Guest Post by Bob Tisdale
This is the June 2015 Global Surface (Land+Ocean) and Lower Troposphere Temperature Anomaly & Model-Data Difference Update, but in it we’re presenting the new GISS and NCEI surface temperature products…and the UAH lower troposphere temperature data version 6.
This post provides an update of the products of the three primary suppliers of global land+ocean surface temperature data—GISS through June 2015 and HADCRUT4 and NCEI (formerly NCDC) through May 2015—and of the two suppliers of satellite-based lower troposphere temperature data (RSS and UAH) through June 2015. It also includes a model-data comparison.
We’ll take a look at the impacts of those changes to the GISS and NCEI products in much more detail in a future blog post. If you’d like to compare trends before and after the switch, see the May update. I’ll show the befores and afters on graphs in that future post.
INITIAL NOTES:
The NCEI data is the new global land+ocean surface product with the unjustifiable, overcooked adjustments presented in Karl et al. (2015).
Even though the changes to the ERSST data since 1998 cannot be justified by the night marine air temperature dataset that was used as a reference for bias adjustments (See comparison graph here), GISS also switched to the new “pause-buster” NCEI ERSST.v4 sea surface temperature data with their June 2015 update to their Land-Ocean Temperature Index product. (Also see the above-linked post.) The GISS July 15 announcement on their Updates to Analysis page reads (my boldface):
July 15, 2015: Starting with today’s update, the standard GISS analysis is no longer based on ERSST v3b but on the newer ERSST v4. Dr. Makiko Sato created some graphs and maps showing the effect of that change. More information may be obtained from NOAA’s website. Furthermore, we eliminated GHCN’s Amundsen-Scott temperature series using just the SCAR reports for the South Pole.
Release 5.6 of the UAH lower troposphere temperature anomalies had not yet been updated by the time I prepared this post, so I’ve used the new Release 6.0 even though it’s in beta form.
GISS LOTI surface data, and the two lower troposphere temperature datasets are for the most recent month. The HADCRUT4 and NCEI data lag one month.
Much of the following text is boilerplate…updated for the NCEI and GISS data. It is intended for those new to the presentation of global surface temperature anomaly data.
Most of the update graphs start in 1979. That’s a commonly used start year for global temperature products because many of the satellite-based temperature datasets start then.
We discussed why the three suppliers of surface temperature data use different base years for anomalies in the post Why Aren’t Global Surface Temperature Data Produced in Absolute Form?
In recent posts, we’ve used the GISS LOTI data for the model-data comparisons. From this post forward, we’re using the UKMO’s HadCRUT4 data.
GISS LAND OCEAN TEMPERATURE INDEX (LOTI)
Introduction: The GISS Land Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI) data is a product of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Starting with the June 2015 update, GISS LOTI uses the new NOAA Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature version 4 (ERSST.v4), the pause-buster data. GISS adjusts GHCN and other land surface temperature data via a number of methods and infills missing data using 1200km smoothing. Refer to the GISS description here. Unlike the UK Met Office and NCEI products, GISS masks sea surface temperature data at the poles where seasonal sea ice exists, and they extend land surface temperature data out over the oceans in those locations. Refer to the discussions here and here. GISS uses the base years of 1951-1980 as the reference period for anomalies. The data source is here. (I archived the former version here at the WaybackMachine.)
Update: The June 2015 GISS global temperature anomaly is +0.76 deg C. It rose (an increase of about +0.03 deg C) since May 2015 (based on the new data).
Figure 1 – GISS Land-Ocean Temperature Index
NCEI GLOBAL SURFACE TEMPERATURE ANOMALIES (LAGS ONE MONTH)
NOTE: The NCEI has published the data associated with the unjustifiably overcooked “pause busting” adjustments presented in the paper Karl et al. (2015). As far as I know, the former version of the data is no longer available online. For more information on those curious adjustments, see the posts:
- NOAA/NCDC’s new ‘pause-buster’ paper: a laughable attempt to create warming by adjusting past data
- More Curiosities about NOAA’s New “Pause Busting” Sea Surface Temperature Dataset
- Open Letter to Tom Karl of NOAA/NCEI Regarding “Hiatus Busting” Paper
- NOAA Releases New Pause-Buster Global Surface Temperature Data and Immediately Claims Record-High Temps for May 2015 – What a Surprise!
Introduction: The NOAA Global (Land and Ocean) Surface Temperature Anomaly dataset is a product of the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI), which was formerly known as the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). NCEI merges their new Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature version 4 (ERSST.v4) with the new Global Historical Climatology Network-Monthly (GHCN-M) version 3.3.0 for land surface air temperatures.
The NCEI data source is through their Global Surface Temperature Anomalies webpage. Click on the link to Anomalies and Index Data.)
Update (Lags One Month): The May 2015 NCEI global land plus sea surface temperature anomaly was +0.87 deg C. See Figure 2. It rose (an increase of +0.08 deg C) since April 2015 (based on the new data).
Figure 2 – NCEI Global (Land and Ocean) Surface Temperature Anomalies
UK MET OFFICE HADCRUT4 (LAGS ONE MONTH)
Introduction: The UK Met Office HADCRUT4 dataset merges CRUTEM4 land-surface air temperature dataset and the HadSST3 sea-surface temperature (SST) dataset. CRUTEM4 is the product of the combined efforts of the Met Office Hadley Centre and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. And HadSST3 is a product of the Hadley Centre. Unlike the GISS and NCEI products, grids with missing data are not infilled in the HADCRUT4 product. That is, if a 5-deg latitude by 5-deg longitude grid does not have a temperature anomaly value in a given month, it is not included in the global average value of HADCRUT4. The HADCRUT4 dataset is described in the Morice et al (2012) paper here. The CRUTEM4 data is described in Jones et al (2012) here. And the HadSST3 data is presented in the 2-part Kennedy et al (2012) paper here and here. The UKMO uses the base years of 1961-1990 for anomalies. The data source is here.
