June 2013 Global Surface (Land+Ocean) Temperature Anomaly Update

Initial Notes: This post contains graphs of running trends in global surface temperature anomalies for periods of 12+ and 16 years using HADCRUT4 data. They indicate that we have not seen a warming hiatus this long since about 1980.

Much of the following text is boilerplate. It is intended for those new to the presentation of global surface temperature anomaly data.

GISS LAND OCEAN TEMPERATURE INDEX (LOTI)

Introduction: The GISS Land Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI) data is a product of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Starting with their January 2013 update, it uses NCDC ERSST.v3b sea surface temperature data. The impact of the recent change in sea surface temperature datasets is discussed here. GISS adjusts GHCN and other land surface temperature data via a number of methods and infills missing data using 1200km smoothing. Refer to the GISS description here. Unlike the UK Met Office and NCDC products, GISS masks sea surface temperature data at the poles where seasonal sea ice exists, and they extend land surface temperature data out over the oceans in those locations. Refer to the discussions here and here. GISS uses the base years of 1951-1980 as the reference period for anomalies. The data source is here.

Update: The June 2013 GISS global temperature anomaly is +0.67 deg C. It warmed about +0.12 deg C since May 2013.

GISS

GISS LOTI

NCDC GLOBAL SURFACE TEMPERATURE ANOMALIES

Introduction: The NOAA Global (Land and Ocean) Surface Temperature Anomaly dataset is a product of the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). NCDC merges their Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature version 3b (ERSST.v3b) with the Global Historical Climatology Network-Monthly (GHCN-M) version 3.2.0 for land surface air temperatures. NOAA infills missing data for both land and sea surface temperature datasets using methods presented in Smith et al (2008). Keep in mind, when reading Smith et al (2008), that the NCDC removed the satellite-based sea surface temperature data because it changed the annual global temperature rankings. Since most of Smith et al (2008) was about the satellite-based data and the benefits of incorporating it into the reconstruction, one might consider that the NCDC temperature product is no longer supported by a peer-reviewed paper.

The NCDC data source is here. NCDC uses 1901 to 2000 for the base years for anomalies.

Update: The June 2013 NCDC global land plus sea surface temperature anomaly is +0.64 deg C. It decreased -0.02 deg C since May 2013.

NCDC

NCDC Global (Land and Ocean) Surface Temperature Anomalies

UK MET OFFICE HADCRUT4 (LAGS ONE MONTH)

Introduction: The UK Met Office HADCRUT4 dataset merges CRUTEM4 land-surface air temperature dataset and the HadSST3 sea-surface temperature (SST) dataset. CRUTEM4 is the product of the combined efforts of the Met Office Hadley Centre and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. And HadSST3 is a product of the Hadley Centre. Unlike the GISS and NCDC products, missing data is not infilled in the HADCRUT4 product. That is, if a 5-deg latitude by 5-deg longitude grid does not have a temperature anomaly value in a given month, it is not included in the global average value of HADCRUT4. The HADCRUT4 dataset is described in the Morice et al (2012) paper here. The CRUTEM4 data is described in Jones et al (2012) here. And the HadSST3 data is presented in the 2-part Kennedy et al (2012) paper here and here. The UKMO uses the base years of 1961-1990 for anomalies. The data source is here.

Update (Lags One Month): The May 2013 HADCRUT4 global temperature anomaly is +0.50 deg C. It increased about +0.07 deg C since April 2013.

HADCRUT4

HADCRUT4

149-MONTH RUNNING TRENDS

As noted in my post Open Letter to the Royal Meteorological Society Regarding Dr. Trenberth’s Article “Has Global Warming Stalled?”, Kevin Trenberth of NCAR presented 10-year period-averaged temperatures in his article for the Royal Meteorological Society. He was attempting to show that the recent hiatus in global warming since 2001 was not unusual. Kevin Trenberth conveniently overlooked the fact that, based on his selected start year of 2001, the hiatus has lasted 12+ years, not 10.

The period from January 2001 to May 2013 is now 149-months long. Refer to the following graph of running 149-month trends from January 1880 to May 2013, using the HADCRUT4 global temperature anomaly product. The last data point in the graph is the linear trend (in deg C per decade) from January 2001 to the current month. It is slightly negative. That, of course, indicates global surface temperatures have not warmed during the most recent 149-month period. Working back in time, the data point immediately before the last one represents the linear trend for the 149-month period of December 2000 to April 2013, and the data point before it shows the trend in deg C per decade for November 2000 to March 2013, and so on.

HADCRUT4 149-Month Trend

149-Month Linear Trends

The highest recent rate of warming based on its linear trend occurred during the 149-month period that ended in late 2003, but warming trends have dropped drastically since then. Also note that about 1980 was the last time there had been a 149-month period without global warming—before recently.

