Global Temperature Report: December 2013

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.

@Joe Kirklin 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.

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?

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.)

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.

@ur momisuglyrivhardcourtney; 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)
@ur momisugly 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 @ur momisuglyWUWT 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.