Update (Lags One Month): The May 2015 HADCRUT4 global temperature anomaly is +0.69 deg C. See Figure 3. It increased (about +0.04 deg C) since April 2015.
Figure 3 – HADCRUT4
UAH LOWER TROPOSPHERE TEMPERATURE ANOMALY DATA (UAH TLT)
Special sensors (microwave sounding units) aboard satellites have orbited the Earth since the late 1970s, allowing scientists to calculate the temperatures of the atmosphere at various heights above sea level. The level nearest to the surface of the Earth is the lower troposphere. The lower troposphere temperature data include the altitudes of zero to about 12,500 meters, but are most heavily weighted to the altitudes of less than 3000 meters. See the left-hand cell of the illustration here. The lower troposphere temperature data are calculated from a series of satellites with overlapping operation periods, not from a single satellite. The monthly UAH lower troposphere temperature data is the product of the Earth System Science Center of the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH). UAH provides the data broken down into numerous subsets. See the webpage here. The UAH lower troposphere temperature data are supported by Christy et al. (2000) MSU Tropospheric Temperatures: Dataset Construction and Radiosonde Comparisons. Additionally, Dr. Roy Spencer of UAH presents at his blog the monthly UAH TLT data updates a few days before the release at the UAH website. Those posts are also cross posted at WattsUpWithThat. UAH uses the base years of 1981-2010 for anomalies. The UAH lower troposphere temperature data are for the latitudes of 85S to 85N, which represent more than 99% of the surface of the globe.
UAH recently released a beta version of Release 6.0 of their atmospheric temperature data. Those enhancements lowered the warming rates of their lower troposphere temperature data. See Dr. Roy Spencer’s blog post Version 6.0 of the UAH Temperature Dataset Released: New LT Trend = +0.11 C/decade and my blog post New UAH Lower Troposphere Temperature Data Show No Global Warming for More Than 18 Years. The UAH lower troposphere Release 6.0 beta data through June 2015 are here.
Update: The June 2015 UAH (Release 6.0 beta) lower troposphere temperature anomaly is +0.33 deg C. It rose (an increase of about +0.06 deg C) since May 2015.
Figure 4 – UAH Lower Troposphere Temperature (TLT) Anomaly Data – Release 6.0 Beta
RSS LOWER TROPOSPHERE TEMPERATURE ANOMALY DATA (RSS TLT)
Like the UAH lower troposphere temperature data, Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) calculates lower troposphere temperature anomalies from microwave sounding units aboard a series of NOAA satellites. RSS describes their data at the Upper Air Temperature webpage. The RSS data are supported by Mears and Wentz (2009) Construction of the Remote Sensing Systems V3.2 Atmospheric Temperature Records from the MSU and AMSU Microwave Sounders. RSS also presents their lower troposphere temperature data in various subsets. The land+ocean TLT data are here. Curiously, on that webpage, RSS lists the data as extending from 82.5S to 82.5N, while on their Upper Air Temperature webpage linked above, they state:
We do not provide monthly means poleward of 82.5 degrees (or south of 70S for TLT) due to difficulties in merging measurements in these regions.
Also see the RSS MSU & AMSU Time Series Trend Browse Tool. RSS uses the base years of 1979 to 1998 for anomalies.
Update: The June 2015 RSS lower troposphere temperature anomaly is +0.39 deg C. It rose (an increase of about +0.08 deg C) since May 2015.
Figure 5 – RSS Lower Troposphere Temperature (TLT) Anomaly Data
COMPARISONS
The GISS, HADCRUT4 and NCEI global surface temperature anomalies and the RSS and UAH lower troposphere temperature anomalies are compared in the next three time-series graphs. Figure 6 compares the five global temperature anomaly products starting in 1979. Again, due to the timing of this post, the HADCRUT4 and NCEI data lag the UAH, RSS and GISS products by a month. For those wanting a closer look at the more recent wiggles and trends, Figure 7 starts in 1998, which was the start year used by von Storch et al (2013) Can climate models explain the recent stagnation in global warming? They, of course, found that the CMIP3 (IPCC AR4) and CMIP5 (IPCC AR5) models could NOT explain the recent halt in warming.
Figure 8 starts in 2001, which was the year Kevin Trenberth chose for the start of the warming halt in his RMS article Has Global Warming Stalled?
Because the suppliers all use different base years for calculating anomalies, I’ve referenced them to a common 30-year period: 1981 to 2010. Referring to their discussion under FAQ 9 here, according to NOAA:
This period is used in order to comply with a recommended World Meteorological Organization (WMO) Policy, which suggests using the latest decade for the 30-year average.
The impacts of the unjustifiable adjustments to the ERSST.v4 data are visible in the two shorter-term comparisons, Figures 7 and 8. That is, the short-term warming rates of the new NCEI and GISS data are noticeably higher during “the hiatus”. The GISS and NCEI products now more than double the HADCRUT4 warming rate since 2001. Also see the comparisons in the May update for the former trends of the GISS and NCEI products. Even with the new pause-buster sea surface temperature data, the GISS and NCEI products still fall short of the modeled warming rates.
