NOAA's own trend calculator helps confirm 'the pause' and lack of ocean warming in the 21st century

NCDC_OTI_2000-2013People send me stuff. Yesterday I got a note suggesting I have a look at what NOAA/NCDC’s “climate at a glance” was showing for trends in the 21st century so far.

I decided to take a look.

Have a look at NOAA’s Time Series calculator

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global

It is now displaying a cooling trend commencing in 2001 – 2013.  Ensure you are on the Global tab; Annual; 2001;2013;Land and Ocean.  Then in the Options Tab click; Display Trend; per century; 2001;2013. Then click plot.  These result give you a -0.05 per/century over 13 years.

-0.05 is hardly significant (even though they claim +0.05 of 1 degree over a two month period of May and June this year proves global warming)

I verified that,

NCDC_LOTI_2001-2013-percentury

…and did my own.

This plot mostly matches what he says, though I prefer doing decadal scale trends on decadal scale data plots:

NCDC_LOTI_2001-2013

Fig 1. Source: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/ytd/12/2001-2013?trend=true&trend_base=10&firsttrendyear=2001&lasttrendyear=2013

(IMPORTANT NOTE: NCDC’s link generator on their web page creates a pre-broken link, so if you use the source links I provide from NCDC, be sure to manually set it to Annual from the default Year-to-Date and press plot again, otherwise you’ll end up with an incorrect plot.)

The trend is -0.01C/decade, essentially flat, no statistically significant trend. And if you want to make that a nice tidy package for the 21st century new millenium, the 2000-2013 trend is nearly equally statistically insignificant, and would be flat except for the fact that the year 2000 was a bit cool. It’s the typical problem of trend line sensitivity to endpoints on short data sets.

NCDC_LOTI_2000-2013

Fig 2. Source: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/ytd/12/2000-2013?trend=true&trend_base=10&firsttrendyear=2000&lasttrendyear=2013

But the lack of a trend on the Land Ocean Temperature Index plots isn’t what I find most interesting or significant – the difference between land and ocean is more interesting.

First the oceans in the 21st century:

 

NCDC_OTI_2000-2013

Fig 3. Source: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/ocean/ytd/12/2000-2013?trend=true&trend_base=10&firsttrendyear=2000&lasttrendyear=2013

With only an insignificant +0.01C/decade trend, it seems Trenberth’s missing heat is still missing, and the oceans have stubbornly refused to play out the role that CO2 crunching models have prescribed. I suppose I just can’t get all that excited even though there’s a lot of squawking about the month of June being smashingly record-warm in the oceans:

The record was driven largely by warmer than normal ocean surfaces. Last month saw the highest temperatures on the water for any June on record, and the highest departure from the average for any single month ever. Average global land surface temperatures for June 2014 were also the seventh hottest June ever recorded.

Well, gosh, 2014 isn’t over yet, and we’ve been told time and again that a single month of anomalously low temperature means nothing in the scheme of climate things, and so it must go for a single month of high temperatures.

But, here is what I find most interesting, note the difference in trend from Figure 2 which is land+ocean index (LOTI) and Figure 3 which is just ocean (OTI) below. Have a look at the same period for land (LTI), which has a rate +0.13C/decade or 13 times higher than the ocean index in the same period:

NCDC_LTI_2000-2013

Fig 4. Source: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land/ytd/12/2000-2013?trend=true&trend_base=10&firsttrendyear=2000&lasttrendyear=2013

This difference between land and ocean trends is quite large, and some divergence would be expected, since the oceans affect the atmosphere above them far more than land as a stabilizing heat sink.

But, it seems in the USA, the Land Temperature Index isn’t cooperating with expectations or even warming at all. It seems the USA has been cooling in the 21st century at a rate of -0.09F/decade (-0.05C/decade):

NCDC_USLTI_2000-2013

Fig5. Source: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/us/110/00/tavg/ytd/12/2000-2013?base_prd=true&firstbaseyear=1901&lastbaseyear=2000&trend=true&trend_base=100&firsttrendyear=2000&lasttrendyear=2013

It seems that that oceans aren’t warming, the contiguous USA isn’t warming, but the land surface of the rest of the world has been so far in the 21st century.

