This post updates the data for the three primary suppliers of global land+ocean surface temperature data—GISS through May 2014 and HADCRUT4 and NCDC through April 2014—and of the two suppliers of satellite-based global lower troposphere temperature data (RSS and UAH) through May 2014.
Initial Notes: To make this post as timely as possible, only GISS LOTI and the two lower troposphere temperature datasets are for the most current month. The NCDC and HADCRUT4 data lag one month.
This post contains graphs of running trends in global surface temperature anomalies for periods of 13+ and 17 years using GISS global (land+ocean) surface temperature data. They indicate that we have not seen a warming halt (based on 13 years+ trends) this long since the mid-1970s or a warming slowdown (based on 17-years trends) since about 1980. I used to rotate the data suppliers for this portion of the update, also using NCDC and HADCRUT. With the data from those two suppliers lagging by a month in the updates, I’ve standardized on GISS for this portion.
Much of the following text is boilerplate. It is intended for those new to the presentation of global surface temperature anomaly data.
Most of the update graphs in the following start in 1979. That’s a commonly used start year for global temperature products because many of the satellite-based temperature datasets start then.
We discussed why the three suppliers of surface temperature data use different base years for anomalies in the post Why Aren’t Global Surface Temperature Data Produced in Absolute Form?
GISS LAND OCEAN TEMPERATURE INDEX (LOTI)
Introduction: The GISS Land Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI) data is a product of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Starting with their January 2013 update, GISS LOTI uses NCDC ERSST.v3b sea surface temperature data. The impact of the recent change in sea surface temperature datasets is discussed here. GISS adjusts GHCN and other land surface temperature data via a number of methods and infills missing data using 1200km smoothing. Refer to the GISS description here. Unlike the UK Met Office and NCDC products, GISS masks sea surface temperature data at the poles where seasonal sea ice exists, and they extend land surface temperature data out over the oceans in those locations. Refer to the discussions here and here. GISS uses the base years of 1951-1980 as the reference period for anomalies. The data source is here.
Update: The May 2014 GISS global temperature anomaly is +0.76 deg C. It warmed slightly (an increase of about 0.03 deg C) since April 2014.
Figure 1 – GISS Land-Ocean Temperature Index
NCDC GLOBAL SURFACE TEMPERATURE ANOMALIES (LAGS ONE MONTH)
Introduction: The NOAA Global (Land and Ocean) Surface Temperature Anomaly dataset is a product of the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). NCDC merges their Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature version 3b (ERSST.v3b) with the Global Historical Climatology Network-Monthly (GHCN-M) version 3.2.0 for land surface air temperatures. NOAA infills missing data for both land and sea surface temperature datasets using methods presented in Smith et al (2008). Keep in mind, when reading Smith et al (2008), that the NCDC removed the satellite-based sea surface temperature data because it changed the annual global temperature rankings. Since most of Smith et al (2008) was about the satellite-based data and the benefits of incorporating it into the reconstruction, one might consider that the NCDC temperature product is no longer supported by a peer-reviewed paper.
The NCDC data source is usually here. NCDC uses 1901 to 2000 for the base years for anomalies. (Note: the NCDC has been slow with updating the normal data source webpage, so I’ve been using the values available through their Global Surface Temperature Anomalies webpage. Click on the link to Anomalies and Index Data.)
Update (Lags One Month): The April 2014 NCDC global land plus sea surface temperature anomaly was +0.72 deg C. See Figure 2. It showed a rise (an increase of +0.05 deg C) since March 2014.
Figure 2 – NCDC Global (Land and Ocean) Surface Temperature Anomalies
UK MET OFFICE HADCRUT4 (LAGS ONE MONTH)
Introduction: The UK Met Office HADCRUT4 dataset merges CRUTEM4 land-surface air temperature dataset and the HadSST3 sea-surface temperature (SST) dataset. CRUTEM4 is the product of the combined efforts of the Met Office Hadley Centre and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. And HadSST3 is a product of the Hadley Centre. Unlike the GISS and NCDC products, missing data is not infilled in the HADCRUT4 product. That is, if a 5-deg latitude by 5-deg longitude grid does not have a temperature anomaly value in a given month, it is not included in the global average value of HADCRUT4. The HADCRUT4 dataset is described in the Morice et al (2012) paper here. The CRUTEM4 data is described in Jones et al (2012) here. And the HadSST3 data is presented in the 2-part Kennedy et al (2012) paper here and here. The UKMO uses the base years of 1961-1990 for anomalies. The data source is here.
