RSS Shows No Warming For 15 Years (Now Includes February Data)

Guest Post by Werner Brozek, Edited by Just The Facts:

WoodForTrees.org – Paul Clark – Click the pic to view at source

In the above graphic, the zero line from February 2000 has been offset to make it visible. It actually falls right on top of the zero trend line from December 1996.

The title may seem odd since RSS shows no trend for 18 years and 3 months now. The title was triggered by an exchange several years ago in which we were challenged to show there was no warming for 15 years. I promptly showed that to be the case with RSS, but was accused of cherry picking since I went on the other side of the 1998 El Nino. Some one else started on this side of the 1998 El Nino and was accused of not going 15 years. We could not win then. But now we can.

Fifteen years is important because of the following quote by NOAA found on page 23:

”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.”

Later, NOAA talks about El Ninos and the bottom line seemed to be that if any trend goes on the other side of the 1998 El Nino, then the simulations are not invalidated. I have always said that the La Ninas on either side of the 1998 El Nino cancel out the affects of the 1998 El Nino, but that did not seem to matter. People focus on and see what they want to see.

Note also that the 15 years is a time for a slope of zero. So to get no warming at the 95% level, one could easily add about 4 years unless anomalies really fell off a cliff prior to February 2000. So whichever way we look at it, RSS shows a discrepancy with the simulations.

At this point, some may ask about UAH, which only shows no warming since April 2009. However both Dr. McKitrick and Nick Stokes agree the time for no statistically significant warming is over 15 years for UAH. For further details, see section 2 or rows 8, 9 and 10 from the table in section 3.

In other news, the GISS anomaly in 2014 was 0.68 and it set a new record. However it dropped to 0.67 with the February numbers. And due to other changes, there is now less than a 38% certainty that 2014 was the new record hot year. For further details, please ask.

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 2015 so far compares with 2014 and the warmest years and months on record so far. For three of the data sets, 2014 also happens to be the warmest year. 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 April 2009 or 5 years and 11 months. (goes to February using version 5.6)
5. For RSS, the slope is flat since December 1996 or 18 years and 3 months. (goes to February)

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.

WoodForTrees.org – Paul Clark – Click the pic to view at­ source

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: Cl from -0.002 to 2.218
This is 18 years and 8 months.
(Dr. McKitrick says the warming is not significant for 16 years on UAH.)
For RSS: Since January 1993: Cl from -0.016 to 1.711
This is 22 years and 2 months.
(Dr. McKitrick says the warming is not significant for 26 years on RSS.)
For Hadcrut4.3: Since July 1997: Cl from 0.000 to 1.163
This is 17 years and 7 months.
(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: Cl from -0.011 to 1.694
This is 19 years and 10 months.
For GISS: Since August 2000: Cl from -0.005 to 1.419
This is 14 years and 7 months.

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 January 2015 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. 14ra: This is the final ranking for 2014 on each data set.
2. 14a: Here I give the average anomaly for 2014.
3. year: This indicates the warmest year on record so far for that particular data set. Note that the satellite data sets have 1998 as the warmest year and the others have 2014 as the warmest year.
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.
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 2015 anomaly for that particular data set.
12. Feb: This is the February 2015 anomaly for that particular data set.
13. ave: This is the average anomaly of all months to date taken by adding all numbers and dividing by the number of months.
14. rnk: This is the rank that each particular data set would have for 2015 without regards to error bars and assuming no changes. Think of it as an update 10 minutes into a game.

Source UAH RSS Had4 Sst3 GISS
1.14ra 3rd 6th 1st 1st 1st
2.14a 0.27 0.255 0.564 0.479 0.67
3.year 1998 1998 2014 2014 2014
4.ano 0.42 0.55 0.564 0.479 0.67
5.mon Apr98 Apr98 Jan07 Aug14 Jan07
6.ano 0.663 0.857 0.835 0.644 0.93
7.y/m 5/11 18/3 0 0 0
8.sig Jul96 Jan93 Jul97 May95 Aug00
9.sy/m 18/8 22/2 17/7 19/10 14/7
10.McK 16 26 19
Source UAH RSS Had4 Sst3 GISS
11.Jan 0.351 0.367 0.686 0.440 0.75
12.Feb 0.296 0.328 0.664 0.417 0.79
Source UAH RSS Had4 Sst3 GISS
13.ave 0.324 0.348 0.675 0.429 0.77
14.rnk 3rd 3rd 1st 2nd 1st

If you wish to verify all of the latest anomalies, go to the following:
For UAH, version 5.6 was used. Note that WFT uses version 5.5 however this version was last updated for December 2014 and it looks like it will no longer be given.
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.6.txt
For RSS, see: ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/monthly_time_series/rss_monthly_msu_amsu_channel_tlt_anomalies_land_and_ocean_v03_3.txt
For Hadcrut4, see: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/time_series/HadCRUT.4.3.0.0.monthly_ns_avg.txt
For Hadsst3, see: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadSST3-gl.dat
For GISS, see: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

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 Hadcrut4.3 yet. As well, only UAH version 5.5 is shown which stopped in December. WFT does not show version 5.6 yet.

WoodForTrees.org – Paul Clark – Click the pic to view at source

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 December, 1996 or 18 years, 3 months. (goes to February)
For RSS: There is no statistically significant warming since January 1993: Cl from -0.016 to 1.711.
The RSS average anomaly so far for 2015 is 0.348. This would rank it as 3rd 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 2014 was 0.255 and it was ranked 6th.

UAH
The slope is flat since April 2009 or 5 years and 11 months. (goes to February using version 5.6)
For UAH: There is no statistically significant warming since July 1996: Cl from -0.002 to 2.218. (This is using version 5.6 according to Nick’s program.)
The UAH average anomaly so far for 2015 is 0.324. This would rank it as 3rd place. 1998 was the warmest at 0.42. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.663. The anomaly in 2014 was 0.27 and it was ranked 3rd.

HadCRUT4.3

The slope is not flat for any period that is worth mentioning.
For Hadcrut4: There is no statistically significant warming since July 1997: Cl from 0.000 to 1.163.
The Hadcrut4 average anomaly so far for 2015 is 0.675. This would set a new record if it stayed this way. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in January of 2007 when it reached 0.835. The anomaly in 2014 was 0.564 and this set a new record.

