Image Credit: WoodForTrees.org
Guest Post By Werner Brozek, Edited By Just The Facts
*At least April data was my intention. However as of June 8, HadCRUT3 for April is still not up! Could it be because as of the end of March, the slope of 0 lasted 16 years and 1 month and they do not want to add another month or two? What do you think? WoodForTrees (WFT) is up to date however, thank you very much Paul!
The graph above shows a few different things for three data sets where there has been no warming for at least 16 years. WFT only allows one to draw straight lines between two points, however climate does not go in straight lines. Often, temperatures vary in a sinusoidal fashion which cannot yet be shown using WFT. However we can do the next best thing and show what is happening over the first half of the 16 years and what is happening over the last half. As shown, the first half shows a small rise and the last half shows a small decline. Note that neither the rise in the first half nor the drop in the last half is statistically significant. However the lines do suggest that we are just continuing a 60 year sine wave that was started in 1880 according to the following graphic:
Do you agree? What are your views on the question in the title? Do you think we are presently in a pause or in a decline or neither?
In the sections below, we will present you with the latest facts. The information will be presented in three sections and an appendix. The first section will show the period that there has been no warming for various data sets. The second section will show the period that there has been no “significant” warming on several data sets. The third section will show how 2013 to date compares with 2012 and the warmest years and months on record. The appendix illustrate sections 1 and 2 in a different format. 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). 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 8 years and 5 months to 16 years and 6 months.
1. For GISS, the slope is flat since January 2001 or 12 years, 4 months. (goes to April)
2. For Hadcrut3, the slope is flat since March 1, 1997 or 16 years, 1 month. (goes to March 31, 2013)
3. For a combination of GISS, Hadcrut3, UAH and RSS, the slope is flat since December 2000 or 12 years, 6 months. (This goes to May. I realize that Hadcrut3 is not up to date, but on the basis of its present slope and the latest numbers that I do have from the other three sets. I am confident that I can make this prediction.)
4. For Hadcrut4, the slope is flat since November 2000 or 12 years, 6 months. (goes to April)
5. For Hadsst2, the slope is flat from March 1, 1997 to April 30, 2013, or 16 years, 2 months.
6. For UAH, the slope is flat since January 2005 or 8 years, 5 months. (goes to May)
7. For RSS, the slope is flat since December 1996 or 16 years and 6 months. (goes to May) RSS is 198/204 or 97% of the way to Ben Santer’s 17 years. This 97% is real!
The next graph shows just the lines to illustrate the above for what can be shown. 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.
When two things are plotted as I have done, the left only shows a temperature anomaly. It goes from 0.1 C 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.
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 go to their latest update for each set. 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.)
The situation with GISS, which used to have no statistically significant warming for 17 years, has now been changed with new data. GISS now has over 18 years of no statistically significant warming. As a result, we can now say the following: On six different data sets, there has been no statistically significant warming for between 18 and 23 years.
The details are below and are based on the SkS site:
For RSS the warming is not significant for over 23 years.
For RSS: +0.123 +/-0.131 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990
For UAH the warming is not significant for over 19 years.
For UAH: 0.142 +/- 0.166 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
For Hadcrut3 the warming is not significant for over 19 years.
For Hadcrut3: 0.092 +/- 0.112 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
For Hadcrut4 the warming is not significant for over 18 years.
For Hadcrut4: 0.093 +/- 0.108 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
For GISS the warming is not significant for over 18 years.
For GISS: 0.103 +/- 0.111 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
For NOAA the warming is not significant for over 18 years.
For NOAA: 0.085 +/- 0.104 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
If you want to know the times to the nearest month that the warming is not significant for each set to their latest update, they are as follows:
RSS since August 1989;
UAH since June 1993;
Hadcrut3 since July 1993;
Hadcrut4 since July 1994;
GISS since October 1994 and
NOAA since May 1994.
Section 3
This section shows data about 2013 and other information in the form of a table. The table shows the six data sources along the top and bottom, namely UAH, RSS, Hadcrut4, Hadcrut3, Hadsst2, and GISS. Down the column, are the following:
1. 12ra: This is the final ranking for 2012 on each data set.
2. 12an: Here I give the average anomaly for 2012.
3. 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. ano: This is the average of the monthly anomalies of the warmest year just above.
5. mon: 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. ano: This is the anomaly of the month just above.
7. y/m: This is the longest period of time where the slope is not positive given in years/months. So 16/2 means that for 16 years and 2 months the slope is essentially 0.
