State of the Climate 2016 – based exclusively on observations

A report on the State of the Climate in 2016 which is based exclusively on observations rather than climate models was published yesterday by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF). Video and full report follows.

Compiled by Dr Ole Humlum, Professor of Physical Geography at the University Centre in Svalbard (Norway), the new climate survey is in sharp contrast to the habitual alarmism of other reports that are mainly based on computer modelling and climate predictions.

 

Compiled by Dr Ole Humlum, Professor of Physical Geography at the University Centre in Svalbard (Norway), the new climate survey is in sharp contrast to the habitual alarmism of other reports that are mainly based on computer modelling and climate predictions.

Among the key findings of the survey are:

  • While 2016 was one of the warmest years on record, global temperatures dropped back at the end of the year to levels prior to the strong 2015/16 El Niño. This fact suggests that much of the global 2015–16 temperature peak was caused by a one of the strongest El Niños on record.
  • Since 2003, the global temperature estimate based on surface station measurements has consistently drifted away from the satellite-based estimate in a warm direction, and is now about 0.1◦C higher.
  • Much of the heat given off during the 2015–16 El Niño appears to have been transported to the polar regions, especially to the Arctic, causing severe weather phenomena and unseasonably high air temperatures.
  • Data from tide gauges all over the world suggest an average global sea-level rise of 1–1.5 mm/year, while the satellite-derived record suggests a rise of more than 3 mm/yr. This noticeable difference between the two data sets still has no broadly accepted explanation.
  • Arctic and Antarctic sea-ice extents since 1979 have developed in opposite directions, decreasing and increasing, respectively. In the Arctic, a 5.3-year periodic variation is important, while for the Antarctic a cycle of about 4.5 years duration is important. Both these variations reached their minima simultaneously in 2016, which explains the recent minimum in global sea-ice extent.

Prof Humlum said: “There is little doubt that we are living in a warm period. However, there is also little doubt that current climate change is not abnormal and not outside the range of natural variations that might be expected.”

Full reportThe State of the Climate in 2016 (PDF)

Advertisements

265 thoughts on “State of the Climate 2016 – based exclusively on observations

      • We should add some detail to these findings:

        From the article: “Since 2003, the global temperature estimate based on surface station measurements has consistently drifted away from the satellite-based estimate in a warm direction, and is now about 0.1◦C higher.”

        We should tell them why the two temperature measures are drifting apart: Dishonest human beings are doctoring the surface temperature charts to make things look hotter and hotter in order to promote their CAGW narrative. The satellite data does not show “hotter and hotter”.

        And we want to praise this statement:

        From the article: “Prof Humlum said: “There is little doubt that we are living in a warm period. However, there is also little doubt that current climate change is not abnormal and not outside the range of natural variations that might be expected.”

        That’s the bottom line. Nothing to see here. Come back when you have something.

  1. The warming trends since the 1800’s has never been alarming,yet some people overlook that reality to dive deep into modeled fantasies,to think unnatural warming is right around the corner, the much ballyhooed Positive Feedback Loop, but never seen for 600 Million years

    • The much ballyhooed Positive Feedback Loop doesn’t exist because the theory behind it assumes an infinite and implicit source of Joules to power the gain which does not exist (the first 2 paragraphs of Bode’s book prescribes this assumption as well as the violated requirement for input to output linearity). Note that the implicit source of Joules can’t be the Sun because the Sun is the ONLY source of forcing and comprises the explicit input to the feedback model. Note also that the concept of forcing has been subverted to mean something it doesn’t (again refer to Bode). Even the climate science definition of sensitivity is a bastardization of Bode’s definition. What they really mean by the sensitivity is the closed loop gain. They have bungled the theory, subverted the terminology and support their errors with fear mongering. The individuals at fault for this insanity are James Hansen and Michael Schlesinger; go figure …

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/07/how-climate-feedback-is-fubar/

      • I thought the idea was that the extra CO2 induced water vapour to reduce the amount of heat escaping from the Earth’s atmosphere so there is a lesser output (heat retention) rather than input/output linearity.

      • The theory is that increased temperatures increase water vapor, independent of what caused the temperature increase. The basic problem still exists which is that to increase the surface temp by 3C, emissions must increase by more than 16 W/m^2 and for emissions to increase by this much, the power entering the surface must increase by the same amount. The 3.7 W/m^2 of ‘forcing’ from CO2 can’t be amplified to more than 16 W/m^2 without the implicit, infinite supply of Joules. It’s a basic COE requirement. Can anybody actually accept that the 0.7C intrinsic temperature increase arising from 3.7 W/m^2 of forcing will increase the water vapor GHG effect by so much that it recirculates an additional 12 W/m^2 back to the surface? We definitely do not see this from temperature changes arising from changes in solar forcing, so why is a temperature increase from CO2 special?

      • @CO2isnotevil: I think you’re misstating. The contention isn’t that there will be more joules joining the system, rather that there will be fewer joules leaving the system.

        I think the second part of your statement addresses that – is it plausible that increased water vapour could make that much difference. It’s not clear to me that it is. But that is the stronger argument.

    • If you deeply believe in doomsday, you can’t let go of it without admitting you were wrong. Lose/lose. That’s why greens are so morbid and/or fatuous.

      • Ego, their bank account or both will discourage them from backing away. They’ll need some other distraction.

      • If only they had the sense of humor of The Church of the Subgenius. Its Pope, the Rev. Ivan Stang, revealed to the Slackful that the X-Men would come to remove them from the Earth ahead of the apocalypse in 1996, at the annual Slackfest in upstate New York. When the date arrived, and no saucers appeared in the skies, the Rev. looked at the year as written, turned it upside down, and realized that the true date was to be in 9661. The members promptly threw Rev. Stang into the pond, then joined him in the water and the party continued.

        That’s how one deals with apocalyptical disappointment.

  2. I don’t think temps did ‘drop back’ at the end of the year.

    and where does all this record El Nino heat suddenly appear from, eh?

    No comment on the fact that arctic sea ice is still trending down and that we just saw a record low maximum… and a very low minimum in the antarctic. Never mind the 5 year cycles… why is the ice so low in the first place?

    The other stuff is just irrelevant diversion.

      • why is the ice so low in the first place? … longer cycles of which we only get a glimpse in our tiny 35y record. There is no legitimate reason to fit a straight line to everything that happens.

        In fact it is not “still trending down” since it was the same last year as it was in 2007 and higher then 2012 ( the previous circa 5y min ).

        If your ability to analyse and study things does not go beyond “trending” one way or the other, you are not going to get very far in science.

      • Why does ice melt?
        Well the low ice in the 40 was due to warmer temps.
        The low ice now?
        Unicorns. Has to be.

      • Greg, we have a 38 year satellite record and excellent non satellite records going back to the 1850s.

        Science can confidently state based on detailed observations we are at a level much lower than the 1940s (previous low) and the lowest in the period examined (post 1850)

      • Griff
        “Science can confidently state based on detailed observations we are at a level much lower than the 1940s (previous low) and the lowest in the period examined (post 1850)”

        Please post links to the “detailed observations” that prove we are at a “level much lower than the 1940’s (previous low) and the lowest in the period examined (post 1850)”

    • Griff, on a regular basis you come here and drop your little stinkbombs, devoid of any evidence you have ever lifted a finger to understand real climate physics. Then you run off and hide.

      We know the drill. The sad, tiresome drill.

      • Eustace: What Grift does is throw the latest warmist spin/talking points on a wall and hope that they stick. In this sense his value is to put those talking points in front of people who can legitimately discredit them.
        It’s a negative value, of course. Sort of like the way a virus creates immunity.

      • joel March 23, 2017 at 10:44 am

        “Don’t feed the troll.”

        First Griff is always polite. He has been bad mouthed but remains civil.
        I hope he is paid. And I hope we are causing his paymaster to break his budget.

        Griff if you are a paid troll I hope my response helps get you a good meal and pint at your favorite Pub.

        Of cause you are still wrong.

        michael

      • I see that Chris is still trying to push the line that only officially recognized experts are allowed to comment.

      • ‘Griff is always polite.’

