Guest Post by Bob Tisdale
This post includes calendar year 2014 global surface temperature data from GISS and NCDC.
I thought it would be interesting to begin the introduction as if GISS and NCDC were announcing year-end business profits at their press conference today. [sarc on.]
INTRODUCTION
Today, two of the world’s climate-industry giants—the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and the NOAA National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)—posted their much-anticipated annual results for 2014. According to GISS, global surface temperature anomalies were an astounding +0.02 deg C higher in 2014 than they were in 2010, making the 2014 results the highest in the history of GISS. These record-breaking results from GISS are under the guidance of their new Deputy Director, Gavin Schmidt. If you’re not familiar with numbers that remarkable, they’re read two one-hundredth of a deg C, which is equal to less than four one-hundredths of a deg F. According to the NCDC, their global surface temperature results were +0.04 deg C higher in 2014 than they were in 2005 and 2010, their two previous best years. The warmest years are within the margin of uncertainty for the data*, making it impossible to determine which year was actually warmest. Even so, these results bring new hope to global warming investors, who have had to endure disappointing results in recent decades. GISS and NCDC are once again showing why the CO2 obsessed turn to them for global warming data. GISS and NCDC are global-warming industry leaders…known for eking out record years from poor source data, even during these hard times of global warming slowdown. In related news, based on similar source data, Berkeley Earth too announced record highs in 2014, but only by 0.01 deg C. [sarc off.]
Figure 1
*The uncertainties are assumed to be the same as those shown in the Berkeley link (in the range of +/- 0.04 to 0.05 deg C).
Those results, especially the NCDC results, appear somewhat curious. We showed in the post here that the Meteorological Annual Mean (December to November) were 0.01 deg or less between 2014 and 2010. Then again, the differences between the Meteorological Annual Mean and Calandar Mean are being measured in hundredths of a deg C.
There will be all sorts of bizarre proclamations now that the 2014 global surface temperature data from GISS and NCDC (and Berkeley Earth) were found to be a tick warmer than the prior warmest year(s).
What eludes those making the claims—or what they are purposely directing attention away from—is the growing disagreement between the real world and the global surface warming simulated by climate models.
MODEL-DATA DIFFERENCES
We’ll use the GISS data for this discussion. Similar graphs, but with the NCDC data, follow later in the post.
The teeny-tiny uptick in global surface temperature anomalies does not really help the growing difference between observations and the projections by climate models…because the modeled surface temperatures continue to rise, too, and modeled surface temperatures are rising faster than observations.
Figure 2 presents the annual GISS global surface temperature data for their full term of 1880 to 2014. Also shown on the graph is the average of all of the outputs of the simulations of global surface temperatures by the climate models stored in the CMIP5 archive, models with historical forcing through about 2005 and with RCP8.5 (worst case) forcings thereafter. The predictions of gloom and doom are based on the worst-case scenarios so we might as well use them for the comparison. The models stored in the CMIP5 archive were used by the IPCC for their 5th Assessment Report. Anomalies were calculated against the averages for the period of 1880 to 2014 so that the base years did not bias the presentation.
Figure 2
We use the average of the model simulations (the multi-model ensemble member mean) because it best describes how surface temperatures would vary if (big if) they varied in response to the numerical values of the forcings (anthropogenic greenhouse gases, aerosols, etc.) used to drive the climate models. For a further discussion, see the post here.
It’s very plain to see that the observed global surface temperatures have not risen as fast as predicted by climate model simulations in recent years.
Let’s put the growing difference between models and observations into perspective. We’ll subtract the annual values of the data from the modeled values, and we’ll smooth the difference with a 5-year running-average filter (centered on the 3rd year) to reduce the volatility from El Niños, La Niñas and volcanic aerosols. See Figure 3. The horizontal red line is the value of the most recent model-data difference—for the 5-year period of 2010 to 2014. Over that period, the model projections are running on average about 0.17 deg C too warm. Keep in mind, these climate model projections are only a few years old and already their performance is terrible.
