Results from the surface temperature outlier races, just in time for AR5

 

Guest post by Bob Tisdale

The Met Office released its global HadCRUT4 land plus sea surface DATA recently. The HadCRUT4 dataset was first presented in the Morice et al (2012) paper Quantifying uncertainties in global and regional temperature change using an ensemble of observational estimates: The HadCRUT4 dataset.

In the race to have the highest trend since 1976, does GISS LOTI still hold its lead, or has the new HadCRUT4 data overtaken GISS?

And the current winner is…

HadCRUT4 has the highest short-term (1976-2010) linear trend, at a whopping 0.177 deg C/decade.

Figure 1

On a long-term basis, the new HadCRUT4 data comes in a lowly third, just behind the dataset it obsoletes, HadCRUT3.

Figure 2

NCDC: If you’d like to get back in the short-term trend game, you can stop infilling Southern Ocean sea surface temperature, which has been cooling for decades and leave most of the grids at those latitudes blank like HADSST3. That would help to raise your trend. Or you can extend land surface temperature data out over the oceans in areas where there is sea ice, like GISS, to take advantage of the higher rate of warming of land surface temperature.  That would help too.

MY FIRST BOOK

The IPCC claims that only the rise in anthropogenic greenhouse gases can explain the warming over the past 30 years. Satellite-based sea surface temperature disagrees with the IPCC’s claims. Most, if not all, of the rise in global sea surface temperature is shown to be the result of a natural process called the El Niño-Southern Oscillation, or ENSO. This is discussed in detail in my first book, If the IPCC was Selling Manmade Global Warming as a Product, Would the FTC Stop their deceptive Ads?, which is available in pdf and Kindle editions. A copy of the introduction, table of contents, and closing can be found here.

SOURCES

The land plus sea surface temperature datasets are available through the following links:

GISS LOTI

HadCRUT3

HadCRUT4

NCDC

Advertisements

70 thoughts on “Results from the surface temperature outlier races, just in time for AR5

  1. Great characterization Bob!
    Maintaining the original data will prove very interesting in the future, too – if it can be recovered and/or kept as originally taken.

  2. Great characterization Bob!
    Maintaining the original data will prove very interesting in the future, too – if it can be recovered and kept as originally taken.

  3. Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd.
    Hi everyone. I’m trying to put together a team to comment blast over at Rabett Run. They maintain that there is big consensus about global warming so let’s put it to the test. If so many people believe in the hoax, let’s see how many people come to their defense!

  4. When I see science unravelling cellular complexity or superconduction, I feel pride in the human race, but then when I see such amateurish deceptions as these grid tricks paraded as if it were actual climate science, I wonder how these two extremes of quality can coexist in the same magazine. The word ‘schizoid’ seems unbearably apt.
    In the long run this kind of shoddiness will inevitably spread like a cancer over the rest of science, in effect killing it off. But then killing off science always been an inseparable part of the Leftist project.of truth-destruction, with the Team and their AGW mob as eager executioners.

  5. paullm @ April 17, 2012 at 11:19 am,
    What you refer to as the “original data” is the ONLY data. Once it is infilled, homogenized, pasteurized, folded, bent, spindled and mutilated, it becomes “un-data”, which is then combined to form what is referred to as the global temperature record.
    Data are. They are readings taken from instruments. Good data are data taken from properly selected, sited, calibrated, installed and maintained instruments, read timely. All other data are either bad data or missing data. No process, transparent or opaque, can turn bad data or missing data into good data. That is beyond the capability of Rumplestiltskin!
    Hopefully, the reign of “data” that aren’t and “models” that don’t is about to end, if it hasn’t already.

  6. A question. How many incarnations of HadCrut will we have until they just give up and simply apply an algorithm which increases the temp readings in the present and gradually decreases the values as it moves further away from the present? I think GISS’ method is much easier to apply. Why waste all that time?

  7. Interesting – the long term trend since ~1900 of all four Surface Temperature (ST) datasets is ~0.07C per decade, equal to my 2008 calculation of the apparent warming bias exhibited by ST datasets when compared with UAH Lower Tropospheric (LT) temperatures, measured from satellites since ~1979.
    So, if we deduct the 0.07C/decade warming bias from the ST data since 1900, does that mean there is NO net global warming since 1900?
    Probably not true, since the ST warming bias (due to UHI, etc.) cannot be extrapolated that far back in time.
    However, if Earth exhibits more global cooling, we’ll soon be able to say with confidence that there has been no net global warming since ~1940, and that is when combustion of fossil fuels really accelerated.
    http://www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=3774
    At that point, we will be able to say with confidence that actual measurements demonstrate that climate sensitivity to CO2 is near-zero, and insignificant to humanity and the environment.
    But then, we said this with confidence a decade ago, in 2002.
    http://www.apegga.org/Members/Publications/peggs/WEB11_02/kyoto_pt.htm
    “Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”

  8. James Sexton @ April 17, 2012 at 11:36 am,
    I am sure your are familiar with the KISS method. (Keep it simple stupid.)
    I am familiar with the GISS method. (Get it sloped stupid.)

