From Dr. Roy Spencer:
UAH Global Temperature Update for January, 2018: +0.26 deg. C
Coolest tropics since June, 2012 at -0.12 deg. C.
The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for January, 2018 was +0.26 deg. C, down from the December, 2017 value of +0.41 deg. C:
The global, hemispheric, and tropical LT anomalies from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 13 months are:
YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPICS
2017 01 +0.33 +0.31 +0.34 +0.10
2017 02 +0.38 +0.57 +0.20 +0.08
2017 03 +0.23 +0.36 +0.09 +0.06
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 +0.42 +0.46
2017 09 +0.54 +0.51 +0.57 +0.54
2017 10 +0.63 +0.66 +0.59 +0.47
2017 11 +0.36 +0.33 +0.38 +0.26
2017 12 +0.41 +0.50 +0.33 +0.26
2018 01 +0.26 +0.46 +0.06 -0.12
Note that La Nina cooling in the tropics has finally penetrated the troposphere, with a -0.12 deg. C departure from average. The last time the tropics were cooler than this was June, 2012 (-0.15 deg. C). Out of the 470 month satellite record, the 0.38 deg. C one-month drop in January tropical temperatures was tied for the 3rd largest, beaten only by October 1991 (0.51 deg. C drop) and August, 2014 (0.41 deg. C drop).
The last time the Southern Hemisphere was this cool (+0.06 deg. C) was July, 2015 (+0.04 deg. C).
The linear temperature trend of the global average lower tropospheric temperature anomalies from January 1979 through January 2018 remains at +0.13 C/decade.
The UAH LT global anomaly image for January, 2018 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
This thread will be updated when UAH issues their official press release.
UPDATE:
Global Temperature Report: January 2018 Temperatures fall as La Niña’s effects are felt
Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.13 C per decade
January temperatures (preliminary)
Global composite temp.: +0.26 C (about 0.47 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for January.
Northern Hemisphere: +0.46 C (about 0.83 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for January.
Southern Hemisphere: +0.06 C (about 0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for January.
Tropics: – 0.12 C (about 0.22 degrees Fahrenheit) below 30-year average for January.
December temperatures (revised):
Global Composite: +0.41 C above 30-year average
Northern Hemisphere: +0.50 C above 30-year average
Southern Hemisphere: +0.33 C above 30-year average
Tropics: +0.26 C above 30-year average
(All temperature anomalies are based on a 30-year average (1981-2010) for the month reported.)
Notes on data released Feb. 1, 2018:
A La Niña equatorial Pacific Ocean cooling event is making itself felt in the atmosphere, dropping average temperatures in the tropics to their lowest point since June 2012 (-0.15 C), and temperatures in the Southern Hemisphere (+0.06 C) to their coolest since April 2015 (-0.01 C), according to Dr. John Christy, director of the Earth System Science Center (ESSC) at The University of Alabama in Huntsville.
The drop in tropical temperatures (0.38 C) from December to January tied for the third largest one-month drop in the 470 months of satellite temperature data. The largest was 0.51 C from September to October 1991, which followed the eruption of the Mount Pinatubo volcano in the Philippines. The second largest (0.41 C) was from July to August 2014.
Compared to seasonal norms, the coldest spot on the globe in January was near the Tsambagarav-Uul National Park, in eastern Mongolia. Temperatures there were 3.22 C (about 5.80 degrees Fahrenheit) cooler than seasonal norms.
Compared to seasonal norms, the warmest place on Earth in January was near Wrangel Island, in the East Siberian Sea. Tropospheric temperatures there averaged 4.75 C (about 8.55 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:
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 —
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
From the article: “The satellite-based instruments measure the temperature of the atmosphere from the surface”
Some people claim the satellites don’t measure the surface temperature.
You should have read the complete sentence
“The satellite-based instruments measure the temperature of the atmosphere from the surface up to an altitude of about eight kilometers above sea level.”
I was putting the emphasis on “the surface”. That’s why I ended the phrase where I did.
