Has Global Warming Stalled? (Now Includes January Data)

WoodForTrees.org – Paul Clark – Click the pic to view at source

Guest Post By Werner Brozek, Edited By Just The Facts

In order to answer the question in the title, we need to know what time period is a reasonable period to take into consideration. As well, we need to know exactly what we mean by “stalled”. For example, do we mean that the slope of the temperature-time graph must be 0 in order to be able to claim that global warming has stalled? Or do we mean that there has to be a lack of “significant” warming over a given period? With regards to what a suitable time period is, NOAA says the following:

”The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.” To verify this for yourself, see page 23 here

Below, we will present you with just the facts and then you can decide whether or not global warming has stalled in a statistically significant manner.

The information will be presented in three sections and an appendix. Section 1 will show for how long there has been no warming on several data sets. Section 2 will show for how long there has been no significant warming on several data sets. Section 3 will show how January 2013 compares with 2012 and the warmest years and months on record so far. The Appendix will illustrate Sections 1 and 2 in a different way. Graphs and a table will be used to illustrate the data.

Section 1

This analysis uses the latest month for which data is available on WoodForTrees.com (WFT). However WFT has not been updated for GISS, Hadcrut3 and WTI past November so I had to use the SkS site for GISS and Hadcrut3. All of the data on WFT is also available at the specific sources as outlined below. We start with the present date and go to the furthest month 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, we give the time from October so no one can accuse us of being less than honest if we say the slope is flat from a certain month.

On all data sets below, the different times for a slope that is at least very slightly negative ranges from 4 years and 7 months to 16 years and 1 month.

1. For GISS, the slope is flat since May 2001 or 11 years, 9 months. (goes to January)

2. For Hadcrut3, the slope is flat since March 1997 or 15 years, 11 months. (goes to January)

3. For a combination of GISS, Hadcrut3, UAH and RSS, the slope is flat since December 2000 or an even 12 years. (goes to November)

4. For Hadcrut4, the slope is flat since November 2000 or 12 years, 3 months. (goes to January)

5. For Hadsst2, the slope is flat since March 1997 or 15 years, 11 months. (goes to January)

6. For UAH, the slope is flat since July 2008 or 4 years, 7 months. (goes to January)

7. For RSS, the slope is flat since January 1997 or 16 years and 1 month. (goes to January) RSS is 193/204 or 94.6% of the way to Ben Santer’s 17 years.

The next graph shows just the lines to illustrate the above. Think of it as a sideways bar graph where the lengths of the lines indicate the relative times where the slope is 0. In addition, the sloped wiggly line shows how CO2 has increased over this period.

WoodForTrees.org – Paul Clark – Click the pic to view at source

When two things are plotted as I have done, the left only shows a temperature anomaly. It goes from 0.1 to 0.6 C. A change of 0.5 C over 16 years is about 3.0 C over 100 years. And 3.0 C is about the average of what the IPCC says may be the temperature increase by 2100.

So for this to be the case, the slope for all of the data sets would have to be as steep as the CO2 slope. Hopefully the graphs show that this is totally untenable.

The next graph shows the above, but this time, the actual plotted points are shown along with the slope lines and the CO2 is omitted.

WoodForTrees.org – Paul Clark – Click the pic to view at source

Section 2

For this analysis, data was retrieved from SkepticalScience.com. This analysis indicates for how long there has not been significant warming according to their criteria. The numbers below start from January of the year indicated. Data have now been updated either to the end of December 2012 or January 2013. In every case, note that the magnitude of the second number is larger than the first number so a slope of 0 cannot be ruled out. (To the best of my knowledge, SkS uses the same criteria that Phil Jones uses to determine significance.)

For RSS the warming is not significant for over 23 years.

For RSS: +0.127 +/-0.134 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990

For UAH the warming is not significant for over 19 years.

For UAH: 0.146 +/- 0.170 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994

For Hadcrut3 the warming is not significant for over 19 years.

For Hadcrut3: 0.095 +/- 0.115 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994

For Hadcrut4 the warming is not significant for over 18 years.

For Hadcrut4: 0.095 +/- 0.110 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995

For GISS the warming is not significant for over 17 years.

For GISS: 0.111 +/- 0.122 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1996

If you want to know the times to the nearest month that the warming is not significant for each set, they are as follows: RSS since September 1989; UAH since June 1993; Hadcrut3 since August 1993; Hadcrut4 since July 1994; GISS since August 1995 and NOAA since June 1994.

Section 3

This section shows data about 2013 and other information in the form of a table. Each table shows the six data sources along the top, namely UAH, RSS, Hadcrut4, Hadcrut3, Hadsst2, and GISS. Down the column, are the following:

1. 2012 rank: This is the final ranking for 2012 on each data set.

2. 2012 anomaly: Here I give the average anomaly for 2012.

3. warmest year: This indicates the warmest year on record so far for that particular data set. Note that two of the data sets have 2010 as the warmest year and four have 1998 as the warmest year.

4. anomaly of above: This is the average of the monthly anomalies of the warmest year just above.

