Guest post by Bob Tisdale
What Do Observed Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies and Climate Models Have In Common Over The Past 17 Years?
One word answer: NOTHING!!!!
OVERVIEW
In this post, we’ll compare satellite-based sea surface temperature anomalies (Reynolds OI.v2) for the past 17 years to the multi-model ensemble mean of the climate models that were prepared for the 2007 4th Assessment Report (AR4) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. We’ve already showed how poorly the models simulate the warming rates of the global oceans on an individual ocean basis for the entire 30-year term of the Reynolds OI.v2 sea surface temperature data. Refer to the posts here and here, and more recently here. So the failings of the models come as no surprise. But this post does present something that will come as a surprise to many of you.
The choice of 17 years is based on the Santer et al (2011) paper, Separating Signal and Noise in Atmospheric Temperature Change: The Importance of Timescale. In the abstract, Santer et al (2011) conclude with:
Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature.
Since sea surface temperature anomalies are not as variable as lower troposphere temperature (TLT) anomalies, we’ll assume that 17 years would also be an acceptable timescale to present sea surface temperature anomaly trends on a hemispheric, or greater, basis. This was the foundation for an earlier post that compared models and the same sea surface temperature dataset. And we’ll also divide the oceans into their individual basins to illustrate why I’ve presented, as one combined dataset, the Indian and Pacific Oceans from pole to pole.
While the failings of the models might come as no revelation, something else might—but first a note to build the suspense. Combined, the Indian and Pacific Oceans from pole to pole (90S-90N, 20E-70W) represent about 75% of the surface area of the global oceans. See Figure 1. It’s a map of the global oceans that’s been divided into two sections: the “Indian & Pacific Ocean Plus” and “Atlantic Ocean Plus” where the “Plus” is used to note that the datasets have been extended to the South and North Poles.
Figure 1
Why are we dividing the ocean into those two subsets? Here comes the surprise.
The sea surface temperature anomalies for the combined Indian and Pacific Oceans from pole to pole show basically no warming for the past 17 years. None, nada, zip. See Figure 2. The cooling of the entire Pacific Ocean is strong enough since 1995 and the Pacific is so large that we can merge its data with the still-warming Indian Ocean data and wind up showing the combined dataset has not warmed for 17 years. Again, the Indian and Pacific Oceans represent 75% of the surface of the global oceans and together they have not warmed in 17 years.
Figure 2
Also illustrated in Figure 2 is the multi-model ensemble mean for the IPCC’s climate model simulations of the sea surface temperature anomalies for that portion of the global oceans. The model data continued to climb contentedly skyward, projecting a blistering warming rate in sea surface temperatures for the “Indian and Pacific Oceans Plus” dataset of about 0.151 deg C per decade. That monumental divergence between models and observations for such a large part of the globe is a significant problem for the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming—and for the alarmist proponents who believe in that hypothesis—a hypothesis that makes its presence known only in climate models, not in observational data. Anthropogenic Greenhouse Gases are supposed to force sea surface temperature to warm. The model mean of the climate model simulations of sea surface temperatures presented in this post show the response of the models to that forcing, yet the satellite-based sea surface temperature data for 75% of the global oceans show that they are not reacting to the anthropogenic forcing—not at all. One might think the modelers ought to reevaluate the assumptions they’ve made to divine the effects of greenhouse gases on sea surface temperatures, especially when they consider that 70% of the surface of the Earth is covered by ocean. Their assumptions just aren’t working.
FOR THOSE THINKING THE “ATLANTIC OCEAN PLUS” WILL COME TO THE RESCUE
If you’re for some reason hoping the data for the rest of the global oceans, the “Atlantic Ocean Plus” data, will make up the difference, you’re about to be disappointed. As illustrated in Figure 3, the models are showing a warming rate that’s about 50% higher than what has been observed. That’s not too good. Then when you consider the blatantly obvious model failings for the “Indian & Pacific Ocean Plus” subset, you wonder how the climate-model based anthropogenic global warming charade can continue. Yet it does.