192-MONTH RUNNING TRENDS

In his RMS article, Kevin Trenberth also conveniently overlooked the fact that the discussions about the warming hiatus are now for a time period of about 16 years, not 10 years—ever since David Rose’s DailyMail article titled “Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released… and here is the chart to prove it”. In my response to Trenberth’s article, I updated David Rose’s graph, noting that surface temperatures in April 2013 were basically the same as they were in June 1997. We’ll use June 1997 as the start month for the running 16-year trends. The period is now 192-months long. The following graph is similar to the one above, except that it’s presenting running trends for 192-month periods.

HADCRUT4 192-MOnth Trend

192-Month Linear Trends

The last time global surface temperatures warmed at the minimal rate of 0.03 deg C per decade for a 192-month period was the late 1970s.

The most widely used metric of global warming—global surface temperatures—indicates that the rate of global warming has slowed drastically and that the duration of the hiatus in global warming is unusual during a period when global surface temperatures are allegedly being warmed from the hypothetical impacts of manmade greenhouse gases.

A NOTE ABOUT THE RUNNING-TREND GRAPHS

There is very little difference in the end point trends of 149-month and 192-month running trends if GISS or NCDC products are used in place of HADCRUT4 data. The major difference in the graphs is with the HADCRUT4 data and it can be seen in a graph of the 149-month trends. I suspect this is caused by the updates to the HADSST3 data that have not been applied to the ERSST.v3b sea surface temperature data used by GISS and NCDC.

COMPARISON

The GISS, HADCRUT4 and NCDC global surface temperature anomalies are compared in the next two time-series graphs. The first graph compares the three global surface temperature anomaly products starting in 1979. Again, due to the timing of this post, the HADCRUT4 data lags the GISS and NCDC products by a month. The graph also includes the linear trends. Because the three datasets share common source data, (GISS and NCDC also use the same sea surface temperature data) it should come as no surprise that they are so similar. For those wanting a closer look at the more recent wiggles, the second graph starts with Kevin Trenberth’s chosen year of 2001. Both of the comparisons present the anomalies using the base years of 1981 to 2010. Referring to their discussion under FAQ 9 here, according to NOAA:

This period is used in order to comply with a recommended World Meteorological Organization (WMO) Policy, which suggests using the latest decade for the 30-year average.

Comparison Starting 1979

Comparison Starting in 1979

###########

Comparison Starting 2001

Comparison Starting in 2001

AVERAGE

The last graph presents the average of the GISS, HADCRUT and NCDC land plus sea surface temperature anomaly products. Again because the HADCRUT4 data lags one month in this update, the most current average only includes the GISS and NCDC products. The flatness of the data since 2001 is very obvious, as is the fact that surface temperatures have rarely risen above those created by the 1997/98 El Niño.

Average

Average of Global Land+Sea Surface Temperature Anomaly Products

TODAY IS BUY A CUP OF COFFEE FOR A SKEPTICAL BLOGGER DAY

As you’re likely aware, global warming skeptics do not receive gazillion dollar government research grants, and most of us do not have research, educational or other positions related to climate change. While we do have tip/donation links on our websites, we often forget to remind visitors that they’re there. This is a gentle reminder. Hint –> My Tip Jar.

If you’re reading this at WattsUpWithThat, Anthony Watts has put in countless hours establishing that website as the place to go for information and discussions about global warming and climate change, so please give Anthony’s Surface Stations Project Donation Link a click.

And I stopped counting years ago how many hours per week I put into preparing graphs, writing blog posts and replying to questions and comments, so please remember My Tip Jar, too.

Every tip is very much appreciated. Please buy an unfunded skeptic a cup of coffee.

Thanks, Bob

About these ads

71 thoughts on “June 2013 Global Surface (Land+Ocean) Temperature Anomaly Update

  1. I am charted out I think I will put on my overcoat because It is freezing here in Australia

  2. It seems odd to see the phrase “It decreased -0.02 deg C since May 2013.”, and my automatic feeling is that this is a double negative, and it is only after looking at the phrase “The June 2013 GISS global temperature anomaly is +0.67 deg C.” that I realise what is really meant.

  3. Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis and commented:
    The data clearly shows no warming for a little while. It seems to have reached maximum and started to cool, but it is a bit early to say so. However, the globe has warmed, and global warming is a hoax in spite of that fact because the proposed cure is far more deadly and harmful to the planet than the status quo and the presumed continuation of any warming trend. Cooling is eventually inevitable. It will be deadly, and population on our planet will decrease. It will be bad. Hopefully that is still several decades away and slow in coming, allowing us to adapt and innovate and minimize the suffering and hunger. Regardless, cold kills. Warmer is better.

  4. @Bloke – I’m guessing that’s what the tip jar link is for. Actually he mentions his tip jar twice which might be accidental or an extra extra hint.

