UAH Global Temperature Report: February 2017 warmest in 39 years

February 2017 Global Temperature Report – Contiguous U.S. has warmest February in past 39 Years

Notes on data released March 2, 2017:

The 2015-16 El Niño Pacific Ocean warming event has faded into history, but the globe still saw its fourth warmest February in the satellite global temperature record, including the warmest February in that time for the contiguous 48 U.S. states, according to Dr. John Christy, director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. The average temperature over the U.S. was 2.1 Celsius (about 3.78 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than seasonal norms in February 2017.

February anomalies

U.S. 48 contiguous states

1.  2017  +2.10 C

2.  1991  +1.69 C

3.  2003  +1.58 C

4.  2001  +1.32 C

5.  1998  +1.12 C

6.  1997  +0.80 C

7.  1985  +0.62 C

8.  2007  +0.61 C

9.  1994  +0.52 C

10. 2008  +0.46 C

Compared to seasonal norms, the warmest spot on the globe in February was over Warrensburg, Missouri, with an average temperature that was 4.06 C (about 7.31 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than seasonal norms.

Compared to seasonal norms, the coolest average temperature on Earth in February was near the town of Penny in central British Columbia, Canada. February temperatures there averaged 2.51 C (about 4.52 degrees F) cooler than seasonal norms.

022017_tlt_update_bar february-2017

Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.12 C per decade

February temperatures (preliminary)

Global composite temp.: +0.35 C (about 0.63 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for February.

Northern Hemisphere: +0.54 C (about 0.97 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for February.

Southern Hemisphere: +0.15 C (about 0.27 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for February.

Tropics: +0.05 C (about 0.09 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for February.

January temperatures (revised):

Global Composite: +0.30 C above 30-year average

Northern Hemisphere: +0.27 C above 30-year average

Southern Hemisphere: +0.33 C above 30-year average

Tropics: +0.07 C above 30-year average

(All temperature anomalies are based on a 30-year average (1981-2010) for the month reported.)

The complete version 6 lower troposphere dataset is available here:

http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt

Archived color maps of local temperature anomalies are available on-line at:

http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/

As part of an ongoing joint project between UAH, NOAA and NASA, Christy and Dr. Roy Spencer, an ESSC principal scientist, use data gathered by advanced microwave sounding units on NOAA and NASA satellites to get accurate temperature readings for almost all regions of the Earth. This includes remote desert, ocean and rain forest areas where reliable climate data are not otherwise available.

The satellite-based instruments measure the temperature of the atmosphere from the surface up to an altitude of about eight kilometers above sea level. Once the monthly temperature data are collected and processed, they are placed in a “public” computer file for immediate access by atmospheric scientists in the U.S. and abroad.

Neither Christy nor Spencer receives any research support or funding from oil, coal or industrial companies or organizations, or from any private or special interest groups. All of their climate research funding comes from federal and state grants or contracts.

— 30 —

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Bill Illis

Down 0.48C from last February 2016. That’s called a “Super El Nino” impact.

Janice Moore

comment image

Bill the heavyweight in ONE! T– K — O!

(call for the stretchers….. trolls and data twisters all over the place….. lolololol)

Except for the now cooled 2015-16 El Nino blip, there has been no warming this century except via Karlization.

“Except for the now cooled 2015-16 El Nino blip”
It hasn’t cooled much. January was in most global surface indices warmer than any month before October 2015 (except for some the isolated blip in Jan 2007). And according to NCEP/NCAR reanalysis, February was up another 0.09°C, which means only the months Dec15->Apr16 were warmer.

And adjustments (ERSST 4 included) make very little difference.

tom s

All very interesting, but it is what it is and we have no control over it besides the measurement techniques and accuracy thereof. Otherwise? It’s just weather and weather does whatever weather wants,.10 yr trends, 30yr trends, 100yr,,,1000yr…..10,000yr….million year. We and our actions are meaningless, if not amusing.

tom s

.09? Global temperature measured to within 100ths of a degree accurately? Bridge, NY. Sale… Swamp. Florida. Sale. Your number is but a meaningless bit of noise.

and it has not warmed much. Would you agree?

John@EF

@Forrest Gardener March 2, 2017 at 5:38 pm

“So why … ?”

Accuracy.

John@EF

@Forrest Gardener March 2, 2017 at 7:09 pm

Certainly you can, Forrest. There have been many examples, both land and sea, of adjustment made and subsequently discussed on this site. A betrayal of science would result If those adjustments were not made. That you cannot agree with the rationale of the most solid, clear-cut examples of this is disappointing.

Since March of 2015 the temperature record has been adjusted at least once, probably twice. The co2 record has definitely been altered. Do I know what they’ve done the temperature record all these years. No I don’t. I do know what they’ve done with co2 record. Whether error or oversight, co2 followed temperature for the last 60 years. Additionally, there are patterns in the co2 record that follow solar and cosmic ray activity.
NOAA has/had no reason at all for adjusting the co2 record.
Even with adjusting the temperature record, which NOAA has done, it is so far below any model that it renders AGW null and void whether it actually was the warmest year on record or not. Which, by the way, I do think that has been warming, but co2 wasn’t the cause.
Which is a very big concern in that we are wasting time talking about climate change as the current regime defines it. What is needed is an understanding of why it gets warmer or colder. Further, current climate research is useless. It is/was unable to predict the periodic rains that drench California and Australia . In fact the hand waving in both countries was permanent drought. The fear mongering about the Arctic warming due to warmer waters or another el nino, what’s missing? The thermal expansion of the oceans. Thermal expansion is significant. We aren’t talking about a few millimeters of SLR.
The current regime that is adjusting temperature or co2 data, doesn’t do anybody any good. There is no way of doing any kind of research that meets scientific standards. It is going to be a problem in the future when more rational minds look at this. Unless, we descend into another Age of Belief.

kon

“rishrac” Age of Belief is right. I’m hoping with trump as President we might give up Faith-based Science and return to observation/measurement-based Science.

myNym

“It hasn’t cooled much.”

Thank you for that honesty, Mr. Stokes.

Bindidon

rishrac on March 3, 2017 at 2:04 am

Since March of 2015 the temperature record has been adjusted at least once, probably twice.

Do you know, rishrac, how many times UAH’s record has been adjusted?
Here are two graphs showing the differences between Rev 5.6 and the most recent Rev 6.0 ex beta5:
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170306/2cnxcuqv.jpg
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170306/jbnzooff.jpg

They don’t have to change much to disassociate the relationship between co2 and temperature. The don’t have to change much to get your work filed under garbage since it isn’t the latest numbers. The fact is, which really upsets me, the co2 record changed. People have been saying who watch the temperature that it has been adjusted. That wasn’t a surprise. When you are talking about 1/10th of a degree difference in planetary numbers the energy is significant. If you squish together a map, can I tell what’s changed ? I don’t if you are agreeing or not. The two graphs are not symmetrical. I can tell directly by the numbers what’s changed.
Changing the co2 record for 2005 by increasing ppm by 0.5 takes 6BMT that was missing and is now accountable. Increasing co2 ppm by 0.5 also puts it above the 1998 level. That takes away a key comment that co2 levels don’t just follow temperature but solar and cosmic ray cycles as well. It’s not an insignificant issue.

Nick: “It hasn’t cooled much”
Yes its on the way down, so it does not yet have cooled down, but it will in the near future. Take a bet?

Sorry rud. 1. Karl did no adjusting.he used an already vetted st product that reduces warming. 2. Using alternative sSt products we also find warming. 3. Even the curry approved re analysis shows warming. There was an LIA. It is warming. Even plants blooming earlier know this. Have more brains than a morning glory.

This month Trump approved ncdc data will show warming over all measured periods. Trumps nasa will also show the same. May’s cru will show warming. Japan will show it. Koch funded berkeley earth will show it. The new chinese dataset and method will show it.

It’s warming.

Time to move onto policy relevant questions. .. how much future warming and what can or should we do.

Lots of unsettled questions there. .

tom s

To which I say….So the ____ what? It’s no in ordinary in any way and I quite like the current trends. This number fiddling is akin to the playground antic, “mine is bigger than yours’. So it’s warming son in some areas an D cooling in others. Yay👏😒

Will they be able to show an as yet unseen ( by me at least) correlation to CO2 and the warming and will they be able to say with any certainty what portion of that is down to anthropogenic influences? I think at that point, once the unknowns are known, we could sit down and have that conversation about how we will adapt to the future ( because we certainly are not able to affect it in any way)

John Smith

That’s the Earth for you. Sometimes it’s warming, sometimes it’s cooling.

Still got little to do with CO2. The benefits of more of this molecule are astonishing. So is warmer, wetter weather.

No matter whether it is 0.09deg or 0.9deg it is a major factor less than the average of all the models. No one seems to talk about the models any more, I wonder why.

So what? It is warming, perhaps. But what is causing it? Is it part of natural variation. Who knows, but we MUST believe the worst.

roger

No plants blooming early in southern Scotland.
Global attribution based on parochial observation on your part it would seem.
+0.35C in 30 years?
No runaway warming there I think and no Dahlias overwintering in situ here either.

GlenM

Yeah I know your eyes are hanging out on stalks in fear of warming. Your brain can only think of CO2. Preposterous stuff.

AndyG55

Poor Mosh…

Your used car has no wheels, no engine,

and can only be propelled Flintstone style through rust hole where the drivers seat should be.

Tim Hammond

Has anybody ever claimed the world has not warmed since the end of the LIA?

The issue is why. You can’t move from an agreed fact to policy without answering conclusively the why. This is the entire crux of the argument, and the endless bickering about tenths of degrees here and there is a sleigh of hand by the Alarmist crowd who try to claim that the only thing in dispute is whether the climate has warmed over the last [choose your time frame].

So you prove it’s warmed and then say “time for policy”.

No. Time to show why.

You’re right, Mosh. There was a LIA. Glad not everyone is still drinking Mann’s KoolAid. And before the LIA there was a MWP and after the LIA there was/is another MWP (as in “modern” this time).

