Login to AccuWeather.com Premium Login to AccuWeather.com Professional Login to AccuWeather.com RadarPlus AccuWeather.com

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Climate Change Blog: Warmest April on Record Globally, says NOAA
Brett Anderson
post May 18 2010, 04:54 PM
Post #1




Rank: F5 Superstorm
Group Icon

Group: AccuWeather_Employee
Posts: 1,222
Joined: 22-January 08
Member No.: 12,854





I blogged earlier this month about April 2010 being the second warmest April in the satellite record going back to 1979. Now, NOAA has released the combined land and ocean surface global temperature data for April 2010 and says that this past April was the warmest April on record going back to 1880. Here are some of the numbers for Read the full article


--------------------
Brett Anderson
Expert senior meteorologist
AccuWeather.com
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cyclonebuster
post May 18 2010, 04:59 PM
Post #2




Rank: Tornado
**

Group: Member
Posts: 439
Joined: 10-February 08
Member No.: 13,557





Also, six of the past 10 months including April have had record hottest global SSTS!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MarkB
post May 18 2010, 05:31 PM
Post #3




Rank: Tornado
**

Group: Member
Posts: 142
Joined: 20-April 10
Member No.: 22,578






The average of the last 12 months is the warmest such period on record.

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

The calendar year 2010 may also set a record. Although ENSO is back to neutral conditions and la Nina may (or may not) develop, the record-breaking global mean temperature in the first half of the year might be enough. At any rate, temps should pull back from record levels in the 2nd half, which means "skeptics" will be claiming global cooling, as they did in 1991, 1996, 1999, 2004, and/or 2008. For now, there's always cold local weather somewhere.

Solar activity, although at the start of cycle 24, remains near century-long lows and remains a cooling influence, counter-acted easily by continued buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

Long-term trend with 8-year moving average:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/m...96/plot/gistemp
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jdrenken
post May 18 2010, 05:55 PM
Post #4




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: SuperModerator
Posts: 32,965
Joined: 26-March 08
From: Columbia, MO
Member No.: 14,521





QUOTE(cyclonebuster @ May 18 2010, 04:59 PM) *
Also, six of the past 10 months including April have had record hottest global SSTS!


Link it please.


--------------------
QUOTE
For the record...I AM THE MISSOURI MAULER!


It's a work in progress!

Have a question? Look at our FAQ first.






89.5 FM KOPN Weather Blog

If it is important enough to you, you will find a way. If it is not, you will find an excuse.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cyclonebuster
post May 18 2010, 06:35 PM
Post #5




Rank: Tornado
**

Group: Member
Posts: 439
Joined: 10-February 08
Member No.: 13,557





QUOTE(jdrenken @ May 18 2010, 06:55 PM) *
Link it please.


Actually it was 5.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/2...lobalstats.html

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/2...lobalstats.html

The worlds ocean surface temperature was the warmest for any August on record, and the warmest on record averaged for any June-August (Northern Hemisphere summer/Southern Hemisphere winter) season according to NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. The preliminary analysis is based on records dating back to 1880.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/2...lobalstats.html

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/2...marchstats.html

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/2...lobalstats.html

However, Look at how many second warmest during the time period.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=glob...tted=Get+Report

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=glob...tted=Get+Report

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=glob...tted=Get+Report

This post has been edited by cyclonebuster: May 18 2010, 06:39 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Torontoweather
post May 19 2010, 03:25 PM
Post #6




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Member
Posts: 9,529
Joined: 18-October 09
From: Toronto, Ontario
Member No.: 19,500





Pearson's average snow is not 133.1cm, but 115.4cm. wink.gif

http://www.climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca/cli...StnId=5097&


--------------------
New blog for southern Ontario!
Discussions on other parts of North America as well(particularly for winter storms)!
http://weatherintoronto.blogspot.com/

"Get Up-To-Date Forecasts on Upcoming weather events across South-Eastern North America!"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paulm
post May 19 2010, 05:49 PM
Post #7




Rank: Whirlwind
*

Group: Member
Posts: 5
Joined: 30-April 10
Member No.: 22,673





Ride em Cowboy....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyVG0k7bQao...player_embedded
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Weather Bird
post May 20 2010, 05:08 AM
Post #8




Rank: Tornado
**

Group: Member
Posts: 93
Joined: 20-May 10
From: Englewood, Fl
Member No.: 22,810





These are very nice colorfull informational trending graphs!

