January 2014 Global Surface (Land+Ocean) Temperature Anomaly Update

Initial Notes: This post contains graphs of running trends in global surface temperature anomalies for periods of 13+ and 16+ years using GISS global (land+ocean) surface temperature data. They indicate that we have not seen a warming halt and slowdown this long since the early-1970s (13-year+ trends) or late-1970s (16-years+ trends).

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

Most of the update graphs in the following start in 1979. That’s a commonly used start year for global temperature products because many of the satellite-based temperature datasets start then.

We discussed why the three suppliers use different base years for anomalies in the post Why Aren’t Global Surface Temperature Data Produced in Absolute Form?

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 January 2014 GISS global temperature anomaly is +0.70 deg C. It warmed (an increase of about 0.1 deg C) since December 2013.

01 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 usually here. NCDC uses 1901 to 2000 for the base years for anomalies. (Note: the NCDC has been slow with updating the normal data source webpage, so I’ve used the value listed on their State of the Climate Report for January 2014.)

Update: The January 2014 NCDC global land plus sea surface temperature anomaly was +0.65 deg C. It remained about the same (an increase of 0.01 deg C) since December 2013.

02 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 December 2013 HADCRUT4 global temperature anomaly is +0.49 deg C. It decreased (about -0.1 deg C) since November 2013.

03 HADCRUT4

HADCRUT4

RUNNING TRENDS FOR 13+ YEARS

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 halt in global warming since 2001 was not unusual. Kevin Trenberth conveniently overlooked the fact that, based on his selected start year of 2001, the halt at that time had lasted 12+ years, not 10.

The period from January 2001 to January 2014 is now 157-months long— a little more than 13 years. Refer to the following graph of running 157-month trends from January 1880 to January 2014, using the GISS LOTI 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 basically zero. That, of course, indicates global surface temperatures have not warmed during the most recent 157-month period. Working back in time, the data point immediately before the last one represents the linear trend for the 157-month period of December 2000 to December 2013, and the data point before it shows the trend in deg C per decade for November 2000 to November 2013, and so on.

04 157-Month Trends

157-Month (13+ Years) Linear Trends

The highest recent rate of warming based on its linear trend occurred during the 157-month period that ended about 2004, but warming trends have dropped drastically since then. There was a similar drop in the 1940s, and as you’ll recall, global surface temperatures remained relatively flat from the mid-1940s to the mid-1970s. Also note that the early-1970s was the last time there had been a 157-month period without global warming—before recently.

RUNNING TRENDS FOR 16+ YEARS

In his RMS article, Kevin Trenberth also conveniently overlooked the fact that the discussions about the warming halt 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 200-months long. The following graph is similar to the one above, except that it’s presenting running trends for 200-month periods.

05 200-Month Trends

200-Month (16+ Years) Linear Trends

The last time global surface temperatures warmed at this low a rate for a 198-month period was the late 1970s. Also note that the sharp decline is similar to the drop in the 1940s, and, again, as you’ll recall, global surface temperatures remained relatively flat from the mid-1940s to the mid-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 halt 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 13+ year and 16+ year running trends if HADCRUT4 or NCDC or GISS data are used. The major difference in the graphs is with the HADCRUT4 data and it can be seen in a graph of the 13+ year 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 three 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 and trends, the second graph starts in 1998, which was the start year used by von Storch et al (2013) Can climate models explain the recent stagnation in global warming? They, of course found that the CMIP3 (IPCC AR4) and CMIP5 (IPCC AR5) models could NOT explain the recent halt.

The third comparison graph starts with Kevin Trenberth’s chosen year of 2001. All three of those comparison graphs 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.

06 Comparison Starting in 1979

Comparison Starting in 1979

###########

07 Comparison Starting in 1998

Comparison Starting in 1998

###########

08 Comparison Starting in 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.

09 Average

Average of Global Land+Sea Surface Temperature Anomaly 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. There is a very simple reason for this: the 1997/98 El Niño released enough sunlight-created warm water from beneath the surface of the tropical Pacific to permanently raise the temperature of about 66% of the surface of the global oceans by almost 0.2 deg C. Sea surface temperatures for that portion of the global oceans remained relatively flat until the El Niño of 2009/10, when the surface temperatures of the portion of the global oceans shifted slightly higher again. Prior to that, it was the 1986/87/88 El Niño that caused surface temperatures to shift upwards. If these naturally occurring upward shifts in surface temperatures are new to you, please see the illustrated essay “The Manmade Global Warming Challenge” (42mb) for an introduction.