Figure 3
We can also see that the models have not simulated surface temperatures this poorly (have not deviated 0.17 deg C from reality) since the 5-year period centered on about 1910. That earlier deviation was caused by the model failure to properly simulate the cooling of global surfaces that took place from the 1880s to about 1910. The present deviation is caused by the model failure to simulate the recent slowdown in global warming.
30-YEAR MODEL-DATA TRENDS
The carbon-dioxide obsessed often say we need to look at 30-year trends, so let’s do exactly that. See Figure 4.
Figure 4
An explanation of what’s shown in that graph: Each data point presents the 30-year linear trend (warming and cooling rate) as calculated by MS EXCEL in deg C/decade. The last data points at 2014 are the linear trends (warming rates) for the 30-year period of 1985-2014. Working back in time, the data points at 2013 are the warming rates for the period of 1984-2013…and so on, until the first data points at 1909, which show the model and observed trends for the period of 1880 to 1909. The term “trailing” in the title block indicates the data points are keyed to the last year of the 30-year terms.
The 30-year period when global surfaces cooled fastest ended about 1909. At that time, the models showed surface temperatures should have been warming if Earth’s surfaces responded to the forcings in the same way as the climate models. Obviously they didn’t. From the 30-year periods ending in 1909 to just before 1925 (when the data trends were still negative but the negative trends were growing smaller) global surfaces were cooling, but the cooling rate was decelerating. (To simplify this discussion, keep in mind that the years discussed are the last years in 30-year periods.) Starting just after 1925 and running through about 1945, Earth’s surfaces had warmed and the observed 30-year warming rate grew faster (accelerated), while the models did not show the same multidecadal variability in warming over that time.
IMPORTANT NOTE: In fact, for the period ending in 1945, the climate models show that global surfaces should only have warmed at a rate that was about 1/3 the observed rate—or, in other words, from 1916 to 1945, global warming occurred at a rate that was about 3 times faster than simulated by climate models—or, to phrase it yet another way, natural variability was responsible for about 2/3rds of the warming from 1916 to 1945. If Earth’s surfaces warmed much faster than simulated by the models, then the warming was caused by something other than the forcings used to drive the climate models…thus it must have been natural variability. Of course, that undermines the claims that all of the global surface warming in the latter part of the 20th Century was caused by man’s emissions of carbon dioxide. If natural factors were capable of causing about 66% of the global warming from 1916 to 1945, there is every reason to conclude that a major portion of the global surface warming during the latter warming period was caused by natural factors. The fact that the models better align during the latter part of the 20th Century is not proof that the warming in that period was caused by manmade greenhouse gases…the climate models have already shown that they have no skill at being able to simulate global surface temperatures over multidecadal periods. [End note.]
From 1945 to about 1964, observed global warming over 30-year time spans decelerated at rates that were much faster than simulated by models. But the modeled trends aligned with the data from the mid-1950s to the late 1960s, then diverged slightly during the 1970s and realigned until about 2003.
Over the last 11 years, the observed 30-year global warming rates decelerated slightly while the climate models show that global warming should have continued to accelerate…if carbon dioxide was the primary driver of global surface temperatures. While the 30-year trends do not show global cooling at this time, they also do not show global warming accelerating as predicted by climate models…and that is the problem that climate scientists are still trying to explain and coming up with dozens of excuses. If history repeats itself, global warming will continue to decelerate, maybe for as long as another 20 years.
30-YEAR MODEL-DATA TREND DIFFERENCES
Figure 5 shows the differences between the modeled and observed 30-year trends (trailing) in global surface temperatures. Referring back to Figure 4, the data trends were subtracted from the modeled trends. For the 30-year period of 1985 to 2014, the models show that global surfaces should have been warming at a rate that’s about 0.085 deg C per decade faster than has been observed. The last time the models showed 30-year global warming rates that were that much faster than observed was around 1920. Now consider again that these climate model projections are only a few years old.
Figure 5
NCDC GLOBAL SURFACE TEMPERATURE DATA
Figures 6 through 9 are the same as Figures 2 to 5, but with the NCDC global land+ocean temperature anomaly data. The curves are so similar to those with the GISS data that there’s no reason to repeat the dialogue.
