August 2016 and 2016-to-date are second warmest
Notes on data released Sept. 1, 2016:
Through the first eight months of the year, 2016 seems to be racing toward what might be its place in history — as the second warmest year in the satellite temperature record. But just by a little bit, according to Dr. John Christy, director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. “While global average temperatures peaked higher this year than they did in 1998, temperatures fell faster this spring and summer to levels that are cooler than they were at this same time of year in 1998. We had three months this year that were warmer than their 1998 counterparts, and five that were cooler. There is really no reliable way of predicting what the next four months will do, compared to those same months in 1998.”
Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.12 C per decade
August temperatures (preliminary)
Global composite temp.: +0.44 C (about 0.79 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for August.
Northern Hemisphere: +0.55 C (about 0.99 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for August.
Southern Hemisphere: +0.32 C (about 0.58 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for August.
Tropics: +0.59 C (about 0.90 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for August.
July temperatures (revised):
Global Composite: +0.39 C above 30-year average
Northern Hemisphere: +0.48 C above 30-year average
Southern Hemisphere: +0.30 C above 30-year average
Tropics: +0.48 C above 30-year average
(All temperature anomalies are based on a 30-year average (1981-2010) for the month reported.)
1998 and 2016
Month-by-month comparison
1998 1 +0.48 2016 1 +0.54
1998 2 +0.65 2016 2 +0.83
1998 3 +0.47 2016 3 +0.73
1998 4 +0.74 2016 4 +0.71
1998 5 +0.64 2016 5 +0.55
1998 6 +0.57 2016 6 +0.34
1998 7 +0.51 2016 7 +0.39
1998 8 +0.52 2016 8 +0.44
The 2015-2016 El Niño Pacific Ocean warming event is officially over, and sea surface temperatures in the equatorial eastern Pacific Ocean are cooler than normal, which should augur a coming decline in atmospheric temperatures as heat released into the atmosphere as the ocean cooled is itself released into space. 1998 was also the second year of an El Niño Pacific Ocean warming event.
January – August composite
Global average anomalies
1. 1998 0.5725
2. 2016 0.5662
3. 2010 0.4000
4. 2002 0.2462
5. 2015 0.2150
6. 2007 0.2087
7. 2005 0.1987
8. 2014 0.1637
9. 2003 0.1587
10. 1991 0.1312
11. 2013 0.1275
12. 2001 0.1075
13. 2006 0.0950
14. 2004 0.0875
15. 1988 0.0837
16. 1995 0.0800
17. 2009 0.0375
18. 2011 0.0225
19. 1987 0.0162
20. 1980 0.0075
21. 1983 0.0025
22. 2012 -0.0062
23. 1999 -0.0071
24. 1990 -0.0212
25. 1996 -0.0287
26. 2000 -0.0375
27. 1997 -0.0712
28. 1994 -0.0862
29. 1981 -0.1012
30. 2008 -0.1650
31. 1986 -0.2200
32. 1984 -0.2250
33. 1993 -0.2400
34. 1992 -0.2612
35. 1989 -0.2637
36. 1979 -0.2662
37. 1982 -0.3025
38. 1985 -0.3737
With temperatures that were 0.55 C (about 0.99° F) warmer than seasonal norms, August 2016 was the warmest August in the Northern Hemisphere in the satellite temperature record. August 1998 was second warmest at 0.49 C warmer than normal. August 2016 was the second warmest August in the tropics, trailing August 2015 0.52 to 0.50 C. It was the third warmest in the Southern Hemisphere, where the August 2016 average was 0.32 C warmer than normal. August 1998’s Southern Hemisphere average was hottest at 0.54 C warmer than seasonal norms.
Compared to seasonal norms, the warmest average temperature anomaly on Earth in August was southwest of Dome F in East Antarctica. August temperatures there averaged 4.91 C (about 8.84 degrees F) warmer than seasonal norms. Compared to seasonal norms, the coolest average temperature on Earth in August was about 1,500 miles north of West Antarctica, in the region where the South Pacific meets the southern ocean. August’s temperatures there averaged 2.78 C (about 5.00 degrees F) cooler than seasonal norms.
The complete version 6 beta lower troposphere dataset is available here:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0beta5.txt
Archived color maps of local temperature anomalies are available on-line at:
As part of an ongoing joint project between UAHuntsville, NOAA and NASA, Christy and Dr. Roy Spencer, an ESSC principal scientist, use data gathered by advanced microwave sounding units on NOAA and NASA satellites to get accurate temperature readings for almost all regions of the Earth. This includes remote desert, ocean and rain forest areas where reliable climate data are not otherwise available.
The satellite-based instruments measure the temperature of the atmosphere from the surface up to an altitude of about eight kilometers above sea level. Once the monthly temperature data are collected and processed, they are placed in a “public” computer file for immediate access by atmospheric scientists in the U.S. and abroad.
Neither Christy nor Spencer receives any research support or funding from oil, coal or industrial companies or organizations, or from any private or special interest groups. All of their climate research funding comes from federal and state grants or contracts.
— 30 —
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
And then some people claim it is cooling…
Go figure…
Who are these people who claim that it is already cooling?
With the exception of the recent El Nino, it hasn’t been warming for almost 20 years. Yet there are people who continue to claim that it is warming.
Who are these people who claim that it is already cooling?
What planet do you live on?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/08/21/the-north-atlantic-ground-zero-of-global-cooling/
The only record showing what you pretend, MarkW, is UAH6.0beta5 TLT. We will see in the near future wether or not this is a correct measure of the troposphere’s temperatures.
Who carefully reads a paper named “Sensitivity of Satellite-Derived Tropospheric Temperature Trends to the Diurnal Cycle Adjustment” (see http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0744.1) might have some little doubt.
While UAH’s OLS trend for the 1999-2014 period inside of the two most recent, big El Niños (1997/98, 2015/16) is about 0.04 °C per decade, that of RSS 4.0 TTT (which better excludes the far cooler, lower stratosphere) is at 0.122 °C per decade:
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/160902/7nvayn48.jpg
Wait and see…
I see. So an article claims that the North Atlantic is cooling, and presents the data that proves the North Atlantic is cooling!
How dare these nutjobs point out that a cooling region is cooling? That’s meant to be a closely guarded secret enforceable by long jail terms under the RICO Act.
Leif, as usual, your source does not support your claim.
If you are not specific about which source and how it does not support, your comment has no value.
And then some people claim it is cooling…
Go figure…
…..it was warmer 18 years ago
“…..it was warmer 18 years ago”
The August temperature anomaly in UAH (v6 beta 5) was warmer 18 years ago, but the linear trend in the UAH monthly data since August 1998 still shows warming at a rate of 0.09 C/dec.
Even only counting the month of August, the linear warming trend in UAH since 1998 is +0.05 C/dec. In the full trend (since 1979) the August warming rate in UAH is +0.09 C/dec; same as the annual rate.
The fact that a particular month in the past was warmer than a more recent month doesn’t mean there has been no intervening long term warming trend.
