Data Comparisons

UAH ends the year with a downtick!

72 Comments

Decembers UAH anomaly is in. With the fiscal cliff looming, clearly depressed temperatures: The dropped. If that’s the cause and effect relationship, expect a bump up in January. Ok. That makes no sense. 🙂

Let’s congratulate mwgrant , EarleWilliams and RobertLeyland on their win place and show!

Of course we will be hearing how last year ranked relative to other years. According to Roy, this was the 9th warmest year in UAH’s pantheon of years placing just below the upper quarter of the 34 years of operation. I anticipating next year will also fall in the upper 10 years of temperatures. I’ll open bets on the full year soon. But we’ll see.

The other bets are shown below.

Winnings in Quatloos for UAH TTL December, 2012 Predictions.
Rank Name Prediction (C) Bet Won
Gross Net
— Observed +0.202 (C)
1 mwgrant 0.211 5 81.994 76.994
2 EarleWilliams 0.185 5 65.595 60.595
3 RobertLeyland 0.22 4 15.771 11.771
4 Hal 0.22 5 0 -5
5 BobKoss 0.231 5 0 -5
6 JohnF.Pittman 0.241 3 0 -3
7 DeNihilist 0.246 5 0 -5
8 LesJohnson 0.25 5 0 -5
9 Perfekt 0.15 1 0 -1
10 SteveT 0.15 3.66 0 -3.66
11 BobB 0.15 4 0 -4
12 PavelPanenka 0.262 3 0 -3
13 normalnew 0.141 2 0 -2
14 Ray 0.271 5 0 -5
15 BobW 0.273 3 0 -3
16 Pieter 0.129 4 0 -4
17 Anteros 0.277 5 0 -5
18 YFNWG 0.125 5 0 -5
19 marchgeo 0.123 5 0 -5
20 DocMartyn 0.123 5 0 -5
21 Skeptikal 0.286 4 0 -4
22 ArfurBryant 0.295 5 0 -5
23 AMac 0.298 3 0 -3
24 pdm 0.311 5 0 -5
25 angech 0.09 5 0 -5
26 denny 0.315 3 0 -3
27 lance 0.321 4 0 -4
28 RuthDixon 0.08 5 0 -5
29 MDR 0.325 3 0 -3
30 KreKristiansen 0.07 4 0 -4
31 DaveE. 0.34 5 0 -5
32 Tamara 0.35 5 0 -5
33 AndrewKennett 0.35 4.7 0 -4.7
34 Freezedried 0.02 4 0 -4
35 TimTheToolMan 0.385 5 0 -5
36 GeorgeTobin 0.411 4 0 -4
37 RiHo08 -0.01 2 0 -2
38 JohnNorris 0.42 5 0 -5
39 ScottBasinger -0.14 5 0 -5

The net winnings for each member of the ensemble will be added to their accounts.

72 thoughts on “UAH ends the year with a downtick!”

  2. Brandon Shollenberger-

    I never knew you allowed non-integer bets.

    People betting -1,0,or 1 would get boring with a lot of ties, don’t you think? ;o)

    BTW Lucia had admonished earlier it’s betting and not science, though RS does report 3 digits to the right of the decimal. Really is tough to do that though…it’s like asking, ‘What color is a unicorn?’

    I wish I could say now retirement is secure. But, alas.

  5. Brandon,

    Son of a gun, didn’t notice that or actually that is precisely what you wrote. (I was too taken with a vision of integers–kind of like a world made real simple for people. And I really am uncomfortable with the three digits values–much less the idea of a mean global temperature (anomaly).)

    Thanks for the correction, and Happy New Year.

    mwg

  6. SteveF

    Why does one person who bet 0.22C win and the other who bet 0.22 lose?

    It’s just a “feature” of the payout method. It’s all by rank and the tie goes to the first to enter their bet. I admit… it’s odd. But I didn’t program in any more complexity than that.

