UAH, MSU, TLT, and other Acronyms

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

The satellite-based atmospheric temperature dataset is one of the better datasets in climate science. Drs. Roy Spencer and John Christy have long been scientific heroes of mine because of the quality of their work in the creation, analysis, corrections, and curation of the dataset.  It is kept at the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH), and it is based on measurements taken by a series of satellite-based instruments called “microwave sounding units” (MSU). One part of it has to do with the temperature of the lower troposphere, called “TLT”.

So of course, it is called the UAH MSU TLT dataset

I noticed that the new 6.0 beta version of the UAH MSU dataset was now available, to replace the current version 5.6 of the dataset. And of course, after doing my own analysis below, I found out that Dr. Roy has been there already with a most excellent and detailed discussion of the new dataset here.

To get the UAH MSU data, I went to the marvelous KNMI climate data access portal. One of the less obvious beauties of the KNMI portal is that after you’ve chosen whatever dataset you are interested in (e.g. the UAH MSU v5.6), on the very bottom of the page that comes up it says:

If you really want to get it here, UAH MSU v5.6 Tlt anomaly is available as a netcdf file (size 17.2871 MB).

For me that’s great, I’m quite fond of netcdf files because they contain all of the metadata (e.g. dimensions, units, starting times, coverage) and they store the data typically as a three-D array (rows are latitude, columns are longitude, layers are months or years or days). But unfortunately, near as I can tell the UAH doesn’t offer a gridded dataset as a netcdf file … but that doesn’t matter when KNMI does it.

So at KNMI I snagged both the older version 5.6 of the UAH MSU dataset for the temperature of the lower troposphere (TLT), the layer down near the ground, and the newer UAH MSU 6.0 beta 2 TLT version as well (also about 17 MBytes or so).

In order to highlight the differences between the two UAH MSU datasets, I made a map of the decadal temperature trends on a gridcell by gridcell basis. Figures 1 and 2 show the versions 5.6 and 6.0 beta2 of the UAH MSU data:

decadal temp trends uah msu tlt v5.6Figure 1. Decadal temperature trends, January 1979 to May 2015 (36+ years). Version 5.6 of the UAH MSU TLT is shown.

decadal temp trends uah msu tlt v6Figure 2. Decadal temperature trends, January 1979 to May 2015 (36+ years). Version 6.0 beta 2 of the UAH MSU.

decadal temp trends uah msu tlt v6 flat

Figure 2a. Several commenters asked for a graph showing the 6.0 beta 2 information using the same color range as was used in Figure 1. This is that graph.

It was most interesting to see both the commonalities and the differences of the two datasets. One of the first things that I noticed in both maps was that despite warming in most areas of the planet over the 36 years, there are large areas of the Pacific, the Southern Ocean, the North Atlantic, and Antarctica that have actually cooled over the period. If ever there were a graph to emphasize the complexity of the climate, Figure 2 is a candidate.

Next, if I had to choose between the two versions based solely on what I see above, it would be version 6.0  all the way. To explain why, look at say India in both maps. It is well understood and verified that when there is a change in conditions the land generally warms or cools both faster and more than the ocean. We see this on a daily, monthly, and annual basis.

As a result, it is unlikely that India would warm or cool at the same rate as the ocean around it, as is shown by v5.6. In the v6.0 results, on the other hand, India is shown as warming at a different rate than the ocean. The same can be seen in western Australia, central Africa, and all over South America.

(In passing, let me note that the above graphs were made from the UAH MSU data. This data comes from KNMI at a 5° by 5° gridcell size. I resampled them to a 1° x 1° gridcell size, using the R function “resample” in the package “raster”. I was concerned about the accuracy of such a radical change in resolution … but when I look at say Australia, I gotta say that their “bilinear interpolation” method handled the resampling much better than I expected. The colors line up very well with the black lines everywhere on the map … and the colors are from the resample while the black lines are from the mapping program.)

There are a couple other differences between the two datasets. The overall global decadal trend has decreased by ~ three hundreds of a degree per decade. Also, the range of the trends has decreased by about 60%, from a range of 1.3°C (-0.5 to +0.8 degrees) per decade in the earlier version to a range of 0.8°C (-0.3 to +0.5 degrees) per decade in the later version.

Finally, I note that much of the central tropical Pacific has either cooled or stayed about the same for 36 years. Here’s how I read that situation. I’ve described elsewhere how the Nino/Nina pumping action is a major part of the global temperature regulation system. When the Pacific starts overheating we get an El Nino, and warm water piles up in the eastern Pacific as shown in the left half of Figure 3. Then during the subsequent La Nina, increasing trade winds pump the warm surface waters westward across the Pacific and from there they flow polewards.

nino nina tao triton temp and dynamic heightFigure 3. 3D section of the Pacific Ocean looking westward alone the equator. Each 3D section covers the area eight degrees north and south of the equator, from 137° East (far end) to 95° West (near end), and down to 500 metres depth. Click on image for larger size. SOURCE http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/tao/jsdisplay/

Notice in the right half of Figure 3 how the strong La Nina trade winds have hollowed out the surface by pumping away the warm surface water. In addition to moving the warmth polewards where it can radiate away more easily, there is another important effect of the Nino/Nina Pump—it exposes the cool underlying waters to the atmosphere.

Now, bear in mind that for all practical purposes there is an unending reservoir of cold water underlying the tropical Pacific. As I discussed in the post Things in General, the simplified circulation of the Pacific looks like this:

pacific thermosyphon 2Figure 4. Simplified overall circulation pattern, Pacific Ocean. The north and south poles are at the right and left ends of the diagram, and the equator is in the middle.

Because the cold bottom water is constantly being replaced from the poles, and because the overturning time is half a millennium or more, the supply of ascending cool water in the tropical mid-Pacific can be thought of as infinite.

So IF we assume for the sake of discussion that the Nino/Nina pump is a part of the temperature regulatory system, then let’s look at what might happen during the time of a general temperature rise. Due to the need to move increasing amounts of energy polewards, I’d expect to see increased Nino/Nina pumping, with a consequent greater exposure of the cool underlying Pacific waters.

So I can certainly see how the central tropical Pacific might be cooling or staying about the same while the rest of the world is warming, as shown in Figure 2. As long as the wind is removing the warm water from that part of the ocean surface, the amount of upwelling cool water will determine the surface temperature.

And what is the explanation for the other area of cooling shown in Figure 2, in the Southern Ocean and Antarctica?

How do you say in your language, “I don’t have no stinkin’ clue”?

Regards to everyone, thanks again to Drs. Christy and Spencer,

w.

The Perennial Request: If you disagree with someone, please quote their exact words that you object to, so that we can all understand the exact nature of your disagreement.

Data and Code: It’s in a 14 Mbyte zipped folder here. It contains R code, the functions, and the two MSU datasets (5.6 and 6.0).

Advertisements

200 thoughts on “UAH, MSU, TLT, and other Acronyms

  1. Might be helpful to have the same color scales on the comparison figures 1 and 2. Thanks

    • See above: Also, the range of the trends has decreased by about 60%, from a range of 1.3°C (-0.5 to +0.8 degrees) per decade in the earlier version to a range of 0.8°C (-0.3 to +0.5 degrees) per decade in the later version.
      The range changed, so the scale was changed.

  2. An interesting analysis, though the fact that historical satellite datasets keep being changed suggests to me that the UAH guys don’t really know what the figures are, at least not with any certainty. I can understand that surface data needs to be ‘adjusted’ for environmental effects on weather stations, by why should adjustments (of an uncertain extent) have to be performed on the output of a satellite instrument?
    Or more importantly, if the magnitude of the adjustments needed is uncertain, then can the error range be predicted with any confidence?

    • Roy Spencer explains some of the reasons for adjusting satellite data here (which is the same link as given in Willis’s article)
      http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/version-6-0-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-released-new-lt-trend-0-11-cdecade/
      extract:
      “One might ask, Why do the satellite data have to be adjusted at all? If we had satellite instruments that (1) had rock-stable calibration, (2) lasted for many decades without any channel failures, and (3) were carried on satellites whose orbits did not change over time, then the satellite data could be processed without adjustment.”
      He also has another relevant post
      Why Do Different Satellite Datasets Produce Different Global Temperature Trends?
      http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/01/why-do-different-satellite-datasets-produce-different-global-temperature-trends/
      But, I agree with you, the error estimate on any dataset , surface based or satellite, must be at least as large as the difference made by revisions and adjustments.

    • The adjustments made to the satellite data have been minor and significant only because they arise from the desire of competent scientists to be precise. The adjustments to the surface data, by contrast, are gargantuan and arise from the desire of corrupt “scientists in name only” to support a lucrative political agenda. This constantly manipulated surface data has become useless for any serious purpose.

    • Not true that historical satellite data sets keep being changed. The RSS data set has had very little change and the UAH data set is now almost identical to the RSS data set. This is what should give one pause, when one data set is adjusted (UAH) and ends up being almost identical to the only other data set (RSS). It’s like doing you school homework and looking at the answers in the back of the book.

      • One apparent change is that the new TLT dataset is weighted at a higher altitude than the old.
        While the old version weighting was max around 6000 ft, where the Cessnas and Pipers fly, the new one has raised it to around 12,000 ft, above where unpressurized aircraft fly, and farther away from the surface temperature readings.
        TLT isn’t directly comparable to GISS and HadCRUT, but it sure serves as a reality check to their fiddlin’ around.

      • Mike McMillan: I have worked on the ground, and flown my Maule at 12,000 feet. I believe the requirement for supplemental oxygen for the pilot, only kicks in, when you are at altitude, beyond a certain amount of time. The service ceiling on my Maule is 18,000 feet MSL.

      • CLARIFICATION TO MR. McMILLAN: Upon further reflection, I believe the FAR states, that at either 12,000 or 12,500 the pilot is required to use supplemental oxygen after 30 minutes at altitude and above, and oxygen for the passengers is required at 14,500? and above. My Maule is not pressurized, and it is normally aspirated. Unfortunately, I haven’t been able to fly it for years, so I may be a little rusty on the FAR’s.

      • Correct Scott, the UAH has had multiple adjustments, in fact the existence of the RSS product is due to researchers finding errors in the UAH product and the unwillingness of S & C to make changes. One of their largest early corrections was in fact wrongly applied (subtracted instead of added and wasn’t corrected for ~10 years).
        Much has been made of the ‘fact’ that UAH 6.0 now matched RSS TLT, in fact it does not. Although UAH now uses a much smaller contribution from surface temperature in their new product (similar to that which RSS have always used), its weighting function now most closely matches the RSS product TTT. UAH will in future have no TLT product if they adopt the present beta version of version 6.0. Sorry Willis for adding even more acronyms to your list.

