Global Temperature – Climatic

15 Responses to Global Temperature – Climatic

1. dana j craig says:

   December 9, 2012 at 7:43 pm

   Wow, according to the above graphs the world is warming fast. Especially since the seventies. I’m going to save this page n share it.
2. D Böehm says:

   December 9, 2012 at 7:57 pm

   dana j craig,

   Don’t forget to share the lower troposphere temperature trend page. That one is the global warming key.
3. dana j craig says:

   December 10, 2012 at 3:54 am

   I’ve lived in the same area for 50 years. In the sixties we often had to break thick ice so the horses could drink.for three straight years we haven’t had frost, I’m still growing unprotected summer vegetables. Weather is always warm now, unlike some people I refuse to bury my head in the sand.
4. justthefactswuwt says:

   December 10, 2012 at 5:29 am

   dana j craig says: December 10, 2012 at 3:54 am

   I’ve lived in the same area for 50 years. In the sixties we often had to break thick ice so the horses could drink.for three straight years we haven’t had frost, I’m still growing unprotected summer vegetables. Weather is always warm now, unlike some people I refuse to bury my head in the sand.

   Anecdotes from small geographic areas aren’t relevant to the “Global” Warming debate. Try identifying global trends, e.g. global temperature hasn’t increased in 16 years:
   http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.C.gif

   ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/graphics/tlt/plots/rss_ts_channel_tlt_global_land_and_sea_v03_3.png

   http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released–chart-prove-it.html
5. Solomon Green says:

   December 10, 2012 at 9:28 am

   I am fascinated. Looking at just the peaks and 1998 to 2010+ in particular, it would appear that not only does the monthly mean global surface temperature anomaly [NASA/GISS] disagree with UAH lower atmosphere temperature anomalies [UAH], which is surprising but just conceivable, but both of these disagree with the global average land temperature anomaly 1850-2011 [Met Office Hadley Centre], which in turn disagrees with the January December global mean temperature over land and ocean anomaly [NCDC/NESDIS/NOAA].
   While it is true that the averages on which the anomalies are based are taken over different periods, this should not affect the peaks. What am I missing?
6. dana j craig says:

   December 11, 2012 at 11:02 pm

   In all fairness. I am doing my best to be impartial while examining the climate issue. Your site claims there has been no net warming for the last 16 years. I assume your organization does not deploy satellites or gather temprature data or conduct research. Therefore all of your conclusions must be based on data gathered by ” THEM “. How can you be better at deciphering this mountain of gobblelygook than the eggheads who created it? Don’t take it personal, I irritate the warmists as well. Only the truth matters. Thanks for your time
7. justthefactswuwt says:

   December 12, 2012 at 9:22 pm

   dana j craig says: December 11, 2012 at 11:02 pm

   In all fairness. I am doing my best to be impartial while examining the climate issue.

   A difficult, but quite admirable goal.

   Your site claims there has been no net warming for the last 16 years.

   WUWT makes no claims whatsoever. However, the data for numerous independent sources indicates that there has been minimal or no warming during the last 16 years.

   I assume your organization does not deploy satellites or gather temprature data or conduct research.

   There’s really no organization per se, and we certainly don’t deploy satellites. However, we do conduct a lot of research and we have gathered, what is likely the largest collection of 3rd party climatic temperature data ever to exist, on our references pages . A good example of this research and gathering is this recent Big Picture Look At “Earth’s Temperature”:
   http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/10/a-big-picture-look-at-earths-temperature-extreme-weather-update/

   Therefore all of your conclusions must be based on data gathered by ” THEM “.

