My apologies for the delay. I was waiting for the NCDC to update their data webpage here. As of this morning, the NCDC has not updated it, so I used the 0.61 deg C anomaly for July 2013 published in the NOAA/NCDC State of the Climate Report for July 2013. Lesson learned.
Initial Notes: This post contains graphs of running trends in global surface temperature anomalies for periods of 12+ and 16 years using GISS Land-Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI) data. They indicate that we have not seen a warming hiatus this long since the 1970s.
Much of the following text is boilerplate. It is intended for those new to the presentation of global surface temperature anomaly data.
GISS LAND OCEAN TEMPERATURE INDEX (LOTI)
Introduction: The GISS Land Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI) data is a product of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Starting with their January 2013 update, it uses NCDC ERSST.v3b sea surface temperature data. The impact of the recent change in sea surface temperature datasets is discussed here. GISS adjusts GHCN and other land surface temperature data via a number of methods and infills missing data using 1200km smoothing. Refer to the GISS description here. Unlike the UK Met Office and NCDC products, GISS masks sea surface temperature data at the poles where seasonal sea ice exists, and they extend land surface temperature data out over the oceans in those locations. Refer to the discussions here and here. GISS uses the base years of 1951-1980 as the reference period for anomalies. The data source is here.
Update: The July 2013 GISS global temperature anomaly is +0.54 deg C. It cooled (a drop of about -0.12 deg C) since June 2013.
GISS LOTI
NCDC GLOBAL SURFACE TEMPERATURE ANOMALIES
Introduction: The NOAA Global (Land and Ocean) Surface Temperature Anomaly dataset is a product of the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). NCDC merges their Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature version 3b (ERSST.v3b) with the Global Historical Climatology Network-Monthly (GHCN-M) version 3.2.0 for land surface air temperatures. NOAA infills missing data for both land and sea surface temperature datasets using methods presented in Smith et al (2008). Keep in mind, when reading Smith et al (2008), that the NCDC removed the satellite-based sea surface temperature data because it changed the annual global temperature rankings. Since most of Smith et al (2008) was about the satellite-based data and the benefits of incorporating it into the reconstruction, one might consider that the NCDC temperature product is no longer supported by a peer-reviewed paper.
The NCDC data source is usually here. NCDC uses 1901 to 2000 for the base years for anomalies. As noted in the opening, the NCDC has been slow to update that webpage this month, so I used the 0.61 deg C anomaly published in their State of the Climate Report for July 2013 here.
Update: The July 2013 NCDC global land plus sea surface temperature anomaly is +0.61 deg C. It decreased -0.03 deg C since June 2013.
NCDC Global (Land and Ocean) Surface Temperature Anomalies
UK MET OFFICE HADCRUT4
Introduction: The UK Met Office HADCRUT4 dataset merges CRUTEM4 land-surface air temperature dataset and the HadSST3 sea-surface temperature (SST) dataset. CRUTEM4 is the product of the combined efforts of the Met Office Hadley Centre and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. And HadSST3 is a product of the Hadley Centre. Unlike the GISS and NCDC products, missing data is not infilled in the HADCRUT4 product. That is, if a 5-deg latitude by 5-deg longitude grid does not have a temperature anomaly value in a given month, it is not included in the global average value of HADCRUT4. The HADCRUT4 dataset is described in the Morice et al (2012) paper here. The CRUTEM4 data is described in Jones et al (2012) here. And the HadSST3 data is presented in the 2-part Kennedy et al (2012) paper here and here. The UKMO uses the base years of 1961-1990 for anomalies. The data source is here.
Update: The July 2013 HADCRUT4 global temperature anomaly is +0.51 deg C. It rose about +0.06 deg C since June 2013.
HADCRUT4
151-MONTH RUNNING TRENDS
As noted in my post Open Letter to the Royal Meteorological Society Regarding Dr. Trenberth’s Article “Has Global Warming Stalled?”, Kevin Trenberth of NCAR presented 10-year period-averaged temperatures in his article for the Royal Meteorological Society. He was attempting to show that the recent hiatus in global warming since 2001 was not unusual. Kevin Trenberth conveniently overlooked the fact that, based on his selected start year of 2001, the hiatus has lasted 12+ years, not 10.
