Posted on 01/23/2011 7:20:47 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
A global temperature stagnation despite warm El Nino year 2010?
After the warm El Nino period 2009-2010, global temperature trends starting 1998 has generally turned positive:
The period starts out with a strong El Nino in 1998, however a strong La Nina lasting 3 times longer also has a strong effect on temperature trends starting 1998.
Temperature trends from 2002:
Thus removing the 1998 El Nino and 1999-2001 La Nina significantly cools the trends. The overall picture is now temperature stagnation 2002-2010 9 years.
The global warming theory generally suggests heating, but one can say that a period of roughly a decade with no temperature rise might be an expected deviation from the general trend.
However, things get worse for the global warming idea. Problem is that 2010 in the very end of the shown period is in fact a rather warm El Nino year. And still, the trends 2002-2010 are just… flat. Even now after the warm 2010. As if the global warming idea just barely holds on in the months just after a warm 2010.
However, things get even worse for the global warming idea. The powerful La Nina is now showing its strength as we have witnessed temperature dive in the latest months. The NCEP prognoses roughly indicates a further drop of probably more than 0,1 K from dec 2010 to jan 2011. And the La Nina – allthough predticed to weaken during spring time – is by many predicted to match the 1999-2001 La Nina.
IF the present La Nina will resemble the magnitude and effect of the 1999-2001 La Nina, how would this affect the temperature trends from 1998 that already seems to have stagnated for a decade?
A “simulated” La Nina 1999-2001 by just assuming the same temperature flow repeated starting Januar 2011 to get a rough idea. Now suddenly we have a full 16 years period of no warming. In fact we mostly see cooling trends. (If we imagine yet an El Nino to occur thereafter, then after 17 – 18 years, perhaps we will still just have a flat curve??)
And “Uhh Ohh” whats going to happen if we simulate a 1999-2001 La Nina on the graph starting at 2002??
In this view, we see 12 yeas of strongly falling temperature trends.
La Nina is upon us, and that it won’t help the global warming message.
—– * ——
Method used above is basically saying:
“How many years can we go back and still see temperature trend stagnation or trend decline?”
If we want to have an answer to this question, typically the year 1998 or 2002 will be the start year of the new stagnating (or falling) temperature trend.
The classic alarmist argument is then: But we have had 5 year, 7 year and 8 year trends before without the longer warm trend has changed.
This is true, however, these dives in temperatures are almost always connected with the large volcanic eruptions as Lucia from the Blackboard here shows:
So, when we use 1998 or 2002 as start years, and only thereby can read the length of the present stagnating/falling temperature trend, we have to know: This time there are no volcano to blame.
And when the result – for example after the La Nina prognosis shown above – may give us 12-15-18 years of stagnating/falling trends – without the help of volcanoes – then this IS something significant against anything we have seen in the last decades of warming.
And without using start years 1998 or 2002 we cant tell how many years the falling trend this time is. Therefore its perfectly relevant to use 1998 or 2002 as start years.
And as fig 2 here indicates
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/06/usgcrp-report-global-climate-change.html
the 1998 El Nino may have lifted the whole temperature level (perhaps by warming the Arctic) and in this context, it is definitely relevant to analyse using start point 1998.
There are many ways of defining how the temperature trend is best described, but the idea that we had a level shift in temperature 1998 too makes it relevant to checkout trends after 1998 red dotted line:
- more articles by Frank Lansner
fyi
Purchase a set of snow shoes all. Your going to need em over the next ten years or more.
‘Beijing Jim’ Hansen: Sea Level Rise of Many Metres This Century “Almost Dead Certain”
*******************************EXCERPT****************************************
Carl Chapman says:
If the sun’s magnetic field continues to weaken, and we’re entering a repeat of the Maunder Minimum, then another trend would need to be imposed on top of the El Nino/La Nina. It could be much more significant. Hansen would need to make Herculean efforts to “adjust” that sort of cooling away.
********************************EXCERPT***************************************
David L says:
Doesn’t matter. Hansen and others, the keepers of the sacred data, fiddle with the numbers. So regardless of what nature is doing, they’ll keep fiddling to their benefit. All the global warming is “happening” where nobody lives (like the arctic) so it’s impossible for the average person to know for sure.
*****************************EXCERPT***************************************
Caleb says:
The GFS 2m chart already supposes an anomaly of under -.24, with an anomaly in the 18 hour forecast of nearly -.30, before it bounces back up towards normal. (And I think the bounce-back is partly due to the fact the long-term modeling is based on “norms.”) (You can’t really trust the GFS, in the long term.)
The Global anomaly is shown in small red writing just above the right side of the map at:
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/extreme/gfs/current/raw_temp_c.html#picture
This is a neat map to check out on a regular basis, just to see what the GFS computer is up to. Also the “current” map gives you a rough idea of what the global temeperatures are up to. They have really been plunging the past couple of months.
************************************************
GFS: anal f06 f12 f18 f24 f30 f36 f42 f48 f54 f60 f66 f72 f78 f84 f90 f96 f102 f108 f114 f120 f126 f132 f138 f144 f150 f156 f162 f168 f174 f180 
*********************************EXCERPT*****************************************
Werner Brozek says:
“Mike McMillan says:
January 23, 2011 at 11:30 am
Dr Hansen’s GISS line on the charts is so, fer shure, like totally bogus.”
