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.
Not sure what you’re asking. You’ve just linked to the Mauna Loa data.
My point was that there are fluctuations due to natural variability but the overall trend is upwards. The natural factors seem to be responsible for about o.3 degrees of warming (then cooling). We’re now at a warming peak (0.3 degrees) and the world has warmed about 0.7 to 0.8 degrees over the past century or so. Therefore about 0.4 to 0.5 degrees can be attributed to the increase in “greenhouse” gases.
CO2 forcing since pre-industrial times is about 1.8 watts/m2. Doubling CO2 produces a forcing of about 3.7 watts/m2 so we’ve had about half the forcing and, therefore, half the warming,. Conclusion: the observed warming is broadly consistent with the no feedback climate sensitivity of 1.2 degrees C per 2xCO2.
It appears that the “temperature” stasis is really a “temperature data corruption” stasis.
The actual temperature stasis may date back to the 70’s or 80’s.
dbstealey says:
January 25, 2014 at 10:59 am
“It is very obvious: global warming has stopped.”
Don’t you just love it when one of them actually manages to ‘prove’ that when arguing too fiercely 🙂
http://snag.gy/hFsMF.jpg
Original © Nate Drake, enhancement © RLH
“Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.” Napoleon Bonaparte
John Finn says:
January 25, 2014 at 10:55 am
“Really? So how do you interpret this graph of UAH temperatures since 1997”
“Linear trends” = “Tangents to the curve” = “Flat Earthers”?
I see that it is you who is guilty of cherry-picking by opting for the RSS record. You are presumably aware that UAH does not show “no warming” over the past 17 years. Roy Spencer and John Christy, in particular, are convinced that RSS has a cooling bias due to orbital drift. I will provide a link when Roy’s blog is back up.
Is Roy Spencer also a deluded warmist? What about John Christy?
John Finn says:
“…can be attributed…” “…produces a forcing…” “…broadly consistent with…”
John, those are all simply baseless assertions. If you want to be credible here, you need to post testable, measurable scientific evidence to support your assertions.
But you haven’t, and I suspect the reason is because you have no empirical measurements showing the specific proportion of global warming due to human emissions. All you have are your baseless assertions. That is not nearly good enough here, because we are good scientists: we are skeptics.
You are simply presuming that human activity is causing global warming. But you have no measurable, testable scientific evidencen to support that presumption. Without verifiable, testable measurements, you are not doing science, you are only asserting your Belief.
As I’ve written many times, AGW may exist. But if so, it is just too small a forcing to be measured. Otherwise, there would be verifiable measurements of AGW.
But there are none.
dbstealey says:
January 25, 2014 at 11:35 am
“As I’ve written many times, AGW may exist. But if so, it is just too small a forcing to be measured. Otherwise, there would be verifiable measurements of AGW. ”
And indeed if you were to update Hansen’s original graphic to today with newer GISS data then we are tiptoeing along the Scenario C line.
You know, the one with constant forcing as configured in the models after 2000! What effect CO2 now?
John Finn says: “… We’re now at a warming peak (0.3 degrees) and the world has warmed about 0.7 to 0.8 degrees over the past century or so. Therefore about 0.4 to 0.5 degrees can be attributed to the increase in “greenhouse” gases.”
I am not so sure that we really do know that the ‘world has warmed about 0.7 to 0.8 degrees’ over the last century, but let us stipulate that it has for a moment. if the planet has warmed 0.8 degrees, then how do we know that 0.4 to 0.5 degrees of that total is due to an increase in “greenhouse gases”? How do we know that?
markstoval,
How do we know that?
we are 95% certain that the majority of the warming this century is caused by human sources because of over 200 years of experimental data from the beginning of the modern scientific revolution when it was determined that certain chemicals interact with heatwaves differently than others.
These experiments have been performed and the science of them are so resolute that it is only because of self-censorship by climate scientists that they don’t say 100% certain.
Think of all the scientists that you rely on every day for your basic needs. The electricity in your home, the hot water in your faucets, the food in your belly. All of these are brought to you through the knowledge of physics and the scientific body of work performed largely over the last 200 years.
