A Big Picture Look At “Earth’s Temperature” – 2nd Quarter, 2012 – “What Global Warming Looks Like” Update

By WUWT regular “Just The Facts”

In the US we are currently being bombarded with claims that “this summer is ‘what global warming looks like'” from the Associated Press and “summer heat wave an early indication of global warming” from MSNBC, as well as insinuations like “Record heat, derecho storm: Does global warming get blame?” from USA Today and “Did global warming intensify the derecho in Washington, D.C.?” from the Washington Post. Furthermore, the association between “Global Warming” and regional weather is being pushed by our supposed scientific leaders, e.g. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) chief Jane Lubchenco recently stated that:

“Many people around the world are beginning to appreciate that climate change is under way, that it’s having consequences that are playing out in real time and, in the United States at least, we are seeing more and more examples of extreme weather and extreme climate-related events”.
Washington Post

So does observational data support these claims and insinuations? Let’s take a look…

Global Surface Temperatures:

Generally, when referring to Earth’s “climate” warming, proponents of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) narrative refer to Earth’s Surface Temperature, e.g. “Global warming is the unusually rapid increase in Earth’s average surface temperature over the past century primarily due to the greenhouse gases released by people burning fossil fuels.” NASA Earth Observatory

As such, here’s NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) Global Monthly Mean Surface Temperature Anomaly – 1996 to Present:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) – Click the pic to view at source

Looking across the last 16 years, current Global Surface Temperature does not appear unique or extreme.

NOAA’s National Climate Data Center (NCDC) Global Year To Date Average Temperature Anomaly Compared to 5 Warmest Years on Record:

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) – National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) – Click the pic to view at source

Nothing unique or extreme there, unless of course Global Warming kicked in in June…

UK Met Office’s – Hadley Center – Climate Research Unit (CRU) Annual Global Average Land Temperature Anomaly – 1850 to 2011;

Met Office – Hadley Center – Click the pic to view at source

and the UK Met Office – Hadley Center – Climate Research Unit (CRU) Monthly Global Average Land Temperature – 1850 to 2011

Met Office – Hadley Center – Click the pic to view at source

Depending on the time frame, it certainly seems that Earth’s Surface Temperature has increased, but an approximately .6 Celsius Global Temperature Anomaly doesn’t appear to portend “extreme weather and extreme climate-related events”. Furthermore, the surface temperature record is burdened with issues of questionable siting, changes in siting, changes in equipment, changes in the number of measurement locations, modeling to fill in gaps in measurement locations, corrections to account for missing, erroneous or biased measurements, and the urban heat island effect. Thus to see the big picture on the temperature “Earth’s Temperature”, it also helps to look up.

Atmospheric Temperatures:

Since 1979 Earth’s “temperature” has also been measured via satellite. “The temperature measurements from space are verified by two direct and independent methods. The first involves actual in-situ measurements of the lower atmosphere made by balloon-borne observations around the world. The second uses intercalibration and comparison among identical experiments on different orbiting platforms. The result is that the satellite temperature measurements are accurate to within three one-hundredths of a degree Centigrade (0.03 C) when compared to ground-launched balloons taking measurements of the same region of the atmosphere at the same time.” NASA

Here is RSS Global Temperature Lower Troposphere (TLT) – Brightness Temperature Anomaly- 1979 to Present;

Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) – Microwave Sounding Units (MSU) – Click the pic to view at source

and this is the University of Alabama – Hunstville (UAH) Global Lower Atmosphere Temperature Anomalies – 1979 to Present:

University of Alabama – Huntsville (UAH) – Dr. Roy Spencer – Click the pic to view at source

Note: Per John Christy, RSS and UAH anomalies are not comparable because they use different base periods, i.e., “RSS only uses 1979-1998 (20 years) while UAH uses the WMO standard of 1981-2010.”

The June UAH Lower Atmosphere Temperature Anomaly was 0.37 degrees C above the 30 year average, which does not appear to be unique or extreme in the historical context.

Now looking only at the RSS Continental US Temperature Lower Troposphere (TLT) Brightness Temperature Anomaly;

Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) – Microwave Sounding Units (MSU) – Click the pic to view at source

there has clearly been a significant spike in temperatures in 2012, however the RSS Northern Hemisphere Temperature Lower Troposphere (TLT) Brightness Temperature Anomaly;

Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) – Microwave Sounding Units (MSU) – Click the pic to view at source

it does not appear unique or extreme, and the RSS Southern Hemisphere Temperature Lower Troposphere (TLT) Brightness Temperature Anomaly;

Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) – Microwave Sounding Units (MSU) – Click the pic to view at source

is currently only slightly above average, and certainly not indicative of unique or extreme warming. This evidence would seem to indicate that the short-term Continental US Lower Troposphere Temperature spike;

Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) – Microwave Sounding Units (MSU) – Click the pic to view at source

was a regional weather event versus “an early indication of global warming”.

Furthermore, RSS Southern Polar Temperature Lower Troposphere (TLT) Brightness Temperature Anomaly;

Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) – Microwave Sounding Units (MSU) – Click the pic to view at source

is currently negative and shows a .012 K/C per decade decrease. Apparently that’s also “what global warming looks like”…

To this point we’ve only addressed the Lower Troposphere Temperatures, as such, the following Temperature Anomaly plots from RSS will increase in altitude as is illustrated here:

Again, here is RSS Temperature Lower Troposphere (TLT) – Brightness Temperature Anomaly- 1979 to Present;

Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) – Microwave Sounding Units (MSU) – Click the pic to view at source

and here is RSS Temperature Middle Troposphere (TMT)- Brightness Temperature Anomaly- 1979 to Present;

Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) – Microwave Sounding Units (MSU) – Click the pic to view at source

According to Remote Sensing Systems, “For Channel (TLT) (Lower Troposphere) and Channel (TMT) (Middle Troposphere), the anomaly time series is dominated by ENSO events and slow tropospheric warming. The three primary El Niños during the past 20 years are clearly evident as peaks in the time series occurring during 1982-83, 1987-88, and 1997-98, with the most recent one being the largest.” RSS

Also, the 2009 – 10 El Niño event is called out on this RSS Latitudinal Temperature Lower Troposphere (TLT) Brightness Temperature Anomaly from 1979 to Present;

Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) – Microwave Sounding Units (MSU) – Click the pic to view at source

Lower and Middle Tropospheric temperatures show slow warming overlaid with the El Niño/La Niña Southern Oscillation (ENSO) cycle, including four comparatively large El Niño events. Tropospheric temperatures appear to have flattened since the large El Niño in 1998 and offer no indication that Earth is experiencing rapid or extreme warming.

