September 2016 Projected Temperature Anomalies from NCEP/NCAR Data

Guest Post By Walter Dnes

In continuation of my Temperature Anomaly projections, the following are my September projections, as well as last month’s projections for August, to see how well they fared.

Data Set Projected Actual Delta
HadCRUT4 2016/08 +0.754 +0.775 +0.021
HadCRUT4 2016/09 +0.776
GISS 2016/08 +0.85 +0.98 +0.13
GISS 2016/09 +0.95
UAHv6 2016/08 +0.334 +0.435 +0.101
UAHv6 2016/09 +0.408
RSS 2016/08 +0.374 +0.458 +0.084
RSS 2016/09 .493
NCEI 2016/08 +0.9206 +0.9150 -0.0056
NCEI 2016/09 +0.9352

The Data Sources

The latest data can be obtained from the following sources

Miscellaneous Notes

At time of posting, all 5 monthly data sets were available through August 2016. The NCEP/NCAR re-analysis data runs 2 days behind real-time. Therefore, real daily data through September 28th is used, and the 29th and 30th are assumed to have the same anomaly as the 28th.

September will be the 14th consecutive month that sets a new record high anomaly for that specific calendar month. I.e. August 2015 was the hottest August in NCEP/NCAR data to that time; September 2015 was the hottest September to that time; October 2015 was the hottest October to that time, etc. NCEP/NCAR data goes back to January 1948.

The GISS and UAH anomaly projections were both more than 0.1 C° off, which I consider a bust. Antarctica was rather warm. I’ll follow it this coming month to see if it affects those 2 data sets more than I project.

The graph immediately below is a plot of recent NCEP/NCAR daily anomalies, versus 1994-2013 base, similar to Nick Stokes’ web page. The second graph is a monthly version, going back to 1997. The trendlines are as follows…

  • Black – The longest line with a negative slope in the daily graph goes back to late July, 2015, as noted in the graph legend. On the monthly graph, it’s August 2015. This is near the start of the El Nino, and nothing to write home about. Reaching back to 2005 or earlier would be a good start.
  • Green – This is the trendline from a local minimum in the slope around late 2004, early 2005. To even BEGIN to work on a “pause back to 2005”, the anomaly has to drop below the green line.
  • Pink – This is the trendline from a local minimum in the slope from mid-2001. Again, the anomaly needs to drop below this line to start working back to a pause to that date.
  • Red – The trendline back to a local minimum in the slope from late 1997. Again, the anomaly needs to drop below this line to start working back to a pause to that date.

test48

test48

Advertisements

80 thoughts on “September 2016 Projected Temperature Anomalies from NCEP/NCAR Data

  1. For those who are wondering, I use a linear regression of recent months of NCEP/NCAR data versus the corresponding values for the 5 data sets. I use the full global NCEP/NCAR data for HadCRUT and GISS and NCEI. Separate subsets of NCEP/NCAR are used for UAH and RSS, which don’t cover the entire globe.

  2. hey can anyone help me find this? It is a video showing a multiyear sea surface temperature anomaly in a video format.
    Some smart guy had posted it up in the comments sections.

    i need that to tie in mass die offs, krill, and radiation. The grand unification theory that explains “everything” including bees.

  3. If global cooling fails to commence within a few years and temperatures take another upward step instead, then that might end the debate on whether or not CO2 is warming the world (with the answer being a possible ‘yes’).

    The question then would shift to whether or not said warming is anything even close to being as bad as the alarmists claim it to be (what with record crop harvests, increasingly rapid plant growth, and the worldwide ‘climate emergency’ never materializing).

    Some might take the first part the wrong way, but keep in mind that some have been forecasting major global cooling since 2008 and it hasn’t happened yet.

    • If global cooling fails to commence within a few years and temperatures take another upward step instead, then that might end the debate on whether or not CO2 is warming the world (with the answer being a possible ‘yes’).
      The debate as to whether CO2 is warming the world was over a long time ago. It is. The interest now is in how much warming will follow. If you don’t accept what I am saying, quote a climate scientist who doesn’t think CO2 will result in warming.

      • Will it overwhelm natural forces? And are natural forces acting to cool the planet?

        In my opinion, natural and anthropogenic forces have both been positive overall since 1800. The ~30 year pauses or slight cooling trends were obviously natural — likely from ocean current oscillations.

        Anthropogenic forcing increased markedly post WW2, or it did according to the CO2 controls everything theory. Though that theory is clearly wrong as all climate indices show the climate changing from cooling to warming from about 1750-1800.

        We’ll probably know a lot more about natural climate forces by the mid 2030s when the next grand solar minimum is predicted by a few physicists. Another Maunder minimum type cycle would certainly overwhelm 1/10000 more CO2 in the atmosphere.

        https://www.ras.org.uk/news-and-press/2680-irregular-heartbeat-of-the-sun-driven-by-double-dynamo

      • Robert W Turner – A variety of studies indicate that CO2 is responsible for about 100% of the warming seen since 1950 and most of it since 1850. A Maunder Minimum simply doesn’t reduce energy input enough to make much of a dent in CO2 warming. Your link is a new theory which predicts a Maunder but climate scientists have already looked at the effect of that on a world where CO2 continues to rise, it slows warming a small fraction.

      • The debate is never over. QED.

        If we lived in a glass jar, you might have something better than the authority of probably the weakest collection of scientists the world has ever known (not to discount the efforts of the few that are fighting the good fight).