DKBC
If you want to know what the current temperature is in the arctic google: Alert Nunavut weather. This is the most northerly continuously occupied community in the world, only 500 km from the north pole.. here you can see what they mean by warm.
I did For Feb 1, 2018 the actual temp is -31C with a wind chill of -49 You dont want to be outside in that temp because your face freezes in minutes. The people in Alert Nunavut Canada wouldnt mind a little global warming.
It is roughly a tenth of a degree per decade. Which is the same as it has been since the end of the Little Ice Age. No catastrophe. No climageddon. No starving polar bears. Just moderate warming, which will come to end, when this cycle ends. But there is no money to be made in “moderate warming”.
Warmest year “evah”, get you trips to exotic locations to discuss the “steps required to save the world”, from the evil molecule that makes life as we know it, possible on this planet.
***********************************************************************************************************************
Below is the link that I believe is the smoking gun in climate science.
http://tech-know-group.com/papers/JCao_N2O2GreenGases_Blog.pdf
Jinan Cao is a scientist working at a technology company and receives no funding from anyone. His blog is
http://jinancaoblog.blogspot.ca/
He came to his conclusions over a number of years and the above paper though undated is from around 2013.
Looks like I beat him to it in 2012:
http://www.newclimatemodel.com/earths-atmosphere-is-warmed-primarily-by-molecules-that-are-not-greenhouse-gases/
And my high school teacher beat you both by 40 years, anybody educated then would have been taught a derivative of gas law derived temps and mechanisms.
I was taught 83% of the surface energy travels sensibly to the TOA. 17% via photon [Radiation].
Exactly. N2 and O2 are the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and they work exactly like an actual greenhouse – by preventing convecting cooling, not allowing warmed air to escape, except by transfering heat to the radiatively more active gases, which can radiate the heat to space.
Yes.
The way I have described it is that descending columns of air that comprise half the atmosphere at any given moment suppress convection from the surface just as does the physical barrier of a greenhouse roof and by dissipating clouds allow solar radiation through to the surface just as does the transparency of the greenhouse roof.
The greenhouse effect is a consequence of non radiative gases rather than radiative gases.
Total incompetence within the climatological establishment.
Exactly,.
How can more optically active gasses trap energy, when there whole purpose is to emit within nano-seconds any energy absorbed once optically active.
You have to wonder at peoples mentalities, how else does the skin burning state of energy, hot air in a desert get to space. heat expands and rises, it only exists at the boundary of the expansion, heat cannot flow back into itself.
All photons have thermal potential.
Only the photons of a wavelength [frequency] [electron voltage] that the absorb-er does not possess will act thermally [ create work ] and alter energy state, they are the only thermal part of the flux, the rest of the photons are just instantly replacing each other between emitting surfaces.
You only have to look at equilibrium state of 2 objects to see thermal potential means nothing, then warm one .by 1c.
Nothing changes except now one is emitting thermal photons of a frequency the other does not have, and those higher electron volt charges get to work, until equilibrium is again achieved.
And the instant exchange of identical electron voltages is attained between the 2 objects.
Gary Ashe February 4, 2018 at 10:10 pm
How can more optically active gasses trap energy, when there whole purpose is to emit within nano-seconds any energy absorbed once optically active.
Incorrect, vibrationally excited CO2 takes on average milliseconds to emit their excess energy, in the meantime the molecule is colliding with surrounding molecules (mostly N2 and O2) about 10 times per nanosecond. Consequently in the lower atmosphere much of that energy is used to heat nonGHG molecules.
Only the photons of a wavelength [frequency] [electron voltage] that the absorb-er does not possess will act thermally [ create work ] and alter energy state, they are the only thermal part of the flux, the rest of the photons are just instantly replacing each other between emitting surfaces.
Only those photons which exactly match the energy difference between the ground vibrational state and a ro-vib excited state are absorbed, and by definition the temperature of the molecule is unaffected.
