Image Credit: NASA and BP.Blogspot.com
By WUWT regular “Just The Facts”
Recently there has been significant attention focused on “The Pause” in Earth’s warming, the length of “The Pause” and where “Earth’s Temperature” may go from here, e.g.: “Over the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar.” The Economist “Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released… and here is the chart to prove it.” Daily Mail “Twenty-year hiatus in rising temperatures has climate scientists puzzled.” The Australian “Has the rise in temperatures ‘paused’?” Guardian “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.” Daily Mail “RSS global satellite temperatures confirm hiatus of global warming, while the general public and mainstream press are now recognizing the AWOL truth that skeptics long ago identified…global temperatures are trending towards cooling, not accelerating higher” C3 Headlines
From Werner Brozek’s recent article:
1. For GISS, the slope is flat since January 2001 or 12 years, 2 months. (goes to February)
2. For Hadcrut3, the slope is flat since April 1997 or 15 years, 11 months. (goes to February)
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, 4 months. (goes to February)
5. For Hadsst2, the slope is flat from March 1, 1997 to March 31, 2013, or 16 years, 1 month.
From those data points it appears that The Pause is at least 12 years old, but let us dig deeper into the observational data to see “The Pause” in “Earth’s Temperature”.
Global Surface Temperatures:
Generally, when referring to Earth’s “climate” warming, proponents of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) narrative refer to Earth’s Surface Temperature, e.g. “Global warming is the unusually rapid increase in Earth’s average surface temperature over the past century primarily due to the greenhouse gases released by people burning fossil fuels.” NASA Earth Observatory
As such, here’s NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) Global Monthly Mean Surface Temperature Anomaly – 1996 to Present:
NOAA’s – National Climate Data Center – Year To Date Global Temperature Anomalies – 2012 ranked 10th:
NOAA’s – National Climate Data Center – Annual Global Land and Ocean Temperature Anomalies:
UK Met Office’s – Hadley Center – Climate Research Unit (CRU) Annual Global Average Land and Ocean Temperature Anomaly – 1850 to 2012
and the UK Met Office – Hadley Center – Climate Research Unit (CRU) Monthly Global Average Land Temperature – 1850 to 2012
The Pause appears to apparent in Earth’s Land and Surface Temperature record, and if anything the trend appears to be down in the last several years. However, the surface temperature records are burdened with issues of questionable siting, changes in siting, changes in equipment, changes in the number of measurement locations, modeling to fill in gaps in measurement locations, corrections to account for missing, erroneous or biased measurements, and the urban heat island effect. Thus to see the big picture on the temperature “Earth’s Temperature”, it also helps to look up.
Atmospheric Temperatures:
Since 1979 Earth’s “temperature” has also been measured via satellite. “The temperature measurements from space are verified by two direct and independent methods. The first involves actual in-situ measurements of the lower atmosphere made by balloon-borne observations around the world. The second uses intercalibration and comparison among identical experiments on different orbiting platforms. The result is that the satellite temperature measurements are accurate to within three one-hundredths of a degree Centigrade (0.03 C) when compared to ground-launched balloons taking measurements of the same region of the atmosphere at the same time.” NASA
Here is RSS Global Temperature Lower Troposphere (TLT) – Brightness Temperature Anomaly- 1979 to Present;
and this is the University of Alabama – Hunstville (UAH) Global Lower Atmosphere Temperature Anomalies – 1979 to Present:
Note: Per John Christy, RSS and UAH anomalies are not comparable because they use different base periods, i.e., “RSS only uses 1979-1998 (20 years) while UAH uses the WMO standard of 1981-2010.”
The March UAH Lower Atmosphere Temperature Anomaly was .18 degrees C above the 30 year average and RSS Global Global Lower Troposphere shows a .130 degrees C increase per decade.
When we look at Earth’s “canaries”, i.e. RSS Northern Polar Temperature Lower Troposphere (TLT) Brightness Temperature Anomaly;
appears to have paused and is currently below the 30 year average, and RSS Southern Polar Temperature Lower Troposphere (TLT) Brightness Temperature Anomaly;
looks like it has been in The Pause for its entire record.
To this point we’ve only addressed the Lower Troposphere Temperatures, the following Temperature Anomaly plots from RSS will increase in altitude as is illustrated here:
Here is RSS Temperature Middle Troposphere (TMT)- Brightness Temperature Anomaly- 1979 to Present;
According to Remote Sensing Systems, “For Channel (TLT) (Lower Troposphere) and Channel (TMT) (Middle Troposphere), the anomaly time series is dominated by ENSO events and slow tropospheric warming. The three primary El Niños during the past 20 years are clearly evident as peaks in the time series occurring during 1982-83, 1987-88, and 1997-98, with the most recent one being the largest.” RSS
Middle Tropospheric temperatures appear to show slow warming overlaid with the El Niño/La Niña Southern Oscillation (ENSO) cycle, including several comparatively large El Niño events. Middle Tropospheric temperatures appear to entered The Pause with the large El Niño in 1998.
Moving higher in the atmosphere, RSS Temperature Troposphere / Stratosphere (TTS) – Brightness Temperature Anomaly- 1987 to Present;
has been in The Pause since records began in 1987, with a trend of just -.002 K/C per decade.
The 1997-98 and 2009 – 10 El Niño events are still readily apparent in the Troposphere / Stratosphere plot above, as is a spike from the 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo. Note that the effect of Mt. Pinatubo is the opposite in the Lower and Middle Troposphere versus the Troposphere / Stratosphere (TTS), i.e. “Large volcanic eruptions inject sulfur gases into the stratosphere; the gases convert into submicron particles (aerosol) with an e-folding time scale of about 1 year. The climate response to large eruptions (in historical times) lasts for several (2-3) years. The aerosol cloud causes cooling at the Earth’s surface, warming in stratosphere.”
Ellen Thomas, PHD Wesleyan University
It is interesting that, incorporating the impact of three significant surface driven warming events, Troposphere / Stratosphere Temperatures (TTS) have been quite stable, however there is a bit of regional variation here, e.g.:
RSS Northern Hemisphere Temperature Troposphere / Stratosphere (TTS) – Brightness Temperature Anomaly- 1987 to Present;
has been increasing by .041 K/C per decade, but is currently below average, whereas the RSS Southern Hemisphere Temperature Troposphere / Stratosphere (TTS) – Brightness Temperature Anomaly- 1987 to Present;
has been decreasing by -.045 K/C per decade, but is currently well above average after a recent spike.
Moving higher still in the atmosphere, the RSS Temperature Lower Stratosphere (TLS) – Brightness Temperature Anomaly – 1979 to Present;
“is dominated by stratospheric cooling, punctuated by dramatic warming events caused by the eruptions of El Chichon (1982) and Mt Pinatubo (1991).” RSS
The eruptions of El Chichon and Mt Pinatubo are readily apparent in the Apparent Atmospheric Transmission of Solar Radiation at Mauna Loa, Hawaii:
“The stratosphere” … “in contrast to the troposphere, is heated, as the result of near infrared absorption of solar energy at the top of the aerosol cloud, and increased infra-red absorption of long-wave radiation from the Earth’s surface.”
“The stratospheric warming in the region of the stratospheric cloud increases the latitudinal temperature gradient after an eruption at low latitudes, disturbing the stratospheric-troposphere circulation, increasing the difference in height of the troposphere between high and low latitudes, and increasing the strength of the jet stream (polar vortex, especially in the northern hemisphere). This leads to warming during the northern hemisphere winter following a tropical eruption, and this warming effect tends to be larger than the cooling effect described above.” Ellen Thomas, PHD Wesleyan University
The Lower Stratosphere experienced “dramatic warming events caused by the eruptions of El Chichon (1982) and Mt Pinatubo (1991).” RSS “The long-term, global-mean cooling of the lower stratosphere stems from two downward steps in temperature, both of which are coincident with the cessation of transient warming after the volcanic eruptions of El Chichon and Mt. Pinatubo.” … “Here we provide observational analyses that yield new insight into three key aspects of recent stratospheric climate change. First, we provide evidence that the unusual step-like behavior of global-mean stratospheric temperatures is dependent not only upon the trend but also on the temporal variability in global-mean ozone immediately following volcanic eruptions. Second, we argue that the warming/cooling pattern in global-mean temperatures following major volcanic eruptions is consistent with the competing radiative and chemical effects of volcanic eruptions on stratospheric temperature and ozone. Third, we reveal the contrasting latitudinal structures of recent stratospheric temperature and ozone trends are consistent with large-scale increases in the stratospheric overturning Brewer-Dobson circulation” David W. J. Thompson Colorado State University
Above the Stratosphere we have the Mesosphere and Thermosphere, neither of which have I identified current temperature time series for, but of note is that on “July 15, 2010” “A Puzzling Collapse of Earth’s Upper Atmosphere” occurred when “high above Earth’s surface where the atmosphere meets space, a rarefied layer of gas called “the thermosphere” recently collapsed and now is rebounding again.”
“This is the biggest contraction of the thermosphere in at least 43 years,” says John Emmert of the Naval Research Lab, lead author of a paper announcing the finding in the June 19th issue of the Geophysical Research Letters (GRL). “It’s a Space Age record.”