Figure 6 – Comparison Starting in 1979
###########
Figure 7 – Comparison Starting in 1998
###########
Figure 8 – Comparison Starting in 2001
Note: the graphs list the trends of the CMIP5 multi-model mean (historic and RCP8.5 forcings), which are the climate models used by the IPCC for their 5th Assessment Report.
AVERAGE
Figure 9 presents the average of the GISS, HADCRUT and NCEI land plus sea surface temperature anomaly products and the average of the RSS and UAH lower troposphere temperature data. Again because the HADCRUT4 and NCEI data lag one month in this update, the most current average only includes the GISS product.
Figure 9 – Average of Global Land+Sea Surface Temperature Anomaly Products
MODEL-DATA COMPARISON & DIFFERENCE
Note: I used to use the GISS LOTI data in this section, but I’ve switched to the HADCRUT4 data. I’ll present the model-data comparisons and model-data differences using the GISS and NCEI products (before and after the switch to pause-buster data) in a future post. [End note.]
Considering the uptick in surface temperatures this year (see the posts here and here), government agencies that supply global surface temperature products have been touting record high combined global land and ocean surface temperatures. Alarmists happily ignore the fact that it is easy to have record high global temperatures in the midst of a hiatus or slowdown in global warming, and they have been using the recent record highs to draw attention away from the growing difference between observed global surface temperatures and the IPCC climate model-based projections of them.
There are a number of ways to present how poorly climate models simulate global surface temperatures. Normally they are compared in a time-series graph. See the example in Figure 10. In that example, the UKMO HadCRUT4 land+ocean surface temperature data are compared to the multi-model mean of the climate models stored in the CMIP5 archive, which was used by the IPCC for their 5th Assessment Report. The data and model outputs have been smoothed with 61-month filters to reduce the monthly variations. Also, the anomalies for the data and model outputs have been referenced to the period of 1880 to 2013 so not to bias the results.
Figure 10
It’s very hard to overlook the fact that, over the past decade, climate models are simulating way too much warming and are diverging rapidly from reality.
Another way to show how poorly climate models perform is to subtract the data from the average of the model outputs (model mean). We first presented and discussed this method using global surface temperatures in absolute form. (See the post On the Elusive Absolute Global Mean Surface Temperature – A Model-Data Comparison.) The graph below shows a model-data difference using anomalies, where the data are represented by the UKMO HadCRUT4 land+ocean surface temperature data and the model simulations of global surface temperature are represented by the multi-model mean of the models stored in the CMIP5 archive. Like Figure 10, to assure that the base years used for anomalies did not bias the graph, the near full term of the data (1880 to 2013) were used as the reference period.
In this example, we’re illustrating the model-data differences in the monthly surface temperature anomalies. Also included in red is the difference smoothed with a 61-month running mean filter.
Figure 11
The greatest difference between models and data occurs now.
There was also a major difference, but of the opposite sign, in the late 1880s. That difference decreases drastically from the 1880s and switches signs by the 1910s. The reason: the models do not properly simulate the observed cooling that takes place at that time. Because the models failed to properly simulate the cooling from the 1880s to the 1910s, they also failed to properly simulate the warming that took place from the 1910s until 1940. That explains the long-term decrease in the difference during that period and the switching of signs in the difference once again. The difference cycles back and forth, nearing a zero difference in the 1980s and 90s, indicating the models are tracking observations better (relatively) during that period. And from the 1990s to present, because of the slowdown in warming, the difference has increased to greatest value ever…where the difference indicates the models are showing too much warming.
It’s very easy to see the recent record-high global surface temperatures have had a tiny impact on the difference between models and observations.
See the post On the Use of the Multi-Model Mean for a discussion of its use in model-data comparisons.
MONTHLY SEA SURFACE TEMPERATURE UPDATE
The most recent sea surface temperature update can be found here. The satellite-enhanced sea surface temperature data (Reynolds OI.2) are presented in global, hemispheric and ocean-basin bases. We discussed the recent record-high global sea surface temperatures and the reasons for them in the post On The Recent Record-High Global Sea Surface Temperatures – The Wheres and Whys.
Do JMA also incorporate these adjustments, Bob?
Anthony’s erstwhile drinking partner is humping the “warmest June Ever”
Anything is possible, the JMA uses their own sea surface temperature data, not the NOAA data.
Thanks, Bob.
Well at least he admitted that they’re still trying to perpetuate the Hoax!
Adjusting adjustments?
Somebody should be pissed that their expensive satellites are reporting the wrong temperatures.
After all, there was no “June” when Dinosaurs roamed the fetid swamps which are now temperate regions.
As said on Bob’s webpages:
You CANNOT be surprised that they jump on the “Karl et al” bandwagon with the alacrity of a starving kid let loose in a candy store.
I mean, isn’t the “warmest year ever” drivel supposed to come out prior to Paris???
Didn’t have too much for dinner tonight, so the food should stay down – but its trying to come up!
/SARC
Warming ≠ True
Create Data Set where Warming = True
Publish Data Set
Now Warming = True
The Left Always Lie.
The Insane Left (which is in power now), yes. (As I write this, Obama is yet again blatantly lying, in his patented charming and condescending way, about his new Iran deal. Don’t worry, we will verify everything, and the Sun will come out tomorrow, if you don’t listen to the deniers, who will eat your children.) That (the blatant, continual lying) is in fact the bottom line, behind the fact that THE SYSTEM IS BROKEN (as I have been saying for more than 3 years now).
