Global Temperature Report: December 2013

2013 was 4th warmest year in the satellite era

From University of Alabama, Hunstville.

Dec2013graph (1)

Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.14 C per decade

December temperatures (preliminary)

Global composite temp.: +0.27 C (about 0.49 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for December.

Northern Hemisphere: +0.27 C (about 0.49 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for December.

Southern Hemisphere: +0.26 C (about 0.47 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for December.

Tropics: +0.06 C (about 0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for December.

November temperatures (revised):

Global Composite: +0.19 C above 30-year average

Northern Hemisphere: +0.16 C above 30-year average

Southern Hemisphere: +0.23 C above 30-year average

Tropics: +0.02 C above 30-year average

(All temperature anomalies are based on a 30-year average (1981-2010) for the month reported.)

Global map for December:

Dec2013map

For the year:

2013map

Notes on data released Jan. 3, 2014:

2013 was the fourth warmest year in the satellite era, trailing only 1998, 2010 and 2005, according to Dr. John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. The warmest areas during the year were over the North Pacific and the Antarctic, where temperatures for the year averaged more than 1.4 C (more than 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than normal. There were small areas of cooler than normal temperatures scattered about the globe, including one area over central Canada where temperatures were 0.6 C (about 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit) cooler than the 30-year norm.

Global average temperature

(Departures from 30-year norm, degrees C)

1. 1998   0.419

2. 2010   0.398

3. 2005   0.260

4. 2013  0.236

5. 2002   0.218

6. 2009   0.209

7. 2007   0.204

8. 2003   0.187

9. 2006   0.186

10. 2012   0.170

11. 2011   0.130

12. 2004   0.108

13. 2001   0.107

14. 1991   0.020

15. 1987   0.013

16. 1995   0.013

17. 1988   0.012

18. 1980  -0.008

19. 2008  -0.009

20. 1990  -0.022

21. 1981  -0.045

22. 1997  -0.049

23. 1999  -0.056

24. 1983  -0.061

25. 2000  -0.061

26. 1996  -0.076

27. 1994  -0.108

28. 1979  -0.170

29. 1989  -0.207

30. 1986  -0.244

31. 1993  -0.245

32. 1982  -0.250

33. 1992  -0.289

34. 1985  -0.309

35. 1984  -0.353

Compared to seasonal norms, in December the warmest area on the globe was the northeastern Pacific Ocean, where the average temperature for the month was 4.91 C (about 8.8 degrees F) warmer than seasonal norms. The coolest area was in central Manitoba, near Lake Winnipeg, where temperatures in the troposphere were 5.37 C (almost 9.7 degrees F) cooler than seasonal norms.

Archived color maps of local temperature anomalies are available on-line at:

http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/

As part of an ongoing joint project between UA Huntsville, NOAA and NASA, Christy and Dr. Roy Spencer, an ESSC principal scientist, use data gathered by advanced microwave sounding units on NOAA and NASA satellites to get accurate temperature readings for almost all regions of the Earth. This includes remote desert, ocean and rain forest areas where reliable climate data are not otherwise available.

The satellite-based instruments measure the temperature of the atmosphere from the surface up to an altitude of about eight kilometers above sea level. Once the monthly temperature data is collected and processed, it is placed in a “public” computer file for immediate access by atmospheric scientists in the U.S. and abroad.

Neither Christy nor Spencer receives any research support or funding from oil, coal or industrial companies or organizations, or from any private or special interest groups. All of their climate research funding comes from federal and state grants or contracts.

— 30 —

Dr. Roy Spencer’s report:

The Version 5.6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for December, 2013 is +0.27 deg. C, up from +0.19 deg. C in November (click for full size version):

UAH_LT_1979_thru_December_2013_v5.6

The global, hemispheric, and tropical LT anomalies from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 12 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 +0.160 +0.226 +0.020

2013 12 +0.265 +0.273 +0.257 +0.057

0 0 vote
Article Rating
417 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
RichardLH
January 3, 2014 12:30 pm

Given that we appear to be at the top of a well observed 60 year cycle then this is not unexpected. The real question is ‘How much down from here do we go and for how long?”.

January 3, 2014 12:35 pm

It’s always interesting to see the global perspective since it averages out local events such as the current deep freeze in the Midwest and the severe heat wave in Australia, which can be misleading is viewed in isolation.

Gareth Phillips
January 3, 2014 12:37 pm

The point is Richard, the trend remains upwards.It may be a small amount, but it is still rising, not falling or staying still. Is there any objective evidence that we are at a peak and the trend will reverse?

RichardLH
January 3, 2014 12:41 pm

Gareth Phillips says:
January 3, 2014 at 12:37 pm
“The point is Richard, the trend remains upwards.It may be a small amount, but it is still rising, not falling or staying still. Is there any objective evidence that we are at a peak and the trend will reverse?”
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:220/mean:174/mean:144/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:720
http://snag.gy/iychw.jpg
Well the HadCrut4 says there is a 60 year and we are at the top of it.
The UAH says the same (though with only data since 1979 you can only see half a cycle).
What evidence do you have that this is an upward trend? It looks very, very cyclic to me.

January 3, 2014 12:43 pm

Someone forgot to tell Winnipeg. We had the 6th coldest December on record, coldest since 1933 and New Years Eve hit -48 with the wind chill.
I hear we made headlines across Canada.
But that’s not climate. That’s weather. It’s only climate when it’s hot.

Lil Fella from OZ
January 3, 2014 12:45 pm

We have been told that 2013 was the hottest year ever in South Australia. I would like to see where they take the readings!

Editor
January 3, 2014 12:45 pm

In the future, my sea surface temperature updates will likely be a little later than what we’re used to. But here’s the preliminary December 2013 update:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/12/30/preliminary-december-2013-sea-surface-temperature-sst-update/
While you’re there, please add me to your favorites or sign up for email notification of my posts. That way you’ll be advised of the STT updates, which I do not normally cross post at WUWT.
Regards

R. de Haan
January 3, 2014 12:46 pm

Not entirely off topic: Chris Hayes complains of Drudge fueled snow trolling on Global Warminghttp://washingtonexaminer.com/msnbcs-chris-hayes-complains-of-drudge-fueled-snow-trolling-on-global-warming/article/2541532#

January 3, 2014 12:52 pm

It sure missed us!

koba
January 3, 2014 12:55 pm

Our local weather station in Kent reports that 2013 was 0.37 degrees C below 28 year average.

January 3, 2014 12:59 pm

re: 2013 was 4th warmest year in the satellite era
Not getting what we ‘paid for’ in Texas; this has been one of the coldest winters we’ve seen! We’ve had low temps in the teens and snow and ice on two occasions already, and it’s only the 3rd of January!
Give me my warming!!!
/mild sarc (as if this tag is needed)

Rob
January 3, 2014 1:01 pm

NEW TECH (system of measurement) 1979 to 2013
0.27 of 1 degree to the positive (can you feel 0.27 or even 2.7)?
what is a global average?
compare this with a 50, 100, 200, 600, 1000 year global average
this is who peed in the pool
this is calculating your gas mileage for a trip across North America by using the data from the first three blocks
there’s very little variation outside of 0.8 °C for 34 years
this is from a satellite(s) how many miles above the earth?
whats the error in the equipment?
Whats the error in the atmosphere?
This is rolling a die seven times and getting 1-2-3-4-5-6-5 and saying its skewed to 5
Honey can you turn down the furnace 0.27 degrees the house is getting really really warm.
Oh no the hot tub hit 39.27°C way way to hot now (must be broken)
Sorry kids school is cancelled today because the windchill is -25.27°C you would absolutely freeze.
I better sue McDonalds my coffee was served at 82.49°C rather than the 82.22°C (180°F) specified.
Remember when the planet warmed 0.8°C and the Ice Age ended?
Why don’t people get how absolutely ludicrous this data is in the perspective of global history.

Ed Barbar
January 3, 2014 1:02 pm

One thing that I wonder about is “What is Zero.” Is there an agreed to value for “Normal?”

JimS
January 3, 2014 1:03 pm

I find that very hard to believe, quite frankly – 2013 being the 4th warmest year in the last 30 years. I demand a recount, or, perhaps the coolists should be given opportunity to “adjust” the figures, this time, eh?

January 3, 2014 1:06 pm

As a side note to Justin Hoffer’s point, the temperatures that were reach in Winnipeg were actually equivalent to the temperature on Mars, a planet millions of miles further from the sun then we are.
These massive flucuations in temperature and increases in nature disasters HAVE to be a wake up call do they not? Has the human race had enough? How much more do we have to experience to completely wipe out the denial of climate change? Furthermore how much more do we have to endure until we finally change our ways?
Source for Mars Temp:
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/01/right-now-its-as-cold-in-canada-as-where-our-rover-is-on-mars/282775/

Rob
January 3, 2014 1:09 pm

Gareth Phillips says:
“The point is Richard, the trend remains upwards”
The entire 34 year variation cannot constitute a “TREND” in the perspective of the planet. This is absolutely ZERO information. (perhaps its giving us variation parameters)
perspective people perspective
Go to the hardware store, pull out every single thermometer and see what the variation is.

Leon Brozyna
January 3, 2014 1:10 pm

There you have it … 2013 was the 4th warmest year in the satellite era. And with people sure to try to spin it to a particular belief, let me just add that this incontrovertibly proves that 2013 was the 4th warmest year in the satellite era. And that’s all. This still says nothing about future trends, no matter one’s wishes, hopes, or fears.

Steve from Rockwood
January 3, 2014 1:10 pm

@Gareth.
@Richard.
Normally scientists would wait and collect 60 years worth of data before discussing whether the current anomaly was above or below the normal trend. If the trough of a 60 year cycle occurred in the 70s or 80s then we are just past the peak and should still expect positive anomalies (above mean of trend) for a number of years. We should be able to remove the 60 year cycle after 2040 or so. Until then we’re just guessing either way.
Or a simpler way is to tell us what the amplitude of the 60 year cycle is so that we can remove it.

WeatherOrNot
January 3, 2014 1:12 pm

Is mean global average temperature data available, rather than just the anomaly? I’d be interested to know the trend for the actual average global temperature over the years.

January 3, 2014 1:13 pm

It looks like it’s with a December anomaly of 1.577C the tenth warmest year for RSS with 0.218 C above their average
http://www.remss.com/data/msu/graphics/TLT/time_series/RSS_TS_channel_TLT_Global_Land_And_Sea_v03_3.txt
(and a bit of excel work):
1979 -0,094425 28
1980 0,01505 27
1981 0,021725 26
1982 -0,172466667 32
1983 0,065541667 22
1984 -0,2243 34
1985 -0,260541667 35
1986 -0,139458333 31
1987 0,098891667 17
1988 0,066458333 21
1989 -0,119525 30
1990 0,074066667 20
1991 0,080741667 19
1992 -0,179258333 33
1993 -0,117733333 29
1994 0,028166 25
1995 0,158625 13
1996 0,046625 23
1997 0,101825 16
1998 0,550058333 1
1999 0,104441667 15
2000 0,092383333 18
2001 0,246441667 7
2002 0,315133333 5
2003 0,320391667 4
2004 0,201983333 11
2005 0,330158333 3
2006 0,230625 8
2007 0,255575 6
2008 0,046391667 24
2009 0,222 9
2010 0,4718 2
2011 0,143183333 14
2012 0,187091667 12
2013 0,218341667 10

LT
January 3, 2014 1:13 pm

It looks like UAH continues to deviate from the other global temperature datasets. Something seems off.

January 3, 2014 1:14 pm

Who’s the coolest “coolist?

dp
January 3, 2014 1:14 pm

Having that heat in the atmosphere above the north Pacific is a net cooling effect to the planet as the ocean heat passes through the air before making its way back the the dark regions of the universe. People are viewing this as a bad thing – I don’t understand that. Rejoice, people – that is what global cooling looks like.

January 3, 2014 1:19 pm

let me try and make my previous post more readable:
10th warmest year for RSS
1979 – – -0,094 – – 28
1980 – – 0,015 – – 27
1981 – – 0,022 – – 26
1982 – – -0,172 – – 32
1983 – – 0,066 – – 22
1984 – – -0,224 – – 34
1985 – – -0,261 – – 35
1986 – – -0,139 – – 31
1987 – – 0,099 – – 17
1988 – – 0,066 – – 21
1989 – – -0,120 – – 30
1990 – – 0,074 – – 20
1991 – – 0,081 – – 19
1992 – – -0,179 – – 33
1993 – – -0,118 – – 29
1994 – – 0,028 – – 25
1995 – – 0,159 – – 13
1996 – – 0,047 – – 23
1997 – – 0,102 – – 16
1998 – – 0,550 – – 1
1999 – – 0,104 – – 15
2000 – – 0,092 – – 18
2001 – – 0,246 – – 7
2002 – – 0,315 – – 5
2003 – – 0,320 – – 4
2004 – – 0,202 – – 11
2005 – – 0,330 – – 3
2006 – – 0,231 – – 8
2007 – – 0,256 – – 6
2008 – – 0,046 – – 24
2009 – – 0,222 – – 9
2010 – – 0,472 – – 2
2011 – – 0,143 – – 14
2012 – – 0,187 – – 12
2013 – – 0,218 – – 10

RichardLH
January 3, 2014 1:22 pm

Steve from Rockwood says:
January 3, 2014 at 1:10 pm
“Or a simpler way is to tell us what the amplitude of the 60 year cycle is so that we can remove it.”
An outline guide to magnitude and phase (only two cycles so it is imprecise at best) is
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:220/mean:174/mean:144/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:720

Steve from Rockwood
January 3, 2014 1:28 pm

If there is such a thing as a 60 year cycle then using a 30 year average for the negative half of the 60 year cycle and then claiming that 2001-2013 are the warmest years is … well … entirely expected. With the positive peak of a 60 year cycle centered around 2005 anything other than 12 of 13 years being 2001 or later would be very unusual – like 1998 which shouldn’t be there (we all know why it is an exception). It seems as though the world is unfolding as it should.

January 3, 2014 1:28 pm

Zero Kelvin is zero.
Any anthropogenic signature here is indiscrenable.
The variations in this graph are noise.
The RSS trend shown from 1979 to 2013 appears to be about .5C per 34 years,) Theis trend is no different from what we Earthlings have enjoyed since the Earth began its recovery from the “Little Ice Age”.
No CAGW catastrophe here.
CO2 is only good.
The Earth needs more.

strike
January 3, 2014 1:32 pm

Can someone please explain, how the “global avg” is being calculated? It looks to me, as if the tropics do not take part in this calculation? Global always equals (NH + SH) / 2
2013 12 +0.265 +0.273 +0.257 +0.057
for example in december 2013: GLOBAL = (0.273 + 0.257) / 2 = 0.265

Steve from Rockwood
January 3, 2014 1:32 pm

If I averaged Northern Hemisphere temperatures over 6 months of the year – November through April – and then claimed that July, August and September were all “well above average”… climate scientists would see that as proof the world was warming.

R. de Haan
January 3, 2014 1:33 pm
MattS
January 3, 2014 1:34 pm

Unfortunately, I live in the blue spot in the middle of North America.

James Abbott
January 3, 2014 1:35 pm

So thats more sceptic predictions sunk:
2013 4th warmest in the satellite record
Surface temperatures set to come in again in top 10, possibly top 5
Solar activity not fading away – currently in line with NASA forecast
No sign of much (wished for) global cooling
Arctic sea ice remains well below mean
Sea level continuing to rise
That leaves Antarctic sea ice to cling to ?

Reply to  James Abbott
January 6, 2014 5:49 am

@james Abbott – WHAT Skeptic predictions? Is that your wishful thinking? Or do you have links?

January 3, 2014 1:35 pm

Time for all you sun nuts and PDO fans to place your bets.
we are at solar max.. If the sun is the cause then its time to make predictions

Jack Hydrazine
January 3, 2014 1:38 pm

Anthony,
“Warm globally, cool locally!”
I made this saying up for the eco-nuts based upon another one that’s very similar and they believe it.
How is it possible that it could be so warm yet we see a huge increase in the amount of ice at both poles??? Is there a lag in observations and actual climate changes we aren’t seeing? Shouldn’t cooling, both ocean and air, precede increased ice formation or is it the other way around? Is someone fudging the data? Maybe it’s the Earth’s magnetic field that is driving ice formation?
When will we see cooling (ocean and air) parallel or catch up to the icing trend?
-Jack

Rob
January 3, 2014 1:45 pm

So this tweaked me to start looking at the satellite margins of error:
funny but the data (as expected) is well hidden in the various site. Whoda thunk it?
so for this data the published margin of error IS …..The margin of error associated with this temperature is ±0.13°F (0.07°C).
But according to reports there are 0.5°C variances, that two satellites are 1.0°C outside of normal variations, that the equipment varies in accuracy depending on wave length used, whether over land, sea, ice, etc
It depends on cloud cover, oxygen content, satellite orbit height, ie satellites fall and are boosted back up.
If you read the temperature anomalies (worked into the global average) they are specific to certain regions – so how does a snowy reflective winter compare to a no snow one? How does a ice covered sea compare to a open sea. Again there are a billion variables that are magically munched into a “trend” inside of 34 years. I think not. This data means NOTHING. Its noise well inside normal variation.

January 3, 2014 1:49 pm

This should make the link work (if it is a good link)
Chris Hayes complains of Drudge fueled snow trolling on Global Warming http://washingtonexaminer.com/msnbcs-chris-hayes-complains-of-drudge-fueled-snow-trolling-on-global-warming/article/2541532#

Marcos
January 3, 2014 1:59 pm

why does Antarctica show all positive anomalies for Dec when it was recently reported that the lowest temperature ever recorded happened there last month?

January 3, 2014 2:00 pm

Abbott says:
“No sign of much (wished for) global cooling”
James, wake up.
And your comment about Antarctic ice is as lame as Arctic ice cover.
I cannot break thru James Abbott’s religious belief, but for rational readers, this chart of the past 8,000 years shows that the current “carbon” scare is nonsense. How many ‘hockey stick’ shapes can you count in the chart? Ten Twenty? More?
The recent mild global warming event is as natural as prior warmings. There is no difference. And it appears that this warming episode has run its course.

justsomeguy31167
January 3, 2014 2:03 pm

Since you get your data from NASA, any chance it is “pre-cooked” Hansen and Gavin?

cnxtim
January 3, 2014 2:05 pm

to propose any truly scientific hypothesis without accurate data is patently absurd and nothing more than enthusiastic guesswork,
I propose therefore, we always discuss climate records as PS (post Satellite) and BS

timetochooseagain
January 3, 2014 2:06 pm

strike: You seem to have confused SH and NH as referring to the *extratropical* parts of those hemispheres. They refer to the entire hemisphere, including each hemisphere’s half of the tropics.
But more specifically, the global average is the cosine of the latitude weighted average of all gridpoints from 85S-85N. This obviously includes the tropics.

James Abbott
January 3, 2014 2:07 pm

Jack Hydrazine said
How is it possible that it could be so warm yet we see a huge increase in the amount of ice at both poles???
So whats your source for there being “a huge increase” in ice in the arctic ?
Greenland is losing net ice mass and sea ice extent is currently close to 2 SDs below the 1981 – 2010 mean
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
and has not been above the area mean (apart from slightly and for a few days) for 11 straight years
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

January 3, 2014 2:12 pm

LT said:
It looks like UAH continues to deviate from the other global temperature datasets. Something seems off.

Here is a comparison between RSS and UAH in excel
https://www.dropbox.com/s/tko5zoqpa618eus/RSS_TS_channel_TLT_Global_Land_And_Sea_v03_3.xlsx
Graph here:comment image
It seems that both RSS and UAH started off at the same level but then UAH cooled down while RSS warmed up soon afterwards. nowadays they merge together again. However that previous behavior had huge impact on years ranking.
Maybe the two institutes shoud sort things out a bit.

Pamela Gray
January 3, 2014 2:13 pm

My fabulous boyfriend works in agriculture and has been sharing with me data about number of hot days and number of cool nights. Turns out 2013 not only had quite a few hot days beyond a crop’s tolerance level but it also had more cool days than this crop can tolerate. So it isn’t necessarily so that warmer days means global warming. Hot days and cool nights can mean low humidity levels, which would also be an indicator of cooling.
An interesting side note: cooler days during the growing season also paired up with warmer nights, which would be an indicator of warming trends.
My point is that one metric alone, such as averaged global temperatures does not necessarily indicate global warming or cooling.

Rob
January 3, 2014 2:22 pm

http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1963955
Error ranges of these estimates, if we do not apply information that indicates some data sets contain noticeable trend problems, are at least ±0.05°C decade-1, which needs reduction to characterize forcing and response in the climate system accurately.

Mario Lento
January 3, 2014 2:25 pm

More interesting news!

January 3, 2014 2:27 pm

James Abbott,
From your own link:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2013/12/Figure4b-350×280.png
The Antarctic has ten times more ice than the Arctic. That is why global ice cover is normal.
You’re only scaring yourself.

James Abbott
January 3, 2014 2:28 pm

dbstealey
I am fully awake thanks and thats how I read, as you did, the fact that 2013 was the 4th warmest year in the satellite era according to the report that prompted this thread from the University of Alabama, Hunstville. Dr. Roy Spencer’s anomaly plot also shows absolutely no evidence of cooling:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/dec2013graph-1.png
Nor do the 3 main global surface temperature data sets – unless they are manipulated – such as is commonly done by starting around 1998 (one of your graphs).
Your claims in that
“I cannot break thru James Abbott’s religious belief, but for rational readers, this chart of the past 8,000 years shows that the current “carbon” scare is nonsense. How many ‘hockey stick’ shapes can you count in the chart? Ten Twenty? More?
“The recent mild global warming event is as natural as prior warmings. There is no difference. And it appears that this warming episode has run its course.”
are rediculous.
The religious beliefs in this debate are displayed by those who seek to undermine the science because of their fundamentalist predetermined position – that they don’t “believe” climate change is happening.
And as you don’t think carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is important, tell us what would happen if we modelled the atmosphere with CO2 taken out ? From your position there would presumably be no temperature change ?

Reply to  James Abbott
January 6, 2014 6:20 am

@James Abbott – “Undermining” the science by questioning it? I guess in your world, when a scientist makes a proclamation, it is gospel and no longer allowed to be questioned? So how’s that flat earth and phlogiston doing for you?
last I checked, religions hated questioning. Science embraces it.

TB
January 3, 2014 2:28 pm

Justin Hoffer says:
January 3, 2014 at 12:43 pm
Someone forgot to tell Winnipeg. We had the 6th coldest December on record, coldest since 1933 and New Years Eve hit -48 with the wind chill.
I hear we made headlines across Canada.
But that’s not climate. That’s weather. It’s only climate when it’s hot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Tell that to Moscow, E Siberia, Alaska, most of Europe and into Russia as far E as the Urals – just for the NH.
No, it’s only climate when it consists of the whole planet and lasts for around 3 decades.
Otherwise it is indeed “Weather”.
FYI: you can, and more importantly MUST have cold at the same time as warm.
Sorry it’s just how it works.

