Guest Post by Bob Tisdale
I include a graph in my monthly global surface temperature and lower troposphere temperature anomaly updates that compares the average of the global surface land+ocean temperature anomaly products (from GISS, NCEI and UKMO) to the average of the global lower troposphere temperature anomaly products (from RSS and UAH). (See Figure 9 from the most recent August update for an example.) Because all of the suppliers use difference base years for their anomalies, I’ve recalculated the anomalies for all using the WMO-preferred reference period of 1981-2010.
Figure 1
My Figure 1 is similar to Figure 9 from those updates, but in it, I’ve also shown the linear trends for the global surface and lower troposphere temperature anomaly products. The linear trend, the warming rate, presented by the average surface-based products is noticeably higher than the average lower troposphere products. This, of course, according to Dr. Gavin Schmidt (head of NASA GISS), is the opposite of what the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis tells us is supposed to happen, which is that the lower troposphere is supposed to warm at a faster rate than the surface. See Screen Cap 1.
Screen Cap 1 (Click for full size)
BUT WHEN DO THE SURFACE AND LOWER TROPOSPHERE PRODUCTS BEGIN TO DIVERGE?
To determine this we need to look at the warming rates (linear trends) of the average surface and lower troposphere temperature data.
With a start year of 1979 and working backwards in time from 2015 to 1989, I had EXCEL calculate the annual linear trends of the average surface temperature and average lower troposphere temperature anomaly data. Table 1 shows the lower troposphere and surface temperature trends from 1979 to the listed end years of 2015 to 1989. With the exception of a few end years from the late 1990s to the early 2000s, the average lower troposphere temperature data have noticeably lower warming rates than the average surface temperature products. The similarities in the trends from the late 1990s through to the early 2000s are likely caused by the excessive response of the global lower troposphere temperatures to the 1997/98 El Niño.
Table 1
NOTE: For those new to the discussion, there are very fundamental reasons why the lower troposphere has an excessive response to a massive El Niño. The lower troposphere warms for two reasons during an El Nino. First, it warms because the Earth’s surface warms as a result of the El Nino. Second, the lower troposphere warms an additional amount because the El Niño’s higher sea surface temperatures in the tropical Pacific cause a tremendous amount of moisture to be evaporated from its surface and that moisture releases more heat to the troposphere after it rises into the atmosphere, condenses and forms clouds. [End note.]
Plainly, the 1997/98 El Niño appears to have caused a temporary alignment of the trends of the average surface and average lower troposphere temperature products. Regardless, the trends of the two metrics align at the end year of 1999, so we’ll use that as our breakpoint in this discussion. See Figure 2.
Figure 2
From 1979 to 1999, the trends of the two metrics are the same at 0.147 deg C/decade.
WHAT ARE THE TRENDS AFTERWARDS?
Figure 3 illustrates the linear trends of the average global surface temperature and the average global lower troposphere temperature products from January 2000 to now, August 2016. The average global surface temperature data almost double the warming rate of the average global lower troposphere temperature data during this period.
Figure 3
But according to the hypothesis of manmade greenhouse gas-driven global warming, the opposite is supposed to happen…the lower troposphere is supposed to be warming faster than the surface.
THREE POSSIBLE REASONS WHY DATA CONTRADICT HYPOTHESIS
Of course, there are three possible reasons why the global lower troposphere and surface temperature products do not agree with the hypothesis of human-induced global warming:
- First, the global lower troposphere data are flawed, causing warming rates that are too low.
- Second, the surface temperature data are flawed, causing warming rates that are too high.
- Third, the hypothesis of human-induced global warming is flawed, along with the computer models that support it.
Take your pick and discuss the reasons.
DATA SOURCES
Surface:
NOAA/NCEI (Click on the link to Anomalies and Index Data.)
Lower Troposphere:
RSS (September version with higher trend)
Well, I think you need to look at this new research, which includes this statement:
“Next, we assess the validity of the statement that satellite data show no significant tropospheric warming over the last 18 years. This claim is not supported by our analysis: in five out of six corrected satellite TMT records, significant global-scale tropospheric warming has occurred within the last 18 years.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/10/14/the-divergence-between-surface-and-lower-troposphere-global-temperature-datasets-and-its-implications/
I know you always want to be first, Griff, but in the process you’ve produced a circular reference. Was there a study you wanted us to see?
Gee Griff,
Your quoted statement makes it clear
“Next, we assess the validity of the statement that satellite data show no significant tropospheric warming over the last 18 years. This claim is not supported by our analysis: in five out of six (corrected) ADJUSTED satellite TMT records, significant global-scale tropospheric warming has occurred within the last 18 years.”
And why exactly is it, do you think, that these Adjusted records indicate Strong Warming?
Could the missing warming signal have been adjusted into the DATA?
Does the Unadjusted data indicate warming of a similar ferocity if any at all?
And why exactly is it, do you think, that these Adjusted records indicate Strong Warming?
Because the cooling contribution from the stratosphere has been removed, which is what Spencer did when adjusting UAH LT from 5.6 to 6.5.
First, Griff, you haven’t linked the study you quoted. Your link is for this post.
Second, this is not a discussion of TMT. It is a discussion of TLT, which Dr. Schmidt says should be warming faster than the surface. Nice try at misdirection, but it didn’t work.
Have a good day.
Actually Bob see my post below, the new LT product from UAH which you use in your average is a close match to TMT not TLT.
in five out of six corrected satellite TMT records,
The version 6 UAH LT is a TMT corrected for stratospheric influence:
LT = 1.538*MT -0.548*TP +0.01*LS
exactly as described in the paper Griff tried quoted from:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0333.1
“When the impact of lower stratospheric cooling on TMT is accounted for”.
What happens to the warming trends if you use the Un-Karlized GISS data?
I would wager that the warming would be a better fit for the theoretical prediction but then there is that nasty pause that keeps appearing.
I guess Karl will need to make similar adjustments to the RSS/UAH data so that it indicates the predicted warming differential
Bob I can see NO bad news in the Fig 1 that you show. Well other than it demonstrates why “anomalies” rather than Temperatures are just BS.
Last time I checked it was fairly common for “surface” (rock solid or liquid) Temperatures to often measure HIGHER than the Lower Troposphere, or any part of the lower atmosphere, given that it is the dense solid and liquid parts of the planet, that absorb most of the incoming solar energy; not the more ethereal atmosphere.
And if thermal transport from those hot rocks and water, of heat energy along with some radiations, to the atmosphere increases with the Temperature of the surface, one should have a lower slope than the other.
I’ll accept your data for the graphs; I always do.
But I bet if you had the actual Temperature data rather than the anomalies, you would likely end up with a couple of roughly straight lines intersecting at zero, and the one with the steeper slope would be the ground and SST graph.
G
Clue Griff – The M in TMT stands for MIDDLE, not LOWER!
Yes and the new version of the UAH LT product corresponds to their previous TMT product in terms of the peak weighting function used, the old UAH TLT doesn’t exist.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/version-6-0-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-released-new-lt-trend-0-11-cdecade/
See Fig 7.
In fact the best product from RSS to average with the UAH version 6 would be the TTT as they have the closest weighting profiles and have both been recently adjusted to deal with the observed deficiencies in the AMSU satellites. Averaging two products which cover different areas of the globe, different altitude ranges and in one case(TLT) have not yet been corrected for the AMSU problems
Regarding Phil’s comment that the “old UAH” no longer exists: It still does and is still being updated:
http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt
Donald L. Klipstein October 14, 2016 at 10:07 am
Regarding Phil’s comment that the “old UAH” no longer exists: It still does and is still being updated:
Ok but it isn’t what Bob is using. Spencer calls it LT now, not TLT.
If Griffy ever manages to actually produce this study, I’m confident it will include the recent El Nino and use that as proof that the atmosphere is warming.
Yes, Griff is that pathetic, and desperate.
Feel free to check it out:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0333.1
Phil.,
Nice article, I assume, but behind paywall unfortunately. I have arrived to the same conclusions though. TLT and TMT are a mix of troposphere and stratosphere and the satellite era is too short. Take away the stratosphere where real world cools faster than models, and you are left with the pure troposphere that warms in decent accordance with the models. With radiosondes we can separate the atmospheric layers, and let the comparisons run for a little longer period:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_dL1shkWewaUGMzTWdrN1dQS0E/view?usp=docslist_api
The modelled warming in the troposphere is not 3 times larger than in the real world (which Christy claims), not 1.7 times as in the article, but rather 1.25 times as measure by the trend 1970-2016
O R October 14, 2016 at 3:07 pm
Phil.,
Nice article, I assume, but behind paywall unfortunately. I have arrived to the same conclusions though.
You should be able to find it here.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0333.1
..OMG…If only liberal stupidity were painful….
It is but they blame the root cause of it on “Republicanism”
It is painful. The problem is that it is painful for everyone else, not the liberal.
Ignorance is bliss
4) The surface, lowest troposphere temperatures are not meaningful in terms of the total retained heat content of the earth on anything but a long term average. The global warming/cooling observed is a long term phenomena no matter what causes it. Sudden oscillations of the magnitude postulated are not consistent with the thesis of a gradual retention of enthalpy.
ShrNfr, this isn’t a discussion of “total retained heat content of the earth”. Surface temperatures are also not a measure of “total retained heat content of the earth”.
As discussed in earlier presentations, total heat retention has to be put into context of meaningful temperature change. Since the oceans dominate that arena, the result of some o.o1 C or some such is never discussed. Thus the warmistas resort to halting such presentation to joules ….. cause that gives a big number that goes over the heads of an ignorant public.
But back to Bobs presentation …… I’ll take a combination of #2 and #3 for a hundred Bob. I’m leaning towards that CFC argument. At least the presented graph is a better fit than fossil fooooools.
This shows that the satellite temperature ‘extractions’ are quite sensitive to changes in convection / advection in the tropics. As such they should clearly show the predicted mid-tropo hot-spot as heat is retained by increased GHG in the tropics.
They don’t
Also SST shows very little warming in the tropics so it’s not being stored in OHC. This points to a reduction in incoming solar, which basically means something like Lindzen’s “iris effect” where a small change in cloud cover cuts down the amount of solar making it to the surface: a corrective negative feedback.
5. The spatial error between the datasets (satellite vs ground) is irreconcilable rendering comparison meaningless.
Apples v oranges , fine. But there is still supposed to be mid-tropo tropical hot-spot : one of key testable predictions of GHG theory and models and this should be greater than surface warming.
So, no, we should not expect them to be the same we should expect to see more warming in TMT,
In fact the whole idea of a “global average temperature” is physically meaningless, so not much point in trying to explain it or it’s absence. Temperatures are not additive. Thinking that you can take the average of dry Siberian air over land and humid tropical air over ocean or average SST and land SAT is to show a total ignorance of the laws of physics. Unfortunately the whole discussion has been dumbed down by the warmists to the point of being meaningless.
An average of temperatures may have a statistical meaning as the average you are likely to experience when living in a particular place but it has no part in a physics, energy based analysis.
They want single number that they can present to the unwashed masses to get them on board. It’s a basically like Rumsfelt’s WMD. They knew they weren’t there but cynically made a false case to the public to gain support.
+1
Should that not be: Second, the surface temperature adjustments are flawed, causing warming rates that are too high.
Good point Werner, surface temperature adjustment crew went to far and accidently invalidated their own theory. Hoisted on their own petard, again.
A petard is a bomb, as your English teacher should have told you. The phrase is “hoist with his own petard”. In modern English we would say “by” rather than “with”.
Even without the adjustments, the surface record is too flawed to use.