Figure 6
# # #
Figure 7
# # #
Figure 8
# # #
Figure 9
THE REASON FOR THE 2014 UPTICK IN GLOBAL COMBINED SURFACE TEMPERATURES
Figure 10 presents the global sea surface temperatures for the period of 1997 to 2014 based on NOAA’s ERSST.v3b data, which is used by GISS and NCDC for their combined global land plus sea surface temperature datasets. The 2014 value was 0.044 deg C warmer than the previous warmest year 1998. Obviously, because the oceans cover 70% of the surface of the planet, the uptick in global combined surface temperatures was the result of the larger uptick in global sea surface temperatures.
Figure 10
We have been discussing for more than 6 months the reasons for the record high sea surface temperatures in 2014. Recently, we confirmed that the uptick in global sea surface temperatures was caused by the unusual weather event in the eastern extratropical North Pacific. See the post Alarmists Bizarrely Claim “Just what AGW predicts” about the Record High Global Sea Surface Temperatures in 2014. No other ocean basin had record-high sea surface temperatures in 2014.
The following is a reprint of a discussion from that post under the heading of On the Record High Sea Surface Temperatures in 2014:
Again, of the individual ocean basins, only the North Pacific had record high sea surface temperatures this year, and the weather event there was strong enough to cause record warm sea surfaces globally, in the Pacific as a whole and in the Northern Hemisphere.
We’ve been discussing the record high sea surface temperatures since the June Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Update. We identified the location of the unusual weather event, the likely reasons for the record high sea surface temperatures and the fact that climate models could not explain that warming in the post On The Recent Record-High Global Sea Surface Temperatures – The Wheres and Whys. We discussed the topic further in other posts, including Axel Timmermann and Kevin Trenberth Highlight the Importance of Natural Variability in Global Warming… Our discussions of the unusual warming event in the eastern extratropical North Pacific were confirmed by the 2014 paper by Johnstone and Mantua (here) which was presented in the post Researchers Find Northeast Pacific Surface Warming (1900-2012) Caused By Changes in Atmospheric Circulation, NOT Manmade Forcings. Jim Johnstone, one of the authors of the paper, joined us on the thread of the cross post at WUWT and provided a link to his webpage. There you can find a link to the paper. Also see his comment here for an update on the recent unusual warming event in the extratropical North Pacific. Under the heading of NE Pacific coastal warming due to changes in atmospheric circulation at his webpage, Jim Johnstone updated one of the graphs from their paper and wrote:
Jan 1980 – Nov 2014. NE Pacific monthly coastal SST anomalies (red) and SST modeled from regional SLP. Recent warming from Jan 2013 to Nov 2014 occurred in response to low SLP over the NE Pacific, consistent with long-term forcing. Gray bars mark data beginning in January 2013 that were not included in the study. Negative SLP anomalies generate anomalous cyclonic winds, reducing the mean anticyclonic flow and winds speeds throughout the Arc. The drop in wind speeds reduces evaporation rates, producing positive surface latent heat fluxes and SST increases.
Also refer to the NOAA summary and FAQ webpage about Johnstone and Mantua (2014) for discussions about the paper in less-technical terms.
As we’ve been saying for years, coupled ocean-atmosphere processes can and do cause regional warming, which, in turn, lead to the warming of ocean surfaces globally.
ONE LAST NOTE
The NOAA press release from Wednesday includes the following statements (my boldface):
NOAA and NASA independently produce a record of Earth’s surface temperatures and trends based on historical observations over oceans and land. Consistency between the two independent analyses, as well as analyses produced by other countries, increases confidence in the accuracy of such data, the assessment of the data, and resulting conclusions.
NOAA and GISS may produce the surface temperature data independently, using different methods to infill missing data, but they rely on the same sea surface temperature data (NOAA’s ERSST.v3b) and, for the most part, on the same land surface air temperature source data (NOAA’s GHCN). Though GISS does include a few other surface temperature datasets in areas where the GHCN data are sparse, they rely primarily on the same data for both land and oceans. They cannot be independent if the suppliers rely on the same source data.
CLOSING
As illustrated and discussed, while global surface temperatures rose slightly in 2014, the minor uptick did little to overcome the growing difference between observed global surface temperature and the projections of global surface warming by the climate models used by the IPCC.