Ian S
January 3, 2014 2:29 pm

@Rob
Totally agree. Noise. I’ve been following AGW for quite a while now and there are always errors in measurement being corrected for. Error corrections almost always go in the direction of reducing past temperatures and increasing current ones. If you read about Satellite error and correction that have occurred over the years, they all seem to have the effect of increasing the temperature trend. I’ve pointed this out to some warmists and they’ve always assured me “it’s not a conspiracy, it’s just the way the dice happened to roll”. Well I think they are only half-right. I agree it’s not a conspiracy, it’s selective focus. If a trend agrees with their desired outcome, they look no further. If a trend disagrees with their desired outcome they spend a lot of time looking for why the data must be wrong. We see this in action with urban heat island (UHI) effect and with satellite measurements. Because UHI would increase temperature trends and therefore a correction would reduce the trend, they are quick to conclude that UHI is not a factor (nothing to see here, move along). However, satellites were not cooperating initially. The results were not what they wanted, so they put in an inordinate amount of time looking for why the data must be wrong. Since satellite measurements have so many factors to them that could significantly effect the trend, it didn’t take too much effort to find a reason why they needed to be ‘corrected’ upwards. Mission accomplished.
It would be far too tedious and unrewarding, (but interesting if someone else did it), to look into all ‘corrections’. How many corrections increased the trend? How many decreased it? Is the distribution of corrections statistically likely? (I very much doubt it).
Considering that ‘trends’ are so small and insignificant it doesn’t seem much of a stretch to me to think that the tiny trends we do see are quite a pure fabrication of ‘corrections’. The ‘real’ trend could very well go the opposite direction! Unfortunately we never know in our lifetime. It will be up to scientists of the future to look back and go ‘tsk tsk’ at the naivety of past ‘corrections’ and feel superior about (as every new generation seems to do).

Gerard
January 3, 2014 2:29 pm

I listened to the report that 2013 was the hottest year ever in Australia, I can only go by my own vegie garden where my tomatoes have failed to set fruit and cucumbers have failed to grow because of the lack of heat.

Rob
January 3, 2014 2:29 pm

Pamela Gray says: cooler days during the growing season also paired up with warmer nights
On the prairies this is a normal cloud cover during the day gives cooler days but warmer nights as less heat escapes. The opposite is also true as clear days are hotter but cool off more at night as the heat is allowed to escape.

bazza
January 3, 2014 2:36 pm

The abc here in australia are obsessed with the hot weather we are getting in qld at the moment.They spent most of the news talking about it no mention of the extream cold in the us.At one point in the show they had a [so called] weather expert on and with great joy he said it has not been this hot since 1889 scary scary we are all going to fry.My question is what made it so hot in 1889?it was not SUVs and air con, trust me the weather is no different now than it was in the 1950s.When will this global warming madness end?so we can stop spending billions of dollars on stupid research projects like that fiasco in antarctica with there ship stuck in the ice that they claim is not there.

James Abbott
January 3, 2014 2:39 pm

dbstealey perhaps its you that needs to wake up !
You said, referring to sea ice:
“The Antarctic has ten times more ice than the Arctic. That is why global ice cover is normal.”
Where do you get that from ?
Arctic sea ice is currently about double antarctic sea ice area. Comparing past maxima and minima in north and south they are similar in terms of ice area.

Gary Pearse
January 3, 2014 2:43 pm

Wow, it’s hard to see the big global warming surge of the 1990s – it’s all blue. I guess behaved differently than summers. I’m impressed how little influence the cold weather we’ve been having in much of Canada in December along with the galloping arctic and antarctic ice extents. I was in Dominican Republic for December and it seemed cooler to me than usual, too, and of course we had snow in Israel and Egypt.

Reg Nelson
January 3, 2014 2:50 pm

Marcos says:
January 3, 2014 at 1:59 pm
why does Antarctica show all positive anomalies for Dec when it was recently reported that the lowest temperature ever recorded happened there last month?
—-
Marcos, the low temperature was reported last month but it was from a measurement taken a couple of years ago. It was discovered by analyzing the vast amount of historical data that is (was) generated.

January 3, 2014 2:51 pm

James Abbott says:
“You said, referring to sea ice…”
James, wake up. I never mentiond “sea” ice. You simply invented a strawman, and then knocked him down. Bravo! Whatta guy!
But next time, pay attention to what I wrote — not what you assumed I wrote.
I’ll be out for a while. In the mean time, run along to SkS or wherever you get your pseudo-science talking points, and stock up! We can continue this discussion later. I am always willing to debate someone who believes that “carbon” is gonna getcha. ☺☺☺

Rob
January 3, 2014 2:53 pm

James Abbot says: The religious beliefs in this debate are displayed by those who seek to undermine the science because of their fundamentalist predetermined position – that they don’t “believe” climate change is happening.
James how can you call measurements within margin of error a “trend” let alone science. You are the climate denier as you cannot see outside of a very very small climate box.
34 years of satellite with many many documented errors and “corrections” does not constitute a level of confidence. Historically the planet (pre man induced CO2) has varied well outside of the temperature movement we are seeing. Where I live ( Canadian Prairies ) the temperature variations year to year have remained the same relatively speaking -40 to +30°C. This is the EXACT reason I started to doubt what was being told to me by the “scientists” and the IPCC
The story did not match the reality. If the equipment I design was criticized for temperature variations (inside a very small closed system) of 0.27 or even 2.7°C I would laugh the critic out of the room. The variables of measured satellite temperatures fall well outside of this 34 year chart. (you have to dig to find the info and the data) even if the “trend” was 1 full degree, or a degree and a half would it really be an issue compared to 50 to 600 year history? Would it?
Chart out 100 years full scale (ie about -45°C to +45°C)
This data means absolutely nothing, its not a trend considering published error margin and measurement issues of satellites. This has nothing to do with religion or bias or anything else.
The equipment and the variables cannot begin to give a baseline, an error margin nor a trend yet. If the world spent 10 times the money on each satellite and doubled or even tripled the amount orbiting and recording data and came up with the exact same data line it would still mean nothing.

Mario Lento
January 3, 2014 2:55 pm

James Abbott says:
January 3, 2014 at 2:39 pm
dbstealey perhaps its you that needs to wake up !
You said, referring to sea ice:
“The Antarctic has ten times more ice than the Arctic. That is why global ice cover is normal.”
Where do you get that from ?
Arctic sea ice is currently about double antarctic sea ice area. Comparing past maxima and minima in north and south they are similar in terms of ice area.
++++++++++++++
James: Ice area does not tell the whole story. Antarctica has thickness that the Arctic does not have. It’s a continent after all, whereas the Arctic ice floats in “relatively” warmer water than the land temperature of Antarctica.

January 3, 2014 2:57 pm

What I see from looking at the graph is that the temps are essentially the same as 2002. And no warming since at least 1998. That’s where we stand. This doesn’t jive with the climate models that show things taking off into the stratosphere by now. CO2 has gone up sharply, and temps remain flat.

Gareth Phillips
January 3, 2014 2:57 pm

Rob says:
January 3, 2014 at 1:09 pm
Gareth Phillips says:
“The point is Richard, the trend remains upwards”
The entire 34 year variation cannot constitute a “TREND” in the perspective of the planet. This is absolutely ZERO information. (perhaps its giving us variation parameters)
perspective people perspective
Go to the hardware store, pull out every single thermometer and see what the variation is.
Hi Rob, I have a sneaking suspicion the instruments used to record this data are a lot more specific and calibrated than a hardware thermometer.

January 3, 2014 3:00 pm

I was reading about climate history before the present cAGW fraud became the money-maker that it has become. Back in those days we were told that there was a “little ice age” that lasted from about 1300 to 1850 or so.
I read a lot of writings by a fellow named H.H. Lamb. He told me that we had been warming up ever since the end of the little ice age and that was a good thing. He outlined past ups and downs and so I was not surprised when the “new ice age” scare was put to bed by a period of warming just as I will not be surprised when the climate cooling blows the current fraudsters out of the water yet again.
Let me see now; the CO2 in the atmosphere has gone over 400 ppm which was supposed to trigger runaway heating that would fry us all. Well, the best we can do is say that we have “hotter years” with measurements to the hundredth of a degree? Son of a Bee, I think some folks missed “precision” and “accuracy” lessons in middle school.
Anyway, I love the reports of “hottest year ever” since it just makes the common Joe on the street crazy as he battles snow and ice and airplane cancellations.
By the way, I hear it was massive heat that trapped those poor “climatologists” down at the south pole. To that I say, Penguin Droppings.

AP
January 3, 2014 3:01 pm

Given the contours over Australia do not seem to average out to a 1+ degree anomoly over the 2013 calendar year, can anyone explain how the BOM claims that it was 1.20 degrees C hotter? Eyeballing the map, it appears to be average of 0.6DegC, or half of the anomoly claimed by the BOM warmists.

James Abbott
January 3, 2014 3:01 pm

dbstealey in the spirit of giving each other friendly suggestions, can I suggest you get some basic science learning under your belt.
Have a read on subjects such as greenhouse gases, radiative forcing, Earth’s energy balance. Also, have a browse of the history of science to see when it was that CO2 was recognised as a greenhouse gas and when the first published papers looked at what increasing global CO2 concentration could lead to.
Meantime, you clearly were referring to sea ice as you posted this link to back your point
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2013/12/Figure4b-350×280.png
which sure looks like a sea ice graph to me.

RichardLH
January 3, 2014 3:02 pm

James Abbott says:
January 3, 2014 at 2:28 pm
“And as you don’t think carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is important, tell us what would happen if we modelled the atmosphere with CO2 taken out ? From your position there would presumably be no temperature change ?”
I perceive CO2 as being like this
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:220/mean:174/mean:144/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:720/plot/esrl-co2/scale:0.01/offset:-3.35

Felix
January 3, 2014 3:09 pm

“The warmest areas during the year were over the North Pacific and the Antarctic, where temperatures for the year averaged more than 1.4 C (more than 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than normal.”
Antarctica warmer than normal?? But how can that be when that iced in ship proved global warming is all a hoax?

Lawrence Todd
January 3, 2014 3:11 pm

We know that super el nino adds a constant level to the temperature setting up a new “normal: about .2 degrees warmer.
If you calculated the anomalies from that base you would get an almost flat record since the super el nino.

Bill Illis
January 3, 2014 3:14 pm

Let’s adjust this UAH reading of +0.236C for the known natural variables.
The AMO index is going to average about +0.200C for the year and its influence is 50% so net impact of +0.100C to UAH.
The ENSO including the 3 month lag has an average of -0.14C for the year (very neutral in ENSO terms) and its influence is 15% so an impact of -0.02C.
Solar Irradiance is hard to determine now since the SORCE TSI instrument failed but it appears to be around +0.3 W//2 (the top of the solar cycle) and its influence is 10% so +0.03C from solar.
No volcanoes of any impact.
So adjust the +0.236C of 2013 to +0.137C to account for natural variables.
1979’s adjusted value is -0.180C.
Very hard to get excited about +0.31C or so of warming over 34 years when global warming theory predicted it would 1.28 times 0.2C/decade (lower troposphere at the level UAH measures at is predicted to warm by 1.28 times the surface predicted rate of 0.2C/decade in the theory) or +0.94C.
One-third the predicted rate.

James Abbott
January 3, 2014 3:15 pm

RichardLH you miss the point entirely.
Try this:
It is claimed by many sceptics that CO2 in the atmosphere is unimportant. dbstealey appears to believe that referring to the “carbon scare” and that recent warming is “normal” ie not associated with rising carbon dioxide concentration.
So – what would happen if we modelled the atmosphere with CO2 taken out ?
Take out all of the current 400ppm. If CO2 is not important in defining temperature, then presumably there will be no temperature change ?
I am yet to see a sceptic answer that question.

Reply to  James Abbott
January 6, 2014 6:43 am

@James Abbott:

It is claimed by many sceptics that CO2 in the atmosphere is unimportant.

Again, links please? I can say that alarmists claim CO2 is causing cancer. But then that would just be an OPINION, especially since I provide no evidence of such sophistry. You claim a lot. You have yet to produce any evidence.

James of the West
January 3, 2014 3:21 pm

Did someone open the valves on the massive CO2 storage tanks in outback Australia after Abbott won the election? Is that the explanation for this years record in Australia? :p

davidmhoffer
January 3, 2014 3:28 pm

James Abbott;
Take out all of the current 400ppm. If CO2 is not important in defining temperature, then presumably there will be no temperature change ?
>>>>>>>>>>>
Well James, while I will allow that there are a small number of skeptics that would say such a thing, that isn’t true of the majority of us. Of course temperature would be different, probably a lot of other things as well. I don’t pretend to speak for all skeptics, but the majority of us are quite conversant in the radiative physics as they apply in this case. My position, and that of a great number of skeptics, is that while CO2 is quite obviously a GHG, with properties that can easily be quantified in a laboratory setting, the cumulative effect in the atmosphere as a whole yields a sensitivity far lower than presumed in the climate models themselves.
In fact, the mainstream peer reviewed science by the elite climate scientists of the world for more than a year now has been focused on explaining the shortfall between sensitivity as calculated by the climate models, and observations. No longer do they try and assert that the models are right, they only attempt to explain why they are wrong. So much so, that as Christopher Monkton pointed out in a recent thread:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/01/ipcc-silently-slashes-its-global-warming-predictions-in-the-ar5-final-draft/
even the IPCC is now proposing a sensitivity to CO2 far below what is calculated by the models.
Summing up, the physics, for those of us who actually studied it, never supported a sensitivity high enough to be alarming. What is happening now is not skeptics claiming that CO2 has no warming effect. Only that the sensitivity is too low to be alarming, and the observational data vindicates us on that point.

Jim Roth
January 3, 2014 3:29 pm

Can someone please tell me how this squares with the idea that there’s been no global warming for the last 17 yr’s?

Mario Lento
January 3, 2014 3:30 pm

James Abbott says:
January 3, 2014 at 3:01 pm
dbstealey in the spirit of giving each other friendly suggestions, can I suggest you get some basic science learning under your belt.
Have a read on subjects such as greenhouse gases, radiative forcing, Earth’s energy balance. Also, have a browse of the history of science to see when it was that CO2 was recognised as a greenhouse gas and when the first published papers looked at what increasing global CO2 concentration could lead to.
Meantime, you clearly were referring to sea ice as you posted this link to back your point
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2013/12/Figure4b-350×280.png
which sure looks like a sea ice graph to me.
+++++++++++++++
Please stop conflating meaning. The sea ice extent, your link, shows is that both sea ice areas are not hugely different and share opposite seasons. The Antactic sea ice area has been growing over time, and the Arctic sea ice area has been diminishing, though creeping back a small bit to pretty close to the norm.
The statement that Antarctica has 10 times more ice has to do with VOLUME not sea ice area. And you know that! This banter and name calling is counter productive.
The argument between us is on how much of an effect CO2 has. Most skeptics do NOT say that CO2 has no effect. Warmists believe it’s effect is huge and blame most every weather event or short term upwards trend on CO2. Skeptics believe it is very difficult to find the signature of CO2’s effect, especially when upwards trends go away.
For example, most warmists believe most of the 0.6 K warming last century was due to increased CO2. That’s not based on science it’s based on politics and ideology. And you know that!

Rob
January 3, 2014 3:31 pm

Ian S says:
It will be up to scientists of the future to look back and go ‘tsk tsk’ at the naivety of past ‘corrections’ and feel superior.
I’m tired of the REAL climate deniers (those that fail to admit and/or see that the planet has climate (weather) variation. The variations are way outside of our measly time perspective.
You cannot measure withing that variation and call it a trend. It just means your time perspective is way too small.
This one was interesting because when I read 0.27°C my mind automatically went “so what?”
I started to google “Satellite temperature margin of error”
Why is it always with the equipment used for “climate change” data its really really hard to ferrit out accurate data.
I design equipment that requires pressure, temperature, and flow data.
One of the first things I NEED to know is what is the margin of error. Does it “fit” within what my parameters are. Do I care if i get a temperature reading that is 1,2 or even 5°C out over a span of -40 to 100°C.
So we have satellites several miles up with orbital variations of what?
They are recording microwave readings against atmospheric oxygen that varies how? What is the error margin in the readings.
How is the location of the measurement affected? ie tropics have large error margins.
Cloud effect readings, water effects readings, land and sea and ice affect readings.
The global climate range is what? -65°C to +45°C for the majority of the earth. Each region have year to year variations of +/- 5°C depending on the “weather” trend of the year. and this is all fitted into a convenient little box called “global average temperature” and this temperature over 34 years shows a variation of .8°C
WHY DO I CARE? Over my lifetime, over my fathers or his or my great, great, great Grandfathers in the 1700’s relatively speaking NOTHING has changed. There’s been good years and bad years, wet years and dry years, cold years and hot years.
I love science, I love rocketry and space, I love technology, I love data and facts.
This ANNOUNCEMENT of 0.27°C is ludicrous in its lack of importance.
The chart goes from -0.7 to +0.8 with a 13 month trend line that falls within -0.4 to +0.4
This is 1.5°C or 0.8°C within a world that has a span of -65°C to 45°C and 34 years within 150 to 600 plus years of large variation.
It nothing (less than error) within nothing in a ridiculously short time span for the data being measured and logged.

Greg Goodman
January 3, 2014 3:32 pm

RichardLH
January 3, 2014 at 1:22 pm
slight variation on your plot RLH:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:220/mean:174/mean:144/derivative/scale:100/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:220/mean:174/mean:144/from:1925/scale:100/derivative/trend
Now I’m suggesting we should believe HadCRUT4, that was your choice. But looking at the derivative tells us more about rate of change since it is , well , the rate of change.
This record does seem to lend itself to being modelled as a cycle plus non cyclic change. Since we appear to be near the peak, I’ve roughly picked the last peak in 1925 to give a full cycle to fit a linear rise to. This data clearly shows an increasing rate of change (accelerating warming).
Note I’ve had to x12 the “derivative” since it appears that WTF.org is just giving us the monthly difference in temp , not the derivative (dT/dt) in the graph units which should be K/year.
The cyclic part is about 60 years , 1.8 K/ca peak-to-peak. (ca = century)
Looking at the linear component (ie we’ve effectively remove the cycle as Steve from Rockwood suggested) :
The rate of change at the end of filter in 1993 is about 0.85 K/ca increasing at 0.35/0.60=0.58 K/ca/ca
1955+60=2015 so we should be approaching the next minimum in the rate of change about now if we continue that cycle and linear increase in rate of change. The min will be at about zero rate of change.
Zero rate of change is “haitus” / “pause” or whatever you like.
So if you choose to believe HadCRUT4’s various “corrections” , within the next five years we will start to see warming begin again, assuming the trend and the cycle are persistent climate patterns that will continue.
I derived 0.7 K/ca/ca from several data sets here:
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=523
That results in +1.54K rise above 1840 baseline by 2050 ( x2CO2 est) .
So if we want to adopt the dubious idea that temperatures would have been flat since 1840 and that this quadratic rise is CO2 based AGW we get a climate sensitivity of 1.5K per doubling. That is a close to Nik Lewis’ result IIRC, presumably based on the same questionable assumptions.

Greg Goodman
January 3, 2014 3:33 pm

oops:
Now I’m NOT suggesting we should believe HadCRUT4, that was your choice.

January 3, 2014 3:37 pm

CO2 is the fine plant food that has caused/helped the yield going up on our hard red winter wheat here in North East Texas, U.S.A. and the best part we do not have to pay for it like the 18/46/0 that Olin/Mathhasion Fertilizer Company does.
That is what more CO2 leads to.

Mario Lento
January 3, 2014 3:39 pm

James Abbott says:
January 3, 2014 at 3:15 pm
RichardLH you miss the point entirely.
Try this:
It is claimed by many sceptics that CO2 in the atmosphere is unimportant.
+++++++++++
I see here that you are not precisely understanding what is said, and then you paraphrase or take out of context what is said. So you make up an argument in your own mind. This is not how to have a conversation.
MOST SKEPTICS believe that CO2 is crucial to life! It’s VERY important. Quite the opposite of what you are saying about most of us. Where do you hear people saying it’s unimportant? What do you think the optimal CO2 levels are? Are you one of those who believes CO2 is a pollutant?
For most plants, there isn’t enough to be optimal, so they need to produce more stomata and take in more water to account for the evaporation through the stomata!

Old woman of the north
January 3, 2014 3:40 pm

Jame Abbott, it is the middle of SUMMER in the Antarctic and Prof Turney did not seem to know that there was any ice there at all. After all, there was none there in 1912 when Mawson visited.
Anyway 2013 was cooler than average for much of the year in Toowoomba. High pressure systems circulate hot summer air from the north in Australia and that is what we have had for the past week of so. It is weather, as was the blizzard in Antactica.

davidmhoffer
January 3, 2014 3:40 pm

James Abbott;
Since you suggest that we skeptics should study the physics, I think it appropriate to suggest that you read three of the most informative articles on the matter, published on this site, and which are regularly referenced in discussions regarding the GHG. We’re not skeptics because we’re ignorant of the phsyics. We’re skeptics because we are not:
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/

Walter Sobchak
January 3, 2014 3:42 pm

The NWS forecast for Columbus, OH next week:
Monday: Partly cloudy. Highs around zero.
Monday Night: Mostly cloudy. Lows 15 below to 20 below zero.
I want my Global Warming, and I want it NOW!

James Abbott
January 3, 2014 3:43 pm

Thanks davidmhoffer and Mario Lento
So good – you accept CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Thats been known since Queen Victoria was on her throne.
Now lets go back to the question.
Rather than use descriptive words (or reference the discredited Monckton) what would be the change in mean global temperature if CO2 was removed from the atmosphere ?
You say that global temperatures have a low sensitivity to changes in CO2. So rather than a zero decrease in temperature you would presumably say a small decrease ? if so, how much ?

Reply to  James Abbott
January 6, 2014 7:48 am

@James Abbott:

Rather than use descriptive words (or reference the discredited Monckton)

Discredited? Again, links. I know he has been slandered. I have yet to see him discredited.
So you make up facts as you go along to maintain your meme?

Greg Goodman
January 3, 2014 3:43 pm

davidmhoffer says: “Well James, while I will allow that there are a small number of skeptics that would say such a thing, that isn’t true of the majority of us. Of course temperature would be different, probably a lot of other things as well.”
Oh yes. Like life on earth would be dead.
CO2 is the basis of life on Earth, if you take out the 400 ppm we have everything dies. So it does not matter a toss how warm or cold it would be.
Do you have any more good thought experiments James?
Since you clearly do not have the first idea what you are talking about, I don’t have the time to try to explain non linearity of absorption.

