Guest Post by Werner Brozek, Edited by Just The Facts:
The above graphic shows that RSS has a slope of basically zero since October 1996, or a period of 18 years and 3 months. UAH, version 5.5 has a slope of basically zero for 10 years, since January 2005. I would like to thank Walter Dnes for determining the values. WFT does not show version 5.6, however the length of time for a flat period on this version is since January 2009, or an even 6 years. In contrast, the other three data sets I report on have a flat period of less than a year which in my opinion is not worth being called a pause.
Why is there this difference between the satellites and the surface measurements? Is one more accurate than the other?
There have been a numerous recent articles on the adjustments made to the surface temperature records, in Bolivia, China, Paraguay, and elsewhere; and we recently had a Meterologist in Germany who noted that:
“One reason for the perceived warming, Hager says, is traced back to a change in measurement instrumentation. He says glass thermometers were was replaced by much more sensitive electronic instruments in 1995. Hager tells the SZ:
‘For eight years I conducted parallel measurements at Lechfeld. The result was that compared to the glass thermometers, the electronic thermometers showed on average a temperature that was 0.9°C warmer. Thus we are comparing – even though we are measuring the temperature here – apples and oranges. No one is told that.'”
Below, I would like to compare the final rankings of 2014 with respect to other years for the 5 data sets that I report on as well as for UAH, version 5.6. I will do so in three parts. In the first part, I will give the ranking without regards to how close 2014 is to any other year. In the second part, I will assume that any other anomaly average that is up to 0.03 above or below the 2014 is in a statistical tie with 2014. In the third part, I will expand on this and assume that any anomaly that is within 0.1 of the 2014 anomaly is in a statistical tie with 2014.
So for the first part, the rankings are as follows:
UAH version 5.5: 7th
UAH version 5.6: 3rd
RSS: 6th
HadCRUT4: 1st
HadSST3: 1st
GISS: 1st
The above ranks are the ones that appear on line 24 of the present table. Furthermore, these same numbers will appear on line 1 of the new table when I give the data for 2015.
For the second part, here are the rankings if we assume that any anomaly that is 0.03 above or below the 2014 ranking is in a statistical tie with 2014:
UAH version 5.5: a statistical 7 way tie from ranks 4 to 10
UAH version 5.6: a statistical 3 way tie from ranks 3 to 5
RSS: a statistical 4 way tie from ranks 6 to 9
HadCRUT4: a statistical 4 way tie from ranks 1 to 4
HadSST3: It remains in 1st by itself
GISS: a statistical 3 way tie from ranks 1 to 3
For the third part, here are the rankings if we assume that any anomaly that is 0.1 above or below the 2014 ranking is in a statistical tie with 2014:
UAH version 5.5: a statistical 12 way tie from ranks 3 to 14
UAH version 5.6: a statistical 9 way tie from ranks 3 to 11
RSS: a statistical 12 way tie from ranks 3 to 14
HadCRUT4: a statistical 11 way tie from ranks 1 to 11
HadSST3: a statistical 6 way tie from ranks 1 to 6
GISS: a statistical 10 way tie from ranks 1 to 10
For those who may be interested, this is how HadCRUT3 would have done if it were still around. Assuming that HadCRUT3 would have gone up as much from 2013 to 2014 as HadCRUT4 did, then HadCRUT3 would have had a 2014 anomaly of 0.529. This would have placed it in 2nd place. Prior to this year, 1998 was at 0.548 and 2005 was at 0.482.
In the sections below, as in previous posts, we will present you with the latest facts. The information will be presented in three sections and an appendix. The first section will show for how long there has been no warming on some data sets. At the moment, only the satellite data have flat periods of longer than a year. The second section will show for how long there has been no statistically significant warming on several data sets. The third section will show how 2014 compares with 2013 and the warmest years and months on record so far. The appendix will illustrate sections 1 and 2 in a different way. Graphs and a table will be used to illustrate the data.