  9. Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd. says:
    April 17, 2012 at 11:29 am
    Hi everyone. I’m trying to put together a team to comment blast over at Rabett Run. They maintain that there is big consensus about global warming so let’s put it to the test.
    ===========================================================
    Would this require interacting with that idiot who refers to himself in the 3rd person and his regulars as sycophant bunnies? Here, you might find this useful….. http://suyts.wordpress.com/2012/04/08/anderegg-et-al-revisited/
    In my view, that destroys any thoughts to a scientific consensus. ….. as to the public,….
    http://www.gallup.com/poll/153875/Worry-Water-Air-Pollution-Historical-Lows.aspx
    7 out of 10 people who bothered to answer say they global warming is a non-issue.

  10. “When I see science unravelling cellular complexity or superconduction, I feel pride in the human race,”
    I’m afraid super-conductivity is another example of scientists hanging on to a theory despite the data.

  11. Bob–
    Downloading Hadcrut 3 I get a year in the first variable followed by only 11 months.

  12. This is pathetic. 0.177°C/decade is only 1.77°C in a century. We need way more to have the oceans boiling in the foreseeable future, because at this rate their surface would get barely more than one and a half degree warmer by the year 2100 AD than it is today.
    Fortunately we can always add an arbitrarily steep linear function to our data, because no one, not even deniers can deny the fact that old thermometers were manufactured earlier than new ones.

  13. Berényi Péter says:
    April 17, 2012 at 12:07 pm
    ….
    Fortunately we can always add an arbitrarily steep linear function to our data, because no one, not even deniers can deny the fact that old thermometers were manufactured earlier than new ones.
    _______________________________________________________________
    The older ones were likely better.

  14. Lance Wallace says: “Downloading Hadcrut 3 I get a year in the first variable followed by only 11 months.”
    Sorry, Lance. I should have included the earlier web page links for the individual datasets as well. Here’s the one for HadCRUT3:
    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/
    and for HadCRUT4:
    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/download.html
    For the annual HadCRUT3&4 data, the first column is year. The second column is the temperature anomaly, but the remainder are not months. They’re uncertainty ranges. See for HadCRUT3:
    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut3/diagnostics/time-series.html
    And for HadCrut4:
    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/series_format.html
    Regards

  15. How much of this warming is man made (anthropogenic) and how much is natural (modern warm period) ?

  16. Fred N. says: “Why does the data stop at 2010? We’re well into 2012 now.”
    As far as I know, they’re working on a way to update the sea surface temperature portion (HADSST3) on a timely basis. They must not have found it yet.

  17. cui bono, no reply, 3 months after asking. See Paul Homewood’s blog notalotofpeopleknowthat for a sequence of posts on GHCN adjustments.

  18. “Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd. says:
    April 17, 2012 at 11:29 am
    Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd.”
    I think this is a troll trying to gen traffic for his site.

  19. Before starting my present academic career I spent more than twenty years as an Industrial Instrumentation, Measurement and Control Engineer and it just plain amuses me when I read the nonsense about measuring global temperatures. Bottom line is garbage in garbage out and no amount of data massaging can alter that fact. Until we get reliable and accurate temperatue measurements covering the whole globe then proxy this and proxy that spliced to here today gone tomorrow temperature measurements and constantly recalibrated satelllite radiance data will tell us only what the modeller wants us to see. It is not only disengenuous but downright dishonest for climate scientists to state that we can measure to such an accuracy let alone produce trends which are then used to squander billions in tax payers monies worlwide on such nonsense as AGW. But then everyone seems to be awed by the Emperors new clothes and chasing green research grants to state the obvious. Sorry if that offends anyone but it seems that so much of this modelling is really just to obscure the fact that the initial data is so poor.

  20. Next year, last year will be colder than you thought, although next year will be hotter than last year by a lot more than you thought …sheez where was I.

  21. I guess I’m a little surprised by the small changes in the data overall.
    The trend is almost identical. They smoothed out the 1946 temperature drop (post-1944 up 0.15C; pre-1945 down 0.1C) and then dropped the 1998 El Nino impact a little and reduced temperatures from the Krakatoa eruption (as Willis has been noting, it hardly showed up before).
    There is now a difference in the 1961-1990 base periods between the two datasets which we might have to see if a pea is under the thimble here.
    But, I thought we would see more NCDC-type changes where trends are increased by 0.2C or something but it doesn’t seem to have happened.

