# Is NOAA's Hiatus Gone? (Now Includes May Data)

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

The above are plots of what the slopes NOAA’s surface temperature anomalies look like for the three intervals 1975 to 2000; 1950 to 2000; and 2000 to 2015. The top one is before adjustments and the bottom one is after adjustments, seemingly in an attempt to get rid of the hiatus. The given slopes are in degrees C/century.

Karl Popper said: “For it is always possible to find some way of evading falsification, for example by introducing ad hoc an auxiliary hypothesis, or by changing ad hoc a definition.”

So exactly what is the definition of a hiatus? NOAA defines a “hiatus” as a slowdown in warming and not a complete stop, so we are NOT talking about a pause with a very slight negative slope when talking about whether or not we are in fact experiencing an “hiatus”. However by talking about a “slowdown”, at least three different elements need to be defined so we can all be clear whether of not a hiatus has indeed occurred.

We need to know how long the recent period is that we are comparing things to. Then we need to know how long the previous period can be that we are using for a comparison. Then we need to know how much higher the previous period needs to be in order for us to have a hiatus. For example, does the previous slope need to be at least 10% or 20% or 30% higher than the most recent slope in order to claim that we have a hiatus?

Let me illustrate why the above are important with an analogy. Suppose Bob is born with a height of 20 inches at birth. Then Bob grows to be 5 feet when his 12th birthday is reached. Then Bob undergoes a huge growth spurt and reaches 6 feet on his 13th birthday. Then his growth rate slows down and he only gains another 4 inches by his 14th birthday. Now the question is: “Did his growth rate slow down?” Probably 97% of people would say the growth rate slowed. But 3%, all climate scientists, would say there never was a change in growth rate. They would say Bob grew 52 inches or 4 inches per year in the first 13 years. And since he grew 4 inches between ages 13 and 14, there was no slowdown. Would you agree?

If I were to define a hiatus, I would say the most recent period must be at least 15 years. And the period preceding it must also be at least 15 years, but not more than 25 years. And the slope of the preceding period must be at least 30% more than the latest slope. By this definition, even NOAA shows a hiatus since the recent ratio for 1975 to 2000 versus 2000 to 2015 is 1.717/1.143 or 1.50 so the preceding period has a slope that is 50% more than the latest slope. Would you agree? Of course, comparing 2000 to 2015 with 1950 to 2000 gives a completely different picture as can be seen on the above diagrams.

Before the revisions, the ratio for the slopes for (1950 to 2000)/(2000 to 2015) was 1.48, so the 50 year period had a slope that was 48% larger. But afterwards, the latest 15 year period actually had the larger slope. In all fairness to Thomas Karl, I am not aware of a precise definition of a hiatus so no one can accuse him of changing definitions. However I do believe it is ingenious of him to compare the recent 15 years with 50 years before that, especially since virtually nothing happened for the first 25 of those 50 years.

The following is from their report: “In summary, newly corrected and updated global surface temperature data from NOAA’s NCEI do not support the notion of a global warming ‘hiatus.’ Our new analysis now shows the trend over the period 1950-1999, a time widely agreed as having significant anthropogenic global warming (1), is 0.113°C dec−1, which is virtually indistinguishable with the trend over the period 2000-2014 (0.116°C dec−1).”

The above statement perplexes me. They appear to be satisfied that they have proven to themselves and hopefully others that no hiatus occurred. But in doing so, they have, in my mind, proven that there is no catastrophic warming occurring either. A warming rate of 1.16 C/century will not reach 2 C by 2100.

In the sections below, as in previous posts, we will present you with the latest facts. The information will be presented in three sections and an appendix. The first section will show for how long there has been no warming on some data sets. At the moment, only the satellite data have flat periods of longer than a year. The second section will show for how long there has been no statistically significant warming on several data sets. The third section will show how 2015 so far compares with 2014 and the warmest years and months on record so far. For three of the data sets, 2014 also happens to be the warmest year. The appendix will illustrate sections 1 and 2 in a different way. Graphs and a table will be used to illustrate the data.

Section 1

This analysis uses the latest month for which data is available on WoodForTrees.com (WFT). All of the data on WFT is also available at the specific sources as outlined below. We start with the present date and go to the furthest month in the past where the slope is a least slightly negative on at least one calculation. So if the slope from September is 4 x 10^-4 but it is – 4 x 10^-4 from October, we give the time from October so no one can accuse us of being less than honest if we say the slope is flat from a certain month.

1. For GISS, the slope is not flat for any period that is worth mentioning.

2. For Hadcrut4, the slope is not flat for any period that is worth mentioning.

3. For Hadsst3, the slope is not flat for any period that is worth mentioning.

4. For UAH, the slope is flat since February 1997 or 18 years and 4 months. (goes to May using version 6.0)

5. For RSS, the slope is flat since December 1996 or 18 years and 6 months. (goes to May)

The next graph shows just the lines to illustrate the above. Think of it as a sideways bar graph where the lengths of the lines indicate the relative times where the slope is 0. In addition, the upward sloping blue line at the top indicates that CO2 has steadily increased over this period.

When two things are plotted as I have done, the left only shows a temperature anomaly.

The actual numbers are meaningless since the two slopes are essentially zero. No numbers are given for CO2. Some have asked that the log of the concentration of CO2 be plotted. However WFT does not give this option. The upward sloping CO2 line only shows that while CO2 has been going up over the last 18 years, the temperatures have been flat for varying periods on the two sets.

Section 2

For this analysis, data was retrieved from Nick Stokes’ Trendviewer available on his website. This analysis indicates for how long there has not been statistically significant warming according to Nick’s criteria. Data go to their latest update for each set. In every case, note that the lower error bar is negative so a slope of 0 cannot be ruled out from the month indicated.

On several different data sets, there has been no statistically significant warming for between 14 and 22 years according to Nick’s criteria. Cl stands for the confidence limits at the 95% level.

The details for several sets are below.

For UAH6.0: Since October 1992: Cl from -0.026 to 1.731

This is 22 years and 8 months.

For RSS: Since January 1993: Cl from -0.013 to 1.672

This is 22 years and 5 months.

For Hadcrut4.3: Since July 2000: Cl from -0.017 to 1.371

This is 14 years and 10 months.

For Hadsst3: Since June 1995: Cl from -0.003 to 1.739

This is an even 20 years.

For GISS: Since November 2000: Cl from -0.018 to 1.336

This is 14 years and 7 months.

Section 3

This section shows data about 2015 and other information in the form of a table. The table shows the five data sources along the top and other places so they should be visible at all times. The sources are UAH, RSS, Hadcrut4, Hadsst3, and GISS.

Down the column, are the following:

1. 14ra: This is the final ranking for 2014 on each data set.

2. 14a: Here I give the average anomaly for 2014.

3. year: This indicates the warmest year on record so far for that particular data set. Note that the satellite data sets have 1998 as the warmest year and the others have 2014 as the warmest year.

4. ano: This is the average of the monthly anomalies of the warmest year just above.

5. mon: This is the month where that particular data set showed the highest anomaly. The months are identified by the first three letters of the month and the last two numbers of the year.

6. ano: This is the anomaly of the month just above.

7. y/m: This is the longest period of time where the slope is not positive given in years/months. So 16/2 means that for 16 years and 2 months the slope is essentially 0. Periods of under a year are not counted and are shown as “0”.

8. sig: This the first month for which warming is not statistically significant according to Nick’s criteria. The first three letters of the month are followed by the last two numbers of the year.

9. sy/m: This is the years and months for row 8. Depending on when the update was last done, the months may be off by one month.