Section 1
This analysis uses the latest month for which data is available on WoodForTrees.com (WFT). All of the data on WFT is also available at the specific sources as outlined below. We start with the present date and go to the furthest month in the past where the slope is a least slightly negative on at least one calculation. So if the slope from September is 4 x 10^-4 but it is – 4 x 10^-4 from October, we give the time from October so no one can accuse us of being less than honest if we say the slope is flat from a certain month.
1. For GISS, the slope is not flat for any period that is worth mentioning.
2. For HadCRUT4, the slope is not flat for any period that is worth mentioning. Note that WFT has not updated Hadcrut4 since July and it is only Hadcrut4.2 that is shown.
3. For HadSST3, the slope is not flat for any period that is worth mentioning.
4. For UAH, the slope is flat since January 2005 or an even 10 years. (goes to December using version 5.5 and based on Walter Dnes’ calculation.)
5. For RSS, the slope is flat since October 1996 or 18 years, 3 months (goes to December).
The next graph shows just the lines to illustrate the above. Think of it as a sideways bar graph where the lengths of the lines indicate the relative times where the slope is 0. In addition, the upward sloping blue line at the top indicates that CO2 has steadily increased over this period.
When two things are plotted as I have done, the left only shows a temperature anomaly.
The actual numbers are meaningless since the two slopes are essentially zero. No numbers are given for CO2. Some have asked that the log of the concentration of CO2 be plotted. However WFT does not give this option. The upward sloping CO2 line only shows that while CO2 has been going up over the last 18 years, the temperatures have been flat for varying periods on the two sets.
Section 2
For this analysis, data was retrieved from Nick Stokes’ Trendviewer available on his website. This analysis indicates for how long there has not been statistically significant warming according to Nick’s criteria. Data go to their latest update for each set. In every case, note that the lower error bar is negative so a slope of 0 cannot be ruled out from the month indicated.
On several different data sets, there has been no statistically significant warming for between 14 and 22 years according to Nick’s criteria. Cl stands for the confidence limits at the 95% level.
Dr. Ross McKitrick has also commented on these parts and has slightly different numbers for the three data sets that he analyzed. I will also give his times.
The details for several sets are below.
For UAH: Since July 1996: CI from -0.041 to 2.218
(Dr. McKitrick says the warming is not significant for 16 years on UAH.)
For RSS: Since December 1992: CI from -0.013 to 1.752
(Dr. McKitrick says the warming is not significant for 26 years on RSS.)
For HadCRUT4.3: Since May 1997: CI from -0.011 to 1.132
(Dr. McKitrick said the warming was not significant for 19 years on HadCRUT4.2 going to April. HadCRUT4.3 would be slightly shorter however I do not know what difference it would make to the nearest year.)
For Hadsst3: Since May 1995: CI from -0.009 to 1.715
For GISS: Since June 2000: CI from -0.008 to 1.403
Note that all of the above times, regardless of the source, with the exception of GISS are larger than 15 years which NOAA deemed necessary to “create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate”.
Section 3
This section shows data about 2014 and other information in the form of a table. The table shows the five data sources along the top and other places so they should be visible at all times. The sources are UAH, RSS, HadCRUT4, HadSST3, and GISS.
Down the column, are the following:
1. 13ra: This is the final ranking for 2013 on each data set.
2. 13a: Here I give the average anomaly for 2013.
3. year: This indicates the warmest year on record so far for that particular data set. Note that two of the data sets have 2010 as the warmest year and three have 1998 as the warmest year. This is all prior to 2014.
4. ano: This is the average of the monthly anomalies of the warmest year just above.
5. mon: This is the month where that particular data set showed the highest anomaly. The months are identified by the first three letters of the month and the last two numbers of the year. Note that this does not yet include records set so far in 2014 such as Hadsst3 in June, etc.
6. ano: This is the anomaly of the month just above.
7. y/m: This is the longest period of time where the slope is not positive given in years/months. So 16/2 means that for 16 years and 2 months the slope is essentially 0. Periods of under a year are not counted and are shown as “0”.
8. sig: This the first month for which warming is not statistically significant according to Nick’s criteria. The first three letters of the month are followed by the last two numbers of the year.
9. sy/m: This is the years and months for row 8. Depending on when the update was last done, the months may be off by one month.
