A recent ScienceNews (SN) article claims that ocean temperatures are out of control in a year-long record-breaking hot streak. This is false. Numerous ocean temperature data sets show no such record-breaking values and the source SN cited to support its claims was thoroughly discredited when it made similar “record breaking” claims last year.
The entire claim of the article is based on one data set, which is seen below in the SN article:
The problem is this single source isn’t even an “official” ocean temperature data data set, rather the source is: Source: Climate Reanalyzer/Univ. of Maine • Visualization: C. Crockett. In fact, that isn’t temperature data at all, but climate model output. The data SN cited was not official data, but from a private website run by the University of Maine. Examining actual data sets show that SN claim of record ocean heat is a gross error.
The about page for ClimateReanalyser.org (the source of the SN claim) says this (bold authors):
Climate Reanalyzer began in early 2012 as a platform for visualizing climate and weather forecast models. Site content is organized into three general categories: Weather Forecasts, Climate Data, and Research Tools. Pages within the first two groups are the easiest to use and include maps, map animations, and interactive time series charts (with data export options). Research Tools include pages for generating custom maps, time series, and linear correlations from monthly climate reanalysis, gridded data, and climate models.
In other words, they take in temperature data and use models to “reanalyse” it, producing a new output.
This isn’t the first time a media outlet has been duped by Climate Reanalyzer into using model output presented as data rather than actual data. Last year, The Associated Press (AP), among many other media sources reported that July 4th was the hottest day since records began. Irresponsible fear mongering followed, such as this CNBC article, where reporter Sam Meredith wrote:
The planet’s average daily temperature climbed to 17.18 degrees Celsius (62.9 degrees Fahrenheit) on Tuesday, according to the University of Maine’s Climate Reanalyzer, an unofficial tool that is often used by climate scientists as a reference to the world’s condition.
“Monday, July 3rd was the hottest day ever recorded on Planet Earth. A record that lasted until … Tuesday, July 4th,” said Bill McGuire, professor emeritus of geophysical and climate hazards at University College London, via Twitter.
“Totally unprecedented and terrifying,” he added.
Almost immediately after the claims were published, they were thoroughly debunked by experts citing unreanalyzed data, posted widely on social media. The AP had to run a retraction.
Climate Realism debunked that claim then, noting:
All those media outlets missed the fact that they were looking at the output of a climate model, not actually measured temperatures. Only one news outlet, The Associated Press, bothered to print a sensible caveat. In the July 5th story “Earth hit an unofficial record high temperature this week – and stayed there” reporting:
On Thursday, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) distanced itself from the designation, compiled by the University of Maine’s Climate Reanalyzer, which uses satellite data and computer simulations to measure the world’s condition. That metric showed that Earth’s average temperature on Wednesday remained at an unofficial record high, 62.9 degrees Fahrenheit (17.18 degrees Celsius), set the day before.
Bowing to pressure for corrections, the AP updated its story on July 7th to include this single yet very important paragraph:
NOAA, whose figures are considered the gold standard in climate data, said in a statement Thursday that it cannot validate the unofficial numbers. It noted that the reanalyzer uses model output data, which it called “not suitable” as substitutes for actual temperatures and climate records. The agency monitors global temperatures and records on a monthly and an annual basis, not daily.
So, in the space of two days, the media claims went from temperature data that was “[t]otally unprecedented and terrifying,” to temperature data that was not suitable for purpose.
Similarly, the computer generated reanalysis of ocean temperatures cited by SN isn’t suitable for purpose in claiming a “year-long record-breaking hot streak.” The SN data isn’t even complete, going back only to 1979.
NOAA reports that although the world’s oceans did have a warm year, the actual temperatures were significantly cooler than SN claimed. NOAA attributes the warmer temperatures to major ocean circulation patterns, rather than climate change, writing:
The year 2023 was the warmest year since global records began in 1850 at 1.18°C (2.12°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F). This value is 0.15°C (0.27°F) more than the previous record set in 2016.
…
Unlike the previous two years (2021 and 2022), which were squarely entrenched in a cold phase El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) episode, also known as La Niña, 2023 quickly moved into ENSO neutral territory, transitioning to a warm phase episode, El Niño, by June. ENSO not only affects global weather patterns, but it also affects global temperatures. … [D]uring the warm phase of ENSO (El Niño), global temperatures tend to be warmer than ENSO-neutral or La Niña years, while global temperatures tend to be slightly cooler during cold phase ENSO episodes (La Niña). … 2021 and 2022 [did] not ranking among the five warmest years on record ….
