Home/BlogThe global average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly for August (+0.34 °C) was up from July 2012 (+0.28 °C):
Here are the monthly departures from the 30-year (1981-2010) average:
YR MON GLOBAL NH SH TROPICS
2012 1 -0.09 -0.06 -0.12 -0.13
2012 2 -0.11 -0.01 -0.21 -0.27
2012 3 +0.11 +0.13 +0.10 -0.10
2012 4 +0.30 +0.41 +0.19 -0.12
2012 5 +0.29 +0.44 +0.14 +0.03
2012 6 +0.37 +0.54 +0.20 +0.14
2012 7 +0.28 +0.45 +0.11 +0.33
2012 8 +0.34 +0.38 +0.31 +0.26
As a reminder, the most common reason for large month-to-month swings in global average temperature anomalies (departures from normal) is small fluctuations in the rate of convective overturning of the troposphere, discussed here.
Looking forward to the first super long winded post about how cooling is right around the corner!
Dr. Spencer,
You forgot your standard statement that the polynomial fit has no physical significance. (there for amusement only).
Chris. There is as much chance of man causing global warming, as weapons of mass destruction existing in Iraq or Iran. Time to wake up and smell the coffee, as this is another scam. The warming of the earth is just a natural fluctuation of the weather by nature. Get ready for a big dip in temperatures any time now. From 2000 to 2006 the earth warmed up due to the temperature of the sun, but it has been cooling ever since and there has been a lag. Expect 30/40 years of cold winters. Cheers Tim.
Cooling ,is as they say, right around the corner. I have made my arguments,so I wil leave it at that.
Tim says:
>> From 2000 to 2006 the earth warmed up due to the temperature of the sun, but it has been cooling ever since and there has been a lag.<<
Do you have data that says that? I don't see much change in the Earth's solar irradiance:
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/tsi_data/TSI_TIM_Reconstruction.txt
Dear specialist of high order polynomial fits,
do you think we could see an Arctic sea ice increase with a 22th order polynomial fit ?
(My question is for entertainment purposes only).
Dr Spencer.
Could you provide a link to the whole data set as well as just the snippets we get each month?
I always find it disappointing when I see a graph but no ref. to the data.
Over the last two years it seems the seasonal variation have been more than that of the reference period by a fairly consistent ammount. I’d like to have a closer look at that.
Also we see here one of the classic defects of the “runny mean” as a filter: the variations in the mean are actually 180 degrees out of phase with the signal.
I’d like to run this through a decent filter to look at the longer timescale variations.
Link to data, please.
best regards,
P.Solar:
The dataset is here:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt
Its numbers for the SH and Tropics differ slightly from what’s above.
David Appell:
I always thought the official data was at http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.4 Which one is it?
Hope it got the right file: uahncdc.lt
Here is LT global with 6 and 12m gaussian filter. Seems like a persistent underlying trend of 0.1K/decade since 1996. I was a bit surprised. This is less clear from your plots presented here.
http://i49.tinypic.com/7292dz.png
Same thing with 3m and 12m gaussian and the unfiltered data.
http://i46.tinypic.com/24l1ufl.png
Note that even a 3 month gaussian filter makes a better job of smoothing and most importantly the filtered data is in phase with the unfiltered (see last two years).
Also note that it resolves the 1996 summer peak lost in the plot presented in this post.
Perhaps you could consider dropping runny mean “smoothers” for a proper filter.
Best regards.
Thanks as always for your work Dr Roy. The continuing moderately high level of the anomaly is due to lots of energy dissipating from the equatorial Pacific. Here’s the graph:
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/sub_surf_mon_2012-08.gif
No El Nino for Christmas this year boys. Not much of that subsurface warm pool left is there?
Another cold NH winter ahead for higher latitudes as the drier air loses energy quickly. Expect a few cold snaps around Dec and Jan. And Feb.
2012 in Perspective so far on Five Data Sets
2012 started off rather cold but has warmed up since then. So the present rank is not the most meaningful number. Therefore I will also give what the ranking would be assuming the latest month’s anomaly will continue for the rest of the year. I will also indicate what is required for the rest of the year in each case to set a new record.
Note the bolded numbers for each data set where the lower bolded number is the highest anomaly recorded so far in 2012 and the higher one is the all time record so far. There is no comparison.
With the UAH anomaly for August at 0.34, the average for the first eight months of the year is (-0.089 -0.111 + 0.111 + 0.299 + 0.289 + 0.369 + 0.28 + 0.34)/8 = 0.186. If the average stayed this way for the rest of the year, its ranking would be 7th. This compares with the anomaly in 2011 at 0.153 to rank it 9th for that year. On the other hand, if the rest of the year averaged the August value, which is more likely if the El Nino gets stronger, then 2012 would come in at 0.237 and it would rank 4th. 1998 was the warmest at 0.428. The highest ever monthly anomalies were in February and April of 1998 when it reached 0.66. In order for a new record to be set in 2012, the average for the last 4 months of the year would need to be 0.91. Since this is way above the highest monthly anomaly ever recorded, it is virtually impossible for 2012 to set a new record.
With the GISS anomaly for July at 0.47, the average for the first seven months of the year is (0.34 + 0.40 + 0.47 + 0.55 + 0.66 + 0.56 + 0.47)/7 = 0.493. This is about the same as in 2011 when it was 0.514 and ranked 9th for that year. 2010 was the warmest at 0.63. The highest ever monthly anomalies were in March of 2002 and January of 2007 when it reached 0.88. If the July anomaly continued for the rest of the year, 2012 would end up 10th. In order for a new record to be set in 2012, the average for the last 5 months of the year would need to be 0.82. Since this is close to the highest monthly anomaly ever recorded, it is virtually impossible for 2012 to set a new record.
With the Hadcrut3 anomaly for July at 0.477, the average for the first seven months of the year is (0.217 + 0.194 + 0.305 + 0.481 + 0.474 + 0.477 + 0.446)/7 = 0.371. This would rank 11th if it stayed this way. This is slightly above the anomaly in 2011 which was at 0.34 to rank it 12th for that year. 1998 was the warmest at 0.548. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in February of 1998 when it reached 0.756. If the July anomaly continued for the rest of the year, 2012 would end up 10th. In order for a new record to be set in 2012, the average for the last 5 months of the year would need to be 0.796. Since this is above the highest monthly anomaly ever recorded, it is virtually impossible for 2012 to set a new record. One has to back to the 1940s to find the previous time that a Hadcrut3 record was not beaten in 10 years or less.
With the sea surface anomaly for July at 0.386, the average for the first seven months of the year is (0.203 + 0.230 + 0.241 + 0.292 + 0.339 + 0.351 + 0.386)/7 = 0.292. This would rank it 11th compared to 2011 when it was 0.273 and ranked 12th for that year. 1998 was the warmest at 0.451. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in August of 1998 when it reached 0.555. If the July anomaly continued for the rest of the year, 2012 would end up 10th. In order for a new record to be set in 2012, the average for the last 5 months of the year would need to be 0.67. Since this is above the highest monthly anomaly ever recorded, it is virtually impossible for 2012 to set a new record.
With the RSS anomaly for July at 0.292, the average for the first seven months of the year is (-0.058 -0.121 + 0.073 + 0.332 + 0.232 + 0.339 + 0.292)/7 = 0.156. If the average stayed this way for the rest of the year, its ranking would be 12th. This compares with the anomaly in 2011 at 0.147 to rank it 12th for that year. 1998 was the warmest at 0.55. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.857. If the July anomaly continued for the rest of the year, 2012 would end up 10th. In order for a new record to be set in 2012, the average for the last 5 months of the year would need to be 1.10. Since this is above the highest monthly anomaly ever recorded, it is virtually impossible for 2012 to set a new record.
