UAH v5.6 Global Temperature Update for Nov. 2013: +0.19 deg. C
by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
The Version 5.6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for November, 2013 is +0.19 deg. C, down from +0.29 deg. C in October (click for full size version):
The global, hemispheric, and tropical LT anomalies from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 11 months are:
YR MON GLOBAL NH SH TROPICS
2013 01 +0.496 +0.512 +0.481 +0.387
2013 02 +0.203 +0.372 +0.033 +0.195
2013 03 +0.200 +0.333 +0.067 +0.243
2013 04 +0.114 +0.128 +0.101 +0.165
2013 05 +0.082 +0.180 -0.015 +0.112
2013 06 +0.295 +0.335 +0.255 +0.220
2013 07 +0.173 +0.134 +0.211 +0.074
2013 08 +0.158 +0.111 +0.206 +0.009
2013 09 +0.365 +0.339 +0.390 +0.189
2013 10 +0.290 +0.331 +0.250 +0.031
2013 11 +0.193 +0.159 +0.227 +0.018
Popular monthly data files (these might take a few extra days to update):
uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt (Lower Troposphere)
uahncdc_mt_5.6.txt (Mid-Troposphere)
uahncdc_ls_5.6.txt (Lower Stratosphere)
it seems to me that ‘the pause’ we have now is no different [except for level] from the pause we had 1979-1996….
Yeah maybe this pause will break the previous pause record……
Temperature change since June 1991 before the Pinatubo eruption impacted temperatures or 22.5 years ago: -0.09C
Why does the CO2 induced warming seem to be so slow to act?
The Earth is doing what the Earth does. It does not obey human-made theories and human-made computer simulations. The answer is 42.
Isvalgaard – Perhaps, but what we don’t know is which way it will go after the pause.
Bill Illis, AGW is hiding deep in the ocean plotting our doom. No one took him seriously when he was so slow to warm the atmosphere so he sits in the cold deep, bitterly waiting for the day he can wreak havoc on puny humans. Trenberth told me so.
The pause may be no different in a strictly mathematical sense to the pause 1979 – 1996, but there have been 17 additional years during which the effects of catastrophic feedback could have made their mark. How many more-or-less consecutive pauses do there need to be before concluding there will be no catastrophe?
The preliminary November sea surface temperature update is here:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/12/02/preliminary-november-2013-sea-surface-temperature-sst-update/
Looking at the plot, we have a relatively flat anomaly then a step change and a flat anomaly. I find it hard to put those data into a theory of CO2 induced warming. Looks like something else is going on. But, I’m a simple-minded chemist, so I don’t understand climatology.
True, on this level, compared to the previous “pause” it does not appear particularly unusual. However, all of the major temperature sets are essentially affinely similar over this period. For those whose records go back longer, there is a definite difference.
I would not be surprised to find out that global warming was arrested back in 1996 and has been held in custody ever since.
Bill Illis, what does 42 mean? Remember you have to make allowances for we dummies.
Also “‘the pause’ we have now” has more co2 in the atmosphere. Some weather watchers claim that it may cool, some say it will warm, time will tell.
Neville: see the following: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrases_from_The_Hitchhiker%27s_Guide_to_the_Galaxy#Answer_to_the_Ultimate_Question_of_Life.2C_the_Universe.2C_and_Everything_.2842.29
TNist thanks for that. BTW can we read too much into the present global ice extent compared to mean of 1981 to 2010.
Sorry here’s that link. http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2013/12/03/global-sea-ice-update-dec-3-2013/
Leif, “it seems to me that ‘the pause’ we have now is no different [except for level] from the pause we had 1979-1996….”
So with your reasoning, i.e. a pause from 79-96 and also 99-13, leaves only 1998 with a warming excursion. Hmmm – wonder why we even call it a pause?
lsvalgaard says:
December 3, 2013 at 4:41 pm
it seems to me that ‘the pause’ we have now is no different [except for level] from the pause we had 1979-1996….
When you put the 2 “pauses” together, the entire period of catastrophic man-made global warming is condensed to what, 5 years?
I really think we should stop calling it the pause and call it what it is…cooling. The US and Canada are freezing. It has even hit the Bahamas. It is 77 in the daytime, 70 at night. I am not complaining but Bahamians are
I know the Warmists aren’t funny, but occasionally one of them comes up with an unintended gem.
….
