June 2013 Global Surface (Land+Ocean) Temperature Anomaly Update

I am charted out I think I will put on my overcoat because It is freezing here in Australia

It seems odd to see the phrase “It decreased -0.02 deg C since May 2013.”, and my automatic feeling is that this is a double negative, and it is only after looking at the phrase “The June 2013 GISS global temperature anomaly is +0.67 deg C.” that I realise what is really meant.

@Bloke – I’m guessing that’s what the tip jar link is for. Actually he mentions his tip jar twice which might be accidental or an extra extra hint.

Global “Nothing”. No warming, no cooling. Now, NO Climate “Change”.

If you got to woodfortrees.com and plot HADCRUT3 from say 1995 to 2014 and then do the same for HADCRUT4 for the same time period you will what they are doing. The big El Nino of 1997/98 is being pounded down while the more recent temperatures are being pushed up. They are using “creating accounting” to diminish, step by step, the pause in global warming. Soon the 15 year pause will be diminished to 10 years and so on. In the real world this would be criminal but in the world of “climate science” it is SOP.

Its going to be pretty hard for 2.5C of warming to show up in the next 87 years when the rate of increase right now is basically nothing.
In 2007 the 15-yr trend was about 0.30 C/decade. Where was everyone then?
These short-term trends flucatuate.

Update: The June 2013 GISS global temperature anomaly is +0.67 deg C. It warmed about +0.12 deg C since May 2013.
Update: The June 2013 NCDC global land plus sea surface temperature anomaly is +0.64 deg C. It decreased -0.02 deg C since May 2013.
So the net difference between GISS and NCDC is 0.14. That is huge! To put that number into perspective, that is the difference between 3rd place and 13th place on HadCRUT4 where the anomalies are 0.531 and 0.392 respectively. Are we supposed to trust their numbers?

Village Idiot says:
July 19, 2013 at 9:26 am
It depends on the data set. And there is a difference between no warming and no statistically significant warming at the 2 sigma level. Different data sets are different. Take a look at the graph below:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1990/plot/rss/from:1990/trend/plot/rss/from:1996.9/plot/rss/from:1990/plot/rss/from:1990/trend/plot/rss/from:1990/detrend:0.3128/trend/plot/rss/from:1990/detrend:-0.3128/trend/plot/rss/from:1996.9/trend
The very latest for RSS is that there is no warming for 16 years and 7 months and no statistically significant warming for 24 years, going back to July 1989.
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 24 years.

Sedron L says:
July 19, 2013 at 7:24 am”……………………………………………”
_____________________________________________________________________________
We’ll see, but how long a trend do you need before you say it is long term?

The long-term CET linear trend from 1659 to present is 0.25 deg C per CENTURY !!
The long-term global trend from 5 Mya to present is -0.0001 C/century:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Five_Myr_Climate_Change.svg

Sedron L says:
July 19, 2013 at 10:02 am
Werner, do your statistics include autocorrelation? They should.
I am just using the tools at my disposal from:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php
Feel free to give your corresponding numbers using autocorrelation. By the way, did Phil Jones use autocorrelation when he said the 15 year trend at that time from 1995 to 2010 was NOT significant but later said the 16 year trend from 1995 to 2011 WAS significant?
Here is what the HadCRUT4 numbers are for certain years:
After latest update for Hadcrut4:
Start of 1995 to end 2009: 0.135 +/- 0.147. Warming for 15 years is not significant.
Start of 1995 to end 2010: 0.138 +/- 0.132. Warming for 16 years is significant.
Start of 1995 to end 2011: 0.111 +/- 0.121. Warming for 17 years is not significant.
Start of 1995 to end 2012: 0.098 +/- 0.112. Warming for 18 years is not significant.

Here is what the HadCRUT4 numbers are for certain years:
This is just silly. Of what possible significance could it be that the 16-yr trend is not significant, the 17-yr trend is, and the 18-yr trend is not? What does that tell you about climate? Essentially nothing but that a nonscientific choice of the interval gives useless results. Should one not worry if the statistical significance is 93% but do worry if it is 95.0001%? That’s silly.
You are getting all caught up in numerical minutae and failing to think about the big picture. Where were you 6 years ago when the 15-year trend was 0.30 C/decade? It was just as meaningless (though high) then as it is now (though low). It fluctuates greatly.
Most of us want to understand climate, not every little blip in the numbers.

FrankK: how do you konw the rise is “natural?”

Should climate and weather be corrected for autocorrelation?
No, that is just wrong.
The climate is, not by definition, but by fact, autocorrelated. That is what it is and what it does.
It should not be used when determining significance although people keep bringing this issue up.

Bill: Simple calculations show there is a great deal of autocorrelation in most climate data time series. Statistics aren’t meaningful unless it is accounted for.

tango says:
July 19, 2013 at 3:47 am
I am charted out I think I will put on my overcoat because It is freezing here in Australia
Coldest winter I can remember in Perth. Must be all that sea ice, which is a good 200 km closer to us than normal.
Be interested to see the UAH July update.