The period from January 2001 to July 2013 is now 151-months long. Refer to the following graph of running 151-month trends from January 1880 to May 2013, using the GISS LOTI global temperature anomaly product. The last data point in the graph is the linear trend (in deg C per decade) from January 2001 to the current month. It is basically zero. That, of course, indicates global surface temperatures have not warmed during the most recent 151-month period. Working back in time, the data point immediately before the last one represents the linear trend for the 151-month period of December 2000 to June 2013, and the data point before it shows the trend in deg C per decade for November 2000 to May 2013, and so on.
151-Month Linear Trends
The highest recent rate of warming based on its linear trend occurred during the 151-month period that ended in late 2003, but warming trends have dropped drastically since then. Also note that about the early 1970s was the last time there had been a 151-month period without global warming—before recently.
194-MONTH RUNNING TRENDS
In his RMS article, Kevin Trenberth also conveniently overlooked the fact that the discussions about the warming hiatus are now for a time period of about 16 years, not 10 years—ever since David Rose’s DailyMail article titled “Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released… and here is the chart to prove it”. In my response to Trenberth’s article, I updated David Rose’s graph, noting that surface temperatures in April 2013 were basically the same as they were in June 1997. We’ll use June 1997 as the start month for the running 16-year trends. The period is now 194-months long. The following graph is similar to the one above, except that it’s presenting running trends for 194-month periods.
194-Month Linear Trends
The last time global surface temperatures warmed at the minimal rate of 0.06 deg C per decade for a 194-month period was the late 1970s.
The most widely used metric of global warming—global surface temperatures—indicates that the rate of global warming has slowed drastically and that the duration of the hiatus in global warming is unusual during a period when global surface temperatures are allegedly being warmed from the hypothetical impacts of manmade greenhouse gases.
A NOTE ABOUT THE RUNNING-TREND GRAPHS
There is very little difference in the end point trends of 12+-year and 16+-year running trends if HADCRUT4 or NCDC products are used in place of GISS data. The major difference in the graphs is with the HADCRUT4 data and it can be seen in a graph of the 12+-year trends. I suspect this is caused by the updates to the HADSST3 data that have not been applied to the ERSST.v3b sea surface temperature data used by GISS and NCDC.
COMPARISON
The GISS, HADCRUT4 and NCDC global surface temperature anomalies are compared in the next three time-series graphs. All three of those comparison graphs present the anomalies using the base years of 1981 to 2010. Referring to their discussion under FAQ 9 here, according to NOAA:
This period is used in order to comply with a recommended World Meteorological Organization (WMO) Policy, which suggests using the latest decade for the 30-year average.
The first graph compares the three global surface temperature anomaly products starting in 1979. The graph also includes the linear trends. Because the three datasets share common source data, (GISS and NCDC also use the same sea surface temperature data) it should come as no surprise that they are so similar.
Comparison Starting in 1979
For those wanting a closer look at the more recent wiggles and trends, the second graph starts in 1998, which was the start year used by von Storch et al (2013) Can climate models explain the recent stagnation in global warming? They, of course, found that the CMIP3 (IPCC AR4) and CMIP5 (IPCC AR5) models could NOT explain the recent slowdown in warming.
Comparison Starting in 1998
The third comparison graph starts with Kevin Trenberth’s chosen year of 2001, as discussed above.
Comparison Starting in 2001
AVERAGE
The last graph presents the average of the GISS, HADCRUT and NCDC land plus sea surface temperature anomaly products. The flatness of the data since 2001 is very obvious, as is the fact that surface temperatures have rarely risen above those created by the 1997/98 El Niño.
Average of Global Land+Sea Surface Temperature Anomaly Products
YOU’LL GET A LAUGH OUT OF THIS
Last month, I presented a post here about the impacts of base years on the presentation of global surface temperature anomalies. I used 1979 as the start year. It’s a commonly used start year because the satellite era of global temperature products starts then.
