Guest Post by Bob Tisdale
This post provides an update of the data for the three primary suppliers of global land+ocean surface temperature data—GISS through March 2015 and HADCRUT4 and NCDC through February 2015—and of the two suppliers of satellite-based lower troposphere temperature data (RSS and UAH) through March 2015.
INITIAL NOTES:
For discussions of the annual GISS and NCDC data for 2014, see the posts:
- Does the Uptick in Global Surface Temperatures in 2014 Help the Growing Difference between Climate Models and Reality?
- On the Biases Caused by Omissions in the 2014 NOAA State of the Climate Report
GISS LOTI surface data, and the two lower troposphere temperature datasets are for the most recent month. The HADCRUT4 and NCDC data lag one month.
This post contains graphs of running trends in global surface temperature anomalies for periods of 14+ and 17+ years using GISS global (land+ocean) surface temperature data. They indicate that we have not seen a warming slowdown (based on 14+ year trends) this long since the late-1970s or a warming slowdown (based on 17+ year trends) since about 1980.
Much of the following text is boilerplate. It is intended for those new to the presentation of global surface temperature anomaly data.
Most of the update graphs start in 1979. That’s a commonly used start year for global temperature products because many of the satellite-based temperature datasets start then.
We discussed why the three suppliers of surface temperature data use different base years for anomalies in the post Why Aren’t Global Surface Temperature Data Produced in Absolute Form?
But first, let’s illustrate how badly the climate models used by the IPCC simulate global surface temperatures in light of the recent slowdown in global surface warming.
MODEL-DATA DIFFERENCE
Considering the uptick in surface temperatures this year (discussions linked above), government agencies that supply global surface temperature products have been touting record high combined global land and ocean surface temperatures. Alarmists happily ignore the fact that it is easy to have record high global temperatures in the midst of a hiatus or slowdown in global warming, and they have been using the recent record highs to draw attention away from the growing difference between observed global surface temperatures and the IPCC climate model-based projections of them.
There are a number of ways to present how poorly climate models simulate global surface temperatures. Normally they are compared in a time-series graph. See the example here. In that example, GISS Land-Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI) data are compared to the multi-model mean of the climate models stored in the CMIP5 archive, which was used by the IPCC for their 5th Assessment Report. The data and model outputs have been smoothed with 61-month filters to reduce the monthly variations.
Another way to show how poorly climate models perform is to subtract the data from the average of the model outputs (model mean). We first presented and discussed this method using global surface temperatures in absolute form. (See the post On the Elusive Absolute Global Mean Surface Temperature – A Model-Data Comparison.) The graph below shows a model-data difference using anomalies, where the data are represented by GISS global Land-Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI) and the model simulations of global surface temperature are represented by the multi-model mean of the models stored in the CMIP5 archive. To assure that the base years used for anomalies did not bias the graph, the full term of the data (1880 to 2013) were used as the reference period.
In this example, we’re illustrating the model-data differences in the monthly surface temperature anomalies. Also included in red is the difference smoothed with a 61-month running mean filter.
Figure 00 – Model-Data Difference
The greatest difference between models and data occurs in the 1880s. The difference decreases drastically from the 1880s and switches signs by the 1910s. The reason: the models do not properly simulate the observed cooling that takes place at that time. Because the models failed to properly simulate the cooling from the 1880s to the 1910s, they also failed to properly simulate the warming that took place from the 1910s until 1940. That explains the long-term decrease in the difference during that period and the switching of signs in the difference once again. The difference cycles back and forth nearer to a zero difference until the 1990s, indicating the models are tracking observations better (relatively) during that period. And from the 1990s to present, because of the slowdown in warming, the difference has increased to greatest value since about 1910…where the difference indicates the models are showing too much warming.
It’s very easy to see the recent record-high global surface temperatures have had a tiny impact on the difference between models and observations.
See the post On the Use of the Multi-Model Mean for a discussion of its use in model-data comparisons.
GISS LAND OCEAN TEMPERATURE INDEX (LOTI)
Introduction: The GISS Land Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI) data is a product of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Starting with their March 2013 update, GISS LOTI uses NCDC ERSST.v3b sea surface temperature data. The impact of the recent change in sea surface temperature datasets is discussed here. GISS adjusts GHCN and other land surface temperature data via a number of methods and infills missing data using 1200km smoothing. Refer to the GISS description here. Unlike the UK Met Office and NCDC products, GISS masks sea surface temperature data at the poles where seasonal sea ice exists, and they extend land surface temperature data out over the oceans in those locations. Refer to the discussions here and here. GISS uses the base years of 1951-1980 as the reference period for anomalies. The data source is here.
Update: The March 2015 GISS global temperature anomaly is +0.84 deg C. It increased (about +0.06 deg C) since February 2015.
Figure 1 – GISS Land-Ocean Temperature Index
Note: There have been recent changes to the GISS land-ocean temperature index data. They have a noticeable impact on the short-term (1998 to present) trend as discussed in the post GISS Tweaks the Short-Term Global Temperature Trend Upwards. The causes of the changes are unclear at present, but they likely impacted the 2014 rankings.
NCDC GLOBAL SURFACE TEMPERATURE ANOMALIES (LAGS ONE MONTH)
Introduction: The NOAA Global (Land and Ocean) Surface Temperature Anomaly dataset is a product of the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). NCDC merges their Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature version 3b (ERSST.v3b) with the Global Historical Climatology Network-Monthly (GHCN-M) version 3.2.0 for land surface air temperatures. NOAA infills missing data for both land and sea surface temperature datasets using methods presented in Smith et al (2008). Keep in mind, when reading Smith et al (2008), that the NCDC removed the satellite-based sea surface temperature data because it changed the annual global temperature rankings. Since most of Smith et al (2008) was about the satellite-based data and the benefits of incorporating it into the reconstruction, one might consider that the NCDC temperature product is no longer supported by a peer-reviewed paper.
The NCDC data source is through their Global Surface Temperature Anomalies webpage. Click on the link to Anomalies and Index Data.)
Update (Lags One Month): The February 2015 NCDC global land plus sea surface temperature anomaly was +0.82 deg C. See Figure 2. It rose (an increase of +0.06 deg C) since January 2015.