Most of the sensors are afflicted with micro-site contaminations, that almost universally cause warmer readings.
Most of the sensors are located in areas with significant UHI growth.
..That is true MarkW, and to correct for this, they adjusted the temp readings UP !! LOL
I would sugest the following wording:
Second, the surface temperature adjustments are flawed or purposely manipulated, causing warming rates that are too high.
Bob –
nice work, as usual – thanks for the effort.
One observation – my understanding of the rationale for TLT warming faster than the surface is that it is due to warming, not to the (anthropogenic) cause of the warming. That is, exaggeration in the TLT would occur, regardless of origin. If true, what does it tell us? That if the satellites are right, the surface measurements misrepresent the warming even more than the difference in the trend slopes would indicate..?
NASA GISS is just one of a dozen federal centers that need to be defunded and shut down completely. Discontinue the GISS altered data products and turn over to NOAA any non-redundant products. Then clean house between NCAR and NCEI putting new directors in charge and reassigning most of the current staff to short-term forecasting centers/duties so they can come to understand accountability for their products.
Discontinue the GISS altered data products and turn over to NOAA any non-redundant products.
It is NOAA that adjusts the data that NASA GISS uses not GISS.
NOAA should and does have primary oversight. So clean house at NCEI, eliminate the redundancy of GISS that merely supports the pseudoscience climatists’ cabal with Columbia. U.
It’s much cheaper to employ folks and pay rent in North Carolina than in NYC-Manhattan. NASA’s mission in maintaining surface temperature data sets and in making adjustments to it is redundant, so let’s make GISS “redundant” . That would be just the start to ending the Climate Hustle.
joel, NASA GISS and NOAA are run by the same agency, the Department of Commerce. The politics becomes an immediate problem.
Duster,
Wrong. So wrong. NASA reports directly to the WH. NASA is not part of DoC.
It’s how we got Muslim outreach at NASA… tasked by our Muslm in Chief.
Ok, I think I figured it out. 33% is due to reason #1 (TLT too low). 33.200% is due to reason #3 (GCMs need adjusting – maybe throw out a few of the stinkers??). Which leaves the vast plurality (33.800%) due to reason #2 (surface temp trend too high). This should pretty much end the debate I think. 🙂
Maybe I’m being thick, but one thing I can’t get my head around is, for example Bob’s Fig 3 shows 0.096 Deg warming per decade for TLT and 0.181 for Surface warming per decade. But then there has been the “the pause for 18years. I can’t reconcile the 2 and am leary about talking of a pause when Bob and other show there has been warming. Any views?
Do your homework. The trend is always determined by the choice of starting point and ending point. That is usually called cherry picking if you want to make a point with the trend of your choice.
Javier,
Since Bob’s Starting point, 2000, and ending point 2015 are within the range of the Pause there shouldn’t be any rise so I don’t see the point of your comment.
Well that’s because you don’t know much about how trends are determined and how they are affected by choice of starting point and ending point. Within a similar period if you start in a valley and end in a peak you will get a higher trend that if you do the opposite.
Also the recent El Nino has broken out of the pause. The 18y lack of warming was calculated a couple of years ago. There is now a small statistical rise, but much less than predicted by models.
But now there is a fairly strong La Nina building that could cause a further drop in un adjusted surface temperatures and would further extend the pause
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/monitoring/nino3_4.png
Click through for the latest version…Currently -0.62
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/monitoring/nino3_4.png
Javier @ 7:00am
Please don’t be so hard on Harrowsceptic…he’s just asking an honest question! “Do your homework” and later “You don’t know much” are a bit agressive. Civility used to be a great and unusual feature of WUWT!
You are right, Alastair. I came out too harsh. I apologize.
You must notice that the year to year global temperature value varies more than the trend in a decade. This is the reason by which the choice of initial and ending point change the trend.
In other words the trend is statistically indistingushable from zero.
Javier@2:26
Great…thanks for being so humble and understanding. Politeness and lack of abuse are great features of this site and I think that’s why many of us (myself included) have stuck with it over the years. All the moderators and Anthony are to be thanked for keeping it a pleasant place where we can all learn in a friendly environment…I know I certainly have learnt so much over the years here.
And since the graphs clearly show the trend plunging back towards a Maunder like minimum I would also like to know what happened to the pause.
The reason could be a combination of reasons, but Bob, did you include possible decadal variation in surface – TLT temperature difference as a modelling failure?
I find the missing hot spot a real pain to the credibility of climate modelling based projections. If you don’t get the big picture right, if you don’t get the local details right, why would you believe in the modelling in the first place? Because we trust in weather forecasts?
From fig 2, the 97-98 anomaly divergence between TLT and GISS stands-out. Ican recall when the two were in much closer agreement pre2015. Reduction of the 97-98 ElNino-driven anomaly has obviously been an agenda item for GISS over the last 18 months to accomodate the politically-driven current “warmest ever” talking point.
Observations support the surface data products being contaminated with UHI and station infilling/homogenization errors. Observation does not support a dominant role for GHE. CO2-dominant GHE theory is wrong.
Not admitting that by someone like Schmidt makes him a pseudoscientist with an agenda.
There is still plenty of room for a weak-CO2 GHE theory in the data. CO2-AGW theory is scientifically (and thus policy-wise) a non-problem for earth’s climate. Taken in toto, more CO2 is a net benefit to the biosphere up to at least 1000ppm and probably higher to 1,200 ppm.
The US govt faces many more, and much more serious problems than any manmade climate change. Those problems deserve the allocation of scarce federal dollars as US fed debt approaches $20 Trillion. The public mostly recognizes this fact in the consistent polling placing climate change at or near the bottom of their concerns. Public official political corruption now under the Obama Admin is judged at or near the top concern of many Americans. History will not be kind to the likes of Schmidt, Karl, Trenberth, Hansen, Mann, McNutt, Holdren, et al., supposed scientists politically corrupted to support an agenda and a paycheck.
6) data is just not precise enough (where are error bars ?) to conclude anything.
I am pretty sure we don’t have data history long enough to assess whether there is GW or not (as oppose to normal, chaotic, oscillation within the narrow band allowed by climate attractor dynamics) , so discussing whether surface GW match TLT GW make no sense to me.
I cannot help but note that the AGW story-line has progressed over the past 20 or so years as follows:
1) The climate models are correct because they are all in general agreement that we’re soon going to burn up and die, if we don’t drown first.
2) Global warming has not ceased. It has only “paused”. The extra heat is hiding in the oceans.
3) “Natural variations” have caused the pause. Natural variations can only reduce warming momentarily, but any temperature increases are man-made and will soon resume.
4) Nix versions 2 & 3. We’ve revised the land and sea surface records and there never actually was a “pause”.
Now, about that “drown” part: If ANY of the above iterations were true, why are they not reflected in the rate of sea level rise? Despite the popular fiction that the Statue of Liberty will soon be up to her knees in seawater, take a look and the New York tide gauge readings (NOAA). Do you see ANY evidence of ANY increased rate of sea level rise over the past century? Look at Los Angeles where our California governor recently stood at the foot of LAX runway and bemoaned the “fact” that it would all soon be underwater. The Los Angeles tide gauge record going back to 1923 indicates a rate of rise of 4-inches per century and no rise at all over the past 15 or so years.
Finally, take a look at the satellite record of “absolute” average global sea level as measured by the satellites and note that its keepers had to add a “fudge factor” just to keep the record from showing a slowing rate of rise (they theorized that the added weight of the water they were sure was accumulating must be depressing the ocean basins).
Sum Sing Wong
Claude Harvey, nicely summarized.
Looking at the graph, most of the difference is in GISS minimizing the 1997-8 El Niño temperature. Was there a real difference, or is this an “adjustment”?
GISS and NCEI had a significant change since they started using ERSSTv4, which is an outlier sea surface temperature dataset that shows less warmth in the decade or so centered around 1999 and more warmth after something like 2006 than other SST datasets. HadCRUT4 does not do this.
That’s because ERSSTv4 is not average SST anomaly . It is average nocturnal SST anomaly counted twice. They frigged the data, ignore them.
This issue was covered with great deal by Roger Andrews this past February:
Surface versus satellite; the temperature data set controversy
One thing is clear. This planet cannot sustain indefinitely two different warming rates, one for surface and the other for the lower atmosphere. Sooner or later they will have to converge before some physics law gets raped. This can be accomplished by an increase in warming rate from satellite temperatures or by a decrease in warming rate from surface measurements, or by a combination. It looks like Carl Mears is already at work to increase satellite warming rates.
This planet cannot sustain indefinitely two different warming rates, one for surface and the other for the lower atmosphere.
If one of the data sets includes contributions from above the troposphere it certainly can.
I would like to call your attention over another feature of temperature differences between satellites and surface. It seems that both datasets agree very well between 55°N and 55°S, and most of the warming differences are coming from polar areas, specially the Arctic region. This was shown by Bob Tisdale at his post:
The Impact of GISS Replacing Sea Surface Temperature Data With Land Surface Temperature Data
And by Okulaer in his post:
Why “GISTEMP LOTI global mean” is wrong and “HadCRUt3 gl” is right
So it seems that the temperature battle is going to be fought over the polar temperatures where nobody is measuring in a significant way.
Now that’s interesting Javier, because Arctic ice minima not only have flat lined since 2007 but we have 2-3 years of evidence of multi year ice [something the assorted alarmist will go to great lengths to avoid talking about] and Antarctica shows a series of ice maxima records throughout the same period – something the IPCC acknowledges they have no explanation for – and likewise something the CAGW/CACC crowd pretend is not happening.
In both cases it would be reasonable to assume that these developments are linked to temperatures – higher sea/air temperatures should lead to more ice loss, lower sea/air temperatures to minima levelling off and multi year ice.
This is interesting because all official temperature maps [based largely on extrapolation because there are nowhere near sufficient actual data points] show lots of warming at the poles, something clearly not borne out by ice volumes. So either something has changed in the physics and chemistry of sea ice formation or the temperature maps are grossly misleading – and since we have no evidence for the former, it must be the latter. Maps with suitably alarming red coloured poles…
Exactly. Nearly all the warming in the 21st century surface database is coming from the Arctic region and therefore essentially a product of the techniques used to guesstimate the temperatures that nobody is measuring, and from the Karlization trick to standardize oceanic surface temperatures. In reality we could very well have flat temperatures, or even a slight decrease like CET indicates.
The additional concentration of CO2 makes the atmosphere denser. Thus, the pressure at the poles has increased, and the ice can remain frozen at higher temperatures.
Please send colossal research grant so that I can study this further.
My vote goes for # 3
Two observations: The surface dataset AFAIK combines land and ocean, so is dominated by SSTs. Your graph shows the large difference between the 1998 El Nino peak: lower than 2015 in surface, but comparable in satellite. This feature of the GISS dataset allowed Brian Cox to ambush Malcolm Roberts in a TV debate in Australia.
Secondly, it appears in your table that the divergence starts in earnest with 2004 and continues afterward.
Completing the second thought: Notice that the surface trends in the table are virtually the same in 2004 and 2015 as well as in between. While the TLT trends decline steadily from 2004 to 2015.
you simply cannot compare these products without first understanding the key differences and ACCOUNTING FOR THEM BOB!
Here is a clue on where to start and how to do it
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2016/03/08/guest-post-surface-and-satellite-discrepancy/
1. Comapre like with like— MASK for area coverage
2. Seperate land from Ocean
3. Look at BEFORE and AFTER the introduction of AMSU
4, With spatial fields look for cells that are wacko different.. then ask WHY
hint it isnt UHI
Yes, you are right, and cannot be wrong. Tedious. Ever wondered how real science works? Hint, it isn’t breaking everything into little parts and then claiming some agree with you so you must be right.