‘Outgoing New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg told reporters that evidence showing the need for addressing climate change is getting stronger by the day.
“We cannot take our foot off the gas,” he said.’
I make the 30-year trend 0.153 C per decade, the 25-year is 0.146, the 20-year is 0.098, the 15-year is 0.081, the 10-year trend is minus 0.035 C per decade and 5-years is lower still. If global warming is supposed to accelerate out of control, why is the real world doing the opposite? 20 years of data now suggests warming of 1 degree or less this century.
Why are there no error bars ? Surely there are adequate weather balloon etc observational data available to “calibrate” the observation & standard deviation of these satellite values. Is this all data from ONE instrument in ONE satellite ?
Is the signal (rough range +- .6 degrees C) actually distinguishable from the noise ?
This is not likely the case in historical surface station data. Are these data from the same source as those that reported 400+ degree temps in Lake Michigan ? I kind of doubt the certainty of accuracy to .01 degree C displayed in this graph.
Why do we do this kabuki climate theater regardless of the “side” we are on ?
Neville asked: Bill Illis, what does 42 mean?
Neville, it comes from “A Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Universe”. It’s the answer that a computer came to (after many years???) as the answer to the Meaning of Life (IIRC).
IanM
Neville asks about “42”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hitchhiker%27s_Guide_to_the_Galaxy
Bart says: “True, on this level, compared to the previous “pause” it does not appear particularly unusual. However, all of the major temperature sets are essentially affinely similar over this period…”
The wft compilation emphasizes again the importance of the Elephant-in-the-room, the 1998 El Niño. The mother of all wiggles. Any model that can’t fully explain that big a blip is relevant to global climate.
0.19C for November 2013… Ka-ching!
Great! Any value below 0.2C works to bring the anomaly trend down, which has basically flatlined since 1997.
The warmunists are praying to the CO2 gods for an El Nino event to provide a blip to propagandize, however, the PDO entered its 30-year cool cycle from 2008, so any El Nino blip will be lower compared to El Ninos during 30-yr PDO warm cycles and will be followed by colder than average La Ninas..
All joy for the warmunists will be fleeting from here.
How long can this CAGW charade keep going.
CO2 Climate Sensitivity below 2C just isn’t scary and if current OBSERVED trends continue, a CS of less than 1C looks more likely…. Boring.
In a 2009 report, the UN projected it would cost the world economy about $76 TRILLION over the next 40 years to keep CS below 2C with: CO2 taxes, 3rd-World wealth redistribution schemes, wind/solar alternative energy projects/subsidies, CO2 sequestration projects, etc….
How about we spend $ZERO over the next 40 years and live with a CS of less than 1C, which, ironically, would be a net benefit to the Earth in terms of CO2 fertilization, increased crop yields, extended growing seasons, milder winters, lower heating bills, healthier forests, lower food costs, more precipitation, etc…. That’s mo’ bedda.
The CAGW hypothesis is becoming a train wreck.
RJ says:
December 3, 2013 at 4:58 pm
Isvalgaard – Perhaps, but what we don’t know is which way it will go after the pause.
Last time it went up 🙂
SAMURAI says:
December 3, 2013 at 7:25 pm
0.19C for November 2013… Ka-ching!
Great! Any value below 0.2C works to bring the anomaly trend down, which has basically flatlined since 1997.
What you are saying applies to version 5.5, but not version 5.6 which is what we have here. For a comparison, the last 3 months for version 5.6 have been 0.365, 0.290, and 0.193. I do not know the November value for version 5.5 since it is not up yet, but the two previous months were 0.294 and 0.226. If the November number also goes down by 0.097, then it will be 0.129. I expect it to be close to this and to thereby lengthen the pause from last month. See:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2005/plot/uah/from:2005/trend
Expect some major drops in Global temps in the coming months and years, My bet for Dec is 0C anomaly.
lsvalgaard says”it seems to me that ‘the pause’ we have now is no different [except for level] from the pause we had 1979-1996“.
Yes, that’s true. But if you take a sine-wave and tilt it so that it slopes up from L-R, it can look like flat periods interspersed with sharp upward moves.
NB. I’m not saying there is a sine-wave in reality, I’m just pointing out that there are different ways of interpreting a graph, particularly one over a shortish period.
