NOAA's own trend calculator helps confirm 'the pause' and lack of ocean warming in the 21st century

NCDC_OTI_2000-2013People send me stuff. Yesterday I got a note suggesting I have a look at what NOAA/NCDC’s “climate at a glance” was showing for trends in the 21st century so far.

I decided to take a look.

Have a look at NOAA’s Time Series calculator

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global

It is now displaying a cooling trend commencing in 2001 – 2013.  Ensure you are on the Global tab; Annual; 2001;2013;Land and Ocean.  Then in the Options Tab click; Display Trend; per century; 2001;2013. Then click plot.  These result give you a -0.05 per/century over 13 years.

-0.05 is hardly significant (even though they claim +0.05 of 1 degree over a two month period of May and June this year proves global warming)

I verified that,

NCDC_LOTI_2001-2013-percentury

…and did my own.

This plot mostly matches what he says, though I prefer doing decadal scale trends on decadal scale data plots:

NCDC_LOTI_2001-2013

Fig 1. Source: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/ytd/12/2001-2013?trend=true&trend_base=10&firsttrendyear=2001&lasttrendyear=2013

(IMPORTANT NOTE: NCDC’s link generator on their web page creates a pre-broken link, so if you use the source links I provide from NCDC, be sure to manually set it to Annual from the default Year-to-Date and press plot again, otherwise you’ll end up with an incorrect plot.)

The trend is -0.01C/decade, essentially flat, no statistically significant trend. And if you want to make that a nice tidy package for the 21st century new millenium, the 2000-2013 trend is nearly equally statistically insignificant, and would be flat except for the fact that the year 2000 was a bit cool. It’s the typical problem of trend line sensitivity to endpoints on short data sets.

NCDC_LOTI_2000-2013

Fig 2. Source: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/ytd/12/2000-2013?trend=true&trend_base=10&firsttrendyear=2000&lasttrendyear=2013

But the lack of a trend on the Land Ocean Temperature Index plots isn’t what I find most interesting or significant – the difference between land and ocean is more interesting.

First the oceans in the 21st century:

 

NCDC_OTI_2000-2013

Fig 3. Source: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/ocean/ytd/12/2000-2013?trend=true&trend_base=10&firsttrendyear=2000&lasttrendyear=2013

With only an insignificant +0.01C/decade trend, it seems Trenberth’s missing heat is still missing, and the oceans have stubbornly refused to play out the role that CO2 crunching models have prescribed. I suppose I just can’t get all that excited even though there’s a lot of squawking about the month of June being smashingly record-warm in the oceans:

The record was driven largely by warmer than normal ocean surfaces. Last month saw the highest temperatures on the water for any June on record, and the highest departure from the average for any single month ever. Average global land surface temperatures for June 2014 were also the seventh hottest June ever recorded.

Well, gosh, 2014 isn’t over yet, and we’ve been told time and again that a single month of anomalously low temperature means nothing in the scheme of climate things, and so it must go for a single month of high temperatures.

But, here is what I find most interesting, note the difference in trend from Figure 2 which is land+ocean index (LOTI) and Figure 3 which is just ocean (OTI) below. Have a look at the same period for land (LTI), which has a rate +0.13C/decade or 13 times higher than the ocean index in the same period:

NCDC_LTI_2000-2013

Fig 4. Source: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land/ytd/12/2000-2013?trend=true&trend_base=10&firsttrendyear=2000&lasttrendyear=2013

This difference between land and ocean trends is quite large, and some divergence would be expected, since the oceans affect the atmosphere above them far more than land as a stabilizing heat sink.

But, it seems in the USA, the Land Temperature Index isn’t cooperating with expectations or even warming at all. It seems the USA has been cooling in the 21st century at a rate of -0.09F/decade (-0.05C/decade):

NCDC_USLTI_2000-2013

Fig5. Source: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/us/110/00/tavg/ytd/12/2000-2013?base_prd=true&firstbaseyear=1901&lastbaseyear=2000&trend=true&trend_base=100&firsttrendyear=2000&lasttrendyear=2013

It seems that that oceans aren’t warming, the contiguous USA isn’t warming, but the land surface of the rest of the world has been so far in the 21st century.

