Tilo Reber writes in comments:
Using the May data, I now get no temperature change for the last 11 years for HadCrut3, RSS, and UAH.
http://reallyrealclimate.blogspot.com/2008/06/11-year-temperature-anomoly.html
Click for a larger image
Even with the warm spike 1998 El Nino year included, the flatness of the 3 metrics used to track global temperature is telling especially when compared to the Keeling CO2 curve for the same 11 year period:
Here is the entire CO2 record:
It seems that at least for the most recent 11 years, increasing CO2 is not tracking with temperature. CO2 has not overwhelmed natural processes during this period.
Hmm. One measures CO2 for the atmosphere as a whole near an active volcano?!! What am I missing here? (Don’t say my brain.)
Is this really a suprise? The ice core records show us that temperature can and will begin to decline hundreds of years before CO2 levels. i.e. CO2 levels are not driving temperature.
Anthony, you may find this of interest.
Oh, good, now we just have to wait hundreds of years for CO2 to decline and complete the pattern.
Don’t you just love the way they make the CO2 increase seem far more dramatic, simply by suppressing zero on the graph.
If the Y-axis of the graph went down to zero instead of 300, the increase would be seen in its proper perspective.
“Even with the warm spike 1998 El Nino year included, the flatness of the 4 metrics used to track global temperature…”
Tilo’s graph only uses 3 metrics. We all probably know which one is left out, even without looking, and probably for a good reason.
REPLY: Thanks, my mistake, corrected
Regarding these newest 11 Temp. Anomoly & Increasing CO2 graphs prompts me to ask the same question that Al Gore asked in AIT, “Do you think those fit together?”
The answer: Hell no!
Gore lied.
Novice question here…
When and how was the 0° baseline established from which to measure anomolies?
Has anyone looked at this in reverse? What would May’s temperature be if someone removed the CO2 induced warming which has been claimed the models? Chilly?
While this graph sums it up nicely, I think it’s been evident for about a year now that carbon dioxide doesn’t drive temperature just from weather reports and personal observations. Record cold and frozen precipitation last winter and now the abnormally cool temperatures so far this year has to place some doubt in the minds of even the most hardened believers in the global warming myth.
Has anyone looked at this in reverse?
I don’t know, but if this keeps up much longer, the Hockey Team will have to claim that CO2 is saving us from an ice age.
skepticsglobalwarming said:
It’s never really been about “global warming“, so they’ll never give up their quest to control every aspect of our lives through elitist, Socialist fiats and dictates. It wouldn’t matter if the ice sheets returned all the way down the Mississippi Valley and breached the levees in New Orleans— The Goreacolytes™ would still blame the Gaia-killing Eeeeevil SUV’s o’ Doom™ and the U.S. capitalists’ consumption of petroleum products as the culprits.
The
DemocratNational Democratic Socialist Party has the American citizenry exactly where they want us— over a high-priced barrel of oil and, thus, forcing, through overwhelming economic hardship, a change in our daily lifestyles. Thirty-plus years of creeping EnviroFascism™ has brought us to this point in history. Crippling fuel prices are going to drive the U.S. economy to a grinding halt, all the while the “emerging economies” of China and India are given free reign to pump as much CO2 into the atmosphere as their greedy little hearts desire. (How the Hell one considers the two most populated countries, with nearly half the bodies on the planet, “emerging economies, is beyond me.)So, to reiterate what I stated waaaay up there, skeptics, it’s never been about a real “crisis”. It’s always been about money, power and control over the plebes’ lives.
Mauna Loa is a volcano… volcanos leak C02
Volcano in California Springs Unusual Carbon Dioxide Leak
By SANDRA BLAKESLEE , NYTimes
Published: July 23, 1996
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9907E2DA1639F930A15754C0A960958260
Odd place to measure global C02
Likely the same folks who place all those temp monitors.
To Ultimate175.
Generally speaking is supposed to be around 14 degrees celcius.
In fact its a TOTALLY ludicrous number. The temperature on any given day
swings from about -30 to +50 degrees celcius depending where you are.
Talking about an average global temperature makes as much sense as having
1,8 children.
The temperature of the ocean is the ONLY (imo) relevant number for climate.
