Is Spencer Hiding the Increase? We Report, You Decide
by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
One of the great things about the internet is people can post anything they want, no matter how stupid, and lots of people who are incapable of critical thought will simply accept it.
I’m getting emails from people who have read blog postings accusing me of “hiding the increase” in global temperatures when I posted our most recent (Dec. 2009) global temperature update. In addition to the usual monthly temperature anomalies on the graph, for many months I have also been plotting a smoothed version, with a running 13 month average. The purpose of such smoothing is to better reveal longer-term variations, which is how “global warming” is manifested.
But on the latest update, I switched from 13 months to a running 25 month average instead. It is this last change which has led to accusations that I am hiding the increase in global temperatures. Well, here’s a plot with both running averages in addition to the monthly data. I’ll let you decide whether I have been hiding anything:
Note how the new 25-month smoother minimizes the warm 1998 temperature spike, which is the main reason why I switched to the longer averaging time. If anything, this ‘hides the decline’ since 1998…something I feared I would be accused of for sure after I posted the December update.
But just the opposite has happened, with accusations I have hidden the increase. Go figure.
JP (09:27:07) :
I believe you have well-described the behavior of the system when it swithces from one state to the other. Both warming and cooling are momentums of thier own, and while cooling is taking over, we still have unspent momentum on warming. They are like oil on water, never mixing until one is dead.
What happens when we have a La Nina on top of negative AO, PDO and NAO, low AP index, Solar Activity outstripping Sunspot counts, lax Solar Winds and high GCR’s and increased Tectonic Activity?
We won’t have long to wait for the answer.
Data presentation is always difficult. I always try to use simple scales based on ten, i.e. ten year or 20 year etc. I think if we keep it simple and standard, it is easier for the faithful to understand. In this instance climate and weather. dn
I thought it was great.
hunter
fwiw, if you’re the same “hunter” who called me an “idiot” pretty many threads ago – it was funny, you didn’t want “to put too fine a point on it” – I’m just making sure you know your were actually responding to “anna v”, who pointed out quickly that she’d forgotten to close italics, which then misled you. It didn’t bother me at all, because what you were saying didn’t relate to anything I’d said.
Well I have never had a problem with the one year versus two year averaging; five and ten year averaging would give even slower changes.
My #1 problem is that a year is NOT 13 months, and two years is not 25 months.
As I have said repeatedly, common sense suggests that temperatures should show a roughly 86,400 second periodicity; well I’ll let you choose whether you want siderial or some other time measure; and temperatures also ought to show a 365 1/4 day or thereabouts periodicity. One can reasonably expect that a full year represents reasonably a return to some almost constant state (forget Milankovitch).
So I would consider that a 12 month or a 24 month averaging period, would integrate out cyclic changes that have a known cause; namely the earth moving around the sun in its orbit. To the extent that such an annual cycle occurs; either a 13 month, or a 25 month averaging period, is going to reproduce that annual cycle at a reduced amplitude; less so for the longer period; whereas averaging over a complete cycle eliminates any such effect completely.
I also havea big problem with one feature of the graph that Dr Spencer did not mention, and few others as near as I can tell. What on earth is that beautifuly ruler drawn straight line ?
If you remove that red straight line from the graph, you get a completely different picture of what happened.
What really happened is that from 1979 to 1997, precisely nothing happened; the temperature stayed constant, with a few up and down squiggles and neither the raw, nor the 13, or 25 month smoothes show otherwise.
Then in 1998, there was this big El Nino, and for some reason (I don’t know it) the temperature jumped up in 1998 to a new level; and then since 1998, it is back to ho-hum again, precisely nothing has happneed since 1999.
Now one thing about Dr Roy’s data, that should not be overlooked, is that this is data derived from some upper atmosphere layer; evidently 14,000 odd feet if I have been following correctly; and not ground based surface measurments.
The significance of that is that I would not be surprised to see such a step change as occurrend in 1998 in data that comes from a relatively low thermal mass energy source as the 14,000 ft atmosphere. I haven’t a clue what would cause or what caused such a step change; but the data looks pretty clear to me; it happened. I’d be a lot more surprised if there was as quick a repsonse from ground based data.
I’m pretty comfortable whith either the short or longer smoothing time; as Roy sees fit; the change produces quite expected results; and doesn’t “hide” anything.