  22. There are 2 versions of annual figures for HadCRUT3. One is by the Hadley
    Centre (of the UK Met Office), and the other is by UEA. As far as I have
    learned so far, the main diference between these is in method of averaging
    the 12 monthly figures of each year into annual figures.
    The UEA version appears to me to use simple averaging. The Hadley Centre
    version uses “optimized averaging”, according to my memory of their response
    to an e-mail that I sent them asking for explanation of the difference. The
    Hadley Centre version of annual figures appears to me to have more
    post-1973 warming trend than the UEA version. Especially, I have found the
    Hadley Centre version to report 1998 .31 degree C/K cooler and 2010 .21
    degree C/K warmer than the UEA version does.
    Links to both versions of annual figures for HadCRUT3:
    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual
    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt

  23. I have compared the various CRUT land only versions 2-3 & 4 –
    Dr Phil Jones back in drivers seat with CRUTem4 updated land only global temperature data – warms more than the UKMO CRUTem3 and with remarkable early outliers from Rio
    April 13th, 2012
    http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=1490
    CRUTem4 is tweaked warmer than CRUTem3 and 2.
    They made positive adjustments in recent decades and negative adjustments in the 19th Century.
    Both insert warming.
    One of the 19C adjustments was to move the UHI affected Sydney grid box trend west into the adjoining Murray-Darling Basin grid box.
    CRUT4 revison of the Murray-Darling Basin grid box temperature data – is this the worst warming tweak ever by the UKMO / Jones et al team ?
    April 1st, 2012
    http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=1460

  24. AS usual a good and interesting post.
    Last night I watched a TV programme on BBC 4 entitled Ancient Apocalypse. It was about the demise of the Old Kingdom or First Kingdom of Egypt in about 2200BC. It was an extremely interesting programme since it spent more than 1/2 hour discussing significant natural variability to climate over a period of about 7000 years.
    What was clear from this programme was that there was very significant climate change both to temperatures and rainfall over this period and sometimes the changes could be dramatic and could occur in a short period, may be in just a few decades.
    Anyone watching that programme could not have come away with the impression that climate is constantly changing.
    No one discussed the role of CO2 in those changes. The impression gained was that the changes were simply natural variability of the climate itself.
    Further of interest, the impression given was that these changes were not restricted to just the Norther Hemisphere around Greenland or Mediterranean or North West Africa but that there was evidence that they were more global in nature.
    Further, the impression was given that it was cold, or more particularly cold and dry that was the significant problem for humans.
    As said, it was a very interesting programme and well worth watching on BBC iplayer.
    If you had seen that programme, you would not be unduly concerned about the temperature changes that BOb notes in this post. Just natural variation and warm is good.

  25. Further to my above post.
    Please note that the 4th paragraph should have read:
    “Anyone watching that programme could not have come away with the impression other than that climate is constantly changing”

  26. firetoice says:
    April 17, 2012 at 11:50 am
    James Sexton @ April 17, 2012 at 11:36 am,
    I am sure your are familiar with the KISS method. (Keep it simple stupid.)
    I am familiar with the GISS method. (Get it sloped stupid.)
    ===============================================
    Absolutely. Other than putting on a show and giving people something to do, I can’t imagine why HadCrut wastes their time with their revisions….. just do what GISS does simply lower the past and raise the present and call it good. They’ve already incorporated the imaginary temps of the poles. Why not just go all the way and be done with it? Heck, they can cut staff by half in both and simply update each other’s “independent” (giggle) data!

  27. Allan MacRae said in part, at April 17, 2012 at 11:45 am:
    >Interesting – the long term trend since ~1900 of all four Surface
    >Temperature (ST) datasets is ~0.07C per decade, equal to my 2008
    >calculation of the apparent warming bias exhibited by ST datasets when
    >compared with UAH Lower Tropospheric (LT) temperatures, measured from
    >satellites since ~1979..
    Discrepancy between UAH and the major surface surface temperature trend
    indices since start of UAH is more like .03-.04 degree C per decade, not .07.
    In 2008, the discrepancy was only about .04 degree/decade. This is according
    to the Wikipedia article on “satellite temperature record”, last time I checked that
    and last time I checked UAH (linear trend is reported by UAH, and their linear
    trend was reported in the above-mentioned Wikipedia article).
    I do admit that the woodfortrees.org tool shows a greater discrepancy, from
    surface temperature warming rate that sounds higher-than-true to me for that
    time period in GISS and HadCRUT3. Then again, I think “optimized least
    squares” minimizes RMS noise, while minimizing average noise appears
    to me more suitable when the time period covered is a 20 year one with a
    century-class El Nino in its 2nd half and two tropical volcanic eruptions of
    class over 20 years in its 1st half.
    > So, if we deduct the 0.07C/decade warming bias from the ST data since
    >1900, does that mean there is NO net global warming since 1900?
    I think I have said enough here now.

