Steepest drop in global temperature on record

Stunning new data indicates El Nino drove record highs in global temperatures suggesting rise may not be down to man-made emissions

  • Global average temperatures over land have plummeted by more than 1C
  • Comes amid mounting evidence run of record temperatures about to end
  • The fall, revealed by Nasa satellites, has been caused by the end of El Nino

steepest-drop-global-temperature

By David Rose

Global average temperatures over land have plummeted by more than 1C since the middle of this year – their biggest and steepest fall on record. According to satellite data, the late 2016 temperatures are returning to the levels they were at after the 1998 El Nino.

The news comes amid mounting evidence that the recent run of world record high temperatures is about to end. The fall, revealed by Nasa satellite measurements of the lower atmosphere, has been caused by the end of El Nino – the warming of surface waters in a vast area of the Pacific west of Central America.

Some scientists, including Dr Gavin Schmidt, head of Nasa’s climate division, have claimed that the recent highs were mainly the result of long-term global warming.

Others have argued that the records were caused by El Nino, a complex natural phenomenon that takes place every few years, and has nothing to do with greenhouse gas emissions by humans.

The new fall in temperatures suggests they were right.

Big El Ninos always have an immense impact on world weather, triggering higher than normal temperatures over huge swathes of the world. The 2015-16 El Nino was probably the strongest since accurate measurements began, with the water up to 3C warmer than usual.

It has now been replaced by a La Nina event – when the water in the same Pacific region turns colder than normal.

This also has worldwide impacts, driving temperatures down rather than up.

The satellite measurements over land respond quickly to El Nino and La Nina. Temperatures over the sea are also falling, but not as fast, because the sea retains heat for longer.

This means it is possible that by some yardsticks, 2016 will be declared as hot as 2015 or even slightly hotter – because El Nino did not vanish until the middle of the year.

But it is almost certain that next year, large falls will also be measured over the oceans, and by weather station thermometers on the surface of the planet – exactly as happened after the end of the last very strong El Nino in 1998. If so, some experts will be forced to eat their words.

Last year, Dr Schmidt said 2015 would have been a record hot year even without El Nino.

‘The reason why this is such a warm record year is because of the long-term underlying trend, the cumulative effect of the long-term warming trend of our Earth,’ he said. This was ‘mainly caused’ by the emission of greenhouse gases by humans.

Dr Schmidt also denied that there was any ‘pause’ or ‘hiatus’ in global warming between the 1998 and 2015 El Ninos.

But on its website home page yesterday, Nasa featured a new study which said there was a hiatus in global warming before the recent El Nino, and discussed why this was so. Last night Dr Schmidt had not returned a request for comment.

However, both his own position, and his Nasa division, may be in jeopardy. US President-elect Donald Trump is an avowed climate change sceptic, who once claimed it was a hoax invented by China.

Last week, Mr Trump’s science adviser Bob Walker said he was likely to axe Nasa’s $1.9 billion (about £1.4 billion) climate research budget.

Other experts have also disputed Dr Schmidt’s claims. Professor Judith Curry, of the Georgia Institute of Technology, and president of the Climate Forecast Applications Network, said yesterday: ‘I disagree with Gavin. The record warm years of 2015 and 2016 were primarily caused by the super El Nino.’

The slowdown in warming was, she added, real, and all the evidence suggested that since 1998, the rate of global warming has been much slower than predicted by computer models – about 1C per century.

David Whitehouse, a scientist who works with Lord Lawson’s sceptic Global Warming Policy Foundation, said the massive fall in temperatures following the end of El Nino meant the warming hiatus or slowdown may be coming back.

‘According to the satellites, the late 2016 temperatures are returning to the levels they were at after the 1998 El Nino.

The data clearly shows El Nino for what it was – a short-term weather event,’ he said.

Full story & comments

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Kevin Kilty

“…The new fall in temperatures suggests they were right.”
Who is they? Can we not write well enough so that attribution is clear?

Clarity? He starts with
“Global average temperatures over land …”

george e. smith

It means the Antarctic highlands are going down to -95 deg. C this winter, instead of staying at -94.
G

jorgekafkazar

“Others have argued that the records were caused by El Nino, [begin parenthetical] a complex natural phenomenon that takes place every few years, and has nothing to do with greenhouse gas emissions by humans [end parenthetical] .
“The new fall in temperatures suggests they were right.”
Who is ‘they,’ you ask? This could not possibly be any clearer. ‘They’ obviously refers to ‘Others,’ in the previous sentence.

ironargonaut

Aww, the Others, so extraterrestrials then. That’s so much clearer.
Wouldn’t want the S-word people to be right.

If so, some experts will be forced to eat their words.
==========================
nope. they will be forced to adjust the data.

navnek

Last year it was “adjusted data shows……” Adjusted means “faked.” But you knew that. WHich is why I find little credibility in any “study” that adjusts its data.

michael hart

and forced to be not asked about it by the MSM. The same MSM that got the election wrong.

The federal “scientific” community has been behaving badly, spreading PC propaganda favoring carbon taxes instead of scientific truths. For the first time in DECADES I am reading “news” facts that are somewhere near truth; that energy STORAGE mechanisms (Gulfstream, El Nino et al) are responsible for the average global temperature. Sunlight is the huge energy gorilla in the room. We generally loose by infrared radiation back into cold space as much as we gain every day, except for a few scraps being sqirreled away in ocean waters. Said oceans meandering and cloud cover modulate the retained energy from month to month which air circulation carries over lands. Follow the oceans and air mass movements! Trash Gore & Co.

My computation of our energy generation via carbon products is that our earth absorbs 7,000 times more energy from sunlight than is produced by the combustion of carbon products. The average earth temperature uptick from said combustion is 0.011 degrees C (+0.02F). Really the vast majority of that occurs on city properties. Figuring that city property is at best 1% of the earth’s surface, this means that the average CITY temperature could be as much as 2 degrees F warmer because of the carbon combustion going on within city limits. That’s where most Liberals live, so little wonder that they are so convinced and incensed about this matter. But Mother Earth overall remains largely unperturbed by carbon combustion. Trash Gore & Co.

The people last mentioned before “they”. Learn to parse English properly before you criticise someone else’s (actually correct) English usage.

Indeed – they refers to “Others”. What could be clearer than that? That’s proper science journalism that is.

Doug Allen
MarkW

Does this put the kibosh on claims that 2016 was going to be warmer than 2015?

No. UAH and RSS will much warmer this year than last, because of the lag between El Nino changes and atmospheric temperatures.
However, this year will probably end up about the same as 1998 (my guess is slightly higher)

Latitude

The satellite measurements over land respond quickly to El Nino and La Nina. Temperatures over the sea are also falling, but not as fast, because the sea retains heat for longer.
===
…and the lag says it was 100% El Nino….and without it temps would have continued to fall

William Astley

The $3 Trillion dollar question is not will 2016 be warmer that 19 years ago (1998), but rather is global warming over.
There is now observational evidence of cooling of the surface ocean in regions that are most affected by solar cycle changes.
The cult of CAGW told us over and over and over that almost 100% of the warming in the last 150 years was due to CAGW. The cult of CAGW conveniently limited the discussion to ‘recorded’ temperature the last 150 years, rather than the full paleo climatic record (say this interglacial period, last 11,000 years for example)
It is a fact that planetary temperature has increased and decreased in the paleo record, in high latitude regions correlating with solar cycle changes. The warming we have experienced in the last 150 years is high latitude warming matching the past warming pattern. 100% of the past cyclic warming periods in the paleo record were followed by cooling periods when the solar cycle abruptly changed.
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2016/anomnight.11.28.2016.gif

Greg

The fall, revealed by Nasa satellite measurements of the lower atmosphere

I was not aware that NASA provide an extraction of the temperature of the ” lower atmosphere”. What dataset is this unattributed graph supposed to be?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_October_2016_v6-550×318.gif
I don’t see the massive in UAH Oct 2016 and November is not finished yet, so where does this final point come from? Has David Rose just made this up?
The article also describes temperature anomaly maps as “satellite images” which is BS. Clearly Rose has little idea what he is talking about. Perhaps Monkey face needs to have a chat and bring him upto speed.

Greg

OH DEAR, have they taken the Dr Spencer’s projections of “what would be needed to make 1998 the hottest year” ?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH-v6-LT-with-2016-projection-2-550×330.gif

Greg

This is a good illustration of why you should always state on a graph WHAT THE FRIGGIN DATA IS. And provide a link to the datasource close by in the text.

george e. smith

A guess is as good as a GCM prediction.
G

Manfred

However, this year will probably end up about the same as 1998 (my guess is slightly higher)

Of course it will. Adjustments ensure that. However, the de-couple from reality will soon be upon us. That will be far, far trickier to manage.

Frederik Michiels

actually after looking around i found the data source of the graph: it’s the land only lower troposphere temperature of RSS
you can reconstruct it at WFT

Does this put the kibosh on claims that 2016 was going to be warmer than 2015?

Not yet. This is only over land and not global.

auto

If I have properly comprehended the various comments here – and I am certainly fallible, and may be wrong – the not-so-gradual change to the weather station database, over the years:
ignoring
AAA Rural stations – against urban/airport stations
BBB ‘more northerly’ against ‘more southerly’
and possibly by reviewing marine stations — appear to have allowed a ‘trend’ to be ‘visible’ – I didn’t say “manufactured” – from data, not tortured at all.
Auto

Ilfpm

Greg was prescient. He moved 600 miles north of where he lived in 1998. Just like Leonardo DiCaprio and Barry Obams stopped flying around the world spewing massive amounts of C02.

Richard

Of course not. If the temperatures don’t behave as predicted, then a new spate of “corrections” will occur, both of present and past data sets.