HadSST3

For Hadsst3, the slope is not flat for any period that is worth mentioning. For Hadsst3: There is no statistically significant warming since May 1995: Cl from -0.011 to 1.694.
The Hadsst3 average anomaly so far for 2015 is 0.429. This would rank 2nd if it stayed this way. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in August of 2014 when it reached 0.644. The anomaly in 2014 was 0.479 and this set a new record.

GISS

The slope is not flat for any period that is worth mentioning.
For GISS: There is no statistically significant warming since August 2000: Cl from -0.005 to 1.419.
The GISS average anomaly so far for 2015 is 0.77. This would set a new record if it stayed this way. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in January of 2007 when it reached 0.93. The anomaly in 2014 was 0.68 and it set a new record. However it dropped to 0.67 with the February numbers. And due to other changes, there is now less than a 38% certainty that 2014 was the new record hot year. For further details, please ask.

Conclusion

It is no longer necessary to go earlier than 1998 to prove no warming for 15 years as per NOAA’s statement. At least that is the case for RSS.

The other data sets, with the exception of GISS, show no statistically significant warming going longer than 1998. However as I have shown, the La Ninas on either side of 1998 cancel the effect of the 1998 El Nino, so that is not a big deal either.

RSS Update

With the March anomaly coming in at 0.255, the average drops to 0.316 and this would rank 5th if it stayed this way. The length of time for a zero slope increases to 18 years and 4 months. (It is also 15 years and 2 months.)

Advertisements

173 thoughts on “RSS Shows No Warming For 15 Years (Now Includes February Data)

    • Perhaps to show that his political motives are bigger than the CAWG’s political motive.

    • No political motive, in my opinion, just simple skepticism. For too long people in this field of science have been driven by political motives. So much so that they can’t see a ‘pause’ if it hit them in the face, and cannot see that by their own criteria: (”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.”) the science isn’t nearly as settled as they would like to sell.

    • Since real science can only attempt to falsify things and not prove them true, it seems extremely important to take the criteria set by IPCC to falsify their hypothesis and actually test it.

      If they say 15 years of no significant warming is enough to falsify their models, then they are falsified. Science wins again.

    • And the political motive for these results is ?

      It is to get my or any other government to stop wasting my tax money on useless things like carbon capture.

  1. For the temperature peak of the millennial cycle in about 2003 and the subsequent cooling see
    see
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1980.1/plot/rss/from:1980.1/to:2003.6/trend/plot/rss/from:2003.6/trend
    For forecasts of the coming cooling based on the1000 year and 60 year natural cycles in solar activity see
    http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html
    We have started the general cooling to the depths of the next LIA in about 2650.

    Reply

      • That is what Hansen et Al ( models included ) were preaching in the 1970s – The next ice age was comming real soon…..

        Unfortunately I am old enough to remember that…..

      • So what I don’t understand is this. Hansen and the team have changed their mind in the past, presumably due to new experimental data. They believed the ice age was coming, but then the data changed and they started to believe in runaway global warming, So why not now when the data is showing a slow down again? When they look back , can they not see this could be a cycle and that a liner fit and extrapolation may not be the best idea?

  2. Where is research that shows the optimum climate for our biosphere? The first question must be: where is our current climate and trend in relation to this finding.

    Strangely, nobody seems interested in this vital comparison. Not so strangely, the solutions that are frequently demanded in the most urgent voice, all converge on a socialist worldview: statism, bigger government, higher taxes, less personal liberty, even fewer people. That bigger picture tells me all that I need to know about “climate science”.

    • Agree totally, I think the time has come to stop spending big £/$ on climate change studies (that aren’t scientific anyway). I think the way forward is to spend money receiving and deciphering data from existing satellites and only carry out more studies if that data shows warming for a period of ten years or longer. All treaties to reduce CO2 should be abandoned and existing wind farms and solar farms should continue to be used until the fail and then dismantled.
      I think this common sense, something that has been very lacking in the proponents of AGW.

    • Exactly…I always ask my greenie friends…Just when was the Earth in this Nirvana they are so desperate to get us to? Was it when Al Gore was born, when Kyoto was signed, when Greenpeace was founded? AD1900, 1984, 2000? What is the desired global temperature, level of ice cover, ideal sea level, ideal CO2ppm, etc.?

      Nobody has an answer. Strange.

      • African savannah. 120,000 years ago.

        Right before us sub-humans discovered fire. Agriculture. Houses. Clothes.

        (But of course liberal elites want THEIR food, clothing, and shelter. Internet, AC, hot water, and TV cameras and rechargeable iPads. )

    • Unfortunately millions of people can die before the time limit is up.

      There is historical precedent.

      • “There is historical precedent.” Eustace, you could be referring to the Nazis attack on Russia in WWII in breach of their pact: The Russian General Staff got to know of the German plans but would not go up against Stalin who had said there would be no attack: his word was gospel. Millions died.

    • I wish it were so, Andy, but it could be argued that facts are subject to government control, and “Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past.” (George Orwell)

  3. I wouldn’t care if it went up 0.5C. Or 1C. Or 2C. It would generally be a benefit. The avg monthly winter temps here vary much more than that, let alone daily changes.

      • Considering that we know from the geologic record that the earth has been nearly ice-cap free during its history — without high CO2 levels, or even Al Gore’s house — where does one draw the line at an optimum?

        Personally, I would rather be very warm and have to move away from the coast, than be cold and have more beach in front of my house.

      • The avg highest summer temp here is around 94F, which occurs for a few hrs a summer. 100F is pretty hot, so 6F (3C) would be an temporary inconvenience until it cools off that night. So I might care, for a few hrs in a whole yr, about a 3C increase. OTOH, a 3C increase would make entire winters here alot better, so 3C overall is still a vast improvement.

        So, I’ll start caring alittle when it goes up, say, about 10C.

    • I agree with Beng. But then I live in a place where there are high heating bills in the winter and we do not even have air conditioning in our house as it would rarely be needed.
      This brings up an interesting question: Globally, is more money spent on heating or air conditioning during an average year?

      • Werner Brozek

        This brings up an interesting question: Globally, is more money spent on heating or air conditioning during an average year?