      • Wayne Fowler
        September 30, 2016 at 11:54 pm

        “Robert W Turner – A variety of studies indicate that CO2 is responsible for about 100% of the warming seen since 1950 and most of it since 1850. A Maunder Minimum simply doesn’t reduce energy input enough to make much of a dent in CO2 warming. Your link is a new theory which predicts a Maunder but climate scientists have already looked at the effect of that on a world where CO2 continues to rise, it slows warming a small fraction.”
        ————————
        You are promoting a variety of Modeled studies which circumvent the physics of CO2atm and which were created only recently, in order to further rationalize the alarmist viewpoint, since it became obvious that the public had become more aware that graphs of any warming since 1950 looked just like the warming since 1850. Added CO2 is generally accepted as having little or no role in warming out of the Little Ice Age, pre- 1950 and maybe only 50% of the warming since. Even Trenberth has acknowledged the physical improbability of all warming since 1850- 1950 being caused by CO2, or more than 50% of warming, since 1950.

        If a Maunder minimum will have little to no effect, being subdued and overwhelmed by the great and powerful CO2, then we could have magically already experienced a Maunder minimum and no one noticed, since there was no warming for over 18 yrs, starting in 1998 and previously, a decline in temps from the ’50s to the ’70s. Of course, the widely touted (pre- debunking) Karl, et al tried to rationalize “the pause” out of existence, but there was previously “a variety of studies” which attempted to explain/rationalize why the pause existed and those studies won’t go away and are out there for all to see.

      • Simon, if you consider that nearly half of the warming has been artificially added by NASA and the direct forcing of CO2 TO DATE, without model sensitivity amplification, is roughly 0.35C then the warming observed is about what DENIERS have been saying all along. Ya think that is a fair assessment of the impact of CO2? Not near the monster Alarmists make it out to be!

      • Alan Robertson on October 1, 2016 at 6:54 am

        To be honest, the influence of CO2 on the climate actually is not quite at the center of my interest, as I lack the huge amount of knowledge necessary to tell anything about that influence.

        But what you pretend here:

        … since it became obvious that the public had become more aware that graphs of any warming since 1950 looked just like the warming since 1850.

        looks quite a bit strange to me.

        Here is a WFT chart showing, for the HadCRUT4 temperature series, a 60 month running mean over its complete period, together with linear trends for 1850-today, 1950-today and 1980-today:

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1980/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1850/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1950/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1850/mean:60

        Trends in °C / decade, computed by my good ol’ Excel (without autocorrelation, doesn’t matter here):
        – 1850-today: 0.05 ± 0.001
        – 1950-today: 0.117 ± 0.003
        – 1980-today: 0.172 ± 0.006

        I really don’t know what you are talking about. Maybe you have better data at hand?

      • Simon you write: “The debate as to whether CO2 is warming the world was over a long time ago. It is.”

        Wayne Fowler you write: “A variety of studies indicate that CO2 is responsible for about 100% of the warming seen since 1950 and most of it since 1850.”

        The maybe you’d like to explain away the paper in Nature [12/09/2016] by Song Wang and Tang that shows yet again that CO2 has a negligible role to play in the GH process. These findings confirm, yet again, those of a long string of previous studies going back to the 1970s: Hamdan, 2016; Kauppinen, 2014; Wielicki, 2002; Ramathan, 1989; Dunbar, 1976, Willett, 1974 – that showed the same thing: the IPCC’s poster child and the climate establishment’s gravy train – CO2- is not the main driver of temperatures on earth.

        Drinking the Kool-Aid is tricky stuff..

      • Simon,

        The scientific method does not operate by consensus or popularity.

        Viewing long term climate paints a different picture.

        Please note the following study:

        http://www.pnas.org/content/111/34/E3501.full

        From the above:

        “This inferred global annual cooling in the Holocene is puzzling: With no direct net contribution from the orbital insolation, the global annual mean radiative forcing in the Holocene should be dominated by the retreating ice sheets and rising atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHGs), with both favoring a globally averaged warming. Therefore, how can the global annual temperature exhibit a cooling trend in response to global warming forcing?”

        The ice core records indicates a general cooling trend from 8,000 years ago until the 19th century. During this time period CO2 increased from about 260 to 280 ppm. The earth should have been warming per the AGW theory. Not only that, the ice core records indicate major swings in temperature during this time period that make our current mild temperature increase look anemic.

      • Actually it has been discovered the people who thought CO2 can warm the world also believe placing more refractory material between a fire and a stone it warms

        get warmer and warmer as more firelight to the stone is blocked.

        Obviously their reputations aren’t working out well among real scientists…

        That’s why there are ”scientists” and then there are ”climate scientists”

        who admit they thought Michael Mann’s mathematics and James Hansen’s fake physics were real.

      • Alan Anderson:
        “If a Maunder minimum will have little to no effect, being subdued and overwhelmed by the great and powerful CO2, then we could have magically already experienced a Maunder minimum and no one noticed,…”
        Well, that’s kind of a non-sensical comment, The idea of a magical, unexperienced Maunder Minimum is kind of ridiculous. How do we know there was a Maunder Minimum in the first place? We have sunspot numbers…. guess what? We have sunspot numbers for times since then. There hasn’t been one.

