(Image Credit: WoodForTrees.com)
By Werner Brozek, edited and with introduction by WUWT regular “Just The Facts”
Your help is needed in building a regular temperature trend analysis for WUWT. With much attention being focused on how much warming, or lack thereof, has occurred in Earth’s recent past (1, 2, 3, 4) it seems worthwhile to establish a regular update that provided a consummate summary of the key temperature records and their associated trends. Fortunately, WUWT regular Werner Brozek has been compiling just such an update and posting it in comments on WUWT and Roy Spencer’s website. As such, we would like to present an expanded version of Werner’s analysis for your input and scrutiny, before finalizing the content and form of these regular updates. As such, please review the following and lets us know, if it appears to be factually accurate, what you think of the layout, what you think of the content, if you think certain links should be images or images should instead be links, any additional improvements that can be made. There are few additional specific questions included in Werner’s analysis below. Thank you for your input. JTF
—
Temperature Trend Analysis
By Werner Brozek
This analysis has three section covering 6 data sets, including GISS, Hadcrut3, Hadsst2, Hadcrut4, RSS and UAH:
Section 1, provides the furthest date in the past where the slope is a least slightly negative.
Section 2, provides the longest time for which the warming is NOT significant at the 95% level.
Section 3, provides rankings of various data sets assuming the present ranking stays that way for the rest of the year.
Section 1
This analysis uses the latest date that data is available on WoodForTrees.com (WFT) to the furthest date in the past where the slope is a least slightly negative. So if the slope from September is 4 x 10^-4 but it is – 4 x 10^-4 from October, I give the time from October so no one can accuse me of being less than honest if I say the slope is flat from a certain month.
On all data sets, the different times for a slope that is at least very slightly negative ranges from 8 years and 3 months to an even 16 years.
1. UAH Troposphere Temperature: since October 2004 or 8 years, 3 months (goes to December)
2. NASA GISS Surface Temperature: since May 2001 or 11 years, 7 months (goes to November)
3. Wood For Trees Temperature Index: since December 2000 or 11 years, 9 months (goes to August)
4. Hadley Center (HadCrut3) Surface Temperature: since May 1997 or 15 years, 7 months (goes to November)
5. Hadley Center (HADSST2) Sea Surface Temperatures: since March 1997 or 15 years, 8 months (goes to October)
6. RSS Troposphere Temperature: since January 1997 or 16 years (goes to December) RSS is 192/204 or 94% of the way to Ben Santer’s 17 years.
7. Hadley Center (Hadcrut4) Surface Temperature: since December 2000 or an even 12 years (goes to November.)
Here they are illustrated graphically;
you can recreate the graph directly here.
Here is an alternate graphical illustration;
you can recreate the graph directly here.
(Which of these illustrations do you prefer? Are they too cluttered to include in one graph? If so, how can we make this more user friendly?)
Section 2
For this analysis, data was retrieved from SkepticalScience.com. This analysis indicates for how long there has not been significant warming at the 95% level on various data sets.
For RSS the warming is NOT significant for 23 years.
For RSS: +0.130 +/-0.136 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990
For UAH, the warming is NOT significant for 19 years.
For UAH: 0.143 +/- 0.173 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
For Hacrut3, the warming is NOT significant for 19 years.
For Hadcrut3: 0.098 +/- 0.113 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
For Hacrut4, the warming is NOT significant for 18 years.
For Hadcrut4: 0.098 +/- 0.111 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
For GISS, the warming is NOT significant for 17 years.
For GISS: 0.113 +/- 0.122 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1996
(Note that we have concerns with using data from SkepticalScience.com, however we have not identified another source for this data. Does anyone know of a reliable alternative source where these data points can be readily accessed?)
Section 3
This section provides the latest monthly anomalies in order from January on. The bolded one is the highest for the year so far. I am treating all months equally and adding all anomalies and then dividing by the total number of months. This should not make a difference to the relative ranking at the end of the year unless there is a virtual tie between two years. After I give the average anomaly so far, I say where the year would rank if the anomaly were to stay that way for the rest of the year. I also show the warmest year on each data set along with the warmest month ever recorded on each data set. Then I show the previous year’s anomaly and rank.
The 2011 rankings for GISS, Hadcrut3, Hadsst2, and Hadcrut4 can be deduced through each linked source.
The latest rankings for UAH can be found here.