Figure 2 – NCDC Global (Land and Ocean) Surface Temperature Anomalies
UK MET OFFICE HADCRUT4 (LAGS ONE MONTH)
Introduction: The UK Met Office HADCRUT4 dataset merges CRUTEM4 land-surface air temperature dataset and the HadSST3 sea-surface temperature (SST) dataset. CRUTEM4 is the product of the combined efforts of the Met Office Hadley Centre and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. And HadSST3 is a product of the Hadley Centre. Unlike the GISS and NCDC products, missing data is not infilled in the HADCRUT4 product. That is, if a 5-deg latitude by 5-deg longitude grid does not have a temperature anomaly value in a given month, it is not included in the global average value of HADCRUT4. The HADCRUT4 dataset is described in the Morice et al (2012) paper here. The CRUTEM4 data is described in Jones et al (2012) here. And the HadSST3 data is presented in the 2-part Kennedy et al (2012) paper here and here. The UKMO uses the base years of 1961-1990 for anomalies. The data source is here.
Update (Lags One Month): The February 2015 HADCRUT4 global temperature anomaly is +0.66 deg C. See Figure 3. It dropped slightly (about -0.02 deg C) since January 2015.
Figure 3 – HADCRUT4
UAH LOWER TROPOSPHERE TEMPERATURE ANOMALY DATA (UAH TLT)
Special sensors (microwave sounding units) aboard satellites have orbited the Earth since the late 1970s, allowing scientists to calculate the temperatures of the atmosphere at various heights above sea level. The level nearest to the surface of the Earth is the lower troposphere. The lower troposphere temperature data include the altitudes of zero to about 12,500 meters, but are most heavily weighted to the altitudes of less than 3000 meters. See the left-hand cell of the illustration here. The lower troposphere temperature data are calculated from a series of satellites with overlapping operation periods, not from a single satellite. The monthly UAH lower troposphere temperature data is the product of the Earth System Science Center of the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH). UAH provides the data broken down into numerous subsets. See the webpage here. The UAH lower troposphere temperature data are supported by Christy et al. (2000) MSU Tropospheric Temperatures: Dataset Construction and Radiosonde Comparisons. Additionally, Dr. Roy Spencer of UAH presents at his blog the monthly UAH TLT data updates a few days before the release at the UAH website. Those posts are also cross posted at WattsUpWithThat. UAH uses the base years of 1981-2010 for anomalies. The UAH lower troposphere temperature data are for the latitudes of 85S to 85N, which represent more than 99% of the surface of the globe.
Update: The March 2015 UAH lower troposphere temperature anomaly is +0.26 deg C. It dropped (a decrease of about -0.04 deg C) since February 2015.
Figure 4 – UAH Lower Troposphere Temperature (TLT) Anomaly Data
RSS LOWER TROPOSPHERE TEMPERATURE ANOMALY DATA (RSS TLT)
Like the UAH lower troposphere temperature data, Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) calculates lower troposphere temperature anomalies from microwave sounding units aboard a series of NOAA satellites. RSS describes their data at the Upper Air Temperature webpage. The RSS data are supported by Mears and Wentz (2009) Construction of the Remote Sensing Systems V3.2 Atmospheric Temperature Records from the MSU and AMSU Microwave Sounders. RSS also presents their lower troposphere temperature data in various subsets. The land+ocean TLT data are here. Curiously, on that webpage, RSS lists the data as extending from 82.5S to 82.5N, while on their Upper Air Temperature webpage linked above, they state:
We do not provide monthly means poleward of 82.5 degrees (or south of 70S for TLT) due to difficulties in merging measurements in these regions.
Also see the RSS MSU & AMSU Time Series Trend Browse Tool. RSS uses the base years of 1979 to 1998 for anomalies.
Update: The March 2015 RSS lower troposphere temperature anomaly is +0.26 deg C. It dropped (a decrease of about -0.07 deg C) since February 2015.
Figure 5 – RSS Lower Troposphere Temperature (TLT) Anomaly Data
A QUICK NOTE ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RSS AND UAH TLT DATA
There is a noticeable difference between the RSS and UAH lower troposphere temperature anomaly data. Dr. Roy Spencer discussed this in his November 2011 blog post On the Divergence Between the UAH and RSS Global Temperature Records. In summary, John Christy and Roy Spencer believe the divergence is caused by the use of data from different satellites. UAH has used the NASA Aqua AMSU satellite in recent years, while as Dr. Spencer writes:
…RSS is still using the old NOAA-15 satellite which has a decaying orbit, to which they are then applying a diurnal cycle drift correction based upon a climate model, which does not quite match reality.
I updated the graphs in Roy Spencer’s post in On the Differences and Similarities between Global Surface Temperature and Lower Troposphere Temperature Anomaly Datasets.
While the two lower troposphere temperature datasets are different in recent years, UAH believes their data are correct, and, likewise, RSS believes their TLT data are correct. Does the UAH data have a warming bias in recent years or does the RSS data have cooling bias? Until the two suppliers can account for and agree on the differences, both are available for presentation.
Roy Spencer has recently updated his discussion on the RSS and UAH differences in the post Why Do Different Satellite Datasets Produce Different Global Temperature Trends?
Also, in the recent blog post, Roy Spencer has advised that the UAH lower troposphere Version 6 will be released soon and that it will reduce the difference between the UAH and RSS data.
14-YEARS+ (171-MONTH) RUNNING TRENDS
As noted in my post Open Letter to the Royal Meteorological Society Regarding Dr. Trenberth’s Article “Has Global Warming Stalled?”, Kevin Trenberth of NCAR presented 10-year period-averaged temperatures in his article for the Royal Meteorological Society. He was attempting to show that the recent halt in global warming since 2001 was not unusual. Kevin Trenberth conveniently overlooked the fact that, based on his selected start year of 2001, the halt at that time had lasted 12+ years, not 10.
The period from January 2001 to March 2015 is now 171-months long—14+ years. Refer to the following graph of running 171-month trends from January 1880 to March 2015, using the GISS LOTI global temperature anomaly product.