Scientific analysis is a detailed examination of the elements or structure of something, typically as a basis for discussion or interpretation.
Show us Mosher
and read:
https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/wwww-ths-rr-091716.pdf
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015JD024039/full
We get it Mosh: Bob isn’t using enough code -so he’s a bad boy and results not acceptable….
Slice and dice. Mix and mash. Homogenize and adjust.
And the answer still tells us there is no Lower tropospheric hot spot in the tropics relative to surface measurements. GHE theory fail.
And answer still tells us ERSST v4 adjusts past measurements uniformly downwards to inflate the slope. CMIP/GCM fail.
Mosh, all you are doing is adjusting the deck chairs on the Titanic while the band plays per Captain’s orders. All is well. Until the 32F water is sloshing at your feet.
you simply cannot compare these products…absolutely you can and you have to…they all claim the exact same thing
Basically 3 ways to say you are wrong.
I have two comments:
1) The surface-adjacent lowest troposphere has warmed more than the satellite-measured lower troposphere as a whole according to radiosondes, as shown in the black dashed curve in Figure 7 in http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/version-6-0-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-released-new-lt-trend-0-11-cdecade/#comments
I think one reason this has been happening is that retreat of ice and snow cover causes the sun to warm areas that were prone to temperature inversions.
Also, I see that the slower warming rate of the lower and middle troposphere in comparison to the surface is an indicator that the models are flawed. I think the models were tuned to have hindcast the several decades ending with 2005 without consideration for multidecadal oscillations, which were on an upswing during that time, and so the models predict more warming from CO2 than is the case, including a lot more warming of the tropical oceans than has happened, which would result in a lot more tropospheric warming including a “tropical tropospheric hotspot” which has yet to show up in reality.
2) Of the three surface datasets, two of them use ERSSTv4, which is an outlier among the sea surface temperature datasets. The GISS LOTI and NCEI global temperature datasets have warmed only slightly more than the lower troposphere from 1979 to any year of choice within a few years of 1999, and much more rapidly afterwards. This happens less with HadCRUT4. Have a look at: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/to:1999/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1999/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1979/to:1999/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1999/trend/plot/rss/from:1979/to:1999/trend/plot/rss/from:1999/trend
For that matter, I have found HadCRUT3 to outwarm the lower troposphere by about the same amount before and after 1979, and I think it’s a shame it was retired. Have a look at:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1979/to:1999/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1999/to:2014.34/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1979/to:1999/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1999/to:2014.34/trend/plot/rss/from:1979/to:1999/trend/plot/rss/from:1999/to:2014.34/trend
Notably, since 1950 GISS warmed about .175 degree C more than HadCRUT4, and NCEI is a lot more similar to GISS than to HadCRUT4 in that area.
Which is to say: model fail. GHE theory fail.
The accepted presumption for many (most, all?) projects is warming so this, of course, is not just academic. There is also the widespread lack of consideration in the marine ecology literature of what cooling might mean, although this is the more recent history of the ocean which shows up in the life cycle of some species. Therefore, this ignores important, albeit sometimes hypothetical, contrasts that might be instructive.
See, for example–
http://www.nola.com/environment/index.ssf/2016/10/louisiana_coastal_flood_protection_plan.html
Of course, there subsidence is exceptionally important. They are using models based partly on climate models (hypothesis stacking?). Note that they accept that hurricanes will be fewer but stronger. Also note a comment about sea level acceleration with a Hansen reference. Perhaps part of the problem (symptom?) is weather reports that confuse normal with average. As one who measured (for decades) numerous uncounted water temperatures, even rarely with calibration, I find this attempt at precision interesting but amazing.
The Sonde and MSU data are in good qualitative and reasonably close quantitative agreement so we have some level of confidence in the data sets.
But, the Hot Spot hasn’t appeared for the MSU era, though there is a luke warm hot spot for the RAOB era, and a weaker hot spot during the MSU era for earth excluding the Eastern Pacific region:
http://climatewatcher.webs.com/HotSpot2015.png
So, I don’t think explanation 3 applies, at least not in the global TOA sense.
The observations for the MSU era, are invalidating the HotSpot, but “the hypothesis of human-induced global warming” is not necessarily flawed. The Hot Spot is not a direct result of radiative forcing but rather results from predicted dynamics ( convective transfer of heat ). It is not surprising that dynamics are not predicted accurately, because dynamics are unpredictable ( a known fact we all ignore ).
So, “the hypothesis of human-induced global warming” still applies at least with respect to the hypothesis that earth will tend to accumulate additional heat from the increase in GHGs.
The lack of the Hot Spot does have implications, regardless of one’s rooting interests in the debate. Remember that the Hot Spot is the source of the lapse rate feedback: the hotter the spot, the more energy escapes to space.
So, some would say: see, the negative feedback doesn’t exists – it’s gonna be worse than expected!
Others might say: see, the observed rates of warming occurred without the negative feedback, so when it appears, future warming will be less than observed.
Nature has the only say that matters.
“The Hot Spot is not a direct result of radiative forcing but rather results from predicted dynamics ( convective transfer of heat ). ”
Good objective point.
However if the lapse-rate f/b is not in evidence the world would be heating up far quicker than models predicted and it isn’t , by any measure.
Since there is only weak evidence of the lapse-rate f/b there must be less energy coming in.
there must be less energy coming in.
Ya – that’s another point we know but ignore: albedo is very poorly known either for past fluctuation or present albedo to the precision and accuracy necessary.
I think it is safe to say that option #1 is silly as the satellite records are calibrated to actual measurements. Whereas, the surface station project has shown an obvious failing in the surface temperature record (and all the adjustments only exasperate the errors).
Bob
I consider that Schmidt is right in that one cannot make a meaningful comparison between these two data sets, but this is not because they measure different things, but rather the systemics of the measurements are so radically different.
The land based thermometer record is so thoroughly bastardised by endless adjustments and compromised by siting issues, station drop outs etc, that it is incapable of withstanding ordinary scientific rigour. It is a bin job.
But to answer your question, proposition 3 appears the most likely. The theory cannot explain:
1. Why the rate of warming in the latter part of the 20th century (1975 to 1998) is no greater than the rate of warming between 1860 to 1880, or that between 1920 to 1940 (no significant CO2 during the earlier periods of warming).
2. The recent pause which will probably reappear when the present ENSO cycle results in a La Nina during which time about 355 of all manmade CO2 emissions took place.
3. The geological record that shows no correlation between CO2 and temperature and to the extent that there are similarities it suggests that CO2 lags temperature, and does not drive temperature.
4. Given the high levels of CO2 in the past, the theory does not adequately explain why there was not runaway warming.
5. If one looks at the temperature data sets as drawn in the late 1970s/early 1980s, they showed over 0.3 degC of cooling between 1940 to mid 1970s. there are also many papers (some from NASA) putting post 1940s cooling at between 0.3degC to 0.5degC. That has now been largely eradicated by recent endless adjustments to past temperatures. However, if those adjustments are invalid, and if the satellite data set suggests that there has been about 0.3 to 0.4degc warming since 1979 then it may well be that today is approximately the same temperature as that seen in the 1940s. If that is so, then since 95% of all manmade CO2 has been emitted post 1940, there will have been zero temperature rise during the period when virtually all manmade CO2 has been emitted!
6. Michael MAnns/Briffa’s tree rings were showing no post 1940s warming and this is why MAnn performed his nature trick. The tree rings were revealing the problem that the adjustments had made to the land based thermometer record. They were suggesting that the record had been over warmed by adjustments.
7. Put simply, there is no first order correlation between CO2 and temperature on any time scale, and despite our best measuring equipment we have been unable to eek out the signal to CO2 from the noise of natural variation. If the data sets are reliable and if natural variation is small, any sensitivity to CO2 must likewise be small. If on the other hand the error margins in our data sets is large and/or if natural variation cn be large, there is room for some sensitivity to CO2 but not of the high levels claimed by the warmists.
See, Phil Jones of CRU.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
Briffa’s data got chopped at 1960 IIRC.
Don’t listen to Sarah Palin for climate science info. “hide the decline” was not hiding a drop in temperature that was real , it was showing that tree rings are not thermometers. That is why they needed to hide the decline in Briffa’s proxy record. Otherwise all the other tree-ring proxies would be thrown into question.
MAnn could live with the data through to 1960, but could not live with it after that date because the rings were showing further cooling, and then no rebound to warming in the 1970/80s. The rings had fundamentally diverged from the ‘adjustments’ made to the thermometer record.
The tree rings were telling 2 things. Either the adjustments to the thermometer record circa 1960 onwards were wrong, or that tree rings are completely unreliable as a temperature proxy such that all the pre 1900 reconstruction was doubtful.
As for the geological record (and the ice core record) indicating that CO2 lagged and did not drive temperature: It did both – the balance between atmospheric CO2 and oceanic CO2 shifts towards atmosphere during warming and towards ocean during cooling, causing a positive feedback to global temperature changes from other causes. Back then, the amount of carbon in the sum of the atmosphere, hydrosphere, and biosphere was generally constant over climate change time scales. Things are different now that humans are transferring carbon from the lithosphere to the atmosphere.
Please show where CO2 drove temperature.
Donald L: K wrote:
“As for the geological record (and the ice core record) indicating that CO2 lagged and did not drive temperature: It did both – the balance between atmospheric CO2 and oceanic CO2 shifts towards atmosphere during warming and towards ocean during cooling, causing a positive feedback to global temperature changes from other causes. Back then, the amount of carbon in the sum of the atmosphere, hydrosphere, and biosphere was generally constant over climate change time scales. Things are different now that humans are transferring carbon from the lithosphere to the atmosphere.”
With respect Donald, I think you are wrong about almost everything in your post.
First, CO2 lags temperature at ALL measured time scales, both during warming and cooling periods AND in the short and long term. The ice core record is well-established. The short-term record is also clear – see
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/04/25/inconvenient-study-co2-fertilization-greening-the-earth/comment-page-1/#comment-2199617
[excerpt]
To my knowledge, I initiated in early January 2008 the still-heretical notion that dCO2/dt changed ~contemporaneously with temperature and therefore atmospheric CO2 concentration lagged atmospheric temperature by about 9 months in the modern data record.
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/carbon_dioxide_in_not_the_primary_cause_of_global_warming_the_future_can_no/
or:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/mean:12/derivative/plot/uah/from:1959/scale:0.22/offset:0.14
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1092009347543293&set=p.1092009347543293&type=3&theater
Others including Salby and Humlum et al have since published similar findings.
There are several observations about this striking dCO2/dt vs. temperature relationship:
1. The dCO2/dt vs. temperature correlation is remarkably strong for a natural global phenomenon.
2. The integral (of dCO2/dt) is atmospheric CO2, and it LAGS temperature by about 9 months in the modern data record. CO2 also LAGS temperature by about 800 years in the ice core record. Thus CO2 LAGS temperature at all measured time scales. Thus the global warming hypothesis assumes that the future is causing the past. Thus the CAGW hypothesis fails.
3. This close dCO2/dt vs temperature relationship indicates that temperature drives CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature.
4. The dCO2/dt vs. temperature correlation is the only detailed signal I have found in the data – there is NO evidence that CO2 LEADS temperature or that increasing atmospheric CO2 significantly increases global temperature.