5. warmest month: This is the month where that particular data set showed the highest anomaly. The months are identified by the first two letters of the month and the last two numbers of the year.

6. anomaly of above: This is the anomaly of the month just above.

7. year/month no warm: This is the longest period of time where the slope is not positive. So 15/11 means that for 15 years and 11 months the slope is 0 or slightly negative.

8. This is the January, 2013, anomaly for that particular data set.

20. This is the average anomaly of all months to date taken by adding all numbers and dividing by the number of months. (Of course, for this time, it would simply be the January anomaly.)

21. This is the rank that each particular data set would have if the anomaly above were to remain that way for the rest of the year. Of course it won’t, but think of it as an update 5 minutes into a game. Expect wild swings from month to month at the start of the year. As well, expect huge variations between data sets at the start. For UAH, the 0.506 was ranked first. That is because 0.506 is above the highest yearly average of 0.419 in 1998. It is not the hottest month ever. That happens to be April of 1998 when the anomaly was 0.66.

Source UAH RSS Had4 Had3 HADSST2 GISS
1. 2012 Rank
9th 11th 10th 10th 8th 9th
2. 2012 Anomaly 0.161 0.192 0.433 0.406 0.342 0.56
3. Warmest Year 1998 1998 2010 1998 1998 2010
4. Anomaly Of Above 0.419 0.55 0.540 0.548 0.451 0.66
5. warmest month Ap98 Ap98 Ja07 Fe98 Au98 Ja07
6. Anomaly Of Above 0.66 0.857 0.818 0.756 0.555 0.93
7. Years / Months With No Warming 4/7 16/1 12/3 15/11 15/11 11/9
8. Jan. 2013 Anomaly 0.506 0.442 0.433 0.388 0.283 0.61
20. 2013 Average So Far 0.506 0.442 0.433 0.388 0.283 0.61
21. 2013 Rank So Far 1st 3rd 10th 12th 12th 4th

If you wish to verify all 2012 rankings, go to the following:

For UAH, see here, for RSS see here and for Hadcrut4, see here. Note the number opposite the 2012 at the bottom. Then going up to 1998, you will find that there are 9 numbers above this number. That confirms that 2012 is in 10th place.

For Hadcrut3, see here. Here you have to do something similar to Hadcrut4, but look at the numbers at the far right. One has to go back to the 1940s to find the previous time that a Hadcrut3 record was not beaten in 10 years or less.

For Hadsst2, see here. View as for Hadcrut3. It came in 8th place with an average anomaly of 0.342, narrowly beating 2006 by 2/1000 of a degree as that came in at 0.340. In my ranking, I did not consider error bars, however 2006 and 2012 would statistically be a tie for all intents and purposes.

For GISS, see here. Check the J-D (January to December) average and then check to see how often that number is exceeded back to 1998.

To see all points since January 2012 in the form of a graph, see the WFT graph below:

WoodForTrees.org – Paul Clark – Click the pic to view at source

Relative to December, the January anomalies have changed as follows: UAH up 0.30, RSS up 0.34, Hadcrut4 up 0.17, Hadcrut3 up 0.13, Hadsst2 down 0.06, and GISS up 0.17.

Dr. Spencer explains why the satellite anomalies are up but the sea surface anomaly is down here.

Appendix

In this part, we are summarizing data for each set separately.

RSS

The slope is flat since January 1997 or 16 years and 1 month. (goes to January) RSS is 193/204 or 94.6% of the way to Ben Santer’s 17 years.

For RSS the warming is not significant for over 23 years.

For RSS: +0.127 +/-0.134 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990.

The RSS average anomaly so far for 2013 is 0.442. This would rank 3rd 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 2012 was 0.192 and it came in 11th.

Following are two graphs via WFT. Both show all plotted points for RSS since 1990. Then two lines are shown on the first graph. The first upward sloping line is the line from where warming is not significant according to the SkS site criteria. The second straight line shows the point from where the slope is flat.

The second graph shows the above, but in addition, there are two extra lines. These show the upper and lower lines using the SkS site criteria. Note that the lower line is almost horizontal but slopes slightly downward. This indicates that there is a slight chance that cooling has occurred since 1990 according to RSS per graph 1 and graph 2.

UAH

The slope is flat since July 2008 or 4 years, 7 months. (goes to January)

For UAH, the warming is not significant for over 19 years.

For UAH: 0.146 +/- 0.170 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994

The UAH average anomaly so far for 2013 is 0.506. This would rank 1st if it stayed this way. 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 2012 was 0.161 and it came in 9th.

Following are two graphs via WFT. Everything is identical as with RSS except the lines apply to UAH.

Graph 1 and graph 2.

Hadcrut4

The slope is flat since November 2000 or 12 years, 3 months. (goes to January.)

For Hadcrut4, the warming is not significant for over 18 years.

For Hadcrut4: 0.095 +/- 0.110 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995

The Hadcrut4 average anomaly so far for 2013 is 0.433. This would rank 10th if it stayed this way. 2010 was the warmest at 0.540. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in January of 2007 when it reached 0.818. The anomaly in 2012 was 0.433 and it came in 10th.

