>Surprise! Global warming is ‘spatially and temporally non-uniform’
No surprise at all. For instance, Tokyo has warmed by ca. 2 degC since the 1940s due to strong urbanization, but the temperature is completely flat at a rural (island) station which is only 180 km away from Tokyo.
Large image from the study on what the warming rates were in 1950 (a), 1960 (b), 1970, 1980, 1990, and 2009.
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/images/nclimate2223-f2.jpg
I don’t know, was there really a warming trend from 1950 to 1980 across most of the planet?
Actually, not a surprise. HadCRUT3 data showed 30% of stations had a cooling trend throughout their histories. IIRC BEST showed the same proportion of CONUS stations also had cooling trends while the average anomaly was rising.
http://motls.blogspot.ca/2011/07/hadcrut3-30-of-stations-recorded.html
“Global warming was not as understood as we thought”, how can that be if the science is settled?
Peter Burmer says:
May 5, 2014 at 12:41 am
———————————————————
Sarc? Commedy? Or lieing for the greater good? No matter which it may be, thanks for the entertainment!
1. It’s not warming globally. The warming that has occurred is regional and within natural variability. There is no statistically significant trend in the tropics, where the theory requires there be a trend.
2. There is no hot spot. The theory requires and the models predict the hot spot, but it’s definitively not there.
3. The models are conclusively invalidated by a vast panoply of failed predictions, especially of the hot spot and global average surface temperature. The list goes on.
Though dead as a matter of logic, the theory carries on as a secular religion in which empirical falsification simply does not matter, and as a pretext for the expansion of state power and the hobbling of industrial civilization and the West.
Modzi tabarnak… banda di amatore. Not you guys but these scientificators.
WUWT is reading a bit like The Onion this morning. What passes for ‘Global Warming News’ these days is not discernible from satire.
There is a scene in a comedy movie where there are several people dining with the king. One man at the table signals a steward to bring him more wine with a wave of his hand, but the steward does not move. The king notices and says to the man, “No, no! You have to do it like this!, and proceeds to wave his hand exactly the same way as the man. The steward immediately brings more wine to the table and fills the glasses. The man says “But, that is what I did!”, and the king responds with something like: “Yes, but you also have to be the king!”
In climate science, it doesn’t matter who is right or who is wrong. Something is noteworthy and true only if the ‘right’ person is saying it.
Since the beginning of global warming hysteria in the late 1980s, skeptics have been pointing out the obvious similarity between the modern warming and the Medieval Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period, and so on. Warmists responded by saying that those historical warm periods were only regional and not global. Skeptics countered with the fact that the modern warming is also ‘only regional’ and in the very same regions as the historical warm periods. This fact was ignored by the warmists in the same way that the steward ignored the hand wave by the non-king.
The evolution of climate science is apparently being written by the very funny folks at ‘The Onion’ and directed by Mel Brooks.
The hypothesis is that global warming is caused mainly by CO2+feedbacks and occurs primarily in the tropical troposphere, plus some in the Arctic. On that, the hypothesis is very clear – see AR4 Figure 9.1.
But now we have : “The research team found that noticeable warming first started around the regions circling the Arctic and subtropical regions in both hemispheres. But the largest accumulated warming to date is actually at the northern midlatitudes.“.
That’s so far away from the hypothesis that it’s not funny. In fact, I think this paper should be put in front of all scientific bodies and all mainstream climate scientists with the demand that they acknowledge that it disproves their hypothesis.
Huh. That is exactly the way that the Medieval Warm Period occurred, according to global warming alarmists. No doubt they see this as conclusive proof that the Vikings drove too many SUVs.
We can see regional variation in this chart from the NSIDC on Antarctic sea ice extent in April.
This could be an iconic chart that should be spread around to alarmist websites.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/s_plot.png
the reality of manmade global warming!
===============
apparently you didn’t read the fine print:
“They also found that in some areas of the world, cooling had actually occurred.”
How can warming be global if some areas actually cooled? This study shows that what is going on is actually “Regional Warming”.
However, since honesty in science, at least climate science long went out the window, with inaccurate, unscientific labels being routinely used to by climate scientists label a dog a cat, up as down, cooling as warming, and “no change” as “hiatus”, there is nothing to be surprised about.