Now tracking the trend of opinion, one sees that Global Warming is changing to Climate Change.
I am suggesting that this is preceding a cooling phase. Scientific.....bah.....but we find "science" is subject to "debate"!!!!

So, in my opinion, (but who cares besides me?) we are peaking out on warmth, and entering a cooling phase. Why? These graphs reveal an oscillation pattern.

We have the ENSO (El Nino-Southern Oscillation), the AO (Atlantic Oscillation). etc. Here is a link to a government study covering this.... http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/seminars/000320FO.html
"A similar computation can be done for the trend in global mean temperatures over the past 50 years. "
Now the graphs above cover 130 years.

Am I saying that because the thinking covers such a very short period of time that they are WRONG? NO

Back to basic Science. It has given us the gas refrigerator. One applies heat to produce cooling.
That said, once this cooling onset becomes apparent, besides snow (in place of hot air LOL) in Washington, we need to be concerned about regenerative (positive feedback) cooling effects.

Back to the psychology of oscillations, two other places to put this to the test are the roulette wheel, and the FOREX market. On the Roulette wheel....red, black, red, red (time to bet black here) red (now double up) NOW....two possible results black (win and quit) red (lose and quit) LOL.
AW...why use roulette....try this on your neighbor with a quarter...heads or tails?
Let me know how the FOREX turns out for You!!!

Weather Bird (nothing wilder than a West Texas Thermometer!!!)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
fishnski
post May 20 2010, 10:39 AM
Post #9




Rank: Whirlwind
*

Group: Member
Posts: 6
Joined: 19-May 10
Member No.: 22,803





We are about a week to 10 days behind schedule on our beach temps down here in SE NC which means the fish are running later too....tar balls are showing up on our beaches..wish they would drill a little to relieve the pressure on those natural seeps tongue.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GettingWarm
post May 20 2010, 11:25 AM
Post #10




Rank: Whirlwind
*

Group: Member
Posts: 9
Joined: 19-April 10
Member No.: 22,569





WeatherBird --
Great opinions. We could listen to you abut "psychology of oscillations" and refrigerators not to forget the roulette wheels. Or should we be listening to real scientists and consensus science.

Have you read the National Academy of Science (the most trusted and respected body of scientists in the world) that says that you are crazy.

NAS Global warming

There is no doubt that global warming is a clear and present danger and largely caused by burning fossil fuels -- you know that stuff floating in the GOM and that Iran and Hugo Chavez uses to stay in power.

GettingWarm
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Removed_Member_Snowlover123_*
post May 20 2010, 04:28 PM
Post #11







Guests








QUOTE(GettingWarm @ May 20 2010, 12:25 PM) *
WeatherBird --
Great opinions. We could listen to you abut "psychology of oscillations" and refrigerators not to forget the roulette wheels. Or should we be listening to real scientists and consensus science.

Have you read the National Academy of Science (the most trusted and respected body of scientists in the world) that says that you are crazy.

NAS Global warming

There is no doubt that global warming is a clear and present danger and largely caused by burning fossil fuels -- you know that stuff floating in the GOM and that Iran and Hugo Chavez uses to stay in power.