Figure 3
A FEW PRELIMINARY NOTES FOR NEWCOMERS TO MODEL-DATA PRESENTATIONS
The Reynolds OI.v2 sea surface temperature anomaly data is available for download from the NOAA NOMADS website and from the KNMI Climate Explorer. NOAA uses the bases years of 1971-2000 for anomalies. But we’re looking at the period of January 1995 to March 2012 and that extends outside of those base years. The base years are not adjustable at the NOAA NOMADS site, but they are adjustable at the KNMI Climate Explorer. I used the data through the KNMI Climate Explorer so that I could change the base years for anomalies to 1995-2011. This helped to reduce the strong seasonal signal that appears in the data of some ocean basins. The North Pacific (0-65N, 100E-90W) sea surface temperature anomaly data from NOAA, for example, has a very strong seasonal component, as shown in Figure 4. Using the base years of 1995-2011, also illustrated, the seasonal component is drastically reduced. And as shown, the trends are basically the same, so minimizing the additional seasonal component makes no difference to the model-data comparisons in this post. (And yes, the sea surface temperature anomalies of the North Pacific have been cooling for the past 17 years.)
Figure 4
The multi-model mean sea surface temperature dataset is identified as TOS (ocean surface temperature) at the KNMI Climate Explorer and is available through its Monthly CMIP3+ scenario runs webpage. If you were to scroll up to Figure 2, you’ll note that there are major year-to-year variations in sea surface temperature anomalies that don’t appear in the multi-model mean data. Those observed major variations are caused by El Niño events (the upward spikes) and La Niña events (the downward ones). There are a few things to keep in mind about the model-mean data and the resulting curves. They represent the average of the climate model simulations at the CMIP3 archive, which was used in the IPCC’s AR4. There are a couple dozen climate models in the archive and some of the models include multiple simulations. For example, GISS presented 9 simulations (ensemble members) for its Model-ER and 5 ensemble members for its Model-EH. Some of the climate models attempted to model the El Niño-Southern Oscillation; others didn’t. The models that tried to simulate ENSO did a poor job and none of them could match the observed frequencies and magnitudes of El Niño and La Niña events. And since each model simulation has a different frequency and magnitude for their ENSO signals, they are smoothed out when the models are averaged. But that’s a good thing. That leaves a signal that is supposed to represent the forced component of the models, which is why we use the multi-model mean.
The reasons I’m presenting the multi-model mean were discussed in more detail in an earlier post Part 2 – Do Observations and Climate Models Confirm Or Contradict The Hypothesis of Anthropogenic Global Warming?, under the heading of CLARIFICATION ON THE USE OF THE MODEL MEAN. Please refer to that discussion.
MODEL-DATA COMPARISONS FOR THE INDIAN AND PACIFIC OCEANS
As shown in Figure 2, there has been no warming of the “Indian & Pacific Ocean Plus” sea surface temperature anomalies since 1995. That doesn’t mean that one of the individual ocean basins has not warmed. See Figure 5. The Indian Ocean (60S-30N, 20E-120E) sea surface temperature anomalies have warmed, except it’s at a rate that’s about 42% of what was simulated by the IPCC’s climate models. And as noted earlier, the North Pacific data shows that it has cooled. So has the South Pacific (60S-0, 120E-70W). Refer to Figures 6 and 7. Think about that for a moment. Not only has the largest ocean on this planet not warmed in agreement with the models, it’s actually cooled over the past 17 years.
Figure 5
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Figure 6
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Figure 7
THE OTHER OCEAN BASIN THAT’S COOLING
The Southern Ocean (90S-60S) is the ocean “basin” that surrounds Antarctica. It has cooled over the 30-year term of the Reynolds OI.v2 dataset. See the graph here from this post. Since January 1995, the rate at which it’s cooling is even stronger. The difference between the rate that it’s cooling and the rate the climate models say it should be warming is 0.14 deg C/decade.
