Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
I chanced to plot up the lower tropospheric temperatures by broad latitude zones today. This is based on the data from the satellite microwave sounding unit (MSU), as analyzed by the good folks at the University of Alabama at Huntsville. Here are the results, divided into tropical, extratropical, and polar. I’ve divided them at the Arctic and Antarctic Circles at 67° North and South, and at the Tropics of Capricorn and Cancer at 23° N & S.
Figure 1. Satellite-based microwave sounding unit temperatures (red line) from the University of Alabama Huntsville. Blue line shows a loess smooth, span=0.4. Data from KNMI (NCDF file, 17 Mb)
So … is this something to worry about?
Well, let’s take a look. To start with, the tropics have no trend, that’s 40% of the planet. So all you folks who have been forecasting doom and gloom for the billions of poor people in the tropics? Sorry … no apparent threat there in the slightest. Well, actually there is a threat, which is the threat of increased energy prices from the futile war on carbon—rising energy prices hit the poor the hardest. But I digress …
What else. Southern Extratropics? No trend. South of the Antarctic Circle? No trend, it cooled slightly then warmed slightly back to where it started.
So that’s 70% of the planet with no appreciable temperature trend over the last third of a century …
What else. Northern Extratropics? A barely visible trend, and no trend since 2000.
And that means that 96% of the planet is basically going nowhere …
Now, that leaves the 4% of the planet north of the Arctic Circle. It cooled slightly over the first decade and a half. Then it warmed for a decade, and it has stayed even for a decade …
My conclusion? I don’t see anything at all that is worrisome there. To me the surprising thing once again is the amazing stability of the planet’s temperature. A third of a century, and the temperature of the tropics hasn’t budged even the width of a hairline. That is an extremely stable system.
I explain that as being the result of the thermoregulatory effect of emergent climate phenomena … you have a better explanation?
My best regards to everyone,
w.
PLEASE! If you disagree with what I or anyone says, QUOTE THE WORDS that you disagree with, and say why you disagree with them. That way we can understand each other. Vague statements and handwaving opinions are not appreciated.
DATA: All data and R code as used are here in a zip file.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The headline is a bit confusing. Believers and promoters of the global climate panic are the ones who should be worried. Skeptics have no reason to stop questioning the consensus view at all. Your data interpretation merely confirms this.
My answer to your question: No – and best now to ditch the surface thermometers entirely (with all their problems), and rely on the satellites instead for accurate measurement.
But shouldn’t it have been “What me worry”? …!
Willis wrote: “So that’s 70% of the planet with no appreciable temperature trend over the last third of a century”
JK – I’d love to see how the “experts” turn this into warming with their gridding of the Earth. Is there some trick that makes warming like Mann made hocky sticks from red noise?
What happens if you merely sum those 5 graphs with proper areas weighting?
Thanks
JK
Lots of other graphs have shown a slight, but observable, rise up to 1998. Other than the N pole, I do not see any rise previous to ’98 in this graph. Any chance this is a result of your smoothing or just the short (relatively speaking) timeframe? If not, it sure belies the alarmists’ claims.
On the silly side, Alfred E. Neuman’s “What Me Worry” line immediately popped into my head upon studying the graph.
D@mn straight there’s something to worry about – when the coming Maunder Minimum peaks, everyone reading this who is older than their early 20s will be too old to fight their way to the front of the food riots.
Thats why I moved my family to the Fraser Coast in Australia – 25 degrees south, with the option of, if all else fails, walking another 10 degrees closer to the equator.
The stupid alarmists fear a 2C temperature ”rise”.
But is this even important. Temperatures should be given in degrees Kelvin (absolute) because all thermodynamic equations are in that metric. The SB formulae gives the temperature from a given amount of energy, flux, in K. So this feared rise in temperature is actually a rise from 288K to 290K which is hardly earth shattering or even important.
Get real, there are far more important things to worry about.
But Willis, you are using real data! Get the models out so that we can continue the charade that maintains thousands of climate scientists’ salaries and millions of people in fear of living on our planet. (Do I need to put sarc?)
Too tue.
When that terrible Typhoon Haiyan hit the Philippines the cities were evacuated in buses. The Greens response to the devastation was that the price of fuel should go up.
John Marshall says:
January 29, 2014 at 3:22 am
Forgive the pedantry, but I was taught that Kelvin was Kelvin, & there were no “degrees” about it!
Excellent post, Willis, as always.
It looks like the main negative system response to changes in the global energy budget is in the Arctic due to the vast thermal inertia of the southern oceans suppressing variability in the southern hemisphere.
If the system tries to accumulate more energy then warm water pumps further into the Arctic Ocean, melting ice as it goes and releasing large amounts of energy to space from the uncovered ocean surface.
If the system starts to lose energy the flow of warm water reduces, ice builds up and less energy is lost to space from the ice covered surface as compared to an uncovered sea surface (notwithstanding the increase in albedo).
