August 2014 Global Surface (Land+Ocean) and Lower Troposphere Temperature Anomaly Update

Guest Post by Bob Tisdale

This post provides an update of the data for the three primary suppliers of global land+ocean surface temperature data—GISS through August 2014 and HADCRUT4 and NCDC through July 2014—and of the two suppliers of satellite-based lower troposphere temperature data (RSS and UAH) through August 2014.

Initial Notes: GISS LOTI, and the two lower troposphere temperature datasets are for the most recent month. The HADCRUT4 and NCDC 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 late-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 normally 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 August 2014 GISS global temperature anomaly is +0.70 deg C. It increased (cycled upwards) a good amount (an increase of about +0.17 deg C) since July 2014.

01 GISS LOTI

Figure 1 – GISS Land-Ocean Temperature Index

Note: There have been recent changes to the GISS land-ocean temperature index data. They have a noticeable impact on the short-term (1998 to present) trend as discussed in the post GISS Tweaks the Short-Term Global Temperature Trend Upwards. The causes of the changes are unclear at present, but they will likely affect the 2014 rankings at year end.

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 through their Global Surface Temperature Anomalies webpage. Click on the link to Anomalies and Index Data.)

Update (Lags One Month): The July 2014 NCDC global land plus sea surface temperature anomaly was +0.64 deg C. See Figure 2. It showed a drop (a decrease of -0.07 deg C) since June 2014.

02 NCDC

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 July 2013 HADCRUT4 global temperature anomaly is +0.55 deg C. See Figure 3. It decreased (about -0.07 deg C) since June 2014.

03 HADCRUT

Figure 3 – HADCRUT4

UAH LOWER TROPOSPHERE TEMPERATURE ANOMALY DATA (UAH TLT)

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 August 2014 UAH lower troposphere temperature anomaly is +0.20 deg C. It dropped (a decrease of about -0.10 deg C) since July 2014.

04 UAH TLT

Figure 4 – UAH Lower Troposphere Temperature (TLT) Anomaly Data

RSS LOWER TROPOSPHERE TEMPERATURE ANOMALY DATA (RSS TLT)

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 August 2014 RSS lower troposphere temperature anomaly is +0.19 deg C. It dropped sharply (a decrease of about -0.17 deg C) since July 2014.

05 RSS TLT

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 August 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-YEARS+ (164-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 August 2014 is now 164-months long—more than 13 years. Refer to the following graph of running 164-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 August 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 164-month period. Working back in time, the data point immediately before the last one represents the linear trend for the 164-month period of December 2000 to July 2014, and the data point before it shows the trend in deg C per decade for November 2000 to June 2014, and so on.

06 164-Month GISS trends

Figure 6 – 164-Month Linear Trends

The highest recent rate of warming based on its linear trend occurred during the 163-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-YEARS+ (207-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 August 1997. We’ll use August 1997 as the start month for the running 17-year trends. The period is now 207-months long. The following graph is similar to the one above, except that it’s presenting running trends for 207-month periods.

07 207-Month GISS trends

Figure 7 – 207-Month Linear Trends

The last time global surface temperatures warmed at this low a rate for a 206-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.

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.

08 Comparison Starting 1979

Figure 8 – Comparison Starting in 1979

###########

09 Comparison Starting 1998

Figure 9 – Comparison Starting in 1998

###########

10 Comparison Starting 2001

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 product.

11 Averages

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. We discussed the recent record-high global sea surface temperatures and the reasons for them in the post On The Recent Record-High Global Sea Surface Temperatures – The Wheres and Whys.

 

Advertisements

81 thoughts on “August 2014 Global Surface (Land+Ocean) and Lower Troposphere Temperature Anomaly Update

  1. The August 2014 RSS lower troposphere temperature anomaly is +0.19 deg C. It dropped sharply (a decrease of about -0.17 deg C) since July 2014.
    Bob….Another drop along those lines, and we will be very close to the mid-line. Any thoughts on whether we will see that this year?

    • Can you imagine a schoolteacher telling their 17 y.o charges that the temperature now is the same as the year they were born. They’d be fired for teaching truth and we couldn’t have that. sarc/

    • The much more accurate RSS satellite data shows August was a lowly 13th place (out of 35). The divergence continues to grow.