And after that will come another LIA. There is nothing special about this particular WP. If and when it gets to be warmer than the Mediæval or Roman or Minoan warm periods or even the Holocene Optimum (I never worked out why it was called an “optimum” if warm weather is something to be frightened of) then we might start to worry though since none of these things caused the end of the world and certainly the last three coincided with major steps forward for mankind, perhaps not.

Enough already with the scaremongering, Mosh!

E Mendes

So Mosher was Jones lying when he told scientist John Christy in 05 “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world cooled since 1998. Ok it has but it’s only seven years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.” ???

Then lying when he confessed in his Feb 2010 BBC don’t-go-to-jail interview when he told them as far as he could tell the warming stopped not in ’98, but ’95?? LYING THEN when he THOUGHT HE WAS GOING to JAIL for having CLAIMED IT WARMED, FRAUDULENTLY?

And the Met Office – they were lying too when they issued their presser in 2013 named “About The Recent Pause In Warming” – where they wrote ”three papers” showing they knew it hadn’t warmed any since temperatures went flat in ’98, the fifteen years previous – “The pause in global warming” is one of the phrases they used.

Karl’s work is fake, THE DATA INTEGRITY MAN at NOAA RETIRED so he could SNITCH KARL OUT. Or he retired for some reason but in any case NOAA’S DATA INTEGRITY MAN said KARL’s PAUSE BUSTER PAPER is complete pulp fiction.

ALL THESE RECORDS are TRASH put together by the VERY PEOPLE CAUGHT CREATING FAKE WARMING.

Time to move on and figure out how we’re going to remove the FAKE WARMTH from the RECORDS your FAKE WARMING guru friends FALSIFIED.

That’s what we need to ‘move on’ from. Insipid computer programmers who haven’t measured anything in their life trying to claim the entire scientific world can’t check their – your – bullshit.

We can. National agencies are FALSIFYING RECORDS.

AndyG55

@Newminster,

the current time is not the MWP (Modern Warm Period)

it is the MSWP (Modern SLIGHTLY Warm Period)

ps and the only thing Mosh is scaring, is his used car customers away.

Why did BEST hire you as their salesman Mosh? you are a WOEFUL salesman. !!

AndyG55

btw, Mosh, do you think BEST will be getting another half million dollars from “Anonymous” this year ?

Mike Maguire

Yes it is in fact warming modestly. Along with adjusting global climate models so they line up with this warming, we should also recognize that the weather/climate over the past 4 decades has been the best for life on this greening planet in the last 1,000 years.

Accelerating warming, that is not happening or global climate model warming, which also is not happening are possible, so we should keep an open mind and adjust our discussion based on what is really happening.

Paul Penrose

Great! I’m glad it’s warming. The planet has ALWAYS done better when it was warming, versus cooling. So why worry? Mankind and the rest of nature will, as always, adapt to the more conducive (to life), warmer climate. Will there be some disruptions for our civilization? Of course, change is always disruptive, but that does not automatically mean all change is bad. So put your big boy pants on and let’s rock the new climate!

accordionsrule

A lot of unsettled questions that don’t need to be answered. A lot of money is being wasted on scientists that could have been spent on engineers. Just build the dams, the shelters, the seawalls, because weather happens long before climate happens.

Steven Mosher:

You wrote: “It’s warming”

Yes, it is. But it has nothing to do with CO2.

Google “Climate Change Deciphered” for the real reason.

And, by the way, the occurrences of El Ninos .follow the same exact pattern.

“and what can or should we do”

The answer is in the link.

Joel Snider

Oh for God’s sake. There has never been any question that there has been some warming influence attributable to humans. But the answer is simple. It’s not a lot, and we have no control over it, and we have no way of knowing what the specific effects will be – but again, not a lot. Near as I can tell, LESS extremes, which is always the case in higher greenhouse ecosystems, except for an uptick in tropical activity – probably a general benefit. The only rational policy decisions is simply live, and adapt to the Earth no matter what happens, and not try to cripple ourselves in utterly meaningless, but very expensive regulation efforts.

I for one, am tired of a bunch of foreheads, who feel utterly free to spin wild ‘speculations’ on ‘what might happen’, that will never be tested in our lifetimes – people who are never touched by any of the ‘policy decisions’ that they push, all justifying their existence, by telling the rest of us how we’re allowed to live, based on End of the World-scare-stories, and then changing their story every five, ten or twenty years, when the disasters fail to materialize. All when there isn’t even convincing agreement over .48 degrees Celsius – or a 1-2 degree uptick – a 100% discrepancy, by the way, off a prediction a century into the future.

Mr. Mosher, until you start making an honest effort towards debunking the alarmism, and start being straight about the actual effects, the tiny numbers we’re dealing with, the uncertainty about long-term predictions, and ADMIT WHAT YOU DO NOT KNOW, I have to consider you part of the propaganda.

Joel Snider

From Mosher’s own book, the CruTape Letters:

The Real Crime in Climategate:

While some are checking the statute books regarding the different treatments of hackers versus whistleblowers, and others are checking conspiracy laws regarding damaging careers through perversion of the peer review process and suborning editors to exclude unpopular opinions, we would like to say what we think the real crime in Climategate.

The criminals are not limited to The Team, the climate scientists and palaeoclimatologist whose emails and files were leaked to the public.

A section of politically active scientists, policy makers, politicians and NGOs in effect put on white coats and told us that our planet was gravely ill, and that we needed to follow their prescriptive advice to save ourselves fro a deadly disease. That’s really how they framed the discussion, and they classified everyone who disagreed as a denier, like a smoker dismissing his cough and waving away the x-rays.

That’s not a crime. But it’s pretty close to it to change the readouts on a patient’s condition to convince him to undergo expensive treatment, label other doctors as quacks is they disagree with the changed diagnosis, and to refuse to show the patient the data underlying the charts.

They may protest that the diagnosis is too technical for the patient to understand and that their actions are for the patient’s good. They may even believe it. But we call it quackery.

And the crime is malpractice. Deliberate and conscious malpractice. And since they arrogated the power unto themselves to diagnose the disease and prescribe a cure, they might also be charged with practicing medicine without a license.

…..

The idiots running the global warming campaign (and make no mistake, a bigger bunch of idiots would be hard to find) didn’t trust people to react to the truth. They thought you wouldn’t understand and if you understood, you wouldn’t care. So they lied to you, repeatedly and with a smile on their smarmy faces. Catastrophe! Dramatic sea level rises! Unbearable heatwaves every X months! Pick your own stupid pet trick.

john harmsworth

It seems to me your big questions are already pretty much answered, Steven.
IPCC says warming up to 1.8C is beneficial for the planet. You accept that there was a LIA which must have been due to natural causes and therefore within the bounds of natural variability. Please accept the following statements:
With the LIA within the bounds of natural variability, there is no reason to view the current recovery of temperatures as outside of natural variability
With current temperatures within the bounds of natural variability, there is no reason to believe that CO2 levels meaningfully impact temperatures.
If in fact CO2 levels do raise temperatures, the IPCC “beneficial warming” assessment means it is not a concern for the immediate future.
If in fact, CO2 levels do raise temperatures, the IPCC and it’s “brain trust” of Climateers, need to start performing some substantially less crappy science to provide real information. They will first need to disavow all incompetents and fraudsters such as Mann and Hansen and many, many others.

Unfortunately, this will require the involvement of qualified physicists, statisticians, organic chemists, astronomers, geologists and other real scientists as opposed to the cadre of buddies and good fellas and fellow travelers who have been so gainfully employed the last few years that they don’t even have time to back up their computers or archive their crooked numbers. feel free to defend these indefensibles as I’m sure you wish to

Javier

It’s warming

Of course it is warming. It has been warming for 350 years. But:

– It has been warming a lot less than it was predicted 30 years ago by the people that developed the global warming crisis hypothesis.

– Despite increasing emissions, global warming has not accelerated, so whatever its cause, it is not getting worse.

– Most of the predicted negative effects remain hypothetical and the product of computer models.

how much future warming and what can or should we do.

We collect 30 more years of data to see how it goes. Perhaps then we can get a more constrained climate sensitivity value.

catweazle666

“he used an already vetted st product…”

I love the way you refer to your dodgy Mannipulated-for-political-purposes-and-personal-profit second-hand “temperature databases” as “product” as though they were something that actually possessed some measure of value in the real World, Mosher.

You would never make a decent second-hand car salesman, you’re far too blatant.

Thankfully, there is a new sherriff in town, and he’s going to be coming for you and your climate “scientist” ilk.

What fun that’ll be to watch!

Pamela Gray

Mosher, you must have convincing evidence that the driver that created the past 800,000 years of temperature swings has either suddenly stopped and we are in a new paradigm, or for some sentient reason that driver has bowed to the anthropogenic only portion of atmospheric CO2 as being the new king of the hill. Even though there is evidence in proxies that CO2 rose as a result of temperature increase, did it suddenly gain some sort of advantage it did not have before? And please do not talk of measured atmospheric CO2 as if the calibration is equal to the proxies used to create the graph. Apples and oranges if you know anything about the vagaries of ice cores.
comment image

afonzarelli

istvan may be premature, but no more so than mosher. (we still have a ways to go until we see where trends end up)…

Samuel C Cogar

Except for the now cooled 2015-16 El Nino blip, there has been no warming this century except via Karlization.

If one looks at most any multi-year Annual Average Temperature graph it will show an increase (blips) in the Average Temperatures for the specified time frame, …… but how does one know if said increase is due to an increase in the Average Winter Temperatures or an increase in the Average Summer Temperatures?
THEY DON’T KNOW ,,,,,,,, and that Annual Average Temperature graph won’t tell them.

If the Average Winter Temperatures were steadily getting less cold (warmer) over the past 60 years …. which we know is an observational fact …… and the Average Summer Temperatures remained about the same, ……. then wouldn’t that produce an increase in Average Temperatures over said 60 year time frame? ABSOLUTELY IT WOULD.