What you don’t know is that the ultimate response of the scientific community, in the dark hours of the nightwatch, is that they have allowed self censorship to cloud the debate to such a degree that, having underestimated the effects, we now are destined to a future with geoengineering as an attempt to stabilize the climate. An effort that will ultimately fail and lead to a massive population collapse in the second half of this century.
but, of course, the “scientists” in the skeptic crown even have the gall to deny the scientific proof of evolution. . .
jai mitchell said:
“but, of course, the “scientists” in the skeptic crown even have the gall to deny the scientific proof of evolution”
Names?
Gail Combs said @ur momisugly January 25, 2014 at 7:56 am
Or the telephone. Now where did we put that Cone of Silence, Chief?
About 1 degree increase in mean global temperature per CO2 doubling, i.e. less than Hansen’s estimate but measurable over time.
jai mitchell says:
January 25, 2014 at 1:20 pm
“we are 95% certain that the majority of the warming this century is caused by human sources because of over 200 years of experimental data from the beginning of the modern scientific revolution when it was determined that certain chemicals interact with heatwaves differently than others.”
Laboratory experiments may or may not transfer to a Global, partially chaotic, picture.
So what is your explanation for the DESCENT of temperatures into the Little Ice Age? From what level and why?
jai mitchell:
Your uneducated rant addressed to markstoval at January 25, 2014 at 1:20 pm begins saying
Clearly, you know nothing of the scientific method so allow me to inform you of the Null Hypothesis.
The Null Hypothesis says it must be assumed a system has not experienced a change unless there is evidence of a change.
The Null Hypothesis is a fundamental scientific principle and forms the basis of all scientific understanding, investigation and interpretation. Indeed, it is the basic principle of experimental procedure where an input to a system is altered to discern a change: if the system is not observed to respond to the alteration then it has to be assumed the system did not respond to the alteration.
In the case of climate science there is a hypothesis that increased greenhouse gases (GHGs, notably CO2) in the air will increase global temperature. There are good reasons to suppose this hypothesis may be true, but the Null Hypothesis says it must be assumed the GHG changes have no effect unless and until increased GHGs are observed to increase global temperature. That is what the scientific method decrees. It does not matter how certain some people may be that the hypothesis is right because observation of reality (i.e. empiricism) trumps all opinions.
Please note that the Null Hypothesis is a hypothesis which exists to be refuted by empirical observation. It is a rejection of the scientific method to assert that one can “choose” any subjective Null Hypothesis one likes. There is only one Null Hypothesis: i.e. it has to be assumed a system has not changed unless it is observed that the system has changed.
However, deciding a method which would discern a change may require a detailed statistical specification.
In the case of global climate no unprecedented climate behaviours are observed so the Null Hypothesis decrees that the climate system has not changed.
Importantly, an effect may be real but not overcome the Null Hypothesis because it is too trivial for the effect to be observable. Human activities have some effect on global temperature for several reasons. An example of an anthropogenic effect on global temperature is the urban heat island (UHI). Cities are warmer than the land around them, so cities cause some warming. But the temperature rise from cities is too small to be detected when averaged over the entire surface of the planet, although this global warming from cities can be estimated by measuring the warming of all cities and their areas.
Clearly, the Null Hypothesis decrees that UHI is not affecting global temperature although there are good reasons to think UHI has some effect. Similarly, it is very probable that AGW from GHG emissions are too trivial to have observable effects.
The feedbacks in the climate system are negative and, therefore, any effect of increased CO2 will be probably too small to discern because natural climate variability is much, much larger. This concurs with the empirically determined values of low climate sensitivity.
Empirical – n.b. not model-derived – determinations indicate climate sensitivity is less than 1.0°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 equivalent. This is indicated by the studies of
Idso from surface measurements
http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/Idso_CR_1998.pdf
and Lindzen & Choi from ERBE satellite data
http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf
and Gregory from balloon radiosonde data
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/OLR&NGF_June2011.pdf
Indeed, because climate sensitivity is less than 1.0°C for a doubling of CO2 equivalent, it is physically impossible for the man-made global warming to be large enough to be detected (just as the global warming from UHI is too small to be detected). If something exists but is too small to be detected then it only has an abstract existence; it does not have a discernible existence that has effects (observation of the effects would be its detection).
To date there are no discernible effects of AGW. Hence, the Null Hypothesis decrees that AGW does not affect global climate to a discernible degree. That is the ONLY scientific conclusion possible at present.
