Guest Post by Bob Tisdale
SEE UPDATE 1 AT END OF POST: I’ve provided a link to the slides from the teleconference and updated monthly and annual graphs.
# # #
On January 15th, NOAA Communications notified the media Wednesday: NOAA, NASA to announce official analyses of 2015 global temperature, climate conditions.
| WHAT: | NOAA, NASA media teleconference call announcing 2015 global climate analyses – brief summary remarks – questions and answers |
| WHEN: | Wednesday, January 20, 11:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m., Eastern Time (U.S.) |
| WHO: | Thomas R. Karl, L.H.D., director, NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information, Asheville, N.C. and chair of the Subcommittee on Global Change Research, U.S. Global Change Research Program
Gavin Schmidt, Ph.D., director, NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, N.Y. |
See the NOAA webpage for links to the live audio, etc.
We already know NOAA and GISS will tell us that their much-adjusted surface temperature data showed record highs in 2015. We discussed and illustrated this in the recent post Meteorological Year (December to November) Global Temperature Product Comparison through 2015. There may be some minor differences, but the calendar year results won’t be noticeably different than the meteorological year data shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1
I suspect Tom Karl and Gavin Schmidt won’t bother to tell the public that lower troposphere temperature data were far from record highs in 2015, as we presented in the post Annual Global Lower Troposphere Temperature (TLT) Anomaly Update – Distant Third Warmest for 2015. See Figure 2.
Figure 2
And just in case you missed it, because GISS and NOAA both use NOAA’s ERSST.v4 “pause buster” sea surface temperature data, today I also published The Oddities in NOAA’s New “Pause-Buster” Sea Surface Temperature Product – An Overview of Past Posts.
I’ll update this post today as GISS and NOAA release their data and slides. So stop back regularly.
UPDATE 1:
The GISS LOTI data rose 0.07 deg C in December, 2015.
Figure 3
Not to be outdone, the NOAA NCEI data jumped a whopping 0.15 deg C last month.
Figure 4
Figure 5 is a comparison of the annual GISS LOTI and NCEI data, referenced to the base years of 1981-2010. The upticks in 2015 are listed on the illustration.
Figure 5
The NOAA/NASA Annual Global Analysis for 2015 is here in .pdf form.
I’ll provide a full update for December, 2015 in a few days
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
They have renamed the media event to “Record-Shattering Global Warm Temperatures”: http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-noaa-analyses-reveal-record-shattering-global-warm-temperatures-in-2015
Lying liars, and the lies they tell.
If they are correct then let’s celebrate this warming!!!!! It was 44 F this morning at my house in Venice. Who wants that, who needs that.
The slideshow doesn’t give the certainty level that 2015 was warmest. IIRC that is what tripped Gav up last year when he had to confess the certainty level was 38%.
What is L.H.D?
(Thomas R. Karl, L.H.D.)
I keep getting either left hand drive or load, haul, dump.
It can’t be this easy, can it?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_Humane_Letters
An HONORARY degree. Doctor of Humane Letters.
IOW, a political “award” (or reward.)
Hot off the press:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jan/20/2015-smashes-record-for-hottest-year-final-figures-confirm
You have to love the MSM for paying such close attention to this major global warming event.
Yes, and not even a five second sound bite of any opposing view.
I can only hope that in some alternate universe those that read crystal balls are private companies whose funding depends on the outcome of their forecasts and anyone that alters records for personal gain shall be left to fend for themselves in the Arctic.
Check Dante’s Inferno…
In the midst of it all, El Nino and Global Warming notwithstanding, the shipping season on the Great Lakes ended today, with the 1000′ Paul Tregurtha coming into Duluth/Superior for winter layup. Looks cold to me.
https://www.facebook.com/KBJRKDLH/videos/10153973522381337/
Thank you! Been trying to explain to Louisiana in-laws what cold is. Cold is not ice on the bird bath. Cold is ice fishing on the Great Lakes.
GISS & NOAA PR to the contrary not withstanding. . . .
A CASE STUDY SCENARIO:
Premise #1 – All the CO2 from fossil fuel alarmist’s have are the 5 IPCC assessment reports. {when independently viewed objectively, all research (not just the biased IPCC selected research), the science does not support the IPCC nor does it support alarm or even concern.}
Premise #2 – All the climate alarm focused politicians have to support them are activist science community members who are on the order of <1% of climate focused scientists. {see Legatees et al}
Premise #3 – The indifferent intellectual independence of USA is the weak point in the movement by supporters of alarm due to CO2 from fossil fuel.
Conclusion – The USA is immune to the tiny clique of subjective scientists who support alarm due to CO2 from fossil fuel, therefore the alarm movement has already imploded into self-supporting echo-chambers and the greater culture has moved on.
John
Two Comical Ali’s.
(For those who are old enough to remember the first Iraq war.)
Many may recall the announcements last year when the new record was only 0.02 above the previous year. Since it was less than the error bar of about 0.1, the certainty of a record was rather low. And with other years not far behind, GISS could only claim that 2014 was 38% certain of being the warmest. While the 38% was higher than for any other year, the other 9 years had a cumulative percent of 62% of being warmest.