According to a recent blog post by a global warming enthusiast, here, my using the start year of 1979 is “hiding the incline”.
I can categorically state that I’m not hiding the incline. It’s not me. The data are doing a great job all on their own of hiding the incline, because there hasn’t been one to any great extent for the past 12 to 16 years. The data don’t need any help from me.
My guess about the reason the NCDC was so slow at updating their data webpage is someone’s on holiday.
NCDC provided the really early August 2013 preliminary update for their Reynolds OI.v2 sea surface temperature data on Monday of this week. See post here:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/08/26/very-preliminary-august-2013-sea-surface-temperature-sst-update/
So I was surprised at their delay with the July combined surface temperature product. The UKMO even posted their July 2013 data before the NCDC. Sheesh.
It cooled (a drop of about -0.12 deg C) since June 2013.
It decreased -0.03 deg C since June 2013.
It rose about +0.06 deg C since June 2013.
===
sheesh…………
Ah but the heat is all hiding at the bottom of the ocean! [sarc off]
There must be a lot of warmists out there with squeaky bums, all praying for a warm spell so they can keep the grant money rolling in.
Paul Homewood says: “Ah but the heat is all hiding at the bottom of the ocean! [sarc off]”
Where it’s circulated and dispersed within a monumental volume of water so that if it does appear again it will only be in little teeny-weeny increments.
Thanks Bob. That Sou fella seems a bit driven doesn’t he.
Purely using the Mark 1 Eyeball, it looks to me that we reached the apex of the curve around 2006/7 and are on the downward curve now. With the proviso that a spike to an anomaly of around +0.8 degrees is fairly likely in the next 2 years at some point.
It has been rumored that “inclines” only go up. Is that true?
Given GISTEMP’s admitted uncertainties in the global surface air temperature record, it is possible that that there’s been no global warming at the earth’s surface for at least 50 years.
http://lidskialf.blogspot.co.uk/
Keitho says:
“That Sou fella seems a bit driven doesn’t he”.
A bit driven ? His fixation with Anthony staggers along a blurry line somewhere between obsessive and creepy.
REPLY: actually, a “her” see http://wattsupwiththat.com/about-wuwt/my-blog-spawn/
– Anthony
I can’t find a reference describing the radiative forcing model used in CMIP5. Any direction would be appreciated.
Nature abhors straight lines. Didn’t we used to get a second order curve fit graph for entertainment purposes only?
I think you’ll find that that Sou fella is [actually] a Sheila.
Keitho says:
August 30, 2013 at 6:11 am
That Sou fella seems a bit driven doesn’t he.
That’s putting it mildly. Wear a face shield. He’s definitely of the spittle-and-drool club.
Observing Bob’s charts and how really nothing spectacular has occurred in these temperature indices in near two decades, I am struck by the notion that the global warming (GW) alarmist industry has now established a predictable seasonal cycle, which goes something like this:
THE ALARMIST CALENDAR
JANUARY
* If not enough snow, it is because of GW; too, much snow is also due to GW.
* Release scientific studies on how the snow is not as snowy as it used to be.
FEBRUARY
* Repeat GW scares about too little / too much snow.
* Any severe weather or mild temperatures are unprecedented, earliest ever recorded etc.
MARCH
* Release studies on how early spring tornadoes are stronger than ever.
* If temperatures are warm, then spring is coming earlier and the entire biosphere is in risk of collapse.
APRIL
* If tornado counts are up, then it’s never happened before – ever (well, at least in the last two years).
* Begin naming low pressure systems and make them sound really scary (e.g. Low Pressure system “Blunderbuss”).
MAY
* More tornado scares – tornadoes are bigger/meaner/more common than they used to be.
* Start scaring people about arctic sea ice melt and potential early season tropical disturbances.
JUNE
* Continue with the sea ice scares, especially if the melt is above “normal”. Make sure to show some cuddly CGI polar bears.
* Hot temperatures are of course due to GW, as are fires, floods, high winds…
JULY
* More sea ice scariness, and hot temperature GW alarmism.
