While global surface temperature cools, the lower troposphere has record warmest October

Yesterday, we noted the drop in global surface temperature from HadCRUT data. Today, we have this report from the UAH dataset that points out the heat has not left the lower troposphere (about 14,000 feet altitude) based on this report from the University on Huntsville’s Dr. John Christy.

Lower troposphere dataset has warmest October in satellite temperature record

By Phillip Gentry, UAH

Global Temperature Report: October 2017
Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.13 C per decade

Notes on data released Nov. 2, 2017:

Apparently boosted by warmer than normal water in the equatorial eastern Pacific Ocean that peaked in June and July, global average temperatures in the atmosphere rose to record levels in October, according to Dr. John Christy, director of the Earth System Science Center (ESSC) at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. October 2017 was the seventh warmest month in the 39-year satellite temperature record. It joins September 2017 as the warmest months on record not associated with a typical El Niño Pacific Ocean warming event.

Of the 20 warmest monthly global average temperatures in the satellite record, only October and September 2017 were not during a normal El Niño. Compared to seasonal norms, the global average temperature in October made it the seventh warmest month in the satellite record.

October temperatures (preliminary)

Global composite temp.: +0.63 C (about 1.13 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for October.
Northern Hemisphere: +0.67 C (about 1.21 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for October.
Southern Hemisphere: +0.59 C (about 1.06 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for October.
Tropics: +0.47 C (about 0.85 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for October.
September temperatures (revised):

Global Composite: +0.54 C above 30-year average
Northern Hemisphere: +0.51 C above 30-year average
Southern Hemisphere: +0.57 C above 30-year average
Tropics: +0.53 C above 30-year average
(All temperature anomalies are based on a 30-year average (1981-2010) for the month reported.)

Warmest months (global average)
(degrees C warmer than 30-year October average)

  1. Feb. 2016     +0.85 C
  2. March 2016   +0.76 C
  3. April 1998     +0.74 C
  4. April 2016     +0.72 C
  5. Feb. 1998     +0.65 C
  6. May 1998     +0.64 C
  7. Oct. 2017   +0.63 C
  8. June 1998    +0.57 C
  9. Jan. 2016     +0.55 C
  10. Sept. 2017   +0.54 C

Among the 39 Octobers in the satellite temperature dataset, October 2017 was the warmest for both the globe and the southern hemisphere by statistically significant amounts: Globally, at 0.63 C warmer than seasonal norms, October 2017 was 0.20 C warmer than October 2015 (+0.43 C). In the southern hemisphere, October 2017 was 0.59 warmer than seasonal norms. The second warmest southern hemisphere October was in 2016, with an average temperature that was 0.42 warmer than seasonal norms.


October 2017 was also the warmest October in the northern hemisphere, but by a smaller amount: +0.67 C in 2017 compared to +0.63 in 2015.

In the tropics, October 2017 was tied as the second warmest October in the temperature record. October 2015 was the warmest tropical October on record with an average temperature +0.54 C warmer than seasonal norms. Octobers in 2016 and 2017 tied for second at +0.47 C warmer than seasonal norms.
Warmest Octobers (global average)
(degrees C warmer than 30-year September average)

  1. 2017 +0.63 C
  2. 2015   +0.43 C
  3. 2016   +0.42 C
  4. 1998   +0.40 C
  5. 2003   +0.28 C
  6. 2005   +0.27 C
  7. 2014   +0.25 C
  8. 2012   +0.24 C
  9. 2006   +0.22 C
  10. 2010   +0.20 C

Compared to seasonal norms, the coldest spot on the globe in October was in eastern Russian, near the town of Omtschak. Temperatures there were 1.97 C (about 3.55 degrees Fahrenheit) cooler than seasonal norms.
Compared to seasonal norms, the warmest place on Earth in October was over the Northeast Greenland National Park. Temperatures there averaged 4.61 C (about 8.30 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than seasonal norms.
As part of an ongoing joint project between UAH, NOAA and NASA, Christy and Dr. Roy Spencer, an ESSC principal scientist, use data gathered by advanced microwave sounding units on NOAA and NASA satellites to get accurate temperature readings for almost all regions of the Earth. This includes remote desert, ocean and rain forest areas where reliable climate data are not otherwise available.
The satellite-based instruments measure the temperature of the atmosphere from the surface up to an altitude of about eight kilometers above sea level. Once the monthly temperature data are collected and processed, they are placed in a “public” computer file for immediate access by atmospheric scientists in the U.S. and abroad.
The complete version 6 lower troposphere dataset is available here:
http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt

Archived color maps of local temperature anomalies are available on-line at:
http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/

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

— 30 —

Dr. Roy Spencer adds from his website:

The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for October, 2017 was +0.63 deg. C, up from the September, 2017 value of +0.54 deg. C (click for full size version):

Global area-averaged lower tropospheric temperature anomalies (departures from 30-year calendar monthly means, 1981-2010). The 13-month centered average is meant to give an indication of the lower frequency variations in the data; the choice of 13 months is somewhat arbitrary… an odd number of months allows centered plotting on months with no time lag between the two plotted time series. The inclusion of two of the same calendar months on the ends of the 13 month averaging period causes no issues with interpretation because the seasonal temperature cycle has been removed as has the distinction between calendar months.

The global, hemispheric, and tropical LT anomalies from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 22 months are:
YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPICS
2016 01 +0.55 +0.72 +0.38 +0.85
2016 02 +0.85 +1.18 +0.53 +1.00
2016 03 +0.76 +0.98 +0.54 +1.10
2016 04 +0.72 +0.85 +0.58 +0.93
2016 05 +0.53 +0.61 +0.44 +0.70
2016 06 +0.33 +0.48 +0.17 +0.37
2016 07 +0.37 +0.44 +0.30 +0.47
2016 08 +0.43 +0.54 +0.32 +0.49
2016 09 +0.45 +0.51 +0.39 +0.37
2016 10 +0.42 +0.43 +0.42 +0.47
2016 11 +0.46 +0.43 +0.49 +0.38
2016 12 +0.26 +0.26 +0.27 +0.24
2017 01 +0.32 +0.31 +0.34 +0.10
2017 02 +0.38 +0.57 +0.19 +0.07
2017 03 +0.22 +0.36 +0.09 +0.05
2017 04 +0.27 +0.28 +0.26 +0.21
2017 05 +0.44 +0.39 +0.49 +0.41
2017 06 +0.21 +0.33 +0.10 +0.39
2017 07 +0.29 +0.30 +0.27 +0.51
2017 08 +0.41 +0.40 +0.41 +0.46
2017 09 +0.54 +0.51 +0.57 +0.53
2017 10 +0.63 +0.67 +0.59 +0.47

The linear temperature trend of the global average lower tropospheric temperature anomalies from January 1979 through October 2017 remains at +0.13 C/decade.

Why Are the Satellite and Surface Data Recently Diverging?

John Christy and I are a little surprised that the satellite deep-layer temperature anomaly has been rising for the last several months, given the cool La Nina currently attempting to form in the Pacific Ocean.

Furthermore, the satellite and surface temperatures seem to be recently diverging. For the surface temperatures, I usually track the monthly NCEP CFSv2 Tsfc averages computed by WeatherBell.com to get some idea of how the most recent month is shaping up for global temperatures. The CFSv2 Tsfc anomaly usually gives a rough approximation of what the satellite shows… but sometimes it differs significantly. For October 2017 the difference is now +0.23 deg. C (UAH LT warmer than Tsfc).

The following charts show how these two global temperature measures have compared for every month since 1997 (except that September, 2017 is missing at the WeatherBell.com website):

Monthly comparison since 1979 of global average temperature anomalies (relative to the monthly 1981-2010 averages) between UAH LT deep-layer lower tropospheric temperature and the surface temperatures in the CFSv2 reanalysis dataset at WeatherBell.com.

As can be seen, there have been considerably larger departures between the two measures in the past, especially during the 1997-1998 El Nino. Our UAH LT product is currently using 3 satellites (NOAA-18, NOAA-19, and Metop-B) which provide independent monthly global averages, and the disagreement between them is usually very small.

While we can expect individual months to have rather large differences between surface and tropospheric temperature anomalies (due to the time lag involved in excess surface warming to lead to increased convection and tropospheric heating), some of the differences in the above plot are disturbingly large and persistent. The 1997-98 El Nino discrepancy is pretty amazing. As I understand it, the NCEP CFS reanalysis dataset is the result of collaboration between NOAA/NCEP and NCAR, and uses a wide range of data types in a physically consistent fashion. I probably need to bring in one of the dedicated surface-only datasets for further comparison…I don’t recall the HadCRUT4 Tsfc dataset having this large of disagreements with our satellite deep-layer temperatures. Unfortunately, these other datasets usually take a few weeks before they are updated with the most recent month.

…UPDATE…(fixed)…
…the 2nd of the following two plots has been fixed)…

Here’s the comparison between UAH LT and Tsfc from the HadCRUT4 dataset, through September 2017. Note that the difference with the satellite temperatures isn’t as pronounced as with CFSv2 Tsfc data, but the HadCRUT4 data has more of an upward trend:

As in the previous figure, but now CFSv2 Tsfc data has been replaced by HadCRUT4 surface data (with the latter having anomalies recalculated relative to the 1981-2010 base period).

The UAH LT global anomaly image for October, 2017 should be available in the next few days here.

The new Version 6 files should also be updated in the coming days, 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

Advertisements

276 thoughts on “While global surface temperature cools, the lower troposphere has record warmest October

    • Gabro, what “heat blown off from the EastPac”?

      ENSO BASICS: Additional heat is released from the eastern tropical Pacific during an El Nino, not a La Nina. The El Nino conditions ended well over a year ago. And we’re presently on the threshold of La Nina conditions.

      During a La Nina, more cool subsurface waters are upwelled in the eastern tropical Pacific than during “normal” conditions. But because of the cooler surface temperatures, there is less evaporation and less cloud cover, so more sunlight reaches into the tropical Pacific to depth. Therefore, La Nina is the recharge mode (energy uptake mode) of the recharge-discharge oscillator known as ENSO. El Nino is the discharge mode.

      Here’s a link to a free ebook that explains ENSO in minute detail, with lots of pictures:
      https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/v2-tisdale-who-turned-on-the-heat-free-edition.pdf

      Cheers

      • That cited by Dr. Christy:

        “Apparently boosted by warmer than normal water in the equatorial eastern Pacific Ocean that peaked in June and July, global average temperatures in the atmosphere rose to record levels in October, according to Dr. John Christy, director of the Earth System Science Center (ESSC) at The University of Alabama in Huntsville.”

      • Bob, it is the weak El Nino conditions that led to some of the warming which is showing up at this time due to the normal lag. That should be over with now. In addition, warmer temperatures over Antarctica possibly due to the lower sea ice values over the SH winter probably play a role. That should also diminish over the coming months.

        We are also just starting to see the warmth factor from lower Arctic sea ice. That will most likely continue through the NH winter.

      • Thanks for all the work that went into that book, Bob. I’ll look into it, but on the off-hand chance you see this comment before I find the time to read the book, I was wondering if there is any noticeable correlation between sunspot cycles and the ENSO cycles.

        In my simplistic way I see the ENSO as a small boy sloshing water east and west in a mighty big bathtub called the Pacific, with the size of the sloshes determined by a multitude of factors that make up the “boy”. The most obvious factor is the east to west winds. If those winds are related to the amount of energy coming from the sun, then any change in the sun’s activity would be reflected in the sloshes. If the sunspot cycles were nice and regular the oscillation might make for nice, predicable sloshes. But the “Quiet Sun” might be a bit like the small boy hearing the approaching footsteps of a mother: The sloshes go through a dramatic change.  