  28. You sketpics just do NOT get it. You think 0.07 degrees per decade is insignificant? Do the math! that’s 7 degrees per millenium! Seven! Per millenium! In ten milleniums that’s 70 degrees! SEVENTY! That’s almost to boiling point in ONLY TEN THOUSAND YEARS!
    Impending doom in 10,000 years!
    Uunless a giant asteroid, or giant solar flare, or massive volcanic eruption, strange new disease or misguided idiotic politicaly motivated policies get us first. If I was a betting man…

  29. @Donald L. Klipstein says:
    April 17, 2012 at 6:29 pm
    /////////////////////////////////////////
    To answer your question, bearing mind appropriate error margins, is not the truithful position that we simply do not know whether it is as of today warmer than it was in the 1930s and the 1880s. I consider that to be inescapably the position and one which the warmists will not acknowlkedge.
    As far as the US is concerned, is it not probably the case that it was warmer in the US in the 1930s. If nothing else, the dustbowl conditions would suggest that this is likely the case.
    Notwithstanding the above comments, I am one of those who considers that it is probable that there has been some warming these past 100 or so years, but the extent to which it has warmed is not known with any realistic degree of certainty, and it is extremely probable that due to the many adjustments, siting issues (which includes pollution by UHI), station drop outs etc, that the ‘accpeted’ records exaggerate the amount of warming that has taken place since the 1850s .
    There is some issues with satellite data, but this data suggests no warming these past 40 years, just some step change around the time of the 1998 super El Nino, which for reasons not known or understood has not since then disipated (but perhaps is now slowly doing so)..

  30. Donald L. Klipstein says: April 17, 2012 at 6:29 pm
    Allan MacRae said in part, at April 17, 2012 at 11:45 am:
    Interesting – the long term trend since ~1900 of all four Surface Temperature (ST) datasets is ~0.07C per decade, equal to my 2008 calculation of the apparent warming bias exhibited by ST datasets when compared with UAH Lower Tropospheric (LT) temperatures, measured from
    satellites since ~1979..
    ____________
    Don says:
    Discrepancy between UAH and the major surface temperature trend indices since start of UAH is more like .03-.04 degree C per decade, not .07. This is according to the Wikipedia …
    ____________
    Don – nobody should use Wiki for this purpose – just look at the actual data – the Hadcrut3 LT anomaly is about 0.2C warmer than the UAH LT anomaly after ~30 years, or about 0.07 per decade. If it makes you happy, choose 0.06C per decade.
    My point is that Earth is cooling, and soon we will be able to say there has been no net warming since 1940 – and if we had better quality ST data we might be able to say that right now.

  31. It never ceases to amaze me the so many of the people in the camp opposed to the consensual view of AGW think that sitting down with Excel opened up in front of them and punching out a few graphs somehow even qualifies as science, let alone gives their lay opinion equal weight with experts in the field. I do however find great amusement in this constant assertion that somehow the data has been manipulated to fit some preconceived idea. The people making these assertions are actually claiming scientific fraud and doing so without actually understanding the seriousness of such an accusation and doing so with absolutlely no scientific expertise to put them in a position to actually understand the subject they are talking about let alone undertake any meaningful reevaluation of the data further than the aforementioned excel spreadsheet. Amazing. I wonder how many of the tradespeople commenting here would appreciate someone unqualified in the trade coming behind them and telling them they are doing it wrong? I wonder if any instrument control engineers (whatever that is) would appreciate me, an ecologist, critiquing his instrument control engineering? I would like to think that if I had the audacity to reach well beyond my field like that I’d be put firmly in my place. But all that aside, my challenge to anyone here who thinks the climate hasn’t warmed is to explain the tens of thousands of species that have undergone rapid range shifts inline with warming. Birds, insects, plants, fungi, viruses, bacteria etc don’t have political agendas, don’t know about data or models, but they do respond to climate change.

  32. Mike,
    Being an idiot does not need you have to prove it. Word up to the wise. But I suppose it will be disregarded in this instance.

  33. “The IPCC claims that only the rise in anthropogenic greenhouse gases can explain the warming over the past 30 years. ”
    Wrong. The IPCC attributes more than half of the warming to GHG.
    ENSO does not explain warming. It can’t. Its like saying a pattern of warming causes warming
    That’s not an explanation. That’s an observation put into other terms.

  34. Mike;
    But all that aside, my challenge to anyone here who thinks the climate hasn’t warmed is to explain the tens of thousands of species that have undergone rapid range shifts inline with warming.>>>
    Care to name them? Or just 100 of the tens of thousands? How about ten?

  35. Really, ENSO is a pattern of warming. OK, then what causes ENSO. GHG doesn’t cause warming either. Obviously the sun causes the vast majority of global warming. So then, what’s your point?

