Guest essay by Arno Arrak
Abstract
Karl et al. present data they claim denies the existence of the warming pasuse or hiatus that has existed for 18 years. It is characterized by the observation that while atmospheric carbon dioxide keeps ioncreasing there is no parallel increase of warming as demanded by the greenhouse theory of global warming. An examination of their data reveals that only two observed data points even show warming. This is not sufficient to even justify writing a paper about. This and other papers by like-minded pseudo-scientists are aimed at tearing down the existence of the current hiatus, but they have no idea that there was a similar hiatus in the eighties and nineties. The reason this is not known is that the guardians of global temperature made it disappear by over-writing it with a bogus warming called “late twentieth century warming.” It is much harder to deny the existence of two hiatuses than it is to deny one. The existence of this second hiatus argues against the claim made by Karl that hiatuses do not exist.
Introduction to Hiatuses
Hiatus in global warming is a cessation of warming, undefined in length and origin. The inplication that it may stop greenhouse warmimg makes it a threat to theories of global warming by the greenhouse effect. Karl and friends [1], as true disciples of this global warming theory, are doing all they can to deny the existence of the current hiatus which has lasted since about 1997 (or 2002 according to another version), While trying to deny that this hiatus is real, they are entirely unaware of the fact that there was another hiatus of equal length in the eighties and nineties. That is not very smart if you think of your paper as a hiatus killer. They do not know there are two because their friends working for GISS, HadCRUT, and NCDC climate oprganizations had decided to wipe that first hiatus off the map. They did this by over-writing it with a phony temperature rise called late twentieth century warming. It has been used by ground-based temperature sources but they could not control the satellites.That being the case, they simply pretended that satellites do not exist. As a result the hiatus of eighties and nineties is still available in satellite temperature records. I discovered it in 2008 while doing research for my book [2]. The word hiatus for a stand-still of warming had not yet been invented. ENSO was active at the time and produced a wave train of five El Nino peaks there, with La Nina valleys in between. Such a wave train is created by a harmonic oscillation of ocean water from side to side in the equatorial Pacific. As each wave washes ahore on the west coast of South America it spreads out north and south and warms the air above it. Warm air rises, joins the westerlies, and the rest of the world notices that an El Nino has arrived. In such a case, the global mean temperature is a point halfway between an El Nino peak and its neighboring La Nina valley. If you mark all such points on a wave train they will line up to define the trend of global mean temperature. In the case of the hiatus in the eighties and nineties this trend is a horizontal straight line. No warming for 18 years, it tells us. This also makes the graph of the hiatus self-calibrating: it cannot be monkeyd with by Karl or his friends.
Figure 1. This figure 15 from the book “What Warming?” [2], extended to the year 2012. Yellow dots mark global mean temperature. The blue lines, fitted to yellow dots, show existence of two hiatuses, with the 1998 super El Nino separating them. Steeply rising temperature just after it raised global temperature of the twenty-first century by a third of a degree Celsius in only three years.
Figure 15 above shows a temperature graph with two hiatuses. Figure 2 below shows how a HadCRUT3 plot, as modified by fake warming, can be used to wipe out a hiatus.
Figure 2. HadCRUT3 temperature data in 2008. Instead of a hiatus as in figure 15 it shows a fictitious late twentieth century warming on the left. Sharp spikes marked with red balloons are noise created by computer processing. This warming and the spikes are identically the same in all three datasets mentioned above. Note two noise peaks attaced to the super El Nino.
HadCRUT3 is just one of the temperature data-sets showing false warming in the eighties and nineties. There is no way this can happen without direct anthropogenic participation. The cooperation of the three temperature producers named sbove is revealed by presence of identical, unexplained computer processing traces in their data on both sides of the ocean. Unfortunately for them and fortunately for us the computer has left its footprints on all three, nominally independent, temperature curves. They comprise sharp upward spikes near the beginnings of years, marked with red balloons. Two of them sit right on top of the super El Nino of 1998.
What Karl wants to tell us
I regard the Karl et al. [1] article as just another one of dozens attacking the existence of the hiatus for ideological reasons. Like the others it has poor scientific support. They just know that the hiatus must be destroyed or else it will destroy them. While attacking the present hiatus full tilt they do not even lnow that there was another one in the eighties and nineties that we spoke of. For that ignorance they have to thank their friendly climate workers who arranged to have that hiatus over-written by a phony late twentieth century warming. Just before the hiatus started global temperature had begun to rise around 1976 and it looked like it was the global warming they were expecting to see. Except that it wasn’t. It stopped in 1979 and was followed by an 18 year temperature standstill – a true hiatus. Over-writing it may have started as an attempted error correction. But if year after year more corrections were needed these corrections became a scientific fraud. We are fortunate that they still do not control satellites or we would know nothing about this. We need to understand that while sea surface temperatures are integral to satellites they must be added to ground-based measurements from an external source. NOAA uses ERSST as a source while UK has their own HADSST3 for that. The latter is regarded as the gold standard of SST measurements. It is these ERSST sea surface values from NOAA that this paper uses to argue for the non-existence of the current hiatus. In their Ocean panel of figure 1 these are identified as “21st C” from 2000 to 2014 and “1998 to 2014” from 1998 to 2014. At the same time all land-based data in that figure show a uniformly small warming – an estimated 0.1 degrees Celsius per decade or less judging by their graph. All their new Global panel data also include the added temperature rise from ERSST. To use this as proof of warming is double dipping and must not be allowed. The Ocean base period and the second half of the twentieth century both show the same identically small warming as the ground-based warming does. The “Hiatus” of the IPCC period in the Ocean panel must likewise be excluded for double dipping because its data are fully included in the separate Ocean panel 1998 to 2014 measurements from ERSST. All other data including the absurd base period are either redundant or impermissible to use. The illegitimacy of using the ERSST data from NOAA is underlined by Judith Curry who opines that there was no reason for them to use NOAA’s data-set at all because the gold standard of SST data from the UK, namely HADSST3, was available. Included in their base period willie-nilly is the hiatus of the eighties and nineties. It must not be packaged as a part of promoting an imaginary warming curve as they do here. This error is made possible by their assuming that the so-called late twentieth century warming exists. It does not, it is phony, and it over-writes the first hiatus.
Figure 3. This is Figure 1 from “Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus,” in Science of June 4th 2015, by Thomas R. Karl, Anthony Arguez, Boyin Huang, Jay H. Lawrimore, James R. McMahon, Matthew J. Menne, Thomas C. Peterson, Russell S. Vose, Huai-Min Zhang. Note the numerous overlapping dates that amount to double-dipping. One result of this is that the data point “Hiatus” on the Ocean panel above is redundant, contributes nothing, and leaves the impession that they have more data than they actually do.
His grab for the Arctic
Further errors include their desire to include Arctic warming into their warming kingdom. It so happens that present Arctic warming is not greenhouse warming but is caused by warm water carried into the Arctic ocean by currents [3]. It was not always so. Prior to the twentieth century there was nothing there except for two thousand years of slow, linear cooling. Arctic warming started suddenly at the turn of the twentieth century as a result of a rearrangement of the North Atlantic current system. There was no increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide at the turn of the century which rules out greenhouse warming as a causative agent. Warming was irregular at first and halted for thirty years in mid-century. It resumed in 1970 and has been active ever since, The mid-century halt was actually a cooling period. Such ability to stop and start warming or cooling is another guarantee that Arctic warming cannot be greenhouse warming and must not be subsumed into his argument for AGW.
Warming effect
That step warming at the beginning of the 21st century raised global temperature by a third of a degree Celsius in only three years and then stopped. This third of a degree starts up from the level of the hiatus and is not spread out like the fake greenhouse warming is. It is the only warming during the entire satellite era. Since the temperature rise of the entire twentieth century was 0.8 degrees according to Hansen, 0.3 degrees Celsius is a substantial part of it. As a result of this warming all twenty-first century temperatures are now higher than the twentieth century was (except 1998). People like Hansen who did notice it want to claim it as due to greenhouse warming which it isn’t. This is one error that the fake warming promotes by hiding the existence of the step warming and thereby augmenting misinformation that comes from failure to check the facts about warming. Hansen noticed that twenty-first century was warmer than the twentieth when the hiatus was ten years old and quickly claimed it as greenhouse warming. That of course is impossible because checking the Keeling curve shows that carbon dioxide did not change. Prsence of the fake warming made it believable without checking what atmospheric carbon dioxide was doing. But then again, true believers like him do not even feel the need to check what carbon dioxide is doing because for them the science is settled. Fact is that we still don’t know the true cause of this step warming. Best guess is that it is oceanic but I don’t have any specific hints.
Global Climate Effect
Thanks to that step warming established a higher level for the 21st century temperature. we basically have now two hiatuses at two different temperature levels.It is worth our while to see how they correlate. First, the two hiatuses together cover more than eighty percent of the satellite era. Taking this to be synonymous with lack of warming we can immediately say that there was no greenhouse warming for more than 80 percent of the time during the satellite era. The rest of the era is taken up by the super El Nino of 1998 (2 years) and the short step warming that followed it (3 years). Neither one is a greenhouse-related feature. Hence, it follows that: there has been no greenhouse warming whatswoever durong the entire satellite era. With that, AGW dies.