10. Jan: This is the January 2015 anomaly for that particular data set.

11. Feb: This is the February 2015 anomaly for that particular data set, etc.

15. ave: This is the average anomaly of all months to date taken by adding all numbers and dividing by the number of months.

16. rnk: This is the rank that each particular data set would have for 2015 without regards to error bars and assuming no changes. Think of it as an update 25 minutes into a game.

1.14ra 6th 6th 1st 1st 1st
2.14a 0.170 0.255 0.564 0.479 0.68
3.year 1998 1998 2014 2014 2014
4.ano 0.483 0.55 0.564 0.479 0.68
5.mon Apr98 Apr98 Jan07 Aug14 Jan07
6.ano 0.742 0.857 0.835 0.644 0.93
7.y/m 18/4 18/6 0 0 0
8.sig Oct92 Jan93 Jul00 Jun95 Nov00
9.sy/m 22/8 22/5 14/10 20/0 14/7
10.Jan 0.261 0.367 0.690 0.440 0.75
11.Feb 0.156 0.327 0.660 0.406 0.82
12.Mar 0.139 0.255 0.680 0.424 0.84
13.Apr 0.065 0.175 0.657 0.557 0.71
14.May 0.272 0.310 0.694 0.593 0.71
15.ave 0.179 0.287 0.676 0.484 0.77
16.rnk 6th 6th 1st 1st 1st

If you wish to verify all of the latest anomalies, go to the following:

For UAH, version 6.0 was used. Note that WFT uses version 5.6. So to verify the length of the pause on version 6.0, you need to use Nick’s program.

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tlt/tltglhmam_6.0beta2

For GISS, see:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

To see all points since January 2015 in the form of a graph, see the WFT graph below. Note that UAH version 5.6 is shown. WFT does not show version 6.0 yet.

As you can see, all lines have been offset so they all start at the same place in January 2015. This makes it easy to compare January 2015 with the latest anomaly.

Appendix

In this part, we are summarizing data for each set separately.

The slope is flat since December, 1996 or 18 years, 6 months. (goes to May)

For RSS: There is no statistically significant warming since January 1993: Cl from -0.013 to 1.672.

The RSS average anomaly so far for 2015 is 0.287. This would rank it as 6th place. 1998 was the warmest at 0.55. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.857. The anomaly in 2014 was 0.255 and it was ranked 6th.

UAH6.0

The slope is flat since February 1997 or 18 years and 4 months. (goes to May using version 6.0)

For UAH: There is no statistically significant warming since October 1992: Cl from -0.026 to 1.731. (This is using version 6.0 according to Nick’s program.)

The UAH average anomaly so far for 2015 is 0.179. This would rank it as 6th place. 1998 was the warmest at 0.483. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.742. The anomaly in 2014 was 0.170 and it was ranked 6th.

The slope is not flat for any period that is worth mentioning.

For Hadcrut4: There is no statistically significant warming since July 2000: Cl from -0.017 to 1.371.

The Hadcrut4 average anomaly so far for 2015 is 0.676. This would set a new record if it stayed this way. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in January of 2007 when it reached 0.835. The anomaly in 2014 was 0.564 and this set a new record.

For Hadsst3, the slope is not flat for any period that is worth mentioning. For Hadsst3: There is no statistically significant warming since June 1995: Cl from -0.003 to 1.739.

The Hadsst3 average anomaly so far for 2015 is 0.484. This would set a new record if it stayed this way. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in August of 2014 when it reached 0.644. The anomaly in 2014 was 0.479 and this set a new record.

GISS

The slope is not flat for any period that is worth mentioning.

For GISS: There is no statistically significant warming since November 2000: Cl from -0.018 to 1.336.

The GISS average anomaly so far for 2015 is 0.77. This would set a new record if it stayed this way. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in January of 2007 when it reached 0.93. The anomaly in 2014 was 0.68 and it set a new record.

Conclusion

It appears as if we need to have a precise definition as to exactly what is required to officially have a hiatus. Until we do, any one can use whatever criteria they wish and declare the hiatus over, or to have never occurred, according to their definition. This is one illustration as to how much more climate science needs to mature.

Article Rating
Inline Feedbacks
Werner Brozek
July 8, 2015 7:05 am

The satellites will not show a record in 2015.
After 6 months on RSS, the average is 0.304, and this would rank in 6th place if it stayed this way. However it will probably go up to third place before the end of the year. But a new record is virtually ruled out since the anomalies for the rest of the year would then need to average 0.796. This was only beaten once and that was in April 1998 when it was 0.857. It cannot be ruled out that the June anomaly of 0.391 may rise to 0.796 by December, but there is no way that 2015 could end up in first or even in second place on RSS. The pause stays at 18 years and 6 months, but goes from January 1997 to June 2015.
With the June anomaly of 0.329 for UAH, it would rank 4th if the average stayed at 0.204. It also may end up in third place, but it will not set a record. The pause stays at 18 years and 4 months, but now goes from March 1997 to June 2015.

billw1984
July 8, 2015 9:18 am

By lowering the temp. data at the beginning of the hiatus, it makes the slope
of the last 15 years larger but decreases the slope of the 1950-2000 and this is
what makes both slopes now very similar in this data set. I agree that it is odd to
include 1950 to 1975 as this region is fairly flat and at the start of that time frame
there may not have been enough GHGs to cause AGW. But including them
is what lowers the slope so that it is similar to 2000 to 2015 (as you pointed out).

Gary H
July 8, 2015 9:31 am

How about the slope from around 1945 through 1975 (or ’77) – isn’t there a downward (cooling) slope there?

Werner Brozek
July 8, 2015 11:23 am

How about the slope from around 1945 through 1975 (or ’77) – isn’t there a downward (cooling) slope there?

Just to give one case:
Temperature Anomaly trend
Jan 1937 to Jan 1975
Rate: -0.191°C/Century;
CI from -0.489 to 0.108;
Go to the site listed in section 2 for any others for NOAA since WFT does not show NOAA.

noaaprogrammer
July 8, 2015 1:49 pm

The straight green, red, and blue lines in the first two graphs look like crude attempts to fit an overall sine wave, where the blue line is approaching the peak thereof, and eventually to come down the other side with a negative slope.

Werner Brozek
July 8, 2015 2:04 pm

The straight green, red, and blue lines in the first two graphs look like crude attempts to fit an overall sine wave

NOAA basically used the green and blue lines from the second graph to prove there was no longer a hiatus, unlike what the green and blue lines showed in the first graph. I added the red line since I think the red line should be compared to the blue line to determine if there is a hiatus.

July 8, 2015 7:23 am

Thanks, Werner Brozek. An interesting article.
I see the “pause” as notorious change in slope, from a very positive slope to an almost null slope.
As in
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/documents/421974/487107/gtc_feb2015.gif/1abb0fcd-aecc-4cc3-ac4c-b6ea634379ea?t=1424695677621
From http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/

July 8, 2015 7:35 am

At what cost this futile guessing game of the study of the next million years of climate chaos?
Get egos under control and try to get even a 10 day rain event known in advance.
Get egos under control and get the path of hurricanes with in 100 mikes of land fall points.
After all it is not all about you.

Henry Galt
July 8, 2015 8:37 am

Ulric Lyons has been absolutely spot on for the first half of this year already. This is a solar signal so his UKcentric forecast will work globally, albeit more loosely (I would guess if you were in the UAE or Antarctica a couple degrees C up or down would not dessicate you or squeeze more moisture out of the air, etc)
http://blog.metoffice.gov.uk/2015/04/13/more-warm-weather-this-week-but-whats-in-store-for-the-summer/
The noise of crickets in that place is louder as it is surrounded by deafening silence. Pearls before swine comes to mind.