Does that prove the earth’s surface is getting hotter?
ABSOLUTELY NOT.

If the Average February 2017 temperatures are the warmest in 39 years …… and the Average Summer 2017 Temperatures remained about the same as they were in 2016, ……. then wouldn’t that produce an increase (spike) in Average Temperatures for year 2017?
ABSOLUTELY IT WOULD

If the Average Summer Temperatures had been increasing at the same rate as the Average Winter Temperatures, which they should have been if the earth was actually experiencing a period of Global Warming, …… then 100+ degree F days would now be commonplace throughout the United States during the Summer months. But they are not commonplace and still only rarely happen except in the desert Southwest where they have always been commonplace.

Now, instead of saying that “the Earth is warming” it is more technically correct to say “the earth has not been cooling off as much during its cold/cool periods or seasons”.

Given the above, anytime the earth’s average calculated temperature fails to decrease to the temperature recorded for the previous year(s), it will cause an INCREASE or spike in the Average Temperature Calculation results for that period ….. which is cause for many people to falsely believe “the earth is getting hotter”.

tony mcleod

comment image

Relax and take a deep breath Samuel.

Samuel C Cogar

tony mcleod – March 3, 2017 at 9:06 pm

Relax and take a deep breath Samuel.

Shur nuff, tony mcleod, …….. it is obvious that lots n’ lots of people have taken your wonderful advice to “just relax and don’t be personally concerned” about the status of education in the US of A ……. because the literal proof of your advice giving ……. “is in the pudding”, ….. to wit:

U.S. students’ academic achievement still lags that of their peers in many other countries

One of the biggest cross-national tests is the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), which every three years measures reading ability, math and science literacy and other key skills among 15-year-olds in dozens of developed and developing countries. The most recent PISA results, from 2015, placed the U.S. an unimpressive 38th out of 71 countries in math and 24th in science. Among the 35 members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which sponsors the PISA initiative, the U.S. ranked 30th in math and 19th in science.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/15/u-s-students-internationally-math-science/

Shur nuff, ……. it is utterly asinine and stupid for anyone to be concerned about science literacy, ………. right?

“January temperatures (revised):”

Revised?

How do you change the past?

any way.

2017 has about a 50/50 chance of beating the record set by 2016.

pochas94

It really doesn’t matter who does the fiddling. If Best uses pre-fiddled data it is still fiddeled by association.

Bryan A

Obvious been drinking to much Climataide

Nylo

50/50? Really? Wanna bet? You choose the conditions.

phaedo

“How do you change the past?”
How do you get rid of the Medieval Warm Period?

Hans-Georg

However, it is also not the case with UAH that temperatures of 80 years ago are subsequently adjusted. Most readjustments happen 30 days later.

Not true most of their adjustments occurred years afterwards. For example a correction to correct an earlier error in their algorithm (1994) was made in 2005.

Andrew Hamilton

2017 has a 50/50 chance of being cooler than 2016.

tony mcleod

So you’re happy for a new hot record every two years?

Warming is not a problem, cooling is Tony. Climate science is totally useless right now. The 3 big phrases ‘ might ‘ , ‘ could ‘ , ‘ maybe’ have been used extensively, then by the time it gets down to the argument level by warmist, those phrases are gone, replaced with ” scientist say ” . They don’t know or couldn’t predict the rains in Australia or California. And that was easy. I was telling concerned people in California a couple of years that it would start raining. They can’t explain the MWP or the LIA. and yes I agree there has been warming, the cause is unknown. It isn’t co2. In fact, co2 follows temperature. The chart showing the total co2 against yearly temperature anomolies is misleading. It should show yearly co2 anomolies against yearly temperature anomolies. It is clear and defined that co2 follows the temperature consistently for the last 60 years.
And besides with NOAA being able to adjust those numbers, and a host of other issues, there isn’t any way of knowing whether it was warmer or not. I don’t accept science on faith. I don’t trust them, again a host of issues.

catweazle666

“How do you change the past?”

Why don’t YOU tell US, Mosher?

After all, you and your cronies with your AlGoreithms and Mannipulations homogenisations and computer games climate models and just plain making stuff up have made a good living doing it for years, haven’t you?

You even make up all sorts of tales to justify it, you may have fooled some people, but you have been rumbled, sunshine.

Simon

There is a clear upward trend in UAH anomalies, no point in trying to deny it.

tom s

So? Who cares? It’s a trend and trends occur ALL-THE-TIME, And there is nothing exceptional about this current trend except for the fact I am liking every minute of it.

Trends don’t occur during pauses.
Trends don’t have to be exceptional to be interesting and worthy of explanation.

Heath

Yes a Chicago winter was quite pleasant, no snow well about freezing most of the time

Mosh. Will a trend not appear during a pause if the outliers are not removed?

Don’t you understand the stark truth? If this continues, we will never experience the nirvana of Bill Nye’s little ice age.

urederra

Heath
March 2, 2017 at 7:12 pm

Yes a Chicago winter was quite pleasant, no snow well about freezing most of the time

Nice.

Considering that Chicago was under a mile high ice sheet 20000 years ago.

Mosher,
a pause is by definition a 0 slope trend, or more precisely a trend which doesn’t falsify, within some precision, the slope being zero. As you can see the uncertainty of the data is essential to define what a pause is.

Simon

“Define two things for the readers Simon.
1. clear; and
2. upward trend”

Forrest Gardener . You are either blind or not paying attention. Look at the first UAH graph starting December 1978. It is clearly showing warming, there is no denying it. And let’s not forget UAH is the data set that shows the least warming. Let’s also not forget both the Arctic and Antarctic are at all time lows for sea ice this time of year.

Simon: “There is a clear upward trend in UAH anomalies”

I suspect if the same satellites were in space in the 1930s it would look the same.

NOAA adjusted not only the temperature record, the co2 record as well. In the last 2 years. Why do you suppose they would adjust the co2 record?

Bryan A

There is also a clear and upward trend if you start at 1600, 1650, 1700, 1750, 1800, 1850, 1900, 1950 temperatures have been recovering from the LIA in a fairly steady upward trend for the last 400 years.

The headline and article do not deny it. I deny:
1) claimed catastrophic effects (not yet seen) are about to happen,
2) attributing all bad weather to GHG,
3) attributing most climate change to GHG,
4) ignoring all other factors which may be changing the climate.

DWR54

mark4asp

“ignoring all other factors which may be changing the climate.”
_________

All know climate forcing factors have been carefully considered and quantified, with error margins, by the IPCC: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/graphics/images/Assessment%20Reports/AR5%20-%20WG1/SPM/FigSPM-05.jpg

urederra

DWR54
March 3, 2017 at 1:23 am

mark4asp

“ignoring all other factors which may be changing the climate.”
_________

All know climate forcing factors have been carefully considered and quantified, with error margins, by the IPCC:

so what?

All know climate forcing factors…

You are considering the possiblility of unknown factors. That is good.

… forcing factors …

What is that? What are the dimensions of the “forcing”? [M][L][T]-2? [M][L]2[T]-2?
Does the entity “forcing” exist outside the “climate science” realm?

…carefully considered…

Not so carefully. The IPCC does not even know whether some “forcings” warm or cool. E. g. halocarbons, aerosols, NOx,

… and quantified, with error margins, …

Not so quantified either. Some error margins are larger that the values themselves. E. g. Cloud adjustments, solar irradiance, albedo.

In others the percentage of variation is over 50 %. and they are reported as having a high level of confidence.

But the funniest part is that climate models do not use these “forcings”. They do not use the value of 1.68 (units?) for CO2, they use other “constant???” called climate sensitivity to doubling CO2. (ranging from 1.5 to 4.5 depending on models) The percentage of variation is 200%, so not so carefully quantified either.

DWR54

“What are the dimensions of the “forcing”? [M][L][T]-2? [M][L]2[T]-2?”

Forcing factors in this context are environmental processes that influence Earth’s climate. In the case of radiative forcing for example, natural forcing can arise from changes in solar output, though this is estimated to have had a minuscule net effect in the period since 1750. Radiative forcing is measured in changes in Watts per metre squared, as the above chart indicates.

Whilst, due to uncertainties, some of the natural forcings have wide error margins, even at their widest these would not be sufficient to offset the total anthropogenic forcing. Indeed, the 4 cool forcings since 1750 also have a human contribution, suggesting that but for these anthropogenic warming would be even stronger than already observed.

There remains the possibility that there are other as yet undiscovered climate forcings. The world awaits their discovery.

AndyG55

Only if you use the El Ninos to create your trend. (El Ninos are not related to CO2)

There are actually two NEAR ZERO trends with one El Nino step and what’s looks like it will be just a transient.
comment image
comment image

Those two near zero trends show that there is NO CO2 signal at all in the satellite data..

richard verney

The ENSO metre is presently in positive territory.

It may well be the case that we will see back to back El Ninos. Obviously far too early to know what will but if 2017 turns out to be another El Nino year, one can image the screams from climate alarmists. happen

Ernest Bush

Weather Bell is predicting a mild El Niño later this year.

It sure as hell hasn’t been a warm February in Wyoming!

Here in NC we had our annual winter storm in January this year, and we’ve been enjoying a very pleasant, early Spring. IMO, anyone who sees that as a problem has guzzled way, way too much kool-aid.

From eyeballing this chart it appears to me that another +2 °C (+3.6 °F) of warming would shift U.S. growing zones northward by less than 100 miles:comment image

The IPCC defines that as catastrophe. I don’t.

“Polar amplification” is pretty nice, too, IMO. It means that in places with particularly harsh climates, the climates are expected to become a little bit milder. That’s pretty sweet!

It also means that the tropics haven’t warmed very much, and are not expected to. (Some nice negative feedbacks also help.) That’s also nice, because they’re warm enough, already.

Imagine if it were the other way around. Imagine if global warming mainly warmed the tropics, making them even hotter than they already are, and left the bitter cold parts of the globe as bitterly cold as before.