Conclusions
And now we come to some impossible claims this paper makes. Their main claim seems to be that warming took place in the twenty-first century thanks to SST increase, recorded by NOAA. What they fail to do is to show that this warming tilted up the hiatus into a warming slope like the one shown in figure 2. We note also that at the same time that the sea urface was warming, their land-based temperatures did not follow suite. Since the land did not warm I am now confused about why they think SST has anything to do with the hiatus. Showing only two data points that are legitimate but not associated with progressive rise of temperature tells us nothing about what kind of warming happened where. If you want your warming to wipe out the existence of a hiatus you must show that these data mandate a progressine temperature rise as HadCRUT3 does in figure 2. People at HaDRUT3 understood this principle when they created their fake warming shown in figure 2. No doubt about it – that is how tou replace a hiatus with warming. Unfortunately Karl et al. simply don’t know that. They throw general warming into the air and have no idea where it comes down. Something like figure 2 is a sine qua non for wiping out a hiatus. But they have only two legitimate data points to show warming and these are just sea surface warming. And looking further into it I find that things are even worse than that. These two data points totally overlap in time: the one marked “21 st C” is completely inside the one marked “1998 to 2014” which means that there is only one legitimate data point in the entire paper. It is also non-localized, extending over a sixteen year period, and that makes it quite impossible to say whether or not any warming slope exists anywhere near a hiatus or not.. With these facts in mind, I am sorry to have to say that the aim of this paper has not been demonstrated. The authors, the editors and the reviewers of this paper have all shown total ignorance of the subject they have attempted to tackle. It takes a collusionary editorial process to get trash like this published and then follow it up with a world-wide promotional campaign geared to promote the false concept of anthropogenic global warming.
References
[1] Thomas R. Karl, Anthony Arguez, Boyin Huang, Jay H. Lawrimore, James R. McMahon, Matthew J. Menne, Thomas C. Peterson, Russell S. Vose, Huai-Min Zhang., “Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus” Science, June 4th 2015
[2] Arno Arrak “What Warming? Satellite view of global temperature change” (CreateSpace 2010), figure 15.
[3] Arno Arrak, “Arctic Warming Is Not Greenhouse Warming” E&E 22(8):1069-1083 (2011)
“Hence, it follows that: there has been no greenhouse warming whatswoever durong the entire satellite era”
Maybe if the satellite data set is augmented with tree ring data then warming will be seen. Don’t laugh… somebody is working on it. Aren’t you, you ex Nobel Laureate?
As far as 2 hiatus(es) I am unconvinced. It could be argued that there are 10 hiatuses in this data set if it is chopped up to smaller groupings.
And yet it is 18 year periods that “climate scientists” said would never be without pronounced warming trends.
As for being “unconvinced”, it seems you might be unconvinced that water is in the trough for you to drink even while standing over it looking at your own reflection.
Jeeesh, you donkeys are stubborn.
gaelansclark,
I think you misunderstand of what I am unconvinced. I generally accept the 18 year pause in warming. The profile of the warming hiatus, then becomes a matter of manipulation and arguable preference. I am hardly a donkey…First you have to accept that there is one general pause. I do. Now what is it’s shape?
Got it…
I think an apology to Paul is warranted not just a “got it” – we’re not warmists you know
It depends whether there is a valid reason to do the chop.
In the case of the satellite data, there may be such a valid reason, ie., to consider the data set as a whole but to look at what it informing was happening after launch through to the period running up to the Super El Nino of 1997/8, and what it is informing post that event to date.
From a review of the entire data set, what is clear is that
1. there is no straight line linear temperature trend in that data set.
2. there is no first order correlation between rising levels of CO2 and temperature.
3. there is a step change (of about 0.25degC) coincident with the Strong El Nino of 1997/8.
Whether that step change is merely coincident with the Super El Nino of 1997/8 or was caused by that Super El Nino cannot be determined from the data set alone. Nor why any ‘heat’ released by that Super El Nino has not gradually dissipated these past 15 years. But it is valid to pint out that the only significant temperature increase (over above short term variability) is that coincident upon the Super El Nino of 1997/8, and to consider what may be the position but for that Super El Nino.
I accept that that is speculative, but I have often pointed out the fact that there are two ‘pauses’ not one in this data set, both of more than 15 years duration, and have mentioned this in relation to Santer’s claim that 15 years without warming would potentially cause issues for cAGW, later revised to 17 years.
I have also pointed this out in relation to the claim (an after event claim) that some model projections produce a period of 15 years without warming. I have rhetorically asked how many of these model runs show not one period of about 15 years duration without statistically significant warming, but two such periods closely following on from one another?
It is in relation to model projections where I consider the two ‘pauses’ seen in this data set to be material. At what CO2 levels did model projections apparently project periods of 15 years without statistical warming, and which model runs projected two such periods separated by a period of only about 2 years?
That is what we need to see answers to.
.
Just what if’ing, but what if the pause is the El Niño impulse dissipating on top of increased heating from CO2 growth and the two miraculously cancel to produce a pause? I’m actually a bit surprised this hasn’t been brought up before and debunked. I may have missed the memo.
There is another way of looking at this pattern. It is being described using “step function” and “hiatus”. But a sloping sine wave plus noise will give the same effect. If the step function view is “correct” then there needs to be a mechanism whereby a large El Nino (perhaps) causes a one-off lasting increase in sea surface temperature. If the sine wave view is “correct” then there need to be mechanisms for the sine wave and the slope. The sine wave could be the “stadium wave” as described at judithcurry.com and/or from ocean oscillations. The slope could be from a longer-term oscillation (such as is seen in the Alley data for Greenland) and/or from CO2. I suggest that it is worth keeping an open mind to these two patterns. Either way, climate sensitivity to CO2 is much lower than claimed by the IPCC and the models.
richard verney asks good questions about the step function (was the step caused by El Nino or coincident; why didn’t the heat dissipate). I suspect that the sine wave will prove to be a better line of enquiry (NB. it doesn’t have to be exactly a sine wave).
Richard I’d have to say you’ve left the question too open and you got what you asked for; a very wide range of wild speculation. No fault of the respondents, but you really do need to work on making the question just a bit more specific. May I suggest using numerical data?
1) There’s no straight line. In anything. Nature abhors straight lines. This isn’t a criticism it’s an observed truth.
2) If there was a first, second, or third order correlation between “global average temperature” and the price of dog food it wouldn’t matter one jot or tiddle;
3) Shit happens. It actually requires a falsifiable theory accompanied by a simulacrum of physical evidence to make intellectual progress in the greater arena of thought. Good Luck.
The CO2 sine wave shows a steady trend line upwards.
If CO2 drives temperature, how does such a steady trend line produce such a noticeable step change in temperature?
An honest question posed to those who are smarter than I.
Even posing that question eludes 99.9% of the population Richard. So… who is smart? 🙂
The answer? That is the rub. I guess it depends on ones honesty, politics, and knowledge. Therefore, we have WUWT.com.
““Hence, it follows that: there has been no greenhouse warming whatsoever during the entire satellite era””
I’ve been saying that for at least 18 months.
“Maybe if the satellite data set is augmented with tree ring data then warming will be seen. ”
As long as they get the RIGHT tree.
Paul, can I convince you that there is no way to chop it into smaller groupings that mean anything? I have seen the way warmists chop up the entire temperature curve from 1880 to 2015 into these short segments. This way they manage to turn a temperature curve into a staircase and then claim that these stairs are all hiatuses. It was all part of a a serious attempt to deny the existence of the current hiatus. But to me the worst part of it is an editorial process that allows such nonsense to be published for ideological purposes. However, if you seriously are looking for another potential hiatus there is one location in the fifties to early seventies that almost has the requisite horizontal segment needed. I ignored it for two reasons, namely constant changes they kept making to temperature and the possibility that it was part of the recovery from the World War II cold spell. That cold spell started in the winter of 1939 to 1940. Temperature curves for that era are really screwed up and some of them show 1940 to 1945 as the peak of a heat wave. Of course they do not remember WWII themselves because they were not even born then. The war started when Hitler and Stalin made a pact to divide up eastern Europe between themselves, in the process yielding Finland to Russia. Finland refused Stalin’s demands to surrender and Stalin sent his divisions into Finland, starting the Finnish Winter War. He first attempted to cut Finland in two and sent three divisions with tanks to attack the Finnish village of Suomissalmi. The battle of Suomissalmi in January 1940 was fought at minus 40 degrees Celsius in one meter of snow. The Finns had no anti-tank weapons so they started throwing gasoline bottles with fuses at the Russian tanks. It worked and they got all the tanks. Russians were so impressed with this method that they started using it against German tanks next year when Stalin and Hitler had a falling out. The Finns invented it but the Russians took credit for themselves, calling those gasoline bottles “Molotov cocktails.” The Finns also destroyed Stalin’s ground troops in that battle, inflicting 9000 casualties. The cold wave inaugurated with this battle was so severe that next year German troops under Moscow were freezing to death and their tank engines would not start. After the war ended climate started to warm slowly but even in 1947 New York City could still suffer a standstill caused by a blizzard. The recovery took some years and global temperature did not reach 1940 levels again until about 1980. At that point the hiatus of the eighties and nineties took over and put a stop to any further warming. But not according to IPCC and its minions. As I pointed out, they invented the “late twentieth century warming” to cover up lack of warming in the eighties and nineties. It deserves to be called the mother of “hide the decline” that was later revealed by Climategate .
The satellite data have spikes that look to me to resemble the ones pointed out in HadCRUT3. Also, I went to woodfortrees to factcheck a pre-1998 hiatus in the RSS satellite record: The linear trend from the beginning of the RSS record to the beginning of 1997 shows a temperature increase of .13 degree C. http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/to:1997/trend
Forrest,
My thoughts, too, initially.
Then I wondered about simple stochastic variation – in multiple variables . . .
It’s like the sea – if you have one storm, there is one wave-field.
Two near – but unlinked – storms, two wave trains.
Three storms – you get the picture.
Now, if you d o have three wave trains, at different alignments, there will be many places where two peaks occur, but three will be few and far between. Rare – but high, and having a trough of impressive dimensions in front and following! Naturally.
might that be the genesis of a Super El Nino?
So, all I need to do is identify what causes the ‘wave-trains’ – and there’s my second Nobel.
[My first, of course, was as a citizen [subject?] of the European Union; I can’t remember when I won it, nor what I won it for, and I bet most of the other 500,000,000 co-laureates don’t have a blind idea either].
Auto
Donald,
you are right.
Arrak arrak-ized the satellite and the HADCRUT3 data by selcting the yellow temperature points to calculate a trend. And he choose different ones for Hadcrut and Sat, so he got a different trend.