In other words, we had one warm year in the oceans during 2023, but 2021 and 2022 weren’t abnormally warm at all. 2023 was, but it was driven by a phase shift from La Niña to El Niño conditions in the Pacific Ocean. Nature was doing what it has naturally done throughout history.
ScienceNews should stick to reporting actual science based on actual data, rather than using computer model outputs to fearmonger, making claims which aren’t true, but which do correspond to the climate crisis narrative. This SN story was neither news, nor science.
I was hoping to boil some wieners.
Boil some whiners?
This “science” was on heavy rotation in Norwegian MSM for days on end. I do not expect a retraction…
Huzza! It’s a great public service to explicitly bust exaggerated erroneous excitement published in anything regarded the ‘science’ press. It’s an important part of the scientific method.
Newsflash, CO2 and 15 Micron LWIR won’t warm water, and CO2 didn’t suddenly repidly increase. Something other than CO2 has to be warming the water. Hint, Short Wave Visible Radiation beween 0.4 and 0.7 Microns.
The statements you made are all correct. The implied conclusion is unwarranted.
Correct.
Check!
Absolutely right.
And btw, CO2 is Life, is a great name!
Also, let me add my commentary. The warming that we have seen, regardless of its root causes, which may be myriad, has been mild and beneficial on balance. There is NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY!
And yet, there IS a natural greenhouse effect. It can be enhanced by adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. In principle, higher GHG concentration will reduce night-time cooling of the water that has been warmed by the sun. There is no warming from the back radiation. It only slows down cooling.
Reduced cooling overnight means that the ocean starts out warmer than it would have been when the sun starts heating it again in the morning. Warmer starting the day, warmer ending the day. Rinse and repeat.
The correct statements that you have made do not in any way debunk the sound theory of the GHE.
Relying on an implied debunking of the GHE theory as a justification for stating that there is NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY, is an ineffective strategy because it’s not debunked by any of those facts.
The climates (no such thing as a global climate) are extremely complex systems with many factors affecting them. Just because an enhancement of the GHE would tend toward warming, doesn’t guarantee that the overall result of every emergent phenomenon in play will actually cause significant, much less dangerous warming.
The enhanced GHE is real but may in the final analysis not be significant.
If we want to be effective in persuading persuadable people to vote for climate realist policies, we must not be seen as science deniers.
DENY THE EMERGENCY, not valid science!
There is NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY!
“higher GHG concentration will reduce night-time cooling of the water that has been warmed by the sun…….It only slows down cooling.”
No evidence of that… tiny changes in CO2 do not alter the lapse rate.
Stop bowing to erroneous AGW mantra non-science.
Let’s just be clear on what you’re claiming. You are being too vague.
Do you accept that there are gases that absorb infrared radiation (that are not transparent to infrared light), so-called ‘greenhouse gases’?
Do you have any evidence that CO2 causes atmospheric warming
Or are you as EMPTY as RG and all the other AGW-cultists??
Why do you refuse to answer a simple yes or no question?
“There is NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY!”
I wish the governor of Wokeachusetts understood that. The state- all its agencies- blare out the emergency all day every day.
Nobody ever claimed that LWIR was directly warming the water.
Short wave radiation is what warms water, always has been.
However, the warmer the air is, the longer it takes for the energy that short wave radiation puts into the water, to get back out, which results in the water warming up.
In any case, the air has only warmed by a degree or so, and that warming, over the last 150 to 200 years, is almost entirely natural.
The claimed warming of the oceans over the last few decades, is only a few thousandths of a degree and is most likely a result of statistical processing and not from any actual increase in water temperatures.
except, there have been no significant changes in temperature in the tropics where the ENSO is most pronounced. The CO2 hypothesis is still not confirmed.
What do you mean by the CO2 hypothesis, Owen?
it’s easy to debunk a simplistic claim that CO2 is the master control knob for temperature. What Mark and I are saying is a far different thing. We are saying that there is a real but not significant effect.
The tropics are dominated by water vapor, which is by far the most significant greenhouse gas. The effect of adding 0.01% CO2 is very small in the tropics. Small and insignificant, but not zero.