8. sig: This is the whole number of years for which warming is not significant according to the SkS criteria. The additional months are not added here, however for more details, see Section 2.
9. Jan: This is the January, 2013, anomaly for that particular data set.
10. Feb: This is the February, 2013, anomaly for that particular data set.
11. Mar: This is the March, 2013, anomaly for that particular data set.
12. Apr: This is the April, 2013, anomaly for that particular data set.
13. May: This is the May, 2013, anomaly for that particular data set.
21. ave: This is the average anomaly of all months to date taken by adding all numbers and dividing by the number of months. However if the data set itself gives that average, I use their number. Sometimes the number in the third decimal place differs by one, presumably due to all months not having the same number of days.
22. rnk: 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 20 or 25 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. Due to different base periods, the rank may be more meaningful than the average anomaly.
| Source | UAH | RSS | Had4 | Had3 | Sst2 | GISS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. 12ra | 9th | 11th | 9th | 10th | 8th | 9th |
| 2. 12an | 0.161 | 0.192 | 0.448 | 0.405 | 0.342 | 0.56 |
| 3. year | 1998 | 1998 | 2010 | 1998 | 1998 | 2010 |
| 4. ano | 0.419 | 0.55 | 0.547 | 0.548 | 0.451 | 0.66 |
| 5. mon | Ap98 | Ap98 | Ja07 | Fe98 | Au98 | Ja07 |
| 6. ano | 0.66 | 0.857 | 0.829 | 0.756 | 0.555 | 0.93 |
| 7. y/m | 8/5 | 16/6 | 12/6 | 16/1 | 16/2 | 12/4 |
| 8. sig | 19 | 23 | 18 | 19 | 18 | |
| 9. Jan | 0.504 | 0.441 | 0.450 | 0.390 | 0.283 | 0.61 |
| 10.Feb | 0.175 | 0.194 | 0.479 | 0.424 | 0.308 | 0.52 |
| 11.Mar | 0.183 | 0.204 | 0.411 | 0.387 | 0.278 | 0.58 |
| 12.Apr | 0.103 | 0.219 | 0.425 | 0.353 | 0.50 | |
| 13.May | 0.074 | 0.139 | ||||
| 21.ave | 0.208 | 0.239 | 0.440 | 0.401 | 0.306 | 0.553 |
| 22.rnk | 6th | 8th | 11th | 12th | 11th | 10th |
| Source | UAH | RSS | Had4 | Had3 | Sst2 | GISS |
If you wish to verify all of the latest anomalies, go to the following links, UAH,
For RSS, Hadcrut4, Hadcrut3, Hadsst2,and GISS.
To see all points since January 2012 in the form of a graph, see the WFT graph below:
I wish to make a comment about this graph from WFT. It is right up to date. The only reason that both HadCRUT3 and WTI only go to March is because WTI uses 4 data sets, one of which is HadCRUT3, so if HadCRUT3 is not there for April, WTI cannot be there for April as well.
Appendix
In this part, we are summarizing data for each set separately.
RSS
The slope is flat since December 1996 or 16 years and 6 months. (goes to May) RSS is 198/204 or 97% of the way to Ben Santer’s 17 years.
For RSS the warming is not significant for over 23 years.
For RSS: +0.123 +/-0.131 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990.
The RSS average anomaly so far for 2013 is 0.239. This would rank 8th 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
UAH
The slope is flat since January 2005 or 8 years, 5 months. (goes to May)
For UAH, the warming is not significant for over 19 years.
For UAH: 0.142 +/- 0.166 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
The UAH average anomaly so far for 2013 is 0.208. This would rank 6th 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.
Hadcrut4
The slope is flat since November 2000 or 12 years, 6 months. (goes to April.)
For Hadcrut4, the warming is not significant for over 18 years.
For Hadcrut4: 0.093 +/- 0.108 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
The Hadcrut4 average anomaly so far for 2013 is 0.440. This would rank 11th if it stayed this way. 2010 was the warmest at 0.547. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in January of 2007 when it reached 0.829. The anomaly in 2012 was 0.448 and it came in 9th.
Following are two graphs via WFT. Everything is identical as with RSS except the lines apply to Hadcrut4.
Hadcrut3
The slope is flat since March 1 1997 or 16 years, 1 month (goes to March 31, 2013)
For Hadcrut3, the warming is not significant for over 19 years.
For Hadcrut3: 0.092 +/- 0.112 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
The Hadcrut3 average anomaly so far for 2013 is 0.401. 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 0.405 and it came in 10th.
Following are two graphs via WFT. Everything is identical as with RSS except the lines apply to Hadcrut3.