  36. Mike;
    I wonder how many of the tradespeople commenting here would appreciate someone unqualified in the trade coming behind them and telling them they are doing it wrong? >>>>
    I wonder if you know how many of the people commenting here are physicists, chemists, engineers, statisticians and other areas of study that are directly applicable to climate issues. As for your poor regard for tradespeople, keep in mind that they have actual value to society and their expertise is based largely on real world experience that may be relied upon to understand exactly what works and what doesn’t for a very broad range of applications. If they should come along and tell you, an ecologist, that you are doing it wrong, you might want to listen to their reasoning. Not that many of them will bother as you have quite completely discredited yourself with the tens of thousands of species changing their range claim.

  37. Mike;
    It never ceases to amaze me the so many of the people in the camp opposed to the consensual view of AGW think that sitting down with Excel opened up in front of them and punching out a few graphs somehow even qualifies as science>>>
    What do you call coming up with a 1000 year temperature reconstruction based 50% on a single tree? Is that science? Do you support Dr Briffa’s work in that regard? What do you call doing a 1000 year temperature reconstruction using some of the data inverted from the rest? Do you support Dr Mann’s methodology? What about Dr Mann’s computer program that demonstrably drew a hockey stick graph regardless of what climate data is was used on? Is that the type of science that you support? Do you support truncating 50 years of tree ring data because it didn’t match the temperature record, while insisting that for the 900 years previous when there was no temperature record to compare to, it was accurate? Do you support that science too?
    Sadly Mike, Excel happens to be a useful tool for drawing graphs. It makes sloppily assembled data based on poor data gathering practices and bogus analysis techniques look credible. If you think the criticisms of AGW “science” are just from punching out some graphs in Excel, you misunderstand both Excel and the comments about the science.

  38. I thought the main purpose of the adjustments from HadCRUT3 to HadCRUT4 was to make 2010 warmer than 1998. As I recollect from another observer they achieved that objective. Surely to have 1998 as the warmest year after 12 years was intolerable.

  39. “Surely to have 1998 as the warmest year after 12 years was intolerable.” Should be 14 years I guess.

  40. Dear Mike Apr 17 10:07pm
    You didn’t need to go to the trouble of posting such a long tedious diatribe. All you had to do was link to this.

    Your argument in a nutshell.

  41. John Peter says:
    April 17, 2012 at 11:35 pm
    Surely to have 1998 as the warmest year after 14 years was intolerable.

    Good point! But why did all the polar amplification just amplify the years from 2001 to 2010 but neglect to amplify 1998? That is what I find puzzling. Are we now going to believe records with UHI issues, surface station issues and adjustments or the satellite data?
    According to the two satellite records.
    RSS
    1 {1998, 0.55},
    2 {2010, 0.476},
    3 {2005, 0.334}.
    UAH
    1 {1998, 0.428},
    2 {2010, 0.414},
    3 {2005, 0.253}.

  42. Andres Valencia says:
    April 17, 2012 at 4:19 pm
    I hope HADCRUT4 will available at WoodForTrees soon!

    So do I! Note also that we were given yearly averages only and not monthly ones like WoodForTrees usually uses. In the meantime, I have come up with the following. I have combined hadsst2 and crut4 and found where the positive and negative anomlies are about equal. This occurs at about 10.75 years ago. This assumes a 50/50 split. Note also that crut4 only goes to December 2010. So unless hadsst3 is really surprising, I would guess that 10.75 years of no global warming is in the ball park for the new Hadcrut4 as a conservative estimate. See
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1995/offset:0.34/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2001.5/to/trend/offset:0.34/plot/crutem4vgl/from:1995/plot/crutem4vgl/from:2001.5/trend

  43. A couple of TV points:
    richard verney says (April 17, 2012 at 6:09 pm)
    I watched te same BBC documentary on climate change and the Old Kingdom, and heartily recommend it. What was most interesting was the scientists talking about a natural 1500-year cycle for Little Ice Ages, and the brilliant way they found evidence by looking at how far south in the Atlantic melting icebergs had dropped Icelandic volcanic ash to the seabed. This was joined-up climate reconstruction at it’s best.
    Mike says (April 17, 2012 at 10:07 pm)
    “Amazing. I wonder how many of the tradespeople commenting here would appreciate someone unqualified in the trade coming behind them and telling them they are doing it wrong?”
    In the UK we have programs (such as ‘Rogue Traders’) where honest experts expose the shenanigans of their less competent or ethical fellows with the aid of hidden cameras. Enough said.