Whooeeee, the hand-wringers would never cease howling about what a disaster that is!

In fact, when poor, confused James Hansen thought that was what would happen, he was issuing dire public warnings about what a disaster it would be. Google search for “SOKBOFLhgqM” and then skip to 7:15 to hear him, on Letterman. He declared that the “increasing temperature gradient [between high and low latitudes] is going to drive stronger storms.”

Fortunately, Hansen was wrong (as usual), “Global” warming is actually mostly at higher latitudes. But I have yet to hear either him or any other climate hawk admit that “polar amplification” is actually pretty nice, nor have I ever heard either him or any other climate hawk speculate that decreasing temperature gradient might make storms weaker.

There’s something pathological about people who always look for a dark lining in ever silver cloud.

Jer0me

And the storms are nit occuring as often, or as intensely. Here in Oz, our children won’t know what cyclones are!

James at 48

Not out here on the West Coast.

The PG&E bills have been painful.

DWR54

The latest graphics are showing the west coast slightly cooler than average for February, many other parts of the US at record high levels. It’s an average of the whole lower 48 states, after all.

Because they are using technology (microwave sounding) that has never been available before, let alone 48 or 148 years ago, their numbers are meaningless and only useful for future measurements using the same equipment. Added to this they are measuring areas “…remote desert, ocean and rain forest areas where reliable climate date are otherwise not available”. So they have no idea whether it is warmer or colder and are basing there argument on politics rather than science.

That was actually a spoof post wasn’t it?

Who really thinks that interpolated numbers are better than actual measurements for “…remote desert, ocean and rain forest areas where reliable climate date are otherwise not available”. Oh, of course, Gavin and his mates.

DWR54

Forrest Gardener

“…you are right to say that this is a very short record (less than 40 years) and that should be taken into account when the figures bounce around as they do.”

Yet not long ago quite a few folks around here were highlighting the significance of a ‘trend’ (or rather a lack thereof) spanning less than 18 years…

Because they are using technology (microwave sounding) that has never been available before, let alone 48 or 148 years ago, their numbers are meaningless and only useful for future measurements using the same equipment. Reginald Vernon Reynolds

Same problem everywhere, some are temps measure via thermometers at times assumed to yield the daily minimum and maximum, some are min/max thermometers sited for meteorological data and others for aviation data, and increasing number are electronic allowing increased accuracy of the reading that are universally sited too close to heat sources because the cords are too short.

DWR54

If, as you suggest, ~40 years is a very short record over which to assess the significance of a trend in a satellite lower troposphere temperature series, then would you agree that 18 years must be ‘way’ too short?

The winter started with snow, switched to southern flow which started a melt adding rain on top of frozen ground then switched to northern flow freezing a 3″ layer of ice. A few weeks later came the big storm with feet of snow and then 15~20mph winds creating 8′ drifts and all this on top of solid ice meaning snow plows not getting traction even with chains. Then came the southern flow again bringing rain for three days then came the northern flow turning everything into hard ice, graders ride on top of the 3′ pack!
Very unusual winter. Glad California has water, meanwhile I drove a snowmobile to the nearest road and caught a ride into town, bought a car to leave by the highway since I can’t get mine out until spring, when it comes.

tony mcleod

The temperature will begin to climb faster as the NH ice melts out. The energy that was once just melting ice volume now has to go somewhere else.

http://psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAprSepCurrent.png

Please don’t act surprised, we’ve known this was going to happen for decades. This summer you’ll be able to fly from Svalbard to the pole and back without seeing ice.

tom s

So what? It’s happened before and will happen again. And you and me are not controlling this by any means.

Your charts looks pretty flat from 2010 on. Not sure what this is supposed to tell me.

tony mcleod

ROFL

Chris Hanley

The Argo data certainly show a declining Arctic ocean temperature trend from 2004:
http://www.climate4you.com/images/ArgoGlobalSummaryGraph.gif

O R

Smoothing strongly seasonal data with a running 13-month average???
The guy who made that chart can’t be the sharpest knife in the drawer..
(hint, a year has 12 months)

Espen

O.R. spare your insults, a 13 month average is a common way to reduce artifacts in such time series. It’s not the best method, though. One better method is to use a triple running mean with periods of 12, 9 and 7. See https://judithcurry.com/2013/11/22/data-corruption-by-running-mean-smoothers/

O R

Espen,
“a 13 month average is a common way to reduce artifacts in such time series”
Well, if you look carefully, the 13 month average introduce artifacts, “counter-seasons”, right between the right seasons. Use 12 months to smooth seasonal data, nothing else, period.

Btw, that chart can not be trusted. The depth averaged temperature 65N-65 S, 0-2000 m, is about 6 degrees C, not 10 C.
Here’s a correct output from Argo marine atlas:
http://postmyimage.com/img2/422_ARGO_0_2000_65N_65S.png

charles nelson

Shame about all that extra ice which formed on Greenland this winter…not to mention the increased amount of multiyear ice now accumulating. Tsk…there goes another beautiful theory murdered by a gang of ugly facts.

tony mcleod

Wrong. More precipitation on the surface but less total ice.
comment image
comment image

Chris Hanley

The ice mass decline (eyeballing) according to the latest estimates seems to be levelling out:comment image

tony mcleod

Interesting you managed to pick that out of that graph. Was there anything else that stood out?

Chris Hanley

Nope, except it would be reasonable to infer that the current Greenland ice mass is similar to that in the late 1930s to early 40s …
http://climate4you.com/images/70-90N%20MonthlyAnomaly%20Since1920.gif
… which incidentally was before human CO2 emissions could possibly been a significant contributing factor and whatever the current situation large scale adoption of wind and/or solar generated electricity would make no measurable difference at enormous loss of global wealth and lives.

Hans-Georg

Is the heading about the post of Anthony ironically meant? As a foreigner I do not know the internal depths of the US-American language so well. February 2017 was only the 4th warmest on the UAH series. If we had only a brief La-Nina rally, and were otherwise neutral-close conditions, not surprising. Tony Mc Leod and his Greenland-Mass-decline series are foolish. An analysis showed that the source of his graphics in the original only goes to 2010. Everything else he himself added, like Michael Mann. This year, the original graphics of the surface analyzes show a massive increase in the snow cover http://beta.dmi.dk/uploads/tx_dmidatastore/webservice/b/m/s/d/e/accumulatedsmb.png
Already in February! The mass growth is as high as on average in June.
This is very surprising and presumably due to the heat that was transported by the Super-El Nino under the tropopause and in the sea to the far north. The overall mass graphics for 2017 for Greenland will be interesting. Moreover, it is not surprising that the ice of the Arctic always strikes a balance to the earth’s temperatures. If these rise, or pump a Super-El Nino heat into the Arctic or Antarctic, the ice sheets fall and the volume goes back. An opposing influence of the AMOC of the Atlantic against the El Nino of the Pacific is existing not yet.

Although the fluctuation and the noise on short time scales are currently large, Piomas also shows a certain stabilization after the years of the strong decline in mass since 1998. The mass has stabilized slowly for 10 years.

http://psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.1.png

tony mcleod

Hans-Georg

“the source of his graphics in the original only goes to 2010. Everything else he himself added…” What on earth are you talking about?

“The mass has stabilized slowly for 10 years.” I that really what you see? Wow!

Doug

Were they able to farm on Greenland at one time?

Hans-Georg March 3, 2017 at 3:59 am
Tony Mc Leod and his Greenland-Mass-decline series are foolish. An analysis showed that the source of his graphics in the original only goes to 2010.

Since you are concerned about the completeness of the data plotted perhaps you should have used the up-to-date version of the PIOMAS plot>

http://psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.1.png

Patrick MJD

“tony mcleod March 2, 2017 at 5:28 pm

Please don’t act surprised, we’ve known this was going to happen for decades. This summer you’ll be able to fly from Svalbard to the pole and back without seeing ice.”

Well, we won’t have long to wait…

tony mcleod

No surprise…
comment image?w=640

Not sure which data you’re referring to. “comparative data from 1980?”

Chris Hanley

“This summer you’ll be able to fly from Svalbard to the pole and back without seeing ice …”.
==========================================
I think you are confusing sea ice extent with the estimated PIOMAS modelled sea ice volume.
This was the ice extent in September last year, as you can see there was still plenty of visible sea ice between Svalbard and the Pole:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2016/09/Figure1.png

tony mcleod

I’m making a prediction Chris. Most of the ice in that map was very thin, 1st year ice. This year winter has seen an even weaker refreeze. Unlikely to be totally ice-free for a few years yet given a small area of multi-year ice is still clinging on around northern Canada and Greenland but the rest is highly susceptable to melting out.
How about ice free from Svalbard to Barrow, Alasaka.

charles nelson

Tony. What you’re feeling now?
That’s cognitive dissonance.
Interesting isn’t it?

Patrick MJD

“tony mcleod March 2, 2017 at 10:14 pm

I’m making a prediction Chris.”

One reliable thing about predictions of a chaotic system, like this rock we live on, is that they are almost always wrong, maybe even 97% wrong. But, Tony, we won’t have long to wait, esp the one about no ice seen while flying from the pole to a city!

Bob boder

Tony

i’ll make a bet with you.
if the geographical North Pole is ice free this year I will never post here on WUWT again. If it isn’t you never post here again.

will you take the bet?

tony mcleod

Your on Bob.

Bob boder

Tony

It’s a bet.
Koodos to you for being willing to stand behind your prediction.

tony mcleod

Likewise.

Patrick MJD

“Bob boder March 3, 2017 at 3:45 am”

Bob, Tony is from Queensland, Australia, the state where residents believe day light savings turns cows milk sour. It’s my view that we won’t see the last of Tony after his prediction fails in an alarming way.

Bob boder

Patrick

I’ll take him at his word, trust me when September 8th or what ever rolls around if I win I will make sure to repost the bet, the link is copied and saved. Than its just a question of honor. I will pay off if I lose. I expect Tony to if he loses. We will see.

catweazle666

” Than its just a question of honor.”