It’s like when a child sticks their hand out a car window and increases the air resistance, potentially slowing the car—all things being equal. But if the driver is maintaining a certain speed within a tolerance, he will not even notice the effect as compared to the effect of climbing a slight incline or driving into a wind gust, or many other real but minor effects that are adjusted to without any conscious thought.
When countering an alarmist claim that a child putting his hand out of the car window may cause an abrupt stop and result in a rear-end collision, it’s not an effective or logical argument to claim that the child doesn’t exist.
“Small and insignificant, but not zero.”
That’s a good way to put it.
The effects of CO2 are too small to measure, which is why some people say there is no evidence CO2 is causing the climate to change. Most people agree that CO2 absorbs and emits. What happens in the atmosphere after that is unknown. Some people claim that after feedbacks are included, CO2 may actually result in cooling.
Climate alarmists fall back on using the temperature record since 1979, as a proxy for evidence of CO2 atmospheric warming, but informed people know there could be many causes for the current warming, and there’s no guarantee this warming will continue without an intervening cooling period, similar to what has happened since the end of the Little Ice Age around 1850, where the temperatures warmed for a few decades (1880’s) and then they cooled for a few decades (1910’s), and then warmed again for a few decades (1930’s), at a similar magnitude to the previous warming, then cooled for a few decades (1980), and then warmed for a few decades (1998), and then cooled for a couple of decades, similar to the period between the 1930’s, and the 1950’s, and now here we are at 2024, at the warmest temperature since 1979, but the current temperature is not warmer than the previous periods of warming in the instrument record.
Hansen 1999 (below) shows the pattern. Other, unmodified, regional charts from around the world have similar temperature profile to the Hansen 1999 profile, so the Hansen 1999 temperature profile, imo, represents the global temperature profile, which shows it was just as warm in the recent past as it is today although there was much less CO2 in the air in the past than there is today.
CO2 doesn’t appear to have a noticeable effect on temperatures when looking at the wider view.
We’re basically on the same page, Tom.
I am persuaded that Javier Vinós’ Winter Gatekeeper hypothesis is a better explanation for most aspects of climate variation than the simplistic view that CO2 enhancement of the natural greenhouse effect is the only significant effect at present. The only caveat I offer is that it’s not WGK or CO2, it’s WGK and CO2, and probably many other factors.
Above all, my first premise is that climates are extremely complex systems. Any simple answer is likely to be wrong.
My second premise is that even if the enhanced greenhouse effect has been responsible for most of the warming since the late 1970s, it has been a beneficial change and points to a climate sensitivity that is only around 2K/2xCO2. Business-as-usual would quite probably be net positive right up until we exhaust economically-extractible fossil fuels.
My third premise is that intermittent wind and solar cannot replace fossil fuels because all potential energy storage options are outrageously expensive. While some degree of ‘demand shaping’ is feasible (variable pricing/smart meters and smart appliances), and some degree of ‘supply following’ (making things through energy-intensive processes when there is surplus supply) may be possible, it cannot be enough to adapt to long periods of cloudy, windless weather. Therefore, even if we’re wrong, and CO2 emissions are going to result in net harmful effects, bird shredders and slaver panels are not a viable solution.
My fourth premise is that even if western societies are destroyed by eliminating affordable reliable energy, it will not stop the increasing emissions of CO2, since China, India, Indonesia, and other rapidly developing countries will more than make up for all our reductions. Net Zero is a suicide pact.
My fifth premise is that these destructive policies are driven not by an overarching active conspiracy but by individuals and organizations acting rationally on incentives. Politicians seeking an election issue, research scientists seeking grants and career advancement (as well as avoiding career cancellation), environmental NGOs seeking causes to use in soliciting contributions, big corporations seeking easy profits by harvesting government subsidies and tax breaks.
My first four premises are common sense propositions, I believe. But as Upton Sinclair famously said:
A very reasoned statement, and the one I subscribe to. We simply do not know how the complex system operates, but we do know it maintains itself within a remarkably narrow envelope. No evidence exists to support any claim of crisis from changes to one small variable.
What is the basis of that assertion?
Warmer air will hold more water vapour allowing more evaporation. The system is a nest of negative feedbacks which stabilise temperature.