The tropical thunderstorm belts may well be the initial negative system response but on their own they cannot deal with the vast amounts of energy in the body of the ocean.
That other energy circulates towards the poles affecting all the climate zones and jet stream tracks along the way with the ultimate consequence that the Arctic Ocean and its surroundings are the primary location for the thermostatic mechanism and not the tropics.
That is why the Arctic region shows most thermal variability as any thermal excess or deficit flows through the region on its way to space.
Meanwhile, the original cause of changes in the global energy budget is solar variability affecting global cloudiness (via the mechanism I have previously described) and thus the amount of solar energy able to enter the oceans to drive the system in the first place.
The sun determines how much of its energy enters the oceans and the Arctic provides the adjustable ‘valve’ regulating the net loss to space via changes in the circulations of both oceans and air.
Why is there such a difference between UAH and RSS ?
“So … is this something to worry about?”
Yes. You must turn over all your rights and property to the government.
You aren’t scared? Dang. We’ll find something else to scare you. How about ocean acidification?
Resistance is futile.
Two problems with this, first using the data from one lower troposphere sensor will not give you the surface temperature, that has to be derived from the total data by subtracting the stratospheric cooling these sensors also detect.
Second, you have ploted version 5.5 data, I think you will find that Roy Spencer and Christy are now up to version 5.6.
The UAH data has always been known for the multiple corrections that have had to be made over time.
And the total lack of any publically available code for how they process the sensort data.
If this reality stuff keeps up, people will get worried about the fact that they have no reason to be worried!
So that 4% warmed about a degree in 35 years? Globally, I get about .48 deg over the same period. When you look the temp changes on the scale you’re using you can see the real change in temp is rather insignificant and that the temps at the poles are so much noisier than the rest of the globe. I wonder what it would look like plotted as actual temperatures?
http://www.skepticalscience.com//pics/Arctic_SAT_Ann.jpg
Shows the Arctic rather well. (From an opposing point of view 🙂 ).
Is it only me or is there a definite wobble of ~60 years or so in the data?
Former US Senator and United Nations official Tim Wirth “we have to ride it for all its worth” a paraphrase. Now that is what we have to worry about and what we have been pushing back against for all these years.
Politicians riding science to achieve public policy goals. In the US these are many of the same people who figured out how to get banks to finance worthless home loans. Let them make obscene amounts of money doing it.
This is just straight data. Eaarly on the scientists massaged it gently, like a small female masseuse. To keep the money flowing lately they’ve been forced to hire a large gorilla to massage the data.
LT:
At January 29, 2014 at 4:30 am you ask
The answer is that they are each determinations of global average surface temperature anomaly (GASTA) and there is no definition of GASTA so each team that determines GASTA uses a different definition and, therefore, uses a different method to determine its version of GASTA.
A more useful question is why GISS changes its definition of GASTA so changes the method it uses to determine its version of GASTA most months with this this result.
Richard
Yes, but if you blow those charts up really big those little squiggly lines get really scary! I see lots of Hockey Sticks!
richardscourtney says:
January 29, 2014 at 5:11 am
LT:
At January 29, 2014 at 4:30 am you ask
Why is there such a difference between UAH and RSS ?
…each …uses a different definition and, therefore, uses a different method to determine its version of GASTA.
I prefer to look at all of the data series as though they were Proxies for the actual, unmeasurable number.
SO the methodology is simple, just like any proxy value. Take the OLS over the period of overlap, adjust the range and scale so that the OLS match as best you can and the use those factors to display all of the series together.
Basic OLS
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c274/richardlinsleyhood/OLScomparison_zpsc45498e9.png
Aligned OLS
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c274/richardlinsleyhood/OLSaligned_zps3186174a.png
Aligned series with 15 year and 60 year low pass filters
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c274/richardlinsleyhood/OLSalignedAnnualtrends_zps5603d308.png
Add to that OLS aligned data from the various series from 1979
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c274/richardlinsleyhood/OLSYearsaligned_zpsc5c155df.png
RichardLH:
At January 29, 2014 at 5:16 am in response to my post you say
Why?
There is no “actual … number” – measureable or not – for global average surface temperature anomaly (GASTA) because GASTA is not defined and has no possibility of calibration.
As I said and you quoted, each team which provides a version of GASTA uses a different definition and, therefore, uses a different method to determine its version of GASTA. They are not “proxies” for anything: they each indicate the ? which each indicates.
Comparing them is comparing apples, oranges and onions. All one can do is to report what each indicates, and I note that your graphs do that.
Please read Appendix B of this
Richard
Any forecast of CAGW by a climatologist worth his salt would predict temperatures at the North Pole to rise. It’s obvious— this is settled science, everybody knows that heat rises.
Lest there be any confusion, my previous post began with
“sarc”
and ended with
“/sarc”