        “since there was no warming for over 18 yrs, starting in 1998 and previously, a decline in temps from the ’50s to the ’70s.”
        Things did slow down at the surface for a bit but anyone aware of total energy accumulation (as in, look at ocean heat content) knows the warming of the Earth didn’t slow dow at all.
        What did Karl 2015 do? It simply added a couple more years to the trend and corrected for a bias other studies had found. This showed how statistically fragile the whole pause concept was but now that surface warming is back on schedule looks like Karl’s general conclusion is vindicated. However, if you look at Karl they are not saying there wasn’t a short term slow down in warming but that it now looks like it didn’t alter the long-term trend. That means those other studies you mentioned, which looked to explain the short term surface slow down are not an embarrassment as you imply but rather investigations which help us understand the noise in the overall data.

        As to the studies showing that likely 100% of the warming since 1950 is due to CO2 emissions, yes a number used models. However, they did so in a variety of ways and since models are constrained by physics the results seem to be much more accurate than your vague claims. While pre1950 the sun had a larger impact than CO2, CO2’s role was not insignificant. Interestingly a recent paleoclimate study, reported on here at WUWT, found a human component to warming going back to the late 1700s. I get the feeling you are mixing up the general consensus that humans are responsible for most of the warming with post-1950 rather than post-1900 as t was intended. In the end, I’ll take studies done based on models over your vague claims. Can you show me where Trenberth said “improbability of all warming since 1850- 1950 being caused by CO2, or more than 50% of warming, since 1950.” Actually just the last part… no one has said all the warming since 1850.

      • Bindidon
        October 1, 2016 at 11:26 am
        ———————
        Bindidon, that’s an interesting graph you created online, but it doesn’t address what I said, to wit: ” graphs of any warming since 1950 looked just like the warming since 1850…”

        Here’s a graph showing similarities of the periods of warming, which reinforces my statement. There are other graphs available and you can feel free to manipulate any data with an online etch-a-sketch and/or quibble over .01’s of a degree here and there:

        I can’t help but notice that you didn’t address the main thrust of that fun post I made, which is to rebut this statement: “… A variety of studies indicate that CO2 is responsible for about 100% of the warming seen since 1950 and most of it since 1850. ”
        Does that mean that you endorse the statement?

      • “Bindidon, that’s an interesting graph you created online, but it doesn’t address what I said, to wit: ” graphs of any warming since 1950 looked just like the warming since 1850…””

        Well, if one examines a graph of global age temp vs the PDO index ….

        Then it is easy to imagine that the temperature of the Pacific Ocean plays a large part in global temp trend. To that one can add the increase of atmospheric anthro aerosols for a few decades after WW2.

      • Wayne Fowler
        October 2, 2016 at 1:17 am

        “Alan Anderson:
        “If a Maunder minimum will have little to no effect, being subdued and overwhelmed by the great and powerful CO2, then we could have magically already experienced a Maunder minimum and no one noticed,…”
        Well, that’s kind of a non-sensical comment, The idea of a magical, unexperienced Maunder Minimum is kind of ridiculous. How do we know there was a Maunder Minimum in the first place? We have sunspot numbers…. guess what? We have sunspot numbers for times since then. There hasn’t been one.”
        ———————————-
        Of course that was a nonsense statement and was designed to be so and I had fun making it, despite your pretense that it was something else. I was addressing your nonsense conjectures that the Maunder Minimum had little effect to reduce temps and that “… A variety of studies indicate that CO2 is responsible for about 100% of the warming seen since 1950 and most of it since 1850. ”
        Ps It’s Alan Robertson
        ____________________________

        “What did Karl 2015 do? It simply added a couple more years to the trend and corrected for a bias other studies had found…”
        ——————————
        Too bad that you don’t recognize how completely farcical that statement is. Karl, et al did a lot more than compare add time periods to a truncated time series to try to erase “the pause”, or “correct for a bias”, he used truncated Night Marine Temps to adjust SST and included statistical outliers in an obsolete climate model to accomplish the adjustment.
        ____________________________
        “This showed how statistically fragile the whole pause concept was but now that surface warming is back on schedule looks like Karl’s general conclusion is vindicated.”
        —————————–
        So much has been written about Karl’s flawed statistical methods that it is rather surprising that anyone is still beating that dead horse.
        _____________________________
        “However, if you look at Karl they are not saying there wasn’t a short term slow down in warming but that it now looks like it didn’t alter the long-term trend. That means those other studies you mentioned, which looked to explain the short term surface slow down are not an embarrassment as you imply but rather investigations which help us understand the noise in the overall data.”
        ———————————
        The long term trend? The long term trend for at least 8 millennia is downward. Only in short term fits and starts, can any increase in global temps be shown.
        I did not imply that those other studies are an embarrassment in any other way than as an embarrassment to Karl, et al’s efforts to make the hiatus disappear.
        _________________
        As to the studies showing that likely 100% of the warming since 1950 is due to CO2 emissions, yes a number used models. However, they did so in a variety of ways and since models are constrained by physics the results seem to be much more accurate than your vague claims.
        ———————–
        That is over the top. None of the models reflect reality. None.
        ____________________
        “While pre1950 the sun had a larger impact than CO2, CO2’s role was not insignificant.”
        ——————
        The Sun can can theoretically vary Earth’s temp by a whopping .1K from max to min TSI.
        _________________
        “Interestingly a recent paleoclimate study, reported on here at WUWT, found a human component to warming going back to the late 1700s.”
        ————————-
        Interestingly, that “study” was thoroughly dissected and reputed. Laughed at, if you will. How is it that you didn’t mention that fact?
        __________________
        “I get the feeling you are mixing up the general consensus that humans are responsible for most of the warming with post-1950 rather than post-1900 as t was intended.”
        ——————–
        You stated: “…A variety of studies indicate that CO2 is responsible for about 100% of the warming seen since 1950 and most of it since 1850.”
        I completely disagree with both of those conjectures. At minimum, there is no data set which shows a clear correlation between global CO2atm and temps. Without even correlation to back up your claims, there is nothing left for you but belief. And models. Models filled with terms such as: might, could, may possible, projected… need I gpo on?
        ______________
        “Can you show me where Trenberth said “improbability of all warming since 1850- 1950 being caused by CO2, or more than 50% of warming, since 1950.” Actually just the last part… no one has said all the warming since 1850.”
        —————
        I might have been in the weeds with that one. At this point, I’m not sure which climate science luminary equated 50% or less late warming with CO2, or if any of them did. I do know that G. Schmidt pegged CO2 as 74% responsible. My mention of that 74% is in no wise an endorsement.