Good luck with that!

Don’t forget, you’re dealing with a Warmist.

Bartemis

tony mcleod @ March 2, 2017 at 10:14 pm

I“This year winter has seen an even weaker refreeze.”

Actually, multi-year ice is growing:
comment image

Pamela Gray

Tony, have you ever asked yourself what polar sea ice did during the Eemian peak?

If all this ice melted where did the catastrophic sea level rises and floods go? 4 New Papers: Anthropogenic Signal Not Detectable in Sea Level Rise.

Still waiting for the catastrophes promised me 30 years ago.

charles nelson

I’ve just had a Warmist above, Chris Hanley explaining to me how record ice gains in Greenland are part of a rapidly melting scenario. (also the graph he posted was from NOAA and we all know that President Trump has plans for them!)

Additionally, if the oceans are warming, where is the thermal expansion? Thermal expansion is significant. If the waters are that warm, parts of the world should already be underwater.

tony mcleod

Really mark4asp? If you’re waiting for a sealevel rise from melting seaice…you’re gong to be waiting a long time.

bitchilly

that is a pretty chart tony. unfortunately meaningless as are all arctic ice volume charts. if it can’t be accurately measured the chart is only representing someones opinion.

tony mcleod

I think you are misunderstanding the point I am raising. I am not talking about a specific locaction. I am merely pointing out that whatever warming has already occured in the Arctic, along with reduced albedo, some of the amplification can be attributed to the fact that melting ice uses up a lot of energy. When there is less ice to melt that energy can only go to warming the water (and air) more.
So…I’m expecting an accellerating temperature increase across the Arctic as warming trend bights deeper and the ice diminishes.
comment image

What are you expecting?

AndyG55

McClod has never heard of the AMO cycle, have you McClod. !

Leopoldo

I can bet you would be wrong

catweazle666

“This summer you’ll be able to fly from Svalbard to the pole and back without seeing ice.”

HeHeHe!

You’re Peter Wadhams and I claim my five bob!

On yer bike, mate!

catweazle666

“This summer you’ll be able to fly from Svalbard to the pole and back without seeing ice.”

I’ve copied that, and I’m going to rub your nose in it this summer.

And it’s WONDERFUL!!! No snow in Southwestern Ontario this winter. Nothing to shovel! Heating bills lower! What’s not to like?

tom s

All very interesting, but it is what it is and we have no control over it besides the measurement techniques and accuracy thereof. Otherwise? It’s just weather and weather does whatever weather wants,.

Graham

“warmest in 39 years.”
These are cooler times, then.

nc

Penny, I live near Penny in Prince George. Penny is not quite a town, fifty or more years ago, just now maybe 6 full time residents. It is fairly remote and still off grid I believe for all the off grid lovers out there. Look it up on google earth.

What the crow said.

An average temperature of a space – a room, house, suburb, region, country and globe is a thermodynamic oxymoron. To claim you can do this to two decimal places is sheer meaningless nonsense, especially when you don’t quote measurement errors.

tom s

Dont tell Stokes and Mosher this.

catweazle666

“Dont tell Stokes and Mosher this.”

Oh, Stokes and Mosher are well aware of it.

But it doesn’t fit the Warmist narrative.

Quoting a global average air temperature is basically trying to gauge the amount of energy stored in the air mass. I.e., integrate cp*rho dT over the chosen volume and divide by V/(cp*rho). You could leave the cp*rho out, but I am trying to illustrate the energy calculation.

…divide by V*cp*rho, sorry

Graemethecat

Nail on head. Enthalpy (an extensive quantity) is far more meaningful in this context than temperature (an intensive quantity).

Why are there never any error bars on these graphs?

Geoff Sherrington

Here in Australia, New South Wales has been hot, Victoria about long-term average, southern part of West Australia has been setting daily records of coldest day evahhh, by BOM land data.
One day soon, people will get bored with picking out hottest this and coldest that. You could hardly say it is exciting, especially as Nature will do what it will.
Next. ………

Geoff

Jer0me

Ha ha, snap! I said that above too.

It’s really unusually quiet here in north queensland, isn’t it?

Patrick MJD

A couple of days were hot, but nothing unusual with prevailing westerly winds from the red hot centre. And now Flannery’s prediction of no raid for the dams coming true…oh wait!

Ack

And a nice Feb it was.

Nothing. Probably would’ve been more interesting to cite that being over 0.3 is very very rare outside of El Nino months

John Harris

So, let me unpack this slowly, just to make sure I understand this forty year old record.

1. Up until 1990, the weather tended to trend cool, where trend was a variance of “.04” degrees from the mean?
2. Since that time, the weather tended to trend warm, where trend was a variance of “.04” degrees from the mean?

Although, according to the data, events within the warm period of the data-set have also trended towards “cool”, then returned towards the mean?

However, at the end of the day, we are talking about a simple planetary temperature record, with data that spans over a period of forty years, using measurements that we have never had access to in prior human history, that so far, shows and average variance from the mean of “.04” degrees over a decade cycle?

Furthermore, in this dataset, we have a small handful of events that exceed this “.04” variance, then fall back towards the mean.
These events, if anybody cares to look, trend both ways.
During the cool early part of the forty year record, events exceeded the “cool” margin of variance on a few occasions and then trended back to the mean.
This trend repeats at the “warm” part of the later part of the scale.

Although, most noticeable is the “axis” point where global temperatures crossed over to the positive, or warmer part of the cycle.
The time span was essentially within a few years.

So, given these trends, and the length of the data set so far, what happens when the median variance flips back to favour the “cool” cycle?

All I see, is that we have managed to map the variance in planetary temperature over a forty year cycle.
As for being useful to promote the global green cause, unfortunately, it just flatly contradicts it.

Local temperature records show much greater variance and historical temperature records tend towards an overall cooling.
A simple check of the written records that date back to the very late 1890’s through to the 1970’s shows much higher average temperatures.
The hottest month traditionally seems to be January and February, the hottest years in the 1900’s were January 1920 and January 1960, as recorded in the southern hemisphere.

Oddly enough, are we looking at a forty year average here?

However, as that may be, this article in the 189’s is an eye opener;
http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/209057216

DWR54

John Harris

“1. Up until 1990, the weather tended to trend cool, where trend was a variance of “.04” degrees from the mean?”

Not according to UAH v6.5. The trend up until 1990 was warming at 0.06 C/dec: http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah6/to:1990/plot/uah6/to:1990/trend

“2. Since that time, the weather tended to trend warm, where trend was a variance of “.04” degrees from the mean?”

The trend in UAH v6.5 from 1990 onwards shows warming at 0.12 C/dec; twice the rate seen up to 1990: http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah6/from:1990/plot/uah6/from:1990/trend

If, as you suggest, the variance in both periods is 0.04C, then the warming rate in both periods is statistically significant (since the best estimate trend is larger than the uncertainty in both cases).

From what I can tell the hottest temperature recorded is about 70C, the coldest about -90C, a span of 160C out of which we trend anomalies of tenths of a degree C. +/- ??? Whom are we kidding?

Besides somebody has to connect these trivial anomalies and CO2/RGHE otherwise it’s all just meaningless noise, a great big yawning, “SO WHAT!!”

Just finished reading a collection of Feynman talks. Feynman frequently emphasized the large uncertainty inherent in science.

charles nelson

Always worth pointing out that ‘above average’ temperatures in the Arctic in wintertime signify COOLING events. With little or no sunlight available, the only way temperatures can rise is because of incoming, moisture laden air…so when you see that it’s minus 15˚C instead of the usual minus 20˚C…think snowfall and ice deposition. Greenland is breaking all records in ice mass gain this winter…don’t hear much about that from the Warmists!

Richard M

Exactly, the Arctic is shedding a lot of warmth from air and open water. A warmer atmosphere means a cooling planet and vice versa.

tony mcleod

“‘above average’ temperatures in the Arctic in wintertime signify COOLING events”
Hmmm… that doen’t sound right.

“the only way temperatures can rise is because of incoming, moisture laden air”
Not quite right. Less ice mean more open water mean more waves mean more mixing up of warm water from depth etc.

Greenland “ice mass gain”, is an undertandable error, overall ice mass isdeceasing rapidly. See above.

charles nelson

Tony. What you’re feeling now?
That’s cognitive dissonance.
Interesting isn’t it?

bitchilly

all water and air masses that travel to the arctic cool tony. when there is less ice the water cools more rapidly . any “warmer” water brought up from depth due to mixing resulting from wave activity will cool rapidly. less ice sea ice in the arctic during winter results in increased loss of “heat” from the planet.

tony mcleod

Hilarious charles. You are sharing your view with a tiny minority, you do realize that don’t you? No I guess you don’t.

Paul Penrose

Tony,
If the people here on this blog represent such a tiny minority, then why do you spend so much time here posting comments? So are you just stupidly wasting your time (as you imply others are), or throwing around disingenuous propaganda?

Hans-Georg

“Hans-Georg

“the source of his graphics in the original only goes to 2010. Everything else he himself added…” What on earth are you talking about?”

This:
This is the pictures source. Nov. 2010.

“The mass has stabilized slowly for 10 years.” I that really what you see? Wow!

Yeah, wow. Trends are also seen in sea ice extent:

http://www.wzforum.de/forum2/file.php?6,file=42837

Yeah wow!

Hans-Georg

I had to deliver the silly source of the Greenland ice mass graph :
Sourcecomment image . What amazing!

Richard Petschauer

That means it was warmer 38 years ago than now.

Richard Petschauer

Sorry, I meant 39 years ago.

Richard M

The winter months are when the AMO driven reduction in sea ice has the biggest effect on temperature. During a negative AMO you have more ice which prevents the heating of the atmosphere by the warmer oceans. With the Positive AMO the ice melts and the air is exposed to the warmer water.