The collapse happened during the deep solar minimum of 2008-2009—a fact which comes as little surprise to researchers. The thermosphere always cools and contracts when solar activity is low. In this case, however, the magnitude of the collapse was two to three times greater than low solar activity could explain.
“Something is going on that we do not understand,” says Emmert.
The thermosphere ranges in altitude from 90 km to 600+ km. It is a realm of meteors, auroras and satellites, which skim through the thermosphere as they circle Earth. It is also where solar radiation makes first contact with our planet. The thermosphere intercepts extreme ultraviolet (EUV) photons from the sun before they can reach the ground. When solar activity is high, solar EUV warms the thermosphere, causing it to puff up like a marshmallow held over a camp fire. (This heating can raise temperatures as high as 1400 K—hence the name thermosphere.) When solar activity is low, the opposite happens.” NASA
In summary, Earth’s Lower and Middle Troposphere appear to have warmed slowly, overlaid with the El Niño/La Niña Southern Oscillation (ENSO) cycle, including four comparatively large El Niño events, and tempered by the cooling effects of the eruption of El Chichon (1982) and Mt Pinatubo (1991). Lower and Middle Tropospheric temperatures appear to have paused since the large El Niño in 1998. Tropospheric / Stratospheric temperatures appear to have been influenced by at least three significant surface driven warming events, the 1997-98 El Niño, and the eruptions of El Chichon in 1982 and Mt Pinatubo in 1991, but have maintained a stable overall trajectory. Stratospheric temperatures appear to have experienced two “dramatic warming events caused by the eruptions of El Chichon (1982) and Mt Pinatubo (1991).”, and “unusual step-like behavior of global-mean stratospheric temperatures” which has resulted in a significant stratospheric cooling during the last 30 years. Lastly, “during deep solar minimum of 2008-2009” “the biggest contraction of the thermosphere in at least 43 years” occurred and “The magnitude of the collapse was two to three times greater than low solar activity could explain.”
Ocean Temperatures:
“The oceans can hold much more heat than the atmosphere. Just the top 3.2 metres of ocean holds as much heat as all the world’s air.” Commonwealth of Australia – Bureau of Meteorology
From a surface perspective Hadley Center’s HadSST2 Global Sea Surface Temperature Anomaly;
and NOAA’s – National Climate Data Center – Global Sea Surface Temperature Anomaly;
both appear to be well into The Pause. Furthermore, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) Index is currently approaching lows not seen since Earth’s last cooling period:
Per Bob Tisdale’s research (1, 2), Pacific Sea Surface Temperatures;
haven’t warmed in 19+ years, East Pacific Ocean Sea Surface Temperatures from pole to pole (90S-90N, 180-80W);
haven’t warmed in 31+ years and Southern Ocean Sea Surface Temperatures;
have been cooling for more than 3 decades.
Obviously Sea Surface temperature only scratch the surface, thus changes in Ocean Heat Content are important in understanding “Earth’s Temperature”. Here is NOAA’s NODC Global Ocean Heat Content from 0-700 Meters – 1955 to Present;
and here is the same from Ole Humlum’s valuable climate data site Climate4you.com, NODC Global Ocean Heat Content – 0-700 Meters – 1979 to Present:
It seems apparent from the plots above that Global Ocean Heat has increased over the last several decades, and has not paused per se, however the rate of increase seems to have slowed significantly since 2004.
Sea Level:
“Global sea level is currently rising as a result of both ocean thermal expansion and glacier melt, with each accounting for about half of the observed sea level rise, and each caused by recent increases in global mean temperature. For the period 1961-2003, the observed sea level rise due to thermal expansion was 0.42 millimeters per year and 0.69 millimeters per year due to total glacier melt (small glaciers, ice caps, ice sheets) (IPCC 2007). Between 1993 and 2003, the contribution to sea level rise increased for both sources to 1.60 millimeters per year and 1.19 millimeters per year respectively (IPCC 2007).” Source NSIDC
Global Mean Sea Level Change – 1993 to Present:
Global Mean Sea Level Change Map with a “Correction” of 0.3 mm/year added May, 5th 2011, due to a “Glacial Isostatic Adjustment (GIA)” – 1993 to Present;
While it appears that Sea Level Rise has continued recently;
it is important to note that Sea Levels increased at a similar pace during the first half of the 20th century, before anthropogenic CO2 emissions were sufficient to have a significant influence on “Earth’s Temperature” and Sea Level:
Snow and Ice:
A proxy often cited when measuring “Earth’s Temperature” is amount of Snow and Ice on Earth. According to the United States Geological Survey (USGS), “The vast majority, almost 90 percent, of Earth’s ice mass is in Antarctica, while the Greenland ice cap contains 10 percent of the total global ice mass.” Source USGA
However, there is currently no generally accepted measure of ice volume, as Cryosat is still in validation and the accuracy of measurements from Grace are still being challenged. Sea Ice Area and Extent are cited as proxies for “Earth’s Temperature”, however there is significant evidence that the primary influences on Sea Ice Area and Extent are in fact wind and Atmospheric Oscillations.
With this said, here are
Global, Arctic & Antarctic Sea Ice Area from 1979 to Present;
Global Sea Ice Area Anomaly – 1979 to Present:
Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area Anomaly, 1979 to Present;
Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area Anomaly, 1979 to Present;
Arctic Sea Ice Extent – 15% or greater
Antarctic Sea Ice Extent – 15% or Greater;
and Sea Ice Extent – Change in Maximum, Mean and Minimum:
There appears to have been a negative trend in Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area and Extent, especially around Minimum and a positive trend in Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area and Extent, thus the resultant Global Sea Ice Area trend appears to be slightly negative. However, in recent years does appear to be a pause as a result of increases in Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area and Extent, balancing out decreases in Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area and Extent.
In terms of land based data, here is 20 Year Northern Hemisphere Snow Cover with 1995 – 2009 Climatology from NCEP/NCAR;
Northern Hemisphere Snow Cover Anomalies 1966 – Present from NCEP/NCAR;
Northern Hemisphere Winter Snow Extent – 1967 to Present from Rutgers University;
Northern Hemisphere Spring Snow Extent – 1967 to Present:
Northern Hemisphere Fall Snow Extent – 1967 to Present:
While none of the Snow plots offers a global perspective, when looking at the Northern Hemisphere, there appears to have been a slight increase in Snowcover and Winter Snow Extent, a decrease in Spring Snow Extent and no change in Fall Snow Extent over the historical record.
Based on the limited Global Ice and Snow measurements available, and noting the questionable value of Sea Ice Area and Extent as a proxy for temperature, not much inference can currently be drawn from Earth’s Ice and Snow measurements. However, there does appear to be a pause in Global Sea Ice Area.
Conclusion:
The Pause in “Earth’s Temperature” appears in many of Earth’s observational records, with The Pause lasting for at least a decade, and in reasonable portion of the records, it appears to have begun with the strong 1998 El Nino. The questions now are how long will The Pause last and where will “Earth’s Temperature” go from there?
Additional information on “Earth’s Temperature” can be found in the WUWT Reference Pages, including the Global Temperature Page and Global Climatic History Page
Please note that WUWT cannot vouch for the accuracy of the data/graphics within this article, nor influence the format or form of any of the graphics, as they are all linked from third party sources and WUWT is simply an aggregator. You can view each graphic at its source by simply clicking on it.
Just The Facts says, “Furthermore, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) Index is currently approaching lows not seen since Earth’s last cooling period…”
But the PDO is not representative of the sea surface temperature of the North Pacific so it’s a meaningless index for this discussion, especially when we consider that the sea surface temperatures of the North Pacific and the PDO are inversely related.
Steff Gaultier has written “Melting in Antarctica is worst in 1,000 years”
http://www.aljazeera.com/weather/2013/04/201341493439476979.html
Strange how she only concentrates on the Penninsula and not the main continent.
And to add to your “haven’t warmed” list, the sea surface temperatures for the Pacific Ocean haven’t warmed in 19+ years:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/12/06/model-data-comparison-pacific-ocean-satellite-era-sea-surface-temperature-anomalies/figure-2-42/
The graph is from this post:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/12/06/model-data-comparison-pacific-ocean-satellite-era-sea-surface-temperature-anomalies/
The sea surface temperatures of the East Pacific Ocean from pole to pole (90S-90N, 180-80W) haven’t warmed in 31+ years:
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/03-east-pac.png
And the sea surface temperatures of the Southern Ocean have been cooling for more than 3 decades:
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/14-southern.png
The second and third graphs are from the March sea surface temperature update:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/04/08/march-2013-sea-surface-temperature-sst-anomaly-update/
While I don’t have problems with acknowledging that the global warming seems to have taken a pause, I’m still missing sea heat content measurement for 0-2000 m. Selection bias?
The “Mauna Loa Apparent Transmission” graph seems to be strangely similar to graph presented as “CMIP5 multi-model mean” in figures 5 and 6 of a recent article:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/12/the-sun-was-in-my-eyes-was-it-more-likely-over-the-past-3-plus-decades/
which puts part of reasoning in that article to a whole new light.
If the earth had been cooling, and then temperatures remained flat, the econuts would be shrieking “there, it’s stopped cooling, now it’s going to warrm catastrophically”. But if the earth had been slowly warming, then stopped, they shriek “there, it’ll warm significantly again”.