        Well, I’d call it ‘pseudo-polite’. It’s really more controlled snark and smugness.

      • Wow.. Over Ion the heartland thread skeptics pat themselves on the back about not being name callers.
        Here they call Griff a troll.
        Hmm

        [I guess now you’ll have to retract your “Piltdown Mann” label, right Mr. Mosher? Sheesh, let he who is without sin… – Anthony]

      • I come here and quote from the established science… from reality.

        Because I feel that the evidence (the truth) is overlooked.

        I would love to have a debate or discussion based on scientific observations, papers, real world evidence.

        Instead I get comments like yours.

        Are you not interested in debate? Looking at the evidence?

        I notice there’s a post on the blog about how open Heartland conferences are to new ideas. Is this comments section to be less open?

      • Not paid Mike. Not a ‘leftist’. a member of no political party or green organisation. Just interested and with points in the day with a lot of time on my hands.

        I’m reading both sides of this skeptic/science debate…

        I wonder if many skeptics ever read beyond these comments pages…

      • Griff

        You are a fraud and a serial slanderer and liar. You have no right to lecture anyone here. Go meet your polar bear.

      • Chris asked- “Eustace, what is your specific contribution to atmospheric physics?”

        Why? Did I miss the forum criteria requiring that all posters “must contribute, specifically, to atmospheric physics”?

      • Actually, Grift, most of us are inundated with propaganda all day, every day. So, yes, we DO get exposure to stories beyond this comment column.
        AND, however you try to spin yourself, you’re an exploiter. You may not be ‘Leftist’ – just an enabler.

      • Hey Mosher, I’ve got a lovely computer model of a unicorn. Made it digitally with a 3D program.
        Just like Global Warming.

      • Grift: ”I come here and quote from the established science… from reality.’

        No. As I said before, you post all the latest alarmist tripe, from all the usual suspects.

      • “I come here and quote from the established science… from reality.”

        I have yet to see ONE direct quote from established science from you.

      • Griff is without doubt a bot-like troll.

        I tried to draw its attention to the overwhelmingly abundant evidence in hundreds of papers showing that the MWP, LIA and previous warm and cold cycles of the Holocene and prior interglacials were global, but it ignored all those valid scientific data, instead practicing classic misdirection, asking about Lamb’s work in the 1960s.

    • “I don’t think temps did ‘drop back’ at the end of the year.”
      What you think does not matter, what we know does matter.

    • where does all this record El Nino heat suddenly appear from, eh?
      =================
      El Nino and La Nina are caused by a slow down and speed up in the deep ocean mixing rate along the west coast of South America along the equator. When up-welling increases you get La Nina, with good fishing and cooler temperatures. When up-welling decreases you get the opposite.

      Why this happens, no one knows for sure. There is a huge river of near freezing water that flows from the poles to the equator, that takes 800 years to complete the trip. Co-incidentally, this is the same amount CO2 lags temperature in the ice core records.

      It is quite possible that El Nino and La Nina are the result of the meander of this deep ocean current. Like a river, it is continually trying to change course, and this causes instability and unpredictable cycling in the up-welling along the equator.

      The deep ocean contain enough cold water to plunge the earth into “snowball earth” conditions should it somehow be brought to the surface. For example, large scale deployment of OTEC power generators. Only a very small change in the deep ocean up-welling rate is required to create El Nino and La Nina.

      • The trade winds play a part in this, sweeping surface (warm) water westward into the Pacific Warm Pool, where a bulge forms. Eventually, the trade winds “slacken” and the bulge dissipates back eastward. Then the trade winds pick up again in a quasiperiodic process taking several years to complete.

      • OMG!!

        We have our next global crisis. Get your wallets out (you taxpayers). We are heading to a meeting in a nice warm tropical island.

    • Arctic sea ice has been trending down for 22,000+ years. It needs to be repeated every year?

    • Griff-
      “I don’t think temps did ‘drop back’…”

      Well, once again, what you think is irrelevant, and false. Page 7 of report shows NCDC, HadCRUT, and GISS recording that temperatures did indeed, drop back.

      Where does it come from? Google is your friend:
      El Ni·ño
      el ˈnēnyō/
      noun
      an irregularly occurring and complex series of climatic changes affecting the equatorial Pacific region and beyond every few years, characterized by the appearance of unusually warm, nutrient-poor water off northern Peru and Ecuador, typically in late December.

      Sea Ice? Whole page on it. P. 33

      Funny that you find the OBSERVED state of the climate to be “irrelevant diversion”. Most of us feel the same way about your observed behavior.

    • You could have stopped after the first three words.

      All the data shows that the temperatures did drop, so your thoughts on the matter aren’t relevant.

      If we have to explain to you how El Nino’s work, then you don’t have enough knowledge on the subject of climate to even have an opinion on climate.

      The record only extends back to the late 1970’s, which according to all proxies was a time of very high ice extent.

      I love the way Griff just dismisses any data that doesn’t conform to his religion.

    • Griff:
      Arctic sea ice is not trending down, it has leveled off.
      We are still waiting for your study on MEASUREMENTS of CO2 causing warming.
      Waiting……..

    • Griff is a great believer in 1-2 year cycles if it fits his beliefs. I have personally switched off all talk about “climate change” until NASA/GISS is finally closed down and an independent commission with some agnostic scientists (physics, statistics and IT professionals) who have no public stance on “climate change” has been put to work on NOAA’s USA and global land and ocean temperature records. I believe that Steinbeck is still turning in his grave over the way that NOAA have rendered his books pieces of fiction in terms of how they described the environment. I read his books when I was young.

      • I see there is probably a circa 70 year cycle in arctic sea ice… and several cycles which influence it.

        but the current levels are way below the last cycle and beyond the likely effects of other known cycles.

        And yes, the trend is still down.

    • It looks like I’m the only one in here on Griff’s side!

      I understand how “El Niños work”. I even know how to spell the term!

      I also understand why the NSIDC’s Sea Ice Index starts in 1979.

      Who would like to call me names too? Before you do that though, see:

      • Those anomalies are drastically different than the ones used in the IPCC AR1.
        The graphs in the report on page 224 begin in 1970 and show the first five years of the 70’s to be similarly to the past several years, on the negative side.
        I’m not sure where your chart comes from, but with the credit you’ve given it, it could be a Cracker Jack box.

      • Nice fabrication

        Also Icelandic sea ice index show late 1970’s as being very high, up there with the levels of the Little ice age.

        There is also a large number of papers showing that during the first 3/4 of the Holocene, there was often zero summer sea ice.

        The current levels are actually still rather HIGH compared to all of the rest of the last 10,000 year except the Little Ice Age. Historic data shows levels around Iceland region similar to those in 1769

      • As far as your snarky remark about proper spelling, El Nino is a perfectly acceptable ENGLISH spelling of the term that uses a tilde in the SPANISH spelling. As we have no tilde in ENGLISH, just as we have no umlaut for German words that contain one, we have to use another form of Romanization, your snarky remark is a sign of your ignorance, as is the chart you post.

      • Comedy graph.
        No source…just made up.
        Warmists getting desperate?
        No mention of increasing multi year ice.
        No mention of Greenland Ice Mass Gain.

      • I can’t help but imagining neurotic cave people fretting “this ice sheet is melting, we have no idea what’s under there, it could be Canada”.

      • So… It’s +/- 2 Standard Deviations about the 1981-2010 mean… Sounds like a normal distribution.

      • David – What is “+/- 2 Standard Deviations about the 1981-2010 mean”?

        Do you really think that Arctic sea ice extent exhibits a “normal distribution”? If so, what is the physical basis for your assertion?

      • Come on – I’m sure you can make it look worse; stretch that vertical axis a bit more.

        But seriously, we don’t have enough data to know if +/-2sd is a real problem or not. We either need a lot more data (at least twice as much, maybe 3x), or the deviations will have to be much greater (4 or 5 sd) before you start ringing the alarm bells.