This post will serve as the annual surface temperature update for GISS and NCDC. The full monthly update will follow later in the day or tomorrow.
SOURCES
See the GISS global Land-Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI) data page and the NCDC data are accessible here (can be very slow).
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
*The uncertainties are assumed to be the same as those shown in the Berkeley link (in the range of +/- 0.04 to 0.05 deg C).
So these clowns are seriously trying to tell us that they can measure the surface temperature of ‘the earth’ to within 100th part of one degree! And then use this amazing fact to panic already nervous activists?
This statement alone illustrates the absurdity of the present ‘scientific’ discussion.
Salvatore Del Prete
I see you also noticed that 2014 annual global record had significant areas that were actually colder like North America, South America and large parts of Asia and Africa .. So how can a record global anomaly make any sense or signifigance as a global figure when 2 entire continents or parts of the two other largest continents were actually colder . I agree ,we should blog Weatherbell’s excellent graph as a separate track in the future.
The idea that a global figure for temperature means anything is absurd. Global anomalies? Nonsense.
In high school, 60 years ago, we learned agricultural growing zones (regions) temperatures published by the US Agriculture Department. Still working just fine in USA and same in Canada.
More food produced every year since 1940, not only due to same climate regions and obviously some help with increasing CO2 (our only gaseous fertilizer) and a variety of other improvements in agricultural production and distribution.
A little more increase of both temperature (1 to 3 C) and CO2 (100 to 200 ppm) in North America would bring great agricultural benefits as well as reforestation and such benefits would be distributed to the entire world.
I don’t want to exclude other continents about changes in temperature or CO2 concentration affecting them.
Their situations may be different and this is why “global temperature and global anomalies” are absurd.
@David Socrates January 16, 2015 at 2:32 pm
Gunga Din
I checked my physics book, and there is no reference to “Moving back toward “normal”
I checked my statistics book but cannot reproduce it here, so how about this –
Regression toward the mean You can check on-line.
Some fields of study have a different name for this, for example, from the study of ancestral heredity there is Galton’s law.
Hmm-m-m, still no socrates.
They sure like to ask questions, don’t they? But when one interesting item like JFH mentioned above screams out for a response… nothing.
Here is the way one media outlet reported what NOAA said about the record temperature .. Not a word about the areas that were colder. Then compare these words with the Weatherbell graph . No wonder the public is misinformed about global warming. Good job Weatherbell for bringing reality to the discussion. .
The western U.S., parts of Russia, interior South America as well as most of Europe experienced record heat, NOAA said. Northern Africa, western Australia and parts of the Pacific, Atlantic and Indian oceans also were warmer.
“The record warmth was spread around the world,” NOAA said in a statement.
The 2014 temperature beat previous highs set in 2005 and 2010 by 0.07 degree, the agency said.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2015-01-16/rising-temperatures-on-land-and-sea-made-2014-hottest-year-ever.html
The NOAA reports that 2014 average temperature across global land and ocean surfaces was 0.69C above the 20th century average. Given that the JMA reports 2014-15 as an El Niño year, how does the 2014 average temperature compare with the 20th century average of El Niño years?
We shouldn’t be to worried about 2014 being warmest; after all early in 2016 we will, no doubt, be informed that 2015 was warmest — what with all the “necessary” adjustments.
We can then look back and smile contentedly at how “cool” 2014 was.
It will be ever thus as long as the foxes are guarding the hen house.
What I saw in my state (Washington) was several warmest ever low temperature records, but few, if any, warmest ever high temperature records. This situation did indeed produce a higher average temperature for the year, but I would rather call the year “Least cold on record”. This label fits the facts better.
SR
Bob, if I’m not mistaken, NOAA use an uncertainty value of ±0.09°C.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/13/supplemental/page-1
Thanks, BruceC. Using their definition, then 2014 was “more unlikely than likely” the warmest on record.
And the probability of 2010 being the warmest was 18%. Using their definition: “Unlikely”
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/briefings/201501.pdf
Does that make Tisdale happy?
Also notice that the probability for 2014 being warmest is lower in gistemp. That is because of better infilling (Bob likes that after all) and captures better lower anomalies in areas with sparse coverage. But wait for Cowtan&Way, Even better infilling. There 2010 will (probably) be warmer than 2014.
