by David Rose
New official data issued by the Met Office confirms that world average temperatures have plummeted since the middle of the year at a faster and steeper rate than at any time in the recent past.
Cooling: New Met Office world data shows a big fall from heat spike caused by El Nino this year
The huge fall follows a report by this newspaper that temperatures had cooled after a record spike. Our story showed that these record high temperatures were triggered by naturally occurring but freak conditions caused by El Nino – and not, as had been previously suggested, by the cumulative effects of man-made global warming.
The Mail on Sunday’s report was picked up around the world and widely attacked by green propagandists as being ‘cherry-picked’ and based on ‘misinformation’. The report was, in fact, based on Nasa satellite measurements of temperatures in the lower atmosphere over land – which tend to show worldwide changes first, because the sea retains heat for longer.
It is true that the massive 2015-16 El Nino – probably the strongest ever seen – took place against a steady warming trend, most of which scientists believe has been caused by human CO2 emissions
However, now the drop in temperature is also showing up in the authoritative Met Office ‘Hadcrut4’ surface record, compiled from measurements from more than 3,000 weather stations located around the world on both sea and land.
To the end of October, the last month for which figures have been released, Hadcrut4 had fallen about 0.5C from its peak in the spring.
The reason is the end of El Nino. The natural phenomenon, which takes place every few years and has a huge impact on world weather, occurs when water in a vast area of the Pacific west of Central America gets up to 3C hotter than usual.
It has now been replaced by a weak La Nina, when the water becomes colder than usual. This means temperatures may still have some way to fall.
El Nino is not caused by greenhouse gases and has nothing to do with climate change. It is true that the massive 2015-16 El Nino – probably the strongest ever seen – took place against a steady warming trend, most of which scientists believe has been caused by human emissions.
But when El Nino was triggering new records earlier this year, some downplayed its effects. For example, the Met Office said it contributed ‘only a few hundredths of a degree’ to the record heat. The size of the current fall suggests that this minimised its impact. When February produced a new hot record for that month, at the very peak of El Nino, newspapers in several countries claimed that this amounted to a ‘global climate emergency’, and showed the world was ‘hurtling’ towards the point when global warming would become truly dangerous. Now, apparently, the immediate threat has passed. It would be just as misleading to say lower temperatures caused by La Nina meant the world was into a new long-term cooling.
The Mail on Sunday’s report was picked up around the world and widely attacked by green propagandists as being ‘cherry-picked’ and based on ‘misinformation’
But the big question is: what will happen when both El Nino and La Nina are over and the Pacific water returns to its ‘neutral’, average state?
Professor Judith Curry, of Georgia Tech in Atlanta, who is president of the Climate Forecast Applications Network, said it would take years before it was clear whether the long-term warming trend was slowing down, staying the same or accelerating.
‘The bottom line is that we can’t read too much into the temperatures of a year or two,’ she said. ‘We will need the perspective of another five years to understand what is going on.’
Full story Mail on Sunday, 11 December 2016
With such a steep decline in average temperature, it’s going to take some serious data
adjustmentmanipulationfabrication to make sure that 2016 is still the hottest year “ever”.Or perhaps the alarmists will breath a sigh of relief and come out with “it’s not as bad as we thought”.?? I’m not holding my breath for that one.
“New official data issued by the Met Office”
What baloney. Here is a plot of HADCRUT 4 by month (more datasets here) and compared with 1998. I have green-ringed the period of actual drop, which was from March to May. After May, it remained warmer until October, which was cool because of the Siberia freeze. Even so, October was warmer than the 1998 annual average. It’s old news, and no surprise, and recorded in HADCRUT data issued in June. Not “new”. The passage of the peak was well discussed at the time.
“For example, the Met Office said it contributed ‘only a few hundredths of a degree’ to the record heat.”
They were talking about annual 2015, not 2016.
And again we have “have plummeted since the middle of the year at a faster and steeper rate than at any time in the recent past”. Middle of the year. Just check the graph. Just not true.
Nick
relitigating the definition of the imprecise term “…middle of the year…” is tiresome. Get over it.