An explanation of what’s being presented in Figure 6: The last data point in the graph is the linear trend (in deg C per decade) from January 2001 to March 2015. It is extremely low (about +0.05 deg C/Decade). That, of course, indicates global surface temperatures have not warmed to any great extent during the most recent 171-month period. Working back in time, the data point immediately before the last one represents the linear trend for the 171-month period of December 2000 to February 2015, and the data point before it shows the trend in deg C per decade for November 2000 to [January 2015], and so on.
Figure 6 – 171-Month Linear Trends
The highest recent rate of warming based on its linear trend occurred during the 171-month period that ended about 2006, but warming trends have dropped drastically since then. There was a similar drop in the 1940s, and as you’ll recall, global surface temperatures remained relatively flat from the mid-1940s to the mid-1970s. Also note that the mid-1970s was the last time there had been a 171-month period with a global warming rate that low—before recently.
17-YEARS+ (214-Month) RUNNING TRENDS
In his RMS article, Kevin Trenberth also conveniently overlooked the fact that the discussions about the warming halt are now for a time period of about 16 years, not 10 years—ever since David Rose’s DailyMail article titled “Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released… and here is the chart to prove it”. In my response to Trenberth’s article, I updated David Rose’s graph, noting that surface temperatures in April 2013 were basically the same as they were in June 1997. We’ll use June 1997 as the start month for the running 17-year+ trends. The period is now 214-months long. The following graph is similar to the one above, except that it’s presenting running trends for 214-month periods.
Figure 7 – 214-Month Linear Trends
The last time global surfaces warmed at this low a rate for a 214-month period was about 1980. Also note that the sharp decline is similar to the drop in the 1940s, and, again, as you’ll recall, global surface temperatures remained relatively flat from the mid-1940s to the mid-1970s.
The most widely used metric of global warming—global surface temperatures—indicates that the rate of global warming has slowed drastically and that the duration of the slowdown in global warming is unusual during a period when global surface temperatures are allegedly being warmed from the hypothetical impacts of manmade greenhouse gases.
COMPARISONS
The GISS, HADCRUT4 and NCDC global surface temperature anomalies and the RSS and UAH lower troposphere temperature anomalies are compared in the next three time-series graphs. Figure 8 compares the five global temperature anomaly products starting in 1979. Again, due to the timing of this post, the HADCRUT4 and NCDC data lag the UAH, RSS and GISS products by a month. Because the three surface temperature datasets share common source data, (GISS and NCDC also use the same sea surface temperature data) it should come as no surprise that they are so similar. For those wanting a closer look at the more recent wiggles and trends, Figure 9 starts in 1998, which was the start year used by von Storch et al (2013) Can climate models explain the recent stagnation in global warming? They, of course, found that the CMIP3 (IPCC AR4) and CMIP5 (IPCC AR5) models could NOT explain the recent halt in warming.
Figure 10 starts in 2001, which was the year Kevin Trenberth chose for the start of the warming halt in his RMS article Has Global Warming Stalled?
Because the suppliers all use different base years for calculating anomalies, I’ve referenced them to a common 30-year period: 1981 to 2010. Referring to their discussion under FAQ 9 here, according to NOAA:
This period is used in order to comply with a recommended World Meteorological Organization (WMO) Policy, which suggests using the latest decade for the 30-year average.
Figure 8 – Comparison Starting in 1979
###########
Figure 9 – Comparison Starting in 1998
###########
Figure 10 – Comparison Starting in 2001
Note also that the graphs list the trends of the CMIP5 multi-model mean (historic and RCP8.5 forcings), which are the climate models used by the IPCC for their 5th Assessment Report.
For those who want to get a rough idea of the impacts of the adjustments to the GISS and HADCRUT4 warming rates, refer to the July update—a month before those adjustments took effect.
AVERAGE
Figure 11 presents the average of the GISS, HADCRUT and NCDC land plus sea surface temperature anomaly products and the average of the RSS and UAH lower troposphere temperature data. Again because the HADCRUT4 and NCDC data lag one month in this update, the most current average only includes the GISS product.
Figure 11 – Average of Global Land+Sea Surface Temperature Anomaly Products
The flatness of the data since 2001 is very obvious, as is the fact that surface temperatures have rarely risen above those created by the 1997/98 El Niño in the surface temperature data. There is a very simple reason for this: the 1997/98 El Niño released enough sunlight-created warm water from beneath the surface of the tropical Pacific to raise the temperature of about 66% of the surface of the global oceans by almost 0.2 deg C. Sea surface temperatures for that portion of the global oceans remained relatively flat, dropping slowly throughout most of that region, until the El Niño of 2009/10, when the surface temperatures of that portion of the global oceans shifted slightly higher again. Prior to that, it was the 1986/87/88 El Niño that caused surface temperatures to shift upwards. If these naturally occurring upward shifts in surface temperatures are new to you, please see the illustrated essay “The Manmade Global Warming Challenge” (42mb) for an introduction.
MONTHLY SEA SURFACE TEMPERATURE UPDATE
The most recent sea surface temperature update can be found here. The satellite-enhanced sea surface temperature data (Reynolds OI.2) are presented in global, hemispheric and ocean-basin bases. We discussed the recent record-high global sea surface temperatures and the reasons for them in the post On The Recent Record-High Global Sea Surface Temperatures – The Wheres and Whys.
RSS seems pretty off.
NOAA-15?
Really? I think your global warming knitting has completely unravelled.
🙂
http://www.coyoteblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png
what is your point?
why is there a difference between UAH and RSS?
the same satellites / instruments except for NOAA-15. so why the difference?
Daniel,
Both RSS and UAH show 2014 nowhere close to as warm as 1998.
NASA GISS is ONLY 38% certain, based on their homogenized surface data, that 2014 was the hottest year.
By their same criteria, but using UAH and or RSS, they would be 97% certain that 2014 was NOT the hottest year.
“Both RSS and UAH show 2014 nowhere close to as warm as 1998. ”
what has this to do with my comment that RSS seems off?