  5. Sorry Bob, only real skeptics get coffee.

    Pseudo skeptics are advised to apply to the Heritage Foundation as per usual.

  6. Hint taken Bob (sorry it’s not more) we can’t have you running low on caffeine can we?

  7. If you got to woodfortrees.com and plot HADCRUT3 from say 1995 to 2014 and then do the same for HADCRUT4 for the same time period you will what they are doing. The big El Nino of 1997/98 is being pounded down while the more recent temperatures are being pushed up. They are using “creating accounting” to diminish, step by step, the pause in global warming. Soon the 15 year pause will be diminished to 10 years and so on. In the real world this would be criminal but in the world of “climate science” it is SOP.

  8. Its going to be pretty hard for 2.5C of warming to show up in the next 87 years when the rate of increase right now is basically nothing.

  9. Its going to be pretty hard for 2.5C of warming to show up in the next 87 years when the rate of increase right now is basically nothing.

    In 2007 the 15-yr trend was about 0.30 C/decade. Where was everyone then?

    These short-term trends flucatuate.

  10. I dunno :(

    Our Champion Sir Christopher of Belchley keeps banging on about “As the long period without statistically-significant warming (at least 17 years on all datasets; 23 years on the RSS data) continues” ( http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/05/benchmarking-ipccs-warming-predictions/ ). But eyeballing the graphs above I can only see a plateau in global temp. rise since around 2005-2006.

    I must be doing something wrong; looking at the graphs from the wrong angle, not tilting my head right, something like that

  11. Update: The June 2013 GISS global temperature anomaly is +0.67 deg C. It warmed about +0.12 deg C since May 2013.

    Update: The June 2013 NCDC global land plus sea surface temperature anomaly is +0.64 deg C. It decreased -0.02 deg C since May 2013.

    So the net difference between GISS and NCDC is 0.14. That is huge! To put that number into perspective, that is the difference between 3rd place and 13th place on HadCRUT4 where the anomalies are 0.531 and 0.392 respectively. Are we supposed to trust their numbers?

  12. Sedron L says:
    July 19, 2013 at 7:00 am

    Isn’t Anthony funded by the Heartland Institute?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    [You] forgot the /sarc

    Anthony had (1) one research project funded by a donor found by Heartland and that is it.

    …Heartland simply helped me find a donor for funding a special project having to do with presenting some new NOAA surface data in a public friendly graphical form, something NOAA themselves is not doing, but should be. I approached them in the fall of 2011 asking for help, on this project not the other way around….

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/15/some-notes-on-the-heartland-leak/

    It is the Weather Stations Project which will be free to the public.

  13. Village Idiot says:
    July 19, 2013 at 9:26 am

    It depends on the data set. And there is a difference between no warming and no statistically significant warming at the 2 sigma level. Different data sets are different. Take a look at the graph below:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1990/plot/rss/from:1990/trend/plot/rss/from:1996.9/plot/rss/from:1990/plot/rss/from:1990/trend/plot/rss/from:1990/detrend:0.3128/trend/plot/rss/from:1990/detrend:-0.3128/trend/plot/rss/from:1996.9/trend

    The very latest for RSS is that there is no warming for 16 years and 7 months and no statistically significant warming for 24 years, going back to July 1989.

    The situation with GISS, which used to have no statistically significant warming for 17 years, has now been changed with new data. GISS now has over 18 years of no statistically significant warming. As a result, we can now say the following: On six different data sets, there has been no statistically significant warming for between 18 and 24 years.

  14. Sedron L says:
    July 19, 2013 at 7:24 am

    In 2007 the 15-yr trend was about 0.30 C/decade. Where was everyone then?

    These short-term trends flucatuate.

    ——————————————————————————————————————-
    The long-term CET linear trend from 1659 to present is 0.25 deg C per CENTURY !!

  15. Sedron L says:
    July 19, 2013 at 7:24 am”……………………………………………”
    _____________________________________________________________________________

    We’ll see, but how long a trend do you need before you say it is long term?

  16. Werner, do your statistics include autocorrelation? They should. Include autocorrelation when calculating uncertainties, and then tell us what percentage of the time a 15- or 20-year trend has been statistically significant. I think you will find that they rarely are.

    PS: GISS and NCDC monthly error bars are 0.05 C and 0.08 C respectively. Hence a monthly difference can have quite a large error bar, so a monthly difference of 0.14 isn’t inconsistent.

  17. Village Idiot says:
    July 19, 2013 at 9:26 am
    I must be doing something wrong; looking at the graphs from the wrong angle, not tilting my head right, something like that
    _______________________________________

    Definitely wrong angle. Eyeballing provides different results based on what part of the graph you cover up.
    Here, it is clearly rising (with some noise) all the time to 2004:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1992/to:2004

    Here, it is clearly constant (with some noise) all the time since 1998:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1998/to:2013

    Both are right and wrong at the same time. It all depends on what your eyeball removes as noise and what remains after that.