Uncle Gus

No, you fool!
Just the reality. The *claims* will go ahead unchecked…

Latitude

Does this put the kibosh on…one whole degree being a big deal……yes!
The same people that have been screaming about 1 degree of warming being a big deal…are now trying to say 1 degree of cooling is not a big deal

george e. smith

Well We can expect Lord M of B to re-incarnate the pause, from the pause in the pause.
A sort of unphoenix, sinking out of the ashes. His post won’t be long delayed now.
G

seaice1

george, we can expect the post announcing the pause to be delayed exactly as long as it takes for the pause to reappear. The big blip caused by the recent El Nino is still in the record, just as the big blip caused by the last big El Nino is still in the record. For the pause to go back to the old pre-El Nino days the temperatures will have to be a lot colder for quite a long time. My guess is that it will never go back that far again (at least for hundreds or thousands of years.)
What will happen is that this recent big blip will remain in the records, and a new pause will start from this current El Nino. It is already here – the new pause is approximately 6 months old.
This new pause will almost certainly persist for a few years as that is the nature of this sort of series. Large positive blips will cause a statistical pause of this sort.
What helped me visualize this was imagining a person standing still on the floor for say 20 minutes, then going upstairs for 1 minute (or jumps for 1 data point (number 20)), then returning to the ground floor and staying there. We plot height above the floor every minute. The slope of the line up to the jump is flat. The slope is positive after the jump but only until 39 minutes. After this the slope tips downwards as there are more points after the jump than before it. The jump is acting like a pivot. The slope will always be negative after this time.
Regarding the pause, this is defined as the furthest we can go back from present and find no positive slope.
At point 20 there is no pause – the slope is always positive going backwards.
At point 21 the pause is 2 minutes, data point 19, 20 and 21.
At point 22 the pause is 4 minutes; data points 18 to 22.
And so on – each data point added after the jump extends the pause by 2 data points.
For a series that is flat punctuated by positive blips this is what we would expect. The pause would extend backwards from the blip as far as we have moved forward in time, “balancing” on the blip.
If we get a second equal blip at 40 minutes, what do we see?
At point 40 the pause now extends from the second blip back to the first – that is 20 minutes from 20 minutes to 40 minutes.
Each time period back on the floor extends the pause by 2 time periods again as the flat line balances on the two blips.
For a flat period punctuated by equal sized blips we would never see the pause smaller than the time between the blips.
If the second blip is slightly bigger than the first, then it takes slightly longer for the pause to go back to the first blip, but only slightly. After a 10% bigger blip the pause is restored back to 20 minutes after just one more minute.
What we have seen is a pause that extended back to just before the first blip (the 1998 El Nino) for nearly 20 years, but never extended back much further. This is consistent with a blip superimposed on a positive slope. It is not consistent with a blip superimposed on a zero slope.
What I think we will see is the new pause extending back to just before the new blip but never reaching back to the first blip. This is consistent with positive blips superimposed on a positive slope. It is not consistent with positive blips superimposed on a zero slope.

george e. smith

Only one slight quibble with your response Seaice1,
M of B’s algorithm is an equal opportunity algorithm. It asks only is the calculated trend statistically different from zero.
So a credible minus slope or a credible plus slope are equally fatal to the pause.
But you are correct I was “grasping at straws” and assuming that we will see a similar downward spike similar to what happened after the 1998 el nino.
We shall see.
G

Kevin Kilty

” If so, some experts will be forced to eat their words.”
Experts on the “right side of history” are never asked to eat their words, because a majority of the media have no memory, and even less understanding.

Kevin, No the experts just heard their budgets might get cut and are running over to Trump’s corner! Follow the money!

Kevin, They just heard their budgets are going to get cut and are now after the “new” money, Trump’s

kevin the experts are not changing the story and eating their words. They know the funding is going to be cut so they are looking for a different backer, ie Trump.

John Harmsworth

Squirrel!

firetoice2014

+1

Peter C

Interestingly I have seen two GW skeptic stories, including this one, in the UK MSM in the last week. Perhaps we are starting to see some sense.

auto

Peter,
We may be “starting to see some sense” – but don’t hold your breath.
Various organs – even the (once-)non-establishment ‘Private Eye’, have been discombobulated by Brexit – and The Donald!
Various efforts in Europe – Austrian re-run; the Swiss vote not to revert to the Bronze Age; the Italian constitutional referendum; and next year, elections in Germany and France may bolster the feeling.
Let us hope for outcomes that help most folk.
If one or two are Vampire Squid bankers – well, as long as most folk get helped, I can live with a billionaire not having to cadge cigarette butts.
Auto
Not a client of Goldman Sachs – the eponymous squiddly niddly.

george e. smith

It’s not the squids that did it, it was that Alien Septapus. But It’s just hollyweird preaching to us again.
G

One of my local Television stations has started to use the term “Energy Poverty” on-air; They had years ago removed a meteorologist from on-air weather and science reporting shortly after he had audaciously described the Climate Change debate in a neutral voice. So it does seem to me that there is subtle shift in the Main Stream Media’s leaning on the issue.

Alx

“…Dr Schmidt had not returned a request for comment.”
Not surprising since the guy has a history running away from debate. Hubris and elitism are not the best tools a scientist can use to make a case. How this has worked for Schmidt for so long is troubling.

Gary

Perhaps Gavin Schmidt was too busy cranking up the adjustment machinery to answer the request for a comment?

John F. Hultquist

Some crank and some are just cranky.comment image

That’s what I call mann-made global warming; however in this case it’s schmidt-made global warming.

Gerry, England

He might also be on the hunt for another job as his time at NASA is short.

Steve Borodin

Dangerous Schmidt warming?

Pop Piasa

I guess as an old coot I just don’t know Schmidt.

Pop Piasa

They can’t explain away the hiatus, so the must make it disappear or call it something that better matches the meme.

Mike the Morlock

Alx November 28, 2016 at 8:23 am
& all others in this chain. Note the second paragraph from the article . Nasa Website. Someone(s) Just stabbed Dr Schmidt in the back. Not with a mere knife mind you, but with a Macedonian Sarissa.
He is probably over turning desks in rampaging hunt for fellow who posted the New study on the website.
“Dr Schmidt also denied that there was any ‘pause’ or ‘hiatus’ in global warming between the 1998 and 2015 El Ninos.
But on its website home page yesterday, Nasa featured a new study which said there was a hiatus in global warming before the recent El Nino, and discussed why this was so. Last night Dr Schmidt had not returned a request for comment.”
I do not know the motive for the individual who placed the study on the website but this is going to cause a stir.
michael

Styopa

Until I see an actual LINK for ” on its website home page yesterday, Nasa featured a new study” , I’m doubting.
Why wouldn’t the person writing this post the link?

Mike the Morlock

Styopa November 28, 2016 at 12:35 pm
Okay I did not check, So why are you doubting?
Either the Author David Rose is writing fake news and I am a fool. Or it is real.
michael

bsl

The NASA article appears to be:
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/study-sheds-new-insights-into-global-warming-trends
It does seem to acknowledge a hiatus, but also discusses accumulation of heat in oceans.

Mike the Morlock

bsl November 28, 2016 at 4:35 pm
Thanks bsl. Still to many people at NASA & JPL not doing what they are tasked with.
michael

“Dr Schmidt also denied that there was any ‘pause’ or ‘hiatus’ in global warming between the 1998 and 2015 El Ninos.
But on its website home page yesterday, Nasa featured a new study which said there was a hiatus in global warming before the recent El Nino, and discussed why this was so. “

As usual, Rose gives no sources, and seems to be mixing stuff up. I think the first probably originates with Mann, not Schmidt, who is, among other things, co-author of the paper: Sensitivity to factors underlying the hiatus.
But as for the unsourced NASA paper, no, it does not say there was a hiatus. They are explicit on terminology:
‘To begin, they suggest the climate community replace the term “global warming hiatus” with “global surface warming slowdown” to eliminate confusion.
“This terminology more accurately describes the slowdown in global mean surface temperature rise in the late 20th century,” Yan said.’

george e. smith

When I lived in St Louis (county), the second question people asked me was: “Izzat dt or two t’s ??
Well it’s th actually.
G

There’s no stopping The Pause

Bob B.

Except perhaps the decline.

AndyG55

NOAA/GISS can manage it !!
Here is how. 2001 – 2015.6 (between the El Ninos) with trends taken back to same starting point in 2001.comment image

So it’s all those villainous GISS adjustments?
Here’s the same plot, with UAH5.6 still available:comment image

AndyG55

Yes Nick. UAH found a KNOWN error due to satellite shift, and corrected it.
Its called SCIENCE and ENGINEERING.. learn some sometime.
You have NOTHING. !!

Klem

I find it revealing that the alarmists, who supposedly fight against global warming, actually deny the existence of the Pause. You’d think they’d be happy about 18 years of essentially flat temperatures. But instead they always seemed so pleased and relieved to proclaim that 2015 and 2016 were the warmest years on record, at times almost triumphant.
Counter intuitively they’ll likely be unhappy to hear that the Pause has returned and could be 20 years in duration now.

Owen in GA

Ahh Klem,
But you see, if the temperatures remained flat for 18 years while CO2 monotonously climbed, there is a problem supporting the theory and without the theory, they have no jobs, no prestige, and no grant money to spend. They MUST prevent a pause at all costs – their whole way of life depends on it!