The global climate has been experiencing significant warming at an unprecedented pace in the past century
==================
good weasel words “in the past century”. Since there has been no warming “in this century”.
the reason must be the EPA. since the EPA outlawed carbon, global warming has stopped. now we have global pause, or global hiatus, or global climate un-change, or global un-warming.
never mind all the carbon produced by China. That is simply US jobs exported along with the carbon. The carbon blows back with the wind, while the jobs remain in China along with US prosperity. Surprising how all those pension plans that were raided during the financial crisis somehow never were noticed by the government, sworn to Protect the People.
It may be noted that the level of cosmic radiation increases much faster at the poles than at the lower latitudes.
http://neutronm.bartol.udel.edu/realtime/southpole.html
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/atmosphere/radbud/gs19_prd.gif
We are beginning to understand the climate better. This paper corroborates Judith Curry’s work on Stadium Waves. link
This paper along with Judith Curry’s work invalidates much Global Warming alarmism. Even if the planet does warm a bit, the warming will not be uniform and the alarmist tirade (IPCC chapters on impact) has it getting warmer everywhere.
None of this is new. The land/ocean distribution per latitude, the tilt of the Earth, and its spin, combined with oceanic/atmospheric circulation patterns would predict this and has likely been demonstrated with non-anthropogenic CO2 biased general circulation models that vary cloud and aerosol lenses. In fact we depend on this phenomenon to occur so that the Earth continues to perform as a heat engine, rapidly or more slowly circulating the heat imbalance which results in getting rid of the extra heat we always have to a greater or lesser extent. It’s great when the Earth does not get rid of all its extra heat. That’s when things are good and we can spend our evenings resting, playing, or partying. Our biggest concern is when the Earth cannot hold onto its absorbed heat and we start to cool. Call me when that begins to happen so that I can hit the alarm bell and adequately panic.
““Global warming was not as understood as we thought,” should suggest that those trillion-dollar policy decisions need to be reconsidered VERY carefully.
Exactly what I’ve been saying for years. And, this is the reason you can’t average temperatures over disparate areas; such a thing presents a false impression of uniformity.
“The global warming is not uniform…”
But…I thought “the global warming” was temporally correlated over large distances…isn’t that the basis for the NASA/GISS global temperature analysis (aka GISTEMP)? (LOL!).
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
“The analysis method was documented in Hansen and Lebedeff (1987), showing that the correlation of temperature change was reasonably strong for stations separated by up to 1200 km, especially at middle and high latitudes.“
HUH?
HUH? we’ve been showing this for three years.
REPLY: HUH? HUH? Another crypto comment from drive-by-Mosher with no context. For somebody who constantly bitches about showing your work, code, data, etc. you sure do leave lots of incomplete commentary that leave people scratching their heads.. Live up to your own expectations please by at least giving the SLIGHTEST hint of what you are talking about. -Anthony
In reply to: Peter Burmer says: May 5, 2014 at 12:41 am
I’m glad to see that WUWT it’s changing its editorial policy to include the publications in Nature, almost all of which it has previously ignored. Usually WUWT would also not mention anything that concludes “The global climate has been experiencing significant warming at an unprecedented pace in the past century”. Notice also how the paprler shows how there has been very fast warming in northern mid-latitudes in the past couple of decades.
I congratulate the WUWT team for a more balanced selection of posts that takes seriously the reality of manmade global warming!
William:
The observed warming in the last 70 years is not unprecedented and the WUWT does cover Nature climate ‘change’ related papers.
As this Nature submitted paper notes (see WUWT story for details concerning an interesting Nature editor firing incident related to this paper), there has been 342 warming cycles observed in the Antarctic peninsula in the last 250,000 years. (Antarctic peninsula ice cores provide a proxy for the Southern Ocean temperature as the peninsula is sufficient south that it is outside of the Antarctic polar vortex.)