      • How do people hike at 14K feet in the Rockies if people with no more exertion than sitting need O2?

  3. El Niño appears to be closely linked to solar activity. Otherwise the PDO and AMO that result from ocean circulation.

    • Yes ren, my look at periods of continuous -ve monthly SOI associated with “El Ninos” shows that it is close to 11 years which is turn is close to the sunspot cycle and also to the orbit period of Jupiter (note the moon causes tides on earth, so it is possible Jupiter and other aligned planets can cause “tides” on the sun). Of course the AGW alarmist will not agree that the sun has any influence. They believe in a religion which characterises “man” are having a large evil influence.

  4. How do you say in your language, “I don’t have no stinkin’ clue”?
    At least I can answer that one. “Ik zou het begot niet weten” (Flemish, for those who might wonder).
    Interesting theory, but don’t have the competence to give useful comments, so looking forward to reading what the experts have to say .

    • Willis in Oz at least it’s : “I don’t have a friggin clue” But you probably knew that it avoids the other f word.

  5. The sea bordering the Antarctic Peninsula seems to show cooling. How does that jive with the claim that the ice on the Peninsula is melting alarmingly?
    Or is the melting coming from below (Circumpolar Deep Current) and is the cooling of the surface water caused by an increase of meltwater?

  6. A clue?
    The Antarctic circumpolar wind velocity increase with the extra heat input.(tornado effect around a two km high pile of ice?). The Arctic is at sea level, so it simply warms?

  7. Figures 1& 2 are good presentation. But here including localized factors like El Nino or La Nina [southern oscillation or PDO] is irrelevant. We appreciate if you could present the trend [year to year] in different latitude belts and then southern and northern hemisheres and finally global picture. This is important in light of the controversies on global temperature rise and global warming component with ground based data with around 80% extra-polated or inter-polated and even in the remaining data sets there are several problems like unit of measurement change, equipment change, measurement site change, topographical conditions change, etc, etc.
    Finally, why the two versions present different patterns?
    Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

    • India — you tried to say version 6.0 is better than version 5.6 but it is not so basically because, India varies between dry desert to humid rain forests; on three sides seas [Arabian sea on the west, bay of bengal on the east and indian ocean on the south. On the north Himalayan mountains and south to north western ghats — these control rains. With the population growth, built reservoirs and increased the area under irrigated agriculture — changed from in 1960-61, irrigated area was 24.66 million hectares and in 1999-00 it was 48.02 million hectares — and at the same time destruction of forests and increased urban areas, mining, roads, etc. So, the map should reflect these variations and not come under uniform one colour regime.
      Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

    • Using bilinear interpolation, the resolution of the data does not change, you just get more data-points.

  8. what a great site wuwt is running here. i think it would be even better if they could invite climate scientists from the other side of the divide to also contribute – in plain language (as in this article).

    • They have been invited, many times. They refuse to engage, as such engagement would legitimize the “skeptics”. Clearly, the other side is hiding, and it profits them to do so($$$$).

    • i think a lot don’t even dare to debate here it would be nice to have both sides here with a theory and a “debunk theory” but from what i see in the links at the right side WUWT is one of the very few “sceptical” or lukewarming sites that does link to pro AGW sites and “other then their view”- sites.
      i certainly didn’t find a pro AGW site that does this.
      it just keeps me revisiting here

      • Sorry, it would be a waste of time. The majority of AGW believers do not understand the basics, of thermodynamics and heat&mas transfer. On another blog Gavin Schmidt admitted that he did not know about the Schmidt number. If one of the so-called gurus of climate does not understand the basics think about the incompetence of the rest.

    • In the past we have contributed. But it is hard to get any where when the premise of everyone writing here and reading here is that
      1. We are guilty of fraud.
      2. We are somehow in it for the gold.
      I mean seriously, if the writers and readers of this blog would categorically state that they
      1. Don’t believe we are guilty of fraud
      2. Are not doing science just to enrich ourselves ( crap I worked for free for 3 years)
      Then we might show up to have extended conversations. Until that happens, folks like me may drive by and have some fun. otherwise, there is no point in talking to folks who think the science is settled.
      1. Folks who think the science is settled and that satellites are the gold standard, for example.
      2. Folks who think the science is settled and its the sun stupid
      3. Floks who think the science is settled and c02 has no effect
      you know the settled science according to skeptics.

      • I would sign a list or whatever saying I don’t think BEST is guilty of fraud when it comes to how they handle their data. I can’t categorically state I don’t believe BEST is guilty of fraud at all though. In fact, I’d argue under some definitions of “fraud,” BEST is clearly guilty. I explained why I feel that way here.
        Basically, when your group goes around telling everybody you’ve released data it hasn’t released, it deserves criticism. When your group then willfully refuses to correct that falsity when its brought to its attention, there’s an argument for fraud. That’s especially true if the same group has papered over previous mistakes rather than disclose them.
        I might not say BEST is guilty of scientific fraud, but I’m hard pressed to see why a person would be wrong in saying BEST has committed plain old fashioned fraud.

      • Translation:
        Folk who think the science is settled and its not the sun stupid see no point in talking to sceptics.

      • Ok Mosh,
        1. I do not think you, or most people involved in climate science are guilty of fraud. There are some notable exceptions, but discussing climate science in terms of ‘fraud’ is a waste of time and unhelpful.
        2. I do not think most scientists are motivated by money (“gold”). I think they are motivated by other riches, such as career advancement, reputation, and common human weaknesses such as social acceptance.
        I think hubris is the main problem. And I also think that many of the problems in climate science as a social enterprise (a bunch of people trying to figure things out) are common in other disciplines as well. I agree – calling it a big hoax or fraud is inaccurate and unhelpful. It is a social movement with the hallmarks of religion (at times).
        1b. I don’t think the science is settled and I know there are problems with all the data sets – satellites included. Of them, I think the satellites are probably the best of them. I have not heard an argument to persuade me otherwise, but I’d listen to it.
        2b. I don’t think the science is settled and I think solar indirect effects are likely to throw up some surprises. I certainly don’t think they have been adequately ruled out, and until they are, strong confidence in the traditional orthodox view of CO2 as climate ‘control knob’ is unjustified.
        3b. I can only speak personally, but I don’t see many skeptics – even the more shrill and politically motivated – actually say that CO2 has “no effect”. Skeptics views range from it being significant but unalarming, down to “trivial” (and therefore unalarming).
        I put it to you, if someone that was alarmed about manmade climate change were to denigrate anyone skepitcal of it because they didn’t “believe” in greenhouse gases or that CO2 was a greenhouse gas, would you let such a mischaracterisation stand?
        There are plenty of people on this blog who hold informed, balanced and reasonable views, even if there are plenty who say any old thing. In my view you would be better served responding to individual arguments rather than a preconception of what a particular “team” thinks, which is what you have done here.

      • Mosher,
        Put this shoe on the other foot. How many of consensus sites:
        1. label everyone not in lockstep a “denier”
        2. disappear reasonable comments
        3. accuse skeptics of being in the pay of big oil
        Seriously, you want it both ways. Pull the log out of your own eye if you’re complaining about the log in the skeptic eye (which there certainly is in some cases). Do unto others, brother… then we might have more Watts/McKibben moments and actually detoxify the conversation.
        So, categorically, I don’t think there’s widespread fraud on either side. There IS political motivation on the warmer side and economic reaction/motivation on the skeptic side, but neither of these is science.

      • Mosher, I believe the request was for a scientist, not an English Major. Much less one so often confused with mathematics, or so prone to pontifications and exaggerations of his accomplishments, and degrees etc. Your use of red herrings and strawmen aside, very few agree with any points you outline. You just bring them up to make yourself feel better. I for one would enjoy most climate sites more with people like Schmidt, Spencer, Tol, Lindzen, even Hansen commenting, and less Moshers and Cookes.

      • Steven – All I ever heard from AGW is that the science is settled. CO2 is the driver of man made global warming, we must reduce CO2 levels at all cost. 97% of world scientist agree. So forgive me if I have the hypothesis wrong in my post lower in the thread. I have quoted your response.
        [quote]“The AGW hypothesis is CO2 drives temperature. Increasing CO2 levels will result in increased temperatures”
        wrong.
        The AGW hypothesis is this:
        temperature is a function of FORCINGS
        there are two kinds of forcings: Internal and external.
        1. Internal forcings, natural cycles, sum to zero over time because you cannot create excess energy out of nothing. Every natural UP will be balanced by a natural down. there is no net gain.
        2. External forcings Include the following
        a) Solar
        b) Aerosol
        c) GHGs
        c1. H20
        c2. C02
        c3. Ch4
        c4.. black carbon
        and a few more
        temperature is a function of all this, Not just c02.
        the hypothesis is this: IF you hold everything else constant and increase c02 then the temperature will increase.
        problem: you cant do this experiment. take a given period of time: IF c02 goes up, But other forcings go down then you cant evaluate the hypothesis. If c02 goes up and internal forcing goes down, you cant evaluate the hypothesis. The only way to evaluate the hypothesis is
        1. Run a model where you hold everything else constant
        2. Wait for enough data to accumulate so you can rule out other explanations ( like wait over a period of a few natural cycles ). [/quote]
        I appreciate your response and from it I take it that the science is not settled, which is what I have always believed.
        It would be nice to hear other scientist from government agencies echo your statement above. Perhaps then we could have a reasonable discussion. The economic policies that industrial nations are being asked to commit via the IPCC have very real negative effects. To take such action when the science is not settled is premature and will have a devastating impact on the world economy.