The claim that GHG block upward radiation and redistribute it in all directions effectively sending a proportion back towards the surface (the so-called GHE) DOES imply that downward LWIR causes surface warming.
You are technically correct in disputing Mark’s rhetorical comment. (Which he didn’t mean for you to take literally).
“Nobody” is inaccurate. Apparently quite a lot of people fail to grasp the concept of radiative heat transfer, leading them to invoke the Second Law of Thermodynamics to ‘disprove’ the greenhouse effect.
All radiative heat transfer is a question of NET energy flow. Stefan-Boltzmann informs us that an object emits energy in proportion to the fourth power of the object’s absolute temperature.
It does so whether it is emitting toward deep space that is a few kelvin above absolute zero, or it is emitting toward a white hot bar of metal. The difference is in how much radiation is coming back from the other direction. There is always some incoming, even from deep space.
Whichever object is colder will be warmed by the object that is hotter. The colder object can NEVER warm the hotter. That is simply another way of saying:
if T1 > T2, then (T1^4 – T2^4) > 0
Net energy flows away from the hotter object.
But that doesn’t mean that the cooler object doesn’t radiate toward the hotter object. Since every object emits in proportion to T^4, the bottom of a cold cloud radiates toward the warmer ground.
That causes the NET energy flow away from the ground to be less than it would be if the cloud were not present.
If the ground is at 16°C (British heat wave, 61°F), that’s 289K. It radiates in proportion to 289^4 (7.0 billion).
A cloud at 230K radiates back in proportion to 230^4 (2.8 billion). Net heat still flows toward the cloud because 7.0 billion > 2.8 billion.
Deep space on the other hand, at 3K radiates back at 3^4 (81). Much more cooling in this case because 2.8 billion is much greater than 81 (0.000000081 billion).
And that is the basis of Mark’s assertion. A warmer atmosphere slows the cooling of the surface.
I have no problem with your description of net radiative flux. However, this is based on black bodies that both absorb and emit equal amounts. The earth is not a black body. It is more similar to a heat sink that stores energy for release in other fashions.
If one examines sub-soil temperatures it is apparent that the earth conducts heat downward. In other words it is storing heat. What happens to that stored heat? In spring and summer some is radiated away at night, but not all. Soil temperature rises and flora begin to emerge. As fall and winter arrive more of that stored heat is radiated away both during the day and at night. Look at building codes to find out what foundation frost depths are required. That will be an indicator of how much heat is lost by the soil in winter.
This introduces a time delay caused by conduction into the earth that pure radiative analysis doesn’t take into account.
Jim,
My thermodynamics studies were during the first Reagan Administration so I don’t dare argue too robustly here.
However, I don’t see your point. Surely there is rough thermal equilibrium between the surface and the boundary layer of the atmosphere so that in winter the surface is colder than the temperature a meter or so down, while in the summer the surface is typically warmer. That’s just heat conduction through an insulator with different boundary conditions.
The surface even though it is not an ideal black body still obeys Stefan-Boltzmann with an emissivity < 1. If there is thermal storage I fail to see how that is relevant to the fact that back radiation from the atmosphere and clouds delays the cooling of the surface at night.
I do have a slight problem with this. Let’s assume the very top surface consists of molecules that are being heated by lower and higher temperature water. That establishes a given evaporation rate. Now, assume IR from CO2 is added to the mix. This added energy should INCREASE the evaporation rate. I have a real problem envisioning how the IR from CO2 would slow the evaporation rate and cause water below the surface to warm.
To the extent that there is evaporation, we’re talking about latent heat and convection, which is obviously important during the day when the sun is actually heating the surface (as well as a good distance below the surface).
At night, the IR back-radiation is less intense than the IR emitting from the surface (unless there is an inversion). So it is merely restoring some of the energy that was being lost to radiative cooling, but never all of it. The Second Law of Thermodynamics argues against your thesis. Back radiation cannot heat the surface unless the atmosphere is warmer than the surface.
Evaporation rates will depend on the relative humidity, which in a cooling environment above water is likely to be saturated at whatever air temperature.