The truths is, that HADCRUT3 is nearly equal to RSS and UHA.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/rss/plot/rss/to:1997/trend/plot/rss/from:2001/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/to:1997/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/trend
E.g. for the satelite data he chose 1994/12 as the latest point, but For Hadcrut3 he choose1995/12. the same withte other points.
Maybe he is right about Karl.et al, but in this way we will not get good stand against warmists.
Hadcrut 3 is still the most reliable source for pre-satellite data.
Johannes Herbst October 30, 2015 at 2:41 am says that “…Arrak arrak-ized the satellite and the HADCRUT3 data by selcting the yellow temperature points …” You are an obnoxious twerp. A yellow dot marks the instantaneous location of global mean temperature. It is the midpoint between an El Nino peak and the bottpm of its nearest La Nina valley. If there is no warming they line up horizontally as they do in figure 1 (15). The rest of your babble is garbage and all of it should be snipped.
Arno Arrak says to Johannes Herbst: “You are an obnoxious twerp. A yellow dot marks the instantaneous location of global mean temperature.”
Wow! The “…instantaneous location of global mean temperature…” I just Googled “instantaneous location of global mean temperature”. The only place throughout the entire Google-monitored internet that that phrase appears is in your comment on this thread. To everyone here, it sounds like you cherry-picked where those dots appeared so that you could give the misleading appearance of a flat linear trend for the period before the 1997/98 El Nino, when the data provided no such flat trend. How comical!
Arno Arrak says to Johannes Herbst: “The rest of your babble is garbage and all of it should be snipped.”
In reality, Arno, what you’ve presented in this post is garbage.
Forrest Gardener October 29, 2015 at 11:02 am is interested in physical phenomena causing these spikes. These phenomena are not physical, they are purely anthropogenic. They are caused by use of a computer that was defective and left traces of its presence on the files it processed. The spikes are in exactly the same places in all three temperature data sets and they are absent from satellite data of the same temperature region. No way can any physical phenomenon duplicate this performance. You can easily repeat this observation yourself if you need any further convincing.
Arno Arrak says to Forrest Gardener: “These phenomena are not physical, they are purely anthropogenic. They are caused by use of a computer that was defective and left traces of its presence on the files it processed. The spikes are in exactly the same places in all three temperature data sets and they are absent from satellite data of the same temperature region. No way can any physical phenomenon duplicate this performance. You can easily repeat this observation yourself if you need any further convincing.”
Really? Your comment reads like its written by a conspiracy theorist, Arno, someone who wears a tin-foil beanie. So do NOAA, UKMO, and GISS use the same defective computer? The “spikes” as you call them are also present in the “raw” ICOADS source sea surface temperature data, before the (sarc on) spike-causing NOAA, GISS and UKMO computer (sarc off) gets hold of it. Do you expect us to take you seriously, Arno?
Further to your statement, “The spikes are in exactly the same places in all three temperature data sets and they are absent from satellite data of the same temperature region….” are you aware, Arno, that surface temperature data and lower troposphere temperature data are not based on measurements of the same variables, that we would not expect them to be the same.
Bob Tisdale October 31, 2015 at 1:08 pm says: ” …surface temperature data and lower troposphere temperature data are not based on measurements of the same variables, that we would not expect them to be the same.” You are quite right but your point is irrelevant. Their common origin comes from the computer used, not from the data. I don’t expect any two curves to be exactly the same anyway because they all have background noise. The spikes in question are not noise but have passed detection by being considered noise for the last 18 years.Their precise placement gives away their secret. And yes, there is no doubt that NOAA, UKMO, and GISS are all involved. Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to claim that these same spikes were also present in ICROADS. Google unfortunately does not know about ICROADS so I could not look at their history. The time line for putting the spikes in begins in 1997, the year the hiatus ended. Anything older and anything distinctly younger does not qualify. Three data sets had to be brought into accord by using the computer.There is of course the chance that this same computer might have been used elsewhere too and left its traces there. If similar spikes turn up, say, in ICROADS, the first thing to check is the timeline. There is much data digging involved but it can be done if necessary, Bear in mind that they have billions of dollars of federal government climate money in their pockets. Should it turn out that ICROADS was spiked, say, in seventies, it is exonerated from this conspiracy.
Arno, a search for ICOADS source sea surface temperature data quickly leads to http://icoads.noaa.gov/
Apparently a few more words was what Google needed to find it.
I note that on their web site’s graphs there is a strong downward temperature change in Jan-Feb, so their thermometers are probably mostly in the northern hemisphere.
I know of a reason why an honest surface temperature dataset would show more warming than occurred in the satellite-measured lower troposphere: Radiosonde data indicate that during the satellite measurement era, the portion of the troposphere within 100-200 meters of the ground warmed about .02-.03 degree/decade more than the main part of the lower troposphere. See figure 7 of http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/version-6-0-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-released-new-lt-trend-0-11-cdecade
Followup on my part: During the time covered by the RSS and HadCRUT3 records, HadCRUT3 had a warming rate exceeding that of RSS by slightly under .02 degree/decade.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1979/trend/plot/rss/from:1979/to:2014.33/trend/offset:0.134
I can believe that the lowest couple of hundred meters could be warmer, but I cannot believe that the lower several hundred meters are not mixed with the atmosphere above it. If it is due to chemical composition of the atmosphere, it should preserved vertically for more than 1000 feet. Further, you would expect an adiabatic lapse rate in the absence of severe weather.
Personally, I will go with strange attractors for 200. Mathematical chaos tends to dominate more things than people give it credit for.
My response to ShrNfr, posting here because I did not see a link for direct reply: The lapse rate in the lowest few hundred meters of the atmosphere is often much less than the adiabatic one or even in a temperature inversion condition at night and sometimes even in daytime when the surface is covered by ice or snow. Loss of snow and ice cover, and secondarily reduction of nighttime radiational cooling of the surface by increase of greenhouse gases, can explain the increase in the lapse rate in the lowest several hundred meters of the troposphere, which radiosonde data indicate actually occurred.
“reduction of nighttime radiational cooling of the surface by increase of greenhouse gases, can explain the increase in the lapse rate in the lowest several hundred meters of the troposphere, which radiosonde data indicate actually occurred.”
Please provide a link to the radiosonde data to which you are referring.
Secondly, change in temperature is inversely related to change in heat capacity (Cp) of the atmosphere. Both water vapor and CO2 have a higher Cp than air, therefore increases of either would decrease the lapse rate:
dT/dh = -g/Cp
thus, if CO2 and water vapor increased together as alleged by the “consensus,” Cp would increase and thus decrease the lapse rate.
Followup by me on some comments below:
1) I already posted previously above a link to radiosonde-indicated warming rate of the atmosphere as a function of altitude.
2) Increase of CO2 and H2O would decrease the lapse rate if there are no radiation changes. However, CO2 has increased by 140 PPM, and overall atmospheric H2O has increased by only hundreds of PPM at most. The Cp of the atmosphere would change less than .1% of the difference between 7/5 and 9/7.
“1) I already posted previously above a link to radiosonde-indicated warming rate of the atmosphere as a function of altitude.”
0.01C per decade? Do you seriously believe that is within measurement accuracy? No error bars, as usual, are provided.
“2) Increase of CO2 and H2O would decrease the lapse rate if there are no radiation changes. However, CO2 has increased by 140 PPM, and overall atmospheric H2O has increased by only hundreds of PPM at most. The Cp of the atmosphere would change less than .1% of the difference between 7/5 and 9/7.”
“Radiative forcing” makes no difference to the lapse rate
dT/dh = -g/Cp
because it does not affect either of the two independent variables, g or Cp. Show your math proving that “radiation changes” have any effect whatsoever upon -g/Cp.
Donald L. Klipstein October 29, 2015 at 8:29 am says that “…satellite data have spikes that look to me to resemble the ones pointed out in HadCRUT3.”
You are dead wrong, Donald. Don’t talk of “resembling,” measure. Pull out each of the three data sets I mention. Then lay them against each other to locate the spikes. Next, pull out RSS and UAH and lay them against the three others. This will demonstrate that the spikes are shared by the three ground based data sets but are absent from both satellites. There are some random errors in the satellite data sets as there are in all temperature measurements. These can give the impression of deviations from horizontal. If you combine the two satellite data sets as I did they will mutually tend to cancel one another. One such deviation in the twenty-first century part of the hiatus gives a slight downward slope to it which I have ignored but which is easy to see on the graph.
And by the way, Donald, there are no honest surface temperature data sets. They have all been revised, re-revised, and re-re-revised. Michael Crichton, in his presentation to Congress, was appalled by this and gave them a part of his mind.
Ice outflow might be an explanation to some of the Ice melting in the Artic due to an investigation from Norway: http://mm.aftenposten.no/kloden-var/naturlig-issmelting
i thought wow ! scientists looking for alternatives to the current hypothesis. sadly further down this will be used to explain increasing levels of ice in summer ,another natural phenomena that overrides agw. they need to look at shifting currents also, driven by the increase in the same wind that has been exporting more ice.
Is it true that the Karl paper eliminated the pause globally, but they did so by adjusting Northern hemisphere data so the pause remains in their Southern hemisphere data? I thought I saw a post in the comments during the last week to this effect.
If so, that seems to be a smoking gun of fraudulent data tampering on their part.
It certainly appears so to me:
http://i1136.photobucket.com/albums/n488/Bartemis/compare_zpsy26aluuy.png
Others have taken exception, saying that the problem is in the earlier agreement between the hemispheres. Given the Karl et al. shenanigans, and the dodgy extrapolation over the poles, I think the NH data are almost assuredly corrupted beyond usefulness. I cannot attest to the accuracy of the SH data pre-1959, though.
Bart,
And I’m afraid I would not bet a pound – not to half the oil reserves of Saudi Arabia – on the data before 1900 [say].
The guys then would have done their best, with, very likely, the best instruments available, striving to record promptly and accurately, and then to transmit faithfully.
But, with respect for woodfortrees – how many reasonable data sets are there for the southern hemisphere for any time before 1900? The southern hemisphere then was about the size it is now – better than 250 million square kilometres.