I’m just uncomfortable that it must show something that it should completely eliminate; which is whatever annual sun encircling round trip puts in there; so I’d rather see 12, or 24 months. To me, the 13/25 is just too cute for words; and doesn’t seem to have any logical basis.
Well I could be wrong so I’m willing to listen as to why the non synchronous timing there.
Take out all the cool-looking colored squigglies and look at the straight line plane and it’s obviously on an incline; a whopping 0.2 degrees C above the baseline since 1979. Isn’t that about a third of a degree F? Am I reading it correctly?
What temperature does the baseline of 0.0 represent? I assume it isn’t 0 degrees Celsius (32F) as we are not in an Ice Age… yet. I’m sure my UK friends might take issue with that last bit though. 😀
Thanks for the help here. Even being the science noob that I freely admit to, I still think I may be just as qualified to head the IPCC as Engineer Bill is!
I believe nanuuq is the Inktitut word for polar bear. I don’t know what the word for troll is.
E.M. Smith (04:07:35) – thanks for clarifying the statistics of running means for me. The internet is great in the way it allows helpful responses like this. Actually I suddenly saw the answer for myself the other night – but I’m still glad to have a specialist to confirm that it was the correct answer. It also left Spencer’s argument intact and I will defend it when he comes under further attack down here in Oz.
Would it be true to say of global temperature over the last year:
1. The northern hemisphere had some very cold weather which has made many people sceptical there
2. The southern hemisphere had some very hot weather which has made many people here in Australia receptive to the strong anthropogenic global warming theory
3. The significant result is that globally there has been scant sign of warming over the last decade or more
4. We cannot know whether the cessation of global warming over that last decade will be long term or not. But we can say that the science is not really settled.
You can literally bet on weather five years from now (i.e., if 2014 will be one of the five warmest years), at https://www.intrade.com/ under Climate & Weather.
I am interested in Motl’s projection that the January ‘10 UAH anomaly will exceed 0.70. I checked the UAH data, and this would be the highest Jan anomaly in the data, beating 0.59 in Jan 07 and 0.58 in Jan 98.
In addition, the UAH anomaly hit 0.50 last November, the highest November anomaly in the records. The runner-up was Nov ‘05 with 0.40 and only two other Nov anomalies exceeded 0.30.
And the September UAH anomaly hit 0.42, the second highest for that month. The record was Sep ‘98 with 0.43, and only other September reading to exceed 0.30 was Sep ‘05 with 0.35.
And the July UAH anomaly was also 0.42, the second highest in the record. The record was Jul ‘98 with 0.52, with the third place going to Jul ‘05 with 0.33. Only one other July exceeded 0.30.
The second half of 2009 anomalies were quite high, considering the measurements were taken during the early months of a new El Nino. Notice that all the other record monthly anomalies were for years were El Nino peak years following the January El Nino, and 2010 will be the El Nino peak year, following this January El Nino peak. The UAH satellite data seem more sensitive to the ENSO cycle than other temperature records, and this could mean 2010 will see some record high monthly anomalies.
Based on previous increases in UAH anomalies during El Nino years, does Dr. Spencer expect that any of the 2010 monthly UAH anomalies will break any of the 2005 and 1998 monthly records? Well, Motl claims January will likely do so, but how about the rest of the year?
I can see that moving from a 13 month average to 25 month average will help smooth down some of the new record data, but the moderator and readers can still see the monthly data.
Will the seasonal downturn in UAH anomalies (from Jan/Feb to May) help conceal the incline? Perhaps the seasonal decline that has been seen repeatedly in the UAH anomalies will repeat again this year. Other temperature records don’t show such a pronounced drop in global temperatures, so perhaps there is still room to dampen rising data values.
Would anyone want to guess what 2010 will show in UAH anomalies. Will we see 0.50 anomalies for the first half, or maybe just 0.40 anomalies due to the UAH seasonal decline? What is the chance in this El Nino year of exceeding 0.60 for the first half? Only in 1998 did the six month rolling average UAH anomaly exceed 0.60.
Does anyone want to forecast?
rbateman (23:03:06) :
J.Peden (21:58:38) :
The great ipcc Climate Scientist wants to know why it isn’t getting warmer. He’s called the divergence of “global mean” temp. from CO2 concentrations a “travesty”, and is quite upset about it.