Sedron L says:
July 20, 2013 at 6:50 am
Do you think people in the year 2100 will care that the RSS 15-year trend was flat from 1998-2013, or that they are living in a +2 C (or maybe +3 C) world with an acidified ocean?
==========
most people will thank their lucky stars if the world is +3 warmer because there will be a huge increase in the global food supply.
as for acidified oceans that is physically impossible due to salt buffering. Only fresh water is acidic. the oceans are alkali and will remain so even if we burned all fossil fuel on earth.
CO2 is continually being removed from the atmosphere and precipitated out of the oceans as limestone (fossilized CO2). if this limestone was not recycled back to the atmosphere thru subduction and volcanoes, all plant and animal life on earth would eventually become extinct.
During the process of subduction, some of the carbon in the limestone along with water at high pressure and temperature is reduced by the iron in the earths mantle to produce hydrocarbons such as methane, which eventually rise to the surface and are oxidized by life to produce energy and CO2.
Most of the methane is consumed by bacteria. Some of it is extracted by human beings before it reaches the surface and used to produce electricity and other useful products.

The notion that a warmer earth is harmful is a foolish notion based on ignorance of the past. The earth has two stable average temperatures. 11C and 22C. This is well established by the paleo records going back hundreds of millions of years. 11C corresponds to dry, ice age conditions. 22C corresponds to widespread wet, tropical conditions.
Our current average of 15C is inherently unstable and as the paleo records show is unlikely to last much beyond 10 to 20 thousand years. We are already nearing 10 thousand years and the ice core records show an accelerating decline in temperatures, punctuated by warming periods every 1000-2000 years.
We are in one of these warming periods and as has occurred in past warming periods, civilization flourishes. Human populations increase as food supplies increase and surplus resources allow for an expansion of knowledge and learning.
If we were to return to the little ice age conditions of a few hundred years ago, then we should expect a large increase in crop failures and famine. We had a glimpse of this in the 1950’s and 1960’s, and led to the general fears of overpopulation and the Club of Rome predictions of doom and gloom.
Luckily for most people alive today the trend did not continue. The earth began warming, food production increased, and more humans have enjoyed a period of prosperity previously unknown in human history.

Sedron L says:
July 19, 2013 at 10:02 am
“Include autocorrelation when calculating uncertainties, and then tell us what percentage of the time a 15- or 20-year trend has been statistically significant. I think you will find that they rarely are. “
Somewhere along the way, somebody decided to use an arbitrary autocorrelation function pulled out of a hat which had a correlation time of about 30 years, and thus 30 years because the standard for what constituted “climate”. But, in fact, 30 years is just about the worst possible choice for baseline time given the obvious ~60 year cycle in the data.
In fact, if you include the autocorrelation pertaining to the ~60 year cycle in the data, you find that the trend of 1970 to the late 90’s is not statistically significant above the long term since the end of the LIA, which is A) small and B) trivially not an effect of rising CO2 levels.

most people will thank their lucky stars if the world is +3 warmer because there will be a huge increase in the global food supply.
Says who? You think plant growth is a function of just one variable, CO2?
Plants also depend on temperature and precipitation (among other variables), and there is already evidence that they are counteracting the increased CO2 fertilization effect:
David B Lobell and Christopher B Field 2007 Environ. Res. Lett. 2 014002 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/2/1/014002
Global scale climate–crop yield relationships and the impacts of recent warming
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/2/1/014002

Sedron L says:
July 20, 2013 at 12:47 pm
“…especially the strong ocean warming now taking place…”
There is no strong ocean warming taking place. There is none at all in the upper 700 m, and there is no path from surface warming to the lower layers which bypasses the upper 700 m entirely. This is a Hail Mary flail of desperation in the face of an uncooperative refusal on the part of nature to continue warming as was claimed would happen.

The 65-yr trend of HadCRUT4 is +0.10 C/decade.

there is no path from surface warming to the lower layers which bypasses the upper 700 m entirely.
There is — downward currents, as happen in the north Atlantic.

Sedron L says:
July 20, 2013 at 12:47 pm
Over 90% of the extra, trapped energy goes into the oceans. They are the best indicator of an energy imbalance.
I do not know how trustworthy all those ocean temperatures are, however even if we accept all those high numbers with ^22 J, in terms of an actual temperature change, if it is more than 0.2 C over the last 50 years, I would like to see you apply Q = mct to prove it. And if it is 0.2 C or less, then who cares? If the temperature of the deeper ocean went from 3.0 C to 3.2 C, it will be a long time before it reaches the average air temperature of 15 C and starts to warm the air. For all intents and purposes, the huge ocean is an infinite heat sink with an infinite capacity to absorb the puny amounts of heat we may possibly be adding every year.
The heat capacity of the whole ocean is 1100 times that of the air. So if the air temperature went up by 2.0 C, and if this heat then all went into the ocean, the ocean would warm up by 0.0018 C. Granted, that is a lot of heat, however the laws of thermodynamics say the heat is too diffuse to do anything and it is not as if 99.9% of the ocean can lose 0.1 C and 0.1% of the rest of the ocean can then gain 99.9 C. Things just do not work that way.