Update (Lags One Month): The April 2013 HADCRUT4 global temperature anomaly is +0.64 deg C. See Figure 3. It increased (about +0.10 deg C) since March 2014.
Figure 3 – HADCRUT4
UAH Lower Troposphere Temperature (TLT) Anomaly Data
Special sensors (microwave sounding units) aboard satellites have orbited the Earth since the late 1970s, allowing scientists to calculate the temperatures of the atmosphere at various heights above sea level. The level nearest to the surface of the Earth is the lower troposphere. The lower troposphere temperature data include the altitudes of zero to about 12,500 meters, but are most heavily weighted to the altitudes of less than 3000 meters. See the left-hand cell of the illustration here. The lower troposphere temperature data are calculated from a series of satellites with overlapping operation periods, not from a single satellite. The monthly UAH lower troposphere temperature data is the product of the Earth System Science Center of the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH). UAH provides the data broken down into numerous subsets. See the webpage here. The UAH lower troposphere temperature data are supported by Christy et al. (2000) MSU Tropospheric Temperatures: Dataset Construction and Radiosonde Comparisons. Additionally, Dr. Roy Spencer of UAH presents at his blog the monthly UAH TLT data updates a few days before the release at the UAH website. Those posts are also cross posted at WattsUpWithThat. UAH uses the base years of 1981-2010 for anomalies. The UAH lower troposphere temperature data are for the latitudes of 85S to 85N, which represent more than 99% of the surface of the globe.
Update: The May 2014 UAH lower troposphere temperature anomaly is +0.33 deg C. It is rose sharply (an increase of about +0.14 deg C) since April 2014.
Figure 4 – UAH Lower Troposphere Temperature (TLT) Anomaly Data
RSS Lower Troposphere Temperature (TLT) Anomaly Data
Like the UAH lower troposphere temperature data, Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) calculates lower troposphere temperature anomalies from microwave sounding units aboard a series of NOAA satellites. RSS describes their data at the Upper Air Temperature webpage. The RSS data are supported by Mears and Wentz (2009) Construction of the Remote Sensing Systems V3.2 Atmospheric Temperature Records from the MSU and AMSU Microwave Sounders. RSS also presents their lower troposphere temperature data in various subsets. The land+ocean TLT data are here. Curiously, on that webpage, RSS lists the data as extending from 82.5S to 82.5N, while on their Upper Air Temperature webpage linked above, they state:
We do not provide monthly means poleward of 82.5 degrees (or south of 70S for TLT) due to difficulties in merging measurements in these regions.
Also see the RSS MSU & AMSU Time Series Trend Browse Tool. RSS uses the base years of 1979 to 1998 for anomalies.
Update: The May 2014 RSS lower troposphere temperature anomaly is +0.29 deg C. It rose (an increase of about +0.04 deg C) since April 2014.
Figure 5 – RSS Lower Troposphere Temperature (TLT) Anomaly Data
A Quick Note about the Difference between RSS and UAH TLT data
There is a noticeable difference between the RSS and UAH lower troposphere temperature anomaly data. Dr. Roy Spencer discussed this in his July 2011 blog post On the Divergence Between the UAH and RSS Global Temperature Records. In summary, John Christy and Roy Spencer believe the divergence is caused by the use of data from different satellites. UAH has used the NASA Aqua AMSU satellite in recent years, while as Dr. Spencer writes:
…RSS is still using the old NOAA-15 satellite which has a decaying orbit, to which they are then applying a diurnal cycle drift correction based upon a climate model, which does not quite match reality.
I updated the graphs in Roy Spencer’s post in On the Differences and Similarities between Global Surface Temperature and Lower Troposphere Temperature Anomaly Datasets.
While the two lower troposphere temperature datasets are different in recent years, UAH believes their data are correct, and, likewise, RSS believes their TLT data are correct. Does the UAH data have a warming bias in recent years or does the RSS data have cooling bias? Until the two suppliers can account for and agree on the differences, both are available for presentation.
