People 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,
…and did my own.
This plot mostly matches what he says, though I prefer doing decadal scale trends on decadal scale data plots:
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.
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:
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:
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):
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:
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:
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.
“As someone who was a principle player for a very large aluminum customer in the Pacific North West the Y2K bug was not trivial…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.”
Ditto in the oil industry – a lot of testing and work to ensure nothing bad happened –
Rex says:
July 26, 2014 at 11:53 am
What is the initial setting of your year counting “odometer”? Presumably 0000.
As time begins to flow that LSD doesn’t move until one year has elapsed and doesn’t register one until a complete year has elapsed.
Sorry but I’m with JJ and Ric Werme on this.
I’m willing to believe that this millennium started in year 2000 provided that others will stipulate that the first year of the first millennium started with year zero.
And for those that believe the first year of the first millennium started with year zero, please tell us some of the historic events that happened in year zero. Or, how about just one?
” Brock Way says:
July 26, 2014 at 6:11 pm
And for those that believe the first year of the first millennium started with year zero, please tell us some of the historic events that happened in year zero. Or, how about just one?”
All the stores were busy getting ready for the first Christmas shopping season…
It is also possible that the sine wave you are seeing is simply the way NCDC has chosen to manipulate the data. Here is how they have modified past temperature since 2008.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/NCDC%20MaturityDiagramSince20080517.gif
What I am wondering is in the last chart where are the “normal” years. I only see about 4 years that look to me that they are really close to the zero abnormality line. It seems to me that abnormalities are normal when it comes to weather.
“I’ll leave you all to the squabble which will surely follow.”
FFS, Anthony. As a six+ year reader and donatee, much repect just flew… Yeah, it’s tough fighting this incessant cr*p but respect your audience.
Regards.
Re Robert of Ottawa says: July 26, 2014 at 3:18 pm
“but to keep the pirates of pedantry happy”
and
Robert of Ottawa says: July 26, 2014 at 3:30 pm
“First verse; all sing along now:”
Let me offer an alternative first verse, and the rest of the verses. Note that “marcot” is a botanical term related to grafting.
I am the very model of a modern Climate-Scientist,
I’ve information computationist and climaticist,
I know the I P C C, and I quote the temps historical
From Glacial to Mannical, in order categorical;
Although I’m really not acquainted well with matters statistical,
My theory is the basis for the equations marcottical,
About the causes and effects I’m teeming with a lot o’ news, (bothered for a rhyme)
With many cheerful facts about the data that I choose to choose.
I’m very good at integral and differential calculus;
But I have no clue about least squares – I think that’s miraculous:
In short, in matters computationist and climaticist,
I am the very model of a modern Climate-Scientist.
I know our mythic history, Arrhenius’ and the Goracle’s;
I answer hard inquiries as long as they’re pal reviewable,
I quote in elegiacs all the schemes and all the climate tricks,
In forecasts I can floor peculiarities hiatus-ics;
I can’t tell undoubted measurements from temperatures Ouija-ous,
I know the croaking chorus from errors of models numerous!
Then I can hum a fugue of which I’ve heard the music’s din of late, (bothered for a rhyme)
And delete all the emails from that infernal nonsense Climategate.
Then I can write a global temp from inverted Tiljander,
Using public funds and grants for which I always pander:
In short, in matters computationist and climaticist,
I am the very model of a modern Climate-Scientist.
In fact, when I know what is meant by “HadCRUT” and “Nature trick”,
When I can tell at sight a regression line from a hockey stick,
When such affairs as lawsuits and surprises I’m more wary at,
And when I know precisely where the ocean heat is hidden at,
When I have learnt what progress has been made in modern climatery,
When I know less of ethics than a novice in a nunnery –
In short, when I’ve a smattering of the science of the clime – (bothered for a rhyme)
You’ll say a better Climate-Scientist has hidden the decline.
For my climate science knowledge, though I’m plucky and adventury,
Has only fit the curve to the beginning of this century;
But still, in matters computationist and climaticist,
I am the very model of a modern Climate-Scientist.