If there were 250 data sets [which there could be, given the numbers in Australia] – they were heavily concentrated in small-ish parts of the land areas – spots along the African coast – Mombasa, say, and others; (mainly SE) Australia; bits of NZ; South Africa [with Zulu and Boer wars punctuating the record?]; Singapore [then a trading post with aspirations] and the Dutch East Indies; and South America, mostly along the coast, and perhaps a few up-river – Asuncion, maybe Manaus, and a very few more.
And each to be representative – to a fraction of a degree – of a million square kilometres.
And then to be averaged out to a discrimination of one tenth of one degree – over an entire hemisphere for twelve months.
No, not for me.
I bet the temperature varied.
I bet the climate did exactly the same.
But which way, when – on a year to year basis – I dunno.
I dunno at all.
Auto
I would definitely not hang my hat on anything pre-1900, and would be cautious about anything up to perhaps 1957 as well. That was the International Geophysical Year, as Kristian mentioned on the previous thread. I am provisionally accepting his intimation that, that was the year things started coming together. At any rate, it is roughly the time that we started getting MLO measurements, which are consistent with the SH and the satellite data.
http://i1136.photobucket.com/albums/n488/Bartemis/temp-CO2-long.jpg_zpsszsfkb5h.png
I don’t see a hockey stick.
Bartemis says, October 29, 2015 at 10:05 am:
“Others have taken exception, saying that the problem is in the earlier agreement between the hemispheres. Given the Karl et al. shenanigans, and the dodgy extrapolation over the poles, I think the NH data are almost assuredly corrupted beyond usefulness. I cannot attest to the accuracy of the SH data pre-1959, though.”
Again with this!?
You compare sfc NH and SH with tlt global, Bartemis. Not sfc NH and SH with tlt NH and SH.
Also, the global troposphere is much more strongly influenced by the tropical ocean surface temperature signal than what the global surface (land+sea) is, due to the tight moist convective coupling between the tropical ocean surface and the troposphere above.
There is no mystery here, Bartemis. The NH does indeed warm (and cool) much faster than the SH. For obvious reasons: There is much more land up there; the AMO; the PDO. To mention three. The problem lies rather in the fact that the data inventors/adjusters have erased this physically sound relationship from the record prior to about 1970.
@auto: You said:
If there were 250 data sets [which there could be, given the numbers in Australia] – they were heavily concentrated in small-ish parts of the land areas – spots along the African coast – Mombasa, say, and others; (mainly SE) Australia; bits of NZ; South Africa [with Zulu and Boer wars punctuating the record?]; Singapore [then a trading post with aspirations] and the Dutch East Indies; and South America, mostly along the coast, and perhaps a few up-river – Asuncion, maybe Manaus, and a very few more.
And each to be representative – to a fraction of a degree – of a million square kilometres.
The problem with finding good data sets is made even harder by the fact that Singapore is not in the SH. Nor much of the Dutch East Indies. Most of Africa is NH, not SH, and even a significant chunk of the South American continent!
Quite untrue. Karl did not eliminate the pause anywhere at any time.
Karl, et al, 2015 hides the simple math trickery in plain sight in their paper and then basically brags about it with this statement (quoting from their manuscript):
They simply subtracted a minus correction, instead of subtracting a positive correction, to continue the upward trend they needed to erase the Hiatus period.
What they did boils down to:
0.034 – (-0.030) = 0.064 (Pause erased),
instead of the honest, correct adjustment to ship data:
0.034 – (+0.030) = 0.004 (~ 0.00, Hiatus)
The fraud they committed is elementary and right in the open.
Arno: It’s good to see you up to your old tricks of misrepresenting data. Your first illustrations show no warming for RSS and UAH lower troposphere temperature anomaly before the 1997/98 El Niño.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/clip_image00210.jpg
Anyone who has every studied those datasets knows the data show warming from 1979 to 1997, Arno.
So tell us, Arno. Why do the data contradict your nonsensical graph?
You have just lost your credibility here, Arno.
Adios.
There’s a typo in the title block. Fixed here:
No offense Bob but you’ve inflated those trend numbers. 1979-1996 UAH shows .028C +/-.198C per decade and RSS shows .066C +/- .19C. Notice the huge error bars? So statistically speaking no warming.
Just sayin.
Gonzo, please read the title block of my graph. I did not present trends for 1979 to 1996, so your complaint is unfounded. I presented linear trends for the period of 1979 to 1997, because, as is blatantly obvious, the uptick for the 1997/98 El Niño didn’t happen until 1998. Also, this is not a discussion of statistics as I noted in another comment. This is a discussion of a purposely misleading graph, upon which the post is based.
Cheers.
Bob – you are making an accusation here that is completely false.And you support it by shoving an alleged satellite temperature curve into my face. I have satellite data taken in 2008 and in 2012, and they do not show any of this fake warming you are pushing.
You are poorly qualified to judge scientific results but you still have the nerve to question my integrity as a scientist. You owe me an apology for shoving that graph into my face. Unless you can prove that your temperature curve for the eighties and nineties has a source other than yourself it must be regarded as a crude intimidation intended to change scientific results. If, on the other hand, if it does come from an external source please be kind enough and give me the full name and address of that source. Showing such an obviously bogus, anonymous, satellite curve just does not cut it in a scientific controversy. That is not how real science is done. For your information, I downloaded my data in question twice, once in 2008 and once in 2012. The “early” part in both cases was identical and indicated that no warming had taken place in the eighties and nineties before the super El Nino arrived. This makes it a hiatus without question. I have a NASA document from 1979 affirming that they knew about the lack of warming then. They are obviously at fault for not following up on the fate of this graphic. I used the 2008 version of the data in my book and the 2012 version in the current article you just read because of its more extended time scale. But then again I must bear in mind that your scribbling is nothing more than an amateurish attempt to deny the existence of a global warming record that verifiably existed from 2008 to 2012. The temperature rise you show in this bogus graph is almost identical to temperature rise in HadCRUT3 and 4 that makes one suspect more than just accidental similarity. It is practically impossible for a real satellite curve to imitate. I was always under the impression that satellite data could be trusted more than the others.I trust that UAH and RSS are not involved in changing their own past.
Bob is correct. There was plenty of global warming in the 1980’s/90’s(using almost any data set or definition) prior to the big El Nino in the late 1990’s, which represents a peak in that particular warming cycle.
I wouldn’t call .09 degrees C per decade “plenty”.
Bob Tisdale, thank you for your response, the Arno Arrak essay was incomprehensible, and I was close to believing this had to be written to discredit those of us who do not believe in the IPCC doomsday predictions.
This looks like an argument over end points and smoothing techniques. This exacerbates the known issues of projecting linear trends through variable averaged data.
In the first period, there is very slight warming, but is it statistically significant?
Indeed, does the satellite data have an error bound of better than 0.09 degC per decade, or put another way better than 0,009 per year?
Whilst I accept that the linear straight line that you have put through the first period suggest very slight warming of ~0.08 degC per decade (or 0.09 degC per decade), given the obvious margins of error, it does not appear to be statistically significant.
your further feedback would be welcomed.
richard verney:
You ask the reasonable question
Your question makes a point I have often stated; viz.
Warming over a period is indicated by temperature data that provides a positive linear trend
but
discernible warming over a period is indicated by temperature data that provides a positive linear trend that differs from zero with 95% confidence.
The essay only mentions confidence limits of the data points and does not mention confidence limits of the data trends. Hence, the assertion under discussion is lack of ‘warming’ and is not lack of ‘discernible warming’.
Personally, I think discernible warming – n.b. not warming – is the pertinent issue, but that is merely my opinion: warming is the subject under discussion.
Richard
Bob, if I’m eyeballing this right, the difference is the period you are using. You are using 79-97. Looking at the yellow dots on the original post, Arno’s graph shows 80-94. eyeballing your graph, that is an agreement.
Arno, you need to fix your chart or essay. You clearly are graphing 80-94 as being a flatline. Why are you talking about 79-96? Something’s not right here.
Hi benofhouston: If the trend is based on the period of 1980-1994, why then do the trends lines extend beyond that time period? They certainly give the misleading impression that the trends extend beyond those times. Also, the linear trends from 1980 to 1994 for the RSS and UAH TLT anomalies are also not flat, so it appears that Arno simply plopped yellow dots on the graph and drew a horizontal line. That is one of the most intentionally misleading graphs I’ve run across.
Cheers.
The same I saw also, as I stated in one answer above.
>>Arno simply plopped yellow dots on the
>>graph and drew a horizontal line
The yellow dots represent the mid-point in each warming or cooling episode. Not sure if that is a valid technique or not – just sayin’.
R
benofhouston October 29, 2015 at 11:04 am says: “…Arno, you need to fix your chart or essay. You clearly are graphing 80-94 as being a flatline. Why are you talking about 79-96?” Relax, Ben, no adjustment required. If you take another look at the graph you will notice that the red band outlining the graph extends at both ends beyond the region where there are yellow dots. The yellow dots are just markers, they are not data. The red band is data and because of the way the red band is cut off at the ends there was no room for putting the yellow dots all the way to the limits. The data, however, does extend there and the shape of this data curve indicates that it is legitimate to take the blue line all the way to the ends.
Ian W, this is not a discussion of end points and smoothing techniques.
richard verney, this is not a discussion of statistical significance.
This is a discussion of an intentionally misleading graph…that serves as the foundation for a poor blog post.
Bob
I accept that the graph may be misleading, and there may be valid issues of principle over that, but the core question is does the data show any statistically significant warming as from the launch date through to the run up to the Super El Nino of 1997/8, because if there is no statistically significant warming during this period, then the fundamental point that Arno is making, namely that there is a ‘pause’ in the first period (ie., the period prior to the Super El Nino of 1997/80) is correct.
Please advise whether you consider that taking account of measurement error, there is or is not statistically significant warming in the first period which you suggest to be at a rate of 0.08 degC per decade 9alternatively 0.09 degC per decade).
According to the citation, he pulled this figure from his 2010 book.
It’s hard to blame Arno for the underlying data shifting substantially in the last 5 years.