Latitude

Stunning new data indicates El Nino………..and the AMO………. drove record highs in global temperatures
Can’t figure out why everyone ignores the other ocean…that goes directly into the Arctic

Alan Robertson

There you are again, with the AMO. Keep it up. Maybe we’ll catch on.
That explains much of the elevated Arctic sea and air temps this season.
The recently departed El Niño takes care of the rest.
(afaics)

Latitude

should have known Bob would have it…comment image

Latitude

comment image

george e. smith

I would say those two graphs seem to show a definite correlation. The light grey one seems to track the darker line.
G

Latitude

Actually it would be a perfect fit….if they didn’t do this (borrowed from Marcus)
http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2016-01-14-04-18-24.png

Latitude

All of this was predicted in WUWT several years ago The strong El Nino raising global temperatures can in no way be interpreted as AGW by CO2, because if it was, then temperatures would continue to rise during the La Nina phase. The so called “scientists” have shot themselves in both feet this time.

joelobryan

Gavin is likely to be out of US govt employ in 2 years when the US govt FY2018 budget zeros the funding appropriation for GISS. And then the global temps will fall and “manmade GW” will be at an end.

Rhoda R

Nothing to stop GISS being shut down once Congress acts. Budgeted money isn’t set in stone until it is ‘expensed’ or actually and contractually obligated and spent.

joelobryan

Unless Senate Republicans put a final stake in the heart of the filibuster, getting legislation to reorganize NASA (eliminating any GISS climate work) to President Trump’s desk would first have to clear a senate democrat filibuster. GISS is in Manhattan and works with Columbia University. Senator Schumer (D-NY, senate minority leader) would filibuster any legislation that eliminates GISS and its jobs and funding to ColU.
Appropriations bills though can avoid the filibuster, and thus simply defunding GISS would the politically expedient method of eliminating politicized climate science work by redundant agencies such as GISS.

As far as I can see GISS isn’t a line item. That would mean it exists at the whim of the Administration.

joelobryan

Trump’s NASA administrator could redirect GISS back to its original charter of basic space science theoretical work. That would entail political risk drawing the wrath of Congressional democrats. Such a re-alignment would result in a major staff upheaval as the academic disciplines of atmospheric climate research are vastly different from academics who study space plasma, solar wind manetosphere interactions, and gavitational interactions between planets and the sun. Plus there are (NASA and NSF) grant tie-ins to Columbia researcers.
GISS in its current state is like an invasive, soft tissue tumor that has wrapped and interwoven itself into Columbia U atmospheric Earth Sciences and the climate modeling community. Simply telling a large group of climate-atmspheric scientists to become space plasma physicists simply doesn’t work. And the best way to unpoliticize NASA administration to to get the politics out of NASA administration. Leave the politics to Congress.
The best option is for Congress to specifically forbid NASA to use appropriated funds for Earh Climate research and redirect any non-redundant work funding to NOAA.

NASA, GISS and possibly all of the department subsections would operate their budgets under finance numbers.
As JoelOBryan points out, the agencies are at the beck and call of the President; as is their organization and expenditures.
Political noise? Perhaps.
But only noise. Outside of refusing to authorize funds, Congress and especially the Senate has little say in the running of an agency so long as they operate legally.
I’d like to see those Democrat Senator yahoos pull another climate blindside using false experts without GISS and NOAA backing.
Almost as much as hearing those Senator benefactors scream when the green massacre mills lose their subsidies, fixed high prices, publicize how much rare wildlife they kill and have to pony up for grid improvements.

I think most of us wouldn’t oppose transitioning GISS from NASA to NOAA. I’d strongly approve of moving it from Manhattan (some of the most expensive commercial real estate in the world) to a location that is more “sustainable”. There’s another Columbia I can think of that would be quite appropriate – in SC.

PiperPaul

Alaska.

Jimfact

Maybe a bit further south would be best. There is a Latin American country w/ a great exchange rate.

Miami has some real estate where the ocean waters frequently visit and have visited for decades.
Then again, NOAA/GISS allegedly has some major computer power that should be moved to very stable landscape; e.g. Northern Minnesota or South Texas.
I lean toward Texas; Texans are such friendly outgoing people, (Honest!).

John Harmsworth

The Antarctic! Obviously.

Mike Wryley

Move them into the now closed incandescent lamp manufacturing plant and garnish their wages to help pay the unemployment for the folks that used to work there.

george e. smith

I don’t have a problem with the closed incandescent lamp factory, so long as its demise was a result of free market forces. Nobody should be forced to make buggy whips, just to provide employment for people who know how to make them.
I’ve never bought a buggy whip; never even seen one actually. But I have already purchased the last incandescent lamp I will ever own.
But I did have to wait for a full half century to pass, since I was one of a few, who jokingly declared: ” One day, we will be lighting the whole world with these things. ”
We were in a darkened auditorium at Monsanto Company’s Central Research Labs, in St Louis (county) MO, looking at the dull red glow of a small section of GaAs0.6P0.4 wafer under an assembly binocular microscope. We also joked that if we knew the name of a company investing in GaN technology, we could make a killing by selling its stock short.
But that was long before Shoji Nakamura came on the scene at Nichia in Japan.
G

This is stage one of the cooling more to follow.

commieBob

The 1998 El Nino reminded me of a step function with an overshoot, an undershoot, and then settling. It depends on which temperature set you look at and how it is smoothed.
In 2010, Willis speculated that we might be looking at something like feedback control system behaviour. link It’s a very attractive idea. I’m curious to see how this El Nino turns out.

joelobryan

The 98 EN was followed by the 99-00 LA. That LA (an upwelling of colder than normal waters in the East Trop Pac) coincided with the rapidly rising solar activity to the SC23 peak in 01. So if the 98 EN was an impulse, the following solar activity drove was the steprise.
SC24 is now on a 3 to 4 year disciplined decline to minimum somewhere likely in late 2020 or 2012. Any LA that persists in this decade could see a stepdown in global temps and a final relaxation of the climate system back to conditions approaching 1975 state by 2022.

joelobryan

LN, not LA . Not sure where that came from. Duh!!

commieBob

… a final relaxation of the climate system back to conditions approaching 1975 state by 2022.

That should put the stake in the heart of CAGW.

I assume EN is not short for ENSO. I assume EN is short for El Niño, it’s a short term, just type it (with ñ for ñ or copy ‘n paste. Here’s LA: La Niña
Pls dnt u go ovrbrd w abbrs.

george e. smith

Well the essay you linked to is one person’s opinion.
A feedback response that overshoots, is just one option available to process control designers.
What happens if that overshoot that is claimed to be necessary, leads to a functional failure; the governor gizmo snaps in half ??
” Settling time ” is commonly spoken of, when talking about a system returning to a ” set point “; and virtually any feedback system has a set point that it is trying to return to.
And there is no assurance that settling time is reduced by overshoots. A monotonic non overshooting response can settle faster that one that overshoots. It’s a question of design.
It is true, that the system can be made to return to the set point faster, if overshoots are permitted. That is NO assurance that the system will REMAIN within an acceptable error band sooner, and that is the measure of control success. How fast can you return and remain within an acceptable error from the set point.
Propagation delays certainly make it harder to avoid oscillations about the set point. They don’t necessarily make it impossible to achieve monotonic response.

sailboarder

” the rate of global warming has been much slower than predicted by computer models – about 1C per century”
anthropogenic or natural 1 C rise, or both?

Latitude

…or adjusted

commieBob

I don’t think the models acknowledge any natural warming.

MarkW

As I’ve been told by several warmists, since all natural cycles are cycle, over time the average out so they don’t have to be considered by the models.
Of course when the tuning period is a time of upswing in 3 to 4 of the natural cycles, that can’t possibly have any impact on the “projections”.

gregfreemyer

Actually Kasoka and Xie claim to be making progress at separating out natural and global warming.
http://oceanbites.org/the-pacific-pacemaker-using-models-to-explain-warming-hiatus/
Their hypothesis is PDO (including El Niño / La Niña) is natural, so they run constrained models with actual data for the western pacific. There hyposthesis is they they can then separate out the 2 effects. In the 1910-1940 global warming, they give PDO almost full credit, etc.
It’s important work, assuming they are on the right track.

Their hypothesis is PDO (including El Niño / La Niña) is natural, so they run constrained models with actual data for the western pacific. There hyposthesis is they they can then separate out the 2 effects. In the 1910-1940 global warming, they give PDO almost full credit, etc.

You can see in the swings of min and max, the warming can not me from a loss of cooling. Period. What it looks like they are, are the ocean cycles driving changes to the jet stream, which alters the path warm water vapor out of the tropics take, when more of it goes over land, it’s warmer even though the total heat content didn’t change.

lawrence

Nooooo! This is disasterous, what about all those poor Polar Bears – the ice will be too thick for them to break through.. We must increase emissions so that we can save the Polar Bears…

commieBob

Those wily polar bears don’t have to break through the ice. The seals maintain their own breathing holes. The bear just has to wait beside a hole until the seal sticks its nose above the water to deftly remove the seal. What an easy life. 🙂 It’s practically like lying under a tree with your mouth open waiting for the fruit to drop.

Mickey Reno

The polar bears will soon have a new, protein-rich food source, as outlined in my recent post on another thread. And if this thing is half as big as I think it just might be, those bears will be eating like kings: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/11/27/five-stages-of-climate-grief/comment-page-1/#comment-2354336

Alan Robertson

You’re actually kinda close with the mention of too- thick ice being bad for the bears.
Susan Crockford has explained how thick Spring ice is bad for the seals, who can’t haul out of the sea to deliver their pups.
Thick ice = seal population decline = hungry bears wandering around looking for nice fat field techs and lean mean derrick hands.

george e. smith

The models don’t actually acknowledge anything natural, like a rotating planet that is illuminated 24/7 at about 1662 Wm^-2.
G

John

The article is a little out of date, since the La Nina event is already looking like an ENSO neutral state. Who knows what 2017 will bring, but there are no signs get than an El Nino will take hold to make it warmer than 2016, so saying a temperature drop is coming would be a safe bet.
Let’s chat in 15 years about trend 🙂

Global average temperatures over land

I don’t like skeptics using incomplete data like this. If this was a similar alarmist post, we would be all over them for cherry-picking.

