HADCRUT4 for 2013: Almost a DNF in Top Ten Warmest

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.

01 Annual Comparison

Figure 1

# # # # # # # #

02 Monthly Comparison

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.

03 HADCRUT 1979 Start

Figure 3

For further information about the three datasets, refer to the most recent monthly update.

About these ads

98 thoughts on “HADCRUT4 for 2013: Almost a DNF in Top Ten Warmest

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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?

  4. 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!

  5. “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?

  6. William Abbott says:
    January 25, 2014 at 2:41 am

    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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. Forgive me 4 saying so, but all three graphics suggest, if anything, a warming trend. Perhaps a slowing one, but unambiguously a warming trend.

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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?

  14. 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.

  15. 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://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!

  16. 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.

  17. 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.

  18. 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”

  19. 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.

  20. davideisenstadt says:
    January 25, 2014 at 4:46 am
    typo: “caused” should read “called”

  21. In my 25 years experience of examining data trends, I’d say it’s beyond leveled off and will start heading back down (on average). Individual spikes however will continue to tantalize the fanatics with statements like ” seventh warmest since xx”, “ninth warmest for three consecutive periods”, “eleventh warmest for the third time since it was that fourth warmest before the eighteenth coolest point in the fifteenth warmest decade since the second minimum recorded and adjusted value”. Et cetera, et cetera.

  22. I would believe the data if it was comparisons of raw data from stations that are all well away from industrial developments. Anything less is compromised by local heat pollution and of course the guesswork adjustment of the the monitors who often have a stake in finding evidence of global warming

  23. NOAA says 2013 was 4th hottest ever.. but the record years are so close to each other now (due to lack of warming) that by my calculation the 10 years ending in 2013 were only 0.1 deg warmer than the previous ten, which is the smallest increase since the 80’s. I hope to get this up on a chart soon.

  24. Allan M.R. MacRae says:
    January 25, 2014 at 4:14 am
    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..

    You can do it yourself. This shows the trends since 1979.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1979/to:2014/offset:0.28/mean:12/plot/uah/from:1979/to:2014/trend/offset:0.28/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/to:2014/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/to:2014/trend

    Note that the UAH trend is 0.03 degrees per decade (0.3 degrees per century) lower than the HADCRUT4 trend. However, this difference appears to be related to observations in the first decade of the satellite era. The trends since 1990 are

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1990/to:2014/offset:0.28/mean:12/plot/uah/from:1990/to:2014/trend/offset:0.28/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1990/to:2014/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1990/to:2014/trend

    Since 1990 the UAH has been warming slightly faster than the HADCRUT4.

  25. Observation sure is deviant from the CO2 narrative. If CO2 is a small factor, what are the real climate forcing factors? Sun w/ cycle 24 being lowest in 200 years ,, or ,,the lowering earth magnetism ,, or ,, PDO in a cold phase ,, or ,, cosmic rays making more cloud formation ,, or ,, volcanism ,, or ,, Milankovitch cycles. Should ‘or’ be changed to ‘and’? Then, how many of these things need to align in a cold phase of their cycles in order to end an interglacial period? And if anyone has an answer that is certain, will you let rest of us know of any plans on moving to Florida?!

  26. Using the Central England Temperature (hadCET) as an example of the climate, since 1659 the temperature (monthly mean) has risen from 8,83 Deg C to 9.56 Deg C in 2013. That’s a massive rise of 0.73 Deg C in 354 years. Or 0.02 Deg C/decade. Which of course is well outside the error range (+/-1.0 Deg C) for temperature recording calibration. Scary isn’t it? /sarc.

    Also the the temperature trend had just celebrated it’s 21st birthday. Yes it has been a downward trend since 1992. Just to let the politicians and MSM in the UK, I’ll JUST SHOUT THAT AGAIN 21YEARS DOWNWARD TREND.

  27. Just to add my 2 cents worth.

    It looks to me that there is a steady underlying warming trend which is amplified by natural variability during some periods and attenuated during others (bear in mind 1910-1940 and 1945-1975). The warming looks to be consistent with a climate sensitivity of around 1 degree per 2xCO2, i.e. less than IPCC estimates but real nonetheless.

    There is no evidence for significant cooling.

