Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
I chanced to plot up the lower tropospheric temperatures by broad latitude zones today. This is based on the data from the satellite microwave sounding unit (MSU), as analyzed by the good folks at the University of Alabama at Huntsville. Here are the results, divided into tropical, extratropical, and polar. I’ve divided them at the Arctic and Antarctic Circles at 67° North and South, and at the Tropics of Capricorn and Cancer at 23° N & S.
Figure 1. Satellite-based microwave sounding unit temperatures (red line) from the University of Alabama Huntsville. Blue line shows a loess smooth, span=0.4. Data from KNMI (NCDF file, 17 Mb)
So … is this something to worry about?
Well, let’s take a look. To start with, the tropics have no trend, that’s 40% of the planet. So all you folks who have been forecasting doom and gloom for the billions of poor people in the tropics? Sorry … no apparent threat there in the slightest. Well, actually there is a threat, which is the threat of increased energy prices from the futile war on carbon—rising energy prices hit the poor the hardest. But I digress …
What else. Southern Extratropics? No trend. South of the Antarctic Circle? No trend, it cooled slightly then warmed slightly back to where it started.
So that’s 70% of the planet with no appreciable temperature trend over the last third of a century …
What else. Northern Extratropics? A barely visible trend, and no trend since 2000.
And that means that 96% of the planet is basically going nowhere …
Now, that leaves the 4% of the planet north of the Arctic Circle. It cooled slightly over the first decade and a half. Then it warmed for a decade, and it has stayed even for a decade …
My conclusion? I don’t see anything at all that is worrisome there. To me the surprising thing once again is the amazing stability of the planet’s temperature. A third of a century, and the temperature of the tropics hasn’t budged even the width of a hairline. That is an extremely stable system.
I explain that as being the result of the thermoregulatory effect of emergent climate phenomena … you have a better explanation?
My best regards to everyone,
w.
PLEASE! If you disagree with what I or anyone says, QUOTE THE WORDS that you disagree with, and say why you disagree with them. That way we can understand each other. Vague statements and handwaving opinions are not appreciated.
DATA: All data and R code as used are here in a zip file.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Mi Cro says:
January 30, 2014 at 6:15 am
“A continuous measurement would be nice, but it doesn’t exist for past measurements, and everyone wants to see a series from as long ago as possible, the reality is prior to about 1974, surface temp series are mostly made up”
Well if you take what you have and use very long averages on them to remove the noise, say < 15 years, then what you get out of the data MUST be climate. Sampling errors or not.
🙂 Yes you do, the problem is it doesn’t really show anything. Follow my name and go look, lots of stuff there to look at. Warmists, and some skeptics tell me I’m wrong, I’ve made some mistake. I have published my code, and the data is freely available, and I have lots of cross examinations.
Mi Cro says:
January 30, 2014 at 7:37 am
“:) Yes you do, the problem is it doesn’t really show anything.”
It does show that there are some long period signals present in the data we have to date. Ones right in the >30 years window for climate.
A ~60 year which shows up in lots and lots of data sets and a +100 year which shows up in part in there too.
Then there are 1000 year ones and so the list for longer and longer periods goes on.
All these need to recognised and accounted for before you try looking at the shorter term stuff below decadal.
Analyse from the longest down, not the shortest up. Like not trying to model fluid flow by tracing each atom!
I think trying to dig trends out of temp data prior to 1974(ish) is hard, prior to 1950 much harder, prior to 1940 close to worthless. The most sampled place in the world in the US after 1974, everything else is questionable. This is also not to say that there aren’t other thermometer records that are good, but as a collection for a large (continent sized) area, they are lacking. Again, I’m familiar mostly with GSoD, and the various published results(CRU, BEST, GISS, etc).
Now, I get that we have some paleo data that has some value, I don’t think there’s anyway to extend that into the thermometer era, without it being contaminated by the bias of whoever is blending them, definitely mixing apples and tomatoes, both can be red and round, but they aren’t the same.
Mi Cro says:
January 30, 2014 at 8:41 am
“I think trying to dig trends out of temp data prior to 1974(ish) is hard, prior to 1950 much harder, prior to 1940 close to worthless.”
Well a simple, binary chop 15 year low pass filter says this
http://s29.photobucket.com/user/richardlinsleyhood/media/OLSTracesaligned_zps6d702275.png.html
true, but this implies the temp series used for input are real, and I think very likely the real error bars get very large, maybe even larger than the value.
Guys , please listen. You are contemplating
Your navels instead of looking at the big picture
Totally understand your adherence to graph this , graph that, your reliance on this or that . Please stop diminishing what each of you consider s in your area to be hugely important subject and look at physic s basic level.
The Earth is a stable condition, subject only to Internal forces and the Constant emissions of the Sun. Actions within the Troposphere and the stratosphere regulate our condition
Seriously, we are not that important. We are a result of conditions. .. not the cause
Andy, In general i agree with you.
It’s simpler than this, it’s the clouds. A clear sky on a cold day (thirties) when there’s little moisture in the air, is somewhere around -40F (-60F near 0F). The only place Co2 blocks emissions is 14-16u out of a huge window open straight to very very cold skies.