Following are two graphs via WFT. Everything is identical as with RSS except the lines apply to Hadcrut4.Graph 1 and graph 2.

Hadcrut3

The slope is flat since March 1997 or 15 years, 11 months (goes to January)

For Hadcrut3, the warming is not significant for over 19 years.

For Hadcrut3: 0.095 +/- 0.115 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994

The Hadcrut3 average anomaly so far for 2013 is 0.388. This would rank 12th 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 go back to the 1940s to find the previous time that a Hadcrut3 record was not beaten in 10 years or less. The anomaly in 2012 was 0.406 and it came in 10th.

Following are two graphs via WFT. Everything is identical as with RSS except the lines apply to Hadcrut3. Graph 1 and graph 2.

Hadsst2

The slope is flat since March 1997 or 15 years, 11 months. (goes to January)

The Hadsst2 average anomaly so far for 2013 is 0.283. This would rank 12th 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 2012 was 0.342 and it came in 8th.

Sorry! The only graph available for Hadsst2 is the following this.

GISS

The slope is flat since May 2001 or 11 years, 9 months. (goes to January)

For GISS, the warming is not significant for over 17 years.

For GISS: 0.111 +/- 0.122 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1996

The GISS average anomaly so far for 2013 is 0.61. This would rank 4th if it stayed this way and would tie it with 1998. 2010 was the warmest at 0.66. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in January of 2007 when it reached 0.93. The anomaly in 2012 was 0.56 and it came in 9th.

Following are two graphs via WFT. Everything is identical as with RSS except the lines apply to GISS. Graph 1 and graph 2.

Conclusion

Above, various facts have been presented along with sources from where all facts were obtained. Keep in mind that no one is entitled to their facts. It is only in the interpretation of the facts for which legitimate discussions can take place. After looking at the above facts, do you feel that we should spend billions to prevent catastrophic warming? Or do you feel we should take a “wait and see” attitude for a few years to be sure that future warming will be as catastrophic as some claim it will be? Keep in mind that even the MET office felt the need to revise its forecasts. Look at the following and keep in mind that the MET office believes that the 1998 mark will be beaten by 2017. Do you agree?

WoodForTrees.org – Paul Clark – Click the pic to view at source

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
kim

We are cooling, folks; for how long even kim doesn’t know.
===============

Look at the following and keep in mind that the MET office believes that the 1998 mark will be beaten by 2017. Do you agree?

The problem I have is that this is an adjusted data set and I have no faith in the adjustments. Furthermore, adjustments to many of these data sets seem to be continuously and retroactively so the adjustment of information from the past can change in the future. I have no confidence in the data so whether or not it “breaks” 1998 or not seems rather a silly question. I guess my answer is “yes, if they want it to break 1998, no if they don’t want it to”.

Werner Brozek

JTF, I just have a concern about the size of the graphs. When you click on them, they are good, but when viewed as they are, they are twice as big as they should be and just the left half appears. This applies to 4 out of the 5. Can this be fixed? Thanks!

MattN

I am 100% positive that I remember Gavin stating in a post at Realclimate that if there was no warming for 10 years, that would indicate the models were wrong.

wikeroy

“Look at the following and keep in mind that the MET office believes that the 1998 mark will be beaten by 2017. Do you agree?”
No one can tell. It might wiggle a bit upwards again like a rising zig-zag, and yet it might not. If it does wiggle upwards again, it is unlikely to be much of an increase compared to 1998…..but noone knows. And noone can know. Bob Tisdale is the one to ask. He seems to be one of the few that has some understanding on how the small variance’s is induced via ENSO. Because they are small, look at the y-axis.

John W. Garrett

Excellent work. This piece needs to be kept close to hand for ready accessibility.

Werner, you write “Look at the following and keep in mind that the MET office believes that the 1998 mark will be beaten by 2017. Do you agree?”
This is not quite a complete picture of what happened. Using 2004 data Smith et al from the Met. Office, published their decadal forecast in the August 2007 edition of Science. This forecast that, following 2009, half the years would have temperatures in excess of 1998. When this was obviously not happening, the Met. Office quietly altered their forecast; on Christmas Eve 2012. The change was not noted until early in Jan. 2013. We have not yet been given the details of the science behind the new forecast, or the reasons why the Met. Office has abandoned Smith et al.
So I dont think anyone is in a position to answer the questrion as to whether we agree or not. Surely the Met.Office needs to give us the sort of detail that we were given in Smith et al, BEFORE this question can be answered.

Glenn

I’m not a mathematician but it looks more like a wave than a rise up a hill. The data set does seem too small to make a prediction of any kind though, I don’t know how they’re getting “in-coming heat wave” from that data.

Jimbo

Look at the following and keep in mind that the MET office believes that the 1998 mark will be beaten by 2017. Do you agree?

Well, based on the record so far I’d say no.

Looking ahead, The Met Office expects ‘half the years between 2010 and 2015 to be hotter than the hottest year on record’.
BBC

And here’s something they prepared earlier.