Never do they quietly say “it’s no longer warming, so it could cool, and that, of course, would heve a far more reaching effect on mankind than any warming would”. They never seem to say that, and I wonder why?
Nuccitelli and Mann claim that the ocean ate their global warming:
http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2013/04/12/3735095.htm
“And still another study published recently in Geophysical Research Letters suggests that any slowing of surface warming during the past decade may have been associated with a recent accelerated penetration of heat into the deeper oceans.
This conclusion is consistent with other recent studies finding unprecedented warming taking place in the deep oceans. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), about 90 per cent of overall global warming goes into heating the oceans, while just two per cent heats the atmosphere. So the climate continues to warm, and all we may be seeing is a small change in how that warmth is being distributed between the ocean and atmosphere.”
Their fancy footwork seems to imply that the that real threat is the hotter oceans will unleash destruction like a fiery Kraken some day. But since the science was settled years ago, I’m sure we can ignore this new perspective. /snark
Unless a very hot summer is in store, 2013 is going to be the end of The Pause and the beginning of the Drop. Re Arctic ice extent, yesterday I drove past Dow’s Lake in Ottawa, Canada and noted after the snow of two days ago, it was entirely white – the ice extent still extends down to ~45.4 deg. N lat.
Bob Tisdale says: April 14, 2013 at 10:36 am
But the PDO is not representative of the sea surface temperature of the North Pacific so it’s a meaningless index for this discussion, especially when we consider that the sea surface temperatures of the North Pacific and the PDO are inversely related.
Hello Bob
I am not sure I understand your point; according to NASA:
You have obviously studied this much more than I, however, having a “broader area of cooler-than-average water off the coast of North America from Alaska (top center) to the equator” that can “remain in the same phase for 20 to 30 years”, seems like it could influence “Earth’s Temperature”. Thus why is the PDO “a meaningless index for this discussion”?
“Never do they quietly say “it’s no longer warming, so it could cool, and that, of course, would heve a far more reaching effect on mankind than any warming would”. They never seem to say that, and I wonder why?”
Why wonder when it is so obvious?
Because CO2 is a greenhouse gas which acts to retain heat in the atmosphere and oceans and it’s levels are increasing in the atmosphere.
So why would you back cooling?
The biggest factor in a cool PDO is the tendency for La Ninas and COOLER TROPICAL WATERS, which are much greater source for energy to the atmosphere. It is why the southwest Pacific and Indian ocean regions are such crucial “source regions” for global patterns. A drop of 1 degree in tropical water temps energy wise far offsets the rises in cold dry air. It seems to me that this is a big balancing act, inherent to the system which the agenda driven people caught at the right time to try to push the idea of disaster to further their aims, which I believe is a controlled populace. Sorry about the political nature of the last comment , but lets do the math. Seasons, more land north than south., A north pole that is a frozen ocean surrounded by land, a South pole that is a continent surrounded by water. You can go on and on with the reasons that the only constant is change, The idea that you can compare the way we measure things today to estimates even 50 years ago is absurd. In addition its arrogant to think a snapshot of a constantly changing system captures its permanent trend. The very nature of the system is like predicting what a knuckleball is going to do.
Lately my writings have been more and more focusing on the absurdity of this whole fight, even though it brings alot of attention to alot of us. But think about it, if the fight ends tomorrow, I have the weather to challenge me every day. But what of people who’s lives are invested in this? What if your whole worth is based on saving the planet ( even if it means shackling mankind) and you have but one issue that everything is based on, rather than the fight every day in front of you with the changing weather? What if your only source of adoration from your students ( or obedience to your decrees) was your stance on this issue? What if your paycheck depended on not being right tomorrow, but by some nebulous forecast for a period years away?
Who do you think is going to be the more open minded about this?
Thanks for putting this all in one post, this is the argument I have used for years and there really is no valid response from the other side.
You could add the lack of more tornadoes and hurricanes, but….good job.
Bob Tisdale says: April 14, 2013 at 10:51 am
Bob Tisdale – http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
Bob Tisdale – http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
Bob Tisdale – http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
And to add to your “haven’t warmed” list, the sea surface temperatures for the Pacific Ocean haven’t warmed in 19+ years:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/12/06/model-data-comparison-pacific-ocean-satellite-era-sea-surface-temperature-anomalies/figure-2-42/
The graph is from this post:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/12/06/model-data-comparison-pacific-ocean-satellite-era-sea-surface-temperature-anomalies/
The sea surface temperatures of the East Pacific Ocean from pole to pole (90S-90N, 180-80W) haven’t warmed in 31+ years:
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/03-east-pac.png
And the sea surface temperatures of the Southern Ocean have been cooling for more than 3 decades:
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/14-southern.png
The second and third graphs are from the March sea surface temperature update:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/04/08/march-2013-sea-surface-temperature-sst-anomaly-update/
Sure, I’ve added into the article the three graphs you suggested, i.e.:
Per Bob Tisdale’s research (1, 2), Pacific Sea Surface Temperatures;
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="578"]
haven’t warmed in 19+ years, East Pacific Ocean Sea Surface Temperatures from pole to pole (90S-90N, 180-80W);
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="578"]
haven’t warmed in 31+ years and Southern Ocean Sea Surface Temperatures;
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="578"]
have been cooling for more than 3 decades.
Thank you.
TheInquirer says:
April 14, 2013 at 11:10 am
Uh Uh the idiots back. Bete du village.
Which just go’s to show how far adrift the solar science and climate science boys are at understanding the Sun and it’s interaction with our atmosphere and climate. Bring on that minimum and let’s all learn more.
@ The Inquirer. You do know that the sun is about to enter a quiet period quite possibly leading to a minimum. Also the PDo has gone negative and the AMO is about to go negative and the current solar cycle will come down from it’s dismal high in a year or three.
Result. Cooling.
co2 is dead, long live the sun.
Doesn’t anybody go outside anymore? This year it’s been unseasonably cold – all year (eastern side of the Atlantic). In fact, each of the last 2 years was cool the whole year through – compared to the weather during the first half of the last decade. But this year so far it’s been colder still. Also, I’m in a maritime environment at a latitude with prevailing westerlies. So I assume the cold weather has to do with the winds coming in over cold water. So I assume the oceans have cooled, at least the part that’s nearby. This seems consistent with the unisys pictures I’ve seen.
Anyone who calls this a “pause” in the warming (implying that the present climate is the “hottest ever”) is still drinking kool-aid.
Kasuha says: April 14, 2013 at 10:53 am
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) – National Oceanographic Data Center (NODC) – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
While I don’t have problems with acknowledging that the global warming seems to have taken a pause, I’m still missing sea heat content measurement for 0-2000 m. Selection bias?
Here’s the graph for reference, i.e. NOAA’s NODC Global Ocean Heat Content from 0-2000 Meters – 1955 to Present;
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="578"]
however this graph is not included in this article or on the WUWT Reference Pages, as it’s accuracy is suspect. Bob Tisdale’s assessment is that, “The NODC’s pentadal data at both depths don’t appear to be credible.”
If you look at the measurement location data that the graph is based on (and use the top right arrow to page from 1955 – to present);
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/OC5/3M_HEAT/showfig.pl?navigation=t_dd_19561956_1_back
you’ll see that coverage doesn’t become sort of adequate until this century when, “Argo deployments began in 2000 and by November 2007 the array is 100% complete.”
http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/
If you use the down arrow on the prior measurement location data map to go deeper in the ocean you’ll see that coverage gets much worse with depth.
Furthermore, they are still sorting out how to accurately measure heat content using Argo, per the changes that were made to the heat content graph a few years ago;
ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/PDF/heat_content_differences.pdf
Their findings included;
“Largest differences 2004-2008 in the Southern Hemisphere, where consistent data collection begins ~2004.”
“Major factor in differences is new/changed data, updated quality control”
“Questions to be answered: Are quality control differences related to Argo delayed-mode quality control, NODC handling of data, or both?”
The entire AGW theory rests on a brief 20 year period of warming, from about 1978 to 1998. It was cooling before that and flat to slightly cooling after that. I just don’t see how anyone can have high confidence CO2 and temperatures are correlated and causal.
TheInquirer said: “Because CO2 is a greenhouse gas which acts to retain heat in the atmosphere and oceans and it’s levels are increasing in the atmosphere.”
Interesting choice of words. From the charts in the post it is obvious that heat is not being retained in the atmosphere. A minor amount of heat is being deposited in the ocean, eyeballing the chart it looks like about 2 x 10^22 GJ per decade. You may be swayed by claims of 3 or 4 times that amount, but please recognize that those claims come from a model that assumes heat is being pumped into the deep ocean, not measurements of that heat or heat transfer.
Brad says: April 14, 2013 at 11:21 am
You could add the lack of more tornadoes and hurricanes, but….good job.
For the last Big Picture article I did an Extreme Weather update:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/10/a-big-picture-look-at-earths-temperature-extreme-weather-update/
which earned my an Extreme Denial label from Tamino;
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/11/11/extreme-denial/
and seemed to indicate that there is no apparent correlation between between recent changes Earth’s Temperature and Extreme Weather event.s
Given the lack of correlation, I am thus hesitant to include tornado and hurricanes in these Earth’s Temperature updates, however we did crowdsource;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/23/crowdsourcing-the-wuwt-extreme-weather-reference-page/
the WUWT Extreme Weather Reference Page;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/08/introducing-the-new-wuwt-extreme-weather-reference-page/
and real-time data on tornadoes and hurricanes can we be found readily there.
