Reality: 2007 is the fifth warmest year since 1880

[billvon 3,132]

Meanwhile, back in the real world:

============================
The Year 2007 Was World's Fifth Warmest Year Since 1880

December 31, 2007 1:39 p.m. EST

Nehul Jagdish Kumar
AHN Jagdish Kumar

Mumbai, India (AHN) - The year 2007 was expected to be the fifth warmest year since 1880, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The greatest warming has taken place regions of the Northern Hemisphere.

. . . .

According to NOAA, the global annual temperature - for combined land and ocean surfaces- for 2007 is expected to be near 57 degrees Fahrenheit, or 14.44 degrees Celsius. Some of the largest and most widespread warmth anomalies occurred from Eastern Europe to central Asia, Science Daily reported Monday.

Seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001, including 2007 and the 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1997.
============================

[mnealtx 0]

Kinda forgot that "expected", didn't you?

Is that claim with or without the recent NOAA adjustments, btw?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Meanwhile, back in the real world:

============================
The Year 2007 Was World's Fifth Warmest Year Since 1880

December 31, 2007 1:39 p.m. EST

Nehul Jagdish Kumar
AHN Jagdish Kumar

Mumbai, India (AHN) - The year 2007 was expected to be the fifth warmest year since 1880, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The greatest warming has taken place regions of the Northern Hemisphere.

. . . .

According to NOAA, the global annual temperature - for combined land and ocean surfaces- for 2007 is expected to be near 57 degrees Fahrenheit, or 14.44 degrees Celsius. Some of the largest and most widespread warmth anomalies occurred from Eastern Europe to central Asia, Science Daily reported Monday.

Seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001, including 2007 and the 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1997.
============================

We could use some warmer weather here right now. I am glad to see the cycle is in a warming trend right now too.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Royd 0]

Quote

We could use some warmer weather here right now. I am glad to see the cycle is in a warming trend right now too.

Yea, but you can't punish the sun.

[rushmc 23]

And I know this is a month old

2007 cools, set to be 6th warmest year on record 28 Nov 2007 15:56:11 GMT
Source: Reuters


By Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent

OSLO, Nov 28 (Reuters) - This year is set to be the sixth warmest since records began 150 years ago, cooler than earlier predicted which means a slight respite for European ski resorts or bears trying to hibernate. "2007 will likely be near equal with 2006, so joint sixth warmest year," Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at Britain's University of East Anglia, told Reuters.

The unit, which provides global data for the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), had predicted a year ago that 2007 could be the warmest worldwide since reliable records began in the 1860s. It cut the prediction to number 2 in mid-year.

A sizzling start to 2007, blamed on a combination of global warming and an El Nino warming of the Pacific Ocean that meant an abnormally warm winter in the northern Hemisphere, tailed off as the El Nino ended early.

Jones predicted that 2007 would be beaten by 1998, warmest ahead of 2005, 2003, 2002 and 2004. The U.S. space agency NASA says that 2005 was fractionally warmer than 1998.

The unusually warm start to the year was partly blamed for heating the Atlantic and cutting the extent of Arctic sea ice to a record low in summer. It also disrupted crop growth.

Many of Europe's Alpine ski resorts -- starved of snow a year ago -- have opened. In Switzerland 48 resorts, or more than half the total, opened about 10 days ago after good early snows and freezing temperatures.

In northern Europe, resorts such as Hafjell have opened weeks before last year, when temperatures were too high even for snow-making machines.

DOZING OFF

And bears in a Bulgarian conservation park are starting to doze off for winter hibernations, around the normal time, after last year's mild winter badly disrupted their sleep.

"Four of the bears are sleeping already. The weather was a bit warm but last week it became colder and it snowed so they have fallen asleep," said Raya Stoilova of the "Four Paws" foundation of 24 bears in a conservation park.

The U.N. climate panel has blamed human activities, led by burning fossil fuels in power plants, factories and cars for stoking global warming. Eleven of the 12 years from 1995 to 2006 were among the 12 warmest years on record, it says.

The world's environment ministers will meet in Bali, Indonesia, from December 3-14 to seek ways to widen the fight against climate change.