In a more recent blog post, Roy Spencer has advised that the UAH lower troposphere Version 6 will be released soon and that it will reduce the difference between the UAH and RSS data.
13-YEAR+ (161-MONTH) RUNNING TRENDS
As noted in my post Open Letter to the Royal Meteorological Society Regarding Dr. Trenberth’s Article “Has Global Warming Stalled?”, Kevin Trenberth of NCAR presented 10-year period-averaged temperatures in his article for the Royal Meteorological Society. He was attempting to show that the recent halt in global warming since 2001 was not unusual. Kevin Trenberth conveniently overlooked the fact that, based on his selected start year of 2001, the halt at that time had lasted 12+ years, not 10.
The period from January 2001 to April 2014 is now 161-months long—more than 13 years. Refer to the following graph of running 161-month trends from January 1880 to April 2014, using the GISS LOTI global temperature anomaly product.
An explanation of what’s being presented in Figure 6: The last data point in the graph is the linear trend (in deg C per decade) from January 2001 to May 2014. It is basically zero (about 0.02 deg C/Decade). That, of course, indicates global surface temperatures have not warmed to any great extent during the most recent 160-month period. Working back in time, the data point immediately before the last one represents the linear trend for the 161-month period of December 2000 to April 2014, and the data point before it shows the trend in deg C per decade for November 2000 to March 2014, and so on.
Figure 6 – 161-Month Linear Trends
The highest recent rate of warming based on its linear trend occurred during the 160-month period that ended about 2004, but warming trends have dropped drastically since then. There was a similar drop in the 1940s, and as you’ll recall, global surface temperatures remained relatively flat from the mid-1940s to the mid-1970s. Also note that the mid-1970s was the last time there had been a 161-month period without global warming—before recently.
17-YEAR (204-Month) RUNNING TRENDS
In his RMS article, Kevin Trenberth also conveniently overlooked the fact that the discussions about the warming halt are now for a time period of about 16 years, not 10 years—ever since David Rose’s DailyMail article titled “Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released… and here is the chart to prove it”. In my response to Trenberth’s article, I updated David Rose’s graph, noting that surface temperatures in April 2013 were basically the same as they were in June 1997. We’ll use June 1997 as the start month for the running 17-year trends. The period is now 204-months long. The following graph is similar to the one above, except that it’s presenting running trends for 204-month periods.
Figure 7 – 204-Month Linear Trends
The last time global surface temperatures warmed at this low a rate for a 204-month period was the late 1970s, or about 1980. Also note that the sharp decline is similar to the drop in the 1940s, and, again, as you’ll recall, global surface temperatures remained relatively flat from the mid-1940s to the mid-1970s.
The most widely used metric of global warming—global surface temperatures—indicates that the rate of global warming has slowed drastically and that the duration of the halt in global warming is unusual during a period when global surface temperatures are allegedly being warmed from the hypothetical impacts of manmade greenhouse gases.
A NOTE ABOUT THE RUNNING-TREND GRAPHS
There is very little difference in the end point trends of 13+ year and 16+ year running trends if HADCRUT4 or NCDC or GISS data are used. The major difference in the graphs is with the HADCRUT4 data and it can be seen in a graph of the 13+ year trends. I suspect this is caused by the updates to the HADSST3 data that have not been applied to the ERSST.v3b sea surface temperature data used by GISS and NCDC.
COMPARISONS
The GISS, HADCRUT4 and NCDC global surface temperature anomalies and the RSS and UAH lower troposphere temperature anomalies are compared in the next three time-series graphs. Figure 8 compares the five global temperature anomaly products starting in 1979. Again, due to the timing of this post, the HADCRUT4 and NCDC data lag the UAH, RSS and GISS products by a month. The graph also includes the linear trends. Because the three surface temperature datasets share common source data, (GISS and NCDC also use the same sea surface temperature data) it should come as no surprise that they are so similar. For those wanting a closer look at the more recent wiggles and trends, Figure 9 starts in 1998, which was the start year used by von Storch et al (2013) Can climate models explain the recent stagnation in global warming? They, of course found that the CMIP3 (IPCC AR4) and CMIP5 (IPCC AR5) models could NOT explain the recent halt in warming.