I’ve been going on about what I call Procedural Certainty vs Representational Certainty. I would be appreciative if others could comment on this idea.
Procedural Certainty is that certainty which results from the mathematical methodology. In the temperature profile case, it means the error we speak of that results from how we take the data, modify it, adjust it, combine it, average it, smooth it and present it. It takes our methods of dealing with the uncertainty we attribute to each element and how the variability of these elements (as we define) may modify the whole (possibly using a Monte Carlo simulation). In conversation, the Procedural Certainty may be expressed something like this, “If we do what we do repeatedly with the tools we have and assumptions we made for tree-rings in these areas, the result is like this 95% of the time.”
The Representational Certainty is that certainty which deals with the amount of correlation with what we are getting out our work with what we are trying to determine, i.e. with “reality”. In the case of Mann or Marcott or the recent varve work, the Representational Certainty is an indication of how well the patterns of small samples, locally sourced, tree-rings, allenones or varve thickness reflect temperatures of a wide region. We might say of Representational Certainty, “Tree-ring widths increase and decrease along with regional temperature changes 80% of the time, and in proportion to the amount of change, also 80% of the time.”
For the example of tree-rings, you can see that the two types of Certainty are not similar. The first is valid for the purposes of the study, but only the second is valid for the purposes of understanding how the present relates to the past (and, therefore, for policy matters).
Procedural Certainty is what I suggest the IPCC trumpets. The skeptics argue about Representational Certainty. The MSM and public think they are the same thing, and they can be, but most times they are not, and may be quite different.
For climate science, to bring one in tune with the other requires correlation studies. For Mann and the others, there are several ways to do this.
One would be to take the proxy data (easiest for tree-rings) of the last 150 years from a wide variety of places that have close, decent instrumental temperature records and compare the two.
Another would be to take a similar but location-wise different numerical and geographic distribution of instrumental temperature data and process them in the same procedural way as that done for the proxies and compare the results to each other.
A third way would be to take the instrumental data and snip it into pieces (“samples”) representing the proportional time-length of individual pieces of the proxies (i.e. 11 for varves, 73 for the allenones of Marcott), leaving the spaces as they develop. This last would be trickier, as to deal with the overlap portions one would have to randomly assign portions of the overlap data to the samples.
We hear much of proxy studies but little of proxy-reality correlations. When both Mann and Marcott splice the instrumental period onto their proxies, they present the viewer with a fait accompli inference that the proxy record has a Representational Certainty equal to the instrumental, Procedural Certainty. It does not, which is why we cry foul. As we should.
The most egregious examples of the fallacy of the equality of Procedural vs Representational Certainty recently has been the Lewandowsky papers showing skeptics to be flat-Earth conspiracists, but the greatest of them was the paper that said 97% of scientists support CAGW and the IPCC narrative. Procedurally both these claims are correct, in that what they did produced those results, but Representationally neither is correct.
A paper or two showing the difference in theory and practice would go a long way to showing on what foundations of sand the edifice of Anthropogenic Global Warming has been built.
I measured the rainfall today at my house for 5 minutes. The trend was alarming! If this continues a global flood will be imminent!
That’s what all the alarm amounts to. Measuring temperatures in different places over a VERY short timespan and becoming alarmed at the results. Chicken Little’s got nothing on this.
TheInquirer says: April 14, 2013 at 11:10 am
Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
Because CO2 is a greenhouse gas which acts to retain heat in the atmosphere and oceans and it’s levels are increasing in the atmosphere.
So why would you back cooling?
I wouldn’t back cooling, but the relationship between increased Anthropogenic CO2 Emissions from Fossil-Fuels;
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="542"]
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="542"]
and changes in “Earth’s Temperature” appears suspect. As the Economist noted;
I think the prudent course of action at present would be to admit that our understanding of Earth’s climate system is rudimentary at best, our historical instrument record is laughably brief and our current predictive capacity as it pertains to the trajectory and likely future state of “Earth’s Temperature” is essentially nil. As such, our best course of action is to conduct more research and prepare to adapt to Earth’s climate regardless of how it changes. What do you think?
Your second sea level graph is outdated, I’m guessing because you used the one that Anthony has embedded on his page. Here’s the link for the latest version: http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2013_rel2/sl_ns_global.png
The newest version, in addition to having data through early 2013 instead of just 2011, also seems to have some additional adjustments to the pre-2011 data. Not sure just what the justification is for those adjustments.
rw says: April 14, 2013 at 11:51 am
Anyone who calls this a “pause” in the warming (implying that the present climate is the “hottest ever”) is still drinking kool-aid.
How does calling the recent lull in temperatures “The Pause” imply “that the present climate is the “hottest ever”? Note that I am currently working on a crowdsourcing thread;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/13/crowdsourcing-the-wuwt-paleoclimate-reference-page-disputed-graphs-alley-2000/
to build the WUWT Paleoclimate Reference Page;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/global-weather-climate/paleoclimate/
thus I am quite aware that the present climate is not the “hottest ever”. “The Pause” is simply a helpful meme to help our Warmist friends migrate away from the now untenable “Rapid Warming” meme.
JTF, Nice work.
Just the facts? Well, pretty darn close. JP
The HadCRUT4 annual time series from the Met Office, is at
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/diagnostics.html
HadCRUT4 includes 2012 and shows a near 0.05°C cooling from 2003 to 2012.
Anyone up for a betting pool based on Russian climatologists’ prognoses that beginning 2014 a 70-year “dead sun” Grand Solar Minimum will gather force, likely reaching the epic proportions of 1645 – 1715, when wolves froze to death in Rhineland forests and Louis XIV’s goblet frosted over at banquets in Versailles? If ice-breakup in Alaska excites the gambling confraternity, why not far more significant cooling just a year from now?
Habibullo Abdussamatov, Dr. Sc.
Head of Space Research Laboratory of the Pulkovo Observatory,
Head of the Russian/Ukrainian Joint Project Astrometria
Temporal changes in the power of the longwave radiation of the system Earth-atmosphere emitted to space always lag behind changes in the power of absorbed solar radiation due to slow change of its enthalpy.
That is why the debit and credit parts of the average annual energy budget of the terrestrial globe with its air and water envelope are practically always in an unbalanced state.
Average annual balance of the thermal budget of the system Earth-atmosphere during long time period will reliably determine the course and value of both an energy excess accumulated by the Earth or the energy deficit in the thermal budget which, with account for data of the TSI forecast, can define and predict well in advance the direction and amplitude of the forthcoming climate changes.
From early 90s we observe bicentennial decrease in both the TSI and the portion of its energy absorbed by the Earth.
The Earth as a planet will henceforward have negative balance in the energy budget which will result in the temperature drop in approximately 2014.
Due to increase of albedo and decrease of the greenhouse gases atmospheric concentration the absorbed portion of solar energy and the influence of the greenhouse effect will additionally decline.
The influence of the consecutive chain of feedback effects which can lead to additional drop of temperature will surpass the influence of the TSI decrease.
The onset of the deep bicentennial minimum of TSI is expected in 2042±11, that of the 19th Little Ice Age in the past 7500 years – in 2055±11.
See “Bicentennial Decrease of the Total Solar Irradiance Leads to Unbalanced Thermal Budget of the Earth and the Little Ice Age”, at http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/apr/article/view/14754 (Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov, 2012, Applied Physics Research)
Doug Proctor writes:
“One would be to take the proxy data (easiest for tree-rings) of the last 150 years from a wide variety of places that have close, decent instrumental temperature records and compare the two.”
This is a beginning but it is way weak. Ground proxy studies in actual empirical research. Let me give you the flavor of this. Near each tree that you select as a tree ring proxy, select a few more. Use one of the additional as the null case. On the others, experiment. Add water to one. Fertilize another. Whatever is needed in that environment to determine what factors influence growth of trees. Carry on the experiment for decades, centuries if necessary. No climate scientist who uses proxies has ever performed experiments. All of them presume that tree rings are God’s chosen thermometers. None will discuss the matter. Yet they call themselves scientists.
Wanna’ mess with their minds? Just go around proclaiming that the ‘pause’ in the Earth’s cooling has finally ended! Shout it from the rooftops, “The cooling trend which continued unabated till the 1930s, 40s; leveled off and then briefly returned in the 70s and 80s, only to end, now appears to be resuming after this lengthy hiatus. After this, pause, the cooling trend has returned!”
Wanna’ really mess with their minds (or whatever organ substitutes for it)? Just scream, “Finally, finally the bitter cold cooling trend has returned! And it’s about time!”
Very enjoyable read about important information. The part about surface and ocean temperatures is more enjoyable, maybe because of your commentary. Emphasize the exceptional nature of satellite measurements of temperature. Use Mr. Tisdale’s work whenever possible.
Scary thought for the day:
Pause or Peak?
justthefactswuwt says: “Thus why is the PDO ‘a meaningless index for this discussion’?”