They will aim to launch two years of talks on a new climate deal to succeed the U.N.'s Kyoto Protocol and seek more involvement by Kyoto outsiders such as the United States and big developing nations led by China and India.

-- For Reuters latest environment blogs click on: http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/

(Writing by Alister Doyle)

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

From a blog, looking for the data

December 12th, 2007 at 2:08 am
“But couldn’t this all be the sun going through a phase of high solar radiation, a favorite explanation of those who deny that human-generated greenhouse gases are the primary cause of warming? No.”

Not so fast. Although were are entering a solar minimum J-lean has found that there is overall increasing solar activity during this century. She has reported that TSI during recent solar maximums has been higher than at any time in the past 4 centuries.

G-Kopp at SORCE notes that an estimated increase of 0.04% would induce appreciable climate change if it persists for a sufficient number of solar cycles.

Also keep in mind that since the Maunder Minimum solar energy has slowly increased over each subsiquent 11-year solar cycle.

Furthermore, J-lean finds that solar forcing is greater than previously expected:

The Sun Approaches Its 11 Year Minimum and Activity Cycle 24

“Climate response to decadal solar forcing has previously been expected to be too small to be detected. (Scientists reasoned that the amount of change caused by solar forcing would be too small to change the ocean temperatures significantly—i.e., any change would be dampened by the ocean’s thermal inertia.) However, recent empirical results associating decadal solar variability and climate contradict this expectation, and recent studies are beginning to shed light on how this may take place.”

Take a breath Joe. Many solar researchers believe solar activity accounts for half of the recent warming. I wouldn’t ignore the role solar activity has on the climate.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[mnealtx 0]

I'm sorry - Sol has not been accepted as part of the 'consensus' and therefore any input must be verified by peer review...

Any contact with Sirius or Aldebaran to verify this yet?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rushmc 23]

I admit some of this is over my head but, true to my point. The science is not settled.

Svalgaard Solar Theory
By Steve McIntyre
Lif Svalgaard writes (moved from another thread for convenience”)
Line 1:
The Total solar Irradiance (TSI) has several sources. The first and most important is simply the temperature in the photosphere. The hotter the sun, the higher the TSI. Some spectral lines are VERY sensitive to even minute changes in temperature. Livingston et al. has very carefully measured the line depth of such temperature-sensitive lines over more than 30 years spanning three solar cycles [Sun-as-a-Star Spectrum Variations 1974-2006, W. Livingston, L. Wallace, O. R. White, M. S. Giampapa, The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 657, Issue 2, pp. 1137-1149, 2007, DOI; 10.1086/511127]. They report [and I apologize for the somewhat technical turn my argument is taking, but if you really want to know, there is no avoiding this], “that both Ca II K and C I 5380A intensities are constant, indicating that the basal quiet atmosphere is unaffected by cycle magnetism within our observational error. A lower limit to the Ca II K central intensity atmosphere is 0.040. This possibly represents conditions as they were during the Maunder Minimum [their words, remember]. Within our capability to measure it using the C I 5380A line the global (Full Disk) and basal (Center Disk) photospheric temperature is constant over the activity cycles 21, 22, and 23″. I have known Bill Livingston [and White] for over 35 years and he is a very careful and competent observer.