…it was warmer 85 years ago
it was warmer 1000 years ago.
and 500 millions years ago…
I am beginning to see a pattern like day and night, I finished 10th grade science class with a B
lsvalgaard
September 1, 2016 at 5:17 pm
If you want a meaningful climatic trend, earth has been cooling since the end of the Minoan Warm Period, ~3000 years ago, and probably since the Holocene Optimum, 5 Ka.
The Roman WP peak ~2000 years ago was cooler than the Minoan WP, the Medieval WP peak ~1000 years ago was cooler than the Roman and so far the Modern WP has been cooler than the Medieval. The LIA was also probably cooler than the Dark Ages Cold Period and previous Holocene CPs.
In three or four more such millennial up and down cycles, we’ll enter the next glaciation, unless eccentricity should prove more significant than the other Milankovitch orbital and rotational parameters.
None of that is relevant for the satellite data in question [and for the recent evolution of the historical instrumental record]. So, your straw man has no place here.
Of course it’s relevant. It’s the whole point. Pointing out the problems with the “records” isn’t a straw man. It’s vital.
The pretend “surface record” is worse than worthless, since it’s a bogus, bureaucrat-made artifact. The satellite record is too short to say anything at all about climate change, which requires at least more than one 30-year interval, while centuries and millennia would be better. For that matter 166 years in the cooked book “surface record” is also too short, at only five and a half climate intervals, to permit analysis of statistical significance.
What is clear from the paleo proxy record however is that earth is still cooling. Any temporary warming from human activity is a good thing. Not that science can even yet know whether the net effect of human activity is to warm or cool the planet. In any case, whatever the effect, it’s negligible globally and mainly (at least) limited to local changes.
Agree
For the last time: it is not relevant for the current debate. since we came out of the LIA, temperatures have been warming, with no cooling detected. and you do seem to be afraid of saying that. So, show you are not and repeat here after me: “there is no sign of cooling” [yet, there will be, eventually].
Cooling has most certainly been detected. The post-LIA warming has been in fits and starts, with counter-trend cooling cycles in between.
After a mid-19th century warming, there came a turn of the century cooling, followed by the early 20th century warming, which was indistinguishable from the late 20th century warming. From the 1940s to late ’70s, the world cooled dramatically, despite rapidly and monotonously rising CO2.
NCAR has tried to make the chilliness of the ’40s-’70s disappear, but the Wayback Machine has them dead to rights.
The late Dr. Stephen Schneider, early in his alarmist career, jumped on the global cooling bandwagon in 1975, before switching to nuclear winter in the ’80s and global warming in the ’90s:
http://realclimatescience.com/2016/05/ncar-1975-global-cooling-caused-terrorism-national-security-crisis/
Naturally, he migrated from NCAR to join arch-alarmist Dr. Ehrlich at Stanford.
The money quote, “yet, there will be, eventually”. It stands to reason. Enjoy the warm. It will go away. In the past 800,000 years, Earth spent most of its time cooler than this. Way cooler. The wide swings are where the interesting stuff is. The current little blips up or blip down that get so many so riled up, is tiny stuff that garners a tremendous amount of attention and grants, while the big swings get hardly a glance. Interesting.
I bought 1,000 shares of Jaydcor back in 1985, for $74 a piece. It’s set record highs every year since I’ve bought it! Woo hoo! It’s gone up $0.01 every single year! It’s worth $74.31 now. I love record growth!
Matt, I suspect a guy like you can have trouble getting a good night’s sleep!
http://www.eastoftheweb.com/short-stories/UBooks/PriPea.shtml
Leif “recent evolution of the historical instrumental record”
A nice euphemism for continuous adjustments that cool the rural stations to make them conform to urban ones.
cool! There’s rumors Exxon knew.
Still; again with coming of winter there’l be no door into the summer.
https://www.google.at/search?q=the+door+into+the+summer&oq=the+door+into+the+summer&aqs=chrome..69i57.46145j0j4&client=ms-android-samsung&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#imgrc=RlsSF3iRul6XgM%3A
Hey if it’s the second warmest year in the record, then by definition it IS cooling, and I don’t mean the definition of IS, but of COOLING.
g
Climate is the mean over many years…
That’s right, and the mean over the 11th, 12th and 13th centuries puts the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries in the shade. The mean over the 1st, 2nd and 3rd centuries AD, even more so.
Nothing the least bit out of the ordinary has happened to earth’s climate since 1850, 1900 or 1950, so there is nothing to worry about. The null hypothesis cannot be rejected. The higher CO2 and whatever warming has occurred, for whatever reason, have been highly beneficial to life on our planet.
Don’t worry. Be happy!
It should be evident that the statement was concerning the instrumental record only [or even the satellite record], so going back before then is disingenuous.
The satellite record is barely long enough to count as climate.
If climate be the average of weather over 30 years, then we have only had time for one such interval (1979-2008) and are working on a second (2009 & counting) for comparison’s sake.
Totally insufficient for establishing statistical significance.
The so-called “surface record” since 1850 is a cooked book, corrupt artifact of science fiction, but even so shows that the null hypothesis cannot be rejected.
FWIW, historical patterns suggest that the interval 2009-2038 should be cooler than 1979-2008, but perhaps not quite as chilly as 1949-1978. This prediction isn’t because human activity will make the current and coming 30 years warmer than the postwar world, but because earth is still recovering naturally from the LIA, and is in another centennial-scale warming period, as during the Middle Ages and Roman warmths.
It’s not disingenuous if he meant what he wrote, lsvalgaard . .
(And I bet you knew that . . so . . ; )
Whatever he meant is irrelevant as the statement is obviously only about the recent data.
John,
The instrument record in the CET goes back to 1659 and has been reconstructed well back into the Medieval Warm Period.
Not the least indication in that record, even though heavily stepped upon by the Met, that the Modern Warming to date is even a pimple on the posterior of the Medieval Warming.
lsvalgaard
September 1, 2016 at 7:09 pm
The satellite data are too recent and short-term to be meaningful.
The “surface data” (not!) are not data. They are packs of lies, but even so, despite being adjusted out of any possible significance, show that the null hypothesis cannot be rejected.
The post is only concerned with
“Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.12 C per decade”
If that is too short to show warming, it is also too short to show cooling.
Which was my point: many commenters here drool over perceived cooling. So you agree with me that there are no signs of cooling.
No. There is no sign of any significant climatic trend because a single 30-year interval on its own is meaningless, as in the satellite observations since 1979.
However we know from the surface data as they were compiled in the 1970s before “adjustment” that the world cooled dramatically from the late ’40s to the late ’70s, after warming in the ’20s to ’40s, after cooling in the 1880s to ‘teens, after warming from the 1850s.
My point is that there is nothing in any of the cooked or uncooked climate books to suggest that the null hypothesis can be rejected. There is no reason to imagine that anything out of the ordinary has happened to earth’s climate since 1950, 1900 or 1850.