Here are the numbers for GISS for last year and this year:
Last year: (I hope it formats half decently!)
1 2014 68
2 2010 66
3 2005 65
4 2007 62
5 1998 61
6 2002 60
7 2013 60
8 2003 59
9 2009 59
10 2006 59
This year
1 2015 87
2 2014 74
3 2010 72
4 2005 69
5 2007 66
6 2013 65
7 2009 64
8 1998 63
9 2002 63
10 2003 62
Note that 2015 of 0.87 is 0.13 higher than the 2014 value of 0.74. Also note how the 2014 value went up from 0.68 a year ago to 0.74 this year.
Due to a difference of 0.13, the claim may be made that the certainty of a record is more than 99%.
In contrast, RSS has 2015 at 0.192 below 1998.
UAH6.0beta4 has 2015 at 0.216 below 1998.
So it seems that we can be over 99% certain that neither RSS nor UAH6.0beta4 set a record in 2015.
> Last year: (I hope it formats half decently!)
You need to use <pre>, see the test page (link on top nav bar):
This year
Thank you!
This is a recount of the original Comicsl Ali’s moments. May be these two clowns will follow the suit after the change in the White house:
“The moment when Saddam Hussein’s faithful minister of information, Mohammad Said Sahhaf, finally accepted that the game was up is revealed today by The Telegraph.
In the dying days of the regime the indefatigable minister, dubbed “Comical Ali”, had haunted a radio studio in Baghdad, urging engineers to carry on pumping out Saddam’s propaganda.
Even after the statue of Saddam was toppled on April 9, Mr Sahhaf refused to accept that Saddam’s era was over. But in the early hours of April 10, with the sound of battle raging ever closer to the studio, in the al-Adhamiyah district, even Mr Sahhaf headed for the exit.
“Sahhaf slowly removed his black beret,” recalls Raibah Hassan, 35, the manager of the Hikmat studio, the last person to have seen Mr Sahhaf in public. “He folded down the epaulettes on his military jacket to hide his rank and then he reached for a red and white kaffiyeh scarf.
“He wrapped it around his head as he told us to keep on re-broadcasting until 3am. He said goodbye, and then disappeared out of the back door.”
good effort dbstealey ,that needs to be spread far and wide 🙂
I live in the high desert in So. California, we had a very mild winter last year but we also had the coolest summer since I started running my own weather station(15 years) only 3 days of 100 degrees or more last year with a High of 101.5 degrees. We had many days that it rained although many times we only got about a tenth of an inch, the most was 1.5″ in a day. So far this winter has been much colder than last winter with a mean December temperature about 6 degrees lower this last December. So far only 1.3 inches of rain this January, wonder if the El Nino is going to be a bust.
Record high. So the earth has never been this warm? Or are we counting from the beginning of the universe ie (1948 when the first narcissistic babyboomer was born).?
I’m glad that the media is reporting that 2015 was the hottest year on record. An astute observer would notice some cognitive dissonance. Where are all the catastrophes? If it is so dire, one would think that the changes would be obvious.
But they are adjusting for that too! e.g the UK Metoffice using storm names now for every little fart of wind or low pressure coming up from the Atlantic! (and of course our wettest December EVAH!)
“GISS and NOAA to Announce 2015 “Record High” Global Temperatures…”
Anyone really surprised? Anyone…?
This is very old news.
They announced it last January, it was just a matter of fabricating the data to meet the memo.
Gavin Schmidt and NASA GISS have been caught with their hands in the cookie jar. You do not even need the wayback machine (yet), because the 2014 hottest ever PR is still up in the NASA site, if anybody wants screen grabs.
The January 2015 announcement about hottest ever was an anomaly of 0.64C. The presentation from today plainly labels the 2014 anomaly as 0.74C. Amazing how 2014 changed in 2015.
It was simply an adjustment. Gavin could explain it, surely, by saying, “We do it all the time.”
Correction. That was Nasa 2014 to NOAA 2014 in 2015 per the presentation. I will dig out Nasa 2014 in 2014 to Nasa 2014 in 2015, which should reflect the Karlization of SST in ERSST4.0 from 3.0.
Found it. Sure enough, the Karlization shows. I will put together a note for AW to post.
Illustrated post composed and sent to AW. Undeniable, to mint a phrase. Turns out 2014 anomaly is still +0.1C delta, manufactured in 2015 by Karl and Schmidt.
As Will Rogers observed, ‘Its a good thing we don’t get all the government we pay for.’
See the 1997 SOTC… before it disappears!
We are all doomed, ban all manufacturing asap before it’s too late…..it was 17 here in Alabama night before last. Please send global warming.
If the IRS could collect taxes from NASA and NOAA on the “yearly increase temperature anomaly” that points to increase industrial activity and increase of profits and underpayment of taxes, then the US would be on its way to a balanced Federal budget and pay down the national debt.
Let the next administration policy wonks chew on this.