The rankings for RSS to the end of 2011 can be found here. (Others may also be found here)
With the UAH anomaly for December at 0.202, the average for the twelve months of the year is (-0.134 -0.135 + 0.051 + 0.232 + 0.179 + 0.235 + 0.130 + 0.208 + 0.339 + 0.333 + 0.282 + 0.202)/12 = 0.16. This would rank 9th. 1998 was the warmest at 0.419. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.66. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.130 and it will come in 10th.
With the GISS anomaly for November at 0.68, the average for the first eleven months of the year is (0.32 + 0.37 + 0.45 + 0.54 + 0.67 + 0.56 + 0.46 + 0.58 + 0.62 + 0.68 + 0.68)/11 = 0.54. This would rank 9th if it stayed this way. 2010 was the warmest at 0.63. The highest ever monthly anomalies were in March of 2002 and January of 2007 when it reached 0.89. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.514 and it will come in 10th assuming 2012 comes in 9th or warmer.
With the Hadcrut3 anomaly for November at 0.480, the average for the first eleven months of the year is (0.217 + 0.194 + 0.305 + 0.481 + 0.473 + 0.477 + 0.445 + 0.512+ 0.514 + 0.491 + 0.480)/11 = 0.417. This would rank 9th if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.548. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in February of 1998 when it reached 0.756. One has to back to the 1940s to find the previous time that a Hadcrut3 record was not beaten in 10 years or less. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.340 and it will come in 13th.
With the Hadsst2 anomaly for October at 0.428, the average for the first ten months of the year is (0.203 + 0.230 + 0.241 + 0.292 + 0.339 + 0.351 + 0.385 + 0.440 + 0.449 + 0.428)/10 = 0.336. This would rank 9th if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.451. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in August of 1998 when it reached 0.555. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.273 and it will come in 13th.
With the RSS anomaly for November at 0.195, the average for the first eleven months of the year is (-0.060 -0.123 + 0.071 + 0.330 + 0.231 + 0.337 + 0.290 + 0.255 + 0.383 + 0.294 + 0.195)/11 = 0.200. This would rank 11th if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.55. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.857. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.147 and it will come in 13th.
With the Hadcrut4 anomaly for November at 0.512, the average for the first eleven months of the year is (0.288 + 0.208 + 0.339 + 0.525 + 0.531 + 0.506 + 0.470 + 0.532 + 0.515 + 0.524 + 0.512)/11 = 0.45. This would rank 9th if it stayed this way. 2010 was the warmest at 0.54. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in January of 2007 when it reached 0.818. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.399 and it will come in 13th.
Here are the above month to month changes illustrated graphically;
you can recreate the graph directly here.
Appendix
In addition to the layout above, we also considered providing a summary for each temperature record, as is illustrated below for RSS. Please let us know if you find this format to be adventurous/preferred as compared to the category breakout above, and also please let us know if there are any additional analyses that might be valuable to incorporate.
RSS
1. With the RSS anomaly for November at 0.195, the average for the first eleven months of the year is (-0.060 -0.123 + 0.071 + 0.330 + 0.231 + 0.337 + 0.290 + 0.255 + 0.383 + 0.294 + 0.195)/11 = 0.200. This would rank 11th if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.55. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.857. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.147 and it will come in 13th.
The rankings for RSS to the end of 2011 can be found here.
2. RSS has a flat slope since January 1997 or 16 years (goes to December). See:
Recreate graph here.
3. For RSS the warming is NOT significant for 23 years.
For RSS: +0.130 +/-0.136 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990
See here.
Put in 1990 for the start date; put in 2013 for the end date; click the RSS button; then calculate.
About the Author: Werner Brozek was working on his metallurgical engineering degree using a slide rule when the first men landed on the moon. Now he enjoys playing with new toys such as the WFT graphs. Werner retired in 2011 after teaching high school physics and chemistry for 39 years.
—
Please let us know your thoughts and recommendations in comments below. Thanks Werner & Just The Facts
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Lower up says: ” This means the mechanism for AGW is valid.” With the use of “the” you assume that it Is the primary/only source for warming. In light of the various graphs shown in this article and the comments, how do you explain the obvious divergence?
If you believe it is one of several possible sources for warming, then give us some rankings and actual empirical evidence of each of their numeric impacts.
Friends:
I pointed out that ‘Lower up’ was soundly trounced in the thread at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/04/the-dr-david-viner-moment-weve-all-been-waiting-for-a-new-snow-record/
and, therefore, his repetition of the same refuted points should be ignored as a disruption of this thread.