Alas, poor Trenberth. He doesn’t recognize an object in motion when he sees it.
Total misrepresentation
The travesty that Trenberth refers is just the same as Christy shows in his post:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/13/spencer-clouds-dominate-co2-as-a-climate-driver-since-2000/
Energy into earth is greater than energy out of earth. Therefore the earth should be waring but over the last few years thermometers have not shown this increase.
Kevin Trenberth said:
” The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.”
I.e. the satellite energy balance measurements are inadequate/wrong.
It is interesting that Spencer has not commented on the lack of CHLT since nov:
tfp (18:22:13) :
I have asked what has happened to the 1km temperature that used to be on the AMSU site This showed a rapid rise but then the CHLT data was discontinued in Nov. 2009:
http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/2104/amsutemptrends.png
rise is about .1degC/year!
This data was then replaced with sea surface temperature
What I find most strange is that so many sceptics consider AMSU data the most accurate – “all the others have been adjusted”. Satellite temperatures must be some of the most tweaked temperatures around – Temperature is not being measured at all it is a microwave proxy, The height of measurement is not a spot height – it is the combined “temperature” from a range of heights
J.Peden says:
That is an incredible misinterpretation of what Trenberth was talking about (and actually expressed in a paper). Trenberth is not fooled, as many skeptics are, by this issue of short time periods when fluctuations dominate over the slow upward trend due to rising greenhouse gas concentrations. However, he is frustrated that we can’t get a better handle on the transfers of energy down to a fraction of a watt that are necessary to understand in detail where the energy is going. And, by the way, one project that would have apparently helped a lot in this endeavor was canceled by the Bush Administration, perhaps partly out of spite toward Al Gore (see http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN08/wn120508.html ).
Richard M says:
I actually agree with you that the issue of feedbacks is the place where there is legitimate scientific argument…And, in fact, I have even advised people here that they should focus on that rather than arguing these Flat-Earther things like the greenhouse effect disobeying the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, the CO2 effect already being saturated, or the rise in CO2 not being anthropogenic. However, many don’t seem to listen. What can I do?
As for Rochester weather, actually I much prefer the summers up here to what I grew up with in Washington DC. And, since I have loved snow ever since I was a kid (White crystals falling from the sky and coating everything…Isn’t that magical!?!), I like the Rochester winters too (well, except for the part about almost never seeing the sun). So, no, I would prefer the climate here not to warm.
By the way, in my previous post, I should have said “fraction of a W/m^2”, not “fraction of a watt”…which would be pretty damn impressive on a global scale.
It’s unfortunate that Dr Spencer has to explain/defend such a trivial point as to the time-period of his smoothing.
Hiding the incline? The yearly, unsmoothed data are clearly visible behind on the graph.
beng (18:08:45) :
It’s unfortunate that Dr Spencer has to explain/defend such a trivial point as to the time-period of his smoothing.
Hiding the incline? The yearly, unsmoothed data are clearly visible behind on the graph.
It’s a pity that CRU have to defend the so called hidden decline. Their total stupidity is shown by publishing a paper describing the effect for all to see – how stupid is that!
Joel Shore (18:04:05)
Joel, the real travesty is even worse than Trenberth was admitting – “travesty” being a rather serious word to begin with.
Here’s a relevant example of Trenberths’ use of Travesty
“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming [according to the AGW Models + data]: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.”
How is what Trenberth said above not at least as concerning as what I said he said:
“Well, Kevin Trenberth ‘just wants to know’ much more than you do. The great ipcc Climate Scientist wants to know why it isn’t getting warmer. He’s called the divergence of ‘global mean’ temp. from CO2 concentrations a ‘travesty’, and is quite upset about it.”
It seems that Trenberth doesn’t like real Ceres, CO2 and Temp. data because it threatens the holy AGW claims. It therefore “upsets” him because he can’t explain the “why” of the divergence. So he instead blames “the data” and “our observation system” calling their failure to conform to Model + data output – “there should be even more warming” – a “travesty”, when he can’t find the predicted warming anywhere else either.
So it looks to me like the greater travesty is that the Climate Scientist calls Climate Science’s own empirical results a “travesty”, and will not allow his holy AGW claim to be falsified by mere data.