Ha ha
Right at the end of the CBC Canadian Broadcasting Corporation breathless news release on warmest record is this little tidbit
Satellite measurements, which scientists say don’t measure where we live and have a larger margin of error, calculate that last year was only the third hottest since 1979.”
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/2015-record-heat-1.3411797?cmp=rss
In reality, global temperature is insensitive to increasing atmospheric CO2; the global warming crisis exists only in fiction and falsehood.
The current El Nino warming blip is temporary and will disappear in about a year.
Earth temperatures have not warmed significantly in about two decades despite increasing atmospheric CO2.
The warmists “solved” this contradiction in their global warming meme by falsifying (“adjusting”) the surface temperature data record.
http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2015-12-18-12-36-03.png
Allan:
1st thing: the US is not the planet – nor even close.
Nor is GISS the only global temp database.
Yes, the extreme temps currently are exacerbated by the EN but it rides on TOP of the AGW signal.
http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/files/2013/01/GISTEMPjan13.gif
Whether EN or LN the ave global temp just keeps rising.
What is this AGW signal?
“What is this AGW signal?”
Err, the slope bottom left to top right.
Unless you think that ENSO is a perpetual heat pump and each EN “naturally” makes the ave global temp higher than the last one.
Heck, even works for Nina’s too.
Toneb, you are missing information. Could you supply the necessary details. I’m a bit worried that it is in a folder called “climateabyss”.
!st thing: Its an example to the fudging done to the US data. Its not there as evidence of global temperatures.
2nd: The temperatures are not exacerbated by the El Nino. Its just a correlation.
3rd: There are other databases but the only ones not relying on the same data show a pause that shouldn’t have happened.
I’ll just remind you that in Hanson’s 1988 Scenario C, rapid curtailment emissions so that net forcing ceases to increase after 2000, ever year after is close to being the hottest on record.
Robert B, you said “a pause that shouldn’t have happened”. The two largest drivers of natural temperature change were pushing to cool the planet — we had a long La Niña (ENSO) and a long and deep solar minimum. In addition, there is evidence that the oceans absorbed more heat than usual. All this, and the temperatures were still merely flat (or flattish, depending on the analysis) rather than unusually cold.
The pause is a cooling that didn’t happen because something else was warming the planet up.
Marcus Holm
La Nina doesn’t cause cooling. There is just a correlation.
Does the Sun actually do anything or not?
That modeling that diminishes the importance of variations of the Sun told us that the pause shouldn’t have happened.
Can we have some consistency here? Do human emissions trump nature or not? I’m a fan of there being a 60 year period of oscillations obvious in the data probably due to the oceans by a mechanism that is poorly understood. Taking that away from the data leaves evidence of warming since the 19thC but even after a lot of fudging, no obvious correlation with massively increasing emissions but merely another natural warming period of centuries in length (end of the LIA).
I’m far from certain of that but certain that the data is more consistent with it than Thermageddon.
La Nina doesn’t cause cooling. There is just a correlation.
Does the Sun actually do anything or not?
That modeling that diminishes the importance of variations of the Sun told us that the pause shouldn’t have happened.
Can we have some consistency here? Do human emissions trump nature or not? I’m a fan of there being a 60 year period of oscillations obvious in the data probably due to the oceans by a mechanism that is poorly understood. Taking that away from the data leaves evidence of warming since the 19thC but even after a lot of fudging, no obvious correlation with massively increasing emissions but merely another natural warming period of centuries in length (end of the LIA).
I’m far from certain of that but certain that the data is more consistent with it than Thermageddon.
Robert B,
La Niña is when a huge tract of Pacific Ocean surface is in a relatively cool state. During this phase of the oscillation, it is indeed colder in that part of the world, with a myriad of consequences like less rain in California and whatnot. “Just a correlation” doesn’t mean anything in this context. ENSO is what it is.
There’s no inconsistency in identifying the effects of natural variability alongside trends caused by anthropogenic carbon emissions. It’d be stupid not to. The fact remains that no one has managed to build a climate model that manages to match the temperature record that doesn’t include anthropogenic carbon.
ToneB:
Your graph starts at 1975.
How do you explain the global warming pre-1940, before the rapid increase in fossil fuel consumption?
How do you explain the global cooling from ~1940 to ~1975 as fossil fuel consumption strongly accelerated? False fabricated aerosol data? Hah!
How do you explain the Pause, almost two decades in duration, even as fossil fuel consumption continued to increase?
Your positive correlation of rising global temperature with increasing atmospheric CO2 only exists for ~1970 to ~1995, about 25 years out of the past century or more. Your global warming anxiety is not supported by the evidence.
The rational explanation is that the observed minor global warming and cooling periods are overwhelmingly natural and increased atmospheric CO2 is an insignificant driver of global climate.
If, as we predicted in 2002, global cooling recommences in the next few years, how will you explain that? More aerosols?
Regards, Allan,
This post is re-dedicated to ToneB and Mark Johnson:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/06/poll-73-of-americans-reject-agw-but-you-wouldnt-know-it-from-the-headline/comment-page-1/#comment-2114678
[excerpt]
Two decades ago, the question was:
Is global warming alarmism simply false or is it fraudulent?