‘Lower up’ says he was not trounced and his assertions were not refuted.
He was and they were.
To avoid repetition of the discussion of that thread in this thread, and to save people needing to refer back to that thread, I copy here a summarising post I provided on that thread.
Richard
==============
richardscourtney says:
January 6, 2013 at 6:48 am
D Böehm :
At January 6, 2013 at 5:44 am you say
Yes. You, I and David M Hoffer have repeatedly said that.
I provide an analogy in case there are any who fail to understand the matter.
A stone thrown into the ocean displaces some water and, therefore, raises sea level. Children throw stones into the sea every day, so children are raising sea level. But the effect of those stones on sea level is too small to be discernible. The effect of the stones is trivially small because it is insignificant against the natural variations in sea level (caused by surface waves, tides, seismic variations, ocean spreading, etc.). Hence, for all practical purposes children throwing stones into the sea can be said to not raise sea level although theoretically it does. Indeed, no sane person would stop children throwing stones into the ocean for fear of the resulting sea level change.
But ‘Lower up’ says (first at January 4, 2013 at 11:40 pm) that he will not accept there is no AGW unless it is shown that his “four facts” are incorrect; viz.
Thereafter, he pretends that we accept AGW is a real and present effect because we don’t dispute his so-called facts but point out that any such AGW is trivially small and indiscernible against natural variations.
His pretence is daft.
It has equal merit to his being asked if he disputes that children throwing stones in the sea causes sea level rise, and when he replies it is trivially small and indiscernible against natural variations, his being told he admits child-induced sea level rise is a real and present effect.
Richard
richardcourtney,
Yes, ‘Lower up’ cannot see his error. He states that “the greenhouse effect increases as the concentration increases.”
That is wrong, of course. The effect clearly decreases with added CO2. But some people are so captive to their belief system that they cannot see reality.
DBoehm, you are not telling the truth for the simple fact that the temperature does not go below the x axis in your graph as the concentration of carbon dioxide increases.
You have simply miss understood your own graph and you persist in repeating your incorrect conclusion. Why?
Richard, your acceptance of a mechanism for AGW is a relief.
You then state it is trivial and use an apology of a child throwing stones into the sea. I am interested in understanding your logic in how you come to this conclusion? Could you provide your evidence please?
Corev, please show me where I have said it is the only CO2 is the only source of temperature change. Stop making things up.
My thoughts on matter are that it is a complex system, that is why each day and each year doesn’t have the same weather.
That is why you have to look at trends in change and to look at that meaningfully you use stats.
In light of the graphs, I will answer your question when you show me what has happened over a significantly significant period of time. The graphs don’t extend long enough to say what the trend in temperature is.
Lower up says
Oh dear, when discussing the mechanism behind AGW,
Henry says
on the off chance that you are not in fact trying to hi jack this thread, I show you here that nobody has in fact proven – in the correct dimensions – that the net effect of more CO2 in the atmosphere is that of warming rather than that of cooling.
I challenge you to answer the questions at the end of this blog post,
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2011/08/11/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-principle-of-re-radiation-11-aug-2011/
namely
From all of this, you should have figured out by now that any study implying that the net effect of more CO2 in the atmosphere is that of warming, must exhibit a balance sheet in the right dimensions showing us exactly how much radiative warming and how much radiative cooling is caused by an increase of 0.01% of CO2 that occurred in the past 50 years in the atmosphere. It must also tell us the amount of cooling caused by the increase in photosynthesis that has occurred during the past 50 years.
There are no such results in any study, let alone in the right dimensions.
Lower up says:
January 9, 2013 at 12:43 pm [ … ]
It is clear that ‘Lower up’ is borderline insane. Against all empirical evidence, ‘Lower up’ wrongly asserts that the greenhouse effect INCREASES as the concentration of carbon dioxide increases. That is flatly contradicted by the facts. In reality, as CO2 rises, it’s warming effect diminishes at a logarithmic rate.
So as everyone except ‘Lower up’ can clearly see: as CO2 concentration increases, it’s effect DECREASES — exactly the opposite of what ‘Lower up’ claims.
Once in a while we run into a lunatic like ‘Lower up’, who cannot grasp simple scientific facts. ‘Lower up’ has no common sense, so he cannot understand that simple chart, which proves conclusively that ‘Lower up’ is wrong. His mental state is such that he cannot admit that the effect of CO2 decreases as the concentration rises; each CO2 molecule has less effect than the preceding one. If ‘Lower up’ admitted the truth, his CO2=CAGW conjecture would be falsified. So he misrepresents the science.
richardscourtney says:
January 5, 2013 at 4:17 am
Lower up:
It is a new dawn and a new day so I have returned.