In reverse, an increase of 22 ppm in CO2 should have translated into about a 0.3C increase in temperatures over the period. The trend often described from the models is 0.2C increase per decade.
The graph would look very different with those kind of trends and an increase in temps would be very noticeable in the graphs versus looking rather flat in reality.
dreamin: “if this keeps up much longer, the Hockey Team will have to claim that CO2 is saving us from an ice age.”
That’s right, and then maybe the government will mandate a Hummer in every garage. You know, to take the chill off 😉
Mauna Loa’s CO2 data is nearly identical to the other measuring sites across the planet of which there are many. Antartica is 1 – 2 ppm lower than the other sites since it take a year or so for the CO2 mixing to spread across the entire atmosphere but it does seem to do so.
Don’t know how I came across your blog but I am really enjoying it. I recognized you immediately as I used to be a fan of your television weather…..I even like this blog
better! Thanks – very interesting stuff!
Peter (10:17:41) :
“Don’t you just love the way they make the CO2 increase seem far more dramatic, simply by suppressing zero on the graph. If the Y-axis of the graph went down to zero instead of 300, the increase would be seen in its proper perspective.”
I think you’re being more than a little harsh. The temperature anomaly graph does essentially the same thing. If you want a plot with CO2 going from 0-400 ppm, then consistancy would suggest the temperature plot go from absolute 0 to 300 K. I suppose you might want to adjust out the anomaly during a year, but the CO2 data doesn’t have it so neither should the temperature.
The reality is that we’re looking at changes of a few percent for CO2, less than a percent for temperature, we need the split scales, but also need to inform the reader about what it means.
statePoet1775 (09:50:06) :
“Hmm. One measures CO2 for the atmosphere as a whole near an active volcano?!!”
I believe Mauna Loa is upwind of the active volcanoes. However, it may be downwind of Honolulu. It was chosen to permit a lot of mixing from CO2 sources to the measuring point.
I suppose Kwajalein Atoll would’ve been a good choice too, but be honest, would you rather be at http://www.mlo.noaa.gov/livecam/livecam.html or http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/kwa/0pho_frm.html ?
Anthony,
You seem to be missing GISS in your collection of metrics. If you include it, the graph looks like this: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997/to:2009/offset:-0.146/plot/gistemp/from:1997/to:2009/offset:-0.238/plot/uah/from:1997/to:2009/plot/rss/from:1997/to:2009
I’ll add some trendlines when I have a chance. I can tell you that the phrase “Even with the warm spike 1998 El Nino included” is a bit disingenuous, since including the El Nino spike near the start of the series you are calculating a trend for makes it easier to show a flat or declining trend.
REPLY: I didn’t create the graph. The choice not to include GISS was Tino’s
On a side note though, I simply don’t trust GISS any more due to the number of issues it has with homogenity adjustments on stations that shouldn’t be adjusted, and thier choice of baseline period also doesn’t make much sense. Then there is the data interpolation at high latitudes that GISS does, mixing real data with derived data in the final product. Then we have Jim Hansen trying to lobby for policy while being the gatekeeper for the science he publishes. No, I don’t trust GISS any more than I trust CBS.
Its rather curious that GISS and Hadley are diverging during the most
recent cool down. I think I’ve seen Waldo hiding in the South Pacific and Canada though – two places where the warming is most pronounced in the MSU data.
Thant should be “two places where the cooling” . . .
There’s a wiggle in the 2008 Moana Loa CO2. Five months after the record decreases in temperature anomalies of Dec-January.
Found where they monitor CO2 in Antacrtica!
Atmospheric CO2 Record from Continuous Measurements at Jubany Station, Antarctica
The Antarctic station at Jubany (62° 14’S, 58° 40’W) is situated on King George Island, in the South Shetland archipelago north of the Antarctic Penisula.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/jubany.html
King George Island is the largest in the archipelago of submarine and subaerial volcanoes known as the South Shetland Islands off of the Antarctic Peninsula.
http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/05sounds/media/kgi_map.html
Yep! they do like putting CO2 monitors on volcanos!!!!