The PDO is an index that’s statistically created from the sea surface temperature anomalies of the North Pacific North of 20N. But it does not represent the sea surface temperature anomalies there. I believe, other than the Apparent Atmospheric Transmission of Solar Radiation, all of your other data represented temperature anomalies—except for the PDO index.
If you look at the map in the link you provided…
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=8703
…the PDO data is derived from the sea surface temperatures north of 20N–about Hawaii, not the entire Pacific—where ENSO is dominant. Honolulu is at 21N. Looking at the map, one of the indicators of the cool PDO is the cool sea surface temperature anomalies of the eastern North Pacific, north of 20N, along the west coast of North America. But notice the area east of Japan. It’s called the Kuroshio-Oyashio Extension or KOE. The variations in the sea surface temperature of the KOE typically oppose those along the west coast of North America, especially when the PDO is at extreme high or low values. The sea surface temperature anomalies in the KOE are dominant in the area of the North Pacific north of 20N, not the eastern portion along the west coast of North America. Therefore, the sea surface temperature anomalies of the North Pacific, north of 20N, are generally inversely related to the PDO index.
Or another way to look at it, the PDO does not represent the sea surface temperature anomalies of the North Pacific North of 20N. Here’s a graph of the sea surface temperature anomalies for that region:
http://i45.tinypic.com/fkbspw.jpg
In no way does it look like the PDO index data.
Back to the post: You wrote, “Furthermore, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) Index is currently approaching lows not seen since Earth’s last cooling period…”
Looking at the graph I provided, the actual sea surface temperature anomalies for that region have cooled since 2005, but, at best, based on the smoothed data, they’ve only cooled back to the levels they were at in 1995—not “since Earth’s last cooling period”.
For more information on the PDO–what is and what it isn’t–refer to:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2010/09/03/an-introduction-to-enso-amo-and-pdo-part-3/
And:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2010/09/14/an-inverse-relationship-between-the-pdo-and-north-pacific-sst-anomaly-residuals/
And:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2011/06/30/yet-even-more-discussions-about-the-pacific-decadal-oscillation-pdo/
Regards
justthefactswuwt, PS: Thanks for adding my graphs to your post.
Regards
“Between 1993 and 2003, the contribution to sea level rise increased for both sources to 1.60 millimeters per year and 1.19 millimeters per year respectively (IPCC 2007).” Source NSIDC”
For the casual reader, give a practical interpretation of the scale. Oceans rising 1.19 millimeters per year will rise 11.9 mm per decade, 119 mm per century, and 1.19 meter per millenium.
It’s not a ‘pause’ until the warminng resumes.
The PDO index is a number with + and – values but those “signs” do not mean warm and cool. It is unfortunate the technique used to derive the index gives the + & – signs as part of the output. In hindsight the creators ought to have used something such as the Eagle pattern and the Salmon pattern. Then folks could say the PDO was big Eagle pattern or little Eagle pattern, or strong Salmon and weak Salmon.
Think of looking at a pig’s bladder (rugby ball):
http://smythstoys.static.s3-website-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/product_images/110832_L.jpg
Viewed in the manner shown, the shape is one thing; we can call that the “minus” pattern. Think of looking on it from the end, then it would look round or like a circle; call that the “plus” pattern.
Which is cool and which is warm?
Pattern!
Jimmy says: April 14, 2013 at 12:49 pm
University of Colorado at Boulder – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
Your second sea level graph is outdated, I’m guessing because you used the one that Anthony has embedded on his page. Here’s the link for the latest version: http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2013_rel2/sl_ns_global.png
The newest version, in addition to having data through early 2013 instead of just 2011, also seems to have some additional adjustments to the pre-2011 data. Not sure just what the justification is for those adjustments.
Updated in this article, as well as on the Ocean
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/ocean-pages/ocean/
and Global Climate;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/global-weather-climate/global-climate/
Reference Pages:
Global Mean Sea Level Change Map with a “Correction” of 0.3 mm/year added May, 5th 2011, due to a “Glacial Isostatic Adjustment (GIA)” – 1993 to Present;
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="578"]
Thank you
Just The Facts: Nice post, but you’ve got the RSS Northern Hemisphere Temperature graphs and NOAA Ocean Heat Content graphs muddled up…they need to be swapped over in location within the post.
“Just the top 3.2 metres of ocean holds as much heat as all the world’s air.”
Let’s check it: The mass of the amosphere is 5.148×10^21g, the weighted average (by air density) temperature of the lower 99% of the atmosphere mass (~33 kilometers) is 252.5°K, the average surface air temperature is 288.15°K, the ocean area is 361132000 km2, the average surface seawater density is 1,027 g/cm3, the mean surface seawater temperature is ~290.15°K, the heat capacity of the air is ~1.02 J.g-1.K-1, the heat capacity of the water is ~4.2 J.g-1.K-1.
The weight of the upper 1m of the ocean is
1,027.(3,61132×10^20)=3,70882564×10^20g
and has the heat capacity 4.2.(3,70882564×10^20) = 1.5×10^21J.K-1
so the upper 1m ocean heat content is (1.5×10^21).290.15K = 4.35×10^23J
the atmosphere has the heat capacity 1.02(5.148×10^21) = 5.25×10^21J.K-1
so the 99% of the atmosphere has the heat content (5.25×10^21).252.5K = 1.33×10^24J
1.33×10^24 divided by 4.35×10^23 = 3.057
Therefore so simplified the relative heat capacity equivalent to the whole atmosphere comes to me out being as the upper ~3.1 meters of the ocean which very well agrees with the Australian MetOffice number.
But one thing I still can’t understand which nobody still explained to me although I asked several times:
How it comes that while there’s the downward trend in the Sea Surface Temperature since the peak of the solar cycle 23 (http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2000.25/to:2013/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2000.25/to:2013/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000.25/to:2013/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000.25/to:2013/trend) there’s still an upward trend in the Ocean Heat Content (http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT//heat_content55-07.png).
Where all the heat to the sea comes from? One could say it is because there’s still like 0.031°C/decade upward trend of the average surface air temperature (the violet line) for the same period. The problem is that the average air temperature is ~3°K lower then the average sea surface temperature, so it would defy 2nd thermodynamic law if one claims that the air heats the water in the ocean. This looks to me something doesn’t ad up. Anybody?
Great information – when will the warmist admit failure to launch?
@ The Inquirer. The Inquirer seems to have stopped inquiring. If CO2 retains heat in the atmosphere and CO2 is increasing in amount, why is the atmosphere not heating up anymore, for 15 years it has failed to heat? The sun is in a quiet period, possibly leading to a solar minimum. PDO is negative, AMO is soon negative and the Northern Hemisphere and Antarctica are experiencing nasty cold periods. It is time for more inquring.
SH sea ice extent is trending well above last year’s record levels.
SH sea ice is the climate metric that is least affected by local to regional scale anthropogenic effects, and is therefore the best measure of what is happening to the Earth’s climate, when all the other factors, aerosols, etc. are removed. And it clearly says the climate is cooling.
I am not lost for I stand among giants who tell me what they see.
Eugene WR Gallun
“Global sea level is currently rising as a result of both ocean thermal expansion and glacier melt, with each accounting for about half of the observed sea level rise, and each caused by recent increases in global mean temperature”
What about considering displacement? With underwater volcanic ejections and land erosion contributing to sea level rise. While subsidence contributes to level falls. I imagine that displacement is a difficult parameter to take into account, but I suspect a significant influence on sea levels.
Great post, i will have to read it a few more times though. My thoughts for this time…
If the large eruptions quoted can have such effects could numerous smaller ( and concentrated in Russia and Indonesia, as well as the western region of the ‘ring of fire’ ) also have an effect on climate; especially for the Pacific Ocean.
http://www.geocodezip.com/v2_activeVolcanos.asp
The info does seem to indicate that the globe is going through some sort of ‘phase change’ (an analogy) where the temperature increase then stays constant…could the flatline be due to a minimum in the TSI and an increase in thermal energy converted to mechanical energy (increase in turbulence and eddies in both the atmosphere and upper oceans)? Will the temperature continue to increase when some sort of limit is arrived and/or the TSI increases again (soon?)
It is fascinating that the info also seems to indicate that the globe is tending to a dramatic difference in ice content between the poles…does this imply a change in circumpolar Antarctic current to increase the mixing of the southern oceans? Reducing heat content there and conversely not mixing as much in the Arctic to enhance heat content in the northern part of the oceans…
Does an increase in volcanic activity and earthquakes ‘heat’ the oceans?
Reblogged this on The GOLDEN RULE and commented:
I realize that the general public can not be expected to fully comprehend the detail science aspects of global temperature trends, but this post is a very telling presentation and represents the type of information that supports the ‘skeptics’ beliefs and arguments.
It seriously challenges the “science” upon which the agenda driven climate scientists base their beliefs and arguments.
One needs to be sure that what they believe in is likely to correct. Especially as they are risking their own future well-being by following the carbon control trail. To believe in saving the planet is absolutely correct but to be misled by the ;climate change’ propaganda is unfortunate indeed.
Andres Valencia says: April 14, 2013 at 1:07 pm
Met Office – Hadley Center – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
The HadCRUT4 annual time series from the Met Office, is at
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/diagnostics.html
HadCRUT4 includes 2012 and shows a near 0.05°C cooling from 2003 to 2012.