So go for C&W. Might solve your problem with 2014 being the warmest.
rooter, Cowtan and Way use a different method for infilling than GISS. Are you positive it’s better than the GISS method? Both are, in reality, fiction.
Of course C&W use another method for infilling. That is the point Tisdale. A better method.
Suddenly infilling and interpolation is no-no again. Whatever happend to Tisdale’s preference for Oiv2 and Hadisst? In the fiction-bin?
Some think it is better to do the infilling with the hemispheric average. That is not the method for Oiv2 or Hadisst Tisdale. Perhaps Tisdale would like to tell his favorite infilling method. The one least fictitious.
multiple links and quotes…
16 Jan: Climate Depot: Scientists balk at ‘hottest year’ claims: Ignores Satellites showing 18 Year ‘Pause’ – ‘We are arguing over the significance of hundredths of a degree’ – The ‘Pause’ continues
http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/01/16/scientists-balk-at-hottest-year-claims-we-are-arguing-over-the-significance-of-hundredths-of-a-degree-the-pause-continues/
just for fun:
16 Jan: CNS News: Terence P. Jeffrey: Price of Electricity Hit Record High in U.S. in 2014
Even as gasoline prices plummeted and the overall energy price index calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics declined, electricity prices bucked the trend in the United States in 2014…
The average price for a kilowatt hour of electricity in the United States was 13.5 cents in December. That is the highest average price for KWH of electricity in the month of December since the BLS started recording the December monthly price for a KWH in 1978. In December 2013, the average price for a KWH was 13.1 cents…
In the first nine months of 2014, solar power equaled about 0.46 percent of total electricity generation. Wind power equaled about 4.3 percent of total electricity production.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/price-electricity-hit-record-high-us-2014
If you’re presenting a single trend line for “global temperature” or “anomalies”, you’re not presenting reality. Hottest where? Can’t say everywhere, because that’s definitely not the truth, and YOU CAN’T AVERAGE TEMPERATURES FROM DIFFERENT PLACES AND COME UP WITH ANYTHING PHYSICALLY MEANINGFUL!!! Just because it’s “all we have” doesn’t make it useful or meaningful.
Don’t believe the record temperatures.
Between the Jan 15th and 16th they added no new usable data to the GHCN unadjusted file. There were 3 months of data added for 2014, but they were all immediately marked defective.
To build their adjusted file they start with the cleaned(no defects) unadjusted data. Since that didn’t change, their adjusted file should have stayed the same for both the 15th and 16th. It didn’t. They changed 18656 lines on the 16th. Over 200,000 months of data. Those figures are since the 19th century. All changes were in the US, Canada, Mexico and the Bahamas. Nowhere else.
GISS also uses the GHCN adjusted data, so they can’t claim independence.
They have been busy beavers since at least the 6th of Jan. removing and inserting data all over the world.
Well. Go for unadjusted. See what you get.
Even now some people have not noticed that the record 2014 is because of the ocean temperatures. The adjusted land measurements show 4th warmest.
Hi Bob,
Could you please explain this a bit more? It sounds like scientific fraud, but I don’t quite understand the details.
As an aside, this alarmism has been getting huge coverage in the Australian media today, especially the ABC (no surprise there, unfortunately!). I think that if the public get to understand that this whole thing is about such an insignificant (assuming real) temperature rise, there’s going to be a backlash. They have really over-sold this puppy!!! If it turns out even this tiny amount was derived fraudulently, this IPCC & cohorts crowd will lose what little credibility they have left.
Joe.
As a retired but still licensed and boarded neuropsychiatrist, I am not even sure a human could detect a 0.02 degree Celsius temperature increase. It would be absolutely imperceptible. Biologically, I could not vouch that any organism would be affected by such a minuscule change. I am no expert on thermometers, but isn’t that just a bit beyond their 95% CI?
Nick Palmer:
“The plain fact is that the mainstream science is now so strong”
“if you are wrong and your ideas confuse too many of the voting public”
Very telling that a true believer posted that as “WHEN you are wrong and IF your ideas confuse…” Apparently, the evil WUWT virus of denialism is spreading! LOL
You’ll have to explain your point better. You didn’t make yourself clear.
