A Different Perspective of Global Warming

I was preparing a few graphs for a chapter of my upcoming book (current working title An Illustrated Guide to Global Warming and Skepticism), and I thought readers here would find them interesting because they display global warming in a different light. The changes in temperature are minuscule when we look at the annual temperatures at all latitudes of the planet. I believe most of us are aware of that fact, and often times, because we’re looking at anomalies, we lose sight of the big picture. (Those warming signals would be even smaller if we were to consider the seasonal cycles and daily variations in temperatures…but those additional variations are beyond the scope of this post.)

In this post, we’re going to be looking at global temperature data and a reanalysis of global temperatures in absolute form, on a latitude-average (zonal-mean) basis, for two decade-long periods: 1979 to 1988 and 2003 to 2012. The purpose of the little exercise is simply to show how minute the rise in global temperatures has been when we compare the average temperatures for those two periods, while looking at the temperatures in 5-degree latitude bands from the South Pole to the North Pole. Then we’ll take a look at the climate model simulations of global land+ocean surface air temperatures for 2003 to 2012 and the final decade of the CMIP5 RCP8.5 (IPCC AR5) worst-case scenario, 2091 to 2100.

I’ve included the GHCN-CAMS land surface reanalysis because there are no land surface temperature datasets available in absolute form through the KNMI Climate Explorer. I’ve downloaded the data through to the current month and would have presented the latter period as 2004 to 2013, but the GHCN-CAMS reanalysis is missing temperature estimates at high latitudes in the Antarctic in 2013 and I did not want to bias the data there by a seasonal component.

First, a couple of preliminary graphs and discussions:

Figure 1 contains three graphs where the data and reanalysis are presented as anomalies…the form we’re used to seeing. Each dataset (and model output in the case of the GHCN-CAMS reanalysis) covers the period of January 1979 to December 2012, and also shown are the period-average temperature anomalies for periods of 1979 through 1988 and of 2003 through 2012. Looking at the top graph, we can see that global sea surfaces (HADISST) were about 0.17 deg C warmer in 2003 to 2012 than they were in 1979 to 1988. Lower troposphere temperatures (RSS), center graph, were about 0.30 deg C higher in 2003 to 2012 than they were in 1979 to 1988. And in the bottom graph, we can see that land surface air temperatures (GHCN-CAMS reanalysis) were about 0.74 deg C higher in 2003 to 2012 than they were in 1979 to 1988.

Figure 1

Figure 1

As a reference for the GHCN-CAMS reanalysis, GISS Land-Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI) data with the oceans masked shows land surface air temperatures were about 0.64 deg C higher in 2003 to 2012 than they were in 1979 to 1988. See the graph here. The fact that the GHCN-CAMS reanalysis is biased warm is good for this presentation. Just keep that in mind, please.

Another preliminary graph: In Figure 2, the average temperatures (in absolute form) are presented on a zonal-mean (latitude-average) basis. They show the average temperatures for the period of 1979 to 2012 in 5-degree latitude bands. That is, the vertical axis (y-axis) is temperature in deg C. The horizontal axis (x-axis) is latitude. The South Pole is to the left, the North Pole to the right, and the equator is at 0-degree latitude in the center.

Figure 2

Figure 2

Looking at the dark-red curve, the land surface air temperatures are by far the coldest in the Antarctic, averaging almost 40 deg C below zero near the South Pole for the period of 1979 to 2012. The tropics are, of course, much warmer, reaching just over 27 deg C at 12.5 degrees north latitude. And, as one would expect, average land surface air temperatures for the period of 1979 to 2012 cool again gradually until they reach their coldest temperatures for the northern hemisphere near the North Pole. The sea surface temperature data in light blue are, logically, also warmest in the tropics and they cool toward the freezing temperature of sea water in the polar oceans. Sea surface temperatures are, for the most part, warmer than land surface air temperatures. Then across the latitudes sampled by RSS, the lower troposphere temperatures are consistently cooler than both sea surface temperatures and land surface air temperatures.