Your charts show the recent rate of warming is about the same as in 1920, but in 1920 man’s annual CO2 emissions were only 932 MT (of carbon) while in 2010 man’s CO2 emission were 9167 MT – a 9800% increase with NO INCREASE in the rate of warming. This suggests that man’s CO2 has NO EFFECT on climate. Man’s CO2 emissions from: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2010.ems
“Your charts show the recent rate of warming is about the same as in 1920, but in 1920 man’s annual CO2 emissions were only 932 MT (of carbon) while in 2010 man’s CO2 emission were 9167 MT – a 9800% increase with NO INCREASE in the rate of warming. This suggests that man’s CO2 has NO EFFECT on climate.”
what causes the warming in 1920 and what is this forcing doing now?
We do not know.
What we do know is that that cause is not man’s release of CO2 into the atmosphere.
There is LOTS we do not know, like dark energy/matter, Big Bang, multiple universes. What sets climate apart is that many people (like Tamino/Grant Foster) think we do. We don’t! It’s a s if there is a collective refusal to admit that we don’t know. Enter the Precautionary Principle (which is useless).
We don’t know but, it’s definite CO2 now cause ALL climate change…
Just ask.
“We do not know.”
yeah.
but what do experts think caused it? and yes, CO2 forcing was not yet very strong back then.
and is also not regarded as the main cause of the early 20th century warming.
maybe the rise in solar activity has something to do with it?
“maybe the rise in solar activity has something to do with it?”
Only if they can tax it.
Didnt the experts say its in the deep ocean, you just cant see how it gets there.. hmm. well there are many so called experts with many excuses for the cessation of global warming while co2 continues to rise, but NONE are acceptable because NONE were applied to a working model when it was appropriate. trying to claim now “oh, hey guys, we knew all along that this next decade would not warm because..” is just crap.
the time frame given for this small group of scientists to come up with a working understanding of earths climate and its changes has concluded. any attempt to present working models now will have to compete with 25 years of absolute failure. the only reason why this game continues on is because it creates much gravy, at the expense of the tax payer of course.
This whole fiasco will set back mans understanding of climate dramatically. shelving knowledge, much like government picking winners with technology, only creates an environment where creative thinking and true understanding is frowned upon. true science and understanding requires failure and acknowledgement of that failure to move on to the next possible answer, yet in climate science, all we see is just the failure part… over and over. knowledge, shelved.
“Didnt the experts say its in the deep ocean, ”
the warming in 1920?????
“experts” who would tell us about the oceans in the 20s no doubt. would they also claim now that the current supposed warming is hiding in the deep ocean?
From: Tom Wigley
To: Phil Jones
Subject: 1940s
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
Cc: Ben Santer
It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”.
di2.nu/foia/1254108338.txt
Mike,
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise… Can you also email Gene [Wahl] and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar [Ammann] to do likewise.
Cheers, Phil
some experts in action
Paul…..not only are you writing the truth, it was also very humorous.
Jim, I think that’s 980% increase (not 9,800?).
The simple short answer is: The Sun and Natural Variation.
Exactly how this works is still be investigated, though many have some intriguing thoughts.
It most certainly is not CO2 to ANY measurable or appreciable amount of temperature increase.
My bad. It is 98%.
Thanks
JK
980%
@ jim karlock
April 15, 2015 at 4:10 am
Well said. The near-identical temperature run-ups from 1880-1950 and 1960-2010 have often been compared. The CO2 emissions during the latter period are roughly ten times that of the former period, yet they look almost the same. This suggests, like you say, that natural variation is quite large and the effect of CO2 may well be swamped by it.
By eyeballing the graphs above and measuring from trough to trough or from peak to peak, it seems like the so-called “warming trend” amounts to about 0.05 degrees C over a 50-year time span; or, roughly, one degree every thousand years. Even if this warming was anthropogenic, it is completely insignificant.
Being and Time
sounds like a super statistical approach you got there…..
“discrepancy between satellite and surface measurements”
a discrepancy is to be expected.
measuring 0-12,500 meters (was it not 10 000)
and 1.5 meters above ground will always give you different results.
Wow Daniel. Are you actually trying to have a big boy dicussion?
Why? Am i wrong with what i said?
CO2 is 400ppm in the atmosphere. 0.04%
That is 0.0004 of the atmosphere which is 1/2500 of the atmosphere.
O2 and N2 are about 99.96% of the atmosphere.
If the atmospheric temperature goes up 1 degree from increased CO2, then all that heat
must come from the CO2. Thus, the CO2 would have to increase 2500 degrees to provide the
required heat to raise the whole atmosphere 1 degree.
No?
Daniel’s right. In the theory, the surface is supposed to warm a lower rate rate than the lower troposphere. The lower troposphere is supposed to warm at a rate which is 1.3 times the surface.
Since the opposite is happening, then either:
– the theory/climate models are wrong about one of their most fundamental conclusions; or,
– the surface temperatures have been mucked around with / adjusted by about 0.3C above where they really are, (or the past cooled by about 0.3C from where it really was).
“Thus, the CO2 would have to increase 2500 degrees to provide the
required heat to raise the whole atmosphere 1 degree.”
i hope you are joking.
” surface”
what exactly do you mean with that? the so called Surface Air temperature? or the temperature of the surface itself?
the discrepancy between Satellite based datasetsa and landbased datasets has nothing to do with AGW, the discrepancy would be there no matter if AGW is happening or not.
I’m sure the consensus people will Soon tell this prediction never happened by skillfull and robust scientists and it is actually denialist misinformation.
‘The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) agreed standard for the height of the thermometers is between 1.25 m (4 ft 1 in) and 2 m (6 ft 7 in) above the ground’
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevenson_screen
Does measuring at 1.25m and 2.0m show differing results?
Daniel, apparently you have difficulty with CAGW facts as you had zero response to the post of Bill Illis. No worries, I will copy and paste it for you here…
============
“Daniel’s right. In the theory, the surface is supposed to warm a LOWER rate than the lower troposphere. The lower troposphere is supposed to warm at a rate which is 1.3 times the surface.
Since the OPPOSITE is happening, then either:
– the theory/climate models are WRONG about one of their most fundamental conclusions; or,
– the surface temperatures have been mucked around with / adjusted by about 0.3C above where they really are, (or the past cooled by about 0.3C from where it really was).”