Figure 10 starts in 2001, which was the year Kevin Trenberth chose for the start of the warming halt in his RMS article Has Global Warming Stalled?
Because the suppliers all use different base years for calculating anomalies, I’ve referenced them to a common 30-year period: 1981 to 2010. Referring to their discussion under FAQ 9 here, according to NOAA:
This period is used in order to comply with a recommended World Meteorological Organization (WMO) Policy, which suggests using the latest decade for the 30-year average.
Figure 8 – Comparison Starting in 1979
###########
Figure 9 – Comparison Starting in 1998
###########
Figure 10 – Comparison Starting in 2001
AVERAGE
Figure 11 presents the average of the GISS, HADCRUT and NCDC land plus sea surface temperature anomaly products and the average of the RSS and UAH lower troposphere temperature data. Again because the HADCRUT4 and NCDC data lag one month in this update, the most current average only includes the GISS products.
Figure 11 – Average of Global Land+Sea Surface Temperature Anomaly Products
The flatness of the data since 2001 is very obvious, as is the fact that surface temperatures have rarely risen above those created by the 1997/98 El Niño in the surface temperature data. There is a very simple reason for this: the 1997/98 El Niño released enough sunlight-created warm water from beneath the surface of the tropical Pacific to permanently raise the temperature of about 66% of the surface of the global oceans by almost 0.2 deg C. Sea surface temperatures for that portion of the global oceans remained relatively flat until the El Niño of 2009/10, when the surface temperatures of the portion of the global oceans shifted slightly higher again. Prior to that, it was the 1986/87/88 El Niño that caused surface temperatures to shift upwards. If these naturally occurring upward shifts in surface temperatures are new to you, please see the illustrated essay “The Manmade Global Warming Challenge” (42mb) for an introduction.
MONTHLY SEA SURFACE TEMPERATURE UPDATE
The most recent sea surface temperature update can be found here. The satellite-enhanced sea surface temperature data (Reynolds OI.2) are presented in global, hemispheric and ocean-basin bases.
TABLE OF CONTENTS OF UPCOMING BOOK
I linked a copy to the post here of the Table of Contents for my upcoming book about global warming, climate change and skepticism. Please take a look to see if there are topics I’ve missed that you believe should be covered. I’ve already removed the introductory chapters for climate models from Section 1, and provided a separate section for those model discussions. Section 1 now only includes the chapters that introduce global warming and climate change topics. (Thanks, Gary.) Please also post any comments you have on that thread at my blog. Otherwise, I might miss them.
Thanks
Bob Tisdale
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.











What’s up with the idea that an El Nino permanently raises global temperature, but the La Ninas after 1998 (two of them double-dip) didn’t similarly ratchet global temperature downward? It seems to me that CO2 has a significant effect, merely less than claimed by warmists as opposed to zero or negligible.
dbstealey says:
There is no “other side of the argument” at SS, because they do not allow any real debate. The truth is sifted from the narrative at WUWT through honest and open debate. But if debate is not permitted, then the blog is nothing but propaganda, hoping to lead readers by the nose. You would be wise to shun any blog that refuses to allow open and uncensored debate.
——————————————————————————————————–
I agree there is a smugness about SS, but it also, (like here) has the odd good article. The site I find most informative, is Realclimate.
I am still finding a negative trend from 2002, rthis is for most of the important datasets:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2015/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2015/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2015/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2002/to:2015/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2015/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2015/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2015/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2015/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2002/trend
I have three data sets of my own, now updated to 2014, namely for minima, maxima and means, which in fact I trust more than all the others.
An interesting fact that I observed now (after the update) from the drop in minimum temperatures is that it forms a perfect binomial curve, rsquare=1, when we set the speed of change in degrees C/annum out against time..
Amazing, isn’t it?
There is no AGW, whatsoever. There is no room for it in my curve.
Simon:
At June 20, 2014 at 12:35 am you say
Oh! So you are their remaining reader.
Have you told them who you are? Investigation of why you have an interest in their biased, distorted and untrue propaganda may help them to find more gullible fools capable of being deluded by their nonsense which most people saw through years ago.
