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.











Simon,
I have to agree, at this point you are trolling. You never respond to points raised or questions asked. You never discuss anything of relevance. Your tactic is to set up strawman arguments, and move the goal posts, and appeal to corrupt authorities, and always redirect your comments away from issues that would resolve anything.
Either get serious, or go away.
You can start by responding to Richard Courtney’s comment regarding the Null Hypothesis, which deconstructs the ridiculous CAGW conjecture. Either counter his point, or you lose the debate.
dbstealey
I will not respond to Richardscourtney. You however seem to at least have some interest and respect for what is being said. I am confused you think I am not responding to requests for info. I thought we had a good conversation about ice. You asked questions and I responded. I asked you for info and you gave me a polite considered answer. Where is the problem?
That is just an excuse to avoid debate.
The silly “ice” discussion has been put to bed. There is nothing either unusual or unprecedented happening with polar ice. It is a non-issue.
Quit avoiding the question: Explain how the Null Hypothesis can support the runaway global warming conjecture. If it cannot, then the CAGW conjecture fails. It is as simple as that.
richardscourtney says:
Simon:
Your silly post at June 22, 2014 at 12:20 pm asked me to explain why my far too polite posts to you do not display the degree of respect you mistakenly think you deserve.
I replied to that at June 22, 2014 at 12:46 pm by quoting it in full and by answering each item it mentioned. My reply is here.
Clearly, if you did not want the answer then you should not have asked the question.
I had thought you asked the question because of ignorance, but it is now obvious that I was wrong about that. Your subsequent post at June 23, 2014 at 3:23 am says
Clearly, you asked the question with duplicitous intent to pretend a reason for avoiding answering matters of substance.
Richard
Simon says
I’m not a scientist.
Henry says
hallo???
So what are you doing on a scientific site? no wonder we figured out that you are a clown.
Note that your friend, the other clown, named El Nino, is dying on you.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/23/the-201415-el-nino-part-11-is-the-el-nino-dying/
henry@all
friends,
let us just ignore what “simon says” further (here at WUWT)
Clearly, he has no papers, and he is trying to get a work permit to stay here,
(coming from Disneyland)
Let him rather stay with the SS or the RC;
he is in good company there (with all those other clowns there).
richardscourtney says:
June 23, 2014 at 2:15 am
Troll posting as Phil.:
I see that at June 22, 2014 at 8:27 pm you adopt your common practice of attempting to justify your lies by adding another lie.
The troll returns with more lies, if it were the first time one might think it was just a misunderstanding but it’s clear it’s just prevarication.
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”.
As I pointed out the prediction referred to was made at least 20 years before any mention of the ‘supposed tropospheric hot spot’ so clearly Stealey is wrong.
You and he recognize that which is why you both keep trying to change the subject.
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 data I presented which you and Stealey choose to ignore shows that stratospheric cooling continues.
That one post alone provides corrections to three of your errors; i.e.
1.
Refutation of your attempt at disingenuous distraction.
No attempt at distraction just correcting the facts, no refutation was made by you.
2.
Refutation of your stupid assertion that information previously existing in literature demonstrates that the information was not used as a “fallback”.
I made no such assertion. The proof that Stealey’s claim of “predicted after the failure of the supposed tropospheric hot spot”.” was false still stands, your attempts at obfuscation notwithstanding.
3.
Statement that your so-called evidence shows the opposite of what you (and Simon) claimed.
My actual attributed evidence shows exactly what I claim, Stealey’s unattributed, out of date graph, with no legend or description is worthless.
Here’s the data again, of course you and Stealey will continue to ignore it, as you always do.
http://data.remss.com/msu/graphics/C13/plots/RSS_TS_channel_C13_Global_Land_And_Sea_v03_3.png
http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html
The hypothesis to be tested is that the stratospheric cooling continues, the Null hypothesis is therefore that the trend in stratospheric temperature is greater than or equal to 0.
Feel free to show that the Null hypothesis is true to the appropriate significance or shut up about it.
Phil.
You lied. I quoted, cited and refuted some of your lies at June 23, 2014 at 2:15 am here.
In your typical fashion, the truth has rolled off you like water from a duck’s back, and you reply with more lies at June 23, 2014 at 5:57 am.
I point out for onlookers that each time you were shown to be wrong was a refutation of an untrue assertion you made. And each of your claims that your assertions were not refuted is a lie. It may be that you are telling falsehoods to yourself as part of a delusion, but the falsehoods are deliberate and, thus, they are all lies.