  7. The world needs a paradigm shift in thinking about climate change and what causes what. In my peer-reviewed paper “Planetary Surface Temperatures. A Discussion of Alternative Mechanisms” I provide proof that there is no runaway greenhouse effect on Venus – or any on Earth. Consider watching this 10 minute video, and maybe reading the paper. http://youtu.be/r8YbyfqUvfY

  9. Once again, UAH is much lower than might be expected based on AQUA CH5, even worse than last month.
    So it looks like it is going to be all guesswork from now on.

  10. “I anticipating next year will also fall in the upper 10 years of temperatures.”

    With no way at the moment of predicting next years ENSO conditions calling next year is still an open question. El Nino or ENSO-neutral and your expectations are probably right but a La Nina could seriously challenge it. The La Nina in 2008 knocked that year down to 18th and annual GMT only has to be 0.03oC below this years temperature to be outside the top 10. I think you’re safe with a few Quatloos on that expectation but I wouldn’t bet my wife’s car on it.

    (I’m hoping for a La Nina next year just to keep everybody rechecking their assumptions.)

  11. HR–
    Calling any years temperature in January is always an open question. Not only don’t I know ENSO, but I also don’t know if some tropical volcano might not erupt today — or soon-. I also don’t know whether Mars might not attack and so on. But I think there is a greater than 50% chance well be in the top 10.

    I think you’re safe with a few Quatloos on that expectation but I wouldn’t bet my wife’s car on it.

    Bets are all in Quatloos. I’m also hoping for a La Nina year. 🙂

  12. I’d forgotten about the Mars attack, they call that El OhNo I think, there are so many variables in climate.

  13. HR (Comment #108097)
    “With no way at the moment of predicting next years ENSO conditions calling next year is still an open question. ”

    That hasn’t stopped the UK Met. Office:
    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2012/2013-global-forecast
    Of course, with a range of 0.43c to 0.71c (v 1961-90), they can’t really fail.
    Statistically, they say that a figure of 0.71c is just as likely as 0.43c, i.e. 5%, but I still feel that the lower figure is more likely, since the upper one would require an increase of about 0.26c over 2012. Is that even possible?

  15. @Ray – yet another worthwhile Met Office forecast for our tax money. /s
    They should stick to the precision of ‘barbeque Summers’ and forecasting drought in the 2nd wettest year on record.

  16. With ENSO heading toward La Nina, I expect the January through May average to be down compared to December… but not by much.

  17. Amazing! Maybe I have a hidden talent for this meteorology type stuff. 2011 profit of Q94.543. 2012 profit of Q54.665.

    While the quatloo has been maintaining its value the dollar has been depreciating. If that trend continues in the future I may have to ask Lucia to cash me out so I can pay my bills. 🙂

  19. Hmmm. Nr 13, my birthday is on the 13’th this month in the year 2013.

    Glad I’m a sceptic 😀

  20. The Met Office have some knew projections, (to 2020) significantly lower than an earlier projection, released without any fanfair, and apparently, forgetting previous predictions..(the white line)

    which would indicate a 20+ year pause/slowdown?, falsifying IPCC model?

    I borrowed this comment from Tallblok s Workshop:

    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/01/05/major-change-in-uk-met-office-global-warming-forecast/#comment-40063

    I merged the 2011 & 2012 forecasts into an animated .gif

    https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-0e9S3JvjWrg/UOmGJq06wYI/AAAAAAAABDY/3UHjSSHTfKo/s670/metOffice20112012DecadalForecast.gif

    Given the fact that the science was “settled” some time ago it does seem “surprising” that the Met Office decadal forecast issued in January 2011 is somewhat different from the 2012 version issued last week!

    The new forecast has a best estimate of no change in global temperature over the next four years and error bars which will allow them to claim “skill” even if global temperature anomalies fall by 50%

    It’s even more “surprising” that the UKMO’s decision to publish it’s revised near time temperature forecast for 2016 which predicts 50% less warming than 12 months ago has received absolutely no publicity in the mainstream media.

    If the UKMO’s best estimate is correct, by 2016 there will have been no warming for 20 years during which 37%* of all the CO2 ever produced by man will have been pumped into the atmosphere!”

    ———–

    Thoughts anyone?

  21. @Barry Woods

    “Given the fact that the science was “settled” some time ago it does seem “surprising” that the Met Office decadal forecast issued in January 2011 is somewhat different from the 2012 version issued last week!”