Line 2:
Since the 1960 we have known that the sun’s surface oscillates up and down [with typical periods of ~5 minutes]. These oscillations are waves very much like seismic waves in the Earth [caused by earthquakes] and just as earthquake seismic waves can be used to probe the interior of the Earth, they can be used to probe the solar interior. There are millions of such solar waves at any given time and there are different kinds (called ’modes’) of waves. The solar p-modes are acoustic [sound waves] normal modes. You one can imagine a frequency increase with an increasing magnetic field, due to the increase in magnetic pressure raising the local speed of sound near the surface where it is cooler and where the p-modes spend most of their time. Of course one can also imagine higher frequencies may result from an induced shrinking of the sound cavity and/or an isobaric warming of the cavity. Another kind is the solar f-modes that are the eigenmodes of the sun having no radial null points [i.e. asymptotically surface waves; again I apologize for the technical mumbo-jumbo]. From the solar cycle variations of p- and f-modes [and we have now enough data from the SOHO spacecraft to make such a study] we now have an internally consistent picture of the origin of these frequency changes that implies a sun that is coolest at activity maximum when it is most irradiant. Now, how can that be? How can a cooler [overall, including the cooler sunspots, for instance, as the temperature of the non-magnetic areas of the sun didn’t change {see line 1 above}] sun radiate more? It can do that, if it is bigger! The change in the radius of the Sun from minimum to maximum is about 1 km. Goode and Dziembowski (Sunshine, Earthshine and Climate Change I. Origin of, and Limits on Solar Variability, by Goode, Philip R. & Dziembowski, W. A., Journal of the Korean Astronomical Society, vol. 36, S1, pp. S75-S81, 2003) used the helioseismic data to determine the shape changes in the Sun with rising activity. They calculated the so-called shape asymmetries from the seismic data and found each coefficient was essentially zero at activity minimum and rose in precise spatial correlation with rising surface activity, as measured using Ca II K data from Big Bear Solar Observatory. From this one can conclude that there is a rising corrugation of the solar surface due to rising activity, implying a sun, whose increased irradiance is totally due to activity induced corrugation. This interpretation has been recently observationally verified by Berger et al. (Berger, T.E., van der Voort, L., Rouppe, Loefdahl, M., Contrast analysis of Solar faculae and magnetic bright points. Astrophysical Journal, vol. 661, p.1272, 2007) using the new Swedish Solar Telescope. They have directly observed these corrugations. Goode & Dziembowski conclude that the Sun cannot have been any dimmer, on the time steps of solar evolution, than it is now at activity minimum.

Line 3:
Foukal et al. (Foukal, P., North, G., Wigley, T., A stellar view on solar variations and climate. Science, vol. 306, p. 68, 2004) point out the Sun’s web-like chromospheric magnetic network (an easily visible solar structure seen through a Ca II K filter) would have looked very different a century ago, if there had been a significant change in the magnetic field of the sun supposedly increasing TSI. However, there is a century of Mt. Wilson Solar Observatory Ca II K data which reveal that the early 20th century network is indistinguishable from that of today.

Line 4:
Svalgaard & Cliver have recently (A Floor in the Solar Wind Magnetic Field, by L. Svalgaard and E. W. Cliver, The Astrophysical Journal, vol. 661, L203–L206, 2007 June 1, 2007) shown that long-term (∼130 years) reconstruction of the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) based on geomagnetic indices indicates that the solar wind magnetic field strength [and thus that of the sun itself, from which the IMF originates] has a “floor,” a baseline value in annual averages that it approaches at each 11 yr solar minimum. In the ecliptic plane at 1 AU [at the Earth], the IMF floor is ∼4.6 nT, a value substantiated by direct solar wind measurements and cosmogenic nuclei data. We identify the floor with a constant (over centuries) baseline open magnetic flux at 1 AU of ~ Weber, corresponding to a constant strength (∼ Ampere) of the heliospheric current. Solar cycle variations of the IMF strength ride on top of the floor. They point out that such a floor has implications for (1) the solar wind during grand minima — we are given a glimpse of Maunder minimum conditions at every 11 yr minimum; (2) current models of the solar wind — both source surface and MHD models are based on the assumption, invalidated by Ulysses, that the largest scale fields determine the magnitude of the IMF; consequently, these models are unable to reproduce the high-latitude observations; and (3) the use of geomagnetic input data for precursor-type predictions of the coming sunspot maximum — this common practice is rendered doubtful by the observed disconnect between solar polar field strength and heliospheric field strength [the wrong prediction by the NASA panel for cycle 23 was based on this, and the prediction {of a high cycle} by one half of panel for cycle 24 is also partly based on this]. The constancy of the IMF also has implications for the interpretation of the Galactic cosmic ray flux.

Line 5:
But maybe it is the Ultraviolet flux that varies and affects the stratospheric ozone concentration and thereby influences the climate. I have earlier in (Calibrating the Sunspot Number using the “Magnetic Needle”, L. Svalgaard; CAWSES News, 4(1), 6.5, 2007] pointed out that the amplitude of the diurnal variation of the geomagnetic Y-component is an excellent proxy for the F10.7 radio flux and thus also for the EUV flux (more precisely, the FUV, as the Sq current flows in the E layer). There is a weak trend in the amplitude of 10% since the 1840s that can be understood as being due to an increase of ionospheric conductance resulting from the 10% decrease of the Earth’s main field. Correcting for and removing this trend then leads to the conclusion that (as for the IMF) there seems to be a “’floor’” in rY and hence in F10.7 and hence in the FUV flux, thus the geomagnetic evidence is that there has been no secular change in the background solar minimum EUV (FUV) flux in the past 165 years.