      • And who knows how long that will be true. With the last update, the following were changed from the month before: January went up from 0.68 to 0.70, March from 0.69 to 0.70, May from 0.78 to 0.79 and July from 0.52 to 0.53. The average for all of 2013 jumped from 0.60 to 0.61. 2010 jumped from 0.66 to 0.67.

      • Maybe not mistaken but prescient. It could be that NASA hasn’t gotten around to adjusting August 2011 down and August 2014 up.

      • I’d be more concerned if the scientists weren’t calibrating the historic range using the latest analysis. The question is: are these alterations valid?
        NASA claims that adjustments follow processes laid out in peer reviewed papers. It should be easy for any suitably qualified person to verify this. If it’s false, then NASA’s global temperature data set can be dismissed as fatally flawed.
        No one has yet done this. Just an observation.

      • Some changes are justified, but I really wonder if this is the case if GISS changes its 1998 anomaly several times in 2014. And when I ask if Hadcrut4 is somehow inferior to GISS for not changing their 1998 anomaly several times in 2014, I have yet to get an answer.

      • Werner Brozek
        HadCRU adjusted their 1998 anomaly with the change from HadCRUT3 to HadCRUT4. Also, they use a different method than GISS and don’t cover the same regions. There are any number of reasons why HadCRUT4 doesn’t change as often as GISS or NOAA.

      • Steve Goddard is mistaken.
        He’s confused the map data figure for August with the “definitive” (NASA) textual data figure for August. The two often differ on a monthly basis, as a check back over 2014 to date shows. Of the 8 months so far there are only 2 on which the mapped data and textual data agree. (The mapped data for February is +0.03 C warmer than the textual data.)
        NASA address the reasons for this in their Q&A section: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/FAQ.html
        NASA may make future adjustments to the ‘definitive’ value in future, but as it stands in the official record, August 2014 was 0.70 C above the 1951-1980 August in the NASA record.

    • Andres Valencia
      “GISS LOTI stands out like a sore thumb.”
      __________________
      In what way? It’s pretty clear from Fig. 10 that the warming trend between 2001 and 2014 in UAH is faster than it is in GISS.
      Figures 8 and 9 indicate that the warming rate in GISS and UAH agree to within 1/100ths of a degree per decade.
      So why does GISS stand out like a sore thumb but UAH doesn’t?

      • So why does GISS stand out like a sore thumb but UAH doesn’t?
        UAH is LT, not SAT. LT has a more volatile trend. Which fact, of course, in turn, may make RSS a bit of an outlier on the low side.

  2. “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.”
    Waiting for a strong La Nina to bring up some cold water to reduce global temperatures enough to finally defeat the CAGW crowd. Must come one of these days – I hope.
    By the way, I could do with an introductory abstract from Bob Tisdale summarising his findings.

    • I could do with an introductory abstract from Bob Tisdale summarising his findings.
      ———————————————————————————————————————
      +1 I have been asking Bob to this do this for some time

  3. I question the use of the phrase “permanently raise the temperature.” If a natural event, like an El Niño, can raise surface temperatures, surely it is possible for a natural event to cool surface temperatures of the global oceans. Just because it hasn’t happened for a few years doesn’t mean it will NEVER happen.

  4. Why do we continue to use a linear trendline from 1979 when the eye can clearly see a sinusoidal-like, curving trend? Isn’t it time we showed the temp trend according to the various up-and-down cycles that as skeptics we say are responsible for the changes?
    The warmists refuse to make predictions. We should – even several, reflecting the different hypotheses. Such a bold move would show the undecided that we are serious, not just anti-regulatory whiners they say we are. And then the media would be reporting on a football match: only one winner, game over by end 2016.
    Sometimes I’ve wondered if us skeptics are too timid for the good of our best interests. Saying the other guy has it wrong is stronger when the charge is connected to the “right” answer. Julian Simon did it once with Ehrlich. Even if Gore or Hansen won’t pony up, we can still put our credibility on the line.
    As long as we believe in our position, of course. …

      • RJ.
        I have just listened to this program and your statement “A BBC Radio programme this afternoon about how an El Nino is a bad thing and how CAGW is making it even worse.” just doesn’t match with this programs content at all.
        The program was quite balanced and, as far as a radio program can it explained the phenomenon of an El Nino and the cycle variations in them and the weather patterns they drive rather well. The program presenter speaks to a Met office modeller, the Peruvian fishing Society President, a scientist from Cefas, to a green peace scientist, an Aggre-Commodities trader about how they use El Nino prediction to determine future prices, even a Texas farmer that hopes an El Nino will help end the Texas drought. These aren’t doom sayers they simply talk about the effects of the El Nino cycles.
        RJ quote: “Bob, you’re talking science, these days the BBC does shock, horror and disaster.”
        I wouldn’t comment on Bob’s science but RJ complaining about this program would seem to indicate that his “shock, horror and disaster” detector really does needs a good servicing.