You only have to look at equilibrium state of 2 objects to see thermal potential means nothing, then warm one .by 1c.
Nothing changes except now one is emitting thermal photons of a frequency the other does not have, and those higher electron volt charges get to work, until equilibrium is again achieved.
When we’re talking about gases we have to use quantum mechanics, it doesn’t behave the way you seem to think.
Are you serious? CO2 has been known to be a greenhouse gas since 1896. It’s been amply demonstrated. Do you think physicists would have gotten something that basic wrong all these years? That’s hilarious! Looks like the work of a high school kid.
Gosh Kristi, NOBODY denies that CO2 is an IR absorbing gas. NOBODY!
That 1896 reference was updated by Arrhenius in 1906 where he greatly dialed back his earlier warm forcing estimate and said CO2 is a good greenhouse gas.
You are so far behind………..
Sorry, I didn’t mean the comments here looked like the work of a high school kid, I meant the paper in Alan’s link.
I should really have said, “CO2 has been THOUGHT to be a greenhouse gas…” since at that point it was theoretical as a climate phenomenon, although the relevant properties of CO2 had been demonstrated in the lab.
“Gosh Kristi, NOBODY denies that CO2 is an IR absorbing gas. NOBODY!”
Gosh, Sunsettommy, your comment is irrelevant!
“That 1896 reference was updated by Arrhenius in 1906 where he greatly dialed back his earlier warm forcing estimate and said CO2 is a good greenhouse gas.”
There were several people doing research on this around the turn of the 20th C; I wasn’t even thinking of Arrhenius, but Nils Eckholm.. Whether they concluded it is “good” or “bad” was not my point; it’s still a greenhouse gas, and it’s has been studied in that respect for 120 years. Once again, your comment is irrelevant.
I’m behind, eh? You are up-to-date with all the latest climate science, I suppose? Does that mean you have all the answers to show why it’s garbage? The thing is, it’s very easy to call something garbage that one doesn’t understand. It’s very easy to think of reasons it’s not correct or scientific when one doesn’t have to discuss it with those whose work one is criticizing.
Why are you after me? I don’t care what you think and have no use for your comments, which are neither edifiying nor entertaining. You can insult me all you want and it will not hurt me.
Thanks Alan.
I will enjoy reading his work, as i like Mr Wilds work also.
Radiating gasses radiate, the 1% services the trapped energy in the 99%.
The more radiating gasses the greater the radiating to space, thats the opposite of ”trapping” energy and global warming.
It is after all the original CO2 ”science” of global cooling back in the 70s when we were taught about it.
Too much co2, too much energy slowly leaking away above the normal balance, and a human induced ice age.
That paper is a load of junk and contains some weird misconceptions about physical chemistry.
Hopefully the electorate everywhere get the message — the amount of so called warming is piffling, a non-event. Yes after 25-30 years the planet has, to all intense and purposes, heated and cool by just over a half of a degree. Arguably it is all natural warming, certainly it is within the range of normal natural warming.
Gawd get a grip! Get some perspective people!
Most people and nature survive a daily change of 2-10°C, often more. A mere ~0.5°C is not going to harm anything. Even if it went up 2°C life on this planet can EASILY cope, it has done it before, it can still do again. Only the circle jerks of CO2 obsessive think otherwise!
Whether candy assed, middle class, comfortably off American and Europeans can survive such warming without causing a ruckus is debatable, as they have a long proven track record of being ill-equipped for rapid change (usually just starting a war somewhere when overstressed) — in the meantime the rest of the natural world will get along just fine.
For all you that think otherwise, examine the history of this planet for the last 10 million years, then readjust your priorities. The UN-IPCC is just plain wrong — get over it.
On the other hand if this planet’s temperature falls by 1°C most of us will be in dire hardship.