Looking at the whole Hadcrut3 unadj –
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl
– 1979-1996 looks like a bit of a shortish wave on a longer wave (not sine necessarily), where the longer wave went up from ~1970 to ~2005. Very similar to ~1910 to ~1945, same duration, same overall increase.
De-trend the graph, and we have got ourselves a nice looking wave:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/detrend:0.75
Note : For some reason, the monthly variations were higher than now in the pre-1880 data, so the graph there is visually ‘heavier’ there, but there’s still a wave from ~1860. Does the pre-1860 data make “from ~1860” a cherrypick? Yes, it does. But so do lots of views of shorter periods.
Oh, and BTW, just so you don’t think I’m trying to disagree with anything, I’d like to reiterate my first sentence above, about the pause : “Yes, that’s true”.
SAMURAI;
And remember, the 2C mark is just an arbitrary figure invented by a UN ‘crat who needed a number to hang his PR on. There’s no particular significance to it.
Reblogged this on leclinton and commented:
ANd the wheels go round and round round and round then fall off ;>0
Brian H,
Me thinks the 2C you wrote and the 0.2C Samurai wrote are not relating to the same subject.
~ ~ ~
To pause, or not to pause
but that’s not the question
and while the answer is 42
the question has long been forgotten
so the new question is
Where is my winter coat?
IT ISN’T A ‘PAUSE’! Please stop using the word. A ‘pause’ implies that you KNOW the future state. As we don’t actually know that the temp will continue to increase then you cannot apply the word ‘pause’. As AGW-sceptics, we should not be using that word! You can say the rise has halted or stopped. What graphically shows that the word ‘pause’ is incorrect is if the temps start to fall – then it wouldn’t have been a ‘pause’, would it? It would only be shown to be the appropriate word IF the temps continue to increase. As we don’t know that (the future state is unknown) then ‘pause’ is quite simply incorrect.
Yes, I know, it really bothers me!
lsvalgaard says:
December 3, 2013 at 4:58 pm
Last time it went up 🙂
Do you drive your car by only looking in the rear view mirror 😉
Ghost:
I agree. We have climbed onto a plateau, but we won’t know, until we have crossed the plateau, whether the mountain continues upwards, or whether the plateau is the summit and it is all downhill on the other side. My feeling is the latter and we need to stock up on blankets.
Leif says “Last time it went up”
…….Persistence is usually a poor forecasting tool!
Leif says “Last time it went up”
…….and what goes up must come down, they say!
So it’s a Anthropogenic Catastrophic Climate Pause?
“Ian L. McQueen says:
December 3, 2013 at 6:39 pm
Neville asked: Bill Illis, what does 42 mean?
Neville, it comes from “A Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Universe”. It’s the answer that a computer came to (after many years???) as the answer to the Meaning of Life (IIRC).
IanM”
They then of course had to make another bigger computer that needed another 30 millions years to find the question to the answer 42. That computer is Earth and some day someone will find the question to this answer. I think I have found the answer to the first question. But if I tell it they want be needing Earth any longer?
As my alarmist friends would say:
“There is obviously something wrong with the satellites, as the models show something totally different.”
Hmm, not very funny – but there is nothing humorous about climate science as it is practiced today. On the other hand, climate science can be described as being ‘funny’ in that it is odd, strange and incompatible with the facts.
Richard Lawson says:
December 3, 2013 at 11:40 pm
lsvalgaard says:
December 3, 2013 at 4:58 pm
Last time it went up 🙂
Do you drive your car by only looking in the rear view mirror 😉
Yes, if you’re a climate modeler. The technical name is “hindcasting”. They don’t “do” future.
“Bob Tisdale says:
December 3, 2013 at 5:16 pm
The preliminary November sea surface temperature update is here:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/12/02/preliminary-november-2013-sea-surface-temperature-sst-update/”
Earth is very dominated by the temperatures in the oceans. The temperatures there will have to go down before the temperatures in the air?
The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley says:
“IT ISN’T A ‘PAUSE’! Please stop using the word. A ‘pause’ implies that you KNOW the future state. As we don’t actually know that the temp will continue to increase then you cannot apply the word ‘pause’. As AGW-sceptics, we should not be using that word!”
=======================
Agree completely. Terms implying that the current situation is temporary have always bothered me. The fact is, we just don’t know.
All we know is that global warming has stopped. It may resume. Or not. But for the past ≈17 years, global warming has STOPPED.