    • I’m not sure what an Executive Summary would say, Ron. This is simply a data update. Some months the data wiggle up, some months they wiggle down. Sometimes they all wiggle in the same direction, but sometimes not.

  5. Thanks, a great collection of information, put into a rather compact form, considering all the data that exists.

  6. Not sure why these monthly updates don’t just wait until the 5 main data sets have reported. We’re only seeing 3/5 August updates here, 2 of which are satellite lower troposphere sets.
    Two out of the three main surface data providers have yet to report August temperatures. The one that has (GISS) reported the warmest August in its 135 year old record (though you’d hardly know it from Bob’s post).

  7. Bob – love your stuff, however, I agree with DavidR …
    What does it all mean?
    Could you do us a favor and summarize your findings in a short Exec Summary?

    • What would the Executive Summary say? This is simply a monthly data update. I am not going to analyze the monthly data for each dataset to see whether this month was the warmest, 2nd warmest…20th warmest, especially when the old data changes from month to month. I’ve provided links to the sources so that anyone who’s interested in that info can carry to analysis a little further.
      Cheers.

    • Matt – a mini el Nino 3.4 peak at the end of the year could be what is needed to “prime the pump” for a strong Peruvian upwelling-driven La Nina cooling event in the first half of 2015, which is what I am expecting.

  8. We really need to see some cooling.
    Maybe a little when the AMO finally flips. But CO2 is pushing up (a bit) against the PDO (with apologies to Bob), and what would be mild cooling is flat.
    Bottom line is lukewarming — CO2 forcing (a la Arrhenius) but without net positive feedback (or very little).

      • What we are seeing is a flat period when there ought to be some cooling. Same basic deal as the 1950s. Negative PDOs are pretty flat and positive PDOs are double.
        So there is “room” for CO2 forcing. It correlates reasonably (with the PDO shifts) and the raw forcing aspect is at least somewhat confirmed in the lab.
        But all that adds up to is mild lukewarming. Not an emergency, but not nothing either. Don’t confuse the mild raw CO2 forcing with the positive feedbacks derrings-do of the IPCC.

      • You may have heard this before but it bears repeating: if you do not see an effect, you cannot claim one. That is known as the Null Hypothesis. It is also
        Known as scientific rigor. It is an important principle and it is used to cull inventions that would-be scientists peddle as science. You in effect are inventing.

  9. Bottom line is lukewarming — CO2 forcing (a la Arrhenius)…
    What caused Niagara falls to freeze twice this year?
    What caused the record ice extent and duration on the Great Lakes?
    Why is Antarctic ice at record extent?
    Why is Arctic ice extent … normal?
    Bottom line–“lukewarming” from “CO2 forcing” is only apparent in the socially-constructed post-normal version of climate: it is not a feature of the real world.

  10. Running a simple OLS regression on the GISS LOTI index data from 01/79 to 12/98 gives the following trend line: y=.001322x+0.1168, standard error = 0.1460. That equates to warming at a rate of .159⁰C per decade. Projecting this trend forward yields predicted anomaly for 08/14 of .68⁰C.
    The observed anomaly in the GISS LOTI index for 08/14, as you’ve noted, is .70⁰C. The value of the 12 month running mean is currently .66⁰C. Both measures place the observed anomaly at almost exactly the value forecasted by a forward projection of the 01/79-12/98 trend line.
    When graphed so that the monthly anomalies are shown together with the 01/79-12/98 trend line and trend lines plus and minus one and two standard errors, visual inspection easily reveals that monthly anomalies during “the pause” have remained comfortably within their expected range. In this context, “the pause” looks like a short-term fluctuation around a stable uptrend.
    Performing the same regression using data from 01/79 to the present lends support to this analysis. The OLS regression covering the period 01/79 to 08/14 (which includes all of “the pause” to date) gives the following trend line: y=.001302+.1242, standard error. =.1360. That equates to warming at a rate of .156⁰C per decade and a trend line whose value for 08/14 is .68⁰C. Incorporating an additional 188 data points into the calculation of the previous estimate yields a virtually identical trend line, suggesting the longer-term warming trend continues unabated.