        The thing that makes for complete confusion is that ENSO does not work in isolation, but effects the weather patterns around it, which in turn effect the ENSO. Therefore the oscillations are likely not nice and neat, like a two-stroke-engine, but rather are likely hideously complicated, like a fifteen-and-a-half stroke engine. It would be hard enough to figure out the engineering if the sunspot cycles remained regular, but this “Quiet Sun” adds another variable.

        In any case, knowing how astute your powers of observation are, I was wondering if the sun’s variations are reflected in any way we can see, in the ENSO. (I’m sure the effect is there, but it may be lost in the muddle.)

    • Satellite data covers entire globe while surface data covers the globe partially. If one wants to understand the real difference, they must be compared over smaller regions with good surface network.

      Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

      • “Global” coverage if you exclude both poles. Latitudes above 85 degrees are not covered.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAH_satellite_temperature_dataset

        The methodology reference papers for UAH temperature index are interesting. The monthly range of error of the temperature index is at least 0.2 which is never included in the time plots. It is very common for hemisphere anomaly values to zigzag up and down by that much from month to month.

      • bw — even within 85 degrees, surface data coverage is very poor.

        Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

      • “Satellite data covers entire globe while surface data covers the globe partially.”

        Ah no. Both sample the globe incompletely both in time and space.

        The satellite data is extrapolated in space by simple linear methods ( cell averaging), and then even larger cell averaging to make up for satellite “gores”
        The surface data ( for reanalysis) uses thousands of measures that dont make it into regular series like GISS. These are interpolated over space using a physical model.

        In the temporal dimension the satellites sample the earth on an ascending path of the orbit and a descending path. basically two measures a day at different times during the day. This then needs to be adjusted.

        The surface data comes in many different time domains, typically minutes or hours because the data is used for weather forecasts.

        You CANNOT simply compare satellites and other products. Apples and Oranges.

        When they diverge you know nothing.

  1. What sort of time lag are we looking at, from ocean cooling to its effect upon the upper troposphere?

  2. This is the response of global atm water vapor to a reduction in air temps, from cooler ocean sst’s, the troposphere is just showing the vast amount of sensible heat being released trying to prevent that drop, but as it does this, 50% radiates directly to space. The downward radiation from this, tries to keep the surface warmer than dew point. It does this with the 4.21J/g from water condensate. There’s a lot of water in most of the worlds atm column, and most of it re-evaporates from the same sensible heat. But not all.

    • Could be, could be… Perhaps funny divergences between ground and tropo tend to appear when things are changing rapidly.

      But, if the divergence persists over the next few months, there is probably an error somewhere, or something about the measuring system has changed.

      • It changes year around. If you want to know the response of something, you yank it around. In this case orbital mechanics gives us two strong series to monitor.

    • micro, i keep seeing you make clear concise descriptions of what is currently happening yet very few people on here seem to notice. some seem more keen in arguing about trivialities or getting one over on the “other side”.
      happens too often on many threads.

      for anyone not getting what micro is saying, go stand next to the sea on a calm clear winters night when the air temp one mile inland is minus 10 c.

      • Yup.Micro has some very good insights, particularly on the behaviour of water vapour and it’s affect on the daily heat loss cycle. Very much underappreciated relevance to overall heat transport in the atmosphere. Pretty much slays the CO2 dragon all by himself!

      • Heat of vaporization/condensation of water. Though that’s 2,269J/g not 4.21J/g, I’d done some estimates on calculating this from data, the lower number could be based on that.
        But still A lot of energy to work with.

      • Globally, the energy distribution of the vertical column mean is based upon the higher number. Latent heat transfer from the hydrological cycle is the major energy supply to the atmosphere and the major surface cooling mechanism. The modification to the dry lapse/isentropic profile is entirely latent heat transfer.
        I respect your studies and your sensible approach.
        Regards.

  3. I sometimes wonder if all this statistical compilation and comparison is just so much naval gazing. And if it isn’t equal to mental masterbation … then someone please tell me what can be done to change anything … to the entire planetary system ? Because I’ve been lectured about how we’ve already passed several tipping points and it’s too late to save the planet which will soon have incinerating temps and floods that drown our entire civilization (or at least the liberal coastal dwellers) … so why don’t we all just eat, drink, and be merry!? And stop frightening our children with this apocalyptic nonsense. It’s become worse than the church bludgeoning little kids with images of Satan. Sheesh. Stupid Warmists.

      • Yep. EXACTLY. Oh wait! you have not used the APPROVED scale and detail for your “misleading” graph. You need to break the temperature scale into nano-degrees! DENIER! DENIER !! Burn him/her/it … you’re a WITCH !!

      • Anyone can plot anything on a scale that makes any change seem irrelevant. Doesn’t mean it ‘is’ irrelevant.

      • Anyone can plot anything on a blown up exaggerated scale that makes any change seem relevant.
        ….doesn’t mean it “is” relevant

      • “Kenji November 2, 2017 at 2:17 pm
        Yep. EXACTLY. Oh wait! you have not used the APPROVED scale and detail for your “misleading” graph. You need to break the temperature scale into nano-degrees! …”

        Provide regulatory proof for “approved scale and detail”.

        Keep in mind that the anomalies used by alarmists ignore properly presenting error bounds on the same charts and graphs.

      • No matter what scale you use, the 135 year trend is still 0.13 F (0.072 C) per decade. No major change is obvious that correlates with the post WWII increase in CO2. Not very scary to me. The only scary stories seem to come from 500,000 to 700,000 lines of computer code running on huge supercomputers that I doubt anyone fully understands.

      • Rick C PE, Windows XP has 40 million lines of code Windows 7 has 40 million and Windows 8 has 50-60 million.
        ..
        ..
        You think 500,000 to 700,000 lines of computer code will bother anybody?

      • Rick C PE By my calculation .072 * (135/10) = 0.972 degrees warming since the preindustrial era. So If we have to limit the warming to 1.5 degrees above the preindustrial level, and we have already warmed .972/1.5, then we are already 2/3rds of the way there. If it is 2 degrees above we are half way. Does it look like we are 2/3rds or even half the way to the apocalypse. Looking out my window, I just don’t see where the warming we have already experienced has done any great harm.

      • “The linear temperature trend of the global average lower tropospheric temperature anomalies from January 1979 through October 2017 remains at +0.13 C/decade.”

        Mid and upper troposphere are similar.
        Per IPCC CAGW GHG theory, the troposphere must warm 20 percent more then the surface. Thus at most 0.104 degree per decade of surface warming can be linked to GHG. Any surface warming above that must have some other cause.

      • Latitude said:

        “Anyone can plot anything on a blown up exaggerated scale that makes any change seem relevant.
        ….doesn’t mean it “is” relevant”

        OK, so what you you think the most reasonable scale is for such a graph is, and why?

        What does leading by example look like in this situation, and is it consistent with the scale you have used?

      • The most appropriate scale is degrees above absolute zero (Kelvin) as both gas expansion (convection) and radiation are functions of absolute temperatures.

      • Radiation is not a function of absolute temperature. Take for example gamma rays, X rays and electrons hopping from higher to lower orbitals.

      • Qualifying “emission photon” by way of an electron changing orbitals. My statement doesn’t apply to molecular vibration emissions.

      • Why don’t you use the Kelvin scale and go back 500k years. The last glacial maximum will barely register a blip.

    • CAGW is worse than teaching kids about Satan. The CAGW thesis has been falsified at numerous points, repeatedly. Whereas Satan is a purely spiritual being. His existence cannot be disproved by science. Science only applies to the physical realm, and can say nothing about the spiritual realm. So it is scientifically conceivable that Satan might actually exist, but CAGW definitely does not!

    • Agreed Kenji. I was thinking that, at 14,000 feet altitude, there is very little actual “heat” in the atmosphere. So what is the point in worrying about whether or not the air there is very slightly warmer or colder than it was 10 years ago, because it is still very chilly?

      • Let’s see JOULES not DEGREES.

        I have a very hot soldering iron on my bench now but the workshop is damn cold this morning in the UK.

      • High, thin air does indeed not hold a great deal of heat, including that it is generally quite dry. As a consequence it’s temperature is quite easily changed by relatively small amounts of heat and/or moisture. Pretty meaningless when considered as a heat content.

      • John, it is not meaningless, as per CAGW theory this is the portion of the atmosphere where GHG becomes most effective and absorbs outgoing LWIR, and so should warm more then the surface. ( 20 percent more)

  4. Over the last few years, we’ve seen that sanguine expectations of an imminent global cooling are ill-founded. While certain irregular cycles indeed dominate the long-term temperature variability, their manifold presence and overall wide-band behavior are not susceptible to reliable prediction by any type of curve-fitting of “trends” or of pure sinusoids. It’s essentially a structured random process that calls for Wiener or Kalman prediction filters. These indicate that the current warming episode “ain’t over till its over.”

    • What it “calls for” is repeatably accurate or at least useful verifiable predictions and then there will be some basis for what you are saying other than bald sciencey-sounding assertions. Your evidence for the utility of these filters in climate prediction is? …

      • I’ve go no time for the analytically benighted, who consider a reference to rigorously-established signal analysis methods as “bald sciencey-sounding assertions.”

      • I’m not concerned with what you have time for. What I want is for you to support your assertions that your referenced analytic techniques have any relevance to the climate. Please educate us all – the floor is yours …

      • I’m not concerned with what you want. The ubiquitous relevance of the mentioned techniques in elucidating and exploiting the predictability of signals with any spectral structure, including those found in climate data, has been well-established during the post-WWII decades. Do your own homework in coming up to speed.

      • Please provide references to the papers where those numerical techniques have provided accurate predictions of climatic behaviour. Vague references to post-WWII decades are insufficient. You are a classic pseudoscientist it would appear.

      • You’re a classic scientific illiterate, it would appear, incapable of doing his own homework or comprehending the ubiquitous scientific utility of determining the predictability of signals analytically, instead of by presumption.

        A Google search of “Wiener prediction of ocean temperatures” yields the seminal work co-authored by my erstwhile mentor: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JZ065i001p00249/full, while another related search turns up an up-to-date examination of the issue on longer climatic scales: http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/predictability_dsr_rossbyvol_2013.pdf

        BTW, Wiener was perhaps the first to recognize that statistical predictability is essentially a matter of correlation-length (or bandwidth in the frequency domain). Very wide-band processes such as weather and other chaotic data are effectively unpredictable. Narrow-band random processes, such as the ~60yr global surface temperature oscillation, on the other hand, have much useful, but never perfect, predictability over horizons measured in decades. They cannot be reasonably emulated, however, by strictly periodic sinusoids, as is often done by “climate scientists.”

      • You’re a classic halfwit. No one in your referenced papers has made any accurate predictions about the climate. Nor are they even asserting they can. In fact they are saying that they cannot. You’re incapable of elementary reading comprehension and your reason for posting is a vain attempt to puff yourself up in some ludicrous way. Go away and peddle your weak pseudoscience elsewhere because I’ve already wasted way too much time on you.

      • You’re a classic halfwit. No one in your referenced papers has made any accurate predictions about the climate. Nor are they even asserting they can. In fact they are saying that they cannot.

        This is a classic example of scientific illiteracy wrapped in ad hominems. The referenced papers were provided to show the utility of Wiener filters in objectively assessing the predictability of climate-related time-series, in line with my original call for such. Nowhere did I claim accurate results for all such variables (aside from the dominant narrow-band ~60-year oscillation that some have modelled as a pure sinusoid). Moreover, as Wunsch points out in connection with his very limited SST time-series:

        All that should be inferred is that linear predictive methods suggest some skill out to about 5 years with errors of a few tenths of a degree. Whether any more sophisticated system can do better remains, as of this writing, unknown.