=============================================================
My caps for emphasis.
“Does measuring at 1.25m and 2.0m show differing results?”
surely less than between 1.5m and 10 000 meters.
There is a typo in the last line of the Figure 6 explanation. “January 2014” should read “January 2015”.
To Bill Illis:
“Mucked around” maybe a good descriptor.
Once in a while I read again the 1938 article by Guy Callendar on his attempt to integrate CO2 with other major elements. He accepted some temperature stations, rejected others, telling why. Every time I read his article I get back on earth and asked myself what these average yearly global temperature values really mean. I always come up with ??? But then I am told this is the only thing we have!
Bob Tisdale excellent, simple and logical explanation.
I discovered where the “lost heat” from CO2 warming has gone!
The heat has been absorbed by the massively increasing Antarctica ice…
Usually we suck on ice cubes, but in this case, the ice cubes are sucking on heat.
“The heat has been absorbed by the massively increasing Antarctica ice”
you mean the massively decline in Ice mass on Antarctica?
Daniel (replying to jlurtz)
There has been no “massive decline” at all in Antarctic land ice. Three glaciers on the West Antarctic Peninsula have shortened their grounding length (Twaites and Pine Island most notably), but even the mountains on the Peninsula have seen increasing snow and ice depths. The East Antarctic ice sheet is gaining mass, and only a few glaciers over there are accelerating their movement. The GRACE data is not calibrated against measured land height rise OR compression, and its values are based on assumed Antarctic land ice loss, and thus resulting changes in land bedplate rise, and thus the self-correcting GRACE calculation that predicts land ice mass loss. The Antarctic Peninsula is only 3% of the total 14 Mkm^2 Antarctic land ice area, and has almost all of its visible (none-ice-covered) regions. So, 97% of the Antarctic land ice remains as-is, as-was, and in the next 500 year future, as-will-be.
you vs NASA and ESA…..
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/GOCE/GOCE_reveals_gravity_dip_from_ice_loss
And each has made errors before.
To argue GRACE data is accurate, please show the location and numbers and depth trends of the bedrock for each of the bore holes in Antarctic and Greenland.
Easy to claim, difficult to assess. Now I would not be surprised of an error, but I wouldn’t lightheartedly claim these results are in error. Antarctica might be loosing ice, but I would not easily believe it is serious thing. This ‘collapsing’ glacier thing is honey which draws bees of alarmism. Just tell me when to move to Antarctica to grow bananas or watch how Gore’s seaside house drowns.
Daniel, is it not fun to find out how people refuse to panic when they currently pay huge electricity bills to heat their house at the Arctic?
Aah data you don’t like must be in error…
Have you already published your findings in the scientific litersture to point out the expert’s errors?
Daniel,
Arctic ice is greater now than in 2006:
Antarctic ice has set a new record:
And global ice cover continues to rise:
http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/screenhunter_188-may-28-04-18.gif
You are being lied to. Whether you believe the lies or not is up to you.
Arctic ice is greater? Well that sounds like professional scientific assesment….
Sea ice increased. Land based ice is declining….. something the IPCC got wrong in earlier reports where they expected that Antarctica would gain ice mass but didnt.
“You are being lied to. Whether you believe the lies or not is up to you.”
yes i am being lied to by you.
nice cherry picked global sea ice etned graph,
[img]http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/GlobalSeaIce.gif[/img]
No, it’s not declining in the least. But thank you. Thank you very much
owenvs NASA and ESA
jlurtz
And, perhaps equally important, the “missing heat” had already been reflected from the earth’s thermodynamic system before it ever got absorbed anywhere in anything by the excess Antarctic sea ice always between latitudes 66 south and 58 south. (This excess Antarctic sea ice varying the past 4 years, but has been between 1/2 the size of Hudson Bay’s 1.2 Million sq kilometers (also at latitude 60) up to as much as the entire land area of Greenland (2.16 Million sq kilometers.)
I meant what I said. This was sarcasm!!!!!!
The level of trolling lately is making these threads rather tedious. : (
I agree.
Suggestion: ignore the trolls as much as possible.
I realize that is not easy when it means to leave the trolls’ incorrect statements without correction, so maybe the best idea would be to correct but not engage?
Agreed. Daniel is leaving on a plane …
Daniel Kuhn,
Your posting has been petulant in it’s failure to demonstrate any forward movement.
You now ask “what causes the warming in 1920 and what is this forcing doing now?”
That’s precisely the kind of thing that curious people, AKA skeptics, follow though with and end up being skeptics because the twists and angles of science used by the IPCC, NOAA and NASA etc to cook up the AGW notions don’t make sense.
You too can be curious enough to grow up and move forward like an adult.
“You too can be curious enough to grow up and move forward like an adult.”
Do you really believe that Steve, or are you just being polite?
I mean, your point somewhat is that if folks such as Daniel Kuhn would impose the same amount of investigative questioning toward the CAGW position as they seem to be able to do, they too would become skeptical. I couldn’t agree more on that.
But Daniel won’t [grow up and move fwd] because he is a dyed-in-the-wool CAGW Alarmist.
Amazing how much you people think to know about me….
Is this a psychic blog now?
Daniel sez:
Amazing how much you people think to know about me….
It may surprise you, but after several dozen of your comments we know how you think and where you’re coming from. You aren’t fooling anyone here, and it doesn’t take ESP to see through you.
” several dozen of your comments we know how you think and where you’re coming from. ”
LOL
@dbstealey…note the nervous laughter!
goldminor,
Yes, nervous laughter. The guy is a complete know-nothing who doesn’t have any credible facts, evidence, or answers.
The central fact is that the climate alarmist cult has been flat wrong about every prediction they ever made. They are a laughingstock because of that. All of their scaremongering amounts to a giant head fake: trying to convince people that there is a man-made problem, when scientific skeptics — the only honest kind of scientists — have proven all their claims to be completely wrong. There is no problem.
All that numpties like Daniel and j.p have are ad homeinem fallacies. They aren’t scientists, they are religious True Believers who couldn’t change their minds if a new Ice Age caused glaciers to cover Chicago a mile deep again.