Well, whatever suits, I suppose.
so voila, the super el nino of 1998 disappears from the official records. every year the past gets colder and colder. how did we ever survive back then?
Disappearing the 1998 El Nino is child’s play for people who have already demonstrated the ability to disappear the Medieval Warm Period.
Except witnesses to the 1998 El Nino are still alive. How do they make them disappear?
what is truly amazing is the power of CO2 to change the past.
Ferdberple: “The power of CO2 to change the past” – that’s a keeper! Thanks
Hope you don’t mind, but I’ll be using this phrase as well
It is pause busting all right!
Here is what happened between May and June:
The 2014 average went up from 0.68 to 0.75; January 2007 went up from 0.93 to 0.98; January 2015 went up from 0.75 to 0.81; February from 0.82 to 0.89; March from 0.84 to 0.91; April stayed at 0.71; May from 0.71 to 0.73. Then the new June value is 0.76.
The 5 years from 2010 to 2014 went up an average of 0.68; while the 5 years from 2001 to 2005 only went up an average of 0.36.
At the start of the year, 1998 ranked 5th. Now, 1998 is tied for 10th!
In May, GISS had no statistically significant warming since November 2000. I do not know what it is now, but for NOAA in June, it is from February 2009, so I would not be surprised if GISS is similar now.
P.S. Due to how late UAH5.6 is, it would not surprise me to find out that the May reading was its last one.
I can hardly wait 15 years to find out how warm we have been in Melbourne this month.
By then it will show that Melbourne was very cold right now, having just exited the mini-ice age of the 1990s, but it will have warmed up significantly over the next fifteen years.
Nothing shows the corruption of the scientific method more brazenly, nor more clearly. It’s a disgrace.
They cheat and still lose. I think someone should point out to them the whole idea behind cheating is to win. They cheat and come up with +1.63 C a century? Not even close to the 2.0 C per century they need to justify action. I’m very disappointed in their efforts. They must try harder to at least get close to 2.0 C or they may as well not cheat at all.
🙂
or perhaps…the evidence points towards the fact they’re not cheating at all…?
Bevan, wipe that Kool-Aid off your chin…you’re drooling.
Nah, Karl et al 2015 is not a sound paper. Yet it’s adopted for use because it is “useful”.
That’s cheating.
I mean, if every other paper found that there was a Pause and then Karl re-calculates (with no new data) to say there isn’t… it wouldn’t be accepted that quickly on scientific merit alone.
Arguably, it wouldn’t be accepted that quickly on scientific merit at all.
The spread between the sat. data sets and the new” surface is simply not tenable. The satellite data sets are checked thousand of times with the best instruments we have, and the divergence between them, and the surface sets is not reasonable as the global average lapse rate has not changed.
Yeah Bevan,
We have been measuring temperature wrong for the last three decades, but we are measuring it correctly now!
Considering that even the “2 degrees” was/is a number plucked from the “nether regions”, what really is the point, other than “the agenda”.
The 12 month running average of GISS is at 0.73, which ties the record maximum for the entire instrument record, and probably for the last millennium. This is the third month this year at this level.
Besides the recent spate of record high 12 month running averages, maximum records for GISS were set ending in May and June of 2010 (both at +0.68) , ending in May through Sept of 2007 (all at +0.67) , and ending in August of 1998 ( at +0.65).
“… ties the record maximum for the entire instrument record, and probably for the last millennium”.
==========================
That is a preposterous statement but hey why stop there?
You could have said the past 10,000 years without fear of contradiction.
If I say NOAA and NASA are both hot, will the FBI seize my computer?
And those numbers are using the OLD GISS temps not the new ones.
It’s all getting kind of meaningless, isn’t it? Wasn’t it always?
I can measure three or four different temperatures inside a fridge with the door closed and the compressor running!
It is meaningless. How can you put any meaning in current temperature data when you know they’re going to change again? It’s like trusting in the promises of a career politician who is running for office again. How can current promises have any meaning when you know that past promises went unfulfilled?
Slightly off topic but should be of interest to Anthony, Bob and most who comment on this blog. Sks fans beware!!!!
Forgot to add link
http://pindanpost.com/2015/07/16/green-left-subversion-of-science/
Also add
http://pindanpost.com/2015/07/16/green-left-subversion-of-science/
In case you missed the link.
John Reid’s article is well worth a read.
very nice ,and it would appear there is more to come ” I am presently working on a method for distinguishing between cyclical behaviour and random walk excursions in natural time series.” . i look forward to it.
the divergence between scientists and “climate scientists” would appear to be growing.
The Arctic ice is looking quite ornery this year and will probably end higher than 2013/2014. What spin will the “record warmest months” legions put on that?
I had just spent some time looking at their interactive chart. I agree with your sentiment. This season could see the sea ice extent reach an early low point, where after the extent will not recede much further. There should be a sideways step coming in about 10 days from now, where the sea ice trend may even increase for several days and remain close to flat for up to 10 days.This could lead to a longer sideways trend that begins around the 3rd week of August and lasts until the end of September. Examples of what I am referring to would be the years 1979, 1988, 1997, and 2007.