MONTHLY SEA SURFACE TEMPERATURE UPDATE

The most recent sea surface temperature update can be found here. The satellite-enhanced sea surface temperature data (Reynolds OI.2) are presented in global, hemispheric and ocean-basin bases.

About these ads

About Bob Tisdale

Research interest: the long-term aftereffects of El Niño and La Nina events on global sea surface temperature and ocean heat content. Author of the ebook Who Turned on the Heat? and regular contributor at WattsUpWithThat.
This entry was posted in NASA GISS, NCDC, Temperature, UKMO HADCRUT4. Bookmark the permalink.

57 Responses to January 2014 Global Surface (Land+Ocean) Temperature Anomaly Update

  1. daddylonglegs says:

    There’s a lot of subsurface cold water at the east equatorial Pacific

    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/sub_surf_mon.gif

    and a nice gradient with the warmer west Pacific to stoke up the trades so I’m still holding out for a La Nina.

  2. Bloke down the pub says:

    If the trend doesn’t show any sign of increasing, I’m sure a new version of the record will come along that cools the past a bit more.

  3. gopal panicker says:

    I hate these running averages…very deceptive…also these ‘global’ averages are a nonsense concept

  4. given the ipcc remit is only to look at man made change then MetO and others cannot include in their models unco2weighted natural processes otherwise they become useless to the ipcc who is ONLY looking at man made change ie a very narrow section of process. . The climate models cannot be improved by removing the heavy co2 bias and include other natural processes because then they would no longer be about ‘man made change’ and be useless for ipcc. So its Catch 22

    and no wants to be outside the IPCC magic cirlce ie denierland.

  5. DavidR says:

    Bob,

    It seems natural to expect that if the warming trend slowed since 1998 then most of the observed warming since 1979 must have occurred up to the end of 1997.

    Looking at your figures (average of the three surface sets), the trend since Jan 1998 is 0.05 deg C/dec. Using the same data, I calculate that the trend between Jan 1979 and Dec 1997 is 0.13 deg C/dec; nearly three times faster than the more recent period. So that seems to be as expected.

    However, as your chart shows, the overall trend in the same data between Jan 1979 and the present is 0.15 deg C per decade. That’s even faster than the rate of increase observed between 1979 and 1997, before the ‘slowdown’ started.

    If we take the multi-decade period since 1979 as a whole, rather than dividing it up into two shorter periods of less than two decades each, there is no slowdown.

  6. The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley says:

    Tamino isn’t going to like this! Hey, Grant Foster, lookie over here, this is what truth looks like!

  7. Scott says:

    I’m interested in seeing what record snow cover and cold does to the land temperatures in the US, particularly around the urban heat islands. I’ve always felt the removal of snow in urban areas due to salting and plowing (I even hear in some cities they use machines that heat and melt snow and send into the storm drains rather than trucking it out) is a manmade temperature-forcing variable beyond the regular urban heat sources that is not properly accounted for in the long term record. After all, we’ve all seen old postcards of the big city snows in the past and they basically had to live with that snow until it melted on its own.

  8. Pamela Gray says:

    Both graphs 4 and 5 are labeled linear trends yet you refer to the second one as running. Would it be possible to begin numbering your graphs? Much easier to refer back to them with a labeled number already there.

  9. Pamela Gray says:

    Also, graph 4 is labeled as linear and you refer to it as linear. Yet I don’t understand how the graph can be depicting linear trends. Is it an extrapolation of the linear slope of the 13 year period you are using and then graphing that?

  10. Pamela Gray says:

    I would need to ask a statistician, but graphing running 13 year linear slope data with error bars (helps when depicting spread from the trend) would be an interesting way of finding 13 year trends. According to the “theory” we should always be heading up so graphing the running 13, 14, 15, 16, etc linear trend would get rid of the short term variations they so love to bring up.

  11. Ray says:

    Scott,
    You make an interesting point.

  12. Box of Rocks says:

    So, how were temperatures distorted by the big high pressure ridge parked over Alaska and the Pacific NW?