    The decadal forecast is, IIRC, not regarded as being too reliable yet, and many scientists think they are overreaching themselves in trying to do one with current technology.

    However, one forecast is easy make, this decade will be warmer than the previous decade, as it has been for the last five decades.

    http://simpleclimate.wordpress.com/2010/12/22/a-picture-of-climate-change-is-worth-1000-words/

  22. I don’t think even the Met Ofice are sure that this decade will be warmer than the last decade now. As they just dratically reduced their forecast.

    Time will tell.

  23. Barry Woods:
    “The Met Office have some knew projections, (to 2020)”
    Actually only to 2017.
    Since it is supposed to be a “decadal” forecast, that is strange.
    I wonder if they were afraid to show the other 3 years!
    Thanks for the animated gif, that illustrates the change well.

    “It’s even more “surprising” that the UKMO’s decision to publish it’s revised near time temperature forecast for 2016 which predicts 50% less warming than 12 months ago has received absolutely no publicity in the mainstream media.”
    I actually don’t find it surprising. The media only picks up what the M.O. want it to know about via it’s news releases and they probably won’t issue a news release about this. Maybe it will filter through to the media via the “blogosphere” eventually.

  24. Barry Woods:

    “If the UKMO’s best estimate is correct, by 2016 there will have been no warming for 20 years during which 37%* of all the CO2 ever produced by man will have been pumped into the atmosphere!”
    ——————————————-
    No warming? You are kidding, right?

    A TOA radiative imbalance due to increasing GHG has resulted in measurable warming in a the major parts of the climate system – ocean (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/267/ohc02000pentadalnodcnos.jpg/), atmospheric temperature (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/6/uahdecadalplot19802012.jpg/), and land ice (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/703/greenlandgraceicemelt20.jpg/).

    Please, no more of that no warming nonsense.

  25. bugs (Comment #108158)
    “However, one forecast is easy make, this decade will be warmer than the previous decade, as it has been for the last five decades.”
    I wouldn’t bet on it.

  26. Owen (Comment #108162)
    “Please, no more of that no warming nonsense.”
    Barry Woods said:
    “If the UKMO’s best estimate is correct, by 2016 there will have been no warming for 20 years”
    Your graphs don’t disprove that.
    Having said that, I think there would be warming based on the central forecast, although not based on the lower end of the confidence range.

  27. ray – not my words, I was merely quoting from a comment from Tallblokes workshop… as I said.

    but simply eyeballing the projection, does seem to indicate that expecation.. ie the ‘slowdown’ projected to 20 yr mark.

    time will tell..

    if this year is only the 13th warmest, or something similar….

    and the following the 15th .. 😉 ? !

  28. Re: Owen (Comment #108162)

    That’s a remarkably silly way of presenting the temperature data, especially on this site!

    You have taken your OHC data from the NODC site, I see. This data uses pentadal averages – another strange thing to do if you wish to argue that OHC has not been flat recently. One of the effects of using the pentadal averages is that it covers up the major step-change in the OHC data over the 2001 to 2003 period, which by the strangest coincidence corresponds to when the ARGO floats were being put into service. I would be interested in knowing how you reconcile these data with the net flux data available from satellites. The period between 2000 and 2003 showed a substantial and sustained reduction in net downwelling radiation, amounting to 4 W/m2. I would be interested in knowing where you think the energy came from to accelerate the heating of the oceans?
    http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/zFD/an9090_TOTnet_toa.gif
    It clearly wasn’t from the atmosphere since it doesn’t have the heat capacity, and in any event, you seem to think that it has continued to warm. So wattya gonna go for? Vulcanism or submarine space invaders?

  29. If energy continues to accumulate in the ocean at the same rate, a radiative imbalance still exists at the TOA as predicted by radiative transfer and any flattening of the atmospheric temperature curve is weather, not climate. It’s more of an indictment of model failure to capture the full range of behavior than the overall theory. And we’re already reasonably certain that models on average are biased high. If the AMO behaves as it has in the past, yet another behavior not exhibited by models, that should keep temperature from rising very fast for the next 15 years or so.