Now, after the Mann hockey stick fiasco, “Mike’s Nature trick”, “Hide the Decline”, the fabricated aerosol data used to false-hindcast the warming alarmists’ climate models, the Climategate emails, and the many false “adjustments” of the surface temperature data record, there is no question:
Global warming alarmism is clearly fraudulent – in financial terms, it is one of the greatest frauds of all time.
Sadistics.
+1 [grin]
I’ll see their one-year “uptick” in warm-biased tamperatures and raise them 18 years, 8 months of zero warming as of now.
I see cherry-picking hasn’t gone out of fashion in this crowd…
And Tisdale won’t tell us that RSS lags El Nino. Say bye bye to the fake pause next year.
Mark Johnson, you must be new here. Months ago, we discussed the TLT lag once again here:
https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2015/09/28/tired-of-the-claims-of-warmest-ever-month-and-year-they-will-likely-continue-next-year/
And more recently here:
https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2016/01/04/evolutions-of-global-surface-and-lower-troposphere-temperature-anomalies-in-responses-to-the-199798-and-201516-el-ninos/
Not sure what point you’re trying to make.
Ciao.
Carl Mears, RSS:
The author ignores the fact that record temperatures often occur in the year following an El Nino, because the global temperature response tends to lag the El Nino SST anomaly by 3-4 months.
http://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/james-taylor-2015-was-not-even-close-to-hottest-year-on-record/
Bob, I won’t speak for Mark, but you have recently both mentioned the lag, as well as explicitly compared 2015 to the two warmest post-El Nino years in the satellite products, pointing out the fact that 2015 was not a record year in those products. You even predicted that Schmidt and Karl would for whatever reason not also make that observation.
So which is it – did you forget that 2015 is not really comparable to post-El Nino years, or were you misrepresenting the satellite product year comparisons?
What a dumb comment. Even if the temperatures should shoot up this year, the pause would not be “undone” – it would remain in the record as a piece of evidence that the climate models fail to explain.
It’s fake because it ignores all the surface temperature records and ocean heat content. Soon, even the fake pause will be gone and you will have to resort to ‘it hasn’t warmed since 2015’ meme.
Michael, the pause you are claiming is pure numerology; it only exists if you choose a very specific starting point for your linear trend using the satellite products.
Given that the linear trend is positive over 14, 15, 16, 17, 20 and 21 years – meaning there is a positive trend for both shorter AND longer periods of time – it becomes clear that the pause is an artifact of your methodology.
Donald,
One year ago no one disputed the so-called “pause”. The IPCC accepted it, and only a few cranks argued about it. Global warming stopped many years ago.
But now the climate alarmist contingent is convinced that global warming never stopped. To say they’re nuts is unfair; most of them are just being led by an invisible ring in their nose, called the ‘narrative’.
The same thing happened with satellite data, which is the most accurate data by far. One year ago satellite data was accepted by scientists on both sides of the debate. But now that ring in the public’s nose has been pulled in a different direction: satellite data is bad.
You’re doing exactly what they want: being their parrot. You can’t even see it. But here we know better. The facts haven’t changed from last year to this year. You’re just being told what to think, and you actually believe it.
dbstealey, instead of speculating on my motives for posting, or attributing to me things that other people may or may not have said, why not just address the content?
Even last year, the linear trends using either UAH or RSS products also showed a positive slope if using starting years both prior to and following 1998.
Has there been less warming in that timeframe, in these products, than predicted? Absolutely. But the ‘pause’ that is being discussed here is not the actual trend, but rather the artificial ‘no warming for 18 years x months’ that is directy related to calculating a linear trend using a high high value in the dataset as a starting point.
My point being that we should be able to honestly discuss facts, without misrepresentation, even if only accidentally.
Mark Johnson,
Your comment is simply a baseless assertion. The surface station record is so far out of tolerance that it is worthless: the majority of surface stations are from 2º to 5º off, and OHC is not rising.
@Donald:
It was the arch-alarmist Dr. Phil Jones who initially designated the 1997-98 start time for determining statistically whether global warming had stopped. When he said that, he acknowledged that it had stopped, but he said more time was necessary to confirm what’s now called the “pause”. Apparently Jones was confident that given 15 years, global warming would resume. It hasn’t. Global warming stopped more than 18 years ago.
Global warming has been happening in fits and starts, naturally, since the LIA. There is nothing indicating that it is accelerating — which would happen if measurable AGW was being added to natural warming.
The new narrative requires the alarmist crowd to attack satellite data, and to deny that global warming stopped — as it also did between the 1940’s and ’70’s. But the real temperature record shows that’s false.
You say you want facts, but you really don’t. You want to convince skeptics of the man-made global warming scare that what’s being observed is wrong; that both RSS and UAH satellites, plus 17,000 radiosonde balloon measurements are in agreement, but they’re wrong somehow, and the 2º – 5º errors in surface station measurements are better.
Baseless assertions are fine for blogs like realclimate. Here we prefer facts. Parroting the new narrative is just another baseless opinion. The facts are that satellite data is far more accurate than surface stations, and the “pause” is ongoing, and the ‘dangerous AGW’ scare is politics, not science.
dbstealey,
You stated the following: “Global warming stopped more than 18 years ago.”