  28. Personally, the world started in 1979. The beginning of the era of satellite temperature data.
    It’s the only true “raw” data available. Every other data-set has had the past temperatures “adjusted” . Most always adjusted to a lower temperature.
    RSS satellite data is fraud free and…
    tastes GREAT!!

  29. Bob, an interesting chart to plot would be the annual change in global temperature anomaly. This year-on-year change chart would show that at least in the 2000s, the year-on-year reductions are outpacing the year-on-year increases. A clearer trend line is revealed.

  30. joshuah says:
    January 25, 2014 at 5:08 am

    NOAA says 2013 was 4th hottest ever.. but the record years are so close to each other now (due to lack of warming) that by my calculation the 10 years ending in 2013 were only 0.1 deg warmer than the previous ten, which is the smallest increase since the 80′s. I hope to get this up on a chart soon.

    Such a chart would be a good counter to IPOCC’s decadal charts, which make the Noughties look as though they were in a warming trend although that was only due to the step change after 1998.

    Anthony: I urge you to include his “latest ten year” chart in your reference pages, and to invite joshuah to submit updated charts annually.

  31. John Finn,
    “There is no evidence for significant cooling.”

    Who said anything about ‘significant cooling.”?

  32. Personally, the world started in 1979. The beginning of the era of satellite temperature data.
    It’s the only true “raw” data available. Every other data-set has had the past temperatures “adjusted” . Most always adjusted to a lower temperature.
    RSS satellite data is fudge free and…
    tastes GREAT!!

  33. joshuah says: @ January 25, 2014 at 5:08 am

    NOAA says 2013 was 4th hottest ever.. but the record years are so close to each other now (due to lack of warming) that by my calculation the 10 years ending in 2013 were only 0.1 deg warmer than the previous ten, which is the smallest increase since the 80′s. I hope to get this up on a chart soon.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Try plotting the rate of change from one year to the next.

    http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/07/in-defense-of-milankovitch-by-gerard.html

  34. John Finn
    “There is no evidence for significant cooling.”

    Wrong. It has not warmed for 17 years, not merely less than IPCC estimates, drastically below their estimates which have been factually proven wrong. The IPCC’s positive feedback hypothesis is debunked via the lack of tropospheric hotspot, the satellite-read increase of outgoing long wave radiation with increased surface warming and global temperatures.

    As there was a warming trend since the Maunder Minimum 300 years ago, then a stalling of that warming trend is actually a cooling as it’s statistically greater than the sub-decadal stochastic noise.
    Time will tell if it is the beginning of a major long term cooling trend which is likely given long term Holocene cycles, we are in fact, looking at the Holocene climate cycles likely at the peak of a holocene optimum ready to descend into cooling, but regardless the stall is irrefutably a cooling relative to the warming trend.

  35. Kev-in-Uk says:
    January 25, 2014 at 4:14 am
    __________________
    Adam used an invisible sarc tag. Most who are on their 2nd cup of coffee got it.

  36. Bob, did you see my note at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/23/also-rans-ncdc-and-giss-global-surface-temperatures-finish-4th-and-7th-for-2013/#comment-1547075 ? “7th place? (tied for 7th, 8th, and 9th) – 4th place? (tied for 4th and 5th)” So HADCRUT4 in 8th matches GISS.

    joshuah says:
    January 25, 2014 at 5:08 am

    NOAA says 2013 was 4th hottest ever.. but the record years are so close to each other now (due to lack of warming) that by my calculation the 10 years ending in 2013 were only 0.1 deg warmer than the previous ten, which is the smallest increase since the 80′s. I hope to get this up on a chart soon.

    There are tables, see http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/23/newsbytes-nasa-noaa-confirm-global-temperature-standstill-continues/ and my link in that other comment.

  37. Is the ‘official’ temperature trust worthy?
    Hansen ‘Adjusts’ past temperature records. Comparison of three of his graphs from different years.

  38. Is the ‘official’ temperature trust worthy?
    Raw data minus official HadCRUT4 temperature showing the adjustments.

  39. An alternative visualisation of GISS data trends by Nate Drake using a Savitzky-Golay 15 year filter.

    Source http://snag.gy/hFsMF.jpg
    Original © Nate Drake, enhancement © RLH

    “Filter on NON-detrended GISS LOTI data: …I ran a 5 pass-multipass with second order polynomials on 15year data windows as per the Savitzky–Golay method.” Nate Drake

    This shows ‘the pause’ or ‘global-warming hiatus’ rather well in GISS. Full credit to Nate Drake for providing such a useful and helpful image and apologies to him from me in having to enhance the dots and line to make them more visible.