Mario Lento
January 3, 2014 3:44 pm

davidmhoffer says:
January 3, 2014 at 3:28 pm
davidmhoffer says:
January 3, 2014 at 3:40 pm
+++++
Your posts are masterful, as always! Well written and explained.

WeatherOrNot
January 3, 2014 3:46 pm

Don’t respond to James Abbott. He’s a button pushing troll, probably Dana Nuccitelli or someone standing in for him. Note his first post, a series of short comments starting with a direct attack on “sceptics”. If you argue with him it will suck hours out of your life that you’ll never get back when you could be doing something more useful.

Mooloo
January 3, 2014 3:49 pm

Folks, when the drive-by visitor use this as “proof” of warming take a deep breath before replying.
Remember that the issue is not whether it is warming — for which this year’s value is indecisive. The issue is whether it is warming alarmingly.
It is quite possible to accept that the world is warming without us needing to take drastic action. This year’s value is not proof of anything alarming, even if we accept the proposition that it shows warming, being as it is on the historical trend line of the last two hundred years.
Don’t feed the trolls unnecessary arguments about how it might be cooling, as that only encourages them. Accept it is warming gently and move on. That reasonable position is much more likely to get the uncommitted alongside. In particular voters.
Because at the end of the day it really doesn’t matter if it warms a bit. What matters is if we trash our economies based on scare stories about that warming. Indeed the warming could be within the latest IPCC predictions for the next 90 years without anything terrible happening.
So when an alarmist troll says — “see it’s warming”. The correct response is — “not enough for your alarmist purposes, sunshine”.

Michael D
January 3, 2014 3:50 pm

I find it curious that a sharp upward step-function of about 0.3 deg occurs in 1998, which is spookily similar to a 0.3 degree upward “adjustment” on temperatures (vs raw measurements) inserted by agencies such as NOAA from 1970 to 1995. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_pg.gif

Mario Lento
January 3, 2014 3:54 pm

James Abbott says:
January 3, 2014 at 3:43 pm
Thanks davidmhoffer and Mario Lento
So good – you accept CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Thats been known since Queen Victoria was on her throne.
Now lets go back to the question.
Rather than use descriptive words (or reference the discredited Monckton) what would be the change in mean global temperature if CO2 was removed from the atmosphere ?
You say that global temperatures have a low sensitivity to changes in CO2. So rather than a zero decrease in temperature you would presumably say a small decrease ? if so, how much ?
+++++++++++
You are so out of your league here.
you write “Rather than use descriptive words (or reference the discredited Monckton)”
this is counterproductive and does not help your cause. But Queen Victoria is now your ally?
You are asking the wrong questions!
davidmhoffer answered it for you “Only that the sensitivity is too low to be alarming, and the observational data vindicates us on that point.”
Your IPCC have already made the claims, that I presume you agree with. Their claims (models) fell apart, even through their own admission. You should know this. Read what we wrote and learn something from it.

January 3, 2014 3:56 pm

Thanks DB Stealey for putting that spoke in James Abbott’s eye where it belongs!:} He’s not using it for reading anyway, so no loss. When it comes to religion it’s the warmists who fill the pews every Sunday. Abbott is proof of the general effectiveness of the big lie propaganda maxim.

davidmhoffer
January 3, 2014 3:56 pm

James Abbott;
Rather than use descriptive words (or reference the discredited Monckton) what would be the change in mean global temperature if CO2 was removed from the atmosphere ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
He pointed out that the IPCC scientists themselves are now estimating sensitivity below that of the models. He could be a bull frog on a lily pond for all I care, it doesn’t change what the IPCC scientists themselves said, a point which you assiduously choose to avoid discussing.
James Abbott;
You say that global temperatures have a low sensitivity to changes in CO2. So rather than a zero decrease in temperature you would presumably say a small decrease ? if so, how much ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
You display your ignorance of the relative physics by asking this question. Since CO2’s effects are logarithmic, the change from 400 ppm to 0 is not relevant to the current discussion. In brief, a change of +100 starting at 0 is a completely different change from +100 starting at 400. Since we are already at 400, and going up, sensitivity to additional CO2 from a starting point of 400 is relevant to the discussion. Your question is not.

Gunga Din
January 3, 2014 4:02 pm

Reg Nelson says:
January 3, 2014 at 2:50 pm
Marcos says:
January 3, 2014 at 1:59 pm
why does Antarctica show all positive anomalies for Dec when it was recently reported that the lowest temperature ever recorded happened there last month?

—-
Marcos, the low temperature was reported last month but it was from a measurement taken a couple of years ago. It was discovered by analyzing the vast amount of historical data that is (was) generated.
==================================================================
Which, to this layman, means that if it takes years to discover the coldest temperature; how can anyone claim to know what the “global” temperature is now? How many other “cold” or “hot” temperatures were left out of past averages?
If we can’t even be sure of the temperature of the control group, how can we know what effect Man Living Life has had on it? Tree rings? A money-making (for some) hypothesis?
As much as we do or may think we know, we’re infants in understanding the world around us.
Some are exploiting our ignorance by pretending to know.

James Abbott
January 3, 2014 4:04 pm

Thanks davidmhoffer
I had a quick look at your 3 references (lots of balls and pies in there) and note that they included the following:
“it is a scientific truth that GHGs, mainly H2O but also CO2 and others, play an important role in warming the Earth via the Atmospheric “greenhouse effect”.”
Exactly. So the issue is how much of a role does CO2 have in warming the Earth.
Greg Goodman – well spotted. Without CO2 life would be dead. Any more pearls?
Getting back to what we are (hopefully) talking about, what would be the temperature change from MODELLING taking CO2 out of the atmosphere ? And Greg Goodman I am glad you “don’t have the time to try to explain non linearity of absorption” – because you don’t need to.

Werner Brozek
January 3, 2014 4:04 pm

Felix says:
January 3, 2014 at 3:09 pm
Antarctica warmer than normal?? But how can that be when that iced in ship proved global warming is all a hoax?
These are excellent questions! Perhaps this earlier post has an answer:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/03/cowtan-way-and-signs-of-cooling/
Some quotes:
“What we see on the graph is that since the 1997 there is rising trend both in Arctic (steeper) and Antarctic (less steep). However this trend clearly have stopped in the Arctic before 2005 in both the satellite datasets, while it continued rise in the UAH dataset for Antarctica.”
“It very much seems that the UAH data-set for the Antarctica land is contradicted by the RSS dataset.”
So it is evident that RSS does not agree with UAH in the Antarctic since 2005. And as was noted earlier, RSS only ranks 10th for 2013 which is quite a ways from 4th.

John Finn
January 3, 2014 4:08 pm

davidmhoffer says:
January 3, 2014 at 3:28 pm
James Abbott; ….

David
Thank you for responding to James Abbott. It saved me a lot of trouble. You are quite correct, Most responsible sceptics (UK spelling) are aware that CO2 influences the climate and that, all other things remaining constant, increasing CO2 concentrations should result in a warmer world. However, as you suggest in your post, the magnitude of this warming is far from certain.
The problem though is, as a “sceptic”, I find I spend far too much time clarifying or denying some of the more wackier statements from the sceptic side than I do arguing for a lower climate sensitivity.
But thanks again anyway.

Mario Lento
January 3, 2014 4:09 pm

davidmhoffer says:
January 3, 2014 at 3:56 pm
James Abbott;
Rather than use descriptive words (or reference the discredited Monckton) what would be the change in mean global temperature if CO2 was removed from the atmosphere ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
He pointed out that the IPCC scientists themselves are now estimating sensitivity below that of the models. He could be a bull frog on a lily pond for all I care, it doesn’t change what the IPCC scientists themselves said, a point which you assiduously choose to avoid discussing.
James Abbott;
You say that global temperatures have a low sensitivity to changes in CO2. So rather than a zero decrease in temperature you would presumably say a small decrease ? if so, how much ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
You display your ignorance of the relative physics by asking this question. Since CO2′s effects are logarithmic, the change from 400 ppm to 0 is not relevant to the current discussion. In brief, a change of +100 starting at 0 is a completely different change from +100 starting at 400. Since we are already at 400, and going up, sensitivity to additional CO2 from a starting point of 400 is relevant to the discussion. Your question is not.
+++++++++++
I meant to add in the logarithmic effect. But to add to that, the IPCC knows this and Mr. Abbott does not know that they know this. You see Mr. Abbott, the IPCC tweaks their models to use mostly water vapor as a secondary feedback to get their warming. They use methane too and aerosols (as another negative tweaker). There logic, which you do not seem to know, is that the initial warming due to CO2 will raise the temperature a little bit and then melt ice and put more water vapor into the air. Then, in their models, they assume that the water vapor will have varying degrees of POSITIVE feedback.
Some at the IPCC even admit, they do not know whether the feedback should be positive or negative. Further, many scientists including Lindzen have shown that water vapor can be and has been more negative than positive as far as its feedback on net heat flux. This is one of the major reasons skeptics claimed the models were bunk. And the models are the only proof of CAGW. The proof does not exist in observations.
Another thing, it is much more difficult to call H2O pollution (and no one could make money off that anyway), so they demonized CO2 instead, and you bought the demon story.

Greg Goodman
January 3, 2014 4:09 pm

Pamela Gray says: “My point is that one metric alone, such as averaged global temperatures does not necessarily indicate global warming or cooling.”
Indeed, the whole idea of surmising a system a complex as the climate with one number is simplistic to the point of stupidity and will never lead to an understanding of climate. Except it’s not stupid, it’s intentionally misleading. This is all a legacy of Schneider’s strategy of presenting simple ideas and scary scenarios.

Matt G
January 3, 2014 4:10 pm

James Abbott says:
January 3, 2014 at 2:39 pm
So – what would happen if we modelled the atmosphere with CO2 taken out ?
Take out all of the current 400ppm. If CO2 is not important in defining temperature, then presumably there will be no temperature change ?
I am yet to see a sceptic answer that question.
——————————————————————————————————-
If your yet to see a sceptic answer that question then you have never asked it before.
Have you having heard of straw-man argument, your case is a fine example.
“A straw man, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally,[1][2] is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position.[3] To “attack a straw man” is to create the illusion of having denied a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet inequivalent proposition (the “straw man”), and to deny it, without ever having actually denied the original position.[3][4] This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged, emotional issues. In those cases the false victory is often loudly or conspicuously celebrate.”
I give you a straw-man answer and that is like, “what if you remove the sun, if it is not important in temperature, then presumably there will be no temperature change?”
Without the sun the temperature of the Earth would be absolute zero. Without any CO2 the planet will be cooler, but there is no correct answer as it is guess work and not known.
Noticed any link between Greenland ice cores and CO2 levels?
http://climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
Notice any link with CO2 levels and recent global temperatures?
http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/files/2012/10/The_global_temperature_chart.jpg
Notice any link between CO2 and global temperatures over hundreds of millions of years?
http://www.americanthinker.com/%231%20CO2EarthHistory.gif
To answer your question, what happens when you remove all CO2 the graph below shows you roughly how CO2 warms the atmosphere. Notice the more is added the less affect on temperatures it has.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/clip_image008_thumb1.jpg?w=576&h=433

Reg Nelson
January 3, 2014 4:11 pm

James Abbott says:
Getting back to what we are (hopefully) talking about, what would be the temperature change from MODELLING taking CO2 out of the atmosphere ?

Who cares? They are only models and they have been wrong 100% of the time. My guess is that they would continue to be wrong 100% of the time because only Chicken Littles get the funding.
And to answer your quest: if we CO2 levels dropped to zero we would all be dead.

davidmhoffer
January 3, 2014 4:15 pm

James Abbott;
Getting back to what we are (hopefully) talking about, what would be the temperature change from MODELLING taking CO2 out of the atmosphere ?
>>>>>>>>>>>
I really don’t know. I suggest you ask the modelers. Of course since the IPCC and mainstream peer reviewed science are in agreement that the models are wrong, I’m not sure of the answer will be of any value to you.
But as I pointed out in my comment upthread, your fixation on this matter displays your lack of familiarity with the subject matter. It doesn’t matter what contribution CO2 makes to temperature from 0 to 400 ppm. What matters is contribution to temperature from a starting point of 400 ppm.

John Finn
January 3, 2014 4:23 pm

James Abbott says:
January 3, 2014 at 4:04 pm
“it is a scientific truth that GHGs, mainly H2O but also CO2 and others, play an important role in warming the Earth via the Atmospheric “greenhouse effect”.”
Exactly. So the issue is how much of a role does CO2 have in warming the Earth.

There are 2 ways of looking at this.
1. Remove all CO2 from the atmosphere but let all other ghgs (including H2O) remain (in their current concentrations)
2. Remove all other ghgs just leaving CO2.
The influence of CO2 in the 2 scenarios is quite different – so which one do you mean?

RichardLH
January 3, 2014 4:26 pm

James Abbott says:
January 3, 2014 at 3:15 pm
RichardLH you miss the point entirely.
“It is claimed by many sceptics that CO2 in the atmosphere is unimportant.”
I did not say or show that. I did point out that whilst CO2 does seem to track quite well the observed temperature rise since 1970 or so, it is rather obviously not the reason for the temperature profile in the earlier part of the HadCrut4 data.
Your evidence is rather missing (or misleading).
Greg: No linear trend (or other method) that does not account for the fact that 1840ish (i.e. part of the Little Ice Age) was the LOW point of a cycle has any real meaning,

January 3, 2014 4:27 pm

We skeptics are the good guys, right? We’re rational and pro-science, right? Dr. Roy Spencer is one of us, right? So if he says that 2013 was the 4th warmest year in the satellite record, there’s a good chance he’s right. If the facts don’t agree with our previous opinions we should just suck it up and go think it through a bit more.
The funniest part of this comments thread is those who argue that 2013 was the peak of a cycle and that temperatures are now set to decline. But they would probably the among the first to say that climate models are rubbish and their predictions are nonsense. Now they themselves are happily making predictions based on a rather primitive climate model driven by one parameter.
Rule No. 1: Nobody knows what the climate is going to do. The science is still hopelessly immature.
Rule No. 2: Nobody can control weather or climate. The technology is still hopelessly immature. For all the billions being burnt in an attempt to change the climate, we might as well be sacrificing all our first-born children to the sun god.
Rule No. 3: Desperately wanting something to happen does not mean it will happen. The warmist nuts desperately want huge temperature increases and lots of weather disasters with millions of people killed. The skeptic nuts desperately want rapid cooling and a little ice age with millions of people dying from cold and starvation. Get a grip, people.

Greg Goodman
January 3, 2014 4:27 pm

James Abbott; “Greg Goodman I am glad you “don’t have the time to try to explain non linearity of absorption” – because you don’t need to.”
Well perhaps you can stop playing silly buggers and ask some sensible questions then.
Any answer you get to how much difference it would make if there was no CO2 will not have any useful bearing on how much difference 100 ppmv more or less will make to current levels.
The basic CO2 absorption bands are already saturated, the only reason there is still some very much reduced effect by adding more CO2 is because of collision broadening. The more we add the less it matters.
Conversely to make even the slightest difference in terms of reducing “global warming” by CO2 we need to make massive reductions that are just not going to happen unless we exterminate 80% of the human race.
We have reasonably good figured for how much difference in radiative effect doubling CO2 would make that most people are satisfied are about right. That is a level of “forcing” that will not be a problem.
The only starts to be a problem when you invent feedbacks for which you have no experimental or theoretically proven basis.
Since you claim to understand all this, your insistent and pointless questions are just trolling.

tobias smit
January 3, 2014 4:31 pm

@ Pamela Grey, Grapes?
@Rob 3.31 pm, thanks great explanation.

DR
January 3, 2014 4:31 pm

Whatever happened to UAH version 6.0? Wasn’t there a warming bias identified compared to RSS?

DR
January 3, 2014 4:34 pm

@ Mike Mellor
Why on earth would I want a Little Ice Age? Crops would fail resulting in my ability to feed my livestock. Then again, enviro nutjobs want us to all become vegans.

January 3, 2014 4:37 pm

There was someone who wanted to know what the climate would be like if CO2 were to be 0 ppm rather than 400 ppm. I have been told that if there were no CO2 that life as we know it would not exist. So who gives a fig what the temperature would be?
We are at 400 ppm and the question is, what will happen when we get to 500 ppm? Why nothing special, just as little happened from 300 to 400. Deal with it.

Greg Goodman
January 3, 2014 4:42 pm

Richard: “Greg: No linear trend (or other method) that does not account for the fact that 1840ish (i.e. part of the Little Ice Age) was the LOW point of a cycle has any real meaning,”
Well 1840 was hardly the low point of the LIA, but in a way I agree, I put enough caveats in what I posted.
You keep looking for this 60 year cycle. I showed how to identify and measure it’s approximate magnitude. Your 720 month “smoother” basically leaves you will the same quadratic as I derived in dT/dt.
Now if you want to start fitting other cycles trends or functions to such a small curved segment, the worlds your oyster, you can fit just about anything you want to that.
If you are talking about multi-century scale changes you are not going to find them in HadCRUT4. I was working the data you chose to use. If you want to discuss other long data that’s another issue.
One of the reasons I don’t give much credibility to HadCRUT4 is that the manipulations to the data are as big as what remains and all adjustment mould the data to fit a preconceived climate model.
I suspect a large amount of the 60 y cycle is an artefact of data “correction” more than climate itself.

holby burgess
January 3, 2014 4:47 pm

If we were experiencing AGW then there should be a warming of the Tropical Troposphere but as nothing has been found despite the best efforts of the Aqua satellite and millions of weather balloons this argument was dead in the water circa 2002. That Jones of the deleted emails says the heat must be there it is clearly an essential part of the AGW theory. But its not there yet the nonsense continues. It should also be remembered that CO2’s ability to create heat is logarithmic and this kicks in at 300ppm so you can stack it up at will as it cannot overheat the planet.
With the extinction rate for all life on the planet being 150ppm the very thought that 400ppm is in any way a problem shows compete ignorance. That commercial growers use CO2 as a plant food in dosages of 800-1200ppm clearly shows we need more CO2.
The reason why the play stations keep getting it wrong is that they are set up to factor in positive feedback and ignore negative feedback so that they get the predictable result. They do not allow for internally generated natural variability cancelling out temperature increases.
Last week Turney’s expedition to find no ice ends up an hilarious farce as their ship and the rescue ship get stuck in the largest a\mount of Antarctic Sea Ice ever recorded.
Reason given? Global Warming.
Please give these people a colouring book and crayons…better still let them freeze to death like the poor people who cannot afford to heat their homes properly. Finally Turney it is not “Carbon” it is “Carbon Dioxide” so please use the crayons we have provided you with to calculate the “Carbon Dioxide” footprint of you and your fellow travellers…road, rail and plane journeys. The emissions per hotel and last but not least the CO2 emitted from the ships involved in transporting you, rescuing you…and don’t forget the helicopter as well. Sanctimonious shysters.

Berényi Péter
January 3, 2014 4:49 pm

It is the first time in (a 35 years long) history, that numerical value of annual UAH anomaly is higher than that of RSS (by 0.018 K). Considering the fact, that (arbitrary) offset of RSS is 0.087 K higher itself, it means UAH is running high by an unprecedented 0.105 K compared to RSS this year. That’s a more than 2 sigma discrepancy, with sigma=0.046 K.
Therefore either this year’s RSS or UAH value is an outlier (or both). That is, the 4th warmest year can be the 14th warmest just as easily.
The two datasets are based on the same raw measurements, so their difference gives us some information on their inherent uncertainty, which is on the order of 0.1 K, provided there is no common bias in their methods.

kwinterkorn
January 3, 2014 4:52 pm

To James Abbott:
For most of the “skeptics” here, it is not about the CO2 as a greenhouse gas. We accept the premise that CO2 traps some IR radiation and keeps the Earth warmer than if it were not present.
What we challenge is the feedbacks—-the 3 to 4 times multiplier built into the models that have predicted disaster. The climate models that include these multipliers have been refuted by the results of the real world in the last 2 decades. CO2 has risen. Temps are roughly flat. The models are presently broken, for they cannot be shown to have predicted events in the real world. It seems that the feedbacks may either be small to non-existent or even negative (water vapor and cloud cover mainly). Perhaps other drivers such as ocean currents so dominate the climate that CO2 effects will always be lost in the noise.
To persist in crying alarmism is no longer scientifically tenable. There are no scientific models that are consistent with the last 15 to 20 years temperature data that predict the disasters that the IPCC and others have warned of. Climate sensitivity to rising CO2 is clearly nowhere in the range claimed by the Manns and Gores and Trenberths and their ilk at the IPCC. Ad hoc attempts to fix the broken models (eg. the heat is hiding in the oceans depths) are mere speculation without a description of the processes that might account for them, nor methods for proving or disproving them. Ie, they are not science, properly understood.
The world of real science, as opposed to politically subverted science, still awaits a maturing of climatology, so that reasonable and reliable long term predictions, within the limits a chaotic process allows, can be made.

Ben
January 3, 2014 4:54 pm

So, once again, global temperatures failed to reach a new high, as predicted by the models.

James Abbott
January 3, 2014 4:57 pm

davidmhoffer
How about stop dancing around the issue and answer the question.
You say ” You display your ignorance of the relative physics by asking this question. Since CO2′s effects are logarithmic, the change from 400 ppm to 0 is not relevant to the current discussion. In brief, a change of +100 starting at 0 is a completely different change from +100 starting at 400. Since we are already at 400, and going up, sensitivity to additional CO2 from a starting point of 400 is relevant to the discussion. Your question is not.”
Thats a discussion about the non-linearity of response which is of course important. But its not an answer to the fundamental question of how important CO2 is to the Earth’s temperature.
As it does not look like I will get an answer:
Houghton describes how a model atmosphere with no greenhouse gases would be about 21C colder than now.
Halving the CO2 concentration in the real atmosphere takes us to levels that correspond with the deepest phases of the ice ages (below 200ppm) – when global mean temperature was 4C to 7C colder than now.
http://phys.org/news/2010-10-carbon-dioxide-earths-temperature.html
By taking CO2 out alltogether the drop is larger still.
So the sceptic community wants the world to believe that going the other way, from pre-industrial CO2 levels of 280ppm to the nearly 400ppm now, and higher in the future, will have a “negligable”, “unimportant”, etc affect.
With a doubling of CO2 concentration above pre-industrial levels, the IPCC in its recent report states that
“Global surface temperature change for the end of the 21st century is likely to exceed
1.5°C relative to 1850 to 1900 for all RCP scenarios except RCP2.6. It is likely to exceed 2°C
for RCP6.0 and RCP8.5, and more likely than not to exceed 2°C for RCP4.5. Warming will
continue beyond 2100 under all RCP scenarios except RCP2.6.”
The “negligable change” line just is not supported by the science. It is simply wishful thinking.