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/davis-and-taylor-wuwt-submission.pdf
Davis and Taylor: “Does the current global warming signal reflect a natural cycle”
…We found 342 natural warming events (NWEs) corresponding to this definition, distributed over the past 250,000 years …. …. The 342 NWEs contained in the Vostok ice core record are divided into low-rate warming events (LRWEs; < 0.74oC/century) and high rate warming events (HRWEs; ≥ 0.74oC /century) (Figure). … ….The current global warming signal is therefore the slowest and among the smallest in comparison with all HRWEs in the Vostok record, although the current warming signal could in the coming decades yet reach the level of past HRWEs for some parameters. The figure shows the most recent 16 HRWEs in the Vostok ice core data during the Holocene, interspersed with a number of LRWEs. …. ….We were delighted to see the paper published in Nature magazine online (August 22, 2012 issue) reporting past climate warming events in the Antarctic similar in amplitude and warming rate to the present global warming signal. The paper, entitled "Recent Antarctic Peninsula warming relative to Holocene climate and ice – shelf history" and authored by Robert Mulvaney and colleagues of the British Antarctic Survey ( Nature , 2012, doi:10.1038/nature11391),reports two recent natural warming cycles, one around 1500 AD and another around 400 AD, measured from isotope (deuterium) concentrations in ice cores bored adjacent to recent breaks in the ice shelf in northeast Antarctica. ….
Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper. William: As this paper shows there the Greenland Ice data shows that have been 9 warming and cooling periods in the last 11,000 years, interestingly the warming and cooling observed in the Northern hemisphere was the same periodicity as the warming and cooling in the Southern hemisphere.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
Curious that the Real Climate cabal have remained silent concerning the unprecedented increase in sea ice in the Antarctic. Surprise, surprise, surprise!, cyclic global warming is followed by cyclic global cooling.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
P.S. Solar magnetic cycle changes causes the cyclic warming and cooling. The solar modulation of cloud cover's (there are four different mechanisms) affect is stronger at higher latitudes which explains why the warming in the last 70 years is primary at high latitudes. As the Antarctic ice sheet albedo is higher slightly greater than the albedo of low level clouds a decrease in cloud cover over the Antarctic ice sheet causes cooling rather than warming. The fact that the albedo of the Antarctic ice sheet is greater than low level clouds is the reason for what is called the polar see-saw (Antarctic ice sheet warms when the Greenland Ice sheet cools and vice verse. See Svenmark's linked paper for an explanation of the mechanism and ice core data that shows the cyclic warming and cooling.)
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0612145v1
The reason for the high albedo of the Antarctic ice sheet is the hurricane force winds on the Antarctic ice sheet break the snow crystals which then form an ice like substance. The Greenland ice sheet does not experience the same type of long term, seasonal, high velocity winds and hence has a lower albedo.
I think the conclusions of this paper will be very important for AGW supporters. Now, if anyone points to cooling in any region they just have to say, “Yes that’s what our research found, and that GW is unprecedented”. In other words, it gets them off the hook for any regional cooling, including lower-48 US and even Antarctica if they ever decide to admit that, while continuing with the warming meme overall. It’s very clever!
As I read the abstract and the supplimentary information (the paper itself is paywalled), the main claim is for the effectiveness of a new analysis method (Multi-dimensional Ensemble Empirical Mode Decomposition, or MEEMD), which is an improvement over Empirical Mode Decomposition, or EMD). I tried to get information on how many station records they used and covering what periods; I could not find it. So it is not clear to me whether this is a study based on primary data, or whether they simply re-analyzed the usual surface temperature data sets.
There is no point getting excited one way or the other until you know what their study actually examines and why their method produces different results from all the other studies.
For 30 years i have been told that Global warming is ‘spatially and temporally uniform’ and now it isn’t.
so in actual fact everything they have been telling me over the last 30 years is wrong, lordy what next.
Most of the warming seems constrained to areas where Hansen, Jones etc have had ample time to adjust the records to create that warming.
Hmm, what about small changes in the quasi-stationary long waves.
richardscourtney says:
May 5, 2014 at 1:12 am
Peter Burmer:
“Indeed, as the discussed paper reports there has not been global warming: there has only been local cooling and local warming.”
