A Big Picture Look At “Earth’s Temperature” – Santer 17 Update

Image Credits: NASA,  BP.Blogspot.com, Wikimedia.org

By WUWT regular “Just The Facts”

NOAA’s State of the Climate In 2008 report found that:

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.

In 2010 Phil Jones was asked by the BBC;

“Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?”

Phil Jones replied:

Yes, but only just.

In 2011, the paper “Separating signal and noise in atmospheric temperature changes: The importance of timescale” by Santer et al. moved the goal posts and found that:

Because of the pronounced effect of interannual noise on decadal trends, a multi-model ensemble of anthropogenically-forced simulations displays many 10-year periods with little warming. A single decade of observational TLT data is therefore inadequate for identifying a slowly evolving anthropogenic warming signal. Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature.

In October 2013, the Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) satellite temperature data set reached a period of 204 months/17 years for which the slope is = -0.000122111 per year. For those not familiar, the RSS satellite temperature data set is similar to the University of Alabama – Huntsville (UAH) dataset that John Christy and Roy Spencer manage. Information about RSS can be found at here and the data set can be found here.

In November 2013, Dr. Robert G. Brown, Physics Department of Duke University wrote on WUWT:

This (17 years) is a non-event, just as 15 and 16 years were non-events. Non-events do not make headlines. Other non-events of the year are one of the fewest numbers of tornadoes* (especially when corrected for under-reporting in the radar-free past) in at least the recent past (if not the remote past), the lowest number of Atlantic hurricanes* since I was 2 years old (I’m 58), the continuation of the longest stretch in recorded history without a category 3 or higher hurricane making landfall in the US (in fact, I don’t recall there being a category 3 hurricane in the North Atlantic this year, although one of the ones that spun out far from land might have gotten there for a few hours).        * Links added subsequently

While I must disagree with Dr. Robert G. Brown as to what one can and can’t be make into a headline, I do otherwise agree wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, with mainstream media outlets like PBS are running erroneous headlines like, “UN Panel: ‘Extremely Likely’ Earth’s Rapid Warming Is Caused by Humans” we are stuck reporting on average climate data. Amusingly, it has proven a quite effective method of informing the public and disprove erroneous alarmist claims and headlines, as Dr. Brown’s comment above attests.

For those not too familiar with the “Pause” in Earth’s warming, recommended reading includes: “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

In terms of exactly how long the “Pause” has lasted, it depends on the data set and what it is being measured, e.g. in Werner Brozek’s recent article Statistical Significances – How Long Is “The Pause”? he showed that;

1. For GISS, the slope is flat since September 1, 2001 or 12 years, 1 month. (goes to September 30, 2013)

2. For Hadcrut3, the slope is flat since May 1997 or 16 years, 5 months. (goes to September)

3. For a combination of GISS, Hadcrut3, UAH and RSS, the slope is flat since December 2000 or 12 years, 10 months. (goes to September)

4. For Hadcrut4, the slope is flat since December 2000 or 12 years, 10 months. (goes to September)

5. For Hadsst3, the slope is flat since November 2000 or 12 years, 11 months. (goes to September)

6. For UAH, the slope is flat since January 2005 or 8 years, 9 months. (goes to September using version 5.5)

7. For RSS, the slope is flat since November 1996 or 17 years (goes to October)

Here’s what that looks like graphically;

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

However, to really see the big picture on “Earth’s Temperature” we must take into account many more measurements than just Surface and Tropospheric Temperatures. As such, the following is an overview of many of them. NASA’s Earth Observatory claims that;

“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.”

so let us start there…

Global Surface Temperatures:

NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) Global Monthly Mean Surface Temperature Anomaly – 1996 to Present:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) – Click the pic to view at source

NOAA’s – National Climate Data Center – Annual Global Land and Ocean Temperature Anomalies:

NOAA – National Climate Data Center – Click the pic to view at source

UK Met Office’s – Hadley Center – Climate Research Unit (CRU) Annual Global Average Land and Ocean Temperature Anomaly;