  13. Scott says:

    Heres some examples of city snow melters in action, I did a quick check and some advertise themselves as 30 million btu/hr melters, they melt snow as fast as they can dump it in, when it goes down sewer there goes 30 million btu/hr that won’t be cooling the city air, not to mention the double whammy of exposing dark pavement.

    http://blogs.howstuffworks.com/brainstuff/how-the-snow-dragon-works-a-machine-for-digesting-huge-amounts-of-snow-in-urban-areas/

  14. Pamela Gray says:

    Fascinating Scott. I would also imagine that sensors (particularly the older ones) get snow shoveled all the time so that people can walk out there and check things. I would also imagine that snow gets piled up on the newer sensors that you don’t have to shovel a pathway to and possibly insulates them.

  15. RichardLH says:

    Bob:

    This treatment of the same longer GISS data says that this all has some periodicity built into it (and there may well be nothing to worry about in the near future either)..

    http://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/giss-monthly-anomalies-with-full-kernel-gaussian-low-pass-filters-of-annual-15-and-75-years-with-15-year-savitzky-golay-extension.png

  16. rogerknights says:

    From Bob’s article:
    “surface temperatures in April 2013 were basically the same as they were in June 1997.”

    That’s temperature anomalies, right?

  17. Gunga Din says:

    I have a question.
    In the past I’ve commented on how past record high and low temperatures for my area have been changed. (IE Between 2002 and 2007, the 2007 list of records from the NWS has no new records set. In the 2009 list of record temps there were over 10 records temps set between 2002 and 2007.)
    My question is, are the temps for a given year, say 1981, the same as they were stated in, say 1990, as they are stated today?
    (I hope I stated my question clearly.)

  18. ntesdorf says:

    These results are still very disappointing for the Warmistas. There will have to be some seriously concerted effort from the ‘Adjustments’ Department’ in all the major Climatological Institutes to ensure that the correct message is delivered to the Public.

  19. Arno Arrak says:

    Bob – You show excellent reproductions of GISS LOTI, NCDC, and HADCRUT4 temperature sets in the time slot corresponding to the satellite era.Looking at them I notice that all three are still riddled with noise from secret computer processing they were jointly subjected to. This noise manifests itself as high spikes, mostly at the beginnings of years. Here is a list of years in which the more prominent of these noise spikes occur:

    1980
    1981
    1983
    1990
    1995
    1998 (on top of super El Nino, extends it)
    2002
    2007
    2008 (in the middle of La Nina valley)

    They are all noise and very visible. They should be removed. You will also note that they are in exactly the same places in all three data sets. The owners of the data are oblivious to the fact that their little computer game of fixing the temperature has left a footprint behind. I suggest they explain how it was done and why. Arno

  20. Richard Barraclough says:

    ntesdorf says:

    February 21, 2014 at 2:43 pm

    These results are still very disappointing for the Warmistas

    Not really. If I were hoping it was going to get warmer, I’d be quite pleased that the year had started off with an anomaly of 0.70 degrees – the 4th warmest January, warmer than all but 14 of the 120 months in the last decade, and higher than any annual anomaly.

    Here’s hoping some of that February cold in the USA finds its way into the Global figure next month.

  21. Bob Tisdale says:

    DavidR, if there is no slowdown, then the climate science community is wasting a lot of time and money trying to explain it.

    I suspect, in 50 years, when they look back at the halt in global warming, the breakpoint will be somewhere between 2001 and 2005, not 1998 as is commonly used now.

    Regards

  22. Bob Tisdale says:

    Pamela Gray, the graphs you’re discussing are running trends, based on linear trends. I’ll try to clarify that next month. I left myself a note.

    Thanks.

  23. Bob Tisdale says:

    Arno Arrak says: “Looking at them I notice that all three are still riddled with noise from secret computer processing…”

    Secret computer processing? You’re sounding like a conspiracy theorist, Arno.

  24. Steve Case says:

    I think 2010 was the last high point, but what do I know. 1878 – 1911 – 1944 – 1977 – 2010

  25. wbrozek says:

    Richard Barraclough says:
    February 21, 2014 at 3:09 pm
    I’d be quite pleased that the year had started off with an anomaly of 0.70 degrees – the 4th warmest January

    If other data sets agreed with this, that would be one thing. However for RSS, January 2014 is only the 9th warmest and for Hadsst3, it is only the 8th warmest.

