Guest Post by Werner Brozek (Edited By Just The Facts)
GISS and other sets are poised to set new records in 2014, even without an El Nino. The present GISS record is a two way tie for first place with 2005 and 2010 both showing an average anomaly of 0.65. (By the way, in January of this year, it was stated that the 2010 anomaly was 0.67. I do not understand how 2010 lost 0.02 C over the last four months.) The present average over the first four months of 2014 is 0.64, so it is only 0.01 lower. However of greater significance is that the April anomaly was 0.73. If this anomaly were to continue for the rest of the year, the old GISS record would be shattered.
Below, I will provide the corresponding information for the other five data sets that I am following. All differences will be provided to the nearest 1/100 degree.
The current Hadsst3 average is 0.370, which is only 0.05 below its record of 0.416. And as is the case with GISS, the April anomaly was a huge 0.478, so if this anomaly were to continue for the rest of 2014, Hadsst3 would also set a new record.
The current Hadcrut3 average is 0.455, which is only 0.09 below its record of 0.548. And as is the case with GISS, the April anomaly was a huge 0.592, so if this anomaly were to continue for the rest of 2014, Hadcrut3 would virtually tie its record.
The current Hadcrut4 average is 0.500, which is only 0.05 below its record of 0.547. And as is the case with GISS, the April anomaly was a huge 0.641, so if this anomaly were to continue for the rest of 2014, Hadcrut4 would also set a new record.
The current RSS average is 0.222. This is 0.33 below the 1998 record of 0.550. This record seems safe for this year. Even the April anomaly of 0.251 would not challenge the record if it continued for the rest of the year.
The current UAH average is 0.171. This is 0.25 below the 1998 record of 0.419. This record seems safe for this year. Even the April anomaly of 0.184 would not challenge the record if it continued for the rest of the year. (Note: This applies to version 5.5.)
In the table, I have added a row 15 which I have labelled 15.dif and here I give the above differences between rows 4 and 13. Since no rank is first at this point, all numbers have the same sign indicating the present record is still higher than the present average in all cases.
In the parts below, as in the previous posts, we will present you with the latest facts. The information will be presented in three sections and an appendix.
The first section will show for how long there has been no warming on several data sets.
The second section will show for how long there has been no statistically significant warming on several data sets.
The third section will show how 2014 to date compares with 2013 and the warmest years and months on record so far.
The appendix will illustrate sections 1 and 2 in a different way. Graphs and a table will be used to illustrate the data.
Section 1
This analysis uses the latest month for which data is available on WoodForTrees.com (WFT). All of the data on WFT is also available at the specific sources as outlined below. We start with the present date and go to the furthest month in the past where the slope is a least slightly negative. So if the slope from September is 4 x 10^-4 but it is – 4 x 10^-4 from October, we give the time from October so no one can accuse us of being less than honest if we say the slope is flat from a certain month.
On all data sets below, the different times for a slope that is at least very slightly negative ranges from 9 years and 8 months to 17 years and 9 months
1. For GISS, the slope is flat since November 2001 or 12 years, 6 months. (goes to April)
2. For Hadcrut3, the slope is flat since August 2000 or 13 years, 9 months. (goes to April) The latest spike caused the time to start after the 1998 El Nino.
3. For a combination of GISS, Hadcrut3, UAH and RSS, the slope is flat since December 2000 or 13 years, 5 months. (goes to April)
4. For Hadcrut4, the slope is flat since January 2001 or 13 years, 4 months. (goes to April)
5. For Hadsst3, the slope is flat since December 2000 or 13 years, 5 months. (goes to April)
6. For UAH, the slope is flat since September 2004 or 9 years, 8 months. (goes to April using version 5.5)
7. For RSS, the slope is flat since August 1996 or 17 years, 9 months (goes to April).
The next graph shows just the lines to illustrate the above. Think of it as a sideways bar graph where the lengths of the lines indicate the relative times where the slope is 0. In addition, the upward sloping blue line indicates that CO2 has steadily increased over this period.
When two things are plotted as I have done, the left only shows a temperature anomaly.
The actual numbers are meaningless since all slopes are essentially zero. As well, I have offset them so they are evenly spaced. No numbers are given for CO2. Some have asked that the log of the concentration of CO2 be plotted. However WFT does not give this option. The upward sloping CO2 line only shows that while CO2 has been going up over the last 17 years, the temperatures have been flat for varying periods on various data sets.
The next graph shows the above, but this time, the actual plotted points are shown along with the slope lines and the CO2 is omitted.