Met Office – Hadley Center – Click the pic to view at source

the UK Met Office – Hadley Center – Climate Research Unit (CRU) Monthly Global Average Land Temperature;

Met Office – Hadley Center – Click the pic to view at source

and HadCRUT4 Global, Northern and Southern Hemispheric Temperature Anomalies:

University of East Anglia (UEA) – Climatic Research Unit (CRU) – Click the pic to view at source

The Pause appears to apparent in Earth’s Land and Surface Temperature record. It is important to note that the reason that the IPCC claims to be;

“95% certain that humans are the “dominant cause” of global warming since the 1950sBBC

is because prior to 1950 Anthropogenic CO2 Emissions from Fossil-Fuels were insufficient to have a significant influence on “Earth’s Temperature”, i.e. Anthropogenic CO2 Emissions from Fossil-Fuels;

Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center – Click the pic to view at source

and Cumulative Anthropogenic CO2 Emissions from Fossil-Fuels:

Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center – Click the pic to view at source

In May 2013, the Economist noted that;

The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO₂ put there by humanity since 1750. And yet, as James Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, observes, “the five-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade.”

Additionally, 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, land use changes, anthropogenic waste heat and the urban heat island effect.  Thus to see the Big Picture of “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;

Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) – Microwave Sounding Units (MSU) – Click the pic to view at source

and this is the University of Alabama – Hunstville (UAH) Global Lower Atmosphere Temperature Anomalies – 1979 to Present:

University of Alabama – Huntsville (UAH) – Dr. Roy Spencer – Click the pic to view at source

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 .29 degrees C above the 30 year average and RSS Global Global Lower Troposphere shows a .127 degrees C increase per decade.

When we look at Earth’s “canaries”, i.e. RSS Northern Polar Temperature Lower Troposphere (TLT) Brightness Temperature Anomaly;

Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) – Microwave Sounding Units (MSU) – Click the pic to view at source

appears to have Paused for the last 18 years and RSS Southern Polar Temperature Lower Troposphere (TLT) Brightness Temperature Anomaly;

Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) – Microwave Sounding Units (MSU) – Click the pic to view at source

looks like it has been on 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;

Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) – Microwave Sounding Units (MSU) – Click the pic to view at source

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;

Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) – Microwave Sounding Units (MSU) – Click the pic to view at source

has been in The Pause since records began in 1987, with a trend of just -.004 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;

Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) – Microwave Sounding Units (MSU) – Click the pic to view at source

has been increasing by .047 K/C per decade, whereas the RSS Southern Hemisphere Temperature Troposphere / Stratosphere (TTS) – Brightness Temperature Anomaly- 1987 to Present;

Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) – Microwave Sounding Units (MSU) – Click the pic to view at source

has been decreasing by -.039 K/C per decade.

Moving higher still in the atmosphere, the RSS Temperature Lower Stratosphere (TLS) – Brightness Temperature Anomaly – 1979 to Present;

Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) – Microwave Sounding Units (MSU) – Click the pic to view at source

“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:

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) – Earth System Research Laboratory (ESRL) – Click the pic to view at source

“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, “the Pause” is apparent in Earth’s atmospheric record, 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;

climate4you.com – Ole Humlum – Professor, University of Oslo Department of Geosciences – Click the pic to view at source

NOAA’s – National Climate Data Center – Global Sea Surface Temperature Anomaly;

climate4you.com – Ole Humlum – Professor, University of Oslo Department of Geosciences – Click the pic to view at source

Reynolds OI.v2 Global Sea Surface Temperature Anomaly

Bob Tisdale – http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com – Click the pic to view at source

all appear to be well into The Pause.