Matt G

Blaming AGW and especially CO2 is suppose to show up more over land, so I presume that’s why this has been chosen. If the rise over land is shown to be lost, then therefore there is no way it was caused by AGW in the first place. Hence, backs up what I and others have mentioned before about it being caused by El Nino’s.

richard verney

i suspect that it is more to do with response time.
The large heat capacity of the oceans creates a buffer such that it takes longer to recognise change, and of course, it also impacts upon the extent of change. there is a great eal more energy entrained in the oceans than in the atmosphere.

Dave Fair

Jeff, SST measures WATER temperatures. Land measurements are for AIR temperatures. A composite of the two (scientific nonsense) gives no information as to underlying physical processes.
Atmospheric teleconnections provide quick responses across the globe to ENSO related equatorial sea surface temperature variations. Global average SST varies more slowly through ocean currents and lagged response to atmospheric variations (air pressure, wind, temperature, etc.).
La Nina conditions shove leftover El Nino-warmed surface waters north and south into higher latitude Pacific waters and westward into the Indian Ocean. Those warm waters intruding into other ocean basins are a lagged response to El Nino warming.
Read some Bob Tisdale: https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/

george e. smith

Actually, john Christy et al showed that oceanic air Temperatures and oceanic water Temperatures aren’t correlated, so no they do not follow each other in a cause and effect manner.
The air over Hawaiian waters today, will be over California in a few days. Why would the air and ocean temperatures ever be the same.
Even the ocean temperatures themselves (water) don’t stay the same. It’s called “meandering”. All rivers do it.
G

Chris Schoneveld

George,
Indeed. This is the reference for others to check:
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 28, NO. 1, PAGES 183-186, JANUARY 1,2001

Good point, well taken.

tony mcleod

Let alone the vitriol against anything issued by nasa.

MarkW

When you are caught lying, it diminishes trust.
Especially when that lying is costing us money.

J

It would be nice to see the anomaly dip below that -0.2 line.
With no adjustments, we might see the pause solidly confirmed, or the oh-oh, maybe it is cooling ?
Cooling is bad for people.

Bruce Cobb

Especially Warmists.

PiperPaul

Algor mortis (Latin: algor—coldness; mortis—of death), the second stage of death, is the change in body temperature post mortem, until the ambient temperature is matched.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algor_mortis

Christian John

No, its just the coverage bias of RSS in Antartica, UAH has not fallen as strong as RSS, if you see RSS in TTT you will see the decrease is smaller.
And..
Its not because of transition from El-Nino to La-Nina, its because of strong continental cooling caused by extrem early WACCy-Pattern. And so its no wonder, the coming month should more cooler as its in Oktober for RSS TLT.
Its so simple, why make it always a great story? So desperate?

christianjo

No, its just the coverage bias of RSS in Antartica, UAH has not fallen as strong as RSS, if you see RSS in TTT you will see the decrease is smaller.
And..
Its not because of transition from El-Nino to La-Nina, its because of strong continental cooling caused by extrem early WACCy-Pattern. And so its no wonder, the coming month should more cooler as its in Oktober for RSS TLT.
Its so simple, why make it always a great story? So desperate?

John F. Hultquist

WACC = Weighted average cost of capital
Or what?

christianjo

Warm Arctic cold Contients and y = crazyness

Moderately Cross of East Anglia

The question I would be interested in seeing an answer to is when, reasonably speaking, can we claim accuracy in measuring El Niño events . My reason for being interested in this is the El Niño events in the late nineteenth century and in particular the 1876-79 one which killed tens of millions and caused catastrophic droughts – lasting three years in some places – throughout the mid-latitudes.
I see nothing in the run of modern El Ninos that remotely matches the descriptions of what was going on in the 1870s, even allowing for our ability to moderate the worst effects of such events in terms of aid to famine areas.
I would think this question has some importance in reference to the narrative of “unprecedented” weather or climate claims in “modern” times. Unless it is going to be claimed that time works differently once you go back further than 25 years.

steven f

The satellite sea surface temperature data is only about 30 to 40 years old and vastly better than anything else we have had. Whale the limited climate data for the 1870’s may indicate a a 3 warming trend we cannot say for sure that was a el Nino. We also don’t precisely know how long it lasted. Or it may have been like the 90’s and 2015 when see surface temperatures were elevated for year or more before a large El Nino occurred.

Chimp

China and India also now have more water storage facilities, more acreage cultivated and higher crop yields and varieties, as well as improved national and international relief organization. This despite larger populations.

Bindidon

Moderately Cross of East Anglia on November 28, 2016 at 9:03 am
The question I would be interested in seeing an answer to is when, reasonably speaking, can we claim accuracy in measuring El Niño events . My reason for being interested in this is the El Niño events in the late nineteenth century and in particular the 1876-79 one which killed tens of millions and caused catastrophic droughts – lasting three years in some places – throughout the mid-latitudes.
You are right! This edition in 1877/78 had terrific consequences, mostly located in the Southern Hemisphere if I well remember what I read some years ago.
You can compare these ENSO episodes by looking at
– the Historic MEI (Multivariate ENSO INDEX) record:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei.ext/
– surface temperature records:
— HadCRUT4.5
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/time_series/HadCRUT.4.5.0.0.monthly_ns_avg.txt
— BEST
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Global/Land_and_Ocean_complete.txt
Accuracy is quite a relative matter! By comparing all the data presented here, you see that the series have a pretty good match, but it tells you nothing about what really happened 🙁

Moderately Cross of East Anglia

Thanks Bindidon for the links, lots of interesting reading for me then!

I’ve been saying for what 10 years, the warming is not from co2, it can’t been because of how fast the entire world can cool at once. It had a prelude to this in the 97 El Nino cycle, that you can’t see because they show you average temperature.
sample rate >359/year 53 million recordscomment image
Same sampling rate, 1980 to 2015 44 million samplescomment image
Sample rate >364/year 29 million samplecomment image
And all of the warming was in the northern hemisphere, so this is a good representation of the best temp data for an are on the planet.

What satellite dataset is shown in the graph in this article?

Killer Marmot

I was wondering that myself.

Toneb

The dataset used is RSS v3.3 TLT which was not updated when RSS moved to V4.0.
The dataset used is for LAND only, and you may just have noticed that the NH (by far the biggest land area of the hemispheres) is decending rapidly into winter. Go look at Siberian temps, oh, and go look at Arctic ones.
Exactly.
http://www.remss.com
Quote: “The lower tropospheric (TLT) temperatures have not yet been updated at this time and remain V3.3. The V3.3 TLT data suffer from the same problems with the adjustment for drifting measurement times that led us to update the TMT dataset. V3.3 TLT data should be used with caution.”
Oh, and this is what RSS TTT v4.0 (Global 82.5S to 82.5N)comment image

Hugs

Note the perfect linear fit one could hang oneself on. I just expect for warrants I could buy.

SkepticGoneWild

These temperatures are anomalies. Why should it matter if we are “descending rapidly into winter”?

Toneb

See Nick Stokes post below:
Some extra detail.
Basically extreme Siberian temps.

AndyG55

This is the fastest and deepest drop in temperature in the whole satellite data.
Get over it !

george e. smith

Well this graph is a fake.
Just what is the likelihood that somebody could possibly sample a band limited continuous function and find that every maximum and minimum falls exactly on one of the sampled points.
The graph plotted above is NOT a band limited continuous function so you cannot believe ANYTHING that is calculated from ANY finite set of samples; no matter how large that set of samples is.
Total BS graph.
G

David Rose writes: “The satellite measurements over land respond quickly to El Nino and La Nina. Temperatures over the sea are also falling, but not as fast, because the sea retains heat for longer.”
Also, a La Nina is not the opposite of an El Nino. An El Nino releases warm water from beneath the surface of the western tropical Pacific and places that warm water on the surface. A La Nina recharges the heat lost from below the surface of the tropical Pacific by decreasing cloud cover and allowing more sunlight to warm the tropical Pacific to depth.

Richard G

I’ve always thought of it as a cycle. Relaxation or reversal of Trade Winds allowing the higher temp W Pac water to travel to the E Pac. The now lowered temp W Pac water produces less clouds allowing more sunlight to raise the water temp to depth of about 100m. Now what causes the change in Trade Winds?

“Now what causes the change in Trade Winds?”
Perhaps the change in ocean surface temperature that inevitably accompanies warming “to depth”. Not enough surface warming to create the towering ninoesque sun blocking convection. Maybe not enough to even show as anomaly, but enough to foster robust Hadley circulation that drives the trades.
The trades in turn skim off the warming surface water (keeping it from getting out of hand) and pile it up against Indonesia to some depth where it cannot radiate efficiently to the atmosphere.
This can’t go on forever so when the pesky QBO does an about face at just the wrong moment and disrupts the Hadley cells, all that piled up hot water at Indonesia does an exit stage right…comment image
Credit Paul Pukite

Toneb
Mike Fayette

The graph does not match the one shown….

Hugs

Could be. It was toneb, after all, making a point on his set being better than the shown set.

Toneb

“Could be. It was toneb, after all, making a point on his set being better than the shown set.”
No just showing the thing that makes Rose’s *article* complete nonsense.