I know that fact tortures the alarmist crowd. That is their problem, and it is self-made. They should have been skeptical, instead of being so certain that global warming was a given. But as we see, Panet Earth doesn’t care what the non-consensus believes.
Jim, I have a DVD player. The remote control has a “pause” button. When I press it, the DVD stops playing.
There is nothing that forces me to press “play” ever again. I can turn off the machine, remove the disk, whatever, The “pause” buttion implies nothing whatsoever about what happens next.
Neville. says:
December 3, 2013 at 5:56 pm
Bill Illis, what does 42 mean? Remember you have to make allowances for we dummies.
Secret code for hitchhikers.
(yeah – I know it was answered above. I like my answer better.)
The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley says:
December 3, 2013 at 11:00 pm
How about paws. As in “getchur paws out of my wallet.”
Re: “hindcasting”. My wife says it is one of the reasons she chose me. Before I heard that from her I never knew women were into that sort of thing.
The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley says:
December 3, 2013 at 11:00 pm
What that guy said – before I could.
With knobs on. In capitals. Followed my several/many exclamation marks.
IT IS NOT A PAUSE. It is a dead global warming.
steveta_uk says:
Congratulations. You have found an anomaly in the function of the word “pause”. Now please excuse the rest of the world while we follow the actual meaning of the word, which is a temporary halt.
It’s worse than we thought! It’s a catapausetrophy!
holts says:
December 3, 2013 at 11:59 pm
…….Persistence is usually a poor forecasting tool!
Actually, it is a very good tool. If you say the weather tomorrow will like that of today, you are right 75% of the time [in California where I live, you are right 98% of the time 🙂 ].
“IT ISN’T A ‘PAUSE’! Please stop using the word. A ‘pause’ implies that you KNOW the future
state”
You can’t say for sure that it isn’t a pause, but what we do know is that the warming has HALTED.
A better description IMHO.
So Dr. Svalgaard, is that how you make predictions about the sun?
Leif,
You say it looks like the period from 1997 to 1996 is about the same. That is the point. For RSS and UAH, it is very flat with a much smaller slope than predicted by the climate models. But now, even in other surface data sets, you see the slope has decreased and again the actual rates do not match the predicted rates. For sea temperatures, Bob Tisdale even draws flat lines with jumps for El nino’s as in 1998, which is an interesting way to look at it (I am not making a judgement one way or the other).
Leif likes to focus on mechanism. For the first pause we had a warm PDO. For the 2nd pause we’ve transited to a cool PDO with about a 50-50 split. The next period will occur during a cool PDO so I’d be inclined to believe it will be lower.
Now, you might argue that the PDO isn’t important (if you’re a warmist), however, the global trend has followed the PDO in lock step since 1850.
tinyurl.com/kzmzd8y
BTW, RSS has been about .1C below UAH for the last few months. That would bring it in around +0.1 for November. The big question is what is going to happen next. Last January we saw a big jump up. We also saw jumps in May and September. These have appeared to be solar related which would mean they could come at any time … or not at all.
Also keep in mind that ENSO is +.3 at the moment. Certainly not predicting a La Niña any time soon.
Bob Tisdale has shown that ENSO acts as a valve in the Earth’s solar energy input stream; cloud cover increases or decreases perform the function. The changes are permanent and could be canceled or intensified by the next ENSO.
Henrik Svensmark has shown cosmic rays influence cloudiness too; the Sun’s magnetic field modulates the cosmic rays input.
Habibullo Abdussamatov has shown how the Sun itself has been less a less active since the early 1990s.
Syun-Ichi Akasofu writes: “The rise in global average temperature over the last century has halted since roughly the year 2000, despite the fact that the release of CO2 into the atmosphere is still increasing. It is suggested here that this interruption has been caused by the suspension of the near linear (+0.5°C/100 years or 0.05°C/10 years) temperature increase over the last two centuries, due to recovery from the Little Ice Age, and by a superposed multi-decadal oscillation of a 0.2°C amplitude and a 50~60 year period, which reached its positive peak in about the year 2000 – a halting similar to those that occurred around 1880 and 1940. Because both the near linear change and the multi-decadal oscillation are likely to be natural changes (the recovery from the Little Ice Age (LIA) and an oscillation related to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), respectively), they must be carefully subtracted from temperature data before estimating the effects of CO2.”
Balanced thinking yields a view that it is not significantly attributable to some primate’s un-sequestration activities.