Hence, no problem and we can stop wasting trillions in resources and causing millions of deaths to “solve” a non-existent problem, which has been shamelessly promoted to exist in order to feather the nests of academics and bureaucrats.
lsvalgaard,
“Whatever he meant is irrelevant as the statement is obviously only about the recent data.”
Not according to any dictionary definition I am aware of;
dis·in·gen·u·ous
[ˌdisənˈjenyo͞oəs]
ADJECTIVE
not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.
(Oxford Dictionary)
not candid or sincere
covers the situation pretty well.
John,
English is not Dr. Svalgaard’s native lingo.
So he might be forgiven.
Nothing to forgive. As what I said covers the dictionary meaning [not sincere].
george e. smith,
“Hey if it’s the second warmest year in the record, then by definition it IS cooling, and I don’t mean the definition of IS, but of COOLING.”
That’s a fact. (Even if isvalgaaurd is unable or unwilling to grasp it.)
nonsense. as cooling should be measured over an extended period.
Although “disingenuous” is a Latinate word adopted into our national idiom rather than pure English.
I’m quite willing to forgive him, Gabro . . let’s see if he repents ; )
No. There is no sign of any significant climatic trend because a single 30-year interval on its own is meaningless, as in the satellite observations since 1979.
So you agree with me that the satellite data does not show any sign of cooling since 1979.
It’s a fact, Isvalgaaurd, and I will not surrender rational language use to you, or any conglomeration of like-minded gibberish promoters.
The trend is measured over an extended period of time, so does not depend on only a single year or even two years. But you are welcome to pretend you have no clue.
Mr. Smith said nothing about any or that stuff, Isvalgaaurd. You’ve got a hammer all right, but that don’t really make everything you see a nail ; )
This is not about hammers or nails, but about whether there has been a cooling trend in the satellite record, and regardless of George’s meaningless utterance, the fact is that there has not been any. Even Grabo agrees with that [although he is afraid to say it, waffling about the record being too short…]
You can imagine anything you like, Isvalgaaurd, but your imagination is not something any other people are required to treat as reality. This is what Mr. Smith wrote;
“Hey if it’s the second warmest year in the record, then by definition it IS cooling, and I don’t mean the definition of IS, but of COOLING.”
You believe (perhaps) that;
“This is not about hammers or nails, but about whether there has been a cooling trend in the satellite record…”
. . but I see someone stating an obvious fact, that has nothing at all to do with whatever you happen to define as a trend, and I’m rather sure, was intentionally crafted to remind trendspeak weary readers, that if it is cooler this year than any given past year, it has cooled since then.
And Gabro has cited several examples of years in the historical past when there were almost certainly years warmer than this one (and even the official warmer one of late). And that’s leaves us having the clear right to speak of cooling since then. You don;t like that? T S
that if it is cooler this year than any given past year, it has cooled since then.
?w=960&h=353
This is clearly meant to mislead. The temperature anomaly for the first half of ‘since then’ is not different from the anomaly for the last half. There has been no cooling or warming over the period ‘since then’, which is also evident to the eye by just looking at the graph:
“This is clearly meant to mislead.”
Perhaps in your imagination . . but I doubt it, sir.
Regardless of your ‘doubt’, the fact remains that there has been no cooling nor warming ‘since then’.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH-v6-LT-with-2016-projection-3-550×330.jpg
“That’s right, and the mean over the 11th, 12th and 13th centuries puts the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries in the shade. The mean over the 1st, 2nd and 3rd centuries AD, even more so.”
Oh, they were were they?
And by what proxies do you accept that as fact.
Would they be the same proxies that lead to the damning of Mann …. and the dozens of other studies that came up the the “hockey stick”.
May maximum CO2 ppm verses Sept/Oct minimum CO2 ppm
2003 _ 5 _ 378.50 …. +2.85 _________ 10 … 373.10
2004 _ 5 _ 380.63 …. +2.13 __________ 9 … 374.11
2005 _ 5 _ 382.47 …. +1.84 __________ 9 … 376.66
2006 _ 5 _ 384.98 …. +2.51 __________ 9 … 378.92
2007 _ 5 _ 386.58 …. +1.60 __________ 9 … 380.90
2008 _ 5 _ 388.50 …. +1.92 _________ 10 … 382.99
2009 _ 5 _ 390.19 …. +1.65 _________ 10 … 384.39
2010 _ 5 _ 393.04 …. +2.85 __________ 9 … 386.83
2011 _ 5 _ 394.21 …. +1.17 _________ 10 … 388.96
2012 _ 5 _ 396.78 …. +2.58 _________ 10 … 391.01
2013 _ 5 _ 399.76 …. +2.98 __________ 9 … 393.51
2014 _ 5 _ 401.88 …. +2.12 __________ 9 … 395.35
2015 _ 5 _ 403.94 …. +2.06 __________ 9 … 397.63
2016 _ 5 _ 407.70 …. +3.76 El Niño __ 9 …
2003, 2006, 2010, 2012, 2013 and 2016 all show a yearly increase in average CO2 that was greater than 2.50 ppm.
The calculated “yearly average temperatures” as defined on the above graph posted by lsvalgaard …… should correlate with the above noted CO2 years.
lsvalgaard
September 1, 2016 at 9:52 pm
No, I’m not afraid to say that there is cooling in the UAH record. There is both warming and cooling, and the trend is for all practical purposes flat. There is, for instance, pronounced cooling from the start of this year, same as after prior super El Ninos.
But even if it’s up slightly, the trend isn’t long enough to count as climate intervals for comparative purposes. If climate is the average of WX over 30 years, we need at least two such intervals to make a comparison, which still wouldn’t be meaningful.
the trend is for all practical purposes flat
This is the important point. There is no cooling trend. There is, of course, cooling and warming, every day, even, but what matters is whether there is a cooling trend, and you agree that there is not. That is all.
“There is, of course, cooling and warming, every day, even …”
Every moment, even, right? Both are happening continuously, right, Isvalgaaurd?
But, that does not make what you wrote false, or “disingenuous”, right?
“…but what matters is whether there is a cooling trend…”
In your tiny little corner of technical expertise that might seem true, but in reality-land, the physical world, none of that past “trend” stuff (which you are erroneously speaking of in the present tense, I say), can change the fact that if (I say IF) any given year was warmer than the current one, then cooling has occurred since then, by definition.
I invite the reader to simply think about how vigorously you have resisted allowing that simple truth to be spoken and considered in peace. Take care, sir.
then cooling has occurred since then, by definition
Cooling and warming are processes, not states. Should the last few months of 2016 turn out to be warm so that 2016 becomes the warmest year, all the sudden a ‘cooling’ turns into a ‘warming’. The trend in climate is not determined by the behavior of a few months. There has been no climate trend of either sign the last 18 [or so] years. That is what the satellite data show us, regardless of your frantic attempts to save face after having put your foot in your mouth with your direct personal attacks [of which you should be ashamed]. I predict that you will continue to misbehave to the detriment of only yourself.
It may well be. This is one measure; it is a selective measure; it is a very short-term record; we know that the Earth has been both exceptionally hotter and colder than the present, in the past.