GettingWarm


Like I said earlier to MarkB, I'm against Fossil Fuels, but I think it's silly for these fuels to be the prime cause of Global Climate Change. It is the Sun, and the Oceans that are responsible for our climate, not Co2. If Co2 were responsible for moving the Earth's climate, then why did we have an "El Nino spike" in the pacific- courtesy of our wonderful oceans? huh.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Phased Vort
post May 20 2010, 07:09 PM
Post #12




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: SuperModerator
Posts: 17,845
Joined: 13-January 08
From: White Plains, NY
Member No.: 12,468





Moderator message:



QUOTE
1. Be civil. Not everyone on this forum is at the same level of meteorological knowledge. Each person’s forecast is their opinion. This forum has a zero-tolerance policy on Personal Attacks (on Forum Users as well as personalities or meteorologists - working for AccuWeather or not). If you have an issue with someone, please send a civil "PM" (private message - click on their username). Anyone engaging in Personal Attacks via Posting, Sig Files, or PMs (Personal Messages) will be moderated (meaning that a moderator will have to approve each thing that they say) or banned from the system.



QUOTE
16. When you post someone else's text, it must be sourced. This means if you are quoting an article from the web, you must provide the URL and put the quote in QUOTE tags. If the source is not on the web, it still must be referenced. WE PREFER YOU DO NOT POST FULL TEXT from articles that are already available on the web. Plagiarism is not tolerated here. Images posted must have their source printed on them if you are altering or rebranding them.


QUOTE
1.b. Don’t Feed The Trolls! These people post inflammatory items specifically to get you to reply and start a fight on the Forums. The best practice is to ignore them and hit the “Report Abuse” button.



QUOTE
2. Stay on topic! We have over 20 different forums on subjects ranging all the way from Current Weather to Non-Weather. Topics or replies which do not belong will be moved elsewhere without notice to the author. If you want to chat with a user about something personal and off-topic, please use the Private Message system (click on their username to send them a message).




Please remember those guidelines and rules.

Otherwise, failure to do so, will result in warn level increase and potential moderation.

Thanks.



PS: This applies to all users.


--------------------
Phasing's done. The Vort's out.



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bob Tisdale
post May 20 2010, 07:39 PM
Post #13




Rank: Whirlwind
*

Group: Member
Posts: 20
Joined: 19-April 10
Member No.: 22,568





QUOTE(cyclonebuster @ May 18 2010, 04:59 PM) *
Also, six of the past 10 months including April have had record hottest global SSTS!


And I have noted that you've corrected this. Keep in mind that you're referring to one SST dataset, NOAA's ERSST.v3b. There are four others: NOAA's ERSST.v2 and OI.v2, and the Hadley Centre's HADISST and HADSST2. The Hadley Centre and the OI.v2 datasets have not reached the record levels you've linked. I haven't checked ERSST.v2 in a while, so I can't comment on that. But referring to the record SST claims this summer, I prepared a post:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/09/rec...atures-are.html

ERSST.v3b acquired an upward bias when they removed the satellite data from their ERSST.v3 dataset, claiming the satellite data provided a downward bias. In fact, by eliminating the satellite data, the rely on a method of infilling missing data that appears to exaggerate the SST readings in areas with poor spatial coverage. With this method of infilling, ERSST.v3b sets records when the other SST datasets do not.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cyclonebuster
post May 20 2010, 07:46 PM
Post #14




Rank: Tornado
**

Group: Member
Posts: 439
Joined: 10-February 08
Member No.: 13,557





No wonder why March and April are the global oceans warmest recorded temperatures since 1880!

Ocean Stored Significant Warming Over Last 16 Years
May 19, 2010
The upper layer of the world’s ocean has warmed since 1993, indicating a strong climate change signal, according to a new study. The energy stored is enough to power nearly 500 100-watt light bulbs per each of the roughly 6.7 billion people on the planet.

“We are seeing the global ocean store more heat than it gives off,” said John Lyman, an oceanographer at NOAA’s Joint Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research, who led an international team of scientists that analyzed nine different estimates of heat content in the upper ocean from 1993 to 2008.

The team combined the estimates to assess the size and certainty of growing heat storage in the ocean. Their findings will be published in the May 20 edition of the journal Nature. The scientists are from NOAA, NASA, the Met Office Hadley Centre in the United Kingdom, the University of Hamburg in Germany and the Meteorological Research Institute in Japan.

“The ocean is the biggest reservoir for heat in the climate system,” said Josh Willis, an oceanographer at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and one of the scientists who contributed to the study. “So as the planet warms, we’re finding that 80 to 90 percent of the increased heat ends up in the ocean.”