The output of the Sun has been at its highest level over the last 100 years of any time in the last 400 years and the oceans can store up heat for a hundred years or more. If they are warming that might be the cause. https://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/data/historical_tsi
Plus there is the reduction in smog which has let more of the Sun’s rays strike the oceans and the reduction in sulfur emissions which means fewer clouds which also lets more sunlight through to heat the oceans
https://www.livescience.com/planet-earth/climate-change/cutting-pollution-from-the-shipping-industry-accidentally-increased-global-warming-study-suggests
https://e360.yale.edu/features/aerosols-warming-climate-change
Or –
fewer clouds which also lets more sunlight through to
heatwarm the surfaces of the oceansSunlight penetrates to greater than 200m depths. In the greater scheme of things, that could be called the surfaces when compared to 3600+ meter average depth of the ocean, but it is much deeper than the skin layer that 15 micron IR penetrates.
The Optical Society of America says this about sunlight penetration into the ocean –
The maximum 𝑧90𝑧¯90 expected for ERTS-1 is found to be somewhat less than 20 m.
That lines up with my SCUBA diving experiences, although on a few rare occasions I believe I’ve had ~ 100 ft visibility.
Other times, lucky to be 100 inches 🙁
scvblwxq – (1) thanks for addressing the long sun-ocean time scale, I get fed up with the argument that the sun hasn’t got stronger for a [short time scale like a few years or decades] so the sun can’t have contributed to the observed warming. (2) no thanks for a non-memorisable moniker.
Mike, 30 year trailing TSI from Kopp’s TSI data… 30 years is “climate”. 😉
(Greg Kopp’s data is scvblwxq’s first link.)
You can clearly see that TSI has been high for the last 50+ years.
Thanks for the information. It is hard to follow all the schist that makes the news.
In War the first Victim is Truth.
“The entire claim of the article is based on one data set, which is seen below in the SN article:”
OK, let’s try UAH. Still waiting for the May figure, but here’s their Ocean anomaly data up to April 2024, with the red line being a 12 month moving average.
There’s that strong El Nino that the bellboy loves so much.
Hangs every little bit of its mindless chicken-little act on them.
Never has been able to show a single bit of evidence of any human causation, though.
You misspelled “There’s the evidence that the record ocean temperatures wasn’t just in a single spurious data set.”
More mindless blether.
And not a single bit of evidence of any human causation…
… always the way.
Use those El Ninos….. they are all you have.
UAH is atmospheric data. It contains ZERO ocean anomaly data. You are looking at lower troposphere over ocean areas, that is not even surface air temperature over water.
If you do not even understand what you are looking at , maybe best to keep quiet until you do.
BTW UAH “lower tropo” means a band of the atmosphere centered around 4km of altitude. So not even close to surface temperature.
“OK, let’s try UAH”
That’s not the proper way to display global ocean temperaures.
We need to see a globe depicting the ocean temperatures.
A globe will show that only parts of the ocean are at “record” high temperatures. Other parts are much cooler.
As Anthony says, the warmth in specific areas depends on ocean circulation. You can’t see ocean circulation on a line graph.
The claim was about average ocean temperature being based on a single “unofficial” data set.
Still here’s the UAH average anomaly over the last year. (Still no data for May.) A few places below the 1990 – 2020 average, but most above or well above that average.
For comparison here’s the same period time scale over the 2015-2016 spike.
The 2023 El Nino started much earlier in the year.
Climbed quickly and stayed there.
A very strong release of energy.
With absolutely no evidence of any human causation.
This has been explained to you many times before.
The point keeps flying over your head.
In these comments, I am not arguing one way or another about the cause of the record temperatures, just pointing out it’s wrong to claim it isnt happening in the “official” data sets.
The thing you still can’t grasp though is that whilst this spike was caused by an El Niño, as in the past – this one caused record breaking temperatures. Either you have to believe as an article of faith that El Niño’s just spontaneously keep releasing more and more energy each time – or you can accept that something has caused the world to warm, which is why each El Niño is warmer.
“The 2023 El Nino started much earlier in the year.”
No it didn’t.
https://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_v5.php
ONI reached +0.5 in AMJ 2023. By this point in 2015 it had been above 0.5 since the end of 2014. At the peak the 2015/16 El Niñ0 was at 2.6 for several months, this time it peaked briefly at 2.0.
You can argue that you disagree with all the different measures of ENSO, but you never say what measure you want, beyond pointing at the global temperature. It’s a circular argument to claim that all the heat was caused by the power of the El Niño, whilst arguing that it must have been powerful because of the record global temperatures.