Moving higher in the atmosphere, RSS Temperature Troposphere / Stratosphere (TTS) – Brightness Temperature Anomaly- 1987 to Present;

Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) – Microwave Sounding Units (MSU) – Click the pic to view at source

has been flat since, with a trend of just -.011 K/C per decade. The 1997-98 and 2009 – 10 El Niño events are still readily apparent in the plot, as is a spike from the 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo. Note that the effect of Mt. Pinatubo is the opposite in the Lower and Middle Troposphere versus the Troposphere / Stratosphere (TTS), i.e. “Large volcanic eruptions inject sulfur gases into the stratosphere; the gases convert into submicron particles (aerosol) with an e-folding time scale of about 1 year. The climate response to large eruptions (in historical times) lasts for several (2-3) years. The aerosol cloud causes cooling at the Earth’s surface, warming in stratosphere.”
Ellen Thomas, PHD Wesleyan University

It is interesting that, incorporating the impact of three significant surface driven warming events, Troposphere / Stratosphere Temperatures (TTS) have been quite stable, however there is regional variation here as well.

RSS Northern Hemisphere Temperature Troposphere / Stratosphere (TTS) – Brightness Temperature Anomaly- 1987 to Present;

Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) – Microwave Sounding Units (MSU) – Click the pic to view at source

has been increasing by .047 K/C per decade, whereas the RSS Southern Hemisphere Temperature Troposphere / Stratosphere (TTS) – Brightness Temperature Anomaly- 1987 to Present;

Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) – Microwave Sounding Units (MSU) – Click the pic to view at source

has been decreasing by -.068 K/C per decade.

Moving higher still in the atmosphere, the RSS Temperature Lower Stratosphere (TLS) – Brightness Temperature Anomaly – 1979 to Present;

Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) – Microwave Sounding Units (MSU) – Click the pic to view at source

“is dominated by stratospheric cooling, punctuated by dramatic warming events caused by the eruptions of El Chichon (1982) and Mt Pinatubo (1991).” RSS

The eruptions of El Chichon and Mt Pinatubo are readily apparent in the Apparent Atmospheric Transmission of Solar Radiation at Mauna Loa, Hawaii:

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) – Earth System Research Laboratory (ESRL) – Click the pic to view at source

“The stratosphere” … “in contrast to the troposphere, is heated, as the result of near infrared absorption of solar energy at the top of the aerosol cloud, and increased infra-red absorption of long-wave radiation from the Earth’s surface.”

“The stratospheric warming in the region of the stratospheric cloud increases the latitudinal temperature gradient after an eruption at low latitudes, disturbing the stratospheric-troposphere circulation, increasing the difference in height of the troposphere between high and low latitudes, and increasing the strength of the jet stream (polar vortex, especially in the northern hemisphere). This leads to warming during the northern hemisphere winter following a tropical eruption, and this warming effect tends to be larger than the cooling effect described above.” Ellen Thomas, PHD Wesleyan University

The Lower Stratosphere experienced “dramatic warming events caused by the eruptions of El Chichon (1982) and Mt Pinatubo (1991).” RSS “The long-term, global-mean cooling of the lower stratosphere stems from two downward steps in temperature, both of which are coincident with the cessation of transient warming after the volcanic eruptions of El Chichon and Mt. Pinatubo.” … “Here we provide observational analyses that yield new insight into three key aspects of recent stratospheric climate change. First, we provide evidence that the unusual step-like behavior of global-mean stratospheric temperatures is dependent not only upon the trend but also on the temporal variability in global-mean ozone immediately following volcanic eruptions. Second, we argue that the warming/cooling pattern in global-mean temperatures following major volcanic eruptions is consistent with the competing radiative and chemical effects of volcanic eruptions on stratospheric temperature and ozone. Third, we reveal the contrasting latitudinal structures of recent stratospheric temperature and ozone trends are consistent with large-scale increases in the stratospheric overturning Brewer-Dobson circulation” David W. J. Thompson Colorado State University

Above the Stratosphere we have the Mesosphere and Thermosphere, neither of which have I identified current temperature time series for, but of note is that on “July 15, 2010″ “A Puzzling Collapse of Earth’s Upper Atmosphere” occurred when “high above Earth’s surface where the atmosphere meets space, a rarefied layer of gas called “the thermosphere” recently collapsed and now is rebounding again.”

“This is the biggest contraction of the thermosphere in at least 43 years,” says John Emmert of the Naval Research Lab, lead author of a paper announcing the finding in the June 19th issue of the Geophysical Research Letters (GRL). “It’s a Space Age record.”

The collapse happened during the deep solar minimum of 2008-2009—a fact which comes as little surprise to researchers. The thermosphere always cools and contracts when solar activity is low. In this case, however, the magnitude of the collapse was two to three times greater than low solar activity could explain.

“Something is going on that we do not understand,” says Emmert.

The thermosphere ranges in altitude from 90 km to 600+ km. It is a realm of meteors, auroras and satellites, which skim through the thermosphere as they circle Earth. It is also where solar radiation makes first contact with our planet. The thermosphere intercepts extreme ultraviolet (EUV) photons from the sun before they can reach the ground. When solar activity is high, solar EUV warms the thermosphere, causing it to puff up like a marshmallow held over a camp fire. (This heating can raise temperatures as high as 1400 K—hence the name thermosphere.) When solar activity is low, the opposite happens.” NASA

In summary, Earth’s Lower and Middle Troposphere appear to have warmed slowly, overlaid with the El Niño/La Niña Southern Oscillation (ENSO) cycle, including four comparatively large El Niño events, and tempered by the cooling effects of the eruption of El Chichon (1982) and Mt Pinatubo (1991). Lower and Middle Tropospheric temperatures appear to have flattened since the large El Niño in 1998 and offer no indication of rapid or extreme warming. Tropospheric / Stratospheric temperatures appear to have been influenced by at least three significant surface driven warming events, the 1997-98 El Niño, and the eruptions of El Chichon in 1982 and Mt Pinatubo in 1991, but have maintained a stable overall trajectory. Stratospheric temperatures appear to have experienced two “dramatic warming events caused by the eruptions of El Chichon (1982) and Mt Pinatubo (1991).”, and “unusual step-like behavior of global-mean stratospheric temperatures” which has resulted in a significant stratospheric cooling during the last 30 years. Lastly, “during deep solar minimum of 2008-2009″ “the biggest contraction of the thermosphere in at least 43 years” occurred and “The magnitude of the collapse was two to three times greater than low solar activity could explain.”