Hadsst2
For Hadsst2, the slope is flat since March 1, 1997 or 16 years, 2 months. (goes to April 30, 2013).
The Hadsst2 average anomaly for the first four months for 2013 is 0.306. This would rank 11th 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 January 2001 or 12 years, 4 months. (goes to April)
For GISS, the warming is not significant for over 18 years.
For GISS: 0.103 +/- 0.111 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
The GISS average anomaly so far for 2013 is 0.553. This would rank 10th if it stayed this way. 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.
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 own 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 think that we should spend billions to prevent the claimed catastrophic anthropogenic global warming? Or do you think 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?
By the way, here is an earlier prediction by the MET office:
“(H)alf of the years after 2009 are predicted to be hotter than the current record hot year, 1998.”
When this prediction was made, they had Hadcrut3 and so far, the 1998 mark has not been broken on Hadcrut3. 2013 is not starting well if they want a new record in 2013. Here are some relevant facts today: The sun is extremely quiet; ENSO has been between 0 and -0.5 since the start of the year; it takes at least 3 months for ENSO effects to kick in and the Hadcrut3 average anomaly after March was 0.401 which would rank it in 12th place. Granted, it is only 3 months, but you are not going to set any records starting the race in 12th place after three months. So even if a 1998 type El Nino started to set in tomorrow, it would be at least 4 or 5 months for the maximum ENSO reading to be reached. Then it would take at least 3 more months for the high ENSO to be reflected in Earth’s temperature. How hot would November and December then have to be to set a new record? In my opinion, the odds of setting a new record in 2013 are extremely remote.
Actually the estimated values at the end of the data range (which are based on less filter outputs and are therefore less precise) do indicate that there is a ~60 cyclic term in the data.
To support this claim please note that the filter outputs rather nicely converge on a 3rd order polynomial fit to the data so far 🙂
dikranmarsupial says:
June 10, 2013 at 12:07 pm
(and you need to stop cherry picking the start date as this invalidates the test for the reasons I explained earlier)
I am not sure why you are accusing me of cherry picking anything since it was Phil Jones who said in February, 2010 that the warming for the past 15 years was not quite significant. But a year later he said the warming over the last 16 years was significant. Are you suggesting then that Phil Jones cherry picked start dates?
wbrozek wrote “I am not sure why you are accusing me of cherry picking anything since it was Phil Jones who said in February, 2010 that the warming for the past 15 years was not quite significant.”
Phil Jones said this because he was asked a direct questions on the topic by journalists. Rather than evading the questions, as appears to be the norm in the blogsphere, he gave a direct and honest answer to the question. The cherry was picked by whoever suggested the question should be asked, I would have thought that was obvious to anybody that had taken the time to find out the actual circumstances of the quote.
dikranmarsupial: You never did reply as to if my data summary is a fair represenation of the data so far and its likely future.
tumetuestumefaisdubien1 says:
June 10, 2013 at 10:39 am
Thank you for your post. I am not going to verify all the math as you basically confirmed that a huge amount of J translates to very little temperature change in the ocean. However this caught my eye:
and has the heat capacity 4.2 × (3,7×10^20) = 1.5×10^21J.K-1
so the upper 1m ocean heat content is (1.5×10^21) ×290 K = 4.35×10^23 Joules
Would you not have to raise the temperature by 290 K to multiply by the J/K to see how much energy is needed? And it is physically impossible to raise water by 290 K since it is ice at about 271 K. Or am I wrong here?
wbrozek says:
June 10, 2013 at 12:48 pm
“Would you not have to raise the temperature by 290 K to multiply by the J/K to see how much energy is needed? And it is physically impossible to raise water by 290 K since it is ice at about 271 K. Or am I wrong here?”
The 290 K in the equation is simply the average sea surface temperature which if multiplied with the 1 m sea surface layer heat capacity (per 1 K temperature rise) gives the resulting heat content of the upper 1 meter of the ocean 4.35×10^23 Joules.
Yes there was something which heated the water in the ocean to 290 K average surface temperature (the water in the ocean usually is a liquid, not an ice), and the something was chiefly the sun – as it was also the chief cause of the recent slight seawater warming since the 1960s – as the comparisons of the TSI->SST dependence in 1902-1932, 1964-1994 and 1900-2000 periods here confirm beyond reasonable doubt even in the absolute numbers.