July 8, 2015 7:38 am

On the other hand, Obama knows what the tax and spend goal of the climate change cult is up to.

Steve Oregon
July 8, 2015 7:39 am

There have been many illustrations as to how much more climate science needs to find some integrity.

July 8, 2015 7:40 am

I also believe that while important to determine a “hiatus/pause”, it is also important to show the divergence from the climate models. Whether “hiatus/pause” or “slowdown”, the alleged warming does not match the “projected/predicted” warming.

Werner Brozek
July 8, 2015 7:49 am

I also believe that while important to determine a “hiatus/pause”, it is also important to show the divergence from the climate models.

True, and Lord Monckton has been covering that very well. See: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/02/el-nio-begins-to-curtail-the-pause/

July 8, 2015 7:59 am
Steve Oregon
July 8, 2015 7:51 am

So what does the NOAA tall tale look like in say 2023 if the temperature stagnation continues.

Robin Hewitt
July 8, 2015 7:51 am

The scale is one eighth of a degree Celsius. This graph need error bars.

Werner Brozek
July 8, 2015 8:11 am

This graph need error bars.

Section 2 has some error bars. However if you want much more, see Nick Stokes’ site here: http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/p/temperature-trend-viewer.html

Mike Smith
July 8, 2015 8:00 am

When you analyze noise, you get garbage. When you resort to analyzing adjusted noise, you get research grants.
How on earth did we get here?

Henry Galt
July 8, 2015 8:20 am

+1 Mike. You just won the Internet.

July 8, 2015 10:03 am

…much to our collective dismay. Still, his observation is 100% accurate.

July 8, 2015 10:12 am

best summary of climate science in 20 words or less!

Joel O'Bryan
July 8, 2015 12:05 pm

Becasue, to use a term put forward by Dr Judith Curry, the result is “politically useful.”
By contrast, politically un-useful Climate related results are largely now discarded or ignored.

Bruce Hall
July 8, 2015 8:00 am

Why are linear trends used rather than polynomials? I’ve never understood that. You can see both long term and short term trends with the latter.

Werner Brozek
July 8, 2015 8:14 am

It is much easier to compare the slopes of two lines than to compare polynomial shapes.

Bruce Hall
July 8, 2015 8:53 am

Except the starting and ending points of two straight lines are “eyeballed”… you can pick one point and I can pick another. Can’t do that very well with a polynomial expression.

noaaprogrammer
July 8, 2015 1:59 pm

It’s easy to determine the slope of a tangent line to any point (x, p(x)) on a polynomial by taking its derivative evaluated at x: p'(x).

TonyL
July 8, 2015 9:00 am

You can fit any order of polynomial, of course. We determine “goodness of fit” and determine how much of the fit is statistically justified. If you use more terms than is justified, you have overfit the data. This means your trend line is responding to random, spurious patterns in the data as well as real trends. Overfit trends actually do not describe the data as well as the simpler fits, even though they look better. If you make predictions on what future data sets will look like, the overfit trends invariably do worse than the simpler cases. That is why we use the higher order fits for “entertainment purposes only, no predictive value”.
In an extreme case, you can overfit pure noise and end up with a “hockey Stick”, as was famously done, once.
Faustian Bargain, anyone?

Joel Snider
July 8, 2015 8:01 am

So – a semantic shell game. The sort of thing a shyster lawyer specializes in. And where or where in this administration would we find a shyster lawyer?

July 8, 2015 8:06 am

Easy: just throw a ball up in the air and when it lands, take the nearest lawyer.
/grin

Werner Brozek
July 8, 2015 8:19 am

So – a semantic shell game.

It is worse than that! First the data gets adjusted. Then the semantic shell game begins on data that many people really have questions about.

Chris4692
July 8, 2015 8:02 am

Rather than throwing about arbitrary numbers to determine if the slopes are different, there should be statistical tests applied. Those test should compare whether the slopes from the various time periods are significantly different from 0, and whether the slopes of the different time periods are statistically different from the slope in the entire time period.
There must be a statistical test for it, but unfortunately I don’t off hand know what those tests are and I’m away on a project so I can’t look it up.

Werner Brozek
July 8, 2015 8:29 am

Those test should compare whether the slopes from the various time periods are significantly different from 0

Here are some stats for NOAA, but only for the adjusted data:
Temperature Anomaly trend
Jan 1975 to Dec 1999
Rate: 1.712°C/Century;
CI from 1.228 to 2.196;
Temperature Anomaly trend
Jan 2000 to May 2015
Rate: 1.256°C/Century;
CI from 0.645 to 1.868;
The site mentioned in section 2 can be used for any other time and data set you wish.

jimmi_the_dalek
July 8, 2015 3:09 pm

Those confidence intervals overlap, so it is not even statistically significant to claim the slopes are different.

Werner Brozek
July 8, 2015 5:05 pm

Those confidence intervals overlap, so it is not even statistically significant to claim the slopes are different.

That is an excellent point that I had not considered! Perhaps talking about a % change is the wrong metric and we need to see if confidence limits do not overlap.
However I just checked it out on RSS, and even there we had an overlap. So by this metric, no data set has a pause at all.

TimTheToolMan
July 8, 2015 10:04 pm

Hey, who captured jimmi_the_dalek and replaced him with a skeptical replica?

TonyL
July 8, 2015 8:23 am

You play semantic games.

NOAA shows a hiatus since the recent ratio for 1975 to 2000 versus 2000 to 2015 is 1.717/1.143 or 1.50
the ratio for the slopes for (1950 to 2000)/(2000 to 2015) was 1.48
we need to have a precise definition as to exactly what is required to officially have a hiatus

There is simply no need for these games. There is also no need for the term “hiatus”. The term “hiatus” presumes that the activity will resume. That presumption relies on, as they say, “facts not in evidence”.
Hence, we use the term The Great Pause. The definition is easy. The Linear Least Squares slope is negative. By mathematical definition, you are cooling, not warming. Hence, the warming has stopped. The definition is simple and cleanly cuts the difference between warming and cooling. That is why I, and others, have adopted it.
On another note, the satellite and weather balloon data sets diverge radically from the surface based data sets, particularly in these last 18 years. No good physical theory as to why this is so has ever been offered by those maintaining the surface data sets.

Werner Brozek
July 8, 2015 8:36 am

There is simply no need for these games. There is also no need for the term “hiatus”.

In the article by NOAA, they say: “The apparent slowdown was termed a “hiatus”.
I wish we had a specific definition as to exactly what constitutes a hiatus, but we do not. Perhaps this post will inspire people to come up with a definition that all will agree with.

TonyL
July 8, 2015 9:08 am

I do see your point, and agree that formal definitions are needed, as always in science. But I think NOAA is engaging in semantics and spin control here, for political purposes. That will make general agreement difficult.

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
July 8, 2015 12:42 pm

‘A pause, interruption, or break in continuity.’ THAT is the specific definition in the English language. We don’t need a new definition. ‘Hiatus’, ‘Pause’, whatever ALL imply that you know future events. The ‘pause’ button on your DVD player temporarily holds the play. It is there to suspend play, and implies that you wish to resume. We do NOT know future events, so it cannot be termed a pause or a hiatus. According to RSS, the warming anomaly has stopped…ceased…halted. If it resumes, then it paused.