  31. Doc,

    “Here are some photographs of London in the 1030′s.”

    Somebody get into the WayBack Machine ;o)? How the the heck did you lose to the Normans when you has gas-powered vehicles and electricity?

  32. Paul K, The 3-month data is also available for 0-2000 meters since 2005 (post ARGO) – and heating continues. Melting of land ice removes thermal energy from the atmosphere to drive the phase change, and such melting continues to the present. The arctic sea ice melting argues for atmospheric and oceanic warming. The low heat capacity of the atmosphere relative to that of the ocean, along with coupled ocean/atmosphere cyclic and quasi-cyclic heat transfers, makes the atmospheric temperature the least relaible indicator of global warming. Consilience argues strongly for the real effect of the effect of GHG

  33. Owen (Comment #108172)

    The low heat capacity of the atmosphere relative to that of the ocean, along with coupled ocean/atmosphere cyclic and quasi-cyclic heat transfers, makes the atmospheric temperature the least relaible indicator of global warming.

    Everyone thought that the atmosphere was a darn good global warming indicator… well, that was until the atmosphere stopped warming.

  34. Skeptikal (Comment #108176)
    “Everyone thought that the atmosphere was a darn good global warming indicator… well, that was until the atmosphere stopped warming.”
    ——————-
    Well, not Pielke, Sr.

  35. Owen,
    ” Melting of land ice removes thermal energy from the atmosphere to drive the phase change, and such melting continues to the present.”
    Please, we have been through this calculation before… the thermal contribution of ice melt is miniscule compared to both the ocean heat uptake and the best estimates of GHG forcing. Ice loss is a non-issue from the POV of Earth’s heat balance. That is not to say that it does not have local impacts, but you are not talking about local impacts.

    (You were going along pretty well until you brought up ice melt.)

  36. DeWitt.
    ” If the AMO behaves as it has in the past, yet another behavior not exhibited by models, that should keep temperature from rising very fast for the next 15 years or so.”
    Yes, and someone at the MET is cagey enough to see a potential PR debacle on it’s way, so the change in the MET office projection is sensible. But the flip side is that the rapid mid-70’s to early 2000’s warming was at least in part the result of that same AMO influence. The uncomfortable (for the concerned) conclusion is that the models are almost certainly biased high, and climate sensitivity is lower than the IPCC’s 3+C per doubling. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

  37. mwgrant:

    How the the heck did you lose to the Normans when you has gas-powered vehicles and electricity?

    I suspect it had something to do with their myopic concern over Medieval Warming…

  39. Owen,
    I suspect, like SteveF, that the icemelt is irrelevant to the energy balance, but if it isn’t then it just makes your task more difficult. The latent heat required for the icemelt is energy that is not available to heat the oceans. So please address my first question: given the sustained step-down in net downwelling radiative flux where do you think the energy is coming from to underpin (your belief in) the OHC data?

    Incidentally, the only unsmoothed OHC data which I have seen is the 0-700m data and that shows a slightly negative trend post-2003. Why can’t I find the unsmoothed OHC data for 0-2000m from 2003?

  40. Re:DeWitt Payne (Comment #108169)
    January 7th, 2013 at 11:10 am

    Hi DeWitt,
    Given the uncertainties in the absolute measurements of TOA radiative fluxes, it may be possible that the large observed relative decrease (ca 4W/m2) could still leave open a net downward flux imbalance. In these circs, yes, ocean heat could continue to accumulate. However, what is not reconcilable is that we see a large relative decrease in the net flux imbalance and yet the rate of gain of ocean heat accelerates, which is what the Levitus 2012 OHC data show. Either the relative net flux data are junk or the latest Levitus analysis of OHC data should be treated with great suspicion.
    Incidentally, if it is true that this large relative shift in net flux data still leaves a positive imbalance, then most of the GCMs have grossly underestimated the total net forcing over the 20th century; this would suggest an overestimation of climate sensitivity.

  41. Here is a depiction of the accumulated GHG forcing, the amount that has been offset by Aerosols and Volcanoes and then the energy that is accumulating in the Oceans and in Land-Icemelt-Atmosphere.