So on all five of the above data sets, for their latest anomaly average, the 2012 average so far is close to that of 2011. If present trends continue, 2012 will be, for the most part, close to 2011, and a record is out of reach on all sets. My projection for the five sets above is that 2012 will come in 10th on 4 of the sets, but 4th on UAH.
On all data sets, the different times for a slope that is flat for all practical purposes range from 10 years and 11 months to 15 years and 8 months. Following is the longest period of time (above 10 years) where each of the data sets is more or less flat. (*No slope is positive except UAH which was +0.0022 per year or +0.22/century up to July, however the August value will make the slope a bit larger still. So while it is not flat, the slope is not statistically significant either.)
1. UAH: since October 2001 or 10 years, 11 months (goes to August, but note * above)
2. GISS: since March 2001 or 11 years, 5 months (goes to July)
3. Combination of 4 global temperatures: since November 2000 or 11 years, 9 months (goes to July)
4. HadCrut3: since February 1997 or 15 years, 6 months (goes to July)
5. Sea surface temperatures: since January 1997 or 15 years, 7 months (goes to July)
6. RSS: since December 1996 or 15 years, 8 months (goes to July)
RSS is 188/204 or 92.2% of the way to Santer’s 17 years.
7. Hadcrut4: since December 2000 or 11 years, 8 months (goes to July using GISS. See below.)
See the graph below to show it all for #1 to #6.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.08/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2001.16/trend/plot/rss/from:1996.9/trend/plot/wti/from:2000.8/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997/trend/plot/uah/from:2001.75/trend
For #7: Hadcrut4 only goes to December 2010 so what I did was get the slope of GISS from December 2000 to the end of December 2010. Then I got the slope of GISS from December 2000 to the present. The DIFFERENCE in slope was that the slope was 0.0049 lower for the total period. The positive slope for Hadcrut4 was 0.0041 from December 2000. So IF Hadcrut4 were totally up to date, and IF it then were to trend like GISS, I conclude it would show no slope for at least 11 years and 8 months going back to December 2000. (By the way, doing the same thing with Hadcrut3 gives the same end result, but GISS comes out much sooner each month.) See:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000/to/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000.9/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2000/plot/gistemp/from:2000.9/to:2011/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2000.9/trend
Looks like the just for fun polynomial has lost the final dip it had just back in February.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_February_2012.png
Has the long term climate changes since Feb., I don’t think so.
I’m wondering how much use it is even for “fun”.
Walter: Good question — I don’t know. I hope Dr. Spencer or Dr. Christy will clarify which is the “official” dataset.
I’d also like to know if the official data comes with 2 significant figures or 3.
While I’m asking, are there any thoughts about why the UAH and RSS data have switched places, with UAH LT recently being slightly higher than RSS LT after being about 0.05-0.15 C below it since their inception? Dr. Christy alluded to this in his recent Congressional testimony.
The just for pleasure polynomial fit is misleading at the beginning too:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/bams-state-of-the-climate/2009-time-series/troposphere
Werner wrote:
“I conclude it would show no slope for at least 11 years and 8 months going back to December 2000. (By the way, doing the same thing with Hadcrut3 gives the same end result, but GISS comes out much sooner each month.”
I am not at all convinced the statistics allow such a conclusion — the error bars on a slope of 11y8m are big, and even bigger when autocorrelation is accounted for.
For example, without considering autocorrelations, the 1-sigma uncertainty on GISS’s 10-yr trend is 0.04 C; for the 15-yr trend it is 0.02 C. The 95% confidence interval comes from multiplying these numbers by 1.95996.
Autocorrelation can easily double or even triple these numbers. So the real 95% CL on a 11y8m trend could be 0.05-0.15 C.
Besides natural variability, this is another reason why it’s impossible to say anything meaningful about short-term temperature trends (less than at least 20 years).
Given how little effect the sun is supposed to have on climate, according to the IPCC, and how few stratospheric eruptions of note there have been, and that they beleive more cloud makes Earth warmer not cooler do the warmista identify the source of the ‘natural variation’ which has overpowered the alleged warming abilities of co2 for the last decade?
They seem to have been a bit quiet lately about this, and have taken to bellyaching about ‘climate weirding’ or something. Whatever that is?
Re: natural variability (especially ENSO):
“Global temperature evolution 1979–2010”
Grant Foster and Stefan Rahmstorf
Environ. Res. Lett. 6 044022 (2011)
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022
There is also the cooling effect of aerosols from manmade pollution, which most climate scientists seem to agree is not well understood.
The data that David Appell , is not accurate.
David all your data is BS.
Reconstructed Solar Irradiance Data
———————————————————————
NOAA Paleoclimatology Program
and
World Data Center for Paleoclimatology, Boulder
———————————————————————
NOTE: PLEASE CITE ORIGINAL REFERENCE WHEN USING THIS DATA!!!!!
NAME OF DATA SET: Reconstructed Solar Irradiance Data
LAST UPDATE: 12/2007 (Correction of Be10 data values to anomalies
from the mean as plotted in Fig. 1 of Bard et al. 1997, and addition
of 2 TSI series which include geomagnetic modulation and a polar
enhancement factor)
CONTRIBUTORS: Bard, E., G. Raisbeck, F. Yiou, and J. Jouzel
IGBP PAGES/WDCA CONTRIBUTION SERIES NUMBER: 2003-006
SUGGESTED DATA CITATION: Bard, E. et al., 2003,
Reconstructed Solar Irradiance Data.
IGBP PAGES/World Data Center for Paleoclimatology
Data Contribution Series #2003-006.
NOAA/NGDC Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder CO, USA.
ORIGINAL REFERENCE:
Bard, E., G. Raisbeck, F. Yiou, and J. Jouzel. 2000.
Solar irradiance during the last 1200 years based on
cosmogenic nuclides.
TELLUS B, vol. 52 (3), pp. 985-992.
ABSTRACT:
Based on a quantitative study of the common fluctuations of 14C and 10Be
production rates, we have derived a time series of the solar magnetic
variability over the last 1200 years. This record is converted into
irradiance variations by linear scaling based on previous studies of
sun-like stars and of the Sun’s behavior over the last few centuries.
The new solar irradiance record exhibits low values during the well-known
solar minima centered about 1900, 1810 (Dalton), and 1690 AD (Maunder).
Further back in time, a rather long period between 1450 and 1750 AD is
characterized by low irradiance values. A shorter period is centered
about 1200 AD, with irradiance slightly higher or similar to present
day values. It is tempting to correlate these periods with the
so-called “little ice age” and “medieval warm period”, respectively.
An accurate quantification of the climatic impact of this new
irradiance record requires the use of coupled atmosphere-ocean
general circulation models (GCMs). Nevertheless, our record is
already compatible with a global cooling of about 0.5 – 1 C during
the “little ice age”, and with a general cooling trend during the
past millennium followed by global warming during the 20th century
(Mann et al. 1999).
ADDITIONAL REFERENCES:
Bard, E., G. Raisbeck, F. Yiou, and J. Jouzel. 1997
Solar modulation of cosmogenic nuclide production over the
last millennium: comparison between 14C and 10Be records.
Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Vol. 150, pp. 453-462.
Bard, E., G. Raisbeck, F. Yiou, and J. Jouzel. 2007.
Comment on “Solar activity during the last 1000 yr inferred
from radionuclide records” by Muscheler et al. (2007).
Quaternary Science Reviews, Vol. 26, pp. 2301-2308.