Philip Bradley

I’d have more confidence in the UAH data if it matched surface measurements. Taking Australia as an example (as I live there), the UAH anomaly map bears little resemblance to the BoM surface temp anomalies for February. We saw record cool temperatures in the south of Western Australia, where UAH shows average temperatures.

http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/awap/temp/index.jsp?colour=colour&time=latest&step=0&map=meananom&period=daily&area=nat

Steve Fraser

Well, start by adjusting for the difference in the base climatology. The BOM uses 1961-1990.

The base period used makes almost no difference to anomalies.
comment image

The issue here is that something that is wrong in the detail, cannot be correct in the whole (bar chance and a couple of other oddities). Despite climate modellers claims to contrary.

Chris Hanley

The ‘Bermuda Triangle’ of the GAT surface record is between ~1940 and the start of the satellite record in !980 where you had the collection and curating of the data in the hands of unsupervised dedicated CAGW activists madly ‘correcting’ the data recorded decades before — and they are still at it:
http://www.climate4you.com/images/HadCRUT3andHadCRUT4%20Global37MonthlyRunningMeanTempSince1850.gif
Diagram showing the global 37 month running average for HadCRUT3 (blue) and HadCRUT4 (red), and the difference between these averages (climate4you)

The base period used makes almost no difference to anomalies.

Obviously it does. You can’t compare anomalies made using different base periods unless you first normalise them all to the same base.

Phahh. Different base temperatures.

“I’d have more confidence in the UAH data if it matched surface measurements.”
It might just be telling you that it is measuring a different place.

Both purport to measure effectively the same thing; the temperature of the air not far above the surface, the climate that matters to humans.

If they diverge (don’t correlate well), there are 2 possible reasons. Either one of the measures is seriously flawed, or there is a genuine divergence between lower troposphere temperatures and surface temperatures. I tend to think this is the case and cloud trends are the obvious reason.

And as noted earlier, I am sceptical to say the least, when global averages are highly correlated, but with large divergences at local to regional level. Dr Spencer is an excellent scientist, but I suspect he is guilty of calibrating UAH against global averages.

Hans-Georg

And I have to tell you that the trend of the respective series should be your friend and not be measured where and why. And this trend differs only recently from the surface measurements. That’s funny, is not it?

Javier

It might just be telling you that it is measuring a different place.

A place that according to climate models and IPCC should show more warming than the surface.

The average over two months is 0.325 which would rank in fourth place if it stayed this way. This is a ranking that would be expected in an El Nino year. The weak La Nina at the end of 2016 seems to have been impotent so far.

Richard M

By some measures (BOM), it was not a La Nina. Certainly was not La Nina in the East Pacific. Also keep in mind the AMO influences winter temperatures the most. That is why the NH values are driving the slightly higher anomaly.

Pamela Gray

I keep sayin it over and over. We are at the top of an interstadial. It is supposed to be warm. Enjoy it and hope it stays around. Colder is miserable.

ironicman

Do interstadials happen during interglacials?

Interstadials are more visible when there is an underlying long term cooling trend.They are very visible during the glaciation period.

ironicman

Thanks sunset, so looking at the general trend it maybe the last Holocene interstadial.

tony mcleod

Repeating something does not make it true. All the Holocene graphs, like the one below, seem to show that the “top” of the interstadial was probably 6-8,000ya and that there has been a steady if somewhat bumpy decline since then.
comment image

In other words the global temperature should, if anything, be heading down. Up to you whether you keep repeating it. And btw colder might be more miserable where you live, it certainly isn’t where I am.

AndyG55

Fake Holocene graphs don’t count for anything except baseless propaganda, McClod.

tony mcleod

Blame co2islife, it’s one of his.

co2islife January 23, 2016 at 4:01 pm
This chart shows that over the past 8000 years, temperatures changed by 0.8°C, with very little variation of the actual temperature….

You’re a fake.

Paul Penrose

Tony,
See those little “bumps”? Those are on the order of 100 or more years in length. We are in the middle of an upward bump now. But just like all the others in that chart, this one will end and temps will go down again. At that time the people who are around (and it probably won’t be us) will wonder how we could have been so stupid to ignore the real long term (8000 year) trend. If mankind is lucky the downward bump will only last a hundred years and will not be the bottom falling out as the ice sheets start advancing again.

Tony, ignore the dark black line,look at the lighter ones instead,with those big up and down swings,those are the ones showing small interstadials. They are larger swings during glaciation period.

Bill Illis

I vote for a squiggly line going in the other direction.

[I mean that is basically how it was done in the first place. There had to be a show of hands at some point].

Justanelectrician

That graph shows the current warming started 400+ years ago. And it’s from Wikipedia, so you know it’s trustworthy.

reacomment image

Looks like Robert Rohde of Berkeley Earth is the original artist.

Justanelectrician

Do over
comment image#mw-jump-to-license

Pamela Gray

Interstadials have indeed repeated themselves several times. That kind of regularity must be driven by something powerful. Tony believes that the anthropogenic portion alone of global CO2 will overwhelm that substantial driver and keep us warm. I actually prefer to stay warm. So if I suspend my own intellect for a moment I vote for some magical amplification device that when coupled with anthropogenic CO2, we all get to stay moist and warm. If Tony contends we will be DRY and warm I refer him back to a 5th grade text on the water cycle.

Pamela Gray
Larry Wirth

And this a problem requiring our concern and attention- how?

Matt

Glad to see the adjustments worked 😉

DWR54

UAH are in on it too now, eh Matt? Et tu Roy!

tony mcleod

If it’s Roy it’s good enough for me.

DWR54

“So what is so special about Februaries?”
_________________

Maybe the fact that the report is referring specifically to the February temperature update. Not much point referencing it against past March or December values, is there?

DWR54

What month do you suggest February temperatures should be compared against Forrest?

Now, what can we tell about the climate?
The last 38 Years temperature went up by 0.45 °C, which is 1.2 °C per Century
comment image

Land data are showing a higher trend: about 0.7 °C for 38 Years or 1.7 per Century.

Roughly said, Surface data measurement adds 50% to temperature due to UHT and Method. Or one third of Temp rise in surface data is bias.

If we apply this to the surface data, we get a warming of about 0.6°C since 1850.

Richard M

Ending a trend right after a super El Nino is pretty silly unless you are not looking for the truth.

DWR54

Whereas starting a trend right after one is what, Richard?

Well below the minimum .20C per decade warming projection and the average of .30C as published by the amazing IPCC. reports.Where they get so many things wrong over time.

Bindidon

naturbaumeister on March 3, 2017 at 3:45 am

Germans love to explain it complicated where in fact it goes so simple:

http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170303/2l4cssaf.png

michael hart

Feels good. The daffodils are out but it been cool enough that the snowdrops are still in abundance.

john

To wit…

beng135

That’s very good news here in the US central Appalachians — heating and electric bills are down considerably. Road departments are well within budgets for snow/ice control. The list goes on. Much better than the frigid Feb 2015 temps.

Pete

newbie question: Considering how much fossil fuels are burned worldwide every year, has anyone done a calculation on exactly how much direct heat energy that adds daily/monthly/yearly to our atmosphere? I don’t seem to ever see that number in any of the charts. And with an ever increasing worldwide population, I would imagine it’s also a value that’s continually increasing.

TA

The estimates for CO2 warming of the atmosphere range from less than 1C up to 4.5C, depending on who you ask.

This doesn’t take into account the possible negative feedbacks which might negate any warming from human-caused CO2.

To date, there is no firm evidence that human-caused CO2 is warming the atmosphere. The CO2 signal is lost in the natural variabilty of the climate.

Bindidon

Pete on March 3, 2017 at 7:01 am

The total world yearly energy consumption is about 500 Exajoule, the yearly incoming solar energy may go up to 50,000 Exajoule. Taking the average gives you thus roughly that thermic energy induced by fossil burning is about 1 % of that we receive from the Sun.

And above all it could be even less than the energy added into the atmosphere by the fact that the increasing CO2 (resulting from burning the fossil part of the energy sources) absorbs and uniformly reemits longwave radiation (IR) emitted by the Earth’s surface in response to solar shortwave radiation.

I actually have no exact data source for the energy yearly accumulated in the atmosphere and the oceans due to IR radiation prevented from escaping off the Earth.

This spatially uniform reemission of IR (instead of a direct transmission to outer space from the ground level) has two consequences:
– it slightly warms the lower atmosphere, what results in an increased acceptance for water vapor which does the IR absorption / reemission job far better than CO2;
– it reduces the ability of heat evacuation, because the higher the final reemission to outer space, the less efficient it is.

I think most people silently agree to that. But all have a different meaning about the consequences for the next 100 years.

Hans-Georg

Finally the church of antropogenic global warming has spoken. The mum of the projection and the dad of Scenarios told ya so. Yumm, nothing to do with natural cycles, these were masked by the IPCC to the unrecognizable. And only the models, miracles of beauty and perfection. And now this evolutionary step in AGW theory. Not the middel troposphere is heated up most rapidly, but by back-radiation it warms itself due to greater possibility of warm air to bind moisture, the layer from the ground to 10 meters (the location of the climatic stations) this area much stronger, which brings also the adjustments of the surface Stations ( eG 10 Meter Stations) again In the right direction. Wait a minute, I’m completely knotted in the brain. How was this again with the AGW theory: A pure doubling of the CO2 content in the air heats the same by 1 -1.2 C. If now the CO2 doubles, the temperature increases in steps because the CO2 does not turn up once again doubled by this margin. But because it gets warmer, the amount of water vapor rises in the air, which, in turn, increases the atmosphere to the required 6 degrees for the climatic alarm, but only the atmosphere in the layer up to the level of the climate stations ( 10 meters). For, oh wonder in the middle atmosphere, this modeling effect is not to be observed at all. Neither by satellite measurements nor by balloon ascents. This is the great breakthrough of AGW theory. The floor layer heating model. -Sarcasm out and I go to bed –

Bindidon

Hans-Georg on March 3, 2017 at 4:54 pm

Was für eine lächerliche Prosa! Typisch deutsch.