At January 4, 2013 at 4:56 pm you asked me
At January 4, 2013 at 5:21 pm I replied saying
And at January 4, 2013 at 11:40 pm you replied to that answer by saying to me
“Sort of”!?
Pray tell, what more clear and all-embracing answer could I have given than “ANY”?
I think you need to question your motivations because it seems you are not capable of accepting undeniable truths which do not fit your belief.
Having answered your question I reciprocated by listing some of the evidence that refutes there is any discernible AGW and I asked you
You claim to have answered my question but you have not: instead, you demonstrate that your belief in AGW is not related to evidence but is pure superstition.
You say
I address each of your “facts” in turn.
Your fact 1.
Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, but so what?
Your fact 2.
The atmospheric CO2 concentration is increasing, but so what? This is good for the biosphere.
Your fact 3.
At present levels of atmospheric CO2 concentration any increase to atmospheric CO2 concentration will have trivial increase to the greenhouse effect: the effect on global temperature is so small as to be indiscernible.
Clearly, you are not aware that each additional unit of CO2 added to the air has less effect than its predecessor. This reducing effect is logarithmic. Think of it this way.
Light enters a room through a window. A layer of paint over the window pane reduces the light entering the room. A second layer of paint also reduces the light entering the room but the reduction is less than for the first layer. A third layer has even less effect.
IR from the Earth’s surface is entering space via the atmosphere. CO2 is a greenhouse gas (GHGs) and in the atmosphere it absorbs IR in two narrow wave bands (at 25 micron and 4 micron) with almost all that absorbtion being in the 15 micron band. There is much CO2 in the atmosphere so adding more CO2 has negligible effect on the atmosphere.
Additional atmospheric CO2 has as trivial an effect as adding a seventh layer of paint on the window: see
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0115707ce438970b-pi
and
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/heating_effect_of_co2.png
Your fact 4.
I don’t know what has caused the recent increase to atmospheric CO2 concentration, but I want to know. And anybody who thinks they know is mistaken because available data permits either an anthropogenic or any of several natural causes to be attributed.
(ref. Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005) ).
Hint: you may want to notice the second author in the reference.
Anyway, nature emits 34 molecules of CO2 into the air for each molecule of CO2 emitted by human activities. And CO2 is essential for life on Earth. It is a very strange assertion that a tiny increase will convert the ‘stuff of life’ into the ‘destroyer of worlds’ especially when life flourished on Earth when atmospheric CO2 was much higher than now. Perhaps you would consider how that strange assertion can be justified?
In summation:
1.
I listed some of the evidence which refutes the existence of discernible AGW and I asked you,
“How much more evidence do you need before you reject the AGW-scare?”
2.
You have not mentioned any potential evidence that would cause you to reject the scare.
3.
You have stated ‘facts’ which are not pertinent to the existence of discernible AGW but which you say need to be refuted for you to recant your belief in discernible AGW.
4.
Your “facts” are clearly the foundation of your superstitious belief in discernible AGW which has no supporting evidence and which is denied by much empirical evidence.
You then try to claim that a list of organisations which endorse the AGW-scare somehow indicates the majority of scientists accept AGW. NO! It does not.
Firstly, the number of scientists who accept or reject is a political – not a scientific – point. As Einstein famously said when told that 100 scientists had rejected his “Jewish science”,
“It would only require one of them to provide one piece of evidence if I were wrong.”
Secondly, that organisations endorse AGW is the logical fallacy of ‘Appeal to Authority’. It says nothing about the truth of a matter. Indeed, the great benefit of the Enlightenment was the replacement of statements from Authority with acceptance of empirical evidence.
Thirdly, the organisations represent the ‘interests’ of their members. Governments support AGW so provide funding for AGW research. Few Executive Committees of organisations will make statements which amount to, “Stop funding our members”.
Fourthly, the organisations’ statements are not an indication of what the members of the organisations think. No polls of the members have been taken and when given the opportunity tens of thousands of them have rejected AGW; e.g the Oregon Petition.
And you have been misled about the Oregon Petition. Signatories had to print a response from their computer, personally sign it, then post it by snail-mail at their own expense. Each signatory was then checked individually before being added to the list. Also, those 30,000+ signatories consisted solely of Americans and, therefore, are ‘the tip of the iceberg’.
