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

[Midlands Ice Age]

 

3rd warmest February on record according to the JMA

 

 

1st. 1998 (+0.43°C)

2nd. 2002 (+0.28°C)

3rd. 2015 (+0.25°C)

4th. 2004 (+0.21°C)

5th. 2007, 1999 (+0.18°C)

 

 

The 2nd warmest winter on record too

 

 

1st. 1998 (+0.31°C)

2nd. 2015 (+0.29°C)

3rd. 2007 (+0.25°C)

4th. 2002 (+0.23°C)

5th. 2004 (+0.20°C)

 

 

The above chart  shows a 0.79C per century uplift in temps increase for the period of 1890 to 2015.

 It also shows (the blue line trailing down) the apparent hiatus....

This is further evidence (in addition to NASS, HADRUT4, and NCDC as presented in my graphs) , that currently we are currently not in a runaway CO2 warming period.

 

A further update has been presented on TWO by Lanky, going back to about 1850, it is probably worth discussiion on here.

I'll sort something out shortly......

 

MIA    

[BornFromTheVoid]

Midlands Ice Age, on 16 Mar 2015 - 20:27, said:

The above chart  shows a 0.79C per century uplift in temps increase for the period of 1890 to 2015.

 It also shows (the blue line trailing down) the apparent hiatus....

This is further evidence (in addition to NASS, HADRUT4, and NCDC as presented in my graphs) , that currently we are currently not in a runaway CO2 warming period.

 

A further update has been presented on TWO by Lanky, going back to about 1850, it is probably worth discussiion on here.

I'll sort something out shortly......

 

MIA    

 

I could point to the month, like September, with a strong warming trend since 1998 to make an opposite claim about the climate, but that would be biased, wouldn't it?

 

 

 

Or, seeing as this is about the climate, we could use some more data, rather than individual months perhaps?

 

So how about looking at annual temps or the 12 month running average?

 

 

 

Edited March 16, 2015 by BornFromTheVoid

[Midlands Ice Age]

 

I could point to the month, like September, with a strong warming trend since 1998 to make an opposite claim about the climate, but that would be biased, wouldn't it?

 

 

 

Or, seeing as this is about the climate, we could use some more data, rather than individual months perhaps?

 

So how about looking at annual temps or the 12 month running average?

 

 

 

 

Sorry BFTV  Took the chart you posted was an annual chart. My bad

 

However, to me it is notable how (for JMA) with each of the recent monthly datasets you posted , the trend line has dropped from 0.79C warming per century for Feb  to 0.61 C per century for Sept and finally down to 0.70C per century worldwide and overall , so not sure of the point you are making. Is it to show slower warming trends?

.

It would seem as though in order to get recent warming on the graphs you have shown one has to decrease the warming trend. - -  Not really a surprise there?

 

Surely no one disagrees the climate has warmed!, its the change of the trend in warming which is more interesting .At least to me!! I will understand if you are not so impressed..

 

MIA

 

 

Which brings me back to the warming trends ........ (watching Swansea vs Liverpool at the moment!!) So be patient..

Edited March 16, 2015 by Midlands Ice Age

[BornFromTheVoid]

Sorry BFTV  Took the chart you posted was an annual chart. My bad

 

However, to me it is notable how (for JMA) with each of the recent monthly datasets you posted , the trend line has dropped from 0.79C warming per century for Feb  to 0.61 C per century for Sept and finally down to 0.70C per century worldwide and overall , so not sure of the point you are making. Is it to show slower warming trends?

.

It would seem as though in order to get recent warming on the graphs you have shown one has to decrease the warming trend. - -  Not really a surprise there?

 

MIA

 

 

Which brings me back to the warming trends ........ (watching Swansea vs Liverpool at the moment!!) So be patient..

 

Well, you pointed to the recent downward trend in Feb as further evidence in favour of the pause (and no runaway global warming, however you'd find that on the graph?), so, just focusing on the recent trends, I pointed to September as showing the opposite.

 

Then I suggested that using the annual or 12 month average is better than both of those, when looking at the climate. Something we could both agree on, perhaps?

[Midlands Ice Age]

Well, you pointed to the recent downward trend in Feb as further evidence in favour of the pause (and no runaway global warming, however you'd find that on the graph?), so, just focusing on the recent trends, I pointed to September as showing the opposite.

 

Then I suggested that using the annual or 12 month average is better than both of those, when looking at the climate. Something we could both agree on, perhaps?

 

Totally agree....

 

Exactly as described in my next posting!

 

MIA

[Midlands Ice Age]

Below at the bottom of this page is the chart I promised to post for discussion on here.