When we critique the latest flavor-of-the-month adjustments, I think it’s entirely proper to use the context of “settled science” of the past. Tony Heller does a masterful job of this.
In science, nobody should have to trust one another, they should be able to do their own independent investigation and come to the same conclusions as others. When the past changes daily, how can anyone complete an independent investigation?
Did Arno misplace his trust in RSS/UAH back in 2010 when he created the graph for his book? Why should he trust that v6.3 is finally “correct”? If he updates the graph now then cites is 5 years from now, will you bash him again for “misleading” people because v8.2 is radically different yet again?
KTM:
You ask
The problem is much, much worse than that!
The global and hemispheric data are changed almost every month and this prevents publication of assessments of the data sets. See this.
Arno needs to provide an essay that assesses the data which exists today because his assessment will become invalid with efluxion of time as the data are changed.
The underlying issue is that the global and hemispheric temperature data have no physical meaning. Reasons for this are:
1.
There are no agreed definitions of the hemispheric and global average temperatures.
2.
Each team that provides the data sets of the hemispheric and global average temperatures uses its own unique definitions of the averages.
3.
Each team that provides the data sets of the hemispheric and global average temperatures alters the definitions of the averages it uses almost every month so its reported values for the same historic data change almost every month.
4.
If there were agreed definitions of the hemispheric and global average temperatures then it would not be possible to measure the hemispheric and global average temperatures because there is no possibility of a calibration standard for any of them.
For the reasons I have here stated, the data of hemispheric and global average temperatures have no physical meaning and, therefore, the only possible use for the data sets of hemispheric and global average temperatures is as political tools. All other ‘uses’ are ‘angels on a pin’ considerations.
Richard
richard, all I’m complaining about is the fact that the graph is extremely misleading. Nothing more, nothing less.
Cheers.
Bob Tisdale:
You say to me
Yes, I know. Indeed, I draw your attention to my post in
Bob Tisdale:
Sorry for the erroneous post. Hopefully, this will be what I intended.
You say to me
Yes, I know. Indeed, I draw your attention to my post in this thread addressed to Newminster.
Richard
Bob Tisdale October 29, 2015 at 11:06 am ssays: “…This is a discussion of an intentionally misleading graph…that serves as the foundation for a poor blog post.” A scurrilous remark that should be erased by the moderators.
Not sure I see this as more than a tempest in a teapot.
http://i1136.photobucket.com/albums/n488/Bartemis/Picture1_zps1eya81lj.png
http://s19.postimg.org/ojf5tbz1v/RSS_cancel.jpg
Thanks for the second graph, Bartemis. It’s blatantly obvious why Arno did not present the actual trend line.
Cheers
Bart, that’s what I was saying. The problem is that Arno’s words aren’t lining up with his graph. Clearly, he’s connecting the dots. However, he extended the line further than his actual dots, artificially lengthening his trend. Arno’s real flatline is 1980 to 1994. Bob graphed the full time period that Arno claimed in the text of his essay, which has a definite increase. You can even see in your picture how it matches better with underlying oscillation.
Then, there’s the fact that to avoid end-point bias, you need to measure from the same spot on the oscillation. My preference is peak-to-peak. That would be 1980 to 1995, which shows a small but definite increase.
If you are going to accuse people of deception, you need to triple-check your own work first.
In fact, Mr. Watts, I request that this essay be retracted. The cherry-picked endpoints are doing a clear disservice to our message, and can serve as a means to discredit this website.
also HDCRUT3 is quite reliable.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/plot/rss/to:1997/trend/plot/rss/from:2001/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/to:1997/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/trend
Arno Arrak writes: “Bob – you are making an accusation here that is completely false.And you support it by shoving an alleged satellite temperature curve into my face.”
There is nothing alleged about it, Arno. I presented data, the sources of which are here:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0beta3.txt
and here:
ftp://ftp.remss.com/msu/monthly_time_series/rss_monthly_msu_amsu_channel_tlt_anomalies_land_and_ocean_v03_3.txt
You, on the other hand, Arno, presented nonsense. Say good-bye to you credibility here at WUWT, Arno, assuming you had credibility here.
Adios.
You are evading the issue, Bob, this does not comply with my request. Those two references you give are to numerical tables which are impossible to compare with your graphics. Put them into the same graphic mode that you used in your comment so a comparison can be made.
Karl et al. do not know that we have had three hiatuses, not one since the 1950’s.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1950/to:1979/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1951/to:1974/trend
We now have a 23 year hiatus period between 1951 and 1974 and was just part of a longer global climate cooling trend, where after the first strong El Nino (1972/73) recorded since the 1950’s resulted in a step down in global temperatures for a short period after. (7 years) The two El Nino’s during the late 1970’s had a cooler affect on global temperatures than any before this period.
This was the result from a temporary step down in global temperatures until the Pacific shift contributed significantly later and was especially noticeable once another strong El Nino occurred in the early 1980’s. This didn’t cause much of a initial noticeable step up back then because was between the Tropical Oceans in balance, supporting warming or cooling the planet long term. The balance is determined by how much solar energy is stored and released in this region over many years. The large volcanic eruption at the time also affected initial short term response in global temperatures. After the Pacific shift a global step up in temperatures was very noticeable.
“The 1976 Pacific climate shift is examined, and its manifestations and significance in Alaskan climatology during the last half-century are demonstrated. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation index shifted in 1976 from dominantly negative values for the 25-yr time period 1951–75 to dominantly positive values for the period 1977–2001.”
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI3532.1
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1974/to:1980/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1980/to:1990
The hiatus before 1997 was only for a decade though and little warming is shown for both UAH and RSS from 1979 to 1997.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1981/to:1997/plot/rss/from:1987/to:1997/trend/plot/rss/from:1981/to:1997/trend/plot/uah/from:1981/to:1997/trend
Surely what Karl did amounts to little more than opinion? He arbitrarily chopped n changed sst data to show what he wanted it to show, however that still doesn’t disprove the original RSS satellite data. It merely presents an alternative outcome / conclusion.
Nothing Karl does removes the observation-based RSS satellite data pause.
Differences are RSS provide references to changes, Karl won’t provide them. I can easily change the SST’s represented by Karl to show how I think they should be in my opinion and get a different result to him.
Somebody care to do a proof-read on this? It’s hard enough for a layman to get a grip of the science sometimes without having to fight your way through typos. I gave up after the first dozen paragraphs!
Newminster:
It is not worth the bother to proof-read the above essay.
All one needs to recognise is the point stated by Bob Tisdale in this thread here.
And the lack of readability of the above essay is informative. Please consider that if you wrote an essay which you thought contained important information you wanted to share, then would you try to make it comprehensible by at least using paragraphs to identify your points?
Richard
LOL even the antarctic ozone hole (thinning) is responding exactly opposite to climatologist predictions.
2015 Antarctic ozone hole 4th largest on record
http://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/2015-antarctic-ozone-hole-4th-largest-on-record/59102/
Why do people believe anything they have to say about anything? GK
Generally speaking, applying linear trend fitting to what amounts to ~60 yr sinusoids is absurd. Any trend can be found with appropriate selection of end-points. What Karl, et al., did was to fraudulently adjust the underlying sinusoid so that the new- and old -version trend derived from same start-end timepoints were different, ergo to clearly yield a “politically convenient” result.
This is obvious by simple reading several statements they made in their Science manuscript:
So they reversed the sign of the applied bias correction in version 4, by correcting more reliable, more accurate buoy data with less accurate, less reliable ship data. If that doesn’t smack of scientific fraud, nothing does, since they know ship data will “warm” the buoy data.
They then carry this manipulation one step further than previous versions:
So Tom Karl and the Climate Cabal succeeded in achieving a politically desired result (hiatus erasure) and then Marcia McNutt, Science Editor-in-Chief at the time, aided and abetted the deed with a Science magazine roll-out.
As a side note to understand how DC and political and career back-scratching occur, Ms McNutt garnered a promotion to be 2016 President of the National Academy of Sciences this summer, most likely as her pay-off in the effort, also likely quarterbacked by WH Science Advisor John Holdren. Ms. McNutt has also likely been promised to be on the short list of nominees to the 2017 WH Science Advisor job should Hillary Clinton successfully lie her way to the Presidency.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2015/07/07/national-academy-of-sciences-set-to-have-its-first-female-president/
The on-going Climate Fraud is of epic proportions, will likely have one or two more “big announcements” before COP21.
Whilst I would be hesitant about accusations about fraud, it is in some ways worse than you present.
Ships do not measure SST. They draw water at depth. What they measure is the temperature of sea water drawn typically from a depth of between about 4 and 16 metres, but as may be slightly warmed by engine room environmental conditions, with this on board warming depending upon the time spent by the water before pumping in and through the engine.
There is reason to consider that SST is warmer than the water temps recorded in ships logs because ships draw water not at the surface but at depth, rarely less than 5 metres below the surface.
Fraud requires two elements. Intent and an executed deception. The executed deception in the Karl paper is clear, that is “erasure of the pause.” The intent is evident by their a priori knowledge that the (lower quality) ship data bias correction applied to the (higher quality) buoy data would cause a warming signal in the output. Using a lower quality, lower accuracy data source to correct a higher quality, higher accuracy data set requires a robust and substantial justification… in any field of science or statistics, which they do not provide. Their intent to deceive then becomes obvious.
Re: hiatuses: 10/29/2015
The validity of the current hiatus in temperature is reinforced by the fact that estimates of the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity from satellite measurements are below the 5% confidence level extrapolated from IPCC’s confidence levels in its Fourth Assessment Report. Much worse, à priori theory informs us that the estimated ECS has the wrong sign.
Furthermore, a five element model of Earth’s response to the best model of TSI predicts Earth’s Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) over the entire instrument record with an accuracy comparable to IPCC’s 22-year filter on GAST. rocketscientistsjournal.com/2010/03/sgw.
And CO2 lags GAST, not the reverse. CO2 cannot be a cause and GAST the effect. CO2 variations have nothing to do with GAST.