Figure 8
LET’S NOT FORGET THE OTHER OCEAN BASINS THAT WARMED
At the other end of the planet, the Arctic Ocean (65N-90N) has warmed over the past 17 years at a rate that’s about 2.5 times faster than the model simulations. See Figure 9. Surprisingly, we often hear from climate alarmists that the Arctic is warming faster than projected by climate models, with all of the dire consequences of that warming thrown in heighten the risks they perceive. But the doomsayers are actually heralding yet another failing of the climate models. The observations are the target the models are shooting for, and in the Arctic, the models have missed the planet the target’s nailed to.
Figure 9
In the North Atlantic (0-70N, 80W-0), the observations are warming at a rate that’s about 65% of the rate simulated by the models, Figure 10. And as shown in Figure 11, in the South Atlantic (60S-0, 70W-20E) over the past 17 years, the models are doing remarkably well. There, the trend is only about 31% too high. So we’ll give the modelers a “B-” for one basin.
Figure 10
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Figure 11
AND HOW WELL DO THE MODELS SIMULATE HEMISPHERIC AND GLOBAL SEA SURFACE TEMPERATURES?
In the Northern Hemisphere, Figure 12, according to the models, the sea surface temperatures should be warming about 3.4 times faster than has been observed for the past 17 years. The model performance in the Southern Hemisphere is even worse, Figure 13. There, the models show a warming rate that is about 8.5 times higher than the actual warming rate. In total, for the global oceans, the models have projected a warming that’s 5 times higher than the rate the oceans have actually warmed. The model trend isn’t 50% higher, not twice as high, not three times. The models are off by a factor of 5. Written another way, global sea surface temperatures have warmed at a rate over the past 17 years that’s only 20% of the rate projected by the multi-model mean of the climate models presented to the CMIP3 archive for use by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in its 4thAssessment Report published in 2007.
Figure 12
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Figure 13
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Figure 14
CLOSING
For more than a year, in posts here at Climate Observations and in cross posts at WattsUpWithThat, we have presented and discussed numerous ways in which the climate models show no skill at being able to simulate the warming, or lack thereof, of global surface temperatures. Keep in mind global surface temperature is the metric most commonly used to define global warming.
This post was primarily intended to show that 75% of the surface area of the global oceans, the Indian and Pacific Oceans from pole to pole, has not warmed in 17 years. This lack of warming opposes the continued rise in anthropogenic greenhouse gases—which only appear to make the sea surface temperatures warm consistently in climate models. There’s nothing alarming about the rate at which sea surface temperature anomalies have warmed. In fact, the 30 rise in sea surface temperatures can be explained by natural factors. So the only thing that should be sounding any alarms is the lack of skill shown by the climate models.
IF YOU’D LIKE TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE FAILINGS OF THE IPCC’s CLIMATE MODELS
As illustrated and discussed in If the IPCC was Selling Manmade Global Warming as a Product, Would the FTC Stop their deceptive Ads?, the IPCC’s climate models cannot simulate the rates at which surface temperatures warmed and cooled since 1901 on a global basis, so their failings illustrated in this post are not abnormal.
Additionally, 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 30-year rise in satellite-based 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 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 in pdf form can be found here.
SOURCE
The modeled and observed sea surface temperature data presented in this post are available through the KNMI Climate Explorer:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/selectfield_obs.cgi?someone@somewhere
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Kev-in-Uk:
At April 30, 2012 at 8:14 am you ask me:
“So, in a nutshell – you’re suggesting/saying that what has actually happened is kind of what every real scientist ‘knows’ is likely to have happened, and that is that it has all been one great big fudgeball of modeling? Worse, one set of fudges have been subsequently used and abused by a following model, etc, etc.”