      • ,Human” Co2 is only 4% of natural emission . Atmospheric Co2 is only 5% of all greenhouse gases, where 95% is water vapor. What is the actual impact on the climate has a man ? almost unnoticeable.

    • The issue is not that there isn’t cooling the issue is that the mainstream western media don’t (wont?) report it. In winter 2015 we had record low temps in NZ and AU, S America and South Africa for the first time. Did you folks in the northern hemisphere (who have been having record lows for several years) know that?
      I could go on for ever here but you can see it for yourself. For example Google “south america 2016 record cold” and work your way through the choices (Be warned you might have to wade through the echo chamber that is the western “liberal” media prattling on about heat).

      To me it’s a done deal, because the first time I read of the possibility of global cooling was about 2004. I cant remember the detail but it was basically “the sun is doing something today that no one alive has seen before. There is approximately a 11.5 year delay between the solar behaviour and earth response. That means that the planet should start overall cooling in 2015”.
      And it did!

      There are a whole bunch of perfectly respectable scientist who have been predicting this. And they, like the inexplicable cold weather are ignored.

      And this year in NZ?

      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/weather/news/article.cfm?c_id=10&objectid=11687637

      • Christopher Norman
        What???? One record cold snap means diddly squat. 2015 was very warm in NZ and this year is heading for one of the warmest if not the warmest year ever(in NZ and globally).

        “To me it’s a done deal, because the first time I read of the possibility of global cooling was about 2004. I cant remember the detail but it was basically “the sun is doing something today that no one alive has seen before. There is approximately a 11.5 year delay between the solar behaviour and earth response. That means that the planet should start overall cooling in 2015”.
        And it did!”

        No it didn’t. What alternate planet are you talking about? 2015 was a record on most data sets and now every single data set is (short of an ice age in the next three months) telling us that 2016 will be the warmest in the temp record.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#/media/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg

      • Christopher Norman
        OK so how many things can one post have wrong. Bur congratulations… I think have just broken a WUWT record.
        NZ had a very warm 2015 and 2016 is warmer again. The planet is not cooling on any of the main data sets in fact it is almost certain that 2016 will beat 2015 into first place.
        Cold snaps mean nothing in the big picture. I can’t believe anyone would suggest otherwise.

      • No need to talk about the planet! Looking at raw data concerning your NZ is enough.

        The following is a little subset of the info you can obtain by processing GHCN’s unadjusted data for country 507 (New Zealand). The data starts in january 1864. It is the average of all 20 GHCN NZ stations.

        The 20 warmest months since then:

        2016 2 20.94
        2016 1 20.06
        2015 1 19.40
        2014 2 19.36
        2010 2 19.27
        2011 2 19.24
        2016 3 19.22
        2011 1 19.00
        1938 2 18.92
        2013 1 18.92
        2005 2 18.91
        1998 2 18.90
        1974 2 18.83
        2013 2 18.76
        2015 2 18.72
        1887 1 18.70
        2015 3 18.68
        1956 1 18.67
        1935 1 18.64
        2013 3 18.54

        The 20 coldest months since then:

        1939 7 5.97
        1918 7 6.24
        1895 7 6.40
        1930 7 6.48
        1932 7 6.60
        1938 7 6.64
        1899 7 6.70
        1877 7 6.78
        1908 7 6.83
        1901 7 6.94
        1934 7 7.00
        1869 7 7.02
        1937 6 7.02
        1937 7 7.02
        1879 7 7.03
        1923 7 7.04
        1874 7 7.06
        1927 6 7.08
        1932 8 7.08
        1933 6 7.14

        Since 1864, NZ’s land surface warming as recorded by GHCN stations increases at a small rate of 0.11 °C / decade; but since 1979, this warming has accelerated (0.55 °C / decade, i.e. five times faster).

        What you experience has nothing to do with a cooling of the planet or even of a minuscule subset of it. It is short-time meteorology, i.e. how cool is it on a day or two or three in a little corner of your country.

      • What record low temps in South Africa???

        2015 was particularly warm, with less than average winter frost, and a remarkable heatwave in December

    • CO2 is not ‘warming the World’, water vapor is. The effect of CO2 is well known and the science is as close to settled about its effects as we can be. The effect of CO2 is too low to match observations. What we are seeing is the effect of water vapor, and this is very complex. We also see lots of natural heat transfer (mostly convection) effects such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation which causes the “El Nino’ phenomenon which caused the big spike this year.