Fifthly, the Executives of science organisations have been usurped by activists. Richard Lindzen details this – and names names – in a fascinating and shocking paper that can be read at
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/climate-policy/science-and-policy/LindzenClimatescience2008.pdf
Lower up, you really need to learn about the AGW-scare because it seems you have been duped by propagandists.
Richard
I must say I am not impressed by how this thread has been hijacked.
However
D Boehm Stealey says:
January 9, 2013 at 1:19 pm
each CO2 molecule has less effect than the preceding one
Lower up says:
January 8, 2013 at 6:26 pm
As you pointed out the effect diminished at higher concentrations of CO2, but it still increased.
In the above, you are both saying the same thing and you are both right!
Let me put it this way. Suppose the CO2 went up from 280 to 300 and this resulted in the temperature to go up by 0.02 degrees C. Then suppose the CO2 went up from 380 to 400 and this may cause the temperature to go up by only 0.01 C.
Apparently you would both agree with a decrease, whatever its magnitude might be. Right? It is just that D calls 0.01 a decrease from 0.02 and L calls 0.01 an increase over 0.000.
But the bottom line is: Who cares if the earth warms by 0.1 C if CO2 is doubled? Now whether or not the 0.1 for a doubling is correct or not is a matter of debate.
Friends:
My post which is here in this thread at January 9, 2013 at 1:55 pm is a copy of a post I provided to ‘Lower up’ in the thread at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/04/the-dr-david-viner-moment-weve-all-been-waiting-for-a-new-snow-record/
It is one of several posts from several people which explained matters to him in that thread but which – at January 9, 2013 at 12:47 pm – in this thread he claims not to know.
He is either an idiot or a troll. In either case, he disrupted the other thread, and seems to want to disrupt this one.
Richard
Werner Brozek says:
“…you are both saying the same thing and you are both right!”
Does that mean we both get a prize?☺
Anyway, I suppose that means I didn’t make myself clear, so I’ll try again:
Each subsequent CO2 molecule emitted has a smaller warming effect than previous CO2 molecules. It’s the analogy of repeatedly painting a window: each coat of paint lets in less light than the previous coat. Eventually, another coat of paint makes no measurable difference. Thus, the effect of CO2 diminishes as the atmospheric concentration of CO2 rises. Is that better?
[Sorry about the O/T. That eventually happens in most threads as they age.]
DBoehm, much better and a good analogy.
Monckton of Brenchley says:
January 7, 2013 at 3:29 pm
Mr Shehan attributes to me a statement that I did not make. Some 40 per cent of the CO2 in the air is anthropogenic, not the 3 per cent that Mr Shehan attributes to me.
Thank you for the reply. The only sense in which I attributed the 3% to you was in that I found that this sentence was confusing in that it seemed to suggest this and asked for a clarification:
‘Philip Shehan says:
January 7, 2013 at 12:56 pm
Monckton of Benchley says:
“Today’s high CO2 levels – the 97% natural and the 3% human-released”
This may lead people to conclude that human activities have added only 3% to atmospheric CO2. In the interests of clarity, Monckton should point out that the 97% natural contribution refers to CO2 being recycled through the biosphere, whereas the 3% is that added to the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels which has seen the CO2 concentration rise from 280 ppm at the beginning of the industrial revolution to 390 ppm today This is a rise of 39%.’
We are afte rall in agrement that the anthropogenic CO2 content is 40%. As the 97% vs 3% figure is frequently given, and I am sure many other than myself misinterpret this statement, can you explain to me what you understand is meant by it. Can you also suggest an expalnation the other difficulty I had with this:
“I am also unclear about what time period the 3% covers. According to the following sources, the rise in atmospheric carbon was only 2.0 ppm in the decade 2000-2009, which is only a 0.52% rise over that period.”
Thank you again and hoping you can help
Phil, I have been discussing the mechanism behind AGW with several other posters. Two posters (DBoehm and RcihardCourtney) presented the idea that humans contributed a negligible amount CO2 into the atmosphere.
According to the good lord they are incorrect. So another of the four facts underpinning the mechanism for AGW is confirmed.
Lower up:
Your post at January 9, 2013 at 7:49 pm says in total
That explanation and analogy has been presented to you repeatedly on WUWT.