Eyeballing the chart, the roughly 1.1 to 0.6 drop from Mar-Oct 2016 is huge and it occurred mid-year (the last data point is after what most would consider mid-year).
If someone wanted a more precise statement, they could have easily used names of months.
“If someone wanted a more precise statement”
So why didn’t they? The story has been bouncing around for about two weeks. Both Delingpole and Rose choose to talk about “mid-year”. Artful imprecision?
Of course, HadCRU is science fantasy. But surely looks to me as if the drop were much deeper and faster even in the shamelessly cooked book “data”.
Of course UAE is hoist by its own petard from trying to make the recent super El Nino warmer than it really was and the late 20th century one cooler.
No doubt in future they’ll adjust the 2015-16 El Nino cooler as well, and the lessen the drop.
@Chimp.. they are already doing that… which puts them in a very strange place, the warmers were saying during this el nino it was the strongest, and now with the dip, oh, wait it wasn’t as strong as 1998 after all…. They’ve produced several graphs here on what’s up to show that.
Nick, I’ve never replied to one of your posts before, but I always read them in earnest. If I were to try to make your graph show what there’s does, my green ring would cirlce the blue bar high in March, and the blue bar low in October. I think they’re trying to show how far down it has come over that time…none of the red bars nor orange bars have that kind of difference between peak and ensuing drop (although red March to Nov looks pretty close). And 2016 isn’t even over yet.
For the record, I don’t think any of this means squat in the realm of “I told you sos” for either side.
I don’t blame anyone for not taking me seriously, since I used some nonsensical form of possession on the word “there” when “theirs” would’ve been much better. Carry on.
“my green ring would cirlce the blue bar high in March, and the blue bar low in October”
Well, Rose says:
“New official data issued by the Met Office confirms that world average temperatures have plummeted since the middle of the year at a faster and steeper rate than at any time in the recent past”
So I guess his ring would go through about June/July to October. That wouldn’t show much. The fact is that May was the second coolest month in 2016 (in HAD4). The dip in October (Siberia) was nothing unusual.
I think again Nick a small detail is overseen: We are talking about global land temperatures, not global temperatures (sea temp included)
nobody here including me won’t disagree with your point if we take global land+ocean data. in fact then i agree 100%
However land only data shows this record drop. This may be a very interesting start or just a squibble in the graph. Only time will tell.
What is interesting about this is: 1998 did go from nino to nina, while this year it didn’t happen. That makes this global land only drop the more fascinating.
“I think again Nick a small detail is overseen: We are talking about global land temperatures, not global temperatures (sea temp included)”
Well, there is no indication of that in the heading or sub-heading
“New official data issued by the Met Office confirms that world average temperatures have plummeted since the middle of the year at a faster and steeper rate than at any time in the recent past.”
And he says lower
“However, now the drop in temperature is also showing up in the authoritative Met Office ‘Hadcrut4’ surface record, compiled from measurements from more than 3,000 weather stations located around the world on both sea and land.”
Odd notion of weather stations located on the sea, but I’m sure he means SST.
“It is true that the massive 2015-16 El Nino – probably the strongest ever seen – took place against a steady warming trend, most of which scientists believe has been caused by human emissions.”
This gives the false impression that ALL scientists believe this. Words matter.
If you don’t agree with them, than you aren’t a scientist.
At least that’s what they keep telling me.
Shock! Horror! The whole world dropped 0.5 degrees C temperature in just three months. If CO2 is the control knob, did too many people stop breathing or using carbon-based fuels?
What, you say? That’s just normal variation. But I thought I had been told that a 0.5 degree increase over the last 30 years was catastrophic?
What is the CO2 concentration for the period?
You can see it here:
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/graph.html
“Shock! Horror! The whole world dropped 0.5 degrees C temperature in just three months. If CO2 is the control knob, did too many people stop breathing or using carbon-based fuels?”
Something must have happened to make the CO2 concentration go down in the atmosphere, to explain this temperature drop. We need to check into this.
An odd thing noted by ATTP. Here is the Daily Mail running a report of criticisms of Delingpole’s Breitbart report of this:
“The Weather Channel launched a scathing attack on Breitbart, accusing the right-wing site of ‘cherry-picking’ facts to ‘mislead’ the public about climate change.”
