Will the forecasted El Niño later this year produce a new record? Spencer comments.
June 10th, 2014 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
The Version 5.6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for May, 2014 is +0.33 deg. C, up from April (click for full size version):
The global, hemispheric, and tropical LT anomalies from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 17 months are:
YR MON GLOBAL NH SH TROPICS
2013 1 +0.497 +0.517 +0.478 +0.386
2013 2 +0.203 +0.372 +0.033 +0.195
2013 3 +0.200 +0.333 +0.067 +0.243
2013 4 +0.114 +0.128 +0.101 +0.165
2013 5 +0.082 +0.180 -0.015 +0.112
2013 6 +0.295 +0.335 +0.255 +0.220
2013 7 +0.173 +0.134 +0.211 +0.074
2013 8 +0.158 +0.111 +0.206 +0.009
2013 9 +0.365 +0.339 +0.390 +0.190
2013 10 +0.290 +0.331 +0.249 +0.031
2013 11 +0.193 +0.160 +0.226 +0.020
2013 12 +0.266 +0.272 +0.260 +0.057
2014 1 +0.291 +0.387 +0.194 -0.029
2014 2 +0.170 +0.320 +0.020 -0.103
2014 3 +0.170 +0.338 +0.002 -0.001
2014 4 +0.190 +0.358 +0.022 +0.093
2014 5 +0.329 +0.326 +0.333 +0.173
This is the 3rd warmest May in the satellite record:
1998 +0.56 (warm ENSO)
2010 +0.45 (warm ENSO)
2014 +0.33 (neutral)
John Christy thinks the coming El Nino will give us a new temperature record, since it is superimposed on a warmer baseline than the super El Nino of 1997-98. I’m not convinced, since we are in the cool phase of the PDO, which favors weak El Ninos (like 2009-10).
As we finish up our new Version 6 of the UAH dataset, it looks like our anomalies in the 2nd half of the satellite record will be slightly cooler, somewhat more like the RSS dataset….but we are talking small adjustments here…hundredths of a deg. C.
The global image for May should be available in the next day or so here.
Popular monthly data files (these might take a few days to update):
uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt (Lower Troposphere)
uahncdc_mt_5.6.txt (Mid-Troposphere)
uahncdc_ls_5.6.txt (Lower Stratosphere)
“.but we are talking small adjustments here…”
Wait, the historical record is being changed..
…hundredths of a deg. C.
Still no sign of the next ice age then?=
Dan,
Nor of the oceans boiling! Boring, eh?
So looking at the UAH temperature plot we see that currently we are about 0.4C warmer than in late 1996 on an annual basis or 0.3C warmer on the 13 month running mean.
We also see that since 2002 temperature has been fairly flat, but consistently warmer than pre-2000, apart from the 1998 El Nino spike.
Why does this matter ? Because Lord Monckton states as if fact that there has been no warming since August 1996. On the UAH record at least he is plainly wrong. If he said since 2002 he might have an argument.
Dr. Spencer, why does UAH and RSS seem more affected by changes in ENSO? It appears that the surface data sets show much less of variance in those events. Thank you for your explanation in advance.
James Abbott says:
…Lord Monckton states as if fact that there has been no warming since August 1996.
Lord Monckton is exactly right.
I was looking at the SOI a day or two ago, and it has slid back positive.
I don’t think the ENSOR temp stays up long enough to become a documented El Niño.
Temp this year holds steady and begins to fall next year with a new La Niña.
In reply to James Abbot, if you go to the link above the chart on Monckton’s article, the temperature record there substantiates his statement, but I found that the RSS interpretation of the data differs from UAH data. There are large discrepancies in the resulting record. Here is a link to the RSS record.
http://www.remss.com/data/msu/monthly_time_series/rss_monthly_msu_amsu_channel_tlt_anomalies_land_and_ocean_v03_3.txt
Wikipedia explains the difference, but with an obvious warmist disparagement.
Sidney Somes,
Satellite data is the very best because it is the most accurate. In effect, it takes a snapshot of the globe, whereas other methods use a thermometer network that leaves out large parts of the globe.
RSS is satellite data. This is from 1996:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1996.
[snip – fake email address -mod]
I think it is of academic interest whether the hiatus is 20 or 15 years. I will wait for the next El Nino. And the supposed hidden warmth in the ocean. It should immerse…or else…
For those who missed the links I included on a couple of threads yesterday, I posted the full sea surface temperature update:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2014/06/09/may-2014-sea-surface-temperature-sst-anomaly-update/
Regards
Andy, the main reason why ENSO is stronger in satellite data than in surface data is the due to the heat lost by the surface through evaporation (which cools the surface) is dumped in the middle and upper troposphere by the resulting condensation of that water vapor into precipitation.
It’s the “hot spot”, which exists for interannual climate variability, but apparently not in decadal trends.
James Abbott says: June 10, 2014 at 10:03 am
I’m pretty sure he says “there has been no statistically significant warming since whenever“, established by working backwards until warming does become statistically significant using least squares linear regression. And he is always careful to quote the R² value of the resulting linear trend line as being close to zero (i.e. meaningless).