I think that a possibly even bigger reason to not believe the GISS data is purely because of the source of that data and the scientists behind it. James Hansen is a very intelligent scientist, physisist, and mathmatician. However, he has lost his compass as to the general basics of the scientific method. If you read his biography on the GISS site or any stories about him, they generally say things like how he is interested in showing how anthropogenic influence on the atmosphere is creating climate change, and things to this nature. Good scientists just do not do this. Period. Good scientists collect data and then decide what it means.
Not saying he is bad or evil. I’m just saying he’s not truely a scientist. Not anymore. His ideas drive his research and interpretations rather than having his research and data drive his ideas. In fact, it is certainly possible that the homogeneity issues and the like are believed by the GISS folks because they happen to fit their ideas.
Dreamin: Already happened. James Hansen stated, “Humans now control global climate, for better or worse… Another Ice Age cannot occur unless humans become extinct.”
Like we want another ice age!
Hmmmmm we must be moving out of Alabama now. Record low temperature in Montgomery Ala bama this morning. Low was 58 the old record was 59 set in 1965.
Just thinking it might be another cool month across the deep south.
Bill Derryberry
“You seem to be missing GISS in your collection of metrics. If you include it, the graph looks like this:”
I looked at GISS along with the others about a month ago. Considering that it is diverging from the others, considering all of the problems with the GISS record that Anthony and Steve McIntyre have pointed out, I don’t consider it worth using. In any case here is a chart which includes it and which shows the divergence. It’s a slightly different time period. It starts in Jan of 98 and stops with the data that was available when I made it – April 08.
In any case, here is that chart.
http://reallyrealclimate.blogspot.com/2008/05/divergence-of-giss-data.html
For the last decade, GISS has diverged at a rate of about .13C per decade. That is more than half of the supposed AGW rate of .2C per decade. Fairly serious divergence.
Considering the issue of having an El Nino at the beginning and a La Nina at the end of the graph is one that I have looked into. There were seven El Nino/La Nina periods over that interval. I tried to evaluate the effects of all of them on the slope of the graph, rather than just blaming the flat trend on the beginning and end.
Here is that evaluation. It covers the same time period as the divergence chart, but I don’t think that the 11 year chart would be much different.
http://reallyrealclimate.blogspot.com/2008/05/ten-year-hadcrut3-enso-effects.html
The bottom line is that the 11 year period is not flat because of El Nino/La Nina.
Interestingly CO2 seems not to be well-mixed at altitude according to this:
http://www-airs.jpl.nasa.gov/Products/CarbonDioxide/
Note the low concentrations over Antarctica and Greenland. This might explain something that has puzzled me, namely that historical CO2 measurements from stomatal index consistently give higher values than ice-core measurements of the same age. Stomatal index measurements almost always are from temperate latitudes near sea-level while the air in ice-core bubbles of course originates from 2000-3000 meters altitude.
B.C. (11:35:37) :
Maxine Waters(D) has already threatened to nationalize the Oil Industry:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.phpfa=PAGE.view&pageId=65111
Gore and his ilk don’t care whether they’re right about AGW as long as it gains them power. If AGW is proven wrong they’ll try something else, and it looks like they’re going with an oil crisis.
Bill in Vigo,
I had NO idea about the cold snap in Alabama. Thanks for letting us know about it.
I wrote about this in a TWC entry in Anthony’s site earlier, but I find it interesting that news agencies and the like show not only record high temps, but even if they get “close” to the record high temps. No mention is hardly ever made of record low temps or cold temps in general these days. Just high temps, please, Ma’am.
Welcome to the times, I suppose.
Anthony: “…I don’t trust GISS any more than I trust CBS.”
That is an extremely strong statement, coming on top of the ‘global warming will cause increased earthquake activity,’ and the CBS/Dan Rather outright fabrications that were reported as fact.
I grew up worshiping NASA. I watched the moon landing from Tuy Hoa, Viet Nam. I want to trust the government’s scientists. But they can no longer be trusted.
Mauna Loa is an active volcano. There is earthquake activity frequently on this mountain. It will erupt again and Kialuha-Kona is in the path of lava flows from the most recent previous eruptions.
Hay, Mr. Hansen, what has been the “climate sensitivity and positve feedback” numbers with the increase of CO2 and lower temperature for the last 10 years?
Where is all that CO2 induced global warming hidding?