Richard
John Finn says:
January 25, 2014 at 2:05 pm
“About 1 degree increase in mean global temperature per CO2 doubling, i.e. less than Hansen’s estimate but measurable over time”
Sure, I’ll go with Lindzen’s figure. Seems fine to me.
jai mitchell said @ur momisugly January 25, 2014 at 1:20 pm
[emphasis mine]
Shortly before we purchased the farm, a teacher of physics owned a small property in the vicinity. My new neighbours related his exploits with glee. He put up his very own brand new fence and was inordinately pleased to see his efforts being watched with keen interest. When he had finished, he walked over to natter with the observers. Vivvy said: “We weren’t so much wondering how you were going to get the tractor out of the paddock, but how’re you gonna persuade the cattle to jump over the fence to get in!”
Another couple of our ever-so-well-educated physics teacher’s exploits included building a water tank stand without bracing, so it collapsed as soon as the tank filled with water and a polythene greenhouse that blew away as soon as the wind arrived because it wasn’t tied down in any way.
Me, I just learned a lot from ignorant farmers about growing food. Physicists not so much.
You appear to have avoided my question about whether you think Roy Spencer and John Christy are “deluded warmists”. Here, let me help you make up your mind. This is from Roy Spencer
Now let’s remember it was me that provided graphs which showed UAH warming since 1997 and UAH warming slightly more than Hadcrut4 since 1990. You countered the latter with an RSS graph since 1997 (strangely claiming that this was over the longer term). However, Spencer and Christy believe that RSS data is “undergoing spurious cooling” because – and this is the best bit – RSS are “applying a diurnal cycle drift correction based upon a climate model, which does not quite match reality”.
So, come on, which is it? Do you accept the UAH data or the data which relies on a correction based on a climate model (This should be good).
Kip Hansen says: “I am searching for serious answer to the question — Why does Climate Science insist on only showing ONLY temperature anomolies?”
For global land+ocean surface temperatures products, you are correct that GISS, Hadley Centre and NCDC only present anomalies. However, sea surface temperature data and reconstructions are available in absolute form, and there is a land surface temperature reanalysis that is available in absolute form as well.
Back to global temperature products:
GISS on their webpage here…
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
…states:
Also see the NCDC FAQ webpage here:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/anomalies.php
They state:
Kip, anomalies are also easier to use for comparisons of monthly data, especially when there are large seasonal components. Imagine trying to compare the variations in the sea surface temperatures of the Northern and Southern Hemispheres—they’re seasonally out of phase with one another. While the sea surface temperatures for the Northern Hemisphere are increasing, the Southern Hemisphere sea surface temperatures are decreasing, and vice versa.
Good idea for a blog post for tomorrow.
Re-posting as still under the radar – GAIL C AND OTHERS – PLEASE READ AND COMMENT
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.
“markstoval says:
January 25, 2014 at 7:41 am
Anyway, I wager some newspaper someplace will play 2013 as one of the hottest years evaaaaaah.”
Yup! Pretty much all MSM, the BoM, CSIRO and The Climate Council here in Australia announced in early January 2014 that during 2013 Australia suffered it’s hottest, day, week, month and year on record (Since 1910 and after the BoM, in early 2013, changed the way it calculates national averages etc). Although this announcement was limited to Australia, but you get the underlying message is applied to the globe as a whole (Lets just ignore record cold in the USA, EU and Asia for now).
And today, mid-summer on Australia day, inner-west Sydney (Typically 3-6c warmer than Sydney CBD), it’s ~21c.
I’m sure WUWT’s high command is looking into it.
The Pompous Git says: @ur momisugly January 25, 2014 at 2:19 pm
….Me, I just learned a lot from ignorant farmers about growing food. Physicists not so much.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Oh, that brings back memories. My hubby is a physicist with physicists friends, several of whom do not have the sense a sheep was born with.
Probably correct thank you Roger.
I emailed Goddard’s discovery to Anthony on 21Jan and later saw it had been posted on WUWT Tips & Notes.
David Spurgeon reported the Goddard discovery at January 20, 2014 at 4:33am at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/tips-notes-2/#comment-1542144
Are you speculating that Anthony is investigating or do you have more information?
I expect Goddard has it correct, but I just do not have the time to verify his work.
This should be interesting.