  44. In response to my statement, “The IPCC claims that only the rise in anthropogenic greenhouse gases can explain the warming over the past 30 years, ” Steven Mosher says: “Wrong. The IPCC attributes more than half of the warming to GHG.”
    What I wrote was correct, Steven. The IPCC AR4 Working Group 1 Summary for Policymakers, page 10, top paragraph in the right-hand column reads:
    “Warming of the climate system has been detected in changes of surface and atmospheric temperatures in the upper several hundred metres of the ocean, and in contributions to sea level rise. Attribution studies have established anthropogenic contributions to all of these changes. The observed pattern of tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling is very likely due to the combined infl uences of greenhouse gas increases and stratospheric ozone depletion.”
    And in Chapter 9, Section 9.4.1.2 Simulations of the 20th Century, the first paragraph includes:
    “Figure 9.5 shows that simulations that incorporate anthropogenic forcings, including increasing greenhouse gas concentrations and the effects of aerosols, and that also incorporate natural external forcings provide a consistent explanation of the observed temperature record, whereas simulations that include only natural forcings do not simulate the warming observed over the last three decades.”
    Here’s a link to Figure 9.5.
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-9-5.html
    Steven Mosher says: “ENSO does not explain warming. It can’t. Its like saying a pattern of warming causes warming”
    It can’t? For the past 3 years, I’ve been illustrating, animating and explaining how ENSO, as a process, does explain the warming of global sea surface temperatures during the past 30 years. And I’ve never before seen ENSO described as a pattern of warming. NINO3.4 SST anomalies have not warmed in the past 111 years:
    http://i43.tinypic.com/mr3ifb.jpg
    And they haven’t warmed since 1975, the start of the recent warming period.
    http://i44.tinypic.com/jaj5ae.jpg
    How is ENSO a pattern of warming, Steven?

  45. @ Cui Bono
    On the subject of data manipulation, anyone know whether the Icelandic Met Office got a proper reply from GHCN re the outrageous reworking of the Reykjavik temperature data? It’s been 10 weeks now. Did I miss it?
    Not that I know of. I keep in regular touch with Trausti Jonnson at the IMO and I am still waiting for a reply from GHCN as well.
    Seems like Lawrimore is waiting for us to forget it and go away.

  46. Mike if you do not know what an instrument engineer is, let alone does, the your comments are meaningless.
    But let us go back to the crux of the problem, do we have reliable global temperature measurements for present temperatures that we can use as a baseline? My argument is that we do not. There are not enough measurement points and those that we do have are not accurate enough to be claiming that we can measure to the accuracy stated. All we do have is groups of measurements that may give us local trends. This is a start but it can not give us the global picture.
    As for proxy measurements, no baseline means using those proxies to argue for the accuracies stated is pure nonsense, especially more so when stitching different proxies together to create a longer timeline. This is also true for hindcasts. Again proxies are useful and locally can deliver local trends. Ultimately, models are very useful, but only if your data is valid and I am afraid to say that in climate science this means the Emperor has no clothes. No wonder so many engineers are losing respect for climate scientists.

  47. Santer and Schmidt (and IPCC) were only kidding when they stated:

    Tropospheric warming is a robust feature of climate model simulations driven by historical increases in greenhouse gases (1–3). Maximum warming is predicted to occur in the middle and upper tropical troposphere.

    http://climateaudit.org/2008/12/28/gavin-and-the-big-red-dog/
    Where’s the hot spot?
    The “basic physics” also states the stratosphere should be cooling.
    How about it Mosher, what’s wrong with the “theory”?

  48. Folks,
    I’m keen to get HADCRUT4 up on WFT rather more timely than I did CRUTEM4 (ahem)… But CRU doesn’t have it on its data page yet (http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/) in their standard format so I need to write a new filter format.
    I *think* what I want to compare to HADCRUT3/GISTEMP etc. is the second column of the monthly series (global, NH, SH and tropics), described as “the median of the 100 ensemble member time series”. Can anyone confirm this?
    If I were to offer uncertainty values too, which of the many uncertainties described at http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/series_format.html would be the one to go for?
    Thanks
    Paul

  49. beesaman says:
    April 18, 2012 at 4:27 am
    //////////////////////////////////////////////
    In addition, do noy forget that data based upon land temperature measurments does not tell us anything of importance since (i) without taking into account, it is not a metric for energy, and (ii) ot does not tell us what the average temperature was over a sustained period of 24 hours was.
    Just because there might have been a change to Tmax and/or Tmin, it does not necessarily mean that the averafe temperature throughout the day has changed.
    The data sets are not fit for purpose. This is not surprising since the temperature stations and the measurements that they record were never intended for climate research
    If back in the 1970s there concerns as to global warming, step 1 should have been to completely redesign and redeploy a new spatially designed monitoring system which was properly sited and with proper instrumentation which was calibrated to a known standard and which measured temperature and humidity every 5 minutes and which reported its output additionally in Joules.
    Of course, the satelitte system comes nearest to this, nut the warmists generally do not like the satellite data..
    Finally, if one is concerned as to the possibilty of global warming, one would only bother with the oceans. THis is where the energy is. There can be no global warming if the oceans are not warming.

  50. Whoops!!.
    Meant to say:
    “…since (i) without taking into account humidity, it is not a metric for energy…,”

  51. Glad you wrote a book – but why the extra long title? Hate to say it but an extremely long title like that is really going to cut into your book downloads. In a nutshell, your book will be largely ignored except by the readers of this blog. The title you used should have been a subtitle, with a short phrase that catches people’s attention quickly used as the title. I know it sounds shallow but that’s the reality of the publishing business.