He is deftly taking the Michael out of clowns with rulers who think linear regression can be usefully applied to complex coupled non-linear chaotic systems or, worse, that doing so implies predictive skill. More power to his exquisitely leather-clad elbow, one day reality may even sink in!
Can you feel a few tenths of a degree warming per decade and what is the usual variation where you live? Here’s a clue:
http://s28.postimg.org/mdztgmwaj/UAH.png
[297KB click on image in browser to enlarge, standard deviations on the right]
Andy says: “Dr. Spencer, why does UAH and RSS seem more affected by changes in ENSO? It appears that the surface data sets show much less of variance in those events. Thank you for your explanation in advance.”
Just in case Roy doesn’t reply, I believe the answer is: In the tropics, the lower troposphere is responding to the El Nino in two ways. First, the atmosphere is warming in response to the warmer surface temperatures. Second, the atmosphere is also responding to the additional evaporation taking place from the ocean surface, and warming when the additional moisture condenses back to a liquid. The same holds true for a La Nina, but cools with a cooler surface and with less evaporation and condensation.
There you have it, Andy. Not only did Roy reply, but he beat me to the answer.
Roy Spencer writes: “As we finish up our new Version 6 of the UAH dataset, it looks like our anomalies in the 2nd half of the satellite record will be slightly cooler…”
Any idea when you’ll be releasing Version 6?
James Abbott says: “Why does this matter ? Because Lord Monckton states as if fact that there has been no warming since August 1996. On the UAH record at least he is plainly wrong.”
But Christopher Monckton does not use UAH TLT data. He uses RSS TLT data. Both are valid. If memory serves, RSS and UAH simply use different satellites in recent years.
Bob, we keep thinking it’s going to be “next month” but we keep finding little issues here and there. All of our processing steps have been changed, and all of the software rewritten, so it’s been a major effort. We are SO close now.
Dan says on June 10, 2014 at 8:52 am:
“Still no sign of the next ice age then”
==+======
Oh yes there is (or are – as there are many) but not if you just look at the satellite records which only go back to the latter part of the 20th century.
But in any case, you and I may never have to worry about the coming of the next “Glaciation” (We have been in “an ‘Ice Age’ for a couple of million years – or a bit more – so far) so we can continue to look at (amuse ourselves with) “warm spikes” and “cold thoughts” for a few more years yet.
Has anyone else noticed that the average arctic temperature seems to now be stuck well below freezing when it’s supposed to be on the positive side by now?
I don’t recall the anomaly at the usual crossing date being near as negative last year, a sign of things to come?
AGT is only an indicator of global warming it is not necessarily linked. Many other observations must be considered to determine the warming or cooling of the planet. Satellites show the earth is retaining more heat – so, somewhere, it is warming. Probably deep ocean.
Mr Abbott say I state as fact that there has been no global warming since 1996. No, I state as fact that there has been no global warming on the RSS dataset since 1996. I publish regular posts looking at the mean of the RSS and UAH datasets, showing no warming for 13+ years on the combined datasets. Don’t pick nits.
Mr Abbot, do as you’re told, and please don’t tease the irascible Mr M 😉
Eystein Simonsen (Norway) says on June 10, 2014 at 11:47 am:
“I think it is of academic interest whether —–_—–“
==========
Eystein, Øysrein or Øistein-? ? ?
Tell me again about the significant digits and the error calculations…
Patrick B says:
June 10, 2014 at 1:43 pm
“significant digits and the error calculations”
The standard error of the mean equals the standard deviation divided by the square root of the number of observations. Therefore, as the number of observations increases, the SE approaches zero.
http://ww2.tnstate.edu/ganter/BIO311-Ch6-Eq1.gif
If the GISS and HadCRUT use surface temp.’s only, how do they measure the air temp above the oceans?
glenncz says:
June 10, 2014 at 2:37 pm
“If the GISS and HadCRUT use surface temp.’s only, how do they measure the air temp above the oceans?”
Extrapolation…….
Sorry, that’s facetious. They do measure sea surface temperatures and incorporate those, but the density of sites is highly variable so surface estimates are based on lot of smoothing and spreading out.
At the same time, I don’t think the satellites cover the entire planet either as the poles are not covered. I would estimate the amount, but there are people who know exactly so i will let them fill n the numbers.
glenncz says: “If the GISS and HadCRUT use surface temp.’s only, how do they measure the air temp above the oceans?”
They don’t. They use sea surface temperature data.
Regards
rod leman says: “AGT is only an indicator of global warming it is not necessarily linked. Many other observations must be considered to determine the warming or cooling of the planet. Satellites show the earth is retaining more heat – so, somewhere, it is warming. Probably deep ocean.”
Unfortunately, your claim is not supported by data. The ARGO-era temperature data to the depths of 2000 meters (6550 feet) show the only two ocean basins that are warming are the South Atlantic and the Indian Oceans. The North Atlantic and the largest ocean on this planet, the Pacific, show no warming in more than a decade:
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/nodc-argo-era-vertical-mean-temp-per-basin-to-2013.png
CO2 is said to be a well-mixed greenhouse gas. It’s tough to imagine that it can warm two ocean basins to depths of 2000 meters, but not the others.