    I am trying to get him to do the full set, HadCrut4, HadSST3, AMO and PDO.

    Perhaps we should all join in and ask for UAH and RSS too.

    http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525

    Just helping out ‘the cause’ :-)

  40. RobRoy says:
    January 25, 2014 at 5:54 am

    Personally, the world started in 1979. The beginning of the era of satellite temperature data.
    It’s the only true “raw” data available. Every other data-set has had the past temperatures “adjusted” . Most always adjusted to a lower temperature.
    RSS satellite data is fudge free and…
    tastes GREAT!!

    If there were no satellite temperature readings there would be no temperature standstill. ;-) Last year would have been the hottest evaaaaaaah.

  41. Could you add “MONTHLY” to the title of figure 2, to match the “ANNUAL” of figure one? Some of us are a little slow unless things are spelled out for us….
    : > )

  42. Why would any self-respecting scientist fit Figure 3 to a linear function? I would avail myself to Origin and look for something that looked like a damped sine function.

  43. I wish we had an ENSO and GCM model/observation comparison set of charts. ENSO prediction models get to “restart” every so often. At least GCM models are set and forget. But both kinds of model groups sure struggle to get even the least little thing right. I believe it is still the case that statistical/analogue models are closer to actual observations than dynamical fudged-up models. But a monthly chart of the differences would be great!

  44. There were a lot of calls recently for people who publish in various scientific journals to always publish all data, code, and methods with each publication. It seems to me that the keepers of these government paid for data series should be the ones we demand show all “adjustments”, methods, and etc. — and justify what they do.

    Why does the past keep getting colder and colder — do they have a time machine to go back into the past and read the thermometers again?

  45. markstoval says:
    January 25, 2014 at 7:25 am

    Jimbo: “… Last year would have been the hottest evaaaaaaah.”

    It wasn’t?
    ___________
    Was it?

  46. Alan, you seem to have missed the snark. Perhaps a tag would have been in order. Or, perhaps, you were also being snarky and I missed it.

    Anyway, I wager some newspaper someplace will play 2013 as one of the hottest years evaaaaaah.

  47. The satellite record is very short and happens to have coincided with an upswing and plateau of a natural cycle. Any year in the last 16 is guaranteed to be one of the top 16 by the shape of the curve we happen to have measured. The exercise is meaningless.

  48. markstoval says: @ January 25, 2014 at 7:24 am

    There were a lot of calls recently for people who publish in various scientific journals to always publish all data, code, and methods with each publication. It seems to me that the keepers of these government paid for data series should be the ones we demand show all “adjustments”, methods, and etc. — and justify what they do….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Mark, why would you think I don’t want the government to ‘Show your work” when my taxes paid for it?

    What I said about peer-reviewed journals goes double for any tax payer funded research whether at universities or at government bureaucracies except for matters of national security.

    Mikey Mann’s e-mails are not matters of national security and all his university data and correspondence should be open to FOIA just like my phone calls, e-mails and lab notebooks were open to company scrutiny. They paid me therefore they own what I did during working hours.

    You don’t want what you said read then do not say it on company time (or on facebook or twitter or in blogs)

  49. John Finn says on January 25, 2014 at 5:08 am

    Thank you John.

    In 2002 I was using UAH and Hadcrut3 – here is approximately what I recalled.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1979/to:2002/offset:0.1/mean:12/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1979/to:2002/mean:12

    See also Gail’s note:

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/22/shock-news-nasa-surface-temperatures-dont-match-more-accurate-satellite-data/

    The following seems to have fallen under the radar. I have NOT verified Goddard’s claim below.

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/19/just-hit-the-noaa-motherlode/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_January_19_2014

    Independent data analyst, Steven Goddard, today (January 19, 2014) released his telling study of the officially adjusted and “homogenized” US temperature records relied upon by NASA, NOAA, USHCN and scientists around the world to “prove” our climate has been warming dangerously.