Simon

“Some scientists, including Dr Gavin Schmidt, head of Nasa’s climate division, have claimed that the recent highs were mainly the result of long-term global warming.
Others have argued that the records were caused by El Nino, a complex natural phenomenon that takes place every few years, and has nothing to do with greenhouse gas emissions by humans.”
Really, who are these scientists who argue El Nino is is the cause of these records? Even Judith Curry (a skeptical scientist) only says the warming is “primarily” caused by El Nino. I think you will find she is a lone wolf among scientists. I’d been keen to hear the names of others work in the field who do not attribute the recent records to long term warming caused by increased greenhouse gases. i.e what Dr Schmidt is saying.
Here is a logical question that demolishes any notion that El Nino is responsible for warming. If it is, why has this event, that has been happening for (at least) thousands of years, not meant we are hotter than we are?

Hugs

Yada yada primarily peak alarmism.

Simon

Hugs
So … ummm … that is your best answer?

Mike the Morlock

Simon November 28, 2016 at 9:54 am
“Hugs
So … ummm … that is your best answer?”
It properly put your statements into a appropriate context Personalty I prefer the more effective “Blah,blah blah,”
michael

Simon

Mike the Morlock
“I prefer the more effective “Blah,blah blah…..”
Highly intelligent response thank you. Now perhaps for the thinking ones here you might want to say which aspects of what I wrote are so incorrect. Or perhaps Blah….. is all you have?

catweazle666

WIBBLE…

Dale S

Simon, how did you turn a claim that the “recent highs” and “records” were caused by El Nino into an imaginary claim that El Nino is “responsible for [long-term global] warming”.
Absent an El Nino, let alone an extremely strong one, what do you think the chances are that 2015 and 2016 would have been record-setting based solely on “the long term warming trend”?

Simon

“Absent an El Nino, let alone an extremely strong one, what do you think the chances are that 2015 and 2016 would have been record-setting based solely on “the long term warming trend”?
Good question….. I’d be betting on it.

Simon

I should say, as long as you take out the other El Nino’s. I think 2016 would be guaranteed warmest.

schitzree

Then you would have lost that bet. We have a fairly good idea from measuring past El Nino and La Nina and the changes in Global Temperature that coincide with them how much they can effect. Without the 2015-2016 El Nino Global Temperature would not have reached a record point.
El Nino caused the record high, just as this La Nina will cause the following low. Once they are over and Global temp stabilizes (to the extent it ever does) then we will know if it will include a step change like 1998 did, or if it will go back to the pause, or even show a step down to pre 2000 temperatures.
By about 2018 we should know. And by 2020 (the next US presidential election) unless we see a SIGNIFICANT increase in Global Temperature (a real one, not just more adjustments) the ‘Climate Change’ movement will be doomed. Even the Liberal/Progressive/Socialist movement may have trouble weathering such an absolute failure.

Simon

schitzree
“El Nino caused the record high, just as this La Nina will cause the following low. Once they are over and Global temp stabilizes (to the extent it ever does) then we will know if it will include a step change like 1998 did, or if it will go back to the pause, or even show a step down to pre 2000 temperatures.”
El Nino is no more the cause of a record high than a wave is on record sea level rise. It is just short term noise. And sorry we arn’t going back to pre 2000 temps for quite some time.

schitzree

Well simon, that really depends on how you’re measuring ‘record high’ temperature. In the grand scheme of things you’re right El Nino is a passing ‘wave’ in the temperature record. That’s why I said we need to wait till it and the following La Nina have passed to see what the actual global temperature is.
It is in fact the Climate Faithful with their ‘warmest year ever’ nonsense that are trying to use the peak of the ‘wave’ to claim a trend that isn’t really there. And it looks pretty silly considering that the wave has already past and global temps are already back to where they were during the ‘pause’.
In about a year or two we will have a better idea where the Global Temperature is. And as for whether we are going back to pre 2000 temps, we’ll see won’t we. I personally only give it about 25% odds. On the gripping hand I only give more moderate warming 15% odds, and ‘catastrophic’ warming (which we’d need to come anywhere near the Climate Faithful’s >2°C this Century predictions) at less the 5%.
With the Faithful having bet all their political capital, their reputations, and even their honor on that catastrophe it isn’t looking good for them.

On the gripping hand

lol, hindmost the escape ship is ready

Simon

schitzree
It is in fact the Climate Faithful with their ‘warmest year ever’ nonsense that are trying to use the peak of the ‘wave’ to claim a trend that isn’t really there. And it looks pretty silly considering that the wave has already past and global temps are already back to where they were during the ‘pause’.”
Sorry but that last bit is just not true (nor is much of what you say for that matter). Nick Stokes blog has latest numbers and we are still well above pause numbers. Take a look….
https://moyhu.blogspot.co.nz/p/latest-ice-and-temperature-data.html#NCAR
Or perhaps you prefer the most conservative of all metrics UAH. Even that shows we are well above where the so called pause had us. In fact I doubt you will find a data set that says you are right.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

seaice1

“Then you would have lost that bet.” I don’t think so. If you take out the past El Nino’s as well as the recent one we are hotter than ever.
Can you indicate where you think the data is that supports your statement that if we correct for short term El Nino effects then previous years were hotter? That means you cannot point to 1998 temperatures because they include the short term El Nino effects.

MarkW

Simon, if we were measuring the sea rise based on the top of each wave, then a big wave would be analogous to an El Nino.
PS, that is exactly what you are trying to do.

JohnKnight

Simon,
“Here is a logical question that demolishes any notion that El Nino is responsible for warming. If it is, why has this event, that has been happening for (at least) thousands of years, not meant we are hotter than we are?”
Because “warming” is not a permanent state.
Vast amounts of energy are constantly leaving the Earth, departing into the big black deep freeze we call space, never to return. “Warming” is just a temporary reduction in the average rate of energy departure.

JohnKnight

(Just the word ‘constantly’ was supposed to be bolded . . )

Simon

“Vast amounts of energy are constantly leaving the Earth, departing into the big black deep freeze we call space, never to return. “Warming” is just a temporary reduction in the average rate of energy departure.”
And your point it?

“Warming” is just a temporary reduction in the average rate of energy departure.”

There hasn’t been a reduction in night time cooling, and by default warmer radiates more energy than colder.

JohnKnight

It’s an answer to your question . . We are not hotter than we are ; ) because “this event” and others like it are just transient irregularities in the departure of the energy from the sun that impacted the earth on it’s way into the big black . .

JohnKnight

Sure, micro, but first it’s got to be warmer, then more energy radiates into space. “Warming” indicates a reduction in radiation departure has occurred, therefore.

I think it’s fair to say that there’s been long term warming, upon which this El Nino builds, to create new record highs. So in some sense it’s both. The warming trend of the last 50 years ago most likely includes some level of warming based on GHG emissions, probably in the range of the 1C per doubling that the radiative physics predicts. On top of that there is warming due to ENSO, and the PDO and AMO. So the last El Nino builds on some GHG warming that’s already raised the base to a higher level, which is why we get a higher level El Nino that breaks records. Most skeptics wouldn’t argue this point. Long term, skeptics also predict higher levels of basic warming, just not at the rate alarmists predict. So it’s not inconsistent with the skeptical position for there to be new records made, and warmer and warmer years . But because natural warming and cooling cycles can easily override these trends, even for long periods of time, it’s incorrect to attribute the bulk of the warming in any El NIno to GHG forcing. Even the base warming is often the result of long term natural cycles. And so that base can fall as well. We’ll see, of course.

Chimp

The world has not been warming for 50 years. It is warmer now than 50 years ago, but the pronounced, more than 30-year postwar cooling trend didn’t end until 1977, when the PDO shifted.
There is however an over 300 year-long warming tend since the depths of the Little Ice Age Cold Period during the Maunder Minimum in the late 17th century, or since the exceptionally frigid winter 1708-09. But human activity has little to do with the natural cycles of centennial-scale warming and cooling.

Simon first argues with the fallacy of aithority as if CO2 warming is a popularity contest. The real question is how do alarmists know recent warming was due to rising CO2. Their belief is based on model results that can not replicate recent warming with their model of natural climate change, and can only simulate rising temperatures by adding heat associated with CO2. The problem is they assume their models have accurately and reliably simulated natural climate change. However those models repeatedly failed to accurately back cast the warming of the 20s to 40s. Their models underestimated the loss of Arctic sea ice and overestimate a loss of Antarctic sea ice. The argument that most scientists believe CO2 is the major contributor to recent warmth, is simply a matter of faith in a hypothesis that has driven failed models.
Simon then provided a great belly laugh saying his “logical question that demolishes any notion that El Nino is responsible for warming. If it is, why has this event, that has been happening for (at least) thousands of years, not meant we are hotter than we are?”
Simon appears clueless that the ocean stores and releases heat on timescales of days to millennia. Its quite silly to suggest the El Nino effect creates endless warming, EN just help release heat that has been stored for decades. The upper 10 feet of the ocean store more heat than the entire atmosphere, and any ocean ventilation raises air temperatures. In addition to EN ventilation the loss if insulating ice cover has allowed heat to ventilate from the Arctic Ocean, driving global averages upward. According to premiere Harvard and MIT oceanographers, heat stored during the warmth of the Holocene Optimum is still ventilating from the deep oceans. http://landscapesandcycles.net/cooling-deep-oceans.html

seaice1

” Its quite silly to suggest the El Nino effect creates endless warming,” Indeed, yet this is the conclusion of some who post here -that El Nino causes the jumps in temperature.

MarkW

Silly me, I guess big bump in temperature last year and the one in 1998, had nothing to do with the El Nino’s that occurred in those yeares.

seaice, you misconstrue my word. El Nino definitely creates large jumps in global temperature. Only an alarmist would deny those facts.
El Ninos are simply phenomena that ventilates heat that was stored at depths in the ocean where it did not affect air temperature. The issue is how much heat has been stored in the oceans and from what time periods. As our top oceanographers will argue, the oceans have yet to come into equilibrium with the atmosphere and heat stored for millennia is still ventilating.