Careful, Richard. You do not want to cause a stroke. /sarc
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2014305010053
“Great Lakes ice cover from brutal winter could lead to a chilly summer”
another area not uniform, been quite a few this year.
well global warming is not global .
from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/global
glob·al adjective \ˈglō-bəl\
: involving the entire world
: involving all of something and especially a computer system, file, etc.
Full Definition of GLOBAL
1
: spherical
2
: of, relating to, or involving the entire world : worldwide ; also : of or relating to a celestial body (as the moon)
3
: of, relating to, or applying to a whole (as a mathematical function or a computer program) : universal
— glob·al·ly adverb
See global defined for English-language learners »
See global defined for kids »
Dear Professor Wu,
Because you acknowledge that “Global warming was not as understood as we thought,
how does your research showing warming “hasn’t happened everywhere at the same rate” apply
to the hypocrisy in the notion that the medieval warming period was regional yet modern warming is presumed to be global?
Can you at least acknowledge that there is not sufficient understanding of climate science to make such conflicting assertions?
From what I have read every rational used to call the MWP “regional” could more easily apply to modern warming.
Which makes the reverse plausible. That modern warming is regional and the MWP was global.
…..rationale…….
Okay, everyone who did not know this fact twenty years ago, please raise your hands.
Sheeeish. NCDC noted this fact way back when I was still young and skinny. This confirmation comes as a surprise to no scientists.
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cirs/
REPLY: Except to the scientists who are quoted in the press release who said:
– Anthony
“The research indicates that the world is indeed getting warmer, but historical records show that it hasn’t happened everywhere at the same rate.”
No scientist ever said otherwise.
Steve Oregon says:
May 5, 2014 at 9:45 am
Classic!
“But the largest accumulated warming to date is actually at the northern midlatitudes.”
ROFLMAO! Oh you mean the exact areas that have actual surface temperature data going back to 1900 that has conveniently been adjusted numerous times to make the past appear cooler? Those are the areas that warmed more than any other? Gollygee, I wonder why.
If evidence and ethics are optional can’t skeptics run around claiming that modern warming is regional and the MWP was global with the same certainty as alarmists in claiming the opposite?
Not me of course, but some other skeptics? 🙂
Also.
“And that new information even took scientists by surprise.”
That is like the Captain of the Titanic feigning surprise to learn icebergs were known to be in the area.
lemiere jacques says:
May 5, 2014 at 9:42 am
“well global warming is not global.”
Isn’t this little Mikey Mann’s reason for the MWP and LIA not being global in scope and why he claims everyone else’s paleotemperature reconstructions are false and his hockey stick is the correct reconstruction? Ironic, don’t you think?
This analysis should be a cautionary story for assuming globally well-mixed CO2 is the main mechanistic component of modern day global warming trends. Milankovitch cycles, natural ocean atmosphere heat cycles, and solar UV influences SHOULD loom larger now with this analysis. Sadly, it won’t, as the religion of global warming in single-mindedly centered on anthropogenic CO2 as its devil.
We are left to wonder how informative “global” statistics are. One “global” statistic I would like to see is a time-series plot of atmospheric pressure at sea level. There should be a shift in pressure correlated to any change in sea level and to global temperature as well.
Global Warming is a great theory, except it’s not Global and it’s not Warming.
The rising awareness among Alarmists that warming is not uniform but regional answers a question that I asked a few days ago. I had asked what benefits accrue to Alarmists from substituting the phrase “extreme weather events” for “global warming,” aside from the fact that it allows them to dodge the evident fact that warming stopped about seventeen years ago. Now the answer is clear. “Extreme weather events” are not global. The Alarmists have surrendered both the claim that there is warming and the claim that the effects of manmade CO2 are global. Retreat. Retreat. Retreat.
The good side of this is that maybe Alarmists will begin to focus on the regional rather than the global. Maybe they will begin to construct Correspondence Principles that connect the global phenomenon of rising CO2 to different effects in different regions. Lord knows that some empirical work would do them a world of good.
“REPLY: HUH? HUH? Another crypto comment from drive-by-Mosher with no context. For somebody who constantly bitches about showing your work, code, data, etc. you sure do leave lots of incomplete commentary that leave people scratching their heads.. Live up to your own expectations please by at least giving the SLIGHTEST hint of what you are talking about. -Anthony”
HUH?
you have an article claiming this wonderful new fact. the warming is not spatially or temporally uniform.