I agree Tom, I’d rather see several degrees of warming than one degree of cooling. According to my calculations, though, we’d better bundle up. You see, Wikipedia, the gold standard on climate matters, tells me that climate is thirty years of weather. I looked at 1988 on the UAH chart above, and it was about 0.12 degrees warmer than now. By definition, we have a cooling climate. In those thirty years of cooling, we’ve pumped about forty percent of the man made carbon pollution into the air. By climate science standards, that’s irrefutable proof that CO2 causes cooling. Sure, it would take 250 years to reach one degree at that rate, but, as it gets colder, we’ll burn more fossil fuels to keep warm, spewing more carbon, which makes it colder, which makes us burn more fossil fuels, which… It will be both a figurative and a literal snowball effect, leading to an inverted Mannian hockey stick. Scary!
Now, if I could learn to say that with a straight face and both hands in your pockets, I could be the next Manbearpig.
“In those thirty years of cooling, we’ve pumped about forty percent of the man made carbon pollution into the air.”
PIFFLE !
NO! We have not!
Get the message CO2 is NOT a pollutant, it can not control global temperatures, it is REQUIRED for life to thrive on this planet. Restricting CO2 output from wherever, manmade or nature, is an act against life. Stop reciting nonsense about CO2.
CO2 is a very, very minor part of our atmosphere and an innocent gas, it does not change the temperature of this planet.
I repeat CO2 does not change the temperature of this planet.
And life on this planet could do with it being at 800 to 1000ppm MINIMUM!
PIFFLE? How dare you piffle me.
Just kidding, Tom. Whenever Anthony pokes the warmists by posting a story about unusually cold weather somewhere, the warmists have to respond. They usually post a map showing that every uninhabited part of the world with no temperature sensors is extremely warm. Then they point out that it’s just weather, and it takes thirty years to establish a trend.
When I saw that thirty years ago (1988) was an extreme outlier, I went into Alarmist mode. If they can use the end of the LIA and 1979 as starting points, I can use 1988. Extending the transient trend line indefinitely into the future wasn’t scary enough, so I added a positive feedback based on the time honored scientific axiom that correlation equals causation. I added an appeal to authority (Wikipedia), and invoked the Mannian method to add gravitas to my theory. Then I used every derogatory term I could think of for plant food to show my fellow alarmists how serious I am.
I thought my absurd theory, my anti-science defense of it, and my over-the-top descriptors would make it obvious that it was a spoof. But, now that I’ve read it in the light of day, I see I should have included a sarc tag.
Sadly, I’ve seen worse arguments made in earnest here. I appreciate the input from Nick, Toneb, Gareth, and the like – they’re civil and knowledgeable, and they keep this site from being an echo chamber. But the warmist trolls, many of whom seem to have retreated to their safe spaces, really are beyond parody.
+1!! A measly 0.13 rise, or fall, per decade is truly piffle. Places experience large variances over months, let alone days. Even Jan2018 had +5C above norm in one locale and another gets -3c below norm anomoly… Same month. according to spencer. But averaging them is nonsensical as averaging the visibilty across Day and night.
” Yes after 25-30 years the planet has, to all intense and purposes, heated and cool by just over a half of a degree. Arguably it is all natural warming, certainly it is within the range of normal natural warming.”
Nope. Earth’s warming almost 10 times faster than it has during recovery from any ice age in the last 800,000 years. Funny how you’re so certain..
” in the meantime the rest of the natural world will get along just fine.
For all you that think otherwise, examine the history of this planet for the last 10 million years, then readjust your priorities.’
It does depend on priorities, doesn’t it? The planet has remained inhabited since life began. It also went through some pretty big extinctions, but something always got by. No sense in being apocalyptic about this whole thing.
t puzzles me to no end why people think they know better than the thousands who have spent their lives studying the current and potential effects of climate change. I just don’t get it! Are you unaware of them, or do you reject them? Is it untrue that the shells aren’t developing properly on some organisms because of increased pH? Or that southern Florida and Hawaii experience flooding from king tides they rarely did before? Are there no negative effects, or just none that will affect you?
“The UN-IPCC is just plain wrong — get over it.”