        Couple of unknowns there:

        “Air conditioning” (total power required to support “all” air conditioning loads” all year gets conflated because the “AC” of HVAC is strictly a first-world, electric-powered-by-utility only load. (Solar cannot support AC loads, even in the middle of the summer/late afternoon (spring-summer-fall) in temperate climates, and “conditioned” air is at the top of the luxury scales compared to food, clean water, hot food, refrigerated food, sanitation, transportation, food preparation and canning/storage, water and sewage cleanup, etc. BUT! Once AC is available, you “must” have it all year: NO modern office or academic building or computer center or building (and only a few manufacturing or shipping/warehouse buildings!) can survive if AC goes out. There are no “open the window” designs any more. Thus, for business, commercial, and service/government, AC “is” mandatory nowdays.

        AC requires either an air conditioner or a heat pump. So both require the generation inefficiency (43% coal, 55-62% combined cycle, 92% (hydro), 85% pumped storage, or 17% (solar PV, wind, or solar thermal) ADDED to the raw power required and the usual 6-8% transmission losses. (10-12% transmission losses for those renewables – since they are generated even further from the use point.)

        “Heating” can be much, much more energy efficient; Electrci resistance heating puts 100% of the delivered electrical power into heat (compared to lighting for example). Ovens and stoves and even microwaves add a heat load to the house/business that does NOT need to be supplements by the furnace or heater in winter and autumn. Lights and daily electric usage also reduces heating required. But those same “savings” require even more AC to get cooling in the spring-summer-fall.

        2nd world and 3rd world AC useage is even less common. But heat is common.

        Gas Heating can use almost all of the burned H2 and carbon fuels as heat, plus a small need for a blower or fan to circulate the air. The combustion gasses readily transfer their heat to the house/business gasses, so there is little system losses.

        Supplement this with the fuel oil (up north), coal, and wood fires and you get even less “sold energy” for “heating”. But. Up north (far south for SA, NZ, Argentina, OZ, Chili, etc where heating IS survival, and where heating budgets are much bigger than AC (especially where AC is optional or only used a few weeks in the summer) then you get a further skew.

      • Thank you! It looks like a complete and interesting post can be written to compare costs and what to choose if we were given a choice and had to choose between global cooling of 2 C or global warming of 2 C.
        However others would have to decide if such a post is desired on WUWT.

      • RACookPE1978
        I was reading and agreeing until I saw the line “Heating” can be much, much more energy efficient; Electrci resistance heating puts 100% of the delivered electrical power into heat”
        Simply:
        heating 100% energy transferred to heat
        cooling 250-300% energy transferred to heat
        Only used industry grade cooling I know is by heat pump and it is by design that heat pump can gain more cold or heat than you give power in electricity.
        For 1kW of electrical energy you can get around 2,5kW of cooling or 2,5kW of heating. So cooling is much much more efficient than classical heating.
        You can of course use heat pump for heating and in this case it is same great efficiency as cooling.
        I would say there is by order of magnitude less energy used for cooling than for heating in the world.

  4. If anthropogenic global warming was possible i.e.Gas could be heated and the heat pass into the ocean it would follow that after 5billion years of atmosphere and ocean touching one another the ocean surface temperature should be very close to the atmospheric temperature. About 30 to 35 degs and even higher in the tropics. This cannot happen because surface tension blocks heat which is just as well because cyclones start at 26.5degs

    • This cannot happen because surface tension blocks heat

      I find this statement puzzling. An outdoor pool in the fall is way colder than in the summer. And surface tension does not prevent conduction between air and water. As well, visible light rays certainly enter water and heat it.
      Are you suggesting infrared is blocked? That may be largely true, but that is not the whole story about energy transfer between air and water.

    • RMB: You keep repeating this nonsense. I keep asking you for equations that govern heat transfer and which include surface tension in such a way as to reduce the overall transfer to zero. You keep ignoring my request. I conclude from this that you have no training in any sort of technical subject, but have tossed a few facts together to dress up your perennial hand-waving.

    • You are in good company.

      The following is from Richard S. Lindzen

      http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02148/RSL-HouseOfCommons_2148505a.pdf

      “It is not about whether CO2 is increasing: it clearly is. It is not about whether the increase in CO2, by itself, will lead to some warming: it should. The debate is simply over the matter of how much warming the increase in CO2 can lead to, and the connection of such warming to the innumerable claimed catastrophes. The evidence is that the increase in CO2 will lead to very little warming, and that the connection of this minimal warming (or even significant warming) to the purported catastrophes is also minimal.”

  5. I wish people wouldn’t use the word ‘hot’. At a
    global mean of 14.6C, I don’t think we are going
    to be bursting into flames any time soon.

    • Rex, I wish people wouldn’t use the term ‘global mean’ or ‘GAT’ (whatever that is). :-)

  6. “i.e.Gas could be heated and the heat pass into the ocean it would follow that after 5billion years of atmosphere and ocean touching one another the ocean surface temperature should be very close to the atmospheric temperature.”

    the funniest thing i have ever seen on WUWT.
    you made my day.

      • oh, i didn’t know he already made that joke once. but good he repeated it, because i missed the first time.
        but it surely still is hilarious the sceond time you heard it?

  7. The significance is model falsification. After the 15 year thing in 2009, in 2011 Santer moved the goalpost to 17 years. This year Marotzke tried for 18 years before being mathematically eviscerated by Nic Lewis at Climate Audit. So this post is generally correct about now being in unambiguous model falsification territory. That, and the apparent recovery of Artic ice generally underway since 2007 (2012 was cyclone caused) will be powerful arguments soon.
    Perhaps not soon enough for Paris. But Paris will fail because China and India won’t play. And Germany and Japan are shutting nucs and replacing them with coal. And the UK will likely be going dark soon as an object lesson about renewable intermittancy on the grid. And Spain’s withdrawal of unaffordible solar subsidies will likely cause about $20 billion in bankruptcies before Paris according to WSJ. No wonder warmunists are growing shriller and sillier.