Richard
From Simon on June 20, 2014 at 12:35 am:
Dang, been many years since I even peeked at it.
The newest article is June 1 with 364 comments, next is May 8 with 64 comments, May 2 was an open thread with 394, April 30 with 21 comments…
Thus I conclude you absorb information very slowly, can fully digest at most only a few articles a month, and prefer to do it in the solitude of a quiet and virtually deserted web site.
I know a person who got SSI with far less of a learning disability. Good news, if you’re a US citizen you likely qualify for free money and medical for life.
Phil.:
You provide a good attempt at disingenuous distraction with your post at June 19, 2014 at 8:37 pm.
However, despite disingenuous distraction being your most practiced form of trolling, your attempt is yet another of your failed misrepresentations.
You write to dbstealey saying
By whom and when the stratospheric cooling was first suggested 40 years previously does not alter the fact – stated by dbstealey – that it “was a later fallback position, predicted after the failure of the supposed tropospheric hot spot”.
So, dbstealey is right.
He knows he is right, you know he is right, and I know he is right.
If there were something else discovered in literature search then they may have adopted that alternative fallback position.
The important point which your disingenuous distraction attempts to smokescreen is that the stratospheric cooling has stopped so – if Manabe and Wetherald are correct – then there is no AGW happening.
Richard
kadaka,
Yes, even a few years ago RC was on the ropes. It’s worse off now. RC is Michael Mann’s flagship propaganda outlet. No wonder Mann’s squealing about skeptics has been ratcheting up. He is important to those 21 readers, but otherwise he is being marginalized.
======================
Richard Courtney,
I suspect Phil. is using more exclamation points than ever for the same general reason: the planet is busy debunking his CAGW nonsense, as Henry P’s WFT graph shows.
++++++++++++++++++++++
Simon,
Out of all the websites mentioned, only WUWT allows and encourages all points of view. If that fact doesn’t separate the propaganda blogs from the science site for you, nothing will.
richardscourtney says:
June 20, 2014 at 1:25 am
Phil.:
You provide a good attempt at disingenuous distraction with your post at June 19, 2014 at 8:37 pm.
However, despite disingenuous distraction being your most practiced form of trolling, your attempt is yet another of your failed misrepresentations.
Dickey the troll returns with more of his nonsense!
You write to dbstealey saying
You asserted:
As for a cooling stratosphere, that was a later fallback position, predicted after the failure of the supposed tropospheric hot spot.
As I pointed out that statement is untrue and I refuted it as follows: “the stratospheric cooling was predicted over 40 years ago by Manabe and Wetherald!”
By whom and when the stratospheric cooling was first suggested 40 years previously does not alter the fact – stated by dbstealey – that it “was a later fallback position, predicted after the failure of the supposed tropospheric hot spot”.
So, dbstealey is right.
Clearly he is wrong and so are you (no surprise there), according to him it was “predicted after the failure of the supposed tropospheric hot spot”, since as I pointed out the stratospheric cooling was first predicted in 1967 by M&W and was widely known since then, and the issue of the ‘tropospheric hot spot’ cropped up more than 20 years later.
He knows he is
rightwrong, you know he isrightwrong, and I know he isrightwrong.The important point which your disingenuous distraction attempts to smokescreen is that the stratospheric cooling has stopped so – if Manabe and Wetherald are correct – then there is no AGW happening.
Except of course that the referenced, up-to-date data which I referred to shows that the stratospheric cooling continues, unlike the unreferenced, unlabeled graph that he produced from about 8 years ago.
Phil. is weaning himself off exclamation points! Good!
But he claims others make ‘assertions’… and then he asserts:
Clearly he is wrong and so are you…
I would spend some time on the question of stratospheric cooling, except for the fact that it was a fallback argument after the ‘tropospheric hot spot’ prediction failed.
I liked the tropospheric debate, because it was a flat out prediction. Science is based on predictions. But if an hypothesis cannot accurately and consistently predict, then it is wrong.
The stratosphere argument was based on an already-occurring event. It was simply an extrapolation. And since both the troposphere and stratosphere arguments are made to support the CAGW argument as Simon argues above, then that argument fails.
The only thing that really matters is: where did the global warming go?!? With no global warming, all alarmist arguments become increasingly ridiculous.