        So much for dimwitted epithets of “pseudoscience.”

      • Off you pop and write your seminal paper on spectral analysis in nonlinear dynamical systems. The stock market will be a breeze. You’ll be rich beyond the dreams of Croesus. You’re an idiot.

    • “1sky1 November 2, 2017 at 2:05 pm
      Over the last few years, we’ve seen that sanguine expectations of an imminent global cooling are ill-founded…”

      Bogus claim without proof.
      Provide links to alleged predictions, including the expertise of those making predictions.

      No time for proof?
      Then you are wasting everyone else’s time.

      • I’m pretty sure 1sky1 knows what he’s talking about, and a lot of regulars are getting their backs up over a misunderstanding of what he said.

        He’s quite correct that the anticipated cooling of the present may not necessarily appear exactly on time, as predicted by any method currently in wide use. It hasn’t. Maybe prediction can be done better.

        Meanwhile, I can wait. While I’m waiting, I’ll celebrate the warmer Winters in Tucson and the amazing greening of the Sonoran Desert and multiplying fauna. We may well be a solar cycle or two short of reaching the peak of the Modern Warm Period. Maybe no more 41F daytime highs in Jan @ 3400′.

      • “Larry Wirth November 2, 2017 at 11:13 pm
        I’m pretty sure 1sky1 knows what he’s talking about, and a lot of regulars are getting their backs up over a misunderstanding of what he said. ”

        Your “pretty sure” opinion is a hash of several <a href=logical fallacies, including:
        Argumentum ad Verecundiam,
        Argumentum ad Populum,
        Ignorantio Elenchi,
        etc.

        "lot of regulars are getting their backs up over a misunderstanding" is a condescending classic red herring logical fallacy coupled with implied slight against "regulars".

        "Pretty sure" is specious and your misdirection is false.

        <

        “Larry Wirth November 2, 2017 at 11:13 pm
        He’s quite correct that the anticipated cooling of the present may not necessarily appear exactly on time, as predicted by any method currently in wide use. It hasn’t. Maybe prediction can be done better.”

        And here is another commenter making unwarranted claims yet provides zero proof.
        Perhaps Larry forgets that all of 1sky1’s comments are easily read?

        Not one of 1sky1’s comments states what Larry claims for 1sky1. More red herring falsehoods.

        1sky1 claims

        “Over the last few years, we’ve seen that sanguine expectations of an imminent global cooling are ill-founded.”

        Sanguine definition
        “[ˈsaNGɡwən]
        ADJECTIVE

        1.optimistic or positive, especially in an apparently bad or difficult situation:

        2.blood-red.

        3.bloody or bloodthirsty.”

        The few forecasts shared on this site have been from individuals, countries and meteorologists.
        That doesn’t make readers here expecting optimistically “imminent global cooling”.
        The readers on this site have expressed repeatedly that cooling is bad. Bad for humanity and bad for wildlife.

        The individuals who relayed their global cooling predictions based their claims on their understanding of cycles and a quiescent sun.
        None of those claims, from individuals or countries, expect imminent cooling. Cooling perhaps over the next few decades.

        Ergo; 1sky1 is blatantly wrong.

        Then there are claims put forward by the meteorologists.
        Their claims were focused on the El Nino – La Nina cycles and based on historical records. e.g. Joe Bastardi’s historical comparisons.

        To date, Joe Bastardi is accurate.
        Joe’s prediction of the 2016 El Nino Peak and subsequent temperature drop is bang on the mark.

        Joe Bastardi was certainly not optimistic regarding his analysis; instead Joe sticks to facts and precedent.

        Again, ergo; 1sky1 is incredibly wrong, on all counts.
        And side by side with erroneous 1sky1 is Larry Firth.

      • In his haste to prove me “wrong” on all counts, A TheoK fails to read or comprehend the very next sentence:

        While certain irregular cycles indeed dominate the long-term temperature variability, their manifold presence and overall wide-band behavior are not susceptible to reliable prediction by any type of curve-fitting of “trends” or of pure sinusoids.

        Those who made cooling predictions on that basis during the last several years (and they are many, both here and on Roy Spencer’s site) have been proven patently wrong by the subsequent data.

      • “1sky1 November 3, 2017 at 3:27 pm
        In his haste to prove me “wrong” on all counts, A TheoK fails to read or comprehend the very next sentence:

        “While certain irregular cycles indeed dominate the long-term temperature variability, their manifold presence and overall wide-band behavior are not susceptible to reliable prediction by any type of curve-fitting of “trends” or of pure sinusoids.

        Those who made cooling predictions on that basis during the last several years (and they are many, both here and on Roy Spencer’s site) have been proven patently wrong by the subsequent data.”

        No haste, you self identified as a fakir with fake claims, mr. too busy to do more than make false claims.
        As before you make yet another specious claim, 1sky1, without any proof or evidence.

        N.B. 1sky1; this is not Roy Spencer’s blog.
        You are trying to lump together blogs and their readers in order to mask your claims? Which currently amount to hand waving and fake noises.

        List and link the “many” who predicted “global cooling” and their explicit “predictions”, 1sky1.

        Without definitive proof, your claims are valueless.
        100% burden of proof is solely your responsibility.
        Until proof is provided, and everyone agrees there is proof, your claims are all incorrect/wrong/bogus/whatever and quite useless.
        All of your hand waving provides nothing towards any discussion.

      • I write my succinct comments here for rational people with a modicum of scientific comprehension–not for intemperate cranks who think that high-school debating rules are the ultimate arbiter of what is real. If you don’t like my comments, by all means feel free not to read them.

      • “1sky1 November 3, 2017 at 3:55 pm
        I write my succinct comments here for rational people with a modicum of scientific comprehension–not for intemperate cranks who think that high-school debating rules are the ultimate arbiter of what is real. If you don’t like my comments, by all means feel free not to read them.”

        Empty words, not comments. Comments require evidence and proof.
        If you do not provide proof, it is not real, ever.

        N.B., imperious supercilious 1sky1 immediately resorts to condescending ad hominems as a pretense to buttressing his claims.

        Not to worry, 1sky1. We will be happy to point out your lack of logic, zero evidence, irrationality, fake superior airs and constant flow of errors.
        All your commenting will prove is how absurd 1sky1 and his specious claims are.

      • Most blog readers will have no problem in remembering the various predictions of an imminent end to the present warming. Since March 2012, the number of negative months in the UAH v.6 TLT series of global anomalies is zero. That matches the number of rational points in A TheoK’s rabid attack on what was offered here as an methodological observation..

      • I’ve been reading global warming blogs since 2004 and I can assure you that there have been plenty of imminent cooling predictions. I’m sceptical of Catastrophic AGW but I’m fully convinced AGW is happening.

      • “List and link the “many” who predicted “global cooling” and their explicit “predictions”,”
        Well, here is Akasofu, featured at WUWT, March 2009. Heading was “Dr. Syun Akasofu on IPCC’s forecast accuracy”! It has been reposted many times; there is someone who still reposts it regularly here.

      • “Nick Stokes November 3, 2017 at 5:37 pm
        “List and link the “many” who predicted “global cooling” and their explicit “predictions”,”
        Well, here is Akasofu, featured at WUWT, March 2009. Heading was “Dr. Syun Akasofu on IPCC’s forecast accuracy”! It has been reposted many times; there is someone who still reposts it regularly here.”

        Sadly, more misdirection and vague claims from Nick Stokes.

        Nick Stokes claims that Akasofu’s essay from eight years ago is a “global cooling prediction”?
        Nick even admits the article was about “Dr. Syun Akasofu on IPCC’s forecast accuracy“, not “global cooling”.

        Dr. Akasofu is referenced a total of 19 times over the past decade; yet Nick vaguely claims someone who still posts “it” regularly.

        Whatever “it” is.

        No predictions of global cooling; just a blunt discussion regarding Dr. Akasofu’s analysis regarding IPCC’s egregiously wrong “global warming” predictions.

      • “1sky1 November 3, 2017 at 5:12 pm
        Most blog readers will have no problem in remembering the various predictions of an imminent end to the present warming. Since March 2012, the number of negative months in the UAH v.6 TLT series of global anomalies is zero. That matches the number of rational points in A TheoK’s rabid attack on what was offered here as an methodological observation.”

        1sky1 doubles down with vague claims and zero references. Still bogus.

        “Since March 2012, the number of negative months in the UAH v.6 TLT series of global anomalies is zero”
        • 1) red herring straw man by 1sky1.
        • 2) fakir 1sky1 makes yet another claim, without references.
        • 3) 1sky1 offers zero “methodological observations”. Hand waving, yes.
        • 4) More ad hominems from 1sky1.

        That’s the second time 1sky1 claims a “rabid” attack. Another of 1sky1’s imaginary projections where 1sky1 falsely accuses others.
        Classic alarmist emotional vilify rant over questions and criticisms.
        Adolescent? Definitely.

      • “John Finn November 3, 2017 at 5:14 pm
        I’ve been reading global warming blogs since 2004 and I can assure you that there have been plenty of imminent cooling predictions. I’m sceptical of Catastrophic AGW but I’m fully convinced AGW is happening.”

        Then it should be easy for you to provide references to actual imminent “global cooling” predictions.

      • “Dr. Akasofu is referenced a total of 19 times over the past decade; yet Nick vaguely claims someone who still posts “it” regularly.”
        I find that hard to believe. There have been two references in the last week, here and here. The last one makes clear its status as a prediction, and is the one that commonly recurs:

      • Atheok is quite correct in my view. Cooling projections I have read are based on the PDO and the AMO turning negative.
        ( also over time with disparate lags, a quiet sun) Multidecadal oscillations take time and the AMO is currently near its peak, and the PDO is not negative either.
        If these fail to manifest over the next decade and the moderate per decade warming rate of 1.3 degrees per century continues, ( GHG caused surface warming of 1 degree per century) the primary net affect of additional CO2 will remain largely net beneficial

      • Dr. Akasofu’s data is referenced several times in a post by Dr. Norman Page.

        At no place in the article is Dr. Akasofu referenced as providing “global cooling” predictions.

        Dr. Norman Page discusses “cycles”.

        Dr Norman Page October 28, 2017 at 8:52 pm
        As Marko says, climate is controlled by natural cycles. Earth is just past the 2003+/- peak of a millennial cycle and the current cooling trend will likely continue until the next Little Ice Age minimum at about 2650.See the Energy and Environment paper at http://journals.sagepub.com
        and an earlier accessible blog version at http://climatesense-norpag….”

        ” the most straightforward hypothesis is that the cooling trends from 2003 forward will simply be a mirror image of the recent rising trends”

        Trend discussions. Where are the “global cooling” predictions?
        Dr. Akasofu references a cycle.
        Dr. Norman Page references cycles.

        “The cyclic trends are projected forward and predict a probable general temperature decline in the coming decades and centuries. Estimates of the timing and amplitude of the coming cooling are made. If the real climate outcomes follow a trend which approaches the near term forecasts of this working hypothesis”

        Cycle projections. “predict a probable general temperature decline”; that is an extremely nebulous “prediction”. A prediction that is ready to accept cycle observations over cycle projections.

        Compare and contrast that to any of the IPCC “predictions”!

        Cycle trends; i.e. the trend that has existed since the LIA.
        How is that a “prediction”, Nick?

        Compare and contrast that the “Climate Science Special Report” that is full of droughts, floods, sea level increases, wildfires, extreme storms, ocean acidification, polar melt downs and all manner of temperature disasters

        Nick’s other link to “global cooling claims” is a comment by:

        “StormSignal (@StormSignalSA) November 2, 2017 at 10:40 am
        Whilst in no way wishing to detract from this young man’s great paper it echoes or adds to the work of Dr. Syun Akasofu, 2009.
        This was inter-alia discussed and his full paper linked at:- https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/09/syun-akasofus-work-provokes-journal-resignation/ back on September 9, 2013″

        Another cycle discussion where someone, StormSignal in this case, references Akasofu’s cycle discussions and papers.