What bothers me more than people denying global warming is people saying climate scientists are corrupt and/or stupid, and the science is baloney. This is just wrong, baseless, and very disturbing, since it shows how millions of people can be manipulated into thinking a particular group is corrupt.- and not just any group, but a worldwide, very loosely bound group in a profession that demands integrity. It has its problems, but there’s no room for scientific misconduct, for intentional manipulation of results. Science is all about eliminating bias, being skeptical, debating and critiquing others’ work. People here seem to think that research by vocal contrarians isn’t given serious attention, but that is not the case at all. Anthony Watts’s data on temperature recorders led to research at NOAA, for example (a very good example of legitimate data adjustment, by the way, discussed https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ushcn/station-siting with graphs in the paper itself).
Why are science and data trusted when used to make or support a Skeptic argument, but not trusted otherwise?
Kristi writes,
“What bothers me more than people denying global warming is people saying climate scientists are corrupt and/or stupid, and the science is baloney. This is just wrong, baseless, and very disturbing, since it shows how millions of people can be manipulated into thinking a particular group is corrupt.- and not just any group, but a worldwide, very loosely bound group in a profession that demands integrity. It has its problems, but there’s no room for scientific misconduct, for intentional manipulation of results. Science is all about eliminating bias, being skeptical, debating and critiquing others’ work. People here seem to think that research by vocal contrarians isn’t given serious attention, but that is not the case at all. Anthony Watts’s data on temperature recorders led to research at NOAA, for example (a very good example of legitimate data adjustment, by the way, discussed https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ushcn/station-siting with graphs in the paper itself).
Why are science and data trusted when used to make or support a Skeptic argument, but not trusted otherwise?”
Who is denying global warming?
NOAA is NOT GISS, why can’t you figure out the difference?
The post is about UAH temperature data, which you seem to ignore as you want to whine about something not talked about here.
You got really unhappy over what tomOmason wrote:
:“The UN-IPCC is just plain wrong — get over it.”
He is correct as I myself pointed out to you SEVERAL times about their failed PER DECADE warming trends prediction/projection since 1990, which you NEVER reply to.
They are also wrong about the “hot spot” too, which was supposed to warm about THREE TIMES faster than the surface warming rate. Instead it is only 1/3 rate at one level and a slight cooling at the other level.
EPIC FAIL!
I doubt you even know what the IPCC said on those two failures in the first place since you replied to tomOmason with a long winded babble that has NOTHING to do with his statement at all.
You are proving to lousy at this and clearly ignorant since you NEVER get down into debating the details, you specialize in long winded non science replies, which exposes you as a beginner in this arena.
You need to lift your game here or get laughed at some more.
Is it untrue that the shells aren’t developing properly on some organisms because of increased pH?
Hi Kristi,
Yes I am aware that they put acid in the tank and that it does not reflect how the natural world works. Their research was faulty and proved nothing about natural processes. Other later and less well hyped research papers have come out with results that are quite different if not contrary to the ones you allude to.
Understand when you pay for research into areas of natural processes that are poorly understood in the long term, researcher tend to confirm what ever is the conventional view of the day. It’s called confirmation bias and this so called ‘climate science’ is riven with it. I therefore view ALL climate research that claims some bad outcome or other as caused by CO2 as suspect until widely verified. Can you name one research paper that shows the benefits of more CO2 in the atmosphere — no I thought you couldn’t. Yet nature has survive — no thrived — in high CO2 atmospheres of the past!
As for Miami and it’s king tide please can you research further to see what a non-event it is. Hawaii experience flooding? Hardly unexpected as it is an active volcanic island and therefore not a stable platform in the sea.
I say again “The UN-IPCC is just plain wrong — get over it”.
Please learn that the UN-IPCC is about politics not the disinterested advancement of science.
Y’all are wasting your time and energy on kristi. She’s just a light weight drive-by troll who doesn’t have what it takes to stick around a while. (hate seeing her kind show up, but petty little nuisances aren’t worth the trouble)…
tom0mason – “Yes I am aware that they put acid in the tank and that it does not reflect how the natural world works. Their research was faulty and proved nothing about natural processes.”