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100519_ocean.html

This post has been edited by cyclonebuster: May 20 2010, 07:47 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MarkB
post May 20 2010, 08:02 PM
Post #15




Rank: Tornado
**

Group: Member
Posts: 142
Joined: 20-April 10
Member No.: 22,578





QUOTE(Bob Tisdale @ May 20 2010, 07:39 PM) *
ERSST.v3b acquired an upward bias when they removed the satellite data from their ERSST.v3 dataset, claiming the satellite data provided a downward bias. In fact, by eliminating the satellite data, the rely on a method of infilling missing data that appears to exaggerate the SST readings in areas with poor spatial coverage. With this method of infilling, ERSST.v3b sets records when the other SST datasets do not.


http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/resear...sst_version.php

Your argument is somewhat akin to claming an upward bias exists in GISS vs HadCrut, simply because of the resulting difference of GISS including Arctic data, where there's weaker spatial coverage, where HadCrut in contrast omits it. Since there are independent indicators of rapid Arctic warming over the last decade, the reality is that HadCrut is almost certainly biased cool over this period.

There still remains the downward bias as a result of the ship -> buoy measurement shift that is unaccounted for, although NOAA documented this in their writeup of their recent analysis.

"In addition to biases in satellite data, there are other
data biases. The most important additional data bias
may be the ship–buoy bias (Kent and Taylor 2006;
Rayner et al. 2006). This relative bias is important because
of the growing number of buoy SSTs since the
mid-1980s (e.g., Reynolds et al. 2002). Before 1985
most in situ SSTs are ship measurements. Where both
ship and buoy observations are available, the ships are
typically about 0.1°C warmer. However, the bias is not
constant in either space or time where both data types
are available. In addition, before the mid-1980s there
are few buoy observations so directly analyzing the bias
from data over the full reconstruction period is not possible.
Because ships tend to be biased warm relative to
buoys and because of the increase in the number of
buoys and the decrease in the number of ships, the
merged in situ data without bias adjustment can have a
cool bias relative to data with no ship–buoy bias. As
buoys become more important to the in situ record, that
bias can increase. Since the 1980s the SST in most areas
has been warming. The increasing negative bias due to
the increase in buoys tends to reduce this recent warming.
This change in observations makes the in situ temperatures
up to about 0.1°C cooler than they would be
without bias. At present, methods for removing the
ship–buoy bias are being developed and tested."

It's important to put all the facts on the table.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
G. Karst
post May 21 2010, 10:24 AM
Post #16




Rank: Tornado
**

Group: Member
Posts: 177
Joined: 21-April 10
Member No.: 22,592





Bob Tisdale:

So glad to see you back! I was beginning to think, we would only see your fine work through the distorted references of Dennis Hlinka, who cites your work often. GK
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bob Tisdale
post May 22 2010, 03:53 PM
Post #17




Rank: Whirlwind
*

Group: Member
Posts: 20
Joined: 19-April 10
Member No.: 22,568





MarkB: You wrote, "Your argument is somewhat akin to claming an upward bias exists in GISS vs HadCrut, simply because of the resulting difference of GISS including Arctic data, where there's weaker spatial coverage, where HadCrut in contrast omits it."

Hmm. Maybe you should check your sources, MarkB.

HADCrut has less coverage over land, meaning they use fewer surface stations in the Arctic. However, they do include Arctic SST data during periods of the year when sea ice declines. On the other hand, to contradict what you've written, GISS is the dataset that purposely excludes Sea Surface Temperature. Refer to the GISS Temperature Analysis webpage:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources/gistemp.html
They write, "Areas covered occasionally by sea ice are masked using a time-independent mask." And that means they are permanently deleted and that they only include sea surface temperatures in the high latitudes of the North Atlantic, north of 65N, in their computation of Arctic temperatures. So as Sea Ice Cover drops, as it does every year, the percentage of available data (sea surface temperature data) excluded by GISS increases. And we all know that Sea Surface Temperatures do not rise and fall as much as land surface temperatures, so by masking out Sea Surface Temperatures when they are available, GISS artificially inflates its Arctic temperatures.