    My personal favorite tipping point is 2002.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1992/to:2002

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:2002/to:2013

  18. Sedron L says:
    July 19, 2013 at 10:02 am
    Werner, do your statistics include autocorrelation? They should.
    I am just using the tools at my disposal from:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php

    Feel free to give your corresponding numbers using autocorrelation. By the way, did Phil Jones use autocorrelation when he said the 15 year trend at that time from 1995 to 2010 was NOT significant but later said the 16 year trend from 1995 to 2011 WAS significant?

    Here is what the HadCRUT4 numbers are for certain years:
    After latest update for Hadcrut4:
    Start of 1995 to end 2009: 0.135 +/- 0.147. Warming for 15 years is not significant.
    Start of 1995 to end 2010: 0.138 +/- 0.132. Warming for 16 years is significant.
    Start of 1995 to end 2011: 0.111 +/- 0.121. Warming for 17 years is not significant.
    Start of 1995 to end 2012: 0.098 +/- 0.112. Warming for 18 years is not significant.

  19. Werner, do you even know if you’re accounting for autocorrelation? And what autocorrelation is?

    If you’re not accounting for it, your numbers are scientifically meaningless. They might be fun nonetheless, but not meaningful.

  20. Here is what the HadCRUT4 numbers are for certain years:

    This is just silly. Of what possible significance could it be that the 16-yr trend is not significant, the 17-yr trend is, and the 18-yr trend is not? What does that tell you about climate? Essentially nothing but that a nonscientific choice of the interval gives useless results. Should one not worry if the statistical significance is 93% but do worry if it is 95.0001%? That’s silly.

    You are getting all caught up in numerical minutae and failing to think about the big picture. Where were you 6 years ago when the 15-year trend was 0.30 C/decade? It was just as meaningless (though high) then as it is now (though low). It fluctuates greatly.

    Most of us want to understand climate, not every little blip in the numbers.

  21. Sedron L says:
    July 19, 2013 at 10:06 am

    The long-term global trend from 5 Mya to present is -0.0001 C/century:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Five_Myr_Climate_Change.svg

    ———————————————————————————————-
    Well doesn’t look like Bill Connolley from Wiki has noticed so far that graph Sedron !!
    Graph soon to disappear from Wiki I would imagine.
    A natural 0.25 deg C per 100 years out of the Little Ice Age is no big deal – a bees digit in overall temp variation.

  22. Sedron L says:
    July 19, 2013 at 1:49 pm
    “FrankK: how do you konw the rise is “natural?””

    Null hypothesis: temperatures do what they did before we started emitting loads of CO2 – gradually rise since trough of LIA.

  23. Should climate and weather be corrected for autocorrelation?

    No, that is just wrong.

    The climate is, not by definition, but by fact, autocorrelated. That is what it is and what it does.

    It should not be used when determining significance although people keep bringing this issue up.

  24. Bill: Simple calculations show there is a great deal of autocorrelation in most climate data time series. Statistics aren’t meaningful unless it is accounted for.

  25. Sedron L says:
    July 19, 2013 at 11:30 am

    What does that tell you about climate? Essentially nothing but that a nonscientific choice of the interval gives useless results.

    If you have issues with what I am doing, and I am NOT saying you are wrong, I would suggest you take it up both with NOAA and with SkS. I mention SkS since they have the calculator and NOAA for their statement: ”The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”

    I did not make the rules regarding the 95% or the 2 sigma values and personally I do not even agree with such as high standard for climate. If you can get NOAA and the major skeptics to agree that 1 sigma is sufficient, and if you can give me a site that gives the certainty to that degree, I would be happy to give the new numbers.
    But in the end, I do not see how this changes anything. NOAA already mentions 95% for 15 years. But the fact is that RSS is flat for 16 years and 7 months; Hadsst2 is flat for 16 years and 4 months; and Hadcrut3 is flat for 16 years and 2 months. I am well aware of the fact that other data sets are flat for shorter times, but this does not change the fact that the models are in big trouble.

  26. tango says:
    July 19, 2013 at 3:47 am
    I am charted out I think I will put on my overcoat because It is freezing here in Australia

    Coldest winter I can remember in Perth. Must be all that sea ice, which is a good 200 km closer to us than normal.

    Be interested to see the UAH July update.

  27. Werner: There is no “rule” regarding 95% or 2-sigma. It is all a judgement call. Other fields (notably high-energy physics) use different standards. And nothing magical happens if a climate trend is significant at the 95% confidence level compared to 94%. No bells sound, no doors open up, no policy is required. It’s all a judgement call.

    Instead fo worrying about how many years and months the RSS trend is significant for (the ultimate cherry pick), tell us what it means if it isn’t signficant at Y years and M months but is at (Y,M+1), or even (Y/2,M). Again, you are getting lost in the minutae.