* Inform the public that every tropical puff of wind is a potential new Katrina.
AUGUST
* If hurricanes form, it all because of unprecedented sea surface temperatures and GW.
* Of course, hot temperatures are only due to GW.
SEPTEMBER
* Hope, hope, hope for a sea ice near-record minimum! Please, please, please!
* Hope, hope, hope for a hurricane land fall. Please, please, please!
OCTOBER
* Continue to hope, hope, hope for a hurricane land fall. At this point, we’ll take anything at all!
* If temperatures are even slightly high, then blame GW, and release reports on how it will destroy our beautiful fall colors!
NOVEMBER
* Any severe weather now has never been seen before – blame GW.
* Any hurricanes now have never been seen before – blame GW.
DECEMBER
* Begin GW scare about not enough snow or too much snow.
* Finish securing billions of dollars in government funding for GW “research” for next year.
HAPPY SCARY GLOBAL WARMING NEW YEAR!!!
I posted this in tip and notes, but it’s relavent here:
Ok, so recently the meme has been that man-global warming has only “dominated” since about the 1980s. I call Bullshit.
The greenhouse effect should have been as strong or stronger in the early half of the century. CO2 concentrations have been inreasing, but almost linearly. They seem to be approaching an asymptote. Anyway, with the log relationship with forcing there should have been plenty of warming earlier because the relative change in concerntration was higher.
So, my question is, what do temperatures look like when corrected for the direct calculated greenhouse effect for actual measured concentrations of greenhouse gasses? What then do the graphs look like when corrected for more recently calculated quasi-cyclical patterns like the PDO, AMO…
I simply don’t see how large, positive feedbacks are plausible. Nearly all of the warming over the past 50 years not explained by the direct effect of greenhouse gasses would need to be from feedbacks for anything beyond the benificial rate warming we’ve experienced to be plausible.
In order to cool, you must first stop warming, and it is undeniably obvious to anyone that we have stopped warming.
“Given GISTEMP’s admitted uncertainties in the global surface air temperature record, it is possible that that there’s been no global warming at the earth’s surface for at least 50 years”.
Looking at the Met Office weather observations page the other day, I noticed that many of the recording sites are civil and military airfields including Heathrow. Lots of UHI surely, I wonder what downward adjustment is applied?
Frank K. says:
August 30, 2013 at 8:13 am
…
THE ALARMIST CALENDAR
…
Cool! But, please, add the Methane Bomb and Permafrost collapse in… perhaps…, june ? Oh, yeah, Ocean Acidification must be in the summer too.
Thanks, Bob. As you point out, the recent flatness is very obvious.
What is the point of calculating a 151-month linear trend? Your own graph shows it varies greatly — 0.34 C/decade in 2005, zero now, just 8 years later.
From that I’m supposed to conclude what? The main conclusion is that 151 months tells you nothing except there is noise in the system.
Some people want to study noise. But some people find studying climate to be much more meaningful and interesting.
Sedron L says: “What is the point of calculating a 151-month linear trend? Your own graph shows it varies greatly — 0.34 C/decade in 2005, zero now, just 8 years later.”
Did you read the post, Sedron L, or just look at the graphs? I created the graph of running trends in response to Trenberth’s sleight of hand in his article for the Royal Metoeorological Society. One of the points Trenberth tried (and failed) to make in his article was to show that the current hiatus period was not unusual since the 1970s but the data contradicts him.
Have a nice day.
Sedron L says:
August 30, 2013 at 10:42 am
… The main conclusion is that 151 months tells you nothing except there is noise in the system.
Some people want to study noise. But some people find studying climate to be much more meaningful and interesting.
What? The “climate” (system) is the human created average of Earth’s atmospheric weather (the temperature/energy component in this case) over time past (151 months in this case) and over some selected area (global – in theory – in this case). The “noise” is the temperature/energy component of the weather (atmosphere) system. Please explain how YOU would study the “climate” system without studying (summarizing/trending) the “noise” – in this case?? And, for extra credit, describe “climate” without using any weather (noise) terms. When it comes the atmosphere over your head, there is only NOW. (Inclusive of the next few hours and that’s NOT climate.) Yesterday is gone and tomorrow is but a hope. Ask any farmer, fisherman or golfer. They among others couldn’t care less about averages – the climate.