 

It is an extension of the original graph upstream, which showed for all the major players (NOAA, NCDC and HADRUT4) the data  of the rate of temperature changes (and hence trends for the period of 1880 - 2015) which showed great consistency between the major datasets, as produced by Lanky on TWO. The data as been totally detrended, except for CO2 and the AMO, and obviously any unknown feedbacks not currently evaluated correctly. It showed the overall net change for the next 30 year period.

 

He has now produced this data for HADRUT4 only back to the period 1850 to 2015. (The only dataset going back that far). How does it alter my suggestions previously posted?

 

The original graph as produced/published above,  showed consistent rates of increase/decrease between the 2 major upswings and downswings  recorded in the period from 1880 to 2015. Also it showed a clear sinusoidal  rate of change of warming.

 

The  big changes in rate of temp change  appeared to  be brought about by the 'wavelength' of each of the 2 sine waves. Thus from 1910 - 1942 was 32 years, in one warming trend period, but it lasted from 1950 -2002 in the latest major warming period. It therefore brought with it a net warming, across the roughly 100 years, although with no appreciable change of the  trend of the warming.

Thus warming rates were achieved by length of warming, not by actual increases in the rate of warming.

 

This to me is not consistent with expected CO2 induced warming theory.  .

 

 

So is the mechanism of most warming appears to be by means of the wavelength (ie length of the warming), rather than by a change of the rate of warming  (via the warming trend rate)?. .    

 

I explained all this previously, but now Lanky has extended this graph further back to 1850 for HADRUT4  

 

This shows that these  same trends existed before 1880. It clearly shows most of a first  burst of warming cooling  from 1852 to about 1876 on the chart (ie 30 years later in practice), and hence gives greater reliability to any ideas developed from this data.  .

 

So these trends of rate of warming are sinsoidal and are not new. They also appear to be controlled by the wavelength (ie length of time running, before the rate starts to change). For reference the first cooling period was 23 years and the second was slighly longer at 25 -27 years.

 

So .... what is causing the sinusoidal nature of the 'warming' and what is determining the length of each upswing or downswing?

 

Could it possibly be due to a so far unknown and unquantified new climate driver?? OR could it be the real CO2 warming effect in the atmosphere? If it is the CO2 effect then it must have large effects on the timing for the rate of warmings !!

 

It would appear to be being caused by some form of interation between oceans (the great heat sinks!) and the atmosphere or even stratosphere, since the AMO OSCILLATION  is the closest in shape and duration to the output below, and noone has fully quantified its total net effect as yet. 

 

Perhaps AMO is good proxy for something else?.

 

[Gray-Wolf]

http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2015/03/amazon-rainforest-ability-soak-carbon-dioxide-falling?

 

Did we all plug these figures into our models????

[knocker]

According to NOAA earth just had the warmist winter on record.

 

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global

[Gray-Wolf]

obviously another lie cobbled together by fraudulent scientists in the pay of big Green..................

[stewfox]

obviously another lie cobbled together by fraudulent scientists in the pay of big Green..................

 

There is one of the links. Important we can have confidence in past data to make valid comparisons to future data.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html

[BornFromTheVoid]

There is one of the links. Important we can have confidence in past data to make valid comparisons to future data.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html

Please tell me you don't take that seriously? He makes so many clear lies and provides nothing to back up his BS. That is about as bad as contrarian lying climate denial gets. For me to post an equivalently inaccurate piece from the other end of the spectrum, I'd need to find someone claiming that researchers are purposely hiding a more extreme warming trend due to an illuminati conspiracy to kill of the worlds population,

[knocker]

This has already been tackled by Hop. And if I remember correctly Nick Stokes put it to bed. I'm not sure why anybody gives any credence to Booker.

 

Paul Homewood and Christopher Booker are wrong about global surface temperatures

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/02/paul-homewood-and-christopher-booker.html

Edited March 19, 2015 by knocker

[knocker]

Nick Stokes and  another detailed look at the central Australian temps. This business really is farcical.

 

  Central Australian warming

Edited March 20, 2015 by knocker

[Midlands Ice Age]

Nick Stokes and  another detailed look at the central Australian temps. This business really is farcical.

 

  Central Australian warming

 

Knock

Not 'knocking' anybody

 

BUt the last graph looks strange.

It does say 'a lot of background noise', but what is happening around the Sydney area.

 

Nearly the whole of the area around the south and east of Australia are showiing about 1C of warming. (and cooler further north).

 

But around Sydney (guess 10 - 20 miles inland to 200 miles out to sea), by about 100 miles up the coast it shows deep red.(ie greater than 2.3C warming). That doesn't look correct !

 

Local area I know, but looks very odd as if an error has crept in.

 

MIA 

 

EDit

As I write I have a fantastic view of the eclipse through high wispy cloud. Looks fantastic! even without glasss, and as I speak the light is fading rapidly. 

 

EDIT EDIT

 

Now a crescent moon - Just incredible.