Ah come on folks the breathless good looking blond newscaster on Global news Vancouver uses the poor ski season on the local mountains as proof positive of CAGW so it must be true. No mention of PDO.
Pete’s ‘Wunderful’ data, taken from poll of English Wunderground stations with a reasonably long record.
For 2014, the results are:
Brampton, 2nd out of 15 years, 0.4°C below record year of 2006
Manchester, 9th out of 14 years and 0.7°C below record of 2001
Taunton, 6th out of 12 years and 1.0°C below previous record of 2005
Bedford, 1st out of 10 years and 0.3°C above previous record of 2009
Derby, 2nd out of 11 years and 0.4°C below previous record of 2006
Stowemarket, 1st out of 10 years and 0.2°C above previous record of 2006
Taken that The Satellites are ‘seeing’ radiation and according to Stefan’s Law, Planet earth is surely shedding more energy than it previously was. This is entirely consistent with my little clump of numbers because the ‘warm’ places are on the dry eastern side of England and the cooler (going nowhere) places are on the wetter western side of England. One cubic metre of humid air at 10°C contains 7kJ more energy than a cubic metre at 20°C. As Harold Ambler stated somewhere here, temperature is not energy.
That Earth is losing energy really is a cause for concern and stacks up with the facts that adding CO2 to a nitrogen/oxygen mix increases its emissivity and also increases its thermal conductivity. Something sublimely pointed out by the warmist trolls we’ve just been reading where they talk about and confuse radiation trapping with wearing an overcoat or adding insulation to your house. They themselves tacitly admit, without even realising it, that conduction/convection cool the planet’s surface. Such confused thinking – better lay off the carbs and the grog I’d suggest.
Of course its my beautiful theory and I’m hopelessly biased, but the wet/dry observation in conjunction with the ‘headline’ shows/proves mankind is changing things and he’s doing it by desertifying the place. The extra CO2 we see has come from the dirt and the higher temps come about because the organic material that was in the soil (now CO2) retained moisture and restrains the temperature wee see ‘on the ground’.
Less soil organic means less retained moisture means greater temperature variation, consistent with higher temperatures with less energy within the Earth System.
“Of course it’s my beautiful theory and I’m hopelessly biased, but the wet/dry observation in conjunction with the ‘headline’ shows/proves mankind is changing things and he’s doing it by desertifying the place.”
On the contrary….
“How Fossil Fuels are Greening the Planet”
To check the accuracy of Matt Ridley’s assertions regarding the NDVI Satellite observations I went to this site.
http://www.pecad.fas.usda.gov/cropexplorer/Default.aspx
When there go to the “MODIS NDVI Time Series” tab. I cannot find a “global” map but all of the individual regions I displayed all show a greening since 2000 (which appears to be the limit of the data they make available).
To your “Of course it’s my beautiful theory and I’m hopelessly biased” one hopes that the actual data will help convince you otherwise..
Looking forward to seeing the publication of Ranga Myneni’s research in due time.
yes, there is been no ilttle unease in the Village following the ‘2014 news’. A warm thank you to all contributors sowing doubt on, well, any part of it the news really. Normal mindset has been reastorede
You know that 4.26 is 4.3 which is 4.5 which is 5 which is 10, right?
Its all in how you round up.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Screen_shot_2015-01-15_at_8.04.49_PM.png
More evidence which shows 2014 is not the hottest year not even close.
This is what I use to determine where global temperatures have been and are going.
The ocean (in particular) still exists Prete. But perhaps you think the atmosphere’s heat capacity is greater than the ocean.
Perhaps a reason for choosing MSU/AMSU is that those indexes requires the most amount of adjusting and even modelling? You have previously shown that you prefer model output.
And why do you have to average the indexes? Perhaps to hide the divergence between the two indexes.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/rss/offset:-0.10/mean:12/plot/uah/mean:12/plot/rss/offset:-0.10/from:1979/to:1998/trend/plot/rss/offset:-0.10/from:1998/trend/plot/uah/to:1998/trend/plot/uah/from:1998/trend
CO2 has no effect on SST, rooter.
