Global temperatures have dropped 0.5° Celsius in April according to Dr. Ryan Maue. In the Northern Hemisphere they plunged a massive 1°C . As the record 2015/16 El Nino levels off, the global warming hiatus aka “the pause” is back with a vengeance. He writes:
Some good news to end April, global temperature anomaly has fallen to only +0.1°C today (snapshot) … graphic is like stock market trace
Global Ocean Temperatures Drop To Pre-El Nino Levels
Despite NOAA’s Denial, A Growing Number Of Studies Confirm the Global Warming Hiatus
Despite widespread denial among climate activists, a growing number of scientific research papers in recent months have confirmed the global warming hiatus, trying to explain its possible reasons (for the latest studies see here, here and here). The latest study claims that the Southern Ocean played a critical role in the global warming slowdown.
h/t to the GWPF
Dr. Roy Spencer says while there was a plunge at the surface, the lower troposphere is still holding warmth, but what is clear is that the effects of the El Niño are over:
The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for April, 2017 was +0.27 deg. C, up from the March, 2017 value of +0.19 deg. C (click for full size version):
The global, hemispheric, and tropical LT anomalies from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 16 months are:
YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPICS
2016 01 +0.54 +0.69 +0.39 +0.84
2016 02 +0.83 +1.16 +0.50 +0.98
2016 03 +0.73 +0.94 +0.52 +1.08
2016 04 +0.71 +0.85 +0.58 +0.93
2016 05 +0.54 +0.64 +0.44 +0.71
2016 06 +0.33 +0.50 +0.17 +0.37
2016 07 +0.39 +0.48 +0.29 +0.47
2016 08 +0.43 +0.55 +0.31 +0.49
2016 09 +0.44 +0.49 +0.38 +0.37
2016 10 +0.40 +0.42 +0.39 +0.46
2016 11 +0.45 +0.40 +0.50 +0.37
2016 12 +0.24 +0.18 +0.30 +0.21
2017 01 +0.30 +0.26 +0.33 +0.07
2017 02 +0.35 +0.54 +0.15 +0.05
2017 03 +0.19 +0.30 +0.07 +0.03
2017 04 +0.27 +0.27 +0.26 +0.21
The UAH LT global anomaly image for April, 2017 should be available in the next few days here.
The new Version 6 files should also be updated soon, and are located here:
Lower Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
Mid-Troposphere:http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tmt/uahncdc_mt_6.0.txt
Tropopause:http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/ttp/uahncdc_tp_6.0.txt
Lower Stratosphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tls/uahncdc_ls_6.0.txt
If you use “believe” and “science” in the same argument, then you have probably constructed an oxymoronic argument. You might have a certain level of conviction based on the evidence, but if the evidence changes (which invariably it does) you better be ready to change the level and basis of your conviction. Otherwise, well, it’s called religion.
Perfect.
Ashok Patel May 2, 2017 at 1:59 am ……Correction
In reply to richard verney May 1, 2017 at 10:13 am
2015-16 El Nino was followed by a weak La Nina JAS 2016 to NDJ 2017 and hence there is no question of a back to back El Nino. In 2017 there has not been and 3-monthly seasonal period with ONI index +0.5 C or more. In fact the last available ONI index is JFM 2017 which is yet -0.2 C.
With all the tooing and froing of believers and non believers it was quite a read to get through all the posts.
This short term stuff really pisses me off, I am in my eighth decade and have ridden motor cycles all my life.
The weather is important when you ride motor cycles and in my life I have seen warm times wet times, cold times and drought. These changes were not caused by the emissions or the loud noise of my motor cycles, they were natural.
Now that I am all grown up I still ride motorcycles, but have had a large interest in science of all persuasions, history also is of interest and oddly in some genres they fit together nicely. Climate science is on of those subjects were they fit. The history of our world and the climate go hand in hand and our modern period it would seem is not as warm as the past. This flies in the face of the true believers who fail to read history, I see their propaganda everywhere polluting the minds of our young and not so young.I do hope your new president puts a stop to the BS.
So once upon a time a salesman made a graphical presentation to the owners of his company that showed his sales figures going through the roof. Right before he accepted incoming congratulations, the accountant stood up and said the increase was due to an accounting error.
