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:
Figure 1. Decadal temperature trends, January 1979 to May 2015 (36+ years). Version 5.6 of the UAH MSU TLT is shown.
Figure 2. Decadal temperature trends, January 1979 to May 2015 (36+ years). Version 6.0 beta 2 of the UAH MSU.
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.
Figure 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:
Figure 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).

First, thanks to all for their comments. Next, several folks have asked that Figure 2 be re-done using the same color scheme as in Figure 1. Here ya go …
I’ve added it to the head post as well.
Enjoy,
w.
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).
Does this mean that we are not going to be 2degs C warmer by 2100? I’m disappointed.
spot the artifact over land.
This will help
http://worldgrids.org/doku.php?id=wiki:demsre3
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.
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.
@dbstealey:
You are most welcome. Glad it was useful to someone!
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 !
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0133ed03f7c5970b-pi
How is this one?
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.
Just click historical temperatures to get the data on the left side.
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
“pacific thermosyphon 2Figure 4. Simplified overall circulation pattern, Pacific Ocean.”
You appear to have your Thermohaline circulation going in the wrong direction for the Pacific:
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/images/earth/20100325/atlantic20100325-full.jpg
The is the current along Peru moving bottom water into place AFAIK.
“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.
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.
0.xx per decade. These are statistical aberrations not measurements.
“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.
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.
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.
Steven Mosher June 21, 2015 at 12:08 pm
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.
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.
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.
===================
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?
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!
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…
dbstealey:
Are you trying to say I’m a warmist, or…?
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:
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.
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.
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.
” The site in Antarctica was discontinued, maybe due to funding, manpower, accessability, who knows.”
…
ESRL in Antarctic is still in operation.
..
Here is CO2 data: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/data/index.php?site=spo&category=Greenhouse%2BGases¶meter_name=Carbon%2BDioxide&frequency=Daily%2BAverages
..
Thank you for the reference. I think that this site may be a different site, than the one I referenced, since it did not start collecting data, until late 1975. I believe that the original site sponsered by Scripts was contemporaneous with the Hiawaii volcano site, but I could be wrong. Keeling’s data started in 1959. It also appears that NOAA always ran the site you referenced. Take care.
The Scripps S Pole site started operations in 1958, before the Mauna Loa site, and is still operating.
Here’s a plot of the up-to-date data:
http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/sites/default/files/graphics_gallery_images/mlo_spo_record.png
This plot clearly indicates that the origin of the CO2 increase is in the N hemisphere.
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?
Investigating Tmax and Tmin trends by seasons reveals the real reason for the plateau or pause in global warming
http://dinosaurtheory.com/seasons.jpg
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2015/06/22/when-is-it-warming-the-real-reason-for-the-pause/
Nicely done. The seasonal hemisphere trends are intriguing.
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.
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!