RichardLH
January 3, 2014 4:58 pm

Greg Goodman says:
January 3, 2014 at 4:42 pm
“You keep looking for this 60 year cycle.”
I look for nothing. I observe what is present in the data. This is a simple low pass filter, not some highly tuned FT or notch filter.
“Your 720 month “smoother” “.
I would call it a filter given this is time series data but…. It is at 60 years to remove the 60 year cycle which it does rather well and it most certainly does NOT produce a straight line (derivative) but a curve which fits the low point rather well. I accept that the 1840 is only one of a series of low points, stretching back at 100~ year intervals before that if the data is to be believed. That is why linear trends lie to yourself and others. They do not in any way account for known history.
“I suspect a large amount of the 60 y cycle is an artefact of data “correction” more than climate itself.”
Then why does such a cycle show up elsewhere in climate data? Are all the sources wrong?
The facts are that there is not enough data to determine this reliably one way or another. At the end of the day it is all speculation.
I am persuaded that natural cycles are more responsible for the data we do have than the IPCC and others would give credit for.

D.I.
January 3, 2014 5:02 pm

I see a graph above that says V5.6. how many versions were there?
Does this mean all the other versions were wrong?
Will V5.7 say V5.6 was wrong?
Is It all Clim-astrology?

herkimer
January 3, 2014 5:03 pm

I personally find the global and hemispheric monthly and annual temperature information lacking in usefulness. They tend to mask what is happening seasonally, regionally and they may not have any significance in our corner of the world. For example, the winter temperatures linear trend in Contiguous US [48 States [has been declining over the last 15 years at -1.57F/decade. Yet we focus mostly on global and hemispheric temperature data being above some 30 year base which most of us cannot relate to or use in any meaningful way. The regional temperature data shows that every month[ dec/jan/feb] of the winter show a decline with February cooling the most at -2.64 F /decade and. December is cooling at -0.7F/decade . Forget about global warming. Our winters are cooling more and we better prepare for them because this may be just the start of a possible 30-35 year period of cooler winters like we had at the beginning of this century and again 1945-1980. I am not saying that we should stop reporting global and atmospheric climate data. I am saying we need to focus also on regional trends in our monthly and annual data.
For example APRIL and MAY are cooling in Contiguous United States, yet warm moist air continues come north. Is any wonder why we have more storms and tornadoes during extended cooling periods like in the past [ 1950-1970’s] when more cold fronts clash with warm moist fronts. This situation will increase in the years ahead .

Arno Arrak
January 3, 2014 5:07 pm

This way of calculating temperature is all wrong. What happened is that the 1998 super El Nino brought so much warm water across the ocean that it created a step warming immediately following it. That step warming raised global temperature by 0.3 degrees Celsius and then stopped. This 0.3 degrees rise looked like another El Nino at first but the temperature rise it created became a permanent addition to global temperature, starting with the year 2002. As a result, all 21st century temperatures sit on a high platform created by this step warming. It is a pretty level platform too, judging by the fact that global mean temperature has stayed the same throughout this century. Just comparing twenty-first to twentieth century temperatures will give the impression that some kind of warming is taking place which is wrong. Warming did happen but it was a step warming and is over. But it did leave a permanent imprint on global temperature whose consequences we must account for. It is not clear why the temperature rise it created stayed at that high level instead of going back to the pre-1998 period. Superimposed upon this platform are the 2008 La Nina and the 2010 El Nino that are part of the ENSO oscillation. That super El Nino of 1998 was itself preceded by eighteen years of temperature standstill, just like the one we have now. Hansen noticed the temperature increase and pointed out that the ten warmest years all happened in the twenty-first century. He was right of course but he did not understand the role of the step warming and jumped to the conclusion that CO2 was responsible. The super El Nino and its aftermath are a climate mystery that should have been intensely investigated. Nothing like this has happened for more than a century. Instead we see billions of dollars wasted on trying to prove greenhouse warming which does not exist. These “experts” controlling the money don’t have a clue about 1998 and its aftermath. Real climate science just does not interest them

Richard Barraclough
January 3, 2014 5:22 pm

You can find a negative trend in the UAH dataset only as far back as July 2008 (5 years and 5 months), although there are a few shorter periods with positive trends. Just to illustrate how short trends and averages can be manipulated to support one point of view or another, the most recent 5-year period (60-month running mean) has the highest anomaly in the dataset. This is likely to go even higher in the next 6 months, since the first 6 months of 2009 were on the cold side.

D.I.
January 3, 2014 5:23 pm

Ed Barbar says:
January 3, 2014 at 1:02 pm
One thing that I wonder about is “What is Zero.” Is there an agreed to value for “Normal?”
—————————————————————————————————————–
Answer,NO.
Anomaly Graphs are In the eye of the beholder who keep the Zero value secret.
Declaring a value for Zero Is like painting a circle on your head and saying Hit me here.
The nearest you will get to finding out the value of Zero on a Clim-astrologist Graph Is to stare Into a Crystal Ball and try and guess the same number.
Good Luck.

NotSure
January 3, 2014 5:26 pm

James Abbott,
You keep going on and on about what CO2 supposedly does to the planet in your eyes, and make reference to this supposed horrific warming spike which we are apparently witnessing that will up and destroy all mankind or whatever. To prove your point you apparently feel as though people who don’t agree with you should tell you what exactly what the temperature would be absent CO2, for some odd reason that no one seems to understand.
Now while I don’t understand your insistent focus there, it doesn’t make any sense honestly, there is a pair of real glaring questions which should probably be asked of you…
…that is, what level of CO2 would be “normal” for the planet to see on any given year in your eyes if Mans impact was removed? Similarly, what temperature should the planet be every year if we removed Man’s influence, instead allowing the planet to settle into it’s “normal” climate for the rest of eternity?
Since you seem to know exactly what the CO2 impact is and how devastating the outcome will be, they should be very, very easy questions for you to answer – what is “normal” with regards to Earths Temperature & CO2 level?

Khwarizmi
January 3, 2014 5:27 pm

James Abbot:
But its not an answer to the fundamental question of how important CO2 is to the Earth’s temperature.
As it does not look like I will get an answer:
Houghton describes how a model atmosphere with no greenhouse gases [including water] would be about 21C colder than now.
Halving the CO2 concentration in the real atmosphere takes us to levels that correspond with the deepest phases of the ice ages (below 200ppm) – when global mean temperature was 4C to 7C colder than now.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
CO2 is more soluble in cold water, less soluble in warm water. That is why CO2 follows temperatures in the proxy records, and never leads.
Try growing some plants at < 200ppm – good luck.

RichardLH
January 3, 2014 5:27 pm

James Abbott says:
January 3, 2014 at 4:57 pm
“The “negligable change” line just is not supported by the science. It is simply wishful thinking.”
That should read
“The “negligable change” line just is not supported by the MODELS. It is simply wishful thinking.”

Marcos
January 3, 2014 5:36 pm

The newspaper here in Houston is reporting that 2013 tied (with 2010, 1996, 1931, and 1918) as the 2nd coldest year recorded here. 2002 was the coldest. Yet the yearly anomaly above shows as ‘normal’

davidmhoffer
January 3, 2014 5:37 pm

James Abbott;
Thats a discussion about the non-linearity of response which is of course important. But its not an answer to the fundamental question of how important CO2 is to the Earth’s temperature.
As it does not look like I will get an answer:

You got an answer. Your insistence on demonstrating that you do not understand the answer is admirable.
Houghton describes how a model atmosphere with no greenhouse gases would be about 21C colder than now.
I thought the question was in regard to the atmosphere with no CO2? You are now introducing a completely different issue.
Halving the CO2 concentration in the real atmosphere takes us to levels that correspond with the deepest phases of the ice ages (below 200ppm) – when global mean temperature was 4C to 7C colder than now.
You can spout numbers from models all you want, they remain numbers from models that have been proven incorrect by the likes of Trenberth, Cowtan and Way, Meehl et al, Spencer and many others. They all agree that the models are wrong. The IPCC agrees that the models are wrong. So presenting as evidence model results is just…. wrong.
So the sceptic community wants the world to believe that going the other way, from pre-industrial CO2 levels of 280ppm to the nearly 400ppm now, and higher in the future, will have a “negligable”, “unimportant”, etc affect.
The skeptic community wants you to understand that the preponderance of evidence suggests that CO2 is logarithmic, and that sensitivity is low. At current rates of increase, it will take about 200 years to achieve a single doubling of CO2 from current levels. Yes, given a low sensitivity, and a 200 year time frame, this is a negligible change. When you consider that the cooling response of the planet, via Stefan-Boltzmann Law is actually exponential (P varies with T to the fourth power) we see that the coldest places on the planet will warm the most, but the warmest places on the planet the least, further reducing any impacts to negligible.
With a doubling of CO2 concentration above pre-industrial levels, the IPCC in its recent report states that
“Global surface temperature change for the end of the 21st century is likely to exceed
1.5°C relative to 1850 to 1900 for all RCP scenarios except RCP2.6. It is likely to exceed 2°C
for RCP6.0 and RCP8.5, and more likely than not to exceed 2°C for RCP4.5. Warming will
continue beyond 2100 under all RCP scenarios except RCP2.6.”

Way to move the goal posts IPCC. Now they are using 1850 to 1900 as their reference period? Well good on them. It means that almost ALL of the warming that they are predicting already happened, AND that it happened well before CO2 started to significantly rise.
Don’t look behind the curtain James… just don’t look.

James Ibbotson
January 3, 2014 5:41 pm

@James Abbot.
Do you understand what a logarimithic curve actually is ?

Matt G
January 3, 2014 5:42 pm

James Abbott says:
January 3, 2014 at 4:57 pm
“Halving the CO2 concentration in the real atmosphere takes us to levels that correspond with the deepest phases of the ice ages (below 200ppm) – when global mean temperature was 4C to 7C colder than now.”
Thought I have read some rubbish in my time, but this is difficult to beat. The major ice ages were not caused because only 200 ppm of CO2 were there. Rather 200 ppm CO2 levels were low because there was little plant life and the much colder oceans contained most of the carbon.
http://www.middleschoolchemistry.com/img/content/multimedia/chapter_5/lesson_8/solubility_curve_carbon_dioxide_big.jpg
It was only during the 1850s when CO2 levels were around 280 ppm.. Global temperatures have only risen around 0.6c (HADCRUD) from this point with a increase in CO2 120 ppm. Therefore you believe with an increase in CO2 80 ppm that this caused solely a rise in temperature between 3.4c and 6.4c. Should analyse and research made up rubbish like this and think for yourself before committing a opinion..

Matt G
January 3, 2014 5:49 pm
outtheback
January 3, 2014 5:53 pm

@James Abbott
James, since you are so persistent with your question in regards to the temp change when all CO2 is removed and none here able to answer that, as can be expected, I can only assume that you have information on hand that lets you believe that you know what the difference is.
So why don’t you enlighten us with your assumed answer and what research that answer is based on?
Or would that be making an ass out of u and me?

Patrick B
January 3, 2014 5:55 pm

I’m disappointed in Dr. Spencer – the data came with error margins, correct Dr.? Tell us how you calculated those error margins. Now, with properly calculated error margins, is 2013 really the 4th warmest or are 3, 6 or 12 different years tied for 1st through 12th? I suspect the correct answer is “We really can’t measure with the accuracy Dr. Spencer appears to claim.” But it makes headlines easy for the English majors.

Txomin
January 3, 2014 6:06 pm

@Gareth Phillips
I thought the point was that CO2 is responsible for accelerated warming and that it must be reduced because its causing catastrophic climate change. Please point at the catastrophic climate change in the graph.

Pamela Gray
January 3, 2014 6:17 pm

Two additions to the conversation:
A. tobias: russet potatoes
B. re: What would happen if we take out CO2? Not the right question. What would happen if we took out just the anthropogenic portion? Again not the right question. The right question is in two parts:
1. What is the amount of energy required (added or subtracted) to shift the flat-line global temperature average up or down in an extended trend?
2. How much additional energy does anthropogenic CO2 provide? Science tells us not enough so changes in water vapor are added to the modeled equation. It is the change in water vapor that changes temperature. The real question is this: How much change in water vapor is necessary to shift the flat-line global temperature average up or down in an extended trend?
The second part of the question is falsifiable. One must measure water vapor content over a significant period of time and then ask: Has there been a change in water vapor over this same period of time that would provide the additional energy needed to increase the surface global temperature average?

January 3, 2014 6:32 pm

James Abbott says [in no particular order – he’s all over the map]:
So the issue is how much of a role does CO2 have in warming the Earth… it does not look like I will get an answer…
OK James, try to pay attention: At current and projected CO2 concentrations, adding more CO2 will only have a minuscule effect. Why? Because the effect is logarithmic. You can figure the warming effect pretty easily from that chart. It isn’t much. In fact, it is too small to measure with current technology. This has been explained to you several times now, but you ignore it, or worse, you re-frame the argument to mean something different, and then you complain that no one will answer your question.
Next, you say:
…the sceptic community wants the world to believe that going the other way, from pre-industrial CO2 levels of 280ppm to the nearly 400ppm now, and higher in the future, will have a “negligable”, “unimportant”, etc affect [sic]…
The ‘sceptic community’ simply asks questions, and points out when a conjecture like CO2=CAGW is scientific nonsense. We do not “want the world to believe…”. But to answer you, yes, there will be only a negligible effect, just as there was when CO2 rose from 2.8 parts in 10,000 to 4 parts in 10,000: nothing happened.
You also say:
With a doubling of CO2 concentration above pre-industrial levels, the IPCC in its recent report states that… “Global surface temperature change for the end of the 21st century is likely to exceed 1.5°C relative to 1850 to 1900 for all RCP scenarios except RCP2.6. It is likely to exceed 2°C…”
Please, James. You confuse the IPCC’s narrative with real science. Maybe the IPCC tried to be scientific in AR-1, but like Snow White, they drifted. Look at the chart above again. You will see that due to the log nature of the CO2 warming effect, the rise in global temperature due to CO2 rising from 2.8 parts in 10,000 to 5 parts in 10,000 is a tiny fraction of a degree, certainly too small to measure. Go ahead, see for yourself. How much temperature change is there from 280 ppmv, to 500 ppmv?
As David Hoffer says:
“…while CO2 is quite obviously a GHG, with properties that can easily be quantified in a laboratory setting, the cumulative effect in the atmosphere as a whole yields a sensitivity far lower than presumed in the climate models themselves…. and the observational data vindicates us on that point.”
Which is exactly my position. I have stated many times that CO2 probably has some minor effect on temperature. But that effect, at current concentrations, is too small to measure.
You also say:
It is claimed by many sceptics that CO2 in the atmosphere is unimportant. dbstealey appears to believe that referring to the “carbon scare” and that recent warming is “normal” ie not associated with rising carbon dioxide concentration.
Yes, exactly. CO2 has some minuscule effect. But it is too small to measure. Therefore, the “carbon” scare is debunked nonsense. It is a scare tactic intended to generate fear in the public, thus making it easier to raise taxes. But there is nothing in the real world that supports the scare. Global temperatures are not doing as endlessly predicted by the alarmist crowd, and the radiative physics you refer to show conclusively that a rise in that tiny trace gas to 5 parts per 10,000, or even 6 parts per 10,000, will be beneficial to the biosphere, but otherwise will cause no global harm.
Next, your ad hominem attacks [“the discredited Monckton”] indicate frustration that the real world is falsifying your belief system. Lord Monckton is a stand-up guy, who backs his arguments with verifiable, testable scientific facts and evidence. You could learn a lot from that.
Finally, Mario Lento has pointed out to you:
“…you are not precisely understanding what is said, and then you paraphrase or take out of context what is said. So you make up an argument in your own mind. This is not how to have a conversation.”
Word up, James.

John Finn
January 3, 2014 6:34 pm

James Abbott
Re: CO2 influence on the GH effect.
1. If all other ghgs were removed EXCEPT for CO2 then about 24% of the greenhouse effect would remain.
2. If CO2 were removed but all other ghgs remained in their current concentrations then about 91% of the greenhouse effect would remain.
This is because there is considerable overlap in the absorption bands of the various gases.

John Finn
January 3, 2014 6:41 pm

Re: my post
John Finn says:
January 3, 2014 at 6:34 pm
From previous post it can be seen that CO2 contributes between 9% and 24% of the total ‘greenhouse’ effect. But that’s not the real issue. The real question is how much does the concentration of other greenhouse gases (in particular – water vapour) change in response to an addition (or reduction) of CO2, i.e. What is the feedback factor?

Pamela Gray
January 3, 2014 6:51 pm

The models get around the CO2 logarithmic affect by saying that increased CO2 causes increased water vapor which increased the greenhouse affect and warms everything which allows more CO2 which creates more water vapor. It is the water vapor that re-radiates LW infrared. The questions need to center on increased water vapor, not CO2.

RockyRoad
January 3, 2014 6:53 pm

I’ve seen estimates that the rise in CO2 over the past 50 years has been responsible for a 15% increase in foodstuff production worldwide. Other factors have also added to the increase.
The question is how much deleterious impact to worldwide foodstuff production has the temperature increase due to the same CO2 increase caused?
I submit they’re offsetting–that the 15% increase includes both the positive and the negative impact.
And that 15% increase is a very significant gain;it helps avert starvaton.
Now, if it were DOWN 15%, the Warmistas would have an argument, but they don’t because it isn’t.
They complain while getting fat on the benefits.
Hypocricy, anyone?

V. Uil
January 3, 2014 7:01 pm

Here an excerpt from a Judith Curry discussion of a recent article in Nature Climate Change that has some bearing on the discussion (and certainly seems at odds with the trend implied by the UA data).
Curry quotes from the article:
Global mean surface temperature over the past 20 years (1993–2012) rose at a rate of 0.14 ± 0.06 °C per decade (95% confidence interval). This rate of warming is significantly slower than that simulated by the climate models participating in Phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5). To illustrate this, we considered trends in global mean surface temperature computed from 117 simulations of the climate by 37 CMIP5 models. By averaging simulated temperatures only at locations where corresponding observations exist, we find an average simulated rise in global mean surface temperature of 0.30 ± 0.02 °C per decade (using 95% confidence intervals on the model average). The observed rate of warming given above is less than half of this simulated rate, and only a few simulations provide warming trends within the range of observational uncertainty.
The inconsistency between observed and simulated global warming is even more striking for temperature trends computed over the past fifteen years (1998–2012). For this period, the observed trend of 0.05 ± 0.08 °C per decade is more than four times smaller than the average simulated trend of 0.21 ± 0.03 °C per decade. The divergence between observed and CMIP5- simulated global warming begins in the early 1990s, as can be seen when comparing observed and simulated running trends from 1970–2012.

URL for the full Judith Curry blog post:
http://judithcurry.com/2013/08/28/overestimated-global-warming-over-the-past-20-years/

William Astley
January 3, 2014 7:02 pm

In reply to:
Gareth Phillips says:
January 3, 2014 at 12:37 pm
The point is Richard, the trend remains upwards.It may be a small amount, but it is still rising, not falling or staying still. Is there any objective evidence that we are at a peak and the trend will reverse?
William: There is recent observational evidence that is anomalous (cannot be explained by the current mechanisms, that points towards a missing mechanism) that supports the assertion that there will be imminent significant global cooling. All observed changes- recent and past – happened for a physical reasons and require a physical explanation. The pattern of warming observed in the last 40 years, primary high latitudinal warming with almost no warming in the tropical regions does not match the signature of warming if CO2 was the cause of the warming. As CO2 is more or less evenly distributed in the atmosphere and the warming due to the increase in CO2 is proportional to the amount of long wave radiation that is emitted at the region of the planet before the increase in CO2, the most amount of warming due to the CO2 increase should have occurred in the tropical region of the planet. That is not what is observed. The media and the warmist scientists have called the high latitude warming ‘polar amplification’, canary warning of the future, and so on, which hides the fact that is almost no warming in the tropical region and the general circulation models do not predict very. very, high amounts of high latitude warming. i.e. An anomaly indicates there are one or more fundamental error in a hypothesis. The normal process in science if the objective is to solve the problem is to discuss the anomaly which requires anomalies to be called anomalies rather than ‘polar amplification’ which is ridiculous.
The pattern of warming that was observed in the last 15 years (high latitude warming, cooling of the Antarctic ice sheet, see Bob Tisdale’s graph) is the same pattern of warming that is observed in the past and that is followed by a cooling cycle. http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/figure-72.png
That cyclic warming and cooling is called a Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle and has a pseudo period of 500 years and 1500 years between cycle sets. The Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle correlates with solar magnetic cycle changes. Recent high resolution Antarctic peninsula core data has found 340 cycles in the last 240,000 years in the Southern hemisphere with a time between events of 500 years and 1500 years. That is astonishing as it unequivocally shows that the forcing must be external (the sun) as there is no internal mechanism (earth based mechanism) that is capable of affecting both hemispheres simultaneously and that is periodic. Internal earth processes are chaotic and would not repeat.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/davis-and-taylor-wuwt-submission.pdf
Davis and Taylor: “Does the current global warming signal reflect a natural cycle”
“…We found 342 natural warming events (NWEs) corresponding to this definition, distributed over the past 250,000 years …. …. The 342 NWEs contained in the Vostok ice core record are divided into low-rate warming events (LRWEs; < 0.74oC/century) and high rate warming events (HRWEs; ≥ 0.74oC /century) (Figure). … ….The current global warming signal is therefore the slowest and among the smallest in comparison with all HRWEs in the Vostok record, although the current warming signal could in the coming decades yet reach the level of past HRWEs for some parameters. The figure shows the most recent 16 HRWEs in the Vostok ice core data during the Holocene, interspersed with a number of LRWEs. …. ….We were delighted to see the paper published in Nature magazine online (August 22, 2012 issue) reporting past climate warming events in the Antarctic similar in amplitude and warming rate to the present global warming signal. The paper, entitled "Recent Antarctic Peninsula warming relative to Holocene climate and ice – shelf history" and authored by Robert Mulvaney and colleagues of the British Antarctic Survey ( Nature , 2012, doi:10.1038/nature11391),reports two recent natural warming cycles, one around 1500 AD and another around 400 AD, measured from isotope (deuterium) concentrations in ice cores bored adjacent to recent breaks in the ice shelf in northeast Antarctica. ….”
It is known that solar magnetic cycle changes correlate with the past warming and cooling cycles. As the sun was at its highest solar magnetic cycle activity state in 11,000 years in the latter half of the 20th century and all of the past Dansgaard-Oeschger warming periods correlate with high active solar magnetic cycles, it is a no brainer to consider a case where the sun caused the warming. As all of the past Dansgaard-Oeschger warming cycles where immediately followed by a cooling cycle which correlate with a Maunder like minimum (the cycle planetary cooling events come in small, medium, and super large which if we take away a temperature change amplifying earth – multiple recent observations and analysis supports the assertion that the earth resists rather than amplifies forcing changes – lead to the conclusion that the sun is capable of a change to a state that can physically cause and does cause very significant and rapid cooling of the planet. Solar cycle 24 is the most rapid slowdown in solar magnetic cycle in 8000 years. There is now record sea in the Antarctic for every month of the year (high Antarctic sea ice for ever month of the year is not observed in the last 40 years) and there has been the fastest recovery of sea ice in the Arctic on record.
The observational fact that the Antarctic ice sheet has started to warm and that there is record Antarctic sea ice, indicates the polar see-saw has reversed. During the warming phase of a Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle the Antarctic ice sheet cools slightly and the Greenland ice sheet and the high latitude Northern and Southern Hemisphere warm significantly.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_stddev_timeseries.png
The following is an explanation of why that is true and a high level overview of the mechanisms. The cooling and warming is caused by either an increase or decrease of low level regional cloud cover by mechanisms that are directly and indirectly forced by changes of the solar magnetic cycle. A decrease in high latitude low level clouds causes an increase in high latitude temperatures in all high latitude regions except over the Antarctic ice sheet. The Antarctic ice sheet due to a very strong and persistent polar vortex is isolated from the Southern hemisphere, which reduces the amount of heat transfer from and to the Antarctic ice sheet. In the Antarctic the continuous high velocity winds breaks down the snow crystals on the ice sheet surface to form a shiny ice like surface on the ice sheet that has an albedo that is slightly greater than clouds. Low clouds warm due to an increase in water vapour in the atmosphere and cool due to high solar radiation reflected. The net effect on surface temperature for a reduction in low level cloud due to the very high albedo of the Antarctic ice sheet (greater than a low level cloud) is to cool over the Antarctic ice sheet and to warm in the other high latitude regions of the planet. A reduction in high latitude cloud cover explains the warming in the last 70 years and the slight cooling of the Antarctic ice sheet. An observation to support the assertion that the clouds caused that pattern of warming would be a reversal of the affected: cooling of both poles (excluding the Antarctic Ice sheet) and slight cooling of the Antarctic ice sheet in response the significant increase in GCR due to the abrupt slowdown in the solar magnetic cycle. (i.e. The CO2 mechanism is not reversal. If there is significant cooling that indicates something else caused the warming in the last 70 years and supports the assertion that the sun was the cause.)
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0612145v1
The Antarctic climate anomaly and galactic cosmic rays
Borehole temperatures in the ice sheets spanning the past 6000 years show Antarctica repeatedly warming when Greenland cooled, and vice versa (Fig. 1) [13, 14]. North-south oscillations of greater amplitude associated with Dansgaard-Oeschger events are evident in oxygenisotope data from the Wurm-Wisconsin glaciation[15]. The phenomenon has been called the polar see-saw[15, 16], but that implies a north-south symmetry that is absent. Greenland is better coupled to global temperatures than Antarctica is, and the fulcrum of the temperature swings is near the Antarctic Circle. A more apt term for the effect is the Antarctic climate anomaly.