Figures 1 and 2 probably give you an idea of what you’re going to see…better said, not going to see…when we compare the average temperatures for the periods of 1979 to 1988 and 2003 to 2012.

As a reminder, the GHCN-CAMS curve is the output of a computer model, meaning it’s not data. See Fan, Y., and H. van den Dool (2008), A global monthly land surface air temperature analysis for 1948-present. But they use data as inputs to the reanalysis model and the model infills regions without data. One of the datasets used as input is GHCN, which is used by the three primary global temperature data suppliers for land surfaces. I would be happy to present data, not a reanalysis, if and when a land surface air temperature dataset in absolute form is available through the KNMI Climate Explorer.

Figure 3 includes the comparisons of global temperatures on a latitude-average basis, with the average temperatures for the period of 1979 to 1988 shown in blue and the average temperatures for 2003 to 2012 shown in red. Sea surface temperatures are in the top graph, lower troposphere temperatures in the center, and land surface temperatures in the bottom graph.

Figure 3

Figure 3

Looking at the land surface air temperatures in the bottom graph, there is about a 65 deg C temperature difference between the average temperatures at the South Pole and the equator, and the two curves overlap (by the breadth of the default line chosen by EXCEL) in the Southern Hemisphere, showing how insignificant the changes in temperature have been there. It’s only when we reach the high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere that there is a noticeable difference between the two curves. At 82.5N, the period average temperature for 1979 to 1988 is about -17.2 deg C, and for 2003 to 2012 it’s -16 deg C…a whopping 1.2 degree rise in temperature between those two decade-long periods.

WHAT ABOUT THE CLIMATE MODELS USED BY THE IPCC?

We’ve already presented that CMIP5 (IPCC AR5) climate models are not capable of simulating surface temperatures over any timeframe. For examples, see the posts:

But as a reference…

We often see maps of future global surface temperatures, where the maps have been color-coded to show everything in red. Example: Refer to the maps in Figure 4. They’re from the BBC article IPCC climate report: humans ‘dominant cause’ of warming. The Arctic temperatures are forecasted to warm more than 11 deg C by the end of the century for the worst-case RCP8.5 scenario on the right.

Figure 4 bbc _70149764_climate_change_coloured_624

Figure 4

What they fail to tell us is that average annual temperatures (2091 to 2100) in the Arctic are still below freezing, as they are in Antarctica. See Figure 6, which illustrates the multi-model ensemble-member mean of the climate models stored in the CMIP5 (IPCC AR5) archive, for the worst-case (RCP8.5) scenario. Shown are the simulated annual temperatures on a latitudinal basis for the period of 2003 to 2012 and for 2091 to 2100.

Figure 5

Figure 5

Now consider that there are seasonal variations in temperature every year and daily variations in temperature every day.

CLOSING

As the title of the post read, this was simply a different perspective of global warming.

Many people hear that global temperatures have warmed a specific amount over a certain time period and realize they personally would never have been able to sense that change. The only reason they’re aware of it is the constant propaganda from talking heads. Maybe that’s why global warming falls so far down on people’s priorities on the UN’s recent poll. See the MyWorld2015.org poll The United Nations Global Survey for a Better World.

SOURCE

The data, the reanalysis and the climate model outputs are available through the KNMI Climate Explorer.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
59 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
davec
May 4, 2014 11:04 am

Not to mention that the way the NWS calculates average daily temperatures is flawed. Their way is to simply take the high temp for the day, add the low temp and divide by two. More accurate is all 24 hour temp readings divided by 24. Their way adds a bias of between 1-2 degrees per day.

rogerknights
May 4, 2014 11:20 am

Back in early February you wrote:

The following is something I wrote for my upcoming book with the working title The Oceans Ate My Global Warming (or another possible title CO2 is Not a Control Knob).

I think that first title is a real grabber. Please keep it and use An Illustrated Guide to Global Warming and Skepticism) as a subtitle. (Unless the theme of the book has changed drastically.)