      • Nice try tony mcleod, but it’s not good enough. You are presenting a graph where the title says “Global Sea Ice Area”, you should compare the Arctic sheet ice with the Antarctic sheet ice as the NSIDC explicitly states:

        “While the NSIDC has yet to comment on whether the graph accurately reflects their published data, they expressed to The Verge in an email that representing Antarctic and Arctic data in the same graph is not necessarily very useful”l[1]

        And the NSIDC email to the verge:

        “The combined number, while easy to derive from our online posted data, is not useful as an analysis tool or indicator of climate trends. Looking at each region’s ice extent trends and its processes separately provides more insight into how and why ice extent is changing. Sea ice in the Arctic is governed by somewhat different processes than the sea ice around Antarctica, and the very different geography of the two poles plays a large role. Sea ice in the Arctic exists in a small ocean surrounded by land masses, with greater input of dust, aerosols, and soot than in the Southern Hemisphere. Sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere fringes an ice-covered continent, Antarctica, surrounded by open oceans. While both regions are affected by air, wind, and ocean, the systems and their patterns are inherently very different. Moreover, at any point in time, the two poles are in opposite seasons, and so a combined number would conflate summer and winter trends, or spring and autumn trends, for the two regions.”[1]

        Finally your statement “This enough standard deviation for ya?” NO IT’S NOT, try 3 (μ ± 3σ) std dev, not 2 (μ ± 2σ) std dev, then we can begin to discuss the anomaly.

        Regards
        Climate Heretic
        [1]http://www.theverge.com/2016/11/17/13667630/global-sea-ice-concentration-graph-science-twitter

      • AFWetware (@AF_Wetware) March 23, 2017 at 2:10 pm
        “David – What is “+/- 2 Standard Deviations about the 1981-2010 mean”?”

        Well you posted the graph, take a look at it. The 12-month running mean (purple line) is within 2 std.devs. except for 1967 to 1972, when there supposedly was excessive ice. That corresponds to the height of the Globull Freezing scare started by (oh what was his name you must have heard of him) James Hansen.

      • In most sciences, +/- 2 standard deviations is considered to be natural variability. That’s why NSIDC includes +/- 2 standard deviations band on their annual ice extent plots. Real anomalies exceed +/- 2 standard deviations.

      • Climate Heritic

        Don’t worry about Tony he made a bet that the geographic north pole would be ice free this year. If it isn’t he agreed to never post here again.

        Griff and AFW are you up for the same bet?

      • David and others,

        You have to keep an eye on AFWETWEAR. He’s clever with changing words and assuming meanings in attempts to make whomever he’s responding to look stupid. An example of what I mean:

        “Do you really think that Arctic sea ice extent exhibits a “normal distribution”? If so, what is the physical basis for your assertion?”

        Notice how he changed the phrase “standard distribution” into “normal distribution” and then insinuated that thinking that Arctic Sea Ice exhibits a “normal distribution” is abnormal and asked David to give him a physical basis for an “assertion” David never made in the first place!

        Either Jim doesn’t understand what standard deviations are, and what they signify ( so not really competent enough to.discuss them here) or he’s sort of a Don Quixote whose windmills are the strawmen he creates (only here to fight imaginary battles in the name of his true love…Gaia).

      • “I understand how “El Niños work”. I even know how to spell the term!”
        Ah, but is it El Nino’s or Los Ninos?

        The Spanish would have the latter, but I guess since we do not usually put it into italics do signify a foreign word we are OK to anglicise it. There seem to be few references to Los Ninos in this context

      • Hey AFWetWare-

        “If you had checked the URL of my chart you would no doubt have noticed that it originates at the NSIDC. In case Google is beyond you:

        http://lmgtfy.com/?q=nsidc+1953+2012

        Funny thing is, while the authors do/did indeed work for the NSIDC in Boulder, the chart originated in a paper published by them in 2012 called “A simple approach to providing a more consistent Arctic sea ice extent time series from the 1950s to present”. It was a compilation paper in which the authors proposed a method for combining the satellite records with older, unverifiable , measurements which, in their words (Abstract) “are not consistent with the satellite record”. The chart shows-(In their own words)

        “Satellite data from the SMMR and SSM/I instruments have been combined with earlier observations from ice charts and other sources to yield a time series of Arctic ice extent from the early 1900s onward. While the pre-satellite records are not as reliable, their trends are in good general agreement with the satellite record and indicate that Arctic sea ice extent has been declining since at least the early 1950s.”

        Who doesn’t love using trends established using “not as reliable” records???

        Now, as far as Sea Ice decline goes, I have two questions for you:

        1-based on all of the geological, empirical and proxy data from plants, ice cores, sediment cores, fossils etc…what SHOULD one expect the “trend” in sea ice at each pole to be during an inter-glacial period, like the one that started roughly 11,700 years ago?
        2-based upon all the records, data (both empirical and proxy), and known physics regarding the planet, what is the “normal” amount of sea ice that Earth should have on it right now?

      • AFWetware (Jim)

        David posted your chart, and explained that the chart showed measurements within the standard deviations, and since the measurements fell within them, it sounds like normal distribution. (Because measurements that fall within the standard deviations are considered normal/natural variations)

        THEN you posted:

        “David – What is “+/- 2 Standard Deviations about the 1981-2010 mean”?

        Do you really think that Arctic sea ice extent exhibits a “normal distribution”? If so, what is the physical basis for your assertion?”

        So, let’s pretend you haven’t already demonstrated a propensity to exaggerate or read between lines, and have shown yourself to be open minded and without agenda(s) of any kind.

        When you asked him “what is +/- 2 Standard Deviations about the 1981-2010 mean”? Was that because you didn’t know what the term meant? If you had only asked that, it would have seemed like an innocent, albeit uneducated question.

        BUT, your second and third questions took that option off the shelf for me. Your second question either indicates incredulity, or unfamiliarity with David’s positions. Does he REALLY THINK that Arctic Sea Ice exhibits a “normal distribution”?
        A-No,he really doesn’t think that, and was just lying to you
        B-Yes, he does really think that, and he pointed out that your chart demonstrates that Arctic Sea Ice IS exhibiting normal distributions.

        What is with your use of quotation marks?

        “If so, what is the physical basis for your assertion?”

        Your chart’s title “asserted” that it represented “Arctic Sea Ice Standardized Anomalies Jan 1953-Dec 2012” so why would you ask David what the physical basis of his assertion was? Is your chart not based on physical measurements?

        Why did you ask all three questions after he basically answered them for you?

        I’ll apologize for insinuating that you introduced the term “normal distribution”, because I honestly didn’t read David’s response to you closely enough, and he indeed, used it first. (I am not blind, but my reading glasses are definitely becoming standard fare these days.) But I stand by the suspicion that your motives aren’t pure. In fact, you just posted another chart directed at David with the statements-

        “David – Here is a graph you posted on another thread:
        Evidently some “real anomalies” are evident in recent years.”

        I highly doubt you’re an idiot, but I’m happy to be proven wrong on pretty much anything. So the only other logical choice I see, based on your website and twitter and posts here, is that you’ve come to tilt at the windmills of your mind.

      • AFwet
        Do you really think that Arctic sea ice extent exhibits a “normal distribution”? If so, what is the physical basis for your assertion?

        Observation can be the physical basis of assertion.

        Apologies if this statement causes you anguished confusion and fear. It doesn’t need to. It’s actually quite OK to look directly at measured data without the help of a computer model.

      • Aphan – The graph that I posted and David reproduced contains two different coloured squiggles but no indication of SD that my ageing eyes can see, with or without the aid of their reading glasses. Hence my “what is?”

        In this instance I used quotation marks to indicate I was quoting David. On other occasions I have been known to put them to other uses.

        I have also been known to write learned treatises on original theoretical statistics, so please cut your patronising tone. Then explain to me how David can eyeball a chart and instantly discern that the underlying data is normally distributed with a standard deviation known only to him.

      • Aphan –
        “I have also been known to write learned treatises on original theoretical statistics, so please cut your patronising tone. Then explain to me how David can eyeball a chart and instantly discern that the underlying data is normally distributed with a standard deviation known only to him.”

        Oh. wow. You don’t even realize how patronizing that paragraph is do you? And not just theoretically either.

        I’m no statistician at all, so I’m both shocked (that I have to) and amused that I get to, explain this to you.