john robertson
January 3, 2014 7:21 pm

@Rob 3:31
Thanks Rob, always nice to remind us how insignificant the claimed signal is in relation to the noise.
If the estimates of global ice are accurate, it is possible we are experiencing a slight cooling globally.
Unfortunately due to the adjustments to the temperature records we have no may to distinguish any trend from the available data.
Of course this being climatology, the adjusted data is without sin, error bars are not desired, I mean required.
Thanks for the info on the satellite sensor error bars, it is well hid and carefully not fully explained.
There was a WUWT post on the science of measurements, a couple of years ago.
This whole business of anomalies,selective mean average global temperatures and pattern spotting in the noise makes climatology, at least that of temperature changes, no more than theology.
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
What meaning does 4th warmest average global temperature, over a 30 year period, have for long term trends?
What value has a claim of 0.8C temperature increase from data with a visual error of +/- 1C and instrument error of about the same?
Finally does anyone know if the MET has managed to regather the temperature records the CRU crew destroyed? They did say 3 years.

Gino
January 3, 2014 7:26 pm

So….temperatures have been declining since 1998. What’s the fuss?

January 3, 2014 7:29 pm

For the life of me, I don’t understand how climate scientists and their religious supporters can spout the CO2 nonsense. My doctoral thesis in 1989 (in Engineering Mechanics) involved the use of an infrared camera, so I had to become acutely aware of the IR absorption characteristics of atmospheric gases. Even a casual glance at the data (see Figure 6.3 in the pdf file linked below – which I just found in a quick internet search) shows that CO2 only has a major IR absorption impact between roughly 4.2 and 4.5 microns, and CO2 was already at saturation effect(100% absorption) in this band before human impact, so further CO2 increases are not going to have a majorimpact. There is also a sizeable impact of CO2 centered around 15 microns, where H20 achieves ~80% absorption and CO2 takes it up to full saturation. CO2 has a broader absorption band here, but on the far end (>14 microns), H20 is already achieveing 100% absorption. Towards the 12 micron end of this absorption band, increasing CO2 levels will cause additional absorption and hence “global warming,” but Beer’s law clearly limits the impact. For all other significant CO2 absorption wavelengths, H20 is already achieving 100% absorption, so take CO2 up to 5000ppm if you like, it will have no impact in these bands.
If you look at the bottom of Fig. 6.3 (overall IR absorption of the atmosphere) and compare it to the gases shown, I think we know who the real culprit is that keeps the earth warm at night, except in desert regions of course. Funny how this very simple desert analogy is never mentioned by the AGW religious zealots.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CC8QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Firina.eas.gatech.edu%2FEAS8803_Fall2009%2FLec6.pdf&ei=mnfHUumKNoff2AW4oYCoAg&usg=AFQjCNFtA4bTgD7EDLqZcQCDnAibKHMdew&bvm=bv.58187178,d.b2I

Eve
January 3, 2014 7:31 pm

Cental Ontario, Canada last summer experienced a non-summer. It snowed on the 24th of May. We had one hot week in July then it cooled so much that I had to turn my heat back on until the last week of August when we had a warm week. Corn would not mature because it was so cold. It frosted the first week of Sept. This was the 4th warmest summer? I had my comforter on all summer except for 5 nights. I guess we should stop using global temperatures and use regional temperatures. I feel badly for Canadians now, minus 30 or so across Canada and just about every province is having rolling blackouts. Why? Because they believed in green energy and there is no wind or the turbines are frozen.

Richard M
January 3, 2014 7:39 pm

1) Has anyone determined what caused the huge January 2013 anomaly? That value itself (along with a little carry over into Feb/Mar) had a big impact on the 2013 average. Where did that energy come from? Clearly, it has nothing to do with CO2 as it was short term.
2) 2013 is the year of solar maximum. Bill Illis covered this somewhat and I always expected 2013 to hold a little higher due to this factor.
3) The AMO is still at the top of its cycle.
The future holds a continued decrease in the PDO and AMO and solar cycle 24. Another anomalous warming like January 2013 is unlikely. No sign of another El Niño. I doubt very much the small effect of CO2 warming will be able to keep up with these other factors.

Rascal
January 3, 2014 7:49 pm

James Abbott says:
January 3, 2014 at 2:07 pm says: Greenland is losing net ice mass and sea ice extent is currently close to 2 SDs below the 1981 – 2010 mean.
Why do you think it’s named “Greenland”?

Rob aka flatlander
January 3, 2014 7:54 pm

Gareth Phillips at 2:57 pm
Hi Rob, I have a sneaking suspicion the instruments used to record this data are a lot more specific and calibrated than a hardware thermometer.
Gareth that’s sorta actually my point, hardware store thermometers have about the same accuracy of these measurements if you consider the variables in calculation and the time perspective involved. Thanks for the critique though
I use many 100 ohm RTD 3 wire temp sensors
They are highly accurate but not .27 dec C lol

Joe
January 3, 2014 7:54 pm

“Please, James. You confuse the IPCC’s narrative with real science. Maybe the IPCC tried to be scientific in AR-1, but like Snow White, they drifted.”
Dbstealey, who exactly are you? What have you published? Why should your opinion have more weight than that of the many actual scientists that contributed to the IPCC?

rogerknights
January 3, 2014 8:28 pm

holby burgess says:
January 3, 2014 at 4:47 pm
If we were experiencing AGW then there should be a warming of the Tropical Troposphere but as nothing has been found . . . .

Make that UPPER Tropical Troposphere.

James Aboott says:
With a doubling of CO2 concentration above pre-industrial levels, the IPCC in its recent report states that:

“Global surface temperature change for the end of the 21st century is likely to exceed 1.5°C relative to 1850 to 1900 for all RCP scenarios except RCP2.6. It is likely to exceed 2°C for RCP6.0 and RCP8.5, and more likely than not to exceed 2°C for RCP4.5. Warming will continue beyond 2100 under all RCP scenarios except RCP2.6.”

I believe (I hope I’m right) that’s from its Summary for Policymakers, not from its more recent Final AR5 WG1. See the recent thread by Monckton pointing to this camouflaged climbdown:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/24/monckton-of-meteorology-and-morality/

January 3, 2014 8:31 pm

Joe says:
Why should your opinion have more weight than that of the many actual scientists that contributed to the IPCC?
Joe, why should the opinion of the World Wildlife Fund — an NGO — have more weight than many of the IPCC scientists? If you will recall, the WWF, an enviro group with an agenda, provided about 40% of the IPCC’s input. If the WWF can have that much influence over Policy, surely I can post a few observations in this discussion, no?
Your comment above is nothing but an ad hominem personal attack, which could equally apply to you, or to the WWF, or to the person I was replying to, or to anyone else. But you singled me out. Why?
I’ll tell you why: you did it to detract from the fact that you have nothing reasonable, logical, or science-based to counter what I posted. Try deconstructing my reasoning, and the links I posted — if you can.
Further, in another thread you responded to Janice Moore, saying:
“Do you think most people here read and understand those papers. Or do they simply accept the author’s interpretation of those findings?”
Which is it, Joe? Do you only accept what published scientists write? Or do you refuse to accept their interpretation? You can’t have it both ways. Not here, anyway. Maybe at one of your alarmist echo chambers, where only one side gets heard.
Joe, whoever wants to can put in their 2¢ here, so long as they’re discussing the article and/or the science being debated. Why don’t you try that, instead of getting personal?

Reg Nelson
January 3, 2014 8:32 pm

John Finn says:
January 3, 2014 at 6:34 pm
From previous post it can be seen that CO2 contributes between 9% and 24% of the total ‘greenhouse’ effect.

Okay, prove that. Can you?
And show me the predictive value of your theory with real world examples, Can you?

rogerknights
January 3, 2014 8:33 pm

Joe says:
January 3, 2014 at 7:54 pm

“Please, James. You confuse the IPCC’s narrative with real science. Maybe the IPCC tried to be scientific in AR-1, but like Snow White, they drifted.”

Dbstealey, who exactly are you? What have you published? Why should your opinion have more weight than that of the many actual scientists that contributed to the IPCC?

Read the WUWT archives, or the NIPCC report, and you’ll learn.

MattN
January 3, 2014 8:34 pm

Why is the trend still .14C? There’s been very little warming for well over a decade now. It was .14C years ago, we’ve had virtually no warming, and its still .14C. I don’t understand.

January 3, 2014 8:41 pm

No doubt the work from UAH, Dr. John Christy and Dr. Roy Spencer is opposed by global warming proponents!
I take a look at the UAH – Global lower tropospheric temperature anomalies, 1979 thru December 2013, relative to 1981 thru 2010 [The red curve is the running, centered 13-month average] and all I see is that after 1998 the global temperature anomaly rose some to 0.2°C.
and has stayed around there since 2002. Then I think most probably the big 1998 El Niño did that.
If this temperature pause by whatever name gives way to warming or to cooling, I think is to be resolved by ENSO. This is because ENSO is a mechanism for regulating the planet’s energy input from the Sun. The clouds associated with it are the throttle, so to speak.
Mostly water vapor and much less so CO2 play their warming and cooling roles in the chaotic planetary weather system. This weather system includes some features that work as internal regulators for the heat engine that takes heat from the tropics to the poles and out to space.
One thing that is not clear is how much CO2 is caused by human activities, how much by volcanic remnants and many other natural sources.
Another unclear factor is how much warming would come from a duplication of the present CO2 mix in the atmosphere (the “climate sensitivity”), ask the the IPPC? They don’t know. Many well-known climate scientists (Dr, Spencer among them) think this is a figure near 1°C. Many other think higher figures due to a net positive feedback in the climate system.
One thing is very clear though; without CO2 we, or the plants and animals we eat would not be here to spin this tale.

richardscourtney
January 3, 2014 8:51 pm

Joe:
Your post at January 3, 2014 at 7:54 pm says in total

“Please, James. You confuse the IPCC’s narrative with real science. Maybe the IPCC tried to be scientific in AR-1, but like Snow White, they drifted.”

Dbstealey, who exactly are you? What have you published? Why should your opinion have more weight than that of the many actual scientists that contributed to the IPCC?

Dbstealey is a person who puts his name to his posts whereas you post anonymously while demanding to know who he is. Talk about brass-neck!
And who he is, what he has done and/or what he has written is not relevant.
Only the truth of what he has said is worthy of assessment.
And what he has said is stated – indeed, it is defined – in the IPCC’s own documents.
It is the custom and practice of the IPCC for all of its Reports to be amended to agree with the political summaries. The facts are as follows.
The Summary for Policymakers (SPM) is agreed “line by line” by politicians and/or representatives of politicians, and it is then published. After that the so-called ‘scientific’ Reports are amended to agree with the SPM. This became IPCC custom and practice of the IPCC when prior to its Second Report the then IPCC Chairman, John Houghton, decreed,

We can rely on the Authors to ensure the Report agrees with the Summary.

This was done and has been the normal IPCC procedure since then.
So, as Db stealey says,

Maybe the IPCC tried to be scientific in AR-1

But it has not been since the practice of the IPCC has been for its so-called ‘science’ to be adjusted to agree with the views of politicians.
This custom and practice enabled the infamous ‘Chapter 8′ scandal so perhaps it should – at long last – be changed. However, it has been adopted as official IPCC procedure for all subsequent IPCC Reports.
Appendix A of the present Report (the AR5) states this where it says.

4.6 Reports Approved and Adopted by the Panel
Reports approved and adopted by the Panel will be the Synthesis Report of the Assessment Reports and other Reports as decided by the Panel whereby Section 4.4 applies mutatis mutandis.

This is completely in accord with the official purpose of the IPCC.
The IPCC does NOT exist to summarise climate science and it does not.
The IPCC is only permitted to say AGW is a significant problem because they are tasked to accept that there is a “risk of human-induced climate change” which requires “options for adaptation and mitigation” that can be selected as political polices and the IPCC is tasked to provide those “options”.
This is clearly stated in the “Principles” which govern the work of the IPCC. These are stated at
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf
Near its beginning that document says

ROLE
2. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.

This says the IPCC exists to provide
(a) “information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change”
and
(b) “options for adaptation and mitigation” which pertain to “the application of particular policies”.
Hence, its “Role” demands that the IPCC accepts as a given that there is a “risk of human-induced climate change” which requires “options for adaptation and mitigation” which pertain to “the application of particular policies”. Any ‘science’ which fails to support that political purpose is ‘amended’ in furtherance of the IPCC’s Role.
This is achieved by amendment of the IPCC’s so-called ‘scientific’ Reports to fulfil the IPCC’s political purpose by politicians approving the SPM then the IPCC lead Authors amending the so-called ‘scientific’ Reports to agree with the SPM.
All IPCC Reports including the IPCC AR5 are pure pseudoscience intended to provide information to justify political actions; i.e.Lysenkoism. And – as Dbstealey says – this has been true for every IPCC so-called ‘scientific’ Report following its First Report.
Or perhaps you want to dispute that the IPCC Reports are in accord with the IPCC’s own stated customs and practices as defined in the IPCC’s own documents?
Richard

john robertson
January 3, 2014 8:55 pm

@Joe 7:54, seeing as how you asked.
You are?
Your “credentials”?
Arguing the authority of your experts is greater than his experts is religion and circular noise.
How about that old tool called the scientific method?
Define your theory?
Is it CAGW (due to CO2)?
If so, how about you lay out empirical data that appears to support your theory.
Demonstrate how you used it to test your idea.Full methodology please.
Explain what measurements might falsify this theory.
And of course: how does your theory contradict the null hypothesis?
Is there any measured “global” warming that is unusual compared to past cycles? Feel free to use the IPCC version.. Oh wait, they have never been able to do that…
So if you would be so kind…. you will find the UN eternally grateful, a Nobel prize thrust upon you, and the academic gravy train for life.

Rob aka flatlander
January 3, 2014 9:25 pm

Nice one John Robertson, and please Joe please point out scientifically how this data means anything. With respect to the 30 trend line it appears to have a jump of .3 deg C in 2002. It’s was fluctuating at -0.1 till then and then moves up to +0.2 deg and hovers there from 2002 to 2013
Wondering if there was one of thier normally upward data “corrections” in 2002

juan slayton
January 3, 2014 9:27 pm

RockyRoad: I’ve seen estimates that the rise in CO2 over the past 50 years has been responsible for a 15% increase in foodstuff production worldwide.
I’ve been looking for something to back up these numbers. Can you throw us a link?

Rob aka flatlander
January 3, 2014 9:43 pm

Joe says:
Why should your opinion have more weight than that of the many actual scientists that contributed to the IPCC?
Joe
I have a question for you? Have you actually researched the expertise and the credentials of those “scientists” that contributed to the IPCC data analysis and reports? You might be surprised if you did.
A phd stuck to the end of your name neither makes you an expert or not an expert. Usually a phd means you know more and more of less and less
Your field tightens with smaller and smaller focus.
Read read read my friend and trust neither side of this debate, trust in the info and data that you can gather. If you don’t then you as the mass of people accept blindly what is sold to them.
Anyone who blindly accepts what a group that is heavily funded to say one thing is setting themselves up for twisted info. What is the difference between “big oil” info and “big government” info that bureaucrats need to ride thier gravy train.
I question ALL of it.

richardscourtney
January 3, 2014 9:53 pm

Rob aka flatlander:
re your post at January 3, 2014 at 9:43 pm.
Please inform on how to obtain some of the “big oil” funding which you imply exists.
I want some.
Roy Spencer (who provides the above global temperature data) wants some.
Anth0ny W@tts has said he wants some.
And Bob Tisdale needs some.
Thanking you in anticipation.
Richard

January 3, 2014 10:12 pm

Richard M says:
January 3, 2014 at 7:39 pm
1) Has anyone determined what caused the huge January 2013 anomaly?
I certainly do not have the complete answer, but take a look at the following where sea surface temperatures are plotted along with RSS since July 2012. More often than not, the trends are in opposite directions. It seems logical that when sea surface temperatures drop, there is a lot of evaporation going on which takes a lot of heat. And what happens to this heat? The water vapor combines in the atmosphere to form liquid water and the troposphere warms as recorded by RSS.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2012.5/plot/rss/from:2012.5

juan slayton
January 3, 2014 10:24 pm

richardscourtney: Please inform on how to obtain some of the “big oil” funding which you imply exists.
Glad you asked. Here’s how: Retire with almost any of the major government retirement plans. My own (CALSTRS), as of last June 30, held $1,150,537,000 worth of Exxon-Mobile securities, along with $72,213,000 worth of Valero.
The point: while many (not all) of the alarmists are painting fossil fuel industries as destructive producers of ill-gotten profits, they at the same time continuously benefit from the industry’s products, and large numbers of them share in those profits. (And for those who do not have such plans, be informed that in California, should the CALSTRS investments fail to finance the system’s obligations, it will be the responsibility of the general taxpayer to make up the difference.)

SAMURAI
January 3, 2014 10:40 pm

Although not a perfect analogy, when someone starts ranking warm years as proof of CAGW, I point out that for the last 17 years of my life, my height is ranked the highest in 55 years, but that doesn’t mean I suffer from gigantism. If I go back 45 years to the present, I can show a linear trend showing growth, even though I stopped growing when I hit 18. Do I need to start buying longer suits? I don’t think so…
You know the CAGW scam is over when Warmunists are relegated to ranking years and trying to scare people about ocean pH and Arctic’s seasonal ice melt.
The majority of climate models will soon or already are exceeding 2 standard deviations from observations for sufficiently long enough time periods to scientifically disconfirm the CAGW hypothesis.
With the complete collapse of the EU Carbon Exchange and the total collapse of the wind/solar industry, the market has already decided CAGW is dead. The only things keeping this charade going are leftist MSM and leftist politician propaganda.
Once these last two bastions of BS stop propagandizing CAGW, the CAGW grants will end and then the “scientific” community will lose interest and move on to the next crisis to extort (back to manmade cooling??).
The beginning of the end of CAGW is near.

January 3, 2014 10:48 pm

MattN says:
January 3, 2014 at 8:34 pm
Why is the trend still .14C? There’s been very little warming for well over a decade now. It was .14C years ago, we’ve had virtually no warming, and its still .14C. I don’t understand.
There are three reasons that I can think of.
1. Up to the end of 2010, which was a very hot year, the slope was 0.01475/year according to version 5.5. But the most recent value is 0.0135975/year, which is lower, but rounds up to 0.14/decade.
2. When a hot year nudges the slope up, it takes a few average years to get it back down again, and 3 years in about 34 years is less than 10%.
3. The earlier slope was based on version 5.5. The new version is 5.6 which shows a higher slope. For example, the time for no warming on version 5.6 is since August 2008, but the time for no warming on version 5.5 is from January 2005.

January 3, 2014 10:53 pm

Jim Roth says:
January 3, 2014 at 3:29 pm
Can someone please tell me how this squares with the idea that there’s been no global warming for the last 17 yr’s?
On RSS there is no warming for 17 years and 4 months. As to why there is such a big difference between RSS and UAH is a huge mystery. Perhaps UAH is measuring the Antarctic too high.

tobias smit
January 3, 2014 10:54 pm

@rivhardcourtney; Rob aka flatlander:
re your post at January 3, 2014 at 9:43 pm., I want some too! (that is those wicket oil $$$, I have given them enough of my own as has James as he pounds away on his plastic key board)
@ Pamela grey , oh yes ours (in the veggie patch) had a bad go of it . But our grapes (on the Farm ) thankfully recovered after a really bad wet spring, Oh and BTW I am (almost) starting to feel sorry for some of the warmists . Your and others @WUWT are educating a lot of us non climatologists ( ok in other fields) and I thank you all for that, Sorry to hear BT has to curtail his work.

dp
January 3, 2014 10:56 pm

Mosher – are you willing to predict and put money up that observed temperatures will soon begin to match at least 51% of the models that are currently fueling the climate warming scare machine?