GEOGRAPHIC REGION: Global
PERIOD OF RECORD: 843 – 1982 AD
DESCRIPTION:
Reconstructed total solar irradiance (TSI) data based on the variations
of cosmogenic nuclides (10Be and 14C).
The column entitled “Be10 changes” corresponds to the relative changes
of the Be10 abundance in the PS1 South Pole ice core
(Fig. 1 of Bard et al. 1997).
The first TSI column has been calculated by assuming a TSI reduction by
-0.25 % during the Maunder Minimum (after Lean et al. 1995). The record
is normalized to a value of 1367 W/m2 for the year 1950 AD. This TSI
record corresponds to the thick line curve in Fig. 3 by Bard et al. (2000).
The second TSI column corresponds to a similar calculation that also
takes into account a small long-term geomagnetic modulation
(after Korte & Constable 2005) and a polar enhancement factor
(PEC = 0.8 according to Field et al. 2006). This record corresponds
to the green curve in Fig. 1 by Bard et al. (2007).
The third TSI column corresponds to a similar calculation that also
takes into account a small long-term geomagnetic modulation
(after Yang et al. 2000) and a polar enhancement factor
(PEC = 0.8 according to Field et al. 2006).
More details and references can be found in Bard et al. (1997, 2000, 2007).
DATA:
BE 10 and reconstructed Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) time series
used to construct Figures in:
Bard et al. EPSL 150, 453-462, 1997.
Bard et al. TELLUS B 52, 985-992, 2000.
Bard et al. QSR 26, 2301-2308, 2007.
Column 1: Year AD
Column 2: Be10 changes per mil vs. the mean, from ice core PS1, South Pole (Fig. 1 of Bard et al. 1997)
Column 3: TSI (W/m2) (%MM decrease: -0.25%) (Fig. 3 of Bard et al. 2000)
Column 4: TSI (W/m2) (%MM decrease: -0.25%) (geomag corr KC) (Fig. 1 of Bard et al. 2007)
Column 5: TSI (W/m2) (%MM decrease: -0.25%) (geomag corr Yang)
Fig.1(1997) Fig.3(2000) Fig.1(2007) Geomag.corr.Yang
Year Be10 anom. TSI (W/m2) TSI (W/m2) TSI (W/m2)
843 -76 1366.2 1365.9 1365.2
851 -55 1366.0 1365.7 1365.0
858 -71 1366.2 1365.8 1365.2
868 -50 1366.0 1365.7 1365.0
876 -111 1365.9 1365.6 1364.9
884 -13 1365.8 1365.5 1364.9
893 -26 1365.7 1365.3 1364.7
901 37 1365.8 1365.5 1364.8
909 -42 1365.5 1365.2 1364.6
923 45 1366.0 1365.6 1365.0
926 -189 1366.2 1365.9 1365.3
936 150 1366.4 1366.1 1365.5
945 -392 1366.7 1366.3 1365.7
947 -171 1366.6 1366.3 1365.7
955 -66 1366.5 1366.2 1365.6
964 -184 1366.7 1366.4 1365.8
973 113 1366.3 1366.0 1365.4
985 -111 1366.0 1365.7 1365.1
992 -163 1365.9 1365.6 1365.0
998 -68 1365.8 1365.5 1364.9
1004 161 1365.6 1365.4 1364.8
1012 -26 1365.1 1364.8 1364.2
1028 -121 1364.5 1364.2 1363.7
1035 184 1364.2 1363.9 1363.4
1044 353 1364.0 1363.8 1363.2
1054 234 1363.9 1363.6 1363.1
1062 76 1363.9 1363.7 1363.1
1068 211 1364.5 1364.3 1363.7
1075 32 1365.2 1364.9 1364.4
1083 -71 1365.7 1365.5 1365.0
1092 -213 1366.0 1365.7 1365.2
1108 -95 1366.5 1366.3 1365.8
1114 -113 1367.1 1366.8 1366.3
1124 -26 1367.1 1366.8 1366.3
1132 -250 1367.2 1366.9 1366.4
1134 -439 1367.3 1367.0 1366.5
1138 -21 1367.4 1367.1 1366.6
1146 -245 1367.4 1367.2 1366.7
1155 -145 1367.2 1367.0 1366.5
1161 -189 1366.9 1366.6 1366.2
1166 -132 1367.0 1366.8 1366.3
1174 -113 1366.7 1366.5 1366.0
1180 -129 1366.8 1366.6 1366.1
1191 -189 1366.8 1366.6 1366.2
1197 13 1367.1 1366.9 1366.4
1203 -274 1367.2 1367.0 1366.5
1213 -179 1367.1 1366.9 1366.4
1232 -316 1367.0 1366.8 1366.4
1233 -158 1367.1 1366.9 1366.5
1237 29 1366.8 1366.6 1366.1
1253 -176 1366.3 1366.1 1365.7
1257 -126 1365.8 1365.6 1365.2
1261 -26 1365.7 1365.5 1365.1
1273 195 1365.8 1365.6 1365.2
1280 32 1365.6 1365.4 1365.0
1287 -129 1365.5 1365.3 1364.9
1294 -92 1365.4 1365.2 1364.8
1300 24 1365.2 1365.0 1364.7
1310 24 1365.0 1364.9 1364.5
1322 111 1364.8 1364.7 1364.3
1334 261 1364.9 1364.7 1364.4
1339 68 1365.3 1365.2 1364.8
1346 -39 1365.4 1365.2 1364.9
1356 -134 1365.6 1365.4 1365.1
1373 -313 1366.0 1365.8 1365.5
1383 145 1366.0 1365.8 1365.5
1391 68 1365.9 1365.7 1365.4
1395 -147 1365.6 1365.5 1365.2
1400 55 1365.1 1365.0 1364.7
1407 -5 1365.0 1364.8 1364.5
1414 21 1364.8 1364.7 1364.4
1420 174 1364.3 1364.2 1363.9
1427 245 1364.1 1363.9 1363.7
1433 95 1363.3 1363.2 1363.0
1441 239 1362.6 1362.5 1362.3
1446 163 1362.5 1362.4 1362.3
1451 603 1362.6 1362.5 1362.3
1458 603 1362.4 1362.3 1362.1
1463 50 1362.6 1362.5 1362.4
1469 121 1362.8 1362.7 1362.5
1476 313 1363.5 1363.4 1363.2
1481 126 1364.1 1364.0 1363.9
1492 192 1364.0 1363.9 1363.7
1504 39 1363.9 1363.8 1363.7
1511 3 1364.0 1363.9 1363.7
1518 258 1363.7 1363.6 1363.5
1526 255 1363.5 1363.5 1363.3
1534 211 1363.3 1363.2 1363.1
1540 326 1363.1 1363.1 1363.0
1549 216 1363.3 1363.2 1363.1
1559 200 1363.3 1363.2 1363.1
1576 150 1363.7 1363.7 1363.6
1584 182 1364.3 1364.3 1364.1
1593 261 1364.8 1364.7 1364.6
1600 -161 1365.3 1365.2 1365.1
1608 -111 1365.5 1365.4 1365.2
1624 -47 1365.8 1365.8 1365.6
1631 -166 1365.9 1365.9 1365.7
1638 161 1365.4 1365.3 1365.2
1645 -147 1365.1 1365.1 1365.0
1652 134 1364.7 1364.7 1364.6
1659 255 1364.1 1364.1 1364.0
1667 42 1364.0 1364.0 1364.0
1673 216 1363.9 1363.9 1363.8
1676 326 1363.5 1363.5 1363.5
1680 108 1363.5 1363.5 1363.5
1688 -34 1363.3 1363.3 1363.3
1690 524 1363.4 1363.5 1363.5
1705 158 1363.8 1363.8 1363.8
1712 245 1364.2 1364.2 1364.1
1720 61 1364.7 1364.7 1364.6
1727 -24 1365.7 1365.7 1365.6
1735 -116 1366.1 1366.1 1366.0
1739 -279 1366.6 1366.6 1366.5
1747 -229 1366.9 1366.8 1366.7
1755 -26 1367.0 1367.0 1366.8
1763 -139 1367.1 1367.1 1367.0
1771 -142 1366.9 1366.9 1366.8
1779 -197 1366.3 1366.2 1366.2
1787 -247 1366.0 1366.0 1365.9
1809 -34 1365.6 1365.6 1365.6
1816 371 1365.3 1365.3 1365.4
1823 66 1365.1 1365.1 1365.1
1829 18 1364.9 1364.9 1364.9
1835 -21 1365.2 1365.2 1365.2
1842 -21 1365.9 1365.9 1365.9
1850 21 1366.2 1366.2 1366.2
1857 -205 1366.4 1366.4 1366.4
1865 -176 1366.5 1366.5 1366.5
1878 -118 1366.4 1366.4 1366.4
1885 -145 1366.3 1366.3 1366.3
1892 -34 1366.1 1366.1 1366.1
1899 87 1365.9 1365.9 1365.9
1906 -45 1365.9 1365.9 1366.0
1912 -39 1365.9 1365.9 1366.0
1920 -53 1366.2 1366.2 1366.3
1928 -174 1366.6 1366.6 1366.6
1935 -76 1366.8 1366.8 1366.8
1944 -232 1367.1 1367.1 1367.1
1950 -200 1367.0 1367.0 1367.0
1961 -176 1366.9 1366.9 1366.9
1969 -266
1975 103
1982 -126
That is accurate data which shows solar irradiance was .25% lower during the Maunder Minimum compared to present values.