    You would do better to investigate why RSS and UAH have such very different trends now, and whether *either* of them can be trusted.

    And whether it’s reasonable to expect GCMs to capture every yearly up-and-down, when everyone admits they do not model ENSOs very well. Climate change is a long-term problem, and what happens in 10- or 15-years is of little significance to the big picture, which is the state of climate in the year 2050 or 2100 or 2150.

    Do you think people in the year 2100 will care that the RSS 15-year trend was flat from 1998-2013, or that they are living in a +2 C (or maybe +3 C) world with an acidified ocean?

  28. Sedron L says:
    July 20, 2013 at 6:50 am
    Do you think people in the year 2100 will care that the RSS 15-year trend was flat from 1998-2013, or that they are living in a +2 C (or maybe +3 C) world with an acidified ocean?
    ==========
    most people will thank their lucky stars if the world is +3 warmer because there will be a huge increase in the global food supply.

    as for acidified oceans that is physically impossible due to salt buffering. Only fresh water is acidic. the oceans are alkali and will remain so even if we burned all fossil fuel on earth.

    CO2 is continually being removed from the atmosphere and precipitated out of the oceans as limestone (fossilized CO2). if this limestone was not recycled back to the atmosphere thru subduction and volcanoes, all plant and animal life on earth would eventually become extinct.

    During the process of subduction, some of the carbon in the limestone along with water at high pressure and temperature is reduced by the iron in the earths mantle to produce hydrocarbons such as methane, which eventually rise to the surface and are oxidized by life to produce energy and CO2.

    Most of the methane is consumed by bacteria. Some of it is extracted by human beings before it reaches the surface and used to produce electricity and other useful products.

  29. Sedron L says:
    July 20, 2013 at 6:50 am

    You would do better to investigate why RSS and UAH have such very different trends now, and whether *either* of them can be trusted.

    That is an excellent point and I plan to raise it for my next article after the July data come out for UAH and RSS. If you have any thoughts on this, be sure to comment. We would all like to know the answer!

    Do you think people in the year 2100 will care that the RSS 15-year trend was flat from 1998-2013

    If politicians are not aware of the fact that there has been a temperature standstill for 10 or 15 years and feel compelled to spend billions to cut down on CO2, then they need to know that. And people in 2100 will be very great full if they do not have a useless debt to pay off due to energy policies that were useless. So I think they will really care that these things have been pointed out.

  30. The notion that a warmer earth is harmful is a foolish notion based on ignorance of the past. The earth has two stable average temperatures. 11C and 22C. This is well established by the paleo records going back hundreds of millions of years. 11C corresponds to dry, ice age conditions. 22C corresponds to widespread wet, tropical conditions.

    Our current average of 15C is inherently unstable and as the paleo records show is unlikely to last much beyond 10 to 20 thousand years. We are already nearing 10 thousand years and the ice core records show an accelerating decline in temperatures, punctuated by warming periods every 1000-2000 years.

    We are in one of these warming periods and as has occurred in past warming periods, civilization flourishes. Human populations increase as food supplies increase and surplus resources allow for an expansion of knowledge and learning.

    If we were to return to the little ice age conditions of a few hundred years ago, then we should expect a large increase in crop failures and famine. We had a glimpse of this in the 1950’s and 1960’s, and led to the general fears of overpopulation and the Club of Rome predictions of doom and gloom.

    Luckily for most people alive today the trend did not continue. The earth began warming, food production increased, and more humans have enjoyed a period of prosperity previously unknown in human history.

  31. Werner Brozek says:
    July 20, 2013 at 8:20 am
    And people in 2100 will be very great full if they do not have a useless debt to pay off
    ==========
    This is the elephant in the room. In the name of “saving the children” their future is being mortgaged to the hilt and the funds diverted to enrich political insiders. In effect, the children of the future are being sold into debt slavery, a modern day form of indentured servitude.

    The methodology is simple. Scientists are generally hard placed to raise money to support research. Politicians largely control the funds available to scientists. As such, politicians have been able to train scientists to jump through hoops by controlling the flow of research funds. By placing the hoops in the right location, politician’s are able to control research to the benefit of political insiders.

    So for example if your patent is about to run out on CFC’s, a scientific study showing that CFC’s are harmful will be published and lavishly promoted, leading to a global ban. Instead people will have to buy your new, improved CFC replacement, on which you also own the patent.

    Only years later will it be discovered that the science was bogus, and by then the damage has been done. No funding will be provided to announce the obscure research finding, and it will remain buried, a needle in the haystack. The patent holder on the improved CFC’s will fund numerous rebuttal studies. By and large the general population will remain in the dark as to the truth of the matter.