Paul Linsay
May 4, 2014 11:32 am

Lindzen has a nice plot of daily average high and low temperatures in Boston. The daily record high and low is also displayed on the same plot. He then draws a red line that is the thickness of the predicted warming along the daily average temperature. It’s a joke.

May 4, 2014 12:18 pm

Bob Tisdale says: ” … The changes in temperature are miniscule when we look at the annual temperatures at all latitudes of the planet. I believe most of us are aware of that fact, and often times, because we’re looking at anomalies, we lose sight of the big picture. …”
Damn Bob. I thought you knew that keeping everyone from looking at the big picture is the whole point of the scam in the first place. Looking only at “anomalies” is like only looking at temps from 1850 onward — serves a similar purpose.

May 4, 2014 1:47 pm

Thanks, Bob. Very good analysis.
Yes, a better perspective, from a view point that lets a person see a wide picture with enough detail. Looking forward to your new book.

Chad Wozniak
May 4, 2014 1:54 pm

Bob – a minor nit pick: Tierra del Fuego is in the range 50-55 south, not 55-60 south. Cape Horn at 56 south is 1-1/2 degrees south of the southernmost shore of Tierra del Fuego (Ushuaia).

Ronald Voisin
May 4, 2014 4:18 pm

Bob,
You want to sell books and educate at the same time? Title your book: The Illustrated Green Guide to Global Warming and Skepticism.
Ronald Voisin
Retired Engineer

george e. smith
May 4, 2014 4:45 pm

“””””…..Bob Tisdale says:
May 4, 2014 at 11:09 am
george e. smith says: “What is the name of that island at 60 deg. south latitude, where they got their “land” surface air Temperatures ??”
The Antarctic Peninsula reaches into the latitude band of 65S-60S and data from Tierra del Fuego would be found in 60S-55S.
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/g20140504_1800_6047_1.png
Regards……””””””
On my map of Antarctica and the southern ocean, I couldn’t find so much as a rock, at -60 deg. south Latitude; smack dab in the middle of the gap between the horn, and the Antarctic peninsula.
South Sandwich, and South Orkneys, are both slightly south of that.
Tip of Antarctic peninsula, is north of the Antarctic circle so never have NO sunrise there.
I just thought their computer generated fictional model, would at least be geographically real for planet earth, and not show the Sea of Tranquility as being in the Southern Ocean. There’s about a nine degrees of latitude gap of basically nada solidus.

Editor
May 4, 2014 5:35 pm

Bob Tisdale – Neither the Antarctic Peninsula nor Tierra del Fuego reach 60S. But there is a largish rock (5km across) off Coronation Island whose northern edge is at 60 29S. I can’t see a weather station on it.

joeldshore
May 4, 2014 6:53 pm

We often see maps of future global surface temperatures, where the maps have been color-coded to show everything in red. Example: Refer to the maps in Figure 4. They’re from the BBC article IPCC climate report: humans ‘dominant cause’ of warming. The Arctic temperatures are forecasted to warm more than 11 deg C by the end of the century for the worst-case RCP8.5 scenario on the right.
What they fail to tell us is that average annual temperatures (2091 to 2100) in the Arctic are still below freezing, as they are in Antarctica. See Figure 6, which illustrates the multi-model ensemble-member mean of the climate models stored in the CMIP5 (IPCC AR5) archive, for the worst-case (RCP8.5) scenario. Shown are the simulated annual temperatures on a latitudinal basis for the period of 2003 to 2012 and for 2091 to 2100.
Now consider that there are seasonal variations in temperature every year and daily variations in temperature every day.

So, if you were around at the Last Glacial Maximum to give us a report of what we had in store as we moved into the interglacial period, I suppose you could have made the same argument, since the change in temperatures for the RCP8.5 scenario is pretty close to what we saw between the LGM and the interglacial, i.e., roughly 5-6 C globally, with about double in the arctic and antarctic..
From your perspective, were the climate changes and associated changes in sea level and what-not associated with that event pretty trivial?