Doesn’t mention anywhere that Delingpole’s source was David Rose, of the Daily Mail.
You sound like someone who would let the whole story get in the way of a sensational headline.
You really don’t understand the Daily Fail’s readership do you?
They may be unsophisticated by your standards, but they have something you don’t have, in spades. Humour and common sense and the ability to spot BS.
Unlike readers of – say – the Guardian, they don’t expect what’s in the papers to be true. They like it to be amusing. Unlike people who read the Guardian, they don’t allow their opinions to be formed by a tabloid.
Its because they are tired of BS, and have a sense of humour that they voted Brexit and Trump. No point in telling them Trump is a bad joke. Of course he is, that’s why they voted Trump. To get the last laugh on the ‘sincerely concerned’ snowflake generation.
” they don’t expect what’s in the papers to be true.”
So here it is on WUWT. Do people here expect it to be true?
Who knows what the numbers are. I can confirm that they’ve been adjusted without basis. What is your basis with an appeal to authority ? Why do you believe those numbers ? I’ve been asked, ” where did you get those numbers ? That’s not what I have “….. NOAA. And if NOAA doesn’t have the right numbers, who does ? NOAA changes the numbers after the fact, not before when things are brought to their attention ? Then there is the constant churn of numbers so that only those sanctioned can make any kind of statement that holds any kind of validity. Have we acquired a level of priestdom in science ? Blessed are those that believe in religion, not so much in science.
As l pointing out back during last spring. The warming in the Arctic was highly likely to lead to noticeable cooling in the rest of the globe. Because one of the best ways to remove heat from the globe is to send it towards the poles. This current warming of the Arctic is a large drain on the heat that is stored across the planet. The fact that even though the Arctic has been very warm recently. When it sends this air southwards again it has quickly become cold enough to send temps falling well below average over these areas. This points out to me that there must be a large amount of heat been lost within this process. And if this process stays around for long enough it can lead to major climate cooling. Like what we saw during the last ice age.
Precisely. Conversely, if the bitter cold had remained up at the Pole, it would be losing far less heat, as it holds less heat to begin with.
However we have seen the cold displaced to the south, where it depresses the rain-snow line further south. This snow-pack-further-south in turn reflects the winter sunlight, and increases the cold further south.
I described this as a “double whammy” back in November, as the planet lost heat both at the highest latitudes, and further south where there was snow-cover (even on the sands of Saudi Arabia, briefly, at the end of November).
https://sunriseswansong.wordpress.com/2016/11/20/arctic-sea-ice-double-whammy/
Now the cold is swinging around to the North American side, and will likely make headlines this week. It will be thirty-above-normal at the Pole (heat being lost directly to outer space) and thirty-below-normal over the Great Plains of the USA, (losing further heat by reflecting sunlight.) Although temperatures will “average out” (because plus-thirty and minus-thirty negate each other), in terms of the planetary energy budget it’s a double loss. Or so I wonder.
It’s still an up trend.
That all depends on the time frame. Push the start back to the 1930’s, and it’s a down trend.
lts still an up trend.
Yes a lot depends on how often and for how long will these weather patterns form. What got my interest is this recent trend for “Tall” high pressure patterns. By which l mean they extend outwards to the north/south.
lts these sort of weather patterns that have been driving much of the warm air into the Arctic recently. We have one set up over the North Pacific, plus a other one over Russia. What these patterns do is draw warm air from as far south as 2000 miles or more up into the Arctic. This air when in the Arctic quickly loses it heat, and then sends this chilled air down southwards again. So the Arctic imports the heat and then in return exports its cold to areas to the south on the other side of this weather pattern. Am now convinced it was the formation of these type of weather patterns over the longer term, which lead to the climate cooling seen during the LIA and at worst the last ice age.
That’s at least hundred miles too far north. Rose should have said, “west of Peru.”
Oh crap!
If the Met Office confirms a drop in temps, probably means we got something wrong…
OPTION A: The Met Office should be telling England temps are going up, up, and up, as well as summer is only 30 days away blah blah blah.
OPTION B: The Met Office has screwed something else up and two wrongs do make a right blah blah blah.