        No “imminent global cooling” discussion.
        No “global cooling” discussions.

        Except where Nick reads hidden messages in Earth’s natural cycle downturns that purportedly “predict” imminent global cooling.

      • “How is that a “prediction”, Nick?”
        The plot I showed is headed:
        “See Fig 12 to see cooling forecast to 2100.”
        And inded, it has a green curve heading downward from 2010 toward 2100. How is that not a prediction?

      • When a plain reference to a patent feature of the data in Figure 1 of this post is called:

        • 1) red herring straw man by 1sky1.
        • 2) fakir 1sky1 makes yet another claim, without references.

        and the specifically dated, concrete expectations of the behavior of periodic [sic] cycles are denied as being “predictions,” the crackpot nature of ATheoK’s assertions becomes certifiable. I’m not wasting any more time on such pitiful blather.

      • “Nick Stokes November 4, 2017 at 1:13 pm

        “How is that a “prediction”, Nick?”

        The plot I showed is headed:
        “See Fig 12 to see cooling forecast to 2100.”
        And inded, it has a green curve heading downward from 2010 toward 2100. How is that not a prediction?”

        So, in a Dr. Page comment where he posts support for natural cycles discussed in a third hand “Informative Interview with István Markó” article; that included Dr. Page graph with a “cooling” title is now proof that WUWT discussed “imminent global cooling predictions”?

        That is truly twisted reasoning. Also known as utter BS.

        The same logic assigns responsibility to Nick Stokes for all claims and comments in discussions where Nick Stokes participated.

      • “1sky1 November 4, 2017 at 3:45 pm

        When a plain reference to a patent feature of the data in Figure 1 of this post is called:”

        No reference was ever made by 1sky1 to “Figure 1”.

        “1sky1 November 4, 2017 at 3:45 pm

        and the specifically dated, concrete expectations of the behavior of periodic [sic] cycles are denied as being “predictions,” the crackpot nature of ATheoK’s assertions becomes certifiable. I’m not wasting any more time on such pitiful blather.”

        1sky1 still has never listed/referenced/posted/commented/graphed or otherwise provided anything regarding “imminent global cooling prediction”.
        Which makes 1sky1’s latest egocentric narcissist pitiful blather claim pure falsehood.

        And more ad hominems by the trollop 1sky1.

    • Ad-hominem-laced mockery by those who bring no science, but only animus to the discussion is the cheapest form of criticism. It hardly conceals an utter lack of comprehension of the vital role of spectral analysis in studying and specifying the characteristics of dynamical systems (see, e.g., bhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1474667017605949)

      The extremely wide range of spectral structures of the output of such real-world systems is what distinguishes the high predictability of, say, the narrow-band ~60-yr cycle evident in GAST and AMO series from the virtual unpredictability of wide-band stock-price variations using Wiener’s seminal mathematical theory.

      Alas, many of the greatest successes of Wiener prediction are buried in decades-old classified technical reports, not to be found in open academic literature that concerns itself more with theoretical noise models than with often surprisingly-structured components found in real-world data. The recognition of Wiener’s widely-applicable developments as one of the great achievements of 20-th century science is based upon such sterling practical success. Only those who never mastered his methods dismiss them brazenly.

    • Moderator:

      For some strange reason, my last comment, posted repeatedly as a reply to my own of Nov. 2 at 2:05 pm, appears not there, but as a reply to ATheoK’s later comment at 5:05 pm. Please correct this misplacement.

      • Moderator:

        Since my astigmatic eyes seem to have deceived me on comment alignment, please place a single copy of my out-of-place duplicated comment just above ATheoK’s at 5:05pm on Nov.2, as a reply to cephus0 on Nov.6 at 3:49pm and eliminate both duplicates

  5. So if it’s too cold in the plains and valleys, we should climb Pike’s Peak (about 14,000 ft altitude) and it will be warm up there?

      • The only month I haven’t been able to ski fresh powder within 250 miles of San Jose, CA has been August, although I’ve been able to ski at least once every August this century (and all the other months as well).

    • Steve, why not just walk northwards.

      Roughly average temperature at tropics 20C, at north pole ~ -35C … about 55C between, 90Deg of latitude, thus 0.6C per degree of Lat. (which is about 69 miles), so looking at the graph above, 1997 to 2017 looks about 0.2 C rise. So to compensate you’ll have to rush polewards at a rate of about 23 miles in 20 years, about 1 mile a year. (0.000114155 miles per hour, or about half a mm every 10 seconds).

      • Jay, luv it! People experience more climate change when they buy a new house than if they were to stay put for a whole life time. (or, for that matter, just by living through the four seasons) Is it any wonder that agw has gotten so little traction among the masses?

      • I shall plan to move the summerhouse to the TOP of the garden next summer, so that will compensate for the first week of July then, after that I will have to speak to my neighbor.

  6. Apparently boosted by warmer than normal water in the equatorial eastern Pacific Ocean that peaked in June and July, global average temperatures in the atmosphere rose to record levels in October…

    If simple “warmer than normal” waters in the equatorial eastern Pacific Ocean are now deemed sufficient to create new global average temperature records in the atmosphere, what should we expect to happen once the next El Nino arrives?

    • Just part of the story. We’ve still not had a real La Nina to start pushing warm water into the PWP. There’s a reason the equatorial undercurrent is now quite cool. It will be driving a La Nina eventually.

  7. Such analysis, such analysis by UAH. If two records diverge, the lower one must be correct and the higher one not. Tsk tsk.

    Or, we can just say what we have said all along. The LT and the ground are two different places…

    • RS, just a few short years ago it was UAH that was showing warmer temperatures than RSS. Spencer and Christy were very adamant and vocal that RSS was running too cool. (your trollish accusations of bias are completely unfounded, so knock it off)…

      • “RS, just a few short years ago it was UAH that was showing warmer temperatures than RSS. Spencer and Christy were very adamant and vocal that RSS was running too cool.”

        At which point UAH was completely ignored when calculating the Great Pause in favor of RSS. Only when the new version 6 came out, agreeing more with RSS did people here start admitting UAH back into the fold.

        Then RSS brought out a new version agreeing that the old was running too cool, and were greeted with cries that their data was fake.

      • Well, and let’s not forget Bob Tisdale with his variable 5 to 6 year smoothing to best show the pause. Haven’t heard much from him lately. Anthony W, you must know what he is up to these days. On a well deserved sabbatical?

        [He got tired of dealing with cowards like yourself that shoot from the shadows – Anthony]

      • RSS isn’t even 100% satellite data any longer. It is basically worthless as their approach is nonsense. I would defund them in a heartbeat. Now, if they want to get back to real science then keep them around. Otherwise, save the money.

    • And you don’t simply do the opposite? Oh and “adjust” the data as well?

      Skepticism is skepticism. It means refusing to believe until proof is available. You seem to think skeptics are trying to prove something: we are not. We are not on different sides as you imply, we don’t have a side.

  8. Why does this even matter? Based on its kinetic temperature, i.e. the temperature per molecules in translational motion, the lower troposphere doesn’t warm the surface, the lower troposphere is warmed by the surface. I suspect a lack of accuracy in determining the lower troposphere temperatures which has more uncertainty than surface temperatures when both are measured by satellites. Besides, we’re only talking about a small fractions of a degree anyway …

      • Small fraction of a degree anomalies.

        Considering the 3-4C difference in the global temperature between January and July, a 2-3% difference in the absolute temperature results in a 0.1C anomaly. My point is that it doesn’t take much error for anomalies to arise. Errors are most likely around April and October when the absolute temperature is changing most rapidly.

  9. There could be several reasons formthe divergence. The simplest is that the divergence is still within the error bars, so statistically meaningless. A similar SLR divergence starting ~2007 triggered tow completely absurd ‘explanation’ papers dissected in essay PseudoPrecision. Lets wait and see for another few months before concluding theremis anything needing explanation.

      • Nick,
        It was absolutely not the warmest month since May. The warmest month of the year is always the warmest month in the N hemisphere which is always July. The coldest month of the year is always January which is about 4C colder than July. The problem is that you fail to see the 4C p-p variability in the average temperature because the monthly averages that anomalies are calculated relative to absorb this variability. This also prevents you from seeing how fast the climate system responds to change.

        BTW, you never answered my question in the red/blue thread. I guess it’s because you’re afraid of the answer which falsifies everything you believe in.

      • “It was absolutely not the warmest month since May.”
        OK warmest anomaly. I’m using ‘temperature’ in the same sense as my quote from the article.

        I don’t see that did address a question to me there (red/blue). But I generally try to stick to thread topic.

      • OK Nick, I will state the question again, which was on topic in the red/blue thread in response to your assertion that there is nothing wrong with the physics that the red/blue teams will need to uncover. This is what is wrong with the physics.

        The nominal sensitivity is claimed to be 0.8C per W/m^2 corresponding to an increase in surface emissions of about 4.3 W/m^2 between an average of 287.5K (387.4 W/m^2) and 288.3K (391.7 W/m^2).

        The surface must receive energy equal to its emissions.otherwise it will cool. 1 W/m^2 of the 4.3 W/m^2 comes from the forcing. For 100% positive feedback, COE limits the feedback power from 1 W/m^2 to only 1 W/m^2. Including the maximum possible feedback, only 2 W/m^2 of the 4.3 W/m^2 required is accounted for.

        Where are the other 2.3 W/m^2 coming from?

        If you think this extra power is also from feedback, what laws of physics allows you to violate COE?

      • Nick,
        Another piece of physics for you is that in LTE, the planet receives 240 W/m^2 of accumulated forcing from the Sun and the surface emits about 385 W/m^2 at its average temperature of about 287.5K. This represents 1.6 W/m^2 of surface emissions per W/m^2 of forcing. 1 W/m^2 of the incremental emissions is replaced by the forcing and the remaining 0.6 W/m^2 is replaced by the feedback.

        Can you see how the planet obeys the laws of physics and that the total feedback is well within the limits prescribed by COE?

        Each average W/m^2 of incident power must also contribute equally to the ultimate average surface emissions and its consequential temperature. There’s just no possible way to support the 3.3 W/m^2 of feedback from the next W/m^2 that’s required to support the IPCC’s absurdly high sensitivity.

        I get that you, and many on your side, have a hard time accepting how wrong so many ostensibly intelligent scientists could be about something so important. To be fair, if the sensitivity was as high as claimed, much of what those on your side say could be valid so only the small subset of scientists who established the widely assumed bogus sensitivity are at fault.

        The simple fact is that the IPCC sensitivity has NEVER been subject to any kind of rigorous peer review. It’s limited support comes from heresay, fudging and arm twisting. I’ve not found a single paper that can support a high sensitivity with the laws of physics, nor is one referenced in any IPCC report.

        In the very first AR the sensitivity was presumed to be large enough to justify the formation of the IPCC. Hansen and Schlesinger’s erroneous application of Bode’s LINEAR feedback analysis to the climate provided the theoretical plausibility for a sensitivity as high as the IPCC required. They will never fix this on their own because to do so precludes their reason to exist and that what self serving bureaucracies like the IPCC are best at is self preservation, regardless of truth.