Line 6:
Careful analysis of the amplitude of the solar diurnal variation of the East-component of the geomagnetic field [we have accurate measurements back to the 1820s] allows us the obtain an independent measure of the FUV flux (and hence the sunspot number) back to then. The result is that the Wolf number before ~1945 should be increased by 20% and before ~1895 by another 20%. The Group Sunspot number in the 1840s is 40% too low compared to the official Wolf number. When all these adjustments are made we find that solar activity for cycles 11 and 10 were as high as for cycle 22 and 23. Thus there has been no secular increase in solar activity in the last ~165 years [a bit more precise than the 150 years I quoted earlier]. Of course, there has still been small and large cycles, but we are talking about the long-term trend here [or lack thereof].

————–

Direct measurements (although beset by calibration problems) of the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) from satellites have only been available for 30 years and indicate that solar irradiance increases with solar activity. Correlating mean annual TSI and sunspot numbers allows one to estimate the part of TSI that varies with the sunspot number. If TSI only depends linearly on the sunspot number then irradiance levels during the Maunder Minimum would be similar to the levels of current solar minima. But TSI is a delicate balance between sunspot darkening and facular brightening, and although both of these increase (in opposite directions) with increasing solar activity, it is not a given that there could not be secular variations in the relative importance of these competing effects. Several earlier reconstructions of TSI, reviewed in Fröhlich, C. & J. Lean (Solar Radiative Output and its Variability; Evidence and Mechanisms, Astron..& Astrophys. Rev., 12(4), 273, 2004, Doi;10.1007/s00159-004-0024-1.[6] all postulate a source of long-term irradiance variability on centennial time scales. Each group of researchers have their own preferred additional source of changes of the “background” TSI, such as evidence from geomagnetic activity, open magnetic flux, ephemeral region occurrence, umbral/penumbral ratios, and the like. The existence of “floors” in IMF and FUV over ~1.6 centuries argues for a lack of secular variations of these parameters on that time scale. The five lines of evidence discussed above suggest that the lack of such secular variation undermines the circumstantial evidence for a “hidden” source of irradiance variability and that there therefore also might be a floor in TSI, such that TSI during Grand Minima would simply be that observed at current solar minima.

——

#87: The Zeeman splitting is not applicable because the floor is not derived from solar magnetograph data. The point about the radius is well-taken and there are efforts underway to measure the radius precisely. Helioseismology [as well as the success of general relativity] has pretty much ruled out a rapidly rotating solar core which would give rise to oblateness. And it is perfectly true that there may be effects we don’t know about, but as Wittgenstein said “of that which we don’t know we should be silent”.

Now, this is a BIG subject and you are in a sense watching science in the making, but the picture is becoming clearer and there is enough NEW evidence that simply quoting old papers [even rather recent ones] is old hat. If you look carefully at the various reconstructions they all rely on some combination of the [too low] Group Sunspot numbers and/or the [too low aa-index] and/or the now discredited “doubling of open magnetic flux in the last 100 years” [not even Lockwood thinks so anymore]. With these things out of the way there is little support anymore for the “all-time high solar activity”. But as I said, this whole thing will probably take some time to play out - let’s say about a solar cycle’s worth. Each of the issues mentioned above is complicated and requires a lengthy analysis and much convincing before they sink in. But at least you are now forewarned

All the lines are connected, you cannot easily accept some and reject the others [with possible exception of #1]. So accept all or reject all. I’m very willing to discuss any and all of them in detail, but it has to be done with civility [windandsea: nobody is ‘flinging nonsense’. People are either ignorant (which is no shame) or have other hidden motives (which is no shame either)]. I have learned that civility is a precious commodity in the GW debate, but we can all do our part.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[warpedskydiver 0]

Yep it is a heatwave here Bill, a balmy 12 fucking degrees out.