Moral of the story, just because people make graphs, doesn’t mean they represent anything real.
I would require meticulous data verification and protection perpetually before I started believing any graph.
So you see the issue here with climate science.
Andrew
My gut instinct was dead wrong about one thing. Statistical significance. Janice Moore linked to this article.
(Source: Werner Brozek, ed. by J. T. Facts, https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/04/11/la-nina-puzzle-now-includes-february-and-march-data/ )
The article has these conclusions…
For UAH: There is no statistically significant warming since December 1993;
For RSS: There is no statistically significant warming since October 1994;
For Hadsst3: There is no statistically significant warming since May 1997.
I noted the following data and expressed doubt that they could have easily occurred by chance and must be significant, especially with all four in the same direction and highly correlated.
///////////////////////////////////////////
Actual temp changes 1993 to 2017
HadCrut +0.43 deg
GISS +0.61 deg
RSS + 0.30 deg
UAH +0.28 deg
///////////////////////////////
But when I ran a Monte Carlo simulation, I found that Nick Stokes’ was spot-on in the Werner Brozek link (posted above). The 1993-2017 changes can easily be generated by random numbers. So easily, in fact, that I was convinced I made a calculation error. But I didn’t.
In 1000 random simulations, 349 produced warming greater than what has actually occurred. That is not even one standard deviation.
We have beaten and tortured the data on this thread like a dead horse, so I will leave it with these takeaways
(1) the drop in temp that prompted this article is small and insignificant and all the trend lines ending in 2017 in the fossil fuel era remain higher
(2) the warming in the last quarter century is not statistically significant. Not close.
(3) our ability to measure a mean global temperature sucks. If that wasn’t true, then all the main data sets would have very similar results. They don’t.
Cheers everyone.
Recent article from Nature that is relevant to the discussion – Reconciling controversies about the ‘global warming hiatus’.
Abstract – Between about 1998 and 2012, a time that coincided with political negotiations for preventing climate change, the surface of Earth seemed hardly to warm. This phenomenon, often termed the ‘global warming hiatus’, caused doubt in the public mind about how well anthropogenic climate change and natural variability are understood. Here we show that apparently contradictory conclusions stem from different definitions of ‘hiatus’ and from different datasets. A combination of changes in forcing, uptake of heat by the oceans, natural variability and incomplete observational coverage reconciles models and data. Combined with stronger recent warming trends in newer datasets, we are now more confident than ever that human influence is dominant in long-term warming.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v545/n7652/full/nature22315.html
Following link should get one to the full article.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature22315.epdf?referrer_access_token=OeMbCwpHKLOjgu01gzqo9NRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0NuFtYPLl1PUnqxUYbpB1uVru_rIjRyseUxK8YNRXQS4y9DvcRW-sYTMVJXTCE8YE6_rgwvcIsZOxcoqkyQ4VYwLgGHKO9VdTjsskndvtNw8S3pRoA9yrKECTNtNA930WdXolxaUw0hq3-H5BCXjD2ohYl1VggjZW_qln4y8wYZK7YhEZytCSoISaXFCsonMK1Ixts9BgPFeALa5MlipSEO3q8tu85kzkSSB2u3xIp1mncXIZwgIuIh_ffdxIgeM0cCKEiQ6WW_Oww_dfjjHi7SCbizTQtHvYYEQ4PVR2b3uL8qpJTDaETNsF05t6gaFJp58myaID7FMIqNrQl8k8otqZhHnO9J49r8rNR-MRgxk-woeluqbYMMtq30InBKdeg%3D&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com
“Here we show that apparently contradictory conclusions stem from different definitions of ‘hiatus’ and from different datasets.”
Sounds pretty cut and dry.
Andrew
Wow. Can’t believe that paper ever got published.
First, the entire purpose seems political and doesn’t really try to hide this.
Second, they somehow don’t seem to know anything about satellite data. Amazing.
Love the conclusions…assumes CAGW is reality and proven and puts the burden of proof on anything that disagrees with CAGW. Any real scientist knows the opposite should be true.