Updated within this article and on the Global Temperature reference page:
UK Met Office’s – Hadley Center – Climate Research Unit (CRU) Annual Global Average Land Temperature Anomaly – 1850 to 2012
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="578"]
Thank you
Graham W says: April 14, 2013 at 3:17 pm
you’ve got the RSS Northern Hemisphere Temperature graphs and NOAA Ocean Heat Content graphs muddled up…they need to be swapped over in location within the post.
I am not sure what you mean, can you please provide additional details and links to the graphs that you think should be swapped?
Never. (Warmism–the cause that represses.)
“Updated within this article and on the Global Temperature reference page:
UK Met Office’s – Hadley Center – Climate Research Unit (CRU) Annual Global Average Land Temperature Anomaly – 1850 to 2012″
This is NOT a land temp record. “hadcrut” means hadSST (sea) + CRUTem (land)
Uni. East Anglia CRU is NOT Met.Office. Hadley these are two different organisations.
HadCRUT should be labelled “land+sea” surface temperature
Another slip you introduce LOWER stratosphere as “moving up” after discussing stratosphere. You may need to check the meaning of lower 😉
It would be good to correct those slip-ups. Very good overview article though.
Quotes from Ellen Thomson’s work particularly interesting.
I have a few ideas about what stratosphere tells us but don’t have time to comment right now.
“… when we look at Earth’s “canaries”, i.e. RSS Northern Polar Temperature Lower Troposphere (TLT) Brightness Temperature Anomaly; appears to have paused and is currently below the 30 year average …”
========================================================
Looking at the bigger picture, the post-’79 warming looks less significant, particularly since the pre-WW2 warming could not have been mainly due to human fossil fuel burning:
http://www.climate4you.com/images/70-90N%20MonthlyAnomaly%20Since1920.gif
Diagram showing area weighted Arctic (70-90oN) monthly surface air temperature anomalies (HadCRUT4) since January 1920.
“Tu me fais du bien” etc… (April 14 3:52)
You do a series of calculations and nicely confirm that the atmosphere has the same thermal capacity as the top 3.2m of ocean. Nice one. That’s a useful parameter.
You then ask how, with air temps being 3K lower than sea temps, the atmosphere can be warming the seas, asking “Anybody?”. My conjecture is that the sun warms the oceans and the oceans warm the atmosphere with – and this is key – a timelag due to deep circulation. This timelag, I propose, is 99 years. Consequence: today’s air temperature is determined by solar activity at the outbreak of World War I. http://endisnighnot.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/lets-get-sorted.html
Brent Hargreaves says:
April 15, 2013 at 2:48 am
“My conjecture is that the sun warms the oceans and the oceans warm the atmosphere with – and this is key – a timelag due to deep circulation.”
Why “conjecture”? This quite likely can be true, we just don’t know how long the lag is – the 99 years would be most probably quite variable because interacting with other independent variables – e.g. solar activity given the different rates of the insolation changes in different times (for example now we experience the fastest decline of the solar activity since the fall into the Maunder minimum – the SIDC-SSN descended from 80.9 average SSN in the Hale cycle SC 21-22 to 34.4 average SSN of the current SC24 and the average will be even lower at the end of the SC24 – this translates into 0.7-1W/m2 decline of the average TSI per solar cycle).
I think that only place, where the warmer water on the ocean surface can significantly go deep (not just conduct heat deep – the liquid water doesn’t have too big thermal conductivity – just 0.58 W/(m·K) anyway) is in the polar regions – where the temperature of the water gets under the critical point of the water dilatometric anomaly – i.e. where the water is colder than ~4°C, there the warmer water sinks because it has higher density than the colder water. Otherwise it very much stays on the top having lower density and the temperature profile is the standard themocline. That’s maybe why the warming of the ocean would take quite a time and the thermohaline currents will take chief part in this. Also it is in the polar regions where the water gets in the contact with the ice and the latent heat starts to play its role. The warmer water in the currents melts more ice, which in turn cools the water with some lag. So the episode of a higher insolation can have with some lag an effect on the polar melting. My guess is that this lag is one to two solar cycles, due to 1. partial cancelling effect during one solar cycle – the insolation first rises into the peak of the cycle, and then again descends from the peak to the minimum partially cancelling the effect of the rise and 2. another limiting factor is the speed of the thermohaline currents which transport the warmer water to the places where it can sink deep.
My calculation was quite simplified – it used the standard atmospheric model and quite rounded numbers, that’s maybe why it doesn’t fit the Australian MetOffice estimate closer. One problem I see with the calculation are the polar regions where the water temperature is under the ~4°C. There’s a different thermocline than in the rest of the ocean and much deeper mixing. But because the heat content is there much lower than at the lower latitudes I ommited it.
clovis man says:
April 14, 2013 at 2:30 pm
It’s not a ‘pause’ until the warming resumes.
Thank you! For the time being it’s … what … a levelling? “Just the facts”!
That 3 plus meters of the ocean can get very much warmer or only a bit warmer. Why? It depends on how much short wave IR, which can zoom through things like CO2 molecules in the air, gets to the ocean. It’s like Superman’s xray vision. His xray’s can’t penetrate lead, shortwave IR is reflected away by clouds. The Earth’s own parameters are very powerful modulators of our Solar’s main component, SWIR. The oceans’ 3 meters of heat vs that of the air is not an actual measurement in situ. It is a general calculation between the two types of “stuff” and that “stuff’s” ability to absorb SWIR. In situ, you may find that at any given moment, the oceans’ 3 meters at the top is holding a LOT more heat than the atmosphere is.
And to be clear, the premiss of AGW, is that the atmosphere is perpetually aborbing and re-radiating LWIR from the surface (a proposed combination of CO2 re-radiating LWIR coming from the surface, and water evaporation from an overcooked surfaced which re-radiates more LWIR), thus warming the oceans, which then warms us. In a sentence, the air must be capable of holding more LWIR than the skin of the ocean AND in order for that heat to stay and build in the oceans, it must heat the ocean temperature BELOW that skin. This is not an in-the-future model. The premiss of AGW is that these conditions are happening right now.
Alas, the travesty is that this cannot be demonstrated by in situ measurements. Therefor the heat that is supposed to have been transferred into the oceans from the air must have been suddenly transported (Beam me “down” Scotty) very quickly and directly into deep regions of the oceans we cannot measure adequately with current devices. Theory plus magic. Want a spoonful?
Correction: It is a general calculation between the two types of “stuff” and that “stuff’s” ability to -hold onto heat generated by whatever generates that heat-.
Dang. I really mangled the part about heat versus LWIR. At the common level we use these two terms interchangeably and they are not the same thing.
Once more:
“It’s” is a contraction for “it is”.
“Its” is the possessive for “it”, as in “its characteristics”.
Don’t make me come over there.
Peter Miller says:
Pause or Peak?
Exactly. The currently available evidence supports both of those scenarios. One would only choose “Pause” if he is stumping for the “global warming” meme – and willing to ignore the incompatibility of a “Pause” with the “global warming” model predictions.
Perhaps “plateaux”…
I still think it is funny we are measuring global warming or cooling in hundredths of a degree. Your charts for the most part with the exception of one or two have no more than a degree above or below the mean line. Are we so sure of our accuracy? Really, is one degree hotter or colder a tragedy? We experience a greater temp change between any given summer and winter.. if one degree were such a tragedy…. we’d all already be dead.
Greg Goodman says: April 15, 2013 at 12:12 am
Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) – Microwave Sounding Units (MSU) – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
Greg Goodman says: April 15, 2013 at 12:17 am
This is NOT a land temp record. “hadcrut” means hadSST (sea) + CRUTem (land)
Uni. East Anglia CRU is NOT Met.Office. Hadley these are two different organisations.
HadCRUT should be labelled “land+sea” surface temperature
Corrected.
Another slip you introduce LOWER stratosphere as “moving up” after discussing stratosphere. You may need to check the meaning of lower 😉
No, this is all predicated on way RSS segments their data, i.e.:
[caption id="attachment_54069" align="alignnone" width="568"]
As such their Temperature Lower Stratosphere (TLS) measurement area is in fact higher than
their Temperature Troposphere / Stratosphere (TTS) measurement.
Thank you
clovis man says: April 14, 2013 at 2:30 pm
It’s not a ‘pause’ until the warminng resumes.
John Page says: April 15, 2013 at 3:20 am
Thank you! For the time being it’s … what … a levelling? “Just the facts”!
JJ says: April 15, 2013 at 8:42 am
Exactly. The currently available evidence supports both of those scenarios. One would only choose “Pause” if he is stumping for the “global warming” meme – and willing to ignore the incompatibility of a “Pause” with the “global warming” model predictions.
Perhaps “plateaux”…
Yes, you’ve clearly figured me out, just a closet Warmist stumping for the “global warming” meme…
Or maybe not. Let’s say you are running around a field and after a while you tire and pause to catch your breath. What about the word pause connotes that when you continue running, it will be in the same direction you where running in before? The Pause, is just a helpful way for those who believed the “Rapid Global Warming” meme to come to understand that it isn’t occurring at present. And “The Plateau” just doesn’t have the same ring to it.