salvatore del prete says:
“That is accurate data which shows solar irradiance was .25% lower during the Maunder Minimum compared to present values.”
Actually, if you look at this data:
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/tsi_data/TSI_TIM_Reconstruction.txt
the difference from the recent cycle average (1361.2 W/m2) is about -1.0 W/m2, or less than -0.1%.
http://contrailscience.com/skitch/The_Persistently_Variable_%E2%80%9CBackground%E2%80%9D_Stratospheric_Aerosol_Layer_and_Global__Climate_Change_Science-2011-Solomon-science.1206027.pdf_(page_7_of_9)-20110726-150207.jpg
link for data on aerosols, shows very low levels this century, which would promote global warming, not retard it as the AGW believers try to use as another excuse for why the global temp. are not increasing as fast as has been forecasted, by their useless models.
Notice how much higher the values were in the 1990’s.
Your data and my data show different results. Infact I sent conservative data. Estimates of .25% lower are not the lowerst estimates out there.
You just don’t remove volcanic aerosols to make the data fit. As I have said volcanic action is tied into solar action and is one of the components of climate change. A secondary effect from solar changes.
Again plot all major geological activity versus solar activity ,and most will be associated with prolong solar minimum periods.
2.1. The Sun Plays a Role in Our Climate in Direct
and Indirect Ways
The sun changes in its activity on time scales that vary from 27 days to 11, 22,
80, 180 years and more. A more active sun is brighter due to the dominance of
faculae over cooler sunspots with the result that the irradiance emitted by the
sun and received by the earth is higher during active solar periods than during
quiet solar periods. The amount of change of the solar irradiance based on
satellite measurements since 1978 during the course of the 11-year-cycle just
0.1% (Willson and Hudson 1988) has caused many to conclude that the solar
effect is negligible especially in recent years. Over the ultra-long cycles (since
the Maunder Minimum), irradiance changes are estimated to be as high as 0.4%
(Hoyt and Schatten, 1997; Lean et al., 1995; Lean, 2000; Lockwood and
Stamper, 1999; Fligge and Solanki, 2000). This current cycle has seen a decline
of 0.15%.
However, this does not take into account the sun’s eruptional activity
(flares, solar wind bursts from coronal mass ejections and solar wind bursts
from coronal holes) which may have a much greater effect. This takes on
254 PART j IV Solar Activity
more importance since Lockwood et al. (1999) showed how the total magnetic
flux leaving the sun has increased by a factor of 2.3 since 1901. This eruptional
activity may enhance warming through ultraviolet-induced ozone
chemical reactions in the high atmosphere or ionization in higher latitudes
during solar-induced geomagnetic storms. In addition, the work of Svensmark
(2007), Palle Bago and Butler (2000), and Tinsley and Yu (2002) have
documented the possible effects of the solar cycle on cosmic rays and through
them the amount of low cloudiness. It may be that through these other indirect
factors, solar variance is a much more important driver for climate change
than currently assumed. Because, it is more easily measured and generally we
find eruptional activity tracking well with the solar irradiance, we may utilize
solar irradiance measurements as a surrogate or proxy for the total solar
effect.
2.2. Correlations with Total Solar Irradiance
Studies vary on the importance of direct solar irradiance especially in recent
decades. Lockwood and Stamper (GRL 1999) estimated that changes in solar
luminosity can account for 52% of the change in temperatures from 1910 to
1960 but just 31% of the change from 1970 to 1999.
N. Scafetta and B. J. West of Duke University, in “Phenomenological Solar
Signature in 400 years of Reconstructed Northern Hemisphere Temperature
Record” (GRL 2006 and b0) showed how total solar irradiance accounted for
up to 50% of the warming since 1900 and 25e35% since 1980. The authors
noted the recent departures may result “from spurious non-climatic contamination
of the surface observations such as heat-island and land-use effects
[Pielke et al., 2002; Kalnay and Cai, 2003]”. There analysis was done using the
global databases which may also suffer from station dropout and improper
adjustment for missing data which increased in the 1990s. In 2007, in their
follow-up paper in the GRL, they noted the sun could account for as much as
69% of the changes since 1900.
This USHCN database though regional in nature would have been a better
station database to use for analysis of change as it is more stable, has less
missing data, and a better scheme for adjusting for missing data, as well as
some adjustments for changes to siting and urbanization.
An independent analysis was conducted using the USHCN data and TSI
highlights of article. Solar Irradiance perhaps .4 % lower during the Maunder Minimum ,and magnetic flux leaving the sun has increased by a factor of 2.3 since 1901.
I rest my case.
I just did this on spur of the moment. I didn’t even try to make a case and I did.
Salvatore:
1) To first order, by differentiating the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, dT/T = (1/4)(dS/S), where T is the effective temperature and S is the solar irradiance. Even if dS/S = 0.4% (which I doubt), dT/T ~ 0.1% ~ 0.3 K
2) Your first two aerosol charts are for Mauna Loa. But I think people who question air pollution’s role are thinking of pollution in Asia (especially China) and over cities. Your lower chart does show an increase in global AOD, i.e. more extinction of sunlight, i.e cooling. The IPCC 4AR thinks aerosols contribute about -1.2 W/m2 of forcing, but with large uncertainties:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-2-5.html
I don’t think much of anything the IPCC, has to say.
Anyways good luck, let us see what happens as this decade proceeds.
Dave we will agree to disagree. Time will tell who is right and who is wrong. We will know shortly after this maximum of solar cycle 24 passes by. If temp. go up ,I am wrong, if they go down I am right.
salvatore del prete says:
“Time will tell who is right and who is wrong.”
I suspect not. If warming continues, you will keep saying “time will tell” and keep telling us cooling is just around the corner — we just need to wait a few years, the sunspots are going to all disappear and the world will be in the throes of a killer cold spell.