As I wrote, we’ve been saying this for some time.
context is simple: headline says: “warming is not spatially and temporally uniform”
I’ve said that dozens of time here. Our results show that. Its weird that they think this is a new result.
Other folks on this thread point out the very same thing. not rocket science to figure out what I mean.
I expect people to be able to add 2 and 2 and not come up with a fractional answer.
All the data is where it has always been
All the code is where it has always been
folks can sign in to our SVN updated nightly and watch.
that allows me to see who actually checks sources and who just blathers. wink.
here is a sample.
http://berkeleyearth.org/graphics/physical-effects-of-warming
@Steven Mosher – your problem is that you are not the funnel for all information from alarmist. You are but one warmist with common sense. But those around you lack that trait. You may have been saying it for a long time, and most here can add 2 and 2 and get a whole number. But that does not seem to be true of the alarmist camp.
Anthony reported on the research. He did not create it. And his reaction of incredulity is matched by many of us as well.
Perhaps your scorn and shock should be directed at those who wasted their time telling us the blatantly obvious.
I thought the science was all settled. Why are these people claiming it is all a surprise to them.
I bet they’ll find out soon, that it doesn’t rain everywhere at the same time either.
You are new here?
12,900 results from Google’s site search.
site:http://wattsupwiththat.com paper Nature
Here is one. There are many, many, many others.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/25/new-paper-in-nature-on-ocean-cycles-finally-causes-recognition-in-media/
Come on now Anthony; fess up.
This stuff this morning, is just the start of Dr. Roy Spencer’s Top Ten dumbase catastrophic globular climate change list; right have I pegged it ?? Have I ??
Re; Peter Burmer May 5, 12:41 am;
You are either being sarcastic or do not read this site on a regular basis.
I bet if we took a poll 90% of the regular readers of this site believe there has been substantial warming, both in the first AND second half of the 20th century, as shown in the several and various data sets.
That is probably as good or better than you’d get by polling the alarmists.
Maybe you should stick around and read what is actually discussed here, rather than assume guys like Gavin Schmidt and Dana Nucitelli are giving you an accurate account.
Theo Goodwin:
re your comment at May 5, 2014 at 9:23 am.
You seem to have been misinformed. I have no problem of stroke; my struggle is with failures of my heart, lungs and liver.
Richard
I let Phil speak for me http://troglopundit.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/automotiv_groundhog.jpg
“The global warming is not uniform,” Chassignet said. “You have areas that have cooled and areas that have warmed.”
THEN IT’S NOT GLOBAL, DIPSHIT.
richardscourtney says:
May 5, 2014 at 12:51 pm
Richard, I regret causing you puzzlement. What I meant is that you might cause one or more Alarmists to have a stroke. They never see the full consequences of their positions. You are in my prayers with special emphasis on heart, lungs, and liver.
Gee… seems to me I did a whole series on where things were warming, and not. And how some seasons warmed while other cooled in the same place. And how it especially warmed where there were lots of airports. And that it especially warmed in places that speak English and were well connected with each other and the UEA. And then there was that one where I found that the warming showed up in a nice rotational pattern around Africa, just as the methods changed country by country…
Maybe I ought to have attributed it to CO2 and been published in Nature…
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/category/dtdt/
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/04/11/the-world-in-dtdt-graphs-of-temperature-anomalies/
And one of my favorites:
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/04/01/global-warming-from-africa-contagious-spreading-at-100-miles-per-year/
Yes, you can actually find the “global warming” spreading from country to country and map the speed….
So, the paper leaves out Antarctica, eh?
Yes, it leaves out the continent which has been experiencing overall
cooling for some decades, except for the Antarctic peninsula. Very
convenient, that, for purposes of demonstrating that there has been
a global warning.
It couldn’t be deliberate that they left out Antarctica, could it? /sarc
This reminds me of the Indycar Fanboys Club who try to predict the outcome of future Indy 500 races by studying plastic models of racing cars and reading statistics about past races in print magazines. They are shocked – SHOCKED to discover that in reality the real cars travel at different velocities at different places on the track. Wait till they discover the pit stops…
/sarc?