      • co2,
        It was Griff you addressed those questions on the RED thread, not me. I don’t really follow the surface heat balance arithmetic, but it doesn’t involve feedback as such. COE at the surface comes simply from balancing upflux and down, as per the Trenberth diagram. The main balancing comes from DWLWIR from GHGs and clouds in the atmosphere. That’s all COE can resolve. You can ask how the heat flow works that supplies that DWLWIR, but again that is more radiative physics than feedback. In your elec terms, you’re applying Kirchhoff’s junction rule at the surface, but that won’t tell you the loop gain.

        Again your second question isn’t really about feedback at all. The surface emits more than the solar flux. That just reflects the effect of DWLWIR. Ii does balance at the surface. Solar+DWLWIR=upward radiative+evep/convection.

      • Nick,

        Sorry for conflating you with and Griff. But then again, conflation of unrelated concepts is the bread and butter of consensus climate science …

        “The surface emits more than the solar flux”.

        The ONLY thing that matters relative the planets radiative balance are photons, which originate as the BB radiation emitted by the surface consequential to its temperature and may be absorbed and re-emitted by both clouds and GHG’s.

        Solar flux is the only source of new energy arriving at the surface. Energy recycled to the surface by GHG’s and clouds is not new energy, but a delayed version of prior surface emissions which ultimately originated from energy arriving from the Sun in the past. The sum of new solar and recycled energy is what the surface receives and is equal to what it emits, where a fraction of those emissions are themselves recycled back to the surface. This is just so simple and obvious it’s hard to comprehend how consensus climate science went down such a broken path. But nonetheless, there’s a reason which is incompetence by Trenberth relative to quantifying the radiative balance and Hansen/Schlesinger regarding the misapplication of Bode’s linear feedback amplifier analysis. At least I hope it’s incompetence as any other explanation is far more harmful to science than the incompetence of a few scientists.

        Trenberth screwed the pooch by arbitrarily conflating the energy transported by photons with the energy transported by matter and this has led to a massive amount of confusion on both sides as it seems plausible to suggest that non radiant energy effects the balance. However; only the energy transported by photons matters for the radiative balance as only EM energy can enter and leave the planet (rockets and meteorites notwithstanding). This is why it’s often referred to as the RADIATIVE balance.

        The only way for something like latent heat to contribute to the balance is by radiation from a water droplet that a molecule of water vapor condensed upon releasing it’s latent heat. However; we are only considering the LTE balance where by definition, all matter, including the water in clouds, is emitting the same amount of energy as it’s absorbing. Moreover; the source of the photons leaving the planet is irrelevant, only what the ultimate balance must be matters and what it must be is completely determined by COE and the SB Law. There are no other law of physics which override the requirements of these laws.

        Another reason latent heat and thermals don’t matter is that neither has any effect on the surface temperature beyond the effect they are already having on the average surface temperature and its consequential emissions. I’m surprised Trenberth didn’t get this, as his political ideology embraces zero sum economics and this is the basically same thing.

        He needed to make ‘back radiation’ seem large in order to make the GHG effect seem more important than it really is. He lumped in the energy returned to the surface by matter (rain, wind, circulation currents, etc.) and called it ‘back radiation’ when this return of energy has nothing to do with photons. He also conflates the warming from GHG’s with the warming by clouds, which is actually a larger contributor to surface warmth and again seems to be there to make the GHG effect seem larger than it is.

        Furthermore, the data and physics unambiguously supports my position and the physics and data carries far more weight than an incompetent scientist with a vested interest in a specific outcome claim.

  10. I’m not buying it. Has there EVER been 4 consecutive months of warming in this dataset? A mildly above average equatorial Pacific led to a four month increase of over 0.4 degrees that has only ever been seen during El Nino and is even more sustained than the two major El Ninos in the data? Seems implausible.

  11. Ehm…. did perhaps something suck up a lot of energy from the surface and pump it into higher altitudes and latitudes?? Something like a few hurricanes.

    • In the Atlantic, yes. But all the other basins are below average as is the entire year so far. ACE is 85%of average. So, I doubt that has much of an influence.

      I thought it might be a factor too which is why I looked at the data.

      • On the other hand, hurricanes take a lot of heat from the oceans surface and transport it to space.
        A decrease in ACE could also mean more retained heat.

  12. I keep hearing about the latest 15 years being the ‘warmest EVAH’, but they are talking about less than a couple of 100ths of a degree per year. There is no way we have the ability to accurately measure such an infinitesimal change in global annual average temperature, even if such a concept were meaningful.

    Add to that the proven and obvious fact of the urban heat Island effect and local climate change due to deforestation and other changes to land use, and CO2 definitely gets the case against it thrown out of any reasonable and sensible court.

    My only confusion arises because so few intelligent people are willing and able to consider this point of view.

    • Jerome, I guess it means those on the CAGW bandwagon are not very intelligent, & those who believe them are even less so.

    • In all other scientific disciplines, numerical data such as temperatures are always presented with error bars. I’ve never seen this in climatology. Strange.

    • Don’t forget that humidity is completely disregarded as a component of total atmospheric heat content in all these readings. As science, it is laughable crap. Endless funded papers all carefully avoiding the most important pieces of a non-puzzle.

  13. The turnaround in difference between surface and troposphere is remarkable. Here is another plot showing a few indices transformed to have common anomaly base 1981-2010. It doesn’t include October. Dark blue is RSS TLT V4, light blue is UAH. RSS had been tracking the surface measures well; UAH had been below, indicating its favored status here as a pause measure. But now RSS is pulling right away, and UAH has also switched.

    I am a bit sceptical of Roy’s comparison with CFS V2 back to 1997. Reanalyses are fine for forecast periods, because they assimilate a great variety of data. But for that reason, it is hard to make them homogeneous. The mix of data varies a lot over twenty years. It isn’t really intended for that purpose.

    • Anomaly analysis is designed specifically to catch data and processing errors, not to identify trends that are so tenuous they get lost in the noise. Perhaps a satellite was replaced with another and a change in the sensor characteristics was not properly accounted for. It doesn’t take much considering the 4C p-p global response to seasonal change. A 2.5% difference in the absolute value is enough for a 0.1C anomaly to emerge.

    • While we can expect individual months to have rather large differences between surface and tropospheric temperature anomalies (due to the time lag involved in excess surface warming to lead to increased convection and tropospheric heating), some of the differences in the above plot are disturbingly large and persistent.

      Where is the lag between lower trop and surface temps in the chart above? It’s only apparent at the very end. I would think that if a lag exists, it would be apparent across the entire time period?

  14. At home, I follow the NCEP/NCAR reanalysys at ftp://ftp.cdc.noaa.gov/Datasets/ncep.reanalysis.dailyavgs/pressure/ specifically the air.YYYY.nc data where YYY is the specific year. Results for October 2017

    * 1000 mb level (surface) was 0.053 C cooler than 2016

    * 700 mb level (troposphere) for RSS (my adjustment for RSS satellite latitude coverage) was 0.168 C warmer than 2016

    * 700 mb level UAH coverage area was 0.133 warmer than 2016

    Long story short; yes, NCEP/NCAR reanalysys data agrees that surface cooled in October 2017 versus 2016, while 700 mb level warmed up versus a year ago. Make of that what you will.

  15. At least for the anomalies over the St. Lawrence Seaway, and Greenland… there was HUGE precip in October. All he major cities from Toronto downriver had record-breaking rainfall, with 204mm falling in Quebec City, where the average for the month is 3mm. That pattern continued over to Greenland, which had SMB accumulation nearly like last year.

    It looks to me that there was a moisture spiral starting at the latitude of the Tropical Convergence Zone in West Africa, and swirled around the globe, West-to-East uninterruptedly until taking two paths to the Arctic… one over the Gulf of Alaska, and the other via southern California, diagonally across the US, up the St Lawrence and from there a beeline to the Arctic.

    Having seen this for October, I will go back and sample some of the other monthly diagrams and see whether the effect correlates there as well.

  16. I think there is a natural (just white noise) variability of about +/- 0.2C in the climate. This value shows up in all my reconstructions. But, I think we are “outside” that range on the high side now.

    But let’s have a look at what the AMO Index is doing right now.

    0.317 0.311 0.305 0.313 0.353 – Last 5 months ending in Sept 17. For the AMO, these numbers are up there and it has as much influence as the ENSO does (and you don’t believe that until you do regressions on the data).

    https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/correlation/amon.us.long.data

    Maybe this is the reason.

      • Yes, I have trouble seeing any global cooling until the AMO and PDO tag team.

        Mid and upper troposphere are similar.
        Per IPCC CAGW GHG theory, the troposphere must warm 20 percent more then the surface. Thus at most 0.104 degree per decade of surface warming can be linked to GHG. Any surface warming above that must have a non GHG cause.

  17. Apparently boosted by warmer than normal water in the equatorial eastern Pacific Ocean that peaked in June and July

    The equatorial east Pacific is not so hot now.
    All that tropospheric heat is on its way to outer space.

    • Passing through the lower troposphere in Aug, Sep and Oct. Should be well into the upper troposphere soon, if not indeed the stratosphere. To the mesosphere, and beyond!

      The missing heat is hiding in outer space.

      • 3 months?
        6 hours it drops an average of ~18°F every night!

        It might take 3 months to reduce the water vapor pumped into NH. But the air cools in hours.

    • That is going to be a big deal in the next year or so. As I’ve mentioned before we haven’t had a real La Nina to push some of the warm El Nino waters back into the PWP. As a result that energy has been slowly but surely being radiated/evaporated into the atmosphere and then to space.

      This could lead to a 2-3 year La Nina which will drive down the anomalies. However, if it doesn’t then the oceans will continue to cool and that means the 2020’s are going to be quite cool.

      • Indeed, you are pointing at the unseen elephant in the room. The characteristic time of reaction of the Earth to any heat pulse (whether up or down).

        The important things are the heat reservoir, the way they fill and empty. Their heat capacity and heat exchange capacity.
        Atmosphere is just the outside heat reservoir, radiator, with very small heat capacity but the larger heat exchange capacity. So radiates all that has to be radiated in or out in a matter of HOURS (by the end of the day in, by the end of the night out).

        To CO2 and GHG to change climate, they would need to change heat capacity and heat exchange capacity of Earth’s many heat reservoirs. Do they ? No they don’t. Not even for the tiniest of these reservoir (Atmosphere).
        The only sensible effect of CO2 that may be argued, is not because of its GHG properties, it is because of its life nutrient property: it boost the plant heat reservoir, which somewhat (not much) dulls the extremes of climate.

        End of story

      • “To CO2 and GHG to change climate, they would need to change heat capacity and heat exchange capacity of Earth’s many heat reservoirs. Do they ? No ”

        Really?

      • What are the error bars on that chart? Especially considering that back in the 60’s we had only a few dozen sensors that measured water temperatures more than 10 or 20 feet down.
        Finally, converting that chart to temperature, which is how this data was measured indicates a temperature increase of maybe 0.01C, which is an order of magnitude smaller than the resolution of the best probes used and two orders of magnitude lower than many.

        In other words, what you are showing is garbage.

      • “First, most of the ocean has never been within a few miles of a thermometer,

        Most of the atmosphere has also “never been within a few miles of a thermometer” my friend … so I call a straw-man.

        ….”second you confuse cause and effect.”
        No – I was rebutting the “they would need to change heat capacity and heat exchange capacity of Earth’s many heat reservoirs. Do they ? No they don’t.”
        That’s all.
        So what is the “cause” of the rise in OHC? ……
        Given that it’s not the Sun.
        And I’ll take Leif’s reasoning and decades of measurement thank you.

      • Micro6500, ” storage time constants” are not a source of energy so they cannot be the source of ocean heat.

      • The RC time constant cannot charge a cap to 100v. Some type of external power source is required to do that. Tell us micro6500, what is the source of OHC?