“According to the Met Office decadal forecast, at least half of the years after 2009 are expected to be warmer than the 1998 record.”
Met Office (pdf)

Further reading:
Met Office Climate Forecasts: Always Wrong But Never In Doubt

michael hart

Lol. Maybe time for another derivative, such as “The rate of change of climate-change remains the same”?
The models still have no predictive skill, however frequently the hind-casts are changed to keep up (or down).

FerdinandAkin

Imagine for a moment that the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 had passed and we had a Cap ‘n Trade system for the last three years. Then imagine for a moment how loud the climate alarmistists would proclaiming the effectiveness of their efforts. It would be a case of the rooster crowing and then taking credit for the sunrise.

Keep in mind that no one is entitled to their facts. It is only in the interpretation of the facts for which legitimate discussions can take place.

– – – – – – – – –
Werner Brozek,
I think your statement is too prescriptive to be true.
Surely a person is entitled to present what they consider facts for others to ‘fact check’.
Surely people are entitled to ‘fact check’ all things presented as facts . . . . even when the facts are presented by GISS, HadCRU, RSS and UAH.
That is my only criticism of your very useful post about the temp time series of the past several decades. Thank you for your efforts to bring this to WUWT.
John

MikeN

Oh no he didn’t! Taking SkepticalScience tools to show no warming is going to make some people very upset. Note that that definitely non-skeptic website likes to edit posts and comments without notice, so look for the tool to change in a substantial way after this post.

Nik Marsall-Blank

As I understand, the adjusted data is because of the time that the temperatures readings were taken. They were in the mornings I believe and now later in the day. But I have some problems with this.
Once adjusted, the temperatures seem still subject to more adjustments as time goes by. Also the baseline temperature is adjusted.
And one more worry, if the adjustments are made to adjustments then what happens to .6 + .6. Does this become 1 + 1 = 2 or (.6 + .6) = 1.2 = 1?
After so many adjustments just thinking about it makes my head hurt.

Alan S. Blue

It would be helpful if both of the separate y-axes were labeled. The CO2 line is obviously not measured in degrees – and putting a second y-axis on the -right- for ppm would make this a fairly common method of plotting two disparate things on one chart.

The problem has never been warming. Warming such as the Roman Optimum and the MWP have been kinder to humanity than times such as the LIA. The problem is likely to be cooling, and a time of troubles.
Should those troubles come, those who like to work behind the scenes will simply say, “Never let a good crisis go to waste,” and will attempt to continue to leech off the ignorant. However those who enjoyed the spotlight will be marked men (and women,) stained by a blot that will not wash away.

David L. Hagen

The important issue is NOT whether global temperatures have been “warming” or “stalled”, since they have been warming since the Little Ice Age with oscillations on top of that trend.
The critical issue is whether there is MAJOR anthropogenic global warming as advocated by the IPCC, rather than minor anthropogenic global warming or statistically unquantifiable global warming.
The scientific challenge is to quantitatively distinguish between three major models:
A) Damaging Anthropogenic Global Warming: > 50% of warming due to humans, OR
B) Minor Anthropogenic Global Warming: 5% to 50% of warming due to humans, OR
C) Null Hypothesis: Natural Global Warming: < 5% or unknown due to humans.

Lack of statistically significant global warming for extended periods at least shows the IPCC’s models are wrong, and probably that there is NOT dangerous anthropogenic global warming. The IPCC sea temperature model trends are now running 3 times too hot since 1998.
To find out which model is better, the challenge is to statistically quantify the difference between models for both major and minor anthropogenic global warming over the null hypothesis of natural global warming with natural fluctuations since the Little Ice Age.
Compare models by:
the Global Warming Prediction Project
Nicola Scafetta
and
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, On the recovery from the Little Ice Age, Natural Science, Vol.2, No.11, 1211-1224 (2010), doi:10.4236/ns.2010.211149 http://www.scirp.org/journal/NS/
The far greater climate challenge is:
Can we prevent descent into the next glaciation in some 1500 years?

Leo Morgan

I am very angry about the NOAA quote above. I feel very let down by those who have excerpted it from the report. I had trusted it to be correct, and nearly repeated the quote myself. I had a narrow escape, because, deliberately or otherwise, It misrepresents what the authors were saying.
The discussion at ‘the blackboard’ led me to read the full context. The quote is talking about 15 years of absence of warming from ENSO- adjusted data sets, not 15 years of absence of warming from raw temperature measurements. The second is what I took it to mean, and how most skeptical users of the quote have presented it as meaning. But that just plain wrong.
The website drroyspencer.com demonstrates that there clearly has been warming in the ENSO-adjusted data set.
Rightly, he points out that the actual measurement is significantly below the forecast measurement- but that does not justify us taking the quote out ofvthe context of ENSO adjusted data sets and applying it to raw temperature measurements.
For shame, people.