Que the “But this is just ‘weather’, not Climate Change caused by Global Warming.”
Only slightly OT – a group at EZT have come up with a plausible mechanism for post-MPR glacial cycle of 100,000 years:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130807134127.htm
Its a sprinkling of Milankovich with a drizzle of chaos and nonlinearity with ice sheets going unstable as they expand across continents. Makes sense. Not much role for the Satan-gas.
This should NOT be surprising.
How long now have we been talking about the short-term impacts of the ENSO. Why is Nick Stokes on here complaining about something that was forecasted to occur exactly like this even 18 months ago.
This was live on SNL in Oct 1997. I first became interested in this topic during the 1982-83 El Nino.
LOL — Bill the World Class Scientist and Impeccable Data Expert! You have a sense of humor! And a fun one. Thank you for that. 🙂
I had to go back and look at what my forecast was 1 year ago. The closest time was the Hadcrut4 model run with December 2015 data.
The forecast was only off by 0.02C for the latest Hadcrut4 actual in October 2016. Not hard to do when the there is already data showing the ENSO peaked in mid-November 2015.
I have been running this same methodology since 2008 and it always works well for back-casting what has really happened and then forecasting for the future if you have good idea of what the ENSO has done and what it is going to do a year out. That is not always easy but if you have a Super-El-Nino, there is only one way it is going to go afterward and that is DOWN. And temperatures will lag behind it by 3 months on average.
http://web.archive.org/web/20090626174702/http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/11/25/adjusting-temperatures-for-the-enso-and-the-amo/
+ 1
I agree, rishrac. Bill Illis: “Not hard to do” — right. (smile) For YOU. ((applause)) We are SO BLESSED that you are here at WUWT! (along with many other Science Giants — very grateful for you all).
To soon to get excited but the trend is correct.
The temperature rise with El Nino and now the fall when El Nino ended offers strong evidence that the climatic system of the earth is governed by natural terrestrial factors which will swing the temperatures upward when in a warm mode and vice versa when in a cold mode.
Now with prolonged solar minimum conditions coming into play not withstanding another El Nino which is possible all the other natural terrestrial items which govern the climate will be trending toward a colder mode.
To digress for a second ,El Nino’s cause global warming by not allowing as much OLR to escape into space something which increasing CO2 has failed to accomplish. Another blunder for AGW theory.
The terrestrial items which govern the climate which I believe are influenced by solar activity.
atmospheric circulation patterns- such as the AO
global cloud coverage
global snow coverage
global sea surface temperatures
global sea ice
global major volcanic activity
The albedo of the earth will increase if the above terrestrial items which govern the climate move in the correct direction which in turn will cause the globe to cool.I think extreme minimum solar conditions can accomplish this and with expected very low solar conditions following several years of sub solar activity in general (post 2005) moving forward from here, we shall see if this indeed is the case.
I think by spring global average temperatures according to satellite data which are now around +.4c will be +.2c or lower.
I ask the question, ” where did the heat go ? ” it’s energy or watts or joules for those who are nitpicking over word usage. The point is, what constitutes warming or cooling ? The length of time it stays warm or cold ? What does it mean when you have a drop off in a temperature? Where is this energy, and if it escaped or a diminishing in energy input ? Should the satellites that keep track of the earth’s energy budget see that ? You can’t say that co2 is contributing to increased warmth when it’s not holding on to heat in this present time frame. There has to be one or other factors influencing global temperature. The other thing to consider is that a global average temperature may not be a valid way of determining whether we are in a warming or cooling trend. When the temperature falls off, isn’t the total temperature being reset back ? Even if it recovers quickly, it isn’t from retained warmth . Something blinked. We need to find that… quickly. You know, before the blink becomes a stare.
I agree, rishrac . . if a major volcanic event (or two) occurs in the near future, with the oceanic rhythms in cool mode, and a quite sun, we could see “dangerous climate change” for real. Our hypothetical contribution to “warming” might become “cold comfort” so to speak . .
With or without a volcano, 0.5 C in a matter of a few months is significant. I didn’t see where TSI was dropping either. So this is a big mystery. All that energy disappeared somewhere. Actually it’s a good thing that a volcano hasn’t gone off. This effect isn’t hidden by it. It can’t be said that the reason temps dropped was because of a volcano. There weren’t any of note.