There are other measures which support cooling, just like there are Gavin’s data frauds which support warming.
The cooling will probably be very evident by 2030.
Leif
Maybe these guys should calculate the Monkton “pause” detector charts again..
You know you start at todays date and go back in time
Opps Guess that method is BUSTED
Not at all. A New Pause has begun, and already goes all the way back to last October. Into double figures………
But the old Pause has had his day, I’m afraid
dr svalgaard , cooling is like the warming, regional 😉
cooling is like the warming, regional
Sure! Last night was a bit cooler where I live.
So it got cooler?
but today is a bit warmer; so definite warming.
Roy Spencer’s chart showing the running, centred 13-month average of the UAH data does not feature in this report. See Dr Spencer’s site for the chart (note the red line): http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_August_2016_v6-550×318.jpg
The August 2016 update confirms that both the last 12 and 13 months are the warmest continuous such periods in the UAH record.
Irrespective of whether or not 2016 becomes the warmest calendar year to date, the warmest continuous 12-month period in the UAH record has just occurred. Should the UAH anomaly be 0.24 or above in September 2016, then that record will be broken again.
Global cooling, anyone?
But does any of this confirm the models?
Granted, I only have rudimentary understanding of the totality of the theory, but where is the strong positive feedback?
When I look at the satellite record, I see an abnormally cooler start – brought on by man-made cooling from additional cloudiness, resulting from pollution aerosols. And then post Montreal Protocol warming as the pollution, and the Albedo diminished. That, and a long term natural trend.
I don’t see any sort of feedback going on – where is it?
This El Nino began two years ago, and has lasted much longer than 1998’s, as I suspect you know
Paul,
Last December you stated on your blog with reference to UAH that “I would still expect temperatures to rise for the next few months, but it looks unlikely that the 12-month average will go above its peak in 2010, and certainly nowhere near 1998’s.” https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/12/02/uah-temperatures-drop-in-november/
As things stand, both the 2010 and 1998 UAH 12-month record warmest average records have been broken, and it looks likely that the record breaking hasn’t stopped yet.
Are you prepared to accept that you were wrong and issue a retraction?
Retraction? Are you accusing him a lying about what he expected?
Commenter DWR54, Are you just here on an ego trip, or do do really think an increase of 1.2 C over the next century is something dreadful?
“Retraction? Are you accusing him a lying about what he expected?”
That’s not the definition of retraction.
JohnKnight
“Are you accusing him a lying about what he expected?”
_________________
No. Just asking whether, given the fact that his original expectation has failed, Paul is prepared to acknowledge as much. The reasons why he believes his expectations failed might make an interesting article on his blog.
Pop Piasa
“Are you just here on an ego trip, or do do really think an increase of 1.2 C over the next century is something dreadful?”
_________________
That’s hardly an ‘either – or’ question. No, I’m not here on an ego trip (I don’t think). As to whether a global temperature increase of 1.2 C over the next century (or whatever other figure the case may be) will be “dreadful” or not, I don’t know. Do you?
DWR54,
When should we start to panic?
http://i1.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2015/10/Global-2-copy.jpg
dbstealey,
During the period of your graph (1880 onwards), the global average temperature has never been below 55 nor above 60F. So why do you include the extra 120F on your Y axis? that’s a factor of 120/5 = 24 times the necessary range. For an example of a properly scaled graph, see Steven Mosher’s post above. If your answer is “go ask the guy who created the graph”, that’s a copout – nobody forced you to post it.
Chris,
First, that’s not my chart. Therefore, I did not include anything extra on the Y axis.
Since you can’t find the chart’s provenance, it’s from here: powerlineblog.com You can argue with them about it.
Regarding your “example of a properly scaled graph”, did someone elect you to determine what the proper scale must be? And you’re right, no one forced me to post it, just like no one forced you to try and deconstruct it. But since you failed, I was happy to correct you.
Let’s turn your assumption around: why are global temperature graphs scaled in tenth- and hundredth-degree divisions?
Those scales are only good for like comparisons. Splicing with prior records is only guesswork. The reason the alarmist side does it is easy to understand. It makes for alarming-looking charts:
You still don’t understand. But other readers do, and that’s what’s important.
wow, measuring against the 30 year average and then using the anomaly from that average to claim warmest or second warmest on record is NOT the information that data would give……..that info only applies to the last 30 years……the 1930’s remain as much warmer than present, no matter how often the dishonest folks massage the real observed data.
You seem to confound the USA and the Globe… Here are two top ten lists of absolute temperatures originating from NOAA’s GHCN station data (unadjusted variant).
GHCN yearly unadjusted USA (CONUS + AK)
2012 14.13 1.17
1998 14.01 1.05
1921 13.80 0.83
1880 13.76 0.80
1934 13.74 0.78
1931 13.73 0.77
1890 13.72 0.75
1889 13.68 0.72
1881 13.66 0.70
2006 13.66 0.69
GHCN yearly unadjusted Globe
1998 15.87 1.21
2015 15.70 1.04
1991 15.62 0.96
2012 15.58 0.92
1999 15.53 0.87
1990 15.28 0.62
1994 15.26 0.60
1995 15.23 0.57
2000 15.10 0.44
2010 15.09 0.43
The early part of the UAH record has two volcanoes in it which reduced the TLT temps by about 0.4C for a period.
Factor those out, and there is little warming.
The ENSO had more-or-less neutral impact in August while the AMO index is closing in on the top temperatures in the record. The Southern hemisphere oceans are closing in on record cold territory according to one NOAA analysis while they are at almost record hot temperatures according to the NCEI/NOAA ERSST V4 series.
Overall, it is hard to tell what the natural cycles are doing to the climate anymore because the record has been played around with so much that we really can’t tell.what is going on anymore.
Its a shame. And I think we need a complete turnover of the staff and an taskforce to go in and fix the purposeful errors.
My hope is that President Trump will put Steve McIntyre in charge of fixing the fudges perpetrated by the unindicted co-conspirators of NASA, NOAA and HadCRU.
I dunno gabro
Steve’s last attemp
https://climateaudit.org/2012/07/31/surface-stations/
It was taken down the day it was posted.
A small error in datasets.
A revision was promised……
“When I had done my own initial assessment of this a few years ago, I had used TOBS versions and am annoyed with myself for not properly considering this factor. I should have noticed it immediately. That will teach me to keep to my practices of not rushing. Anyway, now that I’m drawn into this, I’ll have carry out the TOBS analysis, which I’ll do in the next few days (at the expense of some interesting analysis of Esper et al.)”
4 years later….
no publish?
The first question will be “what did they find when they used the right dataset as they promised”
Parallels to gergis.
[what we found is for us to know, and you to find out…and exactly what Steve said, don’t rush it…(no matter how much Steve Mosher screams about it) -Anthony]
Well, here in the outskirts of Melbourne it is the second day of spring.
My heater has been running all day, and I have one cat sleeping on top of each of the living room hot air vents. They refuse to go outside because it is too cold.