The graph is from the post here:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2014/01/31/open-letter-to-kevin-trenberth-ncar/
Ah – so The Good Lord derives his conclusion from only certain data sets (not UAH). Problem is, its not just UAH that shows his pause is too long (by 6 years), NASA GISS says the same – this time on a 5 year running mean and clearly showing that the rise in temperature since the mid-1990s is outside the measurement uncertainty.
There is no doubt that there has been a pause, but there is also no justification in trying to make it appear longer to prove a pre-determined position.
its not just UAH that shows his pause is too long (by 6 years), NASA GISS says the same
===
You don’t know what you just said…………of course they are the same
James Abbott says: “Ah – so The Good Lord derives his conclusion from only certain data sets (not UAH).”
Of course. That’s the whole point of the exercise. One valid global temperature dataset shows no warming for x-years and y-months. Simple.
James Abbott says: “Problem is…”
There’s no problem. The RSS dataset is a valid dataset. This is a simple exercise. I’m not sure why you’re trying to complicate it.
James Abbott says: “NASA GISS says the same – this time on a 5 year running mean…”
GISTEMP is a totally different metric. RSS TLT is lower troposphere temperature data, which rises well above the surface in the tropics, and GISTEMP is a combination of land surface air temperature measurements and sea surface temperatures. And why, in a discussion of a 17-year+ hiatus presented in monthly format, would you want to introduce the topic of a 5-year running mean filter? Your attempt at redirection doesn’t work.
Latitude
UAH – as per the posting we are talking about, is a satellite based temperature of the global lower atmosphere and the anomaly plot is relative to the baseline period of 1981-2000.
The NASA GISS record is the Global Land-Ocean surface temperature index on a baseline period of 1951-1980
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif
The temperature analysis produced at GISS is compiled from weather data from more than 1,000 meteorological stations around the world, (more recently) satellite observations of sea-surface temperature, and Antarctic research station measurements, taking into account station history and urban heat island effects
So they are not the same as you believe. They cover different periods (GISS goes back to 1880), are derived by different methods and are on different baselines.
But they do show similar recent trends which conflict with Lord Monckton’s claims.
James Abbott,
That GISS chart is deceptive. It fools the eye because it uses an arbitrary zero baseline. The honest baseline is a trend line.
NikFromNYC shows the difference:
http://img576.imageshack.us/img576/2681/temperaturewithrealbase.gif
If GISS used an honest trend line, there would be nothing scary about the chart you linked to. It would simply show the steady, natural recovery from the LIA.
As you can see, that chart also goes back to the 1880’s. Now if you are yourself honest, you will admit that NASA/GISS is being deceptive in their charts. NOAA does the same, as do USHCN and others.
When the truth is pointed out, we see that there is no reason for alarm, and we see that global warming is natural.
the unusual cyclone activity in the E tropical Pacific, looks like another one is getting its act together now, is taking a toll on that pool of warm water off S Mexican coast – is this the “heat from ocean to air” that is the basis for whatever coming El Nino may develop ? Or, the taking the “head” off the strength of any coming El Nino ? There has been lots of tropical storm activity in this area also.
James Abbott says: “But they do show similar recent trends which conflict with Lord Monckton’s claims.”
I’m not sure why you’re belaboring this. Here’s Christopher Monckton’s latest post:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/04/the-pause-continues-still-no-global-warming-for-17-years-9-months/
Here’s the RSS TLT data:
ftp://ftp.remss.com/msu/monthly_time_series/rss_monthly_msu_amsu_channel_tlt_anomalies_land_and_ocean_v03_3.txt
Plot the RSS data for the last 17 years, 9 months and see if you come up with something other than a zero trend. That’s the only way that you could find any conflict with what Christopher has presented.
Christopher’s post was not about GISS LOTI data. It was not about UAH TLT data. It was not about the NCDC land+ocean temperature index. It was not about HADCRUT4 data. It was about RSS TLT. Simple.
dbstealey said, on June 10, 2014 at 10:33 am:
> James Abbott says:
>>…Lord Monckton states as if fact that there has been no
>> warming since August 1996.
> Lord Monckton is exactly right.
The link shows a set of graphs generated by using woodfortrees for how long each of several global temperature datasets have shown global temperature as not increasing. One of them says since 1996. Most of them say starting around the beginning of 2001, and UAH saying lack of warming started in 2004. However I see UAH showing near complete lack of warming starting around the beginning of 2002 or in the 2nd half of 2001.
I was in Mexico city from December through mid February – was about 80f in MEX. I flew back to Wisconsin ATW and it was -10f or so. Few years ago climbed Mount Kilo and Kenya – cold as hell on top and hotter than hell at the bottom…my point being I think to many people who are worried about warming are spending too much time in conditioned environments…they need to get out in the world and get out of mom’s and dad’s conditioned basements. The world is a hell of lot better off now than it was 30 years ago when I started global traveling as a BSME….. As mush as the kids with BSIBD degrees (bachelor of science in basement dwelling) want to control our lives to make us miserable it isn’t going to happen – there are billions of people out there who are pushing back and won’t go back to the cave lives they just left only a generation ago. God bless all those billions of courage’s people and all the hell they have been through. Myself, I’m for fighting with them and not fighting against them. CAGW folks not so much…
Bob Tisdale
The reason I raise it is that these 2 differently derived data sets produce the same trend – showing that there is no 17 year pause, but a 12 year pause. If you look at it on monthly data points, or annual, or the running means, you get the same answer.
dbstealey
I would suggest if you are claiming that “NASA/GISS is lying with charts. NOAA does the same, as do USHCN and others” you might have a problem with being selective.