////////////////////
The hiatus no doubt was, and still is, an exciting opportunity to learn for many research fields. Social sciences might find this an interesting period for studying how science interacts with the public, media and policy. In a time coinciding with high-level political negotiations on preventing cli-mate change, sceptical media and politicians were using the apparent lack of warming to downplay the importance of climate change. It is easy to paint a controversial picture, but as often the devil is in the detail. A few years of additional data are unlikely to overturn the vast body of evidence that supports anthropogenic climate change. But science requires time to analyse, test hypotheses and publish results, and engaging in fast-paced communication is challenging for scientists in such situations. This will not be the last time that weather and climate will surprise us, so maybe there are lessons to be learned from the hiatus about communication on all sides.From a climate point of view, with 2015 and 2016 being the two warm-est years on record, the question of whether “global warming has stopped” that climate scientists had been facing for many years in the public has largely disappeared. Whether there was a hiatus or slowdown at some point is still debated, with some arguing strongly for it25,31 and others saying it lacks scientific basis30,36,37,39. The conclusions unsurprisingly depend on the time period considered, the dataset and the hypothesis tested, so the diverging conclusions do not need to be inconsistent.
The pause since 1998 has not returned. El Nino has ended with cooler temps than a year ago, but the trend since 1998 is still upwards.
Have to say, it’s rather odd that skeptics claim that the data was ‘fudged’ while we had warmer temps, but as soon as we get cooler monthly anomalies, suddenly the data is fine?
Perhaps it would be well for skeptics to nominate a data set they think is valid. I guess that will be the UAH lower troposphere data set?
It was always UAH which was used by Monckton to calculate the length of his “Pause”. As somebody else commented, this was up slightly from March to April, and so the focus in the headline switched to a short-term (20 days) fall in another dataset.
December 1997 was the last month to vanish when the Pause died, and would probably be the first month to re-emerge if it were ever to be resurrected. The effect of this month’s anomaly is to increase the decadal slope from Dec 1997 to the present from 0.051 to 0.052. Minuscule for sure, but still increasing, rather than decreasing.
Richard Barraclough.
It was always UAH which was used by Monckton to calculate the length of his “Pause”.
Monckton used RSS, not UAH.
Here’s a link to his website. First graph.
http://www.lordmoncktonfoundation.com/temp_trend_series
The skeptic community seemed to switch to UAH (Monckton didn’t) last year when the adjusted version 6 came out with a slightly cooler trend than RSS. The previous version had a higher trend than RSS, nearer to surface trends.
Beg pardon, it was 2 years ago in April that UAH v6 (Beta) data was first posted by Roy Spencer.
agw is a long-term phenomena.
trying to interpret
individual months as evidence for
or against
is a fool’s errand.
too much noise underneath
the signal (natural
variability)
crackers345 May 6, 2017 at 5:56 pm
What do you mean by “long-term”?
CO2 rose from 1945 to 1977 without any warming, but instead pronounced cooling, far deeper than the following slight warming was higher. The world did accidentally warm from 1977 to c. 1997, while CO2 still increased, but that was correlation without plausible causation. Then from the late ’90s until this decade, temperature at best stayed flat, despite even more rapid CO2 growth.
Barry,
You may be right – I was just quoting from my memory of his articles. I was merely drawing attention to the fact that the headline of this article pounced on a sudden very short downturn in a completely different dataset, which has now, incidentally, has moved up by a quarter of a degree this month (but without any excited headlines!)
Regards
Richard
barry:
You say
No. Each and every of the time series for global average surface temperature anomaly (GASTA) is pseudoscientific nonsense; none of them is scientifically valid.
The reasons are that
(a)
there is no agreed definition of GASTA so each team that provides values of GASTA uses its own definition and often changes the definition it uses with e.g. this effect, and
(b)
if there were an agreed definition of GASTA then there is no possibility of a calibration standard for GASTA.
For more full explanation of these matters read this especially its Appendix B.
The purpose of assessing the ‘Pause’ is NOT to support the pseudoscience of GASTA time series.
The purpose of assessing the ‘Pause’ is to reveal the uselessness of the climate models by comparing them to the data they are purported to emulate and project.