Can we please organize for me to get some of that 0.5 degrees of global warming?
My weather station records the temperature every five minutes. Each of the past four winters has been colder than the preceeding one.
Where do I apply for my share of global warming?
Unfortunately William .. .”Global” warming is a figment of the imagination on the part of a bunch of pointy headed, liberal academics in cahoots with pointy headed liberal politicians. Climate Scientists can’t admit that they don’t know what they don’t know!! .. and that is really sad for science in general.
We don’t have the technology to calculate the “global temperature” to a degree of accuracy being claimed as “monthly values” as evidenced by the differences on a monthly basis between the different data sets. I mean really … do you believe we can evaluate the “global temperature” within the “hundreth degree”?? … that’s 0.01C difference?? [note, Jan 1998, 0.48, Jan 2016, 0.54 … that’s just a 0.06C difference!!] … HECK NO we can’t. It’s pure dishonesty to claim we can. BUT .. even if we could, which I repeat, we can’t, … it is irrelevant!!
As you noted … you aren’t seeing any global warming, because it is a useless term, unless you want grant money and are pushing through an agenda to take control over the world … hence .. “global”.
…. but .. I”m sure you already know this.
Normally I would dismiss such localised anecdotes as not applicable to “global” climate. HOWEVER, I have been informed by Krusty’s Klimate Kouncil that Australia is in fact the Ground Zero of global warming.
As such, if it doesn’t show up in Australian temps then it’s not happening anywhere.
Ditto in Auckland. We’re freezing our butts off.
As far as I can see from the records, we have two things going on. CO2 is rising steadily, probably due to human activity. We don’t have records before 1957 or so, so we have no long-term record to go by. The second thing is a jumpy, plateau-ridden global temperature record that goes back hundreds of years and clearly shows warming, then no warming, then warming, then no warming. If we presume that CO2 was relatively constant before 1947 or so, then the previous warming was natural.
Granting that increased atmospheric CO2 will raise global temperature somewhat due to the greenhouse effect, I would say that the net result would be that the plateaus will rise a bit, but that the same, unexplained, natural warming that we’ve seen since the end of the Little Ice Age will remain the same, just lifted a tad.
So in the end I ask, where’s the evidence that CO2 is now causing the exact same amounts of warming that was observed naturally for over a hundred years? My second questions is “Is Tmax getting higher, or is Tmin increasing?” A higher average Tmin would cause the exact same rise in an average temperature as would increased Tmax, and I haven’t heard much about record highs this year.
I’m sorry but that was not the best worded statement.
a)
heat is released from the surface to the atmosphere all the time…as long as the atmosphere is cooler than the surface and this process does not cause the ocean cooling in the transition from El Nino to La Nina – it’s oceanic upwelling of cool water due to the strengthening of the trade winds at the surface that causes the cooling. Conversely, it is the weakining/reversing of the trade winds along with oceanic kelvin waves that suppresses/halts the cool upwelling which allows the Sun to warm (which is itself a near constant through the year El Nino or La Nina) the surface waters during El Nino.
b)
heat is release into space all the time at a near constant rate regardless of El Nino or La Nina. It (LWIR) has very little impact governing the dynamics of ENSO.
c) if you notice, through the El Nino cycles, the majority of the global warmth anomalies are in the upper latitudes…not down in the tropical latitudes. Is El Nino causing the high latitude warmth anomalies (i.e more blocky polar jet stream)? Conversely, do La Ninas cause high latitude cool anomalies (more progressive/less blocky polar jet stream)?
GHCN yearly unadjusted USA (CONUS + AK)
2012 14.13 1.17
1998 14.01 1.05
1921 13.80 0.83
1880 13.76 0.80
1934 13.74 0.78
1931 13.73 0.77
1890 13.72 0.75
1889 13.68 0.72
1881 13.66 0.70
2006 13.66 0.69
Looks a lot like 14 to me. What’s with this top ten crap?
GHCN yearly unadjusted Globe
1998 15.87 1.21
2015 15.70 1.04
1991 15.62 0.96
2012 15.58 0.92
1999 15.53 0.87
1990 15.28 0.62
1994 15.26 0.60
1995 15.23 0.57
2000 15.10 0.44
2010 15.09 0.43
Looks like cooling since 1998 to me.
Which is why adjustments are so vital.
How much longer can this scam be perpetrated upon the suffering masses of the globe?
Those “climate scientists” who feared being strung up when the people caught on knew whereof they spoke.
Again .. it deserves repeating. … look at 2000 and 2010 …. 15.10, and 15.09. It is pure dishonesty, and pure ignorance, arrogance, and narcissism to believe we can detect a 0.01C difference in “global temperature”.
This is pure B.S. … there is no “science” to be found here at all.
But, but, … , digital calculators can show even more than just two decimal places to the right of the decimal point. To increase the significance of these neglected digits, I propose a new rounding technique where the largest two digits within ten places to the right of the decimal point get promoted to sit on either side of the decimal point!
No, that’s not right. What you say only matters if you are claiming the figures are the correct and actual data. If you are comparing averages, they are valid, as you are looking at the differences between averages, not between the real data. As a simplified example, if I have a thermometer that measures one degree too hot all the time, the temperatures are wrong, but the changes between temperatures are correct.
do you prefer 15.0000000000?
think hard
15.0 = 14.99⋯ which, in my sarcastic post, would become 149.9
“This is pure B.S. … there is no “science” to be found here at all.”
Exactly right you are, Dr. Deanster.
But thousands of neo-scientists have made a “career” out of calculating “percentages & averages” via their use of highly questionable “fuzzy mathematics”.
And making a “career change” is a frightening thought for said neo-scientists and thus they are compelled to avert their eyes, ears and mind to any and all factual science that is questionable or contrary to their nurtured mindset.
1. clipe on September 1, 2016 at 7:03 pm
Looks a lot like 14 to me. What’s with this top ten crap?
It’s just there to show that the 1930’s weren’t warmer than today, even in the USA. That’s a myth. On the Globe’s ranking list 1934 appears at position 49.
Looks like cooling since 1998 to me.
Sure? For the interval 1998-2016, GHCN unadjusted gives an OLS trend of 0.8 °C per century. That’s all but cooling. Even consulting UAH6.0beta5 won’t help you that much: 0.4 °C.
These are ridiculous amounts. But RSS4.0 TTT shows 1.12 °C, that’s getting a bit less ridiculous.
2. Dr. Deanster on September 1, 2016 at 7:09 pm
It is pure dishonesty, and pure ignorance, arrogance, and narcissism to believe we can detect a 0.01C difference in “global temperature”.
That’s not the point here! Yearly temperatures are means of monthly temperatures, themselves means of daily temperatures, which are constructed out of the mean of noon and midnight or similar.
Moreover, even if you want to build an average temperature solely for USA’s GHCN stations, you additionally will have to build a consecutive mean over these yearly, monthly and daily means.
Each time you build a mean over data, you lose exactitude and therefore significance. So you have to work with more exact numbers.
