More Year-End Results
The UKMO-Hadley Centre presented its annual HADCRUT4 data a few days ago. The HADCRUT4 annual global land+ocean surface temperature anomalies for 2013 ranked 8th. That’s not much of a showing in a world where manmade greenhouse gases are assumed to be the control knob that regulates global surface temperatures.
Figure 1 presents a comparison of GISS LOTI, NCDC and HADCRUT4 annual global land+ocean surface temperature anomalies for the period of 1979 to 2013. Because all three suppliers use different base years, I’ve shifted them to 1981 to 2010 (base years recommended by the WMO) for the comparison. The halt in global warming is becoming more evident in the annual data. But the cessation of surface warming stands out like a sore thumb in the comparison of the monthly data, Figure 2.
Figure 1
# # # # # # # #
Figure 2
Figure 3 presents the monthly HADCRUT4 data from January 1979 through December 2013 with its standard base years of 1961 to 1990. The value for December was approximately +0.49 deg C, which is a drop of about -0.1 deg C since November.
Figure 3
For further information about the three datasets, refer to the most recent monthly update.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
People who believe the climate needs our help to change are now just talking to ourselves. We need senior politicians to have the guts to stop funding the organisations that fund these claims, which are works of sheer fiction.
only 8th?
It is time to change to HadCrut5.
Can we believe this data?
What the climate alarmists need to remember is that under their chosen system, marxism, the olympic gymnast trainees of yesterday are the street whores of today.
Pawns in the game.
If i just an average guy can see that the earth is not warming and co2 dose not seem to be the problem that they say it is, buy looking at the data and reading the reports.Why can’t our heads of state start to question the main group of scientist with some please explain questions,Blind freddy can see something is not right with the predictions and the models.I cannot believe that so called wise men like obama cameron and the like are being taken in buy this global warming scare they must have a reason for doing this or are they just dumb?
If the hiatus continues, they will struggle to get any years into the ‘Top 10’ – and I guess they will then have to think of some new alarmist headlines? Of course, if we actually start to cool, it will be hilarious watching them fail to explain it – but I expect there will be a sudden loss of more stations, especially rural ones or those that show cooling!
“The HADCRUT4 annual global land+ocean surface temperature anomalies for 2013 ranked 8th. That’s not much of a showing in a world where manmade greenhouse gases are assumed to be the control knob that regulates global surface temperatures.”
*Only* 8th?
8th out of 34.
The problem William is “The probability of a streak of at least 8 consecutive successes in 34 head/tail trial is 5.4%”
That is below the 95% science confidence level claimed … does that make it more clear.
I haven’t checked that the 8 highest are consecutive it could be worse than that. So even if nothing was changing and the results were just oscillating about a baseline (the pause) you would expect that pattern 5.4% of the time.
Please note that although it might look, to the untrained eye, as though the temperature was rising up until around the late 1990’s and then appears to have stopped rising, that actually massive global warming occurred even after 2000 and has continued until present.
If you think that the temperature stopped rising then it is because you are not trained well enough to look at the graphs or data to be able to see the truth – that in fact a horizontal line is actually a steeply sloping line.
If you take a second look at the graphs and still cannot see the slope then you are likely in the pay of big evil oil.
LdB:
If you want to use the coin flip analogy, CO2 ‘should’ result in almost every year being a +, not a -. But for the last 17ish years, it has been more typical of what random odds would expect, some +, and some -. About the same number of each. It doesn’t seem like CO2 is loading the dice (or coin.
Is there any way to do these same plots with the raw data? I have never trusted these guys with their adjustments.
Adam, you should really put a /sarc tag on your comment.
Forgive me 4 saying so, but all three graphics suggest, if anything, a warming trend. Perhaps a slowing one, but unambiguously a warming trend.
bazza says:
January 25, 2014 at 2:11 am
They’re not dumb. Just follow the money, Bazza: the theory of CAGM has provided a huge taxpayer-funded honeypot for universities’ research projects.