        You see the left side of the chart, the Y axis, is labeled “Anomaly-(#St. Dev. from 1981-2010 mean)” And there are a series of numbers going up and down that left side, positive and negative, with a big ol ZERO in the middle. That ZERO represents “the mean” being referenced (the reference value) and all of the other numbers represent the NUMBER (#) OF ST. (standard) DEV. (deviations) FROM that MEAN (the average from 1981-2010) When the squiggly lines go up to +4/+5? That’s 4 or 5 standard deviations ABOVE the mean. When the squiggly lines go down to -2? That’s 2 standard deviations BELOW the mean.

        The squiggly lines show the monthly anomalies, and a 12 month running smoothed trend.

        So basically, since I can read, I could “eyeball” the chart and instantly discern that the data represented is distributed according to the Y axis instructions, and the x axis years.

        “In statistics, the 68–95–99.7 rule is a shorthand used to remember the percentage of values that lie within a band around the mean in a normal distribution with a width of two, four and six standard deviations, respectively; more accurately, 68.27%, 95.45% and 99.73% of the values lie within one, two and three standard deviations of the mean, respectively.”
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/68%E2%80%9395%E2%80%9399.7_rule

        Here’s a math link if you want to run the actual calculations on the data set yourself to determine exactly what numerical value each standard deviation is.-https://www.mathsisfun.com/data/standard-deviation-formulas.html

      • Aphan – My “patronising tone” was intentional. However, as you gleefully note, in my haste I left out “the underlying data” in a pertinent place! Feel free to copy that phrase from my final paragraph into my first paragraph.

        So “when the [blue] squiggly line goes up to +4/+5? That’s 4 or 5 standard deviations ABOVE the mean.

        That proves that the underlying data are samples from a normal distribution?

        And “when the [mauve] squiggly line” goes down to -2? Presumably that’s 2 standard deviations BELOW the mean?

        That also proves that the underlying data are samples from a normal distribution?

      • “Normal distributions have many convenient properties, so random variates with unknown distributions are often assumed to be normal, especially in physics and astronomy. Although this can be a dangerous assumption, it is often a good approximation due to a surprising result known as the central limit theorem. This theorem states that the mean of any set of variates with any distribution having a finite mean and variance tends to the normal distribution. Many common attributes such as test scores, height, etc., follow roughly normal distributions, with few members at the high and low ends and many in the middle.”

        http://mathworld.wolfram.com/NormalDistribution.html

        David gave his opinion “sounds like a normal distribution”, I’m guessing based on the above, but you’d have to ask him. If YOU want to “assert” that the underlying data is NOT a normal distribution, then the onus is on you to prove that. I’m sure you check the underlying data on all the charts you post. Right?

    • . . . and where does all this record El Nino heat suddenly appear from, eh?

      If you glance through the report, then you will see a statement to the effect that this was not that unprecedented. The heat came from where it usually comes from in a natural cycle of heating and cooling — it just happened to be big recently.

      And looking at all the global temperature graphs, you will note that the variations are not all that great either, and where there is even any perceptible variation, it’s all taking place in the range of fractions of a degree.

      Let me repeat that — FRACTIONS OF A DEGREE. All the “record heat” would seemingly NOT come from THIS tiny range, but, hey, maybe CO2 has acquired magical powers that I have not yet learned to appreciate.

      Abracadabra ! That’s one magical little molecule.

    • “why is the ice so low in the first place?”

      Griff, did you ever consider asking why the Arctic ice was so high in 1979? What is the ideal amount of Arctic ice?

      • There is no such thing as an ideal… there is only what the climate is doing. Which always has a reason.

        There are cycles affecting ice levels… but they are unlikely to have produced the continuing and sharp (unprecedented) drop we see continuing.

        That’s the issue we need to look at. why this low?

      • Griff,

        “There is no such thing as an ideal… there is only what the climate is doing. Which always has a reason.”

        What the climate it doing, is what the climate does. But to say that it “always has a reason” is to state that there is only one, singular, demonstrable mechanism that affects whatever the climate does.

        “There are cycles affecting ice levels… but they are unlikely to have produced the continuing and sharp (unprecedented) drop we see continuing.”

        Unlikely according to what criteria? Unprecedented….what parameters are you using to define what the “precedent” is? The past 50 years? The past 100? The past 1000??? Is this “continuing and sharp (unprecedented) drop” an event that has NEVER happened before? Ever? If we examine a certain number of years within the context of all the years….what would we discover?

        “That’s the issue we need to look at. why this low?”
        Low according to what “median”? What “average”? What “normal”? What if the past “high” was the abnormal event….and “this low” is closer to what Earth is “normally” like? This planet is 4.5 BILLION years old! To presume that what it’s done since “humans” started appearing and taking notes about what it does, is indicative somehow of what it always,usually, normally does, and should/will continue doing in the future is sadly illogical and very unscientific.

      • And there is the true value of Griff’s post. Without him I wouldn’t have spent a very happy hour looking up F-Troop on the internet.

        So thank you Griff. If you ever feel like writing anything to do with science you know where your admirers are.

      • No question about Mosher, for sure. But I differentiate between a sense of humor and passive-aggression.
        And smart ass, of course.

      • Forrest Gardener: ‘On the subject of smart arses I’ve often tried to be one. Sadly I’m not qualified.’

        Fair enough. It’s a skill. And if not done deftly, it can earn you a sock in the snoot. One reason why it’s fairly popular on anonymous Internet forums. It’s also a reason I’ve had to fight my way out of more than one bar – some people don’t like being told they’re full of it. You’d think they’d want to know.

        As far as humor – or humour in original English – I’ve always looked at it as the spirit in which it’s spoken, and does it provide amusement for the speaker, or the beholder. The whole ‘laughing with you, not AT you’ bit.
        And, to be fair, being surrounded by a city full of Grifters, I’ve lost a lot of my sense of humor. None of this is very funny anymore.

      • Forrest,
        I find you both smart, and hilarious. I’d have to scroll back through hundreds of posts to determine whether or not you’d fit my definition of a smart ass.

        In my family, being a smart ass is a term of affection more than an insult, and usually used while laughing along with everyone else.

        Joels description here- “I’ve had to fight my way out of more than one bar – some people don’t like being told they’re full of it. You’d think they’d want to know.” is what we’d call a “pain in the ass”…which is totally different, and usually comes from getting mouthy with “dumb asses”.

        I find people who are passively aggressive to be completely unfunny, and the harder they try, the less funny they become. :)

    • So many questions Griff! I thought the science was settled. I guess it is. No warming-no questions! I’ve got one for you! Why is there no climate change?

    • Griff
      March 23, 2017 at 8:49 am

      and where does all this record El Nino heat suddenly appear from, eh?
      —;

      The heat comes from the Sun and Moon concentrates it.

    • Yes the temperatures did drop back [1]. It comes from the oceans [2]. A more detailed analysis of where the heat comes from is in this article[3]. The ice is low because the planet Earth has been warming since the last age.

      The ‘low maximum’ in your description is wrong. What was it you meant to say instead? a ‘record low’, a ‘record minimum’ or ‘lowest minimum on record’? I know it was one of those 3.

      What you have said, is also irrelevant why? There has been at least 11 interglacials, “Using such a definition (in which there is little or no ice in the Northern Hemisphere outside Greenland), we have identified 11 interglacials in the last 800 ka.”[4]

      Let me rephrase what the above means. In the past 800,000 years it is possible there has been no Arctic ice sheet or very little Arctic ice sheet. The present interglacial shows that there was less Arctic ice, “One Danish team concluded in 2012 that 8,500 years ago the ice extent was “less than half of the record low 2007 level”. A Swedish team, in a paper published in 2014, went further: between 10,000 years ago and 6,000 years ago, the Arctic experienced a “regime dominated by seasonal ice, ie, ice-free summers”.[5]

      This means virtually no or little Arctic ice was present 8,000 years ago. Man had no influence then and certainly not now. Man is influencing nature, to what extent has to be determined. If you think man is influencing the ‘ice sheets’ then you have another think coming. So having no or little ‘ice sheets’ is not unusual.