   Unequivocally our conclusions must be based on data gathered by “THEM”, however “THEM” is not an unknown. For example, the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH) data;
   http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_Nov_2012_v5.5.png

   is collected by 3 satellites (NOAA-15, NOAA-18, and Aqua);
   http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2012-deg-c/

   and then processed by Dr. Roy W. Spencer who;

   received his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. Before becoming a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001, he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites. Dr. Spencer’s work with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. http://www.drroyspencer.com/about/

   and Dr. John Christy who;

   “received a B.A. in Mathematics from California State University, Fresno in 1973, and an M.S. and Ph.D. in Atmospheric Sciences from the University of Illinois in 1984 and 1987″. “He is a distinguished professor of atmospheric science, and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. He was appointed Alabama’s state climatologist in 2000. For his development of a global temperature data set from satellites he was awarded NASA’s Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement, and the American Meteorological Society’s “Special Award.”[1] In 2002, Christy was elected Fellow of the American Meteorological Society.” “Christy was a lead author of the 2001 report by the IPCC[6] and the U.S. CCSP report Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere – Understanding and Reconciling Differences.[4] Christy helped draft and signed the 2003 American Geophysical Union statement on climate change.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christy

   Roy and John’s UAH temperature updates are regularly posted on WUWT:
   http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/12/uah-global-temperature-down-slightly-for-november-2012/

   I have met Roy and exchanged emails with John. John actually corrected one of my prior Big Picture Looks At “Global Temperature” updates by noting that RSS and UAH anomalies are not comparable because they use different base periods, i.e., “RSS only uses 1979-1998 (20 years) while UAH uses the WMO standard of 1981-2010.”

   How can you be better at deciphering this mountain of gobblelygook than the eggheads who created it?

   There is definitely no “better” and no need for “deciphering”, the data is what it is. You can access the UAH data yourself from here;
   http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt

   the RSS data from here;
   ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/monthly_time_series/rss_monthly_msu_amsu_channel_tls_anomalies_land_and_ocean_v03_3.txt

   the MET Office data from here;
   http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut3/data/download.html

   or the NASA GISS data from here;
   http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

   and chart it for yourself in Excel. Lord Monckton was nice enough to lay out the steps for doing so here:
   http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/07/monckton-on-his-smashing-u-n-wall-of-silence-on-lack-of-warming-and-censure/

   Don’t take it personal, I irritate the warmists as well.

   Definitely not taken personally, and certainly not irritating. Challenge, criticism and debate are most welcome, as these are core elements in advancing human knowledge.

   Only the truth matters.

   Well said.

   Thanks for your time

   And thank you for yours.
8. dana j craig says:

   December 13, 2012 at 9:39 am

   My hypothesis: if we remove all of the carbon from the earths crust and put it in the atmosphere.. something will be effected. This i believe. In a warmer world water will evaporate faster, the atmosphere holds more water vapor, trapping more heat, ice melts, more heat gets absorbed, and of course more precipitation. Not confusing. I just read that increased precipitation on the Antarctica ice sheet will speed up glacier movement thus dumping more water in the oceans. As a result sea level will rise! What?? Didnt that same water evaporate out of the ocean in the first place? So it seems precipitation in antartica is dangerous! I hope the rain n snow elsewhere remains benign.
9. dana j craig says:

   December 13, 2012 at 6:46 pm

   About graph, global monthly mean temperature 1996-2012 at http// data.giss.NASA.gov. I did a statistical analysis using several methods. I had a friend do the same. Our results were almost identical. Between 1996 and 2012 .3C increase in temperature was detected. This is consistent with many other reports found in science journals. this graph is found at the watts up site. Yet it clearly supports the warming associated with anthropogenic C02 emissions. I invite any and all who read this to examine this issue with vigor.
10. D Böehm says:

    December 13, 2012 at 6:56 pm

    dana j craig says:

    “Between 1996 and 2012 .3C increase in temperature was detected. This … clearly supports the warming associated with anthropogenic C02 emissions.”

    That is simply an assertion, it is not scientific evidence. You need to understand the difference between scientific evidence and coincidence.

    The rise in global temperature you cite is well within the long term parameters of the global warming trend since the LIA. There has been no recent acceleration of the trend. In fact, there has been no global warming for sixteen years despite rising CO2 levels.