Richard
Each and every of the time series for global average surface temperature anomaly (GASTA) is pseudoscientific nonsense; none of them is scientifically valid.
If they are no good they cannot invalidate (or validate) models.
Bye-bye pause. The observations are no good.
barry:
I find it hard to believe you are as stupid as you are pretending to be.
I said,
You have replied to that by saying
What is true, but your reply says you are incapable of understanding it, so I will rephrase it.
The GASTA time series are all bunkum but pseudoscientists say their computer games are intended to emulate and project those time series. Scientists are challenging the nonsense of the pseudoscience by comparing the GASTA time series with the outputs of the computer games. That does NOT mean the scientists would agree with your demand for them to agree that any of the bunkum is valid.
Richard
You have replied to that…
No, Richard, I replied to this:
Each and every of the time series for global average surface temperature anomaly (GASTA) is pseudoscientific nonsense; none of them is scientifically valid.
by saying:
“If they are no good they cannot invalidate (or validate) models.
Bye-bye pause. The observations are no good.”
I quoted you in my post above, so there can be no doubt about what I was replying to.
It’s very straightforward. If the observations are nonsense, they can’t be used for anything at all. Not for prognostication on pauses (or cooling or warming or any temp evolution). Not for comparing with models.
Observations are rubbish? Then so is any analysis that is based on them.
There’s no way to twist this. Unless you would like to qualify your first statement – the one I replied to?
So Barry, I see you are talking to my father and not quite catching the drift.
So perhaps a narrative will help. It might entertain, at least. Here is a tale for you.
All the sailor’s in the village used to watch the clouds before setting off of a morn to go fishing. Because if the clouds turned dark, the wind came up and down they went to Davy Jones locker (where they suffered eternal renditions of “I’m a Believer”).
But old Uncle Gammer swore he could tell the weather despite being blind because of the twinge in his right knee.
On day, the clouds turned dark and the sailor’s stayed in, feeling hungry. But Uncle Gammer told them to go out to sea on the assurance of his knee.
They all drowned.
Now were the widows of the village angry at old Uncle Gammer?
NO!
If Uncle Gammer’s knee could not predict the weather then it’s meaningless. And so any decisions made on Uncle Gammer’s knee are also meaningless. Uncle Gammer’s knee is not the cause of the drowning. It’s the decision to go out to sea without looking at the sky that is to blame.
Do you see how this relates to your decision to trust the models?
Do you see how models that try to replicate Uncle Gammer’s knee are not worth making decisions on?
Matt:
Your “narrative” is an excellent analogy but ‘barry’ will continue “not quite catching the drift” because people don’t understand when they refuse to understand .
Dad
richard, science isn’t about “analogies,” it’s about science.
you got any of that?
crackers345:
YOU ask
I apologise to all for the formatting error in my rebuttal of the anonymous troll who appropriately posts as ‘crackers 345’.
Richard
richard: put on your big boy pants
you can’t answer my questions,
which were good questions,
so you hope to eliminate me as a “trool.”
come on, richard,
are you some kind of professional
so start acting like it
instead of like a poorly
educated amateur.
crackers345:
You continue your egregious trolling by writing
I answered your question specifically put to me.
You have answered the question I added to that reply by demonstrating you have no integrity.
chimp refuted your silly questions and I say “ditto” to his answer which is in this sub-thread here.
Now crawl back under your bridge. As usual your posts are wasting electrons.
Richard
richardscourtney:
“there is no agreed definition of GASTA so each team that provides values of GASTA uses its own definition and often changes the definition it uses with e.g. this effect”
GASTA is, like any average of a function, the integral of the function
over its entire surface, divided by the area of the surface.
in practice the integral is replaced by a sum over
small areas. easy peasy.
the fact that all groups gets the same results shows
the particular choice of areas and thermometers don’t matter all
that much.
and as long as this methodology is consistent, present values
can be compared to past values
to detect changes in temperatures.
there are good reasons for the adjustments of past raw data, to
correct for biases,
which anyone with a science background should be able to
understand.
Total nonsense, they all follow (except possible BEST) the same basic process of adjusting the data, normalization, and infilling. What you see is they all do about the same thing. Not that they in anyway produce a number based on the actual measurements.