I answer:
Yes, except that I am not “suggesting” it: I am stating it and have provided evidence which proves it.
Richard
Kristoffer Haldrup says: “It is amazing how you, Bob Tisdale, consistently choose not to report error bars on your trends.Why is that?”
I look at my posts as introductions. I present simple and clean graphs for the majority of my readers (and those here at WUWT), most of whom are not technical people. Anyone who wants to carry an investigation further, by adding error bars for example, is more than welcome to take my lead and investigate the data further.
Robbie says: “So Mr. Tisdale: If my ‘not peer-reviewed’ argument would be worn out: Then why are a lot of serious scientists still publishing in peer-reviewed journals? Yes of course: They want their scientific research to be taken seriously in the scientific world.”
Robbie, you miss the blatantly obvious. This is a blog. This is not a scientific journal. I’m a blogger. I’m not a climate scientist. I have no funding source that requires me to publish or perish. If you want to start throwing a couple of hundred grand at me for funding every year that requires me to publish the results of my research, then I’ll start publishing papers.
But I am the one of very few bloggers in the world who graphs and presents sea surface temperature data. I am well known globally for my posts about the process of El Niño-Southern Oscillation. I present data, discuss it, and animate maps of it because it’s dynamic. People around the world learn from my presentations of data.
The reason your argument is old: It adds nothing to the discussion. Why didn’t you go to the source of the data I linked and determine if I was right or wrong? The data shows, when combined as one dataset, the Indian and Pacific Ocean sea surface temperature anomalies for the past 17 years haven’t warmed. That’s the primary subject of this post. Can you show that I was wrong?
Nick Stokes says: “No, it’s not nit-picky. Two important things:
1. Variation of measurements for regions is higher. You have to wait longer to get a statistically significant result.”
The variability of sea surface temperature data is significantly less than TLT data. The primary topic of this post is the flatness of the Indian and Pacific Ocean subset (90S-90N, 20E-70W), and it represents 75 % of the surface of the global oceans, 75.5% if you want to get nitpicky. The rest of the data is presented because, if I hadn’t presented it, I would have been accused of hiding something. I learned that long ago.
I keep hearing people complain about statistically significant results but no one has bothered to determine if they are for the Indian and Pacific dataset. So I take it as a lot of blown smoke.
You continued, “2. Many physical processes are oscillatory on various scales, in space and time. Models can hope to get the nature of the oscillation right, but will always struggle with phase…”
The models first have to get the processes right. And they are nowhere near being able to manage that with ENSO. Some may be getting better, but as a whole, they’re still at pathetic level. Refer to the discussion of the Lin (2007) paper upthread.
Regards
At the conference in Chicago a couple of years back, there was a presentation on the heat flow patterns in the Pacific. It demonstrated a, roughly IIRC, 18 year time lag from a cooling or warming spike into the center of the Pacific, and when that band of temperatures eventually reached Alaska.
Given that, I would expect that it will be a while before the full impact of cold is felt in the Arctic. ( One might presume a similar pattern for the Atlantic, but with different time constants due to different size and currents).
In 1998 or so we had our peak. A bit later a cold dagger of south polar water ran up the coast of Chile and out into the center of the Pacific. At the time, I noted that there was now a timer running before the Global Warming rant about heating in the Arctic and Canada would run into a coldening North Pacific.
IMHO, these graphs show that initial cold plunge in the Southern Ocean, then the “fall off a cliff” in the North Pacific about 2008, 2011. There’s also an interesting “Spike and plunge” in 1998 / 2000 that is often seen in stock charts. (It’s a natural artifact of many systems. When riding a bike, for example, to turn right, the handlebars are first deflected just a tiny bit left first, that then leans the bike and you enter a right hand turn, the handlebars are then adjusted right to balance the turn. Learning to do that counter intuitive ‘right then left’ is why so many kids fall over when learning to ride a bike… It is taught as a deliberate awareness in motorcycle classes as a 1000 lb superbike does not respond as much to body lean and the handlebars become much more important to understand…) To me that “pop and drop” is the signature event of a major reversal.