You are thinking of other research and should not be so quick to assume what I know.. I’m thinking of research on marine organisms in situ, in the open ocean. It was also a problem for the Pacific Oyster industry on the NW coast, which was collapsing until they began to buffer hatchery water. This is not just a theoretical problem when a $100 million dollar industry loses 80% of its stock.
(Adding acid to sea water for experimental purposes is in itself perfectly legitimate. What makes the research you refer to faulty? Care to post a link?).
“Understand when you pay for research into areas of natural processes that are poorly understood in the long term, researcher tend to confirm what ever is the conventional view of the day. It’s called confirmation bias and this so called ‘climate science’ is riven with it.”
If this were true there could never be scientific advancement. It seems to me you don’t understand scientific methodology or the procedures used to overcome bias, and you vastly underestimate the ability and integrity of the scientific community.. Bias is an extremely well-recognized issue in science, and has been for millennia. Confirmation bias is when one seeks the information that will support what one thinks In research people seek information, sure, but they also produce information, and that information is not known ahead of time or it would be pointless (and boring) to seek it. There are many procedures designed to minimize bias in scientific research. Of course, they are not always completely effective, but the point is that scientists are trained in the management of bias and cognizant of the things that can affect it. The average layman is not.
What is this site but a gathering place for those with a desire for confirmation bias? Details vary, but nearly all here share a belief that climate models and the majority of climate scientists are untrustworthy. Those who believe differently are told to go away – their comments are not wanted.
” I therefore view ALL climate research that claims some bad outcome or other as caused by CO2 as suspect until widely verified. Can you name one research paper that shows the benefits of more CO2 in the atmosphere — no I thought you couldn’t. Yet nature has survive — no thrived — in high CO2 atmospheres of the past!”
What do you call “widely verified”? What’s your standard? How will you know what’s widely verified if you don’t look for or believe the verifying research?
Whether I can name a research paper about benefits offhand is irrelevant. They may be out there, but that doesn’t mean they are true. You seem to have limited understanding of the ways in which organisms and ecosystems are likely to respond to elevated CO2. The level of CO2 in the atmosphere has not been this high for over 800,000 years, during which time the biota had presumably adapted to the limited fluctuation in CO2 levels. When change happens are rapidly as it has in the last hundred years, not all organisms can evolve quickly enough to thrive.
I find that in general “skeptics” have a very simplistic way of seeing the relationship between “nature” and climate/CO2; it’s a topic that they are not likely to research.
“Please learn that the UN-IPCC is about politics not the disinterested advancement of science.” Learn??? This is nothing but unsupported opinion, so from whom an I supposed to learn it? Why should I believe you? Do the IPCC reports advocate a political agenda?
Although the UN has many problems and is very political, to dismiss the IPCC or its reports as a mere political tool is yet another easy excuse for ignoring and discrediting it.
There are dozens of excuses for discrediting scientists without ever identifying particular problems with their methods. Accusations need no proof to be believed. It’s easy to win an argument against someone who’s not part of the conversation.
And you’re trying to explain confirmation bias to me??? How ironic.
Did you get the concept from Judith Curry, by any chance? I’m just curious, since I know she has discussed it in Congressional testimony (fascinating for being such a brilliant piece of propaganda. I have a feeling she’s quite familiar with the psychology of manipulation).
afonzarelli: “Y’all are wasting your time and energy on kristi. She’s just a light weight drive-by troll who doesn’t have what it takes to stick around a while. (hate seeing her kind show up, but petty little nuisances aren’t worth the trouble)…
Ya think? Light weight drive-by troll, that’s pretty funny. I wonder why you say that.
I used to spend my time at Breitbart. Posted hundreds of times about climate, much more respectfully than I was treated, but I must have become a threat to someone’s agenda because I was banned. It takes a lot to be banned from BB. So much for free speech and “More voices, not less,” Andrew Breitbart’s motto. WUWT is a more diverse than BB, it’s a nice change.