Meanwhile, MLO annual data shows carbon dioxide has risen from 369.52 ppm in the year 2000, to 396.48 in 2013, an increase of ~ 7.3%, but we don’t see a corresponding increase in global temperature for the same period perhaps because climate is a non-linear system and/or because we are close to saturation of the logarithmic effect of CO2 induced warming in our atmosphere. Global temperature has been mostly flat. Where’s those posited warming climate feedbacks when we need them?

Now, to alleviate the inevitable screams of not showing the “full picture” of temperature from the overly excitable that comment here under a variety of nom-de-plumes, I offer the entire LOTI plot from NCDC:

NCDC_LOTI_1880-2013

Fig 6. Source: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/ytd/12/1880-2013?trend=true&trend_base=100&firsttrendyear=1880&lasttrendyear=2013

To my eye, I see a natural sine wave, which I’ve traced below on the same graph in solid grey, with extrapolated segments in dashed grey:

NCDC_LOTI_1880-2013_sine-added

Fig 7. Source: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/ytd/12/1880-2013?trend=true&trend_base=100&firsttrendyear=1880&lasttrendyear=2013  plus hand drawn sine wave from the author.

It seems to me that our current “pause” might simply be that we are at the top of that sine wave I see, and that we might actually see some cooling ahead, assuming it isn’t all adjusted away by the next “improvement” from NCDC.

I’ll leave you all to the squabble which will surely follow.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

88 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Michael D
July 26, 2014 10:09 am

Some thoughts:
a) I agree with your comments, Anthony, and I agree that the pattern suggests and oscillation
b) I wonder why they left the vertical scale off the graphs? Makes the slope look pretty bad
c) NOAA is suggesting 0.65 deg per century, which seems reasonable. The world has been warming for a few millenia now
d) The graphs suggest pretty steady warming from 1910 to 2000. I wonder how well that meshes with the hypothesis that it is manmade?
e) I too can’t help but think that post-adjustments to the temperature record may have been influential

July 26, 2014 10:23 am

Reblogged this on Centinel2012 and commented:
I follow the LOTI every month and found three factors that correlate very accurately with the index. Two since style cures and one log function for CO2.

July 26, 2014 10:35 am

I’m sure they will “fix it” so that they can call it “a natural sine wave superimposed on a rapidly varying upward anthropogenic trend that will bring us all to our Doom”.

Sweet Old Bob
July 26, 2014 10:40 am

And take away their “adjustments” and the sine wave is even more clearly seen ?
If Big Joe B. is correct , and I believe he is, this winter is going to alter the perceptions of a ton of people….And none too soon….

NikFromNYC
July 26, 2014 10:40 am

The NOAA’s web site Climate.gov had such delightfully evil alarmist propaganda that turned a boring trend continuation into hell on Earth that I playfully debunked it via an inforgraphic several years ago, no need for an update, I see:
http://s16.postimg.org/54921k0at/image.jpg

JJ
July 26, 2014 10:45 am

Anthony says:

The trend is -0.01C/decade, essentially flat, no statistically significant trend. And if you want to make that a nice tidy package for the 21st century,…

… then you’ll stick with 2001-2013. The first year of the 21st century was 2001, not 2000.
So far, the 21st century is cooling.

Non Nomen
July 26, 2014 10:50 am

Absolutely fascinating. It is going to be a real pain in the *ss of certain people being shot with their own weapon. Thanks!

July 26, 2014 10:54 am

It seems that that oceans aren’t warming, the contiguous USA isn’t warming, but the land surface of the rest of the world has been so far in the 21st century.

As much of the world is developing rapidly and urbanisation is spreading throughout the third world… perhaps this is the UHI effect accelerating the contamination of the datasets?
When did they last interpret the UHI in Africa or Asia?