July 8, 2015 8:24 am

Why do you bother with the fake temperature curves in your two first figures? Use satellite data to show hiatuses. I said hiatuses in plural because there is not just one but two of them. The second one that you do not know about is the one in the eighties and nineties. It has been wiped out in the ground-based temperature records by over-writing it with a fake warming called “late twentieth century warming.” The crooked temperature purveyors responsible for that scientific crime are HadCRUT, GISS, and NCDC. They are connected by common data processing that unbeknownst to them left its footprints on all three publicly available temperature curves. Fortunately they still do not control satellites which makes it possible for anyone to download the record of this hiatus in the eighties and nineties from either UAH or RSS satellite temperature databases. If you do that you will find that both hiatuses will show up in the same satellite record. I discovered it in 2008 while doing research for my book “What Warming?” It is pretty obvious that you have not done your homework and read my book. This hiatus is shown as figure 15 in the book. Figure 24 shows the modus operandi of HadCRUT3 in wiping it out. The hiatus in the eighties and nineties goes from 1979 to 1997, a stretch of 18 years by a coincidence. Together the two hiatuses block out 80 percent of the warming that should have happened according to Arrhenius during the satellite era. The other twenty percent is taken up by the super El,Nino of 1998 and a short warming starting in 1999. Neither one has anything to do withe greenhouse warming. As a result, we can say that there has been no greenhouse warming whatsoever in the satellite era that began in 1997. This kills AGW, period. Among other things the greenhouse theory of Arrhenius is shown to be false and the Miskolczi greenhouse theoy or MGT is proven correct because it correctly predicts the presence of these hiatuses. If the pseudo-scientists of global warming do not like this it is their own fault for thinking that a non-existent warming can be real.

Werner Brozek
July 8, 2015 8:43 am

The second one that you do not know about is the one in the eighties and nineties.

Actually, Bob Tisdale often talks about step changes due to El Ninos. But my point in this article was to question whether or not NOAA was really successful in getting rid of the hiatus by their own rather vague definition.

July 9, 2015 2:55 pm

Werner Brozek
July 9, 2015 4:57 pm

And none of them know that so-called “volcanic coolings” are nothing more than misidentified La Nina valleys. La Nina? What is that?

You may wish to take this and other thing up with Bob Tisdale. I am certainly not an expert on La Ninas and ENSO.

July 8, 2015 8:38 am

There is much too much concentration on immediate / short term of temperature changes. The big picture is much more informative.
Our current beneficial, warm Holocene interglacial has been the enabler of mankind’s civilisation for the last 10,000 years. The congenial climate of the Holocene spans from mankind’s earliest farming to the scientific and technological advances of the last 100 years.
Judging from the usual lengths of past interglacial periods, after some 10,000 – 11,000 years the Holocene epoch could well be drawing to its close. A climate reversion to full, encroaching, glaciation is therefore foreseeable, if not overdue, in this century, the next century, or this millennium.
Looking at climate change from a century by century or on a millennial perspective and using Ice core data but reducing it to century and millennial averages the overall millennial difference during the Holocene since ~8000BC has in total been a cooling of ~-1.8°C.
The early Holocene encompassing the “Climate Optimum” of ~ 7000BC and continuing for about 7000 years has been relatively constant with a temperature loss of only about -0.05 degC per millennium
However since 1000BC up to the present day the temperature drop was at about 10 times that rate at ~0.5degC / millennium.
The last millennium 1000AD – 2000AD has been the coldest of the Holocene overall.
Most of the Holocene temperature loss ~-1.5°C has been in the last 3 millennia since 1000BC.
The scale of temperature changes that alarmists anticipate because of Man-made Global Warming and their view of the disastrous effects of additional Man-made Carbon Dioxide emissions, the much vaunted and much feared “fatal” tipping point of +2°C would only bring Global temperatures back to the level of the very congenial climate of “the Roman warm period”.
If it were possible to reach the “potentially horrendous” level of +6°C postulated by Warmists, by the inclusion of dubious but major positive feedbacks from additional water vapor in the atmosphere, that extreme level would still only bring temperatures to about the level of the previous Eemian maximum. The world has been there and survived before.
Current modern warming does not even bring temperatures back to those of the Medieval warm period.
Looked at from the point of view of the most recent 3 millennia which have experienced accelerated cooling, a continued natural climate change towards a colder climate would now seem more, rather than less, likely.
In other words all policy decisions to curtail warming are facing in exactly the wrong direction.
see
https://edmhdotme.wordpress.com/2015/06/01/the-holocene-context-for-anthropogenic-global-warming-2/

Werner Brozek
July 8, 2015 8:48 am

There is much too much concentration on immediate / short term of temperature changes. The big picture is much more informative.

That may be true. However the big debate is whether or not the big picture is relevant due to our fossil fuel usage.

July 8, 2015 6:58 pm

W.B.
As far as I can see, that’s been asked and answered by ed. It seems that the big picture is indeed relevant. This whole dog and pony show is predicated on the belief that a few degrees of warming would be cataclysmic. I don’t know about you, but I find the prospect of another ice age far more terrifying.

Werner Brozek
July 8, 2015 7:52 pm

I don’t know about you, but I find the prospect of another ice age far more terrifying.

I agree, but then I live in Canada. Going by the number of global deaths due to cold versus due to heat, it is obvious that the best change for now, if any, would be more warming.

Joel Williams
July 9, 2015 5:11 pm

For another analysis, see “Can Mankind Really Expect To Tame Earth’s Climate And Remove It From Cosmic Control?”
The paper provides a link to a YouTube video of the Thermal Vise that has “squeezed” the earth during the past 400,000 years and will do so again.

Werner Brozek
July 9, 2015 7:26 pm

Mankind needs to be thinking about how to feed and heat itself for 100,000 years of cold, inhospitable climate.

That may be true, but “we” will have to cross that bridge when we come to it. In the meantime, let us do (or not do) what is best for our children and grand children.

Steve Oregon
July 8, 2015 8:52 am

Funny how everyone knew what hiatus meant before it was used for the break in global warming.
Then it became a living word subject to much confusion, manipulation and interpretation.
hi·a·tus
hīˈādəs/
noun
a pause or gap in a sequence, series, or process.
“there was a brief hiatus in the war with France”
synonyms: pause, break, gap, lacuna, interval, intermission, interlude, interruption, suspension, lull, respite, time out, time off, recess; informal breather, letup
“the spring hiatus gave us time to rethink our next project”
Clearly NOAA is also re-inventing the words, honesty, integrity and ethics.

Salvatore Del Prete
July 8, 2015 8:54 am

Why do you bother with the fake temperature curves in your two first figures? Use satellite data to show hiatuses.
I agree 100% with the above statement made by Arno.
Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. NOAA data is manipulated and should not be shown.

Werner Brozek
July 8, 2015 9:05 am

Use satellite data to show hiatuses.

I agree. But then we would be accused of cherry picking our data sets. Hopefully articles like this one will help to prove that it is justified.