      • The Sun, and maybe a tiny bit of heat from the earth.
        But the current solar forcing at the time ocean water gets drawn into the long term conveyor gets preserved until it returns, and aren’t some of those nearly 1,000 years long?

      • Thank you micro6500, it’s the sun, and a smidgen of internal geologic sources. So your claim that the source is “Ocean storage time constants” is obviously wrong.

      • Thank you micro6500, it’s the sun, and a smidgen of internal geologic sources. So your claim that the source is “Ocean storage time constants” is obviously wrong.

        Fair enough. But then you have to admit that the chart I was addressing http://www.realclimate.org/images//heat_content2000m.png Is either fake OHC, or the same stored Solar that I was referring to, remember Leif will convince me it can’t be modern solar, therefore it has to be stored solar that’s in the Oceans, or it isn’t there.

      • Toneb
        You obviously mistake the bottle ant its content. Heat content of ocean obviously change, but what about it’s 1) heat capacity, and how does GHG affect it?
        1) it doesn’t change much
        2) GHG do not affect it anyway.

  18. So, the average global outside air in October has warmed nearly 1 °C during my lifetime? That’s great. Taking into consideration the inhomogeneity of atmosphere, which altitude should is move to benefit from it?

    After second thought, never mind. Anything below -10 °C is pure torture.

  19. This should come as no surprise. Currently Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn are on the opposite side of the Sun to the Earth. Their gravitational attraction has pulled the Earth closer to the Sun than usual at 0.992 astronomical units. The closer you are to the fire the hotter it feels. This is from Wolfram Alpha which gives the least distance is 0.983 au and the greatest is 1.017 au.
    The Earth’s temperature and hence its climate is controlled by the relative positions of the planets and the Moon. As I have stated here before, it has nothing to do with atmospheric CO2 as there is a statistically significant probability that the correlation between CO2 concentration and satellite temperature is zero. However there is a significant probability of a positive correlation between the temperature and the rate of change of CO2 concentration implying that the temperature controls the rate of change of the CO2 concentration.
    The power spectrum of the satellite temperature has its most prominent maximum at 42 months being the synodic period of the Sun, Earth, Moon whereby they repeat the identical configuration every 42 months. It was well known to the Israelites 2,500 years ago being mentioned in the Old Testament in the Book of Daniel and the Book of Redemption.
    The second most prominent maximum is at the synodic period of Venus at 19 months.

      • Apologies Gabro, it should have been the Book of Revelation see, for example
        http://endtimepilgrim.org/1260days.htm
        The point I am trying to make is that the 42 month cycle was known long ago yet today this dominant temperature cycle appears to be forgotten in favour of the CO2 – Climate religion.

    • ” there is a statistically significant probability that the correlation between………..”

      Correlation is not a matter of “probability”

      You are using words that you do not have any comprehension of.

      • Your point seems valid. It seems reasonable to presume TSI standard stable internally within a couple of months.

        But, although you didn’t do so above, TSI is regrettably often presented as an external CACA validating standard.

        CACA world is ruled by fractions of a degree and parts per million, sweeping measurands, unsubstantiated number of significant figures of unverifiable measurements taken from inhomogeneous systems at celestial scale. That’s a world where, indeed, the alignment of solar system planets may be relevant and even the old testament records a source. Also a place void of scientists with integrity. Not a firm soil for an external TSI standard in my opinion.

        One way for LASP/CU to maintain their TSI charts on the solid ground is to include a definitions/disclaimer related to their suitable use.

    • The discussion above seems to have failed to recognise that the 42 month synodic period of the Sun, Earth, Moon configuration is also the approximate period of the El Nino Oscillation. As it causes the most prominent maximum in the power spectrum of the satellite temperature and, to add, that of the annual rate of change of CO2 concentration, it is most likely the driving force behind El Nino. As the satellite lower troposphere temperature (UAH) is only provided on a monthly basis and is less than 39 years in length it is not sufficient to define the very short term or long term cycles.
      This is partly resolved by using the annual rate of change from the weekly CO2 concentration data for Mauna Loa as a proxy for the temperature. Fourier analysis of the proxy gives a clear maximum at 29 days, the synodic period of the Moon. This means that each new moon causes scattering of the Sun’s radiation and thus reduces the atmospheric temperature. Each full moon means that the Moon is on the opposite side of the Earth from the Sun allowing it to receive the maximum radiation and thus cause a local maximum in the atmospheric temperature.
      That is, the passage of the Moon, Venus and probably Mercury between the Sun and the Earth modulate the radiation reaching the Earth and thus are a factor in climate change, something that does not seem to feature in climate simulation models.

  20. I’m really lazy, but what is the probability out of 39 years, if you exclude el Nino years, that this year would be the warmest just by chance?

      • 0.03 or 3%, not 0.03%
        IF every year temperature is independent from previous’. Which they are not.

    • You need a model to answer that, because it depends on previous years level, and the way it affect current year.
      I would try something like t(n+1)=average[ t(n-5) to t(n)] +Tn+R where R is pure random Gaussian noise , T is the trend coefficient (may be zero, or up to +0.05 according to IPCC, or 0.015 as it was in recent decade…).
      Since recent decade is, so they say, the Warmest Eva’ ™, probability that this year would be the warmest just by chance, even with zero trend, can be as high as 50%.
      A 15% seems fair, but that’s just wild guess.

      • This is climate science! Please refrain from wild guesses unless they are fully funded and peer reviewed!

  21. this isn’t surprising me with no la nina the el nino warm waters only gradually get radiated out…. this is one of the spikes

  22. I was very surprised to see the October UAH temp anomaly spike to 0.63C.

    Even with the ENSO temp lag, I was confident the UAH anomaly would have been well below 0.2C by now, but, alas…

    Analyzing all the Pacific equatorial SSTs and deep-water cooling, a 2018 La Niña event is imminent, and UAH LLTs will eventually have to reflect this reality…

    Patience is a virtue I often find lacking…

  23. MSJ: Maybe if the climate modelers had the resources of Microsoft and applied the equivalent level of QA and testing their models would be better. Maybe some knows which of the 50 million lines of code in Windows 10 causes my computer to freeze several times a week.

    CMS: When I first started following the climate thing (1990s), it was all about 2 C above current levels. So who got to decide that the average global temperature in 1850 was ideal? And, since there was no credible instrumental measurement of the pre-industrial global temperature, just what temperature is 1.5 C above that? IMHO it’s all much ado about nothing.

      • Yea, I’m pretty old and stopped doing programming when Fortran, Basic and C+ became obsolete. I was being paid too much to spend time writing code anyway. I’ve used many computer models including complex FEA packages for thermal and structural analysis and have enough experience to know the importance of testing and validation. I see a big difference between operating system software and programming for number crunching data where a misplaced parenthesis or sign error may give reasonable looking, but wrong results and an error in an operating system that will cause a crash or erratic behavior.

        In structural analysis you can design a truss, run a model that calculates stresses and deflection, then build it and run tests to validate the model – typically the agreement is within a few percent. With climate models no such validation seems to be possible.

      • As someone who has spent his life writing code I can assure you that the ignorant one is, as usual, Johnson.

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

    I’m wondering how much tampering might be going on with the data BEFORE it is provided by NOAA & NASA?

    I wonder because RSS came ‘into line’ (If I am reading the literature correctly) with the AGW expectations by calibrating against climate models instead of anything real world.

    UAH on the other hand (again with the proviso above) uses other satellites to calibrate.

    I’m wondering what the chances are that the Church of AGW is forcing UAH to comply with the climatology models by changing data BEFORE they hand it over. e.g. how does this post info compare to the radiosonde data?

  25. What concerns me about these global temperatures is that they do not reflect reality, last winter when the whole of the east of Europe and Asia were frozen and covered in snow these temperatures were very high for the winter months in the northern hemisphere even these areas must represent a huge proportion of the Northern Hemisphere. I question the assumption that if we went into a glacial period of this ice age that global temperatures would reflect this change, they might remain high or even rise the only real things here are proxies and level of ice and snow coverage.

  26. I note also the arctic sea ice re-freeze is slow… it is now at about 3rd lowest level for this time of year.

    • Griff will grab onto any straw, not matter how irrelevant.
      Considering how little ice melted this summer, it’s not surprising that the re-freeze is slow.
      Ice that didn’t melt doesn’t need to re-freeze.

    • PS: Third lowest of the last 7 years.
      Griff as always, cherry picks the time frame that puts his religion in the best light.

    • Comrade Griff! Ice is ice! thickness, Extent, temperature…it is all irrelevant! Only thing that matters is how high it comes up on running dog Capitalist Pigs!

    • Griff,as usual you made a misleading claim,

      Here is what it really is,from Ron Clutz’s blog:

      https://rclutz.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/octsiiv3andmasiefinal.png?w=1000&h=595

      October Arctic Ice is Back

      “Given the fluctuations in daily sea ice measurements, climatology typically relies on monthly averages. October daily extents are now fully reported and the 2017 October monthly results can be compared with years of the previous decade. MASIE showed 2017 reached 6.8M km2, exceeding the 6.6M October 10 year average. SII was close behind at 6.7M for the month. The 11 year linear trend is more upward for MASIE, mainly due to early years, especially 2007 and 2008 reported higher in SII. In either case, one can easily see the Arctic ice extents have not declined; MASIE shows 2017 higher than 2016 by 800k km2, and more than 2007 by 1M km2.”

      https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2017/11/01/october-arctic-ice-is-back/

    • “it is now at about 3rd lowest level for this time of year.”

      Since 2011…

      Yeah, right, we’re all doomed!

      Now go and apologise to you-know-who for maliciously lying about her scientific credentisls.

  27. Someone recently pointed to an article by a Norwegian chap, aiming to create a mental picture of the GHGE. (An attempt to bring warmists and skeptics closer)
    The article itself https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-016-1732-y points to a pdf.

    It is quite heavy going but talks about something called the Bulk Emission Layer, aka the Z254K isotherm. Seemingly ‘a place in the atmosphere’ from where the Earth does all its outgoing radiation.

    Appears very easy to visualise and indeed measure – just float a thermometer, via balloon or airplane, up into the sky and note the height at which it records a temperature of 254 Kelvin.
    254K being the Stefan – Planck temperature at which a surface would radiate energy out at an equal rate to what the sun radiates in. Is that 240 or 340 Watts per sq metre? No matter. No matter at all.
    Intrepid scientists have been recording the height of Z254K for some little while – it averages about 7,200 metres up (In fact closer to chimney-pot height for Canadia but for the rest of us, about where the stratosphere starts, so the radiation bit makes sense?)

    Now ‘The Problem’, in many senses. This thing is recorded as rising.
    At 23 metres per decade, plus/minus 3 metres.

    Global warming theory says that that is exactly to be expected, Warmer Earth > Warmer atmosphere and if nothing else, Gas Laws say the atmosphere will expand. Fine.
    But, let’s regard the isotherm as a surface which is always (and by definition) radiating the same number (x) of Watts per square metre.
    By gaining altitude, it has increased in area.
    I get 23 metres of extra height gives it 3,500 million extra square metres of area – an extra 3,500,000,000 multiplied by x Watts/sqm of extra energy leaving Earth than a decade ago. And each preceding decade since whenever the Greenhouse Gas Effect became an issue (Is that 1850 or 1880).
    Again and roughly, the expansion of the isotherm area is losing a Hiroshima Bomb’s worth of grunt every 68 seconds. Per decade.
    But that matters Not One Jot – all that’s important is that given a constant input from Old El Sol, more energy is leaving than was any number of decades ago. If GHGs have been a problem since 1850, that is 17 decades, hence Earth is now losing a Hiroshima bomb every 4 seconds compared to the Start Value of one extra bomb per 68 seconds in 1850.
    Earth is thus losing energy, due supposedly to the GHGE but somehow getting hotter.
    How?
    Simple. The incoming energy is heating surface/substance with lower specific heat capacity than it did previously and THAT is very simple to do. All you do is remove water from whatever that surface or substance is.
    Farmers do it every spring-time using things called ploughs and THE major consideration within their thinking is to create a friable, easily worked and WARM seedbed. I know that, been there, dome that, got the T-shirt (and scars)

    So, now what?