    Goddard reports, “I spent the evening comparing graphs…and hit the NOAA motherlode.” His diligent research exposed the real reason why there is a startling disparity between the “raw” thermometer readings, as reported by measuring stations, and the “adjusted” temperatures, those that appear in official charts and government reports. In effect, the adjustments to the “raw” thermometer measurements made by the climate scientists “turns a 90 year cooling trend into a warming trend,” says the astonished Goddard.

    Goddard’s plain-as-day evidence not only proves the officially-claimed one-degree increase in temperatures is entirely fictitious, it also discredits the reliability of any assertion by such agencies to possess a reliable and robust temperature record.

    Regards, Allan

  50. me says:
    January 25, 2014 at 1:57 am

    Can we believe this data?

    No, because a “global temperature” and by extension a “global temperature anomaly” are physically meaningless.

  51. Mr. Tisdale ==> I am searching for serious answer to the question — Why does Climate Science insist on only showing ONLY temperature anomolies? Why not justy show the average temperature according to their calculation? Then the rest of the world wouldn’t have to worry about who was using what base period for their anomoly — any school boy or girl can mentally subtract the trivial differences involved — amounting to a few tenths of a degree centigrade.

    Please, I am quite serious in this question. It seems to me to a some sort of bizarre ritual meant to mislead.

  52. Kip Hansen says: @ January 25, 2014 at 9:15 am

    …Please, I am quite serious in this question. It seems to me to a some sort of bizarre ritual meant to mislead.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    It is simple they want to scare you by showing “warming” They do this by picking a cold time and showing how much warmer it is.

    This gives a pretty good idea of what is really happening.

    Take it to 200% and then click to enlarge. Look at the decade by decade movement of plants. The middle of a continent is less likely to show the influence of ocean oscillations BTW.

    Explanation: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/322068/Koppen-climate-classification

  53. If you get rid of the 60 year cycle you only have a long term trend which has now stopped and weather.

    What global warming

    (see prev post)

  54. I wonder what the temperature graphs would look like if John Christy and Roy Spencer weren’t around.

  55. Hmm…2010, with just a bit of a limp el nino, ends up warmer than 1998 (with a historically strong el nino). Now just how did that happen in a cooling world??

  56. If you include temperature data from areas that border the 16% of the earth’s surface that the Hadcrut4 DOESENT cover, the satellite record confirms that the arctic is warming rapidly and these warmer temperatures, when included in the HADCRUT4 data shows that we are continuing to warm at an ever increasing rate.

    When you include the rapid increase in global ocean warming since the PDO went negative you will see how the entire earth’s energy budget is vastly out of balance and warming is accelerating. And that the warming of the past 16 years has been SIGNIFICANTLY underestimated.

  57. I just want the temperature in East Rutherford, NJ on February 2, 2014 to be less than 39 degrees F. If this occurs, the Seahawks should win the Superbowl. And it will be the coldest Superbowl ever. Proving exactly nothing. Just like Sandy, it’s just weather.

  58. jai mitchell says:
    January 25, 2014 at 10:16 am

    “the warming of the past 16 years has been SIGNIFICANTLY underestimated.”

    I would disagree. A graphic prepared by one of the proponents of global warming accidentally shows quite clearly that the rise has come to a halt, in GISS at least.

    Original © Nate Drake, enhancement © RLH

  59. Has any particular part of the globe become less hospitable for humankind because of a rise in AVERAGE global temperatures? Has any part become more hospitable? And what is the net change – after allowing for improved methods, machinery, and products resulting from human ingenuity and increasing industrialization?

    On balance, and on the average, I would conjecture that life has become easier. Sad to say, living has not become easier for all. But not because of ‘global warming’.

  60. jai mitchell just cannot accept reality: global warming has stopped.

    It may resume, in which case this is just a pause. But for the past 17 years, global warming has stopped.

    When someone cannot accept reality, we say they are “deluded”.

    Also, I see that John Finn likes to cherry-pick recent temperatures. Let’s look at a longer time scale.

    Another deluded warmist, no?

    It is very obvious: global warming has stopped.

    Deal with it. Because that is reality.

  61. Liontooth says:
    January 25, 2014 at 6:16 am
    “The warming looks to be consistent with a climate sensitivity of around 1 degree per 2xCO2, i.e. less than IPCC estimates but real nonetheless.”

    How does the chart show a 1 degree per 2xCO2?
    http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/sio-keel-flask/maunaloa_c.dat

    Not sure what you’re asking. You’ve just linked to the Mauna Loa data.