5. Furthermore, global temperature declined from ~1940-1975, increased from ~1975-2000, and has stayed flat (or cooled slightly) since ~2000, all while atmospheric CO2 increased; so the correlation of temperature to increasing atmospheric CO2 has been NEGATIVE, Positive, and Near-Zero. I suggest Near-Zero is the correct estimate of the sensitivity (ECS) of global temperature to increasing atmospheric CO2. There is and never had been a manmade global warming crisis – there is no credible evidence to support this failed hypothesis.
6. With few exceptions including some on this website, nobody (especially the global warming alarmists) wants to acknowledge the LAG of CO2 after temperature – apparently this LAG of CO2 after temperature contradicts deeply-held religious beliefs about global warming.
7. While basic physics may suggest that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the overwhelming observational evidence indicates that the impact of increasing CO2 on global temperature is so small as to be insignificant.
8. In summary, observational evidence strongly indicates that the manmade global warming crisis does not exist.
9. Finally, atmospheric CO2 is not alarmingly high; in fact, it is dangerously low for the survival of terrestrial carbon-based life on Earth. Plants evolved with about 2000ppm CO2 in the atmosphere, or about 5 times current CO2 concentrations.
10. In one of the next global Ice Ages, atmospheric CO2 will approach about 150ppm, a concentration at which terrestrial photosynthesis will slow and cease – and that will be the extinction event for terrestrial carbon-based life on this planet.
11. More atmospheric CO2 is highly beneficial to all carbon-based life on Earth. Therefore, CO2 abatement and sequestration schemes are nonsense.
12. As a devoted fan of carbon-based life on this planet, I feel the duty to advocate on our behalf. I should point out that I am not prejudiced against other life forms. They might be very nice, but I do not know any of them well enough to form an opinion. 🙂
Regards, Allan
To your point #7, there is an article in the mid-September issue of Nature [by three Chinese authors, sorry don’t have the link handy] that yet again demonstrates the rounding error role CO2 plays in the GHG / temperature equation. I say yet again because we have a series of articles from different authors going back to the mid-1970s that show precisely the same thing. None is blinder than those who do not want to see…
Richard Verney:
Thank you for your post, with which I agree. Re your point 5:
“5. If one looks at the temperature data sets as drawn in the late 1970s/early 1980s, they showed over 0.3 degC of cooling between 1940 to mid 1970s. there are also many papers (some from NASA) putting post 1940s cooling at between 0.3degC to 0.5degC. That has now been largely eradicated by recent endless adjustments to past temperatures. However, if those adjustments are invalid, and if the satellite data set suggests that there has been about 0.3 to 0.4degc warming since 1979 then it may well be that today is approximately the same temperature as that seen in the 1940s. If that is so, then since 95% of all manmade CO2 has been emitted post 1940, there will have been zero temperature rise during the period when virtually all manmade CO2 has been emitted!”
I agree with your analysis. I think we have seen some natural global warming in the interim, which is being reversed. Even then, some of that warming since 1982 is merely a natural recovery from the cooling effect of two major volcanoes, El Chichon and Pinatubo – see the graph below.
My posts from 2008 and 2009:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/11/making-holocene-spaghetti-sauce-by-proxy/#comment-113560
Excerpt:
The evidence to date suggests that increased atmospheric CO2 plays NO significant role in causing global warming.
The best data shows no significant warming since ~1940. The lack of significant warming is evident in UAH Lower Troposphere temperature data from ~1980 to end April 2008, and Hadcrut3 Surface Temperature data from ~1940 to ~1980.
The graph title says it all:
“NO NET GLOBAL WARMING SINCE 1940”.
I have been accused of the usual cherry-picking, etc. by the warmists.
However, the warmists are the cherry-pickers – they choose the warming HALF-cycle of the PDO, extrapolate that warming to infinity, and claim dangerous global warming.
I chose the FULL ~60-70 year PDO cycle and see NO net global warming.
Love that Divergence Problem – it lay quietly hidden until about 2006 – I first read about it on ClimateAudit.
The Divergence Problem is why Mann grafted recent Surface Temperature data onto older tree ring data – if he had used all tree-ring data, the blade of the hockey stick would have pointed downward!
Maybe the Hockey Team can explain to me how this was an innocent error.
[end of excerpt from 2008]
EPILOGUE
I expect we will see a return to a near-zero LT temperature anomaly by end 2016, similar to April 2008. See the graph below.
Will Earth cool or warm post-2016? Wait and see – I’m betting on more cooling by 2020-2030 (as predicted in an article published in 2002), maybe sooner, but I hope to be wrong – humanity and the environment both do better in a warmer world.
Regards, Allan
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1106756229401938&set=a.1012901982120697.1073741826.100002027142240&type=3&theater
The reason for the divergence is very simple. Adding CO2 lowers the altitude of total extinction of earth radiation in the saturated wave number 667.4 fundamental bending mode of the CO2 molecule. This represents 89% of the absorptive capacity of CO2. The total absorbed energy is unchanged, but the altitude where the energy is kinetically released drops closer to our surface thermometers–the height of our noses. We need to learn to look beyond our noses…
THE BAD NEWS:
Analyses of 35 year periods of average temperature are most likely nothing more than studies of meaningless short-term random variations, and measurements errors … for a planet that is not in thermodynamic equilibrium and has a constantly changing average temperature.
In addition, charts with a vertical range of less than 2 degrees C. may be easy to read, but they make mountains out of tiny, unimportant data changes, and doing that visually promotes coming climate catastrophe fear mongering.
THE GOOD NEWS:
If I am wrong, and 35 years is important, then Bob Tisdale is a great choice for the analysis.
His charts are easy to read.
His writing is easier to read than most people writing about science and presenting data.
On a planet that’s 4.5 billion years old, 35 years is a meaningless period — 35 years is not a long term trend — it’s barely a short-term trend — and the surface measurements must have at least a +/- 0.5 degree C. margin of error, for at least two reasons:
(A) A tiny percentage of the surface is measured, and many grids are filled in with arbitrary wild guesses, and
(B) The people doing the measurements make wild guess predictions of a climate catastrophe … and then, to avoid looking foolish, they repeatedly manipulate temperature actuals with arbitrary “adjustments” to create more warming, in a smarmy effort to make their long-term predictions look less stupid.
It is a conflict of interest for the same organization to make long-term average temperature predictions and also compile actual average temperature data (if you own the data, your predictions can always be “correct”, if that’s the result you want the public to see, and to put on your resume).
Bob,
Isn’t Your first explanation of the surface/TLT discrepancy the most likely one?
“First, the global lower troposphere data are flawed, causing warming rates that are too low.”
Regarding TLT (or troposphere) trends, UAH v6 is a low and lonely outlier. I say lonely because RSS TLT 3.3 is no longer endorsed by RSS due to drifts. Until RSS make a new TLT v4 you can compare with RSS TTT v4 which has a trend of 0.178 C/dec. The trends of TTT and TLT products are relatively similar..
Another option is to make your own RSS TLT v4. As I wrote in a comment elsewhere:
“Use the UAH v6 TLT formula “LT = 1.538*MT -0.548*TP +0.01*LS” with channel data fom RSS. However, RSS doesn’t think that tropopause channel data (MSU 3) is reliable before 1987, so you have to splice on early data from UAH to make the tropopause channel of RSS complete..
Doing this results in a RSS v4 TLT trend of 0.207 C/decade”
If you want to use “pure” RSS data in the formula above, the trend from 1987 til now is 0.217 C/dec.
You can also look at radiosonde data, for instance Ratpac A 850-300 mbar, which has a trend of 0.188 C/dec in the satellite era.
RATPAC B (unadjusted) shows not much difference with both RSS and UAH and shows a lower trend (use the data only not the algorithems included for larger coverage
RATPAC A is the station’s data homogenized over large area’s using infilling.
so you only can compare the regional UAH/RSS data with the same area’s RATPAC B data and they are pretty close to each other.
seen the fact RATPAC A bases the world’s temp on 87 locations compared to the near total earth coverage for RSS and UAH it’s not a good commparison.
FYI Ratpac’s explenation from NCDC
so there you have the reason why RATPAC is not comparable with RSS or UAH. I know Bobs way of working too well, so if that set would have been a good valid third TLT set he would have included it.
A “ratpacised” UAH v6 TLT, produced by subsampling of data from the 85 Ratpac station locations, and globally weighted by the Ratpac A method, is similar to the original fully global UAH TLT:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_dL1shkWewaT083ZHdiWHhieTA
Hence, Ratpac A has a good global representation, and can be directly compared with UAH TLT Global.
I have made a difference-chart with comparisons between UAH and Ratpac, including subsampling of UAH and TLT-weighting of Ratpac A.
The comparisons are quite similar, suggesting that UAH TLT lose about 0.2 C per decade vs Ratpac A, since the introduction of AMSU:s at about year 2000 (transition period autumn 1998-summer 2001).
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_dL1shkWewaVUdobkJYcjM5VmM
UAH and RSS over the USA are an almost exact trend match for USCRN.
RAOB & MSU analyses differ from each other much less than they all differ from the modeled Hot Spot.
Yes, but MSU has a poor vertical resolution, unlike radiosondes.
Here is fig 1 in Sherwood and Nishant 2015, with zonal trends (C/decade) from 1960-2012:
http://cdn.iopscience.com/images/1748-9326/10/5/054007/Full/erl510711f1_online.jpg
Here is fig 2 with trends for 30N-30S:
http://cdn.iopscience.com/images/1748-9326/10/5/054007/Full/erl510711f2_online.jpg
Yes, even the Sherwood result ( which makes the probably invalid assumption of homogeneity ) is more different from the models than from the other observational analyses.
The 1960-2012 period is similar to the 1958-2015 trends I posted above.
Should also ask, though, why the Sherwood analysis fails to indicate an Arctic Maximum a la both RATPAC, UAH, and RSS.
T E,
I think you can find a warming spot (0.3 C/ decade) near the surface at 50-75 N in fig 1.
When comparing your figure with this one, you have to consider the different colour schemes, different trend units and different vertical scales.
I plotted the Sherwood stuff a while back, but he can’t be too proud of it because there’s not an ongoing archive.
Bob Tisdale – this temperature chart by GISS et al. that you show is falsified from 1980 on to show more warming than rhere actually exists. There is no warming in the eighties and nineties but your graph shows a temperature rise of 0.2 degrees Celsius there. That fake warming is then carried on to the super El Nino of 1998 which follows. And fake warming, once established, continues into the entire twenty-first century that follows next. You then draw as straight line through all that make-believe warning that is not justified. There are three regions in this graph that have independent origins and must be separately analyzed. First we have a hiatus from 1979 to 1997 that fits a horizontal straight line.. The super El Nino that follows the hiatus is next. It is not part of ENSO and is sui generis. It must not be included with any other temperature segment here. And then there is the twenty-first century rise. It starts with a step warming from the bottom of the 1999 La Nina and raises global temperature up by a third of a degree Celsius in only three years. Numerous claims of “warmest ever” temperature peaks followed. Hansen himself observed that nine out of ten warmest years ever clustered in the first decade of the twenty-first century and thought it was caused by the greenhouse effect. He was wrong. The warmth came from the large amount of warm water that the super El Nino left behind. That warm water is now cooling and as a result the temperature from 2002 to 2012 has dropped. I see that you are well aware of this fact and have constructed your figure 3 to try to hide it. Tell your buddies at IPCC that it did not work. As to your figure 2, it displays the forgery your buddies performed in the nineties quite well. The real temperature there fits a horizontal straight line as may be observed in figure 15 of “What Warming?” And by the way, you still owe me an apology for the libel you placed as a comment to my article in WUWT.