      • Mosher has contributed very little to anything ever outside of publishing a book of received e-mails.
        “The premise of everyone writing here and reading here is that
        1. We are guilty of fraud
        2. We are somehow in it for the gold”
        It heartens us to know the venerable english guy Mosher has read every single post here and knows every single person’s point of view. Perhaps he should revisit English and realize using absolutes in such arguments portray him as the fool. Especially since a large number of people here do not agree with either of point one or two, though may agree with parts in a different way. Mosher is good at throwing up strawmen so he can easily tear em down.
        “I mean seriously, if the writers and readers of this blog would categorically state that they
        1. Don’t believe we are guilty of fraud
        2. Are not doing science just to enrich ourselves ( crap I worked for free for 3 years)”
        Moot point as I doubt many of the informed readers here want conversation with you. As I said earlier, everyone does not believe these things, and you insert the beliefs and raise the strawmen up yourself.
        “1. Folks who think the science is settled and that satellites are the gold standard, for example.
        2. Folks who think the science is settled and its the sun stupid
        3. Floks who think the science is settled and c02 has no effect”
        1. I know of virtually no skeptics who think the science is settled, that is more the alarmist position with the caveat of ecs estimates needing to be adjusted. There are many skeptics and non-skeptics who do believe the satellites are perhaps the best record of temperatures, due to many factors, but I don’t know of hardly any who believe they are perfect, or need no adjustment.
        2.) Many people believe the sun is the main driver of climate, but that does not mean it is settled or they believe that. Many of such persons believe the sun controls the climate more than most other forcings and factors. This is once again just ridiculousness by Mosher. Most skeptics are very firm on it not being settled, and forcings not being taken into account enough, the sun, volcanic activity, albedo, PMO, AMO, etc etc. Although, its not like I expect Mosher to be honest in much of anything.
        3.) EXTREMELY few people believe CO2 has no effect, (and no floks). Most of them are over at principia scientifica, and even then it is not correct to say they believe CO2 has no effect, they debate the existence of the GHE in general. Which can mean they believe it has no effect, but it is a non-sequitur to assume so.
        “you know the settled science according to skeptics.”
        Another Mosherman or strawman, I’ve yet to find a skeptic that thinks the science is settled. People want more people posting from other perspectives, great, I’d enjoy it. Just be great if one of those wasn’t Mosher.

    • Everyone seems to be welcomed here as long as they aren’t guilty of unsportmanshiplike conduct. I can’t say the same for those “other” sites…where Al Gore gets praised for his movie but I get edited or blocked for posting inconvenient data… like forecast v observed.

    • A Trenberth or Schmidt commenting here would probably cost them their yob. The Climate Gestapo does not take kindly to to dissent (or even a small appearance of partiality) within their ranks.

  9. Hello Willis,
    In order to properly compare, could you put the two maps with colors meaning exactly the same thing? I see in the first map, yellow means +0.3 and orange +0.5, but in the second, yellow is +0.2 and orange +0.3. This makes the comparison more difficult.

    • Willis will answer, but perhaps he shows V6.0 that way to accentuate the sea-land differences, which would not be as apparent with the coarser temp increments of the V5.6 figure.

      • Thanks, I understand why it was done this way, I just think that showing the other way could allow a better comparison.

  10. I think we could surmise here that in fact the deniers were correct all along and that the lukewarmers are edging their bets LOL (especially if any cooling at all occurs within the next 2-4 years. LOL

    • hardly.. personally my estimate of sensitivity doesnt change even if the pause goes out 25 years.
      with TSI headed down for 5 or 6 years.. real skeptics would predict cooling

      • Mosher writes “real skeptics would predict cooling”
        Ouch. Real skeptics dont believe that just because the AGW theory resulting in a high sensitivity is shaky means that it must be 180 degrees out.

      • Once again it’s your Mosher strawmen heading rampant out here. Nic Lewis does a good job with ECS estimates from a skeptical point of view. Mosher does ok at publishing e-mails.

  11. How high is the ‘Lower Troposhere’? The discussion here treats the data as surface data. Is that sensible? I’m confused.

  12. A nice retainable lesson on what the satellite data set is all about. Thanks. One thing: I used to remark on concerning the TLT v5.6, is how it shows the low degree of change in the tropics. Having been in Lagos, Nigeria in 1965-67 (went by sea) and in 1998 and seen essentially the same temperatures there as today, I would have expected there to be less change than that shown by v6. I see that offshore this is the case and I realize that the interior of country (and the continent) being land masses are different but I would have expected the tropical southerly strip of this region to show less (if any) warming, ditto equatorial south America looks a little too bright.
    In terms of global warming, the depiction from both makes a big statement: the warming is taking place in cold places, and where most people live, there is no support for all the daily harangue about what we and non human life will suffer with CAGW. Probably sea level rise measurement would be a sufficient metric to warn us of trouble. It doesn’t seem that thermometers are scaring us much.
    Once again, a very clear readable article.

    • Nobody lives at the altitude of TLT
      [and that’s exactly the pint! no possibility of human influence on the atmospheric temperature -Anthony]

      • No possible influence?
        is that settled science?
        How do you prove that? go ahead.
        while you try to prove that I will say:
        You can remove all urban sites and still get the same trend
        you can look at MAT ( marine air temp ) and STILL get the same trend
        You can look at reanalysis based on pressure data ALONE ( no temperature) and STILL get the same trend.
        UHI is not settled science.
        [Mosher will fall hard on this one soon -Anthony]

      • But they do live in Lagos, Nigeria and that was my point – the satellite data put Nigeria into too warm a trend. Now that Willis has changed v6 to have the same legend values, I see a ‘greening’ of Nigeria (and equatorial South America that I mentioned) that I now agree is what it should be. It also gives me some confidence in my own personal semiquantitative observations over a long time period.

      • Mosher says: “You can remove all urban sites and still get the same trend.”
        Inasmuch as urban sites include many megacities whose UHI exceeds 1.5K/century–a trend virtually unseen in century-long non-urban records–his claim is patently ridiculous.

    • Latitude: The temperature trends start in 1979 because that’s when the first satellites were launched. Wilis is only talking about satellite data.

      • Greymouser,
        Latitude wants trends from when there is no data. Well, so do I. But I accept that it is impossible, so see no reason to complain about the lack of satellite data and trends starting in 1500 A.D. YMMV….

  13. Dr. Roy Spencer announced the UAH TLT dataset in http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/version-6-0-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-released-new-lt-trend-0-11-cdecade/#comments
    Notably there, in Figure 7, he shows among other things a plot of warming rate with altitude according to radiosonde datasets. The surface-adjacent troposphere is shown to have warmed since 1/1/1979 about .02-.03 degree/decade faster than the main part of the lower troposphere.

  14. Willis Eschenbach says: “The satellite-based atmospheric temperature dataset is one of the better datasets in climate science.”
    ..
    Carl Mears says: ” A similar, but stronger case can be made using surface temperature datasets, which I consider to be more reliable than satellite datasets ” Reference: http://www.remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-global-temperatures
    ..
    Mears is the chief scientists and vice president of RSS which provides satellite data just like UAH.
    ..
    Why does the person most responsible for the RSS data think surface temperature datasets are more reliable than his own product?

      • Thanks for the picture of the pause, JDJ. Did you think it started in 1979?
        Mears article is remarkably muddled rationalizations, stirred with a stick held by a man who’ll use ‘denialist’ with aplomb. Subducted heat in the ocean, my oh my.
        =====================

      • Kim, you “see” a pause by only looking at a subset of the entire RSS dataset. You’ll learn in Satistics 101 that the larger your sample size, the more accurate your estimator is. When you look at the entire RSS dataset, the trend is obvious. When you ignore a big chunk of the data, you see what you want to see.

      • “What pause?” The trend line one would calculate using this data from 1998 to present, as opposed a single trend on the full data from 1979.

      • “you “see” a pause by only looking at a subset of the entire RSS dataset” That’s great, Joel. Using your logic, the stock market didn’t experience a massive decline in 2008/2009, and no one lost any value.

      • Heh, that shows rebound off the coldest depths of the Holocene. Now would you rather that rebound be natural or just because of man. Choose carefully, my friend.
        And please, JDJ, no one claims the pause started in 1979. You have a peculiar justification for refusing to see the pause in your own graph.
        =============

      • JDJ – The claim by AGW supporters is that the world is warming at an alarming rate do to man burning fossil fuels and increasing CO2 levels. If we don’t do something drastic the world will face certain doom. However despite man not taking the action that the IPCC indicated was required to stop this certain global disaster, CO2 levels have continued to rise.
        The AGW hypothesis is CO2 drives temperature. Increasing CO2 levels will result in increased temperatures.
        Real world observation – Over the last 20 years CO2 levels have increased from 360 ppm to 400 ppm yet RSS temperature data shows a very very slight increase in temperature. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1995/plot/rss/from:1995/trend
        Last time I checked if the data don’t back up the hypothesis then there might be something else going on here.

      • Paul Gaertner, the stock market and global climate are two different things. Apples and oranges. Physics is behind the climate, psychology is behind the stock market. One is an exact science, the other is not so exact.

      • Kim: “Heh, that shows rebound off the coldest depths”
        ..
        It does?….gee, I thought it showed the MPG of a Toyota versus feet above sea level. Let me guess, it’s ice core data from one geographical location?

      • The pause is less than 20 years so JDJ expects us to look longer than 20 years. No wonder he can’t see the pause, but I wonder at his ability to wonder.
        ====================

      • Kim: ” do you doubt a declining trend through the Holocene?”

        I don’t think you can tell that from either UAH or RSS data. That is the subject of this thread, isn’t it?

      • JDJ, you are not answering valid points and you’ve descended to stupid snark. Go back to SKS where strawmen can be set afire without danger to the onlookers.
        =================

      • Dr. Page, I’ve long considered Josh Willis of the ARGO project to be one of the most conflicted men on earth, but he too seems to be holding to the scientific line. Now, if we could only get NOAA to be so scientific.
        =================

      • JDJ – “When you look at the entire RSS dataset, the trend is obvious.”
        Why are trends always linear with alarmists?

      • “The AGW hypothesis is CO2 drives temperature. Increasing CO2 levels will result in increased temperatures”
        wrong.
        The AGW hypothesis is this:
        temperature is a function of FORCINGS
        there are two kinds of forcings: Internal and external.
        1. Internal forcings, natural cycles, sum to zero over time because you cannot create excess energy out of nothing. Every natural UP will be balanced by a natural down. there is no net gain.
        2. External forcings Include the following
        a) Solar
        b) Aerosol
        c) GHGs
        c1. H20
        c2. C02
        c3. Ch4
        c4.. black carbon
        and a few more
        temperature is a function of all this, Not just c02.
        the hypothesis is this: IF you hold everything else constant and increase c02 then the temperature will increase.
        problem: you cant do this experiment. take a given period of time: IF c02 goes up, But other forcings go down then you cant evaluate the hypothesis. If c02 goes up and internal forcing goes down, you cant evaluate the hypothesis. The only way to evaluate the hypothesis is
        1. Run a model where you hold everything else constant
        2. Wait for enough data to accumulate so you can rule out other explanations ( like wait over a period of a few natural cycles ).

      • it goes back thousands of years … what do you think it is?
        …look at the entire data set moron, not your littel subset

      • Joel. Are you aware that the graph you link to shows that over a 35 year period that temperature increased by about 0.35 degrees C? Over a century that is about 1 degree. Even the IPCC says anything less than 2 degrees C a century is not a problem.
        Try doing a sine wave match instead of linear sometime.

      • “What pause?”
        I’m kinda new to all this and get sides confused. Which side are the “deniers”?