Plus – neither NASA GISS nor UAH use an “an arbitrary zero baseline”. The zero line is the mean temperature in the base climate period of 30 years. The plots of each month or year show anomalies from that base period mean – its a standard way of looking at changes in climate.
Even though Monckton’s posts say only that according to RSS the world has not warmed for 17-plus years, I see articles in WUWT citing these posts to state as a fact that the world has not warmed for 17-plus years. I think the authors of those articles are overstating their cases for the duration of the pause.
One thing I see as favoring such overstatement is this title for a recent article by Monckton, cited above:
“The pause continues – Still no global warming for 17 years 9 months”
The title does not say that this is according to only one of the two major satellite datasets.
Donald L. Klipstein says: June 10, 2014 at 5:30 pm
“Even though Monckton’s posts say only that according to RSS the world has not warmed for 17-plus years, I see articles in WUWT citing these posts to state as a fact that the world has not warmed for 17-plus years.”
I meant to say, “with or without citing these posts, stating as fact that the world has not warmed for 18 years.”
re: Nit picking. Regardless of 12, 14, 16, 17, etc years in this pause, there is no mechanism to explain why increased CO2 has not been continually producing increasing temperatures. It is assumed the heat is hiding in the oceans yet there is no observation that shows any such transition from the ocean surface to the deeper layers. So that speculation can be rejected for lack of observed movement of this accumulated heat. It is often stated that the anthropogenic heat is buried in natural variation. However that makes no sense. Any AGW proponents want to explain that one?
James Abbott says:
June 10, 2014 at 4:30 pm
===
..you want a bigger shovel
James Abbott says: “The reason I raise it is that these 2 differently derived data sets produce the same trend – showing that there is no 17 year pause, but a 12 year pause…”
Immaterial. Christopher Monckton’s posts relate to a specific dataset and they are not the ones you chose to examine. Additionally, as Roy Spencer noted above, UAH will soon be releasing Version 6 of their TLT data and it will bring the latter period warming more into line with the RSS data.
James, you should read the post on reproducibility. It may help you understand the mistake you are making bringing up a different data set to say that Lord M.’s statement is wrong. His statement is empirically true based on the data set he used. If you were to write your research up, using a different data set, and submit it to a journal as a refutation of Lord M.’s statement, it wouldn’t pass the laugh test. Hell, it might not even get past pal-review.
James Abbott says:
Plus – neither NASA GISS nor UAH use an “an arbitrary zero baseline”…
That is exactly what they do. As you wrote:
The NASA GISS record is the Global Land-Ocean surface temperature index on a baseline period of 1951-1980.
That is an arbitrary baseline, zeroed at a 1951 – 1908 average.
Look at the chart you linked to. Scary, isn’t it? But if you contrast it to the WFT chart I posted showing an even longer term trend, it doesn’t look scary at all. If you wanted to, you could understand what is being done. As Nik quotes Timothy Leary: he who controls your eyes, controls your mind.
You clearly have no understanding of what I was trying to show you. Your confirmation bias is in high gear, so you will only understand the things that fit into your belief system.
================================
Donald Klipstein,
Here is satellite data from 1997. No global warming for 17 years.
Pamela Gray says:
June 10, 2014 at 5:58 pm
+++++++++++++++++++
Yep.
+++++++++++++++++++
Now, look very carefully at the UAH graph above, can you see the imprint of solar activity on the entire series? It’s there. Six months after my total evidence-based epiphany, still patiently waiting for you and everyone else to understand the truth: The Sun causes warming, cooling, and extreme weather events. It’s there. It’s true. Once you understand it, you’ll never go back or wonder why again. Of course it would be just too easy to simply tell you – [ not just you Pamela ] – I want you all to try to discover this yourselves.
Re RSS and UAH,
As stated on the RSS data, it covers the globe from -70 (70 deg south) to 82.5 deg north. This means RSS misses out nearly all of the Antarctic continent, only touching it in places at the extreme periphery: http://www.mapsofworld.com/lat_long/maps/antarctica-lat-long.jpg
On the other hand, UAH covers the globe to 85 deg north and south, and so covers the vast majority of both the Antarctic and the Arctic. In its 2013 annual report UAH stated that the “warmest areas during the year were over the North Pacific and the Antarctic, where temperatures for the year averaged more than 1.4 C(more than 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than normal.”
RSS missed most of that anomalous warming in Antarctica. This may go some way towards explaining why the two data sets differ.