Werner Brozek,
[ . . ] After looking at the above facts, do you feel that we should spend billions to prevent catastrophic warming? Or do you feel we should take a “wait and see” attitude for a few years to be sure that future warming will be as catastrophic as some claim it will be? Keep in mind that even the MET office felt the need to revise its forecasts. Look at the following and keep in mind that the MET office believes that the 1998 mark will be beaten by 2017. Do you agree?

– – – – – – – – – –
Werner Brozek,
Responses to your two questions are:
To your first question => No waiting for me, it is a waste of my precious life, just live with a reasonable eye on only the plausible potentials and then determine individualistic priorities.
To your second question => I do not know what the average GST anomaly will be in 2017 and neither does the MET. However, I think in the decadal timescale there will be overall moderate cooling based on my understanding of several physical phenomena.
John

Hey fellas! Instead of relying on a very unreliable source. Why not just go to the source for the temp data…. Here’s GISS http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
For some fun, about the temp abatement, I would submit that there’s not been any significant warming…. evuh!!!!
I’ve plotted the GISS temps as they would appear on an alcohol thermometer, and I’ll be darned if I can see any significant warming. Even embiggified!!!!

Coalsoffire

It’s dead, Jim.

Jimbo

MattN says:
March 5, 2013 at 9:17 am
I am 100% positive that I remember Gavin stating in a post at Realclimate that if there was no warming for 10 years, that would indicate the models were wrong.

This is the closest I found: [my bold]

57. OK, simply to clarify what I’ve heard from you.
(1) If 1998 is not exceeded in all global temperature indices by 2013, you’ll be worried about state of understanding
(2) In general, any year’s global temperature that is “on trend” should be exceeded within 5 years (when size of trend exceeds “weather noise”)
(3) Any ten-year period or more with no increasing trend in global average temperature is reason for worry about state of understandings
I am curious as to whether there are other simple variables that can be looked at unambiguously in terms of their behaviour over coming years that might allow for such explicit quantitative tests of understanding?
[Response: 1) yes, 2) probably, I’d need to do some checking, 3) No. There is no iron rule of climate that says that any ten year period must have a positive trend. The expectation of any particular time period depends on the forcings that are going on. If there is a big volcanic event, then the expectation is that there will be a cooling, if GHGs are increasing, then we expect a warming etc. The point of any comparison is to compare the modelled expectation with reality – right now, the modelled expectation is for trends in the range of 0.2 to 0.3 deg/decade and so that’s the target. In any other period it depends on what the forcings are. – gavin]
Comment by Daniel Klein — 29 Dec 2007 @ 11:40 AM
http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=497#comment-78146x

If 1998 is not exceeded this year then Gavin Schmidt agrees that he would be worried about state of understanding. Just under 10 months to go then before Warmists called him a ‘denier’ / sarc.

JPS

no data should be presented past 2005. did you not receive the memo?

Scott Scarborough

Leo,
Did James Hansen wait for an ENSO adjusted 15 year temperature rise before he made his presentation to Congress in 1988? (I really don’t know the answer to that).

RESnape

Leo Morgan says:
March 5, 2013 at 10:15 am
The quote is talking about 15 years of absence of warming from ENSO- adjusted data sets, not 15 years of absence of warming from raw temperature measurements. The second is what I took it to mean, and how most skeptical users of the quote have presented it as meaning. But that just plain wrong.
—————————————-
Your comprehension is somewhat adrift because the quote does not relate to ENSO adjusted data. In essence the quote means that if the ‘predicted’ (i.e. the simulation) trend of warming is not supported by the observed data then the models are wrong.
To reiterate:
”The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”

Leo Morgan says:
March 5, 2013 at 10:15 am
I am very angry about the NOAA quote above.
Thank you for your comments. RSS and UAH show results that are a bit different from each other. Below, I will illustrate what RSS shows.
The 1998 El Nino was cancelled out by the La Ninas that were before and after it so nature in effect took care of the ENSO issue in my opinion. See the straight lines for RSS from 1997 and from about three years later. So it is not as if the slope would be positive if we just got rid of 1998. See:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997/trend/plot/rss/from:2000.17/trend
I am not going to get into a discussion on semantics as to what was meant or not meant as this has had a very extensive discussion on other posts about a month ago. But I just want to say this. My interpretation is that we can be more than 95% certain the models are wrong at this point, at least based on three data sets at the moment. But even if NOAA never made any such statement, Ben Santer in effect said that if the slope is 0 for 17 years, then something is wrong with the models. This is totally consistent with NOAA’s statement. See:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011JD016263.shtml
“A single decade of observational TLT data is therefore inadequate for identifying a slowly evolving anthropogenic warming signal. Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature.”
We are not there yet, but RSS has reached 16 years and 1 month to the end of January.

Jay

I would like to hear Steve McIntyre’s take on these analyses. Specifically the 95% confidence levels and the use of 2 sigma. Is the sigma just calculated with the usual std. deviation formula?
I thought temperature records were auto-correlated, so such a simplistic sigma is not the correct treatment of variation.
Many astute comments above…
Adjustments to the data-yup that casts a whole cloud over the no trend.
Cooling- I can see the curves bending over to cooler in the next 10-20 years is the solar crowd is correct.
Imagine if draconian carbon cuts had been enacted 10 years ago-Yes, they would be claiming credit.

