Warmest November on record

...figures we were freezing here in DC one of the colder Novembers I would think

 

NOAA Goes Full Fraud | Real Science
Seems NOAA graph doesnt match real temp data from Ryan Maue Weatherbell.

Steven Goddard has previously challenged NOAAs historical temp "adjustments"
Heres how they altered the US temp.I wonder if any "believer" can dispute this?
NOAA Temperature Fraud Expands (Part 1) | Real Science

 

AFP: World experiences hottest November in 134 years: US

This is the warmest average global temperature in november in 134 years (since they have had thermometer records). Was it warmer in the last interglacial? Probably. What about when the ice caps didn't exist? Absolutely.



Does this mean global warming is real? Absolutely not! The global temperature trend says global warming is real. Single months really say nothing. We (my city) had an unseasonably cold november. The record heat in 2011 here says much more about global warming. If we simply have milder winters in Russia (biggest component) it really doesn't say much. We would think it was a good thing. I'm sure many here and in most of the country would have prefered that arctic cold didn't cause as much trouble this year.

On Mojo's point? Not sure he has one excpt on top of his head. Global temperatures have been going up with a great deal of natural variability since the temperature record was started. Sea levels are higher, again with natural variation making them temporarily lower some years.

 

The only problems I really have with "stories" like this one are the lack of information concerning how many measurements were taken in the late 1800's and what instrumentation they used.
Somehow I believe that the "data" for the Arctic and Antarctic may be missing a few points.
If we stipulate that the scientific record is comprehensive AND accurate, I'm still not ready to run screaming into the streets about 138 years of perfect data defining the climate characteristics of a multi-billion year old planet.

Does this mean global warming is real or not-real?
Nope.
I'm pretty sure that there used to be woolly mammoths and saber toothed tigers, because I saw them on the Disney Channel and since, other than Manny and Diego you really don't see any of them cruising around any more, I'm guessing that it's not as cold as it used to be.

We're trying to describe a 4 billion pixel picture with 138 dots.
There's big money on both sides of the rope that you've got Prius drivers sneering at Hummer drivers because the former believes that they are the 'good' people who are trying to save the planet while the latter are wrecking it.

Uh....
I'll stay agnostic on this one for a while.
Besides....
Before Manny and Diego, there were really big reptiles that HATED cold weather.
Who is to say that it's not THEIR turn again?

 

Thermometers are the standard. You can get a great deal of information on how we construct a global temperature, and how to calculate error from fewer thermometers and urban heat island effect from B.E.S.T.

The margin of error is smaller than the gain in temperature. Geographic sparcity should not be confused having no clue.

Exactly, single months could simply be natural variation, but the full instrument temperature record does strongly show increased temperature.

I would say that there are a few interests trying to distort the science. The temperature record is not really controversial. Only the worst of the worst seem to say the temperature record does not show warming. Again there are distortions of the science on both sides, and reading a single month as significant is also a distortion, but I don't think that is what NOAA was saying here.

Skepticism should melt in front of scientific facts.
Whether warming is good or bad that is theological, and is thus beyond science.
Whether it exists or not, that is a testable hypothesis, and we should not look to cartoons for the tests.

 

NOAA has a financial benefit in waving the red flag.
(disclaimer: One of my nine years at sea was spent aboard NOAA ships)

I'm not going to get into statistical food fight with you on the merits of the story, because it's like trying to argue with a Baptist minister over Jesus'' first public miracle (playing bartender at a wedding. ) There's a difference between DATA and FACT.

Concur.
This is why when somebody questions the science, and those people are shouted down, I immediately begin to question the merits (to say nothing of the motives) of the "science."
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "Thermometers are standard."
Back in my darker past, I spent a few years knocking down hydrographic survey cruises.
One of the cuter lines that the folks in the NRL, NOAA, and NAVOCEANO use to defend their base line budgeting is "We know more about the surface of the Moon than we know about our own oceans." which stands in contrast to:
"EARTH had its warmest November on record!"

I grew up Catholic, and I also grew up hearing about Global Cooling (oops! )
I've also spent 12 hour shifts on many dark and lonely nights calibrating thermistor arrays, and I've done enough CTD (and other instrument) casts to KNOW that Thermometers are not as standard as you may think.

I'm not a "denier" or whatever other cute label that the environmentalists use to brand apostasy.
I'm Agnostic.
I'm not saying that we're not wrecking the planet, but you'll forgive me if I'm not ready to replace the old guy in the white robes that they made me worship as a kid for another person in a white lab coat that the liberatti are trying to force people like me to worship as an adult.
I will give you this.
At least they're not all old dudes.
I like the variety.


When the science is clear enough for a humble teckie like me to understand without all of the insults and tabloid headlines?
Then I might start going to church again!


Merry Christmas!

 

I think you mean the oposite of what you said. No one rational would argue that the climate didn't change without man burning fossil fuels. That just has no factual basis.