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;

National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) – National Oceanographic Data Center (NODC) – Click the pic to view at source

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:

climate4you.com – Ole Humlum – Professor, University of Oslo Department of Geosciences – Click the pic to view at source

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:

climate4you.com – Ole Humlum – Professor, University of Oslo Department of Geosciences – Click the pic to view at source

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;

University of Colorado at Boulder – Click the pic to view at source

While it appears that Sea Level Rise has continued recently;

Wikipedia – Click the pic to view at source

it is important to note that Sea Levels were increasing 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, Global Sea Ice Area;

Cryosphere Today – University of Illinois – Polar Research Group – Click the pic to view at source

had it’s largest maximum in 2013, since 1996 and has remained stubbornly average for the entirety of 2013. Antarctic Sea Ice Extent has remained above the 1981 – 2010 “normal” range for much of the last four months;

National Snow & Ice Data Center (NSIDC) – Click the pic to view at source

we had the third most expansive Southern Sea Ice Area measured to date;

Cryosphere Today – Arctic Climate Research at the University of Illinois – Click the pic to view at source

and Southern Sea Ice Area has remained above average for almost all of the last two years:

Cryosphere Today – Arctic Climate Research at the University of Illinois – Click the pic to view at source

At the other pole Arctic Sea Ice Extent has remained within the 1981 – 2010 “normal” range for the entirety of 2013;

National Snow & Ice Data Center (NSIDC) – click to view at source

and Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area had it’s smallest decline since 2006:

Cryosphere Today – University of Illinois – Polar Research Group – Click the pic to view at source

There appears to have been a negative trend in Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area and Extent, 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 the last 6 years there does appear to be a Pause in Global Sea Ice Area.

In terms of land based data, here is 20 Year Northern Hemisphere Snow Cover with 1995 – 2009 Climatology from NCEP/NCAR;

Florida State University – Department of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Science – Click the pic to view at source

Northern Hemisphere Snow Cover Anomalies 1966 – Present from NCEP/NCAR;

Florida State University – Department of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Science – Click the pic to view at source

Northern Hemisphere Winter Snow Extent – 1967 to Present from Rutgers University;

Rutgers University – Global Snow Lab (GSL) – Click the pic to view at source

Northern Hemisphere Spring Snow Extent – 1967 to Present:

 alt=
Rutgers University – Global Snow Lab (GSL) – Click the pic to view at source

Northern Hemisphere Fall Snow Extent – 1967 to Present:

Rutgers University – Global Snow Lab (GSL) – Click the pic to view at source

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 Winter Snowcover and 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, it appears to extend for between 6 – 16 years depending on the data set and what it is being measured.

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.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

175 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
November 15, 2013 7:53 pm

Nick is correct guys. GHG’s in isolation from all other effects result in the Mean Radiating Level to increase in altitude. Anything below the MRL becomes warmer and everything above it becomes cooler. The debate is about the feedback effects of this occurring, both their sign and magnitude.
The debate should also be about SB Law dictating that the largest of these effects will be at low temps (night time, winter, high latitude and high altitude) and the effects minimized at high temps (day time, summer, low latitude and low altitude) but apparently that’s just too complicated a discussion for the bulk of people on both sides of the debate to follow, so I just get ignored when I bring it up.

November 15, 2013 8:09 pm

geran:
Opportunities for hilarity are presented by both sides in the argument over whether continuing emissions of CO2 are or are not seriously harmful. My level of hilarity is diminished by the fact that this state of affairs is starting to cost me a lot of money!

Jquip
November 15, 2013 8:13 pm

Nick Stokes: “Jquip says he’s never heard that. Well, I quoted AR3, and Jeff Masters.”
So you’re saying that Santer’s statements about the lower troposphere were actually about the stratosphere? So now your claim about the official hypothesis of AGW is that they don’t know if it will heat or cool, but if that if it does either or both it won’t be in the same place, but that none of those places will be the place the theory claimed it would be.
Since this is all about falsification, at which point do you suggest that I discard the null hypothesis that you possess both a minimum knowledge of the topic and a minimum of honesty?

OssQss
November 15, 2013 8:18 pm

Nick, what actual qualifications does Masters have to be part of a climate discussion?
Just sayin, being vocal does not make you qualified, does it?