In the Satelitte data, there is all but no significant warming between 1979 (inception) and the run up to the 1997/98 Super El Nino. When one takes account of realistic measurement/system errors, it is not possible to say that there was any warming between 1979 to the Super El Nino of 1997/98.
If one ignores the present ENSO cycle which is part way through and which is yet to complete with a La Nina in late 2016/17 (not certain that this will happen but presently it appears that way), the satellite data suggests that almost all the observed warming occurred as a single one off and isolated event around the 1997/98 Super El Nino. Following this event, there was a long lasting step change in temperature of about 0.3degC (may be a little less).
The satellite data, which will soon be covering 40 years, is completely incompatible with CO2 induced warming.
If the present La Nina conditions continue and strengthen (and this requires more than 3 months of data) then the pause will reappear in the data set sometime in early/mid 2017, and when it reappears it will be over 20 years in duration. In essence it will show an almost 20 year period (1979 to late 1996/early 1977) where temperatures were flat, and another 20 year period (1997 to 2017) where temperatures are essentially flat, and a single one off and isolated step change in temperatures around the Super El Nino of 1997/98. The satellite data will show 2 pauses not 1, both of about 20 years duration.
Of course, it appears that the satellite is more sensitive to El Ninos than La Ninas, but of course that is to do with hot air rising (convection in the tropics).
Watch this space in 2017.
“In the Satellite data, there is all but no significant warming between 1979 (inception) and the run up to the 1997/98 Super El Nino.”
No warming between 2001, and start of 2015/16 El Nino
Thank you AndyG55.
The satellite record covers the period when about 60 to 65% of all mandmade CO2 emissions has taken place.
As can be seen in your two plots, there is much short term variability, eg., peaks and troughs associated with ENSO, and short term troughs associated with volcano eruptions, but all of that variation is short lived.
CO2 cannot explain:
1. Why temperatures remained essentially flat during the first period.
2. Why temperatures remained essentially flat during the second period.
3. Why there was a significant step change in temperature coincident upon the 1997/98 Super El Nino.
Unless scientists can put forward a convincing argument as to how CO2 drives ENSO, the satellite record disconfirms that CO2 drives temperatures to any significant degree.
Arno Arrak says: “First we have a hiatus from 1979 to 1997 that fits a horizontal straight line..”
You simply drew a horizontal straight line onto your graph, Arno, when you posted that nonsense here at WUWT.
From the WUWT post here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/29/karl-et-al-do-not-know-that-we-have-two-hiatuses-not-one/
But it was a straight line that was not supported by linear trend analysis of the lower troposphere temperature data. It’s an imaginary straight line created by you. As noted in Table 1 in this post, a linear trend analysis by MS EXCEL shows there are trends in the surface temperature data and in the lower troposphere temperature data from 1979 to 1997.
Arno Arrak says: “The super El Nino that follows the hiatus is next. It is not part of ENSO and is sui generis.”
“It is not part of ENSO…”? You live in a fantasy world, ARNO. The 1997/98 El Niño makes its presence known in every ENSO index, as does the 2015/16 El Niño.
Arno Arrak says: “Tell your buddies at IPCC that it did not work. As to your figure 2, it displays the forgery your buddies performed in the nineties quite well.”
My buddies at the IPCC? Who are they, Arno? You simply make up crap as you go along.
Arno Arrak says: “And by the way, you still owe me an apology for the libel you placed as a comment to my article in WUWT.”
Thanks for closing your comment with that, Arno. It made me laugh.
My comments on the thread of your post are here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/29/karl-et-al-do-not-know-that-we-have-two-hiatuses-not-one/#comment-2060565
And here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/29/karl-et-al-do-not-know-that-we-have-two-hiatuses-not-one/#comment-2060568
And my favorite one here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/29/karl-et-al-do-not-know-that-we-have-two-hiatuses-not-one/#comment-2059175.
It reads:
Arno: It’s good to see you up to your old tricks of misrepresenting data. Your first illustrations show no warming for RSS and UAH lower troposphere temperature anomaly before the 1997/98 El Niño.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/clip_image00210.jpg
Anyone who has every studied those datasets knows the data show warming from 1979 to 1997, Arno.
So tell us, Arno. Why do the data contradict your nonsensical graph?
You have just lost your credibility here, Arno.
Adios.
####
No apologies are due to you, Arno. You give skeptics a bad name. On the other hand, you owe me an apology for wasting my time once again.
Bob
All our data sets are flawed, and that is the problem.
With a theory that says temperatures must always increase whenever CO2 levels increase, it is in principle appropriate to look at short periods to see whether the theory hold true.
The problems is what length of time is significant? The higher the sensitivity of CO2 the less length of time is required. Aliter, if the sensitivity is low. The higher the accuracy of our measuring, the less length of time data stream is required. Aliter, if our measuring is not accurate and riddled with error margins.
Where there are other causes that also impact upon temperature, these can again impact the length of data stream required to tell us something of significance. If natural variability is large, a lengthy period of data is required. Aliter, if natural variability is small.
The more inertia, dampening, lags etc, in the system being studied, the greater the time required before the data tells us something of significance.
But in my opinion, Arno has a point. What is plainly apparent is that there is much short lived variability in the data and this makes data interpretation extremely difficult.
If the satellite had come on stream just a few months later, your trend would look very different (and that is an artifact of the noise of natural variability, and why one needs to be very cautious when interpreting this type of data).
Back in 1996, if you had been presented with the data, which would cover inception to 1996, and someone asked you “what next?” You would no doubt have replied, ‘I do not know for sure, but it is likely that the cooling that had started in 1995 would continue for a little while.’ After all there had just been 4 ups and down, so why not a fifth? But of course, it did not carry on cooling for a little while. Why was this? I would suggest that the reason why that did not occur was not because of CO2, but rather due to some natural variability that interrupted what at first glance appears to be repetitive multiyearly variability.
It is very dangerous putting linear trend lines through this type of data. In fact I would say misleading. But if one is going to go along that approach, it may well better to look at the peaks 1980, 1983, 1987. 1991 and 1995.
Undoubtedly, there has been some slight warming during this period, but it is very slight (possibly around 0.04degC per decade) and when one considers the margins of error that are inherent in the measurements one cannot say for sure that there has been any warming (of course errors operate both ways so the real change in temperatures could be much higher, but we just do not know). I would suggest to you that in reality the temperatures are all but flat, and that is a reasonable interpretation of the data (for that period). I am not sure what lies behind the placement of the yellow dots/points on Arno’ s plot, but one can see what he is trying to achieve.
That is of course, a period of 15 years within the data set. Is it significant? Well at one time Santer thought that a period of 15 years would be significant. I myself am much more circumspect because of the large range of natural variability, inertia in the system, and I consider the margins of error inherent in this data set are probably far larger than presently acknowledged.
But one thing does appear clear from the satellite data and that is that something has changed coincident upon the 1997/98 Super El Nino. It is not just the rate of temperature change altered subsequent to that event, but also that there has obviously been a step in the data. I am not attributing cause. Of course, if that Super El Nino had not released so much energy into the system (which has yet to dissipate), it maybe that the warming of about 0.04/0.05degC (seen in the earlier period) would have continued more uniformly over the course of the entire record (which incidentally is an average of your two UAH trends). That of course is speculation, and nothing more.
PS. I am not concurring with what Arno says about ENSO.
CO2 levels are increasing continuously but in the past 20 days I am experiencing highly variable temperatures — diurnal and as well day to day –, variable winds, cloud cover, relative humidity in San Francisco suburb. The forecasts are coming true every day.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
i go for number 2 and 3
surface temp is so over adjusted that it shows more warming then there is
3 CAGW is b**ls**t i think with all adjustments gone UHI data gone that rural stations would warm as much as RSS and UAH, which would point to one thing: the warming we see is entirely natural with some urban land use changed zones that show an increase/decrease of the warming which is the anthropogenic signal.
Look at what I found in the Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/oct/14/climate-scientists-published-a-paper-debunking-ted-cruz
The Juicy tidbits that explains why the deniers are stupid:
“So, this recent paper did a few things. First, they took the contrarian argument that the mid-troposphere temperatures have been rising at only 1/3 the rate predicted by models. They found that Christy’s team neglected the contamination of the cooling in the upper stratosphere. When they applied this correction, they found that Christy’s claim was incorrect. Differences between modeled and observed warming rates were much smaller, and had known explanations.
Next, the authors asked whether it is true that there has been no warming in the lower atmosphere (troposphere) in the past 18 years. They found that for five of the six groups that provide satellite temperature analysis, this claim was also incorrect.
Finally, they asked whether it is true that the temperature changes in different layers of the atmosphere are in disagreement in models and measurements. Their result is that when temperature changes in different layers of the atmosphere are compared, one of three satellite records is in close agreement with the climate models. ”
Paper: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0333.1
Since I enjoy spinning an issue on it’s head and providing a different perspective so here goes:
So the divergence issue was real just like the deniers had always said it was. Warmists knew this was the case yet fought hard to deny that the divergence issue was real, and it is only now that the warmists can find a rebuttal. Now with the rebuttal in hand, they will acknowledge that the deniers were right all along.
(Feel free to insert other issues like the Pause or SLR or Antarctic ice or Hotspot etc. in place of divergence and it applies)
So why are we the deniers again?
Frederik Michiels on October 14, 2016 at 12:28 pm
RATPAC B (unadjusted) shows not much difference with both RSS and UAH
Did you ever download and process any Ratpac data? Probably not. Because if you had, you would better know about what you “speak”.
Here is a chart comparing GISS land+ocean (surface), RATPAC B (radiosonde, 700 hPa) and UAH6.0beta5 (satellite) measurements:
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/161014/x2dyxyku.jpg
You clearly see that RATPAC B when operating at an atmospheric pressure level of 700 hPa (i.e. at about 3 km altitude) is much nearer to GISS than to UAH.
To have RATPAC B akin to UAH, you probably will have to select about 250 hPa, i.e. an altitude above 10 km. I can easily compute that if you want 🙂
In other words, UAH seems to operate a an altitude much higher than the ‘lower’ troposphere.
richard verney on October 14, 2016 at 12:33 pm
When one takes account of realistic measurement/system errors, it is not possible to say that there was any warming between 1979 to the Super El Nino of 1997/98.
Aha.
In 2014, a group of scientists around Bejamin D. Santer and Céline Bonfils extracted all ENSO and volcano influences out of the temperature series RSS3.3 TLT.
They computed a residual warming of about 0.085 °C per decade, to be compared with RSS’ original trend of about 0.130 °C /decade.
Source: Volcanic contribution to decadal changes in tropospheric temperature
https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/89054
More to the point, the 1980 to 1999 trends at the same rate, compared to the first chart, where 1980 surface data has been adjusted down and now rises at a higher rate, seem to be a smoking gun pointing to dirty tricks with the surface data.
Occam tells me that anthropogenic waste heat and albedo mods must certainly impart a warming term to surface records.
Jeez
1. First, the global lower troposphere data are flawed, causing warming rates that are too low.
2. Second, the surface temperature data are flawed, causing warming rates that are too high.
3. Third, the hypothesis of human-induced global warming is flawed, along with the computer models that support it.
First. You got the Theory wrong
” The linear trend, the warming rate, presented by the average surface-based products is noticeably higher than the average lower troposphere products. This, of course, according to Dr. Gavin Schmidt (head of NASA GISS), is the opposite of what the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis tells us is supposed to happen, which is that the lower troposphere is supposed to warm at a faster rate than the surface. See Screen Cap 1.”
TWITTER COMMENTS ARE NOT THE CONSENUS.