What I fully agree on with you is that such exactitude is meaningless when we talk about temperature as of an “end product”. Sometimes I think of keeping only a digit behind the decimal point. You might eliminate all that mentally 🙂
3. Richard M on September 1, 2016 at 7:12 pm
Bindidon created a silly graph starting with a 3 year La Nina
What a ridiculous claim! I just wanted to avoid the 2 biggest El Niños at both ends to avoid warming spots, that’s all. I can create a graph containing them! But then it’s again silly because it ends with a Niño 🙂
Fell free to select some ENSO interval you appreciate:
My opinion: the least interval giving accurate info is the entire satellite era.
Means are only as good as the data making them.
Climate is usually associated with a particular region, and pertains to the average, range, etc … of temps, precipitation, etc. Thus, the “climate” for the SW United States is typically warm to hot, cool nights, low humidity, dry with a low average yearly rainfall.
The PROBLEM with Climate Science, … is that it does NOT figure in the new and latest figures into the overall “average”, which is climate …. thus moving the “average over many decades, even centuries” up or down, but instead, it replaces the climate values with the latest and greatest, and makes a false claim.
If you were to add in the last years of data to the last 150 years of data, it might move the global Climate needle by a 100th or 1000th. Using just these “hottest numbers” for the USA, if this year comes in at 14.2, beating the 14.13, the average over just ten years of the hottest temps EVA’ … would raise the “climate value” from 13.75, to 13.79. I seriously doubt that that 0.04C increase in the climate value for temperature is going to seriously hurt anybody.
Further, it would most likely be within the “range” of all climate values recorded for the area. [think of recent warmer periords, like the Roman, MWP, etc].
All of this is the figment of the imagination of a bunch of academics and politicians with an agenda. it is ALL meaningless. This is further supported by the fact that just about ALL people who support Climate Change support Socialistic Economic Policy, … and here in the states, there position on other issues are pretty predictable as well.
Top 10 “GHCN yearly unadjusted USA (CONUS + AK)” all round off at 14.
Top 10 “GHCN yearly unadjusted Globe” round off from 15 to 16.
Can you see the problem here?
Does the “Globe” include “CONUS + AK”?
Can you see the problem there?
it is difficult to produce a meaningful trend and as we see above it is easy to cherry pick end points that only demonstrate bias. Bindidon created a silly graph starting with a 3 year La Nina and DWR54 claimed the last year’s data is meaningful with a super El Nino during a strongly positive AMO.
About the only way to determine if the climate is warming or not is to look at ENSO neutral years across time. Forget the trend, just compare those years with conditions very similar. Unfortunately, there are not many of those years. Hopefully, when we get through the coming La Nina conditions we can have such a year to give us a feeling for any change.
Still, ENSO is only one of the oceanic temperature fluctuations. They all have some effect, but we don’t yet understand the way they work in concert to cause the stair-step climbs in temperature associated with interglacial warming.
We can only hope for the kind of increase that has occurred since the mid 19th century in technology, affluence, lifespan and individual liberty to continue- along with the global temperature.
You can look at
All years: trend is increasing
Only el nino : trend is increasing
Only la nina: trend is increasing
only neutral: trend is increasing
Why? because natural cycles sum to zero.
@Bindidon
@steven
@richardm
here you can see that the oceans [which make for 70% of the earth’s surface] have not changed in temperature over the past 116 years,
http://woodfortrees.org/graph/jisao-pdo/plot/esrl-amo/from:1900/plot/esrl-amo/from:1900/to:2017/trend/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1900/to:2017/trend
it proves there is no man made warming,
as my results for minima [on terrestrial stations] have also proved.
With the need to nitpick such small temperature increments over decades, how can there be a looming catastrophe worth destroying the current economic paradigm of the free world?
“With the need to nitpick such small temperature increments over decades, how can there be a looming catastrophe worth destroying the current economic paradigm of the free world?”
no need to nitpick. those of us who do the averages dont nit pick
and “destroy???” the paradigm?
nobody thinks moving away from FF will destroy the paradigm.
alarmist much?
At most mitigation costs a percentage point of GDP
nobody thinks moving away from FF will destroy the paradigm.
alarmist much?
People who blithely assume the current economic system can survive without continued fossil fuel consumption could be in for a rude awakening. There is much to be alarmed about.
GHCN yearly unadjusted USA (CONUS + AK)
14 in 1880
1921 13.80 0.83
1880 13.76 0.80
1934 13.74 0.78
1931 13.73 0.77
1890 13.72 0.75
1889 13.68 0.72
1881 13.66 0.70
2006 13.66 0.69
14 in 2006
14 in 1880
2012 14.13 1.17
1998 14.01 1.05
1921 13.80 0.83
1880 13.76 0.80
1934 13.74 0.78
1931 13.73 0.77
1890 13.72 0.75
1889 13.68 0.72
1881 13.66 0.70
2006 13.66 0.69
14 in 2012
Clearly, we need to dismantle industrial civilization and let six of seven billion people die in order to avert looming Thermageddon!
Your appreciation, clipe, is for the period 1880-2016 and the USA, 100% correct:
– GHCN unadjusted USA: 0.1°C / century.
USA is a very stable country wrt temperature since 150 years. But you can’t conclude everywhere in the same manner out of a few numbers.
For the Globe in 1880-2016, it’s namely ‘a little bit’ different:
– GHCN unadjusted Globe: 2.1 °C / century.
Note that the GISS “land only” record, constructed out of the GHCN record, shows half less warming for that period due to huge homogenisation (elimination of outliers etc etc):
– GISS “land only” Globe: 1.0 °C / century.
And last not least the oceans make the grand total even a further bit cooler:
– GISS “land + ocean” Globe: 0.7 °C / century.
Temperature data has become like a sports score, everyone tries to use it to show their team is winning and the other is losing….wonder which team will win in September, looks like the home team lost in August….
Top Fifty
It is essential to be sensible here and people screaming out that we are actually cooling when there is no reliable evidence are doing the science cause no good. It may be that we are but at the moment these are only opinions not facts. Trumpeting this only gives the other side a free shot at goal.
2nd warmest since 98 on a scale that goes back to 79. how mediocre.
Yes, indeed, it is a relatively short record, but for satellite observations, which are the subject of this article, it’s all we have.
This dataset has just hit new highs for the running 12-month, 5-year and 10-year means, and no doubt you can find other similar periods of moderate length. The changes are measured in the 2nd or 3rd decimal place, so are very small, but I fail to understand that it could be classified as “cooling” – except from the peak earlier this year.
I think that we are coming out of the little ice age and the cyclical trend of temperature is toward a new climate optimum. Therefore my prediction is global climate change in increasing temperatures until the maximum and then decreasing. I believe based upon ice core data from Greenland that the maximum temperature of each of the previous climate optimums have decreased. Looking at the cyclicity of glaciation and interstadial periods revealed in the Vostok ice cores,I think it is reasonable to theorize that the current interstadial may be ending. Since we have not observed the end of an interstadial period this will be interesting. In terms of my gift of life I sincerely hope that we continue into the optimum for many generations because our species has done well in this one. And from a geologic time frame the period of climate is more glacial than interstadial.