I know this is off topic, but kind of not really far off:
http://www.peruviantimes.com/peru-declares-state-of-emergency-due-to-record-breaking-cold-spell/
“Peru declares state of emergency due to record-breaking cold spell” . . . where is warming when you need it?
“I want to trust the government’s scientists. But they can no longer be trusted.” Smokey
“To show partiality is not good, Because for a piece of bread a man will transgress.” Proverbs 28:21
A. Scientists are men.
B. Some men will transgress for a piece of bread.
C. Therefore, some scientists will transgress for a piece of bread.
oops, flaw in logic above, never mind.
Too bad that a strict constitutionalist has no chance to be elected in this country. If this broken government cannot be fixed, more and more states will be considering secession. Socialism has already been weighed and found wanting. Why are we repeating the failed policies of the Bolshevics?
It occurs to ask the following:
If CO2 is a well mixed atmospheric gas and the warming caused by CO2 is most apparent in areas which lack water vapor, why hasn’t Antarctica shown a rapid increase in temperature given that it is the driest place (trivia question is that Antarctica is the world’s largest desert) on earth by a significant margin?
Thus far in the ‘anthrocene’ period Antarctica has shown no statistically significant warming. Seems to me this alone disproves the CO2 warming theories.
stateBibleThumper42 (18:12:27) :
“A. Scientists are men.”
False. My sister is a marine biologist.
Bill Marsh:
Mostly because water vapor is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2 (though, as we know via Clausius-Clapeyron, absolute humidity is directly proportional to temperature). So slightly more CO2 and a lot less water vapor would not necessarily lead to any net warming. Not to mention the cooling effects of a strong albedo and the hole in the stratospheric ozone layer.
tty 14:00:45
Interesting plot, no?
Large variations in CO2, more than 1ppm over the globe. Something like 15.
And this brings me to the crucial question: Why are there no continuous maps like this for all the years? Months even? I have only found this one for July 2003. CO2 is the big culprit and it is being hid. We see maps of everything under the sky, except CO2.
Is it possible that data are being suppressed because they are politically incorrect? Make statements about homogeneity of CO2 and “long stay in atmosphere” ridiculous? NASA shutting up NASA?
Traciatim (18:01:01) :
“I know this is off topic, but kind of not really far off:
http://www.peruviantimes.com/peru-declares-state-of-emergency-due-to-record-breaking-cold-spell/
“Peru declares state of emergency due to record-breaking cold spell” . . . where is warming when you need it?”
Apparently it’s in Peru. That article has a link to http://hisz.rsoe.hu/alertmap/woalert_read.php?lang=eng&glide=CW-20080620-17260-PER and if you go there, then click on Event Description, you’ll see:
How can they possibly blame this on global warming? Haven’t they heard that climate change is at fault?
tty:
Interesting link to jpl. Note the ‘warm blanket’ proper gander and the associated graph.
Roy Spencer’s F-test on the seasonal variation and long-term trend in Mauna Loa CO2 data indicated a single source (posted here months back): Southern Ocean heating is my take.
RE: Your stomata vis a vis ice core discrepancy, Zbigniew Jaworowski (a paper at Icecap) discounts ice core values entirely but for core-only comparisons, between eras; the values collapse monotonically and cannot be mapped directly to their original concentration using available technique.
In part because its mixing with air IS interesting. CO2 is heavier than air and somewhat soluble in H2O, forming carbonic acid or ‘aerial acid’-its ancient name. I wonder if the map isn’t as indicative of moisture as it might be of CO2 production (by a number of means, or fluences).
anna v: ““long stay in atmosphere” ridiculous”.
Thank you, I was beginning to feel like an irascible kook.
The chemistry of CO2 in water is another rich ground of misinformation. The carbonic acid – bicarbonate buffer system, for instance, is turned on its head when alarms are raised over ocean acidification.
I’m grateful for the expression “homogenity adjustments”; I’d got bored with “fudge factors”.
If you wanted to get the true picture of CO2, map it’s increase as a percentage of the total atmosphere. I think a lot of people would go “Huh?”
“It seems that at least for the most recent 11 years, increasing CO2 is not !tracking with temperature.”
One misstake that is done when comparing temperature and CO2 is that Temperature is compared with actual CO2 level. Imo it is like comparing speed with distance (km/h and km).