      Do your research Griff, before you open your mouth.

      Regards
      Climate Heretic

      [1] https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=temperatures+dropped+back+el+nino&*&spf=553
      [2] https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/elnino/what-is-el-nino
      [3] https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/02/08/where-did-the-2016-el-nios-heat-come-from/
      [4] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015RG000482/full
      [5] http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/arctic-sea-ice/

  3. Ummm… I believe the Bulletin of the AMS (BAMS) annual State of the Climate report is also observation-based…been around many years.

  4. A few points
    “global temperatures dropped back at the end of the year to levels prior to the strong 2015/16 El Niño”
    Those temperatures were still warm relative to earlier years, and continue to be so. In GISS, every month of 2016 was warmer than the 2014 average, which was a record at the time. From August to year end, only December dropped below the 2015 average. And since then it has been warmer still.

    “Since 2003, the global temperature estimate based on surface station measurements has consistently drifted away from the satellite-based estimate in a warm direction, and is now about 0.1◦C higher.”
    That is true for UAH V6.0 and RSS TLT V3.3. But the latter has been declared by its makers to have a known cool bias. And UAH V5.6 showed no such drift. “Consistently” doesn’t seem the right word.

    “Arctic and Antarctic sea-ice extents since 1979 have developed in opposite directions, decreasing and increasing, respectively.”
    For a good deal of 2016 Antarctic ice was at record low levels for the month, culminating in a minimum that was markedly lower than any previous measure. From the WUWT reference page:

    • Those temperatures were still warm relative to earlier years
      ================
      There is no reason to expect modulations in the deep ocean mixing rate to balance out over periods of a few years. We are talking about a flow with an average measured in hundreds of years. It would not be unusual to see a variance of similar magnitude. What we see as quasi periodic climate cycles on a scale up to perhaps 1500 years could well be deep ocean current variability, similar to the meander of a river on the surface.

      • Wasn’t Antarctic sea ice at an all time high just two years ago? Wasn’t 2014 a whopping 0.04 degrees warmer as a record? with a 38% probability? Not very frightening, and hardly worth any policy change.

      • I see, so NSIDC started their sea ice index when the lowest Arctic temps in history were recorded…….

      • Ice builds up, and ice melts in cycles. The past thirty-eight years is no time at all to worry that things are askew.

        Let’s remember numbers like the past HUNDRED THIRTY-EIGHT THOUSAND years or so, and the related LONGER intervals where things grow cooler before they heat up again:

      • AndyG55

        It’s like you’re trying to insinuate that Arctic Sea Ice existed before 1979!! (friendly snark/irony alert)

        On your silly chart, that first warming trend slope from about 1915-1940 looks almost exactly like the warming trend slope from 1950-2010….which is simply not possible. Nor is it possible that it got colder or warmer in the Arctic prior to 1979. Everyone knows that once Earth stars warming, it will just keep getting warmer and warmer until we all burst into flames!! (more snarky smiling here)

        Latitude-

        “I see, so NSIDC started their sea ice index when the lowest Arctic temps in history were recorded…….”

        No, those occurred in the 1950’s and 1960’s, after some of the warmest temps in modern history were recorded. But there clearly was no sea ice in the Arctic (despite all those beautiful but ridiculous Danish Meteorological Maps) prior to 1979 and the NSIDC index. (grin)

      • Robert Kernodle
        Good point, plus mention of ice ages always shuts up the trolls. They hate being reminded of incontrovertible non anthropogenic climate change. They want to deny ice ages ever happened but don’t yet quite have the courage.

    • Nick:
      You are studiously avoiding the main conclusion in the report:
      whatever we are observing is well within the bounds of natural variability. It’s yet more data highlighting the lack of credible [non model generated] evidence – let alone verifiable proof – that man’s activities are to blame.

      The climate establishment is acutely aware of this problem, which causes it to engage in ever more desperate and ludicrous drum banging – witness the WMO this week no-ifs-buts-and-whats declaring 2016 the warmest year on record [not even the UK Met Office calls it that ] and inter alia that Canada enjoyed a “balmy” [sic] winter. To most Canadians the latter would be seriously funny if it wasn’t so desperately wrong…

      And BTW, the 2016 Arctic ice minimum showed enough ice to cover 85% of Australia – so much for the “ice free” Arctic promised by the catastrophists. My neighbour the Canadian Coast Guard icebreaker captain would also tell you that multi-year ice has been accumulating for several years now…. Hardly a sign of ongoing ice loss. Makes you wonder why we’re still working with the 1981 – 2010 average -excluding six years of ice date.

      • note how the melting season has got shorter since 2007 and has been less then 6 mo since 2010.
        That is also shown in date of minimum drifting earlier since 2007 too.

    • Nick Stokes
      March 23, 2017 at 9:23 am

      hello Nick

      Lets try this by your own standards and your own criteria, according to your own science.

      Remember, one year ago more or less you introduced the “brilliant” idea of a possible step-up warming trend after this El Nino, as a high possibility in a GW or an AGW reality, according to your own understanding and criteria….

      Lets try to keep with it, will we!

      Now, I am not claiming that I do well understand your position or your own criteria in the respect of this one, but as far as I can tell, for your attempted guess to have any good chance to be assessed to an acceptable degree, it will require that the present ENSO neutral keep persisting for as long as possible, so as to “accommodate” for as much as possible data that may assist you to estimate the validity of your claims.
      Remember, FROM MY POINT OF VIEW, longer the ENSO neutral persist, more chances and opportunity you will have to check and validate your claim up to some point, but in the same time you have to consider that the chances of an step-up trend are as same as that of a step-down trend, according to the criteria, which will depend only on the data, if the ENSO neutral prolongs enough to allow it….

      Now I am putting my|”timer” on, to see and find out, how long it will take for NASA, NOAA and any other “authority” to “cut” the ENSO neutral as soon as possible and “fuck it up ” for you and your claims according to your criteria.

      Just a thought Nick…..what would you say!

      cheers

      • I don’t have claims there and don’t generally speculate on my own account about future ENSO. I just note that surface temperature so far in 2017 is averaging higher than 2016, and I expect March will continue this. ENSO forecasts seem to be more warmer than cooler.

    • Nick – on this one I completely agree with you. Both poles are both very low. It will be an interesting year with predictions in far greater supply than facts.

    • “But the latter has been declared by its makers to have a known cool bias”

      roflmao..

      Of course they did, Nick. RSS coming up with cooling or zero trends didn’t help the AGW scam along, did it. !

    • Let’s write it out longhand then. According to the intro above:

      “A report on the State of the Climate in 2016 which is based exclusively on observations rather than climate models was published yesterday by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF).”

      However according to a couple of scientists from the UK Met Office:

      “Fig. 12 looks suspiciously like it’s data from ncep reanalysis. If so then it is certainly not observations only.

      Yep. Reanalysis = model+obs”

      Discuss!

      • See my comment to Nick about incomplete [ice] data.

        Also pls ponder the report’s central conclusion that what we’re observing falls well within the bounds of natural variability. Therefore problematic for the MSM and assorted professional alarmists, because not supportive of either the “C” or the “A” in CAGW / CACC at the heart of climate politics.

      • Tetris – What has that got to do with the fact that the GWPF’s claim that their “white paper” written by Ole Humlum “is based exclusively on observations rather than climate models” is inaccurate?

      • AFWetware

        Are you seriously suggesting that because someone appears to have found that some form of re-analysis may have made its way into one of the figures the entire report is no good? Including of course, its to some folks inconvenient conclusion that we’re well within the parameters of natural variability? Seriously?

        Because if that is enough to render suspect the credibility of this study, you can take absolutely anything and everything that any of Climate Establishment’s “data mills” e.g. GISS, HADCru, NOAA, WMO, etc. have ever produced and burn it. Because in those cases we are not talking about a possible case of re-analysis “contaminating” observational data, but of a decades of observational data being demonstrably “adjusted”, “normalized”, “smoothed” or otherwise deliberately contaminated to fit a predetermined outcome – ever colder past vs. ever warmer near present. As supposed evidence, nay proof, for the C and the A in CAGW/CACC…. Time to get real.