Editor
July 26, 2014 11:09 am

> And if you want to make that a nice tidy package for the 21st century, the 2000-2013 trend is nearly equally statistically insignificant, and would be flat except for the fact that the year 2000 was a bit cool
Not a problem to those of us who know the century started in 2001! 🙂
REPLY: Well it’s one of those catch-22’s, technically you are right, but many people think it started in 2000 along with the new millenium. There was a Seinfeld episode on that very issue. Even so, I’d get complaints either way I put it.
I view the issue as about as important as the Y2K bug, but to keep the pirates of pedantry happy, I’ll just call it the start of the new millenium. 😉 – Anthony

Editor
July 26, 2014 11:22 am

Michael D says:
July 26, 2014 at 10:09 am
b) I wonder why they left the vertical scale off the graphs? Makes the slope look pretty bad
I think there is a scale, but in whole degrees (note the 1F° on the right). If you rescale it via shift + left mouse click and move, then a 0.1° scale pops up.
Needs some polishing….

Editor
July 26, 2014 11:28 am

2001 is actually a very sensible point to start from, as it was the start of a long ENSO neutral period of about a year, very similar to 2013.

Pamela Gray
July 26, 2014 11:33 am

This seems to concur with the idea that El Nino’s build in amplitude, then decrease in amplitude as part of the oceanic store of heat discharge/recharge mechanism piece of ENSO processes.

July 26, 2014 11:36 am

“These result give you a -0.05 per/century over 13 years.” It depends which month you choose (in the ‘Month’ dropdown following ‘Timescale’). Different months give a ranges of between -0.3°C and +0.3°C change per century.

Bill Guessford
July 26, 2014 11:40 am

[snip off topic astrology .mod]

highflight56433
July 26, 2014 11:52 am

The use of 5th order polynomial trend line rather than the straightline for several thousand years might be more appropriate. Pretty obvious the convenience of the current time selection and the use of a straightline trend.
Then to adjust temperatures “up” in known UBI is ludicrous.

Rex
July 26, 2014 11:53 am

>> Not a problem to those of us who know the century started in 2001! :
Oh no, not this bogey again.
It’s quite simple really … the ‘year’ is like a 4-digit odometer:
* when the 4th digit rolls over, it indicates a new year
* when the 3rd digit changes it is a new decade
* when the 2nd digit changes it is a new century
* when the 1st digit changes it is a new millenium
and that’s that. BY DEFINITION. The alternative perpetuates
the fallacy that counting begins with ‘1’.

John F. Hultquist
July 26, 2014 11:55 am

Thank you for presenting this.
————
But – you know who was just in Seattle for a fund raiser and stated that our Washington State fires were a result of climate change. Likely advisers showed the “entire LOTI plot” with the straight line and none involved would know a sine wave from a shoaling wave (or Shinola, for that matter). The issue has be sent to the Ministry of Truth.

Bill Guessford
July 26, 2014 11:56 am

[snip off topic astrology .mod]

Jim Davidson
July 26, 2014 11:57 am

You are perpetuating the arguments of the warmists. You say:” CO2 has risen from 369ppm in 2000 to 396.48 in 2013, an increase of about 7.3% You go from parts per million to parts per hundred. If you want to express your answer in parts per hundred (%), you should be in parts per hundred throughout. You should have said: ” CO2 has risen from 0.0369% in 2000 to 0.0396% in 2013, an increase of about 0.0025%.”

Pamela Gray
July 26, 2014 12:06 pm

Jim! Hooohaaa! We teach our math students to translate and calculate in a single chosen unit and then stay in the unit! Stay in the unit!

Bill Guessford
July 26, 2014 12:08 pm

[snip off topic astrology Neptune and Uranus haven’t anything to do with the content of this post. Stop posting this offtopic nonsense please .mod]

July 26, 2014 12:13 pm

Johan says: July 26, 2014 at 10:35 am
I’m sure they will “fix it” so that they can call it “a natural sine wave superimposed on a rapidly varying upward anthropogenic trend that ….
……………
It has been fixed already, as the same set of the numerical data clearly shows here

Pamela Gray
July 26, 2014 12:17 pm

sing it…[lets not .mod]

Pamela Gray
July 26, 2014 12:27 pm

mods, snip at will. I just couldn’t stop myself.

Bill Guessford
July 26, 2014 12:38 pm

[snip again off topic Landscheidt, Uranus and all that .mod]

1 2 3 4