Global Surface Air & Sea Temperatures: Current Conditions and Future Prospects

[Devonian]

The worlds population by 2100 will be far higher then it is now and will be doing fine , I also think we will still be able to go to the Maldives.. Perhaps my 5yr old niece could review predictions in 2100 ??

Stu, wrt climate you always say we need more data but by contrast you know, with absolute certainty, where human population and prosperity will be in 2100...

And my prediction of climate by 2100? As ever, in line with IPCC projections - a 2 to 4C warming of the atmosphere, compared to the base line, due to the effects of human activity upon the atmosphere.

Edited March 14, 2015 by Devonian

[stewfox]

Stu, wrt climate you always say we need more data but by contrast you know, with absolute certainty, where human population and prosperity will be in 2100...

And my prediction of climate by 2100? As ever, in line with IPCC projections - a 2 to 4C warming of the atmosphere, compared to the base line, due to the effects of human activity upon the atmosphere.

 

I have not used 'absolute certainty anywhere' I have also said if we do see a marked increase in global temps in next 30yrs , governments will react.

 

I see you have gone for 2- 4c which supports the uncertainty over the matter at present.  If you feel mankind will be in a worst state by 2100 so be it, regrettably i wont be around to see if your right.

Edited March 14, 2015 by stewfox

[VillagePlank]

OK

Yep,

I read all that...

But surely if the transport of heat, was to move the heat to somewhere where it could be more easily transported back into space?

How does it appear to change the wavelength of these warming/ cooling cycles. Could it be CO2 doing this? Or are there more medium term drivers at work?

The other thing about all this is that most of the heat currently being ascribed to CO2 might well be an artifact of the AMO effect, which may well be a proxy for something else entirely. I think the Curry report is just one thing to be considered, thre could be other effects further downstream.

Too many things unknown at the moment to be sure what is afoot.

MIA

OK, I'll rephrase. I think there is no linear connection between the AMO and global temperature, and thus the THC. However, I think there are legs in considering that the AMO modifies the rate of change of the noise and the trend. That being said the THC being the physical driver and the AMO being a proxy therein.

So looking at the stuff I did back in Oct 2013, we would be able to predict a slowdown in warming because of the position in the AMO wavelength, that being the sinusoid model is heading towards a trough and, if correct, the global temperature will find it increasingly hard to increase for the next few years.

That's not say that it won't increase. This model says the temperatures will increase as a factor of the underlying trend and noise but at a very small rate, the AMO having modified the rate of change. For old hands here this should all be vaguely familiar....

The heat capacity of the ocean is huge, there is no problem with it modifying atmospheric temperatures by, say 0.5c/decade.

Stew. If you read the stuff I did back in 2013 I made a firm prediction for 2100AD based on this sinusoid model.

Edited March 14, 2015 by Sparkicle

[BornFromTheVoid]

2nd warmest February on record according to GISS

 

According to the 51-80 average.

 

1998: +0.86C

2015: +0.79C

1996: +0.76C

2010, 2002: +0.74C

 

 

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

 

 

2nd warmest January-February combination too (+0.77C), behind just 2007 (+0.79C) and ahead of 1998 (+0.73C)

[stewfox]

2nd warmest February on record according to GISS

 

According to the 51-80 average.

 

1998: +0.86C

2015: +0.79C

1996: +0.76C

2010, 2002: +0.74C

 

 

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

 

 

2nd warmest January-February combination too (+0.77C), behind just 2007 (+0.79C) and ahead of 1998 (+0.73C)

 

 

So a lot colder then 1998 ? that's my read ?? Long live 'the pause'  

[Devonian]

So a lot colder then 1998 ? that's my read ?? Long live 'the pause'  

1998: .86

2015: .79

so therefore you think .07C is 'a lot'.

Why, I wonder, don't you think .5C warming more than a lot then? Or were you being facetious and I missed it?

[BornFromTheVoid]

So a lot colder then 1998 ? that's my read ?? Long live 'the pause'  

 

But if we look at the trend from 2014 (+0.43C) to 2015 (+0.79C), we've got +36C/century!

[stewfox]

1998: .86

2015: .79

so therefore you think .07C is 'a lot'.

Why, I wonder, don't you think .5C warming more than a lot then? Or were you being facetious and I missed it?

 

A small element of facetious but if its good enough for NASA....

 

---------------------

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2915061/Nasa-climate-scientists-said-2014-warmest-year-record-38-sure-right.html

 

Yet the Nasa press release failed to mention this, as well as the fact that the alleged ‘record’ amounted to an increase over 2010, the previous ‘warmest year’, of just two-hundredths of a degree – or 0.02C.

 

Edited March 14, 2015 by stewfox

[Gray-Wolf]

2nd warmest February on record according to GISS

 

According to the 51-80 average.