      Anyone who claims the warming is caused by CO2 alone has no idea what they are talking about.

      Water vapor is the key – and the computer simulations cannot model this accurately yet. Hence future predictions are bunk – which makes the (unelected and anti-democratic) United Nations shakedown a conspiracy to commit global fraud.

      • Simon,

        As usual, the study presents a lot of hemming and hawing, with terms like “suggests”, and “potentially”. The author even stated:

        “This is not an exact prediction or a forecast”.

        This is a new study, and has not gone under critical review by other scientists.

      • SGW
        “As usual, the study presents a lot of hemming and hawing, with terms like “suggests”, and “potentially”. The author even stated:

        “This is not an exact prediction or a forecast”.”

        Fair enough, but it does show the clear correlation between CO2 and temperature, something which is so often denied here.

      • Simon, that’s quite a link you posted. The “paper concludes a 9C increase per doubling of CO2.

        Seriously?
        You linked to that?

  4. Walter,

    Please help me understand what these graphs are trying to convey. They are in 1/100ths of a degree, but what is meant by an ‘anomaly’? Why when I try to compare the upper graph to the last part of the lower graph do they seem so different? The first seems to indicate a peak anomaly of almost 1,200, the the lower looks to be 0.85. That suggests they use different bases for reporting an anomaly? And how can the black trend line be so different between the two? One looks flat and the other looks to be decreasing. Obviously I just do not know how to read your material…Help!

    • They are in 1/100ths of a degree, but what is meant by an “anomaly”? Why when I try to compare the upper graph to the last part of the lower graph do they seem so different? The first seems to indicate a peak anomaly of almost 1,200, the the lower looks to be 0.85.

      The anomaly is versus 1994-2013 data. The top graph is daily anomaly. It peaks at +1.154 on March 2nd, 2016. The second graph is monthly anomaly, peaking at +0.844 for the month of February, 2016. If you’re averaging samples in blocks of 28-to-30 days, you’ll get a smoother output, with the extreme high
      s and lows smoothed out.

      That suggests they use different bases for reporting an anomaly?

      They are anomalies versus daily and monthly means, respectively.

      And how can the black trend line be so different between the two? One looks flat and the other looks to be decreasing.

      They are both decreasing very slightly. The expanded X-axis of the daily graph is deceiving. I had considered a daily plot from 1997 onwards. But it was very “busy”, with 30 times as many data points as the monthly graph.

  5. Walter, I was under the impression after your last post that you understood the importance of comparing your results, not to the observations, but to the “naive forecast” …

    w.

    • I’ll admit that I don’t understand the question. The whole point of what I’m doing is to use a linear regression to come up with a (hopefully) close approximation of the numbers in the 5 data sets that are released in the following weeks. What would you define as the “naive forecast” in this case?

      • Ah, my bad, Walter. I had assumed that you were doing something more complex than drawing a trend line through the last few points. If that is the case, then yours IS the “naive forecast” that the others should be compared to.

        Thanks for the post,

        w.

      • Willis,
        I think there is a misunderstanding about the regression involved. Walter described his method here. It’s a regression of other indices against the NCAR index. So when the September NCAR average is available, predictions of the other indices can be made from that. It isn’t just a regression of each index over time.

      • Thanks, Nick. In that case, the “naive forecast” would be a simple regression of each index over time to give you a linear trend using just that index itself. I doubt very much if Walter’s method would be significantly better but a comparison would be interesting …

        w.

  6. In the Northern hemisphere over the next few weeks, the day to day rate of cooling is at it’s highest level of the year, the opposite in the southern hemisphere.
    The year or next should show up with a large interday warming, 1999 the average daily warming over 50 million surface station was 20.5F/day from min to max, and it also cooled an average 20.5F/day, compared to 1996 which both were identical but under 17F/day, and the early 00’s were low to mid 18F/day. That a 3.5F increase in nightly cooling average across the globe.

  7. I thought GISS Hadcrut NOAA ect land sea data were all shown to be IPCC AGW funded adjusted data=junk. Only RSS and UAH are now credible me thinks LOL Check P Homewood and TH site for credible data and manipulations which are now legion.

    • Eliza
      “Eliza October 1, 2016 at 3:02 am
      I thought GISS Hadcrut NOAA ect land sea data were all shown to be IPCC AGW funded adjusted data=junk. ”
      Nope….Who showed it? I’m wondering whether you can provide a link that has any credibility.

      • Simon there’s a guy named Steve Goddard – his real name’s Tony Heller, a crack computer programming troubleshooter for Intel for some years.

        He was a True Believer global warmer who did guest posts on the apparent science behind AGW.

        Many people, for many years, had been claiming that government employees have been altering temperatures through simply vanishing hundreds of surface stations.

        When Climate Gate broke, one of the most absolutely important files revealed was called HarryReadMe.txt. It is the programmers’ notes, they interlace into the actual programs they write. Notes have one symbol before them that serves as an identity header saying ‘don’t display’. So when you run the program, the programmers’ notes, never show up in the computer’s activity; but if for some reason, calculations don’t seem to be working out right, or handling of some function isn’t going smoothly, the person using the program can go back and read this stuff, and it explains

        (a)why it’s happening

        (b)what the original programmer had happen

        (c)any further explanation about fixing it.