Meanwhile, MLO annual data shows carbon dioxide has risen from 369.52 ppm in the year 2000, to 396.48 in 2013, an increase of ~ 7.3%, but we don’t see a corresponding increase in global temperature for the same period perhaps because climate is a non-linear system and/or because we are close to saturation of the logarithmic effect of CO2 induced warming in our atmosphere. Global temperature has been mostly flat. Where’s those posited warming climate feedbacks when we need them?

Now, to alleviate the inevitable screams of not showing the “full picture” of temperature from the overly excitable that comment here under a variety of nom-de-plumes, I offer the entire LOTI plot from NCDC:

NCDC_LOTI_1880-2013

Fig 6. Source: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/ytd/12/1880-2013?trend=true&trend_base=100&firsttrendyear=1880&lasttrendyear=2013

To my eye, I see a natural sine wave, which I’ve traced below on the same graph in solid grey, with extrapolated segments in dashed grey:

NCDC_LOTI_1880-2013_sine-added

Fig 7. Source: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/ytd/12/1880-2013?trend=true&trend_base=100&firsttrendyear=1880&lasttrendyear=2013  plus hand drawn sine wave from the author.

It seems to me that our current “pause” might simply be that we are at the top of that sine wave I see, and that we might actually see some cooling ahead, assuming it isn’t all adjusted away by the next “improvement” from NCDC.

I’ll leave you all to the squabble which will surely follow.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Michael D

Some thoughts:
a) I agree with your comments, Anthony, and I agree that the pattern suggests and oscillation
b) I wonder why they left the vertical scale off the graphs? Makes the slope look pretty bad
c) NOAA is suggesting 0.65 deg per century, which seems reasonable. The world has been warming for a few millenia now
d) The graphs suggest pretty steady warming from 1910 to 2000. I wonder how well that meshes with the hypothesis that it is manmade?
e) I too can’t help but think that post-adjustments to the temperature record may have been influential

Reblogged this on Centinel2012 and commented:
I follow the LOTI every month and found three factors that correlate very accurately with the index. Two since style cures and one log function for CO2.

I’m sure they will “fix it” so that they can call it “a natural sine wave superimposed on a rapidly varying upward anthropogenic trend that will bring us all to our Doom”.

Sweet Old Bob

And take away their “adjustments” and the sine wave is even more clearly seen ?
If Big Joe B. is correct , and I believe he is, this winter is going to alter the perceptions of a ton of people….And none too soon….

NikFromNYC

The NOAA’s web site Climate.gov had such delightfully evil alarmist propaganda that turned a boring trend continuation into hell on Earth that I playfully debunked it via an inforgraphic several years ago, no need for an update, I see:
http://s16.postimg.org/54921k0at/image.jpg

JJ

Anthony says:

The trend is -0.01C/decade, essentially flat, no statistically significant trend. And if you want to make that a nice tidy package for the 21st century,…

… then you’ll stick with 2001-2013. The first year of the 21st century was 2001, not 2000.
So far, the 21st century is cooling.

Non Nomen

Absolutely fascinating. It is going to be a real pain in the *ss of certain people being shot with their own weapon. Thanks!

M Courtney

It seems that that oceans aren’t warming, the contiguous USA isn’t warming, but the land surface of the rest of the world has been so far in the 21st century.

As much of the world is developing rapidly and urbanisation is spreading throughout the third world… perhaps this is the UHI effect accelerating the contamination of the datasets?
When did they last interpret the UHI in Africa or Asia?

> And if you want to make that a nice tidy package for the 21st century, the 2000-2013 trend is nearly equally statistically insignificant, and would be flat except for the fact that the year 2000 was a bit cool
Not a problem to those of us who know the century started in 2001! 🙂
REPLY: Well it’s one of those catch-22’s, technically you are right, but many people think it started in 2000 along with the new millenium. There was a Seinfeld episode on that very issue. Even so, I’d get complaints either way I put it.
I view the issue as about as important as the Y2K bug, but to keep the pirates of pedantry happy, I’ll just call it the start of the new millenium. 😉 – Anthony

Michael D says:
July 26, 2014 at 10:09 am
b) I wonder why they left the vertical scale off the graphs? Makes the slope look pretty bad
I think there is a scale, but in whole degrees (note the 1F° on the right). If you rescale it via shift + left mouse click and move, then a 0.1° scale pops up.
Needs some polishing….