Mike Fayette

This post – although good news – is suspect. It does not link to a dataset or even state the source. It does not have an end date (I presume it is comparing PARTIAL november data to full months elsewhere – which makes it useless) It has an arbitrary “0” line that ignores the last 18 years of actual data. It does not state an altitude band for these temperatures – and if it is satellite data – it is NOT surface data. I had already shared this on my Facebook Climate page, but I am thinking I should delete it until the data is better.
Anthony – this is pretty sketchy. You have published better.

Hugs

Agree, the data should be presented accurately.

tony mcleod

That will not stop it being reproduced ad nauseam in the coming days and months as “proof that…” blah, blah, blah. “It must be true I saw it on the internet”.

MarkW

Reminds me of Mann’s hockey stick. Which is still being trotted out as proof of global warming.

John Harmsworth

It’s not good news regardless! The IPCC says warming up to. 1.8C is beneficial globally. No negative effects are proven above that. Crop reserves are at record levels and deserts are greening. Warmth is beautiful!

Michael Daly

“…may not be down to man-made emissions” should perhaps read “…may not be due to…”, or was the choice of “down” a sort of semi-pun?

The data has not been adjusted yet. Let’s wait for that to happen before jumping to conclusions.

CheshireRed

Ouch.

Latitude

LOL….spot on

subtle2

Good one!

The headline as so often is misleading. The graph shows TLT over land (cherry-picked), not global. And so is the article. It is cagey about the dataset being talked about. That dataset is RSS V3.3, being phased out. RSS issues it with a warning:
“The lower tropospheric (TLT) temperatures have not yet been updated at this time and remain V3.3. The V3.3 TLT data suffer from the same problems with the adjustment for drifting measurement times that led us to update the TMT dataset. V3.3 TLT data should be used with caution.”
And this data shows why. RSS over land dropped by 0.615°C, from 0.735 in Sep to 0.12 in Oct. UAH TLT dropped by just 0.23°C, probably reflecting the extreme cold in Siberia. In actual global, UAH dropped only 0.03°C, to 0.41°C (about the same as last December), and RSS global was 0.35.
RSS V4.0, the proper version, also did not show a spectacular drop, with TMT down from 0.925 to 0.697, It was 0.648 last December.

Matt G

Answer this question!
Does the theory of AGW CO2 warming occur more on land or ocean?

AGW theory simply says that GHGs will block outgoing heat. The Earth as a whole will warm. As to how that is distributed, that is a matter for meteorology. Land temperatures change more easily.

Janice Moore

Stokes: “… will block the outgoing heat …”
Thus, the lower troposphere should warm significantly.
It hasn’t.
Game over.
CO2 UP. WARMING STOPPED.

Latitude

Game-Set-Match……….

Bindidon

Janice Moore on November 28, 2016 at 1:09 pm
Thus, the lower troposphere should warm significantly.
It hasn’t.

Well, Janice Moore, that depends on where you measure. Maybe you should download and process UAH’s 2.5° grid data (located in the same directory as the zonal/regional data); you will then get a good feeling.
Here is a chart of so called latitude trends (each point in a line denotes, for the period selected, the linear estimate of one of the 66 latitudes (the stripes 82.5N-90.0N and 82.5S-90.0S have no valid data):
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/161028/g25fmuo9.jpg
Here you see that, while the troposphere doesn’t warm in the mid latitudes, it does very well above the Arctic (over 4 °C / century at 80.0-82.5N), and, more recently, even above the Antarctic (over 3 °C / century at 80.0-82.5S).

Latitude

…dang, and another perfect fit with the AMO
whoda thunk itcomment image

NIck says, “AGW theory simply says that GHGs will block outgoing heat.”
That is incorrect. GHC’s simply absorb and rapidly emit outgoing heat. Warming is due to less than 50% of the heat waves being re-directed back towards earth. There is no blocking or trapping! Only a delay,

“GHC’s simply absorb and rapidly emit outgoing heat.”
No, the heat is absorbed and warms the gas (or keeps it warmer than it would otherwise be). The gas emits according to its temperature. So the temperature remains in balance, but it isn’t necessarily the molecules that absorbed the IR that re-emit it.
The atmosphere thus warmed emits in both directions; the downward stream helps keep us warmer. The main reason why the OLR is reduced is that it is emitted from a layer much colder than the surface. Gas at 230K is part-obscuring a surface at more like 290K.

You confirm my point.
You were wrong to say “AGW theory simply says that GHGs will block outgoing heat.”

NIck you implied that I was wrong to state CO2 rapidly absorbs and emits infrared, and then you went off on a tangent to create a facade of expertise.
Based on measurements of fluorescence, the total time for absorption, excitation and emission of a photon takes about one billionth of a second. I am not sure of the exact duration time for CO2 to absorb and then emit a photon but I suspect it is also close to a billionth of a second.
For you to argue CO2 “traps” infrared, for how long are you arguing CO2 traps the heat

OK, GHGs will block outgoing IR (substituting radiation from a colder source).

“For you to argue CO2 “traps” infrared”
I didn’t say it traps infrared. I said it blocks it. And it does. Photons emitted from the surface are absorbed by GHGs. They don’t exist any more. Their energy does, but now has to be re-radiated from a much cooler source gas.
You can see the effect very well in these spectra from Grant Petty’s book, taken over an Alaska icefield. Looking down, you very clearly see the bite out of the spectrum between about 600 and 750 cm⁻¹. You can see how, at about 900 cm⁻¹ (atmospheric window), the IR comes from the 273K surface. But in the bite region, the rays were blocked by CO2 and re-emitted at about 225K, with far less heat transported.comment image
When CO2 absorbs a photon, the energy is transferred to other gas molecules generally before it can be re-emitted. That is the basis of local thermodynamic equilibrium – temperature is diffused fast enough by collision that the molecules can be said to have equal temperature (and so the gas has a temperature). This fails in the very high atmosphere.

jim steele November 28, 2016 at 8:57 pm
Based on measurements of fluorescence, the total time for absorption, excitation and emission of a photon takes about one billionth of a second. I am not sure of the exact duration time for CO2 to absorb and then emit a photon but I suspect it is also close to a billionth of a second.

For CO2 in the 15 micron band the mean emission time is of the order of millisec, whereas in the lower troposphere the mean time between collisions is ~0.1 nanosecs so most of the absorbed energy is shared with surrounding gas molecules, not emitted.

MarkW

Nick, all other things being equal, which they never are.

Indeed high collisions rates in the lower troposphere will result in a sharing of kinetic energy that was gained from infrared absorption by CO2. If we limit our analysis there, we could argue CO2 blocks heat from escaping. But the bigger picture also reveals CO2 facilitates cooling of the troposphere.
O2 and N2 make up 99% of the atmosphere and those molecules do not absorb or emit infrared, so those molecules can not lose kinetic energy and cool radiatively. However they can transfer energy to CO2 via collisions after which CO2 emits infrared and facilitates atmospheric cooling. Roughly speaking we can say CO2 facilitates warming in the denser lower atmosphere and facilitates cooling in the upper atmosphere.
Convection dominates heat transfer from the earth’s surface and rapidly transfers that heat to the upper troposphere. CO2 does not block this mass transport of heat. If the atmosphere only consisted of N2 and O2, their heat that was gained from collisions with the warm earth’s surface could not radiate back to space. However collisions with CO2 transfers that energy, which then CO2 quickly emits as infrared allowing the heat to radiate away.
From that perspective, to say simplistically argue CO2 blocks heat is very deceptive.

Matt G

“AGW theory simply says that GHGs will block outgoing heat. The Earth as a whole will warm. As to how that is distributed, that is a matter for meteorology. Land temperatures change more easily.”
Physics shows that water prevents GHG’s from penetrating the surface and hugely only allows solar energy through. Therefore the influence GHG’s has on land compared to the ocean is significantly different and much reduced with water. Not only that, but latent heat adds another feature to increase the difference even further with evaporation. Block is not correct as slowing down slightly is far more accurate.
Increased evaporation cools the surface over water whereas over land more precipitation is needed to do a similar thing. Land temperatures change more easily because the energy is only allowed through via conduction once in contact with the surface. Therefore below the ground has little influence on the surface and removes a mechanism that hugely influences water regardless of GHG’s.
Land therefore hugely only responds to above the surface in the atmosphere and shows the affect on GHG’s by far on the planets surface. Land temperatures therefore are easily the best control to confirm how the change in GHG’s is affecting them or not. Hence, using land temperatures is not cherry picking when there is a good scientific reason for this in helping distinguishing science conjecture.
How that is distributed is by radiation, convection and conduction. Where meteorology is only part of the huge ocean cycles that acquire there energy from the sun.

AndyG55

Nicks getting desperate. !

Reaching for a one-month aberration in a land only component of a deprecated index is desperate. And headlining it as global doesn’t help.

AndyG55

“And headlining it as global doesn’t help.”
roflmao.. coming from a rabid AGW believer, that is truly hilarious.
Glad to see you admit the El Nino was not global.
So it won’t be used to show a Global “warmest evah”.. will it Nick.
Thanks for the laugh 🙂

“So it won’t be used to show a Global “warmest evah”.. will it Nick.”
I doubt that anyone, WUWT or elsewhere, ever quoted RSS TLT land only before Rose cherry-picked it for this occasion. Or ever will again.

AndyG55

Run and Hide , Nick..
you know that it is ONLY the strong El Nino that will mean 2016 is “warmest evah”
El Ninos are all the alarmista like you have.

seaice1

Honestly, Andy, look back at that last exchange and imagine how it would read to someone new here. Nick is making sensible and on-topic points, all Andy does is taunt.

John@EF

How old are you, Andy? You appear rather shallow and childish in these exchanges.