For, oh wonder in the middle atmosphere, this modeling effect is not to be observed at all. Neither by satellite measurements nor by balloon ascents.

I guess you never have seen nor a fortiori processed even one balloon dataset. Not one!

Bindidon

Forrest Gardener on March 3, 2017 at 3:40 pm

Bindi, I am quick to criticise you when you troll…

Don’t you overestimate yourself a bit here?

Wasn’t there supposed to be a hot spot somewhere in the atmosphere by now? Has it materialised?

Which part of the atmosphere? No idea what you mean.

I’m interested in facts, and in nothing else. One of these facts is that in the (more or less) lower troposphere, the poles aren’t cooling that much when you look at trends over valuable periods.
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170304/2x7bkgok.jpg
What is rather cooling a bit is the area between the poles 🙂

And you see also that the more you move to the north, the warmer it gets.
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170304/mj84s4be.jpg
Of the 9,504 UAH 2.5° grid cells, 96 of the 100 showing the highest trends are in the 80N-82.5N latitude zone.

What does that say about CAGW?

No idea.

Pamela Gray

Probably no more than uncontrolled forest fires did before the mid 19th century.

When the US is warm it’s a headline.
When it’s cool it’s only 3% of the earth’s surface.

Notice,that while DWR54,Tony and other warmists, ignore the failed IPCC per decade predictions?

They grow excited about a warm month,every month but fail to see that it doesn’t support their AGW conjecture.

tony mcleod

There is no excitement. Continued, accellerating warming is apalling. I hope you too will be apalled as the Arctic becomes a temperate blue-water ocean over the next few years. And if you think thats a good thing you really haven’t done your research.

catweazle666

“I hope you too will be apalled as the Arctic becomes a temperate blue-water ocean over the next few years.”

Woo-Hoo!

Yet another crazy prediction!

Come on Banton, how many years is “the next few”?

To the nearest hundred will do!

Patrick MJD

“tony mcleod March 3, 2017 at 3:16 pm”

You’ve been watching too much Gore. He, unqualified like your good self, made a similar prediction about Arctic sea ice that was supposed to disappear by 2013. It’s still there. And it will still be there long after your predictions come and go.

Adjusting the temperature has become a moving wave. It will always be warmer than the norm. I also predict that they will have to adjust the numbers again in a few years. 2025 will look dramatically higher where 2016 will look more like the norm. By then some parts of the American mid west will be starting to dry out and they will be ringing the alarm bells again about the driest on record.
When they adjusted the temperature and co2 record it was to preserve the CAGW fiction that temperatures followed co2. The record until March 2015 clearly proved that co2 followed temperature . They didn’t change the record in the name of science, they changed it to disassociate temperature from co2. They also changed it to disassociate it from the solar cycle as well.
In the real world, who knows what the actual temperature and co2 levels are, I could say that if this year was cooler after an el nino event, that co2 ppm for this year would have fallen below the increase in ppm from last year. Keep that in mind and see if it’s true.
The CAGW people are also claiming that co2 production has either stabilized or is falling somewhat. They have to. They can’t account for massive amounts of missing co2 from anthropogenic causes that they associate with atmospheric increases of co2.

For years now co2 ppm per year was higher than 1998 which was 2.93 ppm. Then in 2015 I started talking about co2 following temperature. In spite of the production each of a billion metric tons each additional year, the ppm per year never exceed 1998. They changed other years as well as 2005. The reason I point out 2005 is that it was 2.52 ppm for that year. It was 2.52 for 10 years. NOAA changed it to 3.10 ppm. I was asked where did I get the numbers… NOAA. Even still the pattern is still recognizable, except it isn’t as solid as it was. Especially the last 5 or 6 years. I’m sure NOAA is working very hard to correct this oversight of co2 following temperature. There is a lot more to this argument that goes back to the early days, 2001. It was claimed that they could know that the co2 in the atmosphere that was being added was entirely from anthropogenic sources via isotopes. It’s taken awhile, but that doesn’t look like the case. First, is the dramatic increase in the sinks. And second, is that with so much more co2 being added, it’s not reflected in the ppm per year. In several years during the 00s more co2 was missing than all of the production from 1965. ( I have a solid number for 1965 in co2 produced). Not attributed to the sinks nor finding it’s way into the atmosphere. Further the same argument I used back then about fossil fuels being tagged with radioactive isotopes, which they said should be less since it was buried was the same arguments used by the greens in California to stop fossil fuel burning. Which, in conclusion, leads me to think that the rise in co2 levels were not in part or whole via anthropogenic sources. One of the key features of this is that there are no negative numbers in the co2 record for the last 150 years. They are assuming a carbon balance when there may not be one. I also think that burning fossil fuels might have inadvertently saved the world as we know it. If the data and research on this is correct, in less than 100 years the planet could have experienced plant death. The research is fairly solid, the data is iffy. And that is a problem.
They do have a dilemma concerning the LIA and MWP. If was due to an increase or decrease in co2, then they have to explain where the co2 came from or went. If it wasn’t from co2 then they have to explain the temperature in the absence of dramatic changes in co2. Their solution was to make it go away. It hasn’t gone away. If anything, it has been shown that both events were world wide. Their solution was to say temperature didn’t vary that much, although now they acknowledge both events. And once again, it has been shown that the temperature swings were dramatic all over the world.
If we don’t find out what caused the LIA, we will be doomed to repeat the horrors of famine, disease, and wars. This time with the spectra of nuclear weapons. That’s why I’m here. Climate science as it currently stands is totally useless.

rishrac:

Forget about CO2. It has nothing to do with Climate Change.

Google “Climate Change Deciphered” for the real cause of global warming.

The cause of the little ice age is already known–it was caused by large volcanic eruptions spewing strongly dimming SO2 aerosols into the atmosphere..

One Yellowstone would change our world considerably. What I’m doing is showing that co2 is following temperature, not leading it. It is completely opposite of what AGW contends.
AGW is useless, it can’t tell us if there is going to be a slight cool down like the 1970s. That was bad enough. A LIA would be awful. And that’s not anywhere close to a full blown ice age. That’s what climate science should be doing, not arm waving about some maybe future change, that so far not one prediction/projection has come close.
It is important to show the current climate regime that they are mistaken. First, they have a political agenda, and second, the solution is the worst of all possibilities. Up to and including if (IF) they were absolutely correct.

Rishrack:

Thank you for your comments.

As proven in my Climate Change Deciphered post, the control knob for earth’s climate over the past 160 years been the amount of sulfur dioxide aerosols in the atmosphere.

Add them, and it cools down. Reduce them, and it warms up.

Society needs to understand this, and to control them insofar as possible.

This is, I would maintain, applicable over all of earth’s history, with ice ages being preceded by extensive volcanism, etc. ..

I don’t disagree with that Burl. There is no doubt that volcanoes have an impact on earth’s climate. However, I also think there are other factors as well. Co2 isn’t one of them.

Rishrac:

Yes, there may well have been other factors over the centuries. However, fpr ttje period 1975-2011, temperature projections based solely upon the net global amount of reductions in SO2 aerosol emissions are accurate to within .02 deg. C., or less. No hint of any other factor affecting temperatures.

There is currently no published data for net global SO2 aerosols since 2011, but .also no reason to suspect anything different

That’s good to know, I will remember. The reason is that current climate models can’t project foward or backwards. That is probably another reason they are adjusting the records. If you have the records on so2, don’t loose them. If they contradict AGW, they will get changed.

I had a thought about so2. In a new blog on Claim: ” a-growth” they were talking about manufacturers like VW trying to skate around the new standards. I had a Toyota that got 34 miles to the gallon back in the 1970s. Then I happened to think that was before a lot of the emmisions standards came into place. I not certain, but wasn’t one of the emmisions from cars back then so2 ? It would be interesting to see if the number of cars per unit of so2, per miles driven were a factor in the cooling in the 1970s. If that’s the case that so2 is a factor.

rishrac:

Figure 6, in the paper “Anthropogenic Sulfur Dioxide Emissions: 1850-2005, by S. J. Smith, et al shows the huge run-up in global anthropogenic sulfur dioxide emissions from about 1950 and on, peaking at about 131 Megatommes in 1972.

They state that “surface transportation contributes a relatively small amount of total sulfur dioxide emissions”, so, although not a major contributor, they do appear to have included them in their inventory.

Evenly spread depends on which climate alarmist you talk to. In some places the levels may be higher, but generally I think it is evenly spread. Supposedly they can take a measurement from one place and get an accurate reading of co2 levels the world over. ( I add detail to head off alarmist ). If they remember the guy from CalTech standing in the snow in the mountains of California. I’m going with fairly well mixed, there was a discussion about that a few years ago.
I am familiar with that graph, it is misleading. If you graph the ppm per year it looks totally different. The graph you are referring to is the total amount of co2. It only proves that co2 has gone up in relation to co2. The ppm per year of co2 follows the temperature anomolies. It’s temperature that controls the co2. Otherwise, co2 ppm per year would have steadily increased, let’s cherry pick 1998.. but any year will do, instead of 1999 being 0.93 ppm, it should have been on par with 1998 at 2.93 ppm. The temp anomolies was 0.64 C for 1998 and 0.46 C for 1999. As a rule of thumb, for each 12 billion metric tons produced 6 go into a sink, or did, and 6 becomes an increase of 1 ppm. So from 1998 to 1999 somehow 2 ppm went poof. I can’t decide whether it’s 24 BMT or 12. But being 12, it’s all the co2 produced world wide in 1965. Now, to head off the warmist who will say that’s just variation, it isn’t. That is each and every year where co2 followed temperature for the last 60 years. The other remarkable thing is that nowhere is the co2 level ever makes up the missing co2.
Now, I can’t tell how much is natural, anthropogenic, or a combination. Or how much was in any amounts. For instance, was there a natural outflow that was being soaked up in the earlier records. I tend to think that earlier the sinks had to have been larger than they are now. I don’t think they grown, in fact they may have shrank. But even in NOAA ‘ s estimation a good 19 BMT went into the sink in 2015. That’s 3 times the amount sunk in 1965. And, this is important, the amount that made its way into the atmosphere is missing from a low of 4 BMT to nearly 8. Each and every year in the last 12. That’s on top of the amount that is acknowledged to have been sunk. That curve in the total co2 would/should be much higher on that graph you are referring to.
I tend to think the numbers are/were right. They didn’t change them until AFTER I pointed this out. And ultimately, I have to work with something.