What you should compare is the RATE which CO2 change each year. All of a sudden there is a very tight connection between CO2 change and temperature.
For some reason this is rarely brought up when comparing CO2 and temperature.
This diagram shows how close the CO2 change rate FOLLOWS the temperature.
To mee it looks like gobal temperature has a bigger impact on the rate which CO2 is added to our atmosphere than the anthropogen emissions for some reason.
REPLY: Hadn’t seen that before, thanks for pointing it out – Anthony
[…] Related Content Charts are included at Watts Up With That? that show no global warming for last eleven years, despite a continued increase in CO2 levels. […]
Jerker,
I was playing around with this a while ago:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/isolate:60/mean:12/scale:0.2/plot/hadcrut3vgl/isolate:60/mean:12/from:1958
This is CO2 and temperature with a 5-year running mean *subtracted*, removing the long-term increase, and then averaged on a 12 month running mean to remove the annual CO2 signal. What’s left are 1- to 5- year cycles in both. The CO2 is then scaled down by 5 to make it fit.
This shows a strong 6-12 month *lag* of CO2 from temperature, which indicates relatively short-term temperature changes are driving CO2 concentration – but not by very much; unscaled the peaks here are only 1ppm. I think this is evidence of a (small) positive feedback between temperature and CO2.
… to give an indication of how small an effect this is, here is the 1-5 year CO2 signal (red) compared with the same thing but with the annual variation left intact (green). It’s about a tenth of the annual variation.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/isolate:60/mean:12/plot/esrl-co2/isolate:60
Oh, and here’s the same comparison as before but done with Fourier, filtering out 2-5 year signals:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/detrend:70/fourier/high-pass:10/low-pass:25/inverse-fourier/scale:0.2/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1958/fourier/high-pass:10/low-pass:25/inverse-fourier
[…] CO2-Temperature correlation theory has been shattered by 11 years of flat temperatures and 8 years of global cooling despite steady increases in CO2 […]
The anomalies are matched by date, right? If so that would make the satellite measurements at or just a bit under 0.2ºC under HadCRU surface temps. Which means that GW from 1979 to 1998 has been exaggerated by about twofold (or do I misinterpret?).
This also seems to match in pretty well with John V’s results?
Not only that, but according to GW theory, doesn’t one have to adjust lower troposphere temp. RATES (sic) of increase downward if one wants to bring them into alignment with surface temps?
[…] He had pretty graphs and stuff. Check it out here. […]
64.8 from the sun; another new low.
=====================
[…] Is warming on 11 year hiatus? Well… I always think it’s best to ask yourself: Would I really think a particular method of looking at data is meaningful? Would I still believe this if the answers turned out “wrong” from my POV? Or, will I eventually find myself explaining my own method gives uncertainty bounds that are “too small”, when my gives “wrong” answers? […]
kim: please, you should know by now [from so many discussions on this] that the observed radio flux is not what the Sun puts out. The distance to the Sun varies 3.5% over the year causing the observed radio flux to vary by 7% [goes with the square of the distance], so the 64.8 is really 67.0 as it says in the ‘adjusted’ column. The observed flux is largest January 4th and smallest July 4th [or so] when we are farthest from the Sun. Back on Sept. 30, 2007, the flux was 65.1, so no new low.
Thanks, Leif, for telling me that twice. Maybe you won’t have to do it three times.
==================================
[…] data from every source except GISS shows no warming trend for the past 11 years. Funny […]
[…] is at 350 ppm, the level reached in 1988. Currently, the concentration of CO2 sits at 385 ppm, with no increase in temperatures in the last 11 years. In fact, parts of America were reached record low temperatures and were receiving snow as late as […]
[…] For those of you who like to see the data, I submit this post How Not To Measure Temperature, Part 64 – Estimating biases and comparing to GISS Homogeneity Adjust… […]
[…] die. That would mean it’s about finding a linear fit of a short, noisy time series, right? That’s what started it. Further blogging revealed that ignoring the temperature data from GISS and NCDC, which […]
[…] 1. Warming On 11 Year Hiatus […]
Hmmm, smoothed flux at earth 9/2007- 67.1, 6/2008- 65.8. My, it really is a long minimum we’re having. Wonder what consequences might follow?