    My point was that there are fluctuations due to natural variability but the overall trend is upwards. The natural factors seem to be responsible for about o.3 degrees of warming (then cooling). We’re now at a warming peak (0.3 degrees) and the world has warmed about 0.7 to 0.8 degrees over the past century or so. Therefore about 0.4 to 0.5 degrees can be attributed to the increase in “greenhouse” gases.

    CO2 forcing since pre-industrial times is about 1.8 watts/m2. Doubling CO2 produces a forcing of about 3.7 watts/m2 so we’ve had about half the forcing and, therefore, half the warming,. Conclusion: the observed warming is broadly consistent with the no feedback climate sensitivity of 1.2 degrees C per 2xCO2.

  62. It appears that the “temperature” stasis is really a “temperature data corruption” stasis.
    The actual temperature stasis may date back to the 70’s or 80’s.

  63. dbstealey says:
    January 25, 2014 at 10:59 am

    “It is very obvious: global warming has stopped.”

    Don’t you just love it when one of them actually manages to ‘prove’ that when arguing too fiercely :-)

    Original © Nate Drake, enhancement © RLH

    “Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.” Napoleon Bonaparte

  64. John Finn says:
    January 25, 2014 at 10:55 am

    “Really? So how do you interpret this graph of UAH temperatures since 1997″

    “Linear trends” = “Tangents to the curve” = “Flat Earthers”?

  65. dbstealey says:
    January 25, 2014 at 10:59 am .
    Also, I see that John Finn likes to cherry-pick recent temperatures. Let’s look at a longer time scale.

    I see that it is you who is guilty of cherry-picking by opting for the RSS record. You are presumably aware that UAH does not show “no warming” over the past 17 years. Roy Spencer and John Christy, in particular, are convinced that RSS has a cooling bias due to orbital drift. I will provide a link when Roy’s blog is back up.

    Another deluded warmist, no?

    Is Roy Spencer also a deluded warmist? What about John Christy?

  66. John Finn says:

    “…can be attributed…” “…produces a forcing…” “…broadly consistent with…”

    John, those are all simply baseless assertions. If you want to be credible here, you need to post testable, measurable scientific evidence to support your assertions.

    But you haven’t, and I suspect the reason is because you have no empirical measurements showing the specific proportion of global warming due to human emissions. All you have are your baseless assertions. That is not nearly good enough here, because we are good scientists: we are skeptics.

    You are simply presuming that human activity is causing global warming. But you have no measurable, testable scientific evidencen to support that presumption. Without verifiable, testable measurements, you are not doing science, you are only asserting your Belief.

    As I’ve written many times, AGW may exist. But if so, it is just too small a forcing to be measured. Otherwise, there would be verifiable measurements of AGW.

    But there are none.

  67. dbstealey says:
    January 25, 2014 at 11:35 am

    “As I’ve written many times, AGW may exist. But if so, it is just too small a forcing to be measured. Otherwise, there would be verifiable measurements of AGW. ”

    And indeed if you were to update Hansen’s original graphic to today with newer GISS data then we are tiptoeing along the Scenario C line.

    You know, the one with constant forcing as configured in the models after 2000! What effect CO2 now?

  68. John Finn says: “… We’re now at a warming peak (0.3 degrees) and the world has warmed about 0.7 to 0.8 degrees over the past century or so. Therefore about 0.4 to 0.5 degrees can be attributed to the increase in “greenhouse” gases.”

    I am not so sure that we really do know that the ‘world has warmed about 0.7 to 0.8 degrees’ over the last century, but let us stipulate that it has for a moment. if the planet has warmed 0.8 degrees, then how do we know that 0.4 to 0.5 degrees of that total is due to an increase in “greenhouse gases”? How do we know that?

  69. markstoval,

    How do we know that?

    we are 95% certain that the majority of the warming this century is caused by human sources because of over 200 years of experimental data from the beginning of the modern scientific revolution when it was determined that certain chemicals interact with heatwaves differently than others.

    These experiments have been performed and the science of them are so resolute that it is only because of self-censorship by climate scientists that they don’t say 100% certain.

    Think of all the scientists that you rely on every day for your basic needs. The electricity in your home, the hot water in your faucets, the food in your belly. All of these are brought to you through the knowledge of physics and the scientific body of work performed largely over the last 200 years.