        In HarryReadMe.txt, it was revealed, that the entire world’s – the entire world’s repository of global temperatures, was being systematically trashed beyond all hope of ever being rebuilt to some initial, pristine-if-incomplete, state. It is very much something every investigator into the scam needs to read.

        Secondly there is the series of events which cost the world’s #1 climatologist his job.

        A man in Briton named Phil Jones was the head of a University campus where climate data is assembled and stored for the world. At the ultimate top of the heap in this is what’s called The Met: The Meteorological bureau of climate for the entire UK.

        East Anglia is the campus name and Phil Jones was the man in charge of the facility above described in HarryReadMe.txt.

        Among the huge cache of emails were a lot of information detailing how government employees

        were destroying the global scientific journal system through firing and character assassination of scientists who insisted ”The Cause’s”

        so-called ‘science’ is what it turns out to be: trash.

        The laboratory insider who released the cache of emails included several by Phil Jones; as well as Michael Mann, Kevin Trenberth, and others including James Hansen; and on a few of them was a very telling conspiracy by Mann, Phil Jones, Kevin Trenberth, to destroy the career of a BBC reporter who was reporting that – of all things – it had stopped warming in 1998 and that furthermore it had cooled a little.

        The raw data posted online globally had reflected this and thousands of people were of the opinion that government employees had been simply creating faked warming.

        One email in 2009 showed these men working together at the instruction of Mike Mann to have their offices issue what seemed to be separate, uncoordinated pres releases, denouncing the reporter. Mann himself promised to talk to someone he knew, to stop the man from being allowed to continue to practice science reporting.

        There was one more email in the bunch tied directly to this and it was from something like July5 2005 and it was PHIL JONES speaking to scientist John Christy and he said ”The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world cooled since 1998. Ok it has but it’s only seven years of data, and it isn’t statistically significant.”

        Ok so in 2005 Jones was VERY casually discussing the fact the world had cooled since 1998, just a little. No warming.

        Then in 2009 Jones, Mann, Trenberth – Hansen’s name was on the email too – were discussing destroying a man’s career over just that. No warming, just a little cooling since 1998.

        In Feb 2010, 3 months after Climate Gate broke internationally, Jones was beleaguered and worn out, having been caught point blank, both admitting it had stopped cooling, and then being seen destroying the reporter’s career referring to doing what they did to the ”other one” – whoever that was.

        In what’s now known as his ”stay out of jail” interview, Jones admitted that he knew it hadn’t warmed since 1995 – not 1998 – and that – as far as he knew, of that date in 2010, the world had in fact, still – not warmed a bit – and that it had most likely, cooled a little bit.

        After this Feb 2010 BBC Phil Jones interview, Jones was quietly demoted to ‘director of research’ instead of overall head of East Anglia, and the British Peerdom closed ranks around it’s special holy children to claim nothing really wrong, had happened.

        This was all very revealing obviously but there was the further insult to Jones et al: the Met Office, the National Meteorological bureau of the UK – supply your own precise naming of it if you need –

        issued a press release after being threatened with lawsuits from powerful, deep pockets people in the international insurance fields.

        The name of this press release was called ”The Recent Pause In Warming”.

        In this press release they detailed how they had written 3 papers that talked about how, in the 15 years prior, – 2013 minus 15 years is 1998 – global temperatures had ”been mostly flat” after a rapid rise in the years previous.

        Now back to the Steve Goddard blogger.

        Goddard did some work on the actual so-called ‘science’ of AGW and discovered many discrepancies and having seen Anthony Watts found WUWT on the factual discovery that many surface stations were placed in substandard instrumentation locations,
        he started his own website.

        On this website Heller, an expert database professional, simply downloaded old NASA information from them, and then overlaid that data in graphs which he caused to flash in .GIF form: showing clearly – proving beyond all doubt – that government employees have been doing what Goddard calls their mission: cool the past, warm the present.

        Goddard’s website is now somewhat voluminous but the flashing .GIFs are very compelling, especially if one has computer science background and can see clearly that Goddard’s methods are simple, forthright, and correct.

        Goddard’s own site would be enough to show seriously improper dealings.

        But coupled with this is the international exposure of everyone to Watts’ fight with warmist Hansen and others over obviously not just shoddy but strangely bad, so-called ‘science’ on numerous occasions –

        as well as the website where the Canadian man got his hands on Michael Mann’s so-called ‘climate math’ program and revealed it to be nothing more than a Hockey Stick generator.

        There’s a final arbiter of all this and that’s the data sat Phil Jones referred to ceasing to warm in 1995/1998. In his interview he said 1995 – but later that number was redacted by Jones himself under the claim he had been under great duress emotionally after being revealed involved in so much ‘bad science’ – fraud, changed to 1998.

        The data he referred to was the databases that were placed online by law, raw – that is straight from the instruments. Those data, the data standards put in place by the men who founded space travel and perfected flight and meteorological instrumentation during and after WWII –

        are the data that everyone finds, show no warming at all since 1998, and in fact – a slight cooling.

        After Jones confessed that as far as he knew, the above is the case, nobody ever went back and re-calculated the climate data he admitted, he knew was wrong, as early as 2005.

        In fact you can see when you go through the emails that he actually knew along with Mann, Hansen, Trenberth, others – that it had stopped warming in 1998.

        The overwhelming real-world evidence is that massive, massive data fabrication has been going on for decades in climate departments to stir up faked alarm and alter political policies.

        There’s simply no getting around it because the world’s top climatologists’ names and words are all over the incriminating emails. Of course crime in high places isn’t crime, but it’s crime pure and simple.