Section 2
For this analysis, data was retrieved from Nick Stokes’ Trendviewer page. This analysis indicates for how long there has not been statistically significant warming according to Nick’s criteria. Data go to their latest update for each set. In every case, note that the lower error bar is negative so a slope of 0 cannot be ruled out from the month indicated.
On several different data sets, there has been no statistically significant warming for between 16 and 21 years.
The details for several sets are below.
For UAH: Since February 1996: CI from -0.043 to 2.349
For RSS: Since November 1992: CI from -0.022 to 1.867
For Hadcrut4: Since October 1996: CI from -0.033 to 1.192
For Hadsst3: Since January 1993: CI from -0.016 to 1.813
For GISS: Since August 1997: CI from -0.008 to 1.233
Section 3
This section shows data about 2014 and other information in the form of a table. The table shows the six data sources along the top and other places so they should be visible at all times. The sources are UAH, RSS, Hadcrut4, Hadcrut3, Hadsst3, and GISS.
Down the column, are the following:
1. 13ra: This is the final ranking for 2013 on each data set.
2. 13a: Here I give the average anomaly for 2013.
3. year: This indicates the warmest year on record so far for that particular data set. Note that two of the data sets have 2010 as the warmest year and four have 1998 as the warmest year.
4. ano: This is the average of the monthly anomalies of the warmest year just above.
5.mon: This is the month where that particular data set showed the highest anomaly. The months are identified by the first three letters of the month and the last two numbers of the year.
6. ano: This is the anomaly of the month just above.
7. y/m: This is the longest period of time where the slope is not positive given in years/months. So 16/2 means that for 16 years and 2 months the slope is essentially 0.
8. sig: This the first month for which warming is not statistically significant according to Nick’s criteria. The first three letters of the month are followed by the last two numbers of the year.
9. Jan: This is the January 2014 anomaly for that particular data set.
10.Feb: This is the February 2014 anomaly for that particular data set, etc.
13.ave: This is the average anomaly of all months to date taken by adding all numbers and dividing by the number of months. However if the data set itself gives that average, I may use their number. Sometimes the number in the third decimal place differs slightly, presumably due to all months not having the same number of days.
14.rnk: This is the rank that each particular data set would have if the anomaly above were to remain that way for the rest of the year. It will not, but think of it as an update 15 minutes into a game. Due to different base periods, the rank is more meaningful than the average anomaly.
15.dif: This is row 4 minus row 13. A number of less than 0.10 at this point in time means that a record is possible for 2014 for four of the data sets. Both of the satellite data would need a miracle to set a record this year in my opinion.
| Source | UAH | RSS | Had4 | Had3 | Sst3 | GISS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. 13ra | 7th | 10th | 8th | 6th | 6th | 7th |
| 2. 13a | 0.197 | 0.218 | 0.486 | 0.459 | 0.376 | 0.59 |
| 3. year | 1998 | 1998 | 2010 | 1998 | 1998 | 2010 |
| 4. ano | 0.419 | 0.55 | 0.547 | 0.548 | 0.416 | 0.65 |
| 5.mon | Apr98 | Apr98 | Jan07 | Feb98 | Jul98 | Jan07 |
| 6. ano | 0.662 | 0.857 | 0.829 | 0.756 | 0.526 | 0.92 |
| 7. y/m | 9/8 | 17/9 | 13/4 | 13/9 | 13/5 | 12/6 |
| 8. sig | Feb96 | Nov92 | Oct96 | Jan93 | Aug97 | |
| Source | UAH | RSS | Had4 | Had3 | Sst3 | GISS |
| 9.Jan | 0.236 | 0.262 | 0.507 | 0.472 | 0.342 | 0.68 |
| 10.Feb | 0.127 | 0.161 | 0.304 | 0.264 | 0.314 | 0.44 |
| 11.Mar | 0.137 | 0.214 | 0.544 | 0.491 | 0.347 | 0.70 |
| 12.Apr | 0.184 | 0.251 | 0.641 | 0.592 | 0.478 | 0.73 |
| Source | UAH | RSS | Had4 | Had3 | Sst3 | GISS |
| 13.ave | 0.171 | 0.222 | 0.500 | 0.455 | 0.370 | 0.64 |
| 14.rnk | 10th | 9th | 5th | 7th | 7th | 3rd |
| 15.dif | 0.25 | 0.33 | 0.05 | 0.09 | 0.05 | 0.01 |
If you wish to verify all of the latest anomalies, go to the following:
For UAH, version 5.5 was used since that is what WFT used.