Ocean Temperatures:

“The oceans can hold much more heat than the atmosphere. Just the top 3.2 metres of ocean holds as much heat as all the world’s air.” Commonwealth of Australia – Parliamentary Library

As such, changes in Ocean Heat Content are important in understanding Earth’s “Temperature”. Here is NOAA’s NODC Global Ocean Heat Content from 0-700 Meters – 1955 to Present;

National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) – National Oceanographic Data Center (NODC) – Click the pic to view at source

and here is the same from Ole Humlum’s valuable climate data site Climate4you.com, NODC Global Ocean Heat Content – 0-700 Meters – 1979 to Present:

climate4you.com – Ole Humlum – Professor, University of Oslo Department of Geosciences – Click the pic to view at source

It seems apparent from the plots above that Global Ocean Heat has increased over the last several decades, however Global Ocean Heat doesn’t appear to show rapid or extreme warming.

Sea Level:

“Global sea level is currently rising as a result of both ocean thermal expansion and glacier melt, with each accounting for about half of the observed sea level rise, and each caused by recent increases in global mean temperature. For the period 1961-2003, the observed sea level rise due to thermal expansion was 0.42 millimeters per year and 0.69 millimeters per year due to total glacier melt (small glaciers, ice caps, ice sheets) (IPCC 2007). Between 1993 and 2003, the contribution to sea level rise increased for both sources to 1.60 millimeters per year and 1.19 millimeters per year respectively (IPCC 2007).” Source NSIDC

Global Mean Sea Level Change – 1993 to Present:

climate4you.com – Ole Humlum – Professor, University of Oslo Department of Geosciences – Click the pic to view at source

Global Mean Sea Level Change Map with a “Correction” of 0.3 mm/year added May, 5th 2011, due to a “Glacial Isostatic Adjustment (GIA)” – 1993 to Present:

University of Colorado at Boulder – Click the pic to view at source

Again, no indications of rapid or extreme warming here.

Snow and Ice:

A proxy often cited when measuring “Earth’s Temperature” is amount of Snow and Ice on Earth. According to the United States Geological Survey (USGS), “The vast majority, almost 90 percent, of Earth’s ice mass is in Antarctica, while the Greenland ice cap contains 10 percent of the total global ice mass.” Source USGA

However, there is currently there is no generally accepted measure of ice volume, as Cryosat is still in validation and the accuracy of measurements from Grace are still being challenged. Sea Ice Area and Extent are cited as proxies for “Earth’s Temperature”, however there is significant evidence that the primary influences on Sea Ice Area and Extent are in fact wind and Atmospheric Oscillations. With this said, here are

Global, Arctic & Antarctic Sea Ice Area from 1979 to Present;

climate4you.com – Ole Humlum – Professor, University of Oslo Department of Geosciences – Click the pic to view at source

Global Sea Ice Area Anomaly – 1979 to Present:

Cryosphere Today – Arctic Climate Research at the University of Illinois – Click the pic to view at source

Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area Anomaly, 1979 to Present;

Cryosphere Today – Arctic Climate Research at the University of Illinois – Click the pic to view at source

Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area Anomaly, 1979 to Present;

Cryosphere Today – Arctic Climate Research at the University of Illinois – Click the pic to view at source

Arctic Sea Ice Extent – 15% or greater

National Snow & Ice Data Center (NSIDC) – click to view at source

Antarctic Sea Ice Extent – 15% or Greater

National Snow & Ice Data Center (NSIDC) – Click the pic to view at source

There appears to have been a negative trend in Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area and Extent and a positive trend in Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area and Extent, thus the resultant Global Sea Ice Area trend appears to be slightly negative.

In terms of land based data, here is 20 Year Northern Hemisphere Snow Cover with 1995 – 2009 Climatology from NCEP/NCAR;

Florida State University – Department of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Science – Click the pic to view at source

Northern Hemisphere Snow Cover Anomalies 1966 – Present from NCEP/NCAR;

Florida State University – Department of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Science – Click the pic to view at source

Northern Hemisphere Winter Snow Extent – 1967 to Present from Rutgers University;

Rutgers University – Global Snow Lab (GSL) – Click the pic to view at source

Northern Hemisphere Spring Snow Extent – 1967 to Present:

 alt=

Rutgers University – Global Snow Lab (GSL) – Click the pic to view at source

Northern Hemisphere Fall Snow Extent – 1967 to Present:

Rutgers University – Global Snow Lab (GSL) – Click the pic to view at source

While none of the Snow plots offers a global perspective, when looking at the Northern Hemisphere, there appears to have been a slight increase in Snowcover and Winter Snow Extent, a decrease in Spring Snow Extent and no change in Fall Snow Extent over the historical record.

Based on the limited Global Ice and Snow measurements available, and noting the questionable value of Sea Ice Area and Extent as a proxy for temperature, not much inference can currently be drawn from Earth’s Ice and Snow measurements. However, there does not appear to be any evidence of rapid or extreme warming in Earth’s Ice and Snow measurements.

Conclusion:

“Earth’s Temperature” appears to have increased during the last several decades, but there does not appear to be any evidence of rapid or extreme warming. Claims and insinuations that recent temperatures and weather in the Continental US are caused or related to “Global Warming” are not supported by the observational data.

Additional information on “Earth’s Temperature” can be found in the WUWT Reference Pages, including the Global Temperature Page and Global Climatic History Page

Please note that WUWT cannot vouch for the accuracy of the data/graphics within this article, nor influence the format or form of any of the graphics, as they are all linked from third party sources and WUWT is simply an aggregator. You can view each graphic at its source by simply clicking on it.

About these ads

60 thoughts on “A Big Picture Look At “Earth’s Temperature” – 2nd Quarter, 2012 – “What Global Warming Looks Like” Update

  1. Would there be any alarm without a model that says we should be alarmed?
    Did alarm from observations promote the need for models?
    Or
    Did the ability to produce models promote alarm?
    Does alarm promoted by the models demand further refinement of the models?
    Do the refined models produce further alarm?
    Then
    Do we not have a self professing prophecy?

  2. Just The Facts,

    I enjoy and hate it when you do that. :-) TMI!!! BTW, you get the Southern Hemisphere sea ice….. you posted the northern twice.

    But, seeing how you started with a reference to this summer, and how it’s the hottest evuh, maybe you’d want to add another graph or two, I plotted RSS’ Jan-May for the last 30 years. This year, so far, is the 14th coldest of the 30, 3rd coldest of the last 15. (2008 and 2011 being colder), so much for a warming world…… http://suyts.wordpress.com/2012/07/09/reality-check-to-the-profoundly-stupid-the-u-s-isnt-the-entire-globe-this-year-is-the-3rd-coldest-in-the-last-15-years/

    As to the snow extent, (I need to update it to reflect this year) it may be more relevant to view the last 20 years….. fall, winter, and spring combined. If one does, one sees absolutely no change in NH snow cover.

    http://suyts.wordpress.com/2012/04/16/why-reporters-dont-add-their-name-and-how-to-lose-all-credibility-in-less-than-two-paragraphs/

    Just doing my part! :)

  3. 2012 in Perspective so far on Five Data Sets

    2012 started off rather cold but has warmed up since then. So the present rank is not the most meaningful number. Therefore I will also give the ranking by assuming the latest month’s anomaly will continue for the rest of the year.