This is an average of what’s measured
NCDC GSoD, the Air Force’s daily summary.
I agree that GASTA calculation is a pretty straightforward scientific statistical exercise. Those who claim it can’t be done and that the number has no meaning are barking up the wrong tree.
I disagree that the major data sets all basically agree. The month-to-month differences between them give me a good idea the errors involved. It is hard to argue that we know GASTA within 0.20° … and that is 20 years worth if warming.
Many of the temperature adjustments such as site changes and time of day changes are appropriate. However, there are a lot of adjustments that may not be warranted. Just cleaning and painting a dirty shelter box can lead to global warming with the current adjustment methods.
Also, the temperature adjustments have a shockingly high correlation to carbon dioxide (Robert Brown, Duke Univ). One would guess that the correlation would be near zero. The complexity of the adjustment process and the lack of transparency and the suspicious correlation are all problematic to my blanket acceptance of the adjusted data
Ignorant troll posting as crackers 345:
You stupidly write of global average surface temperature anomaly (GASTA)
In this subthread I have already twice linked to this which explains how and why all your comments about GASTA are pure bollocks!
But you again demonstrate that you cannot read. You can only parrot what your paymasters instruct you to post.
It is simply true that
(a)
there is no agreed definition of GASTA so each team that provides values of GASTA uses its own definition and often changes the definition it uses with e.g. this effect, and
(b)
if there were an agreed definition of GASTA then there is no possibility of a calibration standard for GASTA.
Since you have again demonstrated that reading is beyond your capabilities, I point out that I have demonstrated the reality with pictures and I yet again repeat that if there were an agreed definition of GASTA then this would not happen.
Richard
barry May 4, 2017 at 8:12 pm
A year ago the mounting El Nino was already in effect.
Give it a little more time. There is still not statistically valid human fingerprint in valid temperature “data”.
Chimp May 6, 2017 at 6:05 pm wrote:
“There is still not statistically valid human fingerprint in valid temperature “data”.”
then how about explaining where
all the warming has come
from — atmosphere (surface, LT)
all the melting ice
the huge increase in ocean heat content.
that is your burden
Crackers,
The burden is light as a small, downy feather.
The warming since c. AD 1690 is entirely within normal bounds. It is just barely measurable within margin of error, although proxy data suggest it is real.
Even greater centennial-scale warming over similar cycles is evident in the Holocene and prior interglacials. There is thus no need to posit an unusual source, such as human GHG emissions.
And every reason to reject the repeatedly falsified hypothesis of AGW, whether beneficial, as Arrhenius and Callendar thought, or “catastrophic” as today’s trough-feeding bureaucrats try to scare taxpayers into believing. That is, the null hypothesis of nothing unusual happening cannot be rejected.
That is the best post in this entire, mostly useless, thread
There is scarcely any real increase in ocean heat content, let alone “huge”.
About .01 deg warmer since ARGO launch in 2004
Chimp, have you looked at the data on ocean heat content? or the
papers on earth’s energy imbalance?
Mary Brown:
“About .01 deg warmer since ARGO launch in 2004”
from the surface to 2 km depth
it’s 280 MJ/m2 warmer, or 0.7 W/m2.
(the ocean’s heat capacity is so large that, for atmospheric warming, the important variable is ocean heat gain, not ocean temperature change.)
I agree with your basics on ocean heat but my point is the temperature change is so small that we can’t accurately measure it.
So I see claims of massive ocean heat content increases and giant energy imbalances but when you get right down to it, we’re talking about 0.01°
And we get these figures from a bunch of floating stations that move around and each is responsible to sample a massive area
Anybody who claims there’s any statistical significance to this warming in ARGO dsta is delusional. I have heard the argument as to why it is significant, but that doesn’t remotely pass the sniff test
Chimp:
“The warming since c. AD 1690 is entirely within normal bounds.”
what are the
normal bounds?
and why?
Barry,
I was just reading with amusement your next discussion. I think you have made the mistake of trying to be logical and polite to someone for whom those virtues are somewhat alien.
Don’t discourage him, though. It’s always entertaining to see just how worked up he can get.