Re UAH and GISS,
As stated by many above, UAH produces lower troposphere temperatures whereas GISS produces surface/sea surface temperatures. Nevertheless, there is very strong agreement between these two data sets when compared over the longer term (at least there is at the moment).
This chart compares UAH and GISS. GISS is offset by -0.39 so that both are base lined to the 1981-2010 period as described in the WfTs Notes section. (0.39 is the average temperature for GISS between 1981-2010.) http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/plot/gistemp/from:1979/offset:-0.39/plot/uah/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1979/offset:-0.39/trend
So, IF Co2 warms the entire globe catastrophically, AND IF that warming is supposed to cause the Arctic sea ice to melt AND THAT melting is supposed to cause MORE CA global warming to melt more sea ice …
So, how could the Antarctic sea ice extents last October 2013 set an all-time satellite record high sea ice extents AROUND Antarctica if Antarctica was measured that same 2013 year with the earth’s highest regional temperatures?
Oh, and by the way, the Antarctic sea ice anomaly (the “excess” Antarctic sea ice alone) has been continuously positive since May 2011, and been regularly higher than normal since 2007, and that excess has been as large as 1.6 Mkm^2 several times .. an area 97% the size of Greenland. Now, just what is that funny “Arctic amplification” positive feedback the so-called “scientists” propagandize their politicians about?
RACookPE1978
The sea ice in the Antarctic may be healthy, but it seems according the Daily Mail that the ice on land there is melting fast.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2632917/Antarctic-ice-losses-DOUBLED-2010-researchers-reveal-study-shows-159-BILLION-tonnes-ice-melting-year.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490&utm_source=Daily+Carbon+Briefing&utm_campaign=d8e2a29f35-DAILY_BRIEFING&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_876aab4fd7-d8e2a29f35-303421281
From Bob Weber on June 10, 2014 at 8:41 pm:
The absolute proof of the Sun causing warming, cooling, and other cycles as well as extreme weather events, is very easy to deduce.
Without the Sun, the weather would be much less variable with far fewer extremes.
Summing up the various posts on the pause, what it clear, even from those backing Monckton, is that his 17 + year pause is based on a narrow assessment of the available data sets.
In fact it is based on one data set.
Did he choose that one to give the longest pause possible whereas other data sets, including GISS and UAH show that the pause is at least 5 years shorter ?
dbstealey – you seem a supporter of that approach of selective use of data to deliver a pre-determined result but also can I also suggest you take some time to brush up on some basic maths and science. You can argue that a chosen baseline is “arbitrary”, but which ever baseline 30 years period you choose to use, it will still show the anomalies above and below that line. It is a standard way of looking at climate change, whatever the causes. The fact that we have 24 hours in day or the freezing point of water as key ways of measuring things could be argued to be arbitrary. But unless you set out these baselines, you are stuffed when trying to measure physical quantities and change.
James Abbott,
Dance all you want but you’re either being obtuse or purposefully mendacious with your assertions which first challenged Monkcton’s accuracy and now his motives.
Your shady shift from accuracy to motivation is a low brow technique that has saturated the climate debate and deserves to be admonished as unethical.
Pamela Gray says:
June 10, 2014 at 5:58 pm
” yet there is no observation that shows any such transition from the ocean surface to the deeper layers.”
.
Did you discount the 3mm per year SLR of which a significant amount is due to the thermal expansion of water?
James Abbott says:
Summing up the various posts on the pause, what it clear, even from those backing Monckton, is that his 17 + year pause…
And: Did he choose that one to give the longest pause possible…
The term “pause” is dishonest.
This is not a “pause”. This can only be a “pause” if global warming resumes. It may, or it may not — or global cooling may begin. We don’t know, and neither do you. So until then, global warming has stopped. And it may have stopped permanently, or for a long, long time.
Next:
You can argue that a chosen baseline is “arbitrary”, but which ever baseline 30 years period…
I don’t know if you are mendacious or stupid, but you still do not appear to understand the difference between an arbitrary baseline chart and a trend line chart. An arbitrary baseline chart looks frightening because it makes it appear that global temperatures are in an accelerating rise, when they are not.
An arbitrary baseline chart is deceptive. It does not reflect reality, while a trend line shows what is actually happening: global temperature has been in a steadily rising trend since the end of the LIA. But it stopped rising quite a few years ago, despite endless predictions to the contrary by people like Abbott.
It is amusing watching folks like Abbott squirm over the fact that global warming has stopped, no matter for how long. Whether it is ten years, or fifteen years, or twenty years, global warming has stopped. It is no more. That parrot is dead.
OK. I’ll ask: Of that 2.2 mm/year supposed rise in sea levels, how much is due to thermal expansion, and – if so – by what number of degrees C has the deep ocean increased the past 17 years? (Remember, no continental shelves – deep ocean only – since we are assured that the heat is hiding only there. )
And how has the heat gotten there?
I think it is obvious to everyone that Monckton cherry picks the RSS data set because it has the longest pause (hiatus or whatever you want to call it).
Joe,
I think it is obvious to everyone that you mis-label the current situation as a “pause” rather than what it is: ‘global warming stopped many years ago’, because you are a True Believer in catastrophic AGW — something for which there is zero evidence.