  26. Tom Harley says:

    There are underwater heat waves off the Pilbara killing coral, says the CSIRO, UWA, and the Climate Council (Flannery and co) in a ‘crowd funded scientific information’ poster … :http://pindanpost.com/2014/02/22/the-search-for-the-missing-heat-found/

  27. Arno Arrak says:

    Bob Tisdale says: February 21, 2014 at 5:29 pm:
    ‘Arno Arrak says: “Looking at them I notice that all three are still riddled with noise from secret computer processing…”

    Secret computer processing? You’re sounding like a conspiracy theorist, Arno.’

    Bob, if you knew about this you sure kept quiet. First, you are pretty stupid to make fun of “conspiracy theory” because there is a real conspiracy you should be concerned about. The noise I pointed out is relatively harmless and its most observable effects are on the super El Nino of 1998 and the La Nina of 2008. The first is increased, the depth of the second is decreased. Far more vicious is an attempt to create a warming where none exists. The fake warming I speak of was created in the middle of the eighties and nineties and exists on ground-based temperature records, the ones that show computer footprints I referred to included. Why is this important? It is important because satellite records show nothing but an ENSO oscillation from 1979 to early 1997, an 18 year stretch. This included five El Nino peaks but the mean temperature about which the oscillation took place remained constant. That means no warming. You must know that in 1988 James Hansen went to the Senate and testified that greenhouse warming had started. The highest temperature within the last hundred years, he said, was in May 1988. He thought this proved that greenhouse warming had arrived. Problem is that May 1988 falls in the middle of the 18 year stretch of no warming in the eighties and nineties as satellite temperature records clearly demonstrate. Hansen has steadfastly refused to use satellite temperatures for various unconvincing reasons. And in ground-based temperature records the eighties and nineties are shown with a temperature rise of about 0.1 degrees or more. I spotted that fake warming doing research foe my book and even put a warming about this in the preface. Nothing happened for two years but then GISTEMP, HadCRUT3 and NCDC quietly decided to stop using that fake warming. They lined up the data of this period with satellites that do not show the warming and they did not give any explanation. Interestingly, while HadCRUT3 made the change HadCRUT4 has reverted to the old form. You have to bring yourself around to critically evaluate all the data you use and not be influenced by big names or common usage. Note that the fake data were used by the same ones that advertise their past computer footprints which you seem to think is trivial.

  28. Splice says:

    @wbrozek
    >> anomaly of 0.70 degrees – the 4th warmest January
    > However for RSS, January 2014 is only the 9th warmest and for Hadsst3, it is only the 8th
    > warmest.
    So what? RSS measures something else (whole lower throposphere not surface temperatures), Hadsst measures something else too (Sea temperatures only).
    It’s worth notice that January 2014 was 4th warmest January despite clearly negative ENSO index: http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/teleconnections/eln-5-pg.gif

  29. wbrozek says:

    Splice says:
    February 22, 2014 at 2:18 pm

    So let us compare apples with apples. September 2013 was the warmest in GISS but only the 5th warmest for Hadcrut4, so one high month on one data set can easily be trumped by another data set.

  30. DavidR says:

    Bob Tisdale: February 21, 2014 at 5:24 pm

    ” if there is no slowdown, then the climate science community is wasting a lot of time and money trying to explain it.”

    Thanks for the response. As mentioned in my previous post, there *is* a slowdown if you divide the 35 year period from 1979 to the present into two periods of less than 20 years each and put the split at the start of 1998. This is what you’ve done in your 7th chart above. But as your 6th chart indicates, the trend over the entire period since 1979 is 0.15 deg C per decade, which is quite fast.

    As your 8th chart indicates, the trend since Jan 2001 is essentially flat. I believe it’s this flat period that the climate scientists are currently investigating. But it is a relatively short period, and of course it composes part of the overall period of warming between 1979 and the present.