Bindidon

AndyG55, I wrote this more than once: you insult here scientists who are 1,000 times more intelligent and experienced than you might ever become.
And that you do not solely here, your thick and fat footprints we can also see for example at Roy Spencer’s site.
You are even unable to do the simplest job evah: to design a correct WFT graph. You perfectly behave like an ignorant and arrogant person.
Run and Hide , Nick‘ ? Well, AndyG55: I have a far far better idea!!!

Philip Schaeffer

“Honestly, Andy, look back at that last exchange and imagine how it would read to someone new here. Nick is making sensible and on-topic points, all Andy does is taunt.”
I really don’t think he understands just how obvious the contrast between his conduct and Nick’s conduct stands out. Nick talks about the science, and provides evidence to support his position. Andy sneers and whines like a school kid with a bad attitude.

Janice Moore

Good job, Andy G! FOUR trolls, fat with arrogance and puffed up with empty notions of what “science” is, waddled over, armed with ad hominem and blanks, to the rescue of their brother, Nick.
Nick talks about the science — that exists only in his own imagination.
When Nick talks about science realism, he will be listened to.
He brings the scorn and derision upon himself: out of his own mouth (both sides of it).

Harry Passfield

That dataset is RSS V3.3, being phased out.

Does that mean that all previous measurements from this dataset should be ignored, or just the ones that show a fall?

RSS says the dataset has problems with drifting measurement times and should be used with caution. That does mean that a sudden drop of 0.6 degrees not reflected in other datasets should be viewed with scepticism. But some sceptics believe anything that confirms their belief.

Alan Robertson

…and some wamunists will believe anything.

Looked like it wasn’t a big difference between the versions. Maybe 0.02 degrees. So, its just an alarmist deflection imo. Anyway, the REAL global data for Nov. comes out in a couple days. We’ll then see if this land cooling went global or not.

“Looked like it wasn’t a big difference between the versions. Maybe 0.02 degrees. “
Well, one big difference is that RSS V4.0 doesn’t have a TLT. But its TMT land only anomaly was 0.558°C. That’s a lot different from 0.12°C.

AndyG55

“Well, one big difference is that RSS V4.0 doesn’t have a TLT”
Why would that be?
Could it be because they know it would prove they were scamming the data.
Probably was a good idea for them to hold off until after the Presidential Election.
They can now “adjust” to fit the new meme. 🙂

TimTheToolMan

Nick writes

probably reflecting the extreme cold in Siberia.

I think you meant extreme anomalies in Siberia?

Frank

Where did David Rose get his data from: Did he download it himself or did he rely on an undisclosed scientist for this information? Very suspicious?
Nick doesn’t tell us how he knows where David Rose got his data. So far there is no reason to believe Nick is right either.
November isn’t complete yet, so the last data point should be from October. UAH’s global temperature (TLT) dropped 0.5 degC from the peak in February 2016 to June 2016 and has remained fairly constant since then. It is still roughly at least 0.2 degC above the average since 2000. In other words, it looks nothing like this graph.
This is supposed to be a skeptical science blog, so let’s be skeptical and scientific about what we read and POST here. Otherwise we are no different from the religious zealots on the other side. Climate change implies a change in 30-year or longer averages, so nothing that happens in one month, or one year means “game over”.

The RSS V3.3 (use with caution) land only TLT data is here. Rose’s graph is poor, but seems to match the numbers. But yes, I think it is extraordinary that he would write such a report without giving the source. Or that anyone would pay attention to it.

Michael Carter

I have been saying the same for weeks now, based around seat-of-the-pants observations and reports from the New Zealand farming community. It is based around grass growth, production, and natural responses to spring.
New Zealand dairy production is down 10% across the country – in my province 14%. Deciduous trees were 3 weeks late breaking into leaf. Silage and vegetable crops are late by a similar period. The spring was too cool and wet with little sun to lift soil temperatures.
One old timer, who is an agricultural contractor and keeps weather records, says that the last time this happened was in the 70’s which correlates with the 1972-73 El Nino. Our records were sketchy back then but according to my personal observations this was a more powerful event then both 1998 and 2015. Farmers do not forget as we have a range of proxies that directly hit our pockets and personal stress.
New Zealand is a range of mountains in the sea with a lot of wind. This is not just a land phenomenon. If I had to bet one way or the other I would back a very cool 2017.

Michael Carter

I.e Cooling occurred after the 1972 El Nino

Michael Carter
As a fellow NZer the feedback from rural farmers is the real data. You will also note that the westerly / north westerly winds normally experiencing a peak during October and November mainly over the South Island (Te Waipounamu) have been mostly absent this year, and only even now showing no real sign of endurance. These winds are absent primarily because the greater percentage of the NH summer atmospheric volume went north into the Arctic region causing warming and ice breakup. Exactly the same NH / SH atmospheric transport bias pattern occured in 2016 as in 2012, the year of the greatest ice loss.

Michael Carter

Ozonebust –
Yes, and the term La Nina is being used by media. The Metservice is predicting a “cloudy, humid summer’ for the northern Nth Island. What they did not say was ‘cooler’ but I am prepared to bet that it will be. Still darn cold here in Waikato and its nearly December!

John Harmsworth

Michael
You will be happy to know that NASA Climate division is sending up a satellite to locate the Southern Hemisphere. If successful, they will dispatch a team to cut down one of your trees in an attempt to verify your your direct observation.

schitzree

Now John, they aren’t going to cut down just one tree.
In the great Mannian tradition, they will cut down 50 to 100 trees, then use an AlGoreRhythm to pick out the one that gives them the best hockey stick.
~¿~

Thomho

Same pattern to the west of NZ in southern. Australia
Second wettest winter on record
Central Victoria latitude 37 south rainfall for 11 months of 2016 with one month to go now at 48 inches versus
24 for whole of 2015
Very late cool spring only one day over 30c
Sounds like La Nina to us

Bindidon

La Niña? Where?
1. Look at the ENSOmeter quietly returning to neutral since 2 weeks:
http://wermenh.com/wuwt/elninometer-current.gif
2. Look at JMA’ENSO 5 month running mean data, you see how it returns to neutral as well
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/elmonout.html#fig1
3. Look at BOM’s SOI:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/monitoring/soi30.png
(click on the image – WordPress cache problem)
4. Klaus Wolter’s MEI is far from any heavy La Niña mode:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/index.html

schitzree

Now THIS is really interesting. I know NOAA was predicting that the La Nina was going to fizzle, but I honestly thought it was just the Climate Faithful whistling past the graveyard.
If we don’t get a major La Nina, then that will increase the odds that this past El Nino will include another step change to the global average temperature.
We may actually see a real end to the pause here. The next two years should be interesting.

Jpatrick
Amber

NASA and Schmidt are going to be mutually exclusive when NASA is told to get out of the climate Ouija Board business . Let’s just hope the raw data doesn’t do a Hillary wash .

Good post. I think Gavin Schmidt will try to adjust GISS to eliminate a “pause”.

Pop Piasa

“The reason why this is such a warm record year is because of the long-term underlying trend

schitzree

^¿^

James at 48

NorCal SITREP – La Nina is full on. This is a “wet” La Nina, meaning, the line between the “wet PacNW” and “dry SW US” that is typical of La Nina, is actually well down into California. The line is going to be just south of the Bay Area for most systems. This will give NorCal a normal to above normal water year, So Cal will continue in drought. In addition, we will see several low elevation snow events, and, in all likelihood, at least one bad freeze that will remind everyone we are in the mid latitudes.

that will remind everyone we are in the mid latitudes

You know I wonder if that’s not one of the causes of this daft movement, the weather just doesn’t do much, and they think it’s like that everywhere. In Ohio we can get all 4 seasons in a 36 hour period, and no one here is really surprised lol

Gary Pearse

With the big very cold blob stretching across mid latitudes in the N Pacific and even more cold water in the South Pacific, the ENSO all by itself is less definitive as a cooling mechanism. Even if ENSO doesn’t go much below its present level, a major cooling would appear to be in the offing. I don’t think the record drop in temperature was due to just the ENSO band at the equator. Has anyone considered using what we know about ENSO water temperatures and world temperature and adding on exceptional effects like the cold blobs and general cooler oceans.
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gif

Gary Pearse

Dang the link! click on the gif to get the recent november map.

Chimp

The warm water left over from the EN in the NH has flowed toward the Arctic, where it will be lost to space. The forecast is for more cold.

tony mcleod

News flash The orange on the map is not the normal.
We are all so used to seeing swathes of anomalous warmth on these maps that what stands out for us these days is the blue bits. Have a close look at the map and tell it looks to be cooling.

Chimp

Flash!
Heat flows from warm to cool. The areas that were anomalously warm have now cooled and the hotter areas are on their way out of the system.
So a cooling climate system is the way to bet.
Meanwhile, the sun will be warming the tropical Pacific with less intensity in coming years than it did during the natural late-20th century warming cycle, so it will be a long time before another super El Nino such as in 1998 and 2016.

It would seem to me that there has to be periods where the main reservoirs of stored heat in the ocean get over turned back to the surface to cool.
Where I live, the difference between warm air from the gulf to air from canada, is 10 or 15 F in water vapor. It’s going to get cold a lot of places if it has all cooled off.

Chimp

As always, the EN blew off a lot of accumulated heat from the ocean into the air, spiking land temperatures. It will now take years of more sunshine on the tropical Pacific and normal wind patterns to pile up more warm water in the western Pacific, until the winds weaken and the water flows back toward the Americas. Then the deeper cold water will well up with the following LN.
It’s a natural cycle of greater or lesser strength (strong in 1998 and 2016), driven by the sun and oceanic circulation. Man-made GHGs, not so much.
The Pause that refreshes will soon be back on track, unless the cooler sun causes a worrisome decline in the beneficial warmth we’ve enjoyed since the Great PDO Flip of 1977.