Peter Miller says: April 14, 2013 at 2:09 pm
Scary thought for the day:
Pause or Peak?
Yes, that would be scary, but let’s see how the data unfolds. If the data does start to point to an extended decrease in temperatures, then maybe we will write about “The Turn” and “The Decline”.
justthefactswuwt says:
April 15, 2013 at 10:57 am
Yes, that would be scary, but let’s see how the data unfolds. If the data does start to point to an extended decrease in temperatures, then maybe we will write about “The Turn” and “The Decline”.
See the following:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1996.9/plot/rss/from:1996.9/trend/plot/rss/from:1996.9/to:2005/trend/plot/rss/from:2005/trend
I would say “over the hill”.
justthefactswuwt says:
Yes, you’ve clearly figured me out, just a closet Warmist stumping for the “global warming” meme.
Nah. Just a factual guy, unknowingly suffering a mild warmist infection of his vocabulary. 🙂
Or maybe not. Let’s say you are running around a field and after a while you tire and pause to catch your breath. What about the word pause connotes that when you continue running, it will be in the same direction you where running in before?
You weren’t talking about running. You were talking about warming. Drawing an analogy between the two as you have is not valid. Running does not have a necessary direction for its vector. Warming does.
When you reference a “pause”, you aren’t talking about a pause in temperature. That would be nonsensicle, as would be saying that “the warming has resumed, in another direction”. You are talking about a pause in warming. In the same way that talking about a pause in running implies that the running will resume, discussing a pause in warming implies that the warming will resume.
The Pause, is just a helpful way for those who believed the “Rapid Global Warming” meme to come to understand that it isn’t occurring at present.
But it does so in a manner that assumes the meme. Pernicious little meme, hanging on so tightly that JTF’s Razor doesn’t excise it.
And “The Plateau” just doesn’t have the same ring to it.
That’s why I suggested “Plateaux”. Much snazzier. 🙂
For something with a louder ring, try explaning that “global warming” has: stopped, halted, flatlined or (my personal favorite… drumroll please ) … frozen. 🙂
Love your posts. Keep up the good work!
Werner Brozek says: April 15, 2013 at 12:17 pm
Yes, that would be scary, but let’s see how the data unfolds. If the data does start to point to an extended decrease in temperatures, then maybe we will write about “The Turn” and “The Decline”.
See the following:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1996.9/plot/rss/from:1996.9/trend/plot/rss/from:1996.9/to:2005/trend/plot/rss/from:2005/trend
I would say “over the hill”.
Interesting, perhaps for your next article you could add in a section on the period of decline to present in each of the data sets?
Wow. So clearly presented and quite compelling: nice work. Thanks.
justthefactswuwt says:
April 15, 2013 at 1:40 pm
Interesting, perhaps for your next article you could add in a section on the period of decline to present in each of the data sets?
That sounds good! And I could change the title to: Are We in a Pause or a Decline? (Now Includes at Least March data)
Then I would tweak the introduction to answer the question. You may want the graphic below as the attention grabber.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1996.9/plot/rss/from:1996.9/trend/plot/rss/from:1996.9/to:2005/trend/plot/rss/from:2005/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.33/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.33/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.33/to:2005/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2005/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.1/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.1/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.1/to:2004/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2004/trend
Andres Valencia says:
April 14, 2013 at 1:24 pm
“Habibullo Abdussamatov, Dr. Sc.
Head of Space Research Laboratory of the Pulkovo Observatory,
Head of the Russian/Ukrainian Joint Project Astrometria…..” (talking about the coming cooling).
This fellow noted a parallel shrinking of Mars’s southern ice cap with warming as with the earth. Isn’t science wonderful when you are only committed to the science and not harnessed to an agenda. Reported in National Geographic (apparently in an unguarded moment since this mag is on the CAGW bandwagon):
“Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet’s recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause, according to one scientist’s controversial theory.” http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
My bets are on Habibullo!
JJ says: April 15, 2013 at 12:51 pm
Nah. Just a factual guy, unknowingly suffering a mild warmist infection of his vocabulary. 🙂
🙂 No worries about unknown infections, the selection of “The Pause” was by my own volition and with a well thought out intent. While, as a skeptic, you may perceive it as Warmist vocabulary, for a believer in the rapid Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, it offers a healthy gut check, hopefully on the path to a more informed viewpoint.
You weren’t talking about running. You were talking about warming. Drawing an analogy between the two as you have is not valid. Running does not have a necessary direction for its vector. Warming does.
When you reference a “pause”, you aren’t talking about a pause in temperature. That would be nonsensicle, as would be saying that “the warming has resumed, in another direction”. You are talking about a pause in warming. In the same way that talking about a pause in running implies that the running will resume, discussing a pause in warming implies that the warming will resume.
But it does so in a manner that assumes the meme. Pernicious little meme, hanging on so tightly that JTF’s Razor doesn’t excise it.
I don’t disagree that The Pause was used by some in the media in context of the warming, however I clearly stated that “The Pause” is in relation to “Earth’s Temperature”, i.e.:
That’s why I suggested “Plateaux”. Much snazzier. 🙂
For something with a louder ring, try explaning that “global warming” has: stopped, halted, flatlined or (my personal favorite… drumroll please ) … frozen. 🙂
Funny on the frozen front, but our goal here is to open minds, thus we need to use a vocabulary that speaks to, and resonates with, a broad audience. It is easy for a believer to dismiss “The Freeze”, but “The Pause” is much more likely to stick.
Love your posts. Keep up the good work!
Thank you
Werner Brozek says: April 15, 2013 at 3:26 pm
WoodForTrees.org – Paul Clark – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
That sounds good! And I could change the title to: Are We in a Pause or a Decline? (Now Includes at Least March data)
Then I would tweak the introduction to answer the question. You may want the graphic below as the attention grabber.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1996.9/plot/rss/from:1996.9/trend/plot/rss/from:1996.9/to:2005/trend/plot/rss/from:2005/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.33/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.33/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.33/to:2005/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2005/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.1/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.1/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.1/to:2004/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2004/trend
Wow, it appears that we are approaching 10 years of decline:
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="578"]
Definitely seems like a worthwhile article. Do you have the exact period of decline in each data set, similar to the excerpt from your last article that I used in the intro to this one?
justthefactswuwt says:
April 15, 2013 at 6:28 pm
Do you have the exact period of decline in each data set, similar to the excerpt from your last article that I used in the intro to this one?
In one sense, I do, but not in the way you mean. For example. In my article, I say:
“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.”
Then for RSS I say:
“7. For RSS, the slope is flat since December 1996 or 16 years and 4 months. (goes to March)”
See:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1996.9/plot/rss/from:1996.9/trend/plot/rss/from:1997.9/trend/plot/rss/from:1997.25/trend
However the slope for these 16 years and 4 months is -2.3524e-05 per year.
So when I say “flat”, it is actually negative, but so small that you cannot even see it most of the time. Furthermore, every month that is less than 16 years and 4 months makes the negative slope larger until we get to 15 years and 4 months where the slope is -0.00459907 per year and is very clearly visible in the URL above.
By trial and error, I found that the slope from 1997.25 is -0.00198635 per year.
So to give a better answer to your question, your question needs to be more meaningful. For example, do you perhaps want the maximum time above 6? years where the slope is at least -0.002? for example?
One of the key causes for the “pause” may be the saturation, or at least the trend to saturation, of urbanization worldwide, which diminishes the rise in surface temperature readings.
Pause??
For most of the time over the last several decades of global warming it would have been possible to claim (if you didn’t do any analysis and didn’t understand temperature/time series) that there was a “pause” in global temperature increase. See:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/plot/hadcrut4gl/last:120/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1990/to:1997/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1980/to:1987.5/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997.5/to:2003/trend
Meanwhile, temperatures have continued to increase.
Any reason for missing the summer Northern Hemisphere snow cover from the analysis?
Slioch says: April 16, 2013 at 1:01 am
WoodForTrees.org – Paul Clark – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
Pause??
For most of the time over the last several decades of global warming it would have been possible to claim (if you didn’t do any analysis and didn’t understand temperature/time series) that there was a “pause” in global temperature increase. See:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/plot/hadcrut4gl/last:120/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1990/to:1997/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1980/to:1987.5/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997.5/to:2003/trend
Which one of those lines is longest and which two lines are closest together?
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="578"]
Werner Brozek says: April 15, 2013 at 9:32 pm
For example, do you perhaps want the maximum time above 6? years where the slope is at least -0.002? for example?
Can we do the period of decline that is statistically significant to two sigmas?
justthefactswuwt
“Which one of those lines is longest and which two lines are closest together?”
Answer: i) green, last ten years.
ii) green and turquoise
The implication of your questions is that although no-one claims that the first two declines shown on the above graph (ie from 1980 to 1987.5 and from 1990 to 1997) signified a real pause in global warming, the present decline (last ten years) does so.
The period during which those first two declines occurred is universally recognised as a period of global warming. Indeed, Clay Marley, April 14, 2013 at 12:02 pm, emphasised that point earlier, referring to, “a brief 20 year period of warming, from about 1978 to 1998”.
The present decline is just a few years longer than those previous declines, (though none of the decline trends shown are statistically significant).