    • If the warming trend you derive from creative mathematical abstractions built from maladjusted measurements “continues unabated,” we’ll all freeze to death pretty soon.
      When I was kid, a hot august night wasn’t proof of a warming trend at all — it was just something to celebrate:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_August_Night
      Hot weather was a beautiful thing, in those days.
      “The temperatures rising / it isn’t surprising / start a good heatwave…” etc:

      Nowadays we’re supposed to pretend the month was warm by looking at a graph of “anomalies” built from a sexed-up dossier of temperature readings, all so that we can fill ourselves with shame for the sins we’ve committed against the climate. It;s sad and pathetic…
      OMG, look! There’s a patch of ocean 0.7C above “normal” this month. Unabated warming, for sure! Proof of your carbon sins. Repent now, before it’s too late.
      Hot August Anomaly.

      • I think a few pictures will help you.
        Here’s the linear trend based on the 240 month period from 01-1979 to 12-1998: http://imgur.com/a/KSkN4#0 I project that trend up to 12-2025, and show the trend plus and minus one and two standard errors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_error). If the trend holds, 68.2% of the monthly anomalies should be within one standard error of the trend line, and 95.4% of them should be within two standard errors of the trend line.
        Here’s the same trend line with the same standard errors, but which now includes an additional 188 months of data (which covers the so-called “pause”): http://imgur.com/a/KSkN4#1 An eyeball assessment shows that the predictions based on the 01-1979 – 12-1998 trend very successfully predict the next 188 anomalies. The trend holds.
        Running the calculations confirms this, which I show in this image: http://imgur.com/a/KSkN4#2 The trend calculated over the data from 01-1979 to 08-2014 which includes the alleged 13 or 14 or 15 years of “pause”, is virtually identical to the trend calculated over the period from 01-1979 to 12-1998. The former trend line gives a rate of warming of +.156⁰C/decade, and the latter gives a rate of warming of .159⁰C/decade.

    • Andy — Re: “Performing …to the present” >> we are now back on trend from “The Great Climate Flip?” I did not know that. Thanks.
      I used to count a single deck at Lake Tahoe in the early seventies, when it was like picking twenties off a money tree. One nite after a favorable hour or so, I hit an awful streak. “Looks like he Worm has Turned” quipped the dealer.

  11. One thing the whole of the WHWTers ought admit: You cannot pause your way to the most extreme warmth in the instrumental record.
    A sixty month crawling average helps to damp down the noise. The five-year average centered upon the year 1998, smack in the middle of El Nino Grande, measures the thermal gain since warming started in 1907, at 0.0140 Fahrenheit per annum. (The 07 measurement uses a very broad, 35 year average, to at once capture the beginning of trend warming, without the bias of measuring from the trough bottom.)
    The thirteen year interval since, thru the last complete five year interval (centered upon 2011), measures an increase of 0.2435 F., and a RATE of warming that jumps by 1/3:
    [0.2435 / 13 = 0.0187 F./yr. ; 0.0187 – 0.0140 = 0.0047 ; 0.0047 / 0.0140 = 33.5%]
    To me, this does not look like a “hiatus,” or a pause, but rather an acceleration. Also, although it is my practice to relentlessly oppose the selection of highly aberrant, “noisy” short term events within the thermal record, for the purpose of beguiling the unwary, such as the construction of extrapolations from atop that 1998 needle peak, we now measure the Earth at its warmest within the instrumental record. From 1998 thru the past 12 months, it is 0.366 F. warmer, and the INCREASE in the RATE of warming, in comparison to the Twentieth Century trend, has now doubled from that assessed above.
    [0.0094 / 0.0104 = 67.2%]
    What can I say? I am a hypocrite who is incapable of resisting the temptation of an inconsequential concluding jab.

    • Dave Peters
      After distorting the data beyond recognition you look at the result of your “sixty month crawling average” and say

      To me, this does not look like a “hiatus,” or a pause, but rather an acceleration.

      Well, to any sensible person your post looks like idiocy.
      Global warming has stopped. You need to come to terms with it.
      Richard

      • Well Richard, when you have someone who does not mind looking like an idiot before the world, then you will have idiocy.