    • Speaking of Arctic sea ice, the sea ice is getting hammered a bit over the last several day with wind patterns that will lead to further diminished icepack. There are outflows on either side of the Arctic. Note how the trend is now once again moved past -2sd. This is all about shifting wind patterns though. Unless the claim is that rising co2 changes wind patterns around the globe. Watch for the warmists to start harping on the Arctic sea ice conditions in the near future.

      I was wondering what affect the withdrawal of green subsidies in Spain would have. A negative 20 billion euro problem is going to leave a mark. Sad that many small investors are losing their shorts over this.

      • l don’t think the AGW crowd should get too carried away by the ice melt in the Arctic.
        The reason for the warming up their is because cold air is flowing southwards down across eastern Canada and NE Russia so helping to keep their snowfields in tact from the spring melt.

  8. Hmmm…I told all my friends on social media that it was 18 years and 4 months of no global warming. I told them to let their children know about this. I guess I’ll keep this 17 yr. one a secret. (I know it’s RSS vs UAH) – which is more accurate?

  9. I am so pleased to read this post. So often one finds that quoting Chris Monckton’s pitch about 18+ years based on RSS really brings the trolls out (and Mosher) who are determined that UAH is the true scroll to use (let’s face it, RSS is only a ‘model’ – pah!).
    Well now, I feel I have the evidence to rebut the trolls and show them just what UAH is saying.

    (BTW: – anybody – as a proportion of the claimed period of warming, what is the % of ‘pause’ extent – RSS or UAH?)

    • I can tell you to the month how long the pause is on each data set. But exactly what is the “claimed period of warming”? For example all data sets show warming from 1979 to 2015. And GISS and Hadcrut4 even show warming since the 18 hundreds.

      • How much of the GISS increase from the 1800s is by adjustments?
        How much of a “trend” is based on cooling old records, and warming recent data with adjustments?

      • Those are certainly excellent questions! And how justified are all adjustments? And how much is due to UHI? I am certainly not in a position to judge, but I have my suspicions.

      • “And how much is due to UHI?”

        Considering that all the “adjustments” seems to be the exact opposite of what one would do if the goal was to correct for UHI, I would say the answer to the question is…exactly zero.

        “And how justified are all adjustments? I am certainly not in a position to judge.”

        It may well be that anyone in the world is in a better position to judge whether the adjustments are or can be justified than the clearly biased individuals (who have bet their reputation and credibility on a proposition which is very much in doubt) who have done the adjusting.
        Although there seems to be a good case to be made that such alterations to data can never be justified as such, and that such alterations mean that it is no longer data, and that the scientific way handle any doubts about the original raw data is to introduce an error bar. That the data is adjusted, and graphs of the subsequent results are presented, with no mention being made of the fact that not one but multiple separate adjustments have been imposed on the actual recorded temperatures, seems to be somewhere on the continuum between rather shady and outright fraud.

      • To make a one time adjustment for something essential is one thing, but adjustments almost every month to 100 year old records seems extremely odd to me.

  10. This is copied from “Climate Science” and shows what a humungous mountain we have to climb to persuade these idiots that global warming is not happening. Every time you look another million organisations have popped up to take our money and tell us lies !

    INTRODUCING THE BRITISH UNIVERSITIES INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ASSOCIATION

    No, I’ve never heard of it either, but a look at this website reveals that they are deeply into the climate change boondoggle. Don’t you just love the discussion on “Trade unions and climate change in the UK: prisoners of neoliberalism or swords of climate justice?” at their forthcoming seminar. What on earth does it mean?

    When you scratch the surface, you soon find another organisation, usually, though not exclusively, left wing, which has transformed itself into a bastion of climate change. Perhaps they have found a lucrative source of government (or EU) funding. Never mind the science, this subject has now become a must for any organisation, or so it seems. This is not just confined to the UK, it is all over Europe and the USA as well.

  11. “A NEW LITTLE ICE AGE HAS STARTED” the title of a book I am publishing in six weeks. Looking for expert reviewers to do an “Editorial Review” for me for my Amazon page. Know any solar scientist who would be interested? Thanks

    [What site for feedback from any interested readers? .mod]

    • Aren’t you being a bit early with such a declaration? Temperatures are still close to the peak of this warm trend. On top of that, it certainly is possible that the warm trend may not be over yet, even if the globe enters into a gm in the near future. The effects of a gm at this point in time may not be sufficient to overcome the heat buildup which has taken place since the late 1970s and early 1900s. Look at how far the drop would have to be.

      • lf the Arctic blasts that North America have had over the last two years start to become a increasing trend.
        Then l will be taking that as a sign that the recent warming trend has peaked and the NH has moved towards cooling.

      • I agree with the thought that the warming has peaked, around 2006 by my outlook. It was the reference that we have started into a Little Ice Age that generated my comment.

  12. Yes it is a little early to call.
    There needs to be a growing trend of these Arctic blasts taking place over the next few years to be more certain.

  13. The av. global temperature has fallen or been stable (32 yrs) longer than than it has risen (25 yrs) since CO2 measurements have been recorded.

    And the period of warming coincides with what historically appears to be a natural warming cycle.

    That doesn’t mean CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas or that human emissions have not been a factor.
    However it would be a significant fact to Climate Change™ ‘scientists’ if they were genuine scientists.

  14. What is meant by no flat slope worth mentioning vs. no significant warming? I am asking a question, not making an argument.

    Thx.

  15. Interesting new paper on Maunder minimum, Anthony. Be interesting to see if Leif could comment on this and also didn’t Willis say he did not believe the sunspot data from back then?

  16. Worth noting here: The 15 year claim from NOAA is based on 2008 publications. RSS is at version 3.3 right now, but there is no data on the RSS site as when that version entered service. This is relevant as the 15 year claim is predicated on the data product used. If RSS was at 3.3 in 2008, then fair dinkum. If it was not, then some care must be had about the nature of the refutation. But no care needs be had about pointing out that the data product went down the memory hole; which yields falsification problems.

    • I do not know which version of RSS was used then or if it was changed. But in general, if there are changes, they always seem to be to make the present warmer. Take Hadcrut3 for example. Hadcrut4 came out and the pause was shorter. Then Hadcrut4.2 came out and the last 16 years became warmer. Then Hadcrut4.3 came out and the same thing more or less happened. See an earlier post of mine on this topic:
      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/05/is-wti-dead-and-hadcrut-adjusts-up-again-now-includes-august-data-except-for-hadcrut4-2-and-hadsst3/

      But despite all changes, only GISS has a period of under 15 years for statistical significance.