Now the problem is why IPCC’s estimate for global atmospheric CO2 is so far off the mark as a surrogate for GAST. One problem is that CO2 is not long-lived, hence is neither global nor well-represented by MLO. Another problem is that MLO sits in the exhaust plume of the outgassing from the Eastern Equatorial Pacific. Another problem is that that plume likely wanders seasonally to modulate the MLO readings. Another problem is that the Keeling Curve is not drawn over measurement data, but instead is a reconstructed mean rise in CO2, possibly biased according to the AGW dogma, with a superimposed seasonal variation. The whole of the MLO measurements and the data reduction need a good auditing.
HadCRUT3 is just one of the temperature data-sets showing false warming in the eighties and nineties. There is no way this can happen without direct anthropogenic participation. The cooperation of the three temperature producers named sbove is revealed by presence of identical, unexplained computer processing traces in their data on both sides of the ocean. Unfortunately for them and fortunately for us the computer has left its footprints on all three, nominally independent, temperature curves. They comprise sharp upward spikes near the beginnings of years, marked with red balloons. Two of them sit right on top of the super El Nino of 1998.
Twas the change between HadCRU2 & HadCRU3. Steve McIntyre, posted on Jan 26, 2007 at 9:56 AM
Notice the lowering of all past temperature estimates since TAR. So the “late 19th century” values have been lowered by nearly 0.1 deg C, with this revision accounting for about half of the increase from 0.6 to 0.8 deg C change. What is the reason for the change? I haven’t parsed the publication of HadCRU3 because of Jones’ obstinate refusal to provide station data and the resulting inability to replicate results. If it ever becomes possible to see what they did, I’ll spend more time at it. For now I merely observe the difference.
One of the most remarkable aspects of the general lowering of past values is that this included temperature data into the late 1990s – the most recent period reported by IPCC TAR. Average values for 1996-2000 were reduced by 0.05 deg C in the late version, with one individual change in the 1990s exceeding 0.1 deg C. I haven’t investigated the reasons for the change in CRU estimates in the late 1990s, but others may be interested.
http://climateaudit.org/2007/01/26/hadcru-temperature/
I didn’t know about the differences between Hadcru 2 and 3. Still HADCRUT3 is quite similar to RSS.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/plot/rss/to:1997/trend/plot/rss/from:2001/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/to:1997/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/trend
I was glad to read that I was not the only one to get lost in Arno Arrak’s article above. I thought that one of the problems with Karl et al was that they actually added a bit of warming to Argo float outputs, which is scientifically inadmissible as you do not tamper with the most accurate data in a series. Anyone can come up with global warming by arguing that old ocean temperatures taken by hauling up buckets of water on ships need to be adjusted. Was that not one of the ways they created more warming in HadCrut 4? Frankly I don’t believe that any record of global temperatures going back to before Argo can be used as an argument for spending trillions of $ on preventing global warming by restricting human emissions of CO2.
Argo data is not in ERSST v4.
Personally, I consider that there are only 3 valid data sets in this ‘science’, albeit they all have some issues. First, the Mauna Loa data set, but that only deals from the late 1950s. Second, the satellite data set, but that only deals from 1979. Third ARGO.
Given the different in heat capacity, and given that it is the oceans that drive the planet’s climate (the heat pump of ocean current taking energy imparted in the equatorial and tropical seas polewards, and the driving of wind), and given that we are interested in energy imbalance, the only important data set is ARGO. There can be no global warming unless the oceans are warming.
But ARGO needs to be consider with quite some caution. First the data set is extremely short. Second there is a lack of spatial coverage. Third there has been no checks to see whether some inherent bias is built into the system by having free floating buoys which are swept along currents which currents are themselves temperature related. Forth, the record may have been fatally compromised as a result of human a priori bias. See. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/page1.php
You will note that when ARGO was first rolled out it initially showed that the oceans were cooling. NASA did not think that that was possible (it went against the consensus and the thought that oceans were expanding due to global warming and thereby sea level rise) so they decided to remove the buoys which showed the greatest amount of cooling from the data set.
What is noteworthy is this presumption of error without independent validation. No attempt was made to take a random sample of the buoys that showed the greatest amount of cooling, and a random sample of the buoys that showed the greatest amount of warming and return these to the laboratory to test for instrument error/malfunction/mis-calibration.
It was simply presumed that there was an error, and this error was just one way, ie., false cooling but no false warming. no independent equipment analysis was undertaken to check malfunction.
If these buoys had not simply been removed from the data set (without first checking that there was a real equipment error), the data set may not be showing any warming whatsoever. in fact it may still continue to show cooling as it did when initially rolled out.
So ARGO is potentially a good source of data, but be wary of some potential issues with the data. As someone who has studied ship log entries for nearly 30 years, I can confirm that ship data is worthless for scientific purposes. One certainly would never wish to adjust ARGO 9or buoy measurment0 with ship log or bucket measurements. Simply crazy, especially since ship data does not record SST but rather water temps drawn at depth (a moveable feast from about 4 to 16 metres, and sometimes more than that). Crazy, crazy, crazy.
My comment that there are only 3 valid data sets is a bit flippant since I was concentrating on the main data sets. Obviously there are some others, so I apologise for exaggerating to make a point. .
The only warming in the RSS data set between 1979 and 2001 occurs in two very short periods shown below.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1984/to:1987/plot/rss/from:1984/to:1987/trend/plot/rss/from:1997/to:1999/plot/rss/from:1997/to:1999/trend
When these are taken out the trend is flat, so only 5 years of warming during 22 years. Two of these years was during the strong El Nino in 1997/98 and the other 3 years was just after the strong El Nino in 1982/83 delayed and restricted due to the major volcanic eruption. Due to a La Nina corresponding after, the immediate cooling didn’t balance the warming before due to volcanic eruption. The result is an offset cooler than rest of the period and warms until it reaches the same level again.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1984/to:1987/plot/rss/from:1984/to:1987/trend/plot/rss/from:1997/to:1999/plot/rss/from:1997/to:1999/trend/plot/rss/from:1979/to:1984/plot/rss/from:1987/to:1997
http://berkeleyearth.org/berkeley-earth-temperature-update/
You know the average temperature of all the land worldwide in 1878 to 0.2 C accuracy?
-boggle-
roflmao..
Everyone knows that Berkly are even more rabid “believers” and “adjusters” than Gavin is!
Just compare the massive warming in WORST between 1979 and 1997 to the reality of RSS
What a hoot ! 🙂
Regarding surface data.
They show diverging trends because they measure 1.25 m above ground on only 0.1% of the planets surface or actually water temperature not even above the surface. (~0.02% ocean surface) The confidence level is much lower than claimed and I don’t see any accuracy for any given month greater than 0.5 c overall between 19th century and today. The 0.05 c 95% confidence claim is also unfounded with data altering every month with bigger values than this. The adjustments to data can never be greater than the error bands applied to them. I have not seen anywhere where adjustments are only smaller than 0.05 c. The largest adjustments have been to data where their have supposed to have the most accuracy.
Sorry, but only counting 0.1 c, 0.2 c or 0.5 c errors for the resolution accuracy of the instrumental thermometer ignores the errors on how the different data itself has been adjusted over time with especially different weighting and station numbers used. Hadley are guilty of doing this too and are dishonest to say the least.
95% confidence level is bogus on 0.1% of planets surface. There is no way you could be confident enough to say the other 94 out of 99 x 0.1% trend the same. The best confidence you can get is by comparing with ultimate reference standard satellite data over ~85% surface area. What many people tend to do is ignore this very important part of the data sets. Comparing satellite with surface suggest a error at least 0.2 c for recent data.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/offset:0.12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979
GISTEMP is closer to a error at least 0.3 c for recent data
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1979/offset:0.2/plot/gistemp/from:1979
So you guys have bought into the T. Karl et al pausebuster, too. Solidarity is sometimes a virtue I guess, except when it’s not.
It is more than about time that this data set was considered in detail, so I welcome the present post by Arno Arrak. Once I have had an opportunity to consider it in more detail, I shall comment further, but in the meantime, I would like to make a few comments for others to consider.
1. The data shows a lot of short term variability. Swings in the order of +/- 0.2, and which have a fairly regular heart beat (using that expression very casually).
2. the record starts in December 1978. the first full year is 1979. In Arno’s figure 1, it is based at – 0.2deg. Given the variability noted above, what would the anomaly have been had the data set started 12 to 15 months earlier? This is speculative but had it started earlier, the initial anomaly may not have been centred at -0.2 degC, but rather at 0 or even some small positive number.
3. This is important for considering the point made by Bob Tisdale (October 29, 2015 at 9:13 am) where Bob notes that during the first period, there is fact a slight warming of 0.08 degC per decade (or 0.09 degC per decade). It is quite possible (although this is conjecture) that had the satellite data set started say some 12 to 15 months earlier, it would have shown no warming at all during the initial period.
4. It follows from the point that’s I make above how important the start date and the end date is for whether there is or is not any warming in the first period. Arno has essentially considered the position as from late 1980 through to mid 1993, and then drawn a straight line (which arguably properly deals with the trend during that period) but then has extrapolated that line backwards (to 1979) and forwards to the end of 1996. Obviously Bob, in effect charges Arno with cherry picking these points and extrapolating a straight line from these points, although visually one can see that the straight line trend that Arno plots is not devoid of reason.
5. Bob (Bob Tisdale October 29, 2015 at 9:23 am) makes some literal points, but does his argument hold value. In my opinion that depends upon whether the slight warming rate that Bob points out of 0.08 degC per decade (or 0.09 degC per decade) is statistically significant. In this regard, it relies upon there being an observational warming of just 0.008 degC per year (or 0.009degC per year), and then raises questions as to the error bounds of the satellite data.
6. Whilst I would not dispute the literal accuracy of the point raised by Bob, my view is that when one takes account of the measuring accuracy of the satellite data set (and rounding errors), one can look at the first period (ie., the first pause identified by Arno) and conclude that there is no statistically significant warming in the data set.