      • Richard — Thanks for the benefit of your perspective.
        My “senseless” torturing came about quite by accident. My second episodic involvement with Warning was in 1988, when I devoted half a year to an attempt at saving a local N-plant from Amory Lovins, Jane Fonda, etc., on climate grounds. The third was a paper I wrote in 1999. To construct a “warming trend” in that year, I settled upon determining: 1) When did warming begin? 1907 seemed apparent from the thermometer record, and the minimalist challenge to the legitimacy of that record had yet to emerge. The broader the averaging interval, the greater the honesty in assigning a “beginning date.” It seemed to me.
        For the 2) near-current figure, I lusted after that gigantic ’97-’98 El Nino, but thought a five year average was an appropriate interval, for affixing a point estimate for the value to the then contemporary “Global Temperature.” Fair?
        Let me say something you might agree with, concerning the thermal trace. The iconic MBH hockey stick purports to describe a thousand year paleo-record. I did not grasp the fact that fully 0.55 F. of their “blade,” evolved from 12 months (7/97 thru 8/98), until perhaps the last year or two. Way more than a third of it.
        In retrospect, that yielded a monumental “distortion” in depicting the 2nd Christian Millennium.
        But, concerning the “pause,” since I had previously determined that a five year average was the smallest interval one could honestly point to, to dampen the noise, and offer an honest and fair notion of a “global” value, and since the world has warmed ever-faster when viewed through that prism, the warming has never “stopped” as I perceive things.
        So, while warming has “stopped” from your end, it is proceeding 1/3 faster, compared to the bulk of the Twentieth Century rate, from mine. I’d welcome your critique.

      • Dave Peters
        You say to me

        So, while warming has “stopped” from your end, it is proceeding 1/3 faster, compared to the bulk of the Twentieth Century rate, from mine. I’d welcome your critique.

        Your “end” and my “end” are not relevant. I stated reality, but you altered the data and comment on your alteration.
        Global warming is rise in global average surface temperature anomaly (GASTA). According to each of the data sets of GASTA global warming discernible at 95% confidence ceased nearly two decades ago.
        Global warming has stopped.
        Nobody knows why global warming has stopped but there are now 52 different explanations of global warming having stopped.
        Richard

      • Richard — On the contrary, based upon your criteria. EVERYONE knows why warming has stopped. If the world is observed to warm by 1.4 hundredths F. per year for nearly a century, and then warms 0.55 F. within a single year, one would expect there to be an ensuing interval during which the trend remains overshadowed by the aberration, or the “needle peak”. So, on that basis, I agree with you, that there exists an interval, within the El Nino Grande, during which the measured temperature exceeded that of say, last August.
        Thanks again for exchanging views. D.

      • Dave Peters
        You started by asserting that global warming has not stopped and is actually accelerating. And you persisted in that untrue assertion despite evidence which shows it is plain wrong because global warming has stopped.
        In refutation of your nonsense, I cited – and linked to – 52 different published possible reasons for why global warming has stopped and said

        Global warming has stopped.
        Nobody knows why global warming has stopped but there are now 52 different explanations of global warming having stopped.

        You have replied

        Richard — On the contrary, based upon your criteria. EVERYONE knows why warming has stopped.

        Clearly, if a sequiter found itself between your ears it would be very lonely.
        And you have proven you are only posting as a troll. Your only reason for posting is to disrupt rational debate with insanity.
        Richard

      • @rcourtney……
        RE: “global warming has stopped”

        I suggest you get in touch with NOAA……. (ref: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/8 )
        ..
        “The combined average temperature across global land and ocean surfaces for August 2014 was record high for the month, at 0.75°C (1.35°F) above the 20th century average of 15.6°C (60.1°F), topping the previous record set in 1998.”
        ….

      • beckleybud@gmail.com
        Your post says in total

        @rcourtney……
        RE: “global warming has stopped”

        I suggest you get in touch with NOAA……. (ref: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/8 )
        ..
        “The combined average temperature across global land and ocean surfaces for August 2014 was record high for the month, at 0.75°C (1.35°F) above the 20th century average of 15.6°C (60.1°F), topping the previous record set in 1998.”
        ….