January 4, 2014 12:02 am

If man were warming up the EARTH, should not this year be the warmest?
If the Earth was warming up because of man, should not the hurricane seasons be getting stronger?
If man was warming up the Earth, should not Glaciers have melted away by now?
If man was warming up the Earth there should not be a debate.

January 4, 2014 12:19 am

Just took a look at last winter’s numbers 2012 was the 8th warmest on Earth. I wouldn’t take the report to the bank yet.

Bob Grise
January 4, 2014 12:25 am

You look at all this massive ice at the poles and all that mass of water in the oceans and then do some math. The population of man per square mile of Earth is only 35, or one person per 18 acres. How the heck did that influence climate, or the amount of ice at the poles in any given year? It can’t be possible. This is nature at work. Natural variation. We have very little to no control.

Gareth Phillips
January 4, 2014 1:15 am

Txomin says:
January 3, 2014 at 6:06 pm
@Gareth Phillips
I thought the point was that CO2 is responsible for accelerated warming and that it must be reduced because its causing catastrophic climate change. Please point at the catastrophic climate change in the graph.
@TXOMIN Thanks for that. The idea is that a continued increase in temperature will cause serious problems in our environment. What the nature of those problems is and the extent are of course open to debate. The interpretation of data is a lot more subjective than most people realise. If you look at the temperature record you may be reassured because of your background beliefs in how science works, but change the name of the data from temperature to unemployment figures. If that had been your countries record on employment would you be concerned or re-assured that the upward trend had flattened off?

Billmelater
January 4, 2014 1:32 am

Good explanation to explain the increase in the Earth’s temperature. Sixty year cycle. Who ever dreamt that one up should get a Nobel prize for creativity. Still the evidence is getting harder to refute and greater creativity will be needed to explain it away.

Eliza
January 4, 2014 1:37 am

The satellite record is meaningless as far a global trends are concerned. The time span is ridicously short 30 years.

Ronald
January 4, 2014 2:35 am

J Abbott,
Classic AGW, and thus showing no competence to the matter.
99% of the skeptics know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and is warming the planet. But the important question is by how much. And we skeptics know that’s very little. In fact you could know it yourself by a test, you probably know, to scare the crap out of students. You know the experiment with the 2 closed boxes and the light bulbs? Yes you know and you love it because it proves you’re right; wrong. In 1 box there is 100% CO2 and in the other 100% air with 0,4% CO2. If the result for 100% CO2 is 6 you can calculate what 0,4% CO2 does. Thats 0,004%, wrong again. CO2 radiates only 8% of the warming back and 5% of that goes back to earth. So the number is even lower.
Now I talk about CO2 as a total, humans do only 4% of all CO2 so we humans do only 0,00012 degrees C warming. This is all sciences and can be found on line so look for it your self.
Then your question. What would happen if CO2 was 0. You have the answerer from above, even with CO2 at 400 PPM the effect is almost 0.
But to go along with your twisted thinking. You would never find the answer to that because you assume CO2 is the big driver. And even if I tell you the truth, you could not find it because of your problems.
You see you and your colleges made sciences rotten to the bone. You work with models which give you GIGO results because of the garbage in garbage out problem. And the fact that you focus on just one outcome, namely CO2, is to blame.
If you want the answer you must work with real non-adjusted raw data. Work with a clear model and overall look at real life and not your fantasia bogus AGW world.
You would see that there is an relation an domino effect so to speak in which there are parts of the system we now as climate you must have but there is one we can get without.
This is the main reason why it won’t work for you.
Sun, Ocean, humidity, temperature.
This is how climate works.
The sun warms the planet, 75% off the planet is ocean so a warming ocean means more moisture. The main greenhouse gas is water vapor with 95% so more water vapor makes a warmer planet, bit tricky because water vapor has also a cooling effect. To see what impact water vapor has on the temperature you can go to the tropics. There you can learn how it works and there you see the climate optimum in full spin. And you can go to any desert to see how less water vapor works and what effect that has.
After water vapor comes temperature. The more water vapor the higher the temperature and also less water vapor means lower temperature. I left out CO2 because it doesn’t have a place in the climate. CO2 comes after the temperature and in fact is only the result of temperature but that also is not the whole truth. CO2 comes (among other ways but this is the big way) in the atmosphere by out gassing from the ocean. See the sun warms the ocean surface and thus CO2 is re least because warm water can hold less CO2 then cold water.
By the IPCC I know there is less water vapor in the atmosphere then say 15 years ago. So what could that be?
Sun, ocean, humidity, temperature.
We know that the sun is in SC 24 and that a weak one. So the sun warms the planet less then say 30 year before. Less warmth from the sun makes a colder surface makes less humidity makes lower temperatures.
In this case again CO2 has no effect what so ever. After the temperature drops we will see CO2 drop because of the colder oceans absorbing more CO2. The fun fact is that is will take some time. 10, 20, 100 years we don’t really know that.
So Abbott you could know this if you worked science in fact you would know if you worked real data instead of adjusted data. You commit a fraud and are stuck in the fraud so you never find the answer.
The only way to go is back to real life. But be prepared of the shock.

RichardLH
January 4, 2014 2:46 am

Billmelater says:
January 4, 2014 at 1:32 am
“Good explanation to explain the increase in the Earth’s temperature. Sixty year cycle. Who ever dreamt that one up should get a Nobel prize for creativity. Still the evidence is getting harder to refute and greater creativity will be needed to explain it away.”
There are many 60 year calendars in history and it has often been speculated that there may be some relevance in that to climate and weather. Our ancestors were very good at observations, explanations often rather less so.
In my case it was not that I looked for a 60 year cycle but rather, when using a common methodology to determine what cycles may or may not be present in a time series data set (i.e. a simple low pass filter) that the 60 year cycle popped out of the HadCrut4 data.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:220/mean:174/mean:144/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:720
Starting to be visible in the UAH (and RSS) data as well now but the series are not quite long enough yet to be sure.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/plot/uah/mean:84/mean:70/mean:58
Using data projections (in the same way that is done for the CET series) so that you get some idea of likely futures you then get this
http://snag.gy/iychw.jpg
The simple facts are that there is not enough data yet to make a determination. But it is starting to look as though there will be enough soon.
Based on the above data analysis I have suggested that next years temperatures will be lower (on average) than this years. Should be confirmable (or not) in only a years time 🙂
It all comes down to how you believe that the series extends given its history to date.

William Astley
January 4, 2014 2:51 am

In support to Badger’s comment:
Badger says:
January 3, 2014 at 7:29 pm
For the life of me, I don’t understand how climate scientists and their religious supporters can spout the CO2 nonsense. My doctoral thesis in 1989 (in Engineering Mechanics) involved the use of an infrared camera, so I had to become acutely aware of the IR absorption characteristics of atmospheric gases. …
William: Your comment is correct. The warming affect of CO2 in the lower troposphere is greatly reduced due to the overlap of the absorption of frequencies of H20 and CO2. The following paper provides an overview of the theory.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/barrett_ee05.pdf
Higher in the troposphere there is less water so theoretically if all conditions/atmospheric processes were/are modelled correctly there should be the most warming due the increase in atmospheric CO2.
The anomaly or paradox is that there is 100% to 300% less warming than expected in the upper troposphere which obviously indicates there are multiple fundamental errors or emissions in the general circulation models (GCM) used by the IPCC. The GCM predict that the most amount of warming in the planet due to the increase in atmospheric CO2 should have occurred in the tropics (where there is the most amount of long wave radiation emitted to space) at 8km above the surface of the planet. There is slight cooling observed at that altitude rather than warming.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf
A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions
We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 ‘Climate of the 20th Century’ model simulations and try to reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era). Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs. These conclusions contrast strongly with those of recent publications based on essentially the same data.

Billmelater
January 4, 2014 2:59 am

RichardLH, what do you think is driving the cycle?

RichardLH
January 4, 2014 3:17 am

Billmelater says:
January 4, 2014 at 2:59 am
“RichardLH, what do you think is driving the cycle?”
That always has been the question. Given that it is as long as it is, my best guess is that it is an Oceanic cycle. But I am not qualified to answer this really, any answer I give is purely speculation.
I observe the cycle is present. Nothing more.

John Finn
January 4, 2014 3:24 am

Reg Nelson says:
January 3, 2014 at 8:32 pm
John Finn says:
January 3, 2014 at 6:34 pm
From previous post it can be seen that CO2 contributes between 9% and 24% of the total ‘greenhouse’ effect.

Okay, prove that. Can you?
And show me the predictive value of your theory with real world examples, Can you?

There are programs such as MODTRAN which model the transmission of IR energy through the atmosphere. Then there are the actual emission spectra observed by orbiting satellites. These spectra show both the wavelength and altitude of emissions which may be different over different regions of the earth (e.g. arctic and the tropics).
MODTRAN and observations agree almost exactly.

MikeB
January 4, 2014 3:31 am

Badger says:
January 3, 2014 at 7:29 pm
The only CO2 absorption band which is germane to the greenhouse effect is the one at 15 microns. The 4.3 micron band is not important in this context as there is relatively little radiation at that wavelength, either incoming or outgoing.
The Figure 6.3 which you link to terminates at around 14 microns and so does not fully show the effect of this CO2 absorption band, nor does it show the H2O continuum over this region. So your conclusion, which seems to be that CO2 has no effect, is not supported by what you link to.
Adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will produce additional warming. The question is how much, not if. It is generally agreed that, all other things being equal, doubling the CO2 concentration will produce further warming at the surface of the planet by about 1.1 Deg.C. In itself this is not problematic, may even be beneficial.
The argument comes down to ‘positive feedback’. Will increased warming due to CO2 lead to the release of more CO2 from the oceans, methane from the permafrost etc. which, in turn, leads to even more warming? This is what is meant by ‘Climate Sensitivity’; how much will the Earth warm as a result of doubling the CO2 level. This is what the debate is about. It is not about ice melting or sea-levels rising, because these processes started long before the possibility of human cause.
Several papers have been published recently which tend to show that climate sensitivity is lower than the IPCC’s earlier estimates. As a result the latest IPCC report now says,

“No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies”

gary gulrud
January 4, 2014 3:45 am

Above average, eh? I am beginning to lose all interest in “Global Temperature” regardless of the source.

RichardLH
January 4, 2014 3:48 am

wbrozek says:
January 3, 2014 at 10:53 pm
“On RSS there is no warming for 17 years and 4 months. As to why there is such a big difference between RSS and UAH is a huge mystery. Perhaps UAH is measuring the Antarctic too high.”
Apart from a slight 0.1 offset between the two they are showing basically the same thing AFAIK
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/plot/rss/trend/plot/uah/plot/uah/trend
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/plot/rss/trend/plot/uah/offset:0.1/plot/uah/trend/offset:0.1

richardscourtney
January 4, 2014 3:53 am

SAMURAI:
re your post at January 3, 2014 at 10:40 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/03/global-temperature-report-december-2013/#comment-1523780
You conclude

The beginning of the end of CAGW is near.

I disagree.
The beginning of the end of the AGW-scare was at Copenhagen in 2009 when it was decided there would be no successor Treaty to the Kyoto Protocol.
That decision killed the AGW-scare. I said then that the scare would continue to move as though alive in similar manner to a beheaded chicken running around a farmyard. It continues to provide the movements of life but it is already dead. And its deathly movements provide an especial problem.
Nobody will declare the AGW-scare dead: it will slowly fade away. This is similar to the ‘acid rain’ scare of the 1980s. Few remember that scare unless reminded of it but its effects still have effects; e.g. the Large Combustion Plant Directive (LCPD) exists. Importantly, the bureaucracy which the EU established to operate the LCPD still exists. And those bureaucrats justify their jobs by imposing ever more stringent, always more pointless, and extremely expensive emission limits which are causing enforced closure of UK power stations.
Bureaucracies are difficult to eradicate and impossible to nullify.
As the AGW-scare fades away those in ‘prime positions’ will attempt to establish rules and bureaucracies to impose those rules which provide immortality to their objectives. Guarding against those attempts now needs to be a serious activity.
Your post provides evidence that the scare is fading away as I suggested it would.
Richard

John Finn
January 4, 2014 3:56 am

wbrozek says:
January 3, 2014 at 10:53 pm
Jim Roth says:
January 3, 2014 at 3:29 pm
Can someone please tell me how this squares with the idea that there’s been no global warming for the last 17 yr’s?
On RSS there is no warming for 17 years and 4 months. As to why there is such a big difference between RSS and UAH is a huge mystery. Perhaps UAH is measuring the Antarctic too high.

Or perhaps RSS are introducing a spurious cooling trend by applying an incorrect diurnal drift adjustment. Roy Spencer writes
Anyway, my UAH cohort and boss John Christy, who does the detailed matching between satellites, is pretty convinced that the RSS data is undergoing spurious cooling because RSS is still using the old NOAA-15 satellite which has a decaying orbit, to which they are then applying a diurnal cycle drift correction based upon a climate model, which does not quite match reality . We have not used NOAA-15 for trend information in years…we use the NASA Aqua AMSU, since that satellite carries extra fuel to maintain a precise orbit.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/07/on-the-divergence-between-the-uah-and-rss-global-temperature-records/
I do wish ‘our’ side would stop cherry picking the datasets. UAH is the one in which we had the most trust and I see no reason why that should change.

Unmentionable
January 4, 2014 4:02 am

bazza says:
January 3, 2014 at 2:36 pm
The abc here in australia are obsessed with the hot weather we are getting in qld at the moment.

Hey Baz,
I’ve been in coastal QLD all this spring and summer and I can not believe how pleasant the build-up to the wet-season has been this year. If it were lik this every year I’d be over the moon. I do not remember ever experiencing such a cool pleasant November and December. The temps were about normal or a bit less, but the humidity was unusually low, due to the constant stream of strong highs crossing the bight (there’s one there right now, but looks like it will not make it out into the Tasman). Consequently we had no cloud cover buildups, so drier air with no clouds progressively built into the interior heat level it’s at now. Add a strengthening heat trough that won’t move, and you get this dry heat wave.
It’s only been the past 36 hours where the humidity as finally arrived to match the heat, so it just looks like a very delayed build-up to the wet to me.
But like you I’ve heard constant horror-story heat reports from ABC, but zero discussions of the unusually cool and pleasant conditions we’ve been experiencing up until now. ABC seems strongly biased in its reports, everything is a looming calamity, or a present crisis, or else they say nothing at all about the brilliant weather we actually get almost all the time. Last summer was the same, an extremely pleasant and shortish Summer (not as nice as this time), and the very comfortable winter.
I mean, if this is the end-of-the-world scenario, I hoping we’ll get more of these.

Non Nomen
January 4, 2014 4:07 am

The past 17 years show us that there is nothing to worry about, I suppose. What goes up must come down. My thermometer won’t show that ~ .3° we are talking about. And I can live with higher temperatures pretty well, as mankind ist able to adapt. The IPCC should stop scaremongering, return to its closet and shut the door tightly. I’d be glad to throw the key away.

richardscourtney
January 4, 2014 4:09 am

Billmelater:
Your post at January 4, 2014 at 1:32 am provides another example of your pontificating your prejudice before checking the pertinent scientific literature of which you are woefully ignorant.
Your post says in total

Good explanation to explain the increase in the Earth’s temperature. Sixty year cycle. Who ever dreamt that one up should get a Nobel prize for creativity. Still the evidence is getting harder to refute and greater creativity will be needed to explain it away.

Please see e.g.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/09/syun-akasofus-work-provokes-journal-resignation/
It begins by saying

WUWT readers may remember Dr. Syun Akasofu as the source of a graph tracking the Pacific Multidecadal Oscillation with sine wave shifts in global temperature up and down.

As you say, the evidence of the 60-year cycle is getting harder to refute and greater creativity will be needed to explain it away.
Richard

Alan Millar
January 4, 2014 4:24 am

James Abbott says:
January 3, 2014 at 3:43 pm
“Now lets go back to the question.
Rather than use descriptive words (or reference the discredited Monckton) what would be the change in mean global temperature if CO2 was removed from the atmosphere ?”
It would be colder.
Not that you would have any interest in such a result Einstein, as being a carbon based life form, you would be dead along with nearly all the life on Earth.
Now here a few, far more relevant, questions for you to answer in return.
1. What if man had not contributed to the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels, what would the current global temperatures be?
2. Would those temperatures and CO2 levels be better or worse for mankind currently, would there be less of us or more of us?
3. How would plant life be doing, seeing as most higher life forms are ultimately reliant on the abundance of plant life for their existence?
4.. How would global sea ice, glaciers and other potentially ice covered areas be doing and if different, would this be a good or bad thing for life on Earth?
4. What would your preferred level of atmospheric CO2 level be, given that most plant life evolved to take advantage of the much higher CO2 levels prevalent then and are currently relatively CO2 starved?
5. What would be your preferred global temperature and how does Mankind ensure that it is maintained, as you seem to believe strongly that we are currently controlling it?
6. How long do you think Mankind can continue to control global temperatures, if indeed we are currently, as you believe? Please be reasonably specific, which shouldn’t be a problem for you, as you seem to feel strongly that you have a good handle on the mechanisms of this so called control..
So I would like you to answer these questions. They are far more relevant and real than your impossible and apocalyptic question after all. So no doubt you will be champing at the bit to answer, right?.
However, what I expect you will do is run away and not been seen again. However, I think I will keep a track of you and ask you the same questions every time you post your nonsense.
Alan

Avs
January 4, 2014 4:37 am

Well I do sort of agree wid many over here..given the erratic nature of temperature and un predictable climate zones across the globe, coming up with an equilibrium is just like crunching on numbers!

Bill Illis
January 4, 2014 4:56 am

A photon comes in from the Sun at noon on Tuesday. It is absorbed by an electron in a molecule in a rock on the beach.
Then what happens?
What does the energy do? Where does it go? What path does it take, over what time, in how many different molecules does it then enter? How long does it take before it sent back to space? How does that process change when there is doubled CO2? Given how the process changes when there is doubled CO2, how does the temperature of the surface and different layers of the atmosphere change?
A climate model and a theory are supposed to be able to answer those questions. We are talking about the speed of light here, times in nanoseconds, 44 hours, the energy spending time in 8 billion different molecules, atmospheric molecular collision rates of 7 billion per second, radiation physics, blackbody radiation, a spherical rotating planet with an atmosphere, with oceans in space next to a Star, … and then, the Earth receives 1.6×10^40 of these solar photons every day and emits 8.0×10^40 IR photons every day. What could possibly go wrong with a climate model trying to simulate that.

Gail Combs
January 4, 2014 5:08 am

Eve says:
January 3, 2014 at 7:31 pm
Cental Ontario, Canada last summer experienced a non-summer. It snowed on the 24th of May. We had one hot week in July then it cooled so much that I had to turn my heat back on until the last week of August when we had a warm week. Corn would not mature because it was so cold. It frosted the first week of Sept. This was the 4th warmest summer?….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I wondered the same thing.
The third graphic (for the year) shows my area (central NC) as neutral but it has actually been cold.
We barely got up to 90F (32 C) for four days this summer and only one day of 95F. We broke cold records this fall and it is a freezing 18F (-7.7C) right now and going to get colder. This is in an area that gets a dusting of snow once every five years and summer temps are normally 90F (32 C) and above often starting in May. For example I count 43 day over ninety F for 2004 by July tenth vs 26 days for 2010, and four days of 98F in 2010 vs nine days of 98F for 2004. We never got one day of 98F this summer.

Non Nomen
January 4, 2014 5:13 am

Alan
IMHO
Ad 1.: It seems to me that actually nobody knows what the manmade and the natural(e.g. „cow fart“) part of CO2 in the atmosphere precisely is and that it is unknown to what an extent and in which way, esp. in which conjunction(s) e.g. with pollen, aerosols, solar activity, soot etc. feedbacks can be expected. Therefore, no way of telling in a way you think of.
Ad 5.: My personal selection of a nice climate would be that of New Caledonia(avg. p.a. 23°C).
Ad 6.: Mankind cannot „control“ neither weather nor climate. But mankind has been very successful in adaptation to the circumstances.

wayne
January 4, 2014 5:21 am

@ Ian S, Rob… couldn’t agree more with both of you on the topic of the adjustments and error margins, great points made. I find the same though a detailed investigation would be tedious at best, if even possible for one person, for such information is always well buried if even online but it would answer a slew of questions that keep repeating here..

Stephen Richards
January 4, 2014 5:22 am

So – what would happen if we modelled the atmosphere with CO2 taken out ?
This has been done by your global warmng colleagues. The Result : Well the models came closer to the manipulated temperatures than they did with CO² in the runs.

Richard M
January 4, 2014 5:23 am

wbrozek says:
January 3, 2014 at 10:12 pm
Richard M says:
January 3, 2014 at 7:39 pm
1) Has anyone determined what caused the huge January 2013 anomaly?
I certainly do not have the complete answer, but take a look at the following where sea surface temperatures are plotted along with RSS since July 2012. More often than not, the trends are in opposite directions. It seems logical that when sea surface temperatures drop, there is a lot of evaporation going on which takes a lot of heat. And what happens to this heat? The water vapor combines in the atmosphere to form liquid water and the troposphere warms as recorded by RSS.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2012.5/plot/rss/from:2012.5

Looks reasonable but then that begs the question of why there was such a large amount of evaporation at that time. Any ideas from anyone? There’s a lot of energy involved here and it seems like it would be nice to understand why it appeared when it did and what might lead to future occurrences.

Stephen Richards
January 4, 2014 5:25 am

A photon comes in from the Sun at noon on Tuesday. It is absorbed by an electron in a molecule in a rock on the beach
That is clown stuff. Stupid to the point of imbecilic.

Gail Combs
January 4, 2014 5:31 am

SAMURAI says: @ January 3, 2014 at 10:40 pm
…With the complete collapse of the EU Carbon Exchange and the total collapse of the wind/solar industry, the market has already decided CAGW is dead. The only things keeping this charade going are leftist MSM and leftist politician propaganda…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In other words the MSM and politicians are providing cover fire while their buddies (Crony capitalists) take our money and running.

Richard M
January 4, 2014 5:33 am

Billmelater says:
January 4, 2014 at 2:59 am
what do you think is driving the cycle?

This graph shows the various warm/cold phases of the PDO placed over the Hadcrut4 data.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1850/to/mean:10/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1880/to:1912/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1912/to:1944/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1944/to:1976/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1976/to:2005/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2005/to/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1850/to:1880/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1850/to/trend
Note how every warm phase of the PDO aligns with a positive trend and every cool phase of the PDO aligns with a negative trend. Do you know the odds of that happening by coincidence? Notice the residual trend is less that .5C/century. And, it was warming before this time as well. Even if you completely believe all the adjustments from clearly biased researchers, the warming is not dangerous. In fact, it would be almost completely beneficial to another .4C warming by 2100.
Now consider what might occur if all that warming was simply an extension of the previous warming and it has now stopped. With PDO and AMO on their downward slopes and the sun facing a potential grand minimum, the future could be very cold indeed.