Just add “climate change” or “global warming” or climate disruption” or “ocean acidification” to your research proposal – whether it’s in the science, arts or law faculties – and you’ll hit the jackpot like Chris Turney’s junket to Antarctica with paying tourists.
People in the future won’t believe we were so stupid.
Also “obama cameron and the like” are not wise men. With few exceptions these days only tractable dumbclucks get to be leaders.
I think when things really start to cool off in about 5 years, any remaining Anthropo GWers are going to need to talk about carbon credits to avoid being drawn and quartered about CAGW.
Jeff in Calgary: You rightly wish to see plots done with the raw data. The historical data is being fiddled on an outrageous scale. I have been trying to find this data for the arctic stations, focussing on Iceland because you have to start somewhere. Just comparing what GISS used to declare with what they now declare, the fraud is stark: http://endisnighnot.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/the-past-is-getting-colder.html
In short, the historical data is being shamelessly depressed in order to create a spurious warming trend. Thank heaven for the satellite data which is, I think, constraining the worst excesses of this fraud.
LdB says:
January 25, 2014 at 3:06 am
————-
Um… this is not a heads or tails probability scenario – it’s a temperature trend, mate. And the 8th warmest year in a dataset of 34 data points is completely different from your analogy of 8 consecutive heads or tails. I’m afraid you’ve got the wrong model. You’re not a “climate scientist” by any chance?
Adam says:
January 25, 2014 at 3:23 am
and this warming is related to what exactly?
ever bothered to look around at other stuff?
like this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon14_with_activity_labels.svg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Activity_Proxies.png
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/
what do these ‘suggest’ about solar activity and temperature? – even in a very general sense? even the CET shows an increasing overall trend in temerature since its creation!
If you bother to look at the bigger picture – you will see that the ‘warming’ is far more likely to be natural than man-made (although most can accept that there is an element, likely small, of anthropogenic warming in there somewhere!)
And knocking Big oil is silly – even Big Oil accepts the science that CO2 is a GHG – heck, they love it ! – and any restriction on their ‘oil’ or extraction/sales/etc, increases the price they can charge and the value of their reserves. Big oil absolutely loves the green eco-nuts!
me says on January 25, 2014 at 1:57 am
Can we believe this data?
______
I tried to access Roy Spencer’s UAH data this morning but the site seems to be down.
Perhaps when it is back up Bob might plot the UAH LT data alongside the Hadcrut4 ST data..
From my work a decade ago, there appeared to be a warming bias of about 0,2C since ~1979 in the ST data.
I now, apples and orange and all, but still worth a look.
So far, global warming has turned out be so large, that it isn’t even measurable on a mercury temperature thermometer.
Go back to 1900 and tell a weather observer that over the next 113 years, the temperature on the thermometer will change from here (using a pencil) to here (as in, the pencil didn’t really move at all). Then note that, in 113 years, a billion people will be very worried about that change.
He/she would laugh a little at first but then become very confused about why this would bother them so much and the observer might even worry about the mental state of his fellow man in the future.
Then you would tell the observer to buy as much Standard Oil and Ford stock as possible and not to worry about it.
Oh, and while I am at it, confidence intervals are based around the assessed error in measurement or forecasting, not cumulative coin toss probabilities. Go buy a textbook on stats before making further comment, my friend.
TBear says:
January 25, 2014 at 3:38 am
—————–
That’s funny- to me it looks distinctly sinusoidal, with lots of noise, peaking in around 2007. What do the hard numbers tell us? Let me guess…no statistically significant warming for 17 years? What has atmospheric CO2 done during this time? Oh dear, looks like it has risen pretty much unabated (actually, accelerating).
“Geneva, we have a problem!”. “Better readjust the historical temps down again”
LdB says:
January 25, 2014 at 3:06 am
yes, but only if all individual events are independent from one another, unfortunately, in contrast to your example, consecutive yearly temperatures arent (independent events).
so, your coin flip analogy is flawed. now, why dont you review an intermediate statistics course…
the phenomena is caused autocorrelation. look it up, and come back to us.
davideisenstadt says:
January 25, 2014 at 4:46 am
typo: “caused” should read “called”