“With absolutely no evidence of any human causation.”
You keep whining about this, and then dismiss any evidence I give you. Another circular argument – in your mind there is no evidence and therefore all evidence must be false – hence there is no true evidence.
Here’s some more statistical evidence for you to reject. A linear regression using a Bayesian MCMC package (brms), though it gives pretty much the same result as a normal linear regression.
Here I’ve fitted log of CO2, ENSO, Optical Depth figures and the AMO to GISS data. A pretty good fit, with the estimate for temperature increase per doubling of CO2 as 2.4°C , with a 95% interval of [2.3, 2.5]°C.
But what happens if you remove CO2 from the equation?
Assumption driven modelled GIGO !!
As predicted, when presented with some evidence he’s been begging for, he simply rejects it.
How is the 0.0 anomaly calculated for those time series graphs?
T vs ln(CO2) gives an interesting graph as well.
ROFLMAO.
Bellboy changes to manically mal-adjusted URBAN surface temperatures… and an ASS-umption driven meaningless model that leaves out the main energy source for the planet
MASSIVE FAIL !!
What record temperatures? NOAA’s own average monthly temperatures for the U.S. don’t show any record temperatures.
You need to show why the U.S. wouldn’t have surface temps increase like CO2 has done to the rest of the globe. Don’t just blow it off. Give a reason why CO2 doesn’t work over the U.S.
“What record temperatures?”
The average ocean temperature, as clearly described throughout.
“NOAA’s own average monthly temperatures for the U.S. don’t show any record temperatures.”
Well if it wasn’t a record in the US, there couldn’t have been any records in the oceans.
“You need to show why the U.S. wouldn’t have surface temps increase like CO2 has done to the rest of the globe.”
You keep coming up with this nonsense, and ignore all my responses. Why would you expect warming to be uniform across the globe? It’s just not who the global climate works.
“Give a reason why CO2 doesn’t work over the U.S.”
UAH gives the US warming rate as 0.18°C / decade since 1979, somewhat faster than the global average. I’ve given you the graph for the map for the last 12 months. Nearly all of the US has been above the 1991 – 2020 average. Quite a lot by more than 0.5°C.
Here’s the graph for just the USA with a 12 month rolling average. It’s actually not far of the record 12 months, though still about 0.1°C cooler than the peak around 2016/17. And it’s difficult to know if it has reached the peak yet. The graph tends to suggest the US remains warmer after an El Niño for a few years after the rest of the world has cooled down.
Here’s a comparison of the USA and Global UAH temperatures, using just the 12 month rolling average, up to April 2024.
Here is NOAA graphs for several states. They are a lot longer than what you have and are absolute temperatures. There are no hockey sticks.
I haven’t downloaded all 48 states yet but I don’t expect a big difference
I suggest you look at the low temp months if you want to see where the temperature rise is occuring.
<a href=”https://ibb.co/B3HGN34″><img src=”https://i.ibb.co/SyDcryQ/Alabama-Monthly-Average.jpg” alt=”Alabama-Monthly-Average” border=”0″ /></a>
<a href=”https://ibb.co/SKKb7dz”><img src=”https://i.ibb.co/JzzVFy9/Arizona-Monthly-Average.jpg” alt=”Arizona-Monthly-Average” border=”0″ /></a>
<a href=”https://ibb.co/qWtcH88″><img src=”https://i.ibb.co/HxWbcyy/Arkansas-Monthly-Average.jpg” alt=”Arkansas-Monthly-Average” border=”0″ /></a>
<a href=”https://ibb.co/dfQbJSD”><img src=”https://i.ibb.co/0nfBVkr/Kansas-Monthly-Average.jpg” alt=”Kansas-Monthly-Average” border=”0″ /></a>
<a href=”https://ibb.co/bLCvwLt”><img src=”https://i.ibb.co/HYbPwYZ/Montana-Monthly-Average.jpg” alt=”Montana-Monthly-Average” border=”0″ /></a>
Seriously? You start by talking about just the US in order to claim there is no warming, and then when that doesn’t work, you resort to looking at individual states. It’s the classic case of not being able to see the woods for the trees. And then all you do is look at monthly absolute values so all you can see is the seasonal changes.
Compare that with looking at a 12 month average
And on the West coast.
and the East
“I suggest you look at the low temp months if you want to see where the temperature rise is occuring.”