It was first put to you personally by me in another thread days ago. And I copied that post to this thread where it can be seen above at January 9, 2013 at 1:55 pm. The analogy is provided in that post in the answer to your “Your fact 3”.
You are an egregious troll who is deliberately disrupting several WUWT threads by repeatedly posting the same fallacious points and pretending they have not been answered.
GO AWAY!
Richard
Lower up:
Your post at January 10, 2013 at 3:01 am is another example of your posting a fallacious point which has repeatedly been rebutted for you on WUWT.
Stop your egregious disruption of WUWT threads with your nonsense. GO AWAY!
Richard
REPLY: Richard, this is my blog not yours. You are out of line to make that call. The choice is mine, not yours. – Anthony
Anthony:
At January 10, 2013 at 3:36 am you say to me
Of course you are right. I stand corrected and I apologise.
Also, prior to seeing your admonition to me, on another thread I made the same objection to Lower up. I anticipate it being snipped and take no offence in the light of your admonition.
As explanation, my making that call is frustration at Lower Up persistently pretending that points I and others had answered for him had not been made. I need more tolerance of trolls.
Richard
Werner, per my email, the potential changes/additions to this article that you might want to consider include tto:
– Write Title e.g. Monthly Atmospheric Temperature Trend Update – Pause in RSS Satellite Temperature Trend Reaches 16 years.
– Write a brief/paragraph introduction that helps to introduce, explain and summarize what your article shows
– Write a brief/paragraph conclusion that helps to conclude, explain and summarize what your article shows.
– Make the name of each data sources 1 – 7 in Section 1 links to the associate source chart for each data source.
– Adding in a entry for the WFT Index into Section 1
– Using data from KNMI Climate Explorer http://climexp.knmi.nl/selectannualindex.cgi?id=someone@somewhere for Section 2, rather than Skeptical Science, if feasible, per
cementafriend says: January 6, 2013 at 6:20 pm .
– Making Section 3 into a table format per Ockham says:January 6, 2013 at 6:03 pm
– Adding in a graph that shows CO2 versus each or some combination of the temperature data, e.g.CoRev says: January 6, 2013 at 6:17 pm;
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1980/to:2013/scale:50/plot/esrl-co2/from:1980/to:2013/offset:-350/plot/rss/from:1998/to:2013/scale:50/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1998/to:2013/offset:-350/trend/plot/uah/from:1998/to:2013/scale:50/plot/uah/from:1998/to:2013/scale:50/trend
Possibly display the entire satellite record, but only the temp trend for the period that it’s been flat.
– Build out the Appendix with a succinct analysis for each data set, similar to what you already did already for RSS, such that it’s readers can view the data however they prefer. Include links to these charts
– http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1990/plot/rss/from:1990/trend/plot/rss/from:1997/trend
– http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1990/plot/rss/from:1990/trend/plot/rss/from:1990/detrend:0.3128/trend/plot/rss/from:1990/detrend:-0.3128/trend/plot/rss/from:1997/trend
You might want to exclude the monthly figures in order to make the Appendix cleaner and less burdensome to keep up.
Please let me know if you have any questions or would like help in implementing any of the potential changes/additions.
Werner
Also, in Section 1, we might want to add a little more description to each item, e.g.
UAH: [Has been flat or Has no slope or Has paused or etc.] since October 2004 or 8 years, 3 months (goes to December)
Werner
Below I’ve drafted and updated Section 1 that add links to each source, expand the naming convention to make it easier for readers to evaluate the source of each data set and adds the phrase “has paused” as this seems to be the budding meme to refer to it, i.e. in the Guardian Jan 9th“has the rise in temperatures ‘paused’?” and Daily Mail Jan 12th “on Tuesday, news finally broke of a revised Met Office ‘decadal forecast’, which not only acknowledges the pause, but predicts it will continue at least until 2017.” Please let me know your thoughts on the suggested changes below. I think I am going to include your Section 1 in the introduction to the forthcoming Big Picture update, e.g.:
1. University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) Troposphere Temperature has paused since October 2004 or 8 years, 3 months (goes to December)
2. Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) Troposphere Temperature has paused since January 1997 or 16 years (goes to December) RSS is 192/204 or 94% of the way to Ben Santer’s 17 years.
3. NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) Surface Temperature has paused since May 2001 or 11 years, 7 months (goes to November)
4. Hadley Center (HADCRUT3) Surface Temperature has paused since May 1997 or 15 years, 7 months (goes to November)
5. Hadley Center (HADCRUT4) Surface Temperature: has paused since December 2000 or an even 12 years (goes to November.)
6. Hadley Center (HADSST2) Sea Surface Temperatures has paused since March 1997 or 15 years, 8 months (goes to October)
7. Wood For Trees Temperature Index has paused since December 2000 or 11 years, 9 months (goes to August)
I understand the reasoning of justthefacts but eventually lengthening the period of the pause on and on will lead to giving the wrong impression that there is no global cooling. If you don’t like the idea of including one solar cycle (12 years) for the trendline then a longer period could be chosen, e.g. 17 years. As long as the time point where you draw the trendline stays constant.
I would also exclude UAH seeing that it does not correspond to any dataset.
Well JTF,
It is confession time for me! Do you remember Phil Jones saying he cannot work excel? I can’t either! Perhaps we should take advantage of others with much more expertise than me such as David Hoffer or Walter Dnes. It has been a long time since I made any table and I am not even sure if my home computer can even do it.
“Ockham says:
January 6, 2013 at 6:03 pm
Nice job Werner,
IMO, Section 3 would be more easily compared if in the form of a table. Each data set could be represented by a row. Column headings could be Rank, Warmest Year, Warmest Year Anomaly Value, Highest Monthly Anomaly month/year, HMA Value, 2011 Anomaly, 2011 Rank.”
You liked his idea and I do too. If any one wants to make a table, here are the latest data. If other data becomes available over the next few days, I will post it here as soon as I can.
With the UAH anomaly for December at 0.202, the average for the twelve months of the year is (-0.134 -0.135 + 0.051 + 0.232 + 0.179 + 0.235 + 0.130 + 0.208 + 0.339 + 0.333 + 0.282 + 0.202)/12 = 0.16. This would rank 9th. 1998 was the warmest at 0.419. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.66. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.130 and it will come in 10th.
With the GISS anomaly for November at 0.68, the average for the first eleven months of the year is (0.32 + 0.37 + 0.45 + 0.54 + 0.67 + 0.56 + 0.46 + 0.58 + 0.62 + 0.68 + 0.68)/11 = 0.54. This would rank 9th if it stayed this way. 2010 was the warmest at 0.63. The highest ever monthly anomalies were in March of 2002 and January of 2007 when it reached 0.89. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.514 and it will come in 10th assuming 2012 comes in 9th or warmer.
With the Hadcrut3 anomaly for November at 0.480, the average for the first eleven months of the year is (0.217 + 0.194 + 0.305 + 0.481 + 0.473 + 0.477 + 0.445 + 0.512+ 0.514 + 0.491 + 0.480)/11 = 0.417. This would rank 9th if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.548. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in February of 1998 when it reached 0.756. One has to back to the 1940s to find the previous time that a Hadcrut3 record was not beaten in 10 years or less. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.340 and it will come in 13th.
With the Hadsst2 anomaly for December at 0.342, the average for the twelve months of the year is (0.203 + 0.230 + 0.241 + 0.292 + 0.339 + 0.351 + 0.385 + 0.440 + 0.449 + 0.432 + 0.399 + 0.342)/12 = 0.342. This would rank in 8th. 1998 was the warmest at 0.451. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in August of 1998 when it reached 0.555. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.273 and it will come in 13th.
With the RSS anomaly for December at 0.101, the average for the twelve months of the year is (-0.060 -0.123 + 0.071 + 0.330 + 0.231 + 0.337 + 0.290 + 0.254 + 0.383 + 0.294 + 0.195 + 0.101)/12 = 0.192. This would rank 11th. 1998 was the warmest at 0.55. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.857. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.147 and it will come in 13th.
With the Hadcrut4 anomaly for November at 0.512, the average for the first eleven months of the year is (0.288 + 0.208 + 0.339 + 0.525 + 0.531 + 0.506 + 0.470 + 0.532 + 0.515 + 0.524 + 0.512)/11 = 0.45. This would rank 9th if it stayed this way. 2010 was the warmest at 0.54. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in January of 2007 when it reached 0.818. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.399 and it will come in 13th.
As for the SkS site, I have not been able to get KNMI to work in order to get the maximum number of years of no significant warming. Even climate4you did not help.