2001 is actually a very sensible point to start from, as it was the start of a long ENSO neutral period of about a year, very similar to 2013.

Pamela Gray

This seems to concur with the idea that El Nino’s build in amplitude, then decrease in amplitude as part of the oceanic store of heat discharge/recharge mechanism piece of ENSO processes.

“These result give you a -0.05 per/century over 13 years.” It depends which month you choose (in the ‘Month’ dropdown following ‘Timescale’). Different months give a ranges of between -0.3°C and +0.3°C change per century.

Bill Guessford

[snip off topic astrology .mod]

highflight56433

The use of 5th order polynomial trend line rather than the straightline for several thousand years might be more appropriate. Pretty obvious the convenience of the current time selection and the use of a straightline trend.
Then to adjust temperatures “up” in known UBI is ludicrous.

Rex

>> Not a problem to those of us who know the century started in 2001! :
Oh no, not this bogey again.
It’s quite simple really … the ‘year’ is like a 4-digit odometer:
* when the 4th digit rolls over, it indicates a new year
* when the 3rd digit changes it is a new decade
* when the 2nd digit changes it is a new century
* when the 1st digit changes it is a new millenium
and that’s that. BY DEFINITION. The alternative perpetuates
the fallacy that counting begins with ‘1’.

John F. Hultquist

Thank you for presenting this.
————
But – you know who was just in Seattle for a fund raiser and stated that our Washington State fires were a result of climate change. Likely advisers showed the “entire LOTI plot” with the straight line and none involved would know a sine wave from a shoaling wave (or Shinola, for that matter). The issue has be sent to the Ministry of Truth.

Bill Guessford

[snip off topic astrology .mod]

Jim Davidson

You are perpetuating the arguments of the warmists. You say:” CO2 has risen from 369ppm in 2000 to 396.48 in 2013, an increase of about 7.3% You go from parts per million to parts per hundred. If you want to express your answer in parts per hundred (%), you should be in parts per hundred throughout. You should have said: ” CO2 has risen from 0.0369% in 2000 to 0.0396% in 2013, an increase of about 0.0025%.”

Pamela Gray

Jim! Hooohaaa! We teach our math students to translate and calculate in a single chosen unit and then stay in the unit! Stay in the unit!

Bill Guessford

[snip off topic astrology Neptune and Uranus haven’t anything to do with the content of this post. Stop posting this offtopic nonsense please .mod]

Johan says: July 26, 2014 at 10:35 am
I’m sure they will “fix it” so that they can call it “a natural sine wave superimposed on a rapidly varying upward anthropogenic trend that ….
……………
It has been fixed already, as the same set of the numerical data clearly shows here

Pamela Gray

sing it…[lets not .mod]

Pamela Gray

mods, snip at will. I just couldn’t stop myself.

Bill Guessford

[snip again off topic Landscheidt, Uranus and all that .mod]

Rex

>> Jim Davidson says:
>> You should have said: ” CO2 has risen from 0.0369% in
>> 2000 to 0.0396% in 2013, an increase of about 0.0025%.”
And JD should have said “an increase of about 0.0027 percentage points”,
not “0.0027 percent”.

Marcos

Jim Davidson says:
July 26, 2014 at 11:57 am
396.48 / 369ppm = 1.0744715447154471544715447154472 approximately.

As for “… difference between land and ocean is more interesting …” – but the problem here is that ocean temperature measurements for most of the times where we already had kind of “precise” land-based temperature gauges, are “few and far between” and that comparing these data sets is kind of a stretch (that’s not your fault, we’re making do with what we have in terms of data, but it is a problem for those who are not just skeptical but base far-reaching predictions on such incongruities).

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley

Thought I would snip the rest of this post myself!
(snip. Off topic criticism of moderators)

BarryW

Warm? Interesting that the Arctic temps based on the chart on your Sea Ice page are showing below normal temps and the Antarctic has been consistently above normal.