Leif, the world is definitely warming, as it has been doing for the past 350 years and nobody was very concerned until about 20 years ago.
The important question here is if the warming is related and by how much to our GHG emissions. In a warming world all that shit about breaking records and last decade being the warmest is inanely obvious.
I think that some important light can be shed from the warming rate, and if we compare it to our emissions:
http://peakoilbarrel.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/579992-1.gif
http://peakoilbarrel.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/579994-1.jpg
What we see is that our emissions don’t appear to be having much effect on the warming rates. If anything it appears that GHG increase could be having an effect in quenching cooling rates. So perhaps the planet is warming because it is not cooling properly. That is hardly worrisome because if true it would indicate that GHGs have little effect on warming, and since its effect saturates we should naturally tend to temperature stabilization not runaway warming. The practical effect would be as buying an anti-cooling insurance.
Now we can analyze what Gavin Schmidt has said about present warming rates being highest in 1000 years. It is again inanely obvious since 1000 years ago the world was at a peak and thus not warming, and then plunged into the LIA. But since warming rates in the 1950-2000 period are no different than warming rates in the 1900-1950, what Gavin doesn’t tell us is that 20th century warming rates would still have been highest in 1000 years without anthropogenic forcings. It all looks as a well designed PR campaign.
Exactly Javier. This period of time in the climate is just not unique.
Javier,
That’s correct.
However, if the emission of GHGs is keeping cooling at bay then those emissions are doing an astonishing job of it, since they are keeping the natural global cooling exactly offset by the global warming they (putatively) cause:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-lPGChYUUeuc/VLhzJqwRhtI/AAAAAAAAAS4/ehDtihKNKIw/s1600/GISTemp%2BKelvin%2B01.png
Per Occam’s Razor, the simplest explanation is that CO2 does not have the claimed global warming effect. Also per Occam, adding an extraneous variable like CO2 is undesirable.
Global temperature observations are fully explained by natural variability. No extraneous variable like CO2 is necessary. Human CO2 emissions just cloud the discussion by introducing a variable that makes no measurable difference. If it did, we would have measurements quantifying the effect of adding one-third more CO2 to the atmosphere.
Ockham wrote that the simplest explanation is almost always the correct explanation. The simplest explanation here is that the rise in human CO2 emissions is merely coincidental with the current natural global warming cycle.
Any effect from CO2 is simply too minuscule to measure. Therefore, rising CO2 can be completely disregarded, since an unmeasurable change cannot falsify the Null Hypothesis.
Javier said: “What we see is that our emissions don’t appear to be having much effect on the warming rates.”
Emissions don’t directly do anything. What if I build a machine that emits CO2. Then I build another one that collects and stores CO2. If they both do so at the same rate, the concentration of CO2 doesn’t change. It is the concentration of CO2 and other GHGs that is claimed to cause warming, and so it is the concentration that must be compared to the warming rate to determine if this claim is correct.
@Philip
very true!
according to AGW it should affect the minima, pushing up the mean average T
problem is: I find that is not happening
at all…
Just checked the daily temp records at https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/datatools/records, and confirmed a suspicion I’ve had for a while about “hottest year ever” claims. I used the above tool to grab the 30-day data from Jan 2016 and Aug 2016; this is what it showed:
Date Range Highest Max Temperature (and ties) Highest Min Temperature (and ties)
——————- ———————————————- ——————————————-
Jan-Feb 2016 935 1423
Jul-Aug 2016 1149 3676
If this data is correct, and I’m reading it right, it means that there are nearly 2-3 times as many record Tmins as there are Tmaxes. In other words, it’s not so much we’re getting hotter during the day, we’re just not cooling off as much at night. Another reason an “average global temperature” is a meaningless statistic.
….UHI effect.
James Schrumpf,
You’re right, the lows are what’s most affected. This chart shows it clearly:
http://www.science20.com/files/images/global.png
As it is a fact that temperatures vary by time of day, time of year and based on locality as well as over land and ocean, I would suggest that it is impossible to work out a system that provides for a proper areal weighting to each temperature recording station on earth used for global surface temperature sets. The uncertainties given are totally unrealistic i.e. too small. Add to that changes in station locations and methods and the problems increase. This provides for enormous opportunities to pick and choose how you make up your records. Being based in UK I always am in wonder over the frequent temperature gradient of over 10C from SE England To northern Scotland. How many recording stations in SE England v. SE England. Think of projecting this to the globe with much more difficult circumstances. Defies me.
Indeed, I’ve seen an 8C drop in a 38 mile morning drive south west from the North Kent Coast, 5C up or down is common on that route. Satellites seem to offer the best chance of getting some sort of view on what’s happening (not much).
“I would suggest that it is impossible to work out a system that provides for a proper areal weighting to each temperature recording station on earth used for global surface temperature sets.”
Nope its actually pretty easy.
See Willis’ posts here.
On a monthly basis temperature at every location on the earth is quite predictable.
“The idea that the temperature across the globe can be expressed as a single figure is quite bizarre.”
____________
How do you suggest they arrive at a common benchmark against which to measure long term changes?
“I should add that the fact that climate is a local phenomenon limits the ability to aggregate weather statistics into climate descriptions over anything more than a small regional scale.”
No it doesn’t …. ask Mosher.
DWR54,
I can answer your question. Just post what the correct global temperature is, in ºC.
Plus or minus one-tenth degree would be fine.
Ready?
Set…
…GO!…
Well dbstealey…
I don’t have their newest data at hand, but I can tell you that the average absolute temperature measured in the lower troposphere during 2015 by your favourite institution (UAH) was 263,95 K, i.e. -9,20 °C.
For the surfaces it’s not quite so easy because the temperature depends, for example at Berkeley Earth, on wether you use air temperature above sea ice or water temperature below sea ice.
In the first case, you actually obtain from BEST a mean global temperature of 14.76 ± 0.05 °C within 1951-1980, to which you add the anomalies you consider. In the second case, you obtain 15.30 ± 0.05 °C.
Bindidon,
Here’s what you get from B.E.S.T.:
Believe them if you want. I don’t. That graph shows they’re more politics than science.
Believe them if you want. I don’t
You seem to believe the lower graph…
dbstealey on September 2, 2016 at 12:59 pm
Here’s what you get from B.E.S.T.
No, dbstealey. This is by no means what I get from B.E.S.T.
This is what GWPF made out of B.E.S.T. and what you reproduced.
1. Can you tell me how it could happen that while the upper graph is signed by GWPF on the right, the lower is not?
2. Can you tell me why
– while the upper graph reflects a time period starting by 1800, what gives us over 200 years, the lower one shows a period starting by 2001, what gives a period of no more than 15 years
– the two graphs nevertheless both have exactly the same scale layout, what gives unexperienced readers the wrong illusion they see the same period?
dbstealey, you are losing all your credibility when you produce such things that way.