Richard M
January 4, 2014 5:40 am

One more thought. The current sea ice around Antarctica is at record highs. This means the energy that might normally melt this ice is still within the atmosphere. That energy could be the reason UAH is showing Antarctica as being much warmer. And, since RSS does not cover this part of the planet, it would miss it.
People should also keep in mind the reason UAH is not showing the same trend as RSS is because RSS used to show a warmer anomaly. It showed more warming 10-15 years ago which made the alarmists very happy at the time. Many of them attacked Spencer and Christy and clamed they were cooking the books. Now that UAH and RSS have converged it is that warming in the past that is making RSS show a longer term negative trend. Humorously, we now see alarmists quoting UAH instead of RSS.

richardscourtney
January 4, 2014 5:41 am

wayne:
I agree the point of your post at January 4, 2014 at 5:21 am, but I write to add two problems which are more fundamental.
1.
There is no clear definition of average global temperature so each team which provides global temperature data provides a different metric calculated in a different way from that which is provided by every other team.
2.
If a clear definition of average global temperature were agreed then there is no possibility of a calibration standard for it, so the true accuracy and true precision of its measurement would not be capable of determination.
At present the data of RSS can only be validly compared to each other and not to data of UAH, HadCRUT, GISS, etc. Comparison of data from the different data sets is comparison of ‘apples to oranges’. And the use of anomalies does not overcome this.
In case you have not seen it, I point you to Appendix B of this item because it explains my points.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc0102.htm
Richard

Tim Obrien
January 4, 2014 6:11 am

If you tried to argue that your power company was going to explode because the voltage in your wall socket was .19 volts off the 120volt peak of the sine curve, they’d laugh you out the door…

richardscourtney
January 4, 2014 6:11 am

Stephen Richards:
At January 4, 2014 at 5:25 am you quote from a post of Bill Illis

A photon comes in from the Sun at noon on Tuesday. It is absorbed by an electron in a molecule in a rock on the beach

Then you reply by saying in total

That is clown stuff. Stupid to the point of imbecilic.

Perhaps it is and perhaps it isn’t.
Please explain your reasoning or address the issue raised by Bill Illis.
At present your post is merely a flaming response typical of trolling.
Richard

Bill Illis
January 4, 2014 6:14 am

richardscourtney says:
January 4, 2014 at 6:11 am
Stephen Richards:
January 4, 2014 at 5:25 am
—————————
No need for a flame war. Its just the way I look at it.

heysuess
January 4, 2014 6:19 am

Total atmospheric CO2 = ~400ppm and total anthropogenic CO2 = ~13ppm. Is this correct? If so, it would seem that squabbling over the effect of an additional 13ppm of CO2 on a global mean temperature that is measured – alarmingly – in tenths of a degree is pointless. I’m sure well all have a room that needs painting instead. Or something.

Splice
January 4, 2014 6:21 am

@wbrozek
All three are wrong. The right reason you could see below:
@MattN
You could see it too:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/plot/uah/from:1978/to:1999/trend/plot/uah/trend/plot/uah/from:1998/trend

gbaikie
January 4, 2014 6:28 am

– RichardLH says:
January 3, 2014 at 1:22 pm
Steve from Rockwood says:
January 3, 2014 at 1:10 pm
“Or a simpler way is to tell us what the amplitude of the 60 year cycle is so that we can remove it.”
An outline guide to magnitude and phase (only two cycles so it is imprecise at best) is
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:220/mean:174/mean:144/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:720
Or, we are still recovering from the Little Ice Age.
It seems probable that we will continue to recover from LIA, for more than a century.
It’s possible we will get dip, or pause, in the slow upward trend one sees if you remove 60 year cylce, but one can’t realistically expect to see it, within 10 year from now. Nor could see it significant warming, even if CO2 were warming [which not indicated in above graph].
So in terms of climate vs weather, we will not find anything resembling a CO2 “fingerprint”
in less time than about 10 years [regardless of what happens in next 10 years].
One could say there is a strong indication that the “greenhouse effect theory” has already
been disproven, though it’s possible some of effect has been hidden by “noise”, so a doubling
of CO2 causing 1 C of warming or less, is not been definitely disproven. If one support idea of 2 or more C of warming from doubling CO2, it doesn’t look good for that belief.
So parrot may be drugged or sleeping. But it’s not chirping. And will likely remain resting for
a decade or two- if the maggots don’t eat it.

richardscourtney
January 4, 2014 6:38 am

Bill Illis:
Thankyou for your post addressed to me at January 4, 2014 at 6:14 am.
I very, very strongly agree that there is no need for a flame war. Indeed, I wrote my post because I was offended at the flaming post (which was aimed at you).
If people disagree with views of you, me or anybody else then that is good provided they explain the disagreement. This engenders discussion from which we may all learn. But merely saying someone’s view is “is clown stuff. Stupid to the point of imbecilic.” is abusive and serves no useful purpose.
The recipient of such flaming is inhibited from replying because that is likely to create a flame war. Hence, offended onlookers (in this case, me) need to ask the flamer to provide an argument to substantiate the abusive words.
Richard

RichardLH
January 4, 2014 6:38 am

gbaikie says:
January 4, 2014 at 6:28 am
“Or, we are still recovering from the Little Ice Age.”
The most likely is a cyclic recovery as demonstrated by the blue line below (which just removes the 60 year cycle) given that there was a drop to the latest of the many low points in the Little Ice Age.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:220/mean:174/mean:144/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:720
The recovery cannot be a linear trend as is so often assumed/derived/drawn. It must have been some form of cyclic event as the blue line hints.

Richard Barraclough
January 4, 2014 7:07 am

One or two people seem to have latched on to the idea of temperatures following a 60-year cycle. So how do today’s temperatures compare to those in the early 50’s?
The Central England Temperature (CET) had just ended a period of slight warming, and was about to cool for a couple of decades. Perhaps vaguely similar to today, BUT generally about 0.5 C colder than today’s levels.
The GISS dataset shows very small variations from year to year in the 1950’s, but again, the anomalies were about 0.5 C below today’s values.
HadCrut4 shows a similar pattern, also with anomalies also 0.5 to 0.6 C below those of today.
So, whatever cycle might be discernable, it hasn’t resulted in 1950’s conditions in the 2010’s – or whatever we call this decade (I saw a suggestion that we follow the “noughties” with the “onesies”), but hardly catastrophic warming either at about 1 degree per century.

herkimer
January 4, 2014 7:25 am

The following are 15 year (1998-2013) linear trends of each month of the year for Contiguous US temperatures as calculated by the NCDC/NOAA Climate at a Glance web page
JAN -1.49 F/decade (declining)
FEB -2.64 (declining)
MAR +1.39 (rising)
APR -0, 22 (declining)
MAY -0.58 (declining)
JUN +1.18 (rising)
JUL +0.28 (rising)
AUG +0.03 (flat)
SEPT +0.09 (flat)
OCT -0.58 (declining)
NOV -0.75 (declining)
DEC -0.70 (declining)
Summary
7 months are declining, 2 months are flat, and 3 months are rising
WINTER AND FALL are DECLINING TEMPERATURES
SPRING AND SUMMER are RISING TEMPERATURES [spring is almost flat]
12 MONTHS JAN-DEC -0.16F/decade (flat)
There is no global warming in UNITED STATES. Why are we even talking about Co2 levels, global or hemispheric temperatures? If anything we should be concerned about the impact falling temperatures in United States on infrastructure, farming, increased tornado risks, heating oil stocks, winter storm damage as the oceans cool further over the next 30 years

RichardLH
January 4, 2014 7:28 am

Richard Barraclough says:
January 4, 2014 at 7:07 am
“Perhaps vaguely similar to today, BUT generally about 0.5 C colder than today’s levels.”
As the referenced graphs show quite clearly – you are quite correct. However none of what you said indicates what the likely trend will be for the next few years. Care to tell us what your predictions are?

G. Karst
January 4, 2014 7:30 am

Meanwhile, back to reality, those poor Canucks now have to endure “Frost Quakes” along with the bitter cold:
‘Frost quakes’ wake Toronto residents on cold night
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/frost-quakes-wake-toronto-residents-on-cold-night-1.2482615

Weather phenomenon caused by ice expanding in the ground

AGW sure does manifest itself in strange ways! Warm is cold. GK

gbaikie
January 4, 2014 7:31 am

-The recovery cannot be a linear trend as is so often assumed/derived/drawn. It must have been some form of cyclic event as the blue line hints.-
Yes there are many cycles.
I would say the Little Ice Age is part of cycle, and obviously part of larger the interglacial cycle. And Glacial and interglacial are cycles within our current Ice Box climate or the big, millions of years long Ice Age.
I would say it’s impossible to get linear warming or cool tread.
Or one say it this way, any linear warming or cooling will result in cycles. One has a constant warming, translating to cycles, AND you have cycles which are *causing* warming [and cooling].
One could say, generally, that long cycles must involve things like an ocean, though ocean cycles has shorter cycles and particularly in regard to regional [parts of ocean have shorter cycles]. Whereas the atmosphere tends to have shorter cycles, though one have an assemble of cycles creating longer cycles. But basically the atmosphere is weather, and ocean is climate and global climate.

RockyRoad
January 4, 2014 7:51 am

juan slayton says:
January 3, 2014 at 9:27 pm

RockyRoad: I’ve seen estimates that the rise in CO2 over the past 50 years has been responsible for a 15% increase in foodstuff production worldwide.
I’ve been looking for something to back up these numbers. Can you throw us a link?

Here’s one that claims an 11% increase, with a 1% increase for every 10 ppmv rise in atmospheric CO2:
http://catholicexchange.com/the-increase-in-co2-is-boosting-world-food-production
It has additional links that support the hypothesis, one in particular that descrbes in detail the utilization of CO2 from burning various fuels to boost greenhouse production.
General information here:
http://www.co2science.org/about/position/globalwarming.php
I haven’t been able to find the link claiming the 15% increase, but I shall keep looking for it.
The point is we’re actually experiencing the benefits now, as opposed to mere conjecture regarding the impact future CO2 increases might have on global temperature. (CO2 has increased in the past 17 years but temperature? Not so much!)

Richard Barraclough
January 4, 2014 7:53 am

Hi RichardLH,
I wish I knew! If I had to wager my own money on it, I would go for a flat trend for the next decade, on the balance of nothing more than my own gut feel. Say the next 10 years within 0.1C of the last 10. I remember cold snowy winters with nostalgic fondness, and would love more of the same, but (in the UK, at least), this one has been a real disappointment, with its endless south-westerly winds, despite excited predictions of extreme cold a few months ago (mostly by the Daily Express, it has to be said)
Cheers

Rob aka flatlander
January 4, 2014 8:06 am

G. Karst says: 7:30 am
Meanwhile, back to reality, those poor Canucks now have to endure “Frost Quakes” along with the bitter cold:
Another media BS thing
It was an ice storm, everything is covered in ice
When a sheet of ice expands and [lets] go of the house it’s on it create[s] a huge bang (noise) inside the house
It is NOT the sound of the ground expanding.
People that are new to this weather don’t know it’s just ice so they call the police etc.

Darren Potter
January 4, 2014 8:22 am

“The religious beliefs in this debate are displayed by those who seek to undermine the science because of their fundamentalist predetermined position …”
Tell that to the Global Warming Alarmists who bowed down before Mann’s Hockey Stick and went forth evangelizing Gore’s sermons of evils of CO2. While ignoring science and physics that showed CO2 could not cause their prophesied catastrophic Earth melt down.
Tell that to the Global Warming Alarmists who worshiped false computer models of Earth’s climate. While their Bishops cherry picked weather stations and their Popes upwardly adjust data once written in stone.

Werner Brozek
January 4, 2014 8:24 am

RichardLH says:
January 4, 2014 at 3:48 am
Apart from a slight 0.1 offset between the two they are showing basically the same thing AFAIK
This is true. The discrepancy I was thinking of was with respect to the time for a zero slope.
John Finn says:
January 4, 2014 at 3:56 am
UAH is the one in which we had the most trust and I see no reason why that should change.
This needs to get resolved somehow. Ray has an interesting comment on Dr. Spencer’s site with respect to Antarctica numbers.
“The average RSS S. Polar anomaly for 2013 is -0.075c, whereas the average UAH S. Polar anomaly (11 months) is +0.256c.”
See this for the rest of his comment:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/01/uah-v5-6-global-temperature-update-for-dec-2013-0-27-deg-c/#comment-98776

SAMURAI
January 4, 2014 8:32 am

Gail Combs wrote, “In other words the MSM and politicians are providing cover fire while their buddies (Crony capitalists) take our money and running.”
===============
Yes, that’s basically correct, except I prefer the term crony Crapitalists, instead of “capitalists”…
Under free-market principles, solar/wind power wouldn’t really exist except as a very tiny niche market, as they are too inefficient, expensive, intermittent and diffuse to be competitive with conventional power sources.
The sooner free-market principles are restored, the better off the world will be….
Governments have already directly and indirectly squandered $trillions of taxpayers’ money on the now disconfirmed CAGW hypothesis.

G. Karst
January 4, 2014 8:33 am

Rob aka flatlander says:
January 4, 2014 at 8:06 am
I don’t really think the subject is worth arguing but your points are fairly weak:

“It was an ice storm, everything is covered in ice”

No the ice storm was back at Christmas… current -20C temperatures.

“When a sheet of ice expands and let’s go of the house it’s on it create a huge bang (noise) inside the house”

Certainly accounts for some of the loud noises but Canadians are quite used to that sound when it thaws (it didn’t thaw last night).

“People that are new to this weather don’t know it’s just ice so they call the police”

If there is one thing Canadians are totally familiar with… it is the sight and sounds of winter’s snow and ice.
I am not ruling out the possibility that ground suddenly heaving (frost expansion), tree trunks exploding, expansion contraction forces create loud noise and vibration (quake). I am not saying your wrong, but I am not convinced. GK

Pippen Kool
January 4, 2014 8:53 am

So 98, 05 and 10 were high because of the preceding 97/98, 04/05 and 09/10 ENSO events.
That means that 2013 is the highest year with _no_ ENSO event, preceding or otherwise, which is something of a record.

Rob aka flatlander
January 4, 2014 8:55 am

richardscourtney says @9:53 pm
Rob aka flatlander: Please inform on how to obtain some of the “big oil” funding which you imply exists.
Roy spencer, Anthony W@tts, Bob tisdale, Richard
Sorry guys I too am on the handout line up for such cash
My locally tax dollar funded guru/profit David Suzuki says so…
It must be right! Lol
The IPCC crew is funded out of misappropriated carbon tax dollars.
Have you noticed lately how many government budget expenses are justified with the term climate change added to them. It’s like an automatic stamp of approval if you add the words.
The public is being bilked out of billions for this sharade that has NO checks or balances or required proof to the things it says.
Like wise pharma companies, oil companies, chemical companies can do all the research they want, but we know the research is biased to information they WANT to put out. If the find something they don’t like they are not required to release that info.
The IPCC is the EXACT same way, it releases statements only on what appears to support Global Warming, they have hijacked the term Climate Change and Climate Denier
The climate has always changed ( ain’t no friggin ice age glaciers on my house today )
Climate Denier would seem to suggest one who denies NATURAL climate variation.
The IPCC mandate is to say the planet is warming because of humans, they are to report that and tell us what we need to do as the human race with that
So far all they can do is put out very twisted reports and policies that have nothing to do with what the climate reality is involving CO2 wether natural or man made and how the overall temperature of the planet is increasing or decreasing.
These satellite statements are very telling in that the “trend” means nothing inside of error margin of the equipment and if you actually look at the data for each huge region of the planet some are up some are down its moving continually year to year all over the place.
It’s like counting a handfull of worms as they slither around in your fingers and fall back into a bucket
Locally I know my temperature varies year to year, but never exceeds its known boundaries
I also know that the arctic (northwest passage) has been with way less ice than currently and way more ice than currently
I don’t think we can pollute this planet continually and get away with it. The solution to pollution is NOT dilution.
But there is no evidence our CO2 emissions are doing anything worth sacrificing billions of dollars for in the way we have been doing.

Non Nomen
Reply to  Rob aka flatlander
January 4, 2014 9:14 am

Currently, we are talking about subsidies and funding of research that deserves being called ‘obscure’ because they are fiddeling the numbers. And we are talking about changes of about one-third of a degree C. But nobody, afaik, has interviewed those who ought to know best and can probaby assess the consequences of these minor changes: the Inuit and the tribes in northern Siberia. These, I suppose, could by means of their tales and the experiences of their eldest, plus their present observations tell best if the climate is deteriorating in a way that affects their environment. A serious field of studies for Ethnologists and Anthropologists, I suppose. I understand that this is not hard evidence, but what happens if their tales confirm the Medieval Warm Period in a different way?

Rob
January 4, 2014 9:21 am

Pippen Kool says: at 8:53 That means that 2013 is the highest year with _no_ ENSO event, preceding or otherwise, which is something of a record.
No pippen 0.27 deg above average on equipment that has error margins well out side of that in a climate that varies from -65 to +45 mostly in a system of fudged together temperature scans means absolutely nOThIng

RichardLH
January 4, 2014 9:29 am

Pippen Kool says:
January 4, 2014 at 8:53 am
“So 98, 05 and 10 were high because of the preceding 97/98, 04/05 and 09/10 ENSO events.
That means that 2013 is the highest year with _no_ ENSO event, preceding or otherwise, which is something of a record.”
The question is not where we are, but rather where we are going. So is your prediction for higher temperatures next year (on average) or lower and why?

Rob
January 4, 2014 9:31 am

G karst
Do you live in Canada?
Where this is happening?
I’m 48 and have live all across Canada
The ground has never quaked from ice
Only ice on things

Non Nomen
Reply to  Rob
January 4, 2014 9:37 am

I thought he was from Fairbanks…

Euan Mearns
January 4, 2014 9:32 am

Anthony, the chart up top (the way it is plotted) is interesting since it really shows a record of two halves either side of the 1998 el Nino event. Can you or anyone else provide a brief summary of the favoured explanations for this? The lower troposphere got a little bit warmer and has stayed that way for 15 years.
My own “feeling” about solar cycles is that this is a two speed system. An instantaneous response to a change in spectral output and a delayed response – maybe 10 to 30 years – while the climate system adjusts to a new configuration of amongst other things, the sub polar Jet. I think there may be significant risk of European winters becoming periodically much colder.
This post, building on work of Clive Best, has proven popular with you readers, hope you don’t mind me posting the link again…
On Energy Matters: The Ice Man Cometh

Pippen Kool
January 4, 2014 9:37 am

And looking at the other high years:
02 ENSO event starting in the year, more than 6 months
09 ENSO event starting in the year, 6 months
07 preceding 06/07 ENSO event
03 preceding 02/03 ENSO event
06 ENSO event starting in the year, but only 3 months
12 mainly negative ENSO event.
So 2012 is the highest year with La nina conditions, and it breaks into the top ten.
And 2013 is the highest year with no ENSO event at all, and it breaks into the top 5.
I know that Tisdale is going on vacation, but shouldn’t he be given a chance to argue how this does or doesn’t falsify his ENSO hypothesis for global warming? I hesitate to paraphrase it in one sentence, but it goes something like positive phases of the ENSO (not increases in [CO2]) are the main cause of global warming.
But please Bob, can you do it in 500 words and 1 figure!!!

Charlie
January 4, 2014 9:43 am

There is a constant regression to the mean (cycles), but the mean has been going up since the 19th century. I simply can’t understand people who claim that global temperatures are cooling when you look at the 150 year graph.

RichardLH
January 4, 2014 9:47 am

Pippen Kool says:
January 4, 2014 at 9:37 am
“2013 is the highest year with no ENSO event at all, and it breaks into the top 5.”
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:220/mean:174/mean:144/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:720
It looks like 2013 was also at or around the third peak in the 60 year cycles as recorded in the thermometer record.
The underlying 100+ year cyclic trend to those shorter 60 year cycles may or may not yet be at a peak. Give it another few years and we should be able to tell more accurately (as opposed to guessed/modelled).

barnrat
January 4, 2014 10:09 am

Why is Lake Michigan freezing over? Why was a records set for sea ice on December 28? Why did my power get knocked out by iced power lines? Al Gore says CO2 but I say low sunspot count.

David Harrington
January 4, 2014 10:19 am

I once worked with a James Abbot, I wonder if it is this one? That one certainly looks like this one, always right no matter what arguments were put to him or evidence presented.
So James , I use my real name as you do, have we met before?

G. Karst
January 4, 2014 10:26 am

G karst
Do you live in Canada?
Where this is happening?
I’m 48 and have live all across Canada
The ground has never quaked from ice
Only ice on things

I am somewhat of an international character. I have resided in various countries throughout my life. I spent most of my life in Canada, from the cold prairies, to the frozen North. I am much older than you and experienced first hand the cold of the 70’s as well as the 50’s and 60’s.
During the ice storm I was in Barrie. Last night, I was in Owen Sound. How does this validate the hypothesis or falsify it??
Of the many years, I have wandered the Canadian wilderness, I have never seen a wolverine… tracks… yes… but a visual… no. This does not mean wolverines do not exist.
Like I said, I am not saying you are wrong… just unconvincing. I have heard and seen many strange phenomena concerning snow, ice, and especially frost upheavals (tree roots snapping like gunshots). Please take my testimonial, for the goodwill anecdote, that it was offered, as I cannot say, for sure, what phenomena, was being reported last night, in Toronto. Can you?? GK

Gail Combs
January 4, 2014 10:30 am

Rob says: @ January 4, 2014 at 9:31 am
… The ground has never quaked from ice…
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
When living in northern New York I have seen the ground “quaked from ice”
If you have an early thaw that gives you a layer of mud on top of frozen ground followed by a hard freeze you get ground that is raised up and when you try to walk on it your feet sink past the top crust, past the air pocket to the firm ground below.
It is a royal pain in the butt to walk on.

Stephen Richards
January 4, 2014 10:51 am

Charlie says:
January 4, 2014 at 9:43 am
There is a constant regression to the mean (cycles), but the mean has been going up since the 19th century. I simply can’t understand people who claim that global temperatures are cooling when you look at the 150 year graph.
Charlie, you must remember that the temperatures of the past have been downward manipulated and of the present upward. The temperature record has been so damaged as to be of no use at all. The satelite record is more reliable but is still accurate enough to claim warming or cooling since 1988.

Charlie
Reply to  Stephen Richards
January 4, 2014 11:09 am

If the data have been manipulated, can you point me to original data that have not been altered? The implication of what you are saying is that there are no reliable data to make any inferences.

January 4, 2014 10:59 am

Pippen Kool,
2013 was an outlier.