BarryW

Rat’s I meant the Antarctic Sea ICE has been above normal

Rex says:
July 26, 2014 at 11:53 am
>> Not a problem to those of us who know the century started in 2001! :
Oh no, not this bogey again.
===============
Yes, the “Astronomical” numbering people vs. those darned “Gregorians”. Always at each others’ throats, they are!

dp

As someone who was a principle player for a very large aluminum customer in the Pacific North West the Y2K bug was not trivial, finding and correcting things before the Y2K roll-over was an enormous effort, and we were well rewarded for our work. Because of our success the Y2K “bug” effect was minimized by us, and trivialized by an ignorant press. If one weren’t part of the solution it is unlikely one have any notion of the scale of the problem.

Who says astrology has nothing to do with the topic of this post? Bill might have something very important to contribute. Let’s hear what he has to say!

Rex

>> Jim Davidson says:
What I meant was this :
Assuming proportions of the same base number,
if 20% of the population were completely bonkers
last year, and 25% of them are completely bonkers
this year, then that is an increase of 5 percentage
points, and an increase of 25 percent.
It may seem a trivial point, but this is just the sort of
thing The Enemy will pounce on.

Arno Arrak

Why bother with fraudulent temperature curves from NOAA? Figures 5 and 6 are totally fabricated. All of their temperatures from 1979 on that can be compared with satellites are fraudulent and this has been obvious since my 2010 book (What Warming?) came out. Especially annoying is the the segment from 1979 to 1997 that is actually a horizontal straight line – no warming for 18 years – if corrected for the effect of ENSO oscillations. They even had a cute name for it – “Late Twentieth Century Warming” – which does not exist. I put a warning about it in the preface of the book but the same garbage is still regurgitated at us from the same combine of NOAA, GISS and NCDC that cooperate in this fakery. Their cooperation is proven by their own screw-up when a computer operation on all three data-sets unexpectedly left traces of its work on the finished product. These consist of sharp upward spikes at the beginnings of most years that arep[resent in exactly the same locations in all three datasets. I first thought it was noise but their existence in identical locations on all three data-sets is proof of the inter-continental extent of this conspiracy.Twelve of these are easy to spot if you have good resolution. My suggestion: ignore all ground-based temperature fabrications and stay exclusively with satellites from 1979 on.

M Courtney

[thanks for the suggestion but sorry, no. WUWT’s moderation policy is clear on that topic .mod]

Robert of Ottawa

but to keep the pirates of pedantry happy
Ha! The Pirates of Penzance!

Robert of Ottawa

First verse; all sing along now:
I am the very model of a modern Climate-Scientist,
I’ve information statistical, ignorant and physical,
I know the very temperatures, and I quote the facts hysterical
From bristle cone to cold Yamal, in order categorical;
I’m very well acquainted, too, with matters mathematical,
I understand equations, both the excel and spread-sheetical,
About binomial theorem I’m teeming with a lot o’ news,
With many scary facts about the rise of the temperatures
I’m very good at integral and differential calculus;
I know the scientific names of beings animalculous:
In short, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral,
I am the very model of a modern Climate-Scientist.

Jim Davidson

To Rex. Or it could have been written: ” CO2 has risen from 369 ppm in 2000 to 396.48 ppm in 2013, a relative increase of 7.3%, ( absolute increase of 0.0025%.) Incidentally, I get a kick out of 396.48. By writing the number to the second place after the decimal point the author is saying that his measurement is accurate to one hundredth of one part per million. He may be right. Or we may prefer to believe, ( in the words of Gilbert and Sullivan,) that the .48 is……. “merely the sort of corroborative detail that lends an air of aesthetic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative.”

rogerknights

M Courtney says:
July 26, 2014 at 10:54 am
It seems that that oceans aren’t warming, the contiguous USA isn’t warming, but the land surface of the rest of the world has been so far in the 21st century.
As much of the world is developing rapidly and urbanisation is spreading throughout the third world… perhaps this is the UHI effect accelerating the contamination of the datasets?
When did they last interpret the UHI in Africa or Asia?

The region that is most influential has been the warming of Siberia. That’s possibly due to the end of the falsely cold Soviet years, when colder neighborhoods got an increased oil ration.

Robert of Ottawa

I firmly believe that derision is the most powerful rhetorical weapon. However, the word does not occur in Aristotle’s “Rhetoric”.