Make an alarmist prediction of something that is not occurring now, but will soon happen. If it is correct, I will sit up straight and pay attention. Maybe even begin to change my mind. But so far, no alarmist predictions have come true. So why should we believe their premise?
@- Richard Courtney
“To date there are no discernible effects of AGW. Hence, the Null Hypothesis decrees that AGW does not affect global climate to a discernible degree. That is the ONLY scientific conclusion possible at present.”
After several thousand years of no discernible sea level rise the last century has seen around a foot with an accelerating rate of rise.
That has certainly be discernible!
http://sealevel.colorado.edu
That represents a massive amount of energy gained. Expanding water and melting it takes a lot of Joules.
Why the Earth is retaining all this extra energy may be open to dispute, but it is hardly ” not discernible” or showing no effect.
Phil.:
There is no need for me to answer your silly post at June 20, 2014 at 7:39 am because it has been completely rebutted by the post of dbstealey at June 20, 2014 at 8:23 am.
However, I write to acknowledge it and to thank you for the laughs it gave me.
You had claimed dbstealey was wrong when he pointed out that the fact that the stratospheric cooling tropospheric warming issue was a fallback when the tropospheric hotspot failed to occur. And you attempted – but failed – to make an issue of how long that issue had been in the literature prior to it being adopted as a fallback.
Your desperate attempt amounts to putting your fingers in your ears and shouting “I can’t hear you”.
That is funny; it is very, very funny.
Richard
izen:
I congratulate you on making the attempt you do in your post at June 20, 2014 at 8:45 am. But, of course, you fail.
In response to my having written this clear and undeniable truth
you have written
Firstly, your link does NOT report “several thousand years of no discernible sea level rise”. It reports
Of course those methods do not discern any sea level change over “several thousand years” prior to 1993 because they did not exist.
Importantly, your link shows NO recent acceleration in sea level change.
And your assertion that such change is a direct indication of global warming is refuted by the lack of change to sea level rise rate reported in your link. As you say, “Expanding water and melting it takes a lot of Joules” but there is no evidence of recent loss of land ice and there has been no global warming to expand water for at least the last 17 years while the rate of sea level rise did not change.
There is 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 would be awarded at least one Nobel Prize if you had discovered such evidence.
Richard
@izen
As explained to you before, the proposed mechanism for AGW implies that more GHG would cause a delay in radiation being able to escape from earth, which then causes a delay in cooling, from earth to space, resulting in a warming effect.
It follows naturally, that if more carbon dioxide (CO2) or more water (H2O) or more other GHG’s were to be blamed for extra warming we should see minimum temperatures (minima) rising faster, pushing up the average temperature (means) on earth.
I personally took a sample of 54 weather stations, analysed all daily data, and determined the ratio of the speed in the increase of the maximum temperature (maxima), means and minima.
I find that if we take the speed of warming over the longest period (i.e. from 1973/1974) for which we have very reliable records, we find the results of the speed of warming, maxima : means: minima
0.034 : 0.012 : 0.004 in degrees C/annum.
That is ca. 8:3:1. So it was maxima pushing up minima and means and not the other way around. Anyone can duplicate this experiment and check this trend in their own backyard or at the weather station nearest to you.
Moreover, the increase and subsequent decrease in minima follows a perfect binomial curve
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/18/may-2014-global-surface-landocean-and-lower-troposphere-temperature-anomaly-update/#comment-1666003
From HenryP on June 20, 2014 at 1:01 am:
By specifying to:2015 your trends from:2002 are currently including part of a year thus are spoiled by the annual signal, and will change until 2014 ends. Use to:2014 for whole years and trends that won’t change.
You used HadCRUT3 Unadjusted along with HadCRUT4. Why Unadjusted? Why HadCRUT3 at all? With HadCRUT4 as the replacement product, it makes no sense to also use the old version.
Likewise you used HadSST2 rather than the newer HadSST3.
Using to:2014, HadSST3, leaving in HadCRUT3 but using the normally-used variance adjusted version:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2014/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2014/trend
Leaving out HadCRUT3 to use the newest versions:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2014/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2014/trend
Not as much cooling, global SSTs are dropping at only 0.2°C/century, likely not statistically significant. HadCRUT4 dropping 0.3°C/century. But RSS is dropping at 0.8°C/century, although RSS is running lower than UAH v5.6.