All they do is clutter up the threads with their deluded anti-science. We want to discuss facts, while they only parrot the latest eco-nonsense. Sucks to be them, because they lost the debate a long time ago.
“Sucks to be them, because they lost the debate a long time ago.”
hilarious.
you lost the scientific debate, you are lost the public debate, you lost the political debate in most countries.
the US is your last hope.
so good luck. your candidates are already comedy gold. and are laughed at all over the world 🙂
but just keep telling yourself that all the others are the anti science guys…. and you are that tinly small group of very smart people that know it all better than the most respected scientific institutions and universities around the planet 🙂
Daniel was setting up a “we knew this all along” scenario. that is to say that the models try to take into account the ocean cycles and solar influences. of course they do, but they fail. they fail because co2 is given too much weight. far too much.
“solar influences”
how do models do that?
“You now ask “what causes the warming in 1920 and what is this forcing doing now?”
That’s precisely the kind of thing that curious people, AKA skeptics, follow though with and end up being skeptics because the twists and angles of science used by the IPCC, NOAA and NASA etc to cook up the AGW notions don’t make sense. ”
i ended up with reading what the people that actually research such a question in detail, have found out.
very [interesting].
and once you know that you have to laugh at the simplistic view of people that say stuff like, the early 20th century warming had a similar [trend] than the late 20th century warming, thus they must have the same cause……
*trend
Daniel, aerosols are pure fudge. if you look at the model forcings, this fudge anti-correlates with the models skill. the higher that fudge factor gets, the further from reality the model goes and loses it predictive power. a model that is true would need no such fudge, and it would have skill.
you just have to accept that the models fail. they fail on many levels. co2 is given way too much weight and the correction to this. ie aerosols only corrects the short term past present and future. these models fail so fast that they are not just wrong, they have got it completely wrong. they fail that fast because the fudge factor become more important as the base assumptions about co2 fail to come about.
the models failure to predict proves the lack of understanding in some very key areas. the fudge leaves a stain.
“you just have to accept that the models fail. ”
i let that be evaluated by experts, not some random blogger. but when you know so much about climate modeling, why don0t you publsih oyur findings in the scientific literature and show those climatemodelers why you think the models failed.
The modelers know their models fail, which is why they keep coming up with new, ever less plausible excuses for their miserable performance, & why they keep cooking the temperature books. The only fix that would make them better would be to reject the preposterous fantasy that the essential trace gas CO2 is the control knob on climate. That’s not an option however, since CACA is their rice bowl.
“The modelers know their models fail, which is why they keep coming up with new, ever less plausible excuses for their miserable performance, & why they keep cooking the temperature books. ”
lol, quite some accusations. you should bring your evidence to the police or something, or atleast try to convince the people with your evidence that they are cooking the books……
The evidence for book cooking is already in the books. Compare past temperatures with the revised, adjusted, folded, bent, spindled & mutilated temperatures now used by the chefs at GISS & HadCRU.
The police did try to investigate but UVA refused to hand over the evidence & the courts supported them. But the Steyn case may provide further evidence of the criminal conspiracy by “climate scientists” against humanity, as if any be needed after the Climategate emails.
“But the Steyn case may provide further evidence of the criminal conspiracy by “climate scientists” against humanity”
LOL, that is a good one.
So do we have the coverage and resolution available to actually survey the earth’s temp now?
If the models are so accurate and reality based, why the need for parameterisation (aka Forcings)?
Sometimes simple is the answer. Besides, it is likely that whatever caused the first rise in temps is also the driver for the second round of warming. If there is another cause then that would require first an understanding of what happened to cause the earlier warming, and then a robust explanation of why the second round is driven by some other driver.
Daniel says:
…you have to laugh at the simplistic view of people that say stuff like, the early 20th century warming had a similar [trend] than the late 20th century warming, thus they must have the same cause
Daniel Kuhn is a fool. The exact same step changes have occurred whether CO2 was a factor or not:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/hadley/Hadley-global-temps-1850-2010-web.jpg
Daniel, get lost. You’re a clueless numpty who has too much to learn to be commenting here. Your thread-bombing wastes everyones time. Go back to Hotwhopper where you belong.
“The exact same step changes have occurred whether CO2 was a factor or not:”
the same rate, so the same cause?
is that the same magic as correlation = causation?
“If the models are so accurate and reality based, why the need for parameterisation (aka Forcings)?”
LOL
are you sure you understand what you are talking about?
“Sometimes simple is the answer. Besides, it is likely that whatever caused the first rise in temps is also the driver for the second round of warming. If there is another cause then that would require first an understanding of what happened to cause the earlier warming, and then a robust explanation of why the second round is driven by some other driver.”
well what was the main cause of the early 20th century warming?
and what did this forcing do in the late 20th century?
The GISS 12 month average is 0.72C.
Hence, for the second month in a row, the GISS 12 month average is above 0.7C.
These are the highest two values in the 12 month average data set, and higher than the 2014 value of 0.68C.
I thought ‘month’ is weather. Even the second month.
Well, a 12 month average is a year not a month.
But, if longer is more “climatey”, then:
For Jan, Feb and Mar 2015:
The GISS 2 year month averages (24 month average) ending in each of those months are 0.64C, 0.65C and 0.66C: Feb and March are both higher than the previous max of 0.64C ending in Jul 07.
The GISS 3 year month averages (36 month average) ending in each of those months are 0.62C, 0.63C and 0.64C: March is higher than the previous max of 0.63C ending in Sept 07.
so, the anomaly is more than double that of the satellites and increasing.
which to believe? the homogenized crap that covers only a fraction of the earths surface, or the only tech that stays consistent across the whole swathe and far more accurate. the answer is obvious to the science. of course its the wrong answer for the politics.
Pippy sez:
The GISS 12 month average is 0.72C.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! GISS??
Stop it! You’re killing me!
dbs says: “HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! GISS??”
Oh, how could I forget your conspiracy hypothesis? All those bad people adjusting the temp record for their nefarious plot to enslave humans.