  52. OK, on further delving it looks pretty clear the second column is the right one, so (tada) announcing HADCRUT4 on WFT:
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:60/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:60/plot/hadcrut4gl/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/last:360/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/last:360/trend
    This confirms Bob’s trend at 0.17deg/decade over the last 30 years:
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/data/hadcrut4gl/last:360/trend
    Enjoy!
    Paul

  53. Care to name them? Or just 100 of the tens of thousands? How about ten?
    An amusing anecdote associated with this observation. Alligators are a very interesting indicator of local average temperature, because nests cooler than 30C produce all females, nests warmer than 34C produce all males, in a window that is 1 to 3 weeks long during incubation. Given their breeding season, this places strict limits on how far north alligators can range as a self-sustaining population. North Carolina happens to be that limit — native sustaining populations of alligators can be found (in otherwise suitable habitat) roughly from Kitty Hawk in northeast NC to the southeast of an invisible line that cuts diagonally southwest across the state, roughly paralleling the coast (there are rarely alligators seen all the way up to the Virginia border and maybe beyond in the Dismal Swamp). It is close to, but not quite identical to, the line demarking the range of plants like oleander and beugonvillia that are sensitive to frost (and hence die if not protected during a winter in which temperatures regularly drop below freezing). A shaded map of their approximate range can be seen here:
    http://www.herpsofnc.org/herps_of_NC/crocodilians/Allmis/All_mis.html
    I live in Durham about 60-70 miles the west of that line (which is around Goldsboro to the Southeast of here, with a major waterway that extends all the way to the coast (the Neuse River) that runs right beside it and a second one not far away. Raleigh is more like 40-50 miles from it.
    Alligators actually behave like teenagers at some point in their lives — they are inclined to wander far from where they are born to seek out new territory. The westernmost part of their range is thus already beyond the range where they can successfully reproduce as a locally sustained population as nests will produce all females, but there are enough males and females that “diffuse” west before settling on a habitat that you can still find a few gators in the lakes, backwaters and swamplands in the Neuse watershed. I fish in several of waterways around Raleigh and Durham that are directly in line to the coast in this way.
    In 2010 it was big news when a gator was seen swimming in Hope Mills Lake, in Fayetteville NC (again, 80 or so miles to the southeast) but as the article noted, this is in their natural range where they are rare (probably immigrants that can’t sustain a natural population) but not unknown. The reason it was big news was that the lake is in a heavily inhabited area and is used for recreation with lots of swimmers and fishermen, not because it was “unlikely”. If humans didn’t surround the lake it might harbor a permanent (but small) population over time.
    Surveys of their population show that alligators are most common and go farthest inland in the Cape Fear and Neuse waterways, probably because they tend to be surrounded by protected game lands and swampy areas that are natural habitat.
    Back in the 1980s — I can’t do better than that because not even Google can retrieve a contemporary account — it was big news when not one but two alligators showed up in ponds at a golf course in Raleigh. This was before “CAGW” had become a world religion, but there were a couple of summers in the 1980s that were scorchers and a couple of very mild winters as well, and the mild conditions plus the aforementioned wanderlust apparently encouraged these two good sized gators (not babies, these were the real thing) to wander further west than usual looking for new territory. Eventually they were removed.
    Here we are some 30 years later — the 30 years that have supposedly raised global average temperatures by some 0.5 C over almost exactly that interval. That sort of increase would correspond to a westward push of the natural habitat of at least 40 or 50 miles — all that one needs is for one winter in four or five to be in the range that produces both sexes, there is plenty of swampland and waterway (most of it protected) all the way to the coast up the Neuse and Cape Fear watersheds). I keep hoping to see alligators in the lakes I fish in, in the waterways I hike along — and I keep an eye out for them because they are a species that could just turn up by chance far out of place, like the pair at the Raleigh golf course. So do a lot of people. Basically, if anybody spotted a gator in Jordan Lake or Falls Lake or on the Eno river or in the New Hope Creek that runs within a few miles of my house or… it would be huge news, not because it was “proof” of CAGW but because everybody would think it was so cool. Usually one has to go at least near to the coast to have any chance at all of seeing a wild gator in NC, and one really has to get ON the coast or into the swamps on the major waterways OF the coast to have a “good” chance, or to see one casually hanging out on golf courses. Bald Head Island, for example, has a nice population in its golf ponds and sometimes spotted hanging our right on the roads or grassways. There aren’t a lot of them (that I know of) near Beaufort where I teach in the summer but I tend to hang out and fish in the saltwater side of things and they seem to prefer fresh, or at most brackish.
    Anecdotal evidence, to be sure, but still, pretty negatory. We still have frosty, cold, occasionally very snowy winters in my part of NC. Less than a decade ago NC experienced a 100 year record for snowfall with a single fall over 20 inches in Durham. Last winter we started out very cold early, then had a fairly “normal” winter with a few very light snowfalls, then had an arguably unusually warm March (after a normal February). April, if anything, has been normal to cool — we danced along the edge of a late frost last week 2 or 3 nights running, but really it has been unremarkable. There is nothing in this to attract even an unruly alligator teenager — they might be able to build a nest and hibernate through the cold (although it gets quite cold, with temperatures down in the teens F or lower at least a few times most winters) but in most springs — even this “warm” one — the probability of a cool enough stretch to drop average nest temperatures to < 30C (86 F) for a week or more is near certainty. No possibility of a breeding population here, little possibility in Raleigh or even Smithfield or Goldsboro. And we are, sadly, too far upstream for even the most enterprising of alligator pioneers to travel seeking a new home, not even with an exploding beaver population and plentiful fish and reptile and bird population to feed them on the creeks and waterways.
    There are similar bellwethers in many other streams and habitats. Clams that live only in selected waterways, for example. These populations are often at risk, but the risk is from agricultural runoff, other pollution, or land use changes, not so much from significant changes in climate. There are definitely decadal trends in the date of the last frost and so on, but anyone who believes that they are "safely" earlier than they were 30 years ago is an idiot who deserves to lose the tomatoes (totally frost intolerant) they put out too early. As I have remarked on other threads, a mere 15 or 16 years ago (right in the middle of the supposed "warming trend" last frost at MY house in NC was at the end of the first week in May! This was so late that it killed off my azaleas, let along wiped out my tomatoes, my fruit crop, and damaged the newly leafed trees. April 15th is the usual “last frost” day for the area, but there are years where it occurs in the last weeks of March (and I’ve gotten away with putting tomatoes in 4/1) and years where it occurs in the last weeks of April or even into May as noted.
    Anyone who isn’t an idiot in statistics can guestimate the variance of the date of last frost even from this (still anecdotal) data. The actual date of last frost is distributed around the mean date with a standard deviation of perhaps ten days or even two weeks, making two week excursions either way unremarkable. This also means that resolving the motion of the mean by days or even a week over 30 years of data is basically impossible. Trends are lost in an indistinguishable from noise on all time scales, especially when the secular trends themselves are probably signal from long period secular variation due to e.g. the phase of the PDO and state of the Sun.
    rgb