Your trolling has fulfilled its usefulness as demonstration for onlookers of the stupidity of the arguments from warmunists. So, you having fulfilled what little usefulness you could provide, I ask you to now go away because – at this point – your trolling has become merely an irritation (similar to midges at a barbecue).
Richard
richardscourtney says:
June 23, 2014 at 6:36 am
Phil.
You lied. I quoted, cited and refuted some of your lies at June 23, 2014 at 2:15 am here.
In your typical fashion, the truth has rolled off you like water from a duck’s back, and you reply with more lies at June 23, 2014 at 5:57 am.
I point out for onlookers that each time you were shown to be wrong was a refutation of an untrue assertion you made. And each of your claims that your assertions were not refuted is a lie.
As the onlookers will see you still have not addressed the statement I made, preferring to pretend that I said something else. My refutation is that Stealey claimed that the prediction of stratospheric cooling followed the issue of the ‘tropospheric hot spot’ whereas it did not and I proved that to be the case. You and Stealey prefer to run away from that.
I ask you to now go away because – at this point – your trolling has become merely an irritation. Of course it irritates you because you’re unable to counter it so you do what you always do namely: try to turn the thread into a food fight with your endless prevarications.
I’ll continue to post on the facts of the case, as I’ve shown stratospheric cooling continues, if you or anyone else wishes to properly test that hypothesis, feel free, the data is available.
HenryP says:
June 22, 2014 at 3:09 am
@Simon
Those still pointing to melting arctic ice and NH glaciers, as “proof” that it is (still) warming, and not cooling, should remember that there is a long lag from energy-in and energy-out. Counting back 88 years i.e. 2013-88= we are in 1925.
Now look at some eye witness reports of the ice back then?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/16/you-ask-i-provide-november-2nd-1922-arctic-ocean-getting-warm-seals-vanish-and-icebergs-melt/
Sounds familiar? Back then, in 1922, they had seen that the arctic ice melt was due to the warmer Gulf Stream waters.
Very selective data however, why not take a look at what was happening in the rest of the Arctic.
For example the expedition sent to claim Wrangel Island for Britain, which failed in part because the island was inaccessible because of sea ice for the whole year of 1922.
See for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_Blackjack
See, this is the type of stuff that makes the “science” of (C)AGW such a hard sell.
With global warming, there will be stratospheric cooling.
The obverse is with global cooling, there will be stratospheric warming.
So when the glaciation returns and the planetary surface turns into a snowball, with much less heat to be radiated to space due to the albedo change preventing absorption of shortwave radiation, the stratosphere will get blazing hot. Why? Where is the energy for it?
Why is it if the planet is cooling, the atmosphere can’t be cooling as well?
Phil.:
Please stop with your ridiculous lies.
At June 23, 2014 at 7:32 am you write
No!
As usual, you try to defend one of your lies by providing another lie.
At June 19, 2014 at 1:28 am dbstealey wrote saying in full
Clearly, when he wrote
it was the “fallback position” which he said was “predicted after the failure of the supposed tropospheric hot spot”.
You have repeatedly tried to say he was wrong about the “fallback position” because the tropospheric cooling was known prior to failure of the hot spot to occur. Indeed, you have repeated that misrepresentation in your post I am answering and have quoted.
There can be no possibility of excuse for that misrepresentation – it is another of your lies – because dbstealey clarified the matter at June 20, 2014 at 8:23 am when he wrote
I addressed what you wrote and I have now addressed your misrepresentation of what dbstealey wrote. In both cases I have demonstrated that your points are deliberate falsehoods.
And you make a risible suggestion when you assert that I and/or dbstealey would “run away” from a troll who hides behind the coward’s shield of anonymity to present lies.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
June 23, 2014 at 8:13 am
Clearly, when he wrote
As for a cooling stratosphere, that was a later fallback position, predicted after the failure of the supposed tropospheric hot spot
it was the “fallback position” which he said was “predicted after the failure of the supposed tropospheric hot spot”.
If that’s what he’s trying to say then he should learn to write correct English and you as an editor should know better.
You have repeatedly tried to say he was wrong about the “fallback position” because the
troposphericstratospheric cooling was known prior to failure of the hot spot to occur. Indeed, you have repeated that misrepresentation in your post I am answering and have quoted.Not a misrepresentation, what he said was untrue.
There can be no possibility of excuse for that misrepresentation – it is another of your lies – because dbstealey clarified the matter at June 20, 2014 at 8:23 am when he wrote
“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.”
Which is not true, clearly he has not read M&W, as they applied a radiative-convective model to the atmosphere, it was not an extrapolation.
If you want to rebut the stratospheric cooling point then take the data I’ve shown you and show that the null hypothesis of temperature trend greater than or equal to 0, holds to the appropriate significance level.