  32. Sedron L says:
    July 19, 2013 at 10:02 am

    “Include autocorrelation when calculating uncertainties, and then tell us what percentage of the time a 15- or 20-year trend has been statistically significant. I think you will find that they rarely are. “

    Somewhere along the way, somebody decided to use an arbitrary autocorrelation function pulled out of a hat which had a correlation time of about 30 years, and thus 30 years because the standard for what constituted “climate”. But, in fact, 30 years is just about the worst possible choice for baseline time given the obvious ~60 year cycle in the data.

    In fact, if you include the autocorrelation pertaining to the ~60 year cycle in the data, you find that the trend of 1970 to the late 90’s is not statistically significant above the long term since the end of the LIA, which is A) small and B) trivially not an effect of rising CO2 levels.

  33. Werner wrote:
    If politicians are not aware of the fact that there has been a temperature standstill for 10 or 15 years and feel compelled to spend billions to cut down on CO2, then they need to know that.

    The surface temperature is barely a proxy for global warming.

    The real question is, of course — does the Earth have an energy imbalance? All indications (especially the strong ocean warming now taking place) is that it does. I think, Werner, that even you will agree with that.

    Therefore, more warming is expected. There will be times (like now) where ENSOs combine to give the appearance of a hiatus. But this has happened before, and warming resumed.

    Do you remember all the crowing about 2 years ago when sea levels were dropping? We were told then, too, that global warming was over, etc. The scientists said no, and they were right.

    Over 90% of the extra, trapped energy goes into the oceans. They are the best indicator of an energy imbalance.

    The oceans continue to warm, ice continues to melt, the seas continue to rise, the oceans continue to acidify. Surface warming will certainly resume (and a simple analysis (Foster and Rahmstorf 2011) indicate there is no cessation at all in GHG warming — you all are getting confused about a couple of ENSOs.

  34. most people will thank their lucky stars if the world is +3 warmer because there will be a huge increase in the global food supply.

    Says who? You think plant growth is a function of just one variable, CO2?

    Plants also depend on temperature and precipitation (among other variables), and there is already evidence that they are counteracting the increased CO2 fertilization effect:

    David B Lobell and Christopher B Field 2007 Environ. Res. Lett. 2 014002 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/2/1/014002
    Global scale climate–crop yield relationships and the impacts of recent warming

    http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/2/1/014002

  35. Somewhere along the way, somebody decided to use an arbitrary autocorrelation function pulled out of a hat which had a correlation time of about 30 years

    No one decided. It’s just that that interval seems impervious to [oceanic] weather, especially ENSOs. Pick you own interval, but pick one that doesn’t lead to great fluctuations in trends, as 15-20 years does.

  36. Sedron L says:
    July 20, 2013 at 12:47 pm

    “…especially the strong ocean warming now taking place…”

    There is no strong ocean warming taking place. There is none at all in the upper 700 m, and there is no path from surface warming to the lower layers which bypasses the upper 700 m entirely. This is a Hail Mary flail of desperation in the face of an uncooperative refusal on the part of nature to continue warming as was claimed would happen.

  37. Sedron L says:
    July 20, 2013 at 12:56 pm

    “It’s just that that interval seems impervious to [oceanic] weather, especially ENSOs.”

    That’s a laugh. It is the worst interval possible when there is a strong ~60 year cycle evident.

    “Pick you own interval…”

    OK. 65 years. What is the warming now?

  38. there is no path from surface warming to the lower layers which bypasses the upper 700 m entirely.

    There is — downward currents, as happen in the north Atlantic.

  39. Bart: You said there is “no strong ocean warming taking place.”
    Prove it.
    With data, and with real calculations.
    You like to pretend you’re some big math guy.
    So prove your assertions.

  40. Sedron L says:
    July 20, 2013 at 12:47 pm

    Over 90% of the extra, trapped energy goes into the oceans. They are the best indicator of an energy imbalance.

    I do not know how trustworthy all those ocean temperatures are, however even if we accept all those high numbers with ^22 J, in terms of an actual temperature change, if it is more than 0.2 C over the last 50 years, I would like to see you apply Q = mct to prove it. And if it is 0.2 C or less, then who cares? If the temperature of the deeper ocean went from 3.0 C to 3.2 C, it will be a long time before it reaches the average air temperature of 15 C and starts to warm the air. For all intents and purposes, the huge ocean is an infinite heat sink with an infinite capacity to absorb the puny amounts of heat we may possibly be adding every year.
    The heat capacity of the whole ocean is 1100 times that of the air. So if the air temperature went up by 2.0 C, and if this heat then all went into the ocean, the ocean would warm up by 0.0018 C. Granted, that is a lot of heat, however the laws of thermodynamics say the heat is too diffuse to do anything and it is not as if 99.9% of the ocean can lose 0.1 C and 0.1% of the rest of the ocean can then gain 99.9 C. Things just do not work that way.