The Linear trend of the whole trop is NOT THE ISSUE BOB!
Start here
http://www.climatedialogue.org/the-missing-tropical-hot-spot/
So you have blown your credibility from step 1.
This is not to say that there isnt an active debate about the the hot spot, but you are not addressing the real issue.
but let’s return to what you did do and your questions
1. First, the global lower troposphere data are flawed, causing warming rates that are too low.
2. Second, the surface temperature data are flawed, causing warming rates that are too high.
3. Third, the hypothesis of human-induced global warming is flawed, along with the computer models that support it.
Lets start with
4! you did your comparison WRONG. First, you only look at AMSU years. Different type of sensor.
Second, yous failed to mask the data appropriately to compare the differences. Compare them where
BOTH DATA SETS have data.
back to your options..
1. First, the global lower troposphere data are flawed, causing warming rates that are too low.
There are several issues with the trop data. I will list them.
A) you are comparing temperature data from a VOLUME of atmosphere ( miles thick) to data
taken at a standard Height. 1.5m.
B) you are comparing data that is at diffferent times during the day and adjusted to a “local noon”
to data that is taken twice a day ( min and max) and averaged. I would not expect a trend
in “local noon” temperatures to match the average of Min and Max trends, especially since
AGW theory suggests that trends in Tmin and Tmax may differ.
c) Its Not an Issue of data being FLAWED.. ALL DATA HAS FLAWS.. especially MODELLED DATA
and both UAH and RSS are models of temperature. The issue is the UNCERTAINTY in the
adjustments both groups perform. Specifically the STRUCTURAL UNCERTAINTY. Its quite
large.
D) Both UAH and RSS make an assumption that the Emissivity of the surface is UNCHANGED since
1979. For the Ocean this makes sense ( and note how well the series agree) BUT for the land
This assumption ( AS THEY NOTE IN THEIR CODE DOCUMENTATION) may not be corrrect.
Is it any wonder then that the Satellite series and group temps DIFFER THE MOST in
High latitude… you know where the snow covers the ground.. sometimes..
2. Surface temps. Like satellite series the surface temps model an entire field of data. using one
method over land and another method over water. The Ocean temps match RSS and UAH much
better than the 30% of the land temps. See above as perhaps as to why. The land temps are
different than RSS and UAH.. but remarkably this difference is Coincident with the
introduction of a NEW TYPE OF SENSOR (AMSU) in the satellite series. Last point, we might think that land temps are wrong due to two factors A) Adjustments.. B) UHI
Problem A. If we think that land temps are wrong due to adjustments, then there is an easy way
to test that. Different land masses ( North America, Europe, Africa) all have direct directions in their
adjustments. The US is adjusted UP, Europe is not adjusted, and Africa is cooled by adjustments.
IF adjustments explained the difference, then you would expect to see this pattern when you differenced satellite series and land series. you dont. So adjustments dont explain the difference
Problem B. UHI. Same argument as above. You see nothing in the pattern of differences between
Sat data and Land data that indicates UHI is the cause.
What you do see is that the majority of difference between satillite data over land and land temperature
records, happens at High latitudes and higher elevation locations.
When time permits I’ll chart up that difference as a function of land cover ( ie snow ) because the satellite models, assume that emissivity of the land is fixed and never changes.
3. Third, the hypothesis of human-induced global warming is flawed, along with the computer models that support it.
two problems here. You have conflated two issues. There is FIRST the Theory of AGW, and second
the Hypothesis about about the hotspot. And you’ve confused the role of models in theory and hypothesis creation. the THEORY of AGW says nothing about hot spots. However, when people
run models, they do see a hot spot in the model results. So you have multiple reasons why this can be the case:
A) the models are implemented incorrectly
B) the models are missings key physics
C) the models are missing key inputs
D) the models are run with the wrong inputs
E) the models have key physics wrong
F) the models dont reflect the theory
You seem to want to think there is a single answer. There is no single simple answer or choice. Science is not an election of a best candidate.
“Science is not an election of a best candidate.”
Thanks for DESTORYING the CONSENSUS myth.
You have just lost yet another sale of your lemon, Mr 2nd hand car saleman.
“So you have blown your credibility”
roflmao !!
from you, that is height of irony
You lost yours the second you signed on with Muller. !!
Too funny
Ya know Anthony signed on too, and then backed out.
That said I have plenty of disagreements with Dr. Muller. You apparently dont read everything I write.
Change that bad habit.
Read every last word. you know you want to.. stalker..
I backed out because Dr. Muller FLAT OUT LIED TO ME. I gave him preliminary data, with the agreement that he would only use it for a scientific publication, next thing I know, he’s parading it in front of Congress against my protests.
Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus
“Second, the surface temperature data are flawed”
Even you know that most of the so-called warming is where there are few thermometers.
HUGE gaps in the surface data, all filled with dubious method by rabid AGW-mongers.
Adjusted to “regional expectations”, adjusted to match urban heat trends.
Homogenised and mal-adjusted to flatten any inconvenient peaks.
You KNOW the surface data is a farce. !!
Everybody KNOWS the surface data is a FARCE. !!
A ting of ‘Confirmation bias’ would seem to be showing through with the statement “You seem to want to think there is a single answer.”
A more open response might have been written as: “You might be surprised to see that there is more than one answer.”
the word SEEM should have been your clue, were you not bound and dertmined to try to find anything wrong with what I wrote.
Read Bob again.. he seems to think that that answers are mutually exclusive.. they are not.
there is plenty of error to pass around
A job for you Mosh.
Here is a graphic of August land-only temperatures from NOAA
Your task is to find pictures of the thermometers that contribute to the areas in yellow circles.
Show us just how pristine they are ! 😉
Note for others. In some cases there may be only ONE thermometer for the whole square
And look at all the grey area.. NO DATA.
ALL FABRICATED. !!!
Wrong.
That is why we use data sources in addition of GHCN M
But here is what you find.
Use only 100 stations..
you get the same answer
WHY?
because as Willis showed here you can reliably predict (infill) temperature data using on elevation, season and latitude ( or sun position)
MOSH.. where are you !! ????
Seems you have NOTHING
Do you really DENY that there is no data for ALL that grey area?
Do you REALLY pretend that you can MAKE UP that much missing data, and call it science ?????
REALLY ???
“because as Willis showed here you can reliably predict (infill) temperature data using on elevation, season and latitude ( or sun position)”
This was ok for a crude version, but far from suitable when looking for changes less than 0.1c per global year. Inversions are very common all over the planet especially over land.
In meteorology, an inversion is a deviation from the normal change of an atmospheric property with altitude. It almost always refers to a “temperature inversion”, i.e. an increase in temperature with height, or to the layer (“inversion layer”) within which such an increase occurs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inversion_(meteorology)
Even the warm spots away from civilization with no other station anywhere near, is still likely to be modelled, guessed or made up. They are rubbish because land and ocean warm and cool a lot differently and inversions make the estimates worthless.
…”Start Here”…You must have just discovered KODI ! Or TVAddons…
“A) the models are implemented incorrectly
B) the models are missing key physics
C) the models are missing key inputs
D) the models are run with the wrong inputs
E) the models have key physics wrong”
YES x 5
Assertion is not science, bud
Come on Mosh.. show us ALL where the data for those 6 yellow circles comes from. !
As a salesman, surely you can do that..
Or do you KNOW that the surface temps are JUST ANOTHER LEMON.
From: http://www.remss.com/blog/RSS-TMT-updated
“We agree that there is a problem with either NOAA-14 or NOAA-15, or both. We explicitly discuss the problem with the NOAA-14/NOAA-15 overlap in the paper. We do not know if the problem is due to NOAA-14 or NOAA-15. If we assume that all the drift is due to NOAA-14, as Dr. Spencer would like us to do, we can eliminate the use of NOAA-14 after 1999 so that its (potentially erroneous) trend during the overlap period does not affect the overall results. If we do this, the overall trend is decreased by 0.019K/decade.
Using the current trends through February 2016, this would lead to a decrease from 0.133 to 0.114 K/decade. This adjusted number is still well above the trend in our previous versions, and also above the trends in UAH V6, UAH V5.6, or NOAA STAR V3.0.
There is no evidence that NOAA-14 drifts for time periods before 1998, because it agrees well with measurements made by other MSU satellites (NOAA-11 and NOAA-12) over the ocean, where the diurnal adjustment is not important. The drift would have to suddenly appear in 1998.
So we cannot assume that the problem is with NOAA-14. We instead explore
the 3 cases:
1. we assume NOAA-14 is wrong and remove it to the extent possible* This leads to a decrease of 0.019K/decade
2. we assume NOAA-15 is wrong, and remove it to the extent possible. This leads to an increase of 0.010 K/decade
3. we assume that the error is shared between them, and we keep all the data.
*we keep about a year of data during the MSU/AMSU overlap period as any shorter time period would lead to excess noise in the MSU-AMSU difference we use to adjust AMSU to match MSU.
These results are reported in the paper, and the differences between them should be viewed as part of the uncertainty in the final results. For the final dataset, we used case 3 where the errors are shared between NOAA-14 and NOAA-15, which is reasonable because we do not know the source of the problem.”
That “problem” can be seen here…..
My hypothesis is that the divergence (vs surface and radiosondes) in satellite troposphere products is caused by a rouge AMSU-5 sensor onboard NOAA-15, with a mysterious error that the standard calibration routines can’t check..
Mears et al have stated that the difference in the TMT-channel between NOAA-14 and NOAA-15 is 0.2 C/decade.
Thus, I have attempted a correction model for UAH v6 TMT as follows:
When NOAA-15 flies alone I add =0.2/120 C to that month
When NOAA-15 flies with one other satellite I add 0.2/120/2 C to that month
When NOAA-15 flies with two other satellites I add 0.2/120/3 C to that month
etc.
The corrective additions are accumulated month by month
The satellite use is crudely picked by eye in figure 1, and from the figure legend here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/version-6-0-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-released-new-lt-trend-0-11-cdecade/
By doing this I arrived in an accumulated correction for the most recent month of +0.149 C
The corrected TMT dataset had an overall trend of 0.117 C/dec (originally 0.82 C/dec)
With the corrected TMT in the v6 TLT formula the trend became 0.176 C/decade,
and the trend 2000-now being 0.161 C/decade
With such corrections UAH v6 TLT is playing in the same league as RSS TTT and the surface datasets.
However, my correction is simple, and I don’t have a clue how errors in NOAA-15 propagate via the complex algoritms of intercalibration, in the actual datasets…
“… I’ve recalculated the anomalies for all using the WMO-preferred reference period of 1981-2010…”
_____________
As far as I know the WMO still advocates the 30/30 model. This is the 30 year average according to the latest full 30 year period.
Therefore the current anomaly baseline, according to the WMO, is 1961-1990. This is the base period used by HadCRUT4, for example. It’s also the base period used by the WMO when calibrating the various surface temperature data sets.
This period will switch to 1991-2020 in 2001.
That last line should read: ‘This period will switch to 1991-2020 in 2021’, not 2001, sorry.
DWR54, the WMO discussion of climatologies can be found here:
http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/wcp/ccl/guide/guide_climat_practices.php
It reads:
“Congress, through Resolution 16 (Cg-17), endorsed the recommendation of CCl-16: “The Climatological Standard Normal be calculated every 10 years at the start of every new decade having year digit 1; to serve as the updated official Climatological Standard Normal; that it applies to the most recent 30-year period, with 1981–2010 being the new current standard; and that for specific purpose of long-term climate change monitoring, the period 1961–1990 be retained as a reference period in perpetuity or until such time as a compelling scientific case to change it arises”.