(There have been some growing complaints that you do not put much effort to debate here, they call you a drive by troll several times now. My suggestion is stay on topic, answer questions, debate and continue to be civil) MOD
Give Kristen a chance folks,
Kristi, I think you are one of those people who are mostly into looking at this from a Philosophical standpoint, since you shy away from harder science all the time so far.
Here you write:
“Although the UN has many problems and is very political, to dismiss the IPCC or its reports as a mere political tool is yet another easy excuse for ignoring and discrediting it.”
Agree they have many problems, but you seem to suggest they deserve a second chance?
Have you forgotten how many times they have been wrong scientifically, that they accepted many “grey” papers, that it is under control the UN Governments?
The funny part is that I see that Skeptics know a lot more about what is IN the IPCC reports than warmist/alarmists do because they are more into the science and data, while Warmists/alarmists are more into government and environmentalist propaganda, try control the information of credible science research by placing roadblocks in the way.
I have several times mentioned failures of the IPCC prediction/projections to you, always gets ignored. I think it is because it is something you know you can’t debate on because deep down you know it is true.
i used the description light weight for a couple reasons… Firstly, you’re too nice. If you want to have any staying power pushing people’s buttons, then you’re going to have to learn mean. Otherwise, you’ll just get chewed up and spit out by the good ol’ boys here. i’ve never seen you here before and probably never will again. (i just don’t think you have the right stuff for this particular blog)…
(continued in another comment; don’t want to trip the spam filter with too lengthly a comment)
Secondly, your science comes up woefully short. A couple examples… Arguing consensus~ Science is littered with false paradigms like tombstones in a grave yard. (my favorite epitaph being here lies the incredible inedible egg) It’s perfectly normal to be skeptical of consensus science, especially when consensus is always subject to revision. That you don’t get that, well, i myself just don’t get it. (i suspect that you do get it, but you’re just trolling) A person of your high level of education and articulation skills has little excuse for saying something as asinine as that…
[to be continue; spam again]
Unprecedented warming~ that recent warming is at nearly ten times the rate of warming coming out of a glacial shouldn’t shock us. One only has to go back a hundred years to find natural variability with a comparable rate of warming. (it looks as though you picked up this talking point over at al gore’s blog) This one claim is enough to brand you as the lightest weight of trolls. If you push junk like this here at wuwt, you’ll get eaten alive! And, as a consequence, you won’t be around very long. That’s why i say that folks are wasting their time with you. Better to save their energies for the very competent commenters here who fairly well represent the consensus view. (not only has the chaff been weeded out of their arguments, but they also demonstrate the staying power that you clearly lack)…
Comparison of UAH-LT, RSS-LT and GISS (raw data doesn’t include Jan yet). Baselines set to match at start of 1979.
and yet where I sit in California’s central valley we are have unusually warm February weather of 70F+ highs for the next 10 days or so. This should keep all the faithful westcoasters believing in the righteousness of there cause. And its kinda nice too.
there = their
The important thing that everybody should note is that right now GSAT is elevated because NH average temperature is elevated. And NHAT temperature is elevated mainly because Arctic temperature is elevated. High winter Arctic temperatures are due to heat advection from the South, and most of that heat escapes the planet as LWIR. By past experience the Arctic positive anomaly vanishes around day 125 (early May).
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2017.png
Last year GSAT anomaly started to drop significantly in April due to this cause. This year we even have a cooling influence from a weak La Niña that is going to intensify its effect on GSAT over the coming months, as Allan McRae is telling us above. This is going to be a double whammy on temperatures.
It is very easy to predict a significant drop in GSAT starting at the end of winter that should continue at least until the summer. With almost absolute certainty, 2018 will be colder than 2017. I can also predict that they will tell us that it is the warmest La Niña year on record.