The points of my post was to show by the calculations using absolute numbers, that the amounts of energy/heat playing role in the sea water temperature fluctuations are way higher than anything which can be going on in the atmosphere and that there it looks like the enigmatic “missing heat of 10^22 Joules” is likely a mere Trenberth imagination – which is anyway too low number to compare with the by TSI rise directly induced SST anomaly rise by adding the 2 x 10^23 Joules of heat to the ocean surface layer in the 20th century – which can be easily accounted for – not in the deep ocean, but right at its surface. And that anybody who claims the solar variation is too low to influence the surface temperature anomaly changes in the actually measured range didn’t do the homework of actually checking it using a very simple high-school math.
RichardLH, as far as it agrees with physics, yes, where it is not supported by physics or tests of statistical significance, no.
JM VanWinkle says:
June 9, 2013 at 1:16 pm
“does anyone have a good handle on what initiates the glaciation phase?”
In my opinion one can sum it up in one paragraph: The glaciation phase will be triggered always when the previous warm period (caused by higher insolation of the ocean mainly at the southern hemisphere due to winter solstice-perihelion being in same phase) rised considerably the sea surface temperature and therefore surface air temperature and therefore atmospheric humidity and at the same time the Earth’s perihelion phases not with winter solstice (now the perihelion is in the beginning of January) but with summer solstice (due to axial precession once ~26 thousand years) leading to globally averaged forcing of minus 5-7 W per square meter (relatively to current TSI forcing) due to lower insolation of the ocean at the southern hemisphere, which then leads to seaice extent rise there, changes the southern thermohalines to the point of considerable slowing the equator-south indian ocean current and north pacific-south indian ocean surface current and so the south-north Atlantic surface current, cooling so north Atlantic, causing the summer snow meltdown insufficient at both hemisheres and triggers so the glaciation runout due to rising albedo caused by extending snow covered area – which will almost inevitably happen sometime next ~12 thousand years if someone doesn’t invent a way how to neutralize the minus 5-7 W per square meter forcing of the perihelion-summer solstice phase – which would mean to add ~1800+ TeraWatt into the system.somehow.
“dikranmarsupial says:
June 10, 2013 at 12:50 pm
RichardLH, as far as it agrees with physics, yes, where it is not supported by physics or tests of statistical significance, no.”
So the fact that the filter outputs converge on a 3rd order polynomial fit to the data so far is not statistically significant?
RichardLH wrote: “So the fact that the filter outputs converge on a 3rd order polynomial fit to the data so far is not statistically significant?”
This is getting a tad repetitive. There are standard statistical tests for this sort of thing, so perform one and find out. That is not rocket science, it is normal scientific practice 101. The onus is on YOU to evaluate the statistical significance of your findings.
@ur momisuglyrgbatduke
‘The really funny thing is that there has been no discernible warming from the time that the IPCC succeeded, by dint of Al Gore’s book and movie and an “unprecedented” public relations campaign, in convincing the public that we were certain to warm at a uniform, catastrophic rate for the rest of the century.’
….
RoHa says: @ur momisugly June 9, 2013 at 9:14 pm
That proves that Al Gore stopped Global Warming and saved us all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nah, It’s just the Gore Effect in action. All that suppressed global warming will show up during the nex D/O event I am sure.
dikranmarsupial says:
June 10, 2013 at 1:02 pm
“This is getting a tad repetitive.”
Indeed. I observe periodicity. You decline to engauge but instead reply that my statistictics are not ‘good enough’. I will observe that averages ARE statistics are so are 3rd order polynomials.
I have demonstarted a good fit to the underlying structure. You have not addresed why my analysys is wrong.
RichardLH, I haven’t just said your statistics are “Not good enough”, I have explained exactly why and what you need to do to put your argument on sound statistical footing. The fact that you would rather argue than look up the appropriate statistical test and find out the result really says it all. If you really think a good fit is sufficient, try looking up the statistical term “overfitting”.
dikranmarsupial says:
June 10, 2013 at 12:34 pm
“wbrozek wrote “I am not sure why you are accusing me of cherry picking anything since it was Phil Jones who said in February, 2010 that the warming for the past 15 years was not quite significant.”
Phil Jones said this because he was asked a direct questions on the topic by journalists. Rather than evading the questions, as appears to be the norm in the blogsphere, he gave a direct and honest answer to the question. The cherry was picked by whoever suggested the question should be asked, I would have thought that was obvious to anybody that had taken the time to find out the actual circumstances of the quote.”