The satellite-based TLT data are not “long term”. And since they start in 1979, the base years of 1961-1990 cannot be used.
Thanks Bob.
I read section 4.8.1 ‘Period of calculation’ as stating: “Under the WMO Technical Regulations, climatological standard normals are averages of climatological data computed for the following consecutive periods of 30 years: 1 January 1901 to 31 December 1930, 1 January 1931 to 31 December 1960, and so forth…
Where climatological standard normals are used as a reference, there are no clear advantages to updating the normals frequently unless an update provides normals for a significantly greater number of stations.”
Has this been superseded elsewhere in the publication? Thanks again.
nuff said
If you say so
However:
There is a problem.
Evident from the point of the MSU to AMSU changeover (mid 1998).
That UAH does not address and RSS v4.0 fudges at best.
The Curry “Gold standard” indeed.
This is what you would get if we could magically use just one thermometer for all the readings made at the surface, having not done a comparison v the previous “thermometer”.
That’s why homogenisation is done to correct for instrument changes (as well a practises) to the surface record against surrounding stations which did not make a change FI.
On a global scale (because there are thousands of thermometers) those things drop out as insignificant.
But the Sat temp record?
Nah.
Don’t know which “thermometer” is the wrong one of the two.
And one IS wrong.
So we cannot “believe ” what the Sat temp record says for the last 18 years.
Again:
If you say so.
Like I said.
the divergence stems from the switch over to AMSU.
That is why Fu et al gets the right result of no divergence
Instead of producing all the time aggressive but useless commends, AndyG55, you better should learn how to produce correct graphs for temperature series, you are at level minus ten here.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1998/offset:-0.428/mean:12/plot/rss/from:1998/offset:-0.093/mean:12
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/161015/2r2jfe2i.png
Looks a bit different huh?
Yep. still shows that manifest SCAM of the GISS adjustments
You do know GISS is based on measurements that cover barely half of the global land surface, , many with massive urban effects… don’t you ???
Up a few posts.. 6 yellow circles.
Pictures of the temperature station required to show that they have zero UHI effect
Put up or STFU !!
Why did you leave the trend lines off..
oh I wonder !!! 😉
You don’t fool anyone but yourself.
Were you looking fo these trend lines by chance?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1998/offset:-0.428/mean:12/plot/rss/from:1998/offset:-0.093/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1998/trend/offset:-0.25/plot/rss/from:1998/trend
I have heard of all these excuses as why the lower troposphere temperatures do not match the surface temperatures, but to me they are just BS. The heat in the lower troposphere comes entirely from the surface, and therefore the rises and falls in temperature of the lower troposphere over time must mimic the surface temperatures. No matter how much divergence there is at any given point in time, the long term trend in lower troposphere temperature has to be a mirror of the surface temperature trend. The reason for the discrepancy can easily be explained by the totally unscientific method of gathering surface temperature. With ridiculously uneven coverage by ground stations, and UHI adjustments being pure guesswork, why would anyone expect the results to have any degree of accuracy? The satellite measurements could also be inaccurate because of orbital drift and instrument faults. but when the radiosonde measurements approximately agree with them, that argument doesn’t hold water.
Absolutely.
Also the satellite data is referenced checked against radiosonde measurements so that provides some reassurance that the data is in the ball park.
Further, unless I am mistaken, isn’t the output of models supposed to be LT and not surface temp? If that is so, then when considering the performance of models, it makes more sense to compare these with the satellite data rather than with the various land based data sets.
Tamino has removed ENSO, volcanoes, and solar from satellite data and from surface data. Obviously ENSO does not account for the satellite trend diverging lower than surface after 2000. So Bob Tisdale is wrong. https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/10/14/by-request-adjusted-satellite-and-surface-data. See also Tamino’s earlier post https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/10/14/divergence-between-bob-tisdale-and-proper-analysis/
roflmao..
Tamino models a deliberate rise then gets a deliberate rise… DOH !!!
The JOKE is on ANYONE that takes anything he presents seriously.
“Tamino has removed ENSO, volcanoes, and solar from satellite data and from surface data.”
Or so he claims, but since we are not capable of attributing warming to specific causes properly, what he has done is construct a fantasy that has no relationship with reality, where he can then draw his fantasy conclusions. Anything goes by the name of science these days. Some of these people should be working for the entertainment industry.
“construct a fantasy that has no relationship with reality”
The name of this science fantasy is “Anthropogenic Global Warming” or “Climate Change™”
Or so he claims, but since we are not capable of attributing warming to specific causes properly, what he has done is construct a fantasy that has no relationship with reality
Well Javier, I can understand that some people produce nonsense because their knowledge is of a very low level.
But from your side I’d expected something morfe accurate… what about looking at the 2014 paper of Santer & alii:
Volcanic contribution to decadal changes in tropospheric temperature
https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/89054
I can’t imagine you ignoring that or even pretending it’s just entertainment, and even today I still don’t understand why Willis had such a harsh reaction against it, it seemed to me he had read the paper a bit too quickly two years ago.
Bindidon,
Santer et al., 2014 is nothing but a coarse attempt at matching the temperature data to the model output. The goal of the research was established beforehand and then the necessary assumptions were made along the way.
The truth is that we are living through a volcanic lull, with only two significant eruptions in terms of SO4 in 50 years. The low volcanic activity is just adding to the question of why temperatures are not rising as they should if the hypothesis was correct.
One day you will wake up to the realization that building a hypothesis on the warming that took place in the 80-90’s was a mistake. I already did.
“I can understand that some people produce nonsense because their knowledge is of a very low level.”
Yes.. we have been watching you !!
j, I’ve long called that attribution to CO2 for the warming of the last quarter of the last century the grandest example yet of the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy. It is an undipped heel in the whole delusion.
=======================
Javier on October 15, 2016 at 3:24 am
Santer et al., 2014 is nothing but a coarse attempt at matching the temperature data to the model output. The goal of the research was established beforehand and then the necessary assumptions were made along the way.
Jesus what an arrogant and respectless blah blah, based on nothing else than suspicion, supposition and the like, instead of being the result of a fair, scientifically valuable falsification.
Would you ever be able to do that? ¡Entonces dame alguna prueba!
An accurate description of Santer, et. al. 2014.
“Jesus what an arrogant and
respectlessblah blah, based on nothing else than suspicion, supposition and the like, instead of being the result of a fair, scientifically valuablefalsification[research].”I think that description adequately represents the article. It is very arrogant to think that not being able to quantify the amount of warming produced by CO2 for over 30 years during which climate sensitivity has not been determined, they are capable of quantifying the amount of warming produced by volcanic activity, and ENSO and subtract it and the result will have any value.
Here is what you really get when you remove the effects of the El Nino events
The divergence:
http://i1039.photobucket.com/albums/a475/Knownuthing/Doubletrend_zpssq4dejir.png
Lots of insightful comments.
I’ll stick with Bob Tisdale.
Charlie Skeptic
The battle of the charts, the divergence is becoming harder to ignore, this is getting exciting.
Will Phil Jones continue to try to keep up with Gavin Schmidt’s attempts to validate the climate models?
“The battle of the charts, the divergence is becoming harder to ignore, this is getting exciting.”
Would that be the divergence of the AMSU sensor from RATPAC radiosonde since it’s introduction.
Rhetorical.
A real trend or natural climate variation. The longer temperature history indicate that SST and air temperatures follow each other. We will see after the next la nina. See Nic Lewis exellent analysis at Climate Audit:
https://climateaudit.org/2016/07/12/are-energy-budget-tcr-estimates-biased-low-as-richardson-et-al-2016-claim/#more-22048
My comment there: “Nor is there good observational evidence that air over the open ocean warms faster than SST.”
I have reconsidered, and think that Nic Lewis has a good point.
HadMAT1 (ocean air temperatures) and HadSST (ocean water temperatures) seem to follow each other very close through a timescale from 1870 to 2000.
After a paper from N A Rayner et. al 2003 http://badc.nerc.ac.uk/data/hadisst/HadISST_paper.pdf
The divergence (a more accurate version, made by somebody who really knows how to bring together baselines wrt 1951-1980 and 1979-1998, because he has good a dozen of temperature series stored in his computer):
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/161015/ofhayaik.png
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2003/offset:-0.428/mean:12/plot/rss/from:2003/offset:-0.093/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:2003/offset:-0.428/trend/plot/rss/from:2003/offset:-0.093/trend
Moreover, persons really knowing about such series know also that such short periods aren’t worth the pixels they are displaed with 🙂
From Kevin Cowtan, http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html:
RSS trend 2003-2016: 0.084 ±0.278 °C/decade (2σ)
GISS trend 2003-2016: 0.199 ±0.182 °C/decade (2σ)
For GISS, the 2σ reaches the trend, that’s worse enough! And for RSS the trend is anything you want.
Well that was a nice incompressible mess of a post. Well done !!
English is your third language, is that your excuse?
Yes.
P:S: may I suppose that you in fact intended to write “incomprehensible” ? That would make your comment indeed more comprehensible.
Darn spell checker !!
Hilarious that you KNEW the exact word I meant to type. 🙂
Allan M.R. MacRae:
“First, CO2 lags temperature at ALL measured time scales, both during warming and cooling periods AND in the short and long term. The ice core record is well-established. The short-term record is also clear ”
Yes the carbon cycle in nature CO2 does follow temperature.
However mankind has circumvented that process by burning fossil fuel.
with a small proportion of additional CO2 beyond the carbon cycle’s ability to sink it.
The VAST majority of atmos CO2 is natural and of course does follow temp – the inter-annual NH cycle of sinking/sourcing FI.
And TOTAL does to as there is THERMAL INERTIAL LAG in the climate system.
You are seeing the effect of seasonal temperature changes in the Earth’s biosphere in the balance of CO2 sinks and sources in your WFT graph.
The tiny advance of incremental CO2 increases will not be shown as coming first.
In fact it’s thought that anthro CO2 emissions lag by around 10 years ….
“http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/3/031001
“Our results indicate that as CO2 continues to accumulate in the atmosphere, the full warming effect of an emission may take several decades, if not centuries to emerge. A large fraction of the warming, however, will be realized relatively quickly (93% of the peak warming is realized 10 years after the emissions for the 1000 PgC pulse). This implies that the warming commitment from past CO2 emissions is small, and that future warming will largely be determined by current and future CO2 emissions. Each additional CO2 emission will contribute to warming that will persist almost indefinitely. Thus, emission reductions implemented today will equally benefit current and future generations.”
This does not prove AGW theory wrong.
It just shows the flaws in you understanding.
“the full warming effect of an emission may take several decades, if not centuries to emerge”
ie LONG after their erroneous science can be held to account.
Read again:
“A large fraction of the warming, however, will be realized relatively quickly (93% of the peak warming is realized 10 years after the emissions for the 1000 PgC pulse).”
Except it AIN’T HAPPENING !!!
Tone b, you carefully omitted the last line of the Abstract in the paper you cited, which reads:
“Most of the warming, however, will emerge relatively quickly, implying that CO2 emission cuts will not only benefit subsequent generations but also the generation implementing those cuts.”
Your comments are cargo-cult nonsense – global warming religious crap. I will not comment on the cited paper, except to say it is probably just more of the usual climate cargo-cult crap.
Global warming alarmists all have the same approach – you start with the conclusion: “There IS a global warming crisis!”, based on NO credible evidence, and then you scam some nonsense analyses and conclude: “”Therefore, there IS a global warming crisis! Be very afraid!” I call bullsh!t.