I’ve seen temps drop after Sunset of 5-10F/hour, when it’s clear out.
Oh, and what’s one of the big unknowns in GCM’s, clouds…
dbstealey says:
January 29, 2014 at 8:47 pm
JBJ,
“Willis didn’t ‘guess’, he was pointing out his prior comment:
“For example, mass is an extensive property.”
Giving an example is not making a guess.”
What were his words again? “Gosh, imagine that, who would have guessed that? Oh, wait … I did.”
Mi Cro says:
January 30, 2014 at 9:08 am
“true, but this implies the temp series used for input are real, and I think very likely the real error bars get very large, maybe even larger than the value.”
The advantage of a large numbers of samples! Can overcome a lot of problems. The only way that old data manipulations affect things very much is the slope of the >60 year trend will back off a little. I can live with that.
Number of sample by year in GSoD.
Mi Cro: Do you have any r code for downloading the various data set for monthly/daily means?
I did all of my work in sql, since I use that to migrate data for a living.
I did put it here.
Mi Cro says:
January 30, 2014 at 10:06 am
“Number of sample by year in GSoD.”
I did something similar before giving up on BEST. Just too sparse early in the record to make a decent sampling surface.
I looked at the 1*1 cell coverage as that is what the maths is in.
(A very cylindrical set of glasses for temperatures – need cos(lat) all the time to get weightings right! Tricky to be certain in code- too many places for error.)
+ 10’s of billions of dollars wasted chasing a warming trend in data that’s to sparsely sampled to actually mean anything.
Mi Cro says:
January 30, 2014 at 10:12 am
“I did all of my work in sql, since I use that to migrate data for a living.
I did put it here.”
Thanks for that. SQL is great for data, not so hot for statistics and graphic display.
I am thinking I need to go and learn R and move away from my long (way too long) attachment to C++ and C#. And no-one needs assembler any more, sob, sob.
Mi Cro says:
January 30, 2014 at 10:15 am
“+ 10′s of billions of dollars wasted chasing a warming trend in data that’s to sparsely sampled to actually mean anything.”
I think that it is ironic that in all probability you can just do with using the deltas on the sampling points you have directly without all the complex interpolation work and end up with a more accurate answer!
This is what I’ve attempted, and I think it shows something of value, but the incumbents are well entrenched.
Mi Cro says:
January 30, 2014 at 10:34 am
“This is what I’ve attempted, and I think it shows something of value, but the incumbents are well entrenched.”
They do appear to have some very blinkered thinking.
Means are fine up until Yearly then from then on they are BAD, BAD, BAD.
A form of discrimination for filters! Too long and your not allowed in.
A step wise integral has always described the area under the curve. It’s an average, nothing more.
So a simple low pass filter set at the timescale that Climate signals are supposed to be in reveals a long term cycle of ~60 years which lots and lots of the literature says is there and NO-ONE will even contemplate that they it exists.
A residual that is then left indicates a +100 year something, could be due top CO2, could be due to other things, probably some of one and some of the other.
But you are not ALLOWED to point out the ‘Emperors New Clothes’.
JBJ says:
January 30, 2014 at 9:30 am
Google “satire”, JBJ. The phrase “Who would have guessed that …” is a very common satirical expression meaning “It’s clear to everyone except you that …”
It does not mean the person actually guessed the answer. English is funny that way.
w.
I see very slight upward linear trends in the graphs for the tropics and the SH extratropical zone.
For numerical figures, the degree/decade trends by zone in UAH are:
N. Polar: .44
N. Extratrop: .26
Tropics: .07
S. Extratrop: .09
S. Polar: 0.00
Source: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt
Donald L. Klipstein says:
January 30, 2014 at 9:08 pm
Thanks, Donald. I have divided the world in the traditional manner—Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn, and the Arctic and Antarctic circles. This gives the following exclusive bands in my graph:
NoPol 67N-85N
NoExt 23N-67N
Trpcs 23S-23N
SoExt 23S-67S
SoPol 67S-85S
The dataset you use has a very different split, both overall and in the location of the splits. From the website:
NoPol 60N-85N
NoExt 20N-85N
Trpcs 20S-20N
SoExt 85S-20S
SoPol 85S-60S
Part of the problem with their split is that the sections are not exclusive – their polar section is a subset of their extratropics.
In any case, as you might imagine, since their polar sections are averaged in with the extratropics their results are somewhat different from mine mine.
Best regards,
w.
Willis Eschenbach says:
January 30, 2014 at 12:03 pm
JBJ says:
January 30, 2014 at 9:30 am
“Google “satire”, JBJ. The phrase “Who would have guessed that …” is a very common satirical expression meaning “It’s clear to everyone except you that …””
Google “sarcasm” Willis … I was pulling your leg 🙂
That’s what I call a laudible and sound presentation: understandable and the data made easily available – to everyone. Good Job!
BTW: did the “Mann et al” comment the “extremely stable system”???