  41. Bob – Your first tree graphs (red, blue, brown) are all riveted with noise left by secret computer processing. It has gone undetected for years. They are spikes located at the beginnings of years, in exactly the same places in all three graphs. I count over ten of them including the two highest peaks. Is there anything you can do to get rid of this junk? You seem to do a lot of graph manipulation which means you have graphing skills that just might help.

  42. Sedron L says:
    July 20, 2013 at 1:42 pm

    Please do not be a fool, and learn the difference between past and present tenses.

    Sedron L says:
    July 20, 2013 at 1:43 pm

    “There is — downward currents, as happen in the north Atlantic.”

    This is a flail. There is no narrow pipeline which can carry heated waters to the depths without diffusion to the surrounding waters.

  43. Bart: You noticeably ignored the question of 0-700 m warming.

    What is your number?

    (Your claim is false.)

  44. There is no narrow pipeline which can carry heated waters to the depths without diffusion to the surrounding waters.\

    There sure is — it’s called the ocean conveyer.

    But no need, since the 0-700 m layer is warming strongly too.

  45. I would like to see you apply Q = mct to prove it.

    Werner, this is how they do it. Have you read the papers by Levitus? They go into the discussion of errors at great length.

  46. however the laws of thermodynamics say the heat is too diffuse to do anything

    This is a joke, right? The laws of thermodynamics say absolutely nothing of the sort.

    Heat is heat.

  47. Sedron L says:
    July 20, 2013 at 8:08 pm
    Werner, this is how they do it.

    And what temperature change do they get for
    “0-2000 m (last 8.3 yrs): (0.80 +/- 0.09) e22 J/yr”?

  48. Sedron L says:
    July 20, 2013 at 8:10 pm
    however the laws of thermodynamics say the heat is too diffuse to do anything
    This is a joke, right? The laws of thermodynamics say absolutely nothing of the sort.
    Heat is heat.

    From:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics

    “The prime example of irreversibility is in the transfer of heat by conduction or radiation. It was known long before the discovery of the notion of entropy that when two bodies initially of different temperatures come into thermal connection, then heat always flows from the hotter body to the colder one.”

    “There is no narrow pipeline which can carry heated waters to the depths without diffusion to the surrounding waters.\
    There sure is — it’s called the ocean conveyer.”
    Are you suggesting that if you had a volume of warm water and it was conveyed to the bottom of the ocean that there would be any heat left in it a year later? Heat always flows from hot to cold and even if some hot water made it to a depth of 2000 m, being warmer than the surrounding water, would it not rise up and would not its heat diffuse into the colder water that it passes through?
    You say heat is heat. You can heat a city by 2 C but you cannot use that heat to do useful work, but you can burn gasoline in a car and have the same amount of heat in a small confined area. That heat can do useful work. That is why heat lost to friction is considered to be wasted heat since it is too diffuse to be of any use.

  49. Werner Brozek says:
    July 20, 2013 at 8:44 pm

    And what temperature change do they get for
    “0-2000 m (last 8.3 yrs): (0.80 +/- 0.09) e22 J/yr”?

    Let me answer my own question.

    From an earlier article by Bob Tisdale:
    “That obviously means that about 48% of the ocean volume is above 2000 meters.”

    The volume of water from 0 to 2000 m is about 48% of 1.37 x 10^9 km^3 or 6.58 x 10^8 km^3. With 1000 m in a km, this would be 10^9 m3 in a km3, for a total volume of 6.58 x 10^17 m^3.

    So let us assume that the last 8.3 years got 0.80 x 10^22 J x 8.3 = 6.64 x 10^22 J.

    The specific heat capacity of sea water is 3850 J/kgC.

    The density of sea water is about 1020 kg/m3, so a volume of 6.58 x 10^17 m3 has a mass of 6.7 x 10^20 kg.

    Plugging in these numbers into Q = mct gives:
    6.64 x 10^22 J = 6.7 x 10^20 kg x 3850 J/kgC x dt

    This gives a change in temperature of 0.0257 C if I did not make a mistake.

  50. Sedron L says:
    July 20, 2013 at 8:06 pm

    “There sure is — it’s called the ocean conveyer.”

    The THC is not a narrow pipeline, and this is a massive flail of desperation.

  51. Sedron L says:
    July 20, 2013 at 1:37 pm

    “The 65-yr trend of HadCRUT4 is +0.10 C/decade.”

    Yes, about the same as it has been for the last century+. Which tells us what?

  52. Werner, what is your point — that the ocean is huge?

    I think we can all agree to that. The question of interest is how, as a heat bath, does it affect the atmosphere and climate? Because it contains a huge amount of heat, and because this is increasing quickly on a per unit area basis, the potential is large.

  53. Yes, about the same as it has been for the last century+M/i>

    Sorry, no. In fact, the trend for the first 65 yrs of the HadCRUT4 data (which begins in 1850) is -0.02 C/decade.