      • AF Wetware

        Had a look at your site. I like the “live free or die” part – got those plates on my truck – but if your premise is that the ever adjusted GIGO produced by the IPCC “data mills” represent the facts, and quality science that shows up that garbage for what it is, somehow is “alternative facts”, you’re likely to find yourself on the wrong end of the battlefield in short order.

        You see, the mask is cracking fast and soon the “ball masque” will be over bar the barfing. It’s not only Mr Trump team who are questioning the junk “science is settled” propaganda that’s been produced by the IPCC “climate establishment” for some 25 years now. Look past the political window dressing and dig past the MSM and you’ll find that e.g. the Chinese, the Indians and the Japanese have all publicly disavowed IPCC produced climate “science”. In Europe too, look past the obligatory political bows to climate orthodoxy and in the UK in particular you’ll find that reality is starting to set in: the first to go when Mrs May took over as PM was the Dept of Climate Change, fracking is now encouraged and all subsidies for wind and solar have been canned. What’s awaiting the EPA and a few other US departments is more of the same. It will take time, but when you see left wing MSM like the Boston Globe publishing articles questioning the credibility of the climate models that form the very basis for the CAGW/CACC travesty, you know the tide is turning.

        What we’re seeing is professional greenie heads explode as they watch reality catching up with their grandiose authoritarian social engineering programs and that large swaths of the public couldn’t give a flying feather. What we’re seeing here in Canada is a so called progressive, wishful thinking “you-can-have-the-oil-sands-and-environmentalism too” and “Canada’s-energy-policy-will-be-made-in-Canada” PM who got elected on a green platform running headlong into the realities of the US as newfound energy giant with an administration that intends to take down Obama’s greenery to the root. No grand prize for guessing who’s going to win that one.

        Good luck with your site.

      • Thank you for your kind words Tetris. They are few and far between in here it seems!

        “Live Free or Die”!!

        The thesis is that the “climate change debate” is extremely polarised, no doubt due to certain aspects of human psychology. Much the same applies to the divide between the “deplorables” and the “progressives”. Both ends of the spectra issue blatantly false propaganda. Where “the truth” lies is obscured by the fog of war.

        Getting back to this specific instance, the GWPF’s propaganda is inaccurate. It’s not the “World’s first”. See Roy Spencer above for example. It’s also not “based exclusively on observations”. What are commonly known as “climate models” are used in “reanalysis”, and other sorts of “models” are used to determine the prominently featured “satellite temperatures”!

  5. Excellent. Accessible to anyone willing to listen. If you listen and want to know more this is a good starting point for a deeper dive into very important issues. If you are unwilling to listen this won’t be helpful.

    Think

  6. Since the hard-held opinion of the greenies is not based on fact, but emotions, they cannot be convinced by facts. They will simply assume that there are other “facts” not in evidence that support their beliefs. They are too emotionally attached to a disastrous climate future to simply say “Oh, well, what new man-made future or current calamity can I rail about, displaying for all my conscientious nature.”

  7. None of this has anything to do with data, or science, or physics, or climate. It’s all about the way humans process fear. My doom is bigger than you doom. Pass it on.

  8. Let’s just find a couple of points to criticise and use this to dump the whole report. What about discussing his findings (nothing new here) that tide gauges show much lower ocean level rise that satellites from U of C?
    A discussion of global temperature records is meaningless (in my humble opinion) until an independent analysis is carried out on what NOAA have done to raw data since say 1988 or thereabouts. I mean the whole record but starting with 1988 adjustments thereto. As we now know that needs to be on two levels. the actual temperatures and their (unstable) programs.

    • The only part that really matters is this:

      “There is little doubt that we are living in a warm period. However, there is also little doubt that current climate change is not abnormal and not outside the range of natural variations that might be expected.”

      There’s little doubt that climate change happens.

      • Well there you have it.

        I submit the evidence shows it is abnormal and outside the range of natural variation.

        so too for the arctic sea ice: extent/volume abnormal and outside natural variation (seasonal or cyclic)

      • So… It’s +/- 2 Standard Deviations about the 1981-2010 mean… Sounds like a normal distribution… natural variability.

      • come on!

        It is outside the 2 standard deviations range and that is indicative of a very unusual event.

        and where is it heading based on your graph?

      • Griff,

        ALL that chart indicates is how Arctic Sea Ice has behaved in relation to a very specific 30 year mean-the average/mean amount of Arctic Sea Ice between 1981 and 2010!!! We have ZERO idea what the RANGE of natural variation is! I’m going to say somewhere between NO Arctic Sea Ice at all, and a whole-hellof-alot!

        Seasons are just annual cycles, inside of decadal cycles, inside of bicentennial cycles, inside of centennial cycles, inside of millenniums, inside of eras….

        If we had conclusive, unequivocal, undeniable, comprehensive climate records for the past 200 years, it would STILL prove nothing about the past, or the future, of this planet. 200 years is half of a drop in a bucket the size of Texas when it comes to Earth’s history.

      • The 12- mo average is basically bound by +/- 2 SD. It’s currently not “headed” anywhere. It’s bouncing along -2 SD. Back in the late 20th century cooling period, when we were supposedly on the verge of another “ice age,” it was bouncing along +2 SD.

        The same holds true for temperatures. Ljungvist’s reconstruction exceeds +2 SD briefly at the peak of the MWP and -2 SD briefly at the nadir of the LIA.

        The instrumental data indicate that the modern warming has exceeded +2 SD by about 0.2C. However, high frequency instrumental data, by definition, have a greater dynamic amplitude range tha low frequency proxy reconstructions. So we cannot definitively state that the modern warming is any more anomalous than the MWP and LIA.

  9. Frankly, I could give a sh!t. I live inland on the 27th floor and I have air-conditioning. The most important things to me are that the seasons for F1, Moto Gp, V8 racing and aussie rules football are starting this weekend.
    Give me a bell at the end of the year. I might like a laugh.

  10. In the Arctic, a 5.3-year periodic variation is important

    Ole !! Something I have been pointing out for several years now.

    In fact the troughs were in 2007, 2012 and I expect there will be another OMG low this year. Since the 5year trends across a full cycle has been reducing since 2007 I expect the current circa 5y period will come out flat or slightly rising when the data is in. ( Assuming of course that Cryosphere Today get their act together and cross-calibrate to another satellite. Their data set has been producing garbage for over a year now. ).

    Since it is not in tune with their alarmist agenda they seem to prefer to let it stagnate, stopping at the low point of the cycle.

    • “The Arctic extent is strongly influenced by a 5.3-year
      periodic variation, while for the Antarctic, a periodic variation of about 4.5 years is im-
      portant. Both these variations reached their minima simultaneously in 2016, which
      explains the recent minimum in global sea-ice extent.”

    • Greg
      There is no negative slope in the post 2007 blue data set – certainly not if you remove the cyclone based 2012 outlier. Instead, post 2007 you get flat lining in terms of the area, with increasing evidence of multi-year ice, which doesn’t show up in the ice area at first but does in the volume data.
      As noted above, icebreaker based “boots-on-the-ground” observations provide evidence for both.

    • All of these predictions and conclusions about sea ice based on trends,with no real idea about the mechanisms that contol the daily fluctuations,and the ultimate extend (min/max). And equally importantly the timing of the min/max. Real science..

      • ozonebust
        That’s precisely what icebreaker and aerial data is starting to show – multi year ice = ice getting thicker.

      • “New ice is a technical term that refers to ice less than 10 centimeters (3.9 inches) thick. As the ice thickens, it enters the young ice stage, defined as ice that is 10 to 30 centimeters (3.9 to 11.8 inches) thick. Young ice is sometimes split into two subcategories, based on color: grey ice (10 to 15 centimeters, or 3.9 to 5.9 inches thick) and grey-white ice (15 to 30 centimeters, or 5.9 to 11.8 inches thick). First-year ice is thicker than 30 centimeters (11.8 inches), but has not survived a summer melt season. Multiyear ice is ice that has survived a summer melt season and is much thicker than younger ice, typically ranging from 2 to 4 meters (78.7 to 157.5 inches) thick. ” NSIDC

        AF’s graph shows a little more than 13.5 MILLION square kilometers of ice over 0.03 meters thick. Of that 13.5 million square kilometers of ice, 13 million square miles of it is over 0.1 meters thick, 11 million square miles of it is over 0.3 meters thick, more than 9.5 million square miles of it is more than 0.6 meters thick, and more than half of it-more than 7.5 million square miles of it is more than 1 meter thick.