Just so everybody is talking about the same thing: how do you know this? By what metric do you base your conclusion that global warming has “stopped”?
I suspect it goes back to exactly what I was referring to above, that the claim is based on a least squares linear trend calculation, based on the satellite LT products, starting in an 8-month period around 1998, but maybe your metric is different.
Further to my previous post: something that seems to get ignored or forgotten by just about everyone in these discussions, is that temperature anomalies are themselves proxies to what is really of interest: heat energy contained in the biosphere.
Temperature at different levels of the atmosphere, in water, even in solids materials, is just a secondary method of describing that total heat content. Using only a single temperature measurement to describe the total heat content of the system will always be inherently flawed: that is why ignoring all but one type of data-set is not a valid way of looking at the system. That same argument goes for those only looking at surface data sets as well as those only looking at lower troposphere datasets.
@The Donald:
Let me introduce you to a guy here named Gates. He parses everything like that, bending himself into a pretzel in a desperate attempt to convince everyone that global warming is chugging along like it always was.
Face it, global warming stopped many years ago, and saying that’s “pure numerology” won’t change that fact. Planet Earth is the ultimate Authority, and she’s making a laughingstock out of the climate alarmist crowd: not one scary prediction those fools ever made has ever come true. No exceptions.
When one contingent has been wrong 100.0% of the time, reasonable and rational folks will decide that their conjecture is wrong.
“Dangerous AGW” is nonsense. It’s an emo-based belief system that looks preposterous to normal, rational folks.
dbstealey,
Why address that last remark to me, since it had nothing whatsoever to do with anything I’ve written above?
I will ask again though: on what metric or metrics are you basing your claim that “Global warming stopped more than 18 years ago”?
Why address that last remark to me, since it had nothing whatsoever to do with anything I’ve written above?
I quoted your words.
dbstealey,
The only words of mine you quoted were “pure numerology” – your response to which was, essentially, “I am right, you are wrong”. (You also quoted somebody else’s words, but I assume you did not mean that section of your post to be a response to me.)
The substance of your post, however, had nothing to do with the substance of what I wrote.
Again, I will repeat – you made a claim of fact: “Global warming stopped more than 18 years ago.”
I am not even asking you to support the claim – all I am asking is the following: what is the metric upon which you are basing the claim?
Donald
Those are a long-established metric using the world-wide satellite measurements of the lower atmosphere from pole to pole, across all oceans, lands, deserts and snow fields. (99x the area coverage of the single NASA/GISS-adjusted US ground station miss-metric.)
From the latest measurement made at the end of each month, the analysis goes BACK in time until a flat line of global average temperature can no longer be calculated. No cherry-picking of data, no adjusting of data by government-paid bureaucrats, all worldwide data accepted and used, the same common analysis method every month. The same single simple question: “How long from today’s date has the global average measured temperature been flat?”
And, at this point in time, that length is slightly over 18 years.
Donald,
You’re new here. If you read this site for a while with an open mind, you will understand a lot more.
To answer your question, there are several metrics of differing quality. The best data comes from satellites and radiosonde balloons. Both RSS and UAH are corroborated by balloon data. For a much more complete explanation put ‘Monckton’ into the search box.
Sea surface temperatures are also not following the ‘dangerous AGW’ narrative. Search for ‘Tisdale’. Ocean heat content also isn’t following the script.
At the bottom of the credibility scale are the surface stations. Some folks are insisting they can tell global T to within tenths or hundredths of a degree based on land data. That is ridiculous. Further, land covers only 29% of the globe. Temperature stations are very sparse in many locations. Most have been eliminated over the past three decades. And the methodologies used are nonsense; averaging temperatures where there is no data, and other questionable inventions.
When the Climategate emails were made public there was a ‘Harry_read_me’ file made public with them. The programmer admitted that he was fabricating many years of temperature data, based on nothing but invented numbers that he wanted to use.
The global warming scare is based on that sort of pseudo-science. Alarmist scientists like Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt used to debate skeptics. But no more. The alarmists lost every debate, because they could not make a credible case. Now they hide out and refuse to debate.
The global warming scare is no different than the South Sea Island bubble, or the Dutch Tulip craze. It is a mass delusion, propped up by more than a billion dollars in federal grants every year, and that’s just the U.S. If I had a billion dollars to hand out every year I could get lots of scientists to write peer-reviewed papers explaining how the cow jumped over the moon.
All honest scientists are skeptics, first and foremost. Anyone questioning the AGW scare from a skeptical perspective can see that it’s politics, not science. Personally, I think AGW exists. But it is too small to measure; there are no measurements quantifying AGW. Since it’s too small to measure, it is a non-problem.
It’s clear that the ‘dangerous AGW’ narrative supports an agenda. They don’t admit what the agenda is. But honest science isn’t part of it.
Thanks RACookPE1978,
I assume by “global average measured temperature been flat” you mean “least squares linear trend line has a zero or negative slope”. If not, please correct me.