Whoops, my mistake, wrong URL. This was the improved version with HadCRUT3 variance adjusted:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2014/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2014/trend
Izen,
You say that sea level rise is accelerating. Richard Courtney replied:
Importantly, your link shows NO recent acceleration in sea level change.
Your link shows only 2 graphs, this graph, and this graph.
There is no acceleration. Now the question becomes: are you willing to admit it? Or does your religion not allow for empirical observations?
Kadaka says
thus are spoiled by the annual signal, and will change until 2014 ends.
Henry says
what annual sign do you expect to see within one Schwabe solar cycle (11 yrs) or one whole Hale solar cycle (22 yrs)?
Clearly, I chose to depict the major data sets which most closely conform to my own results i.e my own data set,
which is showing 0.012K/year or 0.12K/decade warming since 1974 (until 20124) and -0,014K/year or -0.14K/decade cooling since 2000 (up until 2014)
If you have not yet figured out that earth is actually cooling down you are still plowing around in the dark, me thinks.
henry said
which is showing 0.012K/year or 0.12K/decade warming since 1974 (until 20124)
henry says
oops sorry
should be:
which is showing 0.012K/year or 0.12K/decade warming since 1974 (until 2014)
From HenryP on June 20, 2014 at 10:31 am:
I expect the annual signal caused as the globe shifts from the insolation yielding more diurnal transitory warming of land during NH summer to more warming of oceans that is retained longer during the NH winter when the SH is favored by the Sun.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2004.51/mean:3/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2004/trend/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2004.51/trend
Hopefully this short piece is enough for you to notice the warmer temps in NH winter, peaked around the whole year marks, and the cooler temps in NH summer, troughs around the half year marks.
And it also shows you how not using only full years will distort the trend with the annual signal, if you have not previously removed the annual signal.
Admissions of confirmation bias and cherry-picking noted.
dbstealey and richardscourtney
Thank you for your considered replies about my confessing to read a range of websites.
“untrue propaganda may help them to find more gullible fools capable of being deluded by their nonsense which most people saw through years ago.”
“Out of all the websites mentioned, only WUWT allows and encourages all points of view. If that fact doesn’t separate the propaganda blogs from the science site for you, nothing will.”
You both seem disturbed I would visit Realclimate, implying I am one of their deluded fools. I accept that is entirely possible… that I am a deluded fool…. after all that was my point, that I consider all options, which is why I read a range of sites. I’m wondering how you both (the denial tag team) go to ensure you are reading all the available information? I’m also now concerned for WUWT given this poor deluded fool visits here more than any other site on the net concerned with CC.
richardscourtney says:
June 20, 2014 at 8:50 am
Phil.:
There is no need for me to answer your silly post at June 20, 2014 at 7:39 am because it has been completely rebutted by the post of dbstealey at June 20, 2014 at 8:23 am.
That’s fine we have more than enough of your fact free trolling on here as it is. Clearly you don’t know what a rebuttal is, no surprise.
Simon:
You say to dbstealey and me
I cannot imagine what has given you the impression that your foolish behaviour “disturbs” me. Please be assured that nothing you do could “disturb” me but your silly behaviour certainly does amuse me.
Richard
Phil.
I write to say that I have read, noted and laughed at the desperate attempts to justify your errors with your posts at June 20, 2014 at 12:14 pm and June 20, 2014 at 12:17 pm.
And I am only providing this acknowledgement because those temper tantrums are directed at me.
Richard
Kadaka says
Admissions of confirmation bias and cherry-picking noted.
Henry says
Clearly, you don’t understand that most of the official data sets are, in fact, not properly balanced.
I took my sample of 54 weather stations:
27 NH
27 SH
balanced on latitude (only +18 degrees left on counting)
balanced 70/30 % @sea/on land
I am not bothered about longitude as long as I am looking only at the average change in temp. (K) per annum (includes annual insolation changes due to seasons)
Now tell me which of your data sets conforms to my specifications?
btw
@all
I am only interested to know from you if you agree with me that earth is cooling down