    Note the bolded numbers for each data set where the lower bolded number is the highest anomaly recorded so far in 2012 and the higher one is the all time record so far. There is no comparison.

    With the UAH anomaly for June at 0.369, the average for the first six months of the year is (-0.089 -0.111 + 0.111 + 0.299 + 0.289 + 0.369)/6 = 0.145. If the average stayed this way for the rest of the year, its ranking would be 10th. This compares with the anomaly in 2011 at 0.153 to rank it 9th for that year. On the other hand, if the rest of the year averaged at least the June value, which is more likely if the El Nino gets stronger, then 2012 would come in at 0.257 and it would rank 3rd. (1998 was the warmest at 0.428. The highest ever monthly anomalies were in February and April of 1998 when it reached 0.66.) In order for a new record to be set in 2012, the average for the last 6 months of the year would need to be 0.71. Since this is above the highest monthly anomaly ever recorded, it is virtually impossible for 2012 to set a new record or to even come in second.

    With the GISS anomaly for May at 0.65, the average for the first five months of the year is (0.34 + 0.41 + 0.47 + 0.55 + 0.65)/5 = 0.484. If the average stayed this way for the rest of the year, its ranking would be 10th. This compares with the anomaly in 2011 at 0.514 to rank it 9th for that year. 2010 was the warmest at 0.63. The highest ever monthly anomalies were in March of 2002 and January of 2007 when it reached 0.88. If the May anomaly continued for the rest of the year, 2012 would end up 4th.

    With the Hadcrut3 anomaly for May at 0.474, the average for the first five months of the year is (0.217 + 0.194 + 0.305 + 0.482 + 0.474)/5 = 0.3344. This is about the same as the anomaly in 2011 which was at 0.34 to rank it 12th for that year. 1998 was the warmest at 0.548. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in February of 1998 when it reached 0.756. If the May anomaly continued for the rest of the year, 2012 would end up 9th.

    With the sea surface anomaly for April at 0.292, the average for the first four months of the year is (0.203 + 0.230 + 0.242 + 0.292)/4 = 0.242. If the average stayed this way for the rest of the year, its ranking would be 14th. This compares with the anomaly in 2011 at 0.273 to rank it 12th for that year. 1998 was the warmest at 0.451. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in August of 1998 when it reached 0.555. If the April anomaly continued for the rest of the year, 2012 would end up 12th.

    With the RSS anomaly for June at 0.338, the average for the first five months of the year is (-0.058 -0.121 + 0.074 + 0.333 + 0.233 + 0.338)/6 = 0.133. If the average stayed this way for the rest of the year, its ranking would be 13th. This compares with the anomaly in 2011 at 0.147 to rank it 12th for that year. 1998 was the warmest at 0.55. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.857. If the June anomaly continued for the rest of the year, 2012 would end up 8th.

    So on all five of the above data sets, for their latest anomaly average, the 2012 average so far is close to that of 2011. If present trends continue, 2012 will be warmer than 2011, but a record is out of reach on all sets.

    On all data sets, the different times for a slope that is flat for all practical purposes range from 10 years and 9 months to 15 years and 7 months. Following is the longest period of time (above 10 years) where each of the data sets is more or less flat. (*For any positive slope, the exponent is no larger than 10^-5, except UAH which WAS 0.00103655 per year or 0.10/century in May, but the June value is not on WFT yet, however it will definitely go up and while it will not be flat, the slope will not be statistically significant.)

    1. UAH: since October 2001 or 10 years, 9 months (goes to June, but note * above)
    2. GISS: since May 2001 or 11 years, 1 month (goes to May)
    3. Combination of the above 4: since October 2000 or 11 years, 6 months (goes to March) (Hadcrut3 is SLOW!!)
    4. HadCrut3: since January 1997 or 15 years, 3 months (goes to March)
    5. Sea surface temperatures: since January 1997 or 15 years, 4 months (goes to April)
    6. RSS: since December 1996 or 15 years, 7 months (goes to June)
    7. Hadcrut4: since December 2000 or 11 years, 6 months (goes to May using GISS. See below.)

    See the graph below to show it all for #1 to #6.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2001.33/trend/plot/rss/from:1996.9/trend/plot/wti/from:2000.75/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997/trend/plot/uah/from:2001.75/trend

    For #7: Hadcrut4 only goes to December 2010 so what I did was get the slope of GISS from December 2000 to the end of December 2010. Then I got the slope of GISS from December 2000 to the present. The DIFFERENCE in slope was that the slope was 0.0046 lower for the total period. The positive slope for Hadcrut4 was 0.0041 from December 2000. So IF Hadcrut4 were totally up to date, and IF it then were to trend like GISS, I conclude it would show no slope for at least 11 years and 6 months going back to December 2000. (By the way, doing the same thing with Hadcrut3 gives the same end result, but GISS comes out much sooner each month.) See:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000/to/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000.9/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2000/plot/gistemp/from:2000.9/to:2011/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2000.9/trend

  4. Given the global readership of WUWT, I am amused at the assertion that ‘we’ are being bombarded with the extreme weather = gobal warming message.
    Down here in Australia the Warmists are eerily quiet right now, no surprise really given that most of the metropolitan and populated areas are having cold spells not seen for 50 years and bountiful rain.
    When I was in the radio business in London many years ago, the media sales guys made good use of what were known as ‘Ice Cream Packages’. Put simply, any company wishing to sell weather related products could buy and book airtime on a flexible basis. So if the temperature went above a certain threshold for a certain period of time the station would run all those ads for ice-cream, sunglasses, sun cream, bee sting ointment etc etc.
    One of the very first things that struck me as ‘wrong’ about the global warming scare was the ruthless and brilliant campaigns that swung into action every time we had a few days of summer weather. Suddenly the media would be full of ‘s’cientists predicting doomster scenarios.
    The public has been sold Global Warming like ice cream.
    As the original premise of the Global Warming Scare wears out, we should be prepared for attempts to ‘re-position’ the brand.
    Given the ignorance of the general population about the history of weather events in their locality we can expect the alarmists to take full advantage of every heatwave, flood and storm in their marketing mix.
    Never mind, ultimately this strategy will fail too as the doomster promises fail to materialize in the longer term. (Remember Al Gore’s image of multiple Hurricanes bearing down on the US? Ha!)