Jimbo

Here are some more pertinent quotes from Dr. Phil Jones on global temperature since 1998.

Dr. Phil Jones – CRU – 5th July, 2005
“The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant….”
http://www.assassinationscience.com/climategate/1/FOIA/mail/1120593115.txt

Dr. Phil Jones – CRU – 7th May, 2009
‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’
Cru emails

Dr. Phil Jones – CRU – 13th February 2010
“I’m a scientist trying to measure temperature. If I registered that the climate has been cooling I’d say so. But it hasn’t until recently – and then barely at all. The trend is a warming trend.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511701.stm

Jimbo

Here is the source for the 2nd Phil Jones quote:
http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/4199.txt

David Schofield

“Jimbo says:
March 5, 2013 at 10:57 am
…………………………..
…………………………………………..
Dr. Phil Jones – CRU – 7th May, 2009
‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’
Cru emails”
This is a giveaway as to the mindsets of the climate scientists. CAGW is the ‘biggest threat the world faces’ yet they ‘worry’ if the temperature rise stalls? Surely that should be ‘hopeful’ or ‘optimistic’? Or don’t they need to worry about our our future?

anzon

I can have no confidence in temperature readings that are generated by unsynchronised uncalibrated static sensors representing a sample size of <<0.001% of a dynamic environment.

Doug Proctor

Despite the statistical analysis, both skeptics and warmists will determine the answer for themselves the old-fashioned eyeball way, and are reasonable in doing this. Should the temps go up or down in the future, which is what we are interested in, the past becomes somewhat moot.
The problem is that we are not dealing with a number of events that allow us to determine a probability of anything – and this goes for the IPCC. We are dealing with just one event, the time period from 1880 to present. The warmists would say that we are only dealing with the period of 1965 to present, as that is the “CO2” warming of their concern. That being the case, the statistics will be determined by endpoints and your consideration of what is going on, i.e. your mental model.
This is why the eyeball test is reasonable.
But …. having a model means that you have to interpret certain parts in a certain way. If you are a warmist, and wish to maintain a rising, not a stall, you have to attribute natural variability to explain the post-97 period as such: from 1997 to some time, say 2005, the “natural” variability was in its warm-er phase. From 2005 to present, then, the natural variability has been in its cool-er phase. In this manner you get a rise consistent with your mental model and explain away the deviations from a linear rise coincident with the rise in CO2.
The problem with the warmist explanatiion is that the longer the non-rise goes on, the longer you have to attribute natural variability to modifying observation, and the longer you do this, the weaker your CO2 forcing has to be relative to natural factors. That reduces your Scenario outcome at 2100 and potentially defuses the crisis (you so wish to happen). You could say that CO2 will come back with a vengence, having built-up a head-of-steam while the breaks are on, but this now requires a sudden shift of warming in excess of the 1975 – 1997 period.
The warmist model now has a set of explicit targets both for temperatures and timing. (As I see it, this timing is only a couple of years away, but I would allow a 2017 extension if carbon taxes were in a wait-and-see mode for a couple of years).
On the other hand, as a skeptic, believing that natural factors such as the sun, cloud and oceanic cycles of heat aborption and release account for the majority of the rise since 1965, you have to posit positive factors flipping over to negative factors about 1998. You are then stuck with the cycles you have for causation: the PDO/AMO has a certain cycle, and the solar sunspot/cloud cover (or cloud cover separately as a function of PDO/AMO or GCR) cycles. In this case, based on an/my understanding of the natural variabilities said to be responsible for the post-1965 rise, temperatures have to FALL (not just stall) for CO2 to be shown to have an insignificant effect. Archibald is the most out-there on the temperature drop he envisions (mostly for the wheat belt of the north-central continental USA); by his reckoning, a drop of > 0.4C must occur globally within the next 10 years. A global drop of 0.2C within the next 4 years would be sufficient.
The skeptic model thus has an explicit set of expectations. A continued stall only means that, models and arguments concerned, nature (including manmade aeorsols) equals the demon CO2. If nature backs off, we could still be doomed to a CAGW hell. The skeptic model cannot accept this by saying we have continued natural factors warming, as this stage has been explicitly tied to a series of cycles that become net negative after about 30 years.
Statistical arguments about the “stall” are not incorrect, but they are irrelevant in the discussion. They put numbers to what is eyeball worthy but they do not have any predictive value (again, because we are in a one-event situation, as yet unfinished). I do not diminish the passion of the work, or its conclusions, but say that its value, i.e. worth, to the debate is minimal.
Regardless of this point, I suggest the analysis demonstrates (mathematically) we are near the tipping point of the IPCC narrative vis-a-vis models and observations. Within 5 years one side will be the side of heroes, and the others, the side of goats. The recent behaviour of Gore and Suzuki suggest to me that they are aware that their “goatishness” is more than likely coming to surface: they spend too much time preaching to the paying faithful and too little – none – preaching to those they need to convert to save the future generations of their own seed.