This post has been edited by Bob Tisdale: May 22 2010, 03:56 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bob Tisdale
post May 22 2010, 04:01 PM
Post #18




Rank: Whirlwind
*

Group: Member
Posts: 20
Joined: 19-April 10
Member No.: 22,568





QUOTE(G. Karst @ May 21 2010, 10:24 AM) *
Bob Tisdale:

So glad to see you back! I was beginning to think, we would only see your fine work through the distorted references of Dennis Hlinka, who cites your work often. GK


I especially like it when Dennis links one of my posts and the data it includes contradicts what he's saying.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Weather Bird
post May 23 2010, 08:55 PM
Post #19




Rank: Tornado
**

Group: Member
Posts: 93
Joined: 20-May 10
From: Englewood, Fl
Member No.: 22,810





QUOTE(GettingWarm @ May 20 2010, 12:25 PM) *
WeatherBird --
Great opinions. We could listen to you abut "psychology of oscillations" and refrigerators not to forget the roulette wheels. Or should we be listening to real scientists and consensus science.

Have you read the National Academy of Science (the most trusted and respected body of scientists in the world) that says that you are crazy.

NAS Global warming

There is no doubt that global warming is a clear and present danger and largely caused by burning fossil fuels -- you know that stuff floating in the GOM and that Iran and Hugo Chavez uses to stay in power.

GettingWarm


Hi GettingWarm,

Just don't throw away your parka just yet.....the prez may need it again like he did last winter..lol

Glad to hear the NAS says I am crazy.......that means they are reading my stuff!!LOL
Anyway, anyone can test my theory on their coffeeshop buddy with a quarter and a few spins. Try it, look at the data thoroughly yourself, with good observation. It does take a change in viewpoint that is difficult. I know, I went through the metamorphosis myself.
Now for some backup.....try USGS Hydrologist Charles Perry..... All rivers in the United States appear to follow the solar signal as seen in the graph below which compares the 1st principle component of U.S. Streamflow (courtesy Greg McCabe, USGS) with a Cosmic Ray/Total Solar Irradiance combination index.

United States Streamflow Principle Component1 And combination G1-AA and TSI Lagged 34 Years"

See that lag of 34 years!!!!! I see no global warming data factoring a 34 year lag time in their models.

And, as recently as April the respected science journal "New Scientist" went through the same metamorphosis, reversing their opinion. Hopefully you can also, providing you aren't tied into the political bias that seems to permeate this "science". see.... http://international-environmental-affairs...-global-warming

Let me know how your quarter demonstration turns out. Just donot bet every spin. That is a sure way to lose!!

Weather Bird....nothing wilder than a West Texas Thermometer!!!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Weather Bird
post May 26 2010, 05:12 AM
Post #20




Rank: Tornado
**

Group: Member
Posts: 93
Joined: 20-May 10
From: Englewood, Fl
Member No.: 22,810





QUOTE(GettingWarm @ May 20 2010, 12:25 PM) *
WeatherBird --
Great opinions. We could listen to you abut "psychology of oscillations" and refrigerators not to forget the roulette wheels. Or should we be listening to real scientists and consensus science.

Have you read the National Academy of Science (the most trusted and respected body of scientists in the world) that says that you are crazy.

NAS Global warming

There is no doubt that global warming is a clear and present danger and largely caused by burning fossil fuels -- you know that stuff floating in the GOM and that Iran and Hugo Chavez uses to stay in power.

GettingWarm


Talk about being respectful....here is the latest...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/24/lord...t-oxford-union/

"The Union is the world’s most prestigious debating society, with an unparalleled reputation for bringing international guests and speakers to Oxford. It has been established for 182 years, aiming to promote debate and discussion not just in Oxford University, but across the globe."

The debate is over. Global Warming is dead!!

Weather Bird rolleyes.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 19th September 2014 - 06:53 PM