    1955 to Third Quarter 2012 – current numbers in W/m2 also shown – 1.2 W/m2 is Missing / just being Emitted.

    (source the NODC OHC to 2000metres – below 2000 metres looks to be net zero right now since there are only two estimates available and they offset – Aerosols and GHG forcing numbers from the IPCC AR5 RCP dataset).

    http://s14.postimage.org/r6gfdd9sx/Earth_s_Energy_Balance_Dec_12.png

  42. Paul_K,

    “this would suggest an overestimation of climate sensitivity”
    One of many similar suggestions, which seem to be ever growing in number and clarity. Will the climate science community acknowledge that (ever more likely) reality and end the ‘climate catastrophe’ hysteria, so that people can have a rational adult conversation about reasonable energy policy, as you have said is needed? I suspect it is not going to be easy for them. Only the embarrassment of growing divergence between model projections and reality will force them to deal with reality. A decade more should do it.

  43. Paul_K:

    Incidentally, the only unsmoothed OHC data which I have seen is the 0-700m data and that shows a slightly negative trend post-2003. Why can’t I find the unsmoothed OHC data for 0-2000m from 2003?

    You can find 3-month data here.

    The quality (for global trend) is still an issue because the coverage (especially in the southern region) changes over time. Here’s a movie 1991-2011.

    Watch especially the South Pacific and especially the period around 2003.

    (If you want the raw ARGO data it’s of course available from their website)

  44. Re: Paul_K (Jan 8 04:35),

    Either the relative net flux data are junk or the latest Levitus analysis of OHC data should be treated with great suspicion.

    I have no doubt that the relative net flux data aren’t very good. I’m slightly less suspicious of the OHC data, at least for 0-700m. I’m significantly less sure of the 0-2000m OHC data. The OHC data can be checked for consistency by independent measures like sea level change. See, for example, Cazenave, et. al.

  45. Paul_K,

    The problem with 0-2000m data is that the temperature change/joule gets smaller by about a factor of three and you’re not measuring large changes. In round numbers, 361E12 square meters of ocean surface area times 2E6 kg/m² times 4E3 J/kgK. That’s ~3E24 J/K if I did my sums right. So for a change of 1E22J, the average temperature of the 2000m column changes 0.003 K while a 700m column changes approximately three times as much. That’s still not a trivial measurement.

    A radiative imbalance of 1 W/m² over a surface area of 361E12m² is ~1E22J/year. There’s a reason why, pre-ARGO, they used pentadal averages.

  46. Paul_K (Comment #108196)
    January 8th, 2013 at 4:13 am
    “Owen, So please address my first question: given the sustained step-down in net downwelling radiative flux where do you think the energy is coming from to underpin (your belief in) the OHC data?
    ——————————————————–
    I wasn’t aware of the step-down in downwelling radiation (measured experimentally, I assume) that you mention. I am puzzled why that phenomenon should occur in the presence of increasing greenhouse gases? Do you have an explanation or a reference?

    I look more to measured data for verification: Mean sea level measurements (http://sealevel.colorado.edu/) provide strong, independent support for the OHC in showing a consisten rise in oceanic warming. I therefore have faith in the ARGO system, until proven otherwise – it is an impressive technological effort.

  47. OK, after looking at DeWitt’s Cazenave et al reference, I would have to say that my linkage of OHC with mean sea level was more than a bit naive. The Cazenave et al paper does however provide support for the ARGO temperature data based on a comparison of sea level and GRACE mass measurements. Interesting paper.

  48. @SteveF

    No, it’s alarming right now.

    ‘‘We know that global climate doesn’t respond monotonically – it does go up and down with natural variation. That’s why some years are hotter than others because of a range of factors. But we’re getting many more hot records than we’re getting cold records. That’s not an issue that is explained away by natural variation.

    …

    While temperatures vary on a local and regional scale, globally it has now been 27 years since the world experienced a month that was colder than average.
    …..
    ‘‘We are well past the time of niceties, of avoiding the dire nature of what is unfolding, and politely trying not to scare the public. The unparalleled setting of new heat extremes is forcing the continual upwards trending of warming predictions for the future, and the timescale is contracting.’’