“The dataset you use has a very different split, both overall and in the
location of the splits. From the website:
NoPol 60N-85N
NoExt 20N-85N
Trpcs 20S-20N
SoExt 85S-20S
SoPol 85S-60S
Part of the problem with their split is that the sections are not exclusive
– their polar section is a subset of their extratropics.
In any case, as you might imagine, since their polar sections are averaged
in with the extratropics their results are somewhat different from mine
mine.”
I also used the dataset
http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt
and, due to the overlapping in latitude of Extratropical an Polar zones,
have subtracted the Polar contributions from the Extratropicals ones, so
obtaining an Extratropical anomaly between 20° and 60° both North and South.
I found (“www.zafzaf.it/clima/uah/uahhome.html) a decreasing trend
for the 0°-60°N “Temperate zone”. Such a belt is not too much different from
your (23°-67°N) selection and, I think, not so different to reverse the sign
of the trend. More, as you noted above, I’m sure that the use of 5.5 or 5.6
version of data sets cannot give any practical difference. So, I’m asking
why the (20-60)°N belt shows that behaviour I’ve never heard of before, and
why your data don’t show the same.
Regards. Franco
Sorry, the correct url of my site is http://www.zafzaf.it/clima/uah/uahhome.html
Willis @ur momisugly here
A few people have calculated the trends for various zones (cited UAH directly) and given figures. Except for the S Pole, they are positive. It’s hard to tell anything from your graphs because the data is so squished.
In any case, as you might imagine, since their polar sections are averaged in with the extratropics their results are somewhat different from mine mine.
Have you posted the figures you came up with for each division? Could you do so, so that we can see how much they differ from the decadal trends given at UAH?
(I’d do it myself if the data were in plain text format)
In anticipation, thanks.
LOL, you should try making those graphs a little bigger, then we could see that you’re knowingly pushing a phony conclusion. Are you going to correct the post now, or are you really just a liar?
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/02/04/tiny-graphs/
Dwayne Hoover says:
February 4, 2014 at 2:29 pm
Dwayne, why should I pay any attention to a man calling me a liar, when that man doesn’t have either the balls or the common decency to spell out what he thinks I lied about?
You get nothing from me. I provided the data and the code. If you want bigger graphs, fine, make all of them you want.
Next, I’m banned at Tamino’s place, the laughingly-titled “Open Mind”, because he didn’t like my scientific questions and statements. He doesn’t have the balls to allow me to ask the unpleasant questions, so he hides where I can’t comment, and from there, surrounded by toadies and sycophants like yourself, he calls me a liar …
And you are as cowardly as he is. Rush back to your master, lickspittle, and tell him of my krool words …
w.
barry says:
February 4, 2014 at 7:09 am
Thanks, Barry. The graphs are all to the same scale. I chose the smallest scale that could contain the variations at the poles.
The problem is not that the graphs are small. The problem is that over the last third of a century, the lower tropospheric temperature in about 90% of the planet has never varied by more than plus or minus one-third of one percent … now, I could blow that third of a percent way up, but I wanted to present it to a realistic scale. That kind of stability in a natural system is astonishing.
People in the future will find it hilarious that folks in the early 21st century agonized so much about such a trivially small temperature change. Yes, the trend in the tropics is positive … the question is, is it significant? Is it something we should worry about? I say no.
In the graph at the head of the post, the width of the blue average line is about a tenth of a degree. The average tropical tropospheric temperature hasn’t varied by that much in a third of a century. Rather than obsessing about whether that invisible trend is positive or negative, we should obsess about discovering the details of the natural systems that have kept the tropics that amazingly stable …
w.
Franco Zavatti says:
February 4, 2014 at 5:33 am
Franco, I regret to say your link to your work doesn’t function, so I can’t explain why you get a negative result. As far as I know, trends in all parts of the NH extratropics are positive.
w.
I provided the data and the code.
Unfortunately I don’t have NetCDF software or the ken to use it, and I believe most people here would be in the same boat. Could you post the data in text form? Alternatively, if you could simply post the linear trends for each zone (preferably with uncertainties), that would help establish your points and provide a qualitative comparison with the trends that UAH give.
If anyone else can make use of the data form as posted, perhaps they could provide the linear trend values for Willis’ zones? I’ve read every comment and no one appears to have done so.
Franco,
If I understand you right, you have subtracted higher anomalies/trend from lower one/s, so you are going to get inverse results. In fact, I can see from comparing your subtracted graph to the polar one above it, most of the anomalies are inversely correlated, particularly for extreme values. That can’t be right. Change the sign of each value to get a better estimate.
“Franco, I regret to say your link to your work doesn’t function, so I can’t explain why you get a negative result. As far as I know, trends in all parts of the NH extratropics are positive.”
Willis,
my second comment had the correct link. Anyway it is
http://www.zafzaf.it/clima/uah/uahhome.html
Me too knew about positive trends in NH and this is the reason for my comment.
Someone here suggested I could not subtract Polar (60-85)° from Extratropical (20-85)° belts, due to some unclear reason (like a different weighting on areas), but I cannot find any valid support for that.
Franco