  31. Splice says:

    @wbrozek
    You are wrong again: HadCRU data lacks polar regions:
    http://www.carbonbrief.org/media/45846/temp-datasets_600x199.jpg
    (GISS on the left, HadCRU on the right)

  32. richardscourtney says:

    DavidR:

    Your post at February 23, 2014 at 12:28 am says

    Thanks for the response. As mentioned in my previous post, there *is* a slowdown if you divide the 35 year period from 1979 to the present into two periods of less than 20 years each and put the split at the start of 1998. This is what you’ve done in your 7th chart above. But as your 6th chart indicates, the trend over the entire period since 1979 is 0.15 deg C per decade, which is quite fast.

    Yes, and the trend of my height since 1946 is 26.5 cm per decade, which is quite fast.
    But if you divide it into two equal periods I stopped growing in the latter one.
    In fact, I stopped growing 50 years ago.

    Global warming discernible as being different from zero at 95% confidence stopped at least 17 years ago according to all data sets, RSS says 24.5 years ago,

    Global warming is a last century phenomenon. There has been no global warming this century. Live with it.

    Richard

  33. Splice says:

    Yes, and the trend of my height since 1946 is 26.5 cm per decade, which is quite fast.
    Nope – trends in your height doesnt look like RSS temperature data:
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/plot/rss/from:1979/to:1995/trend/plot/rss/trend/plot/rss/from:1995/trend
    1978-1995 trend was the same as 1995-2013 trend. Live with it

  34. richardscourtney says:

    Splice:

    Don’t be silly.

    Your post at February 23, 2014 at 11:44 am is childish nonsense.

    You said

    Thanks for the response. As mentioned in my previous post, there *is* a slowdown if you divide the 35 year period from 1979 to the present into two periods of less than 20 years each and put the split at the start of 1998. This is what you’ve done in your 7th chart above. But as your 6th chart indicates, the trend over the entire period since 1979 is 0.15 deg C per decade, which is quite fast.

    I pointed out

    Yes, and the trend of my height since 1946 is 26.5 cm per decade, which is quite fast.
    But if you divide it into two equal periods I stopped growing in the latter one.
    In fact, I stopped growing 50 years ago.

    Global warming discernible as being different from zero at 95% confidence stopped at least 17 years ago according to all data sets, RSS says 24.5 years ago,

    Global warming is a last century phenomenon. There has been no global warming this century. Live with it.

    You have replied in your post I am answering

    Nope – trends in your height doesnt look like RSS temperature data:
    [snip]
    1978-1995 trend was the same as 1995-2013 trend. Live with it.

    So What? I said that there was global warming last century.

    The important point is that
    GLOBAL WARMING STOPPED AT LEAST 17 YEARS AGO.

    Global warming is a last century phenomenon. There has been no global warming this century. Live with it.

    Richard

  35. wbrozek says:

    Splice says:
    February 23, 2014 at 9:16 am
    @wbrozek
    You are wrong again: HadCRU data lacks polar regions

    However even GISS shows a trend of zero for 12 years and 3 months.

  36. Splice says:

    So What? I said that there was global warming last century.
    The important point is that
    GLOBAL WARMING STOPPED AT LEAST 17 YEARS AGO.

    And I’ve showed that the rate of global warming was identical in mentioned period and in the previous one. Of course I could “prove” and trend I want:
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/plot/rss/from:1996.6/trend/plot/rss/from:2009/trend/plot/rss/from:2008/trend
    … at least to someone who is silly enough to think that horizontal trend line proves stop, downward line proves decline and upward line proves rise.

  37. richardscourtney says:

    Splice:

    It is clear from your post at February 23, 2014 at 4:22 pm that you don’t have a clue what you are talking about, so I will spell it out for you.

    A linear ‘trend’ can be computed from any data time series. At issue here is whether the trend in global atmospheric temperature anomaly (GASTA) differs from zero (i.e. no discernible global warming or cooling) and – if so – for how long before the present.

    Climastrology uses linear trends and 95% confidence. There are good reasons to dispute each of these conventions, but they are the conventions used by climastrology so they are the appropriate conventions in this case.

    So, in this case the null hypothesis is that a linear trend in GASTA does not differ from zero at 95% confidence and, therefore, there is no discernible warming. And the period to be determined of no discernible global warming or cooling is up to the present. Therefore, the end point is now and the data is assessed back in time until a linear trend over the period differs from zero at 95% confidence.

    Each of the several time series of GASTA indicates no trend which differs from zero (i.e. no global warming or cooling) for at least 17 years until now; RSS indicates 24.5 years.