(Fair warning.. A big “sarc” coming up.)
” where did the heat go ? ”
Well, the US elections are over and those who ascribed to “CAGW” for political reasons lost.
So, their authority to enforce “hot air” policy is about to be seriously curtailed.
(Maybe that wasn’t technically a “sarc”. I should study just what constitutes a “sarc”. More funds needed.)
I just had to respond to this. Exactly how is global temperature defined? And I do mean exactly. What does it mean? As an engineer, I learned to KISS, Keep It Simple Stupid. If the GLOBE is warming or cooling everywhere, why do we need more than one thermometer situated somewhere remote (away from human effects) to read and use as THE data for obtaining a trend? Now I’m not stupid, I know there is a temperature gradient from the tropics to the poles. Yet at any given point, if the GLOBE is changing, that change should be apparent anywhere over a long enough period of time. in other words, a trend at my location should match a trend at your location wherever that is.
All this data, infilling, homogenization, complex software programs, etc. is simply a scientist’s wet dream of of statistical blah, blah, blah to most deplorables with any common sense. If they were scientific, all the different groups of global temperature should have the same trend and you should be able to convert from one to another using consistent equations.
Good to see the Met Office described as “authoritative” in an article on this blog.
Just running with what we have to work with. If you have a word speak going on about how warm it is and is referenced by tons of the CAGW crowd, it’s almost hectic to speak about dropping temperature. Or to admit it.
All the graphs presented here are total BS unless they show a temperature for 0.0,.
Like i have said before,not showing a temperature for 0.0 is just ‘smoke and mirrors’.
Don’t believe me? try finding the value of 0.0 temp for the graphs.
It’s no good the authors of the graphs just saying ‘based on’ without pointing to the actual source of the data, I think they are afraid to ‘Nail the data to the wall’ because it will show up all the adjusted data.
For example, if they ‘Nailed’ 0.0 equalled 14.5C in X graph in 1990 to the wall, and then 0.0 equalled 14.4 today for the same graph, people would ask questions as to why.
Does anyone on here understand the importance of putting a value of 0.0 on graphs?
Why are you discussing monthly changes in a global temperature data set ? This is no climate trend, this is noise. Climate trend is decadal ore multi decadal change. Not monthly up and down.
Then if the temperature drops on a global scale, how is that not a reset ? First, what happens to that energy ? Second, when it comes back more than what it was, where did it come from ? If co2 were holding that energy as claimed, there would be very few instances of temperature doing things monthly liking dropping. On a global scale. If it gets cold in one place, that’s to be expected with variation, but not on a global. So I’ve been told. The difference between climate and weather. Temperature dropping on a global scale is climate, monthly or otherwise.. within the parameters of current AGW. AGW has no problem claiming global warming when the temperature is going up.
“Why are you discussing monthly changes in a global temperature data set ? “
Surely that is the correct thing to do?
I mean ‘hottest July on record’ – ‘ Warmest February since 1979’ etc etc. I didn’t hear you complaining then…so I thought that was how the debate was engaged in, surely?
Where were you wen all the warmists were proclaiming that a climb that occurred over a few months was proof that CAGW was real?
MarkW. Sometimes you can look at something so long with out realizing what it means. In just the last week or so I realized that a any kind of drop in global temperature is a disconnect from AGW. It absolutely can not be. By the rules of AGW, HEAT outgoing greater than being received can not happen. There is no mechanism for it. Early on it was whether heat was retained or released during a rain event. As a way of asserting that the energy from the release of latent heat was being retained, AGW used the earth’s radiation budget, for which there is a satellite measuring that. The numbers happily coincided with all the other numbers, TSI, feedback loops and their models. I make a deal out of TSI at times, and co2 levels. How can temperature possibly fall with the constant increase in co2 ?