You might as well go outside and tan eh?

[KidWicked 0]

Quote

Yep it is a heatwave here Bill, a balmy 12 fucking degrees out.

You might as well go outside and tan eh?

You are totally misinterpreting the finding that he posted.

Coreece: "You sound like some skinheads I know, but your prejudice is with Christians, not niggers..."

[itllclear 1]

Quote

According to NOAA, the global annual temperature - for combined land and ocean surfaces- for 2007 is expected to be near 57 degrees Fahrenheit, or 14.44 degrees Celsius.

But an ICAO "Standard" atmosphere has a sea level temp of 15C?

"Harry, why did you land all the way out there? Nobody else landed out there."

"Your statement answered your question."

[warpedskydiver 0]

who cares, it is now 9 degrees out.

But it was nice going for a two hour wlak with the dogs through the park.

Peaceful, and beautiful out.

And the elk were curled up like a dog keeping warm.

[akarunway 1]

Quote

who cares, it is now 9 degrees out.

But it was nice going for a two hour wlak with the dogs through the park.

Peaceful, and beautiful out.

And the elk were curled up like a dog keeping warm.

No elk for dinner?This Ribeye sucks.

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[mnealtx 0]

Pics, man....we need PICS!!!

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

Quote

who cares, it is now 9 degrees out.

But it was nice going for a two hour wlak with the dogs through the park.

Peaceful, and beautiful out.

And the elk were curled up like a dog keeping warm.

No elk for dinner?This Ribeye sucks.

No elk for dinner, they are pets in the park, behind a fence too.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

No elk for dinner, they are pets in the park, behind a fence too.

So move..

I can show you plenty of them that are not behind fences

Plus our gun laws are a hell of a lot less restrictive here in WA...

Oh and it was nice yesterday and today here
http://www.weather.com/outlook/events/sports/local/USWA0395?from=search_city

[DSE 5]

Quote

No elk for dinner, they are pets in the park, behind a fence too

Not here. A bunch of elk just took down the fence in my east pasture. It's never fun fixing fencing in the snow.

[warpedskydiver 0]

I bet it is not fun at all.

Fence breakers, it's what's for dinner.

Douglas, just remember there is room for all of Gods creatures, right next to the mashed potatoes.

[Channman 2]

> who cares, it is now 9 degrees out.

Thats why my wife drives a Hummer. Doing the little things to prevent the next ICE AGE, wish we could do more.

[lawrocket 3]

Why "since 1880?" I mean, it's generally agreed that in 1850 the northern hemisphere was still coming out of a "little ice age." And it's

How does it rank since 1080 - the maximum of the Medievel Warm Period? About the same? The graphs I have seen generally seem to show us as spending the last 900 years or so below average. Why is that?

I mean,

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,184]

Quote

How does it rank since 1080 - the maximum of the Medievel Warm Period? About the same? The graphs I have seen generally seem to show us as spending the last 900 years or so below average. Why is that?

Well, before that it was "The Dark Ages"

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,132]

> Why "since 1880?"

Because we don't have as good data before 1880. We still have proxy data, but many people don't believe in proxy data, so I figured I'd avoid that whole argument and just post about the period we DO have good direct-observation data for.

[lawrocket 3]

How good is this data? How accurate and complete is it?

I would reckon that we would have a HUGE amount of additional data today over what we had in even 1960.

Only "proxy data" would be available for most places in the world for most years since 1880. How are they filling in the gaps?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,132]

> How good is this data?

Pretty good overall. By 1880 we had accurate temperature calibration standards, a reporting system and a recording system in place.

>Only "proxy data" would be available for most places in the world for
>most years since 1880.

That's true even for, say, Manhattan. The area not covered by thermometers greatly exceeds the area covered by thermometers. Measurements are extrapolated as weighted averages between stations and are corrected for elevation via the standard adiabatic lapse rate calculation.

[leewilcox 0]

>Seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001, including 2007 and the 10
>warmest years have all occurred since 1997.

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 = 6 years, not 7, therefore the first part gets a grade F in
elementary school arithmetic. Reality check, there is a lot of GlowBull warming these days.

"Nothing exists except atoms and empty space; everything else is opinion" - Democritus