AndyG55

I posted this graph the other day. and didn’t describe it very well.
It is RSS land only data, The running 8 month change in temperature is calculated and graphed.
This shows the massive drop in temperature since the El Nino peak.comment image

Marcus

..When you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything you want ! As an American living in Canada, I really hope the “Alarmist” are right…I would find it extremely difficult to live under 3 miles of ice !

AndyG55

UAH land only has a similar dropcomment image

Greg

Andy, what is the “8 month change” you are plotting? Could you describe that is terms that are mathematically reproducible?
Plus proper description and link to data would be nice. “UAH” is a university not a data set .

AndyG55

Gees, are you really that mathematically illiterate??
That explains the CRAP that you post.
Work it out yourself, BOZO. !!

Simon

AndyG55 November 29, 2016 at 1:24 am
“Gees, are you really that mathematically illiterate??
That explains the CRAP that you post.
Work it out yourself, BOZO. !!”
Translation… I have no clue. I just found it on a denying blog somewhere and it looked pretty.

Andy, where did you find your UAH with a decline of 1.5°C?
The 6.0 UAH Land shows a decline of 0.8°C.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6-land/from:1997

peyelut

“…some experts will be forced to eat their words.” They NEVER eat their words – they just double down.

schitzree

So true. The Peak Oilers, the Ozone Holers, even the Population Bombers, NONE of them have ever admitted that their beautiful theories and predictions were wrong. Like failed prophets they just move the date of their apocalypse back a few more years.

Their opinions ought to chucked down a TWO HOLER!

Scarface

@ Dr Roy Spencer: any idea if this drop is below your line that would make 2016 tie with 1998 as the warmest year ever?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH-v6-LT-with-2016-projection-2.gif
“Based upon this chart, it would require strong cooling for the next two months to avoid 2016 being a new record-warm year (since the satellite record began in 1979) in the UAH dataset.” Nov. 1. 2016
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2016-0-41-deg-c/

seaice1

I would guess not because that graph is global and the one at the top is land only.

bock

I would guess not because the november value is already on the plot!

bock

I meant “october” !

stock

I voted with my pocketbook, bought wheels and Blizzak tires for the Jeep and the F150

craig

“Dr Schmidt also denied that there was any ‘pause’ or ‘hiatus’ in global warming between the 1998 and 2015 El Ninos.”
Can I use the word “denier” Anthony? Please?

Ray

What’s up with it is that your data are bogus. Go here for the facts http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

Michael Carter

Ray – Do you really believe that we can calculate mean temperatures prior to 1960 within 1 C?. NO ONE has openly defended this calculation with rational logical statistical analysis. Why? – because they can’t. We are not all suckers. Just think about it for a while. One only needs some common sense. It MAY have been 1 – 2 C colder during this early period. We cant know

CheshireRed

Isn’t this damn-near exactly what was predicted by anyone with an ounce of awareness of el Nino? I’m a total layman member of the public but even I now know what goes El Nino up will also come La Nina down. The pause may well make a return appearance next year. Welcome back, ol’ buddy!

You are right Cheshire the el Nino is a blip in our climate, to my mind the recent warming was caused by the heating of the oceans by a few rampant solar cycles. The cycle we are having at the moment is weak but the ocean is a good heat bank to keep us warm. The sun also has long term holidays and is now at the start of its holiday period and the next two cycles are likely to be very wimpish and the oceans will cool.The last time it happened was the little ice age, where the Thames river froze. I am old and it will not bother me but over the next hundred years it is going to get bloody cold in Europe and Northern America. These cycles are like clock work and we are due.

John Finn

Hmm. I’m not sure I’d trust a Daily Mail article on climate change.
Look, I’d be as delighted as anyone to see the CAGW hypothesis finally put to bed but I fear Nick Stokes and Toneb are right on this one. The data used is definitely iffy and, aside from that, David Rose’s conclusions rely on some pretty blatant cherry picking.
FWIW, I think it’s more than possible that CO2 warming (+ feedbacks) won’t be as dramatic as most of the models suggest, but it looks pretty nailed on that we’ll see a continuation of the current modest warming trend.

John,
what is missing in this thread,is the complete absence of awareness, that despite the awesome warm forcing power of a trace gas CO2 failing to keep the continental cooling from happening,it can’t even prevent all that suddenly elusive energy from leaving the continents to outer space so quickly in recent months.
Gee how does CO2 do that? be so selective on where to “trap” and where to ignore the outgoing heat leaving by the truckload.

Janice Moore

Re: “cherry-picking” (and Dr. Curry being a “lone wolf” — in a pack of over 30,000….)
(from WUWT 10th anniversary anthology at 918-19 — free .pdf download on 11/17/16 thread)

November 26, 2010
Examination of CRU Data Suggests No Statistically Significant Warming
“Readers may recall this quote from Dr. Phil Jones of CRU, by the BBC:
Q: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming{?}
A: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods. …
By AJStrata at StrataSphere: CRU Raw Temp Data Shows No Significant Warming Over Most of the World
‘Bottom Line – Using two back-of-the-envelope tests for significance against the CRU global temperature data I have discovered: 75% of the globe has not seen significant peak warming or cooling changes between the period prior to 1960 and the 2000′s which rise above a 0.5°C threshold, which is well within the CRU’s own stated measurement uncertainties o +/- 1°C or worse. Assuming a peak to peak change (pre 1960 vs 2000′s) should represent a change greater than 20% of the measured temperature range (i.e., if the measured temp range is 10° then a peak-to-peak change of greater than 2° would be considered ‘significant’) 87% the Earth has not experienced significant temperature changes between pre 1960 period and the 2000′s.
… testing a hypothesis I have regarding the raw temp data vs the overly processed CRU, GISS, NCDC, IPCC results (the processed data shows dramatic global warming in the last century). I have been of the opinion the raw temp data tells a different, cooler story than the processed data. … To pull th[eir] deception off on a global scale, as I have mentioned before, requires the alarmists to deal with two inconvenient truths:
— The warm periods in the 1930′s and 1940′s which were about the same as today
— The current decline in temperature, just when the alarmists require a dramatic increase to match the rising CO2 levels.
… People have found actual CRU code that does this, and it does it by smearing good temp data with inaccurate proxy data
(in this case, the tree rings) or hard coded adjustments. The second method used by alarmists is to just drop those inconvenient current temps showing global cooling, which has also been clearly discovered in the CRU data dump. …
In my original post on these files, I went into great detail on the aspect of measurement accuracy (or error bars) regarding alarmists claims. I will not repeat that information here, but I feel I am being generous giving the data a +/- 0.5°C margin of error on a trend line (which contains multiple layers of averaging error incorporated in it). … What that really means is detecting a global warming increment of 0.8°C is not statistically possible. …’ — h/t to Joe D’Aleo”
(https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/26/examination-of-cru-data-suggests-no-statistically-significant-warming/ )

Also see (Ibid. at 1,596)
From WUWT article: “… Global Warming Stopped 16 Years Ago”

Scootle: “ ‘Bottom line – the no upward trend has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried. ‘ ~ Phil Jones, May 7, 2009, http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=2208.txt .”
(https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/13/report-global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago/#comment-1109077 )

John Finn

If this comment is intended for me then you are showing me stuff with which I’m fully familiar.
I know what Phil Jones said and I know that “our side” jumped on it but I fear it’s not a supportive as we might suppose. Jones is clearly not an accomplished statistician.
Statistical significance is an arbitrary threshold. Conventionally, statisticians use a 95% confidence interval – but less/more stringent intervals such as 90% or 99% could be used. While it was true that for the 1995-2009 period the ZERO trend did fall inside the 95% CI envelope, it was far more probable that there was a warming trend than not.

AndyG55

I’m not sure I’d trust Nick,
and I certainly wouldn’t trust Toneb.
Low-level propaganda mis-information at best.
“but it looks pretty nailed on that we’ll see a continuation of the current modest warming trend.”
NOT !

John Finn: Hmm. I’m not sure I’d trust a Daily Mail article on climate change.
True. They have too much boob reports in the right column, which distracts from serious scentific consideration.

aaron

Bahh! The satellites don’t count the heat leaving the system through the arctic. It’ll take months for that heat to actually leave the system.
(Watch for a surge in sea ice mass–not extent.)

AndyG55

This comparison shows that mid level sea ice is ABOVE that of the last 5 years.comment image
Its only the new stuff that is a bit slow.
But the Northern Russia cold patch is easing across to the Kara Sea, when it gets there the sea ice will go climb a rocket !

aaron

The big question is, “how do you think it is likely to play out?” Will it gently freeze over the surface, insulating the arctic water, likely leading to large melt in the summer? Or, will it be choppy, keeping the water exposed and causing thick build up of ice and heating of the atmosphere and cooling the ocean?

bit chilly

the longer the surface takes to freeze over in arctic winter, the more heat is lost to space. look for an increasing trend in summer extent after next summer.

aaron

It will also be interesting to see how exposed arctic and if ice mass growth affect CO2 concentration. NH late fall, increase uptake, delay release. Arctic continuing uptake. Siberia buried in snow and ice.

lawrence

I don’t think anyone posted a link to the study referenced by NASA
The global warming hiatus: Slowdown or redistribution?
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016EF000417/full

R.S. Brown

Authors and commenters may want to modify the notation “Dr. Gavin Schmidt, head of
Nasa’s climate division” to the descriptive phrasing, “Dr. Gavin Schmidt, the CURRENT
head of Nasa’s climate division.
This change in phraseology promotes accuracy without making overt political
innuendos.