Long story short, global temperatures cannot ever fall below a previous high. That would mean the co2 is not retaining the heat. Remember the atmosphere with 1/10ths of a degree is a huge amount of heat (energy). In a matter of a few months the cumulative effect of the last 100 years is wiped out. While I doubt it will continue, with out being able to explain this drop, there isn’t any reason it couldn’t continue. What just happened to the temperature is unexplainable in terms of the scientific concensus. I don’t even need a trend. If the temperature was to come back in 2 months where did it come from ? Magic ?
It’s a total disconnect.
How can Judith say five years will indicate a clear trend? Last decade the alarmists kept extending out the time required for a trend to be established – under those rules it now takes ten years or more for a trend to be seen. (Pesonally, I think a couple hundred years or more is necessary.)
Since TPW has been measured (about 1988) the water vapor content of the atmosphere has increased about 4.27%. (see graph and links to data in http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com ). Water vapor is the most important ghg and has made the planet warm enough for life. Currently the increasing WV is countering the cooling that would otherwise be occurring.
For a global average WV content of 1.5% (=15000 ppmv) this amounts to an increase of 640 ppmv of WV molecules. During that same period, CO2 increased by about 50 ppmv. (ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_mm_mlo.txt ) WV molecules have hundreds of absorption lines in the range of significant terrestrial radiation compared to only one for CO2. The water vapor increase is hundreds if not thousands of times more effective at warming the planet than the CO2 increase would be even if any effect of CO2 wasn’t made insignificant by thermalization.
Interesting. The more general view here seems to be that the atmosphere is not getting more humid, contra AGW. What you describe sounds like a powerful wv feedback.
The data, (did you look?) is that the water vapor in the atmosphere is increasing. That means there is more of the stuff in the atmosphere that made the planet warm enough for life in the first place. CO2 has no significant influence.
“Water vapor is the most important ghg and has made the planet warm enough for life. Currently the increasing WV is countering the cooling that would otherwise be occurring.”
WV is the most significant GHG but it is not the most important.
Reason:
It condenses.
CO2 DOESN’T.
Ever noticed that on calm still clear nights, fog forms?
Because the air temp has dropped and the WV has condensed out onto hygroscopic nuclei?
Ever noticed that your car windscreen mists up when the outside air is cold. WV condensing?
Ever noticed that cumulus clouds form as they rise to their condensation level?
Ever noticed that it often snows when temps are at 0C or below?
The last one is the crucial one.
CO2 provides a “floor” to prevent too much WV from condensing out and the GHE falling into a feed-back loop whereby snows gather in the high latitude NH land-mas and albedo increases – cooling – less WV – cooling – more snow – higher albedo – more snow sticking over land – cooling – less WV etc.
Ton – Perhaps you are overlooking that when water vapor condenses, the condensate is no longer a gas. Or perhaps you are not aware that when WV condenses in the atmosphere it does not all condense. It only condenses down to where its partial pressure is roughly equal to the vapor pressure at the temperature of the condensate. Even ice has vapor pressure. That means there is always the ghg water vapor in the atmosphere. The observation is the WV trend since 1988 has been increasing. This increasing trend is countering the global cooling which would otherwise be occurring.
Multiple compelling evidence as listed in http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com is that CO2 has no significant effect on climate.
Whatever the WV does or doesn’t do, once it gives up heat into a liquid that heat is retained according to AGW. Believe me, the extended arguments about the laws of thermodynamics literally is volumes. AGW thinks it won that argument, they don’t see my side and I think they are wrong, there is no point to it. I can and am doing something else. There is no scientific reason for temperature to drop 0.5 C globally under AGW. And there is no way for it in 6 months. None. Co2 is simply not the driver of temperature. Variations exist, this is a disconnect. It’s like looking at the coordinates (x,y) then wosh it’s over in the (t.z) plane.
Have you calculated how much heat that is for the planet to loose ?
It is time again for the REAL numbers on Water Vapor.
Right now, it is measured in real-time by two entities, NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis and RSS.
Both of these entities have water vapor levels at 2.4% above average in November.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/data/timeseries/timeseries1.pl
http://data.remss.com/vapor/monthly_1deg/tpw_v07r01_198801_201611.time_series.txt
These numbers are down considerably from the peaks in Feb 2016 which were very high.