7. My interpretation of this data is that it is valid to look at the data before and after the Super El Nino of 1997/8, and if one does so, there is a period of about 16 or so years between 1979 and 1996 when there was no statistically significant warming, and there is a second period following that El Nino to date wen there is no statistically significant warming.
8. before the Super El Nino, there may be some nominal warming but it is so slight not to be statistically significant. Following the Super El Nino, there may be some cooling, but not statistically significant.
9. there is no first order correlation between CO2 and the temperature rise seen in that data set (although CO2 has the same seasonal variation).
10. the data set suggests that there was simply a one off and isolated warming in and around the Super El Nino of 1997/8 which resulted in a step change in temperatures of about 0.25 degC, but whether this is mere coincidence or whether the Super El Nino caused the step change cannot be determined merely from a review of this particular data set in isolation. Likewise, this data set cannot answer why the resultant change in temperature (0.25degC) has not dissipated these past 15 or so years back down to the pre 1997/8 Super El Nino levels.
richard verney:
I read your comment which provides your “interpretation of this data” with interest.
I draw your attention to my post addressed to KTM above in this thread which concludes saying
Richard
Richard
I always read your comments, and I have read (on a couple of occasions) your submissions to the Parliamentary enquiry. I fully concur that “the data of hemispheric and global average temperatures have no physical meaning” and I suspect that you are correct that their purpose (or at any rate main purpose) is political because it is difficult to see how they have any scientific value.
Apart from the various shortcomings you frequently highlight, how can you have a time series in which the composition of the source of the data is continuously changing and then claim that you can make comparison from one time to another time?
So for example in the global land thermometer record, there were only about a few hundred stations in 1880 making measurements (with less than about a dozen in the southern hemisphere despite the claim that it is a global record). I do not know how many of those have a continuous record to date, but I suspect that many have fallen by the wayside, but materially at various times in the time series, they use 2000, 4000, even perhaps just under 6000 stations, but are now down to less than 3000 stations, and it is not just the number but also the spatial coverage and weighting that is a moveable feast. Given that continuing change of data base, how can one make a comparison between today and 1880 when the same station data is not being used throughout the time series? Simply, one is never comparing apples with apples at any time within that time series, such that it has absolutely no validity whatsoever. For this and the reasons that you often highlight, it is devoid of physical meaning. It certainly cannot be used as the basis of serious scientific study.
richard verney:
It seems we are in complete agreement.
As you say
And for decades I have been trying to get people to understand that the global temperature data sets have “absolutely no validity whatsoever” for that and for other reasons.
But people persist in trying to interpret the data even when they agree the data sets have “absolutely no validity whatsoever”.
Richard
One thing sure, soon now they will have control of the satellite data, if not now soon it will be mush too.
If not the instruments on the satellite’s up current the new ones will be pre programed.
If not that the data down loaded will be arranged to fit the scheme by the software in the earth stations.
It is after all an evil tax and spend power/wealth redistribution cult.
Read a few of the publications of the monthly magazine from any one of the national research labs.
Sandia, Los Alamos or Livermore and you will see that even those institutions have been “hacked” by this redistribution of wealth cult.
Could someone please explain to this layman why satellite and radiosonde data are not subject to manipulation like other data seem to be? What are the drawbacks to using these data sources?
And what is the explanation that the CAGW folks use to disregard this data (if in fact they do)? I don’t mean “because it doesn’t agree with them”. Is there some technical problem or a legitimate reason?
Is it possible to have surface warming without warming in the troposphere? Wouldn’t most if not all of the weather (excuse me, climate) changes happen because the troposphere has changed? Why or how would surface warming alone cause changes?
Responses geared toward someone with little (but some) scientific and statistical education are most appreciated!!
I will give it a try.
I believe there is no intrinsic property of these data sets that makes them immune.It is not even an issue of climatology. The answer, I believe, lies with the personal integrity of the scientists who keep, manage, and curate the data sets. Check out the keeper of the UAH data:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/
I have never seen the more strident of the warmists ever use satellite and radiosonde data. They treat it as a vampire treats garlic and wooden stakes.
NASA GISS does not use satellite data. Think about that for a minute. NASA…. Satellites… data… does not use. Let that sink in.
The offices of GISS are in New York City. They are in the same building, and directly above the restaurant made popular in the TV comedy series “Seinfeld”. In years past, much was made of this as a possible explanation, but no causal connection between the zany antics of a TV show and the zany antics of GISS could be made.
This is where things get interesting. It is true that the surface and the lower troposphere are forever doing different things on short time scales, and distance scales. At larger scales, the two must be coupled, and at still larger scales, they must be tightly coupled. After all, heat transfer by conduction, convection, and radiation are all constantly at play.
Greenhouse Theory demands the existence of the “Mid-Troposphere Hot Spot”. That is to say, if the surface warms, the mid troposphere must warm at a rate 2x – 3x faster. This is well accepted by all.
If you see surface warming, and no hot spot, then the warming cannot be greenhouse warming. The warming you see, if indeed it is real, must be due to something else. Like land use change, or changes in your thermometer network.
A great source for more info is Jo Nova’s site.
http://joannenova.com.au/
She has a great introductory handbook, “The Skeptics Handbook”
http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming-2/
Tony, thanks for your explanation. I had casually believed that global warming was true, particularly after our “winter without snow” here in Michigan a few years back. But then I heard something about a “temperature pause,” and I wondered what that was about, so I began googling a bit.
I was astonished to learn that NASA was not using the satellite data. That was what sent my skeptic needle into the red. I do follow politics a bit, and I realize that there is always much more going on than what the public is allowed to hear. I like to try to figure out what possible logical explanations can underpin actions that might not be readily visible. Not exactly conspiracy theories, but I guess similar.
Anyway, I have tried to understand, to the best of my limited ability, the actual scientific, statistical and computer modelling reasons why CAGW as a theory is flawed. I’m trying to crystallize this understanding so that I can explain it to other non-technical types in the hopes that others will open their eyes as well. I always start out by telling them that my viewpoints are not politically based. That usually buys me about a half-minute longer to try to get my point across!
The info about the troposphere hot-spot is another bit that I will add to my tool kit, thank you! I had heard about it, but did not understand how it fits into the big picture.
katherine009:
You demonstrate genuine interest in the nature of the global average temperature data sets so I think you would probably be interested in this especially its Appendix B.
Also, I commend that you use the WUWT Search facility (on the left side of the WUWT Home page) to search for ‘climategate’.
I hope these suggestions are helpful and the suggested reading is informative.
Richard
“Could someone please explain to this layman why satellite and radiosonde data are not subject to manipulation like other data seem to be?
1. They are both massively adjusted and corrected.
2. for years people claimed that UAH was being fiddled with by skeptics
3. And skeptics argued that RSS was being fiddled with
What are the drawbacks to using these data sources?
1. You can use them BUT they dont measure temperature
2. They are measuring different things than the surface
And what is the explanation that the CAGW folks use to disregard this data (if in fact they do)?
1. we dont disregard it.
I don’t mean “because it doesn’t agree with them”. Is there some technical problem or a legitimate reason?
1. It’s not a direct measurement
2. The dataset (radiosond) that you can use for comparison is SPARSE and has its own
issues with changing instruments.
So what do we know ?
Steven Mosher:
You say of the satellite measurements
1. They DO measure temperature by assessment of brightness levels.
Thermometers measure temperature by assessment of differential expansion of a fluid in a container.
2. Both the satellites and the thermometers are measuring different things than the surface.
The satellites measure temperatures of the lowest layer of the air above the surface, and the so-called ‘surface’ measurements are of the air a meter above the surface.
Please desist from your habit of making posts that mislead.
Richard
Mr. Mosher, you state:
“2. The dataset (radiosond) that you can use for comparison is SPARSE and has its own
issues with changing instruments.”
This applies to the surface station data sets as well.
To all the Data Doctors, Physician Heal Thy Self.
Once upon a time there was a quite reliable land temperature set: Hadcrut3
Even this is not used by warmists. It just doesn’t show the right picture.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/rss/plot/rss/to:1997/trend/plot/rss/from:2001/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/to:1997/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/trend
This article desperately needs a spell/grammar check.
So with the MWP and two hiatuses gone missing isn’t that conclusive proof of CAGW?
What more can we need?
So the initial hiatus was interrupted by a super el nino. Following the super el nino the hiatus continued at a higher temperature level. Is it possible that this year’s el nino (or another yet to come) could interrupt the current hiatus, following which we may see the hiatus continue at a new, even higher temperature?
Current El Nino does not have the support of a super solar cycle as was seen thur much of the 80’s and 90’s. Sun is flat to negative interest rates since 08.
isn’t the plural of hiatus, “hiati” or is that an island somewhere in the caribbean?
Is the plural for pause, pie?
Since the lower troposphere is assumed to be pretty well mixed UHI must have subtlety raised the measured temperatures. Let us look at the actual instrument record at, say, 2000 rural NWS stations for 100 years. Big numbers usually allow us to “average” errors, at least unintended, relatively random errors. Over time the UHI “extra heat” will be included if it effects general temps.
If we find, I think we will, that 1926 through 1945 temps are at least as high as present we can confidently dismiss CO2 warming forever.
We, and Governments, can then actually study the climate to find how it works and likely develop the ability to predict changes. I will gladly pay a few tax dollars for that.
I’ve come to view the situation a little differently. With all the noise it is basically impossible to draw any linear trends that are not affected by the noise. Hence you can create flat trends in many places. I tend to look for physical reasons rather than cherry picked trend lines. I see two distinct possibilities.
1) The changes are related to the PDO (primary) and AMO (secondary). The general movement of the GAST appears to fit these circulation patterns pretty closely going back 100 years.
2) Changes in the stratospheric temperature due to the 1983 and 1991 eruptions. Those eruptions cooled the stratosphere which can be argued as the reason for a warmer troposphere. While a cooling immediately follows the eruptions, the long term changes take over after the cooling ends.
It could very well be a combination of both of these.
“With all the noise it is basically impossible to draw any linear trends that are not affected by the noise.”