Sedron L says:
July 20, 2013 at 1:42 pm
Please do not be a fool, and learn the difference between past and present tenses.
Sedron L says:
July 20, 2013 at 1:43 pm
“There is — downward currents, as happen in the north Atlantic.”
This is a flail. There is no narrow pipeline which can carry heated waters to the depths without diffusion to the surrounding waters.

There is no narrow pipeline which can carry heated waters to the depths without diffusion to the surrounding waters.\
There sure is — it’s called the ocean conveyer.
But no need, since the 0-700 m layer is warming strongly too.

however the laws of thermodynamics say the heat is too diffuse to do anything
This is a joke, right? The laws of thermodynamics say absolutely nothing of the sort.
Heat is heat.

Sedron L says:
July 20, 2013 at 8:10 pm
however the laws of thermodynamics say the heat is too diffuse to do anything
This is a joke, right? The laws of thermodynamics say absolutely nothing of the sort.
Heat is heat.
From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics
“The prime example of irreversibility is in the transfer of heat by conduction or radiation. It was known long before the discovery of the notion of entropy that when two bodies initially of different temperatures come into thermal connection, then heat always flows from the hotter body to the colder one.”
“There is no narrow pipeline which can carry heated waters to the depths without diffusion to the surrounding waters.\
There sure is — it’s called the ocean conveyer.”
Are you suggesting that if you had a volume of warm water and it was conveyed to the bottom of the ocean that there would be any heat left in it a year later? Heat always flows from hot to cold and even if some hot water made it to a depth of 2000 m, being warmer than the surrounding water, would it not rise up and would not its heat diffuse into the colder water that it passes through?
You say heat is heat. You can heat a city by 2 C but you cannot use that heat to do useful work, but you can burn gasoline in a car and have the same amount of heat in a small confined area. That heat can do useful work. That is why heat lost to friction is considered to be wasted heat since it is too diffuse to be of any use.

Sedron L says:
July 20, 2013 at 8:06 pm
“There sure is — it’s called the ocean conveyer.”
The THC is not a narrow pipeline, and this is a massive flail of desperation.

Werner, what is your point — that the ocean is huge?
I think we can all agree to that. The question of interest is how, as a heat bath, does it affect the atmosphere and climate? Because it contains a huge amount of heat, and because this is increasing quickly on a per unit area basis, the potential is large.

The THC is not a narrow pipeline, and this is a massive flail of desperation.
How do you think water gets down there? Little diffuses from above, instead, it is taken down by ocean currents, as happens to the AMOC in the North Atlantic. Once there is stays for hundreds of years…. The Gulf Stream’s transport peaks at about 150 Sv….

Sedron L says:
July 22, 2013 at 7:28 am
Werner, what is your point — that the ocean is huge?
My point is that the ocean is a virtually infinite heat sink that we humans will never heat to a degree that it will affect surface temperatures.

Anything before 1900 is essentially speculative.
Talk about making up the rules as you go along!
Care to explain what happened in 1900 to magically make the data more than “speculative?”

Sedron L says:
July 23, 2013 at 7:24 am
Whether two objects exchange heat does not depend on their size, only on their heat content.
I do not agree. Suppose that I have a hot iron marble at say 80 C and I put it into a sink of water that I heated from 0 C to 15 C. The temperatures will reach a level according mct = mct for each substance.
Suppose I also heat a bath tub from 0 C to 90 C and put the same hot marble in there instead. What happens this time? While the bathtub has a much higher heat content, it will cool the 80 C marble such that mct = mct still applies.
What happens does NOT depend on heat content but only on temperature differences.
Think about it: you are claiming that no matter how much heat the ocean contains, however high, it cannot influence surface temperatures. Does that make intuitive sense to you?
I did not say that. What I said was: “My point is that the ocean is a virtually infinite heat sink that we humans will never heat to a degree that it will affect surface temperatures.” So I would agree that a huge asteroid could hit the middle of the Pacific and it would indeed have a huge impact. However our puny CO2 additions will never make the oceans boil. If the temperature of the top 2000 m did indeed go up by 0.0257 C in 8.3 years due to our emissions, how long will it take to reach an increase of 2 C? And even if this happens would it affect the air if the deep ocean heated from 3 C to 5 C?

Looking at this post, I think the average dataset indicates a clear upwards trend up until, and including, 2007. I think the plateau might be more evident (and may even show a slight cooling), if you trim the data to show from only 2008 to 2013. We don’t want people getting the wrong idea, if you know what I mean. Might want to do this soon too, as El Nino is forecast to return in 2014, which might throw off the plateau trend back into an upwards one, which would be catastrophic for the cause.
Good post!