        “However, the measurement accuracy is about ±25,000 square kilometers (±9,600 square miles) for a five-day trailing average daily extent measurement.” NSIDC
        http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2016/09/2016-ties-with-2007-for-second-lowest-arctic-sea-ice-minimum/

        But what’s 50,000 square miles among friends?

      • SMOS measures brightness and is used to calculate ice thickness. According to a recent study published in Science Direct, it has some limitations and underestimates ice thickness-

        http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S003442571630102X

        The Sea Ice Area Extent (labeled in legend) and most likely the spacial “Area” in square kilometers on the Y axis, most likely come from SSMIS (NSIDC)

        Are you confused about the origins of the data on your chart?

      • Aphan – You seem to be the one that’s confused. The document you linked to states:

        “Current SMOS algorithms underestimate the mean thickness of thick deformed ice”.

        Maybe that’s why my graph doesn’t have a “thick deformed ice” category?

        If you look closely you might even notice that there’s a comparison between SMOS extent and NSIDC SSMIS extent.

    • The ice hasn’t recovered to pre-2007 levels has it?

      And while sadly there will be another OMG (as you put it) low this year, why will it recover after?

  11. At Heartland climate conference. Pat Michaels was brilliant making the case for vacating the endangerment finding.

      • See my comment above about your site and its “alternative facts” premises. You’re going to end up with yellow knees from pissing into the wind that’s turned…

      • Tetris – Which way do you suppose the wind is blowing at the moment?

        http://afwetware.org/2017/03/23/lamar-smiths-show-trial-for-climate-models/

        All in all there’s several “alternative facts” in just the headline and opening paragraph of the GWPF’s press release, which doesn’t augur well for the contents of the report itself. We feel sure that Lamar Smith and the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology will nonetheless be pleased to see this report become public shortly before their planned hearing on March 29th.

      • The press release says it’s based “exclusively on observations rather than climate models”. Do YOU know the difference between a “radiative transfer model”, that takes satellite radiation OBSERVATIONS, and converts them into temperature values, and a “climate model”, that attempts to SIMULATE Earth’s climate?

        Because most people here can tell you the difference. And they’d think you MIGHT have a point if the report and/or press release said ” based exclusively on observations rather than transfer models”.

        Most of us wonder when you’ll get around to refuting or rebutting ANY of the actual science presented in the report instead of grasping at semantical straws.

      • People here might wonder why you left out this bit?

        “Fig. 12 looks suspiciously like it’s data from NCEP reanalysis. If so then it is certainly not observations only.”

        Prof. Humlum’s magnum opus includes several RSS satellite temperature graphs. People here might therefore also be interested to learn that according to Willis Eschenbach of this parish:

        “The RSS team use climate model output as input to a part of their calculation of the temperature”

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/07/why-reanalysis-data-isnt/

      • No, what I left out was someone’s opinion. Because opinions don’t qualify as scientific fact. If they did, then I could testify in court that you actually ARE a desperate little man who tilts at imaginary windmills with nothing more than propaganda tactics, logical fallacies and the groupthink of your tribe. (Instead of it merely being my current opinion)

        The chart might look suspiciously like a giraffe. Doesn’t make it one. Analysis, and even reanalysis of actual observations, doesn’t change the fact that it’s based on observations.

        P.S. Willis is not a God here (nor anyone else) so his opinions or conclusions do not qualify as gospel or “Scientific fact”. Discuss science, scientific data, formulas, etc or you’ll just get outed for your fallacies and otherwise ignored here like you have been on the myriad of websites you’ve created over the years.

    • Roger Pielke Sr had some rather negative things to say about the Purpose and Process of the failed investigation.

      The bottom line is this. Conservatives funded an investigation and re examination of the records back in 2011. The results of that were published. Skeptics didnt like the answer. so they shot the messenger.

    • and Berkley Earth – funded by skeptic money -had already done that research on tens of thousands of temp measurement sites and found no case to answer.

      Perhaps they have the results but don’t want to publish them?

  12. All I know is, the Arctic cold moved into Upstate NY for the last month! Last night it was 2 degrees above 0F here on my frozen mountain! And April is around the corner.

  13. Data from tide gauges all over the world suggest an average global sea-level rise of 1–1.5 mm/year, while the satellite-derived record suggests a rise of more than 3 mm/yr. This noticeable difference between the two data sets still has no broadly accepted explanation.

    The idea that satellite sensors can be predictably held to the necessary reference baseline calibrations and projected degradation profiles is difficult to accept. Space is a harsh environment and not readily duplicated in accelerated ground lifecycle testing.

    • Rob,
      Maybe Anthony could get Roy Spencer to comment on the reliability of space based sensors / data sets.

      • I understand reliability but my concern is that we lose track of what is being “measured.” We are no dropping an inflexible meter stick from a precise orbit.

        More tangible example: rooftop solar cells. We know how they do in the lab. How they do in the stress test. Still, until they are deployed those are approximations. The difference is we cannot make modifications to the actual physical sensors.

        What’s going to happen is the satellites are going to be “trusted” for higher bias and dismissed when they fail to confirm.

      • I would suggest that any type sensor has a degree of variance, even if it placed directly in the fluid. However when it is many km away there is a greater chance of variance, in both directions. All of this discussion about very small parts of a degree C to determine the fate of human kind is a little precious, and a huge distraction to actually finding out how earth systems work

        Last week was a great example. A post on temperature down to three decimal points, followed by a discussion on the carbon cycle where billions of tonnes are “allocated” to sinks without statistical evidence.
        The three decimal point post was discussed in detail,the computer generated carbon cycle diagram and explanation and sinks is taken at face value from the IPCC. Call me a skeptic.

    • sea mounts are hard to account for…and we don’t even know where most of them are. If you don’t know they are there, you can’t adjust for them.

      Increased gravity over them piles water up…and pulls sats down

    • The increase in sea level trend in the satellite data stated somewhere between 2000 and 2003 ;-)

  14. Why do these ill-informed little Arctic worriers not have any perspective of the Holocene history of ARctic sea ice.

    It can only be wilful ignorance of all the papers showing that the first 3/34 of the Holocene often had zero summer sea ice?

    Arctic sea ice is currently still ANOMOLOUSLY HIGH compare to the rest of the current interglacial except the LIA, which was the COLDEST period in 10,000 years.

    It has been RECOVERING from the extremes levels of the LIA, 1979 was up there as an extreme high, similar to those of the LIA..

    Get some historical perspective. !!

    • and as I keep telling you…

      why did it have less ice?

      Orbital effect.

      Is that orbital effect still in play?

      no

      what is the trend even without that specific effect?

      It is low and getting lower.

      • The sooner the Arctic ice disappears, then the sooner we can drill for oil in the Arctic and have genuinely useful shipping lanes across the Arctic.

        Unfortunately that isn’t likely to happen any tine soon, as the icecap is has already reached its minimum and is going to start growing again.

  15. TYPO: At the start, the paragraph beginning “Compiled by Dr Ole Humlum” occurs twice.
    (Pardon me if this has already been pointed out.)

  16. Antarctica’s 4.5yr cycle (5.3yr Arctic). I did’t know it was recorded somewhere when I commented last September that although Antarctica’s ice extent was lower (assisted by El Nino) I noticed that there is a marked 5yr cycle in the data and that we were at the end of a cycle so that when the El Nino had run down we are likely to see a rebound in Antarctica ice extent in the next year. Look to a solid increase to maximum extent in the coming cycle. Go to the sea ice page and see the cycles in extent.