      • JDJ,
        Your point on Sats 101 is correct only if you are sampling the same population. With a time series you are not sampling the same population. Each time interval is in effect a new population. But I think you know that. But why let “little things” like facts cloud your confirmation bias?

      • Latitude June 21, 2015 at 8:06 am
        well then that’s great news……there’s no global warming at all

        Well Latitude you’re not using the full record either, you’ve left off the last 150 years!

    • Joel,
      Going forward in time we will peg your earnings change to the past changes in T. Perhaps we offset it by -ve 12 years; Might make you a bit more realistic on T changes.

    • Stealey, your graph left out data from 1979 thru 1997.

      Didn’t you know that the longer the time interval you examine, the better your estimation of a trend is? They teach you that sort of thing in statistics when you learn about sample size.

      • Gad, JDJ, several have pointed to the error of your thought, here. Can you not learn?
        ==============

      • Well, that would be true if you knew the underlying trend was in fact linear. In the case of temperature data, however, there is no reason to think it increases linearly with time, otherwise it would be very hot by now
        If you suspect a change in the trend, for example a ‘pause’ following a period of warming, then it is valid to show separate trends for the different stages.
        https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-fvriUN1RZqE/T3qE6LmllKI/AAAAAAAABpc/yqKxozlTKM0/w551-h243-no/age.gif
        On the other hand, applying least square trends to this type of data is a very dubious practice in the first place.

      • kim,
        JDJ still cannot accept that the ‘pause’ begins currently, and extends back 18 ½ years. Today is time zero. There have been entire articles posted here explaining that, and showing how and why the ‘pause’ must be measured that way.
        Therefore, 1979 is irrelevant. It is an arbitrary year, based on the start of a data set.
        But jdj must include 1979 – 1997. Otherwise, he would be forced to admit that we have been in a ‘pause’ for many years, and that every ‘man-made global warming’ prediction has been flat wrong.
        If we are going to arbitrarily go back in time, let’s look at the Holocene:
        http://i.snag.gy/BztF1.jpg
        I wonder how many ‘hockey stick’ warmings jdj can count there? I count at least twenty.

      • Stealey says: “There have been entire articles posted here explaining that”
        ..
        Yes there have. However, they all depend on the RSS dataset. (see my post above re: Mears). Analysis of other datasets give different results.
        ..
        Once you look at the other datasets (see my post re: sample size) you come to a different conclusion.
        ..
        Why ignore the other datasets such as HADCRUT or GISS?
        ..
        Now posting a graph of the temperatures of top of the Greenland ice sheet does not provide us with global temperatures. Also posting a graph that ends in 1850 does no justice to recent warming measured at the same spot that core was taken.

      • It’s weird to see arguments between people when both sides are wrong. Joel D. Jackson says:

        Stealey, your graph left out data from 1979 thru 1997.

        Didn’t you know that the longer the time interval you examine, the better your estimation of a trend is? They teach you that sort of thing in statistics when you learn about sample size.

        But that’s just silly because the issue of whether or not there has been a pause is in reference to a particular period. Statistics does not teach you a larger sample size gives you a better estimate if by increasing your sample size, you go outside the range of interest.
        On the other hand, dbstealey says:

        JDJ still cannot accept that the ‘pause’ begins currently, and extends back 18 ½ years. Today is time zero. There have been entire articles posted here explaining that, and showing how and why the ‘pause’ must be measured that way.

        Now, I haven’t seen the posts he refers to. I do, however, understand that’s an absurd requirement when looking for a “pause.” It is tied to the exact same problem found in Ross McKitrick’s paper which claimed to study the length of the pause. I wrote a post about it, but the most important part of it is:

        A far more interesting issue is there is no particular reason to assume we are currently in a “pause.” We could believe there really was a pause but it ended recently. This methodology could never hope to tell us that.

        Which is a trivial truth. If you assume one endpoint of the “pause” is the most recent time, then by definition, you assume we are currently in a pause. That means you are defining your “pause” as existing then seeking to use that definition to prove there is a pause. That’s called begging the question. It’s a tautology. It’s completely wrong.
        It’s also nothing more than cherry-picking. As I show in my post, if you applied the same approach at the start of 1997 (assuming the temperature values for the past were the same as we have right now), you’d have found a ~13 year “pause” from 1983-1996. But if you repeated the analysis at the start of 1999, you’d have found there was no pause at all.
        The same could happen in current times. All it would take is a strong warming spike in the next couple years. If that happened, using the most recent times as an endpoint would result in there not being a pause at all. That would “erase” the pause everybody is talking about. Which is wrong. If there is a pause right now, then there is a pause. No future temperatures can change that.
        But by the definition Ross McKitrick used, and the one dbstealey says we must use, it can happen. The “pause” they insist we look at could vanish in as little as a couple years because their definition is foolish.

      • I actually like the second technique, Brandon. In effect, any continued pause or cooling nearly doubles the length of the pause. But I recognize its fragility. It has an artifact in the way of understanding that is not too difficult to peer around.
        ===============

      • jdj sez:
        Why ignore the other datasets such as HADCRUT or GISS?
        Because they are not as accurate as satellite measurements. The others are hopelessly corrupted by the UHI effect. And NASA constantly “adjusts” past temperatures. Those ‘adjustmentsalways seem to show scarier warming. But then, what should we expect from a has-been organization whose new priority is “Muslim Outreach”?
        Brandon Shollenberger says:
        If there is a pause right now, then there is a pause. No future temperatures can change that….
        No one but you has discussed future temperatures. You misunderstand the rest of it, too.
        Everyone on both sides of the debate looks at the new global temperatures as soon as they are posted every month. If global T breaks out to the upside, then the “pause” will be over. Everyone else (almost) seems to get that concept.
        But that has not happened. Global warming has stopped. Argue all you want, but that is what the real world is telling us. Either accept empirical evidence, or reject it. That’s your call.
        Also, I suggest you read the articles that you haven’t read; most of them are by Lord Monckton. They are very easy to find. Prof McKittrick is extemely knowledgeable, too. Maybe you know more than both of them, but I doubt it. Otherwise, you would have been the one to debunk Mann’s Hokey Stick. But McIntyre and McKitrick did that.
        Brandon, all you are doing is making assertions. Is there any reason to believe your information is superior to Prof. Ross McKittrick’s? Or are you just giving in to your confirmation bias? Instead of that, try being skeptical of the MMGW narrative for a change. Every honest scientist is a skeptic, first and foremost. Being a skeptic will put you on the right track. For starters, try being skeptical of what the government is doing to the temperature record:
        http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/ushcn26.gif
        And Joel, don’t start until you establish your bona fides. What is your professional qualification? All you ever do is trot on back to your alarmist blogs, and then post their misinformation here. That is tedious, because you’ve been flat wrong from the get-go and your narrative never changes.
        For close to twenty years the alarmist cult has preached the ‘dangerous man-made global warming’ scare. But for almost 20 years they have been complettely wrong. That’s what Planet Earth is demonstrating to everyone. Even the usually alarmist Washington Post now admits that global warming has stopped:
        http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/files/2014/06/newchart.jpg
        For neutral readers who would like a little perspective, watch this:
        http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Images/ice-HS/noaa_gisp2_icecore_anim_adj.gif

      • Well, that was inelegantly if not incorrectly phrased. I meant that any additional pause or cooling nearly doubles its effect in lengthening the pause.
        ================

      • kim:

        I actually like the second technique, Brandon. In effect, any continued pause or cooling nearly doubles the length of the pause. But I recognize its fragility. It has an artifact in the way of understanding that is not too difficult to peer around.

        I still think it’s hilarious people want to use a methodology which can “erase” any pause they may find at almost any point. Think about it. People are using a methodology which says there is a “pause” for something like 1998-2015, but in 2017, the same methodology could say the “pause” only lasts from 2008-2017. Call me crazy, but I’d like to think whether or not warming had paused over 2003 is not dependent upon whether or not temperatures go up in 2016.
        If I were more clever, or at least less exhausted, I could probably come up with a witty remark about how it’s wrong to adjust the past 😛

      • dbstealey says:

        No one but you has discussed future temperatures. You misunderstand the rest of it, too.

        I don’t know what I’m supposed to have misunderstood. Of course nobody but me “has discussed future temperatures.” I discussed future temperatures to show how this methodology produces absurd results if its adopted. If anyone else had bothered to look at what would happen with the methodology in the future, they’d reach the same conclusions I reached.
        I haven’t misunderstood anything. I’ve just done what nobody else has done – examined the effects of the methodology people are using.

        Also, I suggest you read the articles that you haven’t read; most of them are by Lord Monckton. They are very easy to find. Prof McKittrick is extemely knowledgeable, too. Maybe you know more than both of them, but I doubt it. Otherwise, you would have been the one to debunk Mann’s Hokey Stick. But McIntyre and McKitrick did that.

        This may be the dumbest thing anyone has said all week on this site. Whether or not one person knows more than other people has nothing to do with whether or not he would have obtained their accomplishments. And whether or not I know more than Ross McKitrick has nothing to do with whether or not my analysis of his proposed methodology is right. You don’t have to know more than someone, especially not in general, to be able to find mistakes they’ve made.
        Plus, there’s a degree of humor in this. Of all the people in the world aside from Ross McKitrick, Steve McIntyre and maybe a couple other people, I’ve probably done the most to spread knowledge about the problems of Michael Mann’s hockey stick. I’d wager there are, at most, half a dozen people who know the details and problems of temperature reconstructions better than I do.
        So this is like saying, “How dare the fourth place person criticize the second place person!?”

        Brandon, all you are doing is making assertions. Is there any reason to believe your information is superior to Prof. Ross McKittrick’s? Or are you just giving in to your confirmation bias? Instead of that, try being skeptical of the MMGW narrative for a change. Every honest scientist is a skeptic, first and foremost. Being a skeptic will put you on the right track. For starters, try being skeptical of what the government is doing to the temperature record:

        You know, rather than chasing stupid red herrings, I think I’ll stick to doing what I’ve done – perform analyses testing the validity of methodologies. You ask if there’s “any reason to believe [my] information is superior” to McKitrick’s, but that doesn’t even make sense. The information I’ve provided in no way contradicts any of McKitrick’s. All it does is provide context to McKitrick’s which shows his methodology produces absurd results. I don’t dispute that his methodology gets the results he gets; I just point out the meaning of those results. As for why you should believe it, I provided documentation of what I did. You should believe what I say because I’ve provided the work showing it is true.
        As for you telling me to be “try being skeptical of the MMGW narrative for a change,” what in the world is wrong with you? The only thing I’ve ever done to promote “the MMGW narrative” is say the greenhouse effect is real and humans are contributing to it. That’s it. Put that up against all the things I’ve done to challenge mainstream positions on things. They won’t begin to compare.
        Seriously, what is wrong with you? Why is it the moment anyone disagrees with a position you hold, they must be warmists without a shred of skepticism in them? Why should a person have to meet challenges like this:

        And Joel, don’t start until you establish your bona fides. What is your professional qualification?