      • Certainly. And the hotter (in rate) the models run the less time would be necessary at a zero rate to puncture the 95% level. As the models are tuned to their data products (RSS) then the more recent data products should require even less time than the 15 years talked about here.

        But to know any of this we’d need to know which version of RSS was mentioned in the 2008 piece about 15 years. And, of course, if the version has changed then any documented efforts at replication or falsification are right out. Which might make a fellow note that we’re no longer talking about science.

  17. I have lived in the same Northeastern town my whole life and I can tell you for a fact that we have the same excrementy climate as when I was a kid. The “pause” is at least 50 years old. You idiots are arguing about something that isn’t even noticeable.

    The only reason the global warming scam has been successful is because most people had the good sense to move someplace warmer or they are too young to know the difference.

    • It has often been pointed out that without thermometers, no one would know that the earth is 0.8 C warmer now than in 1880. I certainly could not go outside and say whether it was 8 C or 9 C without a thermometer.

  18. Teachers and administrators in Atlanta, Ga were just convicted of racketeering for raising
    test scores to get salary increases and bonuses.

    It seems to me that this law (RICO) could be applied to others.

    • Perhaps the investigators were raising their conviction rates to get salary increases and bonuses.
      Can you be convicted of racketeering for convicting people of racketeering?
      Apparently you use profiling like Lewindowsky to pick up the perps, no proof, just models.
      Tough if you are a good teacher or inherit a bright bunch of kids.
      (Freakonomics)

  19. By my reading of the link to the NOAA paper, they are referring explicitly to surface data sets, not satellite. More significantly, they are referring to surface data sets that have been adjusted to account for ENSO. The passage immediately prior to the one quoted reads as follows:

    “ENSO-adjusted warming in the three surface temperature datasets over the last 2–25 yr continually lies within the 90% range of all similar-length ENSO-adjusted temperature changes in these simulations (Fig. 2.8b). Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability.”

    Turning to figure 8b, which is on page 23, this is annotated as follows:

    “”ENSO -adjusted global mean temperature changes to 2008 as a function of starting year for HadCRUT3, GISS dataset (Hansen et al. 2001) and the NCDC dataset (Smith et al. 2008).”

    The NOAA paper 15 year period refers explicitly to land and sea surface data sets that have been adjusted to account for ENSO. What is the justification for applying it to unadjusted satellite data from a single producer?

    • I had come to the same conclusion. The 1998 El Nino spike is an obvious outlier so it is reasonable to adjust for it. Also this sentence is ambiguous, I am still trying to figure out what it means in context:

      “… create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”

      Are they referring to the present-day warming rate from observations, or from climate model simulations?

    • The quote appears to mean what it seems to mean. Zero trends of 15 years or more are ruled out by computer climate model simulations to the 95% confidence level.

      So I did the trend line calcs for 1999-2013 (15 years) using HadCRUT4. I got:

      0.088 +- 0.147 C/decade to a 95% confidence level. This is not statistically significant. It would have nice to do the experiment with HadCRUT4.

      • There’s a very slight negative 15 year trend in HadCRUT3 centred around 2004 (-0.01C/dec). This was weighted by La Nina conditions which, According to NOAA ENSO index, averaged -0.3 over the same period. So it seems likely that adjustment for ENSO would have removed the small negative trend in HadCRUT3.

      • David R.

        Is the ENSO index global? I am not familiar with that one.

        Which years are you using for HadCRUT3?

        One thing I didn’t mention is the HadCRUT3 temperature dataset is obsolete. If the Met Office people who did the study were to repeat it, they would find the 1999-2008 trend is now higher. I am not sure if the ENSO adjustment would be enough to zero it.

      • harrytwinotter

        The ENSO index I used is the one maintained by NOAA: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml

        I checked the whole of HadCRUT3 using a rolling 15 year trend. Although it’s obsolete, it was the set referred to in the paper, so I thought it was fair to use that rather than HadCRUT4.

        Werner Brozek

        April 10, 2015 at 4:09 pm

        “Whatever differences there may be, whether major or minor, it is clear that all data sets are much cooler on the average than the average model.”
        ______________________

        That’s true but it’s not relevant to the point being made (which I think harrytwinotter is making too).

        You’re using satellite data *that has not been adjusted for ENSO* to argue against a statement that is specifically predicated upon surface data that has been adjusted for ENSO. How is it valid to do this?

        Surely we should be comparing the statement against the data it’s predicated upon.

      • You’re using satellite data *that has not been adjusted for ENSO*

        From earlier comments by others from years ago, I was under the impression that “adjusting for ENSO” meant more or less that they thought it was cherry picking to start before 1998. My post addresses this point. Beyond that, I am not able to comment on exactly what else is expected in terms of adjusting for ENSO.
        And as I mentioned, the lapse rate should not make the satellite data worthless in this regard.

      • Werner Brozek
        April 11, 2015 at 8:02 am

        “…I was under the impression that “adjusting for ENSO” meant more or less that they thought it was cherry picking to start before 1998.”
        _________________

        ENSO adjustments just involve the removal of the ENSO signal from the data, whether it be warming or cooling. There a variety of ways to do this, as discussed here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/07/global-trends-and-enso/

        My point is that since it is this adjusted data that the paper is specifically referencing with regard to the 15 year trends, it is not valid to use raw data to judge it by. Especially, in my view, not raw data from satellites MSUs, which are generally acknowledged to be particularly sensitive to ENSO fluctuations.

      • ENSO adjustments just involve the removal of the ENSO signal from the data

        Do you know of any data source that actually does this? Or do we just always get raw data?

      • Werner Brozek,

        you are avoiding the question a lot, and are now trying to deflect onto computer models. Are you really interested in having a discussion about your Guest Post?

      • Are you really interested in having a discussion about your Guest Post?

        I am. However I thought that avoiding the 1998 spike was good enough. Apparently it is not, however I do not feel qualified to go deeper into “ENSO adjustments” at this point. Sorry about that! I will not mention this quote again unless I have a mental lapse.