And if not — well, just wait a few more years.
“David Appell says:
September 6, 2012 at 3:20 PM
Werner wrote:
“I conclude it would show no slope for at least 11 years and 8 months going back to December 2000. (By the way, doing the same thing with Hadcrut3 gives the same end result, but GISS comes out much sooner each month.”
I am not at all convinced the statistics allow such a conclusion”
I was told Hadcrut4 is very close to GISS, and GISS has no slope for 11 years and 5 months ignoring error bars, so I think I am certainly well within the ballpark. But we will see once Hadcrut4 gets updated. In the meantime, what would be your best guess as to how far back Hadcrut4 would show no slope if it were updated tomorrow?
David Appell,
While I’m asking, are there any thoughts about why the UAH and RSS data have switched places
Dr Roy covered that here.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/05/our-response-to-recent-criticism-of-the-uah-satellite-temperatures/
Long story short, probably over/under correction for diurnal drift on someone’s part.
Salvatore,
Below is one of your predictions from nearly two years ago.
You were wrong then, and as David Appell says, instead of admitting you were wrong, you will just continue to say that time will prove you right.
T. Lassi
Salvatore Del Prete says:
October 30, 2010 at 8:42 am
PREDICTIONS
Based on what I see, and I had made these predictions months ago, I feel and this Oct. is a good indication, that the string of above normal monthly temperatures has ended and going forward ,we will be near normal for temperatures. Going out further, temperatures will be coming in below normal, as the quiet sun and all other factors phase more into a cold mode.
As they say time will tell who is right ,and who is wrong.
To say the world will soon cool is a load of codswallop, not backed by any empirical evidence.
A look at the temperature trends:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/mean:13/plot/uah/mean:13/plot/rss/trend/plot/uah/trend/plot/gistemp/mean:13/plot/gistemp/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1979/trend
a look at TSI
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/pmod
a look at sunspots:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn
And now we see the fallacies from Tisdale and Co that it’s all ENSO once again. Despite the fact that ENSO is an oscillation.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/
So nice to be sceptical!
Salvatore, don’t forget Prof Shaviv found amn amplification of solar variation in Earth’s climate systems by using the oceans as a calorimeter
http://sciencebits.com/calorimeter
So even if lower estimates of secular variation from Maunder to now are correct, it is still the case that natural variation can explain the secular rise in temperature.
Exactly, it is not just solar irradiance changes but all the secondary effects that come about,not to forget the lag times that may be involved.
I am quite sure temperatures will be lower by decade end, as the prolong solar minimum proceeds.
Trip Lassi , I see nothing wrong with my prediction because temperatures have been pretty close to normal since Oct.of year 2010,(which is what I said) and the one condition I have made for temperatures to drop to below normal levels , is solar activity as measured by the solar flux has to be below the 90 level. That reading has been mostly above that level since I made my prediction.
I also said further out I expect the temperature to drop. I have not changed my mind. Once this maximum of solar cycle 24 passes on by ,I expect that trend will become evident.
I see my prediction as being mostly, if not entirely correct, in that temperatures since Oct. of 2010 are running close to normal. Certainly ,my prediction is better then what the global WARMING models have been predicting for temperature, that is for sure.
SOON AND BRIGGS: Global-warming fanatics take note
Sunspots do impact climate
Comments (16)
Size: + / –
Print
Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on google_plusone_shareShare on redditShare on linkedinShare on stumbleuponShare on emailMore Sharing Services
By Willie Soon and William M. Briggs
Thursday, September 6, 2012
Enlarge Photo
Illustration Sun Spots by John Camejo for The Washington Times more >
Ads by Google
Orlando Halloween GetawayBook Now for Hotel, Park Tickets & Halloween Horror Nights From $319! HalloweenHorrorNights.com/Getaway
Story Topics
Environment
Technology_Internet
China
William Herschel
Richard Muller
Follow Us On
Facebook
Question of the Day
What did you think of President Obama’s speech at the DNC?
Loved it
Liked it
Neutral
Disliked it
Hated it
Login to Vote
View results
Scientists have been studying solar influences on the climate for more than 5,000 years.
Chinese imperial astronomers kept detailed sunspot records. They noticed that more sunspots meant warmer weather. In 1801, the celebrated astronomer William Herschel (discoverer of the planet Uranus) observed that when there were fewer spots, the price of wheat soared. He surmised that less light and heat from the sun resulted in reduced harvests.
Earlier last month, professor Richard Muller of the University of California-Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project announced that in the project’s newly constructed global land temperature record, “no component that matches solar activity” was related to temperature. Instead, Mr. Muller said carbon dioxide controlled temperature.
Could it really be true that solar radiation — which supplies Earth with the energy that drives our climate and which, when it has varied, has caused the climate to shift over the ages — is no longer the principal influence on climate change?
Consider the accompanying chart. It shows some rather surprising relationships between solar radiation and daytime high temperatures taken directly from Berkeley’s BEST project. The remarkable nature of these series is that these tight relationships can be shown to hold from areas as large as the United States.
Enlarge Photo
The Washington Times more >
This new sun-climate relationship picture may be telling us that the way our sun cools and warms the Earth is largely through the penetration of incoming solar radiation in regions with cloudless skies. Recent work by National Center for Atmospheric Research senior scientists Harry van Loon and Gerald Meehl place strong emphasis on this physical point and argue that the use of daytime high temperatures is the most appropriate test of the solar-radiation-surface-temperature connection hypothesis. All previous sun-climate studies have included the complicated nighttime temperature records while the sun is not shining.
Even small changes in solar radiation may have a strong effect on Earth’s temperature and climate. In 2005, one of us demonstrated a surprisingly strong correlation between solar radiation and temperatures in the Arctic over the past 130 years. Since then, we have demonstrated similar correlations in all the regions surrounding the Arctic, including the U.S. mainland and China. The confirmation of a sun-temperature relation using only the daytime-high-temperature records from the United States certainly adds scientific weight to the soundness of this connection.
The close relationships between the abrupt ups and downs of solar activity and of temperature that we have identified occur locally in coastal Greenland, regionally in the Arctic Pacific and North Atlantic; and hemispherically for the whole circum-Arctic, suggesting that changes in solar radiation drive temperature variations in at least many areas.
Pictures like these cannot be drawn for temperature and CO2 concentration. There just is no such close match between the steady rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration and the often dramatic ups and downs of surface temperatures in and around the Arctic, China and the United States.
Even more recently, in collaboration with professor David Legates of the University of Delaware, we were able to provide a self-consistent explanation for these observed apparent sun-climate correlations, which involves the exchange of heat and moisture between the equator and the Arctic region. In addition, we recently discovered direct evidence that changes in solar activity have influenced what has been called the “conveyor belt” circulation of the great Atlantic Ocean currents over the past 240 years. For instance, solar-driven changes in temperature and in the volume of freshwater output from the Arctic cause variations in sea surface temperature in the tropical Atlantic five to 20 years later.
These peer-reviewed results, appearing in several science journals, make it difficult to maintain that changes in solar activity play no or an insignificant role in climate change.
The hallmark of good science is the testing of plausible hypotheses that are either supported or rejected by the evidence. The evidence in BEST’s own data and in other data we have analyzed is consistent with the hypothesis that the sun causes climate change, especially in the Arctic, China and the United States. BEST’s data also clearly invalidate the hypothesis that CO2 is the most important cause of observed temperature changes across the United States.
Given the wide, and perhaps at times excessive, interest in tying carbon dioxide to climate, there has been relatively little work investigating the solar-climate connection. The scientific community has proved the wisdom of Ralph Waldo Emerson, who said, “The sun shines and warms and lights us and we have no curiosity to know why this is so.”