10. McK: These are Dr. Ross McKitrick’s number of years for three of the data sets.
11. Jan: This is the January 2014 anomaly for that particular data set.
12. Feb: This is the February 2014 anomaly for that particular data set, etc.
23. ave: This is the average anomaly of all months to date taken by adding all numbers and dividing by the number of months.
24. rnk: This is the rank that each particular data set would have for 2014 without regards to error bars. Due to different base periods, the rank is more meaningful than the average anomaly.
| Source | UAH | RSS | Had4 | Sst3 | GISS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.13ra | 7th | 10th | 9th | 6th | 6th |
| 2.13a | 0.197 | 0.218 | 0.492 | 0.376 | 0.60 |
| 3.year | 1998 | 1998 | 2010 | 1998 | 2010 |
| 4.ano | 0.419 | 0.55 | 0.555 | 0.416 | 0.66 |
| 5.mon | Apr98 | Apr98 | Jan07 | Jul98 | Jan07 |
| 6.ano | 0.662 | 0.857 | 0.835 | 0.526 | 0.92 |
| 7.y/m | 10/0 | 18/3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 8.sig | Jul96 | Dec92 | May97 | May95 | Jun00 |
| 9.sy/m | 18/6 | 22/1 | 17/7 | 19/8 | 14/7 |
| 10.McK | 16 | 26 | 19 | ||
| Source | UAH | RSS | Had4 | Sst3 | GISS |
| 11.Jan | 0.236 | 0.260 | 0.508 | 0.342 | 0.68 |
| 12.Feb | 0.127 | 0.160 | 0.305 | 0.314 | 0.43 |
| 13.Mar | 0.137 | 0.213 | 0.548 | 0.347 | 0.70 |
| 14.Apr | 0.184 | 0.250 | 0.658 | 0.478 | 0.72 |
| 15.May | 0.275 | 0.286 | 0.596 | 0.477 | 0.79 |
| 16.Jun | 0.279 | 0.346 | 0.620 | 0.563 | 0.61 |
| 17.Jul | 0.221 | 0.351 | 0.544 | 0.551 | 0.50 |
| 18.Aug | 0.117 | 0.192 | 0.666 | 0.644 | 0.73 |
| 19.Sep | 0.186 | 0.205 | 0.592 | 0.574 | 0.81 |
| 20.Oct | 0.242 | 0.272 | 0.614 | 0.528 | 0.75 |
| 21.Nov | 0.213 | 0.245 | 0.486 | 0.480 | 0.66 |
| 22.Dec | 0.176 | 0.284 | 0.632 | 0.452 | 0.72 |
| Source | UAH | RSS | Had4 | Sst3 | GISS |
| 23.ave | 0.199 | 0.255 | 0.564 | 0.479 | 0.68 |
| 24.rnk | 7th | 6th | 1st | 1st | 1st |
This section shows data about 2014 and other information in the form of a table. The table shows the five data sources along the top and other places so they should be visible at all times. The sources are UAH, RSS, HadCRUT4, HadSST3, and GISS.
To see all points since January 2014 in the form of a graph, see the WFT graph below. Note that HadCRUT4 is the old version that has been discontinued. WFT does not show HadCRU4.3 yet.
As you can see, all lines have been offset so they all start at the same place in January 2014. This makes it easy to compare January 2014 with the latest anomaly.
Appendix
In this part, we are summarizing data for each set separately.
RSS
The slope is flat since October, 1996 or 18 years, 3 months. (goes to December)
For RSS: There is no statistically significant warming since December 1992: CI from -0.013 to 1.752.
The RSS average anomaly for 2014 is 0.255. This would rank it as 6th place. 1998 was the warmest at 0.55. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.857. The anomaly in 2013 was 0.218 and it was ranked 10th prior to 2014.
UAH
The slope is flat since January 2005 or an even 10 years according to Walter Dnes. (goes to December using version 5.5)
For UAH: There is no statistically significant warming since July 1996: CI from -0.041 to 2.218. (This is using version 5.6 according to Nick’s program.)