John
msimom,
I like it too, especially if you work out the code using base 13.
I suggest a more rational terminology than Spencer’s and Svalgaard’s use of the premise loaded ‘pause’ terminology.
I suggest an approach that Lindzen has used for describing graphs of GASTA** and GALTTA**** for the recent ~17 year period. Lindzen has recently described it as a period of ‘not warming’. No unstated or questionable premises.
**Global Average Surface Temperature Anomaly
****Global Average Lower Tropospheric Temperature Anomaly
John
lsvalgaard says:
December 3, 2013 at 7:38 pm
RJ says:
December 3, 2013 at 4:58 pm
Isvalgaard – Perhaps, but what we don’t know is which way it will go after the pause.
Last time it went up 🙂
——————————————————————————————————————————
So, this time it can go down -:)
Trend is wery bad tool for prediction. It has gone up, so it has to come down in some point. I still believe, that this warming has been mostly natural, exept UHI and chances in land use.
“lsvalgaard says:
December 4, 2013 at 5:39 am
holts says:
December 3, 2013 at 11:59 pm
…….Persistence is usually a poor forecasting tool!
Actually, it is a very good tool. If you say the weather tomorrow will like that of today, you are right 75% of the time [in California where I live, you are right 98% of the time 🙂 ].”
And in Ireland you are right 0% of the time…. 🙂
Isn’t the “pause” nothing more than the relatively flat spot at the top or crest of the most recent 30-ish year positive portion of the global temperature cycle? Now we swing downward for 30-ish years, then the curve flattens before it rises again…repeat, repeat, repeat…
[snip – off topic – Anthony]
I think the Hitchhikers analogy is particularly apt here, given the prognostication role that has been granted to computer models of uncertain capability.
As noted, a computer was built and asked to provide the ultimate answer. After some 7 1/2 million year it spits out the answer “42”. The problem, of course, is that no one really knows what the ultimate question is – and the computer itself cannot determine it. So the computer builds a larger computer to determine the question – that larger computer is earth, which unfortunately gets destroyed by Vogons before the matter is determined. However, Arthur Dent (late of earth, and containing the matrix from which the answer would be derived) survives, which leads to this exchange:
Arthur pulls random letters from a [Scrabble] bag, but only gets the sentence “What do you get if you multiply six by nine?”
“Six by nine. Forty two.”
“That’s it. That’s all there is.”
“I always thought something was fundamentally wrong with the universe”
Another take. As each month goes by the case for AGW seems to be weakening as the temperature trend for the globe remains flat at best.
This despite CO2 increasing, solar activity moderate (as the maximum of solar cycle 24 continues), not much in the way of volcanic activity , AMO still in it’s warm phase ,while ENSO is neutral.
One would think given the above that if AGW theory were indeed correct the temperature trend would be increasing instead of still remaining flat.
Salvatore…no argument from me. It’s a cycle with the overall trend rising and falling (e.g., LIA, MWP, etc.) for reasons we don’t fully understand. There’s no real evidence that CO2 is a significant issue.
If there’s a climate concern humanity ought to be working on is what to do when the next glacial period within the current ice age clicks in. It will occur and it’s likely nearer to happening than farther from happening…past being the key to the present and all that…
It’s a pity the UAH begins during a known cool period.
Actual meaning? Yeah, it’s not like words can’t be used in different ways, is it? Even worse, words can actually mean different things when used in different contexts.
It is an uncommon use of the word “pause”, but it is not necessarily invalid. Get over your short-sighted pedantry, because the word “pause” has a niche connotation in the global warming discussion. So by saying “the pause”, the context already tells that no one is not talking about halt that is already known to be temporary. Moreover the context tells that “the pause” is used to describe in the lack of warming in temperature datasets. (Or perhaps you suggest attempting to use the verbose expression “the lack of warming in temperature datasets”)
Complaints about the use of “pause” are particularly annoying, because of the nature of English (or even other languages). It is dynamic, it changes. For a not-so-extreme example, “literally” has a different connotation: In informal situation, it is mostly acceptable to use “literally” just as a hyperbolic intensifier, like in “I literally died of laughter”. Let’s not forget a moment about the huge controversy of the inclusion of this connotation in dictionaries. Millions of people went crazy, they shouted “doublethink” or “Internet has killed English”. Never mind, this is established usage from early 20th century, with examples going back to 18th century.
interestingly, the word pause comes from Latin, pausa. This one, is not restricted to temporary halts, it can be used for halts, cessations or stops in general. If a word has changed meaning, nothing stops from it reverting back.
