Guest Post by Werner Brozek, Edited by Just The Facts:
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.
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.
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.)
I am not comfortable using RSS because I understand that it is biased in ways the UAH is not.
Could someone do a blog article comparing UAH and RSS?
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.
“… nice to do the experiment with HadCRUT3” – my bad.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Not true. Compared to the surface datasets, the satellite datasets react more to El Nino events, and under-estimate the warming in the Arctic. The satellite datasets do not always agree with each other, either.
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. See:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/29/temperature-analysis-of-5-datasets-shows-the-great-pause-has-endured-for-13-years-4-months/
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?
UAH shows a flat linear trend from 2005:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2005/plot/uah/from:2005/trend
John M Reynolds
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:
http://meteomodel.pl/BLOG/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/nino34Mon.gif
Splice,
What matters is that global warming has stopped. The alarmists were wrong. All of them.
@dbstealey
‘What matters is that global warming has stopped’
Yes. It’s so called ‘moving stop’:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/plot/uah/from:1997.4/to:2005/trend/plot/uah/from:1986.85/to:1998.05/trend/plot/uah/to:1990.4/trend/plot/uah/from:2005/trend
… also known as “escalator”.
@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?
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.
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:
http://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.
See my first post here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/06/crowdsourcing-a-temperature-trend-analysi/
Yes, things have changed. And a future El Nino could cause further changes. But that does not negate the fact that RSS shows no warming for 18 years and 4 months as of today.
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]
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.
WoodForTrees still uses the previous UAH data set, v5.5, which is slightly different from the latest version and also stops at the end of 2014.
The latest UAH version, v5.6, shows warming of +0.070 ±0.385 C/decade since 2005: http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html
David R,
Your graph shows a 0.07º warming per century.
EVERYBODY PANIC!!
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. — John M Reynolds
Of course, I could be wrong about the end of 2014…
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.
That should be ‘December 2014’; not ‘2012’. Sorry.
That is version 5.5 which is no longer used since December.
@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.
Splice,
Global warming stopped many years ago.
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.
It’s worth to mention that from simple statistical reasons at current rate of warming statistically one dataset out of six should be showing longer flat line:
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
… because of the nature of “escalator”.
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:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/hadley/Hadley-global-temps-1850-2010-web.jpg
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”.
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.
For “statistically significant”, see my earlier article here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/02/on-the-difference-between-lord-moncktons-18-years-for-rss-and-dr-mckitricks-26-years-now-includes-october-data/
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.
NOAA, or whoever, thinks it is. Anyway, that is what climate scientists have rightly or wrongly decided would be an appropriate measure.
True. According to:
http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/p/temperature-trend-viewer.html
Temperature Anomaly trend
Dec 1996 to Mar 2015
Rate: -0.012°C/Century;
CI from -1.080 to 1.057;
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.
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.
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:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/02/on-the-difference-between-lord-moncktons-18-years-for-rss-and-dr-mckitricks-26-years-now-includes-october-data/
“the quote in the article about the 15 year bound is not from NOAA”|
Look at the URL:
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf
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.
Perhaps I missed that, but even if I did, does it matter? Is either NOAA or the Met Office more credible than the other?
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.
Here is the “relevant” thirty-six (36min.) minute version, especially for the commentor George Tetley who put the very first comment.
For whatever length (some short, some quite long), these temperature series show no warming … either slightly, or significantly, cooling, at the time of this posting (13April2015). I left all the temperature plots out, and included only the plots of trends. Offsets included for clarity.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2sh/from:1996.5/trend/offset:0.0097/plot/hadsst3sh/from:1997.34/trend/offset:-0.0045/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2000.6/trend/offset:-0.0505/plot/hadsst2nh/from:2001.2/trend/offset:-0.1133/plot/hadcrut3vsh/from:1996.6/trend/offset:-0.0029/plot/hadcrut4sh/from:2000.6/trend/offset:-0.0350/plot/hadcrut3vnh/from:2001/trend/offset:-0.2481/plot/hadcrut4nh/from:2001.6/trend/offset:-0.3349/plot/crutem4vnh/from:2004.51/trend/offset:-0.681
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4tr/from:2000.5/trend/offset:0.026/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2000.7/trend/offset:0.006/plot/crutem4vgl/from:2004.59/trend/offset:-0.386/plot/crutem3vgl/from:2004.6/trend/offset:-0.22/plot/wti/from:2008.5/trend/offset:0.242/plot/uah-land/from:2008.51/trend/offset:0.103/plot/gistemp-dts/from:2009.26/trend/offset:-0.41/plot/rss/from:1996.84/trend/offset:0.19/plot/uah/from:2008.4/trend/offset:0.228
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.
¿Could you add to these monthly figures the baloon temperature data. I think it is very important as comparison to satellite data.
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.