    • I forgot. Other people create dry and easily warmed patches of dirt.
      Such people are in fact ‘most everyone who is not A Farmer and are identified by the fact that they live in places called ‘cities’.
      And why are cities warm – because they are very dry and also 3 dimensional structures.
      In the morning, sun shines perpendicular to vertical structures and thus has max heating effect. At noon it shines straight down. Max heating effect again.
      Hence a large part of the UHI – cities work (in reverse) just as the heat sink does in the back of you audio amplifier, computer or TV
      The rest of the UHI comes from them being perishly dry, hence very easy to heat.

      Water must rank as THE most appallingly misunderstood substance in the entire universe

      • Ooh look! Here are 6 big cities, over there are 6 big farms. I have a box of thermometers. Off you go and do the PROPER EXPERIMENT(S)/OBSERVATION(S) to quantify UHI effect.

        Simples.

        And Cheap, and Easy,

        AND NOT DONE YET.

        We could virtually crowd fund it ourselves.

      • Peta, at last someone who is asking the right sort questions.

        This is a question for NIck Stokes.

        If we had had Satellite measurements and ground measurements equivelent to today during the Onset of the Last Ice Age and the mini LIA what do you think they would have shown?
        We know the cooling couldn’t have been caused by changes in the Sun, because we are told the variation in TSI is too small to have caused the current changes.
        So as the Earth cooled would you expect to see the Surface Warmer or Colder than normal compared to the Troposphere normal during that process?

      • A C Osborn November 3, 2017 at 3:33 am

        Easy. They would have shown that was Jew’s fault.
        We just changed scapegoat (not so much actually)

    • You take the incoming W/m2 from the sun. You logically argue that for the earth to not melt or freeze (eventually) the radiation OUT must be the same. You use S-B to calculate the temperature at which a black body would radiate said figure. You take this numerical temperature and wander up and down the atmospheric lapse rate till you find a physical chunk of wispy gas with the same figure.

      WooHoo!

      So THIS is where ALL the radiation comes from.

      If ANYONE cannot spot the error please get your coat and leave RIGHT NOW.

      No, I am being a bit harsh really, I’ll give you all a couple of days to properly research what exactly the ERL is and where it came from. You can do your own homework and excercise those little cells, mon amis.

      If anyone wants to argue after 2 days I reserve the right to call them by the appropriate name.

    • peta, i asked a similar question regarding an increase in radiation area due to the expansion of the atmosphere. i believe i was told at the time it was insignificant.

    • will try again, yet another disappearing comment.
      peta, some time ago i asked a similar question regarding the increased area of radiation due to an expanding atmosphere. i believe i was told it was insignificant at the time. i have not been able to find any literature on this issue.

      • as if by magic the disappearing comment appears when i re post . did someone mention glitches in code above !

  28. Here we have masses of data and final conclusions (anomalies) with figures quoted to 1/100th of a degree.
    I don’t know much about the techniques of microwave scanning of atmospheres from satellites but I would like to hear about their initial (pre-launch) calibration, resolution and accuracy and their subsequent (if any) in orbit calibration techniques and general MU (measurement uncertainty).

    If final conclusions are given to the 1/100th of a degree then clearly these must be extremely accurate and sensitive instruments. They must have cost a lot to make them that good. One wonders why the specification was so high (I am guessing it must be to 1/1000th of a degree or something similar) when the thermometers on earth itself are typically about +/- 1 degree (or more) when all MU, calibration and resolution errors are considered.

    • Those values to 1/100ths of a degree do not reflect the accuracy of the measuring equipment, they are an artifact of the Mathematical processing.
      Anybody that believes we can measure the average temperature of the atmosphere to 100ths of a degree is crazy, just consider the way temperatures vary within a distance of 1 mile or how quickly they change due to winds, clouds and pressure.

      • They are an artifact of incompetence and a failure to understand what accuracy, calibration and MU mean in the context of conducting science with integrity. Frankly the Spencer’s and Christy’s of this world who allow this shite to stand in their work are no better than any other scientist in this field who just play games with the truth to preserve their career or kudos. Not enough cojones to stand up as be counted on the side of science with integrity. Unless of course they REALLY are ignorant of how to treat data properly.

        Shame on them. I wouldn’t trust them to feed my cat.

        [?? .mod]

      • See Spencer’s 1993 paper.
        http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0442(1993)006%3C1194%3APLSTMW%3E2.0.CO%3B2

        Calculated Standard Error of Measurement varies with latitude, from about 0.05C in the tropics to 0.2C at high latitudes for every month reported. Errors are shown in global spacial plots in the paper with explanations of the error calculations. Also, references to Spencer’s early 1990s papers explaining the basics.
        See also his list of publications on his home page.

      • bw – but that was several
        satellites ago. spencer should
        address this question but wont.
        but his jan17 post about dec16
        and 16 at large gave a 1-sigma
        deviation for their annual
        avg number
        as 0.05 C

      • A C Osborn commented >> Anybody that believes we can measure the average temperature of the atmosphere to 100ths of a degree is crazy <<

        why?

        (seriously, why?)

  29. The Lower Troposphere is “warm” compared to a baseline, OK, and warm air carries what? I’m curious about absolute humidity or the amount of water vapor in the LT and how it impacts surface temperatures. We get the LT anomaly for October, but I always think “temperature of what?…air?”

      • Cracker, when in the last 1,000 years is there any evidence that once it rained out that it failed to evaporate someplace else a nearly equal amount in average?

      • micro – the evidence is throughout any time
        period you want to cite.

        the atmosphere can only hold so much water
        vapor. more than that (saturation) rains out.
        and that amount is a function
        of temperature. evap and sat are usually
        in equilibrium

        this is basic thermo.

      • the atmosphere can only hold so much water
        vapor. more than that (saturation) rains out.
        and that amount is a function
        of temperature. evap and sat are usually
        in equilibrium
        this is basic thermo.

        How can it be equal planetary wide, when there are 100 and 1,000 year ocean cycles?

        Also you realize this effectively eliminate any water vapor amplification from an increase in Co2, and in fact since the energy released during cooling from water vapor is both temperature controlled, and about 10x the forcing from any change in co2, the added RF from Co2 is just regulated out?
        https://micro6500blog.wordpress.com/2016/12/01/observational-evidence-for-a-nonlinear-night-time-cooling-mechanism/

  30. For Nick Stokes, your comment Nov 3rd 1:09 am

    You said: “COE at the surface comes simply from balancing upflux and down, as per the Trenberth diagram.”

    You appear to have treated radiative flux intensity from different sources as things you can numerically add.
    As Trenberth does. This is scientific nonsense. And as an aside if you want to use an electrical analogy I think you will find VOLTAGE is the thing you need as a substitute for radiative flux intensity.

    Voltage is the potential (hence the name and p.d.) to transfer energy via current. Radiative flux intensity is the potential to transfer energy from something hot to something cold. It represents the Maximum possible. The minimum being of course zero when the two things, source and sink are in thermal equilibrium i.e. at the same temperature.

    It is simple to do experiments at home to actually confirm that radiative flux intensity does not add numerically. You cannot use additional sources at the same temperature to get a sink temperature higher than any source (it’s sort of what we called “bleedin’ obvious” in lectures). IF you could simply mathematically add radiative flux intensity from source 1, source 2 etc it would imply that you could.

    Simple logical argument. Easily confirmed by home experiment.

    Still want to argue Trenberth is scientifically correct? Feel free Nick (this could be very funny, guys).

    • “And as an aside if you want to use an electrical analogy I think you will find VOLTAGE is the thing you need as a substitute for radiative flux intensity.”
      No, temperature is the potential, heat flux, including radiative, is the current. It’s the flow that responds to voltage. Or heat flux intensity, since cross section area behaves like conductance. Ohm’s law – heat flux is proportional to temperature difference.

      And yes, of course Trenberth is scientifically sound. It’s just budgetting.

      • Nick Stokes

        And yes, of course Trenberth is scientifically sound. It’s just budgetting.

        Only if you believe in a “scientifically” flat earth rotating in a perfect circle around a constant sun with an average atmosphere at an average latitude.

      • “And yes, of course Trenberth is scientifically sound. It’s just budgetting.”

        Budgetting…ah, right.

        Remind me never to let you and/or Trenberth anywhere near my financial affairs!

    • Yes Nick, we all know how politicians do “budgets”

      And if you think Trenberth isn’t a wannabe politician, like you, then again, shows your naivity.

  31. ” The Reverend Badger
    November 3, 2017 at 3:03 am

    Ooh look! Here are 6 big cities, over there are 6 big farms. I have a box of thermometers. Off you go and do the PROPER EXPERIMENT(S)/OBSERVATION(S) to quantify UHI effect.

    Simples.

    And Cheap, and Easy,

    AND NOT DONE YET.

    We could virtually crowd fund it ourselves.

    It has been done on here, Anthony and many others have measured the UHI affect many times with various different measurement devices. The Weather people mention it al the time.
    But it’s affect on trends is much harder to measure, funnily enough Dr Spencer had a good go at it some years ago by comparing Temperature Trends with Population Growth.
    What he showed was that the impact happens very early on in the population growth and then the affect slows with subsequent growth.

  32. Science becomes interesting when unexpected results are found. The recent divergence between satellite and surface temperature anomalies is unexpected. It can have several explanations, starting with instrumental error. Radiosonde balloons should be able to say if it is an instrumental error, as the difference is big enough.

    If the divergence is real, then it is more interesting. Not to correct Roy Spencer, but it would indicate the surface is cooling more than the lower troposphere. Lower troposphere temperatures depend more on surface temperatures and less on direct tropospheric solar warming, and the Sun is not precisely very active as of lately.

    If the surface is cooling more than the lower troposphere, the divergence would indicate a negative imbalance in the energy budget, due to more energy leaving the Earth, and the CERES system might be able to detect it in the Outward Long wave Radiation measurement. After looking at the instruments that is where I would be looking at.

    This poses a dilemma to many skeptics. Stick to UAH and assume the Earth is not cooling and farther from a return to the pause, or migrate to HadCRUT and defend the cooling, thus playing into the argument that whoever shows the least warming is the rightest at any time for skeptics.

    • maybe the answer is to remain sceptical of all the data sets javier. far too many adjustments added to the initial mathturbation in all of them to call them “data” imo.

      • i am well aware why some adjustments are made. what i do not agree with are various maths techniques being used to imply temperature where no measurements were taken .

        ocean heat content is a made up number . anyone declaring they know this number is a liar. anyone using this made up number to back up any position that requires people to make changes to their everyday lives should be in jail.

        two examples, i am sure there are many more. i have no trouble with people using made up numbers for experimental reasons, when do so to effect policy change it should be an imprisonable offence.

  33. Not making any claims, but there was an unusual burst of solar activity (flares / wind) on the down slope of solar cycle 24 in this period. Strong auroras.

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

    The State is also a special interest group and many times private.

  35. I doubt we’ll see alarmists attacking the satellite data sets’ accuracy at this point in time – until the numbers are lower than the surface data again ;).

  36. RSS4 TLT for October just came out. After a 3 month rise, the anomaly dropped from 0.843 in September to 0.802 in October. It is the warmest October on record for RSS4. If the present 10 month average is maintained, 2017 would come in second place.