The “Pause” option does indicate that the weather is on hold for the time being which plays right into the CAGW hypotheses’ incoherent claims. It is true that it is just another term used to exempt the possibility that it is only temporary. The have used that same word play before, as we all know.
very confused: [no /sarc]
math
d [PAUSE = f (T)] / dt = 0
Dave Dardinger says:
December 4, 2013 at 8:18 am
msimom,
I like it too, especially if you work out the code using base 13.
Does that imply that the Masons nave the answer? I’m also reminded of the Hells Angels.
Sorry, but that’s not a “temperature” – when will they stop using that term?
@Daniel G.
I see. So, the Warmists have a Humpty Dumpty approach to their use of words. As in: “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
How convenient.
4TimesAYear says:
December 4, 2013 at 3:39 pm
Sorry, but that’s not a “temperature” – when will they stop using that term?
sorry: really,
d{a*ln[(CO2)t/(CO2)i]}/dt = 0
lsvalgaard says:
December 3, 2013 at 4:41 pm
it seems to me that ‘the pause’ we have now is no different [except for level] from the pause we had 1979-1996….
++++++
Hi Dr Svalgaard: I know your answer, but have to ask. Does that statement imply then that in 2016, we will have a super El Nino? Had to ask. My bet is NO and that the temperature continues to slog along with a slight downward trend. I know – I know -the value of my bet and 50 cents will not even buy you or me a cup of coffee.
Well there’s El Nino And La Nina,
Children should have Pas.
Mas too.
As in “no mas” warming
SteveP says:
December 4, 2013 at 9:16 am
“in California where I live, you are right 98% of the time 🙂 ].”
And in Ireland you are right 0% of the time…. 🙂
In that case, prediction is easy: you just say the opposite
Mario Lento says:
December 4, 2013 at 5:41 pm
Does that statement imply then that in 2016, we will have a super El Nino?
I have no idea. Perhaps ask some of the many soothsayers around here…
lsvalgaard says:
December 4, 2013 at 6:29 pm
Mario Lento says:
December 4, 2013 at 5:41 pm
Does that statement imply then that in 2016, we will have a super El Nino?
I have no idea. Perhaps ask some of the many soothsayers around here…
++++++++++
Agreed (though I don’t want to use the term soothsayers). as I’ve heard many convincing arguments that we’re headed towards a cessation of warming for quite some time. If I had to bet – and I guess I did, I’d bet on slight cooling over the next few decades over warming in that time frame.
Mario Lento!
HOW ARE YOU? After I screamed that I had been “‘praying my head off” for you last week or so, ……….. silence.
You could answer cryptically, you know. Well, keep the rubber side down and always use Chevy engines they are waaaay better than those oil-burning Fords, lol. And, I’ll bet you’d be more aptly named “Mario Rapido,” hm?
Take care,
Janice
Janice – I replied to your posts saying that I was in Jamaica on vacation and I described my passing the stress test – but also found that I have prolapsed mytro valves in my heart. No biggy I have had that since I was born from what I was told.
Can you look back on your posts to me and search from responses? I do not want to post on my personal stuff on this science blog as it dilutes the science content. my email is mariolento@gmail.com
Janice: Search for Mario on this WUWT post… my answer is fully and lovingly posted there 🙂
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/22/excerpts-from-salbys-slide-show/#comment-1488950
Mods – I apologize ahead of time for posting based on Mario rapido and reference to Chevy Engines. But I could not resist. Here’s a post of me driving a Chevy Engine at Sonoma Raceway… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HmiryaMHMs.
No more nonsense from me after this 🙂
We should get Dr Who to scan the earth with his sonic screwdriver and convert all the temperatures on earth into a single temperature that we can all experience.Dr Who could also convert his machine that goes ding for the IPPC to replace their computer models of future global temperatures,it would go ding everytime humanity burned fossil fuels.The computer models are stable to movement downwards in global temperatures they can only go up ,you could not get a computer model to predict global cooling because the assumptions are that climate sensitivity is constant and that energy flowing through the atmosphere is constant(none of the models predict cooling).
donald penman says:
December 4, 2013 at 7:14 pm
++++++++++
brilliant metaphoric commentary
@ Mario Rapido — Wow. My eyes are so green with envy right now….. oooooo, man! That looked like SO MUCH FUN. My heart is racing from “being there.” I drive as fast as I can wherever I go — why? Because it is fun! My joy in life is being the first at a red light on a 60mph road (in a fast car) so I can have the joy of accelerating. Favorite part of a plane ride? Take-off!!!