I should have added that I was using Cryosphere Today,s daily chart to see that. Those 4 years all have a comparatively flat bottom of around 5 to 6 weeks, ending at the end of September
While the trend since 2012 of increasing Arctic ice mass continues, quite a lot of Arctic ice mass has been lost this year along Northern Greenland and Nunavut. That region has had large concentrations of 5+ meter thick ice develop over the past three years, but the heavy concentrations are now reduced. A strong and atypical Arctic current pattern has developed more or less in straight line, flowing in from the Bering Strait and out the Fram Strait, perhaps in response to the warmed waters in N Pacific associated with the present El Niño, Mean temps above 80 degrees North seldom reached the 1979-2013 average last Summer, but continue to hover around avg. this Summer, indicating a greater influx of warm water through the Bering Strait and subsequent release of heat into the atmosphere. Global sea ice area and extent anomalies have remained positive for most dates, this year.
i think whether that pattern is atypical would depend on what period was looked at alan. thseheavy concentrations have moved, how much they have actually reduced by we will see in the coming months. there is a lot more myi in the beaufort this year,and it had to come from somewhere.
June 26 was the last time 2015 NH ice extent was behind 2014. It’s greater now by 580k km2.
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2015/07/15/arctic-ice-turning-point/
That’s easy – they’ll use the ‘warming makes more ice’ routine just like they claim in Antarctica.
Thank you Bob for all your’s and Anthony’s efforts to get useful and helpful information from the purveyors of new speak. I didn’t think when I read 1984 back in the 70’s that I would live to see it fulfilled in such a way as this.
James Bull
It is simply dishonest.
And the only thing that has stopped them doing this before was that eye in the sky which told the true story.
Thanks Bob,
Fig. 6 is a good summary. Why do you not show the trend line for the CMIP5 model mean for comparison?
So that 1998 micro- El Niño…
Have they remembered to also adjust the ENSO data? Otherwise future generations will wonder how an ENSO reading of 17 produced no measure effect on surface temps at all.
Preparation for anti-submarine warfare required Royal Navy ships to take bathythermograph dips every watch all round the world for many years (hence acoustic propagation) and fill in a form which went to a central database. Also taken as a datum for the bathy slide was sea water temperature from the main circulator intake which was at various depths depending on the class of vessel and in my recollection a fairly ad hoc reading, taken in semi-darkness off a mercury thermometer. All pretty casual and hardly ‘Scientific’.
This seems more and more like fraud. What possible justification does NOAA have for using the new “cartoon quality” marine temperature set. We’ve crossed a new line here. It’s not just that these organisiations are error ridden – they now appear to be actively manipulating temperature sets with deliberately flawed data to get the answer they want to promote. Even if the planet isn’t warming anymore they will make it appear to be so. By default. This is not ok.
There’s an urgent need for independant wordwide temperature sets. Everyone has the right to know whether the planet is actually warming/not warming, and by exactly how much. These big name temperature sets are no longer up to the task.
If the globally averaged temperature has no relationship to what happens with ice, snow, precipitation, or weather, why should we care about it?
2014 – “warmest on record” according to NASA and NOAA:
=========================
‘Polar vortex’ grips the US in coldest temperatures in decades
Niagara Falls frozen: tourists flock to see icy spectacle
Scientists: Don’t make “extreme cold” centerpiece of global warming argument
Historical Great Lakes Ice Cover
Niagara Falls comes to a halt AGAIN: Millions of gallons of cascading water is frozen in bitter temperatures
Great Lakes covered in record-shattering amount of ice this late in spring
Great Lakes are FINALLY ice free after record breaking seven months frozen
Stunning satellite images show [Arctic] summer ice cap is thicker and covers 1.7million square kilometres more than 2 years ago
With Ice Growing at Both Poles, Global Warming Theories Implode
Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches New Record Maximum
Cold winters have been caused by global warming: new research
Earliest ice on record appears on Great Lakes
http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-27k9vCvQF30/VIUgAoVIeII/AAAAAAAAAjo/e5DeXpF-YUU/s800-Ic42/GW_snow_now_01.jpg
NH Snow Cover Extent
The Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent (SCE) during winter (December 2013–February 2014) was 46.2 million square km (17.8 million square miles), 660,000 square km (255,000 square miles) above the 1981-2010 average of 45.5 million square km (17.6 million square miles). This was the 18th largest winter SCE since records begain in 1967 for the Northern Hemisphere, but the smallest since the winter of 2008/09.
Sea Ice Extent
[…]
When combining the Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere sea ice extents, we can examine global sea ice conditions. On a monthly scale, the global monthly sea ice extent was above average during most of 2014, with the exception of February and November.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global-snow/201413
==============================================
“Warmest on record” with above average ice and snow?
Why should we care?
You would wonder why they continue to go through with the pathetic charade that they are “adjusting” the temperature record. The whole thing is now so fabricated and distorted that they may as well publish their own hand sketched graph and save time and effort.
Now, the only brake on them is the ‘Eye in the Sky’ which tells the whole, true, very different story.
What puzzles me is that the energy is claimed to absorbed by CO2 in the troposphere.
Hence RSS and UAH should provide a reasonable measure for the effect.
IPCC provide no explanations of the mechanisms for heating the oceans in their assessment.
Some of the other temperature products than RSS and UAH however, combine sea surface (water) temperatures and the close to the surface air temperatures. Without paying any attention to different heat capacities.