Exactly CO2 has no effect, and this year 2015 will be colder then year 2014 and this trend should continue for many years going forward. In fact IR only penetrates the top MM of surface ocean waters while visible sunlight penetrates many meters below the ocean surface.
AGW theory has been proven to be wrong not only as far as the stability in global temperatures for some 18+ years and counting but by all the responses to the earth’s atmosphere they called for which have not occurred.
A few examples would be the tropospheric hot spot near the equator combined with more frequent El Nino’s both of which have not happened.
The atmospheric circulation becoming more zonal which has not taken place. Instead the atmospheric circulation has become more meridional and then to cover themselves they try to link it with Arctic Sea Ice melting due to global warming which is bogus on two fronts. Front one being if Arctic Sea Ice melt was caused by global warming why is it that Antarctic Sea Ice is at or near record high values? The second front being if one looks at the Arctic Sea Ice dynamic in the 1970’s one will find above average values of Arctic Sea Ice with an atmospheric circulation as meridional as today.
AGW theory also suggest that the stratosphere will cool in response to CO2 ,and that OLR emissions to space would decrease. OLR emissions have not decreased and as far as the stratosphere, the cooling in the lower part can be linked to two items that have nothing to do with AGW ,those being lack of large volcanic eruptions post Pinatubo and low solar activity resulting in less ozone cooler lower stratospheric temperatures.
Prete: A link that will show that AGW theory suggest that OLR emissions to space would decrease?
Hint: Emission height.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.americanthinker.com%2Farticles%2F2010%2F02%2Fthe_agw_smoking_gun.html&ei=Oba6VKz5IouvyQSGpoHQDw&usg=AFQjCNFrU2MuqxB2KLN4EEbZyjpTBPFwig&bvm=bv.83829542,d.aWw
There have been more recent studies confirming this one.
A tale of two datasets…
http://postimg.org/image/mknoos3vl/
[Thank you. .mod]
“Beware the Ides of March”. What happens if we take the average monthly temperature form March 1998 to February 1999. (OK I cherry picked this period). However, surely the average 12 month temperature and the decision as to whether a particular 12 month period was “the warmest on record” should not depend on the starting month? And then again, perhaps the Roman period was warmer than now because the Roman calendar year started in March! (/s).
2014 – Global temperature distribution picture shows, some areas are warm and some other areas are cold. The same is not reflected in 2010 Global temperature picture. That means, these are associated with the differences in localized general circulation patterns – natural variations may be a part of this. The global temperature rise trend is a function of several factors. These include local/regional factors like heat-island & cold-island and global factors like global warming. Accuracy of met observations over space & time are quite different [Africa versus Europe/USA]. Met net work over space & time are quite different [for example northeast Brazil and USA]. In the case of local/regional factors, urban-heat-island effect is overemphasized with dense met network & rural-cold-island effect is underemphasized with sparse met network in the global temperature averaging. Then, there is another important factor: extra-terrestrial affects. Or are the highest and lowest are the part of natural cycle??? Can we separate all these factors while assessing the highest or lowest global average yearly temperature? So, the best way account this is from satellite data. Let somebody present this information. Then we can understand the slowing or pause or something else.
Another point is if two data sets differ in 2014, it is is true even with 2010 or 2005 data set — then what will be the cumulative difference? The same will also apply to all those years prior to 2014. Is it not show?
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
[Were the 2014, or the 2010 global temperature pictures, associated with the local circulation patterns you mentioned? .mod]
“Today, two of the world’s climate-industry giants..posted [that] global surface temperature anomalies were an astounding +0.02 deg C higher in 2014 than they were in 2010 ! These record-breaking results from GISS are under the guidance of their new Deputy Director, Gavin Schmidt. … these results bring new hope to global warming investors, who have had to endure disappointing results in recent decades.”
Now the world can safely go back to the view that we shall all roast to death and/or drown as Climate Armageddon marches swiftly on to its fiery conclusion (and no more white Christmas’s, snow, Mammoths, reindeer and Santa)
Other headlines from our climate science industry:
“Big Acceleration in Human Activity Since 1950”
“Does Global Warming Reduce Wheat Production?” (Answer – Yes if you haven’t guessed)
“Volcanic Eruptions Help Explain Warming Hiatus”
“Climate Affects Fish” -who knew
And a few that are plain wrong!