        To point out skeptics people make? More importantly, why is when I provided detailed and documented criticisms of a methodology, your response was to not address anything I said or show, but to instead resort to ad hominem remarks?
        You’re a moderator for what is supposed to be the leading skeptical website. Try acting like a skeptic. For a change.

      • dbstealey says:

        No one but you has discussed future temperatures. You misunderstand the rest of it, too.

        I don’t know what I’m supposed to have misunderstood. Of course nobody but me “has discussed future temperatures.” I discussed future temperatures to show how this methodology produces absurd results if its adopted. If anyone else had bothered to look at what would happen with the methodology in the future, they’d reach the same conclusions I reached.
        I haven’t misunderstood anything. I’ve just done what nobody else has done – examined the effects of the methodology people are using.

        Also, I suggest you read the articles that you haven’t read; most of them are by Lord Monckton. They are very easy to find. Prof McKittrick is extemely knowledgeable, too. Maybe you know more than both of them, but I doubt it. Otherwise, you would have been the one to debunk Mann’s Hokey Stick. But McIntyre and McKitrick did that.

        This may be the dumbest thing anyone has said all week on this site. Whether or not one person knows more than other people has nothing to do with whether or not he would have obtained their accomplishments. And whether or not I know more than Ross McKitrick has nothing to do with whether or not my analysis of his proposed methodology is right. You don’t have to know more than someone, especially not in general, to be able to find mistakes they’ve made.
        Plus, there’s a degree of humor in this. Of all the people in the world aside from Ross McKitrick, Steve McIntyre and maybe a couple other people, I’ve probably done the most to spread knowledge about the problems of Michael Mann’s hockey stick. I’d wager there are, at most, half a dozen people who know the details and problems of temperature reconstructions better than I do.
        So this is like saying, “How dare the fourth place person criticize the second place person!?”

        Brandon, all you are doing is making assertions. Is there any reason to believe your information is superior to Prof. Ross McKittrick’s? Or are you just giving in to your confirmation bias? Instead of that, try being skeptical of the MMGW narrative for a change. Every honest scientist is a skeptic, first and foremost. Being a skeptic will put you on the right track. For starters, try being skeptical of what the government is doing to the temperature record:

        You know, rather than chasing stupid red herrings, I think I’ll stick to doing what I’ve done – perform analyses testing the validity of methodologies. You ask if there’s “any reason to believe [my] information is superior” to McKitrick’s, but that doesn’t even make sense. The information I’ve provided in no way contradicts any of McKitrick’s. All it does is provide context to McKitrick’s which shows his methodology produces absurd results. I don’t dispute that his methodology gets the results he gets; I just point out the meaning of those results. As for why you should believe it, I provided documentation of what I did. You should believe what I say because I’ve provided the work showing it is true.
        As for you telling me to be “try being skeptical of the MMGW narrative for a change,” what in the world is wrong with you? The only thing I’ve ever done to promote “the MMGW narrative” is say the greenhouse effect is real and humans are contributing to it. That’s it. Put that up against all the things I’ve done to challenge mainstream positions on things. They won’t begin to compare.
        Seriously, what is wrong with you? Why is it the moment anyone disagrees with a position you hold, they must be warmists without a shred of skepticism in them? Why should a person have to meet challenges like this:

        And Joel, don’t start until you establish your bona fides. What is your professional qualification?

        To point out mistakes skeptics make? More importantly, why is when I provided detailed and documented criticisms of a methodology, your response was to not address anything I said or show, but to instead resort to ad hominem remarks?
        You’re a mod for what is supposed to be the leading skeptical website. Try acting like a skeptic.

      • @JDJ: GISS is not a data set. It is a processed data food product filled mostly with computer fantasies. From about 1200 current global data collection locations, if finds 16, 000 temperature anomalies in grid cells. Calling it data is way over generous. https://chiefio.wordpress.com/gistemp/ has more detail than you can handle in links to the whole body of code and my analysis of what it does.
        Also the willful ignorance of the Holocene Climate Optimum being clearly warmer than now is an astounding admission. It is found in everything from ice cores, to sediments to isotopes to pollens to species to…long list…

    • Joel D.Jackson says “Why does the person most responsible for the RSS data think surface temperature datasets are more reliable than his own product?”
      Mears gives one reason in his post: “they certainly agree with each other better than the various satellite datasets do”. A related reason is that the revisions in the surface T data are smaller than the revision Willis discusses. Another reason might be that the satellite data is not quite what it seems to be in that the “lower troposphere” data is partly dependent on what is happening in the stratosphere (I base this on what Roy Spencer has posted on his web page).
      The two data sets are certainly measurements of different things. It is not at all obvious which one is preferable.

      • Correlations of monthly change 1979-2015 in four main data sets.
        http://postimg.org/image/6hecbysep/
        The individual data series vary from the consensus by an average of 0.063 deg K per month.
        If they all were perfect, there would be no deviation from the consensus.
        Therefore, IMO, it is unlikely that we can measure monthly temperature changes within 0.06 deg.
        I believe Dr. Spencer has claimed an error of less than 0.01 but that seems crazy after the recent revision from ver 5.6 to ver 6.0
        ARGO proponents claim the error is < 0.0000000000000000001 deg (~sarc). but we know that is insane.
        Bottom line… we are arguing about "catastrophic " warming that is so small that the signal is often much smaller than the noise. The fact that this thread discussion exists is essentially proof that the warming has been insignificant in this century.

      • “Another reason might be that the satellite data is not quite what it seems to be in that the “lower troposphere” data is partly dependent on what is happening in the stratosphere (I base this on what Roy Spencer has posted on his web page).”
        As the troposphere has stopped warming, the stratosphere has stopped cooling: http://data.remss.com/msu/graphics/TLS/plots/RSS_TS_channel_TLS_Global_Land_And_Sea_v03_3.png
        If Spencer’s new TLT were contaminated by stratospheric sampling, the alleged contamination would not have any effect during the period of the pause.

    • “Why does the person most responsible for the RSS data think surface temperature datasets are more reliable than his own product?”
      1. Because satellite products do not measure TEMPERTURE. Sensor’s measure BRIGHTNESS.
      2. Because over a short period of time the instruments have changed in significant ways.
      3. Because to get from brightness to temperature you have to
      A) make a variety of assumptions.
      B) use idealized atomospheric profiles.
      C) use physics models to predict temperature at altitude X, given brightness recieved at the sensor
      in space.
      4. Because in the vast majority of satellite products you validate against surface data.
      5. Because for a very long time you had two satillite series that used the SAME data and different methods
      that produced different answers… WHILE the surface teams used different data and different
      methods to produce the same answer.

      • “WHILE the surface teams used different data and different methods to produce the same answer.”
        HadCrut and GISS have a monthly correlation of 0.66.
        All the data set and methodologies make a lot of assumptions. If you use the Wood For Trees Index (WTI), you get a consensus product.
        I look forward to a few years from now when the satellites spike warmer and the surface data drops and everybody argues the exact opposite based on their side…LOL I’ll still use WTI.
        Of course, there is also the weather model initialization data set.
        http://models.weatherbell.com/climate/cfsr_t2m_2005.png
        http://models.weatherbell.com/climate/cfsr_t2m_1988.png
        http://models.weatherbell.com/climate/cfsr_t2m_1979.png
        This is interesting because the weather models are initialized very carefully several times a day. This initialization of the 2m Temp field is plotted in the links above. The data is objective, detailed, global, and the people who created it had no interest in climate. They were just getting the best data into the model for each run.
        Thoughts?

  15. IPCC might have some close approximation of the amount of C/CO2 mankind’s activities added to atmospheric CO2 between 1750 and 2011, but as to the natural amounts from oceans, plants, etc. to borrow a phrase, they “…don’t have no stinkin’ clue”!
    According to IPCC AR5 industrialized mankind’s share of the increase in atmospheric CO2 between 1750 and 2011 is somewhere between 10% and 200%, i.e. IPCC hasn’t got a clue. IPCC “adjusted” the assumptions, estimates and wags until they got the desired result.
    At 2 W/m^2 CO2’s contribution to the global heat balance is insignificant compared to the heat handling power of the oceans and clouds. CO2’s nothing but a bee fart in a hurricane.
    The hiatus/pause/lull (IPPC acknowledges as fact) makes it pretty clear that IPCC’s GCM’s are useless trash.

    • nickreality65 says: “According to IPCC AR5 industrialized mankind’s share of the increase in atmospheric CO2 between 1750 and 2011 is somewhere between 10% and 200%”.
      Wow, that is quite a claim. Where in AR5 I can find that? Or did you just make it up?

      • IPCC AR5 Chap 6 pg 486
        Table 6.1……………………….all PgC
        ……………………….minus….mean…..plus………..Uncertainty +/-
        Anthro output………..470…….555……..640………….15.3%
        Fossil Fuel………..…345……..375……..405…………..8.0%
        Net land use………..100……..180……..260…..……..44.4%
        Ocean atmos flux….-185…….-155…….-125…….…..19.4%
        Residual land sink…-250…….-160………-70……..…56.3%
        Anthro Residual…….230………240……..250………….4.2%
        Percent Retained…….48.9%…….43.2%…..39.1%
        Maximum Range…….10……….240……..470…………95.8%
        Min to max……………….4%…..mean……196%
        Square root sum of squares, +/-………..76%
        How can one possible get +/- 4.2% in the final answer w/ +/- 56.3% on residual land sink, +/- 44.4% net land use. +/- 56.3% & +/- 44.4% are rather large “haven’t got a clue” WAGs.
        10% to 200% was a rounding error. How about 4% to 196%.
        Try SPM TS.6 for a whole lot of interesting and really important stuff IPCC admits to having no clue.
        Need to do the assigned reading to effectively participate in class discussion.

      • nickreality65,
        “Total anthropogenic emissions” is the sum of “Fossil fuel combustion and cement production” and “Net land use change” so:
        Total anthropogenic emissions: 555 +/- 85
        Accumulation in atmosphere: 240 +/-10
        fraction in atmosphere: 0.43 +/- 0.07
        I have no idea what you are trying to do in your calculation (where does the range from 10 to 470 come from?), but it appears you are the one who “…don’t have no stinkin’ clue”.