Joe,
I think it is obvious to everyone that Joe is misusing the expression “cherry picks”.
Monckton is not selectively using, or cherry picking, segments of RSS data in order to make some dubious claim.
He is openly and completely plotting the RSS data for the last 17 years, 9 months showing a zero trend.
He is not concealing anything, not misrepresenting anything or suggesting anything more or anything less.
Is it cherry picking because he is not analyzing or including other data sets?
Not hardly.
No, I think I used the term appropriately. From Wikipedia:
Joe:
Please allow me to help you.
In support of your mistaken assertion that Lord Monckton is guilty of cherry picking by analysing the RSS data set, at June 11, 2014 at 12:11 pm you write
Sorry, but you “think” wrongly.
According to the definition of cherry picking which you provide, Monckton of Brenchley would have been guilty of that offence if he had chosen to present the “data” which most supports his “particular position”. But
(a) he did not choose a “particular position”
and
(b) he did not present the “data” which most supports the “particular position” he states.
The “particular position” he states is a result of conducting regression analysis on the RSS data back in time from now as a method to determine the maximum period when there has been no positive linear trend (i.e. a warming trend) indicated by the data. This period of no rising linear trend in global temperature as indicated by the RSS data is more than 17 years.
However, it can be argued that his obtained period of time is conservative because he should have assessed the maximum period when there has been a linear trend (i.e. a warming or cooling trend) which is not discernibly different from zero at 95% confidence. Assessed in this way the RSS data indicates no warming or cooling discernible at 95% confidence for more than 22 years.
I hope this clarifies the matter for you.
Richard
Lord Monckton is merely following Roy Spencer’s advice:
“As can be seen, in the last 10 years or so the RSS temperatures have been cooling relative to the UAH temperatures (or UAH warming relative to RSS…same thing). The discrepancy is pretty substantial…since 1998, the divergence is over 50% of the long-term temperature trends seen in both datasets.”
and
“But, until the discrepancy is resolved to everyone’s satisfaction, those of you who REALLY REALLY need the global temperature record to show as little warming as possible might want to consider jumping ship, and switch from the UAH to RSS dataset.”
Meanwhile the AMO is out of gas and falling.
dbstealey
Can I suggest you drop the insults as they have zero effect on me and just distract from the real issues.
Aside from your thin grasp on baselines and the numerous statements you make which are not supported by the facts eg
“global temperature has been in a steadily rising trend since the end of the LIA”
I can assure you that I do not “squirm” that global warming has paused. Unlike your pre-determined position that ALL the changes we are observing are natural, I am interested in the science and have never made “endless predictions” that temperatures would rise continuously.
The world does not divide into two purist camps of “warmists and “sceptics”, much as some might like it to.
Nick Stokes,
Then isn’t it cherry-picking to insist on the UAH data set? Here is HadCRUT4. Are they wrong, too? And HadCRUT3. And CRUtem3. And BEST, all from 1997.
Where’s the global warming?
I prefer satellite data because it in effect takes a snapshot of the globe, instead of relying on widely spaced weather stations. It shows the trend better, without UHI effects.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
James Abbott,
OK then, why don’t you tell us how much ‘global warming’ over the past 15 years is due directly to human CO2 emissions.
If you say, “I don’t know”, that would be good.
My position is this: global warming since the LIA is natural. It is not accelerating. Global warming due to human emissions is too minuscule to measure, and on net balance, it is harmless and beneficial. More CO2 is better, and more global warming is better.
Have fun with that one. I’ll defend it, because it is a testable hypothesis — unlike catastrophic AGW.
RACookPE1978 says:
“So, how could the Antarctic sea ice extents last October 2013 set an all-time satellite record high sea ice extents AROUND Antarctica if Antarctica was measured that same 2013 year with the earth’s highest regional temperatures?”
_______________________
This is a question you should address to Dr Spencer. It’s his data set.
I would point out that it was the joint highest ‘anomalous’ temperature. The Antarctic continent didn’t suddenly get warm in 2013; it was just warmer than it usually is.
Is it possible that increased glacier melt from the bottom of the ice shelves is causing a fresher but less dense layer of cold water to stratify above the warmer water below?
It could be. We can’t rule that out.
dbstealey
“More CO2 is better, and more global warming is better.”
You would like Venus then. Plenty of both there.
OK that is an extreme example, but your position is untenable because the rise in CO2 since the pre-industrial era is undeniably caused by human society and CO2 is undeniably a GHG.
But if you know different ….
Joe,
Sorry but I’ll have to conclude you are being both obtuse and purposefully mendacious.
Obtuse for your convoluted use of cherry picking and mendacious for your efforts to distort Monckton’s thorough and fair analysis of RSS.
You are equally ill-equipped to address the proportionality and significance of the human attributable rise in CO2, it’s role as a GHG or contribution to warming.
Size matters. Saying humans have increased atmospheric CO2 and it is a GHG is meaningless.
No where can you find any science which identifies the relative dimension of human related CO2 warming. Climate models don’t cut it and neither do 10,000 published studies talking about what may be, could be or will be. No more than melting ice does.