It is important to note that the data is extremely noisy, and consequently start and end points materially impact upon trends. I fully agree that the data does not exhibit a straight linear trend.
You state: ” I tend to look for physical reasons rather than cherry picked trend lines. ” This is a good approach, and one which is being adopted by Arno. He is looking at the data as a whole but dividing it in to two parts. He is treating the Super El Nino as a physical event, and then looking at what the data informs in the period up to that event, and what the data informs after that event.
It is important to bear in mind that the entire record is being looked at, but chopped by the Super El Nino of 1997/8 where coincident upon that event there is a step change in temperature.
Of course, this review does not establish that the dividing event (the Super El Nino of 1997/8) is the cause for the step change; it may be mere coincidence.
But it is interesting to see that warming is not gradual and linear throughout the record, and that there appears a quite noticeable one off and isolated step change coincident upon the Super El Nino of 1997/8.
It is also interesting to note that there is little or no statistically significant warming before that event, and no statistically significant arming post that event.
When viewed against other data sets, it supports the view that the land based thermometer record may have become polluted by UHI and station drop outs and wrong homogenisation post the late 1970s, and perhaps the warming that is seen in those data sets is an artefact of data handling, not the result of something physically real.
Such a view is also supported by the ring study that Mann threw out of his infamous hockey stick. The tree rings in the late 1970s through to early 1990s were not showing warming, so he threw these out and spliced on the manipulated thermometer record so as to make the blade. That is the “hide the decline” part of the Mann reconstruction.
Sorry, but I don’t understand what those yellow dots represent. The data set itself is the global mean so if that line is based upon some averaging scheme it seems rather bogus to me. I don’t see how you got to a zero trend for the period you refer to. Here’s the chart from my post on the RSS trends and there is a period pre-1998 where the trend is at or below zero but it also varies between that and about .7 deg per century at the end of the period in question (sorry about the typo on the bottom graph it should read K not K/Century).
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/clip_image004.png
Post needs rewritten, how does Karl’s great leap forward confound the record any worse than the other wilful rewriting of our temperature records Team IPCC ™ are famous for?
Not that I can really get engaged in discussions using Estimated Average Global Temperature as the reference.
If X angels can dance on the head of a handmade pin, how many may prance upon a factory pin?
Same problem.
No defined terms.
What is the AGT,average global temperature, of the earth right now?
Does this “temperature” mean anything?
Oh yes, what is the perfect or preferred AGT?
“…their desire to include Arctic warming into their warming kingdom.”
The arctic, has been cooling over the past decade but because of the warming earlier, they still smear a trend of 0.315 over it. This has been dropping with each subsequent year’s addition of a lower temperature. They are going to have to hide this decline before too long:
ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/graphics/tlt/plots/rss_ts_channel_tlt_northern%20polar_land_and_sea_v03_3.png
Note the last few years have fallen well below the trend line.
Gary Pearse October 29, 2015 at 9:13 pm says:
“…The arctic, has been cooling over the past decade but because of the warming earlier, they still smear a trend of 0.315 over it. This has been dropping with each subsequent year’s addition of a lower temperature.”
I have no idea where such misinformation originates. Let me tell you what is really going on. First of all, it is warming now, not cooling. What is interesting about the Arctic is that for most of the last 2000 years it was slowly cooling until it got to the twentieth century. Then suddenly, without any warning, it started to warm. The warming at first was irregular, however, and was interrupted by thirty years of cooling in mid-century. The warming resumed in 1970 and has been going on ever since. There is no way to attribute this warming to the carbon dioxide greenhouse effect despite what IPCC says. That is because there was simply no increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide at the turn of the century. We know this for sure because of the existence of the Keeling curve and its extensions. And that extra CO2 is required according to the laws of physics if you want to start greenhouse warming from scratch. It is therefore very likely that the warming began because of a change in North Atlantic current system that started to carry warm Gulf Stream water into the Arctic Ocean. And among other things, opened up the Northwest Passage. To learn more read: E&E 22(8)1069-1083(2011).
David Whitehouse has already seen this
http://www.thegwpf.com/no-underlying-global-warming-in-recent-years/
Arno, rather than cite yourself on the Arctic, you might have quoted Alan Longhurst, who discussed the role of ocean currents at length in his free book, Doubt and Uncertainty in Climate Science.
http://judithcurry.com/2015/09/20/new-book-doubt-and-certainty-in-climate-science/
Wow. Has anyone here ever heard of the ‘paragraph‘.?
Science without presentation and clarity is merely garbage.
Sorry, but I just don’t get this. I’ve read a true plethora of detailed and creative re-interpretations of the raw data supplied by RSS (Remote Sensing Systems, http://www.remss.com/measurements/upper-air-temperature ). Near as I can tell, there has been no warming, in fact there has been cooling over the entire satellite record.
It truly amazes me there is any debate at all on the subject. You download the data from RSS, put it in Excel and calculate the average change in temperature either using the “global” estimates or any of the regional estimates based on measures taken over the passed 28 years (in the case of RSS data since 1987, which is the past 28 years).
Now, perhaps I can grudgingly admit that 28 years isn’t the same as 30 years, which appears to be the “gold standard” for climatologists, but it’s pretty damned close. The trends in every category are negative. Not just one, all of them. Every single spatial compartment shows an undeniable negative temperature change; the planet is cooling, not warming. It’s plain as the nose on your face and it does not require sophisticated statistical techniques to understand.
Why on God’s green Earth is anyone trying to fit this data to a linear model? We know, on the very face of it, that weather and climate are non-linear systems. Did IQ’s drop sharply? Fit the data to a polynomial curve, it works much better. So you’ll have to buy a copy of SAS or JMP, big (snip) deal. You’re pulling down millions in grants, spend a thousand bucks on some decent software and a laptop you driveling idiots.
The RSS data clearly show, by simple ARITHMETIC that global “average” temperatures have dropped .21 degrees K over the past 28 years. There’s no doubt. If anyone would like to step up and claim the most expensive, most precise and most accurate system for measuring and reporting atmospheric temperature is somehow flawed and worse than people in bifocals and bathrobes taking measurements using rectal thermometers in 1880 (in (snip) GREENLAND) then you just step up and make your asinine case in front of God and everybody. Then SIT DOWN AND SHUT (snip) UP!
A concerned citizen November 1, 2015 at 12:00 pm says
“The RSS data clearly show, by simple ARITHMETIC that global “average” temperatures have dropped .21 degrees K over the past 28 years. There’s no doubt.”
One needs to keep in mind that “average” is not the same as “ground level.” The upper atmosphere certainly is cooling while the lower troposphere where we live is warming at the same time. We usually hear only about the lower troposphere which includes the bulk of the atmosphere.
;
;
Arno, I went ahead and did the same thing with the TTS data to satisfy that concern, though I’ve also posted my opinions on why I believe it makes more sense to follow the TLS metric; it excludes the influence of water vapor. I understand ths runs counter to contemporary climate “wisdom” but then everything else in the data does too so I can’t say that concerns me much.
Anyway, I included the data from under the trop. It still doesn’t show any warming and it’s a 28 year record. That’s darned near three decades of “nothing to report”. In my opinion, this data doesn’t indicate a need to do anything at all. There appears to be absolutely no problem here.
Your assertion “the lower troposphere is warming at the same time” doesn’t appear to be supported by the evidence, either using the TTS signal or the TLS signal. Nothing. No warming. Diddly. A non-event.
So, in summary, I don’t get it.
Some data:
<a href="http://s1175.photobucket.com/user/burner26/media/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU1D9C9D.txt-%20Fit%20Y%20by%20X_zpsrbv67u8v.jpg
It didn’t work. Let’s try again:
http://s1175.photobucket.com/user/burner26/media/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU1D9C9D.txt-%20Fit%20Y%20by%20X_zpsrbv67u8v.jpg.html
Let’s try pasting an image:
http://s1175.photobucket.com/user/burner26/media/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU1D9C9D.txt-%20Fit%20Y%20by%20X_zpsrbv67u8v.jpg.html
http://i1175.photobucket.com/albums/r622/burner26/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU1D9C9D.txt-%20Fit%20Y%20by%20X_zpsrbv67u8v.jpg
(Reply: Try Dropbox, or any other photo link service besides photobucket, which is one of the worst ones. -mod.)
Forgive me please, I’ve been out of this game for over 15 years. Will use Dropbox in future.
And I regret (sort of) that I had to make a (snipping) example of the (snipping) morons who promote this (snipping) stuff.
I’ve spent 40 (snipping) years in the pursuit of scientific truth and, like Heisenberg, discovered there is something called observational or, in the words of Bostrom, Anthropic bias.
We make the world we live in. Science proves this, but it’s very difficult for most folks to accept. Heck, it’s difficult for me to accept.
The graph itself, assume its accuracy… two separate but relatively flat temperature lines… one about a degree and a half higher seems to ask a glaring question… What if anything happened during the time period between the two time periods regarding temperature measurements that could have influenced this outcome?
Some notes on the graph:
?dl=0
?dl=0
1) The data presented are from Remote Sensing System’s TLS measurements, which are essentially centered at the tropopause (14-15 km see attached image). This measure is important since it removes 99% of the warming effect attributed to water vapor. TTS measures below the tropopause reflect warming caused by H20 in combination with other GHGs while the TLS metric removes 99% of the influence water vapor may have on atmospheric temperature.
2) Measures taken below the tropopause show no warming but also show no cooling. TTS data recorded from January 1987 through the present (September 2015) show a statistically insignificant rise in average global temperature of .003 degrees Kelvin, which is beyond the precision of the instrument. For completeness a plot of the TTS is given in the attached image. A linear fit is shown rather than a polynomial since there is very obviously no non-linear component in the metric.
The data presented in these graphs are available for download and independent analysis. To the best of my knowledge this data is provided by the primary source (RSS Inc.) and has not been altered by any other party or agency including the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA), The US National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN IPCC).
I’ve added a basic view of the TTS distribution, which adds confidence that the mean of response for this value is statistically significant; these data come from a normal distribution.
?dl=0