“The trend is -0.01C/decade, essentially flat, no statistically significant trend.”
A flat trend is not less of a trend than any other trend. So we should speak of a statistically significant flat trend.
The UK Meteorological Office Central England Temperature record dataset is the longest instrumental record of temperature in the world. The mean, minimum and maximum datasets are updated monthly.
It seems to be moderately reliable and can be downloaded here:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/data/download.html
There was a particularly active solar period from about 1970 onward coinciding well with sunspot cycles 21 – 22 – 23: it lead to a period of comparatively rapid warming and the great Global Warming scare.
Between 1850 and 1999 UKMO CET gained about 0.7°C. But in the last 13 years of since 2000, the CET winter December – March temperatures have shown a significant loss ~ -1.45°C.
This should be seen in the context that the previous millennium 1000 – 2000 AD has been the coolest millennium of our current benign Holocene interglacial. According to the ice core records it was some -1.5°C cooler than its early “climate optimum” some 8000 years ago.
Rex:
Well… I am a software developer, and have been for almost three decades now. In Pascal (still has a following) an array can start at any number. 1-based arrays are not uncommon there.
As for year 0, I think you should at least make an attempt at editing wikipedia before making your case. The topic is discussed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0_(year) and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anno_Domini
Without a year zero, and respecting the cardinal rule that a decade consists of ten years, then indeed, the first decade must include Dec 31st year 10. And the first millennium includes Dec 31st year 1000.
The water vapour feedback is the vital one for turning modest greenhouse warming into a “catastrophe”, so its the sea surface temperature that really matters. Some trot out the mantra that “warm air holds more moisture”, but evaporation of water does not know or care what the air is doing, all that matters is the water temperature.
Best discussions of water vapour and atmospheric physics I’ve seen are books by Craig Bohren, such as “Clouds in a Glass of Beer”.
Wait a minute. Even the most alarmist data source NOAA has observed climate stabilization during the new millennium? Despite of series of intergovernmental negotiation failures in the IPCC? If so, that’s great! Let’s rejoice the excellent news!
With no global warming and no climate change/disruption observed, even the radical ecofront’s wishes have been granted. And with the humankind continuing business as usual, even the so called SkyDr____s get what they want. Everybody is a winner! Whatever the mankind has been doing during the last couple of decades, it’s working! The AGW project can be closed successfully.
The presidential ukase settling the climate science is a cherry on the cake. Even the climate research has reached the finishing line. It’s not often one can conclude such a thing about any discipline, but here we are. All that generous research funding can now be funneled into something positive and constructive which everyone can look forward to.
@dp : Agreed, but no matter how many times one tries to explain, those who have no idea what went on behind the scenes persist in thinking that, because of the problem was contained through huge effort, Y2K was trivial to start off with, rather than to acknowledge the success of the containing effort… One only gets slammed if systems go wrong… never praised for the effort that went into preventing them from going wrong. Ah well. That’s the nature of the system support game.
Hysteria says:
July 26, 2014 at 5:27 pm
////////////////////////////
That establishes nothing, save that perhaps due diligence was exercised given the hype and hysteria that surrounded that issue.
There were plenty of computer systems/high tech systems where no steps were taken and no problems were encountered.
The balance of evidence points to it being a non issue, and thus much time and expense was wasted. This is post event evidence so has the benefit of hindsight.
Risk management in today’s world, is a different matter, so I undestand why industries that would have been sensitive to litigation had all but no choice but to join the circus crowd. It was therefore a mitigation issue, not an adaption issue.
But cAWG is a wholly different story, it is not a one off, one moment in time catastrophic event which requires as an immediatiet mitigation response, rather than to adapt if and to the extent that real problems arise. If cAGW exists, it will be gradual (over many decades, if not longer) such that a weather eye can always be kept on it, and if adaption is not sufficient, steps to mitigate can then be put in place, but there is no overwhelming need to rush into mitigation now at this juncture.
We can afford to see what happens, over the course of the next decade, and we can afford to see whether ocean temperatures drop, as this article suggests that they will IF the cooling/warming pattern is TRULY part of a cycular wave.