MikeB

Keep in mind that the MET office believes that the 1998 mark will be beaten by 2017.

Really, this is a new one on me- what is the source of this information? The last I heard in this regard was that the Met. Office forecast in 2009 that

At least half of the five following years expected to be hotter than 1998, the warmest year on record

http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/08/09/us-climate-warming-idUSN0837368420070809
What happened to that prediction? How is it going? Place your bets.
And here is a short youtube clip of Vicky Pope of the Met.Office actually saying the the same thing on camera, that 3 out of 5 years after 2009 will exceed 1998. Also, as a bonus, she says

2014 will be 0.3 degrees warmer than 2004

She also adds, just to make sure….

These are very strong statements about what will happen over the next 10 years


Yes they are very strong statements (probably brougnt in lots of extra grant money) ….but unfortunately for Vicky they look rather strongly stupid now!
Do we get an apology? Will we get a correction? Place your bets.

About 3-4 years ago, quite a few people were noticing that, with the two or three other steep upslopes in the record, alternating with slight downslopes, that the whole longer record had the appearance of an up-sloping sine curve with a pitch of about 60 years. 60 years ago, in about 1953, we were about 13 years into the 1940-1970 slight downslope. This was all coming out of the Little Ice Age, when one would expect temps to rise at some rate for some unknown time, and this up-sloping sine curve seemed to fit that quite nicely.
Similarly, the current “stalling” of “global warming” seems to be not only consistent with that but also pretty much right on schedule. BOTH scenarios – stalling and up-sloping since curve – refute anthropogenic causes to the global warming that has been occurring since about 1800. If warming has stalled, the warmists have a problem (and they are well aware of it). If there is an up-sloping cine curve that predates 1900 by a good bit, they have nothing to hang their hats on.
I rather like the up-sloping sine curve idea, and until something better comes along, that is where my money is being bet. It INCLUDES “stalling” periods for half of every 60-year period. There is a LOT more rationale to that scenario than blaming the warming on CO2, which is such a tiny percentage of the atmosphere, and not even a majorly active greenhouse gas when compared to water vapor and methane. I mean, if they had chosen to blame anthropogenic land use, most of us wouldn’t even be arguing it.
If this up-sloping since curve idea is true, we can expect the stalling – quite probably even a slight decrease – to continue for another 17 years, plus or minus a bit. It has happened at least three times; why should’t we be expecting it to happen again? We would then also attribute it to natural causes, not post-1970 industrial emissions.
My bet is that the upslope won’t happen again until around 2026-2030.
Hahahaha! That is a long time for Trenberth to worry about missing heat! We have a LOT of laughing ahead of us, folks!
Long before then, CAGW will be an unfunded ex-laughing stock of science.
Steve Garcia

UAH update for February.
The anomaly for February was 0.176, down from 0.504 in January. The 0.504 would be ranked first if it had stayed this way. The 0.176 would be ranked 9th if it stays this way. The average of the two is 0.34. So if the anomaly averaged 0.34 for the rest of the year, it would come in third. As for the longest time the slope is not positive, the numbers are not on WFT yet, however I do not expect a huge change other than raising the 4 years and 7 months to 4 years and 8 months.
SST update for February.
According to Bob Tisdale: “The preliminary global sea surface temperature anomalies warmed a slight amount (+0.021 deg C) in the last month.”
I realize this is not official and may change a bit, but based on this information, there is no doubt in my mind that when the HadSST2 numbers are in for February, that they will show no warming for 16 years from March 1,1997 to February 28, 2013. However this needs to be confirmed.

Here is a very good example of a rural site which has been taking hourly temperature records since 1935.
Over the 69 years the total mean increase in temperature has been 0.31- 0.32 C.or about a half a degree F over the 69 years recorded. But the study stops in 2003 and I cannot find on the Mt Washington website the continuation of this temperature graph between 2003 to 2013. I have contacted the Mount Washington Observatory to see if this study has been continued to the present. It would be interesting to see if the temperature trend has stalled (In light of the global 10 years+ of stalling) on this truly rural site which has probably not been affected by the Urban Heat Island UHI effect among other factors. The link:
http://www.mountwashington.org/research/airmap/

Mycroft

great work, Anthony should stick this post in Climate Fails section

David L Hagen says:
A) Damaging Anthropogenic Global Warming: > 50% of warming due to humans
That one can be ruled out, as there is no verifiable evidence of any global damage or harm due to the rise in CO2. Thus, CO2 is ‘harmless’.
In fact, there is no measurable evidence that global warming is due to human activity.
We are currently in a cool period of the Holocene. But global temperatures have been amazingly constant, only fluctuating by a minuscule 0.8ºC over the past century and a half. By using a normal Y-axis, it is clear that global warming has stalled during this entire time period.