Arbeegee

Maybe someone can explain to me how this works.
I’ve read about the last number of heavy winters in the USA including freeze-ups of the Great Lakes. Does this mean that the temps elsewhere in the world must be that much higher to exactly produce a neat hundredths of a degree average global temp increase?

Arbeegee

Also, what happens when higher than normal temps and precip are balanced out by lower than normal temps and precip to produce average temps and precip? It that still climate change or what?

RWturner

Nearly all of the tropospheric tropics was average temperature last month. What’s going on with the CO2 induced doom-warming in the tropics? It take the month off, or is this a sign that cooling will ensue?

Bill Illis

Tropics temperatures are down essentially 1.0C in the last 11 months.

Bindidon

RWturner on March 3, 2017 at 11:52 am

What’s going on with the CO2 induced doom-warming in the tropics?

Show me one recent paper telling such nonsense. CO2’s activity if there is any you might rather see at the poles.

Gunga Din

Compared to seasonal norms, the warmest spot on the globe in February was over Warrensburg, Missouri, with an average temperature that was 4.06 C (about 7.31 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than seasonal norms.

Compared to seasonal norms, the coolest average temperature on Earth in February was near the town of Penny in central British Columbia, Canada. February temperatures there averaged 2.51 C (about 4.52 degrees F) cooler than seasonal norms.

Mr Layman here. Just how and on what data is a “seasonal norm” determined? How far back does the data go?
Man has only just begun to gather the data necessary to determine any kind of “norm”. Even that would only be for a few decades. Some of it has been “adjusted”.

We’re really back to square one … er … zero when it comes to claiming such certainty about the past temperatures, measured or not, compared to the present temperatures.

Proof of Man being the cause is still less than zero.

Those who want to claim that Man is the cause of ..whatever is not “Natural”, would first have to prove Man (Woman) is not a part of what is “Natural”.

(On second thought, Man did invent computers and computer Climate Models. Maybe Man’s effect on “Climate” is not “Natural” after all?)

Svend Ferdinandsen

Is a single month climate? It is weather, and even a year is not anything near climate.
What you see outside your window is weather and not climate.

With cuts to NOAA and NASA satellite budgets looming…

catweazle666

Perhaps if the likes of Schmidt, Trenberth, Hansen et al had kept it honest, it wouldn’t be necessary. But because it suited the politics of the likes of Obama and the rest, they didn’t. So now it’s inevitable.

They have ZERO to do with satellite data.
They have zero to do with the vehicle and sensor designs,
zero to do with launch
Zero to do calibration
Zero to do with downlink
Zero to do with ANY data processing from level0 data to level 2 data

ZERO.

Our military uses that data
Companies use this data
your local weather guy uses this data.

but [snip] getting rid of satellite data is fine and dandy, because gavin?

Talk about politicizing science.

Philip Bradley

‘Talk about politicizing science.’

Climate science has far from clean hands when it comes to politicizing science. The blowback was entirely predictable.

The reality is most climate science is trash. I can no longer bother debunking the endless false claims.

Bindidon

Philip Bradley on March 7, 2017 at 5:55 am

The reality is most climate science is trash.

That is what you and other persons thinking similar suppose and pretend.
Would you be able to give any consistent proof of that? I guess no.

Bindidon:

For proof, Google “Climate Change Deciphered”.

Man made climate change is real, but most climate science IS trash.

Bindidon

Burl Henry on March 7, 2017 at 10:57 am

… but most climate science IS trash.

To you as well, the same reply as for Bradley:

That is what you and other persons thinking similar suppose and pretend.
Would you be able to give any consistent proof of that? I guess no.

I would understand your remark if you were yourself a scientist able to formally contradict climate scientists’ opinions.

Bindidon:

Yes, I can give consistent proof that most of climate science IS trash.

Google my post “Climate Change Deciphered” , which proves that the control knob for climate change over the past 160+ years has been the amount of sulfur dioxide aerosols in the atmosphere.

This being the case, any climate “science” with respect to warming due to the accumulation of “greenhouse” gasses is simply trash.

No, I am not a climate scientist, but I can easily contradict climate scientists’ opinions with my facts.

And the facts are that SO2 is even worse than CO2.was thought to be.

Bindidon

Burl Henry on March 8, 2017 at 5:24 pm

Google my post “Climate Change Deciphered”

That, Burl Henry, was a bad hint. You’d better have published the link to the blog entry instead. Because near it I found

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/10/15/scientific-integrity-is-constant-challenge-a-classic-historical-example/

with in it

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/10/15/scientific-integrity-is-constant-challenge-a-classic-historical-example/#comment-2320129

and from there I went to

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/26/the-role-of-sulfur-dioxide-aerosols-in-climate-change/

and finally to

Willis Eschenbach
May 28, 2015 at 8:46 am

Burl Henry May 27, 2015 at 6:45 am Edit

Yes, it is always one of cooling. But if you remove Megatonnes of it, then warming naturally occurs, which is the point of my post.

Yes, Burl. But if your theory is right, if you add Megatonnes of SO2, then cooling naturally occurs, which is the point you are ignoring as fast as you can. As I pointed out above, your theory about .02° per megatonne means the earth should have COOLED from 1850 to 1980, which was the point of my previous comment.

Unfortunately, you seem determined not to deal with this. Instead, you say:

Regardless of what happened in the 1850’s to now, currently the lowering of SO2 emissions is causing higher temperatures, and that must be our greatest concern

Look, Burl, a lot of very smart folks have pointed out exactly where you’ve gone off the road. And so have I. You’ve ignored them, one and all, just as you’ve ignored me.

Now, you seem to think that holding on to your theory and sticking your fingers in your ears and saying in essence “Na, na, na, I can’t hear any of you, na, na, na” gains you points. I’m here to tell you that is not the case. YOU ARE DESTROYING YOUR REPUTATION ENTIRELY BY NOT PAYING ATTENTION TO OBJECTIONS TO YOUR THEORY.

Given what I’ve seen so far, you’ve placed yourself firmly on my own personal “SKIP HIS COMMENTS” list, and you’ll stay there until you demonstrate that you can admit when you have made a mistake. You’re free to do that, of course, and if you do I’ll change my mind.

For now, perhaps you can at least start by trying to explain why the temperatures didn’t obey their SO2 masters from 1850 to 1980 on and warmed a degree or so instead of the 2°C cooling that your theory so confidently hindcasts … and why they changed, explain why in 1980 the temperatures realized the error of their ways and started obeying nobody but SO2.

I await your explanation, and I fear that the size of your prediction (a 2°C cooling since 1850) will make that more than difficult.

w.

Well I do not always agree to Willis’ meaning, but here I do!

Bindidon:

In my “Climate Change Deciphered” post, I pointed out that average global temperatures, over the past 160+ years, have temporarily risen whenever there has been a business recession.

This temporary warming can only have been due to reduced Sulfur Dioxide emissions into the atmosphere because of the reduced industrial activity during a business slowdown. The cleaner air allows sunshine to strike the earth’s surface with greater intensity, causing more surface warming.

(As would be expected, ERSST sea surface temperature increases follow exactly the same pattern as the recession-induced increases in global land-ocean surface temperatures)

Since average global temperatures rise whenever Sulfur Dioxide aerosol are unintentionally reduced, it follows that temperatures will also rise whenever SO2 aerosol emissions are intentionally reduced due to Clean Air efforts.

Surely you can understand this.

I then determined the amount of warming that would occur for each net Megatonne of reduction in global SO2 aerosol emissions, using data from both volcanic injections of SO2 into the stratosphere, as the aerosols settled out, and temperatures recovered to pre-eruption levels, and temperature increases due to Clean Air Act reductions in SO2 emissions. In each case, the amount of warming turned out to be .02 deg. C of warming for each net Megatonne of global reduction in SO2 aerosol emissions.

Using published data, I multiplied the .02 deg. C. factor times the amount of reduction since 1975 (roughly the start of anomalous global warming) to see whether the calculated amount of warming would match NASA’s land-ocean temperature index values.

Somewhat to my surprise, the calculated values matched NASA’s values to within .02 deg. C., or less, for every year for which global SO2 levels were reported. (This is better than any supercomputer hind-cast that I have seen)

The projected temperatures are so accurate that there can never have been any additional warming due to “greenhouse” gasses.

So, where have I gone wrong? Everything fits!

Willis misunderstood my .02 deg. C. factor and used it to claim that a hindcast would indicate temperatures should be 2 deg. C. cooler now. It only predicts how much temperatures will change for each net Megatonne of change in global SO2 aerosol emissions, and cannot be used any other way..

Error bars on 1850’s temperature data are so large that the temperatures are really not known, nor are SO2 levels, either.

If we do not halt the removal of SO2 aerosols from the atmosphere, much of the earth will become largely uninhabitable

Further proof that my “model’ is correct.

I have submitted the paper “The Cause and Timings of El Nino Events” to the OFS preprint service (OFS.io)

It turns out that every El Nino since 1850 has also coincided with .business recessions, so that the mystery of why an El Nino forms is now solved. However, since about 1990, there have been El Ninos that are not associated with a recession. These are caused by reductions in SO2 emissions due to Clean Air efforts (especially the 1997-1998 El Nino)..

barry

UAHv6 methods paper has just been published, announced on Roy Spencer’s site.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/03/uah-version-6-dataset-paper-published-online/

There are a couple of links to the full version there.

As the data set is so often referred to here (including monthly updates), this development is worth a post of its own.