I see you have a few mis-conceptions here. Politely, let us continue the conversation.
1. True, it is Dr Spencer’s presentation of the world’s data, BUT the conflict between a “very high” regional Antarctic temperature in in 2013 AND a simultaneous equally record HIGH Antarctic sea ice extents throughout May 2011 through May 2014 (with a record sea ice extents high set in October 2013) is NOT a problem with the database nor Spencer’s satellite temperature measurement process, but with the ENTIRE CAGW “theory” and superficial logic of single-level Algebra I grade school physics.
2. The edge (the part of the Antarctic sea ice that is ever-expanding (or retreating much slower than normal during the Antarctic summer months) average 5 – 7 degrees in latitude further OUT from the continental land mass than the few glaciers that are “claimed” to be melting underneath. (Note that no actual measurements have ever been reported showing this underground melting, only the conclusions of massive “underground” melting.) At 110 kilometers per degree latitude, that means 550 – 700 KILOMETERS of very cold! freshwater “spreading out under the sea ice and diluting the millions of square kilometers of seawater” enough so much that “the freezing point of the dilute seawater will freeze at higher-then-normal temperatures caused by global warming.
See above. Now, actually calculate the number of million of cubic kilometers of glacier land-locked ice that had to melt to dilute the salt water enough to freeze a radial band of 2 meter-deep area of sea water 1.7 million kilometers wide completely around the continent of Antarctic 600 kilometers out form shore…… Now remember, that 1.6 million square kilometers is not the amount of “regular” Antarctic sea ice. it is only the EXTRA Antarctic sea ice last October that EXCEEDS the normal sea ice area.
James Abbott says:
You would like Venus then. Plenty of both there.
That is such a lame response that I can only conclude that you have run out of sane arguments. You must be aware that I have posted this dozens of times:
“CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere at both current and projected concentrations.”
That is, and has been my often-repeated, testable hypothesis. But since you have made it an issue now, either falsify it, or the hypothesis stands, and is on its way to becoming an accepted Theory — in which case you completely lose the debate. If you do manage to falsify it with testable, empirical measurements showing global harm that is due directly to the rise in CO2, and that the biosphere is not benefitting from more CO2, then you will be the first. But give it your best shot. Because if you don’t, silence is concurrence.
Next, Abbot says:
OK that is an extreme example, but your position is untenable because the rise in CO2 since the pre-industrial era is undeniably caused by human society and CO2 is undeniably a GHG.
“Undeniably” is an evidence-free assertion. You can try to prove that the rise in CO2 is due entirely to human emissions; I don’t care. Because as stated in my hypothesis above: CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere. So it really doesn’t matter where CO2 comes from — unless you can show global harm due to the rise in CO2, and show that the biosphere is not benefitting, then it doesn’t matter.
Your arguments are über-lame. You can cry about that judgement. Or you can try to come up with better arguments.
dbstealey:
I write to support a minor point in your post at June 11, 2014 at 7:10 pm. I do not intend to divert the thread.
You write
The anthropogenic (i.e. from human activities) global warming (AGW) hypothesis consists of three components; viz.
1.
The observed recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration results from CO2 emissions from human activities overwhelming the ability of nature to sequester CO2 from the atmosphere.
2.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas (GHG) so any rise to atmospheric CO2 concentration will increase global temperature (i.e. the CO2 rise will cause global warming).
3.
There are positive feedbacks in the climate system which generate problematic global temperature rise from small global warming.
These three components must each be true for the AGW hypothesis to be true. If any one of them were shown to be false then the AGW hypothesis would be shown to be false.
But there are good reasons to dispute each of the three components of the AGW hypothesis.
Importantly there is no evidence that anthropogenic emissions are overwhelming the ability of nature to sequester CO2 from the atmosphere: the anthropogenic emissions may be doing that, but there is no evidence that they are doing it and there is evidence that they are not.
It is quite possible that all, some, or none of the observed recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration is natural behaviour of the carbon cycle.
These possibilities can each be modelled in accordance with available data in several different ways, and the models each match the empirical data without need for the 5-year smoothing of the data needed to get an agreement with the assumption that the anthropogenic emissions are overwhelming the ability of nature to sequester CO2 from the atmosphere.
(ref. Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005) )
This is the ‘dirty secret’ of the AGW hypothesis: nobody knows what – if any – effect emissions of CO2 from human activity have on atmospheric CO2 concentration.
It is the truth which cannot be stated if the AGW hypothesis is to be used as excuse for political actions, and that is why people such as Abbot falsely proclaim<blockquote the rise in CO2 since the pre-industrial era is undeniably caused by human society
Of course, it is of more immediate importance that – as you say in your words which I have quoted in this post – the AGW hypothesis fails unless and until it is shown there are positive feedbacks in the climate system which generate problematic global temperature rise from small global warming. But the lack of scientific evidence for effect of anthropogenic CO2 emissions on atmospheric CO2 concentration is pertinent to policy considerations.
Richard
Ouch! formatting went wrong again!
I intended this
It is the truth which cannot be stated if the AGW hypothesis is to be used as excuse for political actions, and that is why people such as Abbot falsely proclaim
Sorry.