 

1998: +0.86C

2015: +0.79C

1996: +0.76C

2010, 2002: +0.74C

 

 

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

 

 

2nd warmest January-February combination too (+0.77C), behind just 2007 (+0.79C) and ahead of 1998 (+0.73C)

 

Do you think KL will like the look of that graphic after his " ice in cape cod means no AGW" rant???

[Gael_Force]

2nd warmest February on record according to GISS

 

According to the 51-80 average.

 

1998: +0.86C

2015: +0.79C

1996: +0.76C

2010, 2002: +0.74C

 

 

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

 

 

2nd warmest January-February combination too (+0.77C), behind just 2007 (+0.79C) and ahead of 1998 (+0.73C)

Why are we going back to 51-80? We know that period was colder as they were writing about it being so. Where are we standing in relation to more recent climatology?

[Midlands Ice Age]

Why are we going back to 51-80? We know that period was colder as they were writing about it being so. Where are we standing in relation to more recent climatology?

 

GF...

 

Didn't you know you could get more nice sweet red cherries to the pound by going back to the 51- 80 period!!  

But yes it does also show how cold it was in North East America even when comparing against the climatically colder 51 to 80 period.

 

MIA

[BornFromTheVoid]

Why are we going back to 51-80? We know that period was colder as they were writing about it being so. Where are we standing in relation to more recent climatology?

 

That's the standard they've always used. The baseline used doesn't change the trend or results though.

This idea that 51-80 is a particularly cold climatological periods isn't correct. It's still the 4th warmest out of the 11. If they wanted to use the 30 year average in the middle of the rankings, they'd use 31-60.

 

Anyway, compared to the 81-10 average, we're +0.35C above average, and compared to the coldest 30 years (1891-1920), we're +1.12C above average.

[Midlands Ice Age]

That's the standard they've always used. The baseline used doesn't change the trend or results though.

This idea that 51-80 is a particularly cold climatological periods isn't correct. It's still the 4th warmest out of the 11. If they wanted to use the 30 year average in the middle of the rankings, they'd use 31-60.

 

Anyway, compared to the 81-10 average, we're +0.35C above average, and compared to the coldest 30 years (1891-1920), we're +1.12C above average.

 

BFTV

 

I apprecaite that, but quoting periods before most people on here were born does seem strange when quite a few can remember something about the 1981 - 2010 period. 

 

Also re Devs post -           0.07C is 350% more than the infamous record highest ever, etc  of the year 2014. This seemd to take up about 10 pages of this blog at the time when we suggested it wasn't that relevent.

 

Aslo re Dev's and your post. So the difference between 1998 Feb and this feb was -0.07 in 0.35C (comparison in the same climatic period), not the -0.07 in 0.79C as posted by Dev.  I make that 20% below as opposed to  9% below on Dev's figures.

 

Tut tut..... more than a 200% difference in the way it was presented . Are we still trying to enlarge the trends! I thought we didn't need to do this chicainary anymore, now that it has all been proven and we have runaway global warming.    

 

MIA

[BornFromTheVoid]

BFTV

 

I apprecaite that, but quoting periods before most people on here were born does seem strange when quite a few can remember something about the 1981 - 2010 period. 

 

Also re Devs post -           0.07C is 350% more than the infamous record highest ever, etc  of the year 2014. This seemd to take up about 10 pages of this blog at the time when we suggested it wasn't that relevent.

 

Aslo re Dev's and your post. So the difference between 1998 Feb and this feb was -0.07 in 0.35C (comparison in the same climatic period), not the -0.07 in 0.79C as posted by Dev.  I make that 20% below as opposed to  9% below on Dev's figures.

 

Tut tut..... more than a 200% difference in the way it was presented . Are we still trying to enlarge the trends! I thought we didn't need to do this chicainary anymore, now that it has all been proven and we have runaway global warming.    

 

MIA

 

I honestly have no idea what you're on about, or what that has to do with my post?

[Midlands Ice Age]

I honestly have no idea what you're on about, or what that has to do with my post?

 

BFTV

 

I didn't think you would reply with a valid response.

So you think the 51- 80 is a valid period for comparison in this instance when we are talking about Feb 2014 and Feb 1998?

 

MIA

 

Edited March 14, 2015 by Midlands Ice Age

[BornFromTheVoid]

BFTV

 

I didn't think you would reply with a valid response.

So you think the 51- 80 is a valid period for comparison in this instance when we are talking about Feb 2014 and Feb 1998?

 

MIA

 

Making a valid response to gibberish isn't a skill I've quite acquired yet, sorry.

 

It's perfectly valid. I'd be more in favour of using maybe the 20th century average, but consistency is important too. Whatever baseline you use, it doesn't have the slightest impact on the trends and rankings, which is what matters when you're trying to monitor changes in the climate.

