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)





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.