Given current ENSO conditions I will be highly surprised if we see any return to warming in the next 12 months. Spikes in the global temp anomaly generally tie in with el-nino conditions and even then on a lagged basis.
If anything the most recent ENSO data would indicate the potential for a weak La Nina which is certainly not going to push temps up.
This time next year we will be discussing 17 years without warming.
Many thanks to Bob Tisdale for providing a great set of factual graphs to shove under the nose of any Warmista that starts rabbiting on about a warm summer, spring, winter or autumn in Australia.
Bob Tisdale: If you want to focus on noise, go ahead. Most of us are focused on climate.
The large variance in the 151-month trend shows that it is useless — it varies far too much for any useful conclusions about climate to come from it.
Bob Tisdale looks to be more interested in playin “gotcha” than in doing and understanding science.
David W wrote:
This time next year we will be discussing 17 years without warming.
Correction: You mean without the *surface* warming.
Other parts of the system are warming strongly.
As Roger Piekle Sr recently noted, the surface is a very lousy place to look for the energy imbalance created by the enhanced greenhouse effect.
Please explain how YOU would study the “climate” system without studying (summarizing/trending) the “noise” – in this case??
Simple — by studying intervals that are representative of climate, not (oceanic) weather. 30 years or more.
Sedron L says:
August 30, 2013 at 5:31 pm ,blockquote>
Simple — by studying intervals that are representative of climate, not (oceanic) weather. 30 years or more.
So, by your statement, we should ignore as “noise” or “trivia” the ONLY part of earth’s history that DOES support your rising CO2 -> rising temperatures -> CAGW dogma?
After all, that short little 23 year period from 1975 through 1998 is the only time that does provide support for your theory. 8<)
Flat Climate Change
Sedron L says: “Bob Tisdale: If you want to focus on noise, go ahead. Most of us are focused on climate.”
“Most of us”? Did you bring someone with you, Sedron L?
The data I presented in this post is still the most commonly used metric of global warming and climate change. Are you aware of that, Sedron L?
You keep saying that I’ve focused on noise. It’s become your mantra. I haven’t focused on noise. In fact, I’ve used longer periods of time than were presented by Trenberth. Have you still not read the post, Sedron L?
You, Sedron L, have repeatedly stated that decadal+ variations are noise, but without understanding why those decadal variations exist, you can never hope to understand multidecadal variability. And to understand the decadal variations, you must also understand the processes that cause the monthly and annual changes. The climate science community under the direction of the IPCC has never had that focus and that’s why their climate models are catastrophic failures.
You, and whoever else you include in your foolishly self-proclaimed umbrella of “most of us”, can go focus on whatever you want, Sedron L, but do not tell me that my presentation of data is flawed, when it is not.
Adios.
Bill Church says:
August 30, 2013 at 9:05 am
“Given GISTEMP’s admitted uncertainties in the global surface air temperature record, it is possible that that there’s been no global warming at the earth’s surface for at least 50 years”.
Looking at the Met Office weather observations page the other day, I noticed that many of the recording sites are civil and military airfields including Heathrow. Lots of UHI surely, I wonder what downward adjustment is applied?
My Dad visited Heathrow airport in the 1950’s to meet his brother. It was a handful of nissan huts in a grass field. Since his brother’s incoming flight was delayed by one day, he looked for a place to stay the night. In the end he parked his car and pitched his tent on the grass directly opposite the main entrance, and slept the night there peacefully.
Sedron L says:
August 30, 2013 at 5:29 pm
Other parts of the system are warming strongly.
Thats right, the parts that by pure coincidence are most difficult to measure and where data is most uncertain. To avoid those pesky Popper types with their outdated obsession with testing things to see if they are true or not. Very politically incorrect.
What if even the deep ocean doesn’t work out for you? What next? The earth’s mantle? Or core? Or maybe Hell? But that would be OK, since that must be where all us de-nigh-ers are going.