    • Due to the adiabatic lapse rate, there should be little difference between satellite and surface measures.

    • So: Previous thesis massively published on WUWT:
      “Warming stopped in 1997/1998”
      and little later:
      “Warming stopped in 2001/2002”
      seem to be dead.
      Currently we have
      “Warming stopped in 2005”

      … which (I would bet) won’t survive current El-Nino:

      • @Splice:

        That stupid ‘pseudo-skeptical pseudo-science’ escalator has been repeatedly debunked here. So you must be new.

        No one here has said that the planet is not recovering from the Little Ice Age. It is. That fully explains natural global warming — your silly ‘escalator’ simply shows nature in action.

        Your job as a climate alarmist is to show that human emissions are the cause of global warming, using verifiable, testable measurements.

        You have failed totally: there isn’t a single measurement that quantifies man-made global wartming, out of total warming.

        So trot on back to SkS, you need to pick up some new talking points.

      • Nope. My job it to prove, that theses massively published here i.e.
        “Warming stopped in 1997/1998″
        “Warming stopped in 2001/2002″
        “Warming stopped in 2005″
        … are fakes, as well as your:
        “global warming has stopped. The alarmists were wrong.”

      • Splice,

        Just because you assert that they’re “fakes” does not mean they are fakes. It just means that’s what you want to believe. Global warming has stopped. Even IPCC scientists refer to it as a “pause”, which means exactly the same thing. The journal Science admitted that global warming has stopped. Go argue with them if you don’t agree.

      • You’re like a pestering child, asking, “When are we gonna get there? When are we gonna get there?”

        If we had all the answers to questions like yours, we wouldn’t need to be discussing it.

        The LIA was one of the coldest episodes of the entire 10,700 year Holocene. There is not universal agreement on the cause. But we know it happened.

        Since then the planet has been reverting to the mean. It has been naturally recovering from that cold spell, exactly as we would expect.

      • Then get another book.

        Look, you argue about everything. You criticize WUWT, and our host, you accuse WUWT of cheating, and you ask incessant questions but you never accept any answers.

        Your mind is closed tighter than a submarine hatch. You’re nothing but a closet climate alarmist, constantly running interference without adding anything of value. Who needs you?

      • What is the physics behind the “recovering from the Little Ice Age” phenomena ?

        Recovering how?
        Recovering from what?

        And, the only accurate answer anyone can provide is the humble “We do not know why the earth exhibits a 900 year long cycle of warm and cold periods, nor why each recent warm period (before the next Ice Age resumes) is shorter and colder than every previous warming period.”

      • @dbstealey
        “- Just because you assert that they’re “fakes” does not mean they are fakes.”

        Of course, they’re fake not because I call them fakes, it’s works opposite way:
        theses:
        “Warming stopped in 1997/1998″
        “Warming stopped in 2001/2002″
        … are called by me “fakes”, because they aren’t true.

        Additionally not so long ago they were massively published on WUWT, and they are no longer published here, which may be interpreted as admitting that they are fakes.

        Deal with it – and live with it.

      • “Warming stopped in 1997/1998″
        “Warming stopped in 2001/2002″
        … are called by me “fakes”, because they aren’t true.

        Statements like the above may well have been true when they were made according to different data sets and different times in the past. They may not be true today for various reasons. One reason is that Hadcrut3 is no longer available since it was replaced by Hadcrut4, then Hadcrut4.2, then Hadcrut4.3. And guess how each later version changed things? If you wish to know, see:
        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/05/is-wti-dead-and-hadcrut-adjusts-up-again-now-includes-august-data-except-for-hadcrut4-2-and-hadsst3/

      • @Werner Brozek
        “Warming stopped in 1997/1998″
        “Warming stopped in 2001/2002″
        … are called by me “fakes”, because they aren’t true.
        Statements like the above may well have been true when they were made according …

        Nope. They weren’t true when they were made, and they still aren’t. Just it was easier to deny the fact they are nothing but “another step in escalator”:
        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/plot/uah/from:1997.5/to:2009.5/trend/plot/uah/from:1986.85/to:1998.05/trend/plot/uah/to:1990.4/trend/plot/uah/from:2005/trend
        … now denying that fact is almost impossible, because next – higher – escalator’s step became clearly visible.

        It doesn’t work that way that the thesis
        “Warming stopped in 2005″
        is now true, but will no longer be after El-Nino.
        It’s false now, and after El-Nino still will be.

      • Yes, things have changed. And a future El Nino could cause further changes.
        But the matter of this thread are things that haven’t changed.
        “Warming stopped in 1997/1998″
        “Warming stopped in 2001/2002″
        were fakes from the beginning, and the only thing that changed is that few years ago only wiser ones were able to notice that, now almost everyone sees they are fakes

        “Warming stopped in 2005″ is a fake now, but some people are not wise enough to notice that, after El-Nino some of them will be able to notice that.

        But that does not negate the fact that RSS shows no warming for 18 years and 4 months as of today.
        It’s not the matter of this tread too.

        [??? .mod]

      • But the matter of this thread are things that haven’t changed.

        In my post I clearly say:
        “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.”

        So let me be more explicit and expand on this.
        At the moment, only the satellite data have flat periods of longer than a year. On my first post on January 6, 2013, there were 6 data sets with a lengthy pause. So things have indeed changed.

      • @Werner Brozek

        At the moment, only the satellite data have flat periods of longer than a year. On my first post on January 6, 2013, there were 6 data sets with a lengthy pause. So things have indeed changed.

        Out of 6 data sets at current rate of warming in any moment of time statistically one should be showing such a ‘lenghty pause’. Of course as time passes number of sets showing such a pause will vary from 0 to 6. And now that number went down to 1. “Return to the mean” I could have said.

        But again – it has nothing to do with what I’m writing about, i.e. that theses
        “Warming stopped in 1997/1998″
        “Warming stopped in 2001/2002″
        “Warming stopped in 2005″
        … are fakes and were fakes from the beginning.