The UAH average anomaly for 2014 is 0.199. This would rank it as 7th place. 1998 was the warmest at 0.419. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.662. The anomaly in 2013 was 0.197 and it was ranked 7th prior to 2014.
HadCRUT4.3
The slope is not flat for any period that is worth mentioning.
For HadCRUT4: There is no statistically significant warming since May 1997: CI from -0.011 to 1.132.
The HadCRUT4 average anomaly for 2014 is 0.564. This would rank it as 1st place. 2010 was the previous warmest at 0.555. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in January of 2007 when it reached 0.835. The anomaly in 2013 was 0.492 and it was ranked 9th prior to 2014.
HadSST3
For HadSST3, the slope is not flat for any period that is worth mentioning. For HadSSTt3: There is no statistically significant warming since May 1995: CI from -0.009 to 1.715.
The HadSST3 average anomaly for 2014 is 0.479. This sets a new record. 1998 was the warmest at 0.416 prior to 2014. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in July of 1998 when it reached 0.526. This is also prior to 2014. The anomaly in 2013 was 0.376 and it was ranked 6th prior to 2014.
GISS
The slope is not flat for any period that is worth mentioning.
For GISS: There is no statistically significant warming since June 2000: CI from -0.008 to 1.403.
The GISS average anomaly for 2014 is 0.68. This sets a new record. 2010 was the warmest previously at 0.66. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in January of 2007 when it reached 0.92. The anomaly in 2013 was 0.59 and it was ranked 6th prior to 2014.
Conclusion
Due to new records being set for GISS, HadCRUT4.3 and HadSST3, the pause for these data sets has basically disappeared. At least that is the case for now. Should lower temperatures come in 2015, then the pause may resume in each case. However, all satellite records still show a pause of several years. Due to a relatively constant adiabatic lapse rate, this is very puzzling. Do you have any suggestions as to why there is this discrepancy? Of the three ways that I have given the rankings for 2014, which do you think is the most accurate? If you want me to do a different calculation for any of the six data sets that I have covered such as “What is the 2014 ranking for RSS assuming a tie if the anomaly is within 0.06 of the 2014 number?” please let me know.
[snip – Epiphron Elpis is yet another David Appell sockpuppet.]
That is an excellent question. A previous post here may have some answers:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/01/uncertainty-ranges-error-bars-and-cis/
As well, my section 2 above goes over some things.
As well, Nick Stokes has much to read here and with further links to other things:
http://www.moyhu.blogspot.com.au/p/moyhu-index.html
[snip – Epiphron Elpis is yet another David Appell sockpuppet.]
According to NOAA, a pause is statistically significant if it goes for 15 years or more at the 95% level:
”The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”
From section 2 and rows 9 and 10 of the table, only GISS has a statistically significant pause shorter than 15 years.
[snip – Epiphron Elpis is yet another David Appell sockpuppet.]
Epiphron Elpis,
You asked, Werner answered with citations… and you go all ad hominem on him.
Instead, you could just say, “Thanks.”
Pot meet kettle
Yes, you and Epiphron have that in common.
No Dbstealey, I don’t call people names like you do
Ms socks,
You’ve specifically lumped me in with Holocaust deniers — mass murderers. There aren’t any more vicious names you can call anyone — bar none.
But if silly labels like ‘jamoke’ [someone who wastes his time in a coffe shop all day] are more than you can bear, please fill this out and submit it:
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/060/713/butthurt-form.jpg
☺ ☺ ☺
Dbstealey
…
“You’ve specifically labeled me with Holocaust deniers”
…
Please post a link to my comment where I did that.
What, you demand that I go back and find “denier” comments? LOL.
What’s your billing address? I charge by the hour.
You made the assertion, now back it up with a citation.
Epiphron Elpis February 4, 2015 at 12:20 pm
“Werner, you really need to learn how to calculate statistical significance. It’s not the complicated.”
It’s more complicated than you seem to understand. What is your null hypothesis?
You can test that the trend fails to be significantly different from zero. But that is a failure, doesn’t prove anything useful. Or you could try to show that some prediction of non-zero trend can be rejected. What would you choose?
This is amusing.