Willie Soon has been researching the relationship of solar radiation and Earth’s climate for the past 22 years. William M. Briggs is a meteorology-trained statistician and former associate editor of the Monthly Weather Review.
Comments
You can find this article on climate depot.com
Rog, ocean heat content is a big factor in how all of this plays out ,time wise. That is for sure.
We are going on 8 years of sub solar activity, the accumulation factor in my opinion is now starting to set in.
I think once this very weak maximum of solar cycle 24, passes on by, the continued very weak conditions of solar activity going forward ,combined with the last 8 years, is going to start to exert more of an influence on the climate, even with OHC taken into account. Which again is a big factor time wise.
According to the satellite data it looks like temp. since OCT.2010 ,has been about +.15C above normal. I would call that close to normal temperatures.
Certainly not global warming.
Salvatore,
It all depends upon how you define “normal”.
I make the average UAH, including Oct. 2010, 0.178c, but that is relative to 1981-2010.
Relative to 1961-1990, it’s about 0.43c, relative to the 20th century it’s about 0.565c. (rough calculations)
Which of those periods is “normal”, I don’t know, but in each case it is warming.
By the way, am a sceptic regarding the cause of the warming, and at what rate it will continue, not the warming itself, which doesn’t seem to be in doubt, if you believe the figures.
Rog,
NOAA’s forecast says that a weak El Nino is likely to develop this month and persist through the rest of the year.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/ensodisc.pdf
I am saying relative to the 1981-2010 period,a period of time up to say 2005 ,when the temperatures should have been on the rise due to natural forces at play,which they indeed did rise. Not until late 2005 ,did things start to change, which I thik have since caused the temperature rise to level off ,and will result in a decline soon after solar max. 24 passes on by.
One can say we have a weak El Nino already,looking at the data.
SOI INDEX HAS BEEN NEG. FOR QUITE SOME TIME.
salvatore del prete, you write “SOI INDEX HAS BEEN NEG. FOR QUITE SOME TIME.”
You need to be careful to specify which SOI index you are quoting, The 30 day and 90 day averages have been negative for some time, but for the past 3 days, the preliminary daily data shows positive numbers.
http://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/seasonalclimateoutlook/southernoscillationindex/30daysoivalues/
I’m asking this as a serious question, which I hope someone may have a perspective on. I don’t hear it discussed much.
A huge amount of ice melted in the Arctic this summer. How much heat did that absorb? Without the ice melt, how much hotter would the planet have been?
Over time, if have significant ice melt, it will absorb a lot of heat. But at some point, there is less ice to melt and absorb heat.
Do we as some point start to heat more rapidly?
I know that if I sit of ice water out in the hot sun, the temperature won’t change much until the ice cubes melt, then it rises quickly.
Thanks
To Hops:
I can’t tell you how much heat was “used” by the arctic ice melt this year. But (and I hope someone more knowledgeable will correct me if I’m wrong) I see the the Arctic (and Antarctic as well) as a negative feedback on the temperature, something like the regulator on the pressure cooker.
The insolation is negligible during winters and very low during summer so the albedo of the ice does not play very large role. The ice acts as an insulation and as a “buffer”, preventing the waters flowing to Arctic from warmer places getting too cooled down in winter and cooling them down more rapidly during summer when the water gets warmer. The thermal capacity plays role in that and what also plays role is the ice area as ice free ocean radiates heat more efficiently than frozen.
If we assume the Earth will continue heating up, the first state change will occur when arctic will become ice free during summer. At that point, its summer function would be saturated and it can’t radiate any more heat. That would lead to increased warming of deep ocean waters and slowing down the overall circulation, but there would still be the buffer capacity building up during winter with another ice cover.
The second state change would occur if the arctic became ice free even during winter because incoming water would be too warm to allow ice formation. At that point the whole feedback function of the arctic would be saturated as it would radiate as much heat as it could all the year long.
Over all that, there’s no real mechanism that would cause the Earth to heat up more rapidly. If you put a weight on your pressure cooker’s regulator, you’ll get greater pressure inside but the pressure will not start building up more rapidly because at some point the force will overcome the weight and will find its way out. Here’s an opposite but similar situation, we’re getting higher pressure inside and it’s just pushing the regulator up with greater force in an attepmt to get out. But the higher the pressure, the faster it goes out. Yes, we may be approaching the point at which the regulator is at full capacity part of the year (ice free arctic during summer) but still not all year long.
Also we’re still far even from the first point. We might get there in the foreseeable future, or we may not. And even if that happened, it’s not unprecedented in the Earth history. Even a completely ice free Arctic (even during winter; also not unprecedented) does not necessarily have to be a disaster because it’s not the only Earth’s regulation mechanism.
Jim ,good point. With positive readings the last few days, if this continues we say good bye to the forecasted weak El Nino.
@Hops
Yes, you are right.
But in my opinion all depends upon why the ice was there.
I mean: your example is valid, but the context is wrong.
The ice that you put there was formed in another cooler environment and then it has been placed in the hotter one draining down the temperature of the environment for a while (until the whole ice melted).
In the Arctic context, the sea ice forms and melts because of the very same environmental condition not the inverse.
AS you have probably observed, Salvatore, the 30 day SOI is now positive, while the 90 day is still negative.
which if trend continues El Nino will not be forming this winter.
Salvatore: Last week NOAA said “El Niño conditions are likely to develop during August or September 2012.”
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
Who do you think has a better handle on ENSO parameters — the professionals at NOAA, or you?
David Appell, considering NOAA’s dismal record on predicting El Nino, La Nina events, I would say Salvatore’s forecast is just as good, or as bad, as that of NOAA. I suspect both forecasts are as good as each other. They are both little more than SWAGs.
No one has a handle on it.
Jim Cripwell says:
>> …considering NOAA’s dismal record on predicting El Nino, La Nina events <<
Jim, where can I read an analysis of the veracity of their predictions?
David, I know of no specific observations of NOAA not being able to forecast El Nino, La Nina. My message was based on a remark by Judith Curry. Klotzback and Grey found they could not forecast Atlantic hurricanes in December. Judith commented that this was because it was impossible to forecast El Ninos and La Ninas. Since the obvious source K&G would use would be NOAA, I assumed the remark would apply to that organization. I suspect Judith knows what she is talking about.
It would appear that you have inherited Stephan Lewandowski’s CAGW warming crowd as they continue to live in their own modelled future. A modelled future where they assume that they are one hundred percent correct and the standard scientific facts are irrelevant. Sadly they accuse other of taking actions they themselves make. When is this going to stop and when will the facts surface to finally put an end to all this lunacy that now permeates every single argument in relation to AGW.
It is a sad and sorry day when the facts are being replaced by hypothetical theories that have no basis in reality or scientific discipline.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/04/11/a-new-global-warming-alarmist-tactic-real-temperature-measurements-dont-matter/
Salvatore: “Which of those periods is “normal”, I don’t know, but in each case it is warming.”
There is no such thing as “normal” , the term has no meaning in a chaotically varying system. At no period in the Earth’s history has climate been constant.
What is NORMAL is climate change.
The whole field of climate science has been polluted with such stupidity. Everything is measured as “anomalies” which carries the implicit declaration that there once was a norm and modern climate is abnormal.
Before one even gets to look at the data the terminology alone has given you the conclusion.
http://i49.tinypic.com/2va0br8.png
Here’s an anomaly. Look at similarity between rate of change of Dr Spencer’s UAH TLT and rate of change mean sea level as reported by C.U. Bolder LAST YEAR.