Nick Stokes
November 15, 2013 8:28 pm

OssQss says: November 15, 2013 at 8:18 pm
“Nick, what actual qualifications does Masters have to be part of a climate discussion?”

He’s given a good explanation of standard science, with references.

November 15, 2013 9:19 pm

Terry Oldberg says:
Are you the Terry that says due to logic, it is possible to forcast weather out from 12 to 36 months? Huh?

Jquip
November 15, 2013 9:28 pm

OssQss: “Nick, what actual qualifications does Masters have to be part of a climate discussion?”
Masters is qualified to stand in for the knowledge Stokes lacks or cannot comprehend. Neither more nor less.

milodonharlani
November 15, 2013 9:32 pm

Nick Stokes says:
November 15, 2013 at 8:28 pm
CACA is as non-standard as science gets. It’s beyond post-modern.

November 16, 2013 2:20 am

Jquip: please cut it out. Nick Stokes (and others) has explained that AGW theory predicts that the troposphere gets warmer and the stratosphere gets cooler, and from 1975 to 2000 this theory seemed to be going swimmingly. But even during that period sane people knew that there was more to climate than just CO2, and that solar influences (about which there is a lot of argument) and ocean “oscillations” could have played a part.
Just the Facts: Your article is interesting but a bit too long. It is extremely unfortunate that you portrayed the stratospheric temperatures at all since that has confused some readers such as Jquip.
Rich.

Tony Mach
November 16, 2013 2:38 am

I find the “20 Year Northern Hemisphere Snow Cover with 1995 – 2009 Climatology from NCEP/NCAR” interesting, as in the anomaly the “middle” years seem to be simply “noisy”, while towards the “fringe” (1995 or 2009) there seems to be a correlated yearly signal.
One possible explanation is that the amplitude stays (more or less) the same, while the “phase” (of signal vs. average) shifts – as in earlier seasons, or later seasons.
Does this happen in other 25 years intervals?
Or in other datasets (temperature, precipitation, and so on)?
If so, then there are subtleties of the weather that are not well captured by these types of diagrams. And that these diagrams show a bigger anomaly than is actually present in reality.

John Edmondson
November 16, 2013 4:40 am

Excellent work Justthefacts

geran
November 16, 2013 4:48 am

davidmhoffer says:
November 15, 2013 at 7:53 pm
“GHG’s in isolation from all other effects result in the Mean Radiating Level to increase in altitude. Anything below the MRL becomes warmer and everything above it becomes cooler.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This sounds like something Mosher would say, except he likes to call it “ERL”!
You should offer a disclaimer that this is your “belief”, not science. Hint: If you don’t know where the “MRL” is, then it probably doesn’t exist. (But you can believe whatever you want to.)

John W. Garrett
November 16, 2013 5:14 am

This is an extremely useful compilation. Thanks.

November 16, 2013 5:40 am

Nick Stokes says: November 15, 2013 at 1:50 pm
Well, as I said, ozone depletion was the main factor. But GHG’s were expected to have a cooling effect too. And it cooled.
=======================================================================
Ozone depletion by CFC’s? According to the ozone hole plot, the area is ~0 after 50 years of CFC use, then dramatically increases, then dramatically levels off after the Montreal Treaty. Are we to assume that the ozone hole was zero all times before 1979 and that there are no other ozone depleting chemical sources natural or man made? When I was going through all the expensive ozone depleting chemical shenanigans it seemed that the kinetics were a tad shaky and that we lacked long term data on the ozone hole and upper atmospheric ozone. I believe we still lack those trends to make any valid conclusions on ozone depletion.

Jimbo
November 16, 2013 6:07 am

Nick Stokes and Mosher,
What would it take for you to reconsider the IPCC’s projected effects by the year 2100?
What would it take for you to discard AGW? In other words would 20 years of flat global surface temps do it? Global cooling for 30 years? Say anything you want I just want to know what would it take?
Santer stuck his neck out so can you two. If it can’t be falsified it’s NOT science.