Beg.
Maybe that will make a difference. ☺
Nick Stokes
You assert
Say what!?
It is very, very useful to determine “that the trend fails to be significantly different from zero” because it does “prove” there is no discernible trend at the stated level of confidence.
When alarmists claim warming is a problem then it is “useful” to determine if the warming is sufficient to be discernible because that informs about the validity of their claim.
Richard
Mr. “Socrates” FYI, your email as plugged into the comments form is invalid. By policy, a valid email address is required to comment here. Please correct it.
Sorry, we were unable to deliver your message to the following address.
:
Remote host said:
550-5.1.1 The email account that you tried to reach does not exist. Please try
550-5.1.1 double-checking the recipient’s email address for typos or
550-5.1.1 unnecessary spaces. Learn more at
550 5.1.1 http://support.google.com/mail/bin/answer.py?answer=6596 os5si10424744pab.197 – gsmtp
[RCPT_TO]
“all satellite records still show a pause of several years. Due to a relatively constant adiabatic lapse rate, this is very puzzling. Do you have any suggestions as to why there is this discrepancy?”
Anthony Watts has been talking about it for many years. IMO the discrepancy in satellite and land temperature measurements is due to urban heat island effect. Satellites are far away from radiating surfaces. Another possible cause is natural ocean cycles. Sea surface temperature measurements are taken from 10 to 70 feet deep. ENSO index is mostly positive in 2002-2007.
http://pmel.noaa.gov/co2/files/multivariateensoindex.gif
Of course the sea was extremely record warm this year. But that did not seem to affect the satellites for some reason.
Yes because satellites measure the top 0.01 mm layer of the ocean. By the way, if you want to detect greenhouse warming, satellites are the best since they measure temperature of lower troposphere. The greenhouse effect originates in the troposphere and heat is transmitted to the surface by infrared radiation.
RSS’s site is really bitchy, complaining about “denialists”
Very unprofessional for self-proclaimed scientists..
We are the ones looking at their actual data.
The other elephant in the room (possibly not mentioned in these comments), is that weather balloon global temperature trend measurements are in fairly close agreement with sats. That is unlikely to be coincidental.
Brozek:
This is the last month you can have this kind of post in this present form. At UAH’s data site I can see no update of version 5.5. Only 5.6. 5.5 seems to be discontinued.
Version 5.6 has a positive trend from 2005 already in 2014.
Will be interesting to see what your solution will be. Only show RSS? That will at least make it very clear how the RSS is the outlier.
Like all true believers, rooter is desperate to claim global warming where there is none.
If UAH is using version 5.5, why does Roy Spencer only ever refer to version 5.6 when posting monthly LT anomalies. e.g
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-jan-2015-0-35-deg-c/
Spencer has been reporting the 5.6 version from July 2013. Now 5.5 seems to have been discontinued. Woodfortrees need to update UAH and Hadcrut4.
Neither UAH or RSS show 2014 to be anywhere close to being as warm as 1998.
David A says:
“Neither UAH or RSS show 2014 to be anywhere close to being as warm as 1998”
Of course not. 2014 was not the strongest ninjo year in 100 years. It did not even qualify as a ninjo-year.
In response to comments above, version 5.5 can be found here. It is updated from 1 to 4 days after the 5.6 anomaly is given.
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.5.txt
Perhaps. But why do you ignore the version that Spencer prefer? Do you know more about his product than he does?
[this comment is coming from a proxy server, and has a fake email address along with the fake name, policy violation, added to banned list -mod]
I do mention both in my article. However WFT only allows me to graph version 5.5.
Sure gives impression of cherrypicking. Use the preferred version and you will have only one index left to present.
rooter sure gives the impression of being a pest. No answer ever satisfies him, it’s always like the kid who says, “But why…” to everything he has been told.
David A says:
“Neither UAH or RSS show 2014 to be anywhere close to being as warm as 1998″
Rooter says, “Of course not.”
=============================
Thank you for admitting that 2014 was not the warmest ever. Of course rapidly increasing sea ice in the arctic, above average global sea ice, record SH sea ice, record cold great lakes, near record NH snow cover, all indicate the satellites were more accurate then the maladjusted surface record.