Then we get the 18 year time lag to full effect. Call it 2016. Mark your calendars…
BTW, I can only wonder if we did a little study of the Indian Ocean if we might find a longer time period for the Pacific / Southern ocean cold to make it to that ocean. Once that happens, the whole system is in dramatic cooling.
As that cold spike headed up the Chilean coast, it had to suck other water down to the Southern Ocean to replace it. That water would have come from oceans fronting on the Southern Ocean, which would then have pulled other water into those oceans. IFF that water came from the Indian Ocean and / or the South Atlantic, those oceans would have gained replacement water from warmer areas more north (or East in the case of the Indian ocean – from the mid-Pacific…)
IF that has some truth to it, one would expect the Indian and South Atlantic oceans to follow the cooling of the Pacific with some years of time lag. So I’m putting down a “Watch This Space” marker. By 2020 both of those oceans ought to be showing significant cooling trends.
That’s the point where AGW as a thesis is “deep sixed”… as it will be obvious to everyone we’re in a dramatic coldening process of multi decadal length.
This speculation would benefit from looking at an actual map of ocean currents, where they come from and where the go to.
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/8q_1.html
Makes it look like the North Indian ocean is a bit isolated with a circulating warm current, so slow to cool. South Atlantic looks to be fed from the Southern Ocean with the North Atlantic a bit isolated (so it ought to lag, too – just NOW getting a warm spike like that seen in the Pacific and Southern back in 1998; so I’d guess about a 10 to 12 year lag).
So a ‘first blush’ look at that (simplified and maybe just surface currents) map would seem to offer some confirmation of the idea. One would also speculate that Australia and the Pacific Islands ought to show the cold turn very rapidly. Wonder if it’s been cold Down Under lately… Any tendency to cold on the West Coast would imply a cooling Indian Ocean ‘on the way’ as the Southern Ocean current has to pass by there first.
Last on the list looks to be Eastern USA / Southern Europe. (Gee, hasn’t it been cold on the West Coast of the USA and warm on the East Coast… I think maybe this thesis ‘has legs’… certainly enough for a ‘dig here!’…)
It would be interesting to plot AMO vs PDO and European / African thermometers vs West Coast USA / Australia / Chile thermometers and see if there is a decade or so ‘offset’ between peaks and valleys. (Another “dig here!”)…
Simple to check, interesting if it plays out…
Robbie says:
April 29, 2012 at 1:32 pm
Haha. Laughable! At least Santer is publishing in peer-reviewed magazines and thus contributing in the scientific discussion. As it should be done the right and scientific way….
_____________________________
Don’t make me laugh.
Scientists and peer-reviewed magazines have lost all credibility so why would Mr Tisdale want to waste his time on the bafflegab that now passes for “Science”
Scientific “trustworthiness” is at a low ebb.
Also as can be seen in many papers discussed here peer-reviewed papers are often Bafflegab because “Bafflegab Pays”
Dick Pothier wrote an article based on Armstrong’s papers.
Dr. J Scott Armstrong’s full paper: http://marketing.wharton.upenn.edu/ideas/pdf/armstrong2/bafflegab.pdf [The full paper seems to have been removed]
So much for the high esteem some place in “peer-reviewed” papers and lofty sounding bafflegab.
Hi Bob
You are still wrong.
If you will go to the last 12 years you might find that earth has actually been cooling.
get a few people good at stats and check my results
http://www.letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here
I don’t want to scare you guys but if I take my plot of the drop in maxima to its best case scenario
(linear drop) forward to today, we could already be cooling at about 0.04 degrees C per annum.
In the worst case, if
y= 0.0454 ln(x)-0.1278 (R2=0.994) is true
we could already be cooling at a rate of ca. 0.1 degrees C or K per annum.