Latitude

“One has to back to the 1940s”………………………………go………one has to ‘go’ back to the 1940’s
I say forget it…..what’s the point of waiting and seeing for something that wasn’t there in the first place
” the MET office believes that the 1998 mark will be beaten by 2017″
so what if it is………only 150 years ago we were all freezing our butts off……LIA
……see those little numbers on the “y” with a decimal in front of them
Get a grip people, we’re taking about a 1/2 degree here………………

as far as I can tell. Gavin’s standard has already been met. He made his statement in December of 2007. We have now experienced 5 years: 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012 and not one of them has surpassed 1998 in all 4 indices. Gavin was wrong and should now be “concerned.” Furthermore, this year is looking very unlikely for the hottest year on record based upon the first 2 months of the year and an ENSO neutral scenario. I guess something could suddenly ramp the temperatures up, but that looks unlikely. 2014? maybe.

Jimbo

Strewth, we still got some way to go on the good ship global warming.

5 March 2013 “Giant camel fossil found in Arctic”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21673940

http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncomms2516

RossP

Well done Werner. I like the idea of using the SsK tools –using alarmists tools to argue against them is the ultimate winner. There are comments above about using adjusted data —thats good to because we all know the direction of the adjustments ( forget how valid they are for a moment). Just like using the Ssk tool –if the adjusted data can be used against them like you have shown then that is another winner.
Anthony , I would encourage you to publish Werners monthly update EVERY month. Regular readers might get a bit “bored” with it but they are not the ones that need convincing.
The others can argue whether it it is stalled , flat , paused or still warming slightly but the reality is if the CO2 measurements are correct then the AGW theory as presented by the IPCC and others is WRONG. Temperatures should have continued increasing over the past 15 years at much greater rate with the increased CO2

geran

They have been adjusting the temps higher for so long that now we look cooler. That is why they are changing to climate “change”. So now they will start adjusting temps lower?
I’m so confused, I must be a major-skeptic….

MikeB says:
March 5, 2013 at 11:36 am
Keep in mind that the MET office believes that the 1998 mark will be beaten by 2017.
Really, this is a new one on me- what is the source of this information?

See: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/08/the-other-big-story-today-bbc-forced-to-admit-global-warming-static/
“The UK Met Office has revised one of its forecasts for how much the world may warm in the next few years.
It says that the average temperature is likely to rise by 0.43 C by 2017 – as opposed to an earlier forecast that suggested a warming of 0.54C.
The forecasts are all based on a comparison with the average global temperature over the period 1971-2000.”
Using 1971 to 2000, the 1998 mark was 0.40.

Werner Brozek says: March 5, 2013 at 9:16 am
JTF, I just have a concern about the size of the graphs. When you click on them, they are good, but when viewed as they are, they are twice as big as they should be and just the left half appears. This applies to 4 out of the 5. Can this be fixed? Thanks!

This is a problem with WordPress.
PNG images sometimes get stretched this way, other times they present normally. The only way to prevent this is to use GIF or JPG images. GIF’s are best because JPG introduces artifacts in graphs and diagrams.
I’ve had this problem with my WP site, and one of these days I’ll get around to fixing it.

David L. Hagen

D.B. Stealey
Re: “there is no measurable evidence that global warming is due to human activity.”
That is the task that needs to be clearly quantified compared to the other models.
Global temperatures have been cooling since the Holocene Climatic Optimum
See images
We are nearing the end of this holocene warm period and approaching the next glaciation, typical of numerous previous glaciations.

Latitude says:
March 5, 2013 at 12:49 pm
“One has to back to the 1940s”………………………………go………one has to ‘go’ back to the 1940′s
I say forget it…..what’s the point of waiting and seeing for something that wasn’t there in the first place

I am not sure what you are referring to here. At this point, we do not have to wait for anything since Hadcrut3 has not beaten its 1998 mark by a long shot and it has been way over 10 years.
1998 was warmest at 0.548;
2005 was second at 0.482;
2012 was 10th at 0.406;
January 2013 is 12th at 0.388 so far.

RossP says:
March 5, 2013 at 1:18 pm
Anthony , I would encourage you to publish Werners monthly update EVERY month. Regular readers might get a bit “bored” with it but they are not the ones that need convincing.
Thank you for your comments. JTF and I have discussed this. One way around it would be to just say at the start that if you are a regular reader and just want to get the new highlights, read rows 7+ on the table.

”The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”
The climate models do not model natural variability. The variability in the models is just an approximation by the modelers of the amount of natural variability they think occurs.
What’s disturbing is that agencies and many climate scientists seem to think the statement above has scientific validity, when it has no scientific validity at all.

Philip Shehan

People here declare that there has been no warming for the last 17 years of Hadcrut4 data, even though the trend is essentially the same as for four times that period, because the trend for the shorter period is not “statistically significant”.
Yet all consideration of statistical significance is ignored when declaring that UAH data fro the last 4 years and 7 months shows a pause.
Trend: -0.006 ±1.441 °C/decade
Unsurprisingly, for this ludicrously short period, Fisherian statistical significance says the true trend could be between warming of 1.435 and cooling of 1.447 °C/decade. You could fly a 747 through that gap.
But suddenly no-one cares about that. It’s all about the raw slope.
http://tinyurl.com/d4jxlth