“Do you have any suggestions as to why there is this discrepancy?”
Figures don’t lie. Liars figure.
Walter Sobchak:
One could argue that Walter is engaged in the later here himself, by engaging in clear examples of cherry picking.
Spencer has a good explanation of the discrepancy. The resolution is the cherry picked data that Walter Sobchak has decided to put so much weight on, is wrong.
@RACookPE1978.
You said:
“warrenlb has established nothing. Other than that over 280 replies he demands everybody follow HIS chosen “authorities” – even when such actions would be – ARE! – responsible for the deaths of millions of innocents, the harm to billions. For no tangible good, only imagined potential results that explicitly cause harm and injury, while not even affecting the cause that he fears!”
And: “But HE demands WE follow and obey only HIS government-paid self-selected “experts” because THEY claim THEY are the ONLY “experts”?”
Quite a rant, RACook. Let’s point out a couple of things:
1) I don’t demand anything, I post information about the Scientific consensus, and the conclusions of that consensus. We know by now that such information upsets you. Don’t fret – it’s just facts.
2) You say MILLIONS HAVE DIED because of scientific research and consensus on AGW? Really? You indeed have lost it.
3) Government paid experts? The 10s of thousands of peer reviewed papers summarized in the IPCC reports are products of independent researchers from ALL OVER THE WORLD. And the IPCC funds no research and does no research itself.
Once again, you’re implying a worldwide conspiracy of money and enforced conformity of conclusions by ALL the Institutions of Science, worldwide. We can see why you fall back on such a ludicrous claim –it appears to be all you’ve got once you see that the World of science is not on your page.
Warren, peer reviewed science rejects most every assertion within the IPCC. All the CO2 induced harms feared in the IPCC are based on the WRONG, consistently to warm models, and in the real world, those harms are failing to manifest. There are hundreds of solid peer reviewed reports ignored by the IPCC. There have been books written about the IPCC scandals and use of non peer reviewed alarmist literature.
Further, the IPCC ignores many solid peer reviewed reports demonstrating the benefits of increased CO2.
The fact that money corrupts should not be seen as any silly conspiracy theory, but a well know trait of human nature. The fact that people in general, and governments in particular, seek group power, should not be a shock to anyone but the most ignorant.
Now please show me the evidence of your purported consensus, but first define what the consensus is. Free warning here. If you fail to put the “C” in “CAGW” then your consensus is meaningless for public policy.
You see Warren, this is the consensus you need to find, but is in truth MIA, just as the “C” the “G” and the “W” are MIA in CAGW,
New York Times – November 18, 2007
…..The IPCC chairman, RajendraPachauri, an engineer and economist from India, acknowledged the new trajectory. “If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late,”Pachauri said. “What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment.”…..
Warren are you finding the consensus on this?
@David A
You replied to my post to RACook, and you have it wrong:
My prior posts, referred to in my post to RACOOK that you replied to, asserted ALL the world’s institutions of science — Science Academies, Scientific Professional Associations, major Universities, NASA, NOAA – conclude AGW in published statements or studies. No one on this forum has been able to falsify my claim — for good reason, as there are no exceptions.
You also claim peer-reviewed scientific papers conclude AGW. I invite you to cite one. Only about 0.3% of the roughly 25000 published in the last few decades dispute any aspect of AGW; NONE dispute the overall conclusion that Man’s activities are warming the planet.
Nothing in your posts falsifies the above claims. Good luck finding anything.
Nothing in your posts even addresses my assertions. Your claims are meritless. There is no consensus on CAGW except the “C” is missing. Yes we all agree the world has warmed since we came out of the little ice age, and we agree that human influence has had an impact on climate. Now go find a consensus that that affect is a disaster. You will not.
Regarding the peer review literature I will give you just a little sample of one area, There are dozens of peer reviewed reports showing a lower climate sensitivity to CO2 then the IPCC uses, http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html#Sensitivity
The same can be done on any subject you name. The C in CAGW is missing, the benefits are known and manifesting.