Do you regard the present decline as signifying a pause in global warming when previous declines manifestly did not?
If ‘yes’, what is your justification for so doing?
If ‘no’, what are you on about?
Outstanding article JTF. Thanks. It’s a great compilation.
Pause, hiatus, peak, rest, the semantics are irrelevant. The fact the IPCC acknowledges this “plateauX” is relevant and important.
One wise commenter’s adage ” The truth is the daughter of time” , sums it well. We’ll see in time what the correct verb is.
I personally am ecstatic over the fact that we all aren’t doomed. Why is good news rejected readily while bad news sticks and sinks in?
“Verb” should be “verbage”. oops.
Wouldn’t it be more useful to consider a longer period of time? I’m new to this issue, but I do understand the idea of geologic time. Is a mere decade and a half really anything worth noting?
REPLY: We had less than 10 years up uptrend in June 1988 when James Hansen went before Congress and told them we had to do something. – Anthony
There’s a pretty detailed critique of the snow and ice portion of this post at the following:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/04/15/not-just-the-facts-the-wrong-conclusions-too/#more-6639
Anthony: OK, I get your point although I did not know that. But the point is the same, wasn’t it? The short timescale really moots the discussion?
I mean isn’t the high variability in climate data explained by ‘weather’? And that’s why we use longer timescales? i admit I’m confused over this very long post because it is only talking about a short period of time and I don’t see how the decade and a half data is useful? In the end, the conclusions are that, yes, there’s a pause, and it’s clear in many different data sets and in the same (short) time period. But so what?
I recall seeing someplace a graph with a longer timescale showing similar episodic ‘pauses’ that were nonetheless buried in an overall and significant upward trend. That’s all.
msadesign:
I’m sure you have seen such a graph. It’s called “the escalator”. here it is:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47
From claimsguy on April 16, 2013 at 10:41 am:
Don’t forget the matching WUWT article:
‘Skeptical Science’ Misrepresents Their Animation “The Escalator”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/25/skeptical-science-misrepresents-their-animation-the-escalator/
Yeah, Hansen was forewarning Congress about impending warming (predicated on established physical processes), there would’ve been no point in him doing that after the fact.
REPLY: and…SCHWING! the point goes right over his head.- A
justthefactswuwt says:
April 16, 2013 at 5:54 am
Can we do the period of decline that is statistically significant to two sigmas?
No, we are not even close. When you have short times, the error bars are huge. And when the times are long, we just have not had that much cooling. The closest seems to be RSS from December 1997 and even that is -0.044 ±0.241 °C/decade (2σ). Hadcrut3 from that point is -0.010 ±0.146 °C/decade (2σ).
However even if we cannot show this to any significance, the diagrams I showed before clearly show the sine wave part and that we are on the way down.
msadesign says:
April 16, 2013 at 9:29 am
Wouldn’t it be more useful to consider a longer period of time? I’m new to this issue, but I do understand the idea of geologic time. Is a mere decade and a half really anything worth noting?
According to NOAA, 15 years of no change is significant in terms of how trustworthy their models are.
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 at:
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf
See:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/12/04/climate-realist-marc-morano-debates-bill-nye-science-guy-global-warmi#ixzz2E8w1uK5F
Here is part of the exchange between Nye and Morano:
“MORANO: Sure. Carbon dioxide is rising. What’s your point?
NYE: OK.
MORANO: No.
NYE: So here’s the point, is it’s rising extraordinarily fast. That’s the difference between the bad old days and now is it’s –”
Note that it is Nye who says that CO2 is “ rising extraordinarily fast”. See:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1958
That makes it all the more puzzling why temperatures have not risen in 16 years or more on three data sets.
Slioch says: April 16, 2013 at 6:11 am
“Which one of those lines is longest and which two lines are closest together?”
Answer: i) green, last ten years.
ii) green and turquoise
The implication of your questions is that although no-one claims that the first two declines shown on the above graph (ie from 1980 to 1987.5 and from 1990 to 1997) signified a real pause in global warming, the present decline (last ten years) does so.
The period during which those first two declines occurred is universally recognised as a period of global warming. Indeed, Clay Marley, April 14, 2013 at 12:02 pm, emphasised that point earlier, referring to, “a brief 20 year period of warming, from about 1978 to 1998″.
The present decline is just a few years longer than those previous declines, (though none of the decline trends shown are statistically significant).
Do you regard the present decline as signifying a pause in global warming when previous declines manifestly did not?
If ‘yes’, what is your justification for so doing?
If ‘no’, what are you on about?
No, I regard the present 10 year decline in temperatures as interesting and worthy of more research and careful monitoring. I find the 12 – 16 year period of flat temperatures as evidence of The Pause in temperatures, which runs counter to the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming narrative.
wbrozek says: April 16, 2013 at 4:58 pm
No, we are not even close. When you have short times, the error bars are huge. And when the times are long, we just have not had that much cooling. The closest seems to be RSS from December 1997 and even that is -0.044 ±0.241 °C/decade (2σ). Hadcrut3 from that point is -0.010 ±0.146 °C/decade (2σ).
However even if we cannot show this to any significance, the diagrams I showed before clearly show the sine wave part and that we are on the way down.
Understood, but I think we want to be really careful with how talk about decline, as we have limited confidence in it and don’t want to do exactly what the Warmists have done, i.e. ignore the uncertainty in the rush to prove a point. I like your positioning of Pause versus Peak, as it raises the subject without getting too far into length or significance of the decline.
johnbelljubble says: April 16, 2013 at 4:52 am
Any reason for missing the summer Northern Hemisphere snow cover from the analysis?
The source, Rutgers University doesn’t appear to offer one, i.e.;
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_seasonal.php?ui_set=nhland&ui_season=1
If someone can offer a reputable source for Summer Northern Hemisphere Snow Cover I’ll review it for inclusion.
garhighway says: April 16, 2013 at 9:53 am
There’s a pretty detailed critique of the snow and ice portion of this post at the following:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/04/15/not-just-the-facts-the-wrong-conclusions-too/#more-6639
It’s pretty funny that Tamino managed to skip over all of the actual temperature records and relied on the proxy section that led off with this warning:
None of credible temperature records support the Warmists’ position, so Tamino is stuck parroting Arctic sea ice and deep ocean heat as the last bastions of collapsing ideology. Tamino admitted as much in a recent article:
Got it, so if you adjust the temperature data sets based on a bunch of assumptions you can tease a warming trend out of one of them. Now I’m convinced, there is definitely no pause, clearly there’s runaway rapid accelerating dangerous extreme disruptive global climate weirding warming change right around the corner…
From Tamino:
[Response: Got it: when “justthefactswuwt” is caught peddling falsehoods about ice and snow, he won’t admit he’s mistaken or even respond to that at all — instead he’ll change the subject.]
garhighway says: April 17, 2013 at 11:08 am
Cryosphere Today – Arctic Climate Research at the University of Illinois – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
Data from Arctic Climate Research at the University of Illinois[/caption]
Data from Arctic Climate Research at the University of Illinois[/caption]
From Tamino:
[Response: Got it: when “justthefactswuwt” is caught peddling falsehoods about ice and snow, he won’t admit he’s mistaken or even respond to that at all — instead he’ll change the subject.]
That’s pretty hypocritical coming coming from a guy who wouldn’t “admit he’s mistaken or even respond to that at all” when I destroyed his gibberish about Extreme Weather here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/23/crowdsourcing-the-wuwt-extreme-weather-reference-page/
Anyway, the only coherent argument I can distill from Tamino’s article is that he took issue with my statements that “in recent years does appear to be a pause as a result of increases in Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area and Extent, balancing out decreases in Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area and Extent.” and “there does appear to be a pause in Global Sea Ice Area.”
As such, here’s the chart I was referring to;
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="640"]
here’s the associated data;
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/timeseries.global.anom.1979-2008
here’s a graph of the data since 2005;
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="640"]
and here’s a graph of the data since 2006;
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="640"]
The trend since 2005 is slightly negative, the trend since 2006 is slightly positive, hence The Pause in Global Sea Ice Area has lasted for between 6 to 7 years. Certainly not as long as The Pause in temperatures that Tamino so judiciously avoids, but a Pause nonetheless.
tamina has such a small following that his blog amounts to a thinly-populated echo chamber. He actually appears to believe that global warming is rising fast, and that the 2000s were the warmest decade, and that the rise in CO2 is the primary cause of global warming.
None of those assumptions are supported by verifiable scientific evidence or observations. CO2 continues its steady rise, with no commensurate global warming as was universally predicted by Hansen, Trenberth, the IPCC, and many others. In any other field of science, the fact that CO2 does not cause the predicted global warming would blow the CO2=AGW conjecture out of the water; grant funding would dry up, and honest scientists would be discussing why their CO2 conjecture was so very wrong.
But not in climate ‘science’, which is not science at all, but politics. Thus, tamina is playing politics, overlaid by a thin veneer of pseudo-‘science’. Unfortunately for him, the real world is busy falsifying his beliefs. And now the general public is beginning to wonder why the “carbon” scare is still being promoted. The answer, of course, is money, and lots of it. And the Sequester appears to have left that funding source unscathed.
At a loss myself and getting negative by the month…
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/