  37. From the UAH chart, nearly all the very slight warming is in the COLDEST regions, coming into winter…

    Fractions of a degree, totally unnoticeable by anything but the most precise thermometer.

    Why is this almost infinitesimal warming SEEN AS ANY SORT OF A PROBLEM ?????

    • Hi Andy – please see the posts referenced below.

      Warming is not the problem – moderate warming is good for both humanity and the environment.

      My question is WHY is there a divergence of a strong long-term correlation of UAH LT temperatures with Pacific Ocean temperatures.

      When atm. temperature diverged in the opposite direction (UAH LT was lower than predicted from ocean temperature) it was due to MAJOR volcanoes such as El Chichon (1982) or Pinatubo (1991+). BUT this time LT temperature is diverging higher than predicted from ocean temperatures, so what is the cause now?

      It is probably just some delay in the cooling after the major El Nino, which will sort itself out in time. Better hypos welcomed.

      Regards, Allan

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/02/while-global-surface-temperature-cools-the-lower-troposphere-has-record-warmest-october/comment-page-1/#comment-2653634

      I agree RWT and not just for October. Examine this plot and see how UAH LT is higher than expected for several months and has diverged from its strong long-term correlation with Pacific Ocean temperatures.

      What is the cause?

      I do expect the close correlation to re-establish itself.

      More info here:
      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/04/cooler-global-temperatures-ahead-indications-are-that-la-nina-is-returning/comment-page-1/#comment-2628573

    • Why is this almost infinitesimal warming SEEN AS ANY SORT OF A PROBLEM ?????

      What your argument is on GW. Is it that there is no warming or that there is warming but it’s not a problem?
      I’m never too sure.

      I have argued on many pro-CAGW sites that there is warming due to additional CO2 (basic Physics tells us this must be the case) but it is unlikely to cause any significant harm. I have held this view for 15 years. It’s one shared by a number of very experienced scientists.

      • WAY more than the current slight warming out of the COLDEST period in 10,000 years.

        The world has been warmer than now MANY times in the past,

        … heck, its been significantly warmer than now for something like 90% of the current inter-glacial.

        The thing that should REALLY worry people is if the NATURAL variability takes the temperature back down to LIA values. That would cause all sorts of food shortage and heating problems.

      • “(basic Physics tells us this must be the case)”

        And there is your error, right there.

        Basic physics allows for basically zero CO2 warming.

        There is no mechanism that allows CO2 to cause warming in a convectively controlled atmosphere.

        It has never been measured. There is NO empirical proof.

        That is why there is absolutely NO CO2 warming signature in the satellite temperature data..

        …only warming from major El Nino events.

      • “(basic Physics tells us this must be the case)”

        And there is your error, right there.

        I haven’t made an error. LW radiation leaves the earth directly from several different layers of the atmosphere (including the surface). It is the method by which the earth remains in (within a narrow range) thermal equilibrium. It receives approx (on average) 240 w/m2 from the sun and emits approx 240 w/m2 to space.

        If MORE energy is received from the sun than is emitted to space – the earth warms
        If LESS energy is received from the sun than is emitted to space – the earth warms

        We know,, from emission spectra, that emission at higher levels of the troposphere is from CO2 molecules in the atmosphere. As GHGs accumulate in the atmosphere, the average altitude at which emission occurs increases. In other words, emission occurs higher in the atmosphere. BUT WE KNOW ….

        HIGHER IS COLDER

        And we know (from Stefan-Boltzmann) that the rate of emission is dependant on temperature (i.e. E is proportional to T^4). Thus, more ghgs will create an energy imbalance between incoming and outgoing energy (i.e. incoming greater than outgoing). This means the surface and lower atmosphere MUST warm.

        Jack Barrett has been studying the chemistry and spectroscopy of small molecules for several decades. His is also a long time opponent of the more extreme positions taken by some climate scientists but he acknowledges that doubling CO2 in the atmosphere is likely to result in warming of around 1.3 deg C. I suggest you read some of the articles on his blog. You may learn something.

      • …only warming from major El Nino events.

        Don’t be silly. ENSO events are cyclical. They can’t affect the the long term (multi-decadal) trends.

      • Simple John.

        Find me one paper that proves empirically that CO2 causes warming of our convectively controlled atmosphere.

        Basic physics tells us that any CO2 absorption in a tiny narrow band will be immediately passed onto the other 99.96% of the atmosphere and become part of the convective transfer of energy..

        Just another conduit for surface cooling.

        Misuse of the S-B forumla is no excuse. The Earth’s surface is nowhere near being a black body.

      • “They can’t affect the long term ”

        They can if you get 3 or 4 large ones in a row from solar forcing.

        Look at the satellite data

        No warming from 1980-1997

        No warming from 2001 – 2015.

        Only warming has come from the two large El Ninos.

        Data, John.. try it some time !!

      • “Thus, more ghgs will create an energy imbalance between incoming and outgoing energy ”

        ROFLMAO..

        No they won’t . Fantasy land stuff !!

      • Andy asks: “Find me one paper that proves empirically that CO2 causes warming…” Andy, don’t you know that nothing is ever PROVEN in science? You can PROVE something in mathematics, but in science a hypothesis or theory is never proven. Science works more like “the best explanation wins.” So far there has been no better explanation for the recent rise in global temps than the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere. Additionally, radiative physics dovetails elegantly with the explanation. If you have a competing theory/hypothesis that can better explain the observed warming, please provide it.

      • @ Rob Bradley, Nov 05, at 01:20 pm. “no better explanation …”
        Please read my entries above at
        Bevan Dockery November 2, 2017 at 5:39 pm
        and
        Bevan Dockery November 5, 2017 at 5:37 am
        together with my previous entry:
        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/16/climate-change-debate-latest-results/
        Almost 40 years of satellite lower troposphere temperature data (UAH) has shown zero correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentration and temperature. The planets and the Moon modulate the incoming Sun’s radiation giving us our climate change. The resulting temperature controls the rate of change of CO2 probably via soil microbes.

      • “Thus, more ghgs will create an energy imbalance between incoming and outgoing energy ”

        ROFLMAO..

        No they won’t . Fantasy land stuff !!

        Er …. yes they will. Try arguing your case with Richard Lindzen or Jack Barrett or even Steve McIntyre (who debunked Mann’s Hockey stick reconstruction). Check out Steve’s comments on his Climate Audit site in 2008

        https://climateaudit.org/2008/01/08/sir-john-houghton-on-the-enhanced-greenhouse-effect/

        Scroll down to the upwelling spectrum plot (Fig 3) and note the CO2 notch. Then read Steve’s comments underneath.

        The large notch or “funnel” in the spectrum is due to “high cold” emissions from tropopause CO2 in the main CO2 band. CO2 emissions (from the perspective of someone in space) are the coldest. (Sometimes you hear people say that there’s just a “little bit” of CO2 and therefore it can’t make any difference: but, obviously, there’s enough CO2 for it to be very prominent in these highly relevant spectra, so this particular argument is a total non-starter as far as I’m concerned. )

        These emission graphs using actual observations are easily modelled with great accuracy using programs such as MODTRAN which model the transfer of energy through the atmosphere.

      • Er …. yes they will.

        No, because all other things are not equal, and water vapor reacts to cooling temps by condensing and dumping huge amounts of IR towards the surface.

        Now you wonder how it dumping a bunch of IR causes co2 warming to disappear.
        What you ignore is how much energy is dumped before co2 went up is more than it has to dump after to restore an equal min T. So now, it just consumes slightly less water vapor to compensate. So the net it nearly the same.

      • Bevan Dockery: “The planets and the Moon modulate the incoming Sun’s radiation giving us our climate change.”
        ..
        1) The only time the Moon modulates incoming solar radiation is during a solar eclipse. They don’t happen very often
        .
        2) Venus and Mercury may transit the sun, but when they do, the effect on solar radiation is minuscule, and transits happen less frequently than a lunar eclipse.
        ..
        3) None of the remaining planets transit the sun because their orbits are further away than the orbit of the Earth.

        4) Check this out for “correlation”

      • Ron Bradley, if you are correct then how do you explain the fact that the autocorrelation function for the satellite lower troposphere Tropics temperature and the Mauna Loa CO2 annual rate of change both show a dominant 42 month cycle as does the amplitude of their Fourier Transform, equivalent to the synodic period of the Sun, Earth, Moon configuration. Furthermore how does the Transform come to show frequency maxima for the synodic periods of Venus and the Moon and, perhaps, Mercury. Is not the 11.86 year orbit period of Jupiter remarkably similar to the cycle of Sun spot activity which, in turn, is reflected in the variation of the Earth’s atmospheric temperature ?

      • for the satellite lower troposphere Tropics temperature and the Mauna Loa CO2 annual rate of change both show a dominant 42 month cycle as does the amplitude of their Fourier Transform, equivalent to the synodic period of the Sun, Earth, Moon configuration. Furthermore how does the Transform come to show frequency maxima for the synodic periods of Venus and the Moon and, perhaps, Mercury. Is not the 11.86 year orbit period of Jupiter remarkably similar to the cycle of Sun spot activity which, in turn, is reflected in the variation of the Earth’s atmospheric temperature ?

        If there is a real correlation, I think it’ll be in part due to the interactions of the magnetic fields between the Sun and planets with dynamos, and there does appear to be hints of patterns as you suggested. Mercury is also involved because it’s a big chunk of iron getting waved around in a magnetic field.
        And Leif has mentioned that the coming solar cycle is based on the residual magnetic field in the sun’s polar region as it’s switches polarity at the end of it’s cycle.
        The 1907 sunspot record has a pulse, very close to the period of mercury.

        It’s a little faster than it’s period, but I think that’s because the other planet(s) have moved during mercury’s orbit.

        Plus, we know the suns field does connect to the earth’s magnet field when it’s polarity is the right way, and has to buck during the next solar cycle. These force are small compared to other energies in the planetary system, but are still very large, so it’s not impossible they have some sort of an effect.

      • JohnFinn – so what increase in
        avg global
        surface temp would
        cause “significant harm?”

        I missed this – but just in case cracker is still following the blog:

        It’s not a case necessarily of “significant harm”. History is littered with weather (or climate) events that have caused massive devastation. 25% of Europe’s population was wiped out in the early 14th century due to “climate change”. Remember that in the UK and across much of Europe cold causes far more deaths than heat.

        So we’re really interested in the point at which negative effects significantly out-number the beneficial effects and that would be when temperatures are at least 2 degrees C above pre-industrial levels.

      • Thank you micro6500 for adding another tile to the jigsaw puzzle.

        My thought has been to apply wavelet analysis to the data in the hope of getting better definition of the periods involved. There are a number of local maxima on the Fourier Transform amplitudes that I have not associated with the interaction between planetary orbits due to a lack of knowledge in that field.

      • I would love to see a electromagnetic simulation of the active dynamos, and mercury to see how the magnetic fields merge over 100 years.
        They should be very weak at those distances, but they are very strong fields, and earth and sun do connect. So………

  38. micro6500 November 5, 2017 at 6:33 pm

    Have you written a paper on this (with data) – if so I’d like to read it – but I suggest, from memory, the data doesn’t support you. If you haven’t done a paper then take the issue up with Richard Lindzen or Jack Barrett because I haven’t the time to follow up every “theory” I read on a blog. Like. I say, I will look at any paper which supports your assertion but I’m not prepared to do the research myself.

    BUT I will make this comment: In order to ‘cool’ (lose heat) the climate system, as a whole, must radiate energy to space. There is no other way. Anything that impedes the flow of outgoing energy (e.g. increased ghgs) will resulting the climate system gaining energy and ,over time, warming. Convection, latent heat etc simply redistribute energy (heat).

Comments are closed.