    And it is not reasonable to remove data from the data set(s). 1998 had a high value and there is no possibility of justifying its removal from the data set whatever the cause of it being a high value. This is because the assessment is of how long there has been no discernible warming or cooling, and any distortion of the analysed data provides a distortion of the result of the analysis.

    Importantly, 17 years takes us back to 1997 and there was statistically significant warming over the previous 17 years. Therefore, discernible global warming stopped at least 17 years ago.

    Of course, you could argue that the convention of linear trends and 95% confidence are mistaken but if you do that then you cannot justify assertions of global warming before 1997.

    Richard

  38. Splice says:

    @richardscourtney s
    Importantly, 17 years takes us back to 1997 and there was statistically significant warming over the previous 17 years. Therefore, discernible global warming stopped at least 17 years ago
    Any moment in the past someone who is silly enought could “prove” that discernible global warming stopped at least X years ago:
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/plot/rss/from:1996.6/trend/plot/rss/from:1986.9/to:1996.6/trend/plot/rss/to:1989.4/trend
    You simply don’t have a clue how to prove hypothesis like discernible global warming stopped at least X years ago

  39. wbrozek says:

    Splice says:
    February 23, 2014 at 5:33 pm
    You simply don’t have a clue how to prove hypothesis like discernible global warming stopped at least X years ago

    It was NOAA which set the goal post, not Richard nor I. And we are merely showing that the criteria by NOAA has long ago been exceeded. Now if you do not agree with the yardstick by NOAA, you may need to take it up with them.

    PDF document @NOAA.gov. For anyone else who wants it, the exact quote from pg 23 is:
    ”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.”

  40. Splice says:

    @wbrozek
    Nope. There exist statistical methods to prove hypothesa which are of kind “(something) stopped at least X years ago” – one of elements of such a proof is long enough zero trend, but:
    1. It’s not the only element required
    2. How “long” is “long enough” must be counted with proper statistical methods
    This “long enough” will be different depending on data, especially different for two data series which measures something else. I assume that NASA counted this “long enough” period for it’s own data (NASA GISS surface temperatures) not for someone’s else data about something else (RSS lower troposphere temperatures data for instance).

  41. richardscourtney says:

    Splice:

    Thankyou for your post at February 24, 2014 at 2:49 am.

    I laughed. Oh, how I laughed!

    Having been shown to not know what you are talking about, and having been shown to be wrong, you try to change the subject and in so-doing defeat your own assertions!

    As you say

    2. How “long” is “long enough” must be counted with proper statistical methods

    Yes! And the “proper statistical methods” are defined by climastrology. As I said

    Climastrology uses linear trends and 95% confidence. There are good reasons to dispute each of these conventions, but they are the conventions used by climastrology so they are the appropriate conventions in this case.

    If you think the methods are inappropriate – as I do – then take it up with the practitioners of so-called ‘climate science’ but nobody else.

    Importantly, I concluded my post saying

    Of course, you could argue that the convention of linear trends and 95% confidence are mistaken but if you do that then you cannot justify assertions of global warming before 1997.

    And you have claimed the convention is not correct!

    Your post says there was no discernible global warming prior to 1997!
    So, as a result, not only are your posts seen to be laughable, you have proclaimed yourself to be a joke.

    Richard

  42. Splice says:

    @richardscourtney
    How “long” is “long enough” must be counted with proper statistical methods
    Yes! And the “proper statistical methods” are defined…
    Nope. They are defined by mathematics/statistics and the same when trying for instance to find out if rise of life expectancy stopped in some region or not.

    And again – any moment in the past someone who is silly enought could “prove” that “discernible global warming stopped at least X years ago”:
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/plot/rss/from:1996.6/trend/plot/rss/from:1986.9/to:1996.6/trend/plot/rss/to:1989.4/trend
    He could have shown few-years-long flat trend ending the moment he speaks in 1989, in 1994 in 2005 or other date.

    PS: after 2013 data RSS is flat for only 17.5 years – change similar as in 1990 – in the middle of 1989 some silly person could have “proven” that discernible global warming stopped at least 10 years ago ( http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/to:1989.7/plot/rss/to:1989.7/trend ), but less than one year later could have “proven” only that discernible global warming stopped at least 4 years ago ( http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/to:1990.4/plot/rss/from:1986.3/to:1990.4/trend )

  43. richardscourtney says:

    Splice:

    Your post at February 24, 2014 at 5:31 am is delusional.