    What you don’t know is that the ultimate response of the scientific community, in the dark hours of the nightwatch, is that they have allowed self censorship to cloud the debate to such a degree that, having underestimated the effects, we now are destined to a future with geoengineering as an attempt to stabilize the climate. An effort that will ultimately fail and lead to a massive population collapse in the second half of this century.

    but, of course, the “scientists” in the skeptic crown even have the gall to deny the scientific proof of evolution. . .

  70. jai mitchell said:

    “but, of course, the “scientists” in the skeptic crown even have the gall to deny the scientific proof of evolution”

    Names?

  71. Gail Combs said @ January 25, 2014 at 7:56 am

    You don’t want what you said read then do not say it on company time (or on facebook or twitter or in blogs)

    Or the telephone. Now where did we put that Cone of Silence, Chief?

  72. You know, the one with constant forcing as configured in the models after 2000! What effect CO2 now?

    About 1 degree increase in mean global temperature per CO2 doubling, i.e. less than Hansen’s estimate but measurable over time.

  73. jai mitchell says:
    January 25, 2014 at 1:20 pm

    “we are 95% certain that the majority of the warming this century is caused by human sources because of over 200 years of experimental data from the beginning of the modern scientific revolution when it was determined that certain chemicals interact with heatwaves differently than others.”

    Laboratory experiments may or may not transfer to a Global, partially chaotic, picture.

    So what is your explanation for the DESCENT of temperatures into the Little Ice Age? From what level and why?

  74. jai mitchell:

    Your uneducated rant addressed to markstoval at January 25, 2014 at 1:20 pm begins saying

    How do we know that?

    we are 95% certain that the majority of the warming this century is caused by human sources because of over 200 years of experimental data from the beginning of the modern scientific revolution when it was determined that certain chemicals interact with heatwaves differently than others.

    Clearly, you know nothing of the scientific method so allow me to inform you of the Null Hypothesis.

    The Null Hypothesis says it must be assumed a system has not experienced a change unless there is evidence of a change.

    The Null Hypothesis is a fundamental scientific principle and forms the basis of all scientific understanding, investigation and interpretation. Indeed, it is the basic principle of experimental procedure where an input to a system is altered to discern a change: if the system is not observed to respond to the alteration then it has to be assumed the system did not respond to the alteration.

    In the case of climate science there is a hypothesis that increased greenhouse gases (GHGs, notably CO2) in the air will increase global temperature. There are good reasons to suppose this hypothesis may be true, but the Null Hypothesis says it must be assumed the GHG changes have no effect unless and until increased GHGs are observed to increase global temperature. That is what the scientific method decrees. It does not matter how certain some people may be that the hypothesis is right because observation of reality (i.e. empiricism) trumps all opinions.

    Please note that the Null Hypothesis is a hypothesis which exists to be refuted by empirical observation. It is a rejection of the scientific method to assert that one can “choose” any subjective Null Hypothesis one likes. There is only one Null Hypothesis: i.e. it has to be assumed a system has not changed unless it is observed that the system has changed.

    However, deciding a method which would discern a change may require a detailed statistical specification.

    In the case of global climate no unprecedented climate behaviours are observed so the Null Hypothesis decrees that the climate system has not changed.

    Importantly, an effect may be real but not overcome the Null Hypothesis because it is too trivial for the effect to be observable. Human activities have some effect on global temperature for several reasons. An example of an anthropogenic effect on global temperature is the urban heat island (UHI). Cities are warmer than the land around them, so cities cause some warming. But the temperature rise from cities is too small to be detected when averaged over the entire surface of the planet, although this global warming from cities can be estimated by measuring the warming of all cities and their areas.

    Clearly, the Null Hypothesis decrees that UHI is not affecting global temperature although there are good reasons to think UHI has some effect. Similarly, it is very probable that AGW from GHG emissions are too trivial to have observable effects.

    The feedbacks in the climate system are negative and, therefore, any effect of increased CO2 will be probably too small to discern because natural climate variability is much, much larger. This concurs with the empirically determined values of low climate sensitivity.