Note that the same satellite has since been “corrected” and bears no resemblance to TLT nor, more surprisingly. to the same data source as reported last year.
For most of the period the rate of change is almost 180 out of phase with what was being reported last year.
This a great shame, since that’s one more dataset that can no longer be given any credibility or usefulness. It’s also shame since having such good corroboration between two physically very different measurements gives a strong indication that some real climate signal is being detected.
Now Bolder’s GMSL has lost all credibility and both datasets have lost a powerful indication that they were producing useful, corroborated results.
Warming which is /was to be expected during those periods. The data from those periods will be useful in establishing future trends which are now going to be lower going forward. I agree what is normal who knows, but trends can be established by looking at the data.
If you look at the trends over the past few recent years they show warming has ceased.
Ocean Heat Content showing the same pattern or trend, over the most recent years.
Solar Activity showing the same trend or pattern ,over the most recent years.
Pdo showing same trend or pattern over recent years.
Salvatore you write “If you look at the trends over the past few recent years they show warming has ceased. ”
Sorry, Salvatore, I disagree with you. The warming has not ceased. The trend of a linear warming of around 0.06 C per decade, which has been observed since around 1850 does not seem to have ceased. The recent cessation of warming is merely a reaction to the large rise in temperatures which occurred at the end ot the 20th century.
The important issue for people to realise. is that the empirical data shows that there has been no change in trend since we obtained good records of global temperatures. No change in trend means no CO2 signal. No CO2 signal means that the total climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2 is indistinguishable from zero.
Exactly the warming trend has ceased since the end of the 20th century. That is what I am talking about. That is the whole point, what has happened recently.
Going forward I say the temperature trend will be down, from the late 20th century. Just to clarify.
Your statement of saying the recent cessation of warming is simply a reaction to a large rise in the late 20th century. That has no meaning.
The climate system is chaotic to the nth degree, past trends have nothing to do with future trends, in regards to trens themselves.
Last century at end we had a positive pdo, high solar, low volcanic activity, ohc on the rise, lots of el ninos, a positive nao/ao for the most part,low cosmic ray levels, etc etc etc etc.Of course the temp will rise in response to that set of conditions, which by the way were more or less the rule from 1850-2005.
Starting in year 2005 those condtions began to finally change, being reflected in the stop in the temp. rise since late last century.
That will accelerate going forward. Lag time is involved. Once solar max 24 passes by watch out!
the MACD and signal line of global temperatures (GISS based), using the difference between the 12 and 26 yr EMA to calculated the MACD and 9yr EMA of the MACD to calculate the signal line had a crossover from above in 2009 and the MACD peaked in 2007. The MACD is a well-known and highly used tool for stock traders to determine a stock prices trend, highs and lows. Since the MACD is simply based on exponential moving averages, the underlying data set doesn’t matter.
Using the 12, 26 and 9 yr time intervals the MACD is able to capture the swings in the data as proven by the fact that it showed a crossover from below (buy signal: increasing prices, or in this case temperatures) in 1910, and a rising MACD and signal line through 1940, then a crossover of the signal line by the MACD from above (sell signal: decreasing prices or in this case temperatures) with a decreasing signal line and MACD until 1976, when the crossover from below and increasing MACD and signal line lasted to 2007 and 2009 respectively. Given that the MACD (12, 26, 9) has captured previous temperature trends and swing, there is no reason to believe it didn’t capture the reasoned trend change.
Why use complicated models, when simple momentum related tools can do the job.
Salvatore. Let us agree to differ. We will see what happens in the future.
That was going to be my next post.You beat me to it. lol
take care Jim
Dr Spencer may i offer you some advice, the next time you update your graph with the September figures you could also over lay the CO2 measurements.
I believe this action would go a long way to solving your troll infestation.
Regards
Crakar24
David Appell says I am not at all convinced the statistics allow such a conclusion
Using Grant Foster’s (aka Tamino) methodology, Lucia has demonstrated that the IPCC’s 0.2degC per decade meme is falsified using decadal trends of GISStemp starting in 1975
Between 1975 and 1995, despite never reaching 0.2degC, decadal trends remained constant around 0.17degC, within 2 sigma confidence limits of the IPCCs forecast. From 1995 onwards, as is blatantly obvious, decadal trends have declined to the point that the last three, starting in 2001, show no positive trend at all, not only that all three are outside 2 sigma confidence limits.
I suggest this trend of trends plot demonstrates that the Modern Warm Period ended sometime in the mid 1990s, despite CO2 PPM rate of increase accelerating, driven by forcings other than CO2
http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Tamino_AR1_ModelsFalsifyEnd2003.png
Salvatore says Last week NOAA said “El Niño conditions are likely to develop during August or September 2012”
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
Tisdale says Hey, Where’d The El Niño Go?
Sea surface temperature anomalies for the NINO3.4 region of the eastern equatorial Pacific are a commonly used index for the strength, frequency and duration of El Niño and La Niña events. In recent weeks, they have cooled to well below the threshold of El Niño conditions
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/1-comparison-from-la-nina-conditions.png
Appell says i>Who do you think has a better handle on ENSO parameters — the professionals at NOAA, or you?
Darn, real world observations are just so contrarian…
better get used to it; IMHO we’ve entered a la nina dominated phase which will last a decade or 2 or so. The previous la nina dominated phase ended 1974 (whoopsy daisy, exactly when AGW supposedly started…) and the el nino dominated phase peaked with the ’97/’98 el nino (whoopsy daisy, again pretty much when global temps peaked and stayed elevated until 2010, when the decline in global temps has started)
IMHO la nina and el nino are two different phases of the same system (ENSO) and should therefore be treated seperately; e.g. see their cycles as two (sinus?) waves that are some fraction of their periods out of sync.
Less, and less intense el nino’s will mean less global warming, whereas more and more intense la nina’s will mean more global cooling. People, wake up to the fact that the earth is over 2/3rds ocean… anything we do on land has little impact. If the oceans decide to go cold or warm, then the air will follow. NOT vice versa.
Example: Ever tried to warm the water in your bathtub by increasing the temperature of the air in your bath room? It will never work, unless you raise the temperature insanely high. Now fill your bath room with 2/3rds of water and then try the same again. Thought so, won’t work even less. But, now do the reverse, fill your bath tub with warm water and then measure the air’s temperature over time. BINGO your bathroom just got a whole lot warmer… And that’s just 1 bathtub, not even 2/3rds of the room.
It’s that simple folks.
Gras Albert says:
>> I suggest this trend of trends plot demonstrates that the Modern Warm Period ended sometime in the mid 1990s, despite CO2 PPM rate of increase accelerating, driven by forcings other than CO2 <<
How, then, do you explain the continued, long-term warming of the oceans?
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
A 2-dimensional surface is not exactly the best place to immediately look for the energy imbalance caused by an increased greenhouse effect.
Care to explain how exactly do you imagine CO2 transferring its heat directly to water 700-2000 m deep in the ocean without touching the 700 m of water in between?
Dave as usual gives flawed data. The ohc has leveled off since 2005.It works on a lag time, and I expect the ohc will start to fall off in the very near future going back to the 1970’s area evenually.
Figure 1 is a time-series graph of the NODC Global Ocean Heat Content Anomalies from the start of the dataset (1st Quarter of 1955) to present (2nd Quarter of 2011). The quarterly data for the world oceans is available through the NODC in spreadsheet (.csv ) form (Right Click and Save As: Global OHC Data). While there was a significant increase in Global Ocean Heat Content over the term of the data, Global Ocean Heat Content has flattened in recent years.
if you get the above graph you will see ohc is longer increasing.it’s been flat since 2005 or so.