    Whom do you think you are fooling with your drivel?

    I explained the conventions used by climastrology and I used them.
    You have not disputed my explanation, the method, and/or the findings.
    Instead you make meaningless armwaving assertions.

    If you have an alternative method then explain it. justify it, and explain why the conventions of climastrology should be ignored. Otherwise, stop cluttering the thread with your ignorant and unfounded assertions.

    Richard

  44. Splice says:

    @richardscourtney
    You made up this convencion. Instead of using convention made up by you, you should use [b]the same convention which is used when trying to find out if for example life expectancy stopped rising or not in some town/country/region[/b]

  45. wbrozek says:

    Splice says:
    February 24, 2014 at 2:49 am
    I assume that NASA counted this “long enough” period for it’s own data (NASA GISS surface temperatures)

    Splice says:
    February 24, 2014 at 5:31 am
    discernible global warming stopped at least 4 years ago 

    I will try to add to what has already been said although I am not sure it will do much good. First of all, no one cares about short periods like 4 years. What we care about are long periods like 15 years and 17 years. (Santer) Even GISS can be used to show no statistically significant warming for over 15 years, regardless which tool you use. The following three tools allow slope calculations and the latter two allow statistically significant calculations.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot

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

    http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/p/temperature-trend-viewer.html?Xxdat=%5B0,1,4,48,92%5D

    If you know of a tool where I cannot show that there has been no statistically significant warming for over 15 years, please post it.

  46. richardscourtney says:

    Splice:

    re your silly post at February 24, 2014 at 6:53 am.

    No, Splice, I did not make up ther conventions used by so-called ‘climate science’.

    As I told you, I don’t agree with those conventions but they are the conventions used by so-called ‘climate science’ and, therefore, they are the ONLY appropriate conventions to use when assessing the predictions/projections of so-called ‘climate science’.

    Using those conventions, the only possible conclusion is that discernible global warming stopped at least 17 years ago. The climastrologists who practice so-called ‘climate science’ disingenuously call this cessation of discernible global warming the “pause”. Of course, one cannot know if it is a “pause” in warming or a transition to cooling, so it should properly be called the halt to global warming.

    However, the existence of the “pause” is the reason for the plethora of papers being published by climastrologists to excuse the “pause” which their models said could not happen.

    Splice, you need to stop deluding yourself and confront the reality. Global warming is a last century phenomenon: there has been no discernible global warming this century.

    Richard

  47. Gunga Din says:

    Gunga Din says:
    February 21, 2014 at 1:47 pm

    I have a question.
    In the past I’ve commented on how past record high and low temperatures for my area have been changed. (IE Between 2002 and 2007, the 2007 list of records from the NWS has no new records set. In the 2009 list of record temps there were over 10 records temps set between 2002 and 2007.)
    My question is, are the temps for a given year, say 1981, the same as they were stated in, say 1990, as they are stated today?
    (I hope I stated my question clearly.)

    ==============================================================
    Mr. Layman here.
    I asked the above question earlier.
    Today I went to http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
    and did a copy/paste into Excel.
    I then went to TheWayBackMachine (http://archive.org/web/web.php) and entered the same address into the the search feature. The oldest I found was from 1/4/2012 and did another copy/paste next to the other one. (Into the “K” column.)
    To this layman’s eyes there are lots of changes all over the place.
    Is there a scientifically valid reason for the changes?

  48. richardscourtney says:

    Gunga Din:

    re your question at February 24, 2014 at 1:15 pm.

    There is no “scientifically valid” definition of global average surface temperature anomaly (GASTA) and, therefore, anybody can define it as they want.

    Each team that produces a time series of GASTA uses its own unique definition which it often alters (i.e.most months) with the result you have discovered for yourself. The magnitude of the alterations is clear from e.g. this.

    For a more full explanation of the issue see Appendix B of this.

    I hope this helps.