“SRJ says:
January 6, 2013 at 3:40 pm
There is no need to feel uncomfortable about the data from Skeptical Science. The trend calculation is just normal least squares, and the standard error is corrected as in the appendix of F&R. I have checked the results from the trend calculator in several occasions, and my results agree. Eg. for GISTEMP since 1996 the SKS trend calculator gives:
Trend: 0.113 ± 0.122 °C/decade (2σ)
My result is:
Trend: 0.116 ± 0.119 °C/decade (2σ)
The difference is most likely caused by a difference in the year range used for the autocorrelation calculation or to slightly different versions of the GISTEMP dataset.”
Could we ask this person for help? Or should we ignore this part or should we use SkS again?
Other than these items, I should be OK with everything else and I expect to post what I can by tomorrow night.
I would like to elaborate on combining RSS and UAH to see how far back the slope is 0. Since December, 1979 the slope for RSS is +0.00496208, and the slope for UAH is -0.00490787. The difference is 0.00005421. Assuming this difference gets divided between the two, the slope, if the two were combined, it would be 0.000027/year. SkS , giving things to the nearest 1/1000 per decade would round 0.00027 to 0.000. Also, UAH and RSS have been nosediving lately; but even if we assume the same rate in January as in December, the slope should be negative by now. At this point, while the slope is 0 for 15 years and 1 month, my inclination would be to not mention the extra month now, but to keep a close eye on it. If both continue to nosedive in January, then we could have a 0 slope for and additional 2 or 3 months, which, in my opinion, would be worth mentioning. See the graph below. Should all three slope lines be shown or just the middle straight one?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997.9/trend/plot/uah/from:1997/plot/uah/from:1997.9/trend/plot/rss/from:1997.9/trend/detrend:-0.0735/offset:-0.080/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997.9/normalise/offset:0.68/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997.9/normalise/offset:0.68/trend
How is this for an eye catching title for the above:
SATELLITE DATA SHOWS NO CHANGE FOR 15 YEARS AS CO2 CLIMBS
Werner
It is confession time for me! Do you remember Phil Jones saying he cannot work excel? I can’t either!
No need for Excel, this is all in HTML, i.e.:
http://www.w3schools.com/html/html_tables.asp
I’ll email the code, it’s just a matter of adding more rows and columns.
As for the SkS site, I have not been able to get KNMI to work in order to get the maximum number of years of no significant warming. Even climate4you did not help.
I guess that we stick with SkS, keep a close eye out for abnormalities and possibly include a brief notation/warning about the source?
Should all three slope lines be shown or just the middle straight one?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997.9/trend/plot/uah/from:1997/plot/uah/from:1997.9/trend/plot/rss/from:1997.9/trend/detrend:-0.0735/offset:-0.080/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997.9/normalise/offset:0.68/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997.9/normalise/offset:0.68/trend
I think it looks good as is.
How is this for an eye catching title for the above:
SATELLITE DATA SHOWS NO [Temperature]CHANGE FOR 15 YEARS AS CO2 CLIMB[ed][Rapidly]
Good title, I added a couple potential descriptors in brackets. Also, I’d avoid all caps, as it is perceived as YELLING by some 🙂
HenryP says: January 12, 2013 at 10:35 pm
I understand the reasoning of justthefacts but eventually lengthening the period of the pause on and on will lead to giving the wrong impression that there is no global cooling.
Baby steps, if we can change the conversation from “rapid global warming” to we are in a “pause”, we are at least closer to reality. Assuming that temperatures continue to decline, then in the future we can start to message that the “dip” or “decline” has been occurring for X years, e.g.:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2002/plot/rss/from:2002/trend/plot/uah/from:2002/plot/uah/from:2002/trend/plot/rss/from:2002/trend/detrend:-0.0735/offset:-0.080/plot/esrl-co2/from:2002/normalise/offset:0.68/plot/esrl-co2/from:2002/normalise/offset:0.68/trend
If you don’t like the idea of including one solar cycle (12 years) for the trendline then a longer period could be chosen, e.g. 17 years. As long as the time point where you draw the trendline stays constant.
Aside from the issue you raise above, which we’ll address when the time comes, I don’t see the advantage of a fixed period versus the data set specific periods the Werner is using. Are there any other advantages to the approach you propose?
I would also exclude UAH seeing that it does not correspond to any dataset.
We’ve been using UAH for years, we can’t just abandon it because it now appears discordant with the other datasets. Spencer and Christy are aware of the differences, i.e.;
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/11/uah-v5-5-global-temp-update-for-october-2012-0-33-deg-c/
and seem to think it is justified/accurate, thus I see no basis to exclude UAH.