      • nickreality65 June 21, 2015 at 11:43 am

        IPCC AR5 Chap 6 pg 486
        Table 6.1……………………….all PgC
        ……………………….minus….mean…..plus………..Uncertainty +/-
        Anthro output………..470…….555……..640………….15.3%
        Fossil Fuel………..…345……..375……..405…………..8.0%
        Net land use………..100……..180……..260…..……..44.4%
        Ocean atmos flux….-185…….-155…….-125…….…..19.4%
        Residual land sink…-250…….-160………-70……..…56.3%
        Anthro Residual…….230………240……..250………….4.2%
        Percent Retained…….48.9%…….43.2%…..39.1%
        Maximum Range…….10……….240……..470…………95.8%
        Min to max……………….4%…..mean……196%
        Square root sum of squares, +/-………..76%
        How can one possible get +/- 4.2% in the final answer w/ +/- 56.3% on residual land sink, +/- 44.4% net land use. +/- 56.3% & +/- 44.4% are rather large “haven’t got a clue” WAGs.

        OK, nick, thanks for an interesting question. I’ve hacked through the math and found the difficulty you are having.
        Your list of values and errors is all correct, but only up to the “Percent Retained” calculation. You can’t calculate the error in the “Percent Retained” by dividing max values or min values. Doesn’t work that way.
        The rules for the propagation of errors is different for division/multiplication than they are for addition/subtraction. With addition/subtraction, the absolute errors add quadratically (square root of sum of squared errors). You’ve done that properly in calculating the errors of the “Anthro output” above.
        However, with multiplication/division, instead of using absolute values, it is the percentage errors which add quadratically. Per your figures above, which agree with mine, this gives us a percentage error of
        sqrt( 1.153^2 + 1.042^2) = 1.55
        You are calculating anthro residual/anthro output. The uncertainty of this division is the square root of (1 + the anthro percent error)^2 plus (1 + the anthro resid percent error)^2 ).
        A result of 1.55 means that there is± 55% uncertainty in the final answer of 43.2% … which in turn means that the absolute error of the “Percent Retained” is ± 24%, and not the ± 4.2% you’ve calculated.
        I hope this helps, if you have questions askem …
        w.

      • Willis,
        You wrote: “However, with multiplication/division, instead of using absolute values, it is the percentage errors which add quadratically. Per your figures above, which agree with mine, this gives us a percentage error of
        sqrt( 1.153^2 + 1.042^2) = 1.55”
        If I follow you, you have a fractional error in “anthro output” of 0.153 and a fractional error in “anthro residual” of 0.042 which gives a fractional error of
        sqrt( 0.153^2 + 0.042^2) = 0.159
        or 15.9%. Which is what I said earlier.

      • Mike M. June 21, 2015 at 5:47 pm

        Willis,
        If I follow you, you have a fractional error in “anthro output” of 0.153 and a fractional error in “anthro residual” of 0.042 which gives a fractional error of
        sqrt( 0.153^2 + 0.042^2) = 0.159
        or 15.9%. Which is what I said earlier.

        Ah, yes, many thanks, Mike. I was moving too fast again, you are 100% correct and I was wrong.
        An error of 15.9% on a value of 43.2% is an absolute error of 6.9%. This leads to a somewhat wider range than nickreality calculated, of 50.1%, 43.2%, and 36.3%
        However, nick says:

        How can one possible get +/- 4.2% in the final answer w/ +/- 56.3% on residual land sink, +/- 44.4% net land use. +/- 56.3% & +/- 44.4% are rather large “haven’t got a clue” WAGs.

        First, the percentage uncertainty (as you point out above) is 15.9%, not 4.3%.
        More to the point, when the net land use is included in the calculation, it is an addition calculation the percentage error doesn’t matter. All that counts is the absolute error, no matter what percentage that might be.
        The percentage error doesn’t matter for addition/subtraction, only for multiplication/division.
        w.

  16. does figure 3 show water temperature only or does it also show air temeprature to some altitude? I am having trouble understanding what the variation in the “top” surface of figure 3 is showing. is it a variation in sea level between el nino and la nina condition? thanks for any help.

  17. January 1979 and May 2015 had weather phenomena that lasted a few months up to about a year: patterns associated with the state of ENSO, unusually warm water recently off the Washington state, etc. These transient local anomalies may be large enough to bias yourmap of trends. A map of the difference between the means of the last and first 36 months might tell us more about climate change with less influence from “weather”.

  18. “I don’t have no stinkin’ clue”? In German: “Ich hab’ keine (verdammte) Ahnung.”
    Great work and very interesting, Willis. Thank You.

    • Thank you Willis, I had remarked earlier that equatorial Africa and South America were too bright in v6 and now with your legend value change, it’s greened up a bit and looks about right (personal observation 1965-67, 1998, and present).

  19. http://i.snag.gy/BztF1.jpg
    Great graphic and it shows quite clearly that the trend in global temperatures since the Holocene Optimum is down with periods of warmth but with each period of warmth less then the one previous to it.
    Some of the more notable warm periods being the Minoan, Roman, Medieval, Modern Warm Period.
    The explanation that fits this pattern the best is Milankovitch Cycles for the overall slow gradual cooling (for this cycle favored more warmth 8000 years ago and has since favored some cooling through today and will so beyond today) with solar variability being superimposed upon the slow gradual Milankovitch cycles accounting for the periods of warmth within the overall gradual cooling trend.
    A further refinement can then be obtained when La Nina, El Nino, phase of PDO/AMO ,and volcanic activity are superimposed upon the trend provided from Milankovitch Cycles and solar variability. All of these refinement factors I believe giving fluctuations to the climate when in a particular climate regime but can not cause the climate to evolve into other climate regime on there own.
    As is almost always the case the strength of the earth’s magnetic field is never put into the mix which is a mistake because this enhances the effects from solar variability when weak and modifies the effects of solar variability when strong.
    As of now the earth’s magnetic field is in a significant weakening trend, although absolute levels have a ways to go before we can say it is getting to the point where a magnetic excursion might be likely, which if should take place will have an impact upon the climate. A cooling impact in my opinion..

    • ” it shows quite clearly that the trend in global temperatures ”

      One geographical location shows global temperatures?
      ..
      When did the temperature on top of the Greenland ice sheet become the proxy for global temperature?

      • Mr. Jackson, it is true that was Greenland Ice Core data only,however there are a number of papers published that shows the existence of the same named warm periods as shown on the big chart in many places of the world.
        MWP is one such warm period shown to have been all over the world.
        By the way here is the Ice Core data based chart for Antarctica, that also shows the Holocene,Minoan,Roman and Medeivel warm periods.
        http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/vostok-last-12000-years-web.gif

      • Since JDJ is continuing to use willful ignorance about ancient warmth, this article on stadials has a simple to grasp list of how such warm times show up in many physical ways.
        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%B8lling_Oscillation
        The short form is Stuff In The Ground.

        Dates
        The beginning of the Bølling is also the high-resolution date for the sharp temperature rise marking the end of the Oldest Dryas at 14,670 BP. Roberts (1998) uses 15,000. A range of 14,650-14,000 BP calibrated has been assigned to the Bølling layer of the excavation at Lake Neuchâtel, Switzerland, 1992-1993. The Oxygen isotope record from Greenland ice includes the Bølling warm peak between 14,600 and 14,100 BP. Most of the recent dates available fall within a few hundred years of these.
        Flora
        Of the two periods, Bølling and Allerød, Bølling is the warmer and came on more suddenly. During it sea level rose about 35 m due to glacial melt. Ice uncovered large parts of north Europe and temperate forests covered Europe from 29 deg. to 41 deg. north latitude. After some pioneer vegetation, such as Salix polaris and Dryas octopetala, hardwoods, such as Quercus, and softwoods, Betula and Pinus, spread northward for a brief few hundred years.
        Fauna
        During this time late Pleistocene animals spread northward from refugia in the three peninsulas, Spain, Italy and the Balkans. Geneticists can identify the general location by studying degrees of consanguinity in the modern animals of Europe. The hunting camps of ancient humans remain a major source of faunal fossils.
        Animals hunted by humans are predominantly the big-game mammals: reindeer, horse, saiga, antelope, bison, woolly mammoth and wooly rhinoceros. In the alpine regions ibex and chamois were hunted. Throughout the forest were red deer. Smaller animals, such as fox, wolf, hare and squirrel also appear. Salmon was fished. For more details, see also the references to fauna under Oldest Dryas and Older Dryas.

        There are also isotope ratios in cave deposits like stalagmites and in ocean forams, lake deposits of pollen, fossils, burried trees in alpine locations without trees now, and lots more. Heck, the Romans built buildings with central heat when needed, but didn’t even close off the interiors during the Roman Optimun as they wanted cooling, not heat, in places that now need heating.
        The continued attemts to deny the Roman Opimum just look soooo foolish.

      • E.M. Smith,
        Mike, JDJ probably won’t care, because it contradicts the Narrative. But I found that account to be pretty interesting. Thanks for posting it.
        It is also reflected in Dr. Lindzen’s writing, in which he states that climate…
        …hysteria simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth, and the exploitation of these weaknesses by politicians, environmental promoters, and, after 20 years of media drum beating, many others as well.
        Climate is always changing. We have had ice ages, and warmer periods when alligators were found in Spitzbergen. Ice ages have occurred in hundred-thousand year cycles for the last 700,000 years, and there have been previous periods that appear to have been warmer than the present — despite CO2 levels being lower than they are now. More recently, we have had the Medieval Warm Period, and the Little Ice Age. During the latter, alpine glaciers advanced to the chagrin of overrun villages. Since the beginning of the 19th Century these glaciers have been retreating. Frankly, we don’t fully understand either the advance or the retreat.
        For small changes in climate associated with tenths of a degree, there is no need for any external cause. The earth is never exactly in equilibrium. The motions of the massive oceans where heat is moved between deep layers and the surface provides variability on time scales from years to centuries. Recent work suggests that this variability is enough to account for all climate change since the 19th Century.

        Once again: there is nothing either unusual, or unprecedented happening. And the climate null hypothesis has never been falsified.

    • Salvatore:
      Why do you, and this site in general, continually post up the above graph that entirely misses out modern warming? It ends in 1855 !

  20. http://www.c3headlines.com/chartsimages.html
    Here you go Joel. Since you are an AGW enthusiast I am sure you will either ignore, say the data is flat out wrong or embrace data (manipulated) which shows this data not to be correct as you have already done in your previous post.
    The problem with you and others into AGW theory is the data must conform to the theory rather then the theory conforming to the data and any and all data that does not support this absurd assertion is either ignored, or manipulated or simply adjusted..
    So now here is your chance to disregard all of these data sources and tell us why they are all wrong. Go for it.