    Richard

  49. richardscourtney says:

    Gunga Din:

    For some reason my second link did not work. It is this
    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc0102.htm

    Richard

  50. Splice says:

    @wbrozek
    1.
    Buahaha…. I could “prove” 15-year “pause” lasting form half of 1979 until half of 1994:
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/to:1994.5/plot/rss/from:1979.5/to:1994.5/trend

    2.
    Nope. Less than 12.5 years in NASA GISS data:
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1990/plot/gistemp/from:2001.8/trend
    Of course it’s not first such a “pause” in GISS data which is >10 years, for instance
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1970/to:1987/plot/gistemp/from:1976.95/to:1987.05/trend

    3.
    You don’t understend results of statistical calculation you are writing about
    Result is not:
    that there has been no statistically significant warming
    Result is:
    based on [X years period data] hypothesis that there has been no statistically significant warming cannot be rejected
    Of course for any data always exists some X > 0 for which such a hypothesis cannot be rejected.

  51. Splice says:

    @ richardscourtney
    Strawman argument.
    You made up this convention and accuse ‘climate science’ of your own crime.

  52. Gunga Din says:

    Thanks, Richard.
    It would seem that, to paraphrase a famous quote, “Those who won’t acknowledge the past are doomed to try to change it.”

  53. wbrozek says:

    Splice says:
    February 24, 2014 at 2:45 pm
    Thank you!
    Your points 1 and 2 seem to indicate that CO2 is not nearly a strong a driver as some people would want us to believe. Other factors can easily trump it. Did you notice that the present flat lines on each set are longer than any previous flat lines?

    As for your point 3, I will not get into semantics except to say that it can be shown that whatever requirement was asked for in the quote below has been met.

    ”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.”

  54. Watts Up With Your Numbers says:

    Your key graph is plain wrong: NASA GISS temperature anomaly in 1979 was + 0.12C, in 2013 it was + 0.6C. That’s 0.14C per decade.

    [Signing in with multiple user names goes against the site rules. Please pick a name and stick with it as your "clever" use of Watts up in each name doesn't add to the debate. Thanks . . mod]

  55. Splice says:

    @wbrozek
    About point 3.
    If data about temperatures form 2005 until now taken and statistically analyzed you get the result:
    “The trend after 2005 was betwen -0.4 and +0.35 kelvin per decade at 95% confidence level”

    If data about temperatures from 1995 until now taken and statistically analyzed you are getting the result:
    “The trend after 1995 was betwen +0.03 and +0.30 kelvin per decade at 95% confidence level”

    Second rules out no warming hypothesis in the period, first one doesn’t rule out warming hypothesis (nor cooling hypothesis) in the period.

    The longer data series the more narrow result, but simultaneously less concerning current sytuation.

  56. wbrozek says:

    Splice says:
    February 25, 2014 at 8:00 am
    Thank you!
    I assume you are talking about GISS. I do not trust it. It changes too much for my liking. As you may know, I give monthly reports and give the rankings. Last month, the anomaly for 2003 was 61. This month it is 60 for 2003. I can understand a revision for the last month or two, but when something from 10 years ago changes from one month to the next, I do not particularly care for a data set like that.

  57. Andrew Boada says:

    In the GISS LOTI dataset (base period 1951-1980), when I look at the 120 month (ten year) moving average (120MoMA), the slowdown in the surface temperature warming trend that began in the mid 90s, which itself was an acceleration of the earlier warming trend that began in the late 70s, doesn’t show up till July 2007, when it reached a value +.56 (all values in deg C), and remained there through January 2008. After reaching that value, it declined to +.54 by September 2008, then climbed to its current record +.60 from August through December of 2011. The current value for the 120MoMA is +.59 deg. To put these figures in context, the 120MoMA in January 2004 stood at +.47; in January 1994 it was +.24, and in January 1984 it was +.12. In longer moving averages of 180 months (15yrs) and 240 months (20yrs) the slowdown hardly shows up at all. In the 360MoMA, which covers a length of time (30yrs) that by convention delineates climate from weather, the slowdown is non-existent. As of January 2014 it sits at +.44, up from +.27 in January 2004, +.11 in January 1994 and +.02 January 1984. Given the fact that the Jan 2014 240MoMA and 120MoMA values are respectively .13 and .15 degrees above the Jan. 2014 360MoMA value, it seems extraordinarily unlikely that this climate-scale indicator is going to do anything but continue its upward march, which has gone unbroken for almost 35 years now.

Comments are closed.