        So that’s how everyone knows, that all the data increases at the very least between 1998 and 2013 are pure and simple: fake.

      • In HarryReadMe.txt, it was revealed, that the entire world’s – the entire world’s repository of global temperatures, was being systematically trashed beyond all hope of ever being rebuilt to some initial, pristine-if-incomplete, state. It is very much something every investigator into the scam needs to read.

        Where does it “reveal” what you claim?

      • Wow… just wow. I think you are going to need a much larger tin foil hat. This is just complete and utter mumbo jumbo.

  8. Eliza on October 1, 2016 at 3:02 am

    Only RSS and UAH are now credible me thinks

    Eliza shows the pretty good gap between thinking/arguing/pretending and… analyzing.

    Here is a chart with the plot of four temperature series from 1979 till now:

    – 2 satellite series: UAH6.0beta5 TLT (blue) and RSS4.0 TTT(yellow);
    – 2 surface series: GISS land+ocean (red) and HadCRUT4.5 (green).

    Thought computed for the entire troposphere (which is quite a bit cooler then its lower part) one clearly sees that RSS4.0 TTT has a trend in °C / decade above GISS and HadCRUT:
    – UAH: 0.122 ± 0.008
    – GISS: 0.171 ± 0.006
    – HadCRUT: 0.172 ± 0.006
    – RSS: 0.177 ± 0.009

    What, do you think, is your thinking worth when compared with bare data?

      • Actually Steve Goddard is one of the world’s MOST competent and celebrated database and computing professionals, and his work has resulted in discovery of several fraudulent activities practiced by believers in ‘The Cause.’

        You however claim you think adding CO2 to atmospheric mix, can make it warmer than when it has less. Since CO2 has a lower specific energy than atmospheric air what made you think that’s possible?

        For instance Steve Goddard’s work comes to mind about that: him, showing you how Venus’ atmosphere being almost all CO2, is actually a few degrees cooler than Earth’s atmospheric mix, at any pressure, when adjusted for the sunlight difference between the two.

        That’s the real world experimental proof your movement’s hoax can’t even take thermometer data checks: we’ve landed probes on Venus.

        We know the temperature there and we know how standard gas computations are done. Venusian atmosphere is cooler, at any pressure, than Earth’s atmospheric mix when adjusted for the sunlight difference, although it’s almost all CO2.

        It’s the most basic of gas computations to check that and Steve Goddard’s threads on doing it are some of the most frequently referenced and respected posts on the internet about global warming.

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/06/hyperventilating-on-venus/

        His follow up thread ”venus envy” is another one you need to check. This is gas, Simon. Matter’s simplest phase.

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/08/venus-envy/

        Secondly the sun is a light, illuminating the planet; thus creating the Earth’s own dependent stream of infrared emission. CO2 is a refractory material. Putting more refractory media into a frigid bath of compressed fluids, such that less source light arrives on it, can’t make more light come out of the object having it’s source energy blocked. What makes you think it’s possible to do that?

        Get someone to explain to you how more refractory material in a frigid bath of fluids, blocking source light, is a heater. Tell them to explain it really well so when you come back here and say it, people don’t laugh at you, to your face, and bait you with questions about what it will take for you to realize how dumb it is, even in concept.

        If you know of some instance where people put a sun warmed rock into a bath of frigid fluids, then mix more refractory material in and make more light come out of the sunlight warmed rock, go ahead and tell me.

        I’m interested in hearing it.

        Be persuasive with lots and lots of multi-colored graphs LoL.

      • “Actually Steve Goddard is one of the world’s MOST competent and celebrated database and computing professionals, and his work has resulted in discovery of several fraudulent activities practiced by believers in ‘The Cause.’”

        Ah, Steven Goddard, AKA Tony Heller.
        You will find that Mr Heller is not welcome on WUWT, or at least by it’s host.

        http://reason.com/blog/2014/06/23/did-nasanoaa-dramatically-alter-us-tempe

        Anything pertaining to Heller as being either reputable or believable has long since dissolved.

        “For instance Steve Goddard’s work comes to mind about that: him, showing you how Venus’ atmosphere being almost all CO2, is actually a few degrees cooler than Earth’s atmospheric mix, at any pressure, when adjusted for the sunlight difference between the two.”

        Oh, right is it?
        That would take the lapse rate (LR) as -g/Cp would it?
        Venus gravity is around 1 m/s2 less than Earth’s and it’s Cp is less also – leading to a LR Of 10.4K/Km compared with Earth’s 9.8.
        So no.

        And the fact that Venus has an albedo of 0.77, 2.5 times that of Earth and reducing TSI absorbed of 2600 W/m^2 to ~ 600 W/m^2 TOA or 140 W/m^2 of forcing. That’s around 100 less than Earth’s yet it’s average surface temp is ~ 460C.
        You cannot use the IGL’s to compute that as Heller attempts. It’s just basic.

        So we have the “dragon-slayer” myth that it’s “the density stoopid”.
        Sorry no.
        Does any gas that has been compressed into a container ( say air into your bike tyre) stay permanent hot. No. It cools as Venus’ atmosphere should if it were allowed to. A gas heats because of work done on it and the compressing is the work NOT it staying compressed. From 0 to 92 Bar. Not keeping at 92 Bar.
        http://lasp.colorado.edu/~bagenal/3720/CLASS14/14EVM-5.html
        http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/venusfact.html

        “Get someone to explain to you how more refractory material in a frigid bath of fluids, blocking source light, is a heater. Tell them to explain it really well so when you come back here and say it, people don’t laugh at you, to your face, and bait you with questions about what it will take for you to realize how dumb it is, even in concept.”