Mike McMillan
July 9, 2015 12:39 am

The surface and satellite data sets have their pros and cons, but a good case can be make for the satellites.
The surface sets are long and they are where we live, but they are corrupt noisy and subject to continuous alteration adjustment. (e.g.: 1910 is colder now than it was in 1910, but not as cold as 1910 will be in 2020.)
The satellite sets are truly global and uniformly measured, but aren’t as long and aren’t down where most people live.
I was encouraged to see the new UAH version more closely matched His Lordship’s favorite RSS set, but discouraged to see the Lower Trop numbers were weighted even farther up from the surface. The old set centered around 6,000 ft up, but the new version 6 favors around 12,000 ft. I mean, who lives at 12,000 ft?
Then I realized Drs Keeling work there. That’s the neighborhood of the MLO CO2 station, so now we’re getting our CO2 and temperature curves from the same place.
http://www.rockyhigh66.org/stuff/UAH_weighting.png

AndyG55
July 9, 2015 4:43 am

Mike, unless there is a manifest change is the atmospheric lapse rate over time, the satellite data is a very good indicator of any warming of the Earth.
It is FAR better than any surface temperatures which are highly manipulated, irregularly spaced, and subject to large human caused UHI and other effects.
CO2 does not change the lapse rate.
There is NO warming in the satellite record.
There is NO warming effect from CO2

Toneb
July 9, 2015 6:30 am

Mike:
“The surface sets are long and they are where we live, but they are corrupt noisy and subject to continuous alteration adjustment. (e.g.: 1910 is colder now than it was in 1910, but not as cold as 1910 will be in 2020.)
The satellite sets are truly global and uniformly measured, but aren’t as long and aren’t down where most people live.”
You need to add to the satellite bit:………..
Also have to be continually altered.
If you don’t know why look here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements
“The sensors deteriorate over time, and corrections are necessary for orbital drift and decay. Particularly large differences between reconstructed temperature series occur at the few times when there is little temporal overlap between successive satellites, making intercalibration difficult.[
Oh, and UAH is now on V6 (big changes from v5.5)

Werner Brozek
July 9, 2015 6:53 am

The old set centered around 6,000 ft up, but the new version 6 favors around 12,000 ft. I mean, who lives at 12,000 ft?

The absolute temperatures would be colder, but due to the lapse rate, the trend should not change.
As for CO2, that is relatively well mixed in this range.

Mike McMillan
July 9, 2015 10:02 am

Toneb:
The satellite data isn’t altered. Its interpretation may change as the conversion algorithms are updated, but the raw data is still there. That isn’t the case with surface data sets, cf. USHCN v1 with v2.
The Wikipedia paragraph you quote is marked “citation needed” for a reason: it isn’t the case. Once the second MSU satellite launched, there was only one four month stretch without at least two satellites reporting data. Judging by the observation times chart, all satellite intercalibrations had at least a week’s worth of data.
The Wikipedia page is on Connolley’s watch list, so it is and will remain warmist biased.

Tim
July 8, 2015 8:58 am

There is no hiatus
No need to debate us
We’ve got the best science
And the best PR status
So don’t ask for our data
You’ll be met by laughter
Because the science is settled
For now and hereafter.

Gunga Din
July 8, 2015 1:31 pm

And if after that, a flaw has been found
We’ll adjust the past temps a bit further down.

Salvatore Del Prete
July 8, 2015 9:16 am

The last millennium 1000AD – 2000AD has been the coldest of the Holocene overall.
Most of the Holocene temperature loss ~-1.5°C has been in the last 3 millennia since 1000BC
edhoskins says which is spot on.
Going forward the long term climate drivers Milankovitch Cycles, Solar Variability (secondary effects),and these factors which moderate the first two factors those being , Geo Magnetic Field Strength (enhancing solar variability when weak)., Land /Ocean Arrangements., Ice Dynamic are all in an overall cooling pattern since the Holocene Optimum.
The warm periods since the Holocene Optimum being tied to solar variability which is superimposed upon the general climatic trend. MEDIEVAL ,ROMAN warm periods to name two.
Further refinement to the temperature trend since the Holocene Optimum ,coming from ENSO, PDO/AMO phase and Volcanic Activity.
I would say all the above when combined and superimposed upon one another can account for all of the climatic changes since the Holocene Optimum – Present Day.
Therefore going forward the trend in the global temperature should be down as soon as the maximum of solar cycle 24 ends and solar activity in general remains at sub-solar levels which it has been since 2005, and approaches my low average value solar parameters going forward, with a sufficient duration of time at or around these values.
Solar Flux 90 or less, AP index 5.0 or less, Solar Wind 350 km or less to name some of them.
These values much above these levels during the maximum of solar cycle 24 through today , although the maximum of solar cycle 24 is very weak, however the balance of this decade going forward should feature these low solar parameter readings as the very weak maximum of solar cycle 24 ends ,and once this is takes place I fully expect the global temperature trend to be in a jig saw down trend.

rogerknights
July 8, 2015 9:52 am

“Ingenious of him” (Karl)
You meant “ingenuous”–or maybe “disingenuous”

Werner Brozek
July 8, 2015 11:29 am

Or maybe genius? I will let our English pros sort that out.

Gunga Din
July 8, 2015 1:33 pm

It might take a genie to undo the damage they’ve done. 😎

July 8, 2015 10:03 am

Difficult though it is to fire federal employees, I hope there will be wholesale house-cleaning at NOAA and NASA GISS under a new, GOP administration, but am not holding my breath. Maybe retirement offers the leading offenders can’t refuse, in order to join Hansen as full-time activists, as if they aren’t already.

July 8, 2015 10:27 am

“The given slopes are in degrees C/century.”
That’s 0.00x C/year. Where can one find an instrument with that resolution? These are statistical constructs, i.e. fabrications, hallucinations. Where are the error bars?

Werner Brozek
July 8, 2015 11:33 am

Where are the error bars?

The site in section 2 gives some information.

Mike Bryant
July 8, 2015 11:01 am

The top two graphs are very misleading. NOAA has chopped off the top and bottom of the graphs. If you include the top and bottom, it is obvious that temperatures have peaked and are now on a plateau.

Werner Brozek
July 8, 2015 11:42 am

I take full responsibility for the graphs. While some high points and perhaps some low points got chopped off, my focus was on the slope lines and their value. If you wish to duplicate what I did, go to:
http://www.moyhu.blogspot.com.au/p/latest-ice-and-temperature-data.html#NCAR
Keep in mind that only the bottom graph can be duplicated. The data for the top graph is no longer there at the site listed above.
By the way, it is much more complicated than WFT so I had a rather steep learning curve and a lot of help from Nick to be able to do what I did and then make jpg out of them.

July 8, 2015 11:43 am

S/B: “…began in 1979…” not in 1997. Sorry.

Gary Pearse
July 8, 2015 12:04 pm

So we will just re-analyze when they come back and bend the slopes up further. You know, we are getting so used to this egregious readjustment process to make things the way they want and to do away with the critique points that skeptics have made, that it is beginning to seem normal, even to skeptics. This is not normal at all. You either robbed the bank or you didn’t. There is no halfway alternative. I’m getting a little tired of analyses that make you want to scream. Doing them is just as much fanciful and wrong as them cooking the data.

Scottish Sceptic
July 8, 2015 12:06 pm

For as long as I’ve been talking about the pause it has been the discrepancy between predicted and actual warming. The lowest predicted warming in 2001 was 0.14C/decade, so I suggest actual (not fabricated) warming of more than 0.07 or perhaps for simplicity 0.05C/decade could be called warming. Changes between +0.05 and -0.05 should be “pause” or no change and less than 0.05C/decade should be considered cooling.

Werner Brozek
July 8, 2015 1:08 pm

Here are the numbers for 5 data sets.
Temperature Anomaly trend
Jan 2001 to May 2015
Rate: -0.390°C/Century;
UAH
Temperature Anomaly trend
Jan 2001 to May 2015
Rate: -0.150°C/Century;
NOAA
Temperature Anomaly trend
Jan 2001 to May 2015
Rate: 0.972°C/Century;
GISS
Temperature Anomaly trend
Jan 2001 to May 2015
Rate: 0.535°C/Century;
Temperature Anomaly trend
Jan 2001 to May 2015
Rate: 0.431°C/Century;

Changes between +0.05 and -0.05 should be “pause”

, GISS and NOAA do not show a pause but the other three do. What do we do now, go by the majority or take an average?