Joe
November 16, 2013 6:17 am

So, how long until “the pause” is longer than the warming that started the Big Scary Story in the first place? We must be getting quite close to that point – eyeballing the temp graphs suggests that the scary up-tick started between about 1975 and 1980, which would mean that, within the next 2 to 8 years, the pause will have outlasted the increase.
Seems to me that’s a message that the general public could understand intuitively when it happens.

Jimbo
November 16, 2013 6:43 am

Some people say that the ozone hole has always been there, exacerbated slightly by cfcs.

There’s an assumption that people make that the famous Ozone holes are man made. While some pollutants can in fact destroy Ozone, the holes themselves are in fact natural.
Ozone exists as a layer of gas in the earth’s atmosphere. The layer right underneath it is Oxygen. Both are made of the same atoms (O) but Oxygen is two of them stuck together (O2) and Ozone is a threesome (O3)……
So is the Ozone hole a complete hoax? Pollutants like CFC’s could make the holes larger in theory, but the fact is that the holes are natural in the first place, and they fluctuate daily as the earth spins, seasonally as the earth’s inclination to the sun changes, annually as the earth’s orbit takes it closer and farther away from the sun, and from fluctuations in the sun’s output of UV in the first place.
http://knowledgedrift.wordpress.com/2010/05/22/ozone-the-hole-that-always-was/

———–

By Joseph D’Aleo, Weatherbell.com
The data shows a lot of variability and no real trends after the Montreal protocol banned CFCs. The models had predicted a partial recovery by now. Later scientists adjusted their models and pronounced the recovery would take decades. It may be just another failed alarmist prediction.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/20/daleo-on-ozone-hole-it-is-very-likely-to-have-been-there-forever/

———–

Abstract (only snippet from Google Scholar results page, but not on abstract.)
How does biological knowledge grow? a study of life scientists’ research practices
…..One is that the ozone hole may have always existed, but scientists have not detected it until now. Another rendition is that the ozone hole was created relatively recently via the decomposition of the ozone by chlorofluorocarbons released into the air by humans….
Eleanor Abrams, James H. Wandersee
Article first published online: 19 AUG 2006
DOI: 10.1002/tea.3660320609
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tea.3660320609/abstract;jsessionid=CFBAA6A78CEDAD03F8B64970799CB2BA.f02t03?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false

Jquip
November 16, 2013 7:05 am

See – owe to Rich: “Nick Stokes (and others) has explained that AGW theory predicts that the troposphere gets warmer and the stratosphere gets cooler, and from 1975 to 2000 this theory seemed to be going swimmingly.”
So you’re saying that Nick Stokes explained the theory that he didn’t explain and claims that it no longer works after claiming there were no problems with it? You seem about as well informed and coherent as Stokes does.
Here’s a hint for you though: The temperature/radiation profiles in the troposphere and stratosphere are related to the density profile of the atmosphere, temperature, as the gas constituents. For every imaginable gas you can consider you will get the same results tinkering with any of them. This extraordinarily obvious mechanism has no relation to AGW whatsoever. It is wholly and completely independent of the AGW theory.
But given the magic Devil Gas of interest in these discussions, and our ballpark knowledge of its concentrations, then you can solve the rest of the equations if you know just and only temperature. The options here are a) Send up balloons and receive UFO sighting reports, b) go Roger Ramjet with spacecraft, and c) Find some manner to correlate the Devil Gas and temperature.
Note that c) is lovely for a number of reasons, but that it doesn’t require that the Devil Gas causes heat, the other way around, or anything else. So long as they are not spuriously correlated,, and it tracks well, then we can model it with a single parameter. The AGW side of things is nothing more than the claim: Devil Gas cause Hella Heat. eg. Screw raw correlation, CO2 causes Temperature.
And for all his yapping out ‘true’ predictions that have no connection to AGW, this is the part that Stokes and the dissembling crowd that dreams of fairy dust and starving kulaks don’t want to talk about: The only reason that Santer’s 10 and 17 years claims are interesting is *not* because of completely obvious things about gas pressures that have nothing to do with AGW. It’s because Santer was claiming, at that time, that AGW had not properly correlated CO2 and temperature. For Santer to assign a fraction of human blame to it, he needs that correlation — regardless of causation — to pull it off.
But that’s just the thing, if the AGW hypothesis has *already and properly rejected the null hypothesis* then Santer’s statement is never: “I need 17 years” it is “The science already shows.” And that’s why you get the Dog and Pony magic show from the hucksters and patent medicine peddlers such as Stokes. Because to acknowledge this at all is to acknowledge that Santer *has already claimed by his 17 years* that the AGW thesis or correlation has yet to be tested — just one time — or that they have — like so many recent science publications — spuriously rejected the null hypothesis.
And that’s why you get a load of fast hand-waving from the sophists like Stokes. Who refuse to make any claims, or even state plainly what the AGW hypothesis is. And it is why he link drops idiots like Masters to try to avoid explaining what the issue is. Because if they do any of these things: They will be exposed as mendacious idiots.