    ’’

    Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/environment/get-used-to-recordbreaking-heat-bureau-20130108-2cet5.html#ixzz2HPyXkU6i

  49. Re: Owen (Jan 8 12:59),

    Notice that Cazenave, et.al. don’t use ARGO data below 900m for calculating steric sea level increase. Now compare NODC steric sea level number for 0-700 and 0-2000m. The rate of steric sea level increase from 700-2000m appears to be as large or larger than the increase from 0-700m. Considering that the thermal expansion coefficient for sea water becomes fairly small below the thermocline, that seems unlikely to be true. There are other anomalies in NODC’s conversion of temperature to expansion too.

  50. @Bugs
    Why is what you quote alarming?

    Hot records outnumbering cold records is normal in a warming world – also in a lukewarming world or in a world where temperatures have reached a plateau.

    December was relatively cool globally according to GISS, but a heat wave in Australia after Christmas is now a sign of catastrophic global warming.
    I don’t get it.

  51. Niels,
    You have a lot of nerve suggesting that it is less than alarming. 😉
    .
    bugs (Comment #108217),
    There nothing in the link you provided which is in any way connected to my comment. Sure, there will be more record highs than record lows if global average temperature increases (how could this not be true?). But that has NOTHING to do with how much overall warming there will be, nor with the consequences of warming. Those consequences need to be carefully considered, but not based on the IPCC estimates of climate sensitivity when those estimates appear inconsistent with a growing number of observations. If climate sensitivity is half the IPCC estimate of 3.2C per doubling (AR4), that matters for formulating a reasonable public policy. A lot.
    .
    Pointing at articles which beat the familiar drum of warming hysteria only makes Paul_K’s ‘adult conversation’ less likely.

  52. bugs:

    ‘‘We are well past the time of niceties, of avoiding the dire nature of what is unfolding, and politely trying not to scare the public”

    !!!!

    Heh.

  53. Niels: “Bugs, Why is what you quote alarming?”

    Well, the author is clearly alarmed. Hence, it’s alarming. QED.

  54. Owen:

    . I therefore have faith in the ARGO system, until proven otherwise – it is an impressive technological effort

    It is an impressive technological effort, I agree. I kind of cringe at the notion of you combing “faith” and “technological effort” in the same sentence though.

    Anyway, impressive or not, the fact the geographical distribution is changing over time (see my gif animation) is something that needs to be satisfactorily addressed. “Meh! Doesn’t matter!” doesn’t cut it.

  55. Re: Carrick (Comment #108202)
    January 8th, 2013 at 9:26 am
    Carrick,
    Thanks for the references. My question was why we can’t find the unsmoothed data for 0-2000m from before 2005. Your reference (and the KNMI site) only offers pentadal data before 2005. There may be a good explanation for this. It is just that I haven’t seen it. Far be it from me to suggest that the unsmoothed data would highlight the stairstep in estimated OHC which occurs with the deployment of the Argo system.
    Paul

  56. Owen,

    I’m not sure that you’re following the plot very well here.

    I wasn’t aware of the step-down in downwelling radiation (measured experimentally, I assume) that you mention. I am puzzled why that phenomenon should occur in the presence of increasing greenhouse gases? Do you have an explanation or a reference?
    The reference that I included is from the satellite monitoring programme composited by NASA. The TOA net flux data are measured data. If you go to the ISCCP site you can see full details. Here is the plot reference again:-
    http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/zFD/an9090_TOTnet_toa.gif

    Do I have an explanation? Of course I have an explanation – and as Groucho Marx said, if you don’t like that one, I’ve got several others. However, in context, it’s less important to understand WHY the net incoming flux decreased than to understand what it implies for OHC. You cannot have an acceleration of ocean heat gain if the input power has been turned down.

    With respect to the Cazenave paper, it is an excellent paper which does a very good job of reconciling data from multiple sources. As DeWitt has already pointed out, it does not account for ocean heat gain below 900m, yet it manages to reconcile the data very well. If you now consider the Shuckman or Levitas interpretation of OHC data, what price Cazenave? Again it seems to me that these 0-2000m interpretations are flawed. My suspicion is that they (both) introduce a systematic positive trend bias via the anomaly calculation as the ARGO coverage is increased.