AndyG55
July 9, 2015 4:48 am

Werner.. just a mathematically point.
Since the satellite data is well short of 100 years long, you should not be stating it as a rate per century.
You are extrapolating well beyond the data points.
You could however, state all trends as decadal or quarter century trends.

Werner Brozek
July 9, 2015 7:01 am

Since the satellite data is well short of 100 years long, you should not be stating it as a rate per century.

I understand your point, but that is how Nick chose to express it on his site. Of course it can easily be converted to a per year basis.
In the same way, you can say you are going 60 miles per hour in your car, but that does not mean you have to be travelling for an hour.

July 8, 2015 12:06 pm

The pause started around 1880 if you use the right graph:?w=636&h=294
Maybe the pause even started before 1880.

Richard Barraclough
July 9, 2015 5:52 am

It’s completely pointless showing graphs like that. The vertical scale must be such that the variations are visible, as we learn in school.
Imagine going to you doctor with a fever, and he plots your temperature on such a graph for the whole of your life, with a baseline at absolute zero. He’d show you the door, and tell you to stop wasting his time.

July 8, 2015 12:15 pm

Once upon a time when climate central would talk about global warming, it was about how hot it was in the US. Then when it was pointed out that there was a cooling trend, well the US was only 2 % of the earth. And the difference between climate and weather was used interchangeable in the course of any debate, hotter was climate and colder is weather. It seems that 5 western states are now responsible for global warming again. Never mind that here in Colorado we’ve hit a new milestone, the coldest high for this date… for the first time ever the heat was turned on in July. Is Colorado thought of as a western state?

Gary Pearse
July 8, 2015 12:31 pm

Also, there is something similar going on with the polar ice data. There has been a big pause in showing data from almost all the main data sets and I’m sure there is going to be an ‘adjustment’ downward for both poles. Even NOAA knows that something has to be done about expanding polar ice if you are going to eliminate the pause. JAXA, Nansen, Cryosphere Today have all been up to something funny. When they all come back with their new data, gee, we will then be equipped to do our next estimates of the ice extent (lower) minimums and everyone will be happy. Look for the new ice extent plummet not too long before the minimum in late September – fresh for the Paris Summit. They did this when sea-level was letting them down and made an adjustment that no longer represents actual sea level, represents nebulous ocean bottom rebounds. They’ve stopped updating World Glacier observations since many of these have begun to advance again…..
Cowtan and Way used arctic amplification to adjust global temperatures upwards (followed by Hadcrut) and look at what is actually happening to the amplification – it has been de-amplifying since 2006 and the temperature is declining:
Is NOAA going to adjust the temperature back down since 2006? You can bet not.
And Cowtan and Way happily forgot about the other pole when they proposed this adjustment of temp upwards. Temperature 60-70S is dropping like a stone since 1979 and ice has been expanding.
What is the betting on how long they are going to put up with this strong evidence of cooling for all to see?
Werner, I suggested Monckton do a similar ‘hiatus’ analysis for these two graphs. How about you giving it a try? At least it will force them to do something drastic to these two uncooperative graphs.

Werner Brozek
July 8, 2015 1:20 pm

How about you giving it a try

My graphing skills along with the slope calculations were limited to what WFT gives, and now Nick’s has been added. However Walter Dnes could do what you suggest. When you see an article by him in the near future, ask him about it.

Joel Williams
July 8, 2015 1:09 pm

The Global Temperature Anomalies of land-ocean data, satellite data, and computer modeling all give different answers to what might actually be or will be happening. The paper at http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Climate%20Studies/Download/6128 reconciles their differences based on CO2.

Werner Brozek
July 8, 2015 2:24 pm

I do not see how land-ocean data and satellite data can be reconciled after 1998, regardless what CO2 may be doing.

AndyG55
July 9, 2015 4:49 am

Sorry Joel, but computer modelling with unvalidated climate models DOES NOT give any indication of anything !!

Joel Williams
July 9, 2015 1:09 pm

The point was NOT to validate the CIMP5 computer model(s), but to put everything at some common reference point (the 1979-1995 period) at which there is not a lot of disagreement and where the models presumably stated with NOAA GTA that were different than the ones now in the NOAA file, and to show how they differ in recent years (1995-2015) and beyond, if all are set to the same reference point. The CIMP5 climate model average does not mimic the measured data after that period. This would indicate the model(s) need to be adjusted. I presume you are indicating that those models have not been validated. Whether true or not, they are the “validation” to the alarmists that the earth will “burn” when we get to 2C. Computer generated. Are you suggesting that I am doing modeling?

RWturner
July 8, 2015 2:08 pm

This whole article is mute. It took me a whole 3 seconds to notice that the trend starts in a strong La Nina year and ends in a strong El Nino year.

Werner Brozek
July 8, 2015 2:33 pm

I assume you are talking about 2000 to 2015. But despite this fact, look at the huge difference in slope from before (0.706) to after (1.143).

July 8, 2015 3:34 pm

My thought in looking at the graphs displayed is “What is the justification for using the year 2000 as a start or end point?”. If that point is shifted either way by several years, then a very different picture is displayed which negates NOAA,s outlook. So what is the purpose of the exercise.

Werner Brozek
July 8, 2015 4:40 pm

“What is the justification for using the year 2000 as a start or end point?”

In NOAA’s original report, the last three times were 1998 to 2012, 1998 to 2014, and 2000 to 2014. So it seems as if the final period needed to be at least 15 years. While different combinations give slightly different slopes, it is clear to me that there is still a hiatus. Had I ended and started in January 1998 for example, the 1998 to 2015 would have been smaller, but 1975 to 1998 would also have been smaller. But then I would have been accused of cherry picking. Right?
The ratio for 1975 to 1998/1998 to 2015 is 1.589/0.972 = 1.63, so the earlier slope was 63% larger.

July 8, 2015 3:36 pm

“A warming rate of 1.16C per century will not reach 2C by 2100” actually it will, because when the warmists talk about 2C now you will notice it is “2C above pre industrial levels”. Give it another year and it will be “2(F( with the F not mentioned) above pre industrial levels” that they mean, or no change.

Werner Brozek
July 8, 2015 4:43 pm

1.16 C/century x 0.85 century = 0.99 C. So adding 0.8 C that has already happened, I get 1.8 C.

Jimmy Finley
July 8, 2015 7:45 pm

I’ll give you a definition: “That graph, in which you have jiggered the data to support your cause, is good for 15 years in Federal penitentiary. The next one will add 10 years to the sentence.”
As to “data adjustments”- if “time of observation” is the factor that counts, as we hear from whats-his-face (can’t even recall his name, but you know who I mean), why, once it was taken into consideration, is it ever again an issue? The very first adjustment which accounted for it should have negated it for future consideration, no? Otherwise, there’s no end to “TOBS”.

Werner Brozek
July 8, 2015 9:13 pm

The very first adjustment which accounted for it should have negated it for future consideration, no? Otherwise, there’s no end to “TOBS”.

I agree that the very odd adjustment may be legitimate. But when things change every year or sooner, it makes you suspicious as to what is going on.

Carrick
July 9, 2015 12:09 am

I think going from 1950 is an obvious attempt to water down the actual magnitude of the warming slowdown.
I would have compared the slopes for Jan 1975-Dec, 1999 and Jan 2000-Now, 1015.
The justification for using 2000 as a breakpoint is you’re away from the 1998 episodic event. Having large excursions right the edge of a range is never a good thing for least-squares-fit trend (which weights the points near the edge the heaviest).

Werner Brozek
July 9, 2015 7:15 am

I would have compared the slopes for Jan 1975-Dec, 1999 and Jan 2000-Now, 2015.