“Alaska Fish Adjust to Climate Change” – they are talking of Fish folks not humans, who as we well know are incapable of adapting to anything except extreme cold.
And
“The great greening: The coming of our new lush Earth” – New Scientist
Now that headline is wrong as you can read from the article itself: That headline should have been “CO2 promotes weeds and global warming!”
“A greener planet sounds wonderful, … But ..more plant growth … will accelerate global warming” got it? More green plants more global warming and catastrophe.
Also “the plants that thrive most could be weedy pests” – got it? more weeds less grass, less roses and less wheat. (Never mind the figures)
“Why there is more growth overall has been much debated, with explanations ranging from increased rainfall to changes in land use. Earlier this year, though, a study led by Randall Donohue of CSIRO, Australia’s national research agency, suggested that in warm, dry regions, rising carbon dioxide levels are the main cause of the greening.” What !? “suggested”? how dare he? Carbon Dioxide? That noxious gas?
Never fear “not everyone is convinced by this study. “I don’t think it’s plausible,” says Belinda Medlyn, also at Macquarie University, whose team has helped carry out some CO2 enrichment experiments…While Medlyn is holding out for an explanation not solely based on CO2, she concedes that there is no convincing alternative just yet.”
Not to worry some inventive person will come up with one. We are also holding out for some other explanation.
The +0.02 oC raise in global temperature is not global warming.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
Why is anyone using a linear trend when it so clearly has a cyclic waveform element dominating? Show it with a best fit curve and the gap between climate science and reality is even more pronounced.
Just to reply to the overconfident Jeyon’s comment at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/16/does-the-uptick-in-global-surface-temperatures-in-2014-help-the-growing-difference-between-climate-models-and-reality/#comment-1839765 .
Jeyon wrote: “most AGW skeptics didn’t receive a penny from Big Oil”
Thus demonstrating that he/she has no idea whatsoever of the long history of the propaganda war waged by Big Fossil Fuel. I even mentioned earlier how drive-by commenters like Jeyon could check this out for themselves. Clearly he/she didn’t. Quel surprise… For anyone who wants to know, here’s what I wrote: “Big Oil stopped sponsoring contrarianism in the early 2000s (google Global Climate Coalition)” in my comment at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/16/does-the-uptick-in-global-surface-temperatures-in-2014-help-the-growing-difference-between-climate-models-and-reality/#comment-1838285
In case Jeyon is just claiming that sceptic blogs never got any money, then he/she is just nitpicking. Even though individuals get some funds for appearances etc, I don’t think that is evidence of corruption – why shouldn’t they get paid for their time and work? However, as Jeyon seems ignorant of the long history of amateur scepticsm/denialism/contrarianism perhaps he/she might like to research it. It is undeniable that the fossil fuel companies sponsored denialism, they even had offices to do it. Many of the seemingly plausible arguments put forward by amateur bloggers and institutes like Heartland are actually rehashed versions of genuine scientific objections to the growing development of climate science that took place way back in the 1950s and 1960s. Why the warmist side is often very dismissive of the views of self-described sceptics these days is because all those arguments were looked at and rejected 50 years ago. They have been resurrected, not because they still have have any valdity, but because the likes of the Heartland Institute see them as being ideal weapons to twist the minds of a whole new bunch of people who cling onto these ideas because they wrongly think they are smarter than the vast majority of climate scientists and the vast majority of the 150 years of climate science development. Now even Big Fossil Fuel accepts the reality of the threat from global warming, which continues almost exactly as projected, despite all the navel gazing and fallacious graph/trend interpretation indulged in by the scepticosphere, no doubt that old human weakness hubris does not allow the dwindling case and weakening support for the “sceptic” case to sink in to those who cling onto it. I expect the scepticosphere to continue to turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to the clear and present danger, because they, to a man, appear to be just about incorrigible about the simple facts that show that virtually no-one of any credibility still disputes mainstream climate science.