Ocean heat content is certainly not flat since 2005.
You can download the data from these links. You will not find a zero trend in recent years.
0-700 m:
http://data.nodc.noaa.gov/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/DATA/basin/3month/ohc_levitus_climdash_seasonal.csv
0-2000 m:
http://data.nodc.noaa.gov/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/DATA/basin/3month/ohc2000m_levitus_climdash_seasonal.csv
In fact, using the data in the links I gave just above, I find the linear trend of the 0-700 m layer of the ocean to be
0.2 e22 J/yr
and for the 0-2000 m layer
0.6 e22 J/yr
or 60 TW and 200 TW, respectively. Except this time period is so short as to be statistically meaningless, even without considering autocorrelation — the statistical uncertainties are significant.
I keep repeating this, but no one here ever learns: you cannot make statistically significant statements about short time intervals.
the charts I look at show it being flat.
salvatore del prete says:
>> the charts I look at show it being flat.
I gave you the data — calculate the trend for yourself, instead of just looking at a graph.
Then explain how you find statistical significance in such a short time interval.
David if there was a one time step change in radiative forcing, how would ohc respond? Would it mirror the step change or would it respond over time?
Dave the short term trends are important when one is expecting a major shift in the climate.
If a new trend is going to take place it has to start at some point in time , and it may start as a leveling off of a prior trend, or be erratic at the beginning.
>> Dave the short term trends are important when one is expecting a major shift in the climate. <<
A shift is important, but detecting it statistically is something else, and that's what we are talking about here.
All trends have an associated uncertainty, due simply to the fact that a finite number of points are extrapolated to a supposed functional relationship. For short time intervals, this uncertainty is high, and it's even higher if autocorrelation is factored in (as it should be for something like the ocean).
With the 0-700 m data I linked to above, I find (from 12/2005 to 6/2012) a linear trend of +0.19 e22 J/yr with an uncertainty (1-sigma) of 0.08 e22 J/yr. So there is statistically significant warming at the 95% confidence level, if you ignore autocorrelation. But even a lag-1 autocorrelation is going to change the uncertainty by a factor of about 2 (I haven't calculated it here, but that's what I've found in the past for UAH LT trends).
You simply can't say much of significance for short time periods — the mathematics precludes it.
Layman Lurker says:
>> David if there was a one time step change in radiative forcing, how would ohc respond? Would it mirror the step change or would it respond over time? <<
Just off the top of my head, I don't think it would mirror the step change, since the ocean has a large thermal inertia.
If you pour a lot of water in a scalding pot, it does not boil immediately.
That is my view as well David. Therefore, ohc would likely respond to the step change in forcing by increasing annually at a decreasing rate until radiative balance is restored. Correct?
Sorry I should clarify that I am speaking of positive step change in forcing.
>> Therefore, ohc would likely respond to the step change in forcing by increasing annually at a decreasing rate until radiative balance is restored. <<
Probably, although I'd have to think more clearly about how it decreases.
But the same arguments of statistical significance hold here as I wrote above — you seem to be trying to impose a functional relationship on the ocean heating data that is not justified by the mathematics of trend analysis.
David Appell:
With all due respect David, your logic is backwards. IIRC You are arguing that the ongoing positive slope in the trend of ohc is proof of AGW. All I am doing is pointing out that the ohc trend slope will be positive as long as there has not been a full response by ohc to an imbalance. IOW, if anthropogenic atmospheric co2 leveled off (or even declined) right now, ohc would continue to warm until radiative balance is established.
Moving on from the one time forcing step change example, suppose now that there is a second step change in radiative forcing before ohc has fully responded to the first. What should the ohc trend response look like in this scenario?
I’m not talking about an “ongoing positive slope,” I’m talking about the trend of the entire dataset.
Any functional relationship determined from the data has a statistical uncertainty. That has to be considered in any discussion.
—
And I don’t understand the relevance of all your step changes. Is there any evidence whatsoever of a step change in radiative forcing (other than volcanoes, which there hasn’t been a major eruption for 20 years)?
dave, keep dreaming. This decade will end this argument once and for all. It will be colder 3 years from now then it is today, and colder for another 20+ years going forward.
David, every year there is a postitive step change (increment) in ghg forcing. Since ohc does not fully respond to each preceeding annual increment, the energy imbalance supposedly should be building and building. The step changes in my examples tell you that the amount of an annual ohc heat response is directly related to the energy imbalance – if imbalance decreases (but still positive) then ohc response increases at a diminishing rate. If annual imbalance increases (as it should be doing with annual forcing steps or increments) then ohc increases at an increasing rate. OHC is really an energy balance metric and as such the telling features are the absolute levels (relative to expectations) and the slope changes in the time series.
Here is Gavin’s (corrected) most recent depiction of GISS ER model hind cast vs observations along with a projection in the form of a linear extrapolation (which approximates the A1b forcings scenario projection). The A1b scenario assumes diminishing annual forcing increments (steps) starting in 2003 and on. Observed co2 levels since 2003 are running ahead of the A1b scenario.
Salvatore, I’m not dreaming of anything — I’m just trying to understand what can be inferred from the data, and what can’t.
You should try it sometime.
>> David, every year there is a postitive step change (increment) in ghg forcing. <<
No, there is not — it increases smoothly and continuously.
David, you understand that a step increase is not materially different from a smooth continuous increase in terms of the implications on increasing or decreasing the energy imbalance don’t you?
LL, yes, a step increase *is* different from a smooth and continuous increase — depending on its width in time.
And this has been precisely my point: a small set of data points, taken of a (presumed) smoothly varying function, can only reconstruct that function with a certain degree of statistical significance.
You and Salvatore are trying to push that relationship beyond what the data allows.
I have not been reading Salvatore’s comments and have no idea what point he is trying to make. Not sure why you would suggest that David.
After the annual cycle in co2 reaches its peak, co2 moves down through the seasonal low and then as it approaches the peak of the next cycle it “steps up” anywhere from 1 to 3 ppm roughly. This is what I am referring to as the annual step change. But even if the annual increase was continuous and smooth it wouldn’t materially affect the impact on the resulting change in energy balance.
I think you have missed the point of the step change examples. It is to illustrate that changes in ohc reflect the changes in energy imbalance. Ohc will not fully respond to an annual increase in co2 before the next annual increase takes place and therefore energy imbalance must continutally increase. If the energy imbalance increases over time then the ohc trend slope changes would be expected to increase over time. If you look at Gavin’s chart I linked to you see the hind cast GISS ER model run has a continuously increasing slope of expected ohc with setbacks only in volcanic episodes. The post 2003 projections for the model show a constant trend slope, but this is obviously due in large part to assumed forcings for the A1b scenario increasing only at a decreasing rate.
Will Dr Roy still use his polynomial fit if it starts trending up? or will it no longer be fun?
Maybe because he is bored to read so silly questions like yours!
http://oceans.pmel.noaa.gov/
this graph will show clearly the trend in ohc.
The rise has slowed down to almost neutral since 2003.Prior to 2003 ohc was rising rapidly.
ohc has a big lag time, in response to solar changes which did not really switch from active to inactive until Oct of 2005. With the past year being in solar cycle 24 max. (very weak for max) but moderately active overall.
Once solar cycle 24 max ends ,the ohc should start to fall off going forward in response to the overall solar conditions since Oct of 2005, in my opinion.
salvatore del prete says:
>> The rise has slowed down to almost neutral since 2003.Prior to 2003 ohc was rising rapidly. <<
You're wrong, Salvatore. Clearly the slope since 2003 is not zero.
Why don't you actually calculate it, instead of guessing what it looks like?