From Dr. Roy Spencer’s Global Warming Blog
by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
NOAA Climate Data Assimilation System (CDAS) July 2024 surface air temperature departures from 30-year normals, as of July 17, 2024 (graphic courtesy of Weatherbell.com).
That title might trigger some people, so let me explain. Yes, in a warming world due to increasing CO2 there will be a statistical increase in “unusually warm” years. But assuming the warming is entirely due to steadily increasing CO2 causing a slight (currently ~1%) energy imbalance in the climate system, then the warming that results is about ~0.02 deg. C per year.
Anything different from that small 0.02 deg. C per year warming is due to natural climate variability.
This can be easily demonstrated with a simple 1D energy balance model. Anything different is due to natural weather and climate variability.
If we take our UAH global lower tropospheric temperature product as an example, 2023 was a whopping +0.51 deg. C above the 1991-2020 average. Using our trend of +0.14 deg. C per decade as a warming rate baseline, then 2023 should have been +0.25 deg. C above the baseline, but instead it was twice as warm as that. So, about half that warmth was natural (AGAIN… assuming the background warming trend is 100% due to humans).
So, when we get a really warm year (like 2023, and probably 2024) then something other than CO2 is mostly to blame. All of the media and environmentalist hype is just noise. Really warm years will be offset by cooler years (which no one reports on because it’s not newsworthy) so that the long term temperature trends remains ~0.02 deg C per year of warming (+0.014 deg C per year in our satellite data).
Again, this assumes CO2 is 100% to blame for the long-term warming trend, and the 0.02 value assumes a climate sensitivity on the low end of IPCC projections, which is consistent with observations-based diagnoses of climate sensitivity; change it to 0.03 if you want, my point still stands.
It’s really that simple.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Dr. Spencer uses the term variability several times. That is a variation typified by the statistical parameter called variance. That is an important item to know when discussing temperatures, yet it is completely ignored by most climate scientists and warmists.
Variance in each in and every determination of a measurement of a measurand is an integral part of metrology but is totally ignored in climate science.
From: Data.GISS: Surface Temperature Analysis: Uncertainty Quantification (nasa.gov)
Not one mention of measurement uncertainty, only sampling error. What a joke. These are scientists dealing with physical measurements but no uncertainty budget for the measurements nor one mention of propagating those measurement uncertainties into the final values. Of course, that would ruin their expectation of knowing how well measurements were made to the millikelvin in 1880.
And here is an image of a trend of “global anomalies” from GISS
Notice the uncertainty starting in 1880. They really do believe they know the anomalies to an uncertainty of about 0.1°C.
And here is an image from part of their database of anomalies.
The numbers here must be divided by 100 to obtain °C values. Look at some of the anomaly values from the 1880’s. 0.03°C. Does anyone know how hard it is to obtain accurate measurements even today to a level resembling that? Even CRN stations have a ±0.3°C uncertainty and they are the best available today.
The forcing at fault for Global Warming left clues in 1875, WWII and now Honga Tonga on that graph, stand out like sore thumb. The forcing has been staring us all in the face for over 100 years.
You can thank primarily Jimmy Hansen for this 3 decade misdirection.
And after further analysis, the Korean War and Vietnam War also show up, many billions of gallons of Stratospheric Water Vapor emissions.
I don’t know how I do it.
This is an ultraviolet image of Uranus taken by Hubble in 2021,
this is the comment attached to the image
”Hubble’s 25 October view of Uranus puts the planet’s bright northern polar hood in the spotlight. It’s springtime in the northern hemisphere and the increase in ultraviolet radiation from the Sun seems to be causing the polar region to brighten. Researchers aren’t sure why. It could be a change in the opacity of atmospheric methane haze, or some variation in the aerosol particles. Curiously, even as the atmospheric hood gets brighter, the sharp southernmost boundary remains at the same latitude. This has been constant over the past several years of Hubble observations of the planet. Perhaps some sort of jetstream is setting up a barrier at that latitude of 43 degrees.”
Given that Uranus is 20 times further from the Sun as the Earth is then surely the amount of ultraviolet received by the Earth is 400 times greater than that received by Uranus.