Troll posting as Phil.:
re your post at June 23, 2014 at 9:27 am.
Obfuscate as much as you like.
dbstealey said what he intended, he clarified the matter when pressed on it, and he was right.
You now claim you misread what he wrote because it was not clear.
That is twaddle! If it were unclear prior to his clarification it certainly was not after his clarification.
You have run out of excuses.
Your best option is to retire hurt, and your proper action is to apologise. However, on the basis of your past behaviour I suspect you will do neither but, instead, you are likely to try to press a related issue while pretending that was what you intended from the start.
Indeed, your post provides evidence for my prediction of your pressing a related issue. What M&W modeled 40 years earlier is not relevant to the true and undeniable fact that the stratospheric cooling was – as dbstealey said – an extrapolation of what was happening WHEN that cooling was adopted as a “fallback position” in response to the failure of the tropospheric hotspot prediction.
Richard
phil. says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/18/may-2014-global-surface-landocean-and-lower-troposphere-temperature-anomaly-update/#comment-1667465
henry says
You quote wikipedia but I have had some bad experiences there (do you really want me to elaborate?), so I won’t go there.
I think you and I have crossed swords before and generally speaking, I think you fall in the same category as simon: no results of your own. You are a teacher with no hands-on experience. You only rely on your books. That is to say, if you are the same Phil. from my past experiences.
Regarding the subject on hand i.e. whether we (on earth) are cooling from the top latitudes down, I did an independent investigation, taking a random sample of 10 weather stations in Alaska, analyzing all results (for means) from 1998 until 2014.
Here you can see the results
http://oi40.tinypic.com/2ql5zq8.jpg
My finding was that of the 10 stations chosen, 9 stations showed a downward trend. Only one station showed an upward trend. However, that station seems to have an anomalous value for 2000.
Never mind that, even if I accept that value as correct, I find an average downward trend for Alaska (10 stations) of -0.55K/decade.
That means that temperatures in Alaska have gone down by almost 1 whole degree C since 1998 and nobody noticed? How is that possible?
As to the Barrow result: it could be, like I said, because of the lag from the warming period 1950-1995
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
that caused a warmer Gulf stream, seeing that Barrow lies on some water way.
Note that simon’s results also suggest a cooling in Norway, at the higher latitudes, as observed by increasing glaciers.
Antarctic ice is already increasing.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/22/nasa-announces-new-record-growth-of-antarctic-sea-ice-extent/#more-96133
richardscourtney says:
June 23, 2014 at 9:51 am
Troll posting as Phil.:
re your post at June 23, 2014 at 9:27 am.
Obfuscate as much as you like.
dbstealey said what he intended, he clarified the matter when pressed on it, and he was right.
You now claim you misread what he wrote because it was not clear.
No I claim you misread it.
That is twaddle! If it were unclear prior to his clarification it certainly was not after his clarification.
All he clarified was that he was wrong and that his clarification clearly indicates that he thought that the ‘stratospheric cooling’ argument was a later extrapolation. That is not true M&W ran a radiation-convection model to come up with their result as stated it was a prediction not an extrapolation, which has been borne out by subsequent data.
You have run out of excuses.
Your best option is to retire hurt, and your proper action is to apologise. However, on the basis of your past behaviour I suspect you will do neither but, instead, you are likely to try to press a related issue while pretending that was what you intended from the start.
I’m certainly not going to apologize for being correct!
Indeed, your post provides evidence for my prediction of your pressing a related issue. What M&W modeled 40 years earlier is not relevant to the true and undeniable fact that the stratospheric cooling was – as dbstealey said – an extrapolation of what was happening WHEN that cooling was adopted as a “fallback position” in response to the failure of the tropospheric hotspot prediction.
Not true, I suggest you read M&W to correct your mistakes, in particular the comments on Fig 16.
http://go.owu.edu/~chjackso/Climate/papers/Manabe_Wetherald_1967_Thermal%20equilibrium%20of%20the%20atmosphere%20with%20a%20given%20distribution%20of%20relative%20humidity.pdf
Phil.:
In my post at June 23, 2014 at 9:51 am I wrote:
You have replied with your post at June 23, 2014 at 10:54 am which concludes saying
Not true!? That is precisely what I predicted you would do!
Q.E.D.
Phil., you really are a very predictable and pathetic little troll.
Richard
HenryP says:
June 23, 2014 at 10:03 am
phil. says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/18/may-2014-global-surface-landocean-and-lower-troposphere-temperature-anomaly-update/#comment-1667465
henry says
You quote wikipedia but I have had some bad experiences there (do you really want me to elaborate?), so I won’t go there.