  17. The discrepancy for sea level measurements Could be caused by calibration errors perhaps as a result of redistribution of mass in the oceans. A quick calculation using 1mm shows a net 92 million kilograms redistributed over the ocean surface every year. The GRACE program does not use radar ranging and reports just under 1 mm per year on the Wikipedia page. It measures gravity deviations in a remarkable way. That is a very cool program.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Recovery_and_Climate_Experiment#

    Based upon the methods of measurement I would trust the data from GRACE over the Jason Satellite systems.

    https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/jason-3/

    GRACE results have been reported here in the past:
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/03/new-study-using-grace-data-shows-global-sea-levels-rising-less-than-7-inches-per-century/

    Clearly there is a discrepancy in comparison to published Jason satellite data. GRACE agrees with the tidal gauge record.

    • Mark Negovan
      Thanks.
      I suggest 1 mm of water across 120 million square miles of oceans [~300 million square kilometres] is much more like 300 billion tonnes [not Kilogrammes].

      The oceans are big.
      Very Big.
      The Little itty-bitty Indian Ocean is well over three times the size of Russia [much the biggest country by area].

      Auto
      Previous draft comment lost by me and new bloatware from Big Bi££’$ Micro$oft, with all sorts of unwanted functionalities – unwanted and misunderstood, I am sure (me again).

    • I’d like to see a citation for “Data from tide gauges all over the world suggest an average global sea-level rise of 1–1.5 mm/year”. Seems like a made up figure to me. My own analysis says a geocentric trend of 2.4mm/yr. Allowing for GIA adjustments and disproportional sampling, I can get within a 0.3mm/yr variance, which is a statistical tie.

  18. Actual data, explanation of data discrepancy across measurement systems, and cycle differences all in one short summary. Life is good.

    • You may carry on with your lives now, no thanks to governments, international agencies, and NGOs.

  19. Great main post
    Point three – which has been evident, but raises some interesting questions.

    This transport of heat relocation has been evident for some time. For sure it dampens the CAGW claim to CO2 being the cause of warming, but yes the average temperature has increased,

    However the net heat content of earths systems has not increased, The heat has been released from a sink below the ocean surface into the atmosphere, and distributed to other locations. One of the primary relocation points is into an area (Arctic and lesser to Antarctic) where it is more likely to dissapate away from earth.

    So are we seeing the transport of heat out of earths non atmosphere systems, giving the short term illusion of global warming, when in fact it might be signalling a reduction of the total heat content, and the start of a cooling phase as some are predicting.

    Please correct me if my assumptions are incorrect…

      • If not this year, then sometime soon there will be another record low arctic sea ice extent. If not this year then sometime soon there will be open water at the North Pole. all the way from th epole to the Russian coast.

        sometime soon there will be an effectively ‘ice free’ arctic.

        what will you say then?

      • Nope! You are on record for making a statement that this September will be a record low, lower than 2016. Not next year of some time soon, this September.

  20. I just noticed this Prof is from Svalbard…

    does he never go outside?

    Svalbard had a record warm year last year, with above freezing temps at points where it should have been well below zero… there were landslides caused by unseasonal late Autumn rain and the sea ice did not form around it till well over a month late…

    • Winter of 2016 in Melbourne lasted for around 8 months instead of 3. Ask Nick Stokes about it.
      Here’s a midlatitude cyclone bringing a winter weather pattern to south-east Australia just a few days after the longest day of the year–in summer:
      http://rammb.cira.colostate.edu/ramsdis/online/loop.asp?data_folder=loop_of_the_day/himawari/20161228000000&number_of_images_to_display=100&loop_speed_ms=100

      But unusually cold weather is another sign of global warming, according to the high priests of your unfalsifiable, pseudo-scientific cult.

      ► Why Global Warming Can Mean Harsher Winter Weather – Scientific American
      ► Brace yourself for a bitterly cold winter, as climate change shifts the polar vortex – Think Progress
      ► Extreme cold winters fuelled by jet stream and climate change – Physorg
      ► Cold winters have been caused by global warming: new research – Telegraph UK

      So what difference would it make if Svalbard was frozen or baked?
      What difference would it make to your faith?

      • Faith I reserve for church…

        Climate is a matter of science.

        Yes, it is climate change… in a warming world you can get cold events caused by shifts in arctic air circulation/jet stream.

        It doesn’t ‘matter’ if Svalbard gets baked (except for the inhabitants affected by landslides and the polar bears, I suppose)

        It is just a screamingly obvious example of a changing arctic climate. right outside the Prof’s door.

        the local conditions should show him what he wrote is bunkum

      • If warming means warming, and cooling means warming, just wtf would have to happen to show you cooling is coming? What did cause ALL those other earlier cool events? Hell, what caused ALL those other warming events, before the baton got handed over to CO2 that is?

      • “Climate is a matter of science.”

        Skanky, given that your ideas of science come from the Grauniad, the Puffington Host, the Grauniad and Wikipedia, you wouldn’t recognise science if it scuttled under your bridge and bit you on the snout.

        Now go and apologise to Dr, Crockford for maliciously lying about her on behalf of your spiv paymasters.

      • Catweazle, every article I reference has a link right to the actual science in it.

        why don’t I post articles with links to the actual science from less ‘lefty’ publications?

        Because for some strange reason they don’t even mention that stuff.

        and hey: I also reference Scientific american, New Scientist, National Geographic, the NSIDC website.

        apparently all those are just some sort of leftist propaganda ?

    • You can’t seriously think that Svalbard is indicative to conditions everywhere on the globe…maybe the good Professor knows it’s not.

      • “Climate is a matter of science.”

        Dear Lord (or whomever you reserve for Church)…climate is a matter of NATURE, not science. SCIENCE is the observation, study, and attempts to understand NATURE.

        “Yes, it is climate change… in a warming world you can get cold events caused by shifts in arctic air circulation/jet stream.” So then conversely you can get warming events in a cooling world too. The CLIMATE CHANGES. Always has, and based upon the evidence, I suspect it always will. YOU seem to think otherwise.

        “It doesn’t ‘matter’ if Svalbard gets baked (except for the inhabitants affected by landslides and the polar bears, I suppose)” The planet and it’s climate couldn’t care less.

        “It is just a screamingly obvious example of a changing arctic climate. right outside the Prof’s door.”
        Odd…he never said the climate WAS NOT changing. DID HE?

        “the local conditions should show him what he wrote is bunkum”

        Please cite, verbatim, exactly what he wrote that is bunkum??? I cannot wait to see you “quote the science” for me.

      • “You can’t seriously think that Svalbard is indicative to conditions everywhere on the globe”

        Skanky believes that one treemometer on the Yamal peninsula is indicative of conditions everywhere on the globe over a timespan of many centuries because Michael Mann said so.

      • It is indicative of a warming arctic…

        It has had massively warm anomalies in temps over recent years, especially last year.

        The changing pattern of sea ice formation around it in the last decade shows a step change in the arctic sea ice.

  21. @David Middleton

    You said, “In most sciences, +/- 2 standard deviations is considered to be natural variability. That’s why NSIDC includes +/- 2 standard deviations band on their annual ice extent plots. Real anomalies exceed +/- 2 standard deviations.”

    Who said, “natural variability” has to be (μ ± 2σ) std dev? Citation please. Using (μ ± 2σ) std dev is a way of getting their hypothesis passed at a lower bar. Medicine is one area where they use the (μ ± 2σ) std dev and still they have trouble passing at this level. So using (μ ± 3σ) std dev, would be a better bar level. Physics uses (μ ± 5σ).

    Regards
    Climate Heretic

    • Did David even insinuate that it “had to be two standard deviations”? Nope. He said it’s considered to be, because wild outliers in measurements of naturally occurring things are so rare, they get ignored as freak occurrences.

      There’s really no hypothesis to be passed when simply demonstrating the mean of a data set. It’s a mathematical formula and the standard deviations are calculated based on that.

  22. There is nothing abnormal about the climate in the past year.

    There is nothing unpleasant about the climate in the past year.

    With no real-time measurements of 99.999% of Earth’s history, we have only a very tiny amount of data for comparison (150 years), and the data are very rough, especially in the 1800s.

    I don’t get those conclusions from reading this article.

    That makes it a bad article.

Comments are closed.