Different combinations give slightly different values for the ratios, so starting sooner and ending sooner (but at the same place as the previous start) may affect both numbers in the same direction.
But going back to only 1975, I do not believe you will find any combination where the previous rate of warming is less than 30% more than the present rate.

Unmentionable
July 9, 2015 12:46 am

Conclusion
It appears as if we need to have a precise definition as to exactly what is required to officially have a hiatus. Until we do, any one can use whatever criteria they wish and declare the hiatus over, or to have never occurred, according to their definition. This is one illustration as to how much more climate science needs to mature.
_______
Sorry, but a record of 20 years, or even 50 years, is not even close to an indication of actual ‘climate’ change. It’s just a record of cyclic weather variability, and is incapable of eliciting climate trends in isolation. Climate trends show up unambiguously in data sources that are considerably longer than 250 years.
500 years is what I would call the minimum needed to unambiguously detect actual planetary and regional climate changes.
All of the talk of the satellite record or a subset of it is really a discussion weather cycles and the noise within them. That’s not a climate change signal.
So are we merely playing into the AGW lobby’s hands, via pretending that an alleged ‘climate change’ can be unambiguously measured via such a means?
Yes.
And as the acorn data keep revealing, the instrumental data trend prior is hardly credible either.
So shouldn’t we be asking, why on earth are we doing this, and falling into their defining of what unambiguous climate change is, and what is required to measure, and clearly unambiguously detect it?
Surely I can’t be the only one who is troubled by all this nitty gritty weather data being couched in terms of measuring a climate change ‘hiatus’?
Look, the cAGW kooks defined the hockey stick as a short-term sharp change. Well the first time I saw their cAGW hockey stick, I said to myself, “Nope, that isn’t correct, because I know climate can not be unambiguously detected on such a short timescale.”
The implication and insinuation of the Hockey Stick graph was that it was portraying sure evidence of a sharp short and therefore assuredly anthropogenic (industrial) origins of such a cAGW fingerprint.
Well the both the Hockey Stick and cAGW have now been thoroughly discredited and debunked.
So why the hell are we still looking for climate change on such a short time scale?
Hey, that’s my take on it.
I suggest we snap out of this and re-focus on actual climate change data, that we can unambiguously detect and measure, and let the weather cycles remain weather cycles and not pretend they are climate data.
Or is that too unmentionable?
2 cents worth

Werner Brozek
July 9, 2015 7:25 am

So shouldn’t we be asking, why on earth are we doing this, and falling into their defining of what unambiguous climate change is, and what is required to measure, and clearly unambiguously detect it?

You raise excellent points. Think of it this way: We are in a chess game with NOAA and they make a move. It is now up to us to make a counter move so no one thinks we are checkmated by their move.

Unmentionable
July 9, 2015 6:56 pm

Thank you Werner,
I estimate it’s becoming time to pin them down and point this out clearly, and refocus them and others on the discussion of the scientific agenda as opposed to this unfortunate tangent that has been wasting everyone’s time and career.
These serial spats are not why we do this, surely?
NOAAs got internal factors to take care of (which the may not), if they’ve likewise lost sight of why we’re actually doing this amid all of the skin, hair and hot air flying about the inter-planet. No good waiting for them to refocus on the science, or they’d have already realized it and done it already. Who led us here? We didn’t come this way by choice, so let’s choose the field of battle for ourselves. Bit rhetorical, but you see what I mean.
We should consider how this will appear in retrospect, in 25 or 50 years if we don’t take the adult and refocused initiative now to put climate back on-topic, and in its proper context.
Respect for you all.

Werner Brozek
July 9, 2015 7:08 pm

Hopefully things will change after the next election in the states. Then we may only have to wait two years to get things into the proper context. It is unfortunate that there is only one major global data set outside the states.

Joe Bastardi
July 9, 2015 4:51 am

Every 6 hours NCEP takes the earths Temperature. This is the result of what the model computes as the global temperature given its finer grid and advanced inputs ( satellites, surface data, etc) So the question is why isnt this the gold standard. For if the ncep output is wrong, then should they not be trying to “adjust” to what Big Brother ( NOAA) is saying? The last 30 years show the rise we saw when the PDO flipped warm but why would it see what appears to be the fall since the PDO flip ( like the late 50s, it went back to the warm stage for 2-3 years, and it is now) and is this El Nino Spike going to be followed by an even greater drop off like the last 2, 06-07,09-10, which is what I believe.
79-88 http://models.weatherbell.com/climate/cfsr_t2m_1979.png
88-2005: http://models.weatherbell.com/climate/cfsr_t2m_1988.png
since 2005 http://models.weatherbell.com/climate/cfsr_t2m_2005.png
Dr Ryan Maue has developed a super site on Weatherbell.com for instant measuring of temps. Now here is something Curious, and the CFSV2 sees it too.. The “cooling” now taking place globally in the face of the evolving enso
http://models.weatherbell.com/climate/cdas_v2_hemisphere_2015.png

Werner Brozek
July 9, 2015 7:31 am

harrytwinotter
July 9, 2015 6:08 am

“It appears as if we need to have a precise definition as to exactly what is required to officially have a hiatus.”
The definition of the IPCCs hiatus is in the IPCC AR5 report.
It is not a thing as such, it was just the term used by the IPCC to describe an apparent slowdown in global average temperature change during a particular period of time, compared to previous periods.
It makes sense why the IPCC highlighted this period – it was of interest if the temperature change had increased, decreased or was not changing.

Werner Brozek
July 9, 2015 7:41 am

it was just the term used by the IPCC to describe an apparent slowdown in global average temperature change during a particular period of time, compared to previous periods

That is just my point, namely that this definition is so vague that two different people can easily come to opposite conclusions as to whether or not we are in a hiatus right now.
For example “ apparent slowdown” should be quantified. And “a particular period of time” needs to be either specified or given a narrow range. As well “previous periods” also needs to be either specified or given a narrow range. At least that is my opinion.

harrytwinotter
July 9, 2015 7:58 am

Werner Brozek.
It is not vague. It was defined and coined in the IPCC AR5 report. There is only one definition.

Werner Brozek
July 9, 2015 8:30 am

It is not vague.

Does the adjusted NOAA data set show a hiatus?

harrytwinotter
July 10, 2015 1:54 am

Werner Brozek.
It was defined and coined in the IPCC AR5 report. There is only one definition.

Werner Brozek
July 10, 2015 7:10 am

Thank you for your response. I knew you could not answer with a “yes” or “no” since that one definition was too vague. By that definition, NOAA says there was no hiatus, but by that same definition, I can prove there still is a hiatus as I have done in the introduction.

richardscourtney
July 10, 2015 7:33 am

harrytwinotter and Werner Brozek:
I think you should have checked what the IPCC AR5 actually said about the misnamed ‘Pause’ because it is NOT as harrytwinotter claims

the term used by the IPCC to describe an apparent slowdown in global average temperature change during a particular period of time, compared to previous periods

NO! Comparisons of trends between different time periods are not involved.
Box 9.2 on page 769 of Chapter 9 of IPCC the AR5 Working Group 1 (i.e. the most recent IPCC so-called science report) is here and says

Figure 9.8 demonstrates that 15-year-long hiatus periods are common in both the observed and CMIP5 historical GMST time series (see also Section 2.4.3, Figure 2.20; Easterling and Wehner, 2009; Liebmann et al., 2010). However, an analysis of the full suite of CMIP5 historical simulations (augmented for the period 2006–2012 by RCP4.5 simulations, Section 9.3.2) reveals that 111 out of 114 realizations show a GMST trend over 1998–2012 that is higher than the entire HadCRUT4 trend ensemble (Box 9.2 Figure 1a; CMIP5 ensemble mean trend is 0.21ºC per decade). This difference between simulated and observed trends could be caused by some combination of (a) internal climate variability, (b) missing or incorrect radiative forcing and (c) model response error. These potential sources of the difference, which are not mutually exclusive, are assessed below, as is the cause of the observed GMST trend hiatus.