Fine, there are other sources:
http://www.sitnews.net/JuneAllen/AdaBlackjack/020204_heroine.html
I think you and I have crossed swords before and generally speaking, I think you fall in the same category as simon: no results of your own. You are a teacher with no hands-on experience. You only rely on your books. That is to say, if you are the same Phil. from my past experiences.
Well you’re incorrect.
richardscourtney says:
June 23, 2014 at 11:03 am
Phil.:
In my post at June 23, 2014 at 9:51 am I wrote:
Indeed, your post provides evidence for my prediction of your pressing a related issue. What M&W modeled 40 years earlier is not relevant to the true and undeniable fact that the stratospheric cooling was – as dbstealey said – an extrapolation of what was happening WHEN that cooling was adopted as a “fallback position” in response to the failure of the tropospheric hotspot prediction.
You have replied with your post at June 23, 2014 at 10:54 am which concludes saying
“Not true, I suggest you read M&W to correct your mistakes, in particular the comments on Fig 16.”
Not true!?
That’s right, “the stratospheric cooling was not an extrapolation of what was happening WHEN that cooling was adopted as a “fallback position” in response to the failure of the tropospheric hotspot prediction”. It was a prediction made as the result of studies made earlier using radiative-convective models of the atmosphere.
[ snip – we aren’t going to play these games unless of course Phil. wants to put his name out there too. I’ve directed both people to stop the comment fighting, if they don’t I’ll end it for them – Anthony]
I see NOAA has confirmed May to be the Warmest (for May)combined land and sea temp ever recorded. That’s two in a row. Just saying.
Phil. says
http://www.sitnews.net/JuneAllen/AdaBlackjack/020204_heroine.html
Henry says
That story merely confirms what I already know./
It was cooling in Alaska from 1904-1923 exactly as it is cooling there now from 1995-2014 (atmospheric).
It is just with the ice that there is a lag [for this cooling becoming obvious] due to the earth storing energy in its oceans during the warming period, resulting in a warmer Gulf stream.
I explained this. Please read the whole newspaper report from Nov. 1922.
What is your point?
HenryP says:
June 23, 2014 at 11:49 am
Phil. says
http://www.sitnews.net/JuneAllen/AdaBlackjack/020204_heroine.html
Henry says
That story merely confirms what I already know./
It was cooling in Alaska from 1904-1923 exactly as it is cooling there now from 1995-2014 (atmospheric).
It is just with the ice that there is a lag [for this cooling becoming obvious] due to the earth storing energy in its oceans during the warming period, resulting in a warmer Gulf stream.
I explained this. Please read the whole newspaper report from Nov. 1922.
What is your point?
That it’s sloppy to refer to the Arctic when you only refer to part of it, melting in 1922 on the Atlantic side was not accompanied by melting on the Pacific side.
“Very selective data however, why not take a look at what was happening in the rest of the Arctic.”
Phil.:
re your post at June 23, 2014 at 11:32 am.
I see that for thge second time in this thread you have returned to using your usual troll tactic of disingenuous distraction.
I pointed out that you had done precisely what I predicted.
You were wrong, and trying to smokescreen it with what M&W wrote four decades before the matter under discussion is what I predicted you would do.
I have no intention of thickening your smokescreen by discussing the irrelevance of what M&W wrote.
You wrongly claimed dbstealy made an error when he rightly said the stratospheric cooling was a fallback position adopted when the predicted tropospheric hotspot failed to occur. He was right, you were wrong, and you cannot disguise that he was right and you were wrong with your attempts to deflect discussion onto a paper published four decades earlier.
Richard
@Phil.
so, same island that you quoted (on the pacific side) must be freezing up right now
Barrow might be somewhat lucky [now] to get some of the Gulf stream coming through
Why don’t you look at some maps showing the stream circulation? [if you are so interested]
All of this does not change the fact that there is no AGW.
You being a teacher, might be able to figure out why these results [of mine] for the drop in [global] minimum temperatures
last 40 years (from 1974) 0.004K/annum
last 34 years (from 1980) 0.007K/annum
last 24 years (from 1990) 0.004K/annum
last 14 years (from 2000) -0.009K/annum
show that there is no room for any AGW
whatsoever?
Otherwise, take it to one of your colleagues and let me know why I would think [from these results] there is no man made global warming.
HenryP
Re your reply to phil. Please tell me why you think having two record months (NOAA April and May) for land and ocean means there is not at least a chance we are warming. You seem happy to quote over and over again there is no AGW… How do you explain these record setting months?