        I suggest you understand what you are talking about.
        Global warming has stopped. I again point to this link which I provided earlier in this thread.
        The link shows each trend of estimated GASTA is negative; i.e. there is global COOLING.
        However, values of GASTA vary around the trend line(s). You report hat one estimate shows a highest value in one month but that is not relevant.
        I stopped growing more than 50 years ago but I am the tallest I have ever been.
        Global temperature stopped rising before this century but is warmer than it was last century.
        Global warming has stopped, and you need to come to terms with the reality that global warming has stopped.
        Richard

      • Dave Peters,
        If you torture the data enough, IT WILL CONFESS!
        So let’s use satellite data — the most accurate data available:
        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1996.8/to:2014.7/trend/plot/rss/from:1995.7/to:2014.7
        Everything else is exactly the same as your graph, including your strange cherry-picking of the start dates. And satellite data covers the globe, not just the land area.
        You also say:
        You cannot pause your way to the most extreme warmth in the instrumental record.
        Nice rhetoric, but meaningless. You are again cherry-picking, this time, the “instrumental record”.
        For some perspective of the entire record, not just the last few decades, see here.
        Face it, there is nothing unusual or unprecedented happening. Everything currently observed has happened repeatedly in the past, and to a much greater degree. Go sell you alarmism to ignorant folks; we know better here.

      • @rcourtney…
        ..
        So, if we are in a “global cooling” trend, can we expect September 2014 to be the warmest Sept on record?

      • beckleybud@gmail.com
        In response to my having written to you saying

        The link shows each trend of estimated GASTA is negative; i.e. there is global COOLING.
        However, values of GASTA vary around the trend line(s). You report that one estimate shows a highest value in one month but that is not relevant.

        you have replied by asking

        So, if we are in a “global cooling” trend, can we expect September 2014 to be the warmest Sept on record?

        I answer, no but it could be.
        And we now know that you have reading comprehension difficulties as yet another of your problems.
        Richard

      • @richard
        “Global warming has stopped. I again point to this link which I provided earlier”
        And the link shows atmospheric temps. Shouldn’t you include the heat content of the seas to the mix, when making a claim about global warming?

      • Janne
        You ask me

        @richard

        “Global warming has stopped. I again point to this link which I provided earlier”

        And the link shows atmospheric temps. Shouldn’t you include the heat content of the seas to the mix, when making a claim about global warming?

        No! Absolutely not. I wonder how you obtained such a strange misunderstanding.
        Global warming is increase to global average surface temperature anomaly (GASTA).
        It is not anything else and it never has been anything else.

        Richard

    • Dave Peters:
      You present rhetoric, not science. There have been no “extrapolations from atop that 1998 needle peak”. You repeat one of those propaganda blurbs that the global warmers pass off on the gullible.

      • m — OK. Data only:
        70 85 115 65 64
        107 118 88 96 106
        Two strings, in hundredths Fahrenheit. The first reports Hadley4 from 1996 thru 2000. The second from 2010 thru 2013. Which is “warmer”? The entire basis for the hiatus, the pause, the claim that the first string exceeds the second, proceeds from, and only from the fact of the 38 year’s worth of trend warming occurring between 9/97 and 8/98. Want to hear a handful of conservative pundits who have visited the El Nino Grande watering hole? George Will. Paul Gigot. John Stossel. Michael Barone. Charles Krauthammer. William Krystol.

      • Dave Peters,
        If you torture the data enough, IT WILL CONFESS!
        So let’s use satellite data — the most accurate data available:
        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1996.8/to:2014.7/trend/plot/rss/from:1995.7/to:2014.7
        Everything else is exactly the same as your graph, including your strange cherry-picking of the start dates. And satellite data covers the globe, not just the land area.
        You also say:
        You cannot pause your way to the most extreme warmth in the instrumental record.
        Nice rhetoric, but meaningless. You are again cherry-picking this time, the “instrumental record”.
        For some perspective of the entire record, not just the instrumental record, see here.
        Face it, there is nothing unusual or unprecedented happening. Everything currently observed has happened repeatedly in the past, and to a much greater degree. Go sell you alarmism to ignorant folks; we know better here.

      • @rcourtney…..

        When Smokey accuses someone of “cherry picking” and he does the same by picking RSS over UAH…..

        They have this saying about “glass houses”

      • beckleybud@gmail.com
        Your post says in total

        @rcourtney…..