    Now anyone thinking that what I’ve written above is mere speculation, should bear in mind that I (as a writer for hire) was approached by and did indeed pitch material to a top PR company which was engaged in the scare campaign. Thankfully I didn’t get the job!

  5. Thanks for going through all of this info. Maybe now I’ll be able to get a good nights sleep.

  6. Yes, it’s been a hot summer here in the US, and the media hounds are howling from the comfort of their air conditioned offices.

  7. All the charts and graphs are nice and pretty, but why go to all the bother. Just compare the mid-Atlantic region of the U.S. with the U.K. Average the temps and precipitation from two areas together and you get a slightly cool and wet start to Summer. That puts it all into perspective.

  8. James Sexton says: July 10, 2012 at 4:20 pm

    I enjoy and hate it when you do that. :-) TMI!!!

    Perhaps next time I’ll go for a CO2 chart, a top hat and a rabbit… :)

    BTW, you get the Southern Hemisphere sea ice….. you posted the northern twice.

    Corrected, Thanks.

  9. England calling.
    I suppose there is only so much energy to go around. You guys in the States may be sweltering but for the first time ever we have had to fire up the Rayburn in July !

  10. charles nelson says: July 10, 2012 at 4:22 pm

    Given the global readership of WUWT, I am amused at the assertion that ‘we’ are being bombarded with the extreme weather = gobal warming message.
    Down here in Australia the Warmists are eerily quiet right now, no surprise really given that most of the metropolitan and populated areas are having cold spells not seen for 50 years and bountiful rain.

    Good point, very topocentric of me. I’ve added “In the US” prior to “we are currently being bombarded”.

    Thank you

  11. Jay Davis says: July 10, 2012 at 5:08 pm

    All the charts and graphs are nice and pretty, but why go to all the bother.

    To help keep WUWT’s readers well informed and make the Warmist faithful squirm…

  12. Christians began the Christian era by predicting its end. It’s a collective mental habit we have to expect the world to end. The warming alarmists are displacing their chiliastic expectations on planetary climate. Freud would call it a neurosis. Non-neurotic people try to discipline their unruly emotional selves with scientific method. To believe that one has true knowledge of what the future holds is comforting, even if the future is a catastrophe; but to be able to be comfortable with uncertainty, that is enlightenment!

  13. Anyone see ABC leftwing propaganda with Diane Sawyer tonight? An undisclosed government agency has confirmed that this weather we just experienced is climate!!! Didn’t disclose what this unmentioned agency based this on. Didn’t say anything about any scientific study that backed this claim up. Said that the drought areas were getting more droughty and the flood areas were getting more floody. Didn’t name any of these areas that were experiencing this phenomena.

    But I will take Lila “Diane” Sawyer’s word for it. Because if you can’t trust a peroxide-headed, botox-filled waif, who can you trust?

  14. we are all preaching to the choir on this site! how do we get the message out to the masses? maybe we have to convince the “press” they will win a pulitzer prize by reporting the “rest of the story”! it will make them famous!

  15. David Ball says: July 10, 2012 at 5:29 pm

    I predict that by October we begin to see cooling, ……..

    Funny. As George Will put it this week, “How do we explain the heat? One word. Summer.”

  16. Very well done status report. Fodder here to ruminate on for the remainder of the summer. Thank you. It is refreshing to get mostly the facts without piles of opinions and the results of other peoples biases. We each come very well equipped with biases as it is.

  17. charles nelson says:
    July 10, 2012 at 4:22 pm
    Given the global readership of WUWT, I am amused at the assertion that ‘we’ are being bombarded with the extreme weather = gobal warming message.
    Down here in Australia the Warmists are eerily quiet right now, no surprise really given that most of the metropolitan and populated areas are having cold spells not seen for 50 years and bountiful rain.
    ========================================================================
    They can only be heard where the warm wind blows.
    Wait a few months.

  18. Green Sand said:
    “Would there be any alarm without a model that says we should be alarmed?
    Did alarm from observations promote the need for models?”

    By now we all know that the alarm came first the models second.

    Decades ago, the Hive trotted out the Global Warming alarm
    as the latest way for elites to control the masses.

    Tax-funded scientists obligingly built positive feedback into the models,
    no matter the embarrasingly flimsy assumptions that required.

    The Hive’s zombie-like mind-robots still swarm academe by the thousands,
    reciting the climate-change catechism as if it were actual fact.
    We have to wake them up one at a time,
    by never letting up presenting the plethora of evidence
    for the unglamorous null hypothesis,
    which this post so admirably presents.

  19. A Big Picture Look At “Earth’s Temperature”

    You should ignore the global view and look at the USA hotspot. That’s GLOBAL warming. Am I clear?

  20. lookupthefactsplease says: July 10, 2012 at 5:54 pm

    we are all preaching to the choir on this site!

    I get your point, but hope that this post, nor any other that I’ve written, comes across as “preaching”.

    how do we get the message out to the masses?

    It’s out there. A recent, potentially Warmist biased;

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/omblog/post/was-climate-change-poll-biased/2012/07/09/gJQAYreeYW_blog.html

    Washington Post-Stanford University poll, found that “Just 18 percent of those polled name [Climate Change] as their top environmental concern. That compares with 33 percent who said so in 2007″. Furthermore, “Just under four in 10 polled say global warming is extremely or very important to them, the lowest percentage since 2006 and down from 52 percent in 2007. Just 10 percent say it is extremely important to them personally, down from 15 percent in 2011 and 18 percent in 2007.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/global-warming-no-longer-americans-top-environmental-concern-poll-finds/2012/07/02/gJQAs9IHJW_story_1.html

    maybe we have to convince the “press” they will win a pulitzer prize by reporting the “rest of the story”! it will make them famous!

    George Will, whose recent video I posted above, already won his Pulitzer.

    At this point the masses are skeptical, and it’s just a matter of time before the rest of the mass media comes around or goes broke. In a number of instances, I foresee the later, before the former…

  21. “This summer is what global warming looks like”

    Actually, it’s what the results of the current energy policy looks like: a lack of energy on=hand when it’s needed most.

  22. JTF, thought you might also like to add to the sea ice page terra sat images for Antarctica. Not much to see at the moment with the lack of sunlight. BTW, your handle says it all, just the facts.
    Terra true color

    http://lance-modis.eosdis.nasa.gov/imagery/subsets/?mosaic=Antarctica

    Terra 3-6-7

    http://lance-modis.eosdis.nasa.gov/imagery/subsets/?mosaic=Antarctica.terra.367.4km

    Aqua true color

    http://lance-modis.eosdis.nasa.gov/imagery/subsets/?mosaic=Antarctica.aqua.4km

  23. Dennis Nikols, P. Geo. says: July 10, 2012 at 6:05 pm

    It is refreshing to get mostly the facts without piles of opinions and the results of other peoples biases. We each come very well equipped with biases as it is.