  54. dmmcmah: Thanks for the insight about book titles. Too late now, unfortunately. I’ll definitely keep that in mind when I’m working on a title for my second book, one about ENSO. How about…
    ENSO* – The Overlooked Driver of Global Climate
    *El Niño-Southern Oscillation

  55. woodfortrees (Paul Clark) says:
    April 18, 2012 at 9:41 am
    OK, on further delving it looks pretty clear the second column is the right one, so (tada) announcing HADCRUT4 on WFT

    Thank you very much!
    After analysing the data, I have come to the conclusion that according to HADCRUT4, there has been no global warming for 11 years and 4 months, going back to December 2000. HADCRUT4 only goes to December 2010 so I had to be a bit creative. What I did was plot HADCRUT3 from December 2000 to December 2010. Then I plotted HADCRUT3 from December 2000 to the present. The DIFFERENCE in slope was 0.00607 – 0.00165 = 0.00442 lower for the latter. The postive slope for HADCRUT4 was 0.00408. So IF HADCRUT4 were totally up to date, I conclude it would show no slope for at least 11 years and 4 months. (It could be a month longer if the February anomaly for HADCRUT3 of 0.19 is ever officially published. On the basis of what GISS says about March, March would not change things either.) See:
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000/to/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000.9/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2000/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2000.9/to:2011/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2000.9/trend

  56. When did the “earth’s temperature” with respect to climate get defined?
    If your measuring a system for long term function like climate, why measure the dynamic boundary layers? The earth’s temperature for the purposes of climate is a function of the enourmous heat sinking oceans. The air temperature is driven dynamically and non-homogenously by wind, clouds, and sun – it is weather.
    It’s like we are trying to measure the temperature of a pot of water on the stove using an IR radiometer across the bubbling surface, versus the trendline of a couple of dispersed thermocouples in the pot.

  57. Why does HADCRUT4 cut off in 2010? Was the whole point of HADCRUT4 simply to bump the trend? Lolz.

  58. Phil says: “Why does HADCRUT4 cut off in 2010?”
    The likely hold up is the HADSST3 portion. The Hadley Centre is working out some problems with getting the data updated in a timely manner.

  59. Werner: “Is it possible for any one to check over some specific numbers that seem way off? What really sticks out like a sore thumb is the difference between January 2007 on HADCRUT3 versus January 2007 on HADCRUT4.”
    I’ve checked the 2007.0 values manually against the original sources and WFT is passing them through correctly.
    Cheers
    Paul

Comments are closed.