That rise in the track just before it takes a left turn shows you sure need to know that track if you want to go all out. That engine sounded super-fantastic. OH, MAN I WISH I COULD DO THAT. Thanks for sharing.
So glad to hear that you checked out A-OK. LOL, “Yes, dear patient, your prescription is to stay inebriated.” “Thanks, doc!” Oh, I’m just sure your wife LOVED that, lol.
Okay. No more fun stuff (what do you MEAN “science is fun,” okay, okay, it is sometimes).
Take care (and thank you for your empathy),
Janice
[The mods pick Janice’s hair bow up off of side of road. (Speculate it was sucked off by the vacuum of air going over top of red convertible.) …. Mod]
Why do we not measure air temperature above the open water and compare it with the Sea Surface Trend? Water can get warm and emit heat or retain it. Wouldn’t it be helpful to know if the heat was going in, coming out or staying neutral? Granted, not the most practical exercise, but maybe Bill Gates can use his hurricane stopping boats for something useful now?
Janice: I am an instructor, coach and have a competition race license… if you are ever in Northern CA, let me know, and I will find a way to get you on the race track for a thrill ride in one of the advanced groups. I can drive pretty much any track without paying since I do so much “pay it forward” work with teens, and new drivers for many race clubs. My wife can’t take the speed and g forces… I get adrenaline vicariously from my passengers. I never speed on the road anymore… it’s not safe 🙁
Thanks, Mario Lento. I’ll keep it in mind. But, really…. I don’t want a ride, I want to drive!
#(:))
lol, Mod, how did you know it was red? It is also ….. a 1969 Camaro with a 427 and a Tremec 5-speed AND Flowmasters! “In your dreams,” retorts Mod. Yup! You guessed that right, too (smile).
@Janice (and mods) Very good guess! It’s actually a red tube framed chassis, with Jerico tranny, Detroit locker rear end, 2800# and 630hp. The fiberglass body is a 2012 Camaro:
That’s me getting out of the #96car – and a blurb written about my experience with the team. Since I could not get my competition license medical renewed by that time, I only got to drive it in Super Unlimited Time Trials. I took 2nd place both days.
Link here: http://lifesgoodracing.com/active.php
Thanks for sharing, Mario Lento. Sigh. Someday…….. SOME — DAY!
Oh, and, congrats on your two 2nds!
Try the woodfortrees.org interactive tool, and make the data UAH, and process it with from: (choice of date by year with decimal) and linear trend (OLS). Let’s see how many years ago can become the start time of a non-rising linear trend to now.
I tried this a week or 2 ago, and got results very different from RSS – which was used to support duration of the current hiatus being 17.1 years. I have yet to find a complete hiatus, ending at latest or 2nd-latest monthly datum, even half that long in UAH. If anyone finds such a thing, please post it, including a woodfortrees.org link that includes reference to the processings. And please e-mail that to me at don@donklipstein.com.
pause? what pause?
the graph shows a perfect intact channel.
and it is rising.
steveta_uk said:
“Jim, I have a DVD player. The remote control has a “pause” button. When I press it, the DVD stops playing. There is nothing that forces me to press “play” ever again. I can turn off the machine, remove the disk, whatever, The “pause” buttion implies nothing whatsoever about what happens next.”
You have foolishly proved my point for me! The fact is that if you want to pause the play, rather than stop it, you press pause. The button is purely there for you to pause, implying that you know the future state and wish to continue. Otherwise you’d press stop. But we don’t know the future state of the climate, so it isn’t a pause. Do you understand that now? Or would you like me to get a five year-old to explain it to you? Jeez!
It’s arguable that it is “perfectly” intact. Depending on the aspect ratio, etc. of the chart, the lower trend line has either been violated or is about to be.
We need some sustained negative anomalies like 2008.
Wrong. They’re exactly the same. “In a 2009 report, the UN projected it would cost the world economy about $76 TRILLION over the next 40 years to keep CS below 2C… “