And from the rest of what you said, I understand you are using either UAH or RSS products, which is what I understood earlier, as well.
However, in addition to the actual calculation method (linear trend on UAH data) you have added an artificial constraint, which is equivalent to saying “as my starting point, use the only the oldest anomaly value in the past that gives me a zero or negative slope.” I understand that this might not be obvious, but it is inherent in your rule.
But a linear trend is only a mathematical construct: it does not mean anything without context.
Which is why I mentioned earlier that even using the UAH product dataset, using today or even last year as the end points, the slope of the trend line is positive going back 15 years, 16 years, and as many years back as you can go until to satellite datasets begin – and the slope will only be negative for about an 8 month period around 1998.
Donals says:
…I mentioned earlier that even using the UAH product dataset, using today or even last year as the end points, the slope of the trend line is positive going back 15 years, 16 years, and as many years back as you can go until to satellite datasets begin – and the slope will only be negative for about an 8 month period around 1998.
That’s completely false:
click1
click2
click3
I have lots more like those. Just ask and I’ll post them.
dbstealey,
I mentioned 15 years and more of the UAH dataset – the ranges you used were for 2002 to 2015 – or less than 14 years – for non UAH datasets, and for the UAH dataset, you provided an excerpt of from 2002 to 2008 – not even close to the time period I was making reference to. I expect those were honest mistakes, but mistakes on your part nonetheless.
Also, and as you quoted, I said “even using the UAH product dataset, using today or even last year as the end points, the slope of the trend line is positive going back 15 years, 16 years…” Yet the majority of the extracts you provided did not even reference the UAH dataset, so basically, you once again responded to my post with a non sequitur, and an irrelevant one at that: you both misrepresented the time frame to which I made reference, as well as the dataset to which I made reference in my very specific statement.
If you want to look at the web site you used above, see here for the UAH Graph Play around with it – try to come up with a negative trend for the periods ending in 2014 or 2015 in the UAH lower troposphere global mean set.
It is likely that you don’t even realize it, but by choosing the start and end dates as you did, you actually illustrate the point I was making earlier very well: finding a linear trend in a data set on its own is almost meaningless: as you have shown, you can find both positive and negative trend lines overlapping each other.
Donald,
I agree, you can find positive and negative trends. I also agree that they are meaningless, as you say. There is no proof, or even any convincing evidence that global temperatures can be measured accurately to tenths of a degree, much less hudredths. But that’s what the alarmist crowd is using for their argument.
You also used an older version of UAH, which has been corrected in 6.0. Now RSS and UAH are converging to the same measurements.
But picking past start dates is entirely proper. Dr. Phil Jones does it, and he’s an arch alarmist. For example, if parents of a 10-year old boy notice that he is the same height today as he was at seven years old, they will say he hasn’t grown in 3 years. Seven is their start date. As Lord Monckton states, every month the length of the “Pause” in the RSS graph is calculated as the longest period of months, ending in the most recent month for which data are available, during which no global warming has occurred. That is the right way to do it. The boy stopped growing 3 years ago; global warming stopped 18 years ago.
The endless predictions in the late ’90’s were that runaway global warming would cause climate catastrophe; Polar bears would be decimated, Manhattan, Florida, and South Sea islands would be submerged, Polar ice would vanish, and many other scary predictions were confidently asserted.
They were all wrong. Every one of them. None of the alarming predictions have ever happened.
Folks who understand human nature can see what’s going on: natural climate variability has been made into this fake scare with the assistance and connivance of the media, and our ‘community organizer’ president, and the numerous scientists and universities that are hooked on the billion dollars that are handed out every year to ‘study climate change’. It is a massive hoax, intended to get a carbon tax passed and to amass political power.
I would be among the first to admit it if there was a real problem with the rise in CO2 (the basic argument of the alarmist crowd). As a skeptic, knowledge is the most important goal. I’ll admit it if I’m wrong. Science completely fails if there’s no skepticism, and that’s the one thing you cannot find in the proponents of the ‘dangerous AGW’ (DAGW) group. None of them are scientific skeptics. Thus, what they’re doing is not science.
It’s fine to discuss the science aspect of ‘climate change’. It’s interesting. But nothing being observed now is either unusual or unprecedented. Current temperatures and other parameters have been exceeded in the past, repeatedly, and by a much greater degree. That happened when CO2 was ≈280 ppm. All we are observing is natural variability in action. In fact, the past century and a half has been unusually benign.
Regarding the CO2 question, it has become clear that the rise in CO2 is a net benefit. More is better. There is no identifiable global damage or harm from CO2, thus it can be said that the rise is “harmless”. It is also beneficial to the biosphere: the planet is measurable greening due to the rise in CO2. Agricultural productivity is rising in step with CO2. And it doesn’t take much. CO2 has risen by only one part in 10,000 over the past century. There is no observed downside.