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.5.txt
For RSS, see: ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/monthly_time_series/rss_monthly_msu_amsu_channel_tlt_anomalies_land_and_ocean_v03_3.txt
For Hadcrut4, see: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/time_series/HadCRUT.4.2.0.0.monthly_ns_avg.txt For Hadcrut3, see: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT3-gl.dat
For Hadsst3, see: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadSST3-gl.dat
For GISS, see:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
To see all points since January 2013 in the form of a graph, see the WFT graph below.
As you can see, all lines have been offset so they all start at the same place in January 2013. This makes it easy to compare January 2013 with the latest anomaly.
Appendix
In this part, we are summarizing data for each set separately.
RSS
The slope is flat since August 1996 or 17 years, 9 months. (goes to April)
For RSS: There is no statistically significant warming since November 1992: CI from -0.022 to 1.867.
The RSS average anomaly so far for 2014 is 0.222. This would rank it as 9th place if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.55. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.857. The anomaly in 2013 was 0.218 and it is ranked 10th.
UAH
The slope is flat since September 2004 or 9 years, 8 months. (goes to April using version 5.5 according to WFT)
For UAH: There is no statistically significant warming since February 1996: CI from -0.043 to 2.349. (This is using version 5.6 according to Nick’s program.)
The UAH average anomaly so far for 2014 is 0.171. This would rank it as 10th place if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.419. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.662. The anomaly in 2013 was 0.197 and it is ranked 7th.
Hadcrut4
The slope is flat since January 2001 or 13 years, 4 months. (goes to April)
For Hadcrut4: There is no statistically significant warming since October 1996: CI from -0.033 to 1.192.
The Hadcrut4 average anomaly so far for 2014 is 0.500. This would rank it as 5th place if it stayed this way. 2010 was the warmest at 0.547. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in January of 2007 when it reached 0.829. The anomaly in 2013 was 0.486 and it is ranked 8th.
Hadcrut3
The slope is flat since August 2000 or 13 years, 9 months. (goes to April)
The Hadcrut3 average anomaly so far for 2014 is 0.455. This would rank it as 7th place if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.548. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in February of 1998 when it reached 0.756. One has to go back to the 1940s to find the previous time that a Hadcrut3 record was not beaten in 10 years or less. The anomaly in 2013 was 0.459 and it is ranked 6th.
Hadsst3
For Hadsst3, the slope is flat since December 2000 or 13 years and 5 months. (goes to April).
For Hadsst3: There is no statistically significant warming since January 1993: CI from -0.016 to 1.813.
The Hadsst3 average anomaly so far for 2014 is 0.370. This would rank it as 7th place if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.416. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in July of 1998 when it reached 0.526. The anomaly in 2013 was 0.376 and it is ranked 6th.
GISS
The slope is flat since November 2001 or 12 years, 6 months. (goes to April)
For GISS: There is no statistically significant warming since August 1997: CI from -0.008 to 1.233.
The GISS average anomaly so far for 2014 is 0.64. This would rank it as 3rd place if it stayed this way. 2010 and 2005 were the warmest at 0.65. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in January of 2007 when it reached 0.92. The anomaly in 2013 was 0.59 and it is ranked 7th.
Conclusion
Even without an El Nino, it appears likely that some records will be set on at least some surface data sets, however not on the satellite data sets.
gymnosperm says:
May 27, 2014 at 10:58 am
The implicit implication here is that if a record is indeed set, the reason for that record will be human CO2.
True, if all data sets have a record. But what would be the implication if GISS set a record but UAH came in 10th?
Solomon Green says:
May 26, 2014 at 11:00 am
Thanks for taking the time to look.
Richard Mallett says:
May 27, 2014 at 1:16 pm
What source(s) are you using for the difference between the MWP / LIA and the present ?
Did you post this here by mistake? I have not mentioned either one.
I posted my message to gymnosperm in a box that said ‘Reply to gymnosperm’ – was that wrong ?
Richard Mallett says:
May 27, 2014 at 1:49 pm
I posted my message to gymnosperm in a box that said ‘Reply to gymnosperm’ – was that wrong ?
It seems as if what you tried to do is what can be done on Dr. Spencer’s site where you reply to a specific person and the reply is just below that person’s post. At WUWT, all responses are in order so you should do what I did above so everyone knows what specific entry you are trying to respond to. In order to ital the person’s response you are replying to, put in the following before the quoted part: [i] Then at the end, put in the following: [/i]
I hope [i]gymnosperm[/i] responds.