Let us suppose that you are a pupil living in ancient times tasked with learning the wisdom of your masters. Your class is being conducted in the temple, in front of you is the high altar and you are asked to count the number of steps the priest has to climb to reach the level of the altar table.
You are given permission to approach the holy place and you commence your climb counting each step up in level as you ascend. With step 1 you reach level 1, the second step reaches level 2, and so on, until on making step 10 you reach level 10, the level of the altar. You are now asked to descend and on each step down you must call out the number of the level you are standing on. You begin your descent, first down to level 9, then down to level 8. On reaching level 1 you are asked to stop. Your master challenges you to name the number of the level that the next step down will bring you to, which is level of the temple floor.
To answer the question of your master and to reach the temple floor you need to subtract one from one which is zero. The problem is that when you commenced the ascent you neglected to give a number to the level of the temple floor, which is the base level of the start of your climb. The number zero as a counting number is discovered a consequence of subtraction not of addition.
Philip Mulholland:
Perhaps you would be so kind as to explain the relevance – if any – of your post at July 27, 2014 at 6:44 am.
Richard
Hi Richard
This links back to bikedude says: July 27, 2014 at 12:35 am
and to mjc says: July 26, 2014 at 6:14 pm
and to Brock Way says: July 26, 2014 at 6:11 pm
and to Ric Werme says: July 26, 2014 at 5:06 pm
and to Rex says: July 26, 2014 at 4:49 pm,
etc.
Please keep up. 😉
P.S. Loved the link to the Pirates of Penzance.
Neil Jordan says:
July 26, 2014 at 9:58 pm
> I know our mythic history, Arrhenius’ and the Goracle’s;
Finally, a novel use of the tired term “Goracle,” thank you!
[snip switching identities from “Bill Guessford” so you can post stuff about “Uranus” is even less cool than your original attempts .mod]
Or maybe not a sine wave, but instead: UP, Flat, UP, Flat for periods of 30-40 years.
Yes, that is correct – there is no toe 0. Similarly, there is no year 0. It is kind of you to make my point. It will be exciting when you come to understand it.
I have no need to ask a computer programmer. I are one. We programmers recognize that your error is that you are conflating numbering with counting. Those are two different activities. We may number things (assign members to a set of digits for the purpose of identification) using all manner of starting points (and for that matter, sequences). However, when we count things (enumerate members of a set for the purpose of determining how many of them are in the set), we start with 1. If we did not, we would err in our counting. Numbering is labeling. Counting is math. If we want to combine the two so that we may use our labels to count, we start our labeling with 1.
OT, but there’s still ice in the Hudson Bay:
http://www.natice.noaa.gov/pub/ims/ims_gif/DATA/cursnow_usa.gif
Because the ago-old story of the calendar year makes a difference to the trend in the 21st century I will make a point not raised by JJ or Rex:
The number 2001 is not a number of years, is the the NAME of a year. The Odometer analogy is not appropriate.
The name of the first year was 1. After the year named 1 came to an end, 1 year had passed the second year named ‘2’ started and when it was completed after 365 days, 2 years had passed.
The year named 2001 began after the completion of 2000 years from the beginning of the calendar. Jan1 2001 was the first day of the 3rd Millennium.
Now that we have that in order, we can truthfully refer to the trend from 1-Jan-2001 to date by looking at the numbers relevant. The result shows an insignificant trend downwards in the presence of a huge increase in net CO2 emissions that result from anthropological activities.
This is the prima facie case that CO2 emissions from human sources are not a major influence of the global temperature, whatever the physics involved are assumed to be.
If the process continues to mimic the 1945-1975 temperatures, this will add credence to the postulation that there is a natural temperature cycle(s) and CO2 has at most a small influence upon it.
Crispin, well put. Birthdays celebrate the end of one year and the beginning of the next year. A burgeoning toddler, on his first birthday celebration is actually beginning his 2nd year of life. He is celebrating his past 1st year of life that is now over and he is already on day one of his second year on Earth. Birthdays celebrate what was.