Well, let’s look at the UAH “temps”, which are calculated from microwave radiation and then, using an unpublished model, transformed into temperature values calibrated occasionally by a ballon or two.
For the three year averages, the value ending on March 2015 is the max value. The three record is the only average capable of averaging out the El Niño and La Niña peaks and troughs that the UAH is over sensitive to.
If this year turns out to be a sizable El Niño, I suspect the 1 and 2 year averages will go over the 2010 max values for the UAH. Maybe even the RSS, the outlier of the temp records, will do the same.
UAH lower troposphere is like to show less warming in the next version, higher channels will show more warming.
like = likely
“Guess they “adjust” the satellite record just like the terrestrial one.”
i doubt that Christy and Spencer would do that.
despite my disagreement with their position on AGW, when it comes to remote sensing, i think they do a good job. and i love the technology.
Satellite records are indeed adjusted, but realistically, rather than with malice aforethought to maintain a warming bias & to cool the past while warming the present.
That’s why RSS, though maintained by Warmists, albeit honest ones, shows global cooling.
Pippen Fool,
Keep wishing and hoping. But keep in mind that you’ve been wrong all along.
While you’re hoping that RSS starts going up and up, note that global temperatures are doing the exact opposite of everything predicted by the always-wrong alarmist cult.
You haven’t been right yet. So I don’t expect you to start now.
Well, ol’ dbs:
You (and that Lordy fellow) are now restricted to one temperature record to make your points, and on that one only if you cherry pick the starting point.
So it’s a double picked cherry.
I get to use the other 4 or 5, all of which presently show a high point.
And forget about the Radiosondes. \sarc
j.peter…dbs’ longer time period trumps your short trend. You may as well draw a line from December to June and say “See look at that”. So your cherries are sour as you did not allow for them to ripen over the long term.
So now we have the Three Stooges running around in circles, trying to fix the plumbing. Kuhn, j.peter and Pippen Fool can play with the Wood For Trees site until they find something that they *believe* supports their eco-religion. But anyone can do that.
The fact is that global warming has stopped, and not just a few years ago. Even the head of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, has admitted that global warming has stopped. The Three Stooges can go argue with the IPCC — scientific skeptics of man-made climate change already know global warming has stopped.
That fact throws the alarmist cult into fits of consternation. EVERY prediction they made in the 1990’s has been falsified. No exceptions. They were 100.0% WRONG. They have been wrong about everything: rising seas drowning Tuvalu, the ocean “acidification” nonsense, extreme weather events increasing, accelerating sea level rise, disappearing Arctic ice, etc. — and the granddaddy of all failed predictions: runaway global warming and climate catastrophe.
When one group of ignorant know-nothings has been so completely wrong about every prediction they ever made, reasonable and rational folks will disregard their wild-eyed Chicken Little scares. They are no longer credible. They blew it by being wrong about everything.
They have cried “WOLF!!” so many times that everyone is laughing at them now. We see it int the media: a few years ago there was still some concern over MMGW. But no more. Now, whenever there is an article about MMGW, 90%+ of the comments from the general public ridicule the notion. The public is laughing at the clowns who still believe in their debunked nonsense.
So the 3 Stooges can emit their anti-science here, but they are convincing no one. I challenge any of them to post the name of one skeptic they have convinced of their MMGW fantasy. Name one, chumps. You can’t. Your pathetic little circle-jerk is based on pseudo-science. You belong at a blog like hotwhopper, not here. You don’t have the basic knowledge to comment here, and everyone can see it.
” The Three Stooges can go argue with the IPCC”
no need, they already know that you are wrong.
“Despite the robust multi-decadal warming, there exists substantial
interannual to decadal variability in the rate of warming, with several
periods exhibiting weaker trends (including the warming hiatus since
1998) (Figure TS.1). The rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–
2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to +0.15] °C per decade) is smaller than the trend
since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12[0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade). Trends for
short periods are uncertain and very sensitive to the start and end
years. For example, trends for 15-year periods starting in 1995, 1996,
and 1997 are 0.13 [0.02 to 0.24] °C per decade, 0.14 [0.03 to 0.24]
°C per decade and 0.07 [–0.02 to 0.18] °C per decade, respectively.
Several independently analysed data records of global and regional
land surface air temperature obtained from station observations are
in broad agreement that land surface air temperatures have increased.
Sea surface temperatures (SSTs) have also increased. Intercomparisons
of new SST data records obtained by different measurement methods,
including satellite data, have resulted in better understanding of errors
and biases in the records. {2.4.1–2.4.3; Box 9.2}”
Daniel Kuhn
Cutting and pasting fabricated nonsense like that is completely unconvincing. Post all the invented numbers you want, but the fact remains that Planet Earth says you are flat WRONG.
We can believe your nonsense, or we can believe what the planet is telling us. But one thing is certain: you and the planet cannot both be right.
The alarmists’ religion requires that they believe global warming is due to human CO2 emissions. But there is no credible evidence to support that.
The planet has been warming naturally since the LIA, and that natural warming has remained within the same parameters, irregardless of CO2 levels:
The Three Stooges never post credible evidence to support their eco-religion. They just argue from emotion, because they believe. But skeptics need more. We need facts. That’s why the alarmist lemmings have lost the debate. The facts contradict their religious belief system.
“Cutting and pasting fabricated nonsense like that is completely unconvincing. ”
LOL
you said i should argue with the IPCC , when i show that this is not needed, that they already know that also during the Hiatus, the global average temperature increased.
the IPCC suddenly is not good anymore…..
you are hilarious.
“The planet has been warming naturally since the LIA,”
what caused the LIA?
Kuhn says:
…the Hiatus…
Well, we’re making some progress. The so-called “hiatus” (or “pause”) is just another way of saying that global warming has stopped.
Now that we are in agreement about that fact, it follows that the endless predictions of ever rising global warming (and ‘runaway’ global warming) were totally wrong.
And since that prediction is the basis of the entire ‘carbon’ scare, there isn’t much more to say. The alarmist crowd was simply wrong. They lost the debate. The only reason they keep arguing is because the debate has shifted from science to politics. Skeptics have decisively won the science debate — but I suspect Daniel Kuhn doesn’t understand basic science quite enough to see that.