Edited March 20, 2015 by Midlands Ice Age

[stewfox]

Please tell me you don't take that seriously? He makes so many clear lies and provides nothing to back up his BS. That is about as bad as contrarian lying climate denial gets. For me to post an equivalently inaccurate piece from the other end of the spectrum, I'd need to find someone claiming that researchers are purposely hiding a more extreme warming trend due to an illuminati conspiracy to kill of the worlds population,

 

I'm confused are you saying Global data sets haven't been changed ? you can argue why but the Daily Telegraph is one of your more prestigious uk papers hardly the sunday sport.

Edited March 20, 2015 by stewfox

[BornFromTheVoid]

I'm talking about the content of his argument, not the paper, which is sensationalist, misleading nonsense. Everything he says is either a lie (e.g.75 years ago when Arctic ice retreated even further than it has done recently.), a display of willful ignorance (e.g. ignoring the reasons given for the changes in the Paraguay temp data, or the fact that sceptics have already made their own global temp record and it agrees with the others), or just sensationalist and emotive (e.g. greatest scientific scandals of all time; global-warming scare).

[stewfox]

I'm talking about the content of his argument, not the paper, which is sensationalist, misleading nonsense. Everything he says is either a lie (e.g.75 years ago when Arctic ice retreated even further than it has done recently.), a display of willful ignorance (e.g. ignoring the reasons given for the changes in the Paraguay temp data, or the fact that sceptics have already made their own global temp record and it agrees with the others), or just sensationalist and emotive (e.g. greatest scientific scandals of all time; global-warming scare).

 

Didn't you lot start its with images such as below. ?

 

Edited March 22, 2015 by stewfox

[BornFromTheVoid]

Didn't you lot start its with images such as below. ?

 

IPCC Anual report.jpg

 

Who's "you lot"?

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-03-22/welcome-double-el-ni-o-and-more-extreme-weather

 

 So folk are now talking about us running into another 'step' up in global temps over the coming decade?

[Midlands Ice Age]

 

http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-03-22/welcome-double-el-ni-o-and-more-extreme-weather

 

 So folk are now talking about us running into another 'step' up in global temps over the coming decade?

Knocks..

I find the reference post a bit odd.

It is mainly quoting Cilla Trenberth. Surprise, surprise!

He seems to be counting last year as an El Nino year, which he even admits was a very weak one, and this one is nailed on to be a massive one.

So the overall effect is thought to be a 0.3C(ish) warming for the next 10 years.

Now the last huge one (1997- 98) seemed to add about the same warming, but didn't the warming effect only last about 2 years? before things were back 'ontrack' again.

Also perhaps after a major Nino, is it just as possible that mother nature starts to balance her books? and comes up with a stonking La Nina.

Does anyone really know yet?  

Is this science really just wishful thinking?

MIA

Edit ---- I might come back to this post in 2 years time

Edited March 24, 2015 by Midlands Ice Age

[knocker]

Andy Dessler posted his Ringberg 2015 talk on climate sensitivity.

 

 

 

http://rabett.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/ringberg-2015-andy-dessler-ecs-2k.html

Edited March 25, 2015 by knocker

[Gray-Wolf]

 

Knocks..

I find the reference post a bit odd.

It is mainly quoting Cilla Trenberth. Surprise, surprise!

He seems to be counting last year as an El Nino year, which he even admits was a very weak one, and this one is nailed on to be a massive one.

So the overall effect is thought to be a 0.3C(ish) warming for the next 10 years.

Now the last huge one (1997- 98) seemed to add about the same warming, but didn't the warming effect only last about 2 years? before things were back 'ontrack' again.

Also perhaps after a major Nino, is it just as possible that mother nature starts to balance her books? and comes up with a stonking La Nina.

Does anyone really know yet?  

Is this science really just wishful thinking?

MIA

Edit ---- I might come back to this post in 2 years time

 

I think first we need to accept the amount of heat seconded by the oceans over the past decade and a half? The period was 'extreme' ( not and average 'cold phase') with enhanced wind speeds effectively 'milking' the solar and storing it in the upper 700m of the ocean so , in some ways, this 'warm step' is a response to the 'cool' we have already seen and not a process that will demand a further cool to get things back to average?

[knocker]

 

GHCN Monthly data portal

[Gray-Wolf]

So how hot can it get in March in the UK? I have a bit of a sun trap in my garden and when 'isolated' from the air mass we're in the sun feels quite strong so how would it be if I had +10c ( or more) uppers over me?

 

As the world warms we will surely see early excursions of warm uppers both in Spring and later in Autumn so how warm would the Sun ,at this time of year,be able to raise the temp?

[knocker]

Well GW. Assuming a lapse rate between the ELR and DALR and no inversions you could be looking at 22-24C without the affect of the surface heating of the sun trap. Hey ho said Rolly.