Total mass and heat capacity of air and water is very different as illustrated by these rough estimates:
Specific heat capacity of air: 1.0 kJ/kg*K
Total mass of the atmosphere: 5.1 x 10^18 kg
Heat capacity of the atmosphere: 5.1 x 10^18 kJ/K
Specific heat capacity or water: 4.2 kJ/kg*K
Total mass of the oceans: 1.4 x 10^21 kg
Heat capacity of the oceans: 5.9 x 10^21 kJ/K
Consequently an amount of energy enough to heat the atmosphere by 1 K (K is same as Celsius)
Would only be enough to heat the oceans by 0.001 K.
However the global warming theory is not precisely defined.
And the measurand – Global temperature – is not precisely defined.
Consequently the global warming theory is not falsifiable.
The proponents of global warming theory can easily evade falsification by introducing ad hoc an auxiliary hypothesis, or by changing ad hoc a definition. By adding hypothesis of deep ocean warming or by altering the way they estimate global temperature.
Exactly the unscientific actions that Karl Popper warned about in his Logic of scientific discoveries.
http://strangebeautiful.com/other-texts/popper-logic-scientific-discovery.pdf
What disturbs me is that governments and United Nations supports the lack of science.
Karl Popper also warned about another unscientific approach:
“Simply refusing to acknowledge any falsifying experience whatsoever.”
– to which he offered no solution.
For those who do not know who Karl Popper was:
Karl R. Popper was the master mind behind the modern scientific method called the empirical method.
He referred to inductivism as utterly flawed.
I recommend everybody to read a few pages of:
http://strangebeautiful.com/other-texts/popper-logic-scientific-discovery.pdf
And also a few pages in the Introduction to the Contribution from Working Group I on the Physical science basis:
http://www.climatechange2013.org/report/full-report/
In my view, IPCC seems to endorse inductivism and approach the climate issue in a manner which is incompatible with the empirical method.
It is Impossible to measure ‘Global Temperature’.
This from GISS.
‘The Elusive Absolute Surface Air Temperature (SAT)’
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/abs_temp.html
…more accurately than roughly 1 C either way. Today.
But hey, we know the temperature anomaly in 1850 to 0.2 C. Comforting, that.
rgb
“But hey, we know the temperature anomaly in 1850 to 0.2 C. Comforting, that.”
And that’s the message we need to get out: How the hell can ‘they’ know the temp so precisely in 1850 when we don’t read thermometers to that level today – that it matters.
The BBC is cock-a-hoop to proclaim the hottest day recorded for July in UK, but they won’t say that the rest of July is performing well below par for time of year.
How can the people at NOAA sleep at night knowing the lie they’ve created by their temperature adjustements?
The rest their heads on their inflated wallets
“How can the people at NOAA sleep at night knowing the lie…”
As I’m fond of saying; It all pays the same.
I wonder why. What is the underlying reason for the deception?
They are incompetents engaged in “survival of the fittest”; with respect to the former, no scientist today (but me) wants to face the general scientific incompetence running rampant across all of science, particularly the earth and life sciences, and with respect to the latter, everyone has been brainwashed to believe religiously in Darwin’s fearful summary of life. They can’t admit the truth to themselves, much less to the world.
And if you don’t like that answer (which is the truth), just consider this: They are simply not seeking the truth in their work–the fundamental requirement for good science–they just want to win (which requires controlling all of the rest of us, who they think “only want to find something wrong” in their work).
Bigger budgets. Job security.
It might get them a promotion.
This field has a high sensitivity to ideology. But the more the ideology deviates from the hard cold facts, the more “unsustainable” it is. Recall that in a different context, the warmists are the ones scolding the rest of us about sustainability.
On my part, I am waiting peer-reviewed research that shows the optimum climate for our biosphere. The first question that would naturally flow would be where is our current climate and trend in relation to this finding.
Strangely, nobody seems interested in this vital comparison. Not so strangely, the solutions that are frequently demanded in the most urgent voice, all converge on a socialist worldview: statism, bigger government, higher taxes, less personal liberty, even fewer people. That bigger picture tells me all that I need to know about “climate science”.
I’ll say it every time it comes up: Still only 1-2 degrees per century. It’s the positive feedback and acceleration that are the lynch pins of this theory. Even without accelerating “global” temperature, if this 1-2 degree trend that has been with us for a few hundred years continues at the same rate, we will reach the dreaded 2 degree limit somewhere in the 22 nd century. What then?
Whenever I hear “warmest month/year EVER!!!!” from the alarmist crowd, I always use NASA’s own words against them. I save this link from a 1990 article: http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/122096963
I then show them a link from woodfortrees.org that clearly does not show warmest month/year ever. I also like to ask an alarmist why NASA said in 1990 that satellite temperatures were more accurate but today say surface temperatures are more accurate? Then whatever the alarmist says, I then ask if the temperature 100 miles away is the exact same as it is here? The obvious answer is no. Then I ask an alarmist if they think there are temperature stations located in the African plains outside the cities? By their own words I show that the surface temperature are unreliable. When you ask questions, you force them down a rabbit hole. You force them to disprove CAGW by their own mouth.
i think steve mosher may be able to tell you why the surface temperature modeling is more important than satellite hard data ,or not,as the case may be.
i think steve mosher may be able to tell you why HE THINKS…
==================================
Hi Bob,
Every article from now on should include a statement at the beginning to the effect that the data has now been manipulated beyond any representation of reality, and therefore the results are not reliable.
This Fox guarding the Henhouse issue is precisely the reason I doubted AGW twenty years ago when I began looking into it, and eventually (within months) made me a skeptic. Manipulating the data to produce the desired result is fraud.