Despite the weak La Niña conditions in the Pacific, it is unclear at this time that this will be a La Niña year. A la Niña event used to require five continued three-month averaged Niño 3.4 below -0.5°C anomaly months to be declared. But they are known for bending their own rules.
Yep …. I agree whole heartedly. Looking at the global anomaly graph above, there is no global warming, there is only arctic warming. Interestingly, the arctic temp NEVER goes above a certain max, and all of the yearly anomaly is driven by warmer lows in the winter. Thus, the arctic warmed from -50 to -45, … and in the CAGW mind that means catastrophe for the whole globe.
It’s rubbish.
Here’s a nice chart that shows the elevated winter temperatures being driven by the Arctic warming.
Exactly Richard,
What one needs to know is the meaning of that Arctic winter warming. To a warmunist “The Arctic is in fire,” as I read recently. To a more nuanced observer, Arctic winter warming essentially means a more efficiently cooling Earth. Whether that means good news or bad news depends on point of view.
(and, whether or not you happen to be a starving polar bear… ☺)
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3nh/from:1900/plot/hadsst3sh/from:1900
Javier, what do you make of the stark yearly cycling (that you referred to above) in the northern hemisphere SSTs since the year 2000? And what do you think about the vast separation that exists between northern and southern SSTs since the year 2000? Thanx in advance…
(Mods, sorry about the polar bear joke… ☺)
(ah! the disappearing polar bear joke returns)…
Afonzarelli, here is the explanation for the change in variability (cycling) in arctic sea ice. It might be the same for the sst. The annual cycle changed (amplitude increased).
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2017/11/02/cycle-change-arctic-sea-ice-edition/
Why are you using the UAH data when it is borderline garbage? It’s at version 6 already, right? Why the constant need for “adjustments”, I thought you don’t like that kind of thing here?
Hurrell and Trenberth 1997 found that UAH merged different satellite records incorrectly, which resulted in a spurious cooling trend.
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/abstracts/files/Hurrell1997_1.html
Wentz and Schabel 1998 found that UAH didn’t account for orbital decay of the satellites, which resulted in a spurious cooling trend.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v394/n6694/abs/394661a0.html
Fu et al. 2004 found that stratospheric cooling (which is also a result of greenhouse gas forcing) had contaminated the UAH analysis, which resulted in a spurious cooling trend.
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~qfu/Publications/nature.fu.2004a.pdf
Mears and Wentz 2005 found that UAH didn’t account for drifts in the time of measurement each day, which resulted in a spurious cooling trend.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/309/5740/1548.abstract
kiss, you forgot to mention the recent corrections to version 5.6 which was showing a spurious warming trend. (you wouldn’t want anybody to think that you’re biased, would you?)…
UAH 6 corrects the spurious warming trend that developed over recent years, but it also generally warms the overall data with less extreme declines.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah5-land/from:1979/plot/uah6/from:1979
UAH Version 6 global satellite temperature products: Methodology and results
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13143-017-0010-y
The UAH also showed more warming for years compared with RSS, when the RSS showed the least warming before its recent adjustment.
Don’t forget they really shouldn’t be exactly the same because RSS surface cover goes up to 70N and 70S, whereas UAH covers much larger areas of the poles and represents them much better to 82.5N and 82.5 S.
UAH 5 showed more warming than RSS.
http://postmyimage.com/img2/995_Tropospheretrends.png
Despite the above link showing warming because of El Niño developing near the end.
The pause was shown clearly here missing out the previous strong El Niño, corresponding La Nina and the recent event using surface, ocean and satellite temperatures.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah5-land/from:2002/to:2015/plot/uah6/from:2002/to:2015/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2015/plot/uah5/from:2002/to:2015/trend/plot/uah6/from:2002/to:2015/trend/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2015/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2015/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2015/trend/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2002/to:2015/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2002/to:2015/trend
Finally the UAH during the pause showed the spurious warming trend, so how could it have had a spurious cooling trend?
It didn’t have one because HADCRUT 4, HADSST 3 and even RSS showed more cooling.