 

For comparing weather conditions to recent climate norms, then it makes sense to use the most recent climate base period, but when monitoring changes in climate, you just need to be consistent in whatever base period you use. Ideally, one that is representative of the climate before it began to be altered, but as we didn't have a (near) global standardised set up then, I guess the closest reliable period of data, such as 51-80, is the next best thing.

[Midlands Ice Age]

Thank you for a sensible reply, BFTV.

 

I still just think you want to use the older  data to try and show an enhanced degree of warming. (ie its 0.78C degree of warming rather than the 0.35C that people might remember). Cherry picking on behalf of the people who produced the original graph if you like!

The only reason for doing this is for political reasons not for a data comparison which is reasonable and realistic as most people without an aggenda would want to see.

 

MIA

.

Edited March 15, 2015 by Midlands Ice Age

[BornFromTheVoid]

Thank you for a sensible reply, BFTV.

 

I still just think you want to use the older  data to try and show an enhanced degree of warming. (ie its 0.78C degree of warming rather than the 0.35C that people might remember). Cherry picking on behalf of the people who produced the original graph if you like!

The only reason for doing this is for political reasons not for a data comparison which is reasonable and realistic as most people without an aggenda would want to see.

 

MIA

.

 

If they wanted to make the warming seem more dramatic, why not use on of the cold base periods, rather than one of the warmest? To see the 51-80 average as biased toward cold, in my opinion, requires an agenda driven and illogical mindset.

[Devonian]

Thank you for a sensible reply, BFTV.

 

I still just think you want to use the older  data to try and show an enhanced degree of warming. (ie its 0.78C degree of warming rather than the 0.35C that people might remember). Cherry picking on behalf of the people who produced the original graph if you like!

The only reason for doing this is for political reasons not for a data comparison which is reasonable and realistic as most people without an aggenda would want to see.

 

MIA

.

On that basis you want to use a more recent period to obscure any warming. Would you admit that?

Anyway, I think that, compared to 1951-80 Feb 1998 was +.86C and Feb 2015 +.79C. Difference, whatever base you compare it with = .07C. Btw, you can't have percentages with a scale like temperature...

Edited March 15, 2015 by Devonian

[Gael_Force]

That's the standard they've always used. The baseline used doesn't change the trend or results though.

This idea that 51-80 is a particularly cold climatological periods isn't correct. It's still the 4th warmest out of the 11. If they wanted to use the 30 year average in the middle of the rankings, they'd use 31-60.

 

Anyway, compared to the 81-10 average, we're +0.35C above average, and compared to the coldest 30 years (1891-1920), we're +1.12C above average.

Thanks for reply BFTV.

The problem for people of my age is that we were reading about climate cooling in the sixties and seventies: when we see that base period used, a warming is kind of expected (swings/roundabouts). I prefer to see more recent period so that we can see whether the upward trend of warming is continuing and how rapid it is.

[Devonian]

Thanks for reply BFTV.

The problem for people of my age is that we were reading about climate cooling in the sixties and seventies: when we see that base period used, a warming is kind of expected (swings/roundabouts). I prefer to see more recent period so that we can see whether the upward trend of warming is continuing and how rapid it is.

 

I suspect that by, say, 2075, most people alive will think of the normal weather as being that of the period they live in. Now, if it's a lot warmer then those alive will expect warmer weather than we do. But, to compare their weather should they do it for their time? To me that's to kind of say we shouldn't look back more than a few years. Why? I'm happy to compare the climate I experience with 'now' but I don't get this need by some not to (be allowed?) to compare it with other times. Why is it some kind of 'crime' to want to look at past data for insight and guidance?

[knocker]

Nick Stokes has a brilliant interactive climate plotter

 

  Interactive JS climate plotter (update)

[Devonian]

Nick Stokes has a brilliant interactive climate plotter

 

  Interactive JS climate plotter (update)

Yes, it's good, but we must not go back more than thirty years...

[Midlands Ice Age]

If they wanted to make the warming seem more dramatic, why not use on of the cold base periods, rather than one of the warmest? To see the 51-80 average as biased toward cold, in my opinion, requires an agenda driven and illogical mindset.

Unnecesary last part of the final sentence  BFTV.!         You have already made the scientific point in your previous post.

 

Please don't start the  character assassination on here as well BFTV!

 

I only expect responses such as the one above from someone attempting to bully! 

 

MIA

[BornFromTheVoid]

Thanks for reply BFTV.

The problem for people of my age is that we were reading about climate cooling in the sixties and seventies: when we see that base period used, a warming is kind of expected (swings/roundabouts). I prefer to see more recent period so that we can see whether the upward trend of warming is continuing and how rapid it is.

 

No worries. The media causing problems again with their ice age stuff! Anyway, all the data is here, so it's relatively easy to put together whatever baselines you like.