I have used the HadCRUT global gridded temperature data to calculate trends and means for the grid cells. I did this for whatever periods I chose (eg. 1900-2013). I always found that some areas warmed more than others and some areas cooled. I did not think this was startling. Who knew…maybe I could have gotten a research grant and a paper for doing this.
So…the warming is lumpy. I’m sure the AGW “true believers” will come up with an explanation. How’s this one:
“It proves the warming is man-made because natural warming would not be lumpy”.
“But the largest accumulated warming to date is actually at the northern midlatitudes.”
—
Doesn’t this contradict other studies, such as the one by Cowtan and Way, which claim that the Arctic is warming at about eight times the pace of the rest of the planet? So who has it right, is it the midlatitudes or the Arctic that has warmed the most? Or do such contradictions even matter to them as long as an alarmist message makes the headlines?
“Global warming was not as understood as we thought.”
—
Here’s my takeaway from this study: The science isn’t settled, and global warming isn’t global.
No regional cooling seen at any latitude at anytime between 1940-1970.
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/fig_tab/nclimate2223_F3.html
Hmm…
Where’s Ferdinand he is usually here to say the ice core data proves that everyone on this site is wrong and we don’t understand the data or the meaning of this process.
Don’t you all get it co2 rise and everything warms that’s it nothing else could happen no evidence matters be cause you wouldn’t understand anyway.
Actually, we should be thankful that US taxpayers are paying “scientists” to find out that the weather is different at different places. We should rejoice at being able to keep them suitably occupied, for such a cheap price.
Contrast this dogboonle bargain, with that other exercise in self flagellation called ITER.
Dunno what ITER is ?? You should find out; it’s currently estimated to cost you $6.5B, which currently is only $2.6B overrun from what DOE guessed.
The news article in Physics Today for Feb 2014 consumes two full pages, talking about all the minutiae of what it’s going to cost, and all those concerns.
Nowhere do they talk about what it is. Well actually it is ITER, which tells you about the same as “it”.
But they are already pouring concrete for a big concrete slab to put IT on, a 1.5 meter thick concrete slab; probably based on the design for the German U-boat pens in France.
Well jolly good show ! IT is going to be built in France, too.
There’s a nice colored bar chart probably done in M$ Excel, that shows how all this cost overruns works.
But there is no drawing or other diagram of what IT is; or how IT works.
As far as I know; IT in fact does NOT work. Nobody has one in their garage. Only thing I know, is that it needs a Tritium Building. Everybody reading WUWT knows what a Tritium building is. It’s pretty much the same as the building where Wile E. Coyote keeps his Acme Dynamite stored.
Well maybe it’s the Road Runner’s dynamite.
I dunno where they keep all that Tritium at present, but they need a Tritium building for IT
IT of course is a Thermo-Nuclear fusion reactor, similar to the Pons and Fleischman cold gadget.
Does anyone remember when they first announced that they had figured out how to make one of those ; ITs that is.
Don’t expect to see an artists impression of what an IT looks like.
In the greatest Nancy Pelosi tradition, we will have to build IT, to find out what IT has in IT.
So rejoice in these minor climatism expenditures; They are a bargain compared to what IT is going to cost overrun.
But they should be able to keep all the physicists laid off from the Higgs Boson success, off the street, so they aren’t stealing hubcaps for amusement.
So get ready for IT; or at least for the bill.
S. Fred Singer (‘What’s up with the Weather – the Debate’) once commented on climate models: “and the global average temperature simply isn’t good enough. It has to be based on geographic variation, or variation with altitude, or temporal variation, or much more detailed measurements.”
Here’s one scientist who clearly got it right years ago.
David Rice says:
Uh, yeah they did. One of the ways that some “scientists” have attempted to … what was that quaint phraseology again … oh yeah … “…deal a mortal blow to the misuse of supposed warm period …” is to claim that the MWP was predominantly a northern hemisphere event. They have claimed that current warming is different because current warming is global.
But it isn’t. Seems it is predominantly northern hemisphere as well. Huh.
Don’t you understand the areas that are cooler are only cooler because global warming is happening. we never had cooling until we had warming.