        It’s not a heater – it’s an insulator.
        Yes, the world’s experts in thermodynamics right back to Arrenhius and Dalton were idiots and you are a genius with a Nobel in the offing or rather Heller has (sarc).
        To anyone who isn’t “dumb” that’ll be Heller and people like you who have a) the need to believe that obvious nonsensical *science* and b) the inability to apply common sense. Or do you go down the conspiracy route? ( again sarc).

        “Be persuasive with lots and lots of multi-colored graphs LoL.”

        Can’t be arsed my friend as you won’t learn from them anyway.
        You come across as someone who only reads contrarian blogs.
        You’ll not find the truth there, at least unless you think for yourself and follow any links I or the likes of Bindidon give.
        A waste of effort for me? of course, where you are concerned I have no doubt. But one should always deny ignorance. In case someone with an open mind should be watching.
        LOL.

      • Mark on October 2, 2016 at 1:09 am

        CO2 is a refractory material.

        Oh I’m impressed!

        CO2 absorbs nearly nothing of what originates from the Sun and warms the planet the most: visible light (see Planck). This gas is, for wavelenghts between 0.4 and 0.7µ, simply inert:

      • Bindidon, did you just insinuate some sort of misinformation on this site by promoting the idea of a difference between two sets of truncated time series graphs, while displaying graphs covering different time periods?

        Why yes, you did.

        Oh yes, we know you pretty pretty good[sic]

    • Oh yes this site I know pretty pretty good, Eliza…

      Let’s look at their “comparison” of RSS with GISS, deliberately using the land parts, what automatically lets surface data appear ‘much higher’ than satellite data.

      Now let’s look at a fair comparison of the two, using the global info instead:

      Looks a little bit different, huh?

      Thats real climate “science”, yeah.

      • Now let’s look at a fair comparison of the two, using the global info instead

        that isn’t fair either, ocean surface measurements are very poorly sampled, and is mostly a guesstimate.

      • Wrong, micro6500: I compare here the “very poorly sampled” ocean surface measurements with those of the troposphere above these ocean surfaces, which are not at all “very poorly sampled”, and… it shows.

      • Wrong, micro6500: I compare here the “very poorly sampled” ocean surface measurements with those of the troposphere above these ocean surfaces, which are not at all “very poorly sampled”, and… it shows.

        Where do you do that” I see GISS global compared to Troposphere?

        And the oceans are not well sampled by any scientific definition, nor do we have good historical data for oceans or land. And measuring the troposphere is not sea surface either, might be a proxy in some cases, might not though.

      • My comment:
        Alan Robertson October 2, 2016 at 5:23 pm
        should have appeared here, in sequence with Bindidon’s displayed graphs.
        mea culpa

      • The problem with your chart is most of us skeptics are accusing GISS of increased fudging post 2000- ish. Alarmists try to wipe it away with charts back to 1979. I suppose Bernie Madoff could also wipe out fraud if he included data prior to when he started his fraud. Beats having to answer for why current numbers are so sketchy..

      • Alan Robertson on October 2, 2016 at 5:23 pm

        What in the hell do you mean with your strange, unintelligible “comment” ?

  9. Bindidon I want to know what is your point. These temperatures are far below par for temperature changes in interglacials and far below the actual temperatures for interglacials.
    IMO +1.7C/century is a blessing compared with the horrors of the Northern hemisphere freezing out again. Then our offspring will know war and famine & death.

    • Point? What point Andyj? I did no more than answering to Elisa’s nonsense, by showing that RSS’ new TTT trend inbetween has moved a tick above surface trends during the satellite era.

      The problem of people like you is that as soon as you see a list of temperature trends somewhere in a comment, you automatically interpret it as a hint on warming by the comment’s writer. A kind of Pavlovian reflex I suppose…

      Why don’t you read the stuff around instead?

  10. Sure 2016 is the warmest on satellite record… umhum and there are few record high temps anywhere within it.

    There’s also islands apparently vanishing in the pacific and yet sand is being sucked away from China manufacturing from their shores…while they build new manmade islands

  11. I see the UAH September anomaly is pretty-well unchanged, at 0.44 deg. Time to start dusting off those “hottest-year-ever” comments.

    Incidentally, Dr Spencer seems to have successfully deflected such speculation in his blog by stating that 2 + 2 = 4

  12. RSS September anomaly came in at +0.576 versus my projection of +0.493. They seem to have adjusted the past few years upwards as well. A quick-n-dirty check between this month’s download (data through Sep 2016) and last month’s download (data through Aug 2016) shows the following annual increases…

    2009 +0.007
    2010 +0.009
    2011 +0.006
    2012 +0.006
    2013 +0.013
    2014 +0.020
    2015 +0.023
    2016 +0.019 (partial year January through August)

  13. Well here in subtropical South America (Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay, Argentina) we had one of the coolest winter seasons in more than 60 years with meteorological winter starting by the end of April (coincident with the end of the super El Niño) and temperatures still going bellow the historical average (120 years of measurements) till now (beginning of the month of October). May and June had anomalies of about -3ºC. Australia has had one of its coldest months of September in decades.

Comments are closed.