GMST trend is global mean surface temperature trend.
A “hiatus” is a stop.
However, the ‘stop’ is exhibited as being a “difference between simulated and observed trends”; i.e. a period of more than 15-years duration where the measured global mean surface temperature (i.e. GMST) trend is less than the great majority of projections of GMST provided by computer models of climate.

Richard

Werner Brozek
July 10, 2015 8:33 am

Thank you!

However, the ‘stop’ is exhibited as being a “difference between simulated and observed trends”; i.e. a period of more than 15-years duration where the measured global mean surface temperature (i.e. GMST) trend is less than the great majority of projections of GMST provided by computer models of climate.

In that case, it is sad that Thomas Karl and the others do not know what a hiatus is since they say:
“In summary, newly corrected and updated global surface temperature data from NOAA’s NCEI do not support the notion of a global warming “hiatus”.”
I say this because their new 0.116 C/decade is still way below projections and not at all alarming.
(My article was premised on NOAA’s apparent definition of a hiatus.)

richardscourtney
July 10, 2015 11:28 am

Werner Brozek:
You say:

In that case, it is sad that Thomas Karl and the others do not know what a hiatus is since they say:
“In summary, newly corrected and updated global surface temperature data from NOAA’s NCEI do not support the notion of a global warming “hiatus”.”
I say this because their new 0.116 C/decade is still way below projections and not at all alarming.

Yes, and I remind that the thread has been deflected by harrytwinotter’s falsehood about the IPCC definition.
This thread is about NLOAA’s calculations and NOAA’s definition of the “hiatus”. This was provided by NOAA in its 2008 Assessment that can be read here and says

Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.

This differs from what you claim (in your above essay) is NOAA’s definition; i.e. you say

NOAA defines a “hiatus” as a slowdown in warming and not a complete stop, so we are NOT talking about a pause with a very slight negative slope when talking about whether or not we are in fact experiencing an “hiatus”.

But I consider “observed absence of warming” to be a trend that cannot be distinguished from zero with 95% confidence.
In summation, the NOAA definition predates the IPCC definition and they differ.
Richard

Werner Brozek
July 10, 2015 12:06 pm

Thank you!

This differs from what you claim (in your above essay) is NOAA’s definition

Their whole recent article about “Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus” supports my claim as to their present apparent definition. From my article:

The following is from their report: “In summary, newly corrected and updated global surface temperature data from NOAA’s NCEI do not support the notion of a global warming ‘hiatus.’ Our new analysis now shows the trend over the period 1950-1999, a time widely agreed as having significant anthropogenic global warming (1), is 0.113°C dec−1, which is virtually indistinguishable with the trend over the period 2000-2014 (0.116°C dec−1).”

They are clearly comparing two periods to come to their conclusion.
As for the other part about the 95% and 15 years, I do not know what the numbers were before the adjustment, but for the last 15 years, Nick’s site now gives:
Temperature Anomaly trend
Jun 2000 to May 2015
Rate: 1.246°C/Century;
CI from 0.597 to 1.894;
And the first time the lower end of Cl is negative is:
Temperature Anomaly trend
Feb 2009 to May 2015
Rate: 2.372°C/Century;
CI from -0.030 to 4.774;
This is long after the other data sets from section 2 of this article. I was really surprised at this!

richardscourtney
July 10, 2015 12:40 pm

Werner Brozek:
I write to provide a caution.
You say of NOAA

They are clearly comparing two periods to come to their conclusion.

Sorry, but that is not at all clear.
They have adjusted the data so it now shows “the trend over the period 2000-2014 (0.116°C dec−1).” That trend indicates no ‘Pause’ or ‘Hiatus’ according to the NOAA 2008 definition although there is still a ‘Hiatus’ according to the IPCC AR5 definition.
Please note that prior to NOAA making the adjustments the IPCC AR5 does NOT report the NOAA GMST trend was then significantly more than zero.
The startling thing is that the adjustments are so great that – as their comparison of two periods shows – their revised assessment removes the ‘Hiatus’ completely by creating a trend since 2000 “which is virtually indistinguishable with the trend over” the previous 50 years.
So-called climate ‘scientists’ like to move goal posts post hoc and it seems such a change is being conducted by NOAA on its GMST data. Hence, my warning is that whatever you find, the data will change to prevent you having a firm conclusion as e.g. happened in this case.
Richard

Werner Brozek
July 10, 2015 1:06 pm

Thank you!

That trend indicates no ‘Pause’ or ‘Hiatus’ according to the NOAA 2008 definition although there is still a ‘Hiatus’ according to the IPCC AR5 definition.

And besides different definitions for “hiatus” from different sources, NOAA threw a new curve ball at us with their latest report. Namely they were using a 0.10 significance level for all new trends. As far as I knew, it was always 0.05 for climate science.

July 9, 2015 11:04 am

I think the authors second point which was that by choosing 1950-2000 as the first period they are tacitly admitting that the lower rate of warming is expected. Whether or not a hiatus has happened or the definition is irrelevant. The fact is that the warming rate of 0.113 means 1C per century not 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6C per century as they have speculated. Further since it is obvious that the rate is declining in recent decades and we know scientifically that the effect of CO2 decreases logarithmically it is almost impossible for the rate to increase. So, 1C is an UPPER BOUND and it is likely much less.
I have a blog at https://logiclogiclogic.wordpress.com/2015/04/10/temperature-rise-by-end-of-century-cannot-be-significant/ that shows by multiple methods additional temperature change by 2100 can be no more than 0.3C. This is scientific fact based on the actual data not computer models. We have gotten so much heating since 1945 from the amount of CO2 we have put into the atmosphere. Knowing that CO2 is logarithmic it is easy to compute the remaining effect from additional CO2. This includes whatever “feedbacks” as it is based on the real data of nearly 70 years. Based on this it is really indisputable that the total additional temperature change by 2100 is around 0.3C.
Whether there is a haitus or not the total additional temperature change by 2100 is not 1C, 2C, 3C, 4C, 5C or 6C. It is 0.3C. That’s indisputable scientific fact which I find impossible to argue without employing essentially religious or faith based arguments. We have sufficient data to clearly make the calculation (even using their adjusted data which may be twice the change actually happened) and even attributing all of the change to CO2 (even though there is overwhelming evidence that other factors are contributing to the warming) that the total change cannot be more than 0.3C more by 2100 from CO2 – at most. (Also assuming a total CO2 level of 550-600 by 2100 which is a good average assumption.

noloctd
July 9, 2015 3:51 pm

We need to clean house at NOAA and start over with people who won’t “adjust” data to fit their political leanings.

barry
July 18, 2015 9:53 am

Werner, why did you detrend the UAH trend in the WFT graph? Haven’t you simply removed the trend in order to say there is none?

barry
July 18, 2015 6:20 pm

You detrended because WFT links to UAH v5.6 and you want to plot v6.0, perhaps? I would have gone with the former until 6.0 has been fully established. Not sure why you detrended CO2, but it doesn’t injure your point.

barry
July 18, 2015 6:26 pm

BTW, UAH had some missing data for June when they first posted earlier month. Now updated, it’s slightly warmer as a result. The average 2015 anomaly so far, according to Spencer’s blog (v6.0), is 0.20C.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/07/revised-uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2015-0-33-deg-c/