More Year-End Results
The UKMO-Hadley Centre presented its annual HADCRUT4 data a few days ago. The HADCRUT4 annual global land+ocean surface temperature anomalies for 2013 ranked 8th. That’s not much of a showing in a world where manmade greenhouse gases are assumed to be the control knob that regulates global surface temperatures.
Figure 1 presents a comparison of GISS LOTI, NCDC and HADCRUT4 annual global land+ocean surface temperature anomalies for the period of 1979 to 2013. Because all three suppliers use different base years, I’ve shifted them to 1981 to 2010 (base years recommended by the WMO) for the comparison. The halt in global warming is becoming more evident in the annual data. But the cessation of surface warming stands out like a sore thumb in the comparison of the monthly data, Figure 2.
Figure 1
# # # # # # # #
Figure 2
Figure 3 presents the monthly HADCRUT4 data from January 1979 through December 2013 with its standard base years of 1961 to 1990. The value for December was approximately +0.49 deg C, which is a drop of about -0.1 deg C since November.
Figure 3
For further information about the three datasets, refer to the most recent monthly update.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Could you add “MONTHLY” to the title of figure 2, to match the “ANNUAL” of figure one? Some of us are a little slow unless things are spelled out for us….
: > )
Sorry to be OT but this blog gets a mention in the comments on this rather feeble effort.
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/01/24/watts-up-with-xkcd/#comments
I like Jerry Coyne’s blog but he does seem to be a CAGW believer.
Why would any self-respecting scientist fit Figure 3 to a linear function? I would avail myself to Origin and look for something that looked like a damped sine function.
I wish we had an ENSO and GCM model/observation comparison set of charts. ENSO prediction models get to “restart” every so often. At least GCM models are set and forget. But both kinds of model groups sure struggle to get even the least little thing right. I believe it is still the case that statistical/analogue models are closer to actual observations than dynamical fudged-up models. But a monthly chart of the differences would be great!
There were a lot of calls recently for people who publish in various scientific journals to always publish all data, code, and methods with each publication. It seems to me that the keepers of these government paid for data series should be the ones we demand show all “adjustments”, methods, and etc. — and justify what they do.
Why does the past keep getting colder and colder — do they have a time machine to go back into the past and read the thermometers again?
Jimbo: “… Last year would have been the hottest evaaaaaaah.”
It wasn’t?
markstoval says:
January 25, 2014 at 7:25 am
Jimbo: “… Last year would have been the hottest evaaaaaaah.”
It wasn’t?
___________
Was it?
Alan, you seem to have missed the snark. Perhaps a tag would have been in order. Or, perhaps, you were also being snarky and I missed it.
Anyway, I wager some newspaper someplace will play 2013 as one of the hottest years evaaaaaah.
The satellite record is very short and happens to have coincided with an upswing and plateau of a natural cycle. Any year in the last 16 is guaranteed to be one of the top 16 by the shape of the curve we happen to have measured. The exercise is meaningless.
Using GISTEMP annual average, 62.9% of ALL years are in the top 10. 14.4% of ALL years (of 132) were ranked as #1. To be expected when you’re coming out of the coldest period in 10,000 years.
http://naturalclimate.wordpress.com/2012/01/27/268/
markstoval says: @ur momisugly January 25, 2014 at 7:24 am
There were a lot of calls recently for people who publish in various scientific journals to always publish all data, code, and methods with each publication. It seems to me that the keepers of these government paid for data series should be the ones we demand show all “adjustments”, methods, and etc. — and justify what they do….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Mark, why would you think I don’t want the government to ‘Show your work” when my taxes paid for it?
What I said about peer-reviewed journals goes double for any tax payer funded research whether at universities or at government bureaucracies except for matters of national security.
Mikey Mann’s e-mails are not matters of national security and all his university data and correspondence should be open to FOIA just like my phone calls, e-mails and lab notebooks were open to company scrutiny. They paid me therefore they own what I did during working hours.
You don’t want what you said read then do not say it on company time (or on facebook or twitter or in blogs)
John Finn says on January 25, 2014 at 5:08 am
Thank you John.
In 2002 I was using UAH and Hadcrut3 – here is approximately what I recalled.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1979/to:2002/offset:0.1/mean:12/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1979/to:2002/mean:12
See also Gail’s note:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/22/shock-news-nasa-surface-temperatures-dont-match-more-accurate-satellite-data/
The following seems to have fallen under the radar. I have NOT verified Goddard’s claim below.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/19/just-hit-the-noaa-motherlode/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_January_19_2014
Independent data analyst, Steven Goddard, today (January 19, 2014) released his telling study of the officially adjusted and “homogenized” US temperature records relied upon by NASA, NOAA, USHCN and scientists around the world to “prove” our climate has been warming dangerously.
