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:
I hope HADCRUT4 will available at WoodForTrees soon!
Andres Valencia says: “I hope HADCRUT4 will available at WoodForTrees soon!”
I hope it becomes available at the KNMI Climate Explorer soon:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/selectfield_obs.cgi?someone@somewhere
There’s many more ways to examine the data at KNMI!
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.
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
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
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.
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”
firetoice says:
April 17, 2012 at 11:50 am
James Sexton @ur momisugly 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!
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.
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…
@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)..
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.
More fun with satellites:
http://noconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/could-instrumentation-drift-account-for-arctic-sea-ice-decline.pdf
So much bias from uncorrected orbital decay data contamination that arctic sea ice is actually probably increasing!!
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.
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.
“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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
“Surely to have 1998 as the warmest year after 12 years was intolerable.” Should be 14 years I guess.
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.
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}.
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