And that is because the ENSO completely dominates changes in global and tropical water vapor levels. The RSS water vapor levels have risen because its data starts in 1988 (the biggest La Nina on record) and then it ends in 2016 (the second biggest El Nino on record). Naturally, it has risen over time because the ENSO dominates.
Charted here back to 1948 for both measures (RSS starts in 1988) versus the ENSO and the IPCC AR4 forecast. Notice the very big drop in the later half of 2016. Exactly on schedule if it lagged behind the ENSO by 3 months. Water vapor levels are going to NEGATIVE numbers over the next 3 months. Imagine that.
And then how does the water vapor levels compare to Hadcrut4 temperatures. They are only increasing at 2.6%/1.0C versus global warming theory of 7.0%/1.0C. Less than half. Why does less than half always show up.
There you go. Spread this around to your other global warming colleagues and tell them to look at the actual data. And don’t forget to mention the ENSO’s impact.
Dan Pangburn December 12, 2016 at 8:10 pm
“WV molecules have hundreds of absorption lines in the range of significant terrestrial radiation compared to only one for CO2”.
Water vapor molecules have about 19,000 absorption lines between 5-25 microns, over the same range CO2 has 152,000!
Our story showed that these record high temperatures were triggered by naturally occurring but freak conditions caused by El Nino – and not, as had been previously suggested, by the cumulative effects of man-made global warming.
Absolute load of disingenuous tosh. Even spiced up the graph with “strong El Nino peak” and “very strong” on the wrong ninos. Not even good quality propaganda.
That’s the one I was after.
Griff will be along to tell us this is hooey in 3, 2, 1…
It was a very warm day here in Sydney, I work in the inner west and it got to over 39c, 20% (At the SMH, they post temps and say 30.2c, feels like 30.9c. Really? I can’t tell the difference in a 0.7c increase) 20% humidity and we have the alarmist media and shills running around with heads exploding. Sure it was and still is warm, but not unusual for a Sydney SUMMER DAY!
But ya know, I heard people say at work today “It’s REALLY hot outside. It’s 39c!”. I ask, “Where is that reading coming from?” And the most popular answer “The airport. (Either Sydney or Bankstown)” from their weather app on their phone. I just laugh point out that well AFTER records began, there were no AIRPORTS in Sydney. And The Observatory MOVED!
Am I in moderation for using the “G” word?
I believe it was Observatory this time.
Is it relevant that in Australia, the official ACORN mean temperature anomaly in October 2015 (http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/mwr/aus/mwr-aus-201510.pdf) was +2.89C, and the national mean temperature anomaly in October 2016 (http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/mwr/aus/mwr-aus-201610.pdf) was -0.5C?
That’s a drop of 3.39C in 12 months! It included the coldest mean temperature recorded since 1897 across the south-west of Australia.
In March 2016, the ACORN mean temperature anomaly for Australia (http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/mwr/aus/mwr-aus-201603.pdf) was +1.70C, so by October it had effectively fallen 2.2C.
In November 2016 (http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/month/aus/summary.shtml), Australia’s mean temp anomaly was +0.55C. In November 2015 (http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/mwr/aus/mwr-aus-201511.pdf) it was +1.87C, so in the 12 months it dropped 1.32C.
0.5C? You northern hemispherical lot really oughta catch up.
waclimate on December 13, 2016 at 4:26 am
Is it relevant that in Australia, the official ACORN mean temperature anomaly in October 2015 … was +2.89C, and the national mean temperature anomaly in October 2016 … was -0.5C?
No idea, waclimate.
Here is a chart
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/161214/hdqaqdjs.jpg
where you at least can see that your country shows since 1979 harsh peaks and drops at its surface (surprisingly as many as the troposphere above), and that this transition from 2015 to 2016 isn’t very unusual. Look at e.g. the 1980’s.
Yet again we have these tedious “discussions” about short term fluctuations in global temperature. The “warmist” side are mainly responsible for this pointless debate since they initially used the recent El Nino as propaganda for the CAGW case but it doesn’t really help when the “sceptic” side respond in kind when the inevitable decline in relative temperatures happens.
The ENSO (El Nino/La Nina) cycle should be a zero sum game, i.e. it should not affect the long term trend since ENSO does not directly add or remove energy from earth’s climate system. Ocean cycles simply amplify or dampen any exiting trend over time.