JJ

Rex says:
It’s quite simple really … the ‘year’ is like a 4-digit odometer:

No it isn’t. A 4 digit odometer starts at 0000. Anno domini (or C.E. if you prefer) reckoning starts with year 1. Incidentally, the period immediately prior to that is reckoned B.C. (or B.C.E), and it also starts with year 1.

and that’s that. BY DEFINITION.

No. BY DEFINITION, a decade is 10 years. A century is 100 years. A millennium is 1000 years.
As of January 1, 10AD, only 9 years had elapsed in the common era. The second decade started January 1, 11AD. Rinse, repeat.
The 2000s started January 1, 2000, but the 21st century and the new millennium started on January 1, 2001.

The alternative perpetuates the fallacy that counting begins with ’1′.

Don’t be silly. That counting begins with ‘1’ is not a fallacy. It is a fact. A fact known to most kindergarteners, who are generally capable of determining how many toes they possess. From repeated experiment on friends and family, they correctly conclude that the number of toes on the feet of an anatomically typical human is 10, not 9.
But go ahead and argue for 9. Heck, if you phrase your complaint with enough false confidence and condescension … say something along the lines of “Gray’s Anatomy falsified by stupid counting error!!” … you just might get your comment elevated to a headline post on this site. And there would likely be three or four follow-on posts wherein lots of other people would join you in your assertion that anyone who counts with both of their 1 eyes open will clearly see 9 toes. 🙂
Thus far, the 21st century has been cooling. The current (i.e. 3rd) millennium is cooling. The 2000s have seen statistically insignificant and absolutely inconsequential warming. Drawing that distinction may be criticized as piratically pedantic (ARRRGH!), but if so it cannot (BY DEFINITION) be called fallacious.
🙂

George McFly......I'm your density

Anthony, the photographic image at the top of every WUWT page has what I had always interpreted as a sine wave (pale yellow line) showing the smoothed temperature trend, believing that it was intended as such, but I now realise it may just be something orbiting the earth!

The peak to trough of the sine could fit the 88 year Gleisberg cycle.

Rex

JJ says :
>> Don’t be silly. That counting begins with ’1′ is not a fallacy.
>> It is a fact. A fact known to most kindergarteners, who are
>> generally capable of determining how many toes they possess.
>> From repeated experiment on friends and family, they correctly
>> conclude that the number of toes on the feet of an anatomically
>> typical human is 10, not 9.
and zero is when you have no toes at all, not one toe only. Please!
(i.e. you still end up with ten toes, not 9 as is claimed).
An array of 1,000 members runs from 0 to 999. Ask any computer programmer.
You count your millenia as starting with 1AD (derived because those
chappies didn’t know about the number zero). I count mine as
starting a year earlier. A child is not one year old when he or
she is born. etc etc etc etc etc Over and out.

JJ says:
July 26, 2014 at 4:01 pm

Rex says:
It’s quite simple really … the ‘year’ is like a 4-digit odometer:
No it isn’t. A 4 digit odometer starts at 0000. Anno domini (or C.E. if you prefer) reckoning starts with year 1.

I was going to let all this drop, as we seem to have worse distractions in the comment thread. The century (or millennium!) start on a zero year means that the first century was only 99 (999) years long, and that sort of off-by-one bug makes programmers break out in hives and has been the cause of several last minute fixes.
I’m willing to go along with the “decade of the 60s” being 1960-1969, but mainly because Apollo 11 landed in 1969, not 1970. 🙂 Well that, and no one ever called the appropriate 10 year period “the 197th decade.”
It’s a pity that “1” was invented before “0.” Probably goes back to some caveman who counted on his fingers. Enough – we’ll be bickering about this for another thousand years.

mjc

” Arno Arrak says:
July 26, 2014 at 2:29 pm
Why bother with fraudulent temperature curves from NOAA? Figures 5 and 6 are totally fabricated. All of their temperatures from 1979 on that can be compared with satellites are fraudulent and this has been obvious since my 2010 book (What Warming?) came out. Especially annoying is the the segment from 1979 to 1997 that is actually a horizontal straight line – no warming for 18 years – if corrected for the effect of ENSO oscillations.”
Because isn’t if fun seeing them hoist on their own petard?
Using their own data to smack them down is great fun.

davideisenstadt

I prefer the term “nom de troll”
but thats me.