Of course where you really go off the rails is ignoring the IPCC extensive use of grey literature in the majority of their chapters to support their manifestly wrong assumptions.
BTW the vast majority of your 25000 published papers have zero to do with the physics of earth’s atmosphere. They only engage the if and’s or maybe’s of the WRONG IPCC models, and say if the models are right and if there is an increase in drought here, this bad thing will happen. GIGO, models all the way down; a circle jerk of government funding pushing a political agenda.
Warren, I found more folk below to support your consensus, but still a long ways from the 32,000 plus scientist against it.
Gordon Brown: We have fewer than fifty days to save our planet from catastrophe
……..Copenhagen must be such a time.
There are now fewer than 50 days to set the course of the next 50 years and more. So, as we convene here, we carry great responsibilities, and the world is watching. If we do not reach a deal at this time, let us be in no doubt: once the damage from unchecked emissions growth is done, no retrospective global agreement, in some future period, can undo that choice. By then it will be irretrievably too late….
Guardian – 8 July 2008
100 months to save the Earth
There isn’t much time to turn things around. And today’s G8 announcements on climate change set the bar too low
……The world’s climate experts say that that the world’s CO2 output must peak within the next decade and then drop, very fast, if we are to reach this sort of long term reduction. In short, we have about 100 months to turn the global energy system around. The action taken must be immediate and far reaching……
[John Sauven – Greenpeace]
WWF – 7 December 2009
12 days to save the planet!
…“The world has given a green light for a climate deal. But the commitments made so far won’t keep the world under 2° of warming, This has to change over the next 12 days. …
[WWF-UK’s head of climate change, Keith Allott]
=======================
Guardian – 18 January 2009
‘We have only four years left to act on climate change – America has to lead’
Jim Hansen is the ‘grandfather of climate change’ and one of the world’s leading climatologists…..
“We cannot now afford to put off change any longer. We have to get on a new path within this new administration. We have only four years left for Obama to set an example to the rest of the world. America must take the lead.”
You see Warren, there is harmony between skeptics and alarmist, both know the IPCC models are crap…
“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations
on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
– Prof. Chris Folland,
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
“The models are convenient fictions
that provide something very useful.”
– Dr David Frame,
climate modeler, Oxford University
”We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
Lead author of many IPCC reports
Warren, Warren Warren, you really think nobody within the IPCC has a political axe to grind?
”Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.”
Sir John Houghton,
First chairman of the IPCC
”It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”
Paul Watson,
Co-founder of Greenpeace
”We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”
Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation
”No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment
Dozens more if you like.
Warren are you here ? Sorry if this duplicates.
Warren, peer reviewed science rejects most every assertion within the IPCC. All the CO2 induced harms feared in the IPCC are based on the WRONG, consistently to warm models, and in the real world, those harms are failing to manifest. There are hundreds of solid peer reviewed reports ignored by the IPCC. There have been books written about the IPCC scandals and use of non peer reviewed alarmist literature.
Further, the IPCC ignores many solid peer reviewed reports demonstrating the benefits of increased CO2.
The fact that money corrupts should not be seen as any silly conspiracy theory, but a well know trait of human nature. The fact that people in general, and governments in particular, seek group power, should not be a shock to anyone but the most ignorant.
Now please show me the evidence of your purported consensus, but first define what the consensus is. Free warning here. If you fail to put the “C” in “CAGW” then your consensus is meaningless for public policy.
In regression analysis, it is necessary to give the 95% confidence range. As pointed out by McKitrick, no statistically significant warming since 1996 in the satellite data. And based weather balloon radiosondes, no statistically significant warming in 1979-2003.
“Over 1979–2003, the satellite‐equivalent tropical lower tropospheric temperature trend has likely (5–95% confidence range) been between −0.01 K/decade and 0.19 K/decade (0.05–0.23 K/decade over 1958–2003) with a best estimate of 0.08 K/decade (0.14 K/decade)”
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/quarc/Thorne-2011.pdf
It seems the lower troposphere was not been warming, or it is uncertain if there was warming. It may be that all observed warming since 1979 is UHI effect and PDO and ENSO. By the way, the temperature trend in 1947-1979 is flat or slight cooling.