Goddard reports, “I spent the evening comparing graphs…and hit the NOAA motherlode.” His diligent research exposed the real reason why there is a startling disparity between the “raw” thermometer readings, as reported by measuring stations, and the “adjusted” temperatures, those that appear in official charts and government reports. In effect, the adjustments to the “raw” thermometer measurements made by the climate scientists “turns a 90 year cooling trend into a warming trend,” says the astonished Goddard.
Goddard’s plain-as-day evidence not only proves the officially-claimed one-degree increase in temperatures is entirely fictitious, it also discredits the reliability of any assertion by such agencies to possess a reliable and robust temperature record.
Regards, Allan
No, because a “global temperature” and by extension a “global temperature anomaly” are physically meaningless.
Mr. Tisdale ==> I am searching for serious answer to the question — Why does Climate Science insist on only showing ONLY temperature anomolies? Why not justy show the average temperature according to their calculation? Then the rest of the world wouldn’t have to worry about who was using what base period for their anomoly — any school boy or girl can mentally subtract the trivial differences involved — amounting to a few tenths of a degree centigrade.
Please, I am quite serious in this question. It seems to me to a some sort of bizarre ritual meant to mislead.
Kip Hansen says: @ur momisugly January 25, 2014 at 9:15 am
…Please, I am quite serious in this question. It seems to me to a some sort of bizarre ritual meant to mislead.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It is simple they want to scare you by showing “warming” They do this by picking a cold time and showing how much warmer it is.
This gives a pretty good idea of what is really happening.
http://www.sturmsoft.com/climate/suckling_mitchell_2000_fig2_3.gif
Take it to 200% and then click to enlarge. Look at the decade by decade movement of plants. The middle of a continent is less likely to show the influence of ocean oscillations BTW.
Explanation: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/322068/Koppen-climate-classification
If you get rid of the 60 year cycle you only have a long term trend which has now stopped and weather.
What global warming
(see prev post)
Possibly stopped – sorry
I wonder what the temperature graphs would look like if John Christy and Roy Spencer weren’t around.
Hmm…2010, with just a bit of a limp el nino, ends up warmer than 1998 (with a historically strong el nino). Now just how did that happen in a cooling world??
If you include temperature data from areas that border the 16% of the earth’s surface that the Hadcrut4 DOESENT cover, the satellite record confirms that the arctic is warming rapidly and these warmer temperatures, when included in the HADCRUT4 data shows that we are continuing to warm at an ever increasing rate.
When you include the rapid increase in global ocean warming since the PDO went negative you will see how the entire earth’s energy budget is vastly out of balance and warming is accelerating. And that the warming of the past 16 years has been SIGNIFICANTLY underestimated.
I just want the temperature in East Rutherford, NJ on February 2, 2014 to be less than 39 degrees F. If this occurs, the Seahawks should win the Superbowl. And it will be the coldest Superbowl ever. Proving exactly nothing. Just like Sandy, it’s just weather.
jai mitchell says:
January 25, 2014 at 10:16 am
“the warming of the past 16 years has been SIGNIFICANTLY underestimated.”
I would disagree. A graphic prepared by one of the proponents of global warming accidentally shows quite clearly that the rise has come to a halt, in GISS at least.
http://snag.gy/hFsMF.jpg
Original © Nate Drake, enhancement © RLH
Has any particular part of the globe become less hospitable for humankind because of a rise in AVERAGE global temperatures? Has any part become more hospitable? And what is the net change – after allowing for improved methods, machinery, and products resulting from human ingenuity and increasing industrialization?
On balance, and on the average, I would conjecture that life has become easier. Sad to say, living has not become easier for all. But not because of ‘global warming’.
Really? So how do you interpret this graph of UAH temperatures since 1997
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1997/to:2013/mean:12/plot/uah/from:1997/to:2013/trend/plot/none
jai mitchell just cannot accept reality: global warming has stopped.
It may resume, in which case this is just a pause. But for the past 17 years, global warming has stopped.
When someone cannot accept reality, we say they are “deluded”.
Also, I see that John Finn likes to cherry-pick recent temperatures. Let’s look at a longer time scale.
Another deluded warmist, no?
It is very obvious: global warming has stopped.
Deal with it. Because that is reality.