The damage this is doing to science cannot be overstated. It’s time scientists who care about the long-term perception of their work to call these people to account. If you care about your profession, it’s time. Scientific journals have become little more than tabloids. If you want to be seen as anything other than political hacks, it’s time to get back to integrity in science.
Gerry Parker
I think you make an important point. If I may, I will try to emphasize your point.
Karl R. Popper was the mastermind behind the modern scientific method called the empirical method.
I will recommend everybody to read a few soothing pages of Karl Poppers work:
http://strangebeautiful.com/other-texts/popper-logic-scientific-discovery.pdf
Then I will recommend everybody to read a few pages in the Introduction to the
Contribution from Working Group I to the fifth assessment report : On the Physical science basis:
http://www.climatechange2013.org/report/full-report/
I think many will be able to see that IPCC seems to endorse inductivism and approach the climate issue in a manner which is incompatible with the empirical method. I will say that IPCC makes several glaring mistakes in its approach. Karl Popper referred to inductivism as utterly flawed.
Someday Tom Karl is going to drop dead, and maybe if we’re extremely lucky NOAA will receive a house cleaning. When that day comes, we’re going to need to remove their political machinations from the temperature graph.
Might as well get started now.
I somehow doubt that Inofe is asleep at the wheel here. When the axe comes down, it will be the end for these scientific fr@udsters.
Senator Snowball??
..
http://fair.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/InhofeSnowball.jpg
Bob
First time here. I am puzzled now that the temperature of the past has consistently been lowered, giving the appearance of the new highs.
I am puzzled because the case for global warming was built on “less than” warm temperature. Will NOAA again reduce these new highs in the future? If so, why are we concerned with “not” global warming? The case should be made to wait while NOAA lowers it again. That’s the trend.
Cliff, it is a monthly occurrence, so there is no need to wait. The adjustments continue month after month, no explanation period. In fact, the baseline has dramatically changed over the years.
Sometimes these adjustments happen daily…. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/06/can-adjustments-right-a-wrong/#comment-1877173
The entire surface record is FUBAR.
Finally, WUWT has figured out what others have been broadcasting for several years now. NOAA and NASA are both lying about basic data, cooling down the recent past and heating up the present so it looks like there is a warming trend when no such thing is happening.
They are lying for the money. The CO2 tax scheme is a trick designed to tax people for thin air. Yes, the air we breathe in and out. This novel tax is supposed to be saving us from mythological global warming even as more and more places see more and more freezing weather that is a sign, along with the sun, that we are entering a cold cycle again.
So long as these CO2 taxes exist, the need to lie about the weather is a pressing temptation. They won’t let go of this even in the teeth of massive blizzards hammering much of the northern tier of North America and Europe.
….and Gaia said let there be no pause, and lo and behold a tilt came upon the land that ended the pause. Praise Gaia!! Green Revelations 6:12
….The future will change the past….to fulfill the schemes men. 2nd Opinions 21:12
Bob, looking at these temperature curves I notice that mostly they have not changed except at the far right end. There is an upward drift there which just could be a poorly developed El Nino if it is real. In GISS it is almost as high as the 2010 El Nino is. But it does not show up in UAH and RSS. I wwould go with these satellites as closer to the truth. And by the way they are booth free of computer processing noise that infests GISS, HadCRUT and NOAA alike. It shows up as sharp upward spikes near the ends of years. There could be as many as ten such spikes in the segment displayed. All in the exact same locations in every data-set, indicating a common origin from a computer program used to adjust temperature values. If I were you I would take some time to accurately identify them all and in the fiyure mark them all with a red or blue balloons so people do not mistake them for data. And when you make data comparisons, cut out the bogus peaks entirely so they do not bias the result. Two of the most easily recognizable spikes sit right on top of the super El Nino of 1998. One is slightly to the left of the peak, one on the right shoulder. The one on the left adds about a tenth pf a degree of bogus height to that super El Nino. You can’t miss them if you compare it with satellites.
Yes, computers programmed and run by guys paid to lie about the weather do all of this effortlessly. Write the right program and you get the data set your paymasters wish. For example, computer programs tracking unemployment and financial matters do this trick all the time. Lying with statistics is how we get totally fake ‘inflation’ statistics that always run way below real inflation rates.
The trick with that is to eliminate food, fuel and other necessities from the inflation rate and to up the ‘innovation’ values to hide inflation in raw materials.
EMS: It took WUWT quite a while to acknowledge this. Tony Heller was on to this many years ago and no one listened. Begrudgingly, lukewarmer sites are waking up only now, to how they have been had, again and again, by “Climate Scientists”…
We point to it, and shout “look!”. We chuckle at their ‘laughable attempt to create warming by adjusting past data’ .. but yet they keep doing it. We talk about how this kind of under-handed process will damage science, but they will be heralded in the media as ‘Climate Experts’ and will reap funding rewards. There are no consequences.
I will say it yet again: With the Insane Left in power (so ably represented by the pathological liar, Barack Obama), the system is broken. And I will say this yet again: The subversion of science is due, at bottom, to a general incompetence among today’s physical scientists, especially all of the earth and life sciences (due to two generations and more of miseducation).
unfortunately harry, the general incompetence and gullibility of the masses is as much to blame as that of any scientist .
Media lying about things is normal.
true…but some hockey sticks are real.
Hang on to all original data files folks.
What we’re overlooking is that GISS and NOAA are reporting in Lysenkos. The Lysenko (Ly) is a unit for reporting results from government-sponsored science. The Lysenko can be considered dimensionless, but is commonly given the unit of the original measurements on which the reported results are based.