    Yes, it is actually quite difficult to try to suppress my own biases in writing these articles. I usually have to edit them numerous times to try to minimize opinions and maintain a modicum of impartiality.

  24. lookupthefactsplease says:
    July 10, 2012 at 5:54 pm

    we are all preaching to the choir on this site! how do we get the message out to the masses? maybe we have to convince the “press” they will win a pulitzer prize by reporting the “rest of the story”! it will make them famous!
    =========================================
    Lookup, this blog, and others serve as a meeting hall, of sorts.

    The technique is, you come to the blogs to learn, discuss, even argue. When skills and references are sufficient, you go to the “other” blogs. Refine your arguments. Refine your argument style. Then, you go to the periodicals, facebook, where ever their is a comment section, comment. Engage in letters to the editors, help your friends become knowledgeable. Any of the above, all of the above. For instance, I’ve had 5 monikers blocked from HuffPo. I thoroughly enjoy torturing the warmists at the “Conversation”. There are a few other places I like to haunt.

    When you get tired, take a break from time to time. Come back to the blogs from time to time. Recharge, and then head back out! As a fellow blogger states on every Monday “Now, go! Fight! Win!”

    Anyway, that’s the way I like to engage. I think soon, we’ll have other enviro-nutty topics to discuss.

  25. It’s funny to think that we are currently living in an ice age (warm period). When the 1km+ thick ice sheets next come down these Warmist climate bandits will be long gone. Our descendants will wonder why we did not prepare for the cold, instead we ‘prepared’ for imaginary, runaway heat.

  26. Jimbo says: July 10, 2012 at 6:14 pm

    You should ignore the global view and look at the USA hotspot. That’s GLOBAL warming. Am I clear?

    Absolutely, as long as the grants keep coming in…

  27. lookupthefactsplease says:
    July 10, 2012 at 5:54 pm

    we are all preaching to the choir on this site! how do we get the message out to the masses? maybe we have to convince the “press” they will win a pulitzer prize by reporting the “rest of the story”! it will make them famous!

    Some people who come visit WUWT do not belong to the choir and some are changed by it. I tried my best to put some sense into the commenters at the Guardian over the years but have been rewarded with over 8 bans!

  28. Brian D says: July 10, 2012 at 6:34 pm

    JTF, thought you might also like to add to the sea ice page terra sat images for Antarctica. Not much to see at the moment with the lack of sunlight. BTW, your handle says it all, just the facts.
    Terra true color

    http://lance-modis.eosdis.nasa.gov/imagery/subsets/?mosaic=Antarctica

    Terra 3-6-7

    http://lance-modis.eosdis.nasa.gov/imagery/subsets/?mosaic=Antarctica.terra.367.4km

    Aqua true color

    http://lance-modis.eosdis.nasa.gov/imagery/subsets/?mosaic=Antarctica.aqua.4km

    Yes, added to the Sea Ice Page:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/

    Thank you very much.

  29. Great stuff – thanks for the relentless hard work!
    But….is it really about climate per se? Was it ever? Carbon dioxide taxation applies to renewables (WA, Australia) and 10%? goes straight to the UN and their quest for ‘climate justice. Here is an ‘official view’ – NZ Herald. Aug12, 2010 ‘Helen Clark calls for UN reform':

    …”Helping the poorest and most vulnerable is especially vital now. In my position I see countries and communities reeling from the effects of crises they played no part in causing – including climate change.”
    …”The risks of social and political instability will increase in coming decades, if climate change provokes large population transfers and growing tensions over the allocation of essential natural resources like water.”
    …”The lack of a new climate agreement does not help development. Nor does the stalemate on the WTO trade round. Commitments to ODA need to be complemented by what is called, in the trade, broader policy coherence. That includes fair trade rules – something New Zealand itself would appreciate on agriculture – and climate justice.”

    (Ms Clark sits on the executive board within the United Nations General Assembly. As the Administrator of the United Nations Development Programme she is the third highest ranking official of the United Nations after the United Nations Secretary-General and Deputy Secretary-General. (adapted, Wikipedia)

    So, there’s an awful lot of vested interest on cultivating an entrenched perception of CAGW. But WHY the MSM aren’t performing as the critical interrogator, the bastion of reason, the seeker of truth, is beyond me. As Abraham Lincoln said: “It is true that you may fool all of the people some of the time; you can even fool some of the people all of the time; but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.” We need to keep inexorably working on this!

    In the meantime, the fourth estate has clearly become the fifth column.

  30. I postulate an imprint of anthropogenic waste heat and albedo modifications on the lower troposphere. Both of these would track population, with waste heat having an additional positive forcing due to technology growth (more tech = more waste heat per capita). That may have slowed a bit due to Energy Star however the vast expansion of device types probably counteracts that.

  31. Please pardon my ignorance, but at least it’s “on topic.” How do they take all these high temperature “records” and adjust the UHI out of them? Does each station have it’s own software code to determine what time the temp was taken and wind direction at that time..ie….wind coming off a parking lot or grassy area etc…? Or is the “official” temp determined later?

  32. …. Just to emphasise points made by the likes of of James and Charles above, the USA may well be experiencing some unusual weather – but so are many of us elsewhere. Here in the UK, we are experiencing a very cool, very wet summer – the exact opposite of what the warmistas tell us we should be expecting. It would appear the our friends in Oz are also experiencing the opposite of the foretelling.

    Perhaps, human nature is such that we attach more importance to our personal experience – which is absolutely no use at all when one is considering the subject of global warming.

    Somewhat amusingly, the Met Office in the UK, at the end of the March, predicted an April, May, June quarter of less than average precipitation – what followed was the wettest quarter ever recorded! July also looks like being the wettest July ever.

    Weather is not climate!

  33. I don’t like country music, but I do like what Charlie Daniels says:

    “I’m not worried about man made global warming.
    I’m worried about man made global government.”

  34. How can anything that happens today be an early warning of global warming, when there’s not supposed to be any winter any more in 5 years time?

  35. WLF15Y says: July 10, 2012 at 9:19 pm

    Please pardon my ignorance, but at least it’s “on topic.” How do they take all these high temperature “records” and adjust the UHI out of them? Does each station have it’s own software code to determine what time the temp was taken and wind direction at that time..ie….wind coming off a parking lot or grassy area etc…? Or is the “official” temp determined later?