  21. How about in English?
    That would be “Not the foggiest, old boy.”
    Willis, the warm area off the west coast of Africa matches a huge smooth I saw thereabouts in 2012 while flying down to Madeira. It was resisting a wind of approx Force 4 if I remember correctly, with the lack of wave-generated aerosols having a marked effect on the cloud cover, I wonder if it’s a regular feature?
    JF

  22. “Mike M. June 21, 2015 at 1:06 pm
    I have no idea what you are trying to do in your calculation (where does the range from 10 to 470 come from?), but it appears you are the one who “…don’t have no stinkin’ clue”.”
    The big numbers and big uncertainties, the gosintaz and gozoutaz of the oceans/atmos flux; residual land sinks, land use, just huge wild ass guesses.
    Add up the “don’t knows” in the minus and the “don’t knows” in the plus and the result is +/- 96% from the mean.
    So where did the residual atmospheric CO2 come from? IPCC doesn’t really know. Kind of the same thing Jan/14 APS workshop concluded.
    More assigned reading.
    TS.6 Key Uncertainties is in IPCC AR5 Technical Summary, not SPM.

    • nickreality65,
      “How can one possible get +/- 4.2% in the final answer ”
      Are you talking about the errors bars on the change in the amount in the atmosphere? That is not the “final answer”, it is the starting point.

      • IPCC AR5 says that anthropogenic sources of C added 555 PgC (+/- 85), 470 to 640, to the atmosphere between 1750 & 2011. 315 was absorbed leaving a residual of 240 PgC (+/- 10), 230 to 250, 43%. World Bank 4C report says 45%. IGSS says 40%. So much for consensus.
        Ocean/atmosphere is -155 +/- 30, -185 to -125.
        Residual land sink is -160 (+/- 90), -250 to -70.
        So the uncertainties in ocean/atmosphere & residual land sink eclipse the anthropogenic sources, i.e. IPCC is just guessing.
        6.1.2.1
        “However, the efficacy of these oceanic and terrestrial sinks does also depend on how the excess carbon is transformed and redistributed within these sink reservoirs.”
        Well, duh. And w/ +/- 30 & +/- 90 IPCC hasn’t got a good grip on this process.
        And all of this is based on IPCC models which are a proven bust.

      • nickreality65,
        “World Bank 4C report says 45%. IGSS says 40%. So much for consensus.”
        Both values are well within the error range of 43 +/- 7 %. Most of the uncertainty is in estimating land use changes, a consequence of not being able to send a satellite back in time.
        Yes, there is considerable uncertainty in how the amount not remaining in the atmosphere has distributed between ocean and land sinks. But that has nothing to do with the numbers you originally posted.
        By the way, the “m” I am replying to was me. Must have hit the wrong key.

  23. Thanks Willis for this interesting contribution. I have compared the trends measured between 1979 and 2015 by UAH 5.6, UAH 6.0 and GISS. These are in °C/decade:
    Segment;UAH 5.6;UAH 6.0; GISS
    Globe ; 0.14; 0.11; 0.16
    NH ; 0.20; 0.13; 0.22
    SH ; 0.08; 0.09; 0.08
    Trop ; 0.07; 0.10; 0.11
    Arc ; 0.47; 0.27; 0.55
    Ant ; 0.02; 0.07; 0.10
    Land ; 0.19; 0.18; 0.26
    Ocean ; 0.12; 0.08; 0.12
    The largest differences are in Arctica and in Land. Both, surface and satellite measurements in the Arctica have a large coverage error.Therefore the question to be answered is why the trends of Land differ so much. I hope climate models can give an answer.

  24. “Due to the need to move increasing amounts of energy polewards, I’d expect to see increased Nino/Nina pumping, with a consequent greater exposure of the cool underlying Pacific waters.”
    In simple terms one may think, El Nino bad, La Nina good. We here somewhat don’t want an El Nino now or soon. But El Ninos are part of a healthy functioning cooling system. A cog along the way to TOA heat loss. Where things may seem a bit backwards is when the ocean builds the IPWP back up, heating water. But that would a prescription for a too cold planet. Heat it and store it. Don’t let it go to the TOA. What was taught with the post is it’s not only predominance of one or the other, but frequency of them. A sped up hydrological cycle.

  25. So IF we assume for the sake of discussion that the Nino/Nina pump is a part of the temperature regulatory system, then let’s look at what might happen during the time of a general temperature rise.

    But at the end of the day we simply dont have enough reliable data to know how ENSO will change. I do agree with your underlying assumption that whatever happens will tend to maximise energy loss and minimise energy retention at the surface in accordance with the second law.

  26. Hello Willis Eschenbach. I discovered that you graduated from Sonoma State. Small world. I think your posts are brilliant. I particularly enjoyed the one on Callendar 1938. Thank you.

  27. Steven Mosher June 21, 2015 at 12:08 pm

    In the past we have contributed. But it is hard to get any where when the premise of everyone writing here and reading here is that
    1. We are guilty of fraud.
    2. We are somehow in it for the gold.
    I mean seriously, if the writers and readers of this blog would categorically state that they
    1. Don’t believe we are guilty of fraud
    2. Are not doing science just to enrich ourselves ( crap I worked for free for 3 years)

    Thanks, Mosh. I certainly will categorically state that I do not think that you, Steven Mosher, are either guilty of fraud or just in it to enrich yourself. I do not believe that either of those things are true.
    I would not, however, say the same of many of the leading lights of climate alarmism, like say Peter Gleick. Not sure exactly what you are calling “fraud”, but folks like the Climategate unindicted co-conspirators have proven by their own words that they do not have clean hands.
    In addition, many climate alarmists would be out of a job if there were no “climate crisis”. While they are not doing it to “enrich themselves”, the fact that their employment depends on their theory being true is assuredly a conflict of scientific interest. An unavoidable conflict, perhaps … but a very real conflict none-the-less.

    Then we might show up to have extended conversations. Until that happens, folks like me may drive by and have some fun. otherwise, there is no point in talking to folks who think the science is settled.
    1. Folks who think the science is settled and that satellites are the gold standard, for example.
    2. Folks who think the science is settled and its the sun stupid
    3. Floks who think the science is settled and c02 has no effect
    you know the settled science according to skeptics.

    Certainly there are closed minds on both sides … so what? Is it your claim that that justifies an unwillingness to debate the issues in public?
    I’m sorry, but your excuses for most mainstream scientists being unwilling to defend their work here just don’t wash. So people might accuse you of being guilty of fraud … how many times has that accusation been leveled against me, or against Anthony? And being accused of doing the science for the money? Good heavens, surely you must see the accusations that skeptics are in the pay of big oil.
    So you don’t get to act like mainstream scientists face more accusations of fraud and personal enrichment than do the skeptics, that’s simply not true. The vituperation and accusations against skeptics are unending. But here’s the difference.
    We don’t wimp out just because someone wants to go all ad hom on us. We don’t say we won’t play just because someone claims we’re on the payroll of big oil. So what?
    So why can’t the mainstream climate scientists man up and defend their own work? I’m not buying the boo-hoo poor me I can’t defend my scientific claims because people at WUWT will be mean to me nonsense for one minute. There’s a whole cottage industry on the web of people hating on me, and I will not let that stop me from defending my science. Haters gonna hate … you gonna let that stop you?
    Finally, opting out of debate is really bad tactics. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve read some version of the following: “The first thing that made me suspicious of the climate scientists is that none of them would debate the skeptics”. This continued refusal to enter into scientific debate, based on an unending string of such high-transmissivity excuses as you’ve given above, is one of the more counterproductive tactics adopted in the alarmists’ haste to circle the wagons.
    My regards to you,
    w.

    • Very well put, Willis. I feel sorry for Steven and I expect him not to respond. How can he?

      • Mosh stated his discussion here is not serious, just a drive by and having some fun.
        (Like nobody here noticed)

    • Ummm… Didn’t Mann get a $ Million scale grant as consolation prize for the indignity of a show faux investigation? And has not AlGore made millions from his Global Warming Theorist side show?
      The total $ Millions in grants to researchers sure looks like enriching to me, then add in the IPCC UN desired $100 BILLION PER YEAR and I’m thinking “In it for the money” has legs and can stand one them.
      Then on “our side” it is largely crickets when looking for funding…

      • When I was in college … 80s 🙁 … I got a degree in what is now climatology. But nobody called it that then because I only knew one climatologist. He had no funding. None. Later, I went to graduate school in Meteorology (much harder, BTW, than “climate”) and graduated with no climatologists around since my old prof had retired.
        Now, probably half the funding of my former major is from climate change money.
        It is the goose that laid the golden egg.
        But, I don’t really think that’s all there is to it. Everybody wants to think their life’s work is important and that they are saving the earth. Clearly, Michael Mann thinks he is a savior and that his work is of the utmost importance and that anyone who speaks against it must be eliminated using whatever means. He has claimed the moral high ground and also profited quite nicely from it all.
        Do we really expect Mann and his ilk to suddenly say “I was wrong. It’s not that bad.”
        No way.

    • @Willis Eschenbach
      Looking at Figure 4 in the article creates a mechanism I have not seen discussed that seems possible that creates a question in my mind.
      As the poles are where the energy collected by the ocean is radiated could the magnetic effects of the Sun be causing a pinching effect of the magnetic flux and acting as a “valve” thus. modulating the flow of energy from the poles? Or, similarly, could the size of the ozone hole affect the flow of energy from the poles. This could raise/lower the global temperature.

  28. 1. Run models with the forcings exaggerated from fear.
    2. Push policy dreadfully, disastrously, prematurely.
    moshe got part way there.
    ==================

    • Oh, well. Sposed to be somewhere above. Oh, further well, it doesn’t matter where it is.
      ===================

  29. Moshe’s 3 categories of “folks who…. is carefully selected. I certainly don’t buy any of them as beyond criticism. Moshe, your choice of folks filters out the genuine thinking sceptic, WUWT?

  30. IPCC AR5 is a free .pdf download. Recommended reading especially SPM & WG1. Per Technical Summary TS.6 Key Uncertainties the science isn’t settled even for IPCC.
    The Jan/14 APS workshop on IPCC is also worth reading since it was relatively objective, dispassionate and stuck to the science of IPCC AR5. Also concluded that because there is so much uncertainty the science is not settled.
    1) Per IPCC AR5 the share of the CO2 added to the atmosphere (WAG) by anthropogenic sources (WAG) between 1750 and 2011 is a WAG^3 at best.
    2) At 2 W/m^2 the RF of the CO2 increase between 1750 and 2011 is of no consequence compared to natural sources and sinks especially the oceans and clouds.
    3) The hiatus/pause/lull acknowledged by IPCC as fact casts serious doubt on the credibility of IPCC’s GCMs.
    Stick to these points, the rest is academic wandering in the weeds.
    I don’t even open my Facebook posting replies since they are usually ad hom junk. Was kicked off HuffPo over a year ago and locked out of some media wall posts.
    Press on Regardless!