Thorne et al best estimate of warming over 1979-2003 is 0.08 K/decade or 0.2 K over that period. My regression analysis of radiosonde HADAT2 over 1958-1978 gives a cooling of -0.15 K/decade or -0.32 over that period. Therefore, there is slight cooling of the lower troposphere over the period 1958-2003.
The statement you quoted implies that warming is ~20X times more likely to taking place than cooling so where do you get “it is uncertain if there was warming” from?
The probability of cooling is within the 95% confidence range. If I got two pair in a five card poker hand, would you conclude that I cheated? The probability of two pair is less than 0.05. The probability of cooling is higher than this. Scientific evidence requires higher than 95% confidence range.
I really wish we could get some hard evidence they are intentionally falsifying the ground measurements. We need an inside whistleblower to grow a spine.
Perhaps we already have that evidence. What we may need now is some sort of a science court that all sides can appeal to and which would decide if certain things could be justified or not.
Concerning sea level rise,
NOAA tidal gauge data show a flat sea level trend (meaning no rise in sea level) for the last 15-20 years, excepting those locales undergoing subsidence, such as the Chesapeake Bay area. See NOAA Mean Sea Level Trend chart for each of the gauge stations.
Yes, and so the gauges show no acceleration from the early part of the SL rise graph, long before satellite’s
So using the SAME methodology as used to produce the majority of the last centuries SL flux estimate, their has been a slowing down of SL rise.
Not puzzling at all why the discrepancy between surface data and satellite data. The massive warming adjustments that have been done to surface data, for no objective reason at all, explains all of the discrepancy. See Paraguay, Bolivia, USHCN, Rutherglen, Amberley, New Zealand etc etc etc.
Well, if this is warmest evah” then I don’t mind some more warming. Back in 2005 when I was getting interested in the claimed global warming stuff and found out what they did to adjust for the UHI effect. I realized they adjusted the data the wrong way. They cooled the past. That way they got more warming recently and that was and is wrong. Nowadays we have found out all the massage in all the data works the same way, so any claim to depending on any surface data I will not trust or even consider looking at. The only data reasonable trustworthy is the satellite sets and they show nothing of what the movement is throwing at us. Of course I never trust any movement, be it right, left or center. They all has a purpose hidden. But, the left side is the more dangerous one so whatever they has to say has to be dissected in every detail. So far they never ! been reliable and probably never will.
For example my wife think MST was good for the chinese people. But checking the old japanese war records reveals the red’s in China didn’t even fight the enemy under MST. Chang Kai Check did the fighting and lost most of the time because his army took all the losses. But he didn’t get any reward because he didn’t write the history books. This is the same we now have with the Global Warming records and it’s a shame we let this go on.
Update for UAH version 5.6: The January anomaly was 0.35 which would rank it in third place if it stayed this way. (Of course it probably won’t!) The period of time for a flat slope remains at 6 years, 0 months. It just got displaced by 1 month to run from February 1, 2009 to January 31, 2015.
Update for RSS: The January anomaly was 0.367 which would rank it in third place if it stayed this way. (Of course it probably won’t!) The period of time for a flat slope dropped to 18 years and 2 months from December 1, 1996 to January 31, 2015.
Update for Hadsst3: The January anomaly was 0.440 which would rank it in second place if it stayed this way. (Of course it probably won’t!) While its flat period is under a year and not worth mentioning, it is noteworthy that the anomalies have dropped every month since August.
Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
Why is there this [temp] difference between the satellites and the [warmer/warming] surface measurements? Is one more accurate than the other?
Meterologist in Germany noted : “One reason for the perceived warming, Hager says, is traced back to a change in measurement instrumentation. He says glass thermometers were was replaced by much more sensitive electronic instruments in 1995. Hager tells the SZ:
‘For eight years I conducted parallel measurements at Lechfeld. The result was that compared to the glass thermometers, the electronic thermometers showed on average a temperature that was 0.9°C warmer. Thus we are comparing – even though we are measuring the temperature here – apples and oranges. No one is told that.’”