November 16, 2013 7:23 am

geran;
This sounds like something Mosher would say, except he likes to call it “ERL”!
You should offer a disclaimer that this is your “belief”, not science.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
ERL and MRL are the same thing, and you can find my “belief” in any thermodynamics text that addresses this particular subject. You can find the equations that describe my “belief” and you can find the lab experiments that confirm my “belief”, you can even do them if you want. Then you’ll be educated enough to know what you are talking about instead of shooting your mouth off. I’m no warmist, I’m a skeptic, but there are portions of GHG theory that are very well accepted by physicists on both sides of the debate and this is one of them.

Genghis
November 16, 2013 7:44 am

geran says:
November 16, 2013 at 4:48 am
davidmhoffer says:
November 15, 2013 at 7:53 pm
“GHG’s in isolation from all other effects result in the Mean Radiating Level to increase in altitude. Anything below the MRL becomes warmer and everything above it becomes cooler.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This sounds like something Mosher would say, except he likes to call it “ERL”!
You should offer a disclaimer that this is your “belief”, not science. Hint: If you don’t know where the “MRL” is, then it probably doesn’t exist. (But you can believe whatever you want to.)
——————
I am having a little difficulty understanding the significance of the MRL.
How does a changing lapse rate affect the MRL?

November 16, 2013 8:11 am

Genghis;
How does a changing lapse rate affect the MRL?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I suggest studying Stefan-Boltzmann Law and Planck. When you understand those to the point where you can apply them, read through Willis Eschenbach’s “Steel Greenhouse” articles on this site. If you want another approach to the subject that starts at a more basic level, I recommend the series by Ira Glickstein, the links to which I keep handy:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/20/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-a-physical-analogy/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/28/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-atmospheric-windows/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/10/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-emission-spectra/
The answer to your question is that a change in the MRL affects lapse rate rather than the other way around, but that’s a gross over simplification. It is a very complex dynamic once you get into a lapse rate discussion. Which is why I said that in the absence of all other effects everything below the MRL gets warmer and everything above gets cooler. Once you get past those effects in isolation, complexity happens uber fast.

geran
November 16, 2013 9:15 am

davidmhoffer says:
November 16, 2013 at 7:23 am
“I’m no warmist, I’m a skeptic, but there are portions of GHG theory that are very well accepted by physicists on both sides of the debate and this is one of them.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yeah David, but you are not an EXTREME skeptic. If you continue to study the science you will get there because I often read your comments, and you are not a dummy. You just need to understand, as do many, that we can no longer trust public entities, mainly government and academia. They are lying to us. Their science is heavily slanted, if not entirely false. We have entered the new “Dark Ages”.
All the different methods they use to keep the fear of CO2 alive continue to fail. Like I hinted before, ask them the exact elevation of the “ERL” or “MRL” right now. And, within a year or two they will have a new fancy explanation for why the CO2 is heating up the planet, but there is no evidence of it. Like one commenter here said a month or two ago, it’s like playing “Whack-a-mole”.