There is no question we have seen a long term (30+ year) trend of warming. Whatever arguments you might want to make about GISS, Hadcrut or whatever, all the main global datasets (including UAH) show a warming trend of at least 0.12 deg per decade This means the earth must have gained energy over the past 30 or 40 years at least. There are only a few ways this can happen.
1. The sun (our sole source of energy) has increased output.
2. Cloud cover (albedo) has reduced to allow more solar energy to reach the earth’s surface.
3. The increase in greenhouse gases has slowed the rate of earth’s radiative cooling.
4. Any combination of 1,2 and 3.
Since there is no evidence of a sufficient increase in the sun’s output which explains the temperature rise, it’s likely that greenhouse gases are responsible for a substantial part of the warming.
Is the warming a problem – or will it become one? I’m not convinced it will be but the argument that CO2 has no effect is a non-starter. We can clearly see the CO2 effect from emission spectra of the earth.
Sceptics need to concentrate on climate sensitivity to CO2 – as Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer and many other responsible scientists who are sceptical of Catastrophic AGW.
John great points, but OLR has not decreased due to more CO2. This appears to be tied just to ENSO.
blockquote> great points, but OLR has not decreased due to more CO2. This appears to be tied just to ENSO.
Hmm. Would we expect to detect a strong trend in OLR? Presumably the system will try to maintain equilibrium. While the incoming – outgoing balance is positive this will produce warming which will increase the surface flux which will, in turn, drive the OLR flux at the Top of the Atmosphere.
If the OLR remains constant (and equal to incoming solar energy) over time surely this just means there is very little “heat in the pipeline” – which might well be the case. This is one argument against high sensitivity. The “warmists” suggest a current TOA imbalance of around 0.6 w/m2.(i.e. incoming solar – OLR = 0.6w/m2). Unfortunately we have no reliable way of verifying this figure.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=out%20going%20long%20wzave%20radiation%20%20anamolies&qs=n&form=QBRE&sp=-1&pq=out%20going%20long%20wzave%20radiation%20anamoli&sc=0-38&sk=&cvid=7235A765ACB442FFB3C6D71A2799B975
See the chart of OLR. . Scroll down some.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/teleconnections/enso/indicators/olr/
This is what I wanted to show made a mistake in the above post.
“There is no question we have seen a long term (30+ year) trend of warming.”
There is also no question we have seen a “long-term” trend of warming from 1910 to 1940 that is equal to the warming from 1979 to the present. There wasn’t nearly as much CO2 in the atmosphere back then. How do you explain that heat?
Mainly due to the ocean cycles mentioned in my original comment. If 1970-200 were a repeat of of 1910-1970 then we should have seen 10 to 15 years of cooling by now.
“ If 1970-200 were a repeat of of 1910-1970 ” should be “If 1970-2000 were a repeat of 1910-1940”
“If 1970-2000 were a repeat of 1910-1940 then we should have seen 10 to 15 years of cooling by now.”
I don’t think we ever get an exact repeat of anything to do with the climate, but I think I see your point: You are saying the 20-year pause we were recently experiencing should have gone lower than it did, istead of just flatlining. No decline, I assume you think means CO2 is keeping the temperatures up and preventing same. Am I correct?
John Finn on December 13, 2016 at 4:55 am
Excellent comment, based on a sound kind of skeptic observation.
Indeed, both TSI and Sun spot number evaluations show that Sun’s power actually seems to be on the decline.
And even more: ENSO (as depicted by the MEI index) is on the decline as well, despite its recent uptick:
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/161214/wj3ypoz9.jpg
Sources:
– TSI: http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/TSI_TIM_Reconstruction.txt
– SSN: http://www.sidc.be/silso/DATA/SN_m_tot_V2.0.txt
– MEI: https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/table.html
Well I’ll be buggered; a rational sceptic.
“In the Midwest and Northeast, some areas could experience their lowest December temperatures of this century,” according to AccuWeather Chief Meteorologist Elliot Abrams.
Abrams pointed out that while this air will probably not break any low temperature records, most places have set only record highs during December since 2000.”