To bold things, just replace b with i in the above, and the [ and ] with hyperlink angled brackets.
Cheers
[Mod note: Hyperlinks automatically format in this WordPress formatting.
one can also use [blockquote] and [/blockquote] to italicize and indent a previous writer’s words.
use the “Test Page” to try your formatting first if you are uncertain. There are also examples on that page of WUWT. .mod]
Let me try the italics thing :-
gymnosperm says:
May 27, 2014 at 10:58 am
The implicit implication here is that if a record is indeed set, the reason for that record will be human CO2. While we dither with hundredths of a degree it is well to remember the one degree drop and recovery from the MWP to the present.
Pick your trend.
What source(s) are you using for the difference between the MWP / LIA and the present ?
(Selecting text for copying and pasting takes some practice)
Ooops!
My formatting worked, but not my explanation. Please see:
http://home.comcast.net/~ewerme/wuwt/index.html
Thanks to Werner Brozek, I think I have it now. The blogs all seem to be slightly different. Some also have ‘reply’ links on (some of) the messages.
Richar Barraclough says: May 27, 2014 at 9:52 am
“The GISS figures change all the time, and even the most recent couple of months have already been revised. I must be careful to load the latest version in full every month. Are the other datasets as volatile?”
GISS is basically an aggregator. It brings in data from GHCN (adjusted), an SST, USHCN and others like SCAR. If any of those makes a change, then so does GISS. Also, by the anomalies arithmetic, any change in the base period makes a small change to all years.
The upside of aggregation is that changes, while frequent, are usually small.
Thanks Nick
That explains why the whole dataset can change – a change within any of the contributing datasets during the base period. I know the changes tend to be small – but no less annoying!
Aaargh – can’t even spell my own name…….
I am trying to sample the reasoning from both ideological poles, but basically am a committed warmist.
For those who question the meaning of the second numeral to the right of the decimal, in a two-digit summary of a monthly or annual mean anomaly, consider how many conspirators it would require to actively bias the data stream in order to achieve a tenth of a degree conspiratorial quantum leap of a single hundredth degree, to a bogus result. Has anyone specified the actual number of observations under-girding the Hadley or GISS two and three digit summaries? Is it in the tens of millions?
That digit has no meaning only to those who wish it had none. There are so many observations behind it, it has obvious meaning beyond the calibration of individual instrument readings.
After 1973 there are 2-3 million samples per year, prior far less depending on the year.
If you go to the link in my name I have some different pages, a country with yearly sample counts for the GSOD data I used.
By and large, I find the crowd on this thread uninterested in answering a question, and determined to see the evidence they desire to see. Since the Earth began to measurably warm according to instrument readings, we can assess its average warm rate.
A thirty-five year crawling average bottoms in 1907, at -0.55 F. for the GISS global, and compares to +0.80 F. for the five-year interval between 1996 and 2000. We warmed by 1.36 F. in 91 years, at an average rate of 1.5 hundredths F. per year. Since the giant El Nino in ’97 – ’98, the five-year has warmed to 1.08 F. in 13 years, or at a rate of 2.2 hundredths F. per. Forty-five percent faster than in the last century. Not a pause.
Fully a third of this recorded warmth emerged from the Pacific in the one special year, or 35 year’s worth of typical heating. In the wake of that event, it would not be expected to see average warming resume for another decade and a half. But you guys are not looking to see IF the world is warming, you are trying to erect reasoning justifying your assessment that it is not. In either case, how you make allowance for the special El Nino is everything.
You ought allow, in my view, for that fourth power law governing Planck radiation, and the portion of the IR spectrum which finds the atmosphere transparent. When the super El Nino so raised the surface temperature, there began an immediate radiation loss proportionate to that hike, raised four powers. Looking backwards from the energy regime established by so extraordinary an elevation, you ought focus upon how the planet can sustain so large an IR bleed rate.
In view of the tension between Planck loss and the achievement of surface temperature hikes, how in Hell you “statistically” inspect the post El Nino period without reference to that thermal Niagara is quite mysterious. And physically meaningless, and only statistically significant in the absence of any awareness of 1997-98. But of course, we know about that world-shaping event, don’t we?
Thanx, Cro..