Richard
‘..The Version 5.6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for May, 2014 is +0.33 deg. C, up from April..’
So does this mean that the ‘pause’ is over and global warming has returned?
According to RSS temperatures are warming at a rate of +.123 degrees C per decade.
According to UAH the rate of warming is 0.14 degrees C per decade.
So Lord Monckton’s favoured data set is not that much behind the UAH numbers.
richardscourtney and dbstealey: If you are seriously suggesting that the rise in CO2 concentration since the industrial revolution is not human induced you really need to take a reality check. We can calculate to a reasonable level of accuracy the amount of CO2 emitted by human society and work out the response of the oceans and biosphere. The numbers are sensible. We KNOW that the rise in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is driven by human society. The Keeling Curve
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
shows the rise nicely, including the annual “biosphere breathing” cycle.
Also, dbstealey please cite your evidence for CO2 being “harmless” per se. At low concentrations it may be, but not as concentration increases – as the astronauts on the Apollo 13 mission found out.
The effects of increased CO2 levels on adults at good health can be summarized:
normal outdoor level: 350 – 450 ppm
acceptable levels: < 600 ppm
complaints of stiffness and odors: 600 – 1000 ppm
general drowsiness: 1000 – 2500 ppm
adverse health effects expected: 2500 – 5000 ppm
slightly intoxicating, breathing and pulse rate increase, nausea: 30,000 ppm
above plus headaches and sight impairment: 50,000 ppm
unconscious, further exposure death: 100.000 ppm
Abbott says:
…If you are seriously suggesting that the rise in CO2 concentration since the industrial revolution is not human induced…
Whoever said that part of the rise in harmless, beneficial CO2 was not done by human activity? It is, and a very good thing, too.
Next, the hyper-alarmist Abbott says:
…please cite your evidence for CO2 being “harmless” per se. At low concentrations it may be, but not as concentration increases – as the astronauts on the Apollo 13 mission found out.
As usual, Abbott gets the Scientific Method backward. The onus is not on skeptics to prove a negative. The onus is on alarmists to show that CO2 causes global HARM. They have failed. Thus, CO2 is ipso facto “harmless”.
Get with the program, Abbott. Your mental convulsions make no sense.
James Abbott:
At June 12, 2014 at 4:17 pm you say
I really do understand that you belong to a group who “KNOW that the rise in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is driven by human society”.
And I also understand there is a larger group who “KNOW” Santa Claus uses a magic sleigh to deliver Christmas Presents.
As I said in my post at June 12, 2014 at 12:41 am
You say you “KNOW” none of that observed rise is natural. You may be right. So, please give me some cogent evidence that would convince me of what you “KNOW”.
You are good on assertions but devoid of evidence pertaining to causality. Importantly, as dbstealey says at June 12, 2014 at 10:45 pm
Richard
Its very difficult debating with people who fail to accept the most basic of accepted scientific facts.
So according to dbstealey, CO2 is harmless and it does not matter how much we put in the atmosphere and according to richardscourtney we may not be responsible for the rise in concentration anyway.
I did provide evidence that shows both of you are wrong, its just that your pre-determined – and amazing – positions are not influenced it seems by any sensible evidence.
One thing I can agree with richardscourtney on – Santa Claus. And why ? Because there is no evidence that he exists. His position in our society is entirely a product of false belief and commercial interest. Sounds familiar ?
I don’t see a separate post for the monthly update to GISS, May was the warmest in the record, and spring 2nd warmewst.
Re the deep ocean excuse: How can heat hide there without raising sea levels through thermal expansion?
James Abbott:
At June 13, 2014 at 3:57 am you assert
Indeed, it is “very difficult debating with people” such as you “who fail to accept the most basic of accepted scientific facts”.
You say you have provided “evidence” that
(a) dbstealey is “wrong” when he points out that there is no evidence that increase to atmospheric CO2 concentration is harmful
and
(b) I am “wrong” when I point out that there is no cogent evidence for a mostly human or a mostly natural cause of the recent increase to atmospheric CO2 concentration.
I have searched the thread and failed to find the “evidence” you say you have provided. Please be so kind as to reference where you provided it or provide it again.
Please note that this is very important because the formal literature contains no “evidence” for an influence of CO2 on the warming climate; none, zilch, nada. Three decades of research conducted world-wide at a cost of over US$5 billion per year has failed to find any such evidence. Ben Santer tried to claim he had found some such evidence in the 1990s but it was soon discovered that his so-called “fingerprint” was an artifact of his only using some data from near the middle of a time series. You will be awarded at least one Nobel Prize if you have discovered such evidence so please don’t be too bashful for you to say where you have provided it .
Richard
James Abbott says:
One thing I can agree with richardscourtney on – Santa Claus. And why ? Because there is no evidence that he exists. His position in our society is entirely a product of false belief and commercial interest. Sounds familiar ?
Replace “Santa Claus” with “Catstrophic AGW”, and we have a winner!
There is no evidence that CAGW exists. Its position in our society is entirely the product of false belief, and it is motivated by government grant money. Sound familiar?
James, I think you’ve got it!