I rather would reject your idea that RATE (your shouting capitalization) is the rational conversation. Since you pointed up to my link, although I think you meant to point to etc and mojo, I feel like I should answer. The rational discussion should be what is likely to happen with business as usual, versus reducing consumption of fossil fuels. In other words it isn't some false discussion that this is the highest rate ever as argued by those supporting mann, and that little of this is natural, but what is policy that will help.

First lets look at the false starts that hurt action. Many pointed to unusual spike in temperature 1998 as being proof it is alost all man and things are going to be much hotter soon. Now the IPCC has taken a look back and said 1998 was likely the result of natural variation and one of those things was ENSO. If you extrapolated the blade of the temperature using that point, you would have expected much warmer global temperatures today than we have. Single years taken out of context are extremely dangerous for real understanding. Taking a single month out of context is even worse. What happens when we have a cold november? Does it disprove global warming? Ofcourse not.

The idea is to look out for multiple decades, not cherry picked data. What is likely to happen if the US all of a sudden abides by kyoto to global temperatures? Not very much different than business as usual. Should the world adopt policies to reduce fossil fuel use? Absolutely! The future is unknown, but policies that work at reducing coal and oil use reduces those risks, along with health risks. We just should not overblow the positive. If we cut oil use by 50% in the US, its likely that the sea levels will still rise, and that global temperatures will continue to get hotter.

absolutely.

Well here is my problem. How do you expect to motivate people to pass laws to use less fuel when you start out calling them the denial community. Would you put hansen in the denial community, as he worked against cap and tax? You can't simply label people enemies, put out distorted views, and get things done. Has the temperature in the US increased greatly over the last 100 years? No. I think that was part of mojo's point. But it ignores that global temperatures have, and eventually those higher temperatures will reach the US. Sea levels have always been global. Oil use and coal use both have costs not acounted for in simply ghg. There are many areas that we can form cooperation without using global warming as the overiding issue. Replacing coal with natural gas and wind, simply makes sense on a purely economic point of view if you actually enforce the clean air and clean water act. Reducing oil dependance simply makes sense from a geopolitical point of view.

 

I don't understand the advantage to NOAA. On NASA I can understand as it was run by hansen so there was possible bias. We also have B.E.S.T. partially funded by the anti-AGW koch brothers that give similar tempearture record.

We can add weasel words to it, but by definition the global temperature is some arithmetic function of the temperature data. We can create error bars based on accuracy of thoese thermometers, and have theories of correction for geography and urban heat island effect,but no one really has disputed the global trend, just how big those error bars should be.

I don't want to turn this into a budgeting discussion.

Therometers are the standard way of measuring temperature. We also have satelites and other methods. The rock solid data is global temperature has risen during the temperature record.

I was not giving the November is the hottest on record as any credence of proof of global warming. It could simply be natural variation in a mild russian winter. I am talking about the real proof the long temperature record.

Now what was Mojo's evidence that there wasn't global warming? Temperatures in the US. It simply is shifting the data set to a smaller one and claiming less data is somehow better. The mild novemeber was mainly seen in Russia, how does excluding russia get justified in a discussion of global warming? It simply can not be.

Will they change their readings from year to year? We are talking about reading temperatures day after day and comparing them to previous decades.

Wow just wanted you to look at the scientific data and not the switcheroo of the politically motivated blogispher. I didn't say any of that other stuff.

 

Ships and planes cost money.
People do not work for free.
No crisis? Why fund as many ships?

Noted. Just remember though....it's a very non-passive component in the AGW food fight.

It's not really as simple as that, but let's stipulate that it's warmer now than it was in the 1880's.
Genesis 1 through about 13 notwithstanding?
The Earth is pretty old.
Science says billions of years.
It's not really clear how old the Mark-1, Mod-0 thermometer is, because nobody can accurately determine when it was invented
Tell you what.
Just for the sake of argument let's pretend that we were able to accurately record the data from one thermometer per square meter per minute over the entire surface of the planet over the known period that liquid-in-glass type thermometers "may" have existed.....so we'll use a value of 500 years.
I will stipulate that those measurements were precise accurate and repeatable (wikipedia states that an uncertainty of ±0.01 °C in the range 0 to 100 °C is reasonable) and that these data were accurately recorded and displayed.
What would you then know that you don't NOW know by watching the Disney Channel?
It's been REALLY hot in the past.
It's been REALLY cold too.
Not so much now.
Change is constant.

Or, as I said before....
You're trying to accurately describe a 4 billion pixel picture with a few hundred data points.

Mind you.....this is just ONE component of the "climate change" food fight, and it's the easiest to record and manipulate. I don't use manipulate as a pejorative here, even though this occurs frequently on both sides.

Almost everything else is a rice-bowl fight with all of the feral eye scratching and personal insults that used to exist when theology ruled and "advanced medicine" involved doses of mercury, bleeding patients, and leeches---although the leeches and maggots are making a comeback!