You are funny. So saying it has warmed since 1750 is cherrypicking? So somebody utters a true statement and all you can think of is how to accuse him of SOMETHING? Hey, you could just as well accuse Phil Jones of being in the pocket of Big Oil; for which there is more evidence than for the Gelbspan Big Oil smear, as the CRU has been financed by BP.
dikranmarsupial says:
June 10, 2013 at 1:12 pm
I have shown you the statistics. I have shown you that the fit to those statistics is good. You have not adderessed any part of the questions posed.
RichardLH wrote “I have shown you that the fit to those statistics is good.”
So in the six minutes that elapsed between my post and your reply, did you look up “overfitting”? No, because if you had you wouldn’t have focussed on the model fit being good. LOL!
“dikranmarsupial says:
June 10, 2013 at 1:23 pm
RichardLH wrote “I have shown you that the fit to those statistics is good.”
So in the six minutes that elapsed between my post and your reply, did you look up “overfitting”? No, because if you had you wouldn’t have focussed on the model fit being good. LOL!”
Never wise to assume people need to look things up before they understand the term.
RichardLH, as I said, had you understood “overfitting” you wouldn’t try and justify your model using goodness of fit in isolation. You are just arguing for the sake of it now, life is too short, I’ll leave you to it.
Frank Mlinar says:
June 10, 2013 at 1:28 pm
“I think you still miss my point. Yes temperatures have been stable over the last 16 (?) years, but it is bad science to try to extrapolate from that small amount of data.”
This summary of the data says otherwise.
http://s1291.photobucket.com/user/RichardLH/media/uahtrendsinflectionfuture_zps7451ccf9.png.html
dikranmarsupial says:
June 10, 2013 at 1:29 pm
“RichardLH, as I said, had you understood “overfitting” you wouldn’t try and justify your model using goodness of fit in isolation. You are just arguing for the sake of it now, life is too short, I’ll leave you to it.”
Thank you for not answering any of the questions posed. I would suggest that you study more and opinion less.
Hypothesis
The UAH Global temperature anomaly data series (ref: http://www.drroyspencer.com) can be modeled as a sequence with the following terms:
1. 24 hours
3. 12 months
2. 37 months
4. 48 months
5. 60 years
6. Weather
Data Analysys
http://i1291.photobucket.com/albums/b550/RichardLH/uahtrendsinflectionfuture_zps7451ccf9.png.html
Cascaded central output running average filters of 12, 16, 21, 28 and 37 months span and the original data plotted on a scatter graph.
Inflection points extracted at the conjunction points of the filter outputs. These indictate local ‘zero’ crossing points in the data.
Peridoicity observed in the nodal values clustered around 37 months, 48 months, ~12 years and ~60 years.
Prediction
The values will continue to be bounded by an envelope dictated by the observed perodicity.
RichardLH says:
“Thank you for not answering any of the questions posed.”
==============================
Yes, I noticed Dikranmarsupial’s total lack of answers, too. I suppose Mr Marsupial will also avoid trying to explain why none of the climate models were correct. [Click in graph to embiggen.]
They all predicted rapid global warming. All of them. And they were all wrong.
Anyone who does not repudiate the models and their predictions at this point is a religious true believer. They can no longer claim that they are debating science.
What say you, Mr Marsupial?
Paul Homewood says that HadCRUT3 may be discontinued!
Oh my god, don’t they realize that people have placed monetary bets on the performance of HadCRUT3 into the future, especially with respect to the MetO prediction of “at least half of the next 10 years will break the 1998 record”.
How can they discontinue this valuable statistic? Are they going to discontinue CET too, only 330 years old, because they don’t like that it is going down? Who do these people think they are? I want my taxes back!!
/rant
Incidentally, my very nom de plume “See owe to Rich” is a pun between “CO2 is rich and good for the environment” and “see, I’m Rich, and you’ll owe me money if you bet against me on HadCRUT3”.
Rich.
Frank Mlinar says:
June 10, 2013 at 1:28 pm
The temperature may actually go down for a few years, but the overall trend is increasingly up.
That would then agree with Dr. Syun’s graphic and it is certainly not alarming. Right? But even if you think it is steeper, what can we lose by waiting and seeing if it is actually the case?
See – owe to Rich says:
June 10, 2013 at 2:52 pm
prediction of “at least half of the next 10 years will break the 1998 record”
Actually it was half of the next 5 from 2009. That is already out of reach. Here is the relevant quote:
“We are now using the system to predict changes out
to 2014. By the end of this period, the global average
temperature is expected to have risen by around
0.3 °C compared to 2004, and half of the years after
2009 are predicted to be hotter than the current
record hot year, 1998.”
As for the rise of 0.3, as of now, it has dropped about 0.05 since then. See:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2004/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2004/trend