There are some worthwhile posts on this thread. Try to keep up.
Actually Allan Tone did not quote the abstract at all, he quoted the summary paragraph in its entirety. Perhaps it is you who should keep up.
As I expected.
No science – just hubristic hand-waving.
You could try logic, but that seemingly evades you also.
Did you even manage to wrap your brain around why CO2 follows temp even on short time scales.
That’s it’s dominated by the natural carbon cycle?
Or do you want to hand-wave some more?
Thank you Toneb, for trying to “explain” how the future causes the past. Maybe you could give that cargo-cult-concept just a bit more thought.
It appears that you are a warmist troll, but just in case you are not, I comment as follows:
Your comments indicate that you do not understand the WFT graph I posted above (read the formula – included in the url), which ~removes the seasonal signal and depicts annualized (12-month) changes.
It is correct that the seasonal CO2 “sawtooth” (with an annual amplitude of ~16ppm at Barrow AK, ~8 ppm at Mauna Loa and near-zero at South Pole) also follows temperature (via the carbon cycle and appears to be dominated by the larger Northern Hemispheric landmass, among other factors), but this WFT graph intentionally removes that seasonal signal.
Your slight-of-hand happens here, when you wrote this:
“The tiny advance of incremental CO2 increases will not be shown as coming first.
In fact it’s thought that anthro CO2 emissions lag by around 10 years ….”
There is no evidence that CO2 is a significant driver of global temperature – if CO2 drives temperature at all, its effect is so small as to be insignificant. That is why the only signal that is apparent in the data is that CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales and temperature (among other factors, which could include fossil fuel combustion, land use changes, etc.) drives CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature.
Repeating, there is NO evidence that CO2 is a significant driver of global temperature.
There is no credible scientific basis for the alleged catastrophic manmade global warming crisis.
“that CO2 emission cuts ”
roflmao
Another record for CO2 emissions in 2016.
China, India, and many other countries will continue to provide MUCH NEEDED atmospheric CO2 for many years to come.
Andy is right. As I stated previously, the Grand Experiment is on. Feeble Western CO2 curbs will ensure, according to CAGW IPCC climate models, we will blow past the +2C limit.
Technology improvements and adaptation are the only sane policy options for CAGW adherents. Squandering needed resources on fruitless mitigation seems contrary to the wellbeing of future generations that the CAGWers claim to care about.
Charlie Skeptic
Two factors are patently at play in the divergence between surface and TLT data: the surface temps are intrinsically more volatile and the surface data are subject to corruption by UHI and other non-climatic factors. The greater surface volatility is due to the fact that most of the thermalization of insolation takes place near the surface. Notwithstanding that difference, there’s strong coherence between natural surface and TLT variations. On the other hand, there’s negligible coherence between UHI effects and natural variations. Merely comparing “trends” in (often quite short) data series is wholly inadequate for discerning the nature of the divergence.
Given that around 70% of surface data represents ocean surface temperatures, how does UHI corrupt the record?
Surface area should not be confused with data coverage. Oceanic coverage is very poor in actual SST records, with long series virtually non-existent outside of well-traveled sea lanes. Thus UHI-corrupted island station records, extrapolated over great distances, figure prominently in the data coverage of global indices.
Where are the uncertainty intervals for the trends? No decent analysis without that.
The trend uncertainties overlap. Just as there has been no statistically significant warming since 1998,
there is no statistically significant divergence since then. Or since 2000.
The uncertainly analysis is not optional, and it blows your hypothesis out of the water, Bob.
NOT A WHOLE LOTTA GLOBAL WARMING GOIN’ ON!
Bill Illis’s work on this concept predates mine by years. Somehow I missed his stuff and thought I had discovered something new – Haw! Bill’s post is here.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/23/lewandowsky-and-cook-deniers-cannot-provide-a-coherent-alternate-worldview/comment-page-1/#comment-2306066
Bill’s equation is:
Tropics Troposphere Temp = 0.288 * Nino 3.4 Index (of 3 months previous) + 0.499 * AMO Index + -3.22 * Aerosol Optical Depth volcano Index + 0.07 Constant + 0.4395*Ln(CO2) – 2.59 CO2 constant
Bill’s graph is here – since 1958, not a whole lotta global warming goin’ on!
My simpler equation using only the Nino3.4 Index Anomaly is:
UAHLTcalc Global (Anom. in degC, ~four months later) = 0.20*Nino3.4IndexAnom + 0.15
Data: Nino3.4IndexAnom is at: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/indices/sstoi.indices
It shows that much or all of the apparent warming since 1982 is a natural recovery from the cooling impact of two major volcanoes – El Chichon and Pinatubo.
Here is the plot of my equation (Apology – the title is truncated – it should read ”leads by four MONTHS”):
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1106756229401938&set=a.1012901982120697.1073741826.100002027142240&type=3&theater
I agree with Bill’s conclusion that
THE IMPACT OF INCREASING ATMOSPHERIC CO2 ON GLOBAL TEMPERATURE IS SO CLOSE TO ZERO AS TO BE MATERIALLY INSIGNIFICANT.
Regards, Allan
If you say so Allan.
However the elephant in the room is that the AMSU sensor is drifting colder than the radiosondes that the MSU sensor previously wasn’t.
Yes,yes.
We know it’s the “Gold standard” (sarc)
Cherry-pick your data series, and trends are still 2 times less than IPCC climate models.
Still want to turn your society and economy over to 3rd World social justice?
Toneb:
You are dodging and weaving like a typical warmist bullsh!tter. I cannot be bothered with you and your fellow trolls.
Your audience is elsewhere – most of the people on wattsup are too intelligent to be duped by your nonsense.
As George Carlin said:
“You know how stupid the average person is, right? Well, half of them are stupider than that!”
That bottom half is your audience Toneb – perhaps some of them will believe you.
one way to do some quality control on these surface temps would be for all surface temp publishers to publish raw, unadjusted time series AND classify each adjustment, e.g. sensor move, calibration, urban heat, etc. Then we could look at raw with each class of adjustments individually applied.
And do what?
One way to do quality control is to get the raw data yourself, come up with a better method to deal with discontinuities and differences in measuring methods – and make your own global temperature record.
This has been done a few times now, and the results generally corroborate, whether done by skeptics or others.
Meanwhile people who call for yet more work to be done continue to insist there’s something wrong. They’re either unaware of numerous global temp records by different groups or are simply pig-headed.
Don’t like GISS, NOAA, HadCRUt or the JMA global record? Then check out Jeff Condon’s/Roman M’s effort – skeptics get a warmer temp record than Phil Climate-gate Jones.
https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/03/24/thermal-hammer/
But the raw data is there, you simply don’t know where it is.
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/
Feel free to download it, Nelson Smith, and to experience what raw really means, e.g. when computing the time series for the Amundsen-Scott station in the Antarctic out of ghcnm.tavg.latest.qcu.tar.gz.
In that file, you discover the GHCN metadata describing the stations, where for example you can see a distinction for them between
– rural, suburban and urban
– weak, medium and high nightlight.
The next then is to look at the difference between “unadjusted” and “adjusted” data, where you can see that serious outliers in the unadjusted file are replaced by undefined values in the adjusted version.
Etc etc etc…
Bindidon, oh jahiasus. You really should get a life.
Oh yes charlie! Gimme one!
But you’ll need two: one to get rid of all what you imagine, suppose, pretend and claim without knowing anything of that, and one to start learning about all you don’t know 🙂
Bindidon, the Army taught me I didn’t know nuttin in 1968. Since then, it has not improved a lot. Be that as it may, there are a few things I know that might surprise you.
Many posters and commenters seem to be convinced that warming at the North Pole solely exists in surface temperature series. They would do well to cast a glance on satellite data.
A first example is RSS3.3 TLT, which for the Globe shows a good similarity to UAH6.0beta5.
But their North Pole data shows different: for the Arctic region (60N-82.5N) they give a trend of 0.339 ± 0.03 °C per decade, whereas UAH has a lower trend of 0.239 ± 0.23 °C.
You can get some more deeper look at what happens in the Grand North as viewed by satellites in the troposphere, if you process UAH’s 2.5° grid data (72 x 144 grid cells per month), and compute the OLS trend from dec 1978 to aug 2016 in the ten northmost 2.5° latitude stripes (the area above 82.5N unfortunitely is not supported).
Here are the trends, in °C per decade:
80N-82.5N: 0.420 ± 0.044
77.5N-80N: 0.345 ± 0.038
75N-77.5N: 0.278 ± 0.034
72.5N-75N: 0.256 ± 0.031
70N-72.5N: 0.241 ± 0.028
67.5N-70N: 0.219 ± 0.026
65N-67.5N: 0.201 ± 0.025
62.5N-65N: 0.191 ± 0.024
60N-62.5N: 0.190 ± 0.023
57.5N-60N: 0.194 ± 0.022
The next exercise will be to compute the trend from dec 1978 to aug 2016 for each of UAH’s 10,368 grid cells… from 82.5N “down to” 82.5S.
For interested persons: here is, for the sátellite era (1979-2016) a zonal trend of UAH’s 2.5° grid data you may find in http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tlt/.
The satellites do not operate above 82.5N nor below 82.5S. Greenland, Tibet and a few other places are poorly represented (see http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/docs/readme.msu).
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/161019/cjv426zj.jpg
Basically, we see three main regions:
– in the middle, from 35S to 35N, a very stable Tropics area, whose warming trend is about the same as that of the entire Globe;
– on the left, from 35S to the South Pole, a cooling area with a slight warming uptick;
– on the right, from 35N to the North Pole, a stronger warming area.
No surprise about the cooling in the southern hemisphere: few land masses, with the exception of the Antarctic.
Whatever the origin of the phemomenon: the Arctic regions are warming, no doubt. It will be interesting to discover in which grid cells this warming is the highest.
You mean, Bindidon, that you expected the Southern Oceans to cool? Based on what?
Who downloads and processes lots of temperature time series does not expect the Southern Oceans to cool. S/He simply observes that in the downloaded datasets.
Well, Bindidon, I was just trying to interpret your: “No surprise about the cooling in the southern hemisphere: few land masses, with the exception of the Antarctic.” That implied to me your belief that ocean masses determine a cooling in the Southern Hemisphere.
My question had to do with my contrary expectation, given that ARGO indicates Southern Ocean heat accumulation.
Oh, “S/H/It” would be more consistent with cutting-edge PC than your “S/He.” Let’s keep up, shall we?
It’s my opinion that educated people use “one.”
Until now I was busy with land surfaces, IGRA radiosondes and satellites. I know of ARGO of course, but never did download any SST data. Sure I’ll do in some near future.
Good (future) move, Bindidon! The various (and varying) ocean-basin SST’s affect both nearby and distant land masses through teleconnections. CO2 does not seem to affect them equally, if at all. Especially follow the North Atlantic and Eastern Pacific basins. ENSO will blow your mind.
While you are at it, download a bunch of stuff from Bob Tisdale at https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/
You will learn a lot about SST’s, IPCC climate models, etc. Bob is truly data-driven; you’ll like that. Ideologues really hate him. Facts are worrisome things to politicians and their enablers.
As I read this comment, I asked me wether or not charlie had even a little look at Tisdale’s last “production”:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/10/11/quicky-october-2016-enso-update/
Probably he didn’t, then if he had, he certainly would have written at least one comment there.
ENSO blows my mind since longer than you think…
By the way, what about looking at this, I don’t know if you could find it anywhere else:
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/161020/48veumde.jpg
Any idea, charlie?
Good move…
Your inability to communicate coherently has been a problem from the get-go. AMF.