    The long term trend has been the same, whether CO2 was low or high. Therefore, CO2 is not the driver. If it was, global temperatures would be accelerating. They are not.
11. dana j craig says:

    December 13, 2012 at 8:38 pm

    Ok i think i see your point. Although warming is happening, there has been no acceleration of this warming for the past 16 years.
12. dana j craig says:

    December 16, 2012 at 10:58 am

    According to the graphs on your website and others, the world has warmed. Arctic sea ice behavier infers the same.antartic sea ice has grown modestly while antartic ice sheets have thinned. The sun hasn’t warmed nor has cosmic rays( grasping for straws) done diddly. To be skeptic while increasingly reliable scientific evidence piles higher… Well you know. I really enjoyed my conversations with Dr. Spencer who plays well even when holding lousy cards.
13. richardscourtney says:

    December 16, 2012 at 11:27 am

    dana j craig:

    I am commenting on your posts at December 13, 2012 at 8:38 pm and December 16, 2012 at 10:58 am.

    There has been no global warming discernible at 95% confidence for 16 years.
    For example, see the graph copied from the IPCC AR5 draft which is at
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/14/the-real-ipcc-ar5-draft-bombshell-plus-a-poll/

    I recognise that reality disagrees with your beliefs and I sympathise with your pain when this is pointed out to you. But there has been no discernible global warming for 16 years and you need to come to terms with it.

    Richard
14. dana j craig says:

    December 16, 2012 at 7:35 pm

    K I saw the ” up the down escalatior” I saw the graph that was altered. I had already realized the graphs were suspicious. The same red lines both altered the meaning and commented on the significant alteration. For years your ilk has knowingly delayed, confused and misled the public. Your name may very well go down in history as a result of your fine work. Soon enough( let’s hope) the doubting ( but vocal ) will realize watts up. Your influence and artic sea ice share a common destiny.
15. justthefactswuwt says:

    January 12, 2013 at 3:00 pm

    dana j craig says: December 13, 2012 at 6:46 pm

    About graph, global monthly mean temperature 1996-2012 at http// data.giss.NASA.gov. I did a statistical analysis using several methods. I had a friend do the same. Our results were almost identical. Between 1996 and 2012 .3C increase in temperature was detected. This is consistent with many other reports found in science journals. this graph is found at the watts up site. Yet it clearly supports the warming associated with anthropogenic C02 emissions. I invite any and all who read this to examine this issue with vigor.

    Dana, in order to address you question, we’ve conducted research and a crowdsourcing exercise:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/06/crowdsourcing-a-temperature-trend-analysi/

    The result is that the following temperature records have be flat:
    1. UAH: since October 2004 or 8 years, 3 months (goes to December)
    2. GISS: since May 2001 or 11 years, 7 months (goes to November)
    3. Combination of 4 global temperatures: since December 2000 or 11 years, 9 months (goes to August)
    4. HadCrut3: since May 1997 or 15 years, 7 months (goes to November)
    5. Sea surface temperatures: since March 1997 or 15 years, 8 months (goes to October)
    6. RSS: since January 1997 or 16 years (goes to December) RSS is 192/204 or 94% of the way to Ben Santer’s 17 years.
    7. Hadcrut4: since December 2000 or an even 12 years (goes to November.)

    From a statistical significance perspective:
    For RSS the warming is NOT significant for 23 years.
    For RSS: +0.130 +/-0.136 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990
    For UAH, the warming is NOT significant for 19 years.
    For UAH: 0.143 +/- 0.173 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
    For Hacrut3, the warming is NOT significant for 19 years.
    For Hadcrut3: 0.098 +/- 0.113 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
    For Hacrut4, the warming is NOT significant for 18 years.
    For Hadcrut4: 0.098 +/- 0.111 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
    For GISS, the warming is NOT significant for 17 years.
    For GISS: 0.113 +/- 0.122 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1996

    If you have any additional questions, please let us know.