    This NOAA NCDC “Poster” offers helpful background on the techniques used:

    “Urban-rural differences for mean monthly maximum and minimum temperatures were then calculated using four different versions of the USHCN version 2 monthly temperature data (results for minimum temperatures are presented here). The four versions were used to help quantify the magnitude of the UHI in the underlying raw (unhomogenized) data, to isolate the impact of data homogenization on the UHI signal, and to evaluate impact/need of applying the specific UHI correction used by NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS; Hansen et al. 2010) over and above homogenization.”

    “The Pairwise Homogenization Algorithm (Menne and Williams, 2009; PHA) significantly reduces the difference between urban and rural minimum temperature trends according to all analysis methods and station classifications. This is particularly true over the 1960-2010 period, where none of the proxies classification methods indicated significant urban warming in the minimum temperatures. The station pairing method suggests some residual urban signal before 1960, but this residual signal is small in the spatial gridding method for all proxies after 1930 (Figure 4). Applying the NASA GISS “Step 2” urban-correction procedure has essentially no impact on homogenized USHCN version 2 trends since 1930, but effectively removes the residual urban-rural temperature trend differences for years before 1930 according to all four urban proxy classifications.”

    “The differences between urban and rural station minimum temperature trends suggest that homogenization can remove much and perhaps nearly all (since 1930) of the urban signal without requiring a specific UHI correction. However, the trends in rural station minimum temperatures are slightly higher in the homogenized minimum temperature data than in the TOB-only adjusted data.”

    “CONCLUSION: According to all four proxy measures used to identify station environments that are currently urban, there is consistent evidence that urban stations have a systematic bias relative to rural stations throughout the USHCN period of record. This bias has led to an apparent urban warming signal in the unhomogenized data that accounts for approximately 10 to 20 percent of total rise in USHCN minimum temperatures averaged over the CONUS for the period since 1895, and 5 to 8 percent of the rise over the past 50 years. This quantification of urban bias can now be used along with previous assessments of other sources of bias (time of observation, location and instrument changes) to form a more comprehensive assessment of bias in the U.S. surface temperature record. Homogenization of the monthly temperature data via NCDC’s Pairwise Homogenization Algorithm (PHA) removes the majority of the apparent urban bias, especially over the last 50 to 80 years. Moreover, results from the PHA using the full set of Coop station series as reference series and using only those series from stations classified as rural are broadly consistent, which provides strong evidence that the reduction of the urban warming signal by homogenization is a consequence of the real elimination of an urban warming bias present in the raw data rather than a consequence of simply forcing agreement between urban and rural station trends through a spreading of the urban signal to series from nearby stations.”

    http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/research/earthtemp/themes/1_in_situ_satellite/Menne_EarthTemp_Edinburgh_2012_Poster.pdf

  36. Justthefacts,

    Your second chart, ‘Year to date global temperature anomalies’ confused me at first.

    It shows the NCDC value for may 2012 as just about exactly +0.5C. I thought this was odd, since NCDC published the May temp as +0.66C , which is the second warmest May in their 133 year data set.

    I now realise that these aren’t the actual monthly anomalies, but, as described, are the ‘average’ anomalies for each ‘year to date’. I.e. the value shown for Feb each year is that year’s average of Jan/Feb; likewise the values shown for March is each year’s average for Jan/Feb/Mar, etc.

    This tends to disguise the fact that, in terms of ‘actual’ temperatures, April 2012 globally was warmer than both April 2002 and 2003, and that May 2012 globally was warmer than May 1998, May 2002, May 2003, and May 2005, according to NCDC.

    Just in case any other readers were similarly confused.

  37. DWR54 says: July 11, 2012 at 4:39 am

    Justthefacts,

    Your second chart, ‘Year to date global temperature anomalies’ confused me at first.

    It shows the NCDC value for may 2012 as just about exactly +0.5C. I thought this was odd, since NCDC published the May temp as +0.66C , which is the second warmest May in their 133 year data set.

    I now realise that these aren’t the actual monthly anomalies, but, as described, are the ‘average’ anomalies for each ‘year to date’. I.e. the value shown for Feb each year is that year’s average of Jan/Feb; likewise the values shown for March is each year’s average for Jan/Feb/Mar, etc.

    This tends to disguise the fact that, in terms of ‘actual’ temperatures, April 2012 globally was warmer than both April 2002 and 2003, and that May 2012 globally was warmer than May 1998, May 2002, May 2003, and May 2005, according to NCDC.

    Just in case any other readers were similarly confused.

    Correct. This is NCDC’s “globally-averaged temperature across land and oceans for the first five months of 2012″ thus the “Monthly” title is inaccurate. I’ve corrected the chart title to reflect this. For reference, this chart is from NCDC’s State of the Climate Global Analysis May 2012:

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2012/5

    The introduction to the chart states that:

    The globally-averaged temperature across land and oceans for the first five months of 2012 was the 11th warmest January–May on record. Of note, the year-to-date global anomalies for 2012 have increased each month as the year has progressed and La Niña conditions waned — January: +0.35°C (+0.65°F); January–February: +0.37°C (+0.67°F); January–March: +0.39°C (+0.70°F); January–April: +0.46°C (+0.83°F); and January–May (+0.50°C (+0.90°F). The record for the warmest January–May was set in 2010, with a temperature that was 0.71°C (1.28°F) above average.

    Thank you

  38. @zefal: 7/10 5:53PM. Yup. Diane Sawyers piece on ABC last nite was a doozy. She touched all the warmistas talking points in about 4 minutes. Even had Heidi Cullen on telling us that we are not sure about the weather extremes but we better do something before it is TOO LATE.
    And the story reporter was soooo sincere.

  39. JTF, also, you could calc the expected GHG temperature contribution for a given GHG CO2 concentration (maybe methane and NOx too). Maybe subtract it out of the temp data and see what those graphs look like. (i.e., what does the data look like when correcting for inustrial GH effect?)

  40. With all respect for your research, Anthony, your conclusion seems to me somewhat irrelevant regarding the question. The conclusion is about increasing means and their rates of increase, the question is about weather extremes. Therefore, I expect the evaluation of variances in stead of means, although in time series it can be seen a bit with the naked eye. The alarmists have made a step from the first into the second (or higher) moments of temperature distributions and similarly distributions of rain fall, wind speed, etc. I do not know why, but let us follow them on their desperate road.

    There are several reasons why their move is pretty desperate. First, for evaluating variances we need about ten times as much observations as for means if we want the same confidence levels. As a rule of thumb for each next higher moment we need ten times as much observations. Second, during the great dying of the thermometers considerable amounts of natural variance got ‘lost’. To get that back all those dropped stations should be re-opened. Third, because temperature distributions are skewed with a long left tail, increasing means imply decreasing variances (compare the binomial distribution with p>.5, mean np and variance np(1-p)).

