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)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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 @ur momisugly 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…