May 4, 2014 7:05 pm

Re Bob Tisdale and the overall review of temperature Variation.
I have been making some graphs of communities in BC to look at the variation in temperature in the
time of the record. I have some communities with 100 years of information downloaded from
Environment Canada. I don’t know if this information has been adjusted in any way but “blanks” and
gaps in the information are there. I can only access publicly available information. More details are
available at a price.
I started this because of a statement of a professional organization I belong to advised we needed to be
concerned with a 4 to 5 degree C increase in temperatures in the next 50 years due to “modelled”
climate change. I will with hold the reference for the time being.
Link: https://www.dropbox.com/s/mumeba3ox98vdaj/TisdalePost.pdf
No idea if this will work, it did when I tested it,

May 4, 2014 7:07 pm

(Waited for a response) The graphs over-emphasize the importance of the polar latitudes in the same way a Mercator projection makes Canada look bigger than it is.

joeldshore
May 4, 2014 7:22 pm

First, joeldshore, I don’t find climate models credible…or did you miss that in the post?

So, you tried to imply that a consequence predicted by them is no big deal…and then when you are called on it, you say in essence, “Well, I don’t believe them anyway.” Interesting method of argumentation.

Second, your attempted comparison is flawed unless you are expecting sea levels to rise 120 meters by the year 2100.

Well, you are the one who seemed to think that you could intuit that a change of 11 degC in Arctic temperatures is not such a big deal. So, perhaps it is worth investigating how well that intuition would have worked in the past? You know, test it against actual data….Isn’t that something people who call themselves skeptics claim to like to do?
And, by the way, are we supposed to simply ignore what might happen to sea levels beyond 2100 if we raised Arctic temperatures by 11 C?

May 4, 2014 7:47 pm

jrwakefield says:
May 4, 2014 at 10:55 am
I see you did the same thing as I did only four years ago. I actually did that some time ago as well, but since it has become an issue with a professional association, I started looking at specific sites in more detail. Will leave a note on your site.

Brent Walker
May 4, 2014 11:42 pm

1) It is the 2.5 degree grids that concern me. Obviously these grids cover a smaller and smaller area as you get closer to the poles and a very large area close to the equator.
I recently asked some actuaries who were working with similar grid based temperature data if they were adjusting for the different areas of the grid and if they weren’t what biases were being created by not adjusting for this. I didn’t get an answer. Bob do you know the answer to this?
2) Bob, what would happen if the second and third graphs of figure 3 were standardized for either human population by latitude or inflation adjusted GDP? Could this be a way of approximately estimating the urban heat island effect?

May 5, 2014 12:55 am

Look at the trend lines before and after the Great Dying of the Thermometers in about 1990.

david(swuk)
May 5, 2014 1:19 am

oeldshore says:
May 4, 2014 at 7:22 pm
First, joeldshore, I don’t find climate models credible…or did you miss that in the post?
So, you tried to imply that a consequence predicted by them is no big deal…and then when you are called on it, you say in essence, “Well, I don’t believe them anyway.” Interesting method of argumentation.
Second, your attempted comparison is flawed unless you are expecting sea levels to rise 120 meters by the year 2100.
Well, you are the one who seemed to think that you could intuit that a change of 11 degC in Arctic temperatures is not such a big deal. So, perhaps it is worth investigating how well that intuition would have worked in the past? You know, test it against actual data….Isn’t that something people who call themselves skeptics claim to like to do
Well, you are the one who seemed to think that you could intuit that a change of 11 degC in Arctic temperatures is not such a big deal. So, perhaps it is worth investigating how well that intuition would have worked in the past? You know, test it against actual data….Isn’t that something people who call themselves skeptics claim to like to do?
“”And, by the way, are we supposed to simply ignore what might happen to sea levels beyond 2100 if we raised Arctic temperatures by 11 C?””
…………………………………….
Do not ever believe that the demons of your invention/dreams keep others awake!!