Here is the original data in two graphs showing, for nearly the same periods (the upper one starts here at 1850), what you (really) get from B.E.S.T. :
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/160903/3y4ubued.jpg
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/160903/q6bhofbo.jpg
Source: http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Global/Land_and_Ocean_complete.txt
Wow. The pdf creation had a mistake upon generating the upper chart on September 3, 2016 at 4:38 am: no scale visible on the left. The scale units are 0.5 °C.
Forrest Gardener on September 2, 2016 at 4:36 am
The elements of a proper analysis will recognize that climate is a local phenomenon and is more than temperature
Maybe Forrest Gardener simply has a look at all what is done he probably wouldn’t even think of, instead of teaching us like all these retired professors manifestly love to do?
One link should be enough, though I could present him many hundreds:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-information
dbstealey on September 2, 2016 at 12:59 pm
Moreover, the lower graph seems to be totally flawed, as within the BEST record there is for example no data corresponding to the negative down-peak of about -1 °C in 2010:
2010 1 0.75
2010 2 0.81
2010 3 0.83
2010 4 0.87
2010 5 0.69
2010 6 0.57
2010 7 0.48
2010 8 0.54
2010 9 0.53
2010 10 0.64
2010 11 0.67
2010 12 0.48
Nor does this 2001-2010 graph fit to the 1800-2010 figure above it. Though both graphs in theory should belong to the same anomaly set wrt 1951-1980, as indicated on the left, the lower graph’s scale does not at all match that of the upper one:
– above, -1.5 — +1.5 °C (what is correct)
– below, -1.5 — +2.25 °C (what is plain wrong, as shows the up-peak near +2 °C in 2007; the topmost anomaly within the entire record between 1880 and 2016 is +1.23 °C, february 2016).
Thus it is likely that the bottom graph belongs to a completely different dataset.
That graph shows they’re more politics than science.
Yes, db. You just had the wrong people in mind 🙂
Bindidon,
Since you know the average global temperature in K, show me in this chart why anyone should be alarmed:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-lPGChYUUeuc/VLhzJqwRhtI/AAAAAAAAAS4/ehDtihKNKIw/s1600/GISTemp%2BKelvin%2B01.png
And no matter what you say about B.E.S.T., they are only muddying the waters, as they always have. That’s what happens when gov’t grant money flows into political science.
But I’m happy to see you’ve chosen a satellite data set (and UAH is not my “favorite institution”. Where did you get that assumption from?)
Satellite data is a more accurate meteric than B.E.S.T., or any ground-based record. But accuracy is less important than the trend, which is not alarming in the least.
So where are you coming from? You’re either seriously worried about global warming, or you’re not. Which?
Myself, I don’t think that a couple of degrees warmer and a bit more (or less) rain really constitutes “climate change.” If England was becoming more like a Mediterranean climate, or the American midwest began desertification, then I’d buy “climate change.” But these would still be caused by the warming, and not be proof of human causes. As far as I can tell, the human activity/warming relationship is still post hoc, ergo propter hoc logic, with no real evidence that the one is causing the other.
When the Australian alarmist was challenged to provide empirical evidence for human-caused warming, all he did was hold up temperature graphs. A measurement of effect is no proof of cause, but this basic tenet seems to escape the alarmists, and they gleefully point to the temps as though that’s all they need.
Some little hints:
– The production of sparkling wine in England has doubled within 10 years.
– French champaign producers are prospecting there since years for migration of their production because warming by 1 °C shifts the ideal latitude for champaign by 180 km.
– The average alcohol by volume in wine made in the Côtes du Rhône area has moved from 12.5 in 1996 toward 14 actually.
The people speaking about “climate change” do not mean the interval between 1996 and today. The mean the entire century.
So the combination of a century+ long slight warming trend from something labeled the little ice age, variations in grape varietal/clone mix, much improved viticulture techniques, and the realization by the English that Kent/West Sussex share similar latitude and soil makeup to the Champagne region are “Hints” of man made climate change?
cu in 20 y
Bindi
Actually, no, they do not mean the entire century. The IPCC fudges its start date, but now appears to have settled sometime around 1950 (“mid-20th century”) for the beginning of man-made “climate change”, ie global warming. After this time, it alleges that humanity is predominantly responsible for whatever warming has occurred, to an absurdly high confidence level.
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-understanding-and.html
Which is strange, since the world cooled from the 1940s to 1970s.
One good throat clearance would blow these decimal points all over the manor. Get some perspective, please: http://en.vedur.is/about-imo/news/katla-and-myrdalsjokull
Done, AJB! Let us hope the best for (your?) Iceland.
Many comments, mine possibly first, indeed might look for you like what Germans call “Haarspalterei”, i.e. “hártogun” in your language I guess.
I have a question for all interested parties… do you think that any agency/group/person who has expressed the position that more C02 makes the earth warmer is going to produce information that shows otherwise?
Have you ever heard of conflict of interest?
Andrew
We have to have isolated data collectors with no skin in the game that just record and report unadjusted temperatures. And we are light years away from that, locally and globally.
Andrew
Quite. Which leads to a lot of pointless debate.
I say ‘pointless’ because science and the record tell us quite clearly that there’s no significant i.e. separately measurable relation between CO2 and global temperature. So whatever it’s doing or going to do, we can’t influence it. So we need to do what we always do in such circumstances – apply our energies not to arguing but to planning for all outcomes.
Once again the temp is within .02C of the NCEP CFSVR! On that scale though, it is its warmest on record ( 35 years) Point is Ryan displaying that tool on weatherbell.com, which is an initialization is giving us a very quick read on what is going on. Using this tool warmest on its record for a year is a lock. BTW it shows the cold when it comes too ( example 2012) http://models.weatherbell.com/climate/cfsr_t2m_2005.png
its been a lock since March
http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Annual_time_series_land.png
@mosher
first, go back to original AGW
it should affect minimum T pushing up the mean temperature?
right
that is not happening
go tell the students at Berkeley to go back to basics [minimum T]
note there is no room for AGW in my result as shown….
R=1.000
Geez Steven, did you guys breakpoint every station on January 1, 2016 (or just 60% of them)?
climate
[klahy-mit]
noun
1.
the composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a region, as temperature, air pressure, humidity, precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness, and winds, throughout the year, averaged over a series of years.
2.
a region or area characterized by a given climate: to move to a warm climate.
First and foremost …. Climate is REGIONAL, not Global … so , there can be no such thing as “global climate”. It is meaningless. IF a “region” heats or cools, that change is only for that region, not the entire globe.
Further, as I said earlier, if one wants to entertain this false notion of “global climate”, then it must be a change in the “average over years” …. and being global, would need to take into account many years, decades, even centuries given that “climate” on a global scale occurs over very long periods of time.
As such, the “hottest year eva” … is stupid and not relevant!!!
“is stupid and not relevant!!!”
In other words, Not Science. I totally agree.
Andrew
silly goose…
Global climate change merely refers to change in all the regional climates.
Some regions ( the arctic) will change more than others (the tropics)
but all will change