        When Smokey accuses someone of “cherry picking” and he does the same by picking RSS over UAH…..

        They have this saying about “glass houses”

        Normally I would assume that such an untrue comment was pure trolling but you have already shown that you severely lack reading comprehension skills.
        Firstly, “smokey” posted nothing but dbstealey wrote to Dave Peters saying

        So let’s use satellite data — the most accurate data available:
        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1996.8/to:2014.7/trend/plot/rss/from:1995.7/to:2014.7
        Everything else is exactly the same as your graph, including your strange cherry-picking of the start dates. And satellite data covers the globe, not just the land area.

        Clearly, dbstealey was demonstrating that a different choice of data set shows something other than the assertion from Dave Peters’ and, therefore, the choice of Dave Peters was a cherry pick.
        Your claim that there is another data set is completely irrelevant except that it says much about you.
        And that is made even more clear by the fact that dbstealey also wrote in his same post to Dave Peters

        Nice rhetoric, but meaningless. You are again cherry-picking this time, the “instrumental record ”.
        For some perspective of the entire record, not just the instrumental record, see here.
        Face it, there is nothing unusual or unprecedented happening. Everything currently observed has happened repeatedly in the past, and to a much greater degree. Go sell you alarmism to ignorant folks; we know better here.

        His link was to the presentation of ice core data.
        Richard

    • Then why is is so damned cold out? Tonight when I walked home it felt as cold as it used to feel in December 10 years ago. This is on the eastern Atlantic coast. A month or so ago I was in the NE US. I was told that there had been only one day above 90 degrees this summer. So from my experience it’s definitely colder than it was ten years ago – on both sides of the Atlantic. Some acceleration.

  12. Mr. Durant [Or is it Duranty?],
    You started the cherry-picking, and you continue it with your strange start dates: [“1996.8”].
    Face it, global warming has stopped. If you don’t like a start date of 1997 — which was designated by über-Warmist Phil Jones himself — then let’s move it up to 2002 and see what happens to both satellite records:
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2014.7/trend/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2014.7/plot/uah/from:2002/to:2014.7/plot/uah/from:2002/to:2014.7/trend
    Global warming has stopped. Deal with it. Everyone else acknowledges that fact. You just don’t like it because it debunks your entire ‘carbon scare’ narrative. Too bad; that’s reality.

      • beckleybud@gmail.com
        You write

        This “cherry” is better than YOUR cherry

        THEN DON’T CHERRY PICK!
        Start at now and assess the data back from now until you obtain a linear trend which differs from zero at 95% confidence. The linear model and 95% confidence can each be disputed but each is standard practice in so-called ‘climate science’.
        In each GASTA data set you discover that a trend discernible as being different from zero at 95% confidence has a length which is more than any period after 1950 with a discernible trend. In other words, there was global warming discernible at 95% confidence between 1950 and 2000 but such discernible global warming has stopped.
        Global warming has stopped. Your superstitious belief is falsified by global warming having stopped.
        Richard

      • Mr Durant,
        NOAA? You mean this NOAA?:
        http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01675ef0785c970b-pi
        NOAA is not credible.
        And your 1979 chart is complete nonsense. I explained why, but you don’t seem to have much in the way of reading comprerhension. I’ll give it one more try:
        In 1999 über-Warmist Dr Phil Jones was interviewed. He was asked if global warming had stopped, since there had been no warming since 1997. Jones replied that we would have to wait fifteen years for that ‘pause’ to be statistically significant.
        That seemed like a safe bet at the time, but in the event, global warming never did resume. It stopped in 1979 as satellite measurements showed, and it has never resumed. Global warming has stopped. Even the official alarmist blogs like NOAA now admit to that fact.
        So it was Phil Jones who designated 1997 as the start date. You can cherry-pick 1979, or any other date you want. But that is just your desperation in action. Everyone, including the organizations on your side of the debate, now admit that global warming has stopped — your usual reaction notwithstanding.
        You are wasting everyone’s time trying to argue that Down is Up, Ignorance is Strength, and Warming is Accelerating. But rational folks know that your Belief is nonsense. Global warming has stopped.
        Finally, you would rather have a climate catastrophe so you could claim that you were right — no matter how many people starved to death as a result — than to be happy with the fact that there is no problem. Really despicable, and sadly emblematic of the worst of the climate alarmist lemmings.

Comments are closed.