To derive Lysenkos, the original measurements are calibrated, as and whenever necessary, with appropriate consideration of all factors that enable the capability of original measurement.
Thanks, Bob.
It is refreshing to see some data in this political debate.
When the lunatics and liars meet in France I wonder if they’ll notice how things are going there?
France’s Reckoning: Rich, Young Flee Welfare State
http://www.cbn.com/tv/3255110732001
To many, Fig. 10 will say it all. Sure, they will say, we have a “slow down” in warming now, just as we did from 1940-1975, but why shouldn’t we be concerned about the next uptick, which could come at any time? All the time series graphs and slope calculations on recent data sets may do nothing to allay “climate warmist” concerns about temperatures on multi-decadal scales.
Let’s look at recent trends in sea level rise, to see if there’s really any evidence of it accelerating.
I enjoy the debate, but do not dig deep to verify claims on either side. I have a question for the hard-workers. If NCEI sea-surface readings are continued going forward, what to you guys think the trend will be?
It will be whatever the Team needs it to be.
It’s not like this is the end of their tinkering.
There will be ongoing, modifications, refinements and adjustmentations of various sorts.
I you wonder which way the temperature will go without any tampering – I have no idea.
Trends are often deceiving by the way.
It is quite easy to spot trends in the stock market – why don´t more people get rich?
Only way surface temperatures over past 20 years have shown any warming is after changing the data method used. It is always one way and caused by human adjustments, not a warming planet. Before they were adjusting to try and hide the decline. Now the changes are having to become bigger to try and change a decline into a little warming. Highlighted increasingly so with the divergence between surface and satellite. Then claim warmest month since we changed the surface data set last month. Satellites don’t show this warming, balloon data don’t show this warming, only human data adjustment changes have. Confirmation bias is stinking the place out and there is no sign the planet is any warmer than 1998, but bias adjustments completely agenda related, haunt the beyond repair NOAA and GISS ex-data sets.
Bill July 16, 2015 at 8:19 am
“If NCEI sea-surface readings are continued going forward, what to you guys think the trend will be?”
Whatever they feel is needed to change it for increasingly matching the models.It has not been a global temperature change, but human adjustment change.
Starting to use the same methodology as economists – the data is adjusted to fit in with the desired narrative. No need to have to fix a broken computer model – just rig the data. The problem with this approach is that it does not actually change the temperature of the oceans.
Walt said “The problem with this approach is that it does not actually change the temperature of the oceans.” Exactly my point.
So, unless they actually change the data, the temps should begin to show a pause right now…. Heck in only 18 years we can make the very same claims we’ve been making!
Regarding: “The land+ocean TLT data are *here*. Curiously, on that webpage, RSS lists the data as extending from 82.5S to 82.5N,” (asterisks mine to indicate a link)
I followed the link, and got a text file that shows latitude ranges only down to 70 S.
I heard that some people are now advocating that we stop using sensed data altogether, and just depend on synthetic estimations.
This methodology is reminiscent of the federal government’s handling of economic data, where they kept changing their algorithms to hide what was actually happening, and then when things got so bad they couldn’t hide it anymore, they stopped publishing the numbers, claiming they weren’t useful anymore. That was the “M3” money supply.
So, basically empirical science is moving to the dawn of a new era in which governments drop the “empirical” part and simply make up whatever figures support their policies.
Forward! With Soviet Science! (Or else!)
If the thought of catastrophic climate change depresses these alarmists so much, why do they keep making it worse by adjusting recent temperatures upward? It makes me think that it is the lack of catastrophe that is truly depressing them. Why else would they get so excited at the prospect of another “hottest year ever”?
What do you get when you cross NCEI with GISS?
An NCIS crime investigation into the brutal butcher of global sea surface temperatures.
A thought:
Perhaps there is a reasonable way to reconstruct these series back to a good approximation of the former basis in future. Providing such an offering might also provide an interesting antidote to the perpetual adjustment game.
Louis Hunt
July 16, 2015 at 1:18 pm
If the thought of catastrophic
climate change depresses
these alarmists so much, why
do they keep making it worse
by adjusting recent
temperatures upward? It
makes me think that it is the
lack of catastrophe that is truly
depressing them. Why else
would they get so excited at
the prospect of another
“hottest year ever”?
Reply
Louis Hunt
July 16, 2015 at 1:37 pm
“
GISS also switched to the
new “pause-buster” NCEI
ERSST.v4 sea surface
temperature data…
What do you get when you
cross NCEI with GISS?
An NCIS crime investigation
into the brutal butcher of
global sea surface
temperatures.
Reply
It doesn’t add up…
July 16, 2015 at 5:03 pm
A thought:
Perhaps there is a reasonable
way to reconstruct these
series back to a good
approximation of the former
basis.
____
no need to ‘reconstruct’ governmental funded gathered data.
It has to be available from the governmental data storage backup systems.
____
time and again – such lies have their ends imprinted from the start.
Regards – Hans
always afraid of feeling right –
but ‘climate wars’ sure end with their own Nürnberg trial.
mod – thx for the guts. Hans
and yes, all data gathered by generations of earnest scientists*
– lost / manipulated after next elections
– are evidence of systematic fraud.
_____
*not to mismatch: data from ‘not yet evaluated sources’
still is data. and does’nt get evaluated by ‘peer review’ or wishfull thinking.
____
Hans
yes, mod. 1st theory. 2nd as is.
think 1st harder. Hans