I would find that hard to argue with. I did some number crunching and came up with this:
I have read that GISS is the only record that is accurate since it adequately considers what happens in the polar regions, unlike other data sets. I have done some “back of the envelope calculations” to see if this is a valid assumption. I challenge any GISS supporter to challenge my assumptions and/or calculations and show that I am way out to lunch. If you cannot do this, I will assume it is the GISS calculations that are out to lunch.
Here are my assumptions and/or calculations: (I will generally work to 2 significant digits.)
1. The surface area of Earth is 5.1 x 10^8 km squared.
2. The RSS data is only good to 82.5 degrees.
3. It is almost exclusively the northern Arctic that is presumably way warmer and not Antarctica. For example, we always read about the northern ice melting and not what the southern areas are gaining in ice.
4. The circumference of Earth is 40,000 km.
5. I will assume the area between 82.5 degrees and 90 degrees can be assumed to be a flat circle so spherical trigonometry is not needed.
6. The area of a circle is pi r squared.
7. The distance between 82.5 degrees and 90.0 degrees is 40,000 x 7.5/360 = 830 km
8. The area in the north polar region above 82.5 degrees is 2.2 x 10^6 km squared.
9. The ratio of the area between the whole earth and the north polar region above 82.5 degrees is 5.1 x 10^8 km squared/2.2 x 10^6 km squared = 230.
10. People wondered if the satellite record for 2010 would be higher than for 1998. Let us compare these two between RSS and GISS.
11. According to GISS, the difference in anomaly was 0.07 degrees C higher for 2010 versus 1998.
12. According to RSS, it was 0.04 degrees C higher for 1998 versus 2010.
13. The net difference between 1998 and 2010 between RSS and GISS is 0.11 degrees C.
14. If we are to assume the only difference between these is due to GISS accurately accounting for what happens above 82.5 degrees, then this area had to be 230 x 0.11 = 25 degrees warmer in 2010 than 1998.
15. If we assume the site at http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php can be trusted for temperatures above 80 degrees north, we see very little difference between 1998 and 2010. The 2010 seems slightly warmer, but nothing remotely close to 25 degrees warmer as an average for the whole year.
Readers may disagree with some assumptions I used, but whatever issue anyone may have, does it affect the final conclusion about the lack of superiority of GISS data to any real extent?
<
Looking ENE across south bay toward Eureka..
**********************************EXCERPT*************************************
richcar 1225 says:
NIWA in their state of the climate report refers to the IPO (interdecadal pacific oscillation) that when negative is dominated by LA Ninas in frequency and strength. They claim it turned negative in 2000 and if similar to the 1947-1977 negative IPO should run for another twenty years.
http://lch.web.psi.ch/files/Publikationen/analytic/Eichleretal_GRL2009.pdf
They also point that this is the opposite of what climate modelers predicted.
This with twenty more years of negative NAO in the northern hemisphere, negative PDO, declining AMO and a sun that has been declining since 1990 and we should have some significant global cooling.
**********************************EXCERPT********************************************
Baa Humbug says:
From the Australian BoM site ENSO Wrap up
La Niña continues to dominate in the Pacific
Issued on Wednesday 19 January 2011 | Product Code IDCKGEWWOO
One of the strongest La Niña events on record continues to influence the climate of the Pacific Basin.
Climate indicators of ENSO, including tropical cloud amount, the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI), trade winds and Pacific sea surface and sub-surface temperatures, all remain well in excess of La Niña thresholds. Most have exceeded these thresholds since the middle of 2010. The average August to December SOI (+21.1) has only been exceeded by the La Niña of 1917-18 (+24.4), with the 1975-76 La Niña value (+18.8) ranked third. Several other indices also suggest the La Niña events of 2010-11, 1975-76, 1917-18, 1955-56 and possibly 1988-89, rank closely in terms of the strongest events on record.
Franks little essay is a conjecture OF INTEREST. He made no claims of predictive ability. Franks only claim is that if this La Nina continues, it will be interesting to see how warmists will spin the falling temperatures.
To see WHAT MAY HAPPEN TO TEMPERATURE ANOMALIES if this La Nina continued, Frank simply and reasonably assumed a similar impact on Ts from this La Nina as from previous La Nina. (the impact may possibly be stronger due to the strength of this La Nina)
This is an essay of interesting conjecture only, not meant for journal publication. No need to get picky about fine details.
Serious scientists need not comment. The rest of us will have fun discussing this WHAT IF conjecture.
Well done Frank.
Wait.... wait..... I thought it was going to hotter than h#$$.
Looks lovely!
Not sure who does this....
To be sure the MSM is going to bury (no pun) all the stories of the homeless (that libtards couldn’t protect in spite of the war on poverty) by the dozens from the west coast, upper midwest, and of course the east coast from these normal Earth temps that kill people.
[Purchase a set of snow shoes all. Your going to need em over the next ten years or more.]
I’m sure someone can come up with a wealth redistribution scheme to remedy the weather outlook.
Oh, the arrogance of man.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