Adding more CO2 to the atmosphere won’t help much, I am afraid,
as only a few people will understand.
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-principle-of-re-radiation-11-Aug-2011
Steven Mosher: Allow me to rephrase my original question, and comment on a few points:
The question I really wanted answered was more like: Is the (weighted by area naturally) average sea surface temperature trend significantly different from the average of such in models?
You essentially objected to the nature of my early question because it was not fair to the models, expecting them to get too many degrees of freedom of the system correct, am I right? Well, this is a MUCH easier target, and should we not expect models to be able to get the overall average trends correct?
Also, you hinted that you think that on average the difference won’t be a statistically significant. Well, okay, could you maybe work that out? Or somebody else? I just wanted to know.
Finally: Of course the models do better than a “naive” model (I assume this means a constant value, the time average) it would be hard not to. But that is not an interesting question. Well, maybe it is to you since I get the impression you are used to dealing with people you probably would think that the models wouldn’t do better than time average. You naturally assumed, I think, that, since I commented on this site, I must be someone who, say, doubts whether there are any real trends at all. However you are dealing with someone significantly more nuanced than that now. I just want to know, we observe trends that are not exactly equal to the “expected” trends, but just how is the difference really? If it is sufficiently large relative to the kind of differences that arise by chance, then the models probably need to be tweaked. Notice I say “tweaked” not “thrown out”. The models are approximately correct to some order: there are coefficients which require better estimation, and of course better models would be of higher order. Taylor approximations of the “true” mathematical system, more or less. What level of approximately correct is acceptable depends on the situation, of course. In fact, I would prefer that the question of how signficant the differences are be answered in P values, rather reject/fail to reject at fixed signifcance.
Gail Combs says:
April 30, 2012 at 12:58 pm
The lecture was comprised of double talk, meaningless words, false logic, contradictory statements, irrelevant humor, and meaningless references to unrelated topics.
The very essence of Post-Modernism!
Dr Fox was a PoMo.
HenryP says: “You are still wrong.”
I’m not right or wrong, HenryP. I’ve simply presented satellite-based data that shows for the coordinates of 90S-90N, 20E-70W that sea surface temperature anomalies have not warmed over the past 17 years. Are you saying the satellite data is wrong, HenryP?
You continued, “If you will go to the last 12 years you might find that earth has actually been cooling.”
That’s not the time period discussed in this post and cannot be the basis for a statement that I’m somehow wrong.
E.M.Smith: Regarding your April 30, 2012 at 12:18 pm comment, was the topic of discussion a Rossby wave after the 1982/83 El Nino that didn’t arrive until the 1990s and was shown to be impacting climate in the NW Pacific? I recall a paper about that.
Robbie: Further to my April 30, 2012 at 10:49 am reply to you, refer to the linked post that discusses how you can verify the key graph of this post:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/04/30/how-you-can-confirm-the-sst-anomalies-for-the-indian-and-pacific-ocean-subset-have-not-warmed-for-17-years/
Bob Tisdale says:
Are you saying the satellite data is wrong, HenryP?
Henry@Bob
why, yes, essentially.
there are two problems.
Thank heavens you have correctly figured that a turning point was arrived 17 years ago,
(2011-17=1994), see
http://www.letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here
but since then we are still looking at extremely small changes in temps. In fact, I calculated that from 2000 we cooled by about 0.2 degrees K, in the atmosphere, on average, globally.. It probably won’t even show yet in the SST’s.
Can you give me any indication of the precision and accuracy of your instruments on board the satellites and how and at what intervals they are calibrated?
The method I used is less dependent on calibration as I looked at the average differences between measurements.
I will bet with you that my observations of surface temps, i.e. the statistical analysis of the data from the weather stations, especially the Maxima, are a better indication of what is happening now.
The plot for the further drop in Maxima, if I take it to the present time, is a bit frightening, is it not?