Summer in California
Arizona
New Hampshire
Lots of great graphs of URBAN warming.
So What ??
Yep, the El Nino spikes and steps are VERY OBVIOUS.
Is that what you are trying to show us !?
LOL. How many times have I asked you what the value of the variance is that is associated with the Global Average Temperature. You have just admitted that there must be one because that is how the global climate works.
You have just spoiled all the headlines that CO2 raises the temperature everywhere. Are you glad. Now come up with a reason that shows why CO2 doesn’t cause all the global warming.
Tell us what the variance is and where it occurs. Don’t wimp out and talk about the poles vs the equator. If the U.S. isn’t warming over the last 120+ years, that is going to require some big explanation.
And how many times have I asked you to explain exactly what variance you are interested in? You have access to all the data I have, if it’s so important to you, do the work yourself.
Here is a map of the standard deviation of the anomalies for all monthly data from UAH. As could be easily guessed, there is more variation the further you are from the equator. (And of course, if these were absolute temperatures that would be more varied, becasue of seasons.)
Do you not see the total variance in your graph. It shows a maximum of ~2.0 change in standard deviation. Yet you claim a “global” ΔT of two decimal places? You are a statistical expert. Why is it so hard for you look at this and recognize that a “global ΔT” of 0.01/month has no meaning?
This doesn’t even cover the real variance/uncertainty in the values themselves that is inherited from the differencing of monthly averages with baseline averages.
“Do you not see the total variance in your graph.”
Do I not look at my own graph, choose the scale, choose the color scheme?
I’m still waiting for you to actually get to your point. Just what variance do you want, and how do you think it affects the uncertainty?
If you want the global standard deviation in a month, then April 2024 1.03°C. If you took a random sample of 10000 points, that would give you a SEM of 0.01°C. But this is much smaller than the claimed 0.1°C uncertainty in UAH monthly values.
If you are talking about the trend, then your change per month is meaningless. As I keep having to explain, it is not based on stitching together changes from one month to the next, it’s based on finding the best fit across all the data. The uncertainty, which you keep trying to ignore takes into account all the variance across the entire period.
We are waiting for you to show some sort of human causation
You have FAILED COMPLETELY , yet again.
“than the peak around 2016/17″
You mean the El Nino !! with no human causation.
There seems to be some confusion wrt the datasets. The Climate Reanalyzer page for SSTs, https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_monthly/ does not say the data is modeled:
NCAR at https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data/sst-data-noaa-high-resolution-025×025-blended-analysis-daily-sst-and-ice-oisstv2 doesn’t say the data is modeled, but it is “abused until it confesses”:
OTOH, the Climate Reanalyzer page for the Daily Surface Air Temperature, https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/t2_daily/?dm_id=world has data since 1940 and does say it is model output:
Thanks for digging the detail.
Satellites do not measure ocean surface temperature. They measure microwave radiation from the lower troposphere, centred around 4km of altitude.
Ocean heat content from proxies over the last 2000 years.
See that little red squiggle at the end.. that is supposedly “human CO2” caused.
Some might invoke hockey sticks when seeing that graph.
Not Al Gore though, he only sees hockey sticks when the shaft is laid down horizontally flat with all hints of a decline hidden or erased, and the blade is poking straight up almost vertically.
But the turning point of the hockey stick looks like it is around 1700AD.
Human causation….. Or just good luck !
The level of human activity in 1700 was NOT affecting world climate. It was good luck because survival in Europe was very hard in that climate.
The time has come, the Walrus said,
To talk of many things:
Of shoes — and ships — and sealing-wax —
Of cabbages — and kings —
And why the sea is boiling hot —
And whether pigs have wings.
Got to throw a red flag on this post. Is there any major SST dataset that does not show recent temps as a long-term record? For decades or the 20th C (I’m skeptical of data before roughly WW1).
This is May, but all the recent graphs looks the same.
Here is NOAA’s Climate at a Glance:
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/globe/ocean/1/5/1930-2024?trend=true&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=1950&endtrendyear=2021
Yes. Here is the NOAA graph for all months, last 30 years. It’s clearly record-breaking, as they said:
And here is their complete graph back to 1850:
“graph back to 1850:”
Which as you are well aware…. is a work of COMPLETE FICTION !