Dave Peters says:
May 27, 2014 at 8:31 pm
Thank you for your comments. As for the pause, it started in the 2000s for all except RSS. You talk about “the tension between Planck loss and the achievement of surface temperature hikes”. That is true and an interesting way of looking at things. So does that mean you agree that warming will never be catastrophic as this would lead to huge tensions that would undermine any catastrophic temperature spike?
Werner — Thank YOU for the courtesy of your reply.
On your pt. #1: “the pause started in the 2000’s”
EXACTLY! In view of my point, how could there NOT be a helluvah pause, following that 35-year’s worth of (perhaps) AGW burp? In addition to accumulating saturation, added CO2 forcing faces the task of “pressing” against that Planck four power thing. I envision that as doing push ups while someone keeps putting added weights on my back. But, more tellingly, if you consider things from the view of radiative equilibrium, the flatness of the plateau seems to me to strongly argue for their being massive H2O radiative support for the huge thermal hike experienced by the surface in ’97-’98. I cannot grasp how a Lindzen world would allow a given heat pulse to linger for a decade.
On pt. #2. Ought catastrophic warming be averted by such increases in difficulty of sustaining ever-increasing Planck bleeds?
That is the vex. Where are we headed? I live in Colorado Springs. Two springs back, when the lower-48 saw that > 1 F. leap in temps in a single year, the sun in March beat down on a nearly snowless western slope—baking it. I live nearly 7,000 above sea level, but as we moved towards the solstice, we had a never seen before 101 F. read, and the weatherman said something I’d never heard in me 63 years: …”the relative humidity is so low, you may as well say there is none”. By late afternoon, I could smell pine smoke and see a gentle snow of ash falling in my back yard. By nine PM, I walked up a hill three blocks from my home and watched across towards Pike’s Peak to witness 350 1/2 million dollar homes burn. Some as lingering glows, some as suddenly erupting conflagrations. Next day, a fire commander explained that, with temps so high, and humidity so low, a hoisted cone had a 60% chance of re-ignition. And, indeed, a two mile wide mountain lake, which I thought a certain barrier to the spreading Waldo inferno, proved inadequate, as falling embers ignited a new blaze on its western shore. Now, we all know that we cannot “attribute” Waldo to AGW, but we also know that since 101 had never been seen by Europeans here, we cannot eliminate AGW as a likely contributing influence. So, catastrophic to whom?
Lets say we luck out and live upon Lindzen-world. No feedbacks. So absolutely assured warming of 2.7 F. attends 2X CO2. An American exhausts 6X CO2 to his 1/7th of a billionth of the atmosphere, in his 78 years. So by age 15, he is @ur momisugly 2X, by his moral example. Is 2.7 F. catastrophic? Probably not. But, that temp is for the global surface, and we live on the land surface, where modeled temps are 2X, and observed are 3X. So, assume we luck out again, and face 2X. That’s 5.4 F. So by age 45 we are @ur momisugly >10F. Now, we would need to live to ninety to see committed warming of 20 F., in a best dream Lindzen-world. But, the overwhelming evidence suggests active thermal feedbacks. Furnace Creek in Death Valley is 18 F. higher than the norm, as the hottest place on Earth. I rode a bike there on an August afternoon in 1988, just to see what life was like in that thermal extreme. I took eight two-liter waters bottles with me and the furthest I could ride without drinking was two power poles. About 300 yards. Catastrophic? I am still here. But I consider this to be an inappropriate moral example to set for the Chindians, in whose hands the fate of our posterity now largely rests. I am no fan of windmills or “negawatts”, but believe we could have and should have gone balls to the wall building nuclear forty years ago, as France did. Their residential power costs 2/3rds the average of the UK, Germany, Netherlands, Spain, Denmark and Italy, last year. So, that much carbonlessness is utterly free.
Thanks for your efforts to wrestle with these matters. We have learned a million-fold about climate since Charney asserted the above numbers in 1979. They are identical to the latest ICCP figures. Likely, we will make the essential world-shaping choices with something close to these contemporary notions of the catastrophic, and the likelihoods.
Dave Peters says:
May 28, 2014 at 2:21 pm
Thank you for your reply. They say hindsight is 20/20. They certainly did not expect any pause.
Phil Jones, July 5, 2005:
“The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. Okay it has but it is only seven years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.”
http://mnichopolis.hubpages.com/hub/ClimateGate-The-Smoking-Gun-email
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/25/can-giss-and-other-data-sets-set-records-in-2014-now-includes-april-data/#comment-1655664
I hope I’m doing it right this time 🙂
Thanks for that; if you find something in higher resolution, or (better still) with data, please let me know.