  57. Paul_K:

    My question was why we can’t find the unsmoothed data for 0-2000m from before 2005. Your reference (and the KNMI site) only offers pentadal data before 2005. There may be a good explanation for this. It is just that I haven’t seen it.

    I suspect there is a good explanation, and I suspect it would tell an interesting story.

    My suspicion is that they (both) introduce a systematic positive trend bias via the anomaly calculation as the ARGO coverage is increased.

    Yep, and I believe this is related to them starting with 2005:

    High frequency information going to be unreliable when you are rapidly increasing the number of stations so you have no choice but smooth. However, you are still left with an artifactual shift in the baseline unless you’ve taken steps to remove it (which I’m almost certain they haven’t, at least in the website version… there may be publications I haven’t seen where attempts have been made to correct this).

  58. To add to what Paul K has stated, I think Owen has put all his eggs in the deep ocean basket. A very low resolution basket I am afraid. It would be great if we had accurate temp sensors at every depth throughout every ocean in a large enough sample size to be meaningful, but we don’t. For every 200m in depth our data quality and sample size falls off exponentially. We have reasonably good data on global SSTs, fair data on 0-700m ocean heat, and extraordinarily little data below 700m. With such limited data below 700m we know very little about changing ocean heat there. Maybe in another 25 years…

    SSTs represent relatively high resolution data, a good sample of changes in ocean heat over time and are far more consistent with sat measurements, sea level rise, atmospheric measurements and land measurements. Question the outlier.

  59. Lucia, am I blind? I cannot find the betting post for Jan/13 temps! C’mon! I have been in the top ten the last 2 months, I just know I’m gonna win!

  60. @HaroldW (Comment #108226)
    January 8th, 2013 at 5:33 pm

    Niels: “Bugs, Why is what you quote alarming?”
    Well, the author is clearly alarmed. Hence, it’s alarming. QED.

    Extreme weather events are becoming more frequent. The fire authorities have had to invent a new category of warning, “Catastrophic”. That is for a fire that cannot be controlled, moves quickly and will kill. It’s all there in the story. Perhaps you haven’t read any of it.

  61. What does a wildfire have to do with global warming? Not a lot. There’s not enough prescribed burning, so fuel loads build up, so increasing fire risk and intensity.

    Since Eucalypts have evolved to depend on fires, and have been around for millions of years, this seems perfectly normal.

  62. Bugs (#108236)
    Hmmm…just where in the article is there talk of that new category? But perhaps I haven’t read it.

    From the article: “The last four months of 2012 were the hottest on record, albeit by just 0.01 of a degree.” Dire indeed.

  63. Paul_K:

    The reference that I included is from the satellite monitoring programme composited by NASA. The TOA net flux data are measured data. If you go to the ISCCP site you can see full details. Here is the plot reference again:-
    http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/zFD…..et_toa.gif

    My understanding is that the TOA net flux product produced by ISCCP is a lot less direct than satellite measurements from ERBE or CERES, for example, and I’m not sure I would consider it “measured”. Judging by a brief look at Zhang et al. (2004) (http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/pub/documents/2003JD004457.pdf) seems to suggest it is more akin to a reanalysis product, using a bunch of of different input datasets and plugging the resulting variables into a radiative transfer model. The case could be made that for clear-sky products this might be okay (it would still be prone to biases in the underlying datasets), but there are still too many question marks for cloud properties to put a lot of stock in the all-sky product, IMHO.

    Looking at the CERES all-sky dataset, there is a slight decline in net TOA from 2000-2002, but nothing like the large step you see in that ISCCP graph.

  64. bugs (Comment #108236)
    “The fire authorities have had to invent a new category of warning, “Catastrophic”. ”
    As far as I can see, the “catastrophic” category was introduced in 2009, as a result of the “extreme” category being subdivided into three.
    http://www.bom.gov.au/weather-services/bushfire/index.shtml
    I don’t think that this implies that the authorities “had to invent” the category because bush fires were more severe. It was just a subdivision of the existing category into three.
    Of course the term “catastrophic” has emotional implications.