    Empirical – n.b. not model-derived – determinations indicate climate sensitivity is less than 1.0°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 equivalent. This is indicated by the studies of
    Idso from surface measurements

    http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/Idso_CR_1998.pdf

    and Lindzen & Choi from ERBE satellite data

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf

    and Gregory from balloon radiosonde data

    http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/OLR&NGF_June2011.pdf

    Indeed, because climate sensitivity is less than 1.0°C for a doubling of CO2 equivalent, it is physically impossible for the man-made global warming to be large enough to be detected (just as the global warming from UHI is too small to be detected). If something exists but is too small to be detected then it only has an abstract existence; it does not have a discernible existence that has effects (observation of the effects would be its detection).

    To date there are no discernible effects of AGW. Hence, the Null Hypothesis decrees that AGW does not affect global climate to a discernible degree. That is the ONLY scientific conclusion possible at present.

    Richard

  75. John Finn says:
    January 25, 2014 at 2:05 pm

    “About 1 degree increase in mean global temperature per CO2 doubling, i.e. less than Hansen’s estimate but measurable over time”

    Sure, I’ll go with Lindzen’s figure. Seems fine to me.

  76. jai mitchell said @ January 25, 2014 at 1:20 pm

    Think of all the scientists that you rely on every day for your basic needs. The electricity in your home, the hot water in your faucets, the food in your belly. All of these are brought to you through the knowledge of physics and the scientific body of work performed largely over the last 200 years.

    [emphasis mine]
    Shortly before we purchased the farm, a teacher of physics owned a small property in the vicinity. My new neighbours related his exploits with glee. He put up his very own brand new fence and was inordinately pleased to see his efforts being watched with keen interest. When he had finished, he walked over to natter with the observers. Vivvy said: “We weren’t so much wondering how you were going to get the tractor out of the paddock, but how’re you gonna persuade the cattle to jump over the fence to get in!”

    Another couple of our ever-so-well-educated physics teacher’s exploits included building a water tank stand without bracing, so it collapsed as soon as the tank filled with water and a polythene greenhouse that blew away as soon as the wind arrived because it wasn’t tied down in any way.

    Me, I just learned a lot from ignorant farmers about growing food. Physicists not so much.

  77. dbstealey says:
    January 25, 2014 at 11:35 am

    You appear to have avoided my question about whether you think Roy Spencer and John Christy are “deluded warmists”. Here, let me help you make up your mind. This is from Roy Spencer

    Anyway, my UAH cohort and boss John Christy, who does the detailed matching between satellites, is pretty convinced that the RSS data is undergoing spurious cooling because RSS is still using the old NOAA-15 satellite which has a decaying orbit, to which they are then applying a diurnal cycle drift correction based upon a climate model, which does not quite match reality. We have not used NOAA-15 for trend information in years…we use the NASA Aqua AMSU, since that satellite carries extra fuel to maintain a precise orbit.

    Now let’s remember it was me that provided graphs which showed UAH warming since 1997 and UAH warming slightly more than Hadcrut4 since 1990. You countered the latter with an RSS graph since 1997 (strangely claiming that this was over the longer term). However, Spencer and Christy believe that RSS data is “undergoing spurious cooling” because – and this is the best bit – RSS are “applying a diurnal cycle drift correction based upon a climate model, which does not quite match reality”.

    So, come on, which is it? Do you accept the UAH data or the data which relies on a correction based on a climate model (This should be good).

  78. Kip Hansen says: “I am searching for serious answer to the question — Why does Climate Science insist on only showing ONLY temperature anomolies?”

    For global land+ocean surface temperatures products, you are correct that GISS, Hadley Centre and NCDC only present anomalies. However, sea surface temperature data and reconstructions are available in absolute form, and there is a land surface temperature reanalysis that is available in absolute form as well.

    Back to global temperature products:

    GISS on their webpage here…

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

    …states:

    Anomalies and Absolute Temperatures

    Our analysis concerns only temperature anomalies, not absolute temperature. Temperature anomalies are computed relative to the base period 1951-1980. The reason to work with anomalies, rather than absolute temperature is that absolute temperature varies markedly in short distances, while monthly or annual temperature anomalies are representative of a much larger region. Indeed, we have shown (Hansen and Lebedeff, 1987) that temperature anomalies are strongly correlated out to distances of the order of 1000 km. For a more detailed discussion, see The Elusive Absolute Surface Air Temperature.”