“”” beng (18:08:45) :
It’s unfortunate that Dr Spencer has to explain/defend such a trivial point as to the time-period of his smoothing. “””
Well if you are including MY comments in your comment here beng, you are surely barking up the wrong tree.
Sure I do not understand the use of 13 months instead of 12, nor of 25 instead of 24; but in no way was I asking Dr Spencer to defend his positon; I’m here to learn, whenever there is something to learn; and with Dr Roy, I find there is always something that I learn anyway, so if he should run out of more important things to do, and can’t figure out how to pass some time, and wants to saywhat that reason is; I’ll be happy to learn; but I’m not asking him to defend his methodology.
Joel Shore (18:04:05) :
“…..Trenberth is not fooled, as many skeptics are, by this issue of short time periods when fluctuations dominate over the slow upward trend due to rising greenhouse gas concentrations….”
Oh now I understand.
When the temperature goes up it’s due to human CO2 emissions and when it doesn’t it’s due to “fluctuations”.
nunuuq “have any of you dudes calculated how many joules of energy have been inserted into the biosphere by the burning of ‘buried sunshine’?”
A simpler and more intuitive answer than anything I’ve seen in this thread is that if it mattered, the IPCC would be worried about it. However, suppose it matters and the IPCC is not worried about it. In that case, it would make just as much sense to challenge the warmists with it. I think the bottom line is that you’ve invented your own theory of global warming.
Whether there is decline or incline in the earth’s global temperature is, at this time, not important in the discussion. The real challenge lies at the fact which temperature records have been used to come to this conclusion, and if these are properly recorded, validated and maintained. It seems that records (like GISS database) have been compromised…
So what the real truth is is yet still unknown (?), but looking at raw data from rural sites should tell us more than our words can say.
Jeroen (06:19:23) : edit
” It seems that records (like GISS database) have been compromised…
So what the real truth is is yet still unknown (?), but looking at raw data from rural sites should tell us more than our words can say.”
Welp, the main issue is the thousands of rural stations dropped by GISS which are still collecting data. I propose we as volunteers go about getting those records, and adding them into the existing GISS, then dropping all stations rated below average in surfacestations.org (i.e. airports, UHIs).
Good comment, count me in 🙂
However I think that the outcome wouldn’t change that much because we’re (certainly I’m not) scientists. We can’t take this to peer-review, that’s for sure 😉
But.. for whoever is interested, someone already did so for the US some time ago;
Cheers!
tfp (17:55:36) :
Total misrepresentation
The travesty that Trenberth refers is just the same as Christy shows in his post:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/13/spencer-clouds-dominate-co2-as-a-climate-driver-since-2000/
Energy into earth is greater than energy out of earth.
No, because according to Spencer the Ceres data also shows the Earth losing energy while CO2 is increasing. So no one knows what the Earth was doing prior to Ceres, at least if the Ceres data is accepted. While AGW simply presumes the Earth is always gaining energy net while CO2 is increasing. Trenberth doesn’t want to accept the Ceres data, but then also acts like he wants to look for even more hidden energy, which no one has found yet, and the global mean temp is not reflecting.
I have no idea what data he likes and doesn’t like. He refuses to consider that the CO2 AGW might be wrong. But what’s the matter with doing real Science from now on? Coming from Climate Science, opposition to that is the major “travesty”.
pft (16:18:29) :It was cold in the 60’s when runs were hard to come by, and warm in the 90’s when steroids caused balls to fly out of the park and runs were scored aplenty before levelling off in the last few years.
It’s obviously the change in air density due to temperature! LOL
Max Hugoson (06:33:13) : I agree, +/- 3σ lines were SOP in silicon manuf. during my tenure, 70s-90s. Beating down system deviations so that those two lines were within manuf. specs was the goal.
“One of the great things about the internet is people can post anything they want, no matter how stupid, and lots of people who are incapable of critical thought will simply accept it.”
Of course, this is not an exclusive or unique definition of the Internet, Dr. Spencer. Exactly the same thing can be said about newspapers, television or governmental agencies. The only difference is the definition of “people” and while it’s always useful to remind ourselves of it, to complain about human folly would be just as useful as complaining about the weather.
I am curious if any of the accusers will acknowledge your explanation and comparison of the 2 linear trend lines. I will not hold my breath.