The IPCC has given us decadal-period predictions for surface temperature. Some of its leading lights have said that 17 years w/o significant warming will falsify their models. Tisdale is, in effect, holding it to account.
Someone was spamming my facebook page last night about this. He was adamant that NOAA/NCDC actually did measure a global land AND sea average in 1880. And that average has been measured and has been increasing ever since.
Thanks Bob.
Using Mk1 eyeball on all the graphs shows a shallow cyclic curve. This would be the correct average given that climate follows a cyclic process. Drawing straight line averages gives a false impression depending on your choice of start and end points. You could claim rapid warming or rapid cooling neither of which would be true.
Why use Hadcrut 4 and not Hadcrut 3 – since both are published and the only rationale behind the calculation of Hadcrut 4 appears to be that it shows more warming than does Hadcrut 3? Does Mr. Tisdale believe that Hadcrut 4 is a more accurate record than Hadcrut 3?
Bob Tisdale says:
The data I presented in this post is still the most commonly used metric of global warming and climate change.
Short intervals are not representative of “climate” — there is too much oceanic weather in 10-15-20 years of temperature data, too much noise.
In this case it’s an obvious cherry pick, because of the large El Nino near the beginning and the large La Nina near the end. All you are doing is studying noise, not climate (where the ENSOs average out to near zero).
Come the next El Nino, you will be sorry for this tactic. (I suspect you will all go back to doubting the temperature data again — remember how that was the Big Claim about 3 years ago? You all seem just fine with the data now….)
Solomon Green says:
Why use Hadcrut 4 and not Hadcrut 3
Because HadCRUT4 has a more representative treatment of the polar regions.
rogerknights says:
The IPCC has given us decadal-period predictions for surface temperature.
Where?
Also, the IPCC makes projections, not predictions.
Some of its leading lights have said that 17 years w/o significant warming will falsify their models.
a) No, they did not; go read the Santer paper, which gave a probabilistic conclusion about trends of various lengths.
b) It has warmed over 17 years; 0.12 C according to HadCRUT4.
phlogiston says:
August 30, 2013 at 8:32 pm
Thats right, the parts that by pure coincidence are most difficult to measure and where data is most uncertain.
There is good data for the 0-2000 m of the ocean. In climate science you take what data you can get. This data shows strong warming.
Bob Tisdale wrote:
but do not tell me that my presentation of data is flawed, when it is not.
You presentation certainly is flawed — it relies on a huge cherry pick, which is why you’re unwilling to consider intervals truly representative of climate, like the entire 20th century. Only by focusing narrowly on the last 10-15 years can you get a result that looks, to the lay readers, like a period of no warming.
There are still very big signs of an energy imbalance in the Earth’s system, and that is the real sign of climate change, not what happens on the puny surface. (See Roger Pielke Sr.’s recent remarks on this. You used to quote him when he had other things to say.)
Sedron L,
Please, oh please, cherry pick for us. That way, we can see if you have any real world science to present. We can then argue your putative facts.
Otherwise, carry on with your endless thread-jacking assertions. They are better than nothing…
…or, maybe not.
Sedron L says:
Simple — by studying intervals that are representative of climate, not (oceanic) weather. 30 years or more.
So when 2028 comes and the temperature series is still flat, will you say that 30 years is also cherrypicking and that you need 60 years to have an interval that is ‘representative of climate’.?
Sedron L says:
Come the next El Nino, you will be sorry for this tactic. (I suspect you will all go back to doubting the temperature data again — remember how that was the Big Claim about 3 years ago? You all seem just fine with the data now….)
You Branch Carbonians are the ones who have been claiming that your temperature data shows warming. Bob Tisdale is merely showing you that it doesn’t. Anthony Watts has shown that much of the temperature data has an upward bias. So even if your data with an upward bias doesn’t show any warming, then the actual temperatures definitely aren’t increasing.
Sedron L says:
September 1, 2013 at 8:10 pm
Nothing wrong with taking good data! Where is it and what measured it?