    Also see the NCDC FAQ webpage here:

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/anomalies.php

    They state:

    Absolute estimates of global average surface temperature are difficult to compile for several reasons. Some regions have few temperature measurement stations (e.g., the Sahara Desert) and interpolation must be made over large, data-sparse regions. In mountainous areas, most observations come from the inhabited valleys, so the effect of elevation on a region’s average temperature must be considered as well. For example, a summer month over an area may be cooler than average, both at a mountain top and in a nearby valley, but the absolute temperatures will be quite different at the two locations. The use of anomalies in this case will show that temperatures for both locations were below average.

    Using reference values computed on smaller [more local] scales over the same time period establishes a baseline from which anomalies are calculated. This effectively normalizes the data so they can be compared and combined to more accurately represent temperature patterns with respect to what is normal for different places within a region.

    For these reasons, large-area summaries incorporate anomalies, not the temperature itself. Anomalies more accurately describe climate variability over larger areas than absolute temperatures do, and they give a frame of reference that allows more meaningful comparisons between locations and more accurate calculations of temperature trends.

    Kip, anomalies are also easier to use for comparisons of monthly data, especially when there are large seasonal components. Imagine trying to compare the variations in the sea surface temperatures of the Northern and Southern Hemispheres—they’re seasonally out of phase with one another. While the sea surface temperatures for the Northern Hemisphere are increasing, the Southern Hemisphere sea surface temperatures are decreasing, and vice versa.

    Good idea for a blog post for tomorrow.

  79. Re-posting as still under the radar – GAIL C AND OTHERS – PLEASE READ AND COMMENT

    The following seems to have fallen under the radar. I have NOT verified Goddard’s claim below.

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/19/just-hit-the-noaa-motherlode/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_January_19_2014

    Independent data analyst, Steven Goddard, today (January 19, 2014) released his telling study of the officially adjusted and “homogenized” US temperature records relied upon by NASA, NOAA, USHCN and scientists around the world to “prove” our climate has been warming dangerously.

    Goddard reports, “I spent the evening comparing graphs…and hit the NOAA motherlode.” His diligent research exposed the real reason why there is a startling disparity between the “raw” thermometer readings, as reported by measuring stations, and the “adjusted” temperatures, those that appear in official charts and government reports. In effect, the adjustments to the “raw” thermometer measurements made by the climate scientists “turns a 90 year cooling trend into a warming trend,” says the astonished Goddard.

    Goddard’s plain-as-day evidence not only proves the officially-claimed one-degree increase in temperatures is entirely fictitious, it also discredits the reliability of any assertion by such agencies to possess a reliable and robust temperature record.

  80. “markstoval says:

    January 25, 2014 at 7:41 am

    Anyway, I wager some newspaper someplace will play 2013 as one of the hottest years evaaaaaah.”

    Yup! Pretty much all MSM, the BoM, CSIRO and The Climate Council here in Australia announced in early January 2014 that during 2013 Australia suffered it’s hottest, day, week, month and year on record (Since 1910 and after the BoM, in early 2013, changed the way it calculates national averages etc). Although this announcement was limited to Australia, but you get the underlying message is applied to the globe as a whole (Lets just ignore record cold in the USA, EU and Asia for now).

    And today, mid-summer on Australia day, inner-west Sydney (Typically 3-6c warmer than Sydney CBD), it’s ~21c.

  81. Allan M.R. MacRae says:
    January 25, 2014 at 5:47 pm
    Re-posting as still under the radar – GAIL C AND OTHERS – PLEASE READ AND COMMENT

    The following seems to have fallen under the radar. I have NOT verified Goddard’s claim below.

    I’m sure WUWT’s high command is looking into it.

  82. The Pompous Git says: @ January 25, 2014 at 2:19 pm
    ….Me, I just learned a lot from ignorant farmers about growing food. Physicists not so much.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Oh, that brings back memories. My hubby is a physicist with physicists friends, several of whom do not have the sense a sheep was born with.

  83. Probably correct thank you Roger.

    I emailed Goddard’s discovery to Anthony on 21Jan and later saw it had been posted on WUWT Tips & Notes.

    David Spurgeon reported the Goddard discovery at January 20, 2014 at 4:33am at

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/tips-notes-2/#comment-1542144

    Are you speculating that Anthony is investigating or do you have more information?

    I expect Goddard has it correct, but I just do not have the time to verify his work.

    This should be interesting.

Comments are closed.