A tad OT but IMS gobal sea ice is in record territory for the last decade or so:
http://www.natice.noaa.gov/ims/images/ims_data.jpg
and the northern hemisphere SSTs are looking somewhat chilly:
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom_new.gif
When the stars threw down their spears,
And watered heaven with their tears,
was meant to be a reference (by Blake) to Svensmark…
HenryP says: “Bob Tisdale says:
Are you saying the satellite data is wrong, HenryP?
Henry@Bob
why, yes, essentially.”
Well then, I suggest you take it up with NOAA and stop telling me that I’m wrong, when I’ve simply presented NOAA data. Having someone tell me I’m wrong, when I’m not, doesn’t sit well with me.
Regards
Henry@Bob Tisdale
Sorry, Bob. I do apologize. I did not mean it (“wrong”) personal. I said I doubted the data, that is telling you and me that there has been no change for the last 17 years.
First of all, if we look at this graph,
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/orssengo3.png
you will note that there are peaks up (warming) and down (cooling). It more or less follows the sine curve. Therefore, from a mathematical and statistical point of view there is only a way up and a way down. Either we are cooling or we are warming. If it shows a straight line you can be sure to begin to doubt the results (calibration??) or that someone is fiddling with them, because the pattern of the weather never follows a straight line…..
Currently, my results, that were established independently from orrsengo, are showing a sharp drop in maxima, from 1994, meaning we are cooling.We see the same happening in the Orssengo graph, but for some reason(???) the cooling stopped when the IPCC came with their graph (green line).
Yet my own data seem to suggest that the cooling has not stopped.
So, I ask again, what I asked before, about the accuracy and precision of the data, if you do have some information about this. I am very interested in finding out and I am guessing you are too..
If you don’t know or don’t have any details, just say.
@Bob Tisdale:
The time delay in the Pacific to which I referred was a lag in propagation of surface water temperatures. I think it was due to the time it took for bands of water to move from the central Pacific (where they arrive from along the coast of Chile / Peru) to work their way all the way up to Alaska.
My notes from here:
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/05/17/iccc-day-two/
say:
Hope that helps…
Bob: The AR4 says there will be 0.2 C temp increase per decade in GMT
and HALF OF IT (0.1 C) results from the SLOWNESS in heat release
from the OCEANS…..
…… You wrote nothing about the slowness in ocean heat release which
produces this o.1 C per decade….
I can quote the original IPCC AR4 text…..if you like. The slowness, as I
see it, would be the excess heat stored in the 1990’th being released
in the 2ooo-2010 decade…..
Your comment….?
JS
Joachim Seifert says: “Bob: The AR4 says there will be 0.2 C temp increase per decade in GMT
and HALF OF IT (0.1 C) results from the SLOWNESS in heat release
from the OCEANS…..
…… You wrote nothing about the slowness in ocean heat release which
produces this o.1 C per decade….”
No reason to discuss it. I presented the model mean of the simulations of sea surface temperature from the archive the IPCC used for AR4. The models should be what they’re basing their prediction on. Or are they making predictions without referring to the models?
E.M.Smith: Thanks for the link.
Regards
HenryP says: “I said I doubted the data, that is telling you and me that there has been no change for the last 17 years.”
There’s nothing wrong with the Reynolds OI.v2 sea surface temperatuyre dataset.
“First of all, if we look at this graph,
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/orssengo3.png”
That’s irrelevant. Global Land Plus Surface Temperature data is not being discussed. Why’d you link it?
Henry P: Sorry. I put some quote marks on the second sentence in the above comment but didn’t attribute it. Let me correct that and add to it.
Henry P says: “First of all, if we look at this graph,
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/orssengo3.png”
That’s irrelevant. Global Land Plus Surface Temperature data is not being discussed. It’s also a curve-fitting exercise that does not represent the actual variability of the HADCRUT dataset. Why’d you link it?