  66. Hi Troy,
    Thanks. I know that for the surface values, a considerable modeling effort is required, but for the TOA numbers, I am surprised that you say there is a large difference. Unfortunately, the data in the Zhang paper stops just before things get interesting, but Figure 6 in the paper does not show any significant differences between the ERBES and the ISCCP data at TOA. Can you post a CERES plot or a reference that includes net flux TOA over the period 2000 – 2003?
    Paul

  67. Troy,
    Just a thought – you’re not by any chance looking at the CERES EBAF product are you? The net flux in that product is actually adjusted to to meet pre-estimated ocean heat content ex Hansen et al 2005.
    Paul

  69. Bill Illis (Comment #108198)
    January 8th, 2013 at 6:31 am says:

    Here is a depiction of the accumulated GHG forcing, the amount that has been offset by Aerosols and Volcanoes and then the energy that is accumulating in the Oceans and in Land-Icemelt-Atmosphere.

    1955 to Third Quarter 2012 – current numbers in W/m2 also shown – 1.2 W/m2 is Missing / just being Emitted.

    http://s14.postimage.org/r6gfdd9sx/Earth_s_Energy_Balance_Dec_12.png

    The graph (above link) shows a green curve labeled “Accumulated GHG Forcing Recently 2.8 W/m2/year”

    This curve is wrong. The GHG forcing is not increasing at 2.8 W/m2/year. The SOD AR5 report on page 8-3, line 23 says, “The RF of WMGHG is 2.83 ± 0.28 W m–2.” Page 8-3, line says, “RF and AF are estimated over the industrial era from 1750 to 2011 …”.

    This says the accumulated GHG forcing from 1750 to 2011 was 2.8 W/m2. That is an increase over 261 years, not per recent year.

  70. Ken Gregory –
    Replace the incorrect “W/m2/year” with “W/m2”.

    My guess is that the author of the graph originally labelled the slopes with units of “10^22 J/yr”, which allows an easier comparison to the y-axis. In changing it to the more familiar equivalent W/m2, he just slipped up. As is pointed out on the graph, 1.61E22 J/yr is equivalent to 1 W/m2 over the+globe.

  71. No HaroldW, replacing “W/m2/year” with “W/m2” does not fix the cumulative GHG Forcing curve in the graph. The GHG forcing of 2.8 W/m2 is for the period 1750 to 2011. The graph shows 2.8 W/m2 change over one year, that is, the slope of the line over the last year is 2.8 W/m2/year. It convert to energy in the climate system change over one year, this is:
    2.8 W/m2/year X 5.1 E14 m2/Earth-area X 365 d/yr X 24 hr/d X 3600 sec/hr = 4.50 E22 J/year = 45 E22 J/decade.

    You can see that this corresponds to the energy change over the last decade shown on the graph. But the value is wrong because the 2.8 W/m2 cumulative GHG forcing is over 261 years, not per year.

    Note that there was very little the ocean heat content increase to the year 2000 then a large increase when the measurement system converted from Expendable Bathythermographs to Argo.

    The graph show a best fit slope line on the 0 – 2000 m Ocean Warming line of 0.44 W/m2/year. The units are incorrect. The slope per area of Earth’s area should by in units of energy per time per area, which is W/m2, NOT W/m2/year. The line appears to cover a period of 9 years, from Q3 2003 to Q3 2012 W/m2. The ocean heat change over this 9-year period is 0.44 W/m2 X 5.1 E14 m2/Earth-area X 365X24*3600 seconds/year X 9 years = 6.37 E22 J. This agrees with the graph, so the ocean heat curve is drawn correctly, but the units of the line slope should be changes to W/m2.

  72. Re: Ken Gregory (Jan 15 03:02),

    so the ocean heat curve is drawn correctly, but the units of the line slope should be changes to W/m2.

    If it were W/m²/year, the OHC curve would need to be fitted with a second order polynomial, not a straight line.

Comments are closed.