They are lying, Donald. Different people have different motives for lying about the ‘carbon’ scare. But the bottom line is that the climate alarmist crowd is flat wrong. It’s said that when an honest man is wrong, after demonstrating that he is wrong, he either stops being wrong or he stops being honest. They aren’t honest, Donald. Don’t you see that?
dbstealey,
Once again, you are responding to my post with a large number of distractions: I cannot comment on what Monckton may or may not have said, or how you are interpreting other people to have used cherry picked data; nor will I dispute the validity of any particular dataset – that would be a fool’s errand.
What I have been able to glean, after much prodding, is that the metric being used to define this numerical pause in warming is the following a) UAH data, b) a least squares linear trend and c) using the final months of 1997 as the starting point for calculating the linear trend.
Using the very data that is being depended upon to make the claim (UAH, either 5.6 or 6.0 beta) and the metric as described above, there are either zero months (ver 5.6) or 7 months (6.0 beta) where the linear trend ending in 2015 in not positive.
That means all the trend lines starting prior to mid-1997 show positive slopes, and all the trend lines starting after January 1998 show positive slopes. If linear trend slope must be interpreted, without context, as being equivalent to warming or lack of warming, it is clear that the argument for using the trend line as a stand in for warming is completely flawed: It requires us to believe that there has been warming from 1995 until today, also from 1996 until today, and from 1998 and 1999 until today, but that there has been no warming for the specific 7-month period in 1997 until today.
This is not a hard concept to understand; looking at a graph, and fitting a trend line starting at a particularly high or low point in the graph is obviously not going to be a particularly accurate way to understand the underlying signal.
@ur momisugly the Donald:
See what I get for trying to be rational and unemotional? I tried to respond with facts. I tried to discuss verifiable science with you. I put in more time than I should have, hoping to get a reasonable discussion going. But all you did is parrot verifiable misinformation, like this:
…there are either zero months (ver 5.6) or 7 months (6.0 beta) where the linear trend ending in 2015 in not positive.
That is contradicted by reams of empirical evidence. ‘Seven months’??? Maybe on your planet. But here in the real world there has been no global warming for this entire millennium. None.
Thus, your baseless assertions fail. Only seven months of no temperature rises?? Put down the cooking sherry, Donald, and listen up:
Global warming stopped many years ago. Even the IPCC admits that. To be charitable, let’s take the current millennium. There has been no global warming at all.
CO2 has risen non-stop for many decades now. But global warming has stopped. Therefore, CO2 simply lacks the warming effect that the climate alarmist crowd claims it does. Could they be any less credible? But you still believe them!
That’s what I get for trying to discuss science with someone who is obviously an eco-religious True Believer. Your mind is made up, and closed tighter than a submarine hatch. I foolishly took the time to patiently explain the value of scientific skepticism to you. But it was rain off a duck’s back.
Why don’t you take your belief in pseudo-science over to Hotwhopper or realclimate. They just love that kind of anti-science nonsense. But here at the internet’s Award Winning BEST SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY site, we want facts, not baseless assertions like yours.
‘K thx bye.
“Thus, your baseless assertions fail. Only seven months of no temperature rises?? “
No, Donald is exactly right. I showed the relevant plot here. I’ll show it again
http://www.moyhu.org.s3.amazonaws.com/2016/1/trend0.png
It shows the trend you get if you start from the x-axis year to present. The bottom data is RSS, and where the red circle is is the Monckton pause. The light green curve just above is UAH V6. It dips below zero for a period of about seven months in late 1997. If you start from any other month, the trend is positive. And of course, UAH5.6 has very positive trends for any start year.
dbstealey,
I neglected in my last post, to link to the UAH data sets.
Here is the 5.6 dataset: http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt
And here is the 6.0 beta data set: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tlt/tltglhmam_6.0beta4.txt
You may run a linear trend analysis on this data; you will find, after running this calculation using every month in the data sets as starting points, that there are exactly 7 months in the version 6.0 beta data set where the trend line ending in 2015 is not positive.There are no such months in the version 5.6 data set.
I can help you set this up if required.
dbstealey,
BTW, this:
Donald wrote “…there are either zero months (ver 5.6) or 7 months (6.0 beta) where the linear trend ending in 2015 in not positive.”
dbstealey responded: “That is contradicted by reams of empirical evidence. ‘Seven months’??? Maybe on your planet. But here in the real world there has been no global warming for this entire millennium. None.”
You’ve just made the specific error that I spent a number of posts trying to explain, conflating the term “linear trend” with “warming”. A linear trend in a data set does not necessarily mean warming. It does not necessarily mean cooling. It is simply a mathematical relationship between a set of bounded data points.
Because you did not understand this, I will state clearly that by pointing out that the trend lines all had positive slope, with the exception of the set of the last 7 months of 1997, I made no interpretation about whether there was warming in any of this periods (I also mode no interpretation that there was not).
It is important in these discussions to be very clear when writing, and to not insert one’s own preconceptions when reading. Obviously, I could have been clearer – let me know if I need to further clarify those posts.
Donald,
Sorry, I missed what you were saying at first. So you take every month and compare the slope? And you accuse me of cherry-picking?? Why not take every quarter, too? Just so you get what you want, eh?