  31. Brandon Shollenberger makes the moderately interesting point that the McKitrick definition of pause means that a given year can drop out as the end year changes. But this does not seem particularly significant, since the idea of pause is necessarily a time interval, rather than the property of a single year. The fact, say, 2000-2014, is a pause is not going to change, whatever happens in coming years. It is true that if one fixes the start date of the interval, rather than the end date, then a year once included is always part of that pause. But this opens up all the usual difficulties of justifying the start year. The idea of a pause is just hard to define satisfactorily.
    A more pertinent criticism of the McKitrick definition might be the way the last ten years (at least) are likely always to constitute a pause, unless there is a big spike in temperatures. It is just very hard to reject the pause null hypothesis over a short time period.

    • basicstats says:
      …the idea of pause is necessarily a time interval, rather than the property of a single year. The fact, say, 2000-2014, is a pause is not going to change, whatever happens in coming years. It is true that if one fixes the start date of the interval, rather than the end date, then a year once included is always part of that pause. But this opens up all the usual difficulties of justifying the start year.
      Yes, and to repeat once again: it was the arch-Warmist Dr. Phil Jones who designated 1997 as the official ‘start year’ for deciding if global warming had indeed stopped. In an interview a few years later, Jones stated that it was too soon to tell if global warming had really stopped. He said that statistically it would require at least 15 years to be sure.
      In 2012 people (mostly skeptics of MMGW) began reminding Jones of what he had said. So then a few others tried to extend that to 17 years. But by now everyone (except JDJ) knows that the “pause” is real. Instead of arguing about it, they need to accept what Planet Earth is telling us.
      And I wasn’t trying to give Brandon S. a hard time. But there are only so many excuses that warmists can come up with…

      • Yes, and to repeat once again: it was the arch-Warmist Dr. Phil Jones who designated 1997 as the official ‘start year’ for deciding if global warming had indeed stopped. In an interview a few years later, Jones stated that it was too soon to tell if global warming had really stopped. He said that statistically it would require at least 15 years to be sure.
        Can you give a reference for that? The famous quote referred to an interview by the BBC in which he was asked: “Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming”, that period having been chosen because it was known that there was no statistically significant warming. Note, it does not mean that there was no warming (in fact the trend was positive), just that the data was too noisy to determine whether it was statistically significant at the 0.05 level.

    • It is really a question of what one is looking to discover.
      Using the “now” start date finds “What is the length of the PRESENT ONGOING halt of warming?” (it is correctly a halt, and will only become a pause IFF it ever restarts).
      Using flat trend in any segment finds “WHEN were there pauses in the past and how long were they?”
      As the present halt has not ended, we can not find the total length yet. As it is NOW, looking for “when” is a bit daft. Given that, measuring back in time from now correctly finds “How long so far now?”
      Rather like a car stopped at a crossing. Sure, someday it might move again, but right now it is stopped, and the correct answer to “How long has it been stopped?” does correctly change with the passage of time and more observations of stopped status. Saying we can’t know it is stopped unless we look back in time by 10 minutes (or other arbitrary start of data) is just wrong. Similarly, that the car moved 10 minutes ago to get to the light does not make it moving now. Now it is stopped.
      Just like warming is stopped. And just like warming, the next move could just as easily be into reverse.
      It is calling the halt a pause that leads to the bent thinking that it can not be measured from now, or that change of status later erases it. See it as a halt, that then becomes a “pause” when movement returns, and things make more sense.

    • basicstats:

      Brandon Shollenberger makes the moderately interesting point that the McKitrick definition of pause means that a given year can drop out as the end year changes. But this does not seem particularly significant, since the idea of pause is necessarily a time interval, rather than the property of a single year. The fact, say, 2000-2014, is a pause is not going to change, whatever happens in coming years. It is true that if one fixes the start date of the interval, rather than the end date, then a year once included is always part of that pause. But this opens up all the usual difficulties of justifying the start year. The idea of a pause is just hard to define satisfactorily.

      I agree it is hard to define the idea of a pause well. That just doesn’t justify using obviously bad definitions. You may not find it interesting, but the methodology proposed by dbstealey and Ross McKitrick assumes a pause exists and works from there. You can’t use a methodology which assumes a pause exists then claim that methodology proves a pause exists.
      And even worse, you can’t keep changing the endpoint of your assumption with each passing day. Doing so will guarantee you’ll keep finding “pauses” as time goes on, regardless of what temperatures actually do. They’ll just be different “pauses.” You can confirm the absurdity of the results this methodology produces were it used in the past.
      It’s fine to say, “We don’t know how to precisely define the pause.” There’s nothing wrong with that. Sometimes it is difficult to give a clear definition of things, especially when talking about something which has lasted a relative short time. It’s even worse when what you’re looking at is at the end of one side of a series due to endpoint issues.
      But it’s not okay to insist people use a methodology which assumes a pause exists to determine whether or not a pause exists.

      • There is only one date that isn’t a cherry pick and that is today.
        The question of how far back can one go with a zero or less temperature trend is a valid question and when there is no “pause” around, the answer might be measured in weeks, months or a few years. The important part is knowing how long it takes for a pause to impact on the theory.
        Is it Jones’ 17 years? If so then the pause is important.

  32. nickreality65 – worth noting that CO2 emissions by bugs are 10X current CO2 from fossil fuel. So are CO2 emissions from microoragnisms. No reason to assume these are constant.

  33. As of today we know NOAA’S data on temperature is being manipulated so how do we know the data on CO2 concentrations is also not being manipulated?
    I have no faith in this organization which is agenda driven.

    • Why stop there? maybe they fiddle the Solar output as well!
      I have little faith in some humans to rationalise common sense.

    • I believe, I read somewhere that the original measurement of CO2 in the atmosphere was sponsered by Scripts Institute of Oceanography, and that there were two original sites, one in Antarctica and the other at Mona Loa (sp?) in Hiawaii by Keeling. The site in Antarctica was discontinued, maybe due to funding, manpower, accessability, who knows. It always seemed to me that a site at an active volcano would be the worst place in the world to observe atmospheric CO2 levels for the world atmospheric standard due to the major venting of CO2 from volcanoes. I believe, I also read that Keeling ignored data when the wind was in the wrong direction due to this very fact, and that they could tell when the data was bad just from looking at it. Preconceived data selection filter criteria? One wonders, what happened to the data when the wind wasn’t blowing and the level of local CO2 just kept increasing in concentration. IMHO, this is not the way to collect accurate scientific data on the well mixed concentration levels of CO2 in the global atmosphere. Just a thought.

  34. I enjoy reading comments where scientists argue about the “trees” with each other, especially if there are a few insults thrown in, rather than looking at the “forest”.
    I don’t trust ANY of the average temperature and CO2 levels estimates — why would anyone trust average temperature data presented in hundredths of a degree C. by NASA … in spite of the fact that 70% of Earth’s surface was at one time “measured” by sailors throwing buckets in the water and measuring the water temperature in the bucket with a thermometer?
    Could that be more accurate than +/- 1 degree C.?
    .
    And so what if the average temperature, based on very rough measurements, changes a few tenths of a degree in a decade, or changes a degree or two in a century?
    .
    We have no idea what a “normal” climate is, if such a condition even exists.
    In fact, the ONLY thing we know for sure is Earth’s climate is always changing, and we know there have been several ice ages, causes unknown.
    .
    There is also strong evidence the average temperature varies between the ice ages, causes unknown, but I believe solar energy variations are a lot more likely to be the cause than CO2 variations.
    .
    We can be sure manmade CO2 was NOT the cause of the warming since the last ice age ended about 15,000 years ago, and NOT likely to be the cause of the Modern Warming that started roughly 1850.
    A “pause” in the average temperature tells us no more than a pause in a stock market average — it doesn’t tell us if the future will bring an uptrend or downtrend.
    .
    Earth has most likely been cooling since the Greenhouse Ages.
    Earth has also been warming since the peak of the last ice age.
    So, does it really matter what the average temperature has done in the past ten years?
    Knowing whether or not there was really a “pause” in the past ten years … does not tell us whether the cooling trend since the Greenhouse Ages has ended … or whether the warming trend since the peak of the last ice age has ended.
    .
    In plain English, we can’t predict the future climate beyond saying “it will vary” … so why not spend all our time arguing about whether or not there was really a pause?
    My climate blog for non-scientists includes
    easy-to-read science, politics,
    and a climate centerfold too:
    http://www.elOnionBloggle.blogspot.com

    • The big question is are the climate models accurate, since trillions of dollars and countless lives depend on their predictive ability. If they can’t predict a pause (reality) or for that matter anything else, why should we believe them, and allow money and lives to be wasted?

  35. The pause proves that IPCC’s GCMs are not credible and IPCC doesn’t know what to do about it.
    IPCC AR5 acknowledges the pause/hiatus.
    WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL
    Box 9.2 | Climate Models and the Hiatus in Global Mean Surface Warming of the Past 15 Years
    “The observed global mean surface temperature (GMST) has shown a much smaller increasing linear trend over the past 15 years than over the past 30 to 60 years (Section 2.4.3, Figure 2.20, Table 2.7; Figure 9.8; Box 9.2 Figure 1a, c). Depending on the observational data set, the GMST trend over 1998–2012 is estimated to be around one-third to one-half of the trend over 1951–2012 (Section 2.4.3, Table 2.7; Box 9.2 Figure 1a, c). For example, in HadCRUT4 the trend is 0.04ºC per decade over 1998–2012, compared to 0.11ºC per decade over 1951–2012. The reduction in observed GMST trend is most marked in Northern Hemisphere winter (Section 2.4.3; Cohen et al., 2012). Even with this “hiatus” in GMST trend, the decade of the 2000s has been the warmest in the instrumental record of GMST (Section 2.4.3, Figure 2.19). Nevertheless, the occurrence of the hiatus in GMST trend during the past 15 years raises the two related questions of (1) what has caused it and (2) whether climate models are able to reproduce it.”
    And two very good questions.
    (1) Heat is absorbed/released by oceans, water vapor, clouds, albedo, etc. orders of magnitude greater than CO2.
    (2) Obviously no, no they haven’t and can’t.

  36. The “simplified circulation” of the Pacific shown is Figure 4 is an oceanographic fantasy that mistakenly portrays wholesale VERTICAL overturning of the water masses. In reality, the poleward transport of tropical warm water is almost entirely a near-surface, HORIZONTAL, wind-driven process!

Comments are closed.