“Well, we’re making some progress. The so-called “hiatus” (or “pause”) is just another way of saying that global warming has stopped.”
no. you refered me to the IPCC just a few posts ago, in AR5 it is pretty clearly defined what they mean with hiatus, and they explain how the temperatures increased during the hiatus….
Pippin, post me on a cooler than average month
Bob Tisdale, two recurring comments: (1) any time you show a graph with model output, the year of the model should be indicated by a bright red vertical line; this would allow people to clearly see what was hindcasting and what was projection; otherwise the models appear to be capable of accurate projections for all years; (2) all your graphs should include error margin lines – I suspect most of the numbers from the various sources would show overlap; to talk about differences of hundredths of degree in global temperature measurements is just silly.
The GISS chart for the last 3-4 yrs is is now tilting upwards. Is this due to the ever upwards “adjustments” and “homogenizations” that we keep seeing reported?
What I have come to think as a good proof for what you are implying is by noting how both of the satellite sets maintain the same profile in trends despite their other difference. In that respect it would not matter if there is some discrepancy with reality, as they are still showing what the real trend is.
goldminor is exactly right. Global T cannot be measured to within a tenth or a hundredth of a degree. But that doesn’t matter. The trend is what matters.
The rising warming trend ended in 1997. Since then it has been flat: eighteen years of no global warming. That deconstructs everything the alarmist crowd was predicting.
Now all they can do is hand-wave. But the rest of us know the truth: their claims have been debunked.
“The rising warming trend ended in 1997. Since then it has been flat: ”
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1997/plot/uah/from:1997/trend
lol
RSS and UAH are converging. The point remains: global warming stopped 18+ years ago. IPCC head R. Pachauri agrees. Argue with him if you don’t like it.
You miss the point that I am making. Despite the difference between the two temp sets, the profile of the peaks and valleys remains the same. They do show the exaggerated upswing which GISS shows. Or was this comment meant to be elsewhere?
@ dbstealey…I see who you were talking to now that I am on the page.
Amendment to previous comment. I mean to say that the RSS/UAH do “not” show the exaggerated upswing in global temps that GISS does.
Thanks, very good post. Is the slowing down the first indicator of a reversal to come?
On Jim Steeles’s page “Why Vanishing Ice Is Likely All Natural?”, he writes:
“Multiple lines of evidence correlate higher solar activity during the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods, with an increased flow of warm Atlantic water into the Arctic, resulting in reduced sea ice. Conversely, during low solar activity during the Little Ice Age, transport of warm water was reduced by 10% and Arctic sea ice increased. Although it is not a situation I would ever hope for, if history repeats itself, then natural climate dynamics of the past suggest, the current drop in the Sun’s output will produce a similar cooler climate, and it will likely be detected first as a slow down in the poleward transport of ocean heat. Should we prepare for this possibility?”
“With the recent decline in solar flux and the shift to cool phases of ocean oscillations, natural climate change suggests that although glacier retreat and sea level rise will likely continue over the next few decades, the rates of sea level rise and glacier retreats will slow down.The next decade will provide the natural experiment to test the validity of competing hypotheses. Are changes in the earth’s ice driven by natural or CO2 driven climate change. I am betting on natural climate change.”
See http://www.landscapesandcycles.net/shrinkingice.html (Landscapes and Cycles).
that’s weird. did the font just change or is it my computer?
[Reply: Anything weird is on your end. ~mod.]
It’s not a key issue, and don’t call me Sherly
Thanks again BOB. I always look forward to your updates.
Does the UAH data have a warming bias in recent years or does the RSS data have cooling bias?
Ll I can say is that:
1.) RSS is more on the activist side and UAH is on the lukewarmer side,
2.) Reporting in spite of one’s bias is less likely than we would like.
This correlates with the hypothesis that whoever owns it is, it is an honest bias.
I prefer that sort of bias to the other kind.
If Daniel ever reads the last IPCC report, he’ll see that they have admitted the uselessness of their models. Brett
“hey have admitted the uselessness of their models. Brett”
oh really? must have missed that, can you tell me where exactly that is?
‘The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.’
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/501.htm
And therefore models are useless longterm.
“climate states”
what exactly does that mean?
Ask the IPCC it’s their text. But I suspect it would take on its normal meaning of being either hotter or colder, more dry or less dry.
What do YOU think a climate state is?
why do you go around quoting a phrase you do not understand the meaning of?
And I thought with your wonderful superiority you would enlighten me. How disappointing.
Kuhn says:
what exactly does that mean?
And then he asks:
why do you go around quoting a phrase you do not understand the meaning of?
From Kuhn’s first question it is obvious that he doesn’t understand. If he really wants an answer, he needs to go ask the IPCC to explain. But the rest of us understand the meaning of a climate state. The rest of us understand that the IPCC is a political organization with marching orders to show that all climate change is caused by human activity. The rest of us understand that climate models are about as accurate as weather predictions a year or two out. The rest of us understand that there is nothing either unusual or unprecedented happening. The rest of us understand that the IPCC is a political body, not a scientific body.
Only Daniel Kuhn seems to believe everything the IPCC says. And why shouldn’t he? Belief takes the place of thinking.
“But the rest of us understand the meaning of a climate state.”
pls, explain then
I had a look at some of the temperature anomaly datasets myself (NCDC/NOAA , GISS LOTI and HadCrut4). Since I have no reason to believe any one of these estimates is more likely to be more accurate than the others, I averaged them together over the period Jan. 1880 to Feb. 2015 as Bob did above for the period Jan 1979 to Mar 2015.
To do a quick analysis, I ran a linear regression on the averaged monthly anomalies. Next, I ran Ramsey RESET tests for nonlinearity (not all trends are linear!), which confirmed that temperatures have not been rising in a linear fashion. Comparing F-test scores for a few different specifications (I didn’t look exhaustively, but all the curves look pretty similar), I arrived at a best-fit shown in this chart: http://i.imgur.com/kEc1dJv.png
I found that looking at each of the datasets individually and subjecting them to the same treatment yields more or less the same fitted curve, where the difference between them is measured in hundredths of a degree.