January 4, 2014 11:19 am

The UAH v 5.6 chart above is fascinating. I am not a climate scientist, but one used to pulling out underlying stock market movements due to changing money supply. If that was a Standard & Poors 500 Chart I would be firmly of the opinion that the market had peaked based on the 13 mth moving average. That picks up the turning point.
Further corroboration is that the 2010 peak is below the 1998 one. Also the current level is struggling to keep up with the levels through 2002-2007. That can be interpreted as showing some underlying driver trying to establish a position. You may not know what it is but one can see it. With the stock market that’s money supply, reflected in the Feds monthly increased Government indebtedness.Current stock market price levels can be expressed as a function Price¹ = Valueº x (Liquidity¹/Liquidityº). Liquidity is like an external force or composite of them which act independently on the variable Value (itself a function of earnings (cubed!).)

john robertson
January 4, 2014 11:19 am

@Charlie 11:09
Now there is the rub.
The temperature records from the world were in the hands of the Climate Research Unit, who produced the official IPCC record of land temperatures 1850 to present.
When asked for their data, methods and error ranges…. they created the Climate Gate fiasco.
Harry Read Me…
Now the subsequent inquires were very revealing, in a back handed kind of way.
As in a blinder well played, old chap.
The CRU admitted they had “lost” the original data.
The MET was supposedly tasked with regathering this data, they said it would take about 3 years.
3 years is up.
Data?

Gail Combs
January 4, 2014 11:20 am

Charlie says:
January 4, 2014 at 11:09 am
If the data have been manipulated, can you point me to original data ….
There is this:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/giss/hansen-giss-1940-1980.gif
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/data-tampering-at-ushcngiss/
http://i31.tinypic.com/2149sg0.gif
You can ask Steve Goddard for the orginal data or Jo Nova.

Charlie
Reply to  Gail Combs
January 4, 2014 11:42 am

Thanks. The 1980 and 2007 graphs in the first site are basically the same curve (cutting of the 2007 chart at 1980 to make is commensurate), with some small variations in absolute temps. The middle one is indeed off a bit more and you have a point.
US temperatures are not really as relevant as global ones.
I will look for the raw data and not just the variation from some arbitrary benchmark. Need to see the actual temps averaged.
Thanks for getting back.

Werner Brozek
January 4, 2014 11:37 am

Richard M says:
January 4, 2014 at 5:23 am
Looks reasonable but then that begs the question of why there was such a large amount of evaporation at that time. Any ideas from anyone?
Is it possible it was windier than normal, or that we had more cyclones, etc?

climatereason
Editor
January 4, 2014 11:46 am

Charlie
I discussed this with Mosh a few weeks ago. Here is various data including the original Hansen submission to congress in 1988 complete with graph. Mosh explains why it is possible to reduce temperatures years after the event. Im still not convinced
From: Tony Brown
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 3:18 PM
Subject: hansen senate hearing papers
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Environment/documents/2008/06/23/ClimateChangeHearing1988.pdf
see figure 1 for global 5 year mean
here is latest giss
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A.gif
temperatures seem to have warmed in later years and cooled in 1940’s
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/
hansen lebedeff 1987
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1987/1987_Hansen_Lebedeff.pdf
—– —–
Steven Mosher | September 27, 2013 at 11:18 pm |
Sure tony.
First, its hard to reconstruct piece by piece all the changes that
VARIOUS people made that result in the changes you see.
But let me have a wack.
First, understand that the GISS answers are the result of
Data input and Algorithm.
1. Data input.
There are two principle causes. First is the change in the core dataset. The moves throuh various versions of USCHN will result in changes because the processing of that data changed. Essentially the big adjustments for TOBS and other bits in the US.
By looking at datasets outside USCHN we can see that these adjustments are justified. In fact the adjustments are calibrated by looking at hourly stations close to the USCHN stations.
Next, the GISSTEMP algorithm will change the estimates of the past
as New data for the present comes in. This has to do with the RSM method. This seems bizarre to most folks but once you walk through the math you’ll see how new data about say 1995, changes what you think about 1945. There are also added stations so that plays a role as well.
2. ALgorithm side of things. You have to walk back through all the papers to to get an idea of the changes. But they do impact the answer.
The fundamental confusion people have is that they think that global indexs are averages. And so if Hansen average 1945 in 1987, then why does his average of 1945 change in 2012? Makes no sense right?
Well, it does make sense when you understand that
1. These algorithms do not calculate averages. They estimate fields.
2. If you change the data ( add more, adjust it etc )
3. If you improve the algorithm, your estimate of the past will change. It SHOULD change.
I’ll illustrate this with an example from out work.
To estimate a feild we have the climate field and a correlation field.
When we go back in time, say before 1850, we make an assumption.
The correlation structure of the past will be like the structure of the present. A good skeptic might object.. how do you know?
well, the answer is.. we dont. thats why it has to be assumed.
The structure could be different. I imagine somebody could say
” use this structure I made up” well, you could do that, you could calculate that. you could make a different assumption.. not sure how you would justify it. Therefore, if we get new data which changes our understanding of today that will cascade and reform what we thought the past was.. principly because of the uniformity assumption.
What is kewl is that there are a bunch of data recovery projects going on.. WIth our method we dont need long records. So,
I have predictions for locations in 1790. That prediction was made using a climate field and correlation field. There are no observations at that location. When the recovery data gets posted then I can check the prediction.
http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/27/95/#comment-388617
—– —
hope this helps Charlie
tonyb

Charlie
Reply to  climatereason
January 4, 2014 12:17 pm

Tony:
Thank you so very much. I will now spend my Sat. going through this. This is much appreciated.
Charlie

January 4, 2014 11:50 am

heysuess says:
January 4, 2014 at 6:19 am
Total atmospheric CO2 = ~400ppm and total anthropogenic CO2 = ~13ppm.
There is no way that I want to get into a discussion about the sources of CO2, but many feel that since it was presumably 280 ppm in 1750, mankind has contributed 120 ppm since then. In the minds of many, you have to differentiate between man’s yearly input and man’s cumulative input.

Jared
January 4, 2014 12:01 pm

Interesting tidbit about Urban Heat Islands (UHI). I work 3 miles from where I live. I’ve notice over the past few days a huge difference in temps in those 3 little miles. It was 1 degree in the parking lot at work, I park my vehicle about 150 feet from the building (google earth calculated distance). By the time I got home (just 3 miles away) it was -7 degrees. An 8 degree drop. Some of my fellow co-workers said it was -12 where they lived. I live 1 mile outside of town and my co-workers with -12 were even further outside of the UHI of our little 6,000 population town. I’ve been paying attention since temps have been hovering around 0 and it’s been a good 5+ degree difference between where I work and live (just a 3 mile difference). The building where I work was constructed in the 1970’s before that it was farmland. But my eyes must be deceiving me because UHI doesn’t exist, especially in small towns of 6,000 people.

January 4, 2014 12:17 pm

Pippen Kool says:
January 4, 2014 at 8:53 am
So 98, 05 and 10 were high because of the preceding 97/98, 04/05 and 09/10 ENSO events.
That means that 2013 is the highest year with _no_ ENSO event, preceding or otherwise, which is something of a record.

That ranking of 4th applies to UAH version 5.6. For version 5.5, it is 7th for the year. RSS ranks 10th for the year. And after 11 months, the ranking for HadCRUT4, HadCRUT3, Hadsst3 and GISS are 8thfor HadCRUT4 and 6th for the last three.

Splice
January 4, 2014 12:18 pm

@Pippen Kool
I could bet large money that the year after nearest future El Nino will be warmest on record. Unfortunately all “skeptics” will reject this proposition. No of them believes their own claims (that the warming have stopped).
Pippen Kool

TB
January 4, 2014 12:26 pm

Ronald says:
January 4, 2014 at 2:35 am
J Abbott,
Classic AGW, and thus showing no competence to the matter.
99% of the skeptics know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and is warming the planet. But the important question is by how much. And we skeptics know that’s very little. In fact you could know it yourself by a test, you probably know, to scare the crap out of students. You know the experiment with the 2 closed boxes and the light bulbs? Yes you know and you love it because it proves you’re right; wrong. In 1 box there is 100% CO2 and in the other 100% air with 0,4% CO2. If the result for 100% CO2 is 6 you can calculate what 0,4% CO2 does. Thats 0,004%, wrong again. CO2 radiates only 8% of the warming back and 5% of that goes back to earth. So the number is even lower.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Ronald:
I’m afraid you miss out a vital variable that need to be added to your above “experiment”…
Your “boxes” (usually the experiment is done in tubes), need to change to properly quantify the CO2 concentration GHE in them. Because of the nature of transmission decay (logarithmic).
When IR first encounters CO2, it’s soon absorbed as its near the peak of the absorption spectrum. Because of shape of the curve of absorption vs. wavelength, the transmission decreases rather quickly, but as path-length grows due to lower CO2 then there is increasingly less absorption (molecules further apart).
The GHE of Earth can be simulated by a 2.5m tube of pure CO2 (SL pressure at 20C). In order to simulate the effect of repeated doubling of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere we need to keep doubling the LENGTH of the tube and keep the CO2 concentration the same (in exp it’s already 100% anyway).
In other words – if the concentration of the obscuring molecule decreases then the effective time/length of a photon’s path through the medium before encountering a CO2 molecule will be longer, and vice versa. So to quantify the effect of 0.04% concentration vs 100% then a much longer tube (box) is needed for the rarefied gas molecules to intercept the IR.
The Earth’s atmosphere has a very long absorption path available and this needs to be properly quantified in lab experiments.
Also we need to understand how pressure affects absorption lines, at low pressures it narrows them so they do not overlap, leaving narrow emission windows between the absorption lines. That is, the absorption coefficient on the whole tends to go down linearly with pressure. So high in the atmosphere adding some greenhouse gas must warm the Earth regardless of how the absorption works.
WV is much less abundant aloft and this combined with the narrowing of the absorption lines means that what IR the WV would normally have intercepted WILL instead be made by CO2. Which if NOT there would go straight to space. It is high up that is important, as that is where LWIR is finally emitted to space. It’s the outside door and the more CO2 put into the atmosphere the more that door closes.
In the high/thin layers of the atmosphere where LWIR from lower down slips through, if we add more greenhouse gas molecules the layer will absorb more of the rays. So the place from which most of the heat energy finally leaves the Earth will shift to higher layers. Those are colder layers, so they do not radiate heat as well. The planet as a whole is now taking in more energy than it radiates (which is in fact our current situation). As the higher levels radiate some of the excess downwards, all the lower levels down to the surface warm up. The imbalance must continue until the high levels get hot enough to radiate as much energy back out as the planet is receiving.

January 4, 2014 12:29 pm

Splice saqys:
“Unfortunately all ‘skeptics’ will reject this proposition.”
This skeptic accepts your proposition. Not because I can see the future [I can’t], but in the interest of fun.
So: how much? ☺

Larry Ledwick
January 4, 2014 12:32 pm

Richard Barraclough says:
January 4, 2014 at 7:07 am
One or two people seem to have latched on to the idea of temperatures following a 60-year cycle. So how do today’s temperatures compare to those in the early 50′s?

I suspect the cycle is not a pure 30 year + 30 year – cycle. You are dealing with cycles imersed in other cycles, plus random chaos effects, but there is clearing a cyclic nature to the variations.
In the central Rocky Mountain West we had much colder winters when I was younger. In the mid 1950’s I remember a local lake in Metro Denver being frozen over with ice thick enough for people to drive cars out onto the lake to go ice fishing. It has not frozen like that since the mid-late 1960’s. The first time I was old enough to really be aware of temperatures were in the early 1960’s and we got down to -30 deg F in the west metro suburbs, and deep in the -20’s on several occasions. I remember that very vividly due to struggling to get cars started in those severe cold temps. It was cold enough that motor oil turned to jelly at those temps (before multi-weight motor oil was used by almost everyone). We had to put a charcoal BBQ grill under the car to warm the engine oil enough to get it to crank (good way to set the car on fire, several people managed to do that by not watching it closely). My Dad would put a heavy blanket over the hood at night, and place a 60 w incandescent drop light on top of the engine to keep the engine warm enough to be easily started. From about 1962 (year we hit -30) until the 1980’s we had very difficult winters on a regular basis all over the plains states up through the great lakes region. This is why the media was talking about the coming ice age in the late 1970’s. Not every winter but often enough that they were considered normal.
During the winter of 1973-74 the City of Denver ran out of room to pile the snow plowed off the streets and had to use the center of major down town streets to stack the snow. There was a pile of snow 3+ ft deep, covering the center lane of Broadway for miles and miles so the other lanes could be cleared. It was tall enough it was difficult to see over it when sitting in a car to check for cross traffic at the intersections. During the blizzard of 1982, it was worse simply shut the city down for several days (and cost the mayor his job due to is poor efforts to clear the streets.)
Some reports of major storms of that period.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ash_Wednesday_Storm_of_1962
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEfjAn7KUIc (blizzard 1964)
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-chicagodays-1967blizzard-story,0,1032940.story
http://www.erh.noaa.gov/cle/wx_events/Blizzard78/blizzard/blizzard78.html

http://ww2.ohiohistory.org/etcetera/exhibits/swio/pages/content/1977_blizzard.htm
http://www.amazon.com/Blizzard-77-Great-Plains/dp/1478718846
http://www.mlive.com/news/muskegon/index.ssf/2013/01/lookback_blizzard_of_1978_buri.html
http://www.julesburgadvocate.com/ci_22395163/blast-from-past
http://www.examiner.com/article/storms-of-christmases-past-denver-s-christmas-eve-blizzard-of-1982
On the west side of town snow drifts 4+ ft deep blocked access to entire neighborhoods.
I was pushing through snow head light deep on a 1976 Jeep Cherokee. People were going to local stores on skies and snow shoes for bread and milk. Stores were sold out within 12 hours after the weather cleared enough for people to move. Two days later the local bakery announced they were baking bread but would not deliver. Using my jeep I picked up a load of bread for a local convenience store. It was the only way she could get bread to sell to snow bound residents who were walking to the store in knee deep snow.
http://voices.yahoo.com/top-10-snowiest-winters-chicago-history-7537216.html
http://www.crh.noaa.gov/pub/climate/co1900.txt
1977 March 19…Colorado Springs receives 13.4 inches of snow
with winds gusting to 52 mph. East of the city, 82 mph
winds were reported. The worst of the storm was from
Colorado Springs to Limon. Army helicopters and half-
tracks were used to rescue stranded people. Five known
dead, and $4 million in property loss and damage.
1982 December 24…Snow started falling in the early morning on
Christmas Eve and continued until sunrise Christmas Day.
Winds gusting to 45 mph kept visibility near zero most of
the day. Snow plows were unable to keep up with the storm
until the 25th, as snow drifts of 6 to 10 feet were common.
Pueblo only received 2 inches of snow from the storm.
1984 October 15-16th..The BRONCO blizzard. Storm started while
the Bronco’s were playing on national TV. Denver received
1 to 3 feet of snow; only 15 inches in Colorado Springs
and 1.4 inches at Pueblo. Winds gusted to 55 mph shutting
down I-25 from Denver to Colorado Springs, and numerous
flights in/out of Colorado Springs and Denver were canceled
due to blowing and drifting snow.
1987 January 15…Winter storm system arrives late on the 14th
covering the area from Colorado Springs to Pueblo, and the
surrounding area. Snowfall totals include: Colorado Springs
22 inches; Rye 42 inches; Colorado City 20 inches;
Pueblo 9 inches; Canon City 10 inches.

January 4, 2014 12:34 pm

Splice says:
January 4, 2014 at 12:18 pm
I could bet large money that the year after nearest future El Nino will be warmest on record. Unfortunately all “skeptics” will reject this proposition.
I would not bet on that if I were you. The following all still have 1998 as the hottest year even though there have been El Ninos since then: UAHversion5.5, UAHversion5.6, RSS, HadCRUT3, Hadsst2, and Hadsst3.

richardscourtney
January 4, 2014 12:41 pm

climatereason:
Thankyou for the report of your conversation with Steven Mosher which you provide at January 4, 2014 at 11:46 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/03/global-temperature-report-december-2013/#comment-1524307
I had to laugh at this

Therefore, if we get new data which changes our understanding of today that will cascade and reform what we thought the past was.. principly because of the uniformity assumption.
What is kewl is that there are a bunch of data recovery projects going on.. WIth our method we dont need long records. So,
I have predictions for locations in 1790. That prediction was made using a climate field and correlation field. There are no observations at that location. When the recovery data gets posted then I can check the prediction.

So, according to Steven Mosher when they don’t have data”for locations in 1790″ they ‘predict’ data for 1790 it using assumptions based on data from 2013.
That is ludicrous.
It is like saying that if I know what the price of beans is at Tesco and Asda this week then I can deduce the price of beans in Asda last year if I know what the price of beans then was in Tesco. Furthermore, if I gain information on the price of beans in Tesco, Asda and Morrison’s next week then I should alter my deduction of last year’s price of beans in Tesco.
If you don’t have the data from 1790 then you don’t have the data from 1790. Whatever Steven Mosher wants to claim, any algorithm which “predicts” the missing data is ‘making stuff up’.
Richard

January 4, 2014 12:42 pm

Werner! You might have cost me some E-Z money! ☹

Box of Rocks
January 4, 2014 12:48 pm

TB says:
January 4, 2014 at 12:26 pm
WRT to your experiment…
So we can calculate how much energy the CO2 will aborsorb and then with proper instrumentation we can then measure that energy given off, right?

Rob
January 4, 2014 12:50 pm

At G Karst and Gail Combs
I am not looking for credentials, I’m looking for perspective as I find many posts about our Canadian climate amusing by people that truly do not understand how one can survive a minus 45 degree day. The media continually inserts wild and wonderful tag lines into thier stories to attract attention. This week comparing Winnipeg to Mars
The weather Winnipeg is experiencing is NOT unusual. I have spent many days in Southern Manitoba in minus 40 degree weather.
I grew up in Saskatchewan where I walked or biked to school in minus 45 degree weather.
I know what it’s like to keep vehicles running reliably at those temperatures.
I have experienced hundreds of ice bangs where frozen water letters go on a structure with a bang. But honestly I’ve never seen nor heard of an ice quake
Yes the ground heaves and buckles as Gail says, I’m currently looking at my front paving stone walkway that will require some leveling come spring.
The story is that people in Ontario are hearing load bangs in the current post ice storm time.
My opinion it is the ice alone on structures banging not ground water freezing
That is all
I could be wrong
Regards

JP
January 4, 2014 12:52 pm

I’m note sure what all the fuss is about. The IPCC GCM’s have consistently projected global temps significantly above what has been observed. That is, their GHG model of our atmosphere is seriously flawed. None of the major signatures of AGW have come to pass. The tropical mid-tropesheric hotspot never materialised, tropical storms both in the Pacific and Atlantic basins remain at or below normal levels when looking at decadal trend lines. The polar source regions continue to create significant cold air masses the routinely penetetrate the mid latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere. And most significantly, our mid to long term weather patterns continue to steered more by ENSO, the NAO, AO, and AMO than anything else.
These monthly updates do nothing more than needlessly excite people. We shouldn’t lose sight that the LIA began in 1315. And it wasn’t blizzards or huge artic outbreaks that signaled the change. It was a spring-summer outbreak of continuous North Atlantic cyclones that hit Northwest Europe, which resulted in a disasterous famine. And even during this period, Nordic sailors still managed to travel to Greenland and North America; droughts and heat waves still plagued Central and South America, and the MWP still controlled regional weather across Oceania. The growth of the Franz Josef glacier in New Zealand began several decades after the Northern Hemisphere began its fitful starts and stops toward cooling.
The MWP was no different in its evolution. The globe warms and cools on its time frame. Any major climatic shift is only noted decades after its occurance. And each region reacts differently to these changes. During the coldest decades of the LIA (1630-1690), the Tidewater area of the America’s east coast went through one of the harshest North American droughts during the last 1100 years; a similar drought hit the high desert areas of Arizona, Nevada, and New Mexico. In 1666, London suffered through a drought/heatwave that led to the Great London Fire.
In 1976, the year know as the Great Pacific Climate Shift (major PDO shift accompanied by a strong El Nino) the North America suffered through an early and brutal winter only to followed by an even more intense drought and heave in 1977. And in Jan 1978 one of the worst blizzards hit the Great Lakes-Upper Mississippi Valley.

RichardLH
January 4, 2014 1:01 pm

richardscourtney says:
January 4, 2014 at 12:41 pm
“If you don’t have the data from 1790 then you don’t have the data from 1790. Whatever Steven Mosher wants to claim, any algorithm which “predicts” the missing data is ‘making stuff up’.”
I agree. You can get a fairly good handle on how much fuzzy data there is by looking at the variance spread in the data. The further back in time you go, the wider the variance because the more and more you are ‘making stuff up’.
It is worth the effort to examine just how few 1*1 degree land cells actually have any data of any quality in them before 1900 and then think about how all the other land cells are then filled in/estimated/guessed from that tiny,tiny base. No wonder the variance in the signal is so high!

Rob aka flatlander
January 4, 2014 1:04 pm

Anecdotally
None of my friends and family in Ontario (5 of them) which I asked this AM
Think the bangs are due to ground ice
The all say it’s on roofs, in eaves (gutters) or the like
Just sayin
🙂
No evidence

Tonyb
January 4, 2014 1:04 pm

Richard
This wholesale correction or creation of New data to amend old records is well exemplified in the improve project funded by the EU
http://www.isac.cnr.it/~microcl/climatologia/improve.php
Tonyb

JP
January 4, 2014 1:10 pm

“There is a constant regression to the mean (cycles), but the mean has been going up since the 19th century. I simply can’t understand people who claim that global temperatures are cooling when you look at the 150 year graph.”
It’s very simple. Using a sports analogy, say Team A scores 35 points in the first quarter of a football game. They lead 35-0 after the 1st quarter. From quarters 2 through 3, Team B scores 21 points. Through three quarters, Team A leads 35-21. Yet, a statistician can also say that for the last 2 quarters Team B has outscored Team A 21-0. Fans of Team A will say that Team A is still ahead; and fans of Team B will say that Team B has outscored Team A 21-0 during the last 2 quarters and further more Team A hasn’t scored in 2 quarters. Both fans are right to be optimistic.
One can look not only at the last 150 years, but the last 320 years to point out that global temps have warmed. Global temperatures have been on the rebound since the coldest decades of the LIA (that is, 300+ years). However, sceptics have pointed out that the warming in the last 15-20 years has been statistically meaningless. Why this is so important to point out is the simple fact that GCM projections have over-stated GHG warming significantly. Since the early 1990s, CO2 concentrations have increased 12%; but global temperatures haven’t risen even close to what they were projected to rise. Additionally, the GCMs cannot account for changes to ENSO. If you cannot project changes to ENSO you might as well go back to the drawing board.

Jaakko Kateenkorva