      • dbstealey
        April 10, 2015 at 6:37 am

        “Your graph shows a 0.07º warming per century.”
        __________

        You’re right. Not saying we should panic; just pointing out that the current version of UAH doesn’t show a cooling trend since 2005.

        jmrSudbury
        April 10, 2015 at 7:07 am

        “I went to the http://woodfortrees.org/credits page and followed the link to the UAH data. It shows version 5.6. As well, the graph to which I linked does not stop at the end of 2014 as you suggest.”
        __________

        I’ve checked it again and the raw data from your linked-to graph is clearly labelled “File: tltglhmam_5.5”: http://woodfortrees.org/data/uah/from:2005/plot/uah/from:2005/trend

        This is UAH version 5.5, which is now obsolete. The raw data in your graph also shows a stop point at December 2012: “2014.92, 0.176”. The latest UAH data, v5.6 runs to March 2015 and shows a very slight warming trend from 2005; certainly not a cooling trend.

    • @dbstealey
      “- Just because you assert that they’re “fakes” does not mean they are fakes.”

      Of course, they’re fake not because I call them fakes, it’s works opposite way:
      theses:
      “Warming stopped in 1997/1998″
      “Warming stopped in 2001/2002″
      … are called by me “fakes”, because they aren’t true.

      Additionally not so long ago they were massively published on WUWT, and they are no longer published here, which may be interpreted as admitting that they are fakes.

      Deal with it – and live with it.

      • I took a look at the 6 data sets from January 2013. They are:
        Hadcrut3, Hadcrut4, Hadsst2, UAH5.5, GISS, and RSS.
        Here is the status of each today:
        Hadcrut3 replaced by Hadcrut4 which is warmer;
        Hadcrut4 replaced by Hadcrut4.2 and now Hadcrut4.3 which are warmer;
        Hadsst2 replaced by Hadsst3 which is warmer;
        UAH5.5 replaced by UAH5.6 which is warmer;
        GISS, which changes almost every month and often goes back 100 years; and
        RSS which has not changed.
        And guess which one shows a significant pause?

        I did not fake those results with data sets that are now obsolete. So we may just have to agree to disagree here.

      • dbstealey

        April 11, 2015 at 4:11 am

        “Global warming stopped many years ago.”
        __________________________

        Hard to see how anyone can make that claim. Even looking at Ole Humlum’s ‘climate4you’ website, the running 37 month trend line in all the global data sets except RSS is currently the highest on record. UAH just joined the surface data sets in this respect following the March 2015 update (thick blue line): http://climate4you.com/images/MSU%20UAH%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif

        By any reasonable interpretation, it hardly looks as if global warming has stopped.

      • Should be ‘running 37 month average’, not ‘trendline’. The point remains though: the last 37 months was the warmest consecutive 37 month period in all the surface data sets and now also in UAH satellite.

        Is it valid or reasonable to claim that ‘global warming has stopped’ on the basis that one data set disagrees with the four others, including its fellow satellite producer?

      • @dbstealey
        Nope, theses:
        “Warming stopped in 1997/1998″
        “Warming stopped in 2001/2002″
        “Warming stopped in 2005″
        … are fakes, and were fakes from the beginning.

        Deal with it – and live with it.

      • David R says:

        Is it valid or reasonable to claim that ‘global warming has stopped’ on the basis that one data set disagrees with the four others, including its fellow satellite producer?

        Certainly it is. Satellite data encompasses the entire globe (well, almost), while other datasets use land-only data. Thus, satellite data is more accurate.

        Next, your link to Climate4You uses UAH, another satellite dataset. But note that UAH and RSS are converging:

        http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss-land/from:1979/plot/rss-land/from:2001/trend/plot/uah/from:1979/plot/uah/from:2001/trend/plot/rss/from:1979/to:1996/trend/plot/uah/from:1979/to:1996/trend

        Currently, the difference between the two is so small as to be completely insignificant. Only by magnifying the chart axcis to show tenths and hundreths of a degree, with a long trend line, can the public be persuaded that global warming is occurring.

        In reality, we cannot make that claim. For all practical purposes, global warming stopped many years ago. That is convincing evidence that the numerous and endless predictions of catestrophic AGW that were made prior to 1997 were flat wrong.

        When a conjecture is that wrong, it has been debunked. But now, the alarmist crowd is taking the false position that global warming never stopped. I don’t think they are being honest. If a skeptical scientists was that wrong, he would acknowledge that his conjecture has failed, and try to understand why. That’s the difference between the two sides in this debate.

      • Splice:

        Here is another “escalator” by arch-Warmist Dr. Phil Jones, which covers a much longer time frame:

        Note that the exact same step changes have occurred whether CO2 was low, or high. Thus, CO2 has no apparent effect on global warming.

      • @dbstealey
        Note that the exact same step changes have occurred whether CO2 was low, or high. Thus, CO2 has no apparent effect on global warming.
        Nope. It’s cherry picking. You would have found similar 0.12K, 0.10 K, 0.08 K, 0.05 K etc. changes if you cherry picked for them.
        Thus, CO2 has no apparent effect on global warming.
        And even if it weren’t cherry picking still lack of correlation doesn’t imply lack of causuation: classic example: there is no correlation between number of sexual intercourses and number of children born in countries of the world.

        And everything you have written has nothing to do with the fact, that theses:
        “Warming stopped in 1997/1998″
        “Warming stopped in 2001/2002″
        “Warming stopped in 2005″
        … are fakes, and were fakes from the beginning.

        Deal with it – and live with it.

      • Splice says:

        It’s cherry picking. You would have found…&etc.

        I would have found? No, that is what Dr. Phil Jones found. Go argue with him if you disagree.

        I get it: you don’t like it, because it debunks the ‘escalator’ nonsense.
        But that’s reality.

        Deal with it – and live with it.

      • I get it: you don’t like it, because it debunks the ‘escalator’ nonsense.
        Nope. “Escalator” exists, and this:
        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/plot/uah/from:1997.5/to:2009.5/trend/plot/uah/from:1986.85/to:1998.05/trend/plot/uah/to:1990.4/trend/plot/uah/from:2005/trend
        … is simply a proof of its existance.

        Meanwhile stop in global warming doesn’t exist and theses:
        “Warming stopped in 1997/1998″
        “Warming stopped in 2001/2002″
        “Warming stopped in 2005″
        … are fakes, and were fakes from the beginning.

        But that’s reality.
        Nope. Existence of “escalator” and nonexistance of stop in global warming is reality.