 

You have accurately stated why NOAA would want to do this reseach, but no reason for them to bias the results. I would think the NOAA bias would be to be accurate. I would think they might even get higher funding if they found the oceans were cooling, instead of what they have found, that they are warming but slower than the IPCC had predicted. The results are consistant with NASA and B.E.S.T. and you might think the first is biased for higher temps, the second for lower, and between the 3 you would catch a biased group.

Hey all I'm considering is the temperatures in the last 134 years in this post, and I don't think genesis says anything about that. Yes, there are mountains of data that point to higher temperatures now versus the late 1800s.

I'm not quite sure what that will do, but ok.

I don't really know what you learn from the disney chanel, since I don't watch it. All I'm trying to do is to get us on the same track on the temperature record, which should not be controversial. If they report it accurately on the disney chanel that's fine. If they don't you should at least look at NOAA and BEST. Neither think uncertainty is that low.
Berkeley Earth

You can see the grey area, the possible error gets really big in the past. Also note this is land only, land and see (global) temperature has a smaller rise and a bigger error.

Yes we are between the hottest and the coldest. We are much warmer now than the average temperature since man appeared on the earth. The coldest temperatures were least hospitable to man.

There is always change, but it is far from constant.

We can recreate quite an accurate picture without billions of data points.

I only see one side greatly manipulating the temperature record. It is really a small number of people. What they do is try to shift data sets to cherry pick the data to say something the data does not say. We can have a political discussion on if its a good idea to shift from coal to natural gas and wind, without the coal proponents faslifying the data. You stipulated earlier that it is warmer now. That is all the data says. There are some on the other side that have also made false claims. We should call them out. The data is the data.

We have the science of climate change, then the fight. Because of politics we seem to have a blogging political fight to distort the data.

You shouldn't be agnostic in the fight. Actually watch as sides switch the data sets or rely on grey data.

 

As for the second set, yes they deserve to be demonized, but I have seen this denier rhetoric used on large groups of the first. I would include my awful governor in that second group. Keeping this out of FHOP, IMHO perry knows that his political position that ACC doesn't exist, is just plain wrong. The political groups funding him though love the rhetoric. Its all about the money, and those activists. We have been able to get good wind policy throgh the legislature though. Name calling doesn't help pass good policy. We have pointed out why choice and wind is good for the texas economy in the long term.

That first group, definitely doesn't respond well to name calling, and that is the group we need to understand the science if we are going to get good public policy.

 

Since 97/98 El Nino the global average air T has been stuck on high. This is unprecedented in the instrumental record. This is not to say that seasonality has gone away!

Here in Kunming we had snow on Monday. It actually 'stuck' for about 24 hours, thus more of a thing than 2008 January was. The old timers say 'once in a decade' something like that. I have become too tropical and not comfortable with indoor air T of 9 0C.

Snowed also in Vietnam and Egypt. In many respects, an unusual N hemisphere winter. I might have thought that our discussion here would be more about loops and dips in the jet stream, because that is strongly related to 'unseasonable' temperatures of all types. Maybe even discuss low arctic sea ice reductions may affect jet stream circulations.

But to discuss thermometry again? Doesn't that seem just a bit redundant? Every measure of earth heat balance is pointing in the same direction. I'm sure that the cited Dr. Maue knows this also. To not know it takes a concerted effort.

 

With all due respect to Jennifer Francis of Rutgers and others who are convinced that weakening upper flow dynamics will necessarily result in more amplification of the flow and/or more atmospheric "blocks", I am not aware of any theoretical meteorology or atmospheric physics that would support that conclusion.

I certainly agree that warming the arctic relatively more than the tropics (polar amplification - not to be confused with flow amplification) will tend to weaken upper air flow. However, if anything, weak upper flow more often leads to zonal flow or low amplitude flows. Highly amplified flows and atmospheric blocks tend to occur more often with strong upper flow/dynamics.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm not convinced of Francis' theory of amplification of upper flow/more persistent atmospheric blocks resulting from shrinking arctic ice fields. Will need to read more than just newspaper articles about this, I guess.

 

IMHO some of these guys are just like the guys on cnbc, finding fake causation everywhere.

An example in the stock charts a good employment report was bad for the market. Why? Because it meant that the fed was more likely to see a better economy, and do a mild taper. Now I had no idea why a slightly better economy and mild taper would be bad for stocks, but OK they said they were the experts. Yesterday comes, and here comes the mild taper, and the market zooms up, more than making up for the the downturn from jobs fearing the taper. So what do the guys say, it went up not because of what the fed did but what it said. Give me a break. Its a bunch of traders and hedgefund managers, putting noise in before the end of the year. The taper was nothing to fear, sometimes good news is good news.

How does this relate to flow? Flow tied to ghg seems to be an explanation for everything. OK, I have my own explanation, natural variability, which is a big black box. But if we subtract with hindsight natural variability from volcanos, oscilations and oscean mixing we get a pretty good picture. This is especially true recently from AMO and ENSO. Now tell me how to predict AMO and ENSO, and we will be getting somewhere. Those two guys seem like the traders and hedge fund managers that change what would be going on in the stock market versus economic news.