    The latter is already observed: http://notrickszone.com/2012/05/26/luning-austrian-study-showing-fewer-weather-extremes-today-causes-jaws-to-drop/

    Here in The Netherlands we have had recently less violent storms: http://notrickszone.com/2012/07/02/journal-of-climate-change-last-15-years-netherlands-has-seen-the-fewest-number-of-storms-since-records-began/

  41. I tried posting the link to this page at SkepticalScience. Part of what a moderator said –

    [DB] Link to fake-skeptic website snipped. Pedantry snipped. Bad html fixed.

    Whats up with that?!? OK i think its safe to say this website is skeptic. It’s not a fake site. Do you have an on going feud with them? All i did was point to peer reviewed papers (two) that said the Russian heat wave wasn’t caused by GW. Then that lead to the most recent heatwave America had. To my limited knowledge their are no peer reviewed paper[s] on the most recent American heatwave. Hence the reason i tried to link to this page.

  42. Dear Just the facts,

    Help Please. I remember the CU chart, before the adjustments, and am fairly certain that from late 2006, until they stopped updating in 2011?, it was fairly flat. Does anyone know of a screen shot of that chart? It appears to me that the .3mm per year ocean floor GIA W.A.G. does not account for the current chart compared to the ones before they stopped updating to figure out how to hide the decline.

  43. Clyde says:
    July 11, 2012 at 11:17 am

    I tried posting the link to this page at SkepticalScience. Part of what a moderator said –

    [DB] Link to fake-skeptic website snipped. Pedantry snipped. Bad html fixed.

    Whats up with that?!? OK i think its safe to say this website is skeptic. It’s not a fake site. Do you have an on going feud with them?
    ===============================================
    Clyde, SkS is a play on words. They are one of the least skeptical, most alarmist sites out there. Don’t bother going there to attempt to interject reason, or even valid science. It isn’t tolerated there. They were caught retroactively altering comments and posts. They’ll never admit that they were wrong on any account, and they’ll never admit any true skeptical position was correct on any account. They have no integrity. But, then….. alarmist and no integrity is redundant.

  44. Mindert Eiting says: July 11, 2012 at 8:44 am

    With all respect for your research, Anthony

    I’m not Anthony, note the “By WUWT regular ‘Just The Facts'” at the top of the article.

    Your conclusion seems to me somewhat irrelevant regarding the question. The conclusion is about increasing means and their rates of increase, the question is about weather extremes.

    That depends on “the question”, or in this case questions, to which I drew my conclusion, and given that I came up with the questions, I am pretty sure that my conclusion is somewhat relevant to my questions. What you may be noting is that I shoehorned the current US warm weather scare into the quarterly big picture update, but regardless, the fact that “there does not appear to be any evidence of rapid or extreme warming.” means that “claims and insinuations that recent temperatures and weather in the Continental US are caused or related to “Global Warming” are not supported by the observational data.”

    Therefore, I expect the evaluation of variances in stead of means, although in time series it can be seen a bit with the naked eye.

    I see what you are saying in terms of variances, but my somewhat shoehorned point remains, i.e. if Earth’s temperature is essentially the same as it was a decade ago, why would we expect more extreme weather now than then?

  45. Clyde says: July 11, 2012 at 11:17 am

    I tried posting the link to this page at SkepticalScience. Part of what a moderator said –

    [DB] Link to fake-skeptic website snipped. Pedantry snipped. Bad html fixed.

    Whats up with that?!? OK i think its safe to say this website is skeptic. It’s not a fake site. Do you have an on going feud with them? All i did was point to peer reviewed papers (two) that said the Russian heat wave wasn’t caused by GW. Then that lead to the most recent heatwave America had. To my limited knowledge their are no peer reviewed paper[s] on the most recent American heatwave. Hence the reason i tried to link to this page.

    Funny, put simply, the team at SkepticalScience are afraid of the facts. The first time I did one of these big picture articles in January;

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/01/a-big-picture-look-at-earths-temperature/

    Rob Painting from SkepticalScience commented;

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/01/a-big-picture-look-at-earths-temperature/#comment-850241

    but when I responded cordially;

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/01/a-big-picture-look-at-earths-temperature/#comment-850261

    he evaporated. SkepticalScience then responded with their own laughably contorted “A Big Picture Look at Global Warming”:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/big-picture-global-warming.html

    The sad fact is that the team at SkepticalScience are afraid to allow links to this article, lest their readers actually learn something…

  46. David says: July 11, 2012 at 2:48 pm

    Help Please. I remember the CU chart, before the adjustments, and am fairly certain that from late 2006, until they stopped updating in 2011?, it was fairly flat. Does anyone know of a screen shot of that chart? It appears to me that the .3mm per year ocean floor GIA W.A.G. does not account for the current chart compared to the ones before they stopped updating to figure out how to hide the decline.

    WUWT covered it here;

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/05/new-sea-level-page-from-university-of-colorado-now-up/

    Mike Jonas grabbed the old data here;

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/05/new-sea-level-page-from-university-of-colorado-now-up/#comment-654150

    Ecotretas noted a few new cycles that appeared here;

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/05/new-sea-level-page-from-university-of-colorado-now-up/#comment-654178

    and wrote an article here;

    http://ecotretas.blogspot.com/2011/05/rate-of-sea-level-rise-going-down.html

    P. Solar created a rate of change plot here;

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/05/new-sea-level-page-from-university-of-colorado-now-up/#comment-654890

    and a plot of second differential here;

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/05/new-sea-level-page-from-university-of-colorado-now-up/#comment-654890

    I pointed out some funky calibrations here;

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/05/new-sea-level-page-from-university-of-colorado-now-up/#comment-654919

    and added a notation to all of CU’s charts on WUWT here;

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/05/new-sea-level-page-from-university-of-colorado-now-up/#comment-655192

    and John Kehr had a good post on it here:

    http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2011/05/sea-level-update-more-upward-revision-found/

    I hope this helps. JTF

  47. justthefactswuwt says:
    July 11, 2012 at 6:16 pm
    ===============================================
    Damm, thanks, your name sake is apt.

  48. It would really be cool to have a CU chart, done the old way, extended to the current date. I thought they were doing a sea level chart, not an ocean volume chart. A sea level chart alone is stretching the ability of our observations to determine. A sea volume chart is a far grander asperation, beyond our current ability, and not cogent for any policy decisions.

  49. JTF, thanks for the information. Alas, while very helpful, still no screen shot of the original CU SL charts before the large ajustments.

  50. Australia and the ROW should take the Central-Eastern US to World Court on charges of massive thermal theft! A conviction is certain.

Comments are closed.