        Deal with it – and live with it.

      • @Splice:

        Your comments have devolved into making baseless assertions.

        While the rest of us are living in a wonderful climate that is not warming or cooling at the moment (and hasn’t for many years now), in your fantasy world global warming is chugging away just likew it used to.

        Ex-IPCC head R. Pachauri stated that global warming has stopped. Who are you, except some anonymous, and thus incredible screen name?

        If you want to argue that global warming hasn’t stopped on your planet, go argue with Pachauri. You two hash out your differences. Skeptics know that Pachauri is right, sorry you don’t.

        Deal with it – and live with it, jamoke.

      • dbstealey

        Re my comment: “Is it valid or reasonable to claim that ‘global warming has stopped’ on the basis that one data set disagrees with the four others, including its fellow satellite producer?” You say:

        “Certainly it is. Satellite data encompasses the entire globe (well, almost), while other datasets use land-only data. Thus, satellite data is more accurate.”
        __________________

        That doesn’t addresses the point that the other satellite data producer, UAH, shows warming consistent with the surface data sets over the past 15 years, and in particular over the past 3 years. Further, if satellite data is more reliable than surface data because it covers more of the globe, then it follows that UAH is more reliable than RSS, because it covers more of the globe than RSS.

        “…UAH and RSS are converging… Currently, the difference between the two is so small as to be completely insignificant.”
        _________________________

        Your linked-to graph clearly shows that the trends in UAH (v5.5) and RSS are diverging from 2001. UAH v5.5 stops in December 2014. Using the latest UAH version (v5.6), the divergence from RSS since 2001 becomes even more pronounced (-0.05/dec in RSS versus +0.07/dec in UAH). UAH is actually running warmer than the surface data sets since 2001; so I don’t see how it can its difference from RSS, which shows cooling over the same period, can reasonably be described as “insignificant”.

  20. I am finding things wrong with this article:

    – the quote in the article about the 15 year bound is not from NOAA. It is from a study done by the Met Office Hadley Centre in the United Kingdom.

    – the study refers to surface temperature datasets HadCUT3, GISS and NCDC. It is unclear if it is applicable to free air temperature datasets such as RSS and UAT.

    – the article needs a definition of the term “statistically significant”

    – technically speaking the study was based on ENSO-adjusted data. I am not sure if this is an issue or not.

    • So in summary:

      GISS no 15 year or greater zero trend
      HadCRUT4 no 15 year or greater zero trend
      HadSST no 15 year or greater zero trend (this is actually a sea surface temperature dataset)
      UAT not a surface temperature dataset
      RSS not a surface temperature dataset

      Statistical Significance There is no definition in the article of what this means, so I cannot draw any conclusions from it.

      • If you don’t know what is statistical significance stop commenting, go learn first and then come back when you know what you are talking about. And learn some english. Which part of ” RSS shows no warming ” don’t you understand?

      • Venter,

        so you don’t know what the term “statistical significance” means in the article either. I will keep at it someone who understands will tell me, surely.

        RSS is not a surface dataset – the quote in the article was from a study that looked at surface datasets.

      • OK. I think I understand what you mean by “statistically significant”. I am still puzzled by why you think it important.

        To say the warming is not statistically significant means you cannot really distinguish between the warming trend and the noise created by climate variability – this happens if the trend interval is too short and/or the data is very noisy. The real trend might actually be more or less – you cannot tell.

        The same applies to your RSS zero trend. The trend might not actually be zero because the trend is not statistically significant – I can’t see your confidence interval calculation for RSS anywhere but RSS data is so noisy that you need a trend interval of around 25 years before it becomes statistically significant.

      • Werner Brozek,

        so you agree with me, the headline of you Guest Post is wrong. You cannot say the RSS temperature dataset shows “no warming” as the RSS trend you show is not statistically significant.

        The confidence interval is so wide it could be up to 1C/century of warming or 1C/century of cooling.

      • You cannot say the RSS temperature dataset shows “no warming”

        When I, or Lord Monckton, make the claim of “no warming” we both mean the same thing, namely the slope is 0, or actually slightly negative. So there is an equal chance of warming as of cooling.
        However no “statistically significant warming” is something very different.

      • Werner Brozek,

        “So there is an equal chance of warming as of cooling.”

        So you could have used the headline “RSS Shows No Cooling for 15 Years” – that is my point. Your headline is misleading.

      • So you could have used the headline “RSS Shows No Cooling for 15 Years” – that is my point. Your headline is misleading.

        Yes, that would have been true as well. However that would be true for every single data set that I am discussing. All show “no cooling” for 15 years. That is because four of the five show warming for 15 years, although that warming may not be statistically significant. However RSS is the only one to show no warming.
        I see nothing wrong with the headline. Suppose I live in a city of 1,000,000 people and there was a murder. The headline would read “A person was murdered yesterday”. You would never see a headline saying “999,999 people were not murdered in our city yesterday”, although that would also have been true.
        I doubt there is a single person reading this blog that thinks there are no error bars. And in my earlier post, I explicitly address this point here:
        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/02/on-the-difference-between-lord-moncktons-18-years-for-rss-and-dr-mckitricks-26-years-now-includes-october-data/

      • That is the same link as in this article. The quote is not from NOAA, it is from a study done by the UK Met Office Hadley Centre.

      • Werner Brozek,

        It matters because it is an “appeal to authority” argument. NOAA is an a US Agency and sounds important and official. The UK Hadley Centre is a research centre – they do research.

        That quote that people are trying to say is a “rule” about a 15 year zero trend is from one study done by one research agency as far as I can tell.


  21. Here is the “relevant” thirty-six (36min.) minute version, especially for the commentor George Tetley who put the very first comment.

    • Thank you! But keep in mind that several of these are obsolete and have not been updated for a while. This includes Hadsst2 and Hadcrut3 and WTI. And if just the northern hemisphere goes down but the southern hemisphere does not, then it does not have global implications. For example Hadsst3 is only flat for a year globally. Also, land only or sea only has limited value in terms of global warming.

    • As far as I know, the balloon data agree with the satellite data, so I see no need for it. Furthermore, I know of no place where they give the slope for balloon data. If you know of one, please let me know.

Comments are closed.