Show us where oceans were measured from say 1850-1940 ?
Waiting !!
Proxy data shows that oceans were much warmer before the LIA.
And of course, you will not be able to produce any evidence of human causation…
.. meaning this highly beneficial warming is a totally natural rebound from the coldest period in 10,000 years.
There is absolutely NO WAY that anyone could know global ocean temperatures much before ARGO in 2005, certainly not to even a couple of degrees accuracy
The data just does not exist.
Even Phil Jones at CRU admitted that most southern ocean values were “just made up”.
The graph is basically what they WANT it to be. !
Here is a graphic of the coverage of data.
Top graph… Global coverage in 1950 barely 10% even for top 100m
Yes. They just estimate. Satellites since the late 70s do not measure ocean temperatures but the atmosphere. For actual measurements of deep ocean (say beyond 100 meters) temperature the history is much shorter and not very extensive. That is massive up and downwelling flux and almost impossible to calculate given the often large timeframe of the flux. And then there are the ocean oscillations to consider. All the effort about pinpointing a warming ocean is an exercise in futility. Even IF one could somehow establish a warming trend you then cannot simply imply a linear process w continuation. Just like the temperature models based on presumed Co2 influence they are a priori wrong. I applaud the effort though but there is a lot of pushed narrative out there, including fr official bodies. You simply cannot take anything on face value anymore as a lot of politics are involved. Very bad f trust in science.
Nice work Anthony. The lying and cheating by the mainstream media and CAGW crowd is getting out of control. We really have to find a way to hold them accountable. Lying and cheating is not okay.
But if you have an organisation such as the BBC in Britain, that has banned any commentary that is contrary to the Global Warming scenario, that calls for programme producers to refer to it whatever the actual output, be it drama nature documentary or news, what are you to do? If the actual news can be attenuated to the message can you trust any aspect of its output? How many people will it reach if the issue seems to pervade every issue from the nesting oystercatcher to the war in Ukraine or that Soap series you are habituated to? We are not being informed nor is there any chance or debate, with the tale being ubiquitous who needs a proof? What other factors in everyday life are they not willing or able to alter or infect? They are not telling their audience facts but broadcasting censored material, the sort of treatment one expects from unopposable dogmatic regimes.
From the article: “The year 2023 was the warmest year since global records began in 1850 at 1.18°C (2.12°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F). This value is 0.15°C (0.27°F) more than the previous record set in 2016.”
The only way this is true is if NOAA uses bastardized temperature data.
NOAA *does* use bastardized temperature data which distorts the temperature record and hides the fact that it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today. There is no unprecedented warming going on today. We’ve been here before.
From the article: “ScienceNews should stick to reporting actual science based on actual data”
I cancelled my subscription to Science News back in the 1980’s. I cancelled the subscription because they were putting out human-caused climate change propagada even then. They didn’t have any evidence that CO2 was causing the world to warm and they still don’t have any evidence to this very day, but here they are again reporting climate change propaganda.
I also cancelled my subscriptions to Scientific American and the National Geographic magazine for the same reason. I got tired of getting angry every month reading climate change propaganda on the covers, knowing it was all BS (Bad Science), and they couldn’t prove one claim they were making. This is not science, it is speculation, assumptions and unsubstantiated assertions, just like they do today. But at least I’m not paying them money any more and I don’t have to look at their lies on the covers any more.
As for sea surface temperatures, they are local. Some areas are warm and some are cool. The climate change propagandists want us all to think that the whole ocean is a uniform temperature, like in a bathtub, and its “hot, hot, hot, and getting hotter!” This is demonstrably not true. Look at any global temperature chart. It is obvious that some areas are warm and some areas are cool. Climate change propagadists distort the whole picture. It’s their job.
As Anthony says, the changes in warmth should be attributed to ocean circulation, not CO2.
So much distortion on the part of climate change propagadists, so little time.
“…the changes in warmth should be attributed to ocean circulation, not CO2.”
The ocean was circulating before the record 2023 warmth too, and the El Niño was a solar response.
The 2023 annual SST change of +0.235°C was the second largest increase since 1877, but May 2023 was the only month ranked in the top ten monthly changes in global HadSST4 since 1850.
The ocean warmed because TSI was above the decadal ocean warming TSI threshold I had established back in 2014/2015, confirming my empirically based sun-climate system works.