  54. The THC is not a narrow pipeline, and this is a massive flail of desperation.

    How do you think water gets down there? Little diffuses from above, instead, it is taken down by ocean currents, as happens to the AMOC in the North Atlantic. Once there is stays for hundreds of years…. The Gulf Stream’s transport peaks at about 150 Sv….

  55. Sedron L says:
    July 22, 2013 at 7:31 am

    Anything before 1900 is essentially speculative.

    Sedron L says:
    July 22, 2013 at 7:37 am

    “Once there is stays for hundreds of years…”

    Precisely. So, how is it all of a sudden showing up at 2000 meters all across the oceans a scant 15 years after all the global warming supposedly started going there?

    Massive flail.

  56. Sedron L says:
    July 22, 2013 at 7:28 am
    Werner, what is your point — that the ocean is huge?
    My point is that the ocean is a virtually infinite heat sink that we humans will never heat to a degree that it will affect surface temperatures.

  57. Werner, your last comment makes no physical sense at all. Whether two objects exchange heat does not depend on their size, only on their heat content. It’s *because* the ocean’s heat content can get so large that it *can* influence surface temperatures.

    Think about it: you are claiming that no matter how much heat the ocean contains, however high, it cannot influence surface temperatures. Does that make intuitive sense to you?

    It also contradicts the well-known influence of El Ninos and La Ninas on surface temperatures.

  58. Anything before 1900 is essentially speculative.

    Talk about making up the rules as you go along!

    Care to explain what happened in 1900 to magically make the data more than “speculative?”

  59. Precisely. So, how is it all of a sudden showing up at 2000 meters all across the oceans a scant 15 years after all the global warming supposedly started going there?

    You’re not big into data, are you?

    In fact, the 0-700 m region of the ocean has been gaining heat since at least 1970:

    http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

    In that time a huge amount of water have been transported along the AMOC and taken downward. If the flow is 100 Sv, that works out to 11% of the ocean volume in 45 years. Heat gets lost all along the way, of course, but not all of it, so it’d be expected for a fair bit of heat to be transported down there.

  60. Sedron L says:
    July 23, 2013 at 7:24 am

    Whether two objects exchange heat does not depend on their size, only on their heat content.

    I do not agree. Suppose that I have a hot iron marble at say 80 C and I put it into a sink of water that I heated from 0 C to 15 C. The temperatures will reach a level according mct = mct for each substance.
    Suppose I also heat a bath tub from 0 C to 90 C and put the same hot marble in there instead. What happens this time? While the bathtub has a much higher heat content, it will cool the 80 C marble such that mct = mct still applies.
    What happens does NOT depend on heat content but only on temperature differences.

    Think about it: you are claiming that no matter how much heat the ocean contains, however high, it cannot influence surface temperatures. Does that make intuitive sense to you?

    I did not say that. What I said was: “My point is that the ocean is a virtually infinite heat sink that we humans will never heat to a degree that it will affect surface temperatures.” So I would agree that a huge asteroid could hit the middle of the Pacific and it would indeed have a huge impact. However our puny CO2 additions will never make the oceans boil. If the temperature of the top 2000 m did indeed go up by 0.0257 C in 8.3 years due to our emissions, how long will it take to reach an increase of 2 C? And even if this happens would it affect the air if the deep ocean heated from 3 C to 5 C?

  61. Sedron L says:
    July 23, 2013 at 7:26 am

    ‘Care to explain what happened in 1900 to magically make the data more than “speculative?”’

    Coverage gets more and more spotty the farther back you go. Read up on the history of the measurements. Prior to roughly 1900, it is especially poor.

    Sedron L says:
    July 23, 2013 at 7:35 am

    “You’re not big into data, are you?”

    You’re not big into logic, are you? The data pre-ARGO are very questionable, and post-ARGO, they’ve been statistically at a standstill.

    “Heat gets lost all along the way, of course, but not all of it, so it’d be expected for a fair bit of heat to be transported down there.”

    Not detected. The upper layers have not been warming significantly for at least a decade. So, we have no pathway diffusing heat downward.

    As for the THC, you said it yourself: the THC takes hundreds of years. Obviously, that isn’t how recent surface heat is getting to the 2000-700m range.

    So, to recap, we have no pathway diffusing down, and we have no pathway from the THC. Ergo, any heating of the 2000-700m range is not due to a CO2 induced increase of surface temperatures. Cause and effect, or rather, lack thereof. See how this works?

  62. Looking at this post, I think the average dataset indicates a clear upwards trend up until, and including, 2007. I think the plateau might be more evident (and may even show a slight cooling), if you trim the data to show from only 2008 to 2013. We don’t want people getting the wrong idea, if you know what I mean. Might want to do this soon too, as El Nino is forecast to return in 2014, which might throw off the plateau trend back into an upwards one, which would be catastrophic for the cause.

    Good post!

Comments are closed.