During this entire debate skeptics have remained constant and on point. The original start year (actually, 1997-98) was specifically designated by an arch-alarmist, Dr. Phil Jones (of Climategate infamy). He admitted that global warming had stopped, but then he qualified it: to be statistically sound (at the 95% confidence level) global warming would have to remain halted for 15 years, beginning at ’97 – ’98. No doubt Jones thought that gave him plenty of wiggle room, because he was sure global warming would resume well before the 15 years was up.
Jones was wrong. It’s now been 18+ years of no global warming. I can help you if you still don’t understand this. Better yet, read Lord Monckton’s articles here. (The search box will find them all, just put in ‘monckton’.)
So skeptics have remained consistent. But the climate alarmist crowd bends themselves into pretzels, trying to show somehow that Evil is Good, Down is Up, Ignorance is Strength, and Global Warming Never Stopped.
But it did stop, and it hasn’t resumed. It may. Or this may be a plateau. Or a peak. But one thing remains an unproven and largely baseless conjecture: Measurable AGW. Global warming is not man-made per the climate Null Hypothesis, which has never been falsified. To assume, without any measurements or unusual observations that AGW is the cause of global warming is as un-scientific as you can be. It is a belief, no different than a religious belief. You just want to believe it, so you play games like beginning at every month in the record until you find what confirms your bias. No good. Measurements, please. That’s all we need.
Prove me wrong, Donald. Produce verifiable, empirical, testable measurements that quantify AGW, and which are accepted by scientists across the board, not just by the current crop of rent-seekers riding the climate grant gravy train.
If you can produce replicable measurements quantifying AGW as a percentage of all global warming, you will surely be on the short list for a Nobel Prize. For one thing, such a discovery would resolve the climate sensitivity question, which is also no more than a conjecture. It would also improve predictions of global warming from human CO2 emissions, if human emissions do in fact make any difference. Because so far, those predictions have all been a major flop. Even with hugely expensive GCMs, no one was able to predict what Jones admitted to: global warming has stopped for many years. But those chumps are right this time around?? Not buyin’ it.
So have at it, Donald. You want to be rich and famous, don’t you? Me, I prefer some actual measurements of AGW to start with. Got any?
dbstealey,
you wrote: “Sorry, I missed what you were saying at first. So you take every month and compare the slope? And you accuse me of cherry-picking?? Why not take every quarter, too? Just so you get what you want, eh?”
A linear trend using least squares is one method of finding a mathematical ‘best fit’ line to a dataset. It involves calculating the squares of the differences between the actual data and the best fit line, summing those squared differences, and minimizing the total value.
Is your issue with using global monthly values, instead of global daily averages? What I was trying to convey (and Nick Stokes’ graph illustrates this perfectly) is that based on the metric described by RACookPE1978 earlier, straightforward best fit lines really cannot be interpreted as illustrating “no warming” for the past 18+ years, since there is only one, 7-month period in either UAH dataset where the trend line slope is not positive, and that period is bounded, both prior to and immediately following, by periods with positive trend line slopes.
dbstealey,
BTW, could you please explain what you mean by “cherry picking”? Making a comparison to the universe of points within a data set, as I did earlier, is normally thought to be the opposite of cherry picking.
dbstealey,
BTW, could you please explain what you mean by “cherry picked”? Making a comparison to the universe of datapoints, as I did earlier, is normally thought to be the opposite of cherry picking.
Cherry-picking: looking until you find something that feeds your confirmation bias.
You did it in the instant case by using a methodology that is very different than the one skeptics have been responding to for many years.
If Dr. Jones had been right and global warming resumed shortly after he defined the parameters, he would have bragging rights, and as a skeptic I would be trying to understand if, and where, I had been wrong.
But as it happened, skeptics are not wrong. Jones was guessing wrong, and he has to live with it. Global warming stopped, per Phil Jones’ own definition.
I’ve answered your questions. Your turn. Answer mine now.
dbstealey,
I very carefully responded to the metric described by RACookPE1978 in his post above. If the metric he described is not what you accept, please feel free to correct his misstatement or my misinterpretation.
As it stands, however, I have explained why this particular metric, if accurately described by RACookPE1978, is an invalid method to gauge “warming” or the lack thereof.
Do you have a particular issue with the reasoning provided, or just that it does not match a pre-existing argument with which you are familiar?
Donald,
So you want to argue with me about what RACook wrote?
How about this: answer my questions. I answered yours. It’s your turn now.
dbstealey,
you seem to have forgotten that I am responding to Michael Palmer’s claim about the “pause” – you have been trying to engage me in side topics, while I have been addressing that question and how it seems to have been misapplied.
Since you continue to respond to my posts that are exclusively on the topic of the pause, I have continued to try to respond to you constructively.
dbstealey,
BTW, you wrote the following: “And you accuse me of cherry-picking?? ”
Actually, I did not – I neither stated it nor even implied it. You should be more careful when attributing statements to other people.
Some 68 excuses by the Climate Liars for a Pause which is “fake”? Tell us another one, troll